• drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    It’s really not.

    There are large chunks of it that are really repetitive and boring, just things like the number of goats and chickens owned by so and so.

    And like a lot of ancient mythology it can be really hard to relate to, given the vastly different cultural context that produced the text. That can be kinda entertaining in it’s own way, but mostly it just means that you’re not really going to understand the character motivations or themes of a story. Also sometimes the protagonist will do something horrifically immoral by today’s standards without the text treating it as notable at all.

    IMO all of the actually interesting parts (like Genesis) are all really short and you probably know them already from cultural osmosis.

    • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      It is also important to note that the bible was curated (and probably even edited) by the Catholic Church in the past. So what you read is only what they want(ed) you to read to begin with. I would really like to get into the apocrypha at some point - especially into alternative descriptions to the biblical canon

      • m0darn@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        I don’t think it’s accurate to only indicate the Roman catholic church. The creation of the bible was a process of curation and editing intentional and accidental.

        But the Roman catholic church is defo responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the KJV. (Because they fraudulently inserted it into a copy of a Greek manuscript they produced to claim that clause’s authenticity)

    • volvoxvsmarla@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      There are large chunks of it that are really repetitive and boring, just things like the number of goats and chickens owned by so and so.

      That honestly sounds like the exposition of every character in a Wes Anderson movie

      • oozynozh@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        except that Anderson films use comedy and cinematography to maintain viewers’ interest in expository scenes that might otherwise feel mundane

        • 0ops@piefed.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Now I’m a little curious what a Wes Anderson Bible movie would be like. Owen Wilson can be Jesus

          • Hazmatastic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Bill Murray as God trying to tell Norton-Adam about sin, while Dafoe-Satan in snake form tries to convince Swinton-Eve to eat the apple. Jason Schwartzman voices the apple. Adrien Brody and Jeff Goldlbum get to be 2 of the 3 wise men, the third is just Bill Murray in another costume. Even the blood is pastel. Only 20% of the film is not stop-motion miniatures.

          • sangriaferret@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Bill Murray is God who is so fucking over it and just wants to hand this shit off to his son.

            Jason Schwartzman is Satan trying so hard to get everybody to like him even though he sucks.

      • diabetic_porcupine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I read part of the bible cracked out of my mind before. Everyone who saw me reading was so happy for me at first. Then they figured out I wasn’t reading it right and they would be mad when I pointed out the literal meaning hidden in all the subtext