If you were to read the Bible, like a book, which version would you read?

If you're newly curious I'd recommend starting with Mark in any translation you'll actually read. Read the Message if you want. If you wish to do a study, use NRSV or NIV. But for reading to see what it's all about, find something you will stick with. The King James Version is not ideal for that.

report

04/09/2017 22:20

Subject: Re:If you were to read the Bible, like a book, which version would you read?

quote

Anonymous

I have kjv. I wish i had gotten one with the larger print because my eyesight is failing. I might look into audio versions it would be so relaxing to listen to before bed or first thing in morning.

report

04/10/2017 07:53

Subject: If you were to read the Bible, like a book, which version would you read?

quote

Anonymous

Anonymous wrote:If you're newly curious I'd recommend starting with Mark in any translation you'll actually read. Read the Message if you want. If you wish to do a study, use NRSV or NIV. But for reading to see what it's all about, find something you will stick with. The King James Version is not ideal for that.

I agree about starting with the New Testament. This is the message that will resonate with you as a Christian, and it's also directly understandable
without lots of historical and theological background. I'm currently reading Isaiah (Old Testament) but I have a scholarly book to help me understand the historical and social context, and without it I'd be lost. If you start with the New Testament, you'll greatly increase the chances that you understand, keep going, and finish.

I also agree that King James is beautiful, but a little harder to go through than some more modern versions.

report

04/10/2017 09:27

Subject: If you were to read the Bible, like a book, which version would you read?

quote

Anonymous

Anonymous wrote:The Bible is not meant to be read like a book. It's not a history book and it's not a novel. It's a compilation of books and letters originally written from about 4,000 to 2,000 years ago in several ancient languages.

Maybe you should first read a book about how the Bible was made. Here's one dealing with the old testament only, a good place to start: https://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353

Here's a summary of how both the OT and NT were written http://bibleresources.americanbible.org/resource/how-the-bible-came-to-us that seems to be scholarly.

Eh. There is considerable evidence that Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers-Joshua-Judges were redacted into what the redactor(s) tried to make read like on overarching narrative, even if they left in lots of material suggestive of earlier distinct texts and oral traditions. And 1 and 2 samuel and 1 and 2 Kings extend that narrative.

No its not a novel in the modern sense (though with novelistic scenes) and its not a modern history, but it is the holy history of the people Israel as that people (or a segment of it) had come to see it. IIRC Friedman would not disagree with that.

report

04/10/2017 09:28

Subject: If you were to read the Bible, like a book, which version would you read?

quote

Anonymous

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're newly curious I'd recommend starting with Mark in any translation you'll actually read. Read the Message if you want. If you wish to do a study, use NRSV or NIV. But for reading to see what it's all about, find something you will stick with. The King James Version is not ideal for that.

I agree about starting with the New Testament. This is the message that will resonate with you as a Christian, and it's also directly understandable
without lots of historical and theological background. I'm currently reading Isaiah (Old Testament) but I have a scholarly book to help me understand the historical and social context, and without it I'd be lost. If you start with the New Testament, you'll greatly increase the chances that you understand, keep going, and finish.

I also agree that King James is beautiful, but a little harder to go through than some more modern versions.

I would suggest that reading the NT without historical background on 1st century Judaism, and on the politics of 1st century Roman Judea, will leave one (as it has left christians for millenia) with a somewhat distorted picture of the Jews and Judaism of that time.

report

04/10/2017 09:32

Subject: If you were to read the Bible, like a book, which version would you read?

quote

Anonymous

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:King James Version. Beautiful language.

Unless OP regularly converses in 1500s English, I'd stay away from KGV.

Commentaries/study guides aside, I've always preferred the New American Standard translation.

If you are interested in the effect of the bible on english literature, you have to read the KJV. That is where the wording of most famous bible quotes comes from. That is the source historically of understanding and misunderstanding the bible in England and in the US. I am a Jew, and while I prefer Macho-Mamre (easy to read Hebrew text, with English alongside, I think from one of the standard Jewish translations) I think KJV is important to know as an educated person.