is the bible made for reading it straight through? if not then what would be a "correct" order or an order where you confuse yourself the least. anyone else wanna or have read the bible secularly? is it worth it

>>24530940 (OP)
>reading straight through
If you want to feel hermetic, then sure.
Protip: Start by building a base from the books of wisdom - even in (iirc) book of Genesis, it is stated that Wisdom existed first and before Light and the Universe.

>>24530940 (OP)
Yes read it straight through. You could skip the psalms but the rest of the old testament is important for when the new testament scraps all the lore and is like lol jk none of that matters now. Anyway it's essentially in order so read it that way.

>>24530980
Psalms are a refreshing break to read after getting up to book of Kings 2. The battles of David of Kings 1 is still remotely close in mind.

>>24530980
If you want to skip anything, it would be the Babylonian captivity.

>>24530940 (OP)
The bulk of the bible is made to justify land claims and centralising political power in the post exilic priesthood.

>>24530940 (OP)
The Christian Bible is arranged in such a way that it forms a single overarching narrative, so reading it straight through makes perfect sense, though it's by no means a necessity. It opens with the creation of the world and proceeds with an almost continuous narrative leading to the beginning of the Second Temple period. Then you have some miscellaneous stuff like Psalms and Proverbs. Then you have the prophetic books, which fit into the context of the history you already covered and they include the most relevant material to the New Testament. In particular, the Old Testament ends by prophesying the return of Elijah, which is fulfilled (in a manner of speaking) at the beginning of the New Testament by John the Baptist, which I think makes for a very satisfying transition.

Then the New Testament opens with the gospels, the story of Jesus on earth, followed by the Acts of the Apostles, covering the years after he left Earth, then various letters from the period covered by Acts and later (though these aren't in chronological order). Finally you have Revelation, which predicts the end of this world and the creation of a new world.

>>24530940 (OP)
You can do that but I do not recommend it. You are going get stuck every other sentence while reading genesis questioning the weird shit that happens in it and then drop it off when you get to leviticus
I'd recommend starting with the gospels, it is the end point of the bible, the reason why we read it. Then go back to genesis+exodus, prophets, and then rest of the new testament. Throw in psalms and wisdom books at any point and then just check out what seems interesting to you. Job and ecclesiastes are must read, but i also really like ruth

>>24531014
>miscellaneous stuff like Psalms and Proverbs
see >>24530979
>>24530993
Set essentially after the books of History - their record of civilizationism - the Jews recorded their intellectualism - set before essentially, and also, because the book of Prophets on up is "look at what all we screwed up, woe is us, we're gonna get btfo." They both are the fundamental base of the OT.

>>24530940 (OP)
>is the bible made for reading it straight through?
No, it's a collection of books, not a novel. And different churches and manuscripts historically had different book orders anyway.

I've read the whole Bible as a non-religious person and it's definitely worth it. The influence on western culture is immense, you'll pick up on a lot more references to it especially in older books. It's also fun to find out what the Bible actually says with all its weirdness, as opposed to the sanitised Sunday School version that goes Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, Jesus. What I did was read all the narrative books first according to their story chronology, it's a lot more fun than slogging through all the jewish laws in Leviticus first time around (when I finally got to the laws I found them really interesting because I'd been reading up on the ancient near eastern context of them). Also, with a narrative overview, you can understand the context of the non-narrative books far better.

Here's what I'd do as a first pass-through the Bible if I started now, and then go back and read the rest according to what seems the most interesting to you:

Genesis (skip: 36)
Exodus 1-24, 32-34, 40
Numbers 9-36
Deuteronomy 34
Joshua 1-13, 22-24
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
Jonah
Daniel 1-6
Ezra
Nehemiah
(1 Maccabees - not in Protestant Bible)
(Matthew)
(Mark)
(John)
Luke
Acts

I put Matthew, Mark, and John in brackets because if you read the four gospels back to back you'll be getting a lot of info repeated. Luke leads directly into its sequel Acts, it's the one to read if you just want a continuous narrative.

>>24531025
>the point went over your head by the margin of a field of wheat.

>>24531014
>>24531037
OP, these posts didn't mention it, but, it is recommended to read the NT with a concordance - this will save you visits to the internets. As well, before delving into the NT, read the wiki on Herod the Great and Pontius Pilate (not a simp btw).

>>24530998
>skip all the prophecies and direct punishment for iniquities
are you insane
>>24530993
the rise and reign of david is easily the best part of the OT but the kings genealogies that follow it are brutal
>>24531037
hey man i couldn't help but notice that you missed Job. herr "non-religious" doesn't have a Leviathan but doesn't want to admit it.
>>24530940 (OP)
reading it straight through is worth it because so much of it builds on previous books. also ask lots of questions. dont be afraid to ask gpt what things mean and what's going on. the bible is one of the most studied books of all time and you'll have zero trouble finding clarification.

If you're going to read the "histories" OP then you really need to understand who Asherah is, and that the temple prostitutes have penises. The pay off in Nehemiah is awesome.

Where should I start for someone who has never read anything from the Bible and is newly religious?

Genesis should be read first if you will start in the old testament. That's because it's the easiest book in the OT and it tells you if you want to continue reading the OT or not. And Noah, (Abraham), Isaac, (Jacob)=>(Israel), Esau=>Edom, and the names of the tribes the sons of Israel will be referenced everywhere.

If you read between Exodus and Judges you must start with Exodus as you would be starting in the journey to the promised land and learn who Moses & Aaron are and what passover is, and the ark of the covenant and tabernacle. If you want to read chronologically, Leviticus and Numbers are going to teach you the patience and dilate your memory banks to be able to read the OT style, they are like a chain lift on a rollercoaster.

If you read in between 1 Samuel and Malachi you get context from 1 Samuel thru 2 Kings chronologically to know of Samuel, David, Solomon, and recurring characters from the royal register.

The wisdoms (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, [Wisdom, and Sirach]) could be read with no prior knowledge. 1 and 2 Samuel are the background to what's happening in Psalms when David is the author, but you can read them without knowing that too.

The prophets, the books with first names between the comedies and the NT, can be read in any order when you get to them.

If you read the New Testament you can read any gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and then skip around if you want. Gospels benefit from having read 1 and 2 Samuel and any of the prophets, but 99% of readers will read the gospels without reading anything from the OT.

>>24530940 (OP) The correct way to read the Bible is to read the Gospels and get from them the other books you should read. Ignore the rest.

>>24530940 (OP)
Imo reading it front to back is so boring if giving it a secular reading. There is no book to book grand narrative, so I think you should feel free to jump around as needed, perhaps keeping in mind the chronology of things.

>>24530940 (OP)
Here is a chart for the OT with the books branching off the main narrative.

No it is not meant to be read in that manner because it is just a compilation of books for various churchmen to make the service easier to hold. Reading through it cover to cover would be akin to reading a Roman missal cover to cover.