/lit/ - Literature

>>5804063
Of course. It's referenced to hell everywhere.

>kjv

kill yourself

Reading it as a novel, It's a solid 4/10. I read it in cover to cover during le edgy atheist faze in 10th grade and remember hating it, but now I'm glad I did it, because as >>5804077 already said, people reference/misinterpret it a lot.

Reading a book so you can 'get' the references is a retarded reason to read a book. A book summarizing it would be better than wasting your time with something as poorly written as the bible.

>>5804755
>Bible
>poorly written
>>5804744
>a solid 4/10

I swear this place is getting worse every day.

>>5804063
The Bible is one of 3 most important and influential books ever written alongside The Republic and Codex Justinianus.
Yeah, it's fucking good.

The Bible is fucking glorious, try to learn a thing or two about life.

The Bibles has spikes in quality. Going between 2/10 and 10/10 in few pages. The book of Job is a masterpiece. Ecclesiastes is pretty much a stoic/cetic/neoplatonic book. The prophets have some really creative and terrifying visions. No one really knows why Song of the Songs is in there, but it is a really beaultiful poem. Genesis and Exodus will always be important.

And this is just the Old Testment.

>>5806678
I like the part where God asks Job to help Him.
"Give me a hand, Job."

>>5806678
>stoic/cetic/neoplatonic
Explain? What does Job have to do with Neoplatonic and Celtic (I'm assuming that's what you meant) literature?

>>5806692
He was talking about Ecclesiastes. It's the most philosophically profound part of the bible, other than of course Proverbs. King Solomon was a wise man (of course we all know those books were most likely ancient Judean/Mesopotamian folklore)

>>5806708
My bad, that was a slip. I did in fact mean to inquire about the relation between Neoplatonic and Celtic literature, and Ecclesiastes.

>>5806639
Now, now. Just because it is influential does not mean it is good. The bible provided a platform for mass produced literature. As such, it is referenced by almost everything that came after it.

It had a lot of influence, yes. But I don't think it was the greatest piece of literature.

In my opinion if you're going to tackle the bible, here's what you do:

Read the first two books of the Tanakh
Read Chronicles I and II
Read Proverbs
Read Esther
Read Ecclesiastes
Read Daniel (and then think to yourself - why does everyone ignore Daniel when it comes to the Bible??)
Then read one of the gospels + acts + revelations and you're good

>>5806692
Not Job, Ecclesiastes.

Jews, at least in the bible, don't believe in afterlife. There's just the Abism. And what the Abism is is never specified. It doesn't matter, tbh. So the aporia of human suffering is a huge problem. Why good poor people suffer? Why evil rich people exists? Why god doesn't intervene? Job is book that deals with this aporia, without resorting to afterlife, but, at the same time, is a really old book with a drastic different way of thinking and present arguments. So is terribly interesting. Also, it is a dialogue. Remind me of Plato.

Ecclesiastes is book written after Alexander the Great conquests. after he stormed through everything that was Jew land (even if it was Persian land during his conquests). It is a powerful example of the hellenisct age influence, of Greek thinking being seen everywhere. So the book has a lot of greek philosophy: disregard of the material world, of wealth, of human passion. Also, in this book, God is not the same as before, instead of a powerful sky wizard demanding obedience, he becomes a metaphysical entity, one of the few true things in a word obsessed with appearances. Love between man and woman being the beggest lie of all.

It is incredible ironic that after Ecclesiastes, there is Song of Songs, a love poem almost erotic. This 2 books are the proof that the Bible shoudn't been seen as a unity, but this doesn't make The Bible anyway less interesting.

>>5806725
Yes, but what does Neoplatonic and Celtic literature have to do with all this? Can you name me examples of books in those tradition that resemble Ecclesiastes (since I want to read more of that stuff)?

>>5806737
When I referred to Neoplatonic, I was reffering the philosophers of Hellenistic age. That was an error, since the neoplatonic thinking is linked to Plotinus, and that guy just shows up after Christ. That doesn't apply to Stoicism and Cetism, and both are seen on Ecclesiastes.

There's Hellenism influence all over the sapiential/historical part of the Old Testament (excluding the books that were written before Alexander the Great for obvious reasons). Some of them are deterocanonicals, so they aren't in some Bible versions.

I don't think there is Celtic influence on The Bible. Sorry, if some part of my posts meant that.

Is the Quran worth reading?

>>5806767
I'd really like to know where you're getting your information from. What the heck is 'Abism'? What is 'Cetism'? How is Ecclesiastes a dialog? Why are you pretending the composition date of Ecclesiastes is known for certain when scholars are divided? Exactly which philosophers are you talking about? Simply Stoic and 'Cetic' ones?

>>5806776
No, but I'm reading it anyway.

A lot of pages using Job-like justifications for God's existence, and Job used the most banal, a priori arguments for god's existence ever.

However, if you want to learn more about how the middle east was brainwashed and the necessity of emphasizing fervor and passion into the hearts of Islam's followers just because it was a third book in an Abrahamic religion, go for it. It does reference both the New Testament and Old Testament, and is, in my opinion, a decent logical exercise in both at times. At other times, it is incredibly grating, however.

>>5806782
My bible version has extensive introductory texts about the books, giving some historical context and its importance to catholic doctrine. My bible is on portuguese, (also my native language), and i'm translating some of the things on the fly instead of looking for its english proper names.

Ceticism, means Skeptcism. The philosophy linked to Phyrrho.

Job is a dialogue (more like a succession of speeches by different people), not Ecclesiastes.

When I used the word "abism", it was a mistake (the poruguese word i was trying to translate is "abismo"). I meant the word "abyss". And I don't really know the word used on english bibles. Jews don't really believe in afterlife, they don't give it any importance (at least, it's the way it is on the Bible).

Ecclesiastes is written after Alexander the Great and before Christ. That is almost certain. Unless you really believe the guy was able to come up with a philosophy almost identical to greek thinking independently (some people don't believe this, I linked Wikipedia in the end of the post).

The times the book were written are, probably, impossible to be really narrowed down, but I do believe we have good estimates. Gonna drop some links here about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament#Composition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastes#Composition

>>5804063

>The Bible or any other religious books
>People only commenting on the bible

Plebs

are there actually any books that try to summarize the bible and make the whole thing more readable and consistent without twisting things or interpreting them in a certain way?

>>5806867
Do you want a conformation of your fedora tier opinion or actual advice?

>>5806876
>without twisting things or interpreting them in a certain way
Das ist gud, ja? Does sweetie-pie Alfonz understand now? Christ almighty.

greek philosophers had a connection with egypt btw, they could know parts of the bible or its sources, but those ideas are rather common, sumers already had their own versions of proto-job (the poem of the righteous sufferer) and proto-ecclesiastes (some verse from the epic of gilgamesh)

>>5806876
>>5806884
i just meant that i want the author to stick cloesly to the original without giving his own opinions or interpretations.

>>5806867

Finding a non biased version of the bible could be considered the same as finding a non biased version of Mein Kampf.

Just learn to read the originals.

>>5806876

>You are a fedora wearer if you want to read a good translation
>Being this edgy

.>>5806888
Try finding a Jerusalem Bible, it's an edition with extensive footnotes, it's your best bet.
Sorry for assuming you were a fedora, it's just that there have been more of those lately.
Cheers.

>>5804077
>Hating the KJV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKMhmo5qlPA
Filthy satanist

>>5804063
It's only worth it if you want it to be worth it.

>>5806630
>defending the bible
you're the one making it worse

>>5804063
For it's stated purpose, no, but as literature, yes

>>5806630
>le edgy bible thumping fedora tip

>>5806720
>no Job

Come on, dude

>>5806876
*tips fedora*

>>5807092
Job is really dumb.

The logic in that book is just deplorable.

Not if you don't also read up on a history of how it was developed. I can also recommend this documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXlFWBcxBo

>>5804063
The legends and shit are coolio, but the "Fuckface beget faggot, faggot beget cunt and cunt beget asshole" shit that goes on for days.

I really liked reading the story of Job and the story of Daniel and the lions is real swell too.

>>5806867
Bart Ehrman's "The New Testament" is a textual analysis I like, and he works alot with the Gospel of Thomas.

Burton Mack is another textual analyst who strongly believes the real meat of the gospels are found in Mark, which is the earliest and very influential in the rest of the canon

>>5807413
The lady who does the Yale Course on the old testament really rips it open and explores it.

There is no logic, Job in the end is presented with a DO IT OR FUCKING ELSE ultimatum, and told not to question Gods judgement, even though his sufferings were purely on a whim. Most people who think Job is great talk about the quality of writing and the thematic materials and story elements.

>>5807426
This documentary goes a lot into the Documentary Hypothesis and yet it only interviews one random religious Jew that has never heard of the hypothesis before.

There are religious scholars that have addressed it, incorporating oral stories and historical religious understanding. It's a shame they never talked to any of them.

The Bible is essential if you want to be well-read
C.S. Lewis is also pretty good if you're into or want to be into Christianity

yes, read the major religious books

>>5807413
>Job is my friend, he's a really great guy
>Bet he won't be your friend if you punch him in the face
>Punch him in the face
>Still friends
>Bet he won't be your friend iif you burn his house down
>Burn his house down
>still friends
>Bet he won't be your friend if you rape and murder his wife
>rape and murder his wife
>still friends
>Bet he won't be your friend if you give him Ebola
>give him Ebola
>"why god?"
>HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME??!!