Wouldn't the Bible be a better read if they cut out all the plagiarised repetitions?

Question

e.g.

2Ki 18:27 But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? [hath he] not [sent me] to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

Isa 36:12 But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? [hath he] not [sent me] to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

Answer 1

Obviously it's important, or it wouldn't be repeated.
Obviously it's important, or it wouldn't be repeated.
Obviously it's important, or it wouldn't be repeated.

But...haven't you noticed that the people who come on this site and quote the Bible at length tend to be the kind of people for whom things...MUST...be repeatrepeatrepeated...?

Answer 2

Would the Bible be better if the plagiarized repetitions were removed'
!. Better, is a personal opinion.
2. The Jews were given the 'two or more witnesses' principle (mentioned about three times between Deut. 10-20) and the Christians (Matt.18:16, 2 Cor.13:1). For the Bible to 'not' provide two or more witnesses' itself would be rather hypocritical. Two points here; the frequently used Hebrew term for God is elohiym. Elohym is plural (two or more witnesses). Second, if one applies that principle along with 2 Tim. 3:16-17, one would realize that the old testament (which was done way with) was the law of Moses, not Genesis-Malachi.

Answer 3

hmmmm maybe you didn't think correctly. obviously, the repitition means that it's important. so it needs to be said more than once.