Why is there no humor in the Bible?

[2Dbunk]

There is little to no humor in the Bible. Why? Why couldn't "God" have made some of "His" parables along a more humorous line? Sure life is serious but much too often life is taken too seriously.

For centuries the Bible was the only reason to learn to read. it was the mark of an "educated" man (there was little emphasis on a woman learning to read).

So, I reckon humor was a late bloomer!

One would think that "God" would know that he might reach more people with threats of hellfire laced with light homilies from heaven. (Some kind of mixture like that.)

Is there room for humor in the serious tomes outlining the narrow path that Man must follow to be in accordance with his God?

[tfvespasianus]

There is at least one joke/comedic episode in the NT. It is in Acts.

Does anyone have any guesses?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 8 by bluethread]

I've never really understood this point of view: Reading the Bible to understand.
Is there some bit of rocket science contained in it I am missing?
Is there a single passage contains obscure language?
Is there some hidden wisdom?

No.

It is written at a 12th grade reading level, in simple English.
I you read a passage, and it doesn't make sense, it is because it is gooblygook.

I think you'll find that if you separate the wheat from the chaff in this way, the Bible becomes very clear, it has three things to say:
1. Pay a blasphemous tax to divine Caesar. using blasphemous coins.
2. Obey a blasphemous pagan empire.
3.Don't molest this pagan empire's tax collectors.

Is there anything else demonstrable in the work? Anything else provable? Anything else clear?

Perhaps you can show me how I am wrong, with a passage?

[bluethread]

It is written at a 12th grade reading level, in simple English.
I you read a passage, and it doesn't make sense, it is because it is gooblygook.

Wrong, the Scriptures were written in multiple languages, over thousands of years to people who were living in many different social situations, most of which are very different from modern western culture.

I think you'll find that if you separate the wheat from the chaff in this way, the Bible becomes very clear, it has three things to say:
1. Pay a blasphemous tax to divine Caesar. using blasphemous coins.
2. Obey a blasphemous pagan empire.
3.Don't molest this pagan empire's tax collectors.

Well, I do not separate the wheat from the chaff in that way, but follow standard literary principles, accepted by theists and non-theists alike.

Is there anything else demonstrable in the work? Anything else provable? Anything else clear?

Perhaps you can show me how I am wrong, with a passage?

En arche 'an 'o logo kai 'o logo 'an pros ton theov kai theo 'an 'o logo

What does that mean in plain English?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 13 by bluethread]

You know, I have never once seen a Bible writtin in Greek, so verily I say to you, the King James Version is written at a 12th grade level, and I am certain that those who translated it did their level best to be sincere.

Well show me a Bible in any language that is written mysteriously in that language, above a 12th grade reading level, in French, or Greek, or whatever.

En arche 'an 'o logo kai 'o logo 'an pros ton theov kai theo 'an 'o logo

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
"Word"(s) (as this is translated - "word,") according to ancient pagan mysticism had power. "Word," is a carry-over from that belief. It is essentially an analogy to a wizard who speaks magic words and stuff happens. Of course pagans were a little more advanced in their understanding, and used the word "will," "In the beginning was god's will..." I think you'll find if you translate logos for the pagan term, the gobblygook that Christians tried to make it, resolves itself into something that makes sense.

If only you knew your pagan history, so much of the Bible would become clear to you, and you wouldn't have to ask me what it means.

[Goat]

There is little to no humor in the Bible. Why? Why couldn't "God" have made some of "His" parables along a more humorous line? Sure life is serious but much too often life is taken too seriously.

For centuries the Bible was the only reason to learn to read. it was the mark of an "educated" man (there was little emphasis on a woman learning to read).

So, I reckon humor was a late bloomer!

One would think that "God" would know that he might reach more people with threats of hellfire laced with light homilies from heaven. (Some kind of mixture like that.)

Is there room for humor in the serious tomes outlining the narrow path that Man must follow to be in accordance with his God?

Well, there is humor in the bible. It is in the form of puns. The writers of Genesis in specifically used TONS of puns, that , unfortunately, do not translate well from the Hebrew.

[Willum]

[Replying to Goat]

Well, that does lend credence to the idea that they were originally children's stories. Children love puns.
It makes the most sense.

[marco]

Is there room for humor in the serious tomes outlining the narrow path that Man must follow to be in accordance with his God?

I think this is an excellent point. "And Jesus was so surprised he laughed until tears fell down his cheeks, before slapping Peter on the back." OR

And Jesus replied: "I have come from one of those distant stars where my father has a farm with a thousand camels." Seeing the shocked look on the faces of his disciples, Jesus smiled and said:
"Only joking!"

The tone is so morose that people can be forgiven for thinking laughter is a sin. Jesus would be more appealing with a smile. As for the OT, I don't think Yahweh making jokes would produce the right effect - he is brutal enough without adding sadistic humour.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 13 by bluethread]

You know, I have never once seen a Bible writtin in Greek, so verily I say to you, the King James Version is written at a 12th grade level, and I am certain that those who translated it did their level best to be sincere.

Well show me a Bible in any language that is written mysteriously in that language, above a 12th grade reading level, in French, or Greek, or whatever.

Since this thread is about humor, I find it rather humorous that you are seriously arguing that something written by Jews in the millennia prior to the 2nd century should be in "plain English". It is also very humorous that you believe that "plain English" translation be that of a Protestant King who is not Jewish. And to top it off, you refer to this language, which is not the English spoken today, as "plain English". In what world does this make sense?

En arche 'an 'o logo kai 'o logo 'an pros ton theov kai theo 'an 'o logo

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
"Word"(s) (as this is translated - "word,") according to ancient pagan mysticism had power. "Word," is a carry-over from that belief. It is essentially an analogy to a wizard who speaks magic words and stuff happens. Of course pagans were a little more advanced in their understanding, and used the word "will," "In the beginning was god's will..." I think you'll find if you translate logos for the pagan term, the gobblygook that Christians tried to make it, resolves itself into something that makes sense.

If only you knew your pagan history, so much of the Bible would become clear to you, and you wouldn't have to ask me what it means.

You call that "plain English"? You take a writing by a Hellenistic Jew to Hellenistic Jews and apply to it a concept from ancient mysticism. Speaking of gobblygook, this is nothing but a self serving application of linguistics, that allows ones own sources as appropriate in determining the "plain English", while discarding all others out of hand.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 18 by bluethread]

You know I have never once seen an oral tradition written in Hebrew.
Certainly no Bible written in Hebrew.

THAT IS WHAT"S REALLY FUNNY.

But, this bit of ingenuousness is not very funny. 'Everybody' else reads their Bible in their native language. At a 12th grade level.

Since Hebrew is a twice-dead language, and poorly reconstructed from Lebanese Canaan.
And it wasn't written down until 150 BCE, at best.
And the people who claim the tradition can't be who they claim to be...

As far a John 1:1,you were simply owned by a superior knowledge of the Bible. You can never understand the pagan roots of the Book, because you deny they exist.

It essentially says God is unified with his own will. It makes no sense to you because you don't know it's polytheistic origin.
It's basically a recreation of the deity myth where all the deities get together to do something, like create a planet, and one god speaks for all of the other gods, using all their powers, his "word" is their will, they work together as one.

See, how it all makes sense?

Don't get mad, become educated in the larger world.
Your God in Babylonian was identical to Marduk.

Then you will see many more jokes. Such as Hellenistic Jews originating these stories.

[bluethread]

As far a John 1:1,you were simply owned by a superior knowledge of the Bible. You can never understand the pagan roots of the Book, because you deny they exist.

Ooh, and that superior knowledge was presented in such plain English also. First, you fault people for not holding to the "plain English" of the bible. Then, it becomes clear that this "plain English" you refer to is 17th century king's English, not the English spoken by the common man in England today, let alone that spoken by those of us in these United States. Also, that "plain English" must incorporate some understanding of ancient mysticism. Sorry, but this is a usage of "plain English", that I am not familiar with. That said, I have never argued that one should interpret the Scriptures based on "plain English".

Don't get mad, become educated in the larger world.
Your God in Babylonian was identical to Marduk.

Then you will see many more jokes. Such as Hellenistic Jews originating these stories.

Believe me, I am not mad. I am greatly amused. This is all quite humorous. I never said that the stories originated with those Hellenistic Jews. I merely stated that they were written down by Hellenistic Jews to Hellenistic Jews. Their origin is a complicated combination of history, grammar and culture. That was my point, when you objected to interpreting the Scriptures using anything but the "plain English". It appears that you do not really hold to that view, after all, but believe in using historical, grammatical and cultural factors. You just insist that your use of historical, grammatical and cultural factors constitutes "plain English", while the way others use them is not.