What part of the bible should I read and what version?

AmericanDeist said:

I am thinking about reading the bible in order to study christianity because learning about religions interests me. I'm curious if anyone here can recommend which bible translation I should read and which parts I should read if I want to learn about christian theology. I already have an okay understanding of genesis and the gospel books.

Click to expand...

I always recommend people read Luke, Acts, and Romans (in that order) to get their toes wet as it were.

Two translations I use are the NRSV and ESV (as to what translation you should use, is of course up to you, but these are the two I prefer).

If you go the NRSV route that can be helpful because you can get the NRSV with the Deuterocanonical books (those books accepted by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians as Scripture, but not recognized as such by the majority of Protestants). You can either go for the NRSV Catholic Bible (which has the Deuterocanonicals in their historic place in the Old Testament) or you can find the NRSV with Apocrypha, which places the Deuterocanonicals (calling them "Apocrypha" here) as their own separate appendix, which historically what Protestant Bibles have done (though most simply don't have them at all today). The latter can be handy if you are unfamiliar with the Bible and don't know which books are disputed between Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants.

The ESV, on the other hand, would require buying a separate volume of the Deuterocanonicals.

I recommend this because if you're interested in examining Christianity broadly, rather than just a contemporary Protestant perspective, it would be helpful to have a Bible that contains books which most Christians accept (Catholics and Orthodox), even while many don't accept.

I would further, in order to have a better understanding of Christian theology, recommend the historic Christian creeds,

The Nicene Creed
The Athanasian Creed
The Apostles' Creed
The Definition of Chalcedon

The Nicene Creed is used by all orthodox Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. The Athanasian and Apostles' Creeds are used by Catholics and Protestants. The Definition of Chalcedon while not recited in our churches is a very important theological statement that is embraced by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike.

These four confessions of faith sum up the most important aspects of Christian theology and what we believe about Jesus.

Beyond this the most helpful things I can think of would be learning about the history of the Christian religion, which will include how the Bible came to be and how the Creeds came to be. It would also help explain why there are divisions in the Christian religion (Catholics, Orthodox, and the many Protestant denominations).

Christian theology is very difficult to separate from Christian history, the way we speak of theology and the language used for our theology is highly contingent upon what has happened historically in the history of the Christian Church, especially as responses to heresy.

This is just an outline, don't look at all this like I'm suggesting doing all of this, or all of this right away. But this is how I'd recommend a plan of attack to get a grasp on the Christian religion.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

I always recommend people read Luke, Acts, and Romans (in that order) to get their toes wet as it were.

Click to expand...

I agree. The New International Version is a bit easier to read:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1&version=NIV
But on this link you can select your version

AmericanDeist said:

I am thinking about reading the bible in order to study christianity because learning about religions interests me. I'm curious if anyone here can recommend which bible translation I should read and which parts I should read if I want to learn about christian theology. I already have an okay understanding of genesis and the gospel books.

Click to expand...

Much of the doctrine of Christianity can be understood by a reading of Romans and Genesis, if you have already read the 4 gospels.

One tip that I wish I had known about earlier is regarding how to read the Bible, or how to think about it. Is the Bible a history book or an owner's manual? The distinction I'm referring to is biblical theology vs systematic theology. Generally speaking, biblical theology looks at the history of redemption. It sees God's plan to seek and save the lost. Systematic theology, on the other hand, looks at topics, for example, money, marriage, sin, etc.

Both treatments have value, but you can't truly understand what's going on unless you get the big picture that biblical theology provides. Without understanding the plot, the Bible is ofter read and understood like Aesops' Fables, like disconnected stories with a moral. That's the wrong way to read the Bible.

The Bible is the unfolding story of God's bringing His Messiah to save His people. This begins in Genesis chapter 3:15 when God declares, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring[a] and hers; he will crush[b] your head, and you will strike his heel.”

Starting your reading of the Bible in the NT is like watching a movie that is 2/3 over. Yes, it is the climax of the story, but you won't know the story without starting from the beginning.

To add to the above, the idea that the Scriptures tell us about Christ is perhaps the most important thing to understand about how Christians historically approach the Bible. It's an idea as old as Christianity itself, as Jesus Himself says, "You search the Scriptures because in them you believe you have eternal life, it is these which testify of Me." (John 5:39).

This isn't chiefly about looking to passages in the Old Testament as predictions about Jesus, but about seeing the larger picture to be about Jesus. While messianic predictions are an important part of this, more than that it's that Christ is understood as the central theme of all Scripture. St. Augustine calls Christ the "one Utterance" of all Scripture.

The Bible as the Canon of Sacred Scripture arose over the course of many hundreds of years in Christian antiquity, primarily within the context of Christian worship, that is, the liturgy. When one looks at the conversations early Christians were having on the issue of the Canon, it is often framed as what should be read in the churches, that is, what is to be read out loud in church as part of the Christian liturgy. Christian worship, like Jewish worship before it, involved set readings from Scripture. And since Christian worship is Christocentric--centered around the hearing of Christ's Word and celebrating Christ's Supper--it was of utmost importance that what was being read was faithful and true. Which is why Christians debated certain books, specifically those books known as the Antilegomena. Our current New Testament is the result of that long conversation over many hundreds of years gradually coming to a broad and general consensus throughout the Christian world.

And it really is about Jesus, first and foremost. Jesus is the Word of God, Scripture is God's written and inspired word about the Word.

-CryptoLutheran

Since you are familiar with Genesis and the gospels, I would suggest reading Romans next. It is the clearest declaration of Christian doctrine in the Bible. But in reality, the doctrines of Christianity are spread all throughout the Bible, and you will really have a difficult time if you try to take the Bible piecemeal... what I did was start in Genesis and read it cover to cover several times. You can get what they call the Chronological Bible, which attempts to put the individual books in the order they were written (although not always perfectly... Job appears to have been written sometime before Abraham, not where they put it) which is helpful.

As to which translation to use, it depends upon what you want more... accuracy to the words of the original text (as much as possible), but sometimes a but more difficult to read: then read the NASB, NKJV, or NRSV. Or a more thought for thought translation (which involves more interpretation by the translators), but is easier to read: then read the NLT or The Message... the NIV falls somewhere in the middle, and is a nice balance between readability and faithfulness to the original.

I read the NASB, NIV, and NKJV.

Hope this helps;
Mike

ViaCrucis said:

And it really is about Jesus, first and foremost. Jesus is the Word of God, Scripture is God's written and inspired word about the Word.

Click to expand...

I agree that this is the most import thing to understand as you read God's word.

AmericanDeist said:

I am thinking about reading the bible in order to study christianity because learning about religions interests me. I'm curious if anyone here can recommend which bible translation I should read and which parts I should read if I want to learn about christian theology. I already have an okay understanding of genesis and the gospel books.

Click to expand...

Why read the bible (an ancient collation of religious scripture used to inform liturgies and theologies) rather than reading a basic "intro to Christianity" textbook from a religious scholar?

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

Why read the bible (an ancient collation of religious scripture used to inform liturgies and theologies) rather than reading a basic "intro to Christianity" textbook from a religious scholar?

Click to expand...

One can be sure that the bible contains writings from people who were in good spiritual condition with God when they wrote, seeing as all Christians who are likewise in good spiritual condition with Him will agree that the writings in the bible are holy. Whereas a book written in summary and introduction may or may not be written by a person who is in good spiritual condition with God. People who are not in good spiritual condition are not fit for His service, and because their writing is not produced in holy spirit, if one is to read as though that writer has authority to teach about God, they will no doubt learn ideas that do not originate from Him or that may conflict with His purpose. This is why the bible is generally accepted by all denominations as reliable writings for learning about God. Of course this is not to say that all extraneous writings are not as good at teaching as the bible is, but rather that one must exercise enough discernment to ensure their resources are reliable. Always, the one who desires real faith must take upon themselves to scrutinize all information and find whether their own sense of holiness agrees with what is being said. (1 Thessalonians 5:16-22 especially v21).

drstevej said:

I agree. The New International Version is a bit easier to read:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1&version=NIV
But on this link you can select your version

Click to expand...

Also take a look at The Living Bible. I have found that is the most comfortable for casual reading.

oi_antz said:

One can be sure that the bible contains writings from people who were in good spiritual condition with God when they wrote, seeing as all Christians who are likewise in good spiritual condition with Him will agree that the writings in the bible are holy. Whereas a book written in summary and introduction may or may not be written by a person who is in good spiritual condition with God. People who are not in good spiritual condition are not fit for His service, and because their writing is not produced in holy spirit, if one is to read as though that writer has authority to teach about God, they will no doubt learn ideas that do not originate from Him or that may conflict with His purpose. This is why the bible is generally accepted by all denominations as reliable writings for learning about God. Of course this is not to say that all extraneous writings are not as good at teaching as the bible is, but rather that one must exercise enough discernment to ensure their resources are reliable. Always, the one who desires real faith must take upon themselves to scrutinize all information and find whether their own sense of holiness agrees with what is being said. (1 Thessalonians 5:16-22 especially v21).

Click to expand...

The bible is "holy" in how it forms and structures the liturgy which is the timeless prayer/worship of the Church. Outside of that the bible is words on paper and is as discernible to contemporary people as the words on paper of any other ancient Mediterranean texts can possibly be. Albeit, I would agree with Ratzinger, while the bible does require specialists in order to be understood and comprehended, there's enough there for anyone to be able to get a basic idea of Christianity, perhaps especially in the Gospels but probably not so much in the Apocalypse.

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

Outside of that the bible is words on paper and is as discernible to contemporary people as the words on paper of any other ancient Mediterranean texts can possibly be.

Click to expand...

Do you know why this might be true, and are you sure about this too? This statement suggests that holy people of other religions do not recognise that the bible contains scriptures written by holy people. I would not readily accept that assertion, and I would rather expect to find that it isn't true. I reckon I could quite easily find holy people of Sikh and Muslim persuasion who would recognise the holiness of biblical texts.

oi_antz said:

Do you know why this might be true, and are you sure about this too? This statement suggests that holy people of other religions do not recognise that the bible contains scriptures written by holy people. I would not readily accept that assertion, and I would rather expect to find that it isn't true. I reckon I could quite easily find holy people of Sikh and Muslim persuasion who would recognise the holiness of biblical texts.

Click to expand...

I'm not altogether sure what relation Sikhism would have to Christianity, it's a South Asian religion which does not share very much of a history with things Christian... Muslims though believe that the Christian and Jewish bibles are sacred scripture, there's a medieval tradition in Islam of reading the NT, OT and Qur'an intertextually in order to attempt at a synthesis.

My point is that the scriptures are incredibly complex texts and require specialists in order to be really and truly understood in an altogether comprehensive manner. That's not to say that you can't pick up the Gospel of Luke and understand Jesus to condemn wealthy people though.

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

I'm not altogether sure what relation Sikhism would have to Christianity, it's a South Asian religion which does not share very much of a history with things Christian... Muslims though believe that the Christian and Jewish bibles are sacred scripture, there's a medieval tradition in Islam of reading the NT, OT and Qur'an intertextually in order to attempt at a synthesis.

My point is that the scriptures are incredibly complex texts and require specialists in order to be really and truly understood in an altogether comprehensive manner. That's not to say that you can't pick up the Gospel of Luke and understand Jesus to condemn wealthy people though.

Click to expand...

Thanks. This is not the place for debate. OP can direct further investigation into our differing views if so desired.

Paul's letters are critical to understanding Protestants. Romans would be best to read. NRSV if you want the translation used by most scholars. NIV if you want to see how most Protestants understand the Bible (though not necessarily Paul's original intention -- I'm not a fan of the NIV, but it is the way a lot of Protestants understand the Bible).

You might find an annotated Bible useful. If you don’t have the kind of background people get in Church (one hopes), the introductions to the books and the footnotes can be a help. For the crucial scholarly view, use the Oxford Annotated. For a more typical Protestant view, one of the NIV study bibles.

For a great overview, get something called The Story.
It takes the bible in chronological order and leaves out some of the really tedious stuff. It has 31 chapters, so you could read one a day for a month.