Only if you learn ancient dead languages, I suppose. Religious texts are seldom updated (because, well, they are sacred) and full of anachronisms.
I mean, if you're learning English, would you want to start with this?
> Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Why did you pick a 500yr old translation of that text as an example when there are dozens of popular modern versions? ESV, for example says this:
> When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Well, first, depending on the language, what you think of as up-to-date translation can be not quite up to date. (The Bible is a huge tome and not frequently re-translated. The target language could have changed perceptibly since the latest translation was made.)
Let's look at your "modern" example. Now, I'm not a native English speaker, but I strongly doubt any English speaker of today would use "He took his wife." to mean "He accepted her as his wife." It would most likely be interpreted as "He brought along his wife." or "Person A kidnapped person B's wife." And "knew her not"? Very few people speak like that, and even fewer would mean "did not have sex with her".
These little details add up much faster than a native speaker may realize.
Perhaps more important is the amount of detail that will never show up in the Bible. Read the entire Bible, and I'm sure you'll never learn what "Never mind, I'm OK.", "Nice to see you again.", or "This section is under construction." means. So, you only learn a small fraction of modern language usage, and you learn it in a mostly anachronistic fashion.
> Read the entire Bible, and I'm sure you'll never learn what "Never mind, I'm OK.", "Nice to see you again.", or "This section is under construction." means.
That's true, but I don't think anyone was suggesting this as a technique for learning location-specific idioms or other conversational usage.
The general idea is that religious texts are large enough to have simple sections and complex sections, so the reader can choose the level of complexity, knowing that these translations have received a few centuries of bug reports and errata fixes.
One can certainly find more entertaining and less corrected texts :)
> Only if you learn ancient dead languages
You may be surprised by how much of modern communication is influenced by Latin and Hebrew. Mainstream lack of awareness of "old" languages only makes the mainstream more susceptible to influence, as that which cannot be named cannot be firewalled.
I don't think that the approach is viable for an atheist, or a follower of a non-Biblical religion.
You have to be someone who loves these scriptures to be motivated into using them this way.
Many people want to learn a living language: take part in conversation and learn how to say everyday things, and not how to summon locusts upon the land.
Also, judging by the archaic English that is used in English translations of the Bible, I would not recommend them to new speakers of English. You need a thoroughly modernized text which replaces usage like "thy" with "your" and so on.
There is likely a similar issue going to other languages using these texts.
Agreed that it's not a good way to learn English. It's a good way for an English speaker to learn classical Greek, Latin and Hebrew.
What are some old but non-religious texts which have received careful translations into many languages? Plutarchs Lives, Aesops Fables, folk tales ...?
I mean, if you're learning English, would you want to start with this?
> Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.