1) As gp said, the historical grammatical hermeneutic is the way to go for interpretation.

And

2) the book of Ecclesiastes is definitely a beautiful way to stay grounded. Just the mere fact that Solomon, the author, had access to everything his age could offer and still ended up writing Ecclesiastes Ch 11 is mind blowing. Everything passes away. This world, your legacy, your wealth, memories of you, things you care for, everything. The only thing that doesn’t is God, his word, and your spirit. It puts this world and it’s fleeting pleasures in perspective.

Of course, the natural reaction to this is “so what? Nihilism then?”. The Bible unabashedly says “yes, if you don’t have God”

People search for the meaning of life in a variety of ways. The Bible answers this clearly:

“To love God and worship him forever.”

What do Christian’s do in this world? Ecclesiastes would say “to enjoy your lot with the one you love, to worship God and to accept what comes your way.”

I am not trying to argue theology here, just giving another perspective.

I was raised an an observant Catholic household, and I went every week from ages 5-19 and missed only a few times due to illness. But I never believed, I just don't have a spiritual bone in my body. None of what you quoted from Solomon about the impermanence of our material acquisitions sounds profound -- it seems obvious.

But the main reason I'm commenting is this idea that non-believers must be nihilists [1]. I want to assure you that I find meaning and purpose in life, but it isn't dictated by some holy person. Pain and suffering and happiness are real and even though we are all reduced back to molecules when we die, what we do and how we act during out lives matters to the people (and wider world) around us during out lives and for a while after we die. I get the same impression from other non-believers. It is a colossal failure of imagination to think that without God people must believe nothing matters.

[1] This footnote is to acknowledge that different people have their own interpretations of what "nihilism" means, and so any statement I make about nihilism will result in some group of people saying "you don't even know what it means!"

I had a similar upbringing. I attended Catholic schools until college. And the whole time it all just struck me as pageantry. I perceived that it was very real for many of the others, but to me it was as you imply.

Thank God the scales fell from my eyes. Interestingly it was not preaching, but my meditations on the three normative sciences that convinced me of the necessity of God. I realized that culturally Christian atheists conception of ethics is just a more or less attenuated Christian one that will continue to wither as any plant cut from its roots will. I further concluded that the same holds for the other two normative sciences. This was so unsatisfactory to me that I had an epiphany.

I haven't ever talked to an unbeliever who believes nothing matters, though I've heard of nihilist philosophers. I suspect non-philosophers who believe in nihilism usually have something from which they're trying to escape; they're not being honest with themselves. Of course each moment matters - it's a time of lived experience for billions of people.

On the other hand, as a Christian, I'm accustomed to thinking a lot about eternal destiny and how things will end up in an ultimate sense. For me, the idea of no God existing opens up a yawning chasm of eternal emptiness I find frightening to imagine -- it would mean when I die, there's nothing more for me; and when we all die and no humans are left, that'll be it for all of us. At that point, will anything that transpired previously matter at all?

I suppose for those who consciously or subconsciously know they're guilty of sin, the idea of annihilation is far preferable to facing judgment for their sins in the past, so I can see how atheism would be an attractive option, ultimate meaninglessness notwithstanding. But Christianity is primarily about what to do with that guilt -- that God's son Jesus paid the price for your sin and mine, and he offers forgiveness to those who will trust him and call on his name. (And I'm sure you've heard that before.)

So while I agree stuff matters right now even without belief in a God, for me the meaning of the past and present pale compared to what matters (if anything) in the eternity of time that lies ahead.

But that’s the thing, you’re completely failing to understand how a non-believer (speaking for myself) feels about there not being an afterlife. What you’ve said is not in any way how I feel - I die, but the actions and efforts and (hopefully) descendants I put out there go in to hopefully contribute positively, in this magical thing we call life; and even in still there, the bits of me continuing to be recycled in the universe. As someone who has had many psychedelic experiences my non-believer side still has a spiritual axis to it; I can’t believe we all get to walk into a place where everyone who’s ever died is cutting around alive again; and Jesus and some older dude who created the universe sit at the head of the table, but that doesn’t have to be true in order for a life to have meaning, and it’s a failure of imagination (and really, and I don’t mean this to belittle your faith, but ultimately an indoctrinated fear - you use the word yourself - that is- ‘frightening yawning chasm of emptiness’) to believe that unless that is the way it pans out then everything is pointless and people are subconsciously compensating or blocking out that fear because they’re sinners.

This kind of quite literally holier-than-thou pretension is a large reason why, despite being raised religious, I want nothing to do with it today. Especially Christianity.

Could you elaborate? I certainly didn't mean to imply I'm any better than someone in the position I described. I'm as much guilty of sin as anyone else.

I don't think it's pretentious either to say that all have sinned in some way or another. As Solzhenitsyn writes, the line between good and evil runs right through every human heart -- all are capable of great good and great evil.

Plenty of other reasons why someone would turn to atheism. Eg the massive occurrence/support/obfuscation of sex abuse in the Catholic Church.

It's just that from my own frame of reference, that's the most attractive aspect of atheism.

  Your comment and a lot of others seem to presuppose that atheists don't genuinely not believe in God, there must be some sort of rejection of a God that exists or some conscious/unconscious attempt to avoid taking responsibility for something.

  My not being a Christian is really simple. It has nothing to do with my ideas on the bible or morality in general. nothing to do with whether or not I'm a sinner (I agree with you and Christianity that everyone falls very short of moral perfection), it has nothing to do with my personal happiness or making it easier for me to sleep at night.

  I simply don't believe that supernatural events exist. Nothing I have heard, discussed, read, watched or experienced in my life has convinced me that supernatural things happen in a general sense or that the specific supernatural things that are essential to believing in Christianity have happened.

> when we all die and no humans are left, that'll be it for all of us. At that point,

Yup, just like the universe existed for 14B years before humans came along.

> will anything that transpired previously matter at all?

Here is a thought experiment I've heard before. Say I'm really rich and have a tropical paradise, and I invite you to spend a month there. "It'll be great!" I promise, so you come. When you arrive you find I'm actually a twisted genius. I have developed a pill which will completely reset your memory back exactly like it was 30 days prior. In front of you is a spinner which alternates between: "party" and "torture".

I tell you, go ahead and spin. If it comes up on "party," you'll have the most amazing time for the month. You'll have private snorkling trips with Jacques Cousteau's grandson; you'll eat the finest food cooked by 5 star Michelin chef's I have flown in. Name your favorite bands and I'll arrange for them to fly in and perform for you. No expense will be spared to entertain you. But if you spin "torture", oh boy, it will be bad. Nothing that will leave a physical scar, mind you, thinks like waterboarding, being shocked by high voltages, capsacin injected into your urethra, etc. But at the end of 30 days, I'll give you a pill that will wipe any trace of memory from the previous 30 days, no PTSD or future nightmares.

So the question is: does it matter if you spin "party" or "torture"? After all, in 30 days, there will be no memories nor after effects. I'm sure that just about everyone would pick party. Why does the choice matter? Even though the memory of the torture will be wiped out, while you are actually experiencing it it is very real suffering (or joy in the other case).

To someone who doesn't believe in the afterlife, the fact that all of our memories dissolve when we die (in the case of dementia, even before we die) and nothing outlives our body, the joy and suffering we experience in life matter.

> ... sin ...

Look up the definition of sin: transgression of God's moral law. As someone who doesn't believe in God, I also don't believe in sin. I believe some events are good and some are bad, but I don't believe in sin. I am consciously or unconsciously worried about upsetting God by transgression His laws to the exact same degree you are consciously or unconsciously worried about upsetting Odin for transgressing his wishes.

I said originally I don't want to argue theology. I was just pointing out that non-believers are not nihilists, contrary to the claim of the person I was responding to. I have lots of thoughts about the other things you've written, but this doesn't seem like the right forum for them.

Of course, the answer is always obvious when you've been provided it beforehand.

You state that as-if you somehow shipped from the womb knowing wisdom, when in fact that implicit knowledge you take for granted has been lived and transferred by your ancestors and most certainly derived from your own social and spiritual milieu.

More importantly, whatever contributions Solomon's wisdom has had on our culture, there are thousands of other competing (and often contradicting) ideas in the milieu. Even if Solomon was the author of the wisdom ascribed to him, it isn't obvious to me that those ideas are at the center of our culture or at the forefront of everyone's thoughts, and so it isn't "obvious [that it has] been provided beforehand."

I can pinpoint when I had my own epiphany. Probably like many people on HN, I did quite well in school. I took standardized tests every year starting in grade 1 and a few weeks later I'd receive a breakdown of what percentile I scored in math, vocabulary, reading, etc, and a combined score. I wouldn't say I had an ego about it, but it was planted in my mind that I was smart and would grow up and do great things: maybe I'd invent something amazing, or discover some deep scientific principle.

Early in high school I had the thought: no matter what I do, it is unlikely that I'll ever be as famous as, say, US President John Tyler, and nobody gives a damn about him. In fact, very few people achieve lasting fame, eg Jesus or Buddha or Isaac Newton. Heck, I don't give a moment's thought about my great grandparents. Each of us is just a ripple in a pond, and as the diameter of our ripple gets larger, its amplitude shrinks. Conceptually, the effects last forever, but only in the most diffuse, indirect manner. Thus my goal became not to do something great that would impress everyone, but to focus on making a positive difference to the people nearest me in space and time; everything else that ripples out of that is gravy.

Why tell this story? Because culturally I had been programmed, and I still see it in full force, that fame and influence are desirable goals. Look at how many people try to become influencers on social media, or do the dumbest things on youtube or tiktok to get eyes to look at them. Yet despite that programming, that thought really changed my life philosophy. Just a realization to a sheltered 14 or 15 year old, so I'm sure there are many people who have had similar thoughts.

> If there is no afterlife, then eventually there will be nobody left in the world,

Whether or not there is an afterlife, it is inevitable that the earth will become uninhabitable. It seems far more likely that humans will die off before that becomes a problem.

> in which case nothing that anyone had ever done or said would have really mattered

Like the old joke about fish not being aware of water, I think people who have spent their entire lives in a Christian mindset forget that the novel thing Jesus was offering was an afterlife. Many cultures and religions believe a person simply stops existing when they die (including Judaism), yet the people without a belief in the afterlife still seem to care if they are happy or miserable.

Let me try another tack along the lines of the thought experiment I stated elsewhere in the thread. Christians believe in a personal soul that outlives the body it is tied to. I'm sure some Christians might think that some animals have souls as well, but I'll go out on a limb and say most don't believe, say, a beetle, has a soul. If you came across me torturing beetles with salt, or fire, or pulling their legs off, you'd rightfully think I'm a horrible person. Why would it matter? After all, the beetle has no soul and will be dead in a few months anyway. It is because even though the pain is temporary, it is very real while the beetle lives through it.

Also, all animals have souls according to Catholicism, and so do plants. The distinct thing about humans is that we have rational souls. But the soul is the form of any living thing.

Torturing an animal is wrong because it does harm to God's creation for no legitimate purpose. A theist doesn't have any problem explaining this - it's the atheist/materialist who does.

The idea that a deity is not needed to find meaning and derive morality.

What I'm really trying to say is: The Bible isn't a book that HAS to be read in order. It's not presented in chronological order and every book has individual value. Once you develop a love for the Bible, then the harder reads will be that much easier :)

If you put it in that context, then it's not that much sillier than stuff like "Owning a pet lobster in Maine is illegal when that lobster is pregnant" kind of laws. (true law btw)

A good place to start is Language of Creation by Mattieu Pageau and Unseen Realm by Michael Heiser. Nothing in the Bible is there by accident. It all has meaning and connects with the rest of what's there. And the "contradictions" are there on purpose, to draw you in. Think of them like Zen koans that are inviting you into contemplation of what is meant, rather than "oh those ancient people must have missed this one".

I'm saying that when a hollywood actor in a film makes fun of christians and says something like "oh go sacrifice a goat like it says in your bible", they are willfully misrepresenting those verses as "cherry-picking your beliefs and conveniently leaving out the goat stuff", when in fact typically they're quoting verses of legal/historical significance, rather than of a dogmatic/theological nature.

This distinction dos not make sense. The laws in the Bible is literally given by God.

I agree about the old testament, but this is only silly when taken out of context. Long before I got into network security I worked in the Maine Lobster industry shoveling bait (which is half-rotten fish mixed with salt, lobsters love it!) into buckets and weighing/storing lobsters at a fisherman's co-op.

An important part of conservation revolves around people putting fertile female lobsters back in the ocean when they are inadvertently caught. Maine puts a lot more effort into conserving them than the surrounding states/countries do (who frequently get caught poaching in Maine waters and keeping lobsters that would be illegal to keep even if they were allowed to fish in Maine.

Yes, this is kinda the point. It's the Chesterton's Fence argument. Before mocking something which appears silly, try to find out the reason it was created in the first place. Maybe there was good reason, maybe that reason still holds, maybe it doesn't.

Am I missing the "proper" way of reading it? But if there is, that would eventually just leave to cherry picking...

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/

It's also available in the JW Library app. Both are 100% free, no signups or membership, and makes reading so much easier and more enjoyable.

I personally find myself comparing the KJV with the original Greek as well as the pre-Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims when I want more insight into certain passages.

Commentaries also provide interesting insights. They typically cite the translations that were used as well so you can see how their conclusions were drawn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD_r3_aCvsw

Another book similar to Riplinger's is "Corruptions in the New King James Bible" by Jack Mundey. The writing style is a little enthusiastic, but the author compares several editions of various bibles, showing where and how they changed over time. Both Mundey and Riplinger draw the conclusion that the NKJV and NIV are deliberately changed to mislead people, and therefore are Satanic, though neither one makes any point about the KJV's edits themselves, such as the name of God or translations of "Hell" as I've mentioned earlier.

It's actually reasonably readable but there are differences in meanings due to the decisions of the translators. This is true with all translations, so not a direct criticism, but the NWT tends to differ on areas where the JW belief system itself differs from the mainstream. So personally I'd suggest avoiding it as it will give the new reader a very exclusive perspective on the faith.

There are lots of answers to this question floating around the thread. Maybe mine will be helpful:

First of all, so much of the Bible references and builds on itself that it's a battle to establish the initial framework of knowledge so you can try to fill everything in.

The most important question of Christianity is, as Jesus put it, "who do you say that I am?" Start working on this with a Gospel (either Mark, more focused on a clear message; of Luke, more of a detailed narrative). (Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, so the perspective isn't as helpful, and John is just different in ways that make it better saved for later.) After this, read Acts, which finishes the story begun by the gospels. If you pick Luke, then you have the advantage that Luke and Acts have the same author.

Read Genesis. There's so much to unpack in this huge book. Jordan Peterson released lectures on many stories of Genesis as early podcasts of his; they do a good job of presenting the stories in the modern day, and are probably his best work, far better than recent work.)

Exodus. It is narrative and explains God's relationship with the Jewish people.

If you want to keep digging into that story, you could go next to Joshua and Judges. But I recommend next reading 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings. They're the story of David, who is the archetype of a God-fearing, yet only human, Jew.

As to a "proper" way: slowly, carefully, repeatedly, with humility, and with help.

If you are totally new to the Bible the important thing is probably to try and get enough from it at the start that you'll be interested enough to continue. I've read it through many times and some/much of it is pretty impenetrable, obscure, and even dull.

So from this perspective, and note that this isn't a great sequence theologically, I'd go with the book of Acts, the gospel of John, the books of Proverbs and Psalms, and then the letters of John.

As for which versions of the Bible, avoid older ones like the King James (KJV, NKJV) or Revised Standard (RSV, ASV, NRSV); the archaic language and structure will be off-putting. I'd perhaps go with the Contemporary English Version (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+1&version=...) but the linked page will let you see the various translations of the same text using a drop-down.

There is no one ideal version of the Bible but personally I'd avoid any translation used by a single denomination or sect such as the NWT - which is produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm meaning this not as a judgement regarding the organisation but as an example of a group whose translation has alternative readings at various doctrinal points (eg the trinity) and it is not worth getting sidetracked by theological disagreements at this stage.

Whatever route you choose be prepared for a hard slog as a casual reader.

If you just start from the beginning, expecting to read it as one book, you will probably lose interest when it gets into the mosaic law.