So, having read the whole of what you wrote, the reason not to do both is that atomization promotes an epistemology that does grave violence to Christian belief. God's self revelation could have been a math textbook: a collection of independent propositions related by logical necessity. But it's not.

His self revelation is a person who has a story and who tells stories. When we atomize the scriptures, we're implicitly constructing an argument against the epistemology that God has revealed in the scriptures. That's the thing that Satan does in the wilderness when he puts Jesus to the test. We ought not lead others into that time of trial.

So the convenience of being able to cite a verse as quick shorthand comes at the price of a profound argument against the coherent truth of the scriptural witness.

I would like to reply positively to what it is you are insisting that chapter and verse does to the Holy Scriptures. Your reply is beautiful and it is helping me reflect on how I will be presenting information in a forthcoming book on ancient biblical history.

To the defense of the creator(s) of this web application, I feel that the chapter and verse divisions have been in existence, and problematic, for a very long time.

For certain reference work this is a wonderful tool.

The verse structure's practicality as a reference mechanism far outweighs its downsides.

It's a bit of a stretch to indict the verse structure for the general decline in Biblical literacy in Christians.

It's entirely possible to quote a verse with correct contextual interpretation that conveys its meaning; if we're looking for a culprit for declining Biblical literacy I'd be much more apt to blame loose translations and paraphrases like The Message and The Passion Translation than the concept of verses.

I would blame nefarious church leaders who should know better but deliberately misrepresent the scriptures to their own end. The verse structure does facilitate this.

For example: Leviticus 18:22 seems quite popular amongst homophobes, but I don't see many of them killing adulterers (20:10) or burying blood (17:13), plenty of them oppress foreigners (19:33) and hate their gay relatives (19:17). They don't seem to be as keen on burning people who engage in a sportsman's double (18:14) as they are about waving "God hates fags" placards.

I'd be surprised if the same people who picket gay weddings and funerals chain themselves to combine harvesters with Leviticus 19:9 placards, or harass people going to real estate agents' offices with Leviticus 25:23 signs.

What are the upsides? What are the downsides? (And to whom?)

Note that I'm not saying the downside is "declining Biblical literacy" - by many metrics I'd imagine that's increasing? I wonder how you'd measure that? And I wonder whether whatever scheme you came up with wouldn't presume some hermeneutic and really just measure the extent to which people buy into that hermeneutic? For example, who is more Biblically literate? The person who can quote, verbatim, with correct citation 100 verses of scripture, or the person who can re-tell in paraphrase the story of Jesus forgiving Peter after the resurrection?

I'm saying the downside is a transformation in what it means to read the scriptures.

Are you aware of any movements that aim at solving the problem you are referring to?

I am not a chapter and verse person, and almost my entire understanding of the Bible comes through my own remembrances, all paraphrasing now, of what I learned when I was younger.

I often wonder if there's a great many people out there like myself. Seems like there is?

Sure - there are lots of folks aiming at a more authentic reading. In general, the older a church, the more it aims at a reading that avoids the modern atomizing impulse. The Catholic and Orthodox churches do some good work on that score, as do Anglican and Lutheran theologians.

I upvoted one of your earlier comments because it was a thought provoking and interesting criticism that I didn't know about and will keep in mind. So thanks for that!

Even though there are Lutheran and Anglican theologians that aims at what you call authentic reading, I would be surprised if that has a real impact of the members of these churches, and for me that is really were the focus should be.

According to: https://anglicancompass.com/scripturelessons/ "Anglicans read four passages of Scripture during Sunday worship. Out loud.

So do some other traditions, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutherans and others."

I would be surprised if the next week's passages would follow this week's passages, so I assume that this "ritual" will atomize the Scriptures either if they are divided into verses/chapters or not. (There are of course a lot of other parts of the life in these churches as well; but the Sunday service is still an important part).

I am used to a progression in Scripture readings, where each Book is read chronologically (with input from other Scriptures that does not follow chronologically as well), but that has little to do with if the Book is divided into verses/chapters or not. So for me personally, I doubt the atomizing of the Scriptures has a great impact.

I'm glad you found it thought provoking. The liturgical churches tend to follow a lectionary, which, as you say, excerpts from the scriptures. The RCL has some passages that I think are cut poorly, but generally keeps the unit of thought at the level of the particular story or argument.

While I would not go as far to say that having verses in scriptures is a tactic of the devil (note that in the wilderness, Jesus also quotes snippets of scripture back to Satan as a rebuttal), I can see your point that it probably does more harm than good.

I do wish that the standard was to not have verses, and have the verses version be the exception rather than the rule. I can see the benefit of having verses, but I think there is far more benefit from reading scripture as a whole instead.