Hacker News Reader

Comment by laumars | Hacker News Reader

I’ve read the Bible and frankly I wouldn’t recommend. Putting aside that the different translations can sometimes drastically change the meaning of some stories, the English Bible as a whole is harder to grok than Shakespeare.

Then there are issues about how it was written by man, in the literal sense. Female testaments were left out. And some of the male testaments were only included hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. And then you have parts that are routinely taken out of context (because it’s such an massive and hard to read body of works) and other parts that contradict itself.

Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, the Bible isn’t a particularly good book in my opinion.

View on HN

I second the commenters that counter-argue that just because a book is hard, it does not make it a bad book.

While it's hard to understand for the following reasons

- It's not "a book" but a canon of dozens of books bound together, written by different people;

- cultural distance: Middle East versus West;

- temporal distance: authored approx. 2000 years ago;

almost every book written afterwards refers to it explicitly or implicitly or depends on it in some way, and you will never understand the later works fully without having read some of the Bible.

To read the Bible, a layperson needs guidance. Having said this parts of the New Testament are more easy to follow. For those who prefer to watch, this movie https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058715/ (created by an atheist to better understand it all) uses the original words of the Gospel of St. Matthew, and the result got praise from the Vatican, ironically.

> you will never understand the later works fully without having read some of the Bible

Generations of kids have grown up understanding stories just fine without having read the Bible.

A huge amount of language in the western world is based around biblical stories, and you need to know dozens of them to understand common idioms and metaphors. From the snake in the garden of Eden to being the David to someone's Goliath, to being a good Samaritan, to camels going through the eye of a needle (and here's dozens more https://city.org.nz/blog/eo-bible-20181101).

Beyond that, especially in English, the King James bible's phrasing of dozens if not hundreds of biblical passages are now common turns of phrase - where not knowing their origin reveals you as a uncultured.

Same as Aesop's or La Fontaine's fables, really -- you know it's fiction, you don't have to think it is a good story, you don't even have to agree with the morale -- but since everyone literate in the last two centuries is familiar with it, you will look out of place not knowing it.

I’m not disputing the historical significance of the Bible. I’m disputing the need to learn it to understand modern literature. And again I reference that generations of kids have managed just fine without reading the Bible.

It is entirely possible to explain as phrase without reading its original source material.

To give another example of this: Star Trek does exactly this with Picard and others referencing Moby Dick. I understand exactly what that dialogue is about and yet I’ve never read that specific book.

I didn’t say it was an easy read. For good or for bad - those books require efforts.

But once you dig to at least 1% of the stories and ideas - you save weeks skipping tons of shallow books out there.

Reading something unenjoyable just for the sake of not having to read something else that you might enjoy doesn’t sound like a particularly compelling reason to read the first book.

Besides, if all you’re trying to do is compress lessons in story writing then you’re better off skipping the Bible and picking up a collection of kids stories - particularly for ages 6 and below because those will often also follow the same lessons of morality to help children understand how to interact in a modern society and are only a few short pages long so much quicker and easier to read than the Bible :P

The only reason I see to read the Bible is if you have a specific interest in the history of Christianity. Even Christians these days pick an choose which parts of the Bible to read and then distil those down into short stories and songs rather than reading the texts in full.

I don’t enjoy a book that has nothing new to say to this world, just a waste of paper/bytes.

Thanks to the bible, i can focus on and admire the rest 1% of truly worthwhile books.

In other words it makes me better prepared as a reader, as I did my homework

> Even Christians these days pick an choose which parts of the Bible to read and then distil those down into short stories and songs rather than reading the texts in full.

It is lamentable if true. They don't know what they miss.

> Then there are issues about how it was written by man, in the literal sense. Female testaments were left out.

Does the gender of a books author really matter?

It does when those books were purposely excluded because the author was female. It also matters a lot when one of the books excluded was written by the person who was actually closest to Jesus too. Thus her accounts should surely matter at least as much as the mens (probably more so in reality).

The New Testament was collated in an era when organised religion was used as a tool for man to retain control. To that end, much of content of the “modern” Bible is about man and why one should follow man because he speaks on “behalf of God”.

This isn’t some new morality interpretation in the new age of political correctness either. This is an observation that’s gone back as long as I’ve been alive (40+ years) because, as I’ve said above, the testaments of those closest to Jesus were even excluded.

I do not think it matters whether a book is written by a man or woman, if the discussion is about worthwhile books to read.

The bible is not just any other book though, and I understand why you'd have political, moral or religious ideas against anyone reading it. I do not think it was being recommended for any of those reasons though. Looked at as just a book, its very much worth reading regardless of what was edited out or translated out.

The idea is to read it as a book, and not some 100% accurate 100% inclusive 100% politically correct collection of books.

You post as if the only argument I made was about the gender of the authors but that’s not the case. I had also made points about why it’s also not a good book from a literacy standpoint too.

My point was it doesn’t work either as a factual piece, as a piece of literacy nor even as a set of moral principles. It’s just not a good set of texts by any modern standards.

> You post as if the only argument I made was about the gender of the authors but that’s not the case.

In an online forum, people will usually only respond to things they strongly agree or disagree with. I just strongly disagreed with the idea that a book should not be read because of the gender of its author.

I got that but you’re being disingenuous to my point by distilling it down to the gender of the author. I’d never suggest one should read or not read a book because of the gender of the author.

My point was that the sincerity and authenticity of the Nee Testament is comprised because they withheld accounts. Thus if you were to choose not to read it, it wouldn’t be because the authors were male, it would be because it lacks authenticity. I also gave other examples of how it lacked authenticity too so even that point about authenticity wasn’t just about gender.

So while you’re free to disagree with me, please at least disagree with the actual argument I’ve made rather than creating these straw man arguments that even I wouldn’t agree with.

> Then there are issues about how it was written by man, in the literal sense. Female testaments were left out.

> My point was that the sincerity and authenticity of the Nee Testament is comprised because they withheld accounts.

You spoke only of one withheld account, that of Mary, and you said it was because of her gender.

And when you say it lacks authenticity, is it because it's a mans account? Meaning a mans account cannot be authentic in its own right.. it has to be balanced by someone else's account? Is this a court of law where two people (genders in your case) are fighting for I don't know what and both sides have to present their case to the jury/readers? Is this the test for authenticity.. that a female point of view must be included for it to be real?

> So while you’re free to disagree with me, please at least disagree with the actual argument I’ve made rather than creating these straw man arguments that even I wouldn’t agree with.

You are still saying the same thing: the bible is fake/"not authentic" because it was written by men.

> You spoke only of one withheld account, that of Mary, and you said it was because of her gender.

Yes, and I explained why I did in the post above

> And when you say it lacks authenticity, is it because it's a mans account? Meaning a mans account cannot be authentic in its own right..

Fuck me this is getting repetitive.

Let’s just forget all mention of gender because my points stand up without that context. The points being the Bible lacks the accounts from those closest to Jesus and his teachings. And let’s just say, for the context of our discussion, the reasons for that omission is a historical curiosity but mostly irrelevant to this conversation.

Now you can argue whether missing texts affects the authenticity or not. And whether that even matters for a recommendation. At least if we disagree on that, we’re arguing the same topic. :)

> You are still saying the same thing: the bible is fake/"not authentic" because it was written by men.

I don’t really know why you’ve got fixated about gender nor why you find it so offensive that was even mentioned in the first place. I wasn’t trying to undermine the feelings of any alpha males on here, I was just adding some background for anyone who might have been interested.

> Let’s just forget all mention of gender because my points stand up without that context.

Good. I rest my case then.

> The points being the Bible lacks the accounts from those closest to Jesus and his teachings.

Moving on, assuming you are talking about Mary here, and have read the gospel of Mary, can you tell us just a few things that it contains that are lacking in the other gospels, written by men who were also very close to Jesus?

> I don’t really know why you’ve got fixated about gender nor why you find it so offensive that was even mentioned in the first place. I wasn’t trying to undermine the feelings of any alpha males on here

hmmmm... ok

We’ve gone through all this already.

For someone who’s advocating we read, you’re having a hard time doing that yourself.

The sad thing is I genuinely would have enjoyed your insights into the Bible but I guess that was too much to ask.

As also mentioned elsewhere, I’m not going to bother replying further because I think you’ve already exhausted all possible iterations of this repetitive argument you’ve got us on.

> It does when those books were purposely excluded because the author was female. It also matters a lot when one of the books excluded was written by the person who was actually closest to Jesus too.

Which book was this? How do we know about it, and have you read it?

Background as to why Mary Magdalenes account is so important when discussing Jesus and the New Testament. Also shows the tension and resentment some apparently had towards her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene

Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a book that is believed to be an account of her albeit not directly written by her. Though it should be noted that there are some disagreements about whether other books from the New Testament were actually written by their respective disciples either.

https://www.compellingtruth.org/gospel-of-Mary-Magdalene.htm...

This last link helps illustrate how the Bible is collated by man to fit a narrative defined by man. What isn’t explained in that article though is how religion was used to control a populous, often even used as a legal system. Which should cast scepticism about the motives behind the various rewrites and decisions behind what gets included and what doesn’t.

https://www.compellingtruth.org/lost-books-Bible.html

> Also shows the tension and resentment some apparently had towards her.

This is life. There will always be tensions, envy, politics and resentment whenever people come together, regardless of gender. Jesus was betrayed by one of his very own disciples after-all.

So you say you've read the whole bible, but have you read the gospel of Mary Magdalene which you consider would "redeem" the bible by? Why, haven't you read it?

> Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a book that is believed to be an account of her albeit not directly written by her.

There are many books in the bible that give a females account. You should know about them as someone who's read the whole book (an impressive feat).

And what do you think of the many other books omitted from the bible, for example the gospel of Thomas? Is it because it was written by a man?

> This last link helps illustrate how the Bible is collated by man to fit a narrative defined by man.

Is there really anything in this world that is written and collated that does not fit a narrative defined by their authors?

> Which should cast scepticism about the motives behind the various rewrites and decisions behind what gets included and what doesn’t.

The changes have been greatly exaggarated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ5cgQUJnrI

> This is life. There will always be tensions, envy, politics and resentment whenever people come together, regardless of gender. Jesus was betrayed by one of his very own disciples after-all.

Clearly. But that’s an irrelevant truism when the point is that the accounts of the individual who was most familiar with Jesus’s teachings wasn’t included.

Honestly, the reason they weren’t included isn’t even relevant when the point is about the authenticity of the book. I just bought them into the conversation to add some context for those who might not have been aware.

> So you say you've read the whole bible, but have you read the gospel of Mary Magdalene which you consider would "redeem" the bible by? Why, haven't you read it?

I have read it.

> There are many books in the bible that give a females account. You should know about them as someone who's read the whole book (an impressive feat).

It’s not that impressive of a feat.

> And what do you think of the many other books omitted from the bible, for example the gospel of Thomas? Is it because it was written by a man?

I’d already answered that question.

> Is there really anything in this world that is written and collated that does not fit a narrative defined by their authors?

My point is that those collating it are not the authors. Ie the narrative is defined by doctrine centuries after the original authors. This, in my opinion, compromises the authenticity of the book. You seem to disagree though, which is fine.

If you have read the gospel of Mary, why don't you tell us more about your take on in? How does it differ from the other male written accounts? What in your opinion makes it more authentic? What does it talk about that the others don't? Please give us something more details that the generic "not authentic" refrain.

> It’s not that impressive of a feat.

Indeed. If you don't remember the books in the bible that give a females account despite saying that's what the bible lacks, then reading the whole book isn't that impressive at all. It's also really interesting how you said that it is "harder to grok than Shakespeare", then turn around and say that reading the whole book isn't that impressive anyways ..

> My point is that those collating it are not the authors.

There is actually a whole profession that revolves around modifying the work of the original author. They are called "book editors". If I want to hear someones pure, pristine, unedited account, I'll have a face to face conversation with them. Not read their books.

> If you have read the gospel of Mary, why don't you tell us more about your take on in? How does it differ from the other male written accounts? What in your opinion makes it more authentic? What does it talk about that the others don't? Please give us something more details that the generic "not authentic" refrain.

Given the conversation that lead up to this point, I’m going to respectfully decline this offer because I’m not really in the mood to risk another argument on another topic.

> If you don't remember the books in the bible that give a females account despite saying that's what the bible lacks

I didn’t say the Bible lacked any female accounts. I said it lacks specific accounts from specific people who, in my opinion, absolutely should have been in there.

> It's also really interesting how you said that it is "harder to grok than Shakespeare", then turn around and say that reading the whole book isn't that impressive anyways ..

Reading Shakespeare isn’t all that impressive either.

And yes, I did say the Bible is harder to grok than Shakespeare. But that doesn’t mean completing either is a spectacular achievement.

I’ve got to say, I’m not loving the sub-text you keep deriving from my comments given you’ve been wildly off on pretty much every assumption.

> There is actually a whole profession that revolves around modifying the work of the original author. They are called "book editors".

Book editors generally work in conjunction with the author but at least we are now on topic. :)

I take it from that is that you don’t see an issue with reading a reinterpretation that happened without the authors input?

Weirdly I enjoy that sort of thing in music but dislike it in literature. Which probably doesn’t make much sense but you like what you like.

> If I want to hear someones pure, pristine, unedited account, I'll have a face to face conversation with them. Not read their books.

Unfortunately Mary and Jesus aren’t around to converse with but I do take your point.

Putting aside questions about the truth behind Bible specifically, can I assume from your comment that you view non-fiction works as a dramatisation too?

> I’m going to respectfully decline this offer because I’m not really in the mood to risk another argument on another topic.

lol!

> Then there are issues about how it was written by man, in the literal sense. Female testaments were left out.

> I didn’t say the Bible lacked any female accounts.

It looks like I'm doing a better job than yourself of keeping track of what you've said.

> Book editors generally work in conjunction with the author

Generally? That's a "wildly off" assumption

> I take it from that is that you don’t see an issue with reading a reinterpretation that happened without the authors input?

A "reinterpretation"? That's not what a book editor does.

> Putting aside questions about the truth behind Bible specifically, can I assume from your comment that you view non-fiction works as a dramatisation too?

Drama, by definition is a specific type of fiction. So how can non-fiction works be dramatized and remain non-fiction? And just because something is non-fiction does not make it the absolute truth. We all have perception filters and imperfect memories so seeking that kind of intimacy with a books author through their work is a futile exercise. A book is a one-to-many communications medium, not a face to face communication. And everyone derives their own version of the truth from the same book. Even if Mary miraculously appeared and told you her story, if you asked her about it again one year later many of the details will have changed! Long story short: that absolute truth you seek does not exist.

> A "reinterpretation"? That's not what a book editor does.

I know! You’re the one that made the stupid argument about book editors and I told you at the time that wasn’t what a book editor did.

> Drama, by definition is a specific type of fiction. So how can non-fiction works be dramatized and remain non-fiction?

You say that and then go on to say absolute truth doesn’t exist and if you ask people the same question twice you get a different version of the truth. Literally contradicting your opening sentence.

> It looks like I'm doing a better job than yourself of keeping track of what you've said.

You’re either incredibly piss poor at reading comprehension or just trolling. I’m assuming the former given conversing with you has been like trying to hold a debate with someone who’s suffering from severe mental trauma. You repeatedly contradict yourself (sometimes in the same post), build up entire arguments around some subtext you’ve derived and then refuse to move past that even when it’s pointed out that you’re completely in the wrong.

Either way, this could have been an interesting discussion where you presented why you might recommend the Bible but instead it’s been a frustrating affair of you demonstrating how some people are incapable or reading any form of texts.

With that in mind I’m going to terminate our conversation here because we are just going round in circles with yourself repeatedly missing the mark at every opportunity.

> You’re the one that made the stupid argument

lol.

> You say that and then go on to say absolute truth doesn’t exist and if you ask people the same question twice you get a different version of the truth.

lol! Different accounts !== different versions of the truth. Once you've calmed down enough to think clearly, go and reflect on the term "absolute truth".

> You’re either incredibly piss poor at reading comprehension

> conversing with you has been like trying to hold a debate with someone who’s suffering from severe mental trauma

> some people are incapable or reading any form of texts

The insults are now flying fast and furious, all over the place, lol! I do agree with you on one thing though: this conversation is now over.

Everything you're saying is true but does not to attest to whether the Bible itself is a good book, judged solely as a literary work. It is possible for it to be an enjoyable and interesting read despite all of your valid complaints.

I think it's a valid political complaint considering the role of the book in the world but I don't think it's a valid literary complaint because men (and groups of men) write some books and women (and groups of women) write other books and neither are bad for the reason that they are written by only one gender. If the latter were true, then all books written by groups of women are also bad, which is absurd.

My point exactly. I don't think politics has any place in this discussion. The request was for good book recommendations for everyone, not good book recommendations for republicans, christians, feminists etc

The issue here is you’ve focused on the political context and not on the actual reason I disagreed with the recommendation, which was:

1. It’s not authentic for a plethora of reasons (you disagree on that point, which is fine)

2. Even treating it’s stories as just stories, they can differ a lot from one translation to another. Even when you look at different versions of modern stories, at least the basic premise remains roughly the same. Some of the translations of the Bible change key events in hugely significant ways. Which then begs the question, which version of the Bible should one read?

3. It’s also just not well written by modern standards.

It’s fine to disagree with some of the political context but you’re being disingenuous to my original post by distilling it down to an argument about gender and politics.

I wouldn't go that far. I think one could make an argument that one should not recommend the Bible because of these reasons. It doesn't have to be a bad book to be a bad recommendation.

+1 for the problem of the translations.

Considering the room of interpretation it is outragous that some claim to take their (often random) translation at hand literally.

Nobody should take the collected stories of a far away tribe (time and space) and take it word by word.

Enjoy it as it is: a mixture of early philosophy, politics and mysticism.

You realize it’s the books you dont agree with that are most worth reading?

The capitalist should read Marx’s work. And the diehard communist should read Hayek.

To filter out a work like the Bible (or Koran, etc) because it goes against the grain of your current politics is retarding your intellectual growth, not expanding it.

I wasn’t saying I don’t agree with any political messaging. I was saying it’s an objectively bad book to read by modern literary standards. Even those in this thread defending the Bible has literally said it’s not something you’d read cover to cover.

I have read it cover to cover multiple times and plan to continue reading for the rest of my life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com