Moving thread from IMHO to Cafe Society.
Other than skimming over quite a bit of Mosaic law in Leviticus etc., yes I’ve read it cover to cover.
Y’know, all he said was that it was “beyond him.” If you wanted to try to explain it to him, it might be a better use of your energy than just getting offended.
That might be a really interesting thing for someone to produce.
This is the main reason I have read what little I have – trivia and if I ever get on Jeopardy. One of the men on my trivia team claims to be good at Bible studies but he never comes through in the clutch. I need to catch him up.
Read every part of it at least twice (and some a lot more) although not in order. I called it “Cover to cover 2-3 times”.
The New Testament read by Gregory Peck is available at my library.
I am also on a panel that is reading thru and discussing the entire Bible on a local radio show (on http://www.KDWA.com) on Sunday nights. We’ve finished Chronicles.
The host is organizing a read-a-thon where we read thru as much as we can get thru in 12 hours. No discussion, just straight thru.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ve read it cover-to-cover, multiple translations, but primarily KJV, probably 5 or 6 times.
I checked into the “no, but knowledgeable” option.
I was raised Lutheran and went into all private schools…I know A LOT about the words/ideas, but never actually read it.
Truth be told we were never really told TO read it…
This is me, except I actually made a point to go through and reread what I hadn’t read, as I knew the general areas (minor prophets, Song of Songs, Proverbs, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes [which I found more depressing than Job]).
I haven’t read the deuterocanon/apocrypha, though, but, seeing as our OP is a Jehovah’s Witness (right?) I assume that part doesn’t matter.
I do want to read through the KJV cover to cover, though, if just for the beautiful language. I only read the NIV with excerpts from other versions.
Since you are recommending it, I want to ask something before I get it (as I don’t remember a lot of what I’ve read.) Does it take an apologetic, critical, or neutral stance?
My wife and I read a bible passage before bed every night, and last year I insisted on reading through the Apocrypha (I had never read most of it). It was quite interesting.
Neutral, I’d say. From what I recall of it, Asimov mainly focuses on the historical (and perhaps to some extent cultural and literary) background (which is the part he’s more knowledgeable about and interested in) and stays away from the theological/religious issues. In SDMB terms, Asimov tends to stick to GQ territory in his Guide.
Asimov himself was an atheist (or perhaps an atheist-leaning agnostic), but he wasn’t hostile toward religion per se in the way today’s “New Atheists” are.
Such was not my intention, but clearly it was the effect. It was inappropriate and I apologize.
Thanks for the defense, but I spoke injudiciously. By using the word monster and specifying the Old Testament God, it did come across as a specific assault on Judaism, and perhaps on Jews. That’s not how I meant it, but that doesn’t matter; I am responsible for what I write.
Pretty neutral. Asimov was not a believer himself, but he does not argue for any particular agenda in the book. Just summarizes the stories and add some commentary on historical and geographical contexts. He makes it clear he’s not a literalist (for instance he presents the creation and flood stories as myths), but he’s not a basher either. His commentaries are pretty uncontroversial except maybe to the most hardcore literalists.
Like that for me, except I learned my lesson the first time and only looked at selected portions after that.
Why would you expect it to be a coherent narrative? It’s not a book; it’s a collection of books. And many of those books aren’t narratives of any sort.
I find Yahweh to be unlovable and untrustworthy, but there’s plenty of good stories in the Bible. The David cycle is very interesting. The book of Jonah is hiliarious, and I think intentionally so. Job is fascinating, though I think people generally misinterpret it. (That is, I think Job wins his argument.)
My OT prof was convinced that Job was black satire. He said its proper genre classification was “shaggy dog story.”
One of mine pointed out that God never actually answers Job’s questions, which are, in fact, quite insolent. He, God, basically responds to the inquiries about justice and morality by saying “You realize I can kill you with my brain, right? And when I say you, I mean *your entire freaking species./I] And your pets.” Job then falls silent, and God ultimately restores all that was taken from him.
No, excuse me, He replaces what was taken from him. The dead kids remain dead.
Anywho, Brother Ted said this indicated God’s essentially conceding Job’s point; he called it a turning point in God’s moral evolution.
With all due respect…
There were a couple kids (from MIT maybe…?) who spoofed a techie conference of some sort with a highfalutin paper long on arcane and techie sounding gibberish. Yet…it sounded believable and so it was lauded in some way for its virtues. (it was later that they let on that it was a spoof, to the embarrassment I’m sure to the people throwing the bash)
It feels just like that when I read these kinds of comments; only the profs don’t ever let on we’re being pranked. I’ve read many of these “scholars” or “professors” over the years with these ludicrous proclamations and wonder (w/o regard to doctrine) “Did they ever read this material?”
Listen the book of Job is not dense reading, but it ain’t John Grisham either. But give a guy a twead jacket with some arm patches and whatver foolishness that comes out of his mouth is bound to be met by some filthy haired college kid with “Man, that’s deep…” :dubious:
The Brother I’m referring to was the first scholar I ever encountered who took a view like this, but not the only. Jack Miles, for instance, writes something similar in his God: A Biography. (I think; I haven’t read that since 1993 or so).
Brother Ted was a believer, of a sort; but he didn’t believe in an omnimax God by any means, and he opined that it was actively sinful to deny one’s doubts. He encouraged his students to think and to analyze, and not to take for granted as true anything anyone said, including him.
With all due respect.
Yes, with all due respect.
I’ve only taken particular notice you/ your posts in the last year or two, and while I would disagree with you more often than not, I find you very intelligent and more importantly (to me) quite reasonable and open minded. I enjoy your posts.
So…I hope you don’t think I’m throwing rocks.