Have you read the entire Bible?

[emptym]

As a good Catholic, I'd have to say no.

 

[kwilkinson]

Originally Posted by Stazy

Why have you read it so many times? Did you get something different out of it every time?

I wouldn't say I got something different each time, but that I got more out of it each time. As I came to know the individual texts more closely, the text as a whole, the Story of the Bible, became much more alive to me and made much more sense. It really opens up, you'll see allusions and foreshadowing and all types of references. Plus, I was in Bible College for a year, so that's where 2 of the readings came from. I had read it 5 or 6 times before then, twice in college, spent a lot of time in certain books or groups of books like the Pentateuch or the Pauline Epistles and the Gospels, and have read it a few times since then. It's interesting to see how my reaction to the text changes as my personal belief system grows.

 

[dexterhaven]

Originally Posted by injung

those boring books of family lines, laws, and building specs are awesome...when you need a sleep aid.

I don't know. The rules in Leviticus were kind of fun to read. There would be a rule about how long your tent pole should be followed by a rule about how to correctly ID leprosy. The whole time I was wandering what absurd thing would come next and why the Hebrew God felt the need to comment on such things.

 

[Berticus]

I'm atheist and I've thought about reading the bible a few times simply to see what all the hype over it was. I've been told it's nothing all that spectacular though. I think I've tried to read it twice, but then never had time to really sit down and absorb it.

 

[RyJ Maduro]

Originally Posted by emptym

As a good Catholic, I'd have to say no.

+1.

 

[Jekyll]

Originally Posted by dexterhaven

... why the Hebrew God felt the need to comment on such things.

Many of those rules, such as the ones about leprosy, are actually quite practical, given their circumstances. Like many religious and cultural rules, they started out as practical responses to their environment, then their original purpose was forgotten and they became God-given laws.

 

[IUtoSLU]

I have to say, reading the Bible by yourself is much more interesting than "having it read to you over the course of XY years." If you have only heard the Bible, then you haven't really read it. I grew up Catholic and therefore never touched the Bible. Later, in college, I began reading it.

 

[IUtoSLU]

Originally Posted by emptym

As a good Catholic, I'd have to say no.

lol. I hadn't seen this before I posted.

 

[SField]

Originally Posted by Stazy

I read a picture bible when I was younger but that's it. I keep thinking I should read the real version one day...

I think it is something that people should read if they are interested in the subject. You will literally want to kill yourself in books like Chronicles 1 and 2, Liviticus (although it has its moments of bloodshed and intrigue), Numbers and a few others.

If you are a person whose brain functions relatively normally, reading the bible cover to cover will immediately make you an atheist if you are not one already.

 

[rxcats]

Yes, I have read the entire Tanakh (Jewish Bible or Old Testament). I have also read bits and pieces of the Koran and New Testament as well.

 

[kwilkinson]

Originally Posted by SField

If you are a person whose brain functions relatively normally, reading the bible cover to cover will immediately make you an atheist if you are not one already.

That's not true. Hearing somebody say such stupid things makes me think that their brain might not function relatively normally.

 

[SField]

Originally Posted by kwilkinson

That's not true. Hearing somebody say such stupid things makes me think that their brain might not function relatively normally.

My apologies, I should have known better. You went to bible college for a year so I should have known better to say that.

 

[kwilkinson]

Originally Posted by SField

My apologies, I should have known better. You went to bible college for a year so I should have known better to say that.

FWIW, I'm closer to being an atheist after bible college than I ever was beforehand. It has little to do with the Bible though, which IMO has very real and very good life advice and is a great story. There's a reason it's one of the most influential books in the history of mankind (at least since the beginning of written language). For some people it works wonders and for others it just falls flat, I suppose.

 

[IUtoSLU]

Originally Posted by SField

I think it is something that people should read if they are interested in the subject. You will literally want to kill yourself in books like Chronicles 1 and 2, Liviticus (although it has its moments of bloodshed and intrigue), Numbers and a few others.

If you are a person whose brain functions relatively normally, reading the bible cover to cover will immediately make you an atheist if you are not one already.

What you have said makes me believe you have not read the Bible in a very long time, if at all. Or, if you did read it, it didn't move you.

 

[emptym]

On the one hand, I would like to have read the whole Bible and hope to some day. But I don't think reading the Bible should be like climbing a mountain. The Bible isn't something to be conquered. It's not something one can read and then dismiss along the lines of, "Been there, done that."

Reading it and understanding it are two vastly different things. Applying it to one's life takes a yet greater step.

For now, I'm content to know what I know and to take the steps I'm taking. I trust that there are not only some things I don't know, but some things that if I read them, I wouldn't understand them. Someday, when I need them, they will come to me.

This is true about many things. I haven't read the Bros. Karamazov, for example, bec. I'm not sure I'm ready for it. But it's particularly true about the Bible. Of course, things can and often should be reread...

Edit: climbing a mountain shouldn't be done w/ the purpose of being able to say "been there, done that," at least not primarily for this reason.