[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.58 MB, 674x1000, 23453532453.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4486698 No.4486698 [Reply] [Original]

Alright /lit/, please forgive me if this is a controversial subject around here, I hail from the land of /k/ and am not quite familiar with the customs around here but you seem like you'd be the best people to ask.

Anyway, I've recently been wondering about the bible. I mean it is the single most well known piece of literature out there. But whenever anyone mentions it it just seems like a big collection of god saying do this or don't do that.

My question, does the bible actually flow like a story or a collection of stories? And would it be an entertaining or intriguing read to someone who is not religious but enjoys good literature?

>> No.4486718

Not OP, and sorry to butt, but I was wondering if the new oxford annotated bible is a good choice.

>> No.4486720

>>4486718
It's completely pointless to read anything other than the most pure, unaltered version of the Bible you can possibly find. You need to read it as close to it's original language as you can.

>> No.4486723

>>4486720
So what is the most pure, unaltered version?
Can any said to be more pure than another?

>> No.4486727

>>4486723
If you are some really dense protestant read King James.

>> No.4486725

>>4486723
Yes, there are many translations that are altered beyond belief.

The Lamsa Bible is close to the original text.

>> No.4486729

>>4486698
It's very clearly an anthology, but it comes together pretty well.

The entertainment/intrigue value depends on the book - Genesis and Revelations are entertaining, Leviticus and some prophets are a snorefest

>> No.4486764

>>4486698
>My question, does the bible actually flow like a story or a collection of stories?

No. It is mostly a book of fragments, letters, etc. Try Exodus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Samuel I & II, Daniel I & II if you like stories.

And would it be an entertaining or intriguing read to someone who is not religious but enjoys good literature?

>> No.4486774

>>4486727
King James is a terrible translation. Even if you're a dense protestant, I hope you don't read KJV or NKJV

>> No.4486929

>>4486774
Haven't you heard about those protestans groups that claim KJV translators where inspired by God and that this tranlation is the best among all languages and that tranlate from KJV to other language? Those are the ones that I'm talking about.

>> No.4486949

>>4486764
good literature is religious

>> No.4486975

>>4486949
Noice unsupported assertion cunt, why don't you try saying that disputato not online and see how fucken far you get.

>> No.4486985

If you go to biblegateway you can read the bible in full in many different translations. You can see there for yourself what it is like. I recommend poking around the new testament mainly.

Unless you are an academic theologian or you belong to a particular church, translation won't matter to you beyond what you find preferable to read. King James and the New Revised Standard are very popular translations. Someone mentioned the Lamsa translation earlier, but that is a translation from Eastern Christianity and unless you belong to that church you shouldn't read it first.

>> No.4487116

>>4486720
I know I'm gonna get flack for this, but what does /lit/ think about the new world translation?
Is it pretty accurate?

>> No.4487125

>>4486985
>Unless you are an academic theologian or you belong to a particular church, translation won't matter

If you have any serious interest in Christianity translation is a primary concern.

>> No.4487127
File: 35 KB, 312x400, jesus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4487127

the bible began as the records of wandering jewish tribes. they stole an alphabet from the Sumerians and wrote down who fucked who, who killed who, which tribe fucked which other tribe.

to begin with, each tribe worshipped different gods, but at some point a bunch of priests decided it would be easier to control the plebs if they just had one, so they edited the collected writings - badly - and all of the previously worshipped gods and goddesses became demons (Baal, Lamashtu, etc). old testament.

some time later a guy was executed for daring to preach without passing the priest exams. about a hundred years later, his followers tried to write down what they could remember. new testament.

now take these stories, translate them (greek -> latin, and done badly), misrepresent parts depending on your special interests (council of Nicea, anyone?), translate them again (latin to early english) then translate them AGAIN (modern english).

i would be surprised if there were a hundred words left from the original texts, but this is perfect for religions, because they can slant that shit any way they want.

>> No.4487344

>>4487127

Listen to this anon. That pretty much covers it. Some factual errors though.

Trust me I'm a historian soon to be a dishwasher... probably.

>> No.4487359

It is a collection of stories. Looking at it from a agnostic or non-relgious view, the King James (or 'Authorized) version is, along with the works of Shakespeare, an absolutely fundamental work of English literature and was responsible for shaping the language into what we see today.

>> No.4487420

>>4487127
So, the bible is just Jewish lies?

Those pesky Jews.

>> No.4487444

>>4487127
>i would be surprised if there were a hundred words left from the original texts

lol, the dead sea scrolls (dated 100 BCE) have almost exactly the same words of the greek versions of tanakh that are still used today by translators.
If you are reading the KJV you are reading an awful translation.
But that doesn't mean that there aren't good ones, almost identical to the original text (e.g. The Jewish Study Bible)

> but this is perfect for religions, because they can slant that shit any way they want.

ew

Also the way you describe both the old and the new testament is as wrong as possible

>> No.4488765

>>4487116
>new world translation

This is the translation put out by the Jehovah's Witnesses. The JWs guard it jealously (you can't find it in stores, for example). The translation is made to jump through the JWs' theological hoops (in particular denying the divinity of Jesus). Nobody else accepts the NWT.

>> No.4488807

Old testament is about how sin entered the world and how the jewish god becomes almighty god (jewish exile etc) .. new testament is how he turns man and vanishes all sin for those who blieve in him ... it ends how mankind will be treated and the end of times ..

>> No.4489251

>>4486698
I would highly recommend OP to read the NIV or new international version. It won't have all of the old fashioned words found in the KJV. I would also recommend you start reading the book of Mark or the other Gospels which account Jesus' life because then the Old Testament will have context. It isn't the kind of book you can read cover to cover.

>> No.4489330

King James is an absolute must if you are to understand Joyce's allusions

>> No.4489389

>>4489330
no

>> No.4489406

>>4486698
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152

>> No.4489424

>>4486698
Is the KJV really that unreadable for you guys? Because judging from a translator's point of view, it actually is relatively accurate.

>> No.4489430

Ive only read genesis but it is without a doubt a legendary masterpiece.

I care very little for organized religion but was blown away by the beauty of the prose.

I dont know which version I read but it is filled to the brim with awesome ideas.

I have since come to believe that the bible was never meant to be taken literally. It is fucking majestic when viewed a literature. .

>> No.4491384

Should I read the Bible or is it considered obsolete by modern standards?

Wouldn't my time be better spend and my emotions more fulfilled using modern entertainment that is so accessible and plentiful?

>> No.4491399

>>4489406
I like how she clarifies that the story of Sodom and Gommorah weren't originally intended to demonize homosexuality.

>> No.4492179
File: 136 KB, 250x250, 1378859200118.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4492179

>>4487127
I could pick this whole post apart but that is more then you deserve, I mean, holy shit. Do you try to be this retarded or does it just come natural?

>> No.4492332

the old testament isn't a great read, tbh.
new testament is better.
but still, don't expect too much.

oh and you pretty much need to read the footnotes or check some studies/explanations, if you want to understand a decent amount of the texts (historical context etc.).

>> No.4492642

The bible, and especially the old testament, is firmly rooted in the oral transmission tradition of largely pre-writing tribes - sentence structure is very simple and kept repetitive to make memorisation easier, for example.

You can see the same kind of thing in the Iliad, which comes from a similar background. Or Gilgamesh, come to think of it.

For the modern reader, all of these read incredibly... 'Primitive' for this reason. They're lacking the more complex structure literature developed over time, as writing was no longer done as 'Writing down an older oral tradition' but 'Writing for writing's sake'.

With the bible in particular, there's also the issue of it not just being a story, but also a collection of laws and letters, which make it rather less than appealing for someone who simply wants a piece of good fiction. Arguably comparable to the sanctimonious preaching sections in Atlas Shrugged or Starship Troopers.

All of this being said, as a piece of history, showing how literature developed over time, and showing how people in the past thought, it's undeniably interesting. Though it's always helpful to have some background knowledge in ancient middle eastern history and archaeology to put it in context.

>> No.4492645

>>4486774
I like KJV for the same reason I like Longfellow's translation of Dante.

I don't.

>> No.4492653

>>4492642
Don't forget about the genealogies. I know they're there to establish David's (and later, Jesus's) lineage, but it's tedious to read if you aren't interested in it.

>> No.4492667

>>4492332
>the old testament isn't a great read, tbh.
>Genesis
>Job
>Song of Solomon
>Psalms
>the prophets
C'mon /lit/. You're better than this.

>> No.4492675

IS THE NRSV ACCCEPTABLE???? THIS IS IMPORTANT!

>> No.4492697

>>4492667
OT has too much filler

>> No.4492699

>>4486698
Yeah, I'd recommend a good read through some psalms, proverbs, Ecclesiastes, at least one gospel, and Exodus.

>> No.4492707

>>4492699
Go with either John or Mark if you're only reading one of the Gospels. I'd say read all four though.

>> No.4492724

>>4486718
Power Rankings of Bible Translations (so the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew versions are not included):

Get a study bible if you're interested in theology.
1) ESV
2) RSV (not NRSV which is a horrible translation)
3) NIV

Seriously though, just go to biblegateway, pick a verse, a translation, and choose from that.

>> No.4492736

>>4492724
>no NKJV

loul

>> No.4492824

>>4486698
A good book to look at on this is Northrop Frye's The Great Code. The Bible is a collection of texts in different genres, but there is a unity or coherence to it, in that it presents an account of the beginning, the trials in between, and a vision of the end. It has a narrative arc and there is a consistency to its use of imagery, figurative language, symbol, etc.

Parts of it are certainly entertaining, but there's a lot there of little interest to almost anyone but the specialist or the dogmatically devout. The list that I usually recommend on /lit/ for the good stories and poetry to whet the appetite, keeping in mind that one is to read when interested and not slog through when bored:

Genesis
Exodus 1-20
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
Samuel
Kings
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Jonah

Mark
John
Acts
Romans
Ephesians
Hebrews
James
Revelation

These selections would get one up to speed on most of the allusions and imagery that get tossed around in literature. They're also entertaining and enlightening as stories, with analogues in other cultures, histories, and mythologies.

For literary value and importance, the KJV is an important translation, while the NASB is the most word-for-word literal in English. The NIV and ESV are both very readable and accurate translations also, though I would boost the ESV slightly as a more lively read.

>> No.4492830

>>4492824
Dammit, I forgot to add Esther to the list of OT books, just like the Qumran community.

>> No.4492848
File: 2.89 MB, 400x304, l5BZd2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4492848

>>4492824
>tfw I'm sitting in Northrop Frye Hall right now

>> No.4492872
File: 103 KB, 912x1216, Jl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4492872

>>4492848

>> No.4492954
File: 159 KB, 746x1071, iluvatar.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4492954

>>4486698
It's the Abrahamic Silmarillion

.>>4492179
I hate this shit. Some of the rest of us want to know WHY it's wrong so why don't you school his ass instead of doing that "I could, but I'm already better than you." bullshit.

>> No.4493171

>>4492736
>basically tells you to pick the translation you most prefer from a website on which you can compare translations.

Do you even read?

>> No.4493188

>>4492954
Not the guy you're responding to.

For starters, there's no evidence for anything he stated in regards to the OT besides the translation bit. He obviously just has an intense hatred for religion and it shows pretty clearly in his unfounded claims.

>> No.4493203

>>4493188
I should clarify that. There is no evidence for his second paragraph. It is a completely unfounded claim that he made up.

>> No.4493959

>>4487127
Thats some colored commentary you got there son

>> No.4494024

OP, I'm planning to read the Bible for similar reasons.

From what I've read already, it seems to vary pretty widely between irrelevant gibberish and engaging poetry/stories from part to part.

>> No.4494054

I gotta stick up for the KJV. If you're reading the bible for a fun read, and not just "accuracy" or whatever, it's gotta be the way to go. Lots of it are liek long beautiful poems, intenesely evocative and readable. the other translations are sort of podding and either opaquely archaic or jarringly modern in the way they present things. In some cases the appearance of salesmanship of a certain viewpoint in modern translations is repellently obvious. Not that the KJV wasn't selling too, it was just selling to a different market and can be easily overlooked.

Short version: the prose of the KJV is at times fantastically elegant and very memorable and accessible. Read that one.

>> No.4494082

>>4486725
>The Lamsa Bible
>He seriously thinks the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic

>> No.4494348

>>4494054
disregard this idiot

>> No.4494392

>>4494348
Listen to this intelligent fellow's well argued contribution

>> No.4494403

>>4494348
Now is that nice? I defy you to find a translation of the bible with prose that even comes close to the eloquence and narrative beauty of the KJV. I've never seen one.

>> No.4494460

>>4492697
>>4492332

The OT is crucial for understanding the NT more fully.

>> No.4494481

>>4494403
Having a bunch of thee and thous doesn't make prose eloquent. And how does the translation create narrative beauty? The narrative is in the work itself, not the translation. And the narrative is marred by the general shittiness of the KJV translation so any beauty is non-existent.

>> No.4494497

>>4494481
that's where you're wrong: The prose is the soul of the narrative. And the translators of the KJV were very free with the source material from a modern point of view, as they were trying to point up the things considered important by their church and audience, and discourage controversy. The thees and thous aren't what makes it work though: it's the lyrical quality, the cadences and internal rythms that wouldn't be present in the originals or a close transaltion. The KJV is deservedly considered some of the best prose of english literature.

>> No.4496618
File: 100 KB, 1117x629, .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4496618

>>4486727
KJV is best V.

Shit its not a good translation but it is interesting as hell as a piece of literature.

Pic is my copy.

>> No.4496627

The Bible is the story of the patriarchal line from Adam to David to Jesus.

>> No.4496655

>not reading a translation done under the guidance of Holy Mother Church
>reading one without all the books
>2014

Here's the Knox Translation: http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen001.htm
A 20th century translation that retains poetic language without seeming archaic and incomprehensible.

>> No.4496701

>>4494497
The cadences are preserved in virtually every other translation. Are you a retard or can you not read? The prose isn't the soul of the narrative. Holy shit. I hope you're trolling.

>> No.4496722

>>4496655
but it's ok for poetic language to be slightly archaic

i like russian sinodal translation, it's probably one of the best of all languages (i wanted to learn greek at one time and interested a bit), imo it's more poetic and more accurate than a couple of english translations which i checked and definitely better than other russian translations