The Whole Bible

Originally posted by karoly aczel
You just cant handle the truth that jaywill doesn't think you're up to par. Merely your ego being "stood up" . Maybe if your went past your initial dissapointment you may realize that jaywill prolly has something good to to tell you as a fellow christian.

He already has told me good things. Perhaps it is time for me to return the favor. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by vistesd
Ah, well. What has changed in your years on here? I have read the entire bible, more than once. I have never read it in canonical sequence (with regard to the so-called “Old Testament”, whose canonical sequence?*), but I tend to come from a more literary-critical perspective. A historical-critical perspective might focus on the developmental clues of his ...[text shortened]... ___________

EDIT: Nice to hear your voice again! Hope all is well with you and yours! 🙂

Your methods might be preferred for getting at the truths of the text. Mine is simplistic, motivated mostly towards getting the inerrantists to read in the context chosen by their spiritual fathers. Such reading will challenge some of their most absurd conclusions, or bore them to death.

I'd like to see an edition that breaks down the several traditions. That would be worth reading.

_______________________________

Thanks.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Your methods might be preferred for getting at the truths of the text. Mine is simplistic, motivated mostly towards getting the inerrantists to read in the context chosen by their spiritual fathers. Such reading will challenge some of their most absurd conclusions, or bore them to death.

I'd like to see an edition that breaks down the several traditions. That would be worth reading.

_______________________________

Thanks.

l have read the bible cover to cover twice. (The last time was about 13-14 years ago)

However, given it is actually many books written by many different people - and there is evidence showing that there were a number of other books that were not included in what we know today as the bible. l now do not think that it is worthwile reading it in this way.

It is sort of like going to the movies to watch a feel good flick and in scene one the movie becomes a horror show and then in the next scene reverts to a feel good movie again before morphing into something else.....as the characters portrayed (at least the repeating ones) are somewhat contradictory in their behaviour depending on what part you are reading.

It was an effprt to get through it cover to cover as the logical part of my brain was screaming at me that this is just so insanely ridiculous. But maybe l was being tested......good old Job , just couldnt take a trick could he.

Originally posted by nook7
l have read the bible cover to cover twice. (The last time was about 13-14 years ago)

However, given it is actually many books written by many different people - and there is evidence showing that there were a number of other books that were not included in what we know today as the bible. l now do not think that it is worthwile reading it in this way.

I ...[text shortened]... ridiculous. But maybe l was being tested......good old Job , just couldnt take a trick could he.

Of course there is nothing stopping anyone who wants to, to read the Bible AND any of a multitude of non-canonical writings too. In fact many people do.

I don't quite understand the attitude, "It is not useful for me to read the Bible because the book of Enoch was not included."

So read the books of the Bible and read then the book of Enoch if you wish.
Or you can start reading the books of the Bible, take an intermission time to insert reading of the book of Enoch, then continue with the books of the Bible.