>>7825463
Bumpity

>>7825463
Self-Bump

I'm sure someone here knows a thing or two about the Bible

>>7825463

>I've already decided on the first 5 books of the Old Testament (Torah)

Those are the only ones I've read in full. I started off doing exactly what you are (and for the same purpose) late last year.

Bumping because I am interested as well.

I am assuming the whole New Testament since it's quite short.

>>7825543
Yeah, I figure I should do that too, compared to the Old Testament the New one is nothing.

Why not read it all. It's not much longer than, say, Infinite Jest. Avoid the catholic Bible though because they add like 10 books to the old testament.

Start with old testament and work your way to new testament as the old testament is what leads up to Messiah and the comming of the New Testament and Jesus (book of Matthew is a good one to learn these differences specifically)

What most people consider contradiction is actually just the changing from the Old (pre-Messiah) to New (Jesus) Wisdom. similarities but clear differences

I also highly recommend King James Version for English translations, and Hebrew for probably the best translation Then Greek if possible

God Bless and hope this helps

>>7825463
kjv all books genesis to revelation in tandem with a newer translation like NIV (more readable) or ESV (more readable then KJV and closer translation)

>>7825463

The Bible contains books from a number of different genres and time periods, so it's good to know about what they are. I also think it's an excellent idea to alternate among different genres, or at least between the OT and the NT (or to read one from each concurrently).

The Old Testament is traditionally divided into Torah, Prophets, and 'Writings' (things like Psalms and Ecclesiastes).
* for the Torah, properly speaking (i.e., the Pentateuch, the first five books), Genesis and Exodus are especially important. (Leviticus for example gets into detail about the OT law; it's where I think a lot of cover-to-cover readers get bogged down.)
* The Prophets can be divided into Major and Minor prophets (in terms of length, not importance). The most essential of the Major Prophets (for how the OT and NT connect together) is Isaiah; Jeremiah is important in this regard too. From among the twelve Minor Prophets, Hosea and Joel are good choices. Jonah includes the famous story of the whale.
Also, the post-Torah narrative books are traditionally grouped in with the Prophets. 1 Samuel tells of the rise of David, 2 Samuel the establishment of the kingdom and the fruition of King David's reign, and 1 Kings the succession of his son Solomon.
* The Writings are an interesting collection of books that don't fit the other categories. It's good to take a look at Psalms and consider their role in temple worship. Ecclesiastes is a /lit/ favorite for the proto-Existentialist impression it gives. Daniel includes the narratives of the lions' den and the fiery furnace.

The New Testament contains four Gospels (histories of Jesus), a history book that forms a unit with one of them, and letters from several authors to individuals and faith communities.
* The Gospels each have a specific purpose. Mark, likely the first to be written, is brief and to the point. Matthew was written for a Jewish reader (and ties in extensively with the OT). Luke was written for a Greek/Gentile reader. (Acts, also written by Luke, picks up where the Gospel leaves off. Luke-Acts are often looked at as a unit.) John had a more divine agenda in asserting the identity o Jesus as Son of God.
* Most of the letters were written by Paul, whose introduction and conversion are covered in Acts. Romans is maybe the one letter that encapsulates the whole of what Paul said in all his letters. James has been a challenge for some in harmonizing what it says about good works with the overall NT message of faith in Jesus and his saving work. Revelation is written to seven churches facing persecution and was intended to comfort them in the face of persecution and trial.

File: 200px-NAB_cover.png (15 KB, 200x300) Image search: [Google]

15 KB, 200x300

Read the New Testament. I recommend the New American Bible for maximum footnotes to help give context to translation decisions.

>>7825697
You seem knowledgeable, which translation would you recommend.

>>7825747
*question sign

>>7825747

For the sake of cultural/literary/historical significance, the King James Version would be my initial recommendation since it's the one that has influenced English-speaking writers and readers for so long. The New King James updates the language of the KJV (getting rid of the Thees and Thous that can make reading cumbersome) but keeps much of the literary flow of the original.
I'll say a little about newer translations too, even though they maybe don't fit the OP criteria as closely. One thing about the KJV (and NKJV) is that they're based on outdated scholarship and, in the case of the NT, a limited body of manuscripts that's grown in the centuries since. (None of this results in any major changes in doctrine or anything, it should be said; these translations just don't benefit from what's transpired since.) The Revised Standard Version was a major translation of recent decades, but it's somewhat controversial since it came from a more liberal tradition. The New International Version comes from a more conservative tradition. The NRSV is an update to the language of the RSV. The New American Standard Bible is touted as highly literal yet readable, and I agree that its wording isn't wooden, but it loses the spirit at times because of an over-strict adherence to the letter. (It also bafflingly makes adjustments to American units of measurement in a way that at times does violence to the numerical significance of the original.)