Reading Your Bible Through in a Year

Have any of you read your entire Bible through in a year?

If not, why not give it a try this year?

As I read this year, I'm going to post my progress and comment on verses that I have read.

Please join me! :)

All it takes is reading 3-4 chapters per day, on average, to read the entire Bible through in a year!

I did not read any of Genesis on January 1st, but read 7 chapters last night.

Did you know that the first mention of "wickedness" is mentioned in Genesis 6:5, and that it pertains to mankind?

The first mention of "heart" is also in Genesis 6:5, and pertains to the heart of man.

The first mention of "grieved" is in Genesis 6:6, and refers to God being sad at how man is acting.

Why take a year to read the Bible. How about a couple of day's or a week.

Why not read whole Bible book's in one setting? This is much better than a couple of chapters.

fuzzi; thanks for starting this thread, I hope we get lots of people to read through their Bibles this year. Lets try to make 2012 the year of the Bible! I am finishing Heaven is for Real and it has given me renewed interest in doing a complete read thru. I'll also strart reading in Genesis.......... I find that a dedicated slower (year long) read thru gives me extra time to not only read but contemplate and think about what I have read. Please keep me posted on my profile if you see me not following through on my promise to fellow Christians to do a thorough read through this year. It is a great idea!

PS, I'll be posting back on this thread as often as possible, if not everyday then at least every three days!

(3) baron, I have a job, a family...don't think I can read that fast! :D

JAN, I agree that reading just a few chapters a day makes it easier to meditate upon what is written there. I could read faster, but then I'd miss so much!

First mentions are fun to find, too.

Onward!

It is not my approach, but I have a friend who just finished this book One Year Chronological Bible

He really liked it.

richard, some people don't care to have a schedule to read, but for some people it helps keep them on track...like the 75 books in 2012 challenge (which I also have joined).

Thanks for sharing. :)

Hello, everyone - I just found y'all and am reading through my Bible this year, too. I've done this before but not for some years now. I'm using the NKJV in the morning and ESV in the evening. I'll read at least three chapters in the morning, probably just one before bedtime. And I will NOT get bogged down in II Chronicles!

fuzzi- great topic starter.

I will say that I have read the Bible through three times (in fourteen years as a Christian), so I am certainly not bragging- because it is nothing to brag about.

I think reading the Bible through in a year is commendable and would never discourage it. Not saying I will never make this a goal again, but I believe that we should try and grasp the concept within passages from Scripture, rather than set a goal to finish the Bible in a year (or however long it takes one to finish it). I normally read portions of Scripture in relation to a daily devotional I do, which happens to be Our Daily Bread (produced by Radio Bible Class Ministries). I also read additional verses and chapters as led each day; sometimes, when thinking about a certain subject I might read verses pertaining to that topic. This is in no way to discourage anyone's goal to read the Bible through, that is certainly a very good goal to set.

I will make some comments here and there on verses that I read, also. God bless you all as you succeed at this goal.

endpapers, glad to have you. May we all help/encourage each other in order to complete our goal for 2012!

Thank you, John, for your kind commentary.

I've done both routes: the "read it through" and the "read a bit here a bit" sort of thing.

This year I want to do BOTH. I'm planning on reading it through AND studying what strikes me as I read. For example, I spent a lot of time in Genesis 6 last night, just amazed at the 'first mention' words. :)

I understand your goal to do both. I will say that one thing many Christians do not do enough of (and that is study God's Word). I stand guilty of that myself. I have done it in the past more than I do now and that is something that I need to change.

I did read Proverbs 2:1-9, speaking of the very important topic of "wisdom." Something we all need more of and to know that we only have to "ask" as the Bible proclaims. God is so merciful. A couple ideas within this devotion that struck me were the following (maybe they will help someone else out, also): First, the author (Anne Cetas) likens the pursuit of wisdom (as a husband pursues her future wife)- he spends much time and effort to gain his wife as we should spend much time and effort to gain God's wisdom. Interestingly enough, as I was typing it made me think that this relates to reading your Bible more- the only way we are going to gain God's wisdom is to "search the Scriptures daily." Secondly, a poem correlating this topic was offered: "What will it profit when life here is o'er, Though great worldly wisdom I gain, If seeking knowledge I utterly fail, The wisdom of God to obtain?" And a quote: "You can acquire much knowledge, but true wisdom comes only from God." Just some thoughts.

By the way, fuzzi, that is something great about reading Genesis: It contains the first occurence of many things (wickedness, heart, grieved (as you mentioned), murder, sin, etc.). Sometimes it is amazing to try and imagine a world where some of these things did not exist- a perfect world! How different the world is today. God bless all.

8: Congrats, endpapers! I am sure you will succeed at your endeavor this year.

3/4: God's blessings on both of your pursuits to read God's Word.

Thanks for starting this thread, fuzzi. Whenever I read the Bible, I find it hard to stop at at just a few verses. I'm one of those people who likes to read in large chunks. Especially the history books, which I really get into (I was a history major in college).

I'll try reading along. Are you planning on alternating between Old and New Testaments, or just staying with the Old Testament first, then the New?

To me, one of the surprising things about human history, as recorded in Genesis, is how quickly humanity goes from the first sin, which doesn't seem so evil in itself (eating the wrong fruit) to murder, the very next sin mentioned. In just one generation. When people start to do wrong, they go very wrong indeed.

I was really inspired to read along with you but scaling the OT just seems daunting right now.

I googled and found quite a few schedules for Bible reading in a year. And when I looked at this one http://www.bible-reading.com/bible-plan.html I heard myself cheering--Yay! Today I get to start out with Romans! So I knew it was the plan for me. I tend to have several books going in my other reading and switch from one to the other. So I really like that this is reading 7 books at a time on a rotating basis.

I'll keep an eye on your thread and know our paths will cross.

(11) that's an interesting way to describe the pursuit of wisdom.

I heard a story once, comparing our relationship with God as an older married couple going somewhere in a car. She turns to her husband, who is driving, and says "Remember when we used to sit against each other in the car?" and his response was "I'm in the same place. Why did you move?"

Woah. Convicted here!

(14) madpoet, I like the history aspects, too, although there are some awfully dry parts of Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, but I keep on going!

I was planning on doing Genesis - Revelation, but I'm also open to suggestions.

"To me, one of the surprising things about human history, as recorded in Genesis, is how quickly humanity goes from the first sin, which doesn't seem so evil in itself (eating the wrong fruit) to murder, the very next sin mentioned. In just one generation. When people start to do wrong, they go very wrong indeed."

That's true.

I don't see the actual eating of the fruit as the real sin, but the disobedience of Adam and Eve, breaking God's commandment to not eat of it. Whether or not it was good or bad for them to eat, they were told "Don't do that!"

And then the slide from paradise began...

One more thing: what was Eve doing by that tree, anyway? Why was she so close to it, tempting herself?

We could learn a lesson from that: flee sin, don't think upon it, don't go close to it. If you have a tendency to drink, don't live over a bar!

(15) streamsong, why not just share what you're reading with us? I think we could handle a couple different chapters at a time.

Romans is a great book. :)

thomaswalker2, you are welcome. I thought someone else might be interested in doing this. :)

I'd really recommend cover to cover. It really helps put it in perspective reading in chronological order. The great thing is you can also get the "complete" version which has the full text in it, so no flicking back and forth between bible and notes. I read it on my commute to work a couple of years ago. Unfortunately I've not got the time now to read that many chapters a day (with a 1 year old in the house) but I hope to do it again soon.

ok, that touchstone didn't work. Try http://www.librarything.com/work/845661

Welcome madpoet, thomaswalker2, and streamsong.

14: I read from where I leave off before, which probably most do; fuzzi took my thought when she made mention of "obedience" as being the true sin that Adam (and Eve) committed. And I would go a little further to say that God does not want our obedience because He desires us to fear Him. He wants our obedience because He desires us "to love Him." I truly believe when Adam disobeyed (in a sense, He broke the heart of God). God desires us to obey Him, (not mainly out of fear, not mainly out of respect and awe), but out of a true love and devotion for and to Him. I believe this was the real sin that Adam committed in Garden of Eden. For the first time, man (Adam) showed a lack of love, for the One that created Him for that purpose. Just a thought.

You are very correct- it is amazing how quickly man seemed to have leaped into a world of sin.

15: We are all not alike (thank goodness); we all have our likes and dislikes (or maybe a better term would be preferences)- God doesn't command us the read the Bible through in a year, in a month, in a day (boy, that would be tough)! He tells us to meditate on His Word day and night (Joshua 1:8). Reading it through in a year is just one method of "meditating" on His Word. God bless you in your venture.

16: Amazing how like-minded people think alike. God bless you, thomas.

17: I had heard that analogy you gave- and I must say it is a very convicting analogy.

Great words of wisdom on your thoughts to madpoet and your thoughts on temptation.

19: Welcome eclecticdodo.

I like the cover to cover method as well; it seems to keep you more on track like reading a book from cover to cover, however, with the many "reading the Bible through in a year" ideas floating around- there are many methods to choose from.

God bless you for your desire to read God's Word.

My devotion for today came from 1 Timothy 4:6-11. Interestingly enough, it spoke about love (and its relationship) to godliness. Just some quick quotes from this devotion that I thought were really good and may benefit somebody else (as they did me). The first was the following: "Godliness may sound dull, scary, or unattainable, but the essence of godliness is simply self-giving love- caring more for others than we care for ourselves. This kind of love is hard to come by, but it's one that grows in the presence of love. We grow loving and more lovely by sitting at Jesus' feet, listening to Him, talking things over- gaining in likeness to the One who is love (1 John 4:8)." And the other is short and to the point: "Love is godliness in action." Just some thoughts.

Welcome to our little thread, eclecticdodo!

I think it's reading daily that's most important, not necessarily reading so many chapters or pages. The Bereans searched the Scriptures daily, and I think that it's a good idea for us to emulate.

Tonight I'm back in Genesis, I think 11-14 or so...depends on how I feel and how tired I am.

~~

Hey! Anyone try reading a chapter of Proverbs a day? You can get through the entire book (31 chapters) in a month. I did that for a couple of years and it really helped me remember the verses.

I just got Abraham through that battle with the four kings. I am struck by what a wuss Lot was and is still called "righteous".

23: Amen, fuzzi- good point!

I also have read Proverbs through as you mention; Proverbs has so much good applicable wisdom- you will easily be filled by reading a chapter a day.

(24) That's right, endpapers, Lot kept messing up a lot.

To me that suggests that it isn't our righteousness that makes us "just", but the work of Christ: "it is finished".

Oh, read Genesis 11-13.

Genesis 13:13
First mention of "sinners" is used to describe the men of Sodom.

Genesis 13:14-15
After Lot left for the well watered plains and Sodom, then the LORD told Abram (Abraham) how He was giving to Abram (and his descendants) all the land that he saw, a gift forever.

26: Good point, fuzzi. Our righteousness is only as righteous as we are "right with God." When we are allowing Him to live in and through us, others will see "our righteousness" (which is truly Christ's righteousness shining through).

27: "After Lot left for the well watered plains and Sodom, then the LORD told Abram (Abraham) how He was giving to Abram (and his descendants) all the land that he saw, a gift forever."

I believe you are making the point that "the land" that God gave the Israelites on that day (was theirs, forever); meaning that land (even in 2012) is still theirs (whether "reality" says different or not). If this be the case, I say "Amen!" Palestine and other parts of that region were given to the Israelites (and their land has been stolen from them).

I read from James 4:13-17 today. There were several interesting thoughts I had in relevance to these verses. Of course these verses relate how man seems to presume that he has a lot of control in his life. God's Word says, "Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away." None of us can be presumptious with our lives.

It continues with what our attitude should be, "For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that."

The author comments, "Many people used to begin their statement of plans with, "Lord willing." The phrase may have become trite, but the acknowledgment of God's overruling hand is not."

Great idea Fuzzi! I am starting Genesis today.

29: AMEN!

Great to have you with us, TRIPLEHHH!

In regards to post (29), while reading that I thought of Luke 12:18-21 ...

"And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.
And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?
So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."

You DON'T know when your life will end, or what will happen tomorrow, so you should best make plans with that in mind.

Last night I read Genesis 14-16.

Genesis 14:2
First mention of 'war'. Boy, man is sure progressing and evolving, isn't he?

Genesis 15:18
While Abram is asleep, God makes a covenant with him, again, to give Abram and his descendants the land as described.

Genesis 16
Abram doesn't trust God enough to wait for the promise of an heir, but listens to his wife Sarai and conceives a child by Hagar, an Egyptian servant. The child is Ishmael.

~33

Although I don't agree with the particulars of your perspective, I am more sympathetic to your orientation than I am to the orientation of the other posters to this thread. Read the Bible through in a year? Ah, why? "The Bible" is a collection of different texts written by different people in different times and circumstances ADDRESSING OFTEN RADICALLY DIFFERENT TOPICS AND CONCERNS. What is the merit in "reading it through" as if it was a novel developing a unitary story?

Particularly, why would one want to "read it through" without spending the time to figure out what questions the various authors are addressing and what background presumptions they assume to be true?

Incidentally, this mental dysfunction is not limited to Christians. Orthodox (of course) Jews engage in a similar ritual of reading the BT through in 7+ years. http://articles.latimes.com/1990-04-29/news/we-269_1_orthodox-jews I am certain that they derive as much intellectual enlightenment from that experience as most of the posters above do from reading the Bible through in a year (i.e., very nearly zip).

Thank you for your input and opinions, Lawecon.

I personally have found that reading my Bible through every year gives me much more enlightenment than you have suggested. It helps me become more familiar with the Scriptures, and aids me in my daily walk with the Lord.

Feel free to join us if you like. :)

> 7 fuzzi what is that 75 book challenge for 2012 about. Does it include any books or just certain books?

>36 thomashwalker2: That's why we need to read our bible. In Exodus 33:3 we see God's answer for thou art a stiffnecked people. Sounds like a lot of us today? We can see by past examples of what is pleasing to God.

baron, glad you've joined us here!

The 75 book challenge can be found here:
http://www.librarything.com/groups/75booksin2012
and it includes any and all books.

Not including my Bible reading, I've read 2 and am about to finish book #3.

30: Welcome TRIPLEHHH! Nice to have you in the thread.

33: thomas, profound insight my friend! Good words of wisdom.

34: Welcome lawecon!

36: Very good thoughts, thomas. I remember when I was blind to God's truth. If you had asked me to give an understanding of God's Word, I would have responded with- "It all seems like a jumbled mess of words on a page." How different you see once "the True Light" (Jesus Christ) opens your heart and mind to understand His Word.

I can remember back in 1997 after God shedding His mercy on my sinful soul and saving me. I would read God's Word (which was the first time in my life I chose to read His Word- I had only read as little as possible the first 26 years of my life) and go to church the following Sunday and the understanding that God had given me (to understand what I read), my Pastor would repeat things that I had read (and thought on the previous week). It might not seem earth-shattering to some, but to a naive person (religiously speaking) back in 1997- I was amazed that I could talk with someone in another state, another country (or listen to someone on the radio) and have the same understanding and interpreation as they did (even though I had been a Christian for such a short period of time).

I am so very thankful when I got saved, God opened the door for me to go to United Baptist Church (in Springfield, MO). It was a small church, but God's Word was preached and taught (and many of my previous misconceptions of Christianity) were answered. Thank God for Bible-Believing churches.

37: Welcome baron 770!

34: "Fuzzi, as well as myself and John really do welcome you. We only ask that instead of being so defensive, be a little more opened minded. "

As Thomas stated, lawecon, I do welcome you. As he stated, while we probably all might dissagree with some of your thoughts (or ideas), we do welcome them.

I am saying this as lovingly as I can (if you could see my heart): You make some very good points often, but because they always seem to be done with defensiveness (as Thomas mentioned), it is hard to have a conversation (text) with someone who seems to attack everything. While you may dissagree with most of what any on this thread says, there is still a place for you here.

I can tell you are very intelligent (and knowledgeable) on a variety of topics. While you don't agree with many of our ideas, you can disagree with them without attacking them. I know I can learn from you (and I think you have a lot to teach), but it is hard to learn from someone who seems to always be on the defensive. I hope you take these words as I sent them, in love and sincerity. I hope you are blessed from this thread, lawecon.

~35

It helps me become more familiar with the Scriptures,

===================================

In what manner are you becoming "more familiar with the Scriptures" merely by reading words concerning which you have no background? Why not acquire the background prior to reading the words? But, again, there is a close parallel in Judaism. Many Orthodox are proud of their ability to recite the Siddur from memory, even though they don't have a clue what most of it means or the circumstances under which a particular passage became a part of the Siddur.

~36

When you (lawecon) discuss in your posts about the Bible, Christianity, and religon it is apparent that you feel certain that you have figured it all out.

==========================

Let's see. I repeat what no scholar of the Bible would dispute and your charge is that I am arrogant and act like "I have figured it all out." Well, no, I haven't figured it all out, any more than the person who has learned addition, subtraction, multiplication and division has "figured out" all of mathematics. But such a person knows more about that subject than the person who is totally ignorant of those topics and knows only the addition table.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"They witnessed never-before-seen miracles. When Jesus gave up the Ghost, the dead rose up out of their graves and entered into the city."
=========================

This is a great example of exactly what I'm talking about. You simply read and repeat, without any apparent thought. If such a thing had in fact occurred don't you think that someone other than the writer of this particular Gospel would have recorded it and commented upon it? Surely, at least, the other Gospel writers would have mentioned it, since it is such strong evidence of the historical significance of the death of Jesus.

The dead arose out of their graves and walked among the living. What could be more unique or dramatic? Yet where are the other sources recording this fact? Answer: They don't exist. The logical conclusion is that this claim is factually false or is, at best, some sort of metaphor rather than history. But that isn't an acceptable conclusion to someone who MUST believe every word of a variety of texts assembled by men.

Incidentally, I'm not going to comment on your ignorance of the Tanach other than to say that none of the JEWISH commentators on the Tanach for the last 2,000 years would have adopted such a literalist and simplistic interpretation. But, of course, Christians know much more about the real meaning of the Tanach than Jews ever have known.

~37

"That's why we need to read our bible. In Exodus 33:3 we see God's answer for thou art a stiffnecked people. Sounds like a lot of us today? We can see by past examples of what is pleasing to God."

Well, thank the Holy One that the textual literalists posting to this thread are not "stiffnecked people." Only those who point out their obvious errors are properly so described.

~41

Thank you, and Amen !!!

~44
"I am saying this as lovingly as I can (if you could see my heart): You make some very good points often, but because they always seem to be done with defensiveness (as Thomas mentioned), it is hard to have a conversation (text) with someone who seems to attack everything."

I agree completely. Anyone who would suggest that the Bible (in its KJV translation, of course) is not the syllable by syllable word of G-d is defensive and stiffnecked and an attack dog and will burn eternally in hell fire, and....... But I forgot, you welcome people with such views..........

49: "Anyone who would suggest that the Bible (in its KJV translation, of course) is not the syllable by syllable word of G-d is defensive and stiffnecked and an attack dog and will burn eternally in hell fire"

Your second post and you are already getting defensive- I don't know if you know how to respond in any other fashion. I stated my point in my first post (and will not allow you to control the contents of this thread). I never stated that I believe the KJV translation is "the syllable by syllable word of God." I said (in my opinion based on my personal study of it) I believe it to be the most reliable translation. This is what I mean: I never stated that you would "burn eternally in hell fire" by not believing the KJV translation syllable by syllable. I never stated that you would "burn eternally in hell fire" because you are defensive, stiffnecked or an attack dog. The only statement I have made about anybody burning in Hell fire is those who reject Christ in this life (his/her lifetime), and I never directed this viewpoint at you personally. These are not realistic (nor true) statements that I have ever made. I am well aware of your lack of praise for the Holy Bible (no matter what translation), and that is fine (that is your belief), but why do you feel the need to attack what others believe.

If you don't believe it to be true, why do you feel you must try and get everyone else to believe it isn't true? If you are that strong in your beliefs that Christianity is not valid or is false, why are you so troubled when others believe it to be true? I don't believe I have ever attacked what you believe- I have just stated what I believe. I do welcome your views, but I cannot (and will not) verbally argue with you about every thing you find wrong with my beliefs- it's not worth it!

As I said in post 15, I found a reading-through-the-Bible schedule that seemed really fresh and exciting to me. Each day of the week focuses on a different portion of the Bible. Sunday:Epistles; Monday: Law; Tuesday: History; followed by Psalms, Poetry, Prophesy and Gospel the remaining days.

And then I made it a bit more complicated. I have about 40 books in Concordia Publishing House (Lutheran)'s series of People's Bible Commentaries. I decided to read the commentaries I have as I read the scripture. This has turned into a several hour read each night as I make my way through the introductory material in each book.

Fuzzi invited me to share what I'm reading so here's a relevant bit from the first part of the Histories as to why anyone should undertake daily Bible reading--Joshua 1:8. "Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it."

And part of the commentary written by Adolph L Harstad: "When the Torah is still fresh from the hands of Moses, God directs Joshua to it alone for authority and success.

"'Scripture Alone' is not just an idea hatched during the Reformation three thousand years after Moses. It is the Lord's principle set in place for the prosperity of his people as soon as the Bible began to appear."

>51 streamsong: I've hesitated before jumping in with a comment on the controversy of the last few posts, but streamsong, you say "scripture alone" and yet you also say that you are reading bible commentaries as part of your reading of scripture. Actually that's what most of us do. When we read scripture we take into account the commentaries of others, learned and holy people who have brought their own wisdom and scholarship to the study of the bible. I had always thought that was the normal thing to do, but it's a concept that seems to be challenged by some.

Never thought I would find myself coming to lawecon's defence (not that he needs my help!), but I wouldn't say he is being defensive. I would say he is (as usual) being aggressive. However the point he makes about understanding the background to the bible is in part what I presume you will find in your Lutheran bible commentaries. Similarly, your division of the bible into genres of literature (epistles, law, history, psalms, poetry, prophecy and gospels) appears to be in line with his point that the bible is not one continuous book.

>51 streamsong: Yup, I noted the somewhat ironic dialectic of a commentator saying 'Scripture Alone".

Since this is a Lutheran commentary, I believe it comes from a very 'Everyone needs to read the Bible for himself' position.

I believe you're right that most of the people on this thread use some sort of commentaries or concordance when they are reading. Several of the people on this thread are very well educated in the Bible. I believe that the population of LT and of the Christianity group are a well read, intelligent group. We're a bookish bunch or we wouldn't have gravitated to LT. And yet I have no doubt that meditating on a chapter or verse can bring wisdom, too.

>54 John5918: Thanks, streamsong. No disagreement there.

"Never thought I would find myself coming to lawecon's defence (not that he needs my help!), but I wouldn't say he is being defensive. I would say he is (as usual) being aggressive."

Exactly correct. It is not a wholly positive trait which I have admitted to many times in the past. It arises from my philosophic training (as a Popperian) and my professional commitments of the the past 25 years (as a commercial litigator).

I am sorry if it offends people or if they imagine that I am somehow "defensive" (chuckle), but even more basic than the excuses I just mentioned, it has to do with my general orientation that exhaults getting nearer to truth through vigorous debate rather than "being nice."

Many of us have had this discussion before. Some participants in these religious groups and in the political groups on Librarything view this activity as a "chat room" (that is, as purely social interaction not meant to be taken seriously). I view it as very serious exchange over very important topics that are central to way we live our lives and order our society. (I suppose it will not surprise anyone that when I was a very young man and still a Christian, I was a Methodist. Methodists are, of course, humorless and dour - traits that I do not view as completely negative, even today.)

51: Great points, streamsong.

52: "I would say he is (as usual) being aggressive."

I could not disagree with this assessment. And I used the word defensive becasue someone else used that same word (and it seem to fit to a large degree).

(57) thomas, thank you SO much for sharing that testimony of salvation!

I love how the Lord works in people's lives, to show them of Him, and what they need to do.

Back in (42), john said "It might not seem earth-shattering to some, but to a naive person (religiously speaking) back in 1997- I was amazed that I could talk with someone in another state, another country (or listen to someone on the radio) and have the same understanding and interpreation as they did (even though I had been a Christian for such a short period of time). "

That is absolutely true! I am sitting here, grinning like a Cheshire Cat, and rejoicing over your story, because I can tell it is from God, the same God, Lord and Saviour that I worship, that saved even ME!

I can't tell you but I think you might know how much of a blessing you people have already been to me, and not me alone I am sure!

FYI, I use commentaries, but the final authority is the Bible, God's word.

As a wise preacher once said "The Bible sheds a lot of light on the commentaries..." :D

55: "Exactly correct. It is not a wholly positive trait which I have admitted to many times in the past. It arises from my philosophic training (as a Popperian) and my professional commitments of the the past 25 years (as a commercial litigator).

I am sorry if it offends people or if they imagine that I am somehow "defensive" (chuckle), but even more basic that the excuses I just mentioned, it has to do with my general orientation that exhaults getting nearer to truth through vigorous debate rather than "being nice."

Thank you for this information about yourself; I realize that we can't explain every one of our traits everytime we meet someone (especially in a thread) where so many people are involved. As I stated in response to johnthefireman: Whether you are described as lawecon the divider, lawecon the great, lawecon the watchdog, lawecon the great debater, matters not to me.

My point is that fuzzi started a post that placed others together who have a desire to read and study God's Word. And while all are welcome, my only concern is that if you don't have that "desire to read and study God's Word," why would you enter a thread such is this one? I am sure others would agree, we welcome everyone but the desire is to discuss what the thread is called- "Reading Your Bible Through in a Year." I just ask you to respect those who come to this thread for that purpose (to be encouraged and edified), and leave your prejudices of the Bible at the (thread) door.

Thank you for your consideration.

(51) streamsong, thanks for sharing what you've been reading. I don't think it's necessary to stick to any order of books read, just that you're reading God's word daily.

Joshua 1:8 is one example of God letting us know that we need to read His word on a regular basis.

Jesus spoke about reading/searching in John 5:39 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. "

The Old Testament testifies of Christ and His coming.

Another example is of the Bereans, who daily searched the Scriptures (not commentaries) to see if what they were being taught was truth!

"And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few." (Acts 17:10-12)

I read Genesis 18-24 this morning...I read more than three chapters, partly because it was quiet in the kitchen, with just me and the dog and a cup of freshly brewed coffee... and will comment on them a little later.

"Sin keeps me from God's word, but God's word keeps me from sin!"

56/57: Great testimony and you make some good points!

60: Amen, fuzzi! What an encouragement it is to be around like-minded people who have had the same experience as I have had. It something that only those who have experienced it (a shared experience) can have.

63: Amen, great points fuzzi!

Just general information for all:

I do use commentaries, likewise, as others do within this thread. I believe the comments of myself and one or two others have been misconstrued. When I say (and others who agree can chime in) I believe the Word of God is the final authority; I mean God's words are the final authority. I believe the Bible as we have it today is a reliable translation of the original manuscripts and I believe the KJV to be the best translation. This is not to condemn other versions (while there are some major differences within the more modern translations that I find troubling). I do not want to make this thread to be about what version each individual uses, because even the New Living translation (which was never claimed to be a version) has the true antidote for salvation and how Christians should live.

I believe God's Word is the final authority and most things within His Word can be understood quite clearly without the help of commentaries. I always read God's Word myself (meditating on the meaning of the verses at hand, first), however, after doing so I like to read what others have said about Scripture for two reasons: First, there are many others who have greater knowledge and wisdom than myself (based on experience or God giving them a greater understanding of Scripture than He gives me). I like to learn from others who have wisdom or understanding that I do not have. Secondly, I desire to see if my "interpretation" lines up with others who I have consulted in the past who seem to have a God-given ability to explain things in ways that others may not see. The interesting thing is that it is amazing how I can consult 3-5 different commentaries on the same verse and (while not in 100% agreement on every point), they are very similar with only minor differences on lesser matters of importance. In other words, I like to know that my interpretation is not far-fetched and straying from God's true teaching (because I do respect the men who authored the said commentaries). I believe this is one reason why we have so many cults (and adherents to cults) today. You have one man/woman who reads God's Word and interprets it completely different than it has ever been interpreted on many different topics (and verses); this person takes "his interpretation" and creates a new take on the Bible (and there are always plenty who will follow this type of individual). They speak with authority on a subject which is very convincing (and those who are either weak in their faith, due to their own lack of reading their Bible or someone who isn't a Christian at all) are easily led astray. I don't want my interpretation to be of "a private interpretation" (2nd Peter 1:20-21) and lead me astray.

An example I would give is that let's say that I read a portion of Scripture and interpret it's meaning in a certain way. I then go to a commentary that I respect to see how that person interpreted it (and his metods of interpretation). Let's also say that my interpretation is far off from this commentator (which I must say doesn't happen often), but it has happened at times. I then will seek more help from other's commentaries. If there is consensus in dissagreement for that portion of Scripture I would make that disparity known if I were to speak to someone else about it. I must say that most of the commentaries that I search for better understanding or for confirmation are well trusted by many.

In the end, the possibility does exist that I (and and those who I respect could be wrong in their interpretation), but I trust them to be right. If I use a commentary from someone who I have never used before, the fact that they disagree with my interpretation will not be my basis for using them again or not. If their overall interpretations seem to be in line with the clear verses of Scripture, I will most likely trust them on their interpretation of the harder verses to understand. I would even go so far as to say- If someone does not use commentaries at all they are possibly setting themselves up to be deceived (and led astray) by the Devil.

After all has been said and done, that is why our beliefs in Christianity are called "our faith," because we are trusting in Jehovah God to keep His Word safe and secure from those who want to tear it down, destroy or abuse it. It can be guaranteed when a relatively (seemingly) clear verse of Scripture is completely misinterpreted by a commentary, many others will likely be also. Just some thoughts.

68: Very well said, Thomas. That is something that I have given some thought to and I must say that it is hard to fully get a thorough understanding of. Actually you came to mind when I was thinking about persons whom God has blessed with an ability to understand God's Word and explain it. You explain your thoughts very well, also. You leave no room for misunderstanding and I appreciate that. God has truly blessed you in sharing your wisdom with others.

Good posts, thanks!

Busy day, and I'm out of time, but I'll be back to 'talk' about my current Bible reading.

Anyone else?

70: We will see (text) you soon.

~67

I believe the Bible as we have it today is a reliable translation of the original manuscripts and I believe the KJV to be the best translation.

==================================

Presumably you know that those are claims about facts, and it is, thus, not sufficient to say "I believe." If belief were enough we would still be burning and drowning witches. So, on what evidence and reasoning do you base your beliefs concerning those two topics?

72: Actually "belief" does enter this picture, because none of us (you included) were not around hundreds (or thousands) of years ago to know one way or the other. The only way one can truly "know" he/she is right is when we have first hand evidence of the facts. As I have stated before, without going into much detail, in the studies that I have done the KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus (which as I understand based on the sources that I checked) was a more reliable manuscript and did not have the contradictions that other manuscripts contained. Based on this "fact," this is one reason why I believe the KJV is the most reliable; I would also say (this may not always be entirely true, but there is warrant) that the "fact" that the KJV translation was the only translation in the last 400+ years (until around 100 years ago), is also evidence to me that it is not only a reliable (but the most reliable translation); also, when there have been "newer" translations out on the market, the KJV always makes its way back to the top (as far as the number sold). While the last point does not solely mean that it is the most reliable (while I believe it can be attested to that fact), it does show the longevity of the KJV.

"As I have stated before, without going into much detail, in the studies that I have done the KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus (which as I understand based on the sources that I checked) was a more reliable manuscript and did not have the contradictions that other manuscripts contained."

You say that as if contradictions were a bad thing.

There are many different ways of reading the Bible. The advantage of reading it through, in its entirety, is that you get a broader view. The bible was written over several centuries, by many different authors, and they each had their own perspective. Most of us Christians usually read just a few verses or chapters at a time, or one book. But that gives you only one perspective. Also, we tend to read the same parts of the Bible every time, and skip books like Numbers or Deuteronomy, which seem dull or irrelevant to us. But reading the Bible through in a year forces the reader to read ALL of the Bible.

Each of us has his or her own spiritual journey. Don't disparage others because they choose to study the Bible in a way you don't.

Let's not forget, either, that much of the Bible was not written by great scholars. Many of the prophets were simple shepherds, while Jesus' disciples were, as everyone knows, fishermen and other common men. Neither do you have to be a great scholar to read and understand the Bible. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of scripture and the Holy Spirit guides the reader, too.

~75

Certainly better than many of the other opinions being expressed in this thread - but perhaps a few twicks would be better still. For instance, it wasn't "over several centuries," it was over several millennia. The earliest core of the Torah is probably at least 3,000 years old. The "Old Testament" otherwise was written in Palestine, in Persia, in Babylon and probably elsewhere. The New Testament was probably written outside of Palestine or in the Greek colonies in Palestine. Very little of it was apparently written by those fluent in Aramaic or Hebrew The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Generally, the writers of the books of the Bible and their subsequent redactors had in mind purposes that were much more specific than their purported "inspiration" by G-d.


==============================

Each of us has his or her own spiritual journey. Don't disparage others because they choose to study the Bible in a way you don't.

===============================

Which would be just fine if the Bible were the sort of book that the Muslims claim the Qur'an exemplifies - a book written directly by G-d and only transmitted by his angel and Prophet. The Bible isn't that, and very few Christians would claim such a status for it. Further, most of the posters to this thread want to claim that the Bible is literal history. (E.G., So the dead arose and walked into town when Jesus was crucified. They did? Really?)

So the Bible is not just a "faith document" and not much of anyone seems to be inclined to take it that way. Well, most "not anyone".

~73

Actually "belief" does enter this picture, because none of us (you included) were not around hundreds (or thousands) of years ago to know one way or the other. The only way one can truly "know" he/she is right is when we have first hand evidence of the facts. As I have stated before, without going into much detail, in the studies that I have done the KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus (which as I understand based on the sources that I checked) was a more reliable manuscript and did not have the contradictions that other manuscripts contained. Based on this "fact," this is one reason why I believe the KJV is the most reliable

=================================

I think you need to do considerably more reading, and this time include some nonfundamentalist nonevangelical sources. If you will list the sources you are presently relying on, I'm certain we can have a very interesting discussion on them. Hopefully, none of them, this time, include a translation of Ben Hur.

Incidentally, since you seem to be uncertain about the so-called Textus Receptus, this may help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus You will note, of course, that there have been literally hundreds of manuscripts of parts of the Bible discovered since this work was compiled, not the least of which are the Dead Sea Scrolls - most of the components of which are much older than any previous manuscripts we have. The texts I'm referring to are in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew - not in Latin - and they long predate the Vulgate. But, hey, it really all comes down to "a matter of faith," not of fact. At least for some people.

~62

My point is that fuzzi started a post that placed others together who have a desire to read and study God's Word. And while all are welcome, my only concern is that if you don't have that "desire to read and study God's Word," why would you enter a thread such is this one? I am sure others would agree, we welcome everyone but the desire is to discuss what the thread is called- "Reading Your Bible Through in a Year." I just ask you to respect those who come to this thread for that purpose (to be encouraged and edified), and leave your prejudices of the Bible at the (thread) door.

================================

Well, it may surprise you, but I regularly "read and study" the Bible. In fact, I would suspect that I read more articles and books on parts of the Bible in one year than you have ever read. (Would you like a reading list of some of the more significant titles? Please visit my library on librarything.)

The difference between my approach and your approach seems to be that I do not confuse the present text(s) we have of the various parts of the Bible with an idol. Nor do I fail to recognize that there is no "the Bible" as a unitary thing handed down from heaven and written by G-d himself. There is, rather, an anthology of texts, each written in a different time and in a different place by persons with widely varied concerns and perspectives. If we want to understand what we are reading, and not just chant and fall on our faces in front of THE BOOK, we have to try to unpack those various aspects of the many and varied parts of the Bible.

Now, of course, we all have prejudices. I have a prejudice, for instance, against idol worshipers. But it is rather over the top to claim that the person advocating for many dimensioned critical study of a text, in the same way that every other historical text has been studied for the last 300 years, is the one who is prejudiced, and the ones whose approach to the text is to worship it and chant it are unprejudiced. You might like this book, which explores similar usages of common terms 1984

Now if you would like to pick a particular book of the Bible to address, I'm sure we can get down to the business of figuring out what it really says, means, and what problems it was written to address, rather than the business of worshiping the idol and trying to burn out the heretic.

76: "For instance, it wasn't 'over several centuries,' it was over several millennia. The earliest core of the Torah is probably at least 3,000 years old."

Since the Torah was clearly already written by the start of the Common Era (i.e., approx. 2,000 years ago), the process of writing it would still probably have taken less than a single millennium. The entire Christian Bible, both Testaments, was compiled by (long before, really) the time of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. So I don't know where you're getting "several millennia" from.

75: Amen, madpoet, great points.

78: You are proving my point. A few Christians who believe reading the Bible on a daily basis get together on a thread on LT to try and discuss what they read and how it is helping them and another comes in just to argue about everything they post.

"Well, it may surprise you, but I regularly "read and study" the Bible. In fact, I would suspect that I read more articles and books on parts of the Bible in one year than you have ever read. (Would you like a reading list of some of the more significant titles? Please visit my library on librarything.) "

First of all, congratulations, you very well have read more than I have in my entire lifetime (in one year). I have commended you on your vast array of knowledge, however, as someone else has stated, it's not all about knowledge (and it's not all about how much you read). Congratulations again on regularly reading and studying the Bible- that's commendable. Do you read the Bible to "find all the contradictions in it" or do you read it to receive help from God? Your motive for reading will greatly effect what you get out of it. This thread was set up in order for those who seek God's wisdom and direction from His Word, not for those who desire to deny it's infallibilty, or deny it's power. If this is what you believe, why don't you start your own thread (and call it something like, "Why the Bible is untrustworthy and full of errors?" Then you others will have a thread that you can criticize the Bible to your heart's desire. Just a question.

Instead of finding fault in what everyone else says, why not just post how the Bible has helped you (and encouraged you), if that be the case.

74: Yes, cbjanning, I believe contradicitons are a bad thing (in this case).

Note to all: I came (at the request) to this thread in order to discuss reading the Bible through in a year. I went to the last thread to discuss "What is/isn't a Christian." That thread (and now this one) is discussing everything, but what the stated topic is. As for me, I will only be discussing the current topic of "reading the Bible through in a year." God bless each one who's goal is to read more of God's Word this year and gain something positive from it.

>78 lawecon:

You might like this book, which explores similar usages of common terms 1984

As an avid Orwell reader, I'm curious for you to elucidate this connection. As far as I can tell, Orwell's political and literary usages privilege issues and "terms" other than biblical exegesis. But I'm all ears if you can say more.

I read 1 Chronicles 29:1-14 today and the verses were in reference to giving to the Lord's work. Just some thoughts from these verses:

"Then the people rejoiced, for that they offered willingly, because with perfect heart they offered willingly to the LORD: and David the king also rejoiced with great joy" (verse 9).

The Bible teaches that we should be a "cheerful" (2 Corinthans 9:7) giver and to give "willingly." These characteristics are what God desires for His children.

And while the fact that God commands us and encourages us to give in this way- the reason is found in verse 14.

"But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee. "

We should give, not only because God commands us to but because all that we have comes from the "Father of lights" (James 1:17).

The greatest motive for giving is because we "love" Him.

Thanks for your input, madpoet.

I want to give, I don't consider it a burden. I believe that when you really seek the Lord and His will in your life, the things that are hard for you (witnessing, tithing, etc) will become easier, a joy and a blessing.

Now, for those who are posting questions that are not about their Bible reading, I would like to point out that this thread is for those who are trying to read their Bible all the way through.

I would gently suggest that if someone has a question about doctrine or manuscript evidence, please start a thread elsewhere in the Christianity group for that purpose. I'm sure all of us who are using this thread as a help in our Bible reading/study would appreciate fewer interruptions and derailments from the original purpose of this discussion.

Thank you. :)

86: Amen, fuzzi!

87: Interesting quotes, thomas.

87: I believe you might place Benjamin Franklin in this same category with Albert Einstein; he never claimed to be a Christian (that I am aware of), but he certainly had great respect for Deity (whether he realized it was Jehovah God or not).

>85 jntjesussaves: Good point, about giving. The Bible emphasizes repeatedly that the spirit and motive of giving to God is more important than the amount (for example, the 'widow's mite'). In Malachi 1:13, the Israelites are rebuked by God for giving the required offerings grudgingly:

"And you say, 'What a burden!' and you sniff at it contemptuously," says the LORD Almighty."

Sometimes I feel that way about giving tithe. I start to think about all the things I could do with that 10%... and then I don't give in the spirit I should. That's something I'm still struggling with.

90: Amen, madpoet!

I feel your pain; I believe most Christians at one time or another are hesitant (or grudging) when they give, but it is amazing what God can do for us with the 90% (when we obey Him with the 10%). I also don't think we realize all that God gives us; we often think about the money we make or we have given to us, but so often we overlook the fact that we have a healthy body (and therefore don't have to pay doctor bills as a result) or we are given something that we need and would have had to pay for it had it not been given to us. I believe all Christians can attest to these types of situations where God blesses us so much more than we realize. And to think these blessings are on top of His greatest gift (...salavation). God bless you, madpoet. I always think of Romans 7-8 when I struggle with something, knowing that the Apostle Paul had similar struggles.

~79

You know, you and Tim must be brothers. Neither of you can read. I said, and you quoted, "The earliest core of the Torah...." Now, read what you wrote in response.

~81

"Do you read the Bible to "find all the contradictions in it" or do you read it to receive help from God?"
==============================

You also seem to be having trouble reading. I just told you the manner in which I read the Bible in Post #78, the post you are responding to in your Post #81. You may note, it is neither to worship the Bible nor to "find contradictions in it." It is to actually understand what it says. Apparently that is not included among your concerns when you read the Bible.

====================================

"Your motive for reading will greatly effect what you get out of it. This thread was set up in order for those who seek God's wisdom and direction from His Word, not for those who desire to deny it's infallibilty, or deny it's power."

======================================

Your sense of property rights is, ah, greatly misaligned. Neither you nor Fuzzi own this thread. In fact, you have no ownership rights at all in this context.

My question to you was directly relevant to this thread. Let me repeat: "Why do you want to 'read the Bible through in one year'?" What is the objective of such an enterprise?

So far, you have done nothing to answer that question and everything to just get me to shut up and go away. Find a another way to deal with a question that is difficult for you.

~84

A third nonreader. Go back to Post #78, the post you are inquiring about, and read it again. Then think about the term "newspeak" in connection with the term "prejudice." (Of course, you may also have to read the post I was responding to in order to figure it out, but see if you can manage.)

Enough derailments for now...

...let's get back on track!

Genesis 18 is the chapter about the angelic beings that visit with Abraham.

I especially like verse 14:

"Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son."

Woo!

More in a few, duty calls...

~95

So, you see "the topic" of reading the Bible as quoting snippets from the Bible without context or meaning? Got it. It is nice to have "faith," isn't it? Things become so simple and clear with faith. http://www.shelfari.com/groups/29350/discussions/76359/Faith-vs-Religion

lawecon. Why don't you go back to the Land Of OZ and stay there. Or better yet, start your own thread. You can call it "I AM A MISERABLE LEFT WING GUY".

TRIPLEHHH, how are you coming along with your Bible reading? :)

Titus 3:9

A few years ago I read it through in a little more than a year. This Jan 01, I started again using Bible Gateway mixing OT and NT. It is much easier that reading straight through and still accomplishes reading it in a year. I am on Gen 23-24 and Matt. 7 today. I like it better because this means I can be accoutable and still work on my Bible Study on another subject without loosing my place. As you read, please add prayers for our leadership and this country on a daily basis.

>92 lawecon:

If the earliest core of the Torah, according to you, may be as little as 3,000 years old, then everything else must be more recent. Since the Torah itself was complete long before the rest of the Bible was compiled, we're not necessarily talking about more than a few centuries for the Torah's composition.

Rudth, glad to have you with us! :)

I agree that prayers for all those in authority are needed, and should be required no matter how we feel about those in leadership.

"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." (1 Timothy 4:1-2)

>95 fuzzi: That picture is sacrilege to an avowed railway (railroad to those of you in north America) enthusiast and steam footplateman. At least, fuzzi, you could give us the caption to that picture so we know which poor locomotive came to grief, when, where and how.

~97

Let's see. My first political association in 1964 was with the John Birch Society. Really haven't changed that much since those days. But I guess what constitutes "left wing" and "right wing" for the real crazies in this society has changed quite a bit.

~102

Yes, it is clear heresy. I recommend burning of the poster to purify her soul.

(102) John, you can find that picture by going on Google images, and typing in 'derailment'.

My dh is also an enthusiast, and I love trains myself. We have 'N' gauge model trains that have not been set up yet. One day...

Oops, now I'm derailing the thread again, sorry folks... :D

Genesis 19
The men of Sodom were wicked (v7) and when two angels came to Lot's house for the night, the men of Sodom surrounded his house and demanded that he bring out the men so they could "know" them.

God then rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying the cities and the inhabitants.

Genesis 20
The first mention of 'prophet' is of Abraham, by God. In verse 9 it is apparent that others not chosen of God were aware of 'sin', knowing that doing sin would bring punishment.

Genesis 21
Isaac is conceived and born. Hagar and Ishmael are cast out, but God makes provision for and protects them.

Genesis 22
First mention of 'love', and it is the love of a father for his son.

God gives Abraham a trial, and tells him to sacrifice his 'only son' Isaac (Ishmael doesn't count).

Abraham trusts in God, and does what God tells him to do, but is stopped at the last moment from killing Isaac.

Something I found really interesting is verse 8:

"And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together."

Notice the word 'himself'. This verse can be read two ways: either God will provide a lamb for the offering, or God will provide Himself as the Lamb! And we know He did. :)

Genesis 23
Sarah dies, and Abraham buys land with a cave for a burial place.

Genesis 24
Abraham does not want Isaac to take a wife from the local women, but sends a servant to find a woman for his son. Rebekah agrees to come back to Canaan, and becomes Isaac's wife.

Genesis 25
Abraham sends all his offspring away before he dies, and gives all he has to Isaac.

Verse 8:
"Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people."

First mention of 'ghost' and the context is dying. Ghost is often used to describe spirit, so perhaps 'giving up the ghost' means the spirit leaves, as is apparently described in Ecclesiastes 12:7 "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

I also find the term 'gathered to his people' interesting as well.

Rebekah has twins, Esau and Jacob. Esau is a hunter, but Jacob does not, he prefers to stay close to home. One day Esau comes in from hunting and is very hungry, so he sells his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of beans!

"And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob." Genesis 25:33

Genesis 26
Verse 2: "don't go to Egypt!"

Esau marries two Hittite women, which grieves his parents.

...to be continued...

93: "My question to you was directly relevant to this thread. Let me repeat: "Why do you want to 'read the Bible through in one year'?"

You actually quoted my response to your question when you commented on my comment. "This thread was set up in order for those who seek God's wisdom and direction from His Word." I would also add another reason for me reading the Bible is to get to know God (through His Son, Jesus Christ) better.

99: Amen and welcome, Rudth!

100: cbjanning, I believe no matter what evidence is produced- our evidence will be wrong (and lacking) according to some.

101: Amen, fuzzi!

105: Great synopsis, fuzzi.

~106

The Bible Made Impossible

I read some interesting verses today, Psalm 33:10-15. The point of the devotion was summed up in the author's comment, "Some of the great advances in God's plans have come through "interruptions" to the normal routine." This is interestingly true. We see many examples of "interruptions" that God allows in our lives that cause us to make corrections, changes of direction, etc. A small poem in relation to this topic goes, "Lord, if I'm feeling rushed today, I need Your eyes to help me see, That when an interruption comes, It is an opportunity" (Sper). And also, "Look for God's purpose in your next interruption."

Two verses that stood out among these I read were verse 12: "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance."

Rudth, this I believe goes right in line with your comment about our Nation needing prayer and God's mighty hand to lead our Nation. How simple, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord." America has seen God's blessing for many years, but if she doesn't change her ways- she will sadly see God's judgment.

The second verse was verse 14: "From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth."

We see God's omniscience and omnipresence in this verse. Nothing is done, whether good or bad, without Jehoavah God's watchful presence.

I will also mention a great quote I read today:

Inside the will of God there is no failure. Outside the will of God there is no success. Benard Edinger

God's blessings!

Thanks, John, enjoyed your thoughts on the Psalms.

As I read, I thought of a verse from Psalms:

"The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD'S throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men." (Psalm 11:4)

The Lord does indeed see everything, and knows the thoughts and intents of the heart...the inner man in each of us.

I am thankful for His mercy towards me.

"The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good." (Proverbs 15:3)

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 14:12)

What a mighty God we serve! :)

111: I believe you are making mention of this book to help me see that there are those who don't believe we should take the Bible literally. While this is each person's choice, I choose to accept it as literal. And I believe myself to be in very good company with those who do take the Bible literally.

From now on lawecon, I will be glad to respond back to you with any questions or comments in regards to "reading the Bible through in a year."

114: Amen, fuzzi. Great additions.

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:6-7)

Heading back to Genesis for a few more chapters...see y'all tomorrow!

And I hope to see more people's input on what they are reading. :)

117: Have a good night, fuzzi.

>105 fuzzi: I used to think, because of Genesis 19, that the sin Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed for was the sexual perversion of the inhabitants. But then I read Ezekiel 16:49.

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

While the people of Sodom were sexually depraved, it appears to be just one aspect of a completely immoral and selfish society... Perhaps more a symptom of their moral decline, than the cause of it.

"arrogant, overfed and unconcerned" also hits a bit closer to home... It could be a description of our present society, in North America.

119: madpoet, great correlation! I agree whole-heartedly with your premise.

~115

Several points:

(1) Several people above, and the book I just linked to, are trying to explain to you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to "take the Bible literally". The reason for that is, regardless of the type of text you are talking about in the Bible - a parable, a narrative about a family, a song, etc. - different people will perceive different things in the words - to say nothing about the nuances that, say, exist in the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek text that do not convey well in some English translations. That has been what has kept the Bible "alive" for so many people through out the ages. It isn't a Dick and Jane reader. It isn't flat. It isn't Joe Friday who wants "just the facts, ma'am." Hence, when you tell such people that you "take the Bible literally," the position of such people is not that they agree or disagree, but that they wonder if you know how demeaning you are being to the Bible text.

(2) My position, although apparently you refuse to read what I've repeatedly said to you, is actually nearer to your position than it is to (1). I find (1) to be a bit overly relativistic, post-rational and literary (the sort of thing that a confused philosopher or an English teacher might say). I think that it is possible, at least in theory, that if we knew enough about the society in which a given Bible writer lived and about the biography of that particular Bible writer that we could really figure out exactly what he was getting at. However, in most instances, our knowledge is very deficient. Hence, the best we can do is make an educated guess.

To say, however, that we don't know everything about those questions is not, however, to say that we know nothing at all and that our guesses are a matter of completely free interpretation. We know enough, for instance, to know that "You shall not murder" is "you shall not murder," not "you shall not kill."

(3) As I've hinted at several times before but will now come out and say, I find the position of many "plain meaning" people that take positions very much like you take to be incredibly arrogant. It isn't that such people make the error in (1), it is that they realize that the Bible text is rich and open to many alternative interpretations, but they also believe that they "talk to G-d" who tells them what THE CORRECT interpretation REALLY IS. I don't recall if the discussion over that attitude (psychosis?) occurred in this thread or another contemporary thread, but it really is a dangerous and incredibly egotistical attitude - hence, the distinction between religion and "faith" in the essay I linked to above.

I just started Matthew when I discovered this thread. I have read 16 chapters so far:)
After I finish Matthew, I will start Genesis.

Please give us your insight on Matthew, TRIPLEHHH.

Reading one's Bible through in a year doesn't have to be Genesis through Revelation.

We're here to encourage and learn from one another. :)

We're here to encourage and learn from one another. :)

====================

ROTFL

(119) I agree that the people of Sodom were 'not good'.

But let's also remember the next verse in Ezekiel 16 (verse 50):

"And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

See also Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 for what the Lord thinks is abomination.

I totally agree, though, with your thoughts about our present society, here in the USA and around the world. There's too much of "Me! Me! Me!" and not enough compassion.

When we look at sin, we see how it is "Me first, everyone else last (including God)!"

"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." (Psalm 9:17)

I totally agree, though, with your thoughts about our present society, here in the USA and around the world. There's too much of "Me! Me! Me!" and not enough compassion.

When we look at sin, we see how it is "Me first, everyone else last (including God)!"

==============================

Amen, Fuzzi, Amen !!! And it is amazing how that starts with most peoples' intellectual preconceptions (e.g., I may not be G-d, but I AM an expert in everything - particularly the proper interpretation of ancient texts - and, of course, I talk with and speak for G-d).

108: "cbjanning, I believe no matter what evidence is produced- our evidence will be wrong (and lacking) according to some."

Okay, I give. How does that relate to anything I said?

121: " My position, although apparently you refuse to read what I've repeatedly said to you, is actually nearer to your position than it is to (1). I find (1) to be a bit overly relativistic, post-rational and literary (the sort of thing that a confused philosopher or an English teacher might say). I think that it is possible, at least in theory, that if we knew enough about the society in which a given Bible writer lived and about the biography of that particular Bible writer that we could really figure out exactly what he was getting at."

Scripture, in the Anglican tradition, is considered to contain "all that is necessary for salvation." The intentions of the writers of Scriptures does not.

Thanks Fuzzi for starting this thread. As I said before, I really don't have the time to read that many chapters a day (well, let's be honest, I do have the time, but wouldn't have the time left for anything else). But I've been inspired to get back to my daily bible reading notes. I may even post a few bits on here...

My pleasure, eclecticdodo.

Read as you can (I have to force myself at times, too, life is busy!) and let us know what you find, interesting 'bits', insight, etc.

I'm trying to not let 'the world' dictate how much time I spend in God's word. However, last night I went to bed, and fell asleep before reading much of anything!

See you later!

(113) jntjesussaves wrote Inside the will of God there is no failure. Outside the will of God there is no success. Benard Edinger

Oh, that's good.

Have a good evening, brother, and all!

~128

That is nice, but this thread is about Scriptures and their meaning, not about salvation.

121: lawecon, you make some very interesting points and you explain your thoughts well.

122/123: I have read the Bible through before skipping between the OT and NT; it can be a great change of pace. And as fuzzi mentioned- it matters not where you start, but that we do it.

123: Amen, fuzzi.

127: Never mind, cbjanning.

Just a quote from my devotion today:

What we see of God's provisions teaches us to trust Him for what we cannot see of His purposes.

Amen, John

I wanted to comment on the devotional that I read today; it was on some of my favorite verses in Scripture (Ephesians 2:1-10).

While the obvious implication the author would take was not the way she went, however, I read these verses with added meaning today. Verses 1-3 dealt with what a Christian was like before salvation, before God made him/her "alive" from sin; verses 4-7 deal with God's mercy and great grace that He bestowed upon us in offering salvation; and then you have the crux of salvation:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

These verses show the fruit of a "born-again" believer; we are saved by faith because of God's grace, not according to what we do (good works, baptism, church attendance, obeying the Ten Commandments, etc.). However, as a result of some one being "born-again," their life will show forth good works- of which God has "ordained" (prepared the for us and commands us) that we should walk in them. I am so thankful God didn't require nothing of me to inherit His free gift other than accepting it (because I would have been eternally lost if that had been the case), but He does desire me (and commands me) to follow His teachings once I am saved.

These verses make it pretty clear (in my mind), that "works" (good works) do not save, but are commanded to be followed by Christians. Thank God for His order (salvation, then works) and not man's order (works, then salvation).

See also Titus 3:8. God's blessings to all.

>139 jntjesussaves:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast."

All that puts forth, I think, is a robust anti-Pelagianism, and pretty much everybody agrees that Pelagianism is heresy, that we can't earn our grace. It doesn't answer what to my mind is the real question--what is the character of our response to grace which is constitutive of our justification?

140: Interesting question, cbjanning.

I left off at Genesis 26, but I've read a bit since then.

Genesis 27
Isaac is feeling old, and decides to bless his eldest son, Esau, before he dies. However, his wife Rachel favors Jacob, the younger, and together they plan to get Isaac to bless Jacob again.

Jacob lies to his father by claiming that he is Esau, that God helped him to get the venison quickly, and then again, that he is Esau.

Esau is upset about Jacob getting the blessing, and he lies as well, saying that Jacob took the birthright, when actually Esau sold it for some food (see Genesis 25:33).

Jacob takes off, as he knows Esau is furious and might plot to kill him.

Genesis 28
Jacob goes to his uncle's home, to find a bride. God comes to him in a dream, and tells him that the land will be his, God is going to give it to him (Jacob) and that he will have many descendants. He makes a vow to God, including a promise to tithe.

Esau sees that his parents don't care for his Canaanite brides, so he marries yet another woman, daughter of Ishmael.

Genesis 29
Jacob meets and falls in love with Rachel, his uncle's daughter. He works for seven years but at the wedding, Laban substitutes his elder daughter, Leah. Jacob is not pleased, but promises to work an additional seven years for Rachel.

Leah bears four sons, but Rachel is barren.

Genesis 30
Rachel has her maid bear children for her, and two more sons are born.

Leah then has her maid bear children for her, and an additional two sons are born. She then bears two more sons and a daughter to Jacob.

Finally, God allows Rachel to have a child, and Joseph is born.

Jacob then tricks Laban into giving him flocks and herds.

Genesis 31
Laban and his sons are not pleased with Jacob. Jacob takes his wives, his children, servants and animals and flees, but Laban catches up to them. A truce is declared, Laban leaves and Jacob's caravans continue.

Genesis 32
Jacob sends gifts of goats and cattle to his brother Esau, who is coming to meet him with a large force of men.

Then Jacob wrestles all night with a man, but neither prevailed. Then the 'man' asks Jacob "What is your name?". Jacob, for once, is honest and says "Jacob". The man blesses Jacob, and renames him "Israel". Jacob/Israel calls the place Peniel, because he has seen God face to face, and is preserved.

Out of time, more later. :)

>143 fuzzi: I can never read the story of Esau without thinking of the old Beyond the Fringe sketch featuring Alan Bennett: "But my brother Esau is an hairy man, but I am a smooth man" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOsYN---eGk

95: Is any thing too hard for the LORD?

Healing amputees.

Also iron chariots.

>113 jntjesussaves:
Inside the will of God there is no failure. Outside the will of God there is no success. Benard Edinger

==============

Didn't YHVH try to kill Moses, and fail in Exodus?

142: Thomas, great stuff. I am glad we have the math staff at Drexel University figuring that out, because I know I wouldn't be able to.

There are times we come across verses in God's Word that we just cannot fully comprehend (and I am glad of that), because if I could completely understand God (or His Word), He wouldn't be a very great God. But we know that He is great and His knowledge is so much greater than ours. This is where humanism fails- it has the mistaken belief that if man cannot understand something (or prove something) with his finite understanding- than that makes God irrelevant. As you say, there were times where the Bible makes reference to symbolism (Jesus being "a door" is one). I guess when someone is trying to discount something as untrue, they will attack whatever the can (and anyone can find something to attack). This is proven of God the Creator. He created us, He gave mankind (through Adam) a perfect Earth to live on, and when he fell, He provided a perfect sacrifice for man's sins. For all of this, there are those who attack Him (and His Word). It makes no sense to me, but that is the world we live in.

God bless, Thomas.

143: There is a lot of interesting stuff in those verses, fuzzi. Genesis is a wonderful book.

146: Two keys: "In God's will" there is no failure. Failure and success to man is not necessarily the same to God.

(148) It's all good, John.

And the Bible isn't like other "religious" books, because in it men, even holy and upright men, are shown for what they are: fallen and sinful, no matter how hard they try to be perfect.

God's word doesn't pull punches, but shows the true nature of mankind.

I hope to hear in this thread from others who are reading through their Bible this year, even if they're not reading the same book at the same time, or even if they've fallen behind. It's okay, just keep trying, don't look back. "...forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before," Philippians 3:13

Amen, fuzzi. How true that is.

~147 & 152

"There are times we come across verses in God's Word that we just cannot fully comprehend (and I am glad of that), because if I could completely understand God (or His Word), He wouldn't be a very great God. But we know that He is great and His knowledge is so much greater than ours. This is where humanism fails- it has the mistaken belief that if man cannot understand something (or prove something) with his finite understanding- than that makes God irrelevant."

So, let me get this straight. In your view G-d gave "us" "a book". The book is presumably for a purpose. What could that purpose be? Well, apparently it isn't to instruct us how to live because then it would be clear and simple and definite. It must be something else? What else?

Ah, it must be to make us humble thorough its obscurity.

Yept, that ought to do it.

And a proper reaction, when it seems obscure, is to praise G-d that he has given us an obscure book. Obviously, only G-d could create an obscure book.

(This is yet another example of what has been pointed out over and over and over again above. And what also infects my People's Haredi. You start out trying to find some way to glorify G-d, and because you have apparently relinquished any rationality or desire to learn things about the world, you end up making claims like the above - or the similar claim that the dead arose from their graves and walked among the living when Jesus was crucified. Do you have a clue about what the above sort of claim sounds like to someone who is not obsessed with this rant and chant?)

God's word doesn't pull punches, but shows the true nature of mankind.

=============
That's what I keep saying, but I mean something very different by it;)

This is where humanism fails- it has the mistaken belief that if man cannot understand something (or prove something) with his finite understanding- than that makes God irrelevant.

Your understanding of what humanism is leaves a lot to be desired. But I guess that's to be expected, you revel in ignorance.

>153 lawecon:

Was anyone actually arguing that the obscurity of Scripture actually proved its authority?

Given that what was being argued was quoted, I suppose that you should judge for yourself.

>157 lawecon:

It seems to me to be starting with the assumption that Scripture is authoritative and then going from there.

>161 thomashwalker2: Reminds me of Dom Helder Camara: When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.

Thomas, I do understand what you are referring to. When I was a new Christian, I would get frustrated over why I couldn't understand it all, right away!

Growing in love and knowledge of Christ does not happen immediately...like a baby, a new Christian is first given milk (simple doctrine) and then stronger and stronger food until the babe is a mature Christian and can handle strong meat.

It takes time for prayer and study of God's word to grow a new Christian into a mature one.

Sorry, everyone, I have recently had some bad wisdom teeth surgery and haven't been on the net. I'm back now, though, my mouth is still sore, I just got the stitches out this morning. Thanks, Fuzzi for the nudge....... Update: I am now on chapter 6 of Gen. I know I'm behind but, I am finding that reading/listening to the Bible in a year gives me a lot of time... I do hope to pick up on my speed now that the surgery is over. Great to be a part of this thread...... I sometimes feel that I do need a little nudge now and then.

Woo! Glad to see you, JAN! Sorry to hear about the surgery...and hope you are feeling all better soon.

We all need a nudge sometimes, even I do, hence this thread. But remember, it's not a race or a competition, but a way to encourage and learn from each other.

Onward...

~159

You know, now I'm really confused.

jntjesussaves opined that the Bible was often not understandable by mere human beings. You agreed. But now you say "I want to be perfectly clear as to my intent with the content. I believe God's word should be taken literally." How can you take something literally that you agree is beyond your understanding?

~160

Same problem here. jntjesussaves opined that "There are times we come across verses in God's Word that we just cannot fully comprehend (and I am glad of that), because if I could completely understand God (or His Word), He wouldn't be a very great God." You agreed. But now you say "There is nothing obscure about the Scriptures."

Did you understand what you were agreeing to, or was the urge to "Amen" just irresistible?

Just a thought, on how I'm going to count the books I have read this year. Since I have committed to reading through the entire Bible with the group on this thread, I think I'll count each Book of the Bible as a separate book in my reading life. I don't think this is cheating ........ I believe if one reads/listens/studies through a book of the Bible then.....that indeed justifys one to include it as a separate book read. Hopefully, I will learn much from this endeavor..... The Bible has much to offer everyone, whether a believer or not.

159: "God is much bigger than our minds will ever conceive."

Amen, Thomas!

160: Amen, Thomas!

163: Good points, fuzzi!

164: JaneAustenNut, we all do at times. God bless you for your faithfulness.

168: "The Bible has much to offer everyone, whether a believer or not."

Amen, JaneAustenNut!

I want to briefly comment about my devotion I read today.

I read from John 14:15-24. Several times in these verses Jesus relates our love for Him will be shown by our obedience to Him (verses 15, 21, 23-24). They are quite convicting to me. How often we "insincerely" say I love God (or I love Jesus), yet do our actions (our obedience) line up with this standard? I know for myself, I don't always line up, but this verse is still true. May I love Him as much as I say I do. One quote from this devotional that I want to share is the following:

Jesus made it clear to His disciples that He is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). He is the only way to the Father, and our belief and commitment to Him results in love and obedience- and leads to an eternal home in heaven."

This is a short coming of Christendom in this day I believe- many say they "believe" in Jesus Christ, but few say they are "committed" to Jesus Christ. When you are committed to someone, you commit your being, your life, your existence to them- many today seem to say "I believe in Jesus Christ," but few say "I am committed to Jesus Christ." Sadly, that may be the reason why Jesus tells us in Matthew 7:22, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" And He sadly continues, "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes" (verses 23-29). Interestingly enough, He said the wise man will build his house upon "a rock" (Jesus Christ) and when floods and winds beat down on the house, he will stand, because his foundation was "a rock." The person who "believes" in Christ, yet has no fruit to show their foundation is "a rock," will not do as He commands. This is certainly one of the true signs that someone is committed to Christ- that they obey the commands of Christ (not perfectly, but "committedly" (I don't think that is a word, but the point is made).

Lastly, some great words of wisdom:

Less of self and more of Jesus,
More and more each day like Thee;
Just to live in full surrender
For my Lord who ransomed me.

God's blessings to each of us as we read and study God's Word.

174: leroylmiller- first, welcome to this thread; second, God bless you and thank you for sharing your testimony of how God worked a miracle in your heart. God bless you also for your faithfulness in reading (and sharing) God's Word with others. I never tire hearing of the "life-change" others have had when they met the "Life-Changer."

(174) Leroy, glad to have you with us, and thank you for your testimony.

I can see in your words the knowledge you have acquired through reading God's word: the Scriptures are there, but in your own words. Woo!

(168) JAN, I agree with your idea. Once I finish Genesis, I'll make a note of it in my 75 thread. Right now I'm up to Genesis 40, of which I plan on writing later...I got something out of it that made me go "WOW..." and I'd like to share with y'all. :)

(175) Thanks, John. I was reminded of two things as I read your post:

1. Those who don't have the foundation, who do not find themselves committed to Christ, could be likened to the seed that fell on the stony ground: "Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away." (Matthew 13:5-6)

They were not founded on a rock, our Rock, Jesus Christ, and when things got hot, they withered.

2. Your words of wisdom reminded me of a hymn:

More about Jesus I would know,
More of His grace to others show;
More of His saving fulness see,
More of His love who died for me.

More, more about Jesus,
More, more about Jesus;
More of His saving fulness see,
More of His love who died for me.

More about Jesus let me learn,
More of His holy will discern;
Spirit of God, my teacher be,
Showing the things of Christ to me.

More, more about Jesus,
More, more about Jesus;
More of His saving fulness see,
More of His love who died for me.

More about Jesus, in His Word,
Holding communion with my Lord;
Hearing His voice in every line,
Making each faithful saying mine.

More, more about Jesus,
More, more about Jesus;
More of His saving fulness see,
More of His love who died for me.

More about Jesus on His throne,
Riches in glory all His own;
More of His kingdom’s sure increase;
More of His coming, Prince of Peace.

More, more about Jesus,
More, more about Jesus;
More of His saving fulness see,
More of His love who died for me.

(177) Thomas, AMEN!

~177

Try to focus here. We were talking about interpreting the Bible, not about Jesus. You had agreed with a previous statement by
jntjesussaves in which he stated that:

"There are times we come across verses in God's Word that we just cannot fully comprehend (and I am glad of that), because if I could completely understand God (or His Word), He wouldn't be a very great God."

But you subsequently stated that "There is nothing obscure about the Scriptures."

But now you seem to want to claim that, somehow, Jesus allows you to understand with perfection what is written in the Bible. (Apparently you haven't yet seen fit to reveal this great knowledge that has been sought through the centuries to the rest of mankind, but I'm sure you'll get around to it.)

The question is simple: Which is it. Do you in fact disagree with jntjesussaves and believe that Jesus allows you to perfectly understand what is in the Bible? Or do you not agree and believe that the Bible has been clarified for you through the grace of Jesus? It isn't a difficult question. Could you answer it please?

Genesis 40
I read this, again, this morning, and I neglected to read any more...there was so much there that was speaking to me.

Joseph, the favorite son of Jacob, is a slave in Egypt. He refuses to be seduced by Potipher's wife, and so she makes a false accusation and Joseph, innocent, winds up in prison.

Two of the prisoners have dreams that they want interpreted.

Joseph points out that only God can interpret dreams (Genesis 40:8 "And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you."

So God gives Joseph the interpretations of the dreams: the Butler will be reinstated by Pharaoh in three days, but the Baker will be killed by Pharaoh in three days.

Now, here's where it gets really NEAT and NIFTY:

Joseph is referred to as a type of Christ. He is in prison with two men who are criminals, but he, Joseph, is innocent.

In three days the Butler is reinstated, but the Baker is hanged on a tree.

Who did Jesus have hanging on either side of Him on the cross? Two thieves.

One rejected Christ, and died and went to Hell.

One believed Christ, and died and went to Paradise.

Do you see what I see? Joseph, the Butler and the Baker are a type of Christ, the saved thief and the damned thief.

Isn't that fascinating?

Also, in Genesis 40, Pharaoh has a birthday party. This is the first mention of 'birthday' in the Bible. At this party, someone dies (the Baker).

The second and third mentions of 'birthday' in the Bible are about Herod's birthday party (Matthew 14:6 and Mark 6:21). You know what happens at Herod's party: someone dies (John the Baptist).

I don't think God thinks much of birthday parties...

(181) You're welcome, thomas, but I just copied them from the web.

Still, I love that song. :)

177: Amen, Thomas! Very well said- you have a wonderful way with words.

179: Amen, fuzzi! So very true are your comments.

177: Thomas, I understand you perfectly in what you said in response to lawecon- it makes perfect sense to me. It is amazing how born-again believers can understand each other, but those who seemingly are not born-again believers cannot. You have been crystal clear to me.

180: One question, lawecon, what is your goal? Is your goal for Thomas, fuzzi, myself and others who have similar beliefs to forsake all we believe so that you will feel better about yourself? That seems to be the case. You cannot accept the fact that we just believe differently than you. We do not come to threads (that you are on), to try and draw you away from your beliefs. Why do you seem to be inclined to try and cause us to question what we believe? Again, what is your purpose (motive)?

182: Not to take away from your point, because I agree with your premise (and understand it perfectly). I will say that I do believe that "the Word" (Jesus Christ, spoken of in John 1:1) and "the Word of God" (the written Word) are not synonymous; I believe we run into some issues when we classify them together (as one and the same).

However, I do not want this disagreement to take away from you overall point (which in my mind does not change).

183: Fuzzi, while I have realized many similarities between Joseph and Jesus (as a type of Christ), I never had put that correlation with the butler and baker together, until now. I see the similarities- wonderful insight.

~182

""Try to focus here. We were talking about interpreting the Bible, not about Jesus. "

You do greatly error in your understanding of the Bible. The Bible is The Word of God. The Word of God is Jesus: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us". Your problem is that you think that they are seperate entities. "Eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. " Rev 19:12-13 (KJV)"

As you well know, you are evading a simple and straightforward question. Do your religious beliefs command such evasion of you? Apparently.

Further, your position is ridiculous. Revelations is one of the last of the Christian Scriptures, written somewhere between 70-95 C.E. Yet you would have us believe that it governs the right interpretation of texts that are a thousand years older. Do you really expect anyone to take such a view seriously? But then, again, you are the same poster who believes that the dead arose from their graves and walked among the living upon Jesus' resurrection. Aren't you? It is apparently as impossible to get you to see the absurdity of such a position as it is to get a fundamentalist Muslim to understand that the Qur'an does not teach "the true story" of Jesus.

~187

"177: Thomas, I understand you perfectly in what you said in response to lawecon- it makes perfect sense to me. It is amazing how born-again believers can understand each other, but those who seemingly are not born-again believers cannot. You have been crystal clear to me."

==============================

Well, it is good that you understand that the interpretation of the Bible is crystal clear because of Jesus, when it was you who previously maintained that: "There are times we come across verses in God's Word that we just cannot fully comprehend (and I am glad of that), because if I could completely understand God (or His Word), He wouldn't be a very great God."

Yes, anyone reading you and Thomas can see that you do understand each other, and they can see exactly what that means.

=================================

"180: One question, lawecon, what is your goal? Is your goal for Thomas, fuzzi, myself and others who have similar beliefs to forsake all we believe so that you will feel better about yourself? That seems to be the case. You cannot accept the fact that we just believe differently than you. We do not come to threads (that you are on), to try and draw you away from your beliefs. Why do you seem to be inclined to try and cause us to question what we believe? Again, what is your purpose (motive)?"

It is really quite simple. I believe in trying to discover truth. The first aspect of truth is internal consistency. You, however, apparently believe in other goals and act accordingly.

All one has to do, in your world is say "I believe" and anything thereafter is justified. We had a poster on Librarything a while back who was also very strong in her belief. http://www.librarything.com/topic/127481 You probably would have liked her, because she very sincerely believed. And you probably would have admonished those who interfered with her beliefs. Or maybe not.

What is further astounding is that you demand that everyone else say "Amen" when you behave in such a deplorable fashion. You apparently sincerely believe that by behaving in such a fashion what you are doing is admirable. Sad, very sad.

191: I am not really sure who you are referring to on that thread, because there were 254 posts- who are you referring to?

"It is really quite simple. I believe in trying to discover truth. The first aspect of truth is internal consistency. You, however, apparently believe in other goals and act accordingly."

You believe in discovering your own truth- and to "the bad place" with everyone else. Has Thomas, myself, or fuzzi said anything according to you that is truth? We have stated many things, yet I don't believe you have agreed or commended either of us on any point we have made- you only criticize and accuse us. You act as if you have a hold on truth and when someone else displays something that conflicts with your truth- you criticize.

You say that you are just "trying to discover the truth." I would say that you are are just "trying to get everybody else to agree with your truth."

"You probably would have liked her, because she very sincerely believed."

I don't like and dislike others based on whether they are sincere in their beliefs. You are sincere in your beliefs, I just happen to disagree with your beliefs. But I don't run after you (in every thread you go to) and ridicule your beliefs. While I believe you are sincerely wrong in many of your ideas and beliefs, you do have a right to believe what you believe (even if you are wrong). If Thomas, myself, and fuzzi are wrong- then we will one day find that out. Why are you so determined to convince us of our errors (from your perspective). Why can't you just let us be wrong (if that is the way you feel)? If you are so strong in what you believe, why do you persist in ridiculing us?

I believe the fact that you ridicule us is because you are envious of what we have that you do not have. Instead of accepting in your own heart and mind what you believe you want others to commend your beliefs to be correct. I cannot do so. I have strong beliefs that are not going to be forsaken when someone criticizes (or condemns) them.

"What is further astounding is that you demand that everyone else say "Amen" when you behave in such a deplorable fashion. You apparently sincerely believe that by behaving in such a fashion what you are doing is admirable. Sad, very sad."

When have I asked you or anyone else to agree with what I believe? When have I asked you to "amen" anything I have to say? The answer is never. I've only asked that you be respectful and not ridicule those on this thread for what they believe. You can "discover truth" without ridiculing others.

>192 jntjesussaves: I am not really sure who you are referring to on that thread, because there were 254 posts- who are you referring to?

It became clear to me who lawecon is referring to after reading the first half dozen or so posts. Amazing stuff.

As a proud Neo Gnostic who knows a little history, I enjoy hearing loud Amens and Hallelujah’s . It tells me that the old Gods are not gone, just hidden. Give me that old time religion.

>195 thomashwalker2:

I'm so vain, I think you are talking about me, thanks.

But true believers need to dwell on this statement I found online:

"It is pretty obvious that fallen angels have attempted to censor Biblical literature over the course of Christian history, in fact wouldn't you expect it? Justin Martyr suggested that fallen angels had infiltrated the highest offices of the church and changed the interpretation and the Books of the Bible. They desired to remove any evidence of fallen angelic activity prior to and after the flood. This is why any book that made reference to the Book of Enoch was immediately censored. The Book of Jude and the Book of 2nd Peter where almost left out due to their specific quotes from the Book of Enoch.

We all remember the scripture that says, "Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels (Hebrews 13: 1)." Most people interpret this to mean "good" angels. However, the Bible is replete with as much evidence of fallen angelic intervention as faithful angelic influence.

The two best examples of censorship that I can give you are: The King James Apocrypha and the Book of Jasher, also known as The Book of the Just. (See 2 Samuel, and Josiah).

The Apocrypha remained in the Authorized King James version until it was taken out of the protestant Bible by the Puritans. King James appropriated his Apocrypha from William Tyndale whom also included the Apocrypha in his original translation.

You can still order the King James Bible and the William Tyndale Bible with Apocrypha in it. All you need to do is ask."

Amen and Hallelujah

~192

There are so many fallacies in this post that it would be impossible to address them within any brief period of time. Some, as Johnthefireman, points out, are just silly and don't need to be responded to (even if they do constitute yet another unbelievable dodge) Others, however, occur over and over and over again, and probably merit one more response. So, here goes.

No, you don't "have a right to your opinion." You have a right to express your opinion, but when you do so in public, other people also have a right to explain to you why you are completely wrong. You want your right, but you want to deny other people their right.

It doesn't work that way in a free society. But I suspect you favor a virtuous society, not a free society. Like most people who KNOW THE TRUTH with absolute certainty, generally because G-d or the Fuhrer has told them THE TRUTH, every criticism of their TRUTH is a persecution (if they imagine themselves as not in power) or a heresy that must be rooted out for the good of SOCIETY and VIRTUE if they are in power. You, apparently, believe that you are being persecuted and other people are ridiculing you when someone points out internal contradictions in your expressed views and asks that they be resolved.

You, unfortunately, are so unselfaware that you can invite me to leave you to your errors by leaving this thread in one breadth and then claim that you have never asked me to "Amen" what you are saying in the next breadth. You really need to sit down and figure out what you truly believe. Do you demand that everyone agree with you, or are you willing to discuss your views outside of your cult of self-reinforcing fellows? If the latter, what are you whining about?

(196) "The Apocrypha remained in the Authorized King James version until it was taken out of the protestant Bible by the Puritans. King James appropriated his Apocrypha from William Tyndale whom also included the Apocrypha in his original translation. "

Actually, the Apocrypha was included in the text, as part of holy Scriptures, by other translations (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), but the King James Bible included it in between the OT and NT as "supplemental reading material".

No one is keeping you or anyone else from reading it, if you choose, it's just not considered "Scripture".

And btw, the word "apocrypha" means "of questionable authenticity."

>198 fuzzi:
Thanks!

BTW, what sort of heathens would dare question God's word?

Genesis 41
Pharaoh dreams two dreams, and no one can figure out what they mean. The Butler remembers his broken promise to tell Pharaoh about Joseph, and does so. Joseph is brought before Pharaoh:

"And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I have dreamed a dream, and there is none that can interpret it: and I have heard say of thee, that thou canst understand a dream to interpret it.
And Joseph answered Pharaoh, saying, It is not in me: God shall give Pharaoh an answer of peace." (verses 15, 16)

Again, Joseph says that interpretations come from God, not from men.

Joseph gives the interpretation of the dreams, which, although are two, are 'one'.

"And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass." (verse 32)

Note: when God repeats Himself, or appears to repeat Himself, it's important: it's of Him and it's going to happen soon.

"And when all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread: and Pharaoh said unto all the Egyptians, Go unto Joseph; what he saith to you, do." (verse 55)

Compare that last verse, about Joseph, to what Mary said about her son, Jesus:

"His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it." (John 2:5)

Genesis 42
Verse 6: Joseph's brothers come to Egypt to buy food, and all bow down to him, making the prophecy of his dreams come true, see Genesis 37:7-8:

"For, behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and, lo, my sheaf arose, and also stood upright; and, behold, your sheaves stood round about, and made obeisance to my sheaf.
And his brethren said to him, Shalt thou indeed reign over us? or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us? And they hated him yet the more for his dreams, and for his words."

Joseph treats them as if they are spies, and when they are reminded of their missing brother, Joseph, you can see the guilt they feel for what they did to him, verses 21 and 22.

Simeon is bound and kept as a guarantee that Jacob's sons will return with Benjamin, the youngest.

But Jacob will not let them take Benjamin back to Egypt.

Genesis 43
The food runs out, but the brothers cannot return to Egypt without Benjamin. Judah takes responsibility for Benjamin. So, all the brothers go back to Egypt to buy more food.

In this verse we see that the Egyptians were discriminatory against others:

"And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians." (verse 32)

In verse 33, Joseph has his brothers (who still do not know who he is) sit in order of their birth, which amazes them.

...to be continued...

198: And btw, the word "apocrypha" means "of questionable authenticity."

That's why I didn't use that word in my comment on the other thread where this was brought up. They're the deuterocanonical books, and personally I like them best mixed in with the rest of the Hebrew scriptures. Who wants to read Daniel or Esther and have to keep flipping back and forth?

Some of us don't believe that the Apocrypha belong 'mixed in', but some, like you, do.

So get a Bible that has them 'mixed in'. I'll keep my Bible that does not include them.

:)

Are "deuterocanonical"and "Apocrypha" synonyms? If not when and where were the banned books declared "questionable" and on whose authority?

>202 fuzzi:

Well, I have two (well, three, but two of the three are both NAB) with the deuterocanonical books mixed in, two with them kept separate, and countless numbers in which they don't appear at all.

ETA: Actually, my brother gave me his NAB, so I have four with the deuterocanonicals mixed in, three NABs and one The Inclusive Bible. I wish my NRSV was a Catholic edition (as they do make those) but sadly, it segregates the deuterocanonicals.

(203) I don't want to derail the thread too much, but in a nutshell, here's the story behind the "deuterocanonical" or "Apocrypha" books:

When the canon of Scripture was compiled and accepted by the early Christians, these other books were not included as they contained anti-scriptural material and therefore were considered not inspired by God.

One website I checked also referred to these as "pseudepigraphal", or "false writings".

These books were never accepted or included in the Hebrew canon.

They contain religious folklore and should not be included with God's word.

FWIW, these books were not accepted by the Roman Catholic church until the Council of Trent in 1546. They were not considered "inspired" by the RCC for over 1300 years.

No writer from the NT quotes from these books.

They contain doctrinal errors and are thus suspect.

If you want to check them out, they are available to read, but should not be considered part of the word of God any more than "The Shack" or "Pilgrim's Progress" should be.

"Pseudepigraphal" just means the author they are attributed to didn't actually write them. Plenty of the letters in the actual canon are pseudepigraphal, including the deutero-Pauline letters and the Petrine letters.

From Wikipedia:

The Council of Carthage, called the third by Denzinger, on 28 August 397 issued a canon of the Bible quoted as, "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, the Davidic Psalter, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Ezra, 2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 letter of his to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and one book of the Apocalypse of John.

And here:

The Synod of Hippo refers to the synod of 393 which was hosted in Hippo Regius in northern Africa during the early Christian Church. The synod of 393 is best known for two distinct acts. First, for the first time a council of bishops listed and approved a canon of Sacred Scripture that corresponds to the modern Roman Catholic canon while falling short of the Orthodox canon (including the books classed by Roman Catholics as deuterocanonical books and by Protestants as "Apocrypha"). The canon was later approved at the Council of Carthage pending the ratification of the "Church across the sea", that is, Rome."

This canon was standard within the Western Church until such time when Martin Luther began trying to kick books out.

FWIW, Wikipedia is not a good source of any information, because anyone can edit it.

If you wish to discuss this further, please make a separate thread, as I don't want to derail other people's interest in the topic. Thank you. :)

It is amazing the similarities we find between Jesus Christ and Joseph as one reads these passages. God's blessings, fuzzi.

Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.

Thank God for his blessings and mercies day by day! We so often forget to thank our wonderful Creator for all of His blessings to us. The author of my devotional commented with the following:

"It's not hard to remember the bad things you encounter or the things lacking in your life- humans are naturals at that- and society doesn't help much. Your neighbor's new car reminds you of your old one. Your kids don't seem to be satisfied with what you bought them. Commercials tell you that you need to get rid of your gray hair, join a fitness club, lose some weight, grow greener grass...the list goes on."

The bottom line is I know I often don't praise God for His blessings in my life as I should and that is unfortunate- He is such a great God. I will also make mention of the following two verses for meditation:

Psalm 96:2-3:

Sing unto the LORD, bless his name; shew forth his salvation from day to day. Declare his glory among the heathen, his wonders among all people.

Colossians 4:2:

Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving.

God's blessings to all of you who are reading God's Word through this year.

Three day weekend, and I've been trying to not only 'catch up', but 'get ahead' in my reading:

Genesis 42:6
All Joseph's brothers bow to him, as he had dreamed back in Genesis 37:7

42:25
Joseph's brothers are given what they do not deserve, considering their past sins: "unmerited favor = God's grace"

(and if that don't make you wanna shout, something is wrong with you!)

:)

43:32
The Egyptians won't eat with the Hebrews, Joseph's brothers, because it is an abomination to them. So, who's the racist now? Hmm.

44:16
Judah doesn't try to justify anything or make excuses, but admits their iniquities/sins. They submit to Joseph. This reminds me of how an unsaved person acts just before they ask God to save them (I do remember!).

44:31, 34
A picture of someone under conviction, being selfless. Compare to previous acts of selfishness.

45:8
God sent Joseph to Egypt, used that evil for good, He allowed "bad" to happen in order for a greater "good". See Romans 8:28.

45:20
Pharaoh tells the Hebrews to "leave their stuff" behind. Do they? Nope, they bring it, anyway, see 46:1 and 46:6

46:3
God gives Jacob the "okay" to go to Egypt, even though He previously did not want Isaac or Abraham to go there. Compare to Matthew 2:13-15 for a temporary sojourn in Egypt, a type of "the world".

46:19
Interesting observation: only Rachel is described as Jacob's wife, not Leah! (see verse 15)

46:34
Joseph tells his brethren to lie to Pharaoh!

47:3
They do not lie, but tell the truth to Pharaoh (good for them!)

47:9
Jacob does not lie, but is forthright about his past.

47:21
People without land (having sold it to Pharaoh for food) are moved into cities. However, God does not appear to "like" cities, see Isaiah 14:21. (first person to build a city was Cain, the first murderer).

47:24
A 20% tax is levied, see also Genesis 41:34.

47:30
God will bring Jacob out of Egypt (and He does!).

48:17-19
Like in the case of Isaac's sons, Jacob and Esau, Joseph's younger son is blessed over the elder, and it is prophesied by Jacob that the younger (Ephraim) will be greater than the elder (Manassah).

49:33
Jacob yielded up the ghost, and was "gathered unto his people". He doesn't go in the grave for over 40 days, so the connotation is not grave, but something else, perhaps Paradise? See also Genesis 25:8, 17 and 35:29.

Genesis 50:20
See again Romans 8:28: "God meant it for good"

One book, Genesis, completed by January 16th!

To the OP: no, I have not, and furthermore, I don't see the point in it.

212: Congrats, fuzzi!

"Joseph's brothers are given what they do not deserve, considering their past sins: "unmerited favor = God's grace""

Fuzzi, nice analogy. I have also heard the previous in reference to God's grace and mercy. "Mercy" is not getting what we do deserve; "grace" is getting what we do not deserve.

"Judah doesn't try to justify anything or make excuses, but admits their iniquities/sins. They submit to Joseph. This reminds me of how an unsaved person acts just before they ask God to save them (I do remember!)."

I agree. When we try to justify our sin it may be a sign that we are not truly repentant. In the case of an unsaved person, he must be repentant in order to be saved. Good points.

"A picture of someone under conviction, being selfless. Compare to previous acts of selfishness."

Amen, because they recognize themselves as they really are- sinful and without any goodness on their part.

213: First, welcome msladylib.

Excuse me but I am not up on abbreviations in texting; what does OP stand for? And second, are you saying that you don't see the point in reading the Bibe (or reading it through in a year)? Just checking.

~213

"To the OP: no, I have not, and furthermore, I don't see the point in it."

Well, it won't do any good to ask questions. The enthusiasts for this program apparently want to keep its merits secret.

>212 fuzzi:

The Egyptians won't eat with the Hebrews, Joseph's brothers, because it is an abomination to them. So, who's the racist now? Hmm.
==========

These “racists” had raised Joseph to a role in their government nearly as high as the Pharaoh himself.

The Egyptians considered the Proto-Hebrews to be unclean pig farmers and possible carriers of disease. This may have been racist. They rarely found anything of worth about a people they termed “temporary labor,”

Some people rank Wiki right up there with the Old Testament itself, as a accurate sorce of Egyptian history ;)
See Moses and Akhenaten by Ahmed Osman.

Try to avoid letting Hollywood affect your Hermeneutics.
See Biblical Hermeneutics by J. Severino Croatto

(217) The Hebrews of Jacob's time were shepherds, and cattlemen. The Egyptians had low regard for people who were shepherds, as Joseph pointed out in that chapter.

However, I don't see any mention of raising pigs in the text.

>216 lawecon:, 213

See 75, among other posts.

If you don't consider reading the Bible through in a year to be a worthwhile project, fine. There's more than one way to read the Bible. But this thread is for those who choose to read it that way.

Think of this as a 'book read' thread, if that helps. (yes, we know the Bible is not an ordinary book)

However, I don't see any mention of raising pigs in the text.

There are other texts.

The Nile River floods every year preceeded by the rising of the star Sirius. Moses, Abraham, Joseph and Jesus all bathed and drank from its waters.

Is this concrete fact of Egyptian life ever mentioned in the text?

It was once claimed that Hebrews worshiped pigs as some sort of Seth.
Pigs became taboo among the Hebrews as they had been among the Egyptians.

I believe they still are. See Herodotus for an interesting story of the role of pigs in Egyptian agriculture.

The Egyptians had a low regard for nomads of all stripes. If home is heaven, why leave. I doubt that they called them "gypsies" though.

Cattle were wealth and Apis was an important god.

The geography of the Nile valley makes sheep herding difficult. Egypt's primary crop was wheat.

Eat with shepards, Have you ever smelled sheep manure? After unloading a boxcar full of fertilizer, I didn't want to eat with myself.

219: Amen, madpoet!

I read from the book of Jude today and found several interesting scriptures. Just a couple of points gleaned from these verses:

First, in verse 3 we see Jude referring to "the common salvation" and I believe he expounds on this common salvation towards the end of the verse when he states "that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

Second, in verse 4 we read about "certain men" who "crept in unaware" "who before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." This is why we as Christians must be aware of those who would deceptively creep in to change the teachings of God's Word (in this verse, Jude refers to changing the "grace" of God into "lasciviousness"- which makes you wonder how they were changing God's grace into lustful (or lewd) thoughts; he also mentions "denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ"). This is running rampant in our world today; I don't believe this was speaking about the denial that Jesus lived (or even God is real), but it is speaking of the denial of the Deity of Christ (and the denial that Jehovah is the one and only true God).

Thirdly, (interestingly enough this topic was touched on by several posts earlier) that Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities about them were "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh" (which seems to be specifying their sexual sins).

Fourth, verses 17-19 state:

"But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit."

"Mockers" in this verse is the same meaning as "scoffers" in 2 Peter 3:3 which means those who deride, reproach, or ridicule. So as Christians, we should not be surprised when the unsaved (non-Christians- "having not the Spirit") mock and scoff at what we say and teach, because we have been admonished that it would happen.

God's blessings.

~219

Mad, as several of us have said several times now, it is not that the project is per se defective. It is just that those who have been advocating this project in this thread seem to have a certain view of what it means to "read the Bible." Specifically they seem to assume that "read the Bible" means that you just open up and read a certain English translation (usually the KJV) for "what you get out of it." This is usually associated with some equally peculiar doctrine that G-d or Jesus, or some being, is going to guide your understanding so that what you get out of it will be holy and profound. (Some of us find that view to be incredibly arrogant and the sort of thing that would get one strangled as a false prophet in another age that was more serious about religion.)

As I'm certain you know, there is another way to "read the Bible." That other way has to do with asking what the Bible probably meant to those who wrote it and their intended audience. But that way requires a great deal more preparation and collateral study then merely opening the KJV and reading away - accompanied by the occasional pause and lay homile on what one believes one has just read. Further, it probably takes considerably more than a year to get through the varied texts that comprise "the Bible." While it is better than nothing, reading a commentary along with reading the Bible is somewhat better (and there are some interesting brief commentaries How To Read The Jewish Bible , How To Read The Bible: A Guide To Scripture ), but one should not delude oneself that even reading the thoughts of a particular scholar on the Bible is "understanding the Bible."

Let me see if I can give you an analogy. Suppose that someone invited you to go out on a clear night and "learn about the Milky Way." Well, he might mean, but probably doesn't mean, just go out and locate the Milky Way in the sky at that time of the day and year. What he probably means is learn what the Milky Way is, as opposed to other star groups, what comprises it, some of our nearer neighbors in it, etc. But that takes a lot of learning, learning that is probably better achieved before you just "go out and look" without having a clue what you are looking at. That is taking the sky seriously. There is also a way of reading that is taking the text seriously, and another way of reading that is turning the text into some sort of idol that one is suppose to "just read" without ever really learning.

I would contend that one way of reading the Bible is objectively better than another, just like "learning about the Milky Way" by "just looking" is objectively worse than learning about the Milky Way by doing sufficient study that you have notion of what you are looking at when you look. Perhaps you disagree, but the response of "get out of my thread, I want to be happy in my ignorance" is not a very reasonable way of voicing that disagreement.

(221) Thank you, your comments on Jude were a blessing to me, and others I am sure.

(220) quicksilva, if it isn't in the OT text, I don't put stock in the veracity of it.

OT text ?? Does God speak in texts ?
Wasn't going to say anything.....but lawecon has a point here. The Bible is not a romance novel. The book has been translated and rewritten numerous times.... it is not only a book of history but is philosophical as well....which leaves much open to the interpretation of the reader.

"quicksilva, if it isn't in the OT text, I don't put stock in the veracity of it."

not sure how one goes about "picking" and choosing which text to attribute to the ONE in charge.

If you are merely reading and rereading a chosen text only to form an "agreement" group.....you really are not learning, you are more or less parroting. Parroting the Bible can become an issue since the book contains many contradictions.
It has always been my opinion that those contradictions are there for a reason.....that reason being a reminder that the "word of God" is personal and unless one uses his or her intellegence and reasoning powers, the Bible can be just as destructive as taking a novel by Ayn Rand, or Trotsky, or Marx and making it a code to live by without thinking of the implications.

There is a reason that the Bible has been "studied" for ages. There is also a reason why it has been rewritten at times. To change one word can change an entire meaning....does anyone really have a "mainline" to the BIG guy ? Which "text" does HE/SHE want you to read ? The Bible is a tool to use for one's personal growth....since no two people are exactly alike, it can't possibly mean the same thing for everyone....if it does, one can safely guess that not too much thought is going into the "study" of it's meaning.

My father was a minister...he taught me how to read my Bible...perhaps too well, as his interpretation differed from mine in many ways...but I view that as a gift, he allowed me to make my spirituality personal.
We did not have an "agreement group" he and I...but he gifted me with the freedom to "think" out side of the box.

Thank you for your reply, faceinbook.

I am a Bible believer: since I was born again, I have had a desire, a thirst, a ravening hunger for the word of God.

As I read it, it speaks to me of its truth.

Do I have a "mainline to the BIG guy"? I don't like to refer to my Lord and Saviour in that manner, He underwent horrific pain and suffering because I'm a lousy rotten sinner, to give me a chance to clean the slate and start anew. I certainly don't want to lower Him to a caricature of "the big guy in the sky", as many do.

Do I have communication with God? Yes, I do, and anyone who is born again, is a child of God, has that communication available, through prayer and through God's word. It has been said that through prayer we speak to God, and through His word (the Bible) He speaks to us.

It has been written that, as children of God (born again believers of the Lord), we are taught by Him, through His Holy Spirit. See 1 John 2:27 for example: I do not need any man to teach me, as God will give me what I need to learn. I can use what men teach, but ultimately I rely on God and His word to learn what He wants me to learn.

Oh, and the Bible? I believe it is God's preserved and infallible word to His children. Why? Because He has written that He will keep it and preserve it from the corruptions of man, forever. I believe Him, and His Holy Spirit confirms it within me.

Call me fanatic or a freak or whatever you like, but I know Whom I have believed, Whom I believe, and will continue to believe until I go Home.

I did not start Exodus last night, I fell asleep with the light on, I was that tired... :(

>225 fuzzi:
"Because He has written that He will keep it and preserve it from the corruptions of man"

The moment a human hand wrote the words...it was corrupted. After which it was translated into various languages by various other human hands
Did you know that the Native Americans, when speaking their languages, have no way to express straight line thinking ? Life was a circle and their language did not allow for straight line discriptions. Telling a Native story in English is often confusing as the intent of the story is hard to translate from the original words. The entire thought process changes from language to language.
Translating any piece of literature leaves that work open to the translator's interpretation as to what is meant by the author.

"Do I have communication with God? Yes, I do, and anyone who is born again, is a child of God, has that communication available, through prayer and through God's word."

What if I were to tell you that I too have communication with HIM....and I do call him the BIG guy...top Kahoona.....Creator of all things holy and not....whatever......I am neither "born again" nor do I adhere to any religious doctrine 100%. Basically, they are all the same.... with a few differences that man has thrown in to make themselves an exclusive club. Don't believe that any of the great prophets meant for the club to be exclusive unto themselves.
HE just speaks to me in other ways.....the written word is NOT his message to me. God speaks to me through nature....the world around me, other people and their deeds or lack there of are all gifts from my Creator. Am I wrong ?

I read the Tao daily...it is simple and all inclusive. I read the Bible when I need to think a bit, as the Bible NOT simple.

"I'm a lousy rotten sinner, "

Well, that is depressing.....and fear based. If as the Bible states, we were created in his image, we need to rethink a few things. Have I sinned ? of course I have....am I a dirty rotten person...I don't think so. Nobody can save me from anything but myself. Christ, as a prophet, spread a doctrine of "goodness" if you will. His WORDS may be one's saving grace but the only person who has the power to adhere to his teachings is me. HE excluded no one. He cannot he save me from myself.... simply believing Christ spread the word of God is not going to save me from the consequences of my actions.

If the Bible is your path to God ..... have at it. Nothing wrong with that. Where it starts to get dicey is when it is assumed that the Bible is the "only" way to God. When those who find their Creator in other ways are looked at with pity or disrespect because they are not members of the club. Maybe some individuals do not need a club ? Not all people are the same Christ preached that all were equal.
Also adhering to a literal interpretation is often confusing since, as I said, the Bible contradicts itself.

Probably would be interesting to pick out all of the contradictions in the Bible and discuss those.....rather than reading the Bible on any given day and agreeing with whatever it is it says on that particular day. Another exercise in really studying the Bible is to read various texts and discuss how and why they may differ in their meaning.
Not too sure how one picks out a certain text and claims that is THE text ?

Sorry... perhaps this should be on Pro and Con.....I just contradicted myself in a big way. Maybe...not sure...are you just "reading" the Bible to each other here or are you discussing the Bible ? Is your intent merely to copy words out of the text or are you studying the words from the text ?? This is rather an odd thread....kind of like taking a novel and writing out the sentences you've read online. Which I suppose is O.K. as well though I am missing the point.
Will disappear now.....

Hi I have started reading my bible through systematically. I started mid November and am just going to start Leviticus. I find reading it slow like this helps me to ponder on what I have read through the day also. I thought it was interesting Adam's comments in Genesis 2:23 compared with Genesis 3:12. He could have stayed strong and saved his children from sin.

Glad you've joined us, Joynergy!

I think the point has been made that it's not necessarily how fast you read your Bible through, but that you do read it all at some point.

Some days I only read one chapter, because I get too busy thinking upon what I read.

About Adam: some say that he loved Eve so much that when he'd realized she'd eaten the fruit, and was going to "die", that he ate of the fruit so that he would be with her, wherever she was. It's a sweet thought. :)

(227) "Sorry... perhaps this should be on Pro and Con.....I just contradicted myself in a big way. Maybe...not sure...are you just "reading" the Bible to each other here or are you discussing the Bible ? Is your intent merely to copy words out of the text or are you studying the words from the text ?? This is rather an odd thread....kind of like taking a novel and writing out the sentences you've read online. Which I suppose is O.K. as well though I am missing the point.
Will disappear now....."

No need to disappear.

I guess what we are doing here is trying to encourage each other to read the Bible, and having some brief discussions of what we are currently reading in the word of God, and what we think of it.

It's my desire, and I think of others here, that we don't turn this thread into a debating one...like with supposed contradictions in the Bible. If you'd like to discuss it, why not start a thread in the Christianity Pro/Con group? :)

But you're welcome to discuss what you're read in the Bible, here. No one is any better than anyone else, we're not Pharisees in this thread (and hopefully not anywhere else!).

Peace.

225: Amen, fuzzi! I second that.

228: joyneregy, welcome! God bless you for your desire to read God's Word.

230: "I guess what we are doing here is trying to encourage each other to read the Bible, and having some brief discussions of what we are currently reading in the word of God, and what we think of it."

Amen, fuzzi! This is why I am on this thread.

Unlike what certain others have implied, I don't always just open the Bible and read. I, at times, do use a commentary, bible dictionary, concordance, expository dictionary, etc. I use these items when I study the Bible, but when I do my daily reading- I read the Bible specifically. Some passages that I read on one day, I have read (and studied) before. During this process, I meditate on verses that stand out to me. If a verse is confusing- I try to get help from other sources (see examples above). And as fuzzi has stated before, first and foremost I rely on God's Holy Spirit (who was sent for that purpose- John 14:26) to give me insight. I understand the concept of getting a fuller understanding of God's Word by studying the background of those who each letter/book was written to and the purpose of each. I do this, but I don't necessarily do it every time I pick up God's Word.

There are several on this thread who are very intelligent and who seem to have a lot of knowledge about many topics- I am all for knowledge. However, God didn't write (and preserve) His Word so the most intelligent and elite could understand it. He didn't write it in a way where you would have to have a PhD to understand it. He wrote it to the "common man." Thank God He did, because I would be sunk if He hadn't.

The question I have is, why burden those whose goal is to encourage others to read the Bible, by introducing topics that would be better on their own thread? I have only asked politely that those whose goal is not to encourage others to read the Bible to create their own thread. What is so wrong with this idea? I have been accused of not having a copyright to this thread- I agree.

There are some (it seems) whose only goal is to throw a damper on what others are doing. Another thread could be created that says "Reading the Bible Through in a Year for Those Who Desire to Be Encouraged." And still the same individuals who have emerged on this thread to (seemingly) discourage others would also come to that thread. My question all along is, "Why don't you create your own thread and discuss the issues that you are presenting?" If there are those out there that feel strongly as you do about those issues, they will respond. This thread was created to encourage and help others who believe reading their Bible (in a year) is important. There is probably a thread for just about any topic one would pursue (and if there isn't), one can be created. I have conversed with others on this thread (in previous threads) and the same arguments come up everytime relating nothing to the thread topic. The last one I was on was, "Who Is/Isn't a Christian." Many (if not most) of the posts on that thread had nothing to do with the stated topic. Why is this? Because some (it seems) goes from thread to thread arguing the same bullet points. And each thread (that I have been apart of) have no resemblance to the original topic. If I wanted to argue about a certain topic I would have entered that thread or created one for that topic. I didn't come to this thread to argue at all- I came here to be encouraged and to encourage others. I just wonder why others can't respect those who have come here for that purpose.

Fuzzi, I just came across this thread and wanted to say it was a good idea to start it and also that I appreciate the way you have tried to keep it on track. While I am not doing a read through the Bible in a year plan this year, I have done so in the past and found using a chronological Bible to be very helpful in understanding some of the things that were going on and how they relate to each other. This can be easily missed if we do not understand the time line, especially of the OT, when we just read straight through. Again, great idea, good work, and also may I add, God bless!

>233 jntjesussaves: jnt, I can hear your frustration, and there's certainly nothing wrong with suggesting that people start other threads to cover specific topics.

But your statement that Many (if not most) of the posts on that thread had nothing to do with the stated topic... And each thread (that I have been apart of) have no resemblance to the original topic could be true to a greater or lesser degree of virtually every thread on LT. We're a diverse community where people read a couple of posts and to them it suggest a totally different direction than it does to you (or me), so they pursue that direction, others join in, and generally it is an interesting and creative process. You make it seem like a negative thing: some (it seems) goes from thread to thread arguing the same bullet points. In contrast, many would view it as a very positive aspect of LT.

I would also challenge your assertion that posts have no resemblance to the original topic. They may have no resemblance to your interpretation of the original topic, but they clearly resemble someone else's interpretation of the topic, otherwise they wouldn't be here.

If you really wanted to keep this thread exclusively along the lines that you agree with, the original poster had the option of starting a private group (I think - I've never felt the need to do that myself so I don't know how it works).

(234) Welcome, ambrithill! Glad you've joined us here.

I appreciate your input: I have not read the Bible through with a chronological Bible, I might do that in the future.

Last night I started to read Exodus, and fell asleep again!

So after I signed in at the doctor's office this morning (check up), I picked up a Gideon Bible and was about to open it to Exodus, when they called me back to the room!

That's the first time I've gotten back in a room that quickly! :)

(235) john, why start a private group? We want anyone and everyone to join in, if the subject interests them.

We just would appreciate people not coming in here to start arguments and debates, when none are necessary. :)

235: "But your statement that Many (if not most) of the posts on that thread had nothing to do with the stated topic... And each thread (that I have been apart of) have no resemblance to the original topic could be true to a greater or lesser degree of virtually every thread on LT. "

Agreed.

"We're a diverse community where people read a couple of posts and to them it suggest a totally different direction than it does to you (or me), so they pursue that direction, others join in, and generally it is an interesting and creative process."

Again, I agree.

"You make it seem like a negative thing: some (it seems) goes from thread to thread arguing the same bullet points. In contrast, many would view it as a very positive aspect of LT."

To me, it is a negative thing when you can't go to one thread without "certain others" (you may know of the few I refer to), who only seem to go to a certain thread- but to argue/criticize/belittle.

"I would also challenge your assertion that posts have no resemblance to the original topic. They may have no resemblance to your interpretation of the original topic, but they clearly resemble someone else's interpretation of the topic, otherwise they wouldn't be here."

I am very confused. So are you saying that no matter where a topic goes, it is on topic (because, it apparently is relevant to the topic based on the fact that someone says it is). My question then would be, "Why have titles on threads?" If it is all a matter of what one decides to be relevant-based, then there should not be thread names. What would be the purpose of thread names?

"If you really wanted to keep this thread exclusively along the lines that you agree with, the original poster had the option of starting a private group (I think - I've never felt the need to do that myself so I don't know how it works)."

If this is true, I didn't realize it.

I do disagree with you that these threads get way off of the original topic. I think my point can be illustrated by this particular thread.

Thank you, though for you thougtful response.

John

237: Amen, fuzzi. Well said.

~237

"We just would appreciate people not coming in here to start arguments and debates, when none are necessary. :)"

Tell you what, Fuzzi. Since you apparently think that what I and others are doing is "arguing" or "debating," I, at least, will take it to another thread. However, if you and jntjesussaves don't join that thread, I think we are entitled to draw the obvious conclusion, i.e. that reading the Bible is just recreation for you, not something to be taken seriously.

>237 fuzzi: We want anyone and everyone to join in, if the subject interests them. We just would appreciate people not coming in here to start arguments and debates, when none are necessary.

With all due respect, fuzzi, I think that's a bit contradictory. People will come here to post what they think is relevant to the topic, which is "Reading Your Bible Through in a Year". For some, that implies posting a record of your reading, with a lot of "Amens" and mutual affirmation. For others, it implies discussing the concept of reading your bible in a year, the methodology of doing so, and issues around interpretation of the bible. Actually you do not want everyone to join in, because you don't want the latter, which you interpret as unnecessary argument or debate. You only want posts which agree with your interpretation of the thread. So perhaps you should have made it private so that only those who agree with your interpretation can post. Then you would not have any unnecessary argument or debate.

(241) john(thefireman)

The title of the thread is "Reading Your Bible Through in a Year"

The OP reads "Have any of you read your entire Bible through in a year?

If not, why not give it a try this year?"

How is that open to interpretation regarding debating the veracity of the Bible, as has been done here?

How is that open to debate regarding the intelligence of those posting here?

I, personally, want everyone to join in, within the topic, about reading your Bible, which includes posting thoughts about what has been read, and affirmation by others...

..."Amen" for some of us is like saying "ITA" or "Like"... ;)

(and isn't it nice to see people who actually can discuss and agree or disagree with charity? It's such a rarity, anywhere!!!)

Others who have asked questions about why we do it have been answered, politely, and have perhaps learned more about those of us who read our Bible for the joy it brings to us, and the way it brings us closer to our Lord and Saviour.

When one person wanted to discuss a particular topic more deeply, I suggested he/she try posting that topic in "Pro and Con: Christianity", which was consequently done.

If we made this thread 'private', wouldn't that keep others from joining who weren't invited, personally? I don't want that, I, as the person who started this thread, want anyone and everyone who is interested in discussing the topic "Reading Your Bible Through in a Year" to join in.

And that includes you, too, johnthefireman. :)

Note: I have read up to chapter 12 in Exodus, and will try to post about my thoughts later, perhaps at lunch or tonight. Right now duty calls...

>242 fuzzi: How is that open to interpretation

Ask all those who have interpreted it differently. We are not all fuzzi or thomas or jnt. Your interpretation is not the only one, even if you can't see why others interpret it differently.

I, as the person who started this thread, want anyone and everyone who is interested in discussing the topic "Reading Your Bible Through in a Year"

No you don't. You apparently only want anyone and everyone who interprets the topic the same way as you.

(244) I disagree, but it won't be the first or last time.

Peace to you. :)

>246 John5918: We'll agree to disagree then (again!)...

That's okay, johnthefireman.

Isn't it great that we can do so, and not get rude with each other?

I like LT...

I've started a new thread to discuss different ways of reading and studying the bible
http://www.librarything.com/topic/131314#3182866

(248) I saw that, and have it starred for later perusal!

Thank you for starting it (but don't abandon us here, either!)...

>247 fuzzi: I like LT...

I have to agree with you there! I seem to remember that it used to be even more polite and civil in its earlier days, but maybe that's just nostalgia speaking. But even with the heated disagreements that do occur from time to time, I find it much more courteous than many other internet fora.

>250 John5918:
IMO....it starts at the top !

~248

Dang, that makes two of us.

>252 lawecon:
Was going to post to your thread but my first response was "snarky" and probably uncalled for. (not aimed in your direction in the least) So, I did not.

Whoever doesn't like the thread can always move on to something else, instead of trying to rewrite the thread into what they think it ought to be.

Amen and Hallelujah

242: Amen, fuzzi!

240: Thank you, lawecon. I promise not to come to your thread and cause any trouble.

244: "Ask all those who have interpreted it differently. We are not all fuzzi or thomas or jnt. Your interpretation is not the only one, even if you can't see why others interpret it differently."

John, I agree each and every person has their own interpretation. There are threads that cry out for argument and debate- others do not. I am sure many threads are created for no other reason than to cause argument and debate. This is wonderful! However, other threads are not. If fuzzi had created this thread and called it, "Why reading the Bible through in a year determine ones spirituality." I would see how fuzzi would be screaming for argument and debate. This was not the case. She simply and concisely started it with the title, "Reading Your Bible Through in a Year." If I was perusing thread topics and I cared nothing about the Bible and I saw no use in reading it, I would probably continue to other thread titles (without another thought). I certainly wouldn't feel the need to tell those who desire to read their Bible through in a year that they are wrong in how they are doing it. Another example: Let's say I saw a thread entitled, "Reading the Koran Through in a Year." I would pass over this thread without a second thought. Why? Because I would not take part in that venture (as a daily pursuit). As a Christian, I wouldn't feel the need to post why I believe the Koran is evil or why the Koran is not useful for people to read. To Muslims, it is very important. While I would disagree with many teachings of Islam, I wouldn't feel the need to make negative comments to those who believe reading the Koran is important. Now if I came across a thread entitled, "Why Christianity is a religion of hate and Islam is a religion of peace." I possibly would post a comment(s) to defend what I believe. But again, this type of thread title screams out for debate and discussion.

While small discussions will most likely take place on any thread, the thrust of the thread will be about the title. I believe a good way to make the determination of whether a thread stayed on topic (and was effective in its original purpose) is twofold: Were most of the posts "topic related?" And second, if you were to read the last ten to twenty posts, would you be able to have an idea of what the thread was about?

I am just saying that it would be nice that on December 30 of 2012, the last post will not be a chide remark about someone else. I hope that the last ten to twenty posts will be many who are saying, "Hallelujah, I read through the Bible for the first time." Or "Praise God, I finished the Bible and was greatly blessed in doing so." Or maybe even, "While I didn't finish the Bible this year- I read much of it (more than ever) and I am thankful I got invovled with this thread. I don't think I could have done it if I hadn't been encouraged by others." I would much rather read these types of posts rather than, "You didn't accomplish anything because you have no idea about the background of those who the words were originally penned to." Or, "Congratulations on reading the Bible through in a year, but where did it get you? You have no more knowledge now than you did before, as is apparent by previous posts."

What does this banter produce? Nothing except argument and debate. And while there is certainly a place in the world (and on LT) for argument and debate, every thread should not be so.

~253

We are all entitled to be snarky occasionally. We have had our difficulties, and probably will have in the future, but I hope that you will join the conversation.

Oh, and, Amen.

~257 & 258

jntjesussaves, I get the frequent impression that you think that "argument and debate" are curse words. I don't view it that way, and I trust you can join the thread I started and express your arguments without denouncing me or anyone else as evil. These are really very very important issues for believers and nonbelievers of all stripes. They deserve to be discussed and "debated" (rationally and with citation to evidence).

And I'm curious, have you really heard me say ""You didn't accomplish anything because you have no idea about the background of those who the words were originally penned to." I would "argue" that the better way to read the Bible is to know as much as we can about its background and original meaning, but certainly those who read the Bible know more about it than those who have never read the Bible. It is just that those who study the Bible with reference to what we know about its background and intents may know still more. It isn't a good thing to know as much as you can about a very important book?

244: One last comment on this discussion: You state that it is all about interpretation. While lawecon started another thread that is more in line with how he interprets this topic (and I appreciate his respect for others on this thread in doing so). Just out of curiosity, I looked back over the first 30-40 posts on this particular thread. Of these, the all but one or two were about others who were glad that this thread was started- they desire to read the Bible more (or through) this year. Then the following post was made:

"Although I don't agree with the particulars of your perspective, I am more sympathetic to your orientation than I am to the orientation of the other posters to this thread. Read the Bible through in a year? Ah, why? "The Bible" is a collection of different texts written by different people in different times and circumstances ADDRESSING OFTEN RADICALLY DIFFERENT TOPICS AND CONCERNS. What is the merit in "reading it through" as if it was a novel developing a unitary story?

Particularly, why would one want to "read it through" without spending the time to figure out what questions the various authors are addressing and what background presumptions they assume to be true?

Incidentally, this mental dysfunction is not limited to Christians. Orthodox (of course) Jews engage in a similar ritual of reading the BT through in 7+ years. http://articles.latimes.com/1990-04-29/news/we-269_1_orthodox-jews I am certain that they derive as much intellectual enlightenment from that experience as most of the posters above do from reading the Bible through in a year (i.e., very nearly zip)."

I specifically call reference to the following examples:

"Read the Bible through in a year? Ah, why? "

"Particularly, why would one want to "read it through" without spending the time to figure out what questions the various authors are addressing and what background presumptions they assume to be true?"

"Incidentally, this mental dysfunction is not limited to Christians."

"Orthodox (of course) Jews engage in a similar ritual of reading the BT through in 7+ years. I am certain that they derive as much intellectual enlightenment from that experience as most of the posters above do from reading the Bible through in a year (i.e., very nearly zip)."

This is how one person felt his "interpretation" was important enough to be stated.

Why? How does this accomplish anything? Does it help, encourage, or in some way change for the better (the person's idea of the importance of reading the Bible through in a year)?

If the poster's goal was to help or educate, why not just post something like the following:

"I also find value in reading the Bible through, but I find it much more meaningful to me when I have a better understanding of the background and setting of those who I am reading about." If this had been the first post by this poster, I would have said a hearty Amen! to him. Or someone else may of commented, "Good point, I have never really realized the importance of that, but I believe that will be one of my goals as I read the Bible this year- to find out more background about those who the Bible was originally written to." Many would have no doubt been helped and maybe the poster would have greatly educated other posters. He then could have developed his thought process in a more helpful way, rather than insulting the persons behind the first 30-40 posts.

LT is a great thing, but I believe when others fail to show proper respect to others- LT becomes a "heated discussion," as you put it. Just some thoughts.

I'm still here, and I'm still reading my Bible, as I'm sure others are.

Tomorrow I'll try to put up my thoughts on the first few chapters of Exodus.

:)

Now, jntjesussaves, try to go back and reread that one post out of the dozen or so I have authored in this thread with that well known "Christian charity." Also try and read it focusing on the facts and arguments being advanced, without your prejudices about the evil nature of debate or your offense at the "tone" of those who radically disagree with you.

What I said, and said and said, over and over again, so you wouldn't miss it, was (and is) that the objective shouldn't be MERELY to "read the Bible." If the Bible is the Word of G-d, the most important book in history, etc. then, surely, you would want to understand it as well as it can be understood.

Would you advocate that someone who proposes to operate on your brain pick up a manual on how to do brain surgery and "read it through in a day"? Certainly you would not. And I suspect you would be suspicious of the claim that this was a great achievement if your prospective surgeon followed that course of "study" before operating on you. Yet, somehow, you believe it to be a great achievement to "read through" the most important book in the world in a year, apparently just so you can say to others that you have done so. If that is an achievement, why not shorten the period to a week or a month or have a goal of reading through the Bible five times in a year.

This isn't a matter of "feelings," jntjesussaves. Reading the Bible is not psychological therapy or a good massage. It is not a matter of personal gratification. It is engaging with a text and trying to understand what the text is saying. Presumably, some of us, those of us who have bothered to get at least some of the available vast background, can do that more quickly, and others of us will have to acquire the background as we go along (and what a great way to be "inspired" to acquire it), but since none of us are prophets and few of us are arrogant enough to think we "talk to G-d" none of us can just pick up the Bible (which is a translation of very diverse texts bound in one volume) and understand it just by "reading it."

260: "And I'm curious, have you really heard me say ""You didn't accomplish anything because you have no idea about the background of those who the words were originally penned to." I would "argue" that the better way to read the Bible is to know as much as we can about its background and original meaning, but certainly those who read the Bible know more about it than those who have never read the Bible. It is just that those who study the Bible with reference to what we know about its background and intents may know still more. It isn't a good thing to know as much as you can about a very important book?"

lawecon, I was only giving an example of something that could be said. I never stated that the example I gave did (or ever would come from your mouth- or fingers). (Also please see my comments in post 261 for further clarification of my point). As to your point:

"I would "argue" that the better way to read the Bible is to know as much as we can about its background and original meaning, but certainly those who read the Bible know more about it than those who have never read the Bible. It is just that those who study the Bible with reference to what we know about its background and intents may know still more. It isn't a good thing to know as much as you can about a very important book?"

If you had stated your first post like the above, all I could respond with would be an Amen. Other than your "I would argue," I agree with every thing you stated. I really don't want to argue about this, however, I am open to discussing the importance of what you say- I agree with your premise. I also believe that what you say is important, but this isn't the way you started your first post. Please reread what you first posted (and again, please see my comments in post 261). Without a doubt, lawecon, you have a great deal of knowledge (I, for one, can see it)- but when you post to a thread where (I would presume most are coming to that thread to be encouraged) an argument in your first post, there is bound to be vitriol or animosity by both parties. I believe you have a lot to teach me and others on many topics, but while we may disagree- we don't have to be disagreeable. I, along with everyone else I presume, welcome your comments when done in a helpful and teachable tone (and presentation), because as I said before- you do have a lot of knowledge to impart. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

"jntjesussaves, I get the frequent impression that you think that "argument and debate" are curse words. I don't view it that way, and I trust you can join the thread I started and express your arguments without denouncing me or anyone else as evil."

Two comments: I believe argument and debate have their place, but I don't believe every thread should be about argument and debate. Second, I don't believe I have denounced you or anyone else as "evil." (If I have, please give citations as evidence.) I don't remember doing so. I have stated that you seem to be "argumentative" and at times unpleasant as you do so. I don't believe this to be the same as "evil."

~263

Are you telling us that you have not repeatedly used the terms "argument" and "debate" as very negative terms, describing the activities of nasty people - people who simply "disrupt" Goodness?

263: "Yet, somehow, you believe it to be a great achievement to "read through" the most important book in the world in a year, apparently just so you can say to others that you have done so. If that is an achievement, why not shorten the period to a week or a month or have a goal of reading through the Bible five times in a year."

While I didn't say it as you did, please read my first post (9). I also believe that reading the Bible through in a responsible manner is important. I also stated in 264 that I agree with your premise (and have never really disagreed with it). You just do not relay your points in a friendly and teachable manner. This is my point- we might disagree with certain ideas or points, but we don't have to become disagreeable.

"This isn't a matter of "feelings," jntjesussaves. Reading the Bible is not psychological therapy or a good massage. It is not a matter of personal gratification. It is engaging with a text and trying to understand what the text is saying. Presumably, some of us, those of us who have bothered to get at least some of the available vast background, can do that more quickly, and others of us will have to acquire the background as we go along (and what a great way to be "inspired" to acquire it), but since none of us are prophets and few of us are arrogant enough to think we "talk to G-d" none of us can just pick up the Bible (or more accurately a translation of very diverse texts bound in one volume) and understand it just by "reading it."

Just a couple thoughts:

I have never stated it be such. My faith is not based on my feelings (while as any human being- I would be dishonest if I said my feelings are not at all involved with my faith). I was saved fifteen years ago, and while I don't claim to have great knowledge of the Bible, I have studied the Bible (yes, backgrounds, concerns, etc.) as you state is important, for many hours. While you may feel your knowledge of the Bible is greater than mine (and it may very well be), I have put forth much time and effort in my own personal study. I am sorry if it doesn't appear as I have to you. I also base my faith on what God did for me, how He changed me- and made me a new person in Christ. I certainly don't always measure up to Christ's standard (believe me, I know this more than anyone other than God), but I know what I use to be and I know what I am now. While I agree with your assumption that what you say is important, I also believe that God's Word helps me (even when I don't know the background or concerns of those who I read about). This is not to say that I don't believe Christians should study the things you mention, but I am saying that there is more to reading the Bible than making sure you have all the knowledge you can about background, concerns, etc.

Excerpted from above:

"Since none of us are prophets and few of us are arrogant enough to think we "talk to G-d".

Here is an example of why I have a hard having a discussion with you. You make this type of a blanket statement, based on your prejudices. This the very thing you have accused me (and others) of doing. lawecon, while you may not "talk to God," this doesn't mean that others do not. And others who talk to God (are not necessarily arrogant). When I say I talk to God, I only do so because of Jesus Christ- not because I am a great person. I have a direct line to God because His Son (along with many other gifts), imparted that gift to me. And yes, I do consider this privilege ("talking to God") as a gift. Just as His gift of salvation saved me when I was in dire need of a Saviour. I hope you noticed, I didn't belittle your idea (or attitude) that you can't "talk to God," I have only stated why I believe you can and the fact that I am able to.

Just out of curiosity (you may have mentioned why in other posts), but I am not aware of the reason. Why do you state "G-d" when you reference Him?

265: You state: "Are you telling us that you have not repeatedly used the terms "argument" and "debate" as very negative terms, describing the activities of nasty people - people who simply "disrupt" Goodness?"

I just stated in post 264: "I have stated that you seem to be "argumentative" and at times unpleasant as you do so. I don't believe this to be the same as "evil."

I will state, one more time, what I believe in a different way. I believe "argument and debate" are not bad- they are neutral. However, arguing (for arguing sake), which I believe you seem to do- is vain, and not effective. Arguing or debating in a respectful and tactful way can be very beneficial to all those involved. While I have tried to compliment you for your strong points (vast range of knowledge), I also call to your attention what I believe to be a weaker point. I am only saying this, because I would like to have meaningful (and educational) exchanges with you. However, if you willfully choose to respond with negative feedback to everything I say, there is no point. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Well, in some ways I think we then have an irreconcilable difference. And it is not a difference in "prejudices," it is a difference in fundamental religious doctrines.

I do not talk with G-d. I read texts that are purported to be "inspired by G-d" (including multiple thousands of pages that are mostly "arguments" about what G-d meant in Scripture). In my religion, which is Judaism, anyone who claims that they talk with G-d is claiming to be a Prophet. Not only did prophesy die out more than two thousand years ago, the traditional punishment for making a false claim to prophesy was death by strangulation. So, you can see, this is regarded as a fairly serious matter (albeit the penalty for the sin has not been carried out for several thousand years).

Frankly, you are the first Christian I have ever encountered who claims to talk with G-d in any but the most loose metaphorical sense. Many persons claim that they pray to G-d and believe that G-d hears them, but they don't generally claim that G-d speaks to them about, for instance, the One Correct Meaning of a Bible passage.

But, whatever turns you on..........

The reason for writing G-d with a hyphen goes back to the prohibition about uttering the name of G-d aloud except in very limited circumstances. There is a collateral point about not destroying writings containing the Holy Name.

"I will state, one more time, what I believe in a different way. I believe "argument and debate" are not bad- they are neutral. However, arguing (for arguing sake), which I believe you seem to do- is vain, and not effective."

Well, obviously it has not been at all effective in your case, since all you have heard is "arguing for arguing sake," and have apparently not heard the arguments being advanced. Perhaps that is because you have not been taking seriously what is being said rather than because of my "tone"? Naw, couldn't be.

268/269: Again, lawecon, you make some very valid and interesting points. Thank you also for clarifying your beliefs about why you reference "G-d."

I guess neither of us did a very good job of communicating to the other. That is very unfortunate from my point of view.

>258 jntjesussaves: jnt, your post is full of the word "I" - "I would argue...", "If I was...", "I would see...", "I certainly wouldn't...", "I believe...", "I would probably..." - all of which is perfectly fine - for you. It describes how you interpret this thread. My point is simply that others interpret it differently. You may not understand why they interpret it differently; you may think your interpretation is the obvious one (because it's obvious to you); you may even think they shouldn't interpret it in that way; but the actual reality is that they do. And it's not just a single person - there are several people who have made what I consider to be interesting and relevant posts on the topic of reading your bible in a year which you think have no place here, just as there are several people who take your view. (Here I'm using the word "I" - this is my interpretation, just as the other is yours.) Neither seem to be in a clear majority. I think what it comes down to, in any thread, not only this one, is that you cannot control the direction in which a thread will meander, unless you form a private group where only people whom you have deliberately allowed in can post. Trying to do so is actually only creating more debate and argument, although I agree with lawecon that this is not a bad thing.

Now that y'all have had your discussion, here's the latest on my attempt to read my Bible through in a year (psst, the topic of this thread...) ;)

Exodus
1:7 - They are obeying the original command of God in Genesis 9:1
1:12 - afflicted by the world, sort of like the early church in Acts?
2:4 - "Miriam" is Moses' elder sister who watches him while he is in the bulrushes
2:12 - Moses' premeditated murder of an Egyptian. Aren't you glad that God takes even the most vile of sinners, and uses us?
2:14 - the Egyptian is stating what the world often does, "Don't you judge me!" or "Who died and left you boss??"
2:17 - Moses helps Reuel's daughters with the sheep (Reuel is aka Jethro)
2:22 - "Stranger in a Strange Land" (now, where have we heard that expression?)
2:24 - God's covenant with Abraham/Isaac/Jacob (we see this phrase used a lot, could it be a type of the trinity? See also 3:6.
3:1 - Note how it is written "the priest of Midian", to clarify that verses 2:16, 2:18 and 3:1 are referring to the same person?
3:2, 4, 6 - seem to indicate that the Angel of the Lord is God
3:7 - first mention of "my people" to classify the Hebrews in Egypt. God knows their sorrows, which reminds me of passages about Christ, who knew our pain and grief.
3:10 - clarifies that "my people" are the "children of Israel"
3:14 - "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. " In all capital letters, God's Name is "I AM". Look ahead to the next use of God's Name in capital letters, Exodus 6:3: "JEHOVAH". Now, put those two together and you get "I AM THAT I AM. I AM JEHOVAH". That's not my thought, but a note in my Bible, but I think it's a great note to point out!
3:15 - God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob = I AM = JEHOVAH = Angel of the LORD. Nifty!
3:16 - First mention of "elders of Israel"
4:3-9 - mention of "signs"for Hebrews who do not believe
4:22 - Israel is the first born son. This made me think of Jesus as being the begotten Son. Jesus is not the "only" son, obviously, but the only "begotten Son". This is also mentioned in the following verses: Psalm 2:7, John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, Hebrews 5:5 and 1 John 4:9. Note: some of these verses in modern translations of the Bible remove "begotten" and spoil the cross references. :(

More later!

271: I agree with you to a certain degree (whoops, I said it again). I guess those of us who believe one way can talk to one another amongst ourselves and others can have a different conversation amongst themselves.

I actually believe any topic could be done with more respect to others in a tactful manner and some on this threads do not seem to care about that, but again I realize that is my opinion.

I also believe if you went to most every post on most every thread you would see the pronoun "I" used quite frequently because that is the only perspective we can speak from.

John, I would also add that is why I can discuss these things with you (while it would seem that would disagree about many things), because we are both doing it in a respectful way and I for one, appreciate that.

Take care.

272: Interesting comments, fuzzi.

I haven't fully decided whether to just read a devotion each day and post thoughts or read 1-3 chapters each day from the Bible and comment on the corresponding chapters. At least for today, I will comment on what I read last night, 3 John.

There was mainly one verse that stood out to me in this short book- verse 11.

"Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God."

What a verse; there is much to glean from this verse, but I will give just a couple of thoughts.

First, John here is speaking to fellow Christians ("beloved") and he admonishes us to "follow not that which is evil." Quick and to the point. So often as Christians, just as it is with the unsaved, we can easily get distracted by the world and the things of the world and get caught up in un-Christian activities. We are not immune to the world as Christians, we must keep watch of our minds and hearts as we travel this "earthly road."

Second, he continues "He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God." Albert Barnes in his commentary on this verse puts forth the following words, "There can be no doubt that in this exhortation the writer had Diotrephes particularly in his eye, and that he means to exhort Gaius not to imitate his example. He was a man of influence in the church, and though Gaius had shown that he was disposed to act in an independent manner, yet it was not improper to exhort him not to be influenced by the example of any one who did wrong." Interestingly enough, Christians are not only influenced to do wrong (by the world), but sometimes by fellow believers. While it is not completely wrong to follow other men/women who are following Christ, we must be very careful to not place any man/woman on a pedestal. The potential is always there for them to fall, and when they do if we have too much confidence in them- we will be discouraged, led astray, and possibly fall ourselves. "Caution," I believe John is saying. God's blessings.

Hope all in this thread are staying faithful in reading God's Word each day (whether it is reading a few verses with meditation) or reading the Bible through.

After three weeks, I'm staying fairly faithful--(I"m a bit behind) to reading via the scheme in my post in # 15 above and using a series of commentaries published by Concordia called the People's Bible Commentaries.

I'm still really liking the variety of reading I'm doing and it's bringing me a lot of joy.

-Romans (epistles)--had an insight about agape which I may share later. I find much of Paul's rhetorical style hard going. When I'm done listening to my current audiobook in the car, I'll revisit The Learning Company's course The Apostle Paul by Luke Timothy Johnson to see if it helps me out.
-Genesis (law)--finishing up on Noah. The PBC I am using has such bad science in the first few chapters, that I am struggling to keep on with it. I gave up on this commentary once before.
-Joshua (history)--dividing up the land after the conquest
-Psalms--finished through Psalm 8
-Poetry--Job--finished through Job 6
-Isaiah-Prophecy-Although I thought I had this commentary, it didn't come to hand so I had to order it. The commentary is really dense between historical events in the two kingdoms, Messianic prophecy, the parallel prophecies of Jonah, Hosea & Amos and the quotations from Isaiah in the NT--I am 200 pages behind in the commentary. Will streamsong catch up in Isaiah before a year is out? (God knows). I am a bit overwhelmed in RL right now, so I refuse to be overwhelmed by this--it's a joy to do this even if I never catch up.
-Matthew (Gospel)--Sermon on the Mount.

276: streamsong: First, congratulations on what you have read and your faithfulness. Second, just a question out of curiosity- did you say you had or had not read the Bible through before? Third, a nice commentary (especially if you are reading the Bible through in a year) might be the Thru the Bible commentary set by J. Vernon McGee. He does not go into great depth on everything, but he is very easy to understand and as he put it when he was alive- "he liked to place the cookie jar on the lower shelf." You can actually go to Thru the Bible and download his messages/studies in MP3 format. He goes through the entire Bible book by book and is a wonderful teacher. Just an idea. Again, God bless you for your faithfulness.

(274) Thank you, John.

Nice to see you in here, Streamsong, and I appreciate your comments.

My devotion from today was titled "A Full Life." The verses came from Deuteronomy 8:8-18. Several of these verses really stood out to me and I wanted to comment on them. First, verses 10-14 of chapter 8:

Deuteronomy 8:10
When thou hast eaten and art full, then thou shalt bless the LORD thy God for the good land which he hath given thee.

Deuteronomy 8:11
Beware that thou forget not the LORD thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day:

Deuteronomy 8:12
Lest when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein;

Deuteronomy 8:13
And when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied;

Deuteronomy 8:14
Then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget the LORD thy God, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage;
(KJV)

The Bible says "be careful" not to allow your heart to be lifted up and forget the Lord when He blesses you. God is so good and we should always be mindful of that by showing Him are thankfulness in praise and obedience. These verses go on to say the following:

Deuteronomy 8:17
And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth.

Deuteronomy 8:18
But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day.

Deuteronomy 8:19
And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish.

Deuteronomy 8:20
As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God.
(KJV)

We must all remember that all that we have comes from a gracious God who showers his blessings on "the just" and "the unjust." We who were made "just" (righteous) by the Lord Jesus Christ should be the first to get in line to show our love and thankfulness to our loving Heavenly Father.

God's blessings.

You're correct, John: all we have is from God.

When you don't give your time to reading/studying God's word, when you don't give of your God-given talents to do things for God, you're robbing Him.

A person should give of their income, too. God loves a cheerful giver. :)

"Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings." (Malachi 3:8)

280: Amen, fuzzi!

I have read the entire Bible in one year! It is great I need to start again this year!

282: Congrats, lipisa! We welcome you. Hopefully you will be encouraged to faithfully read God's Word this year. God's blessings.

..277 I have made several attempts to read the Bible through in a year beginning when I was in third grade almost 50 years ago .... but I've never made it all the way through. I tend to get bogged down somewhere along the way and then slowly peter out. That's why I really like the schedule I'm attempting this year.

Thanks for the recommendation on the commentary, although I think I'll continue with the series I have for a while. It's a bit uneven, since the commentary for each book is written by a different person. If it turns out to big too big of a slog, I'll look for something less in depth.

lipisa, glad to have you!

You're not too far behind, give it a go!

Found another site for reading the Bible through in a year:

http://www.bible.com/readinayear.php#

All you have to do is click on the date, and the Bible verses for that day appear! Nifty. :)

284: streamsong: I understand your dilemma; I know the discipline it takes to stay consistent and faithful to read the Bible through. I guess that is what I would say, don't constrain yourself to reading it in a year- just commit to reading it all the way through (whether it takes a year, two years, etc.). As has been stated before, I believe God is more concerned with us growing and applying what we read (then the fact that we read through His Word in a year). I am sure you will be successful this time around. Just keep plodding away. If you get behind, keep on. If you get bogged down in a certain chapter (or book), move to a different one and come back to that one later. God bless you in your reading.

286: Interesting, fuzzi.

I read an interesting devotion today entitled "Gutters and Windows" with it's text verses from Matthew 23:23-31. The author opens with the following interesting paragraph:

"While we were out for a family drive, a spotless white sign with perfect red lettering caught my attention: "Gutters and Windows- Quality Work Guaranteed." The sign was prestine, but I feared the house and barn directly behind it might collapse at any moment. The paint was peeling, the windows were cracked, and the gutters were nonexistent!"

What an interesting analogy to apply to us as Christians.

Matthew 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. {anise: Gr. dill}

Matthew 23:24
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Matthew 23:25
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

Matthew 23:26
Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
(KJV)

May God keep us from trying to appear "clean" on the outside, yet being "dirty" on the inside. We might be able to confuse or fool the world (and man), but we do not fool an all-knowing Heavenly Father. Verse 26 states it best- "cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also." We must be "cleansed" from within (salvation) in order to be "cleansed" and "made righteous" without.

We also see this same thought in verse 28:

Matthew 23:28
Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
(KJV)

We need not worry about our outward righteousness if we have been made righteous by the Blood of Christ- because the outward righteousness will follow if we have trusted in Christ to save us (2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 2:10).

(284) streamsong, like John said, just read your Bible, don't worry about meeting a deadline, just keep trying.

I tend to get bogged down in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, but I really enjoy both 1 & 2 Kings, and 1 & 2 Samuel.

And we're here to encourage you: that's one of the reasons I created this thread. Don't let the enemy discourage you!

"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me!"

(289) Interesting, thanks John.

As I read I thought of other verses, in the same vein:

"Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." Matthew 15:17-20

It's the inward parts that need to be cleansed. As you said, once the inward is cleansed, the outward will follow.

290: Amen, fuzzi. streamsong, don't be discouraged.

291: Nice addition; when I think on these things- I never fail to remember when Jesus healed the 40-year old man in the Bible who had been sick from his birth; the Pharisees did not glorify in the fact that this man had been healed (not only of physical sickness, but also from spiritual sickness), they only ridiculed Jesus for healing him on the Sabbath. I believe at times Christians have Pharisaical tendencies- we also at times judge others solely on their outer appearance, neglecting to see the spiritual work God is doing in their lives.

Just an FYI: I have read through Exodus 23. No notes to post this morning, sorry, will try to do that in my non-existent spare time... ;)

(292) John, I agree with your take on the Pharisees. They were more concerned whether or not someone had washed their hands than the important matters. Unfortunately, many people are more interested in how you dress or what school you went to, or even how much you tithe to the church than if you know Jesus as your Saviour, if you are truly a child of God.

Mary chose the more important part...the more "needful" thing:

"And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her." Luke 10:41, 42

Woo! :)

294: Good points, fuzzi.

My devotion today came from Psalm 19:7-11; there were several interesting verses here.

Psalms 19:7
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. {law: or, doctrine} {converting: or, restoring}

Psalms 19:8
The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

Psalms 19:9
The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. {true: Heb. truth}

Psalms 19:10
More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. {the honeycomb: Heb. the dropping of honeycombs}

Psalms 19:11
Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.
(KJV)

"The law" (the Word of God) is perfect, converting the soul. Without the Word of God, a sin-sick soul would never realize their need for a Saviour. The Word of God is perfect (infallible/without error).

The testimony of the Lord is sure (you can trust it), "making wise the simple." This sounds like me; thank God he does not only come to the wise, he comes to the humble and makes them wise.

I love the analogies in verses 8-10: God's statutes (laws) rejoice the heart. We don't often think of them in that way, but to know God's law makes us wise and in making us wise, when we obey- we will rejoice! The "fear of the Lord" is clean and endures forever; God's commands (law) is pure and will enlighten the humble heart. The law is more to be desired "than gold, yea, than much fine gold." It is more precious than anything. It is also more sweeter than honey and the honeycomb.

Lastly, verse 11 says, God's law "warns" us and if we keep His law, we will have great reward. God's blessings.

I love the book of Psalms!

There are several I turn to when I feel down or in need of encouragement, such as 102 and 103.

And 119 is a fantastic read, as it is all about God's word!

In my own reading, I'm slogging through some of the less exciting parts of Exodus: the descriptions of how to make the candlesticks and the tent, etc. I read through Exodus 27 last night, and am up to the clothing for Aaron and his sons. Not every chapter is like Psalms 119. :)

Hi, guys. I have a question for you about boundaries. Several of you made it clear that you were disappointed that "outsiders" who did not share your point of view had "invaded" this thread, and you encouraged them to leave. In response, most have left and two other threads have been created, the more popular of which is entitled "Christianity: How do you study your Bible".
In response, fuzzi "invaded" that thread, with the same sort of theological/ideological line she is pushing above. When her presumptions are questioned, she doesn't leave, but puts the questioner on "block" (as she calls it) so that "her joy in the Lord" will not be "diminished."

So, I'm confused, how does this work? You get your own reservation to express your views, but everywhere else is also open for your preaching. And you refuse to engage with anyone else in that other territory as well as this territory, because, well, apparently, because you're RIGHT ABSOLUTELY and no one should question OBVIOUS TRUTH. Seems kinda two faced, doesn't it?

I don't think I would ever manage to get through the entire Book of Psalms. Or, for that matter, the prophetic books written in verse, like Isaiah and Jeremiah.

(299) cjbanning, I never thought I could read through the Bible. However, I just tried and I made it through!

Once you get through it once, it gets easier on the succeeding attempts.

I like reading the major prophets, like Isaiah and Jeremiah. There's so much written about the Messiah in those books, it's almost like a "Where's Waldo"...you say "A ha!" every time a messianic prophecy turns up (well, at least I do)...

298: fuzzi's faith is apparently too weak to deal with a dissenting opinion.

298: lawecon, I can only speak for myself. I haven't "invaded" these new threads. As I stated before, I believe you are very intelligent and have a lot to offer others, but I tried my best to state why it is difficult to communicate with you and I failed. I attempted to explain my position, but no matter how I explained it, I wasn't able to explain it to you in a way that you were able to understand. I wish I had been able to, but I wish you the best.

~302

Actually, I understood and understand quite well. My method, in both posting to these forums and in life, is to go to "first principles" and question these first principles. I ask for evidence and reason (aka, in this usage, logic).

I have no problem with faith so long as it is acknowledged as faith regarding what we do not or cannot know. I have a lot of problem with purported faith that contradicts what is well known or that demands that one affirms contradictions. (Hence, the repeated example above of the dead getting up out of their graves and walking among the living when Jesus was crucified. You don't really believe that or expect others to believe that, do you?)

I think that pretty much sums up why we were having problems communicating.

As for people invading other topic threads, I trust you noticed the quotation marks in #298. I have no problem at all with you, fuzzi or anyone else participating in any thread in any Group. I would specifically like you to participate in either or both of the threads founded when many of us left this thread.. In fact, it would greatly elevate my provisional opinion of you if you did so.

I do have a problem, however, when people like fuzzi demand a private reservation for "believers" in this thread, so she does not have to put up with the disturbance of discordant thoughts, and then goes to other threads and tries to impose the same standard there. If you guys in this thread don't want to be bothered by contrary thoughts, fine. Go to it. But expect to be bothered when you mix with those not of your cult. Large numbers of people simply don't agree with you, and they are not going to say "Amen" when you assert things that are facially wrong or self-contradictory.

303: lawecon, I don't mind being challenged in what I believe- I am just a lot more communicative with others when done with tactfulness. I know we would probably agree on some things and disagree probably on a lot of things. When I desire to argue or debate certain ideas, I will search out those types of threads. When I was invited to this thread, I did not join in to argue or debate. There are some issues that certainly need debating and you will find me on those threads when I feel the urge to do so, but this was not a thread that I thought was going to be about debate- I only came to be encouraged and to encourage.

You mentioned the thread, "How do you study your Bible?" While I might go to a thread such as that to find out how others study their Bible- I wouldn't go to that type of thread to argue, because there are many ways to study the Bible. Certainly some ways are better than other ways, but I wouldn't feel the need to go to this type of thread to argue Bible study methods.

As I stated before, you make some very valid points in relation to studying the Bible of which I believe are very important.

Once again, your transformation of "argument" into either ill will or something virtually Satanic is deeply mistaken. The Talmud Talmud, which is deeply religious work, is largely argument. You need to look into this fundamental presumption in greater depth Conjectures And Refutations

I read some very thought-provoking verses in my devotion today; they came from Revelation 22:1-5.

Revelation 22:1
And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

I believe verse one speaks of "the river of life," Jesus Christ. This river flows from "the throne of God and of the Lamb."

Revelation 22:2
In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

When I see the phrase, "tree of life," I think about the first "tree of life" spoken of in Genesis. That "tree of life" allowed all that ate of it to live forever; I believe the tree spoken of here is the same tree and this time those who eat of it will also live forever, but we won't be again cursed with sin during this time. Thank God He doesn't mention the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." We tried that once and it was found wanting.

Revelation 22:3
And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

Revelation 22:4
And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.

There will be no more curse; there will be no doubt there- we will serve Jehovah God. This is also a true test that we are His now, we serve Him. I love that phrase, "they shall see His face." What a day that will be when we see Jesus- I can only imagine! As Satan's number was stamped on his followers, Jehovah's followers will have "His name" stamped on their foreheads, praise God.

Revelation 22:5
And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
(KJV)

There shall be no night there- no need for incandesant light bulbs (or energy saving ones, for that matter), no need for candles, no need for the light from the sun. I love the second part of verse 5, "for the Lord God giveth them light." The Light that originally lit the world 2,000 years ago will do so again in that day. And we shall reign with Him forever and ever. We should always rejoice in these truths.

God's blessings.

305: lawecon, I don't think I can say much of anything that pleases you. I have tried (and from my part- succeeded). I admit (and have admitted) that I can be wrong on certain things; I don't believe I am, but I could be. This is why communication between the two of us will never happen. Of all the things that I have said, you haven't agreed once. You haven't responded positively to "anything" that I have said. I don't know if I have ever discussed certain issues with others who have ever "totally" disagreed with me on everything- but it seems to be the case with you.

I am not asking you to agree with me, but is there nothing that I have said that bears "the truth" to you?

On the word "argument," I can't be any more clear. I have stated several times that "arguing" or debating is not bad. I just don't want to argue all the time about everthing. It's tedious and depending on the topic, vain. I will leave "arguing" about everything to other people.

Once again, here is the problem: You apparently see The Truth as a matter of intuition. You feel really strongly that something is true, therefore, it is truth. That isn't the way it works. Truth is a property that emerges as different people look at an issue, confronting it with evidence, logic and arguments between one another, over a long period of time.

This is exactly why what you are doing above is fundamentally mistaken. You and fuzzi and others want to take snippets out of the Bible and proclaim "what they mean to me." If you were really interested in what you tell us you believe to be G-d's word, then you would engage in the above process for trying to understand what G-d's word means. But you don't. As you say above, that would be tedious. It would be a bore. What you want to do is what a rock musician wants to do - things that draw attention to YOU, not to the word, things that make YOU feel important, not things that improve all of our understanding.

So, you're right, until you grow out of this childish approach to the Bible, we have nothing to say to one another.

(306) jntjesussaves wrote: " Revelation 22:1
And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

I believe verse one speaks of "the river of life," Jesus Christ. This river flows from "the throne of God and of the Lamb."

A good cross reference might be in John 4, where Jesus offers living water to the Samaritan woman at the well.

Also, upon doing a search for "river of life", it is only found three times in the Bible, all in Revelation:

21:6, 22:1, 22:17

"There shall be no night there- no need for incandesant light bulbs (or energy saving ones, for that matter), no need for candles, no need for the light from the sun. I love the second part of verse 5, "for the Lord God giveth them light." The Light that originally lit the world 2,000 years ago will do so again in that day. And we shall reign with Him forever and ever. We should always rejoice in these truths."

That's an AMEN thought!

In my own reading, I read through Exodus 29 last night. Most of what I have been reading the last few days has been about creating the altar and the garments for Aaron and his sons, so "that he (they) may minister unto me in the priest's office"

:)

308: " If you were really interested in what you tell us you believe to be G-d's word, then you would engage in the above process for trying to understand what G-d's word means."

It doesn't mean anything, independent of an interpretative community. Texts require readers. (Oddly enough, authors are optional.)

"What you want to do is what a rock musician wants to do - things that draw attention to YOU, not to the word, things that make YOU feel important, not things that improve all of our understanding."

What's wrong with rock musicians?

"Truth is a property that emerges as different people look at an issue, confronting it with evidence, logic and arguments between one another, over a long period of time."

I do actually really like that definition of truth, though, since it privileges the dialectical process over any type of metaphysical correspondence. The questions arises, though: the truth that emerges over n years is going to be subsumed by the truth that emerges over n+1 years, but does it really make sense to berate those who hold to the previous "truth"?

If truth changes, then is it really truth?

I'm with Fuzzi. The truth doesn't rely on people believing it. If a "truth" changes, then either the premises have changed, or one of them isn't true. Many things do change with cultures, but truths are absolute.

312: "The truth doesn't rely on people believing it."

Neither lawecon nor I said it did. You're misrepresenting the position.

"Many things do change with cultures, but truths are absolute."

How do we know this?

sorry, I was writing in a hurry.
What I understand you did say is that the truth is defined by public consensus. Is that right?

> 308. You apparently see The Truth as a matter of intuition. You feel really strongly that something is true, therefore, it is truth. That isn't the way it works.

Perhaps that's not the way intuition works. It might be helpful to go back to Henri Bergson, to whom intuition is a kind of experience, called by Bergson “the true empiricism” (The Creative Mind, p. 175). He calls intuition sympathy, which consists in putting ourselves in the place of others. Bergsonian intuition consists in entering into a thing, rather than going around it from the outside, or, as you put it "confronting it with evidence, logic and arguments".

This “entering into,” for Bergson, gives us absolute knowledge. He says we seize ourselves from within – but this self-sympathy develops heterogeneously into others. In other words, when one sympathizes with oneself, one installs oneself within duration and then feels a “certain well defined tension, whose very determinateness seems like a choice between an infinity of possible durations”. A person is moved into the inner being of an object to grasp what is unique and ineffable within it. The absolute that is grasped is always perfect in the sense that it is perfectly what it is, and infinite in the sense that it can be grasped as a whole through a simple, indivisible act of intuition, yet lends itself to boundless enumeration when analysed.

So let's not put intuition down so quickly.

>314 eclecticdodo:

Well, it is revealed through the development of public consensus. Whether it has an existence independent of that consensus is a question philosophers have debated for millennia. I'm a pragmatist; I tend to think we're better off recognizing that the question itself is meaningless and to go on with out lives, both secular and spiritual--except that we can't really just pass over that which cannot be said in silence, so conversations like this are inevitable. But at least on one level, if we know how to arrive at the truth, isn't that good enough?

like I say, I believe in absolute truths. Take an example: The universe either had a beginning, or has always been. Opinion has varied over time and cultures. So the truth revealed through public consensus has changed. However, the fact remains, the universe either had a beginning or has always been, it must be one or the other. There must be a truth independent of what man believes.
Now, what that truth is, and whether it can be proven one way or the other, is an entirely different matter. Wrt the current discussion, I believe the Bible is the truthful word of God.

"Wrt the current discussion, I believe the Bible is the truthful word of God."

So, if the truths are constant in the Bible, is keeping slaves moral so long as you do it in accordance with the instructions laid down in it?

>316 cjbanning:, 317 Is it our understanding of truth which develops (and thus changes) rather than truth itself?

Didn't god tell the Egyptian woman Hannah to go back and be a good slave for Sarah?

> 317. However, the fact remains, the universe either had a beginning or has always been, it must be one or the other.

Not necessarily. Your dilemma is only relevant to a being, like a human being, that is time-based, i.e., constrained by the principles of time. Try as we might, humans just can't get out of our time box. It's built into us (or maybe we're built into it, whichever you prefer.) To a being that is not constrained by or defined within time, your either/or choice just doesn't apply. Do we understand such a being? Can we?

No.

But we can understand that we can't understand it.

Truth...what is "truth"?

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." (John 1:14-17)

"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32)

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 17:17)

"Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." (John 18:37)

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:3, 4)

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8)

"We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Herebyknow we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." (1 John 4:6)

Jesus Christ is truth.

Jesus Christ is full of grace and truth. Grace and truth come by Jesus Christ, given to those who will hear Him.

Those who know God hear others who know Him, and also know the spirit of truth as opposed to the spirit of error.

The Bible, God's word, is truth.

The truth makes us free.

Those who are of the truth understand God and His word.

To be saved (born again) is to come to the knowledge of the truth.

309: Well said, fuzzi.

311/312: Amen!

317: Amen, very well said.

322: Excellent, fuzzi. Ultimately, answers to all of our questions must come from the one and only true source of truth, God's Word. Amen and amen!

319: "Is it our understanding of truth which develops (and thus changes) rather than truth itself?"

I dunno. Certain religious claims I could make aside, I've never interacted with "truth itself" (which reminds me of Kant's ding-an-sich), only with my/our "understanding of truth which develops." So I don't think I--or any other mere mortal--is qualified to speak about "truth itself" other than to speak elucidatory nonsense about it the way Wittgenstein did in the Tractatus.

`314

"orry, I was writing in a hurry.
What I understand you did say is that the truth is defined by public consensus. Is that right?"

No, that isn't right. At least it isn't right to me. "Truth" regarding a complex phenomenon like a text isn't "just known" through "common sense" or intuition or whatever metaphor you would like for laziness. (Which, in this context, means reading the text without any regard for the original language of the text, the context in which the writer of the text was writing, etc.) However, it also isn't known by "consensus," unless you mean by "consensus" critical examination and debate by many many people over decades and centuries. (Is Physics known "by consensus"? Only in that same sense of "consensus".)

In other contexts, if this "plan meaning" view of reality were correct there would have been no need for a Newton, or an Adam Smith, or the guys who have critically evaluated and tested their original ideas for hundreds of years, or the guy who repairs your car. You'd just wake up in the morning and know how everything works. You would know everything that it has taken hundreds of years for civilizations to find out, and you'd know with Absolute Certainty without there being any possibility that you are dead wrong.

That is, after all, how you know what the Bible really means. You just look at a translation in a completely different language than the texts were written in, free of any other sorts of background, and you Just Know. G-d, apparently, tells you The Truth. Because, ah, because you are a Very Important Prophet who has Deep True Knowledge beyond the rest of mankind.

Let's just take a very simple example. The translators of the KJV of the Bible were believers in Absolute Monarchy, Slavery, a heaven that was a series of crystalline spheres in which the stars were either puncture holes or lights hung up on one or another of the spheres, that more gold mean more national wealth and a variety of other things that, today, we don't believe to be Absolute Truth. (If they didn't believe those things, they would have been disemboweled by the gracious monarch that commissioned this translation.) Clearly as "great clerics" they believed all of their views to be Biblical. Do you believe that? If not, then you don't even agree with the translators of the text that you venerate as "G-d's word". Would they have known more about the meaning of their translation that you?

:215. Reading it through from cover to cover seems pointless;it's not a single narrative.

OP means original poster -- the person who started this thread.

>322 fuzzi: fuzzi, many Christians would agree with you that Jesus Christ is truth, that the bible contains truth, and that God gives us grace in our efforts to understand the truth. But Christians have been struggling to understand this truth for two millennia, have often come to different understandings, and will continue to do so. This truth is greater than we can fully understand as humans. Through the ages, wise and holy Christians, inspired by God's grace, have helped us to make progress in our understanding. They are certainly as wise, holy and inspired by grace as you and me, probably more so. To refuse to acknowledge that does seem a bit like arrogance. It also seems to fly in the face of evidence. For example, it was wise and holy Christians who wrote the NT in the first place; it was wise and holy Christians who discerned which books should form the canon of scripture as we know it; it was wise and holy Christians who made the translations (and chose which earlier texts to use in those translations) that you and I read today, yea, verily, even the KJV. The idea that being "born again" suddenly gives you the truth flies against both the experience and the understanding of truth in the bible of most Christians in the world and in history.

>318 StormRaven: "is keeping slaves moral so long as you do it in accordance with the instructions laid down in it?"
To my knowledge there's nowhere in the Bible that says keeping slaves is the right thing to do. The law, including that regarding slavery, was given to deal with an imperfect world. I see it as the same as the law about divorce which Jesus explains as being because of the sinfulness of the people, not because divorce is in any way right. In the same way, laws were given about the keeping of slaves because it was a reality in that day, not because it was God's intention. It's also interesting to note that those laws dictated a rather different form of slavery to what we think of today. As evidenced by various slaves inheriting their masters land and possessions. The word translated as slave could also be translated as servant or hired labourer, and indeed is in various places.

>314 eclecticdodo: "That is, after all, how you know what the Bible really means. You just look at a translation in a completely different language than the texts were written in, free of any other sorts of background, and you Just Know. G-d, apparently, tells you The Truth"

I would never claim the full meaning of the Bible can be ascertained by simply reading a translation and somehow knowing the truth. But I do believe God reveals his truth to those who earnestly seek it through study of his word. Over the centuries people have misinterpreted the Bible in various ways, to various ends, and we must always be conscious that we don't make the same mistake, though I'm certain we do in ways we are blinded to.

"The translators of the KJV of the Bible were believers in Absolute Monarchy, Slavery, a heaven that was a series of crystalline spheres in which the stars were either puncture holes or lights hung up on one or another of the spheres, that more gold mean more national wealth and a variety of other things that, today, we don't believe to be Absolute Truth."

Unless we speak biblical hebrew or greek, we are reliant on translators to do some of the work for us. Incidentally, I don't rate the KJV as a particularly good translation, for the reasons you say and plenty more besides. It's important that we use a good translation, or, ideally, several, and get as close to the original language as we can. For me, that means using NIV as my primary translation, referring to NLT, NRSV, Amplified version, and sometimes others, as well as using a comprehensive concordance to compare the way a word is translated in different contexts to get a deeper understanding of the meaning. I don't pretend that is the same as being fluent in biblical hebrew and greek, but it's as close as I can get.

"I would never claim the full meaning of the Bible can be ascertained by simply reading a translation and somehow knowing the truth. But I do believe God reveals his truth to those who earnestly seek it through study of his word."

=======================

At least you have some regard for the translation you are using, rather than just using the KJV because it is traditional or you "like the way it sounds." One need not compare that approach to the approach of several others who are "reading the Bible through," to, ah, read it through. But I'm sure you know that "even you" could get a lot closer to original meaning if you wanted to exert some additional effort. If you want some suggestions, I'd be happy to be specific.

But I still wonder about the above doctrine. I wonder about it from a Quaker point of view. Now I am not a Quaker, partly because I am somewhat disappointed with how they have evolved over the past 300 years. But they certainly have a doctrine that suggests an alternative to the above. Instead of reading a translation of the Bible, even a much better translation than the KJV and just hoping that the texts in it are the right ones and that you aren't missing too much cultural background, and praying really really hard for inspiration as to the lesson to be taught, they just take the last step. They not only pray, but they listen. And unless someone speaks to them really really clearly, well, they just sit and listen until someone does. No one has to have an expressed opinion about everything, particularly about every verse in a translation of an anthology of ancient texts. One just prays about one's concern and one listens, and one sits still and keeps one's mouth shut unless there is a specific answer - until the "inner light" specifically moves one to speak.

That sounds a lot more straightforward if one truly "believes that G-d reveals his truth to those who earnestly seek it...." doesn't it?

To my knowledge there's nowhere in the Bible that says keeping slaves is the right thing to do. The law, including that regarding slavery, was given to deal with an imperfect world.

So, the universal truths that you think are embedded in the Bible say it is okay to keep slaves. At least it isn't worth condemnation. And it is okay to beat them so much that they almost die right away, but not quite. If they die a couple days later that's okay. But that's just to "deal with an imperfect world". It would have apparently been too difficult for the law to say "Holding other people as slaves, that's wrong. Don't do it."

It's also interesting to note that those laws dictated a rather different form of slavery to what we think of today.

Nice prevarications there. How about we reinstitutionalize Biblical slavery and make you a slave? Think that'd be a condition you'd like? After all, it's not like it is real slavery, and it is Biblically approved, so you should be fine with it.

Actually, if anyone bothers to look at the Bible, which, apparently, few of you have bothered to do. There are laws in the "Old Testament" in at least two places about the treatment of and conditions under which you free slaves. (Which laws have generally been regarded as applying mostly, but not exclusively, to Hebrew slaves) and there are comments by Paul in the New Testament about how slaves should be satisfied with their situation until Jesus comes again. (Long wait, apparently.)

So while the claim that there is nothing explicitly "approving of" slavery is true, there is much that takes slavery as a given and does not condemn it as such.

But electic is right this far: The slavery of both "books" of the Bible is materially different than American slavery was, and different still from Greek and Latin American slavery. Such distinctions are not dismissable out of hand, and to do so simply evidences further ignorance.

>335 lawecon: until Jesus comes again. (Long wait, apparently.)

Not such a long wait for New Testament Christians who expected it to happen pretty quickly.

And it didn't....... Then what?

>337 lawecon: A lot of subsequent reinterpretation of the New Testament!

> 328. Let's just take a very simple example. The translators of the KJV of the Bible were believers in Absolute Monarchy, Slavery, a heaven that was a series of crystalline spheres in which the stars were either puncture holes or lights hung up on one or another of the spheres, that more gold mean more national wealth and a variety of other things that, today, we don't believe to be Absolute Truth. (If they didn't believe those things, they would have been disemboweled by the gracious monarch that commissioned this translation.) Clearly as "great clerics" they believed all of their views to be Biblical. Do you believe that? If not, then you don't even agree with the translators of the text that you venerate as "G-d's word". Would they have known more about the meaning of their translation that you?

You seem to be saying that a reader of the KJV translation of the Bible (or any other document?) must not only have detailed understanding of the Zeitgeist of the era in which the document was created (in this case 17th Century England) but must also agree with the various elements of the then-prevailing general cultural, intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and political climate.

Can it be that I've misunderstood you?

(330) johnthefireman, I did not say that the Bible contains truth, I quoted it as saying that God's word/the Bible is truth.

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 17:17)

People come to different understandings when they rely on their own selves and other fallible men and women to tell them what it says.

When we rely on God to reveal His truth to us through His word, He does so.

It's not arrogant, it's just a statement. I'm not saying I'm better or smarter than others, especially those who have studied God's word for a lifetime. I'm saying that God Himself will reveal what each of us needs to know IF we put our self aside, put our education/knowledge/learning aside and listen to Him as a child, with our heart, in faith.

johnthefireman wrote: "The idea that being "born again" suddenly gives you the truth flies against both the experience and the understanding of truth in the bible of most Christians in the world and in history."

But it doesn't fly against what is written in the Bible.

"...ye must be born again" (John 3:7)

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1 John 2:27)

I do not need to rely on what men teach, but only in God and what He teaches, through His word and through the guidance of His Holy Spirit.

If I have to choose between men's learning and my Bible, I'll believe my Bible 100% of the time. Why? Because it is God's word, preserved for me and you, and all as per His promise.

If some take that as arrogance, so be it, but it's not meant to be. It just is.

(331) eclecticdodo, very good post.

And let's not forget that if a man had a slave, he had to release him on the seventh year, make him a free man.

(I just read that the other day, somewhere in Exodus!)

341: A limitation that only applied to Hebrew slaves. And if you could trick him into getting married during those seven years, he'd be yours forever.

(339) jburlinson, it could be that there is a misunderstanding here...

...how terrible it must have been to be a Christian with only a King James Bible to read, no other resources.

I wonder how John Bunyan and others managed.....poor ignorant fools...

;)

~338

Good answer.

~342

Now try reading the other set of rules in Deuteronomy.

>340 fuzzi: But it doesn't fly against what is written in the Bible.

Of course the bible has the term "born again". But your interpretation of it does fly in the face of how it is/was interpreted by the vast majority of Christians in the world today and in history. They (we) have a different interpretation of what God teaches, through God's word and the guidance of the Holy Spirit; you and a relatively small number of Christians have your interpretation of what God teaches, through God's word and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Recognising honestly that there appear to be different interpretations of God's word which God has given to different people who seek God's truth in the bible is not the same as "relying on men's learning". Rather, I would suggest that it is humility. I don't have a monopoly on understanding God's word - but neither do you. I'm not the only Christian in the world to whom God has revealed God's truth in the bible - but neither are you. A Christian community grew up (indeed they wrote the New Testament) and it is not "relying on men's learning" for the Christian community to discern together the meaning of its foundational texts.

(346) johnthefireman, with all due respect, I will take what the Bible says over what a vast majority of Christians in the world today and in history have declared it to say.

"you and a relatively small number of Christians have your interpretation of what God teaches, through God's word and the guidance of the Holy Spirit"

I put my trust in the Lord, His guidance and His word. I may be one of a relatively small number, but that does not mean that the majority is right or correct.

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)

"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; ..." (Romans 3:4)

I finished Exodus last night.

One thing I noticed was what the priests were supposed to wear, and how it compared to other similar clothing requirements in the Bible:

Exodus 28:5-6
"And they shall take gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen.
And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue, and of purple, of scarlet, and fine twined linen, with cunning work."

The parts of the priestly vestments are:

gold
blue
purple
scarlet
linen

Later on various 'stones' are mentioned.

Compare to what the woman riding the beast wears:

Revelation 17:3-4
"So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:"

The parts of the woman named MYSTERY BABYLON are:

gold
purple
scarlet
(stones)

She's not a nice lady, but she shares some of the same colors, however neither 'blue' or 'linen'.

Next comparison is the virtuous woman in Proverbs
Proverbs 31:21-24

"She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.
Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.
She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant."

Again, we see similar items mentioned here:

purple
scarlet
tapestry & silk
linen

There's the purple and scarlet again, and the linen of the priestly vestments is mentioned again.

Note about "linen": in the Bible:

Christ's body was wrapped in linen
The angels are clothed in pure and white linen
The armies of Heaven are robed in fine linen (Revelation 19:14)
Joseph was arrayed in fine linen when promoted by Pharaoh
The curtains of the tabernacle were made from fine linen
When Aaron went into the innermost part of the temple, near the mercy seat, he had to be arrayed in all linen "He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on." (Leviticus 16:14)
The angels in Daniel's visions were clothed in linen
And the Bride of Christ is also arrayed in fine linen, with an explanation about what "fine linen" represents:

"And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. " (Revelation 19:8)

So, linen represents the righteousness of saints.

Notice that while angels and Heaven's armies and the priests all wore linen, Mystery Babylon did not, she just imitated the robes of the holy priests.

Last thought about these items of clothing:

Proverbs 7:16
"I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt."

The harlot-like woman who seduces the simple youth has linen on her bed, but it is from Egypt.

God does not like Egypt, and makes it clear throughout the Bible that it is not a good place to be.
Isaac was told not to go down to Egypt, Abraham and Jacob got into trouble when they went to Egypt, Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt, and then the children of Israel sojourned in Egypt due to the famine, and were made into slaves.

Both Jacob and Joseph asked that their bones not be left in Egypt, too.

And God led the children of Israel out of Egypt to the promised land. Over and over again He tells them that He was the One Who led them out of Egypt (see the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, etc.)

And when the children of Israel were removed from their homeland (see book of Jeremiah), they were specifically told not to go to Egypt, but they went anyway, against God's wishes.

Egypt is not a good place, and has been compared to "the world", an unfriendly place for those who love God and try to follow Him.

I wouldn't think highly of someone who had Egyptian linen on her bed. ;)

~347
" johnthefireman, with all due respect, I will take what the Bible says over what a vast majority of Christians in the world today and in history have declared it to say."

The point has been made to you repeatedlly, fuzzi, that you have very little foundation to know "what it says."

346> John was wondering if you could tell me what was Nicodemus interpretation of being born again or as the New (Jerusalem Bible says: without being born from above). How did Nicodemus understand his conservastion with Jesus. Did he being a Jew understand it? Asking in sincerity.

>347 fuzzi: The point, fuzzi, is not necessarily that a majority is right, but that they are probably as convinced as you are that God has given them the right interpretation of the bible. It's not about what the bible says, it's about how we interpret what it says. You keep referring to taking what the bible says as if there is no interpretative process. In fact you are interpreting it just as much as I or anyone else, but you don't seem willing to acknowledge that dynamic.

>350 baron770: That's an interesting question to which I don't know the answer. lawecon may know more about a Jewish interpretation.

If any reading is as good as another, what of this learned one that finds evidence in the Old Testament for God’s Wife.

".... it may be well to call the attention of the readers to a few quotations from MacGregor Mathers' "Kabbalah Unveiled," which was published in 1888. This work is a translation of Knorr Von Rosenroth's "Kabbalah Denudata." (Sulzbach,1677)

The Kabbalah--the Hebrew esoteric doctrines--is a system of teachings with which only the very learned usually attempt to wrestle. It is claimed to have been handed down by oral tradition from angelic sources, through Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, the Seventy Elders, to David and to Solomon. No attempt has normally been made to commit this sacred knowledge to writing, till, in the early centuries of the Christian era (authorities differ widely as to the date) the pupils of Rabbi Simeon ben Joachi put his teachings into writing; and this in later ages became known as the "Zohar," or "Book of Splendor." Around the name of this Rabbi Simeon ben Joachi, as one scholarly writer puts it, "cluster the mystery and the poetry of the religion of the Kabbalah as a gift of the Deity to mankind." The Zohar, which is only a part of the Kabbalah, is the great store-house of the esoteric teaching of the ancient Hebrews.

Returning to the quotations referred to above, MacGregor Mathers in his preface to the 1888 edition says: "I wish particularly to direct the reader's attention to the stress laid by the Kabbalah on the feminine aspects of the Deity, and to the shameful way in which any allusion to these has been suppressed in the ordinary translations of the Bible, also to the Kabbalistical equality of male and female."{p. 107}

Referring to the Sephiroth (the ten Kabbalistical attributes of God), Mr. Mathers says:
"Among these Sephiroth, jointly and severally, we find the development of the persons and the attributes of God. Of these, some are male and some are female. Now, for some reason or other, best known to themselves, the translators of the Bible have carefully crowded out of existence and smothered up every reference to the fact that the Deity is both masculine and feminine. They have translated a feminine plural by a masculine singular in the case of the word Elohim. They have, however, left an inadvertent admission of their knowledge that it was plural in Genesis iv., 26: 'And Elohim said: Let US make man.'

"Again (v., 27), how could Adam be made in the image of the Elohim, male and female, unless the Elohim were male and female also? The word Elohim is a plural formed from the feminine singular ALH, Eloh, by adding IM to the word. But inasmuch as IM is usually the termination of the masculine plural, and is here added to a feminine noun, it gives to the word Elohim the sense of a female potency united to a masculine idea, and thereby capable of producing an offspring. Now we hear much of the Father and the Son, but we hear nothing of the Mother in the ordinary religions of the day. But in the Kabbalah we find that the Ancient of Days conforms himself simultaneously into the Father and the Mother, and thus begets the Son. Now this Mother is Elohim."

The writer then goes on to show that the Holy Spirit, usually represented as masculine, is in fact feminine. The first Sephira contained the other nine, and produced them in succession. The second is Chokmah (Wisdom), and is the active and evident Father to whom the Mother is united. The third is a feminine passive potency called Binah (Understanding), and is co-equal with Chokmah. Chokmah is powerless till the number three forms the triangle.{p. 108}

"Thus this Sephira completes and makes evident the supernal Trinity. It is also called AMA, Mother, the great productive Mother, who is eternally conjoined with the Father for the maintenance of the universe in order. Therefore is she the most evident form in whom we can know the Father, and therefore is she worthy of all honor. She is the supernal Mother, co-equal with Chokmah, and the great feminine form of God, the Elohim, in whose image man and woman were created, according to the teaching of the Kabbalah, equal before God. Woman is equal with man, not inferior to him, as it has been the persistent endeavor of so-called Christians to make her. Aima is the woman described in the Apocalypse (ch. 12)."

"This third Sephira is also sometimes called the Great Sea. To her are attributed the Divine names, ALAIM, Elohim, and IaHVeh ALHIM; and the angelic order, ARHLIM, the Thrones. She is the supernal Mother as distinguished from Malkuth, the inferior Mother, Bride and Queen. . . . In each of the three trinities or triads of the Sephiroth is a dual of opposite sexes, and a uniting intelligence which is the result. In this, the masculine and feminine potencies are regarded as the two scales of the balance, and the uniting Sephira as the beam which joins them."
In chapter viii. we read: "Chokmah is the Father, and Binah is the Mother, and therein are Chokmah (Wisdom) and Binah (Understanding), counterbalanced together in most perfect equality of Male and Female. And therefore are all things established in the equality of Male and Female; if it were not so, how could they subsist? . . . In their conformations are They found to be the perfections of all things--Father and Mother, Son and Daughter. These things have not been revealed save unto the Holy Superiors who have entered therein and departed therefrom, and have known the paths of the Most Holy God, so that they have not erred in them, either on the right hand or on the left."

In a note in regard to Chokmah and Binah the author says: "Chokmah is the second and Binah is the third of the Sephiroth. This section is a sufficient condemnation of all those who wish to make out that woman is inferior to man."
The Kabbalah also speaks of the separation of the sexes as the cause of evil, or as the author puts it in a note: "Where there is unbalanced force, there is the origin of evil." Further on it is written:

"And therefore is Aima (the Mother) known to be the consummation of all things; and She is signified to be the beginning and the end. . . . And hence that which is not both Male and Female together is called half a body. Now, no blessing can rest upon a mutilated and defective being, but only upon a perfect place and upon a perfect being, and not at all in an incomplete being. And a semi-complete being cannot live forever, neither can it receive blessing forever."{p. 109}
The following is the author's comment upon the above: "This section is another all-sufficient proof of the teachings maintained throughout the Kabbalah, namely, that man and woman are from the creation co-equal and co-existent, perfectly equal, one with the other. This fact the translators of the Bible have been at great pains to conceal by carefully suppressing every reference to the feminine portion of the Deity, and by constantly translating feminine nouns by masculine. And this is the work of so-called religious men!"

A learned Jewish Rabbi, says: "Those who write on the Bible must be very careful when they come to speak of the position of woman to make a clear distinction between the Old and the New Testaments. In the Old Testament, except in the second chapter of Genesis, woman occupies a true and a dignified position in society and in the family. For example, take the position of Sarah, of the Prophetess Miriam, the sister of Moses, and Deborah the Prophetess. They all exemplify the true position of woman in the Old Testament. While Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, and the chief writer in the New Testament, condemned woman to silence in the Church and to strict obedience to her husband, making her thereby inferior to the man, the Old Testament gave free scope to the development of the Holy Spirit in woman. To intensify this teaching upon the position of woman, we find even the voice of the Deity telling Abraham: 'Whatever Sarah tells thee, thou shalt hearken unto her voice,' showing that woman in her own home was the guiding power."
In regard to another point this Rabbi says: "The learned Jewish Rabbis of modern times do not take the rib story literally. And this may be said of many of the olden times."{p. 110}

The Kabbalah and its learned expositors may be said to be "the throbbing heart" of the Jewish religion, as was graphically said of the mystic teachings of another occult fraternity. And in view of the Kabbalah's antiquity, and the fact that it is the fountain head of the body of the Old Testament teachings, these quotations as to the real Kabbalistic teachings in regard to woman, or to the feminine aspects of the Deity, are of first-class importance in such a book as "The Woman's Bible." In Kabbalistic teachings "there is one Trinity which comprises all the Sephiroth, and it consists of the crown, the king and the queen. . . . It is the Trinity which created the world, or, in Kabbalistic language, the universe was born from the union of the crowned king and queen."

The rib story is veiled in the mystic language of symbolism. According to occult teachings, there was a time before man was differentiated into sexes--that is, when he was androgynous. Then the time came, millions of years ago, when the differentiation into sexes took place. And to this the rib story refers."

This is not some New Age hocus pocus, whatever it is. Serious people developed these ideas over centuries.

Egypt is not a good place, and has been compared to "the world", an unfriendly place for those who love God and try to follow Him.

============

The Pyramid Texts and before them, the Coffin Texts also contain a wealth of data on early Egyptian beliefs. These indicate that the “Hebrews” took more than just gold and silver when they fled. The Heretic King Akhenaten is often compared with Moses.

Some scholars have claimed that Psalms 104 was largely borrowed from Egyptian sources. Psalm 104 describes the ongoing act of Jah continuously bringing the world into existence.

German philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder remarked, "It is worth studying the Hebrew language for ten years in order to read Psalm 104 in the original’" In his book Reflections on the Psalms, C.S. Lewis compared the Hymn of Aton to the Psalms of the Judaeo-Christian canon.

How manifold it is, what thou hast made!
They are hidden from the face (of man).
O sole god, like whom there is no other!
Thou didst create the world according to thy desire,
Whilst thou wert alone: All men, cattle, and wild beasts,
Whatever is on earth, going upon (its) feet,
And what is on high, flying with its wings.
The countries of Syria and Nubia, the land of Egypt,
Thou settest every man in his place,
Thou suppliest their necessities:
Everyone has his food, and his time of life is reckoned.
Their tongues are separate in speech,
And their natures as well;
Their skins are distinguished,
As thou distinguishest the foreign peoples.
Thou makest a Nile in the underworld,
Thou bringest forth as thou desirest
To maintain the people (of Egypt)
According as thou madest them for thyself,
The lord of all of them, wearying (himself) with them,
The lord of every land, rising for them,
The Aton of the day, great of majesty.

329: I understand your point and would agree it is not a single narrative; thank you also for your help on what "OP" stand for.

331: Very good points, eclecticdodo! I for one see the connection.

340: Well said, fuzzi.

348: Very interesting comparisons, fuzzi.

350: Very good question, baron770.

Last night I wanted a 'quick read' before bed, so I picked up my paperback copy of Psalms and read Psalms 119.

I was not trying to speed read, but wound up reading the entire Psalm in 15 minutes.

What a blessing it was. :)

> 359. Psalm 119 certainly contains a lot to appreciate and think about -- it's the longest chapter in the Bible, I think. I wonder, though, how much of it is lost on English readers, who would miss almost entirely the alphabetic acrostic patterning, which is the basis of the entire poem.

Psalms 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible, you are correct.

The alphabet 'titles' are preserved in the King James Bible.

And also, Psalm 119 is all about God's word, too. Almost every verse uses a term for scriptures, such as 'statutes', 'law', 'judgments'. For example:

"ALEPH. Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.
They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.
Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.
O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.
I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.
I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly.

BETH. Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.
Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes.
With my lips have I declared all the judgments of thy mouth.
I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies, as much as in all riches.
I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways.
I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word.

GIMEL. Deal bountifully with thy servant, that I may live, and keep thy word.
Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.
I am a stranger in the earth: hide not thy commandments from me.
My soul breaketh for the longing that it hath unto thy judgments at all times.
Thou hast rebuked the proud that are cursed, which do err from thy commandments.
Remove from me reproach and contempt; for I have kept thy testimonies.
Princes also did sit and speak against me: but thy servant did meditate in thy statutes.
Thy testimonie also are my delight and my counsellors.

I have two devotions that I have been doing over the last several months; one is "Our Daily Bread" and the other is "Checklist for Life for Men." Interestingly enough, today I just wanted to share a couple of quotes and a poem from these two sources.

When we sustain a heartbreaking loss,
When grief overwhelms our soul,
The Savior who gave Himself on the cross
Reminds us that He's in control. (Dan DeHaan)

Our greatest comfort in sorrow is to know that God is in control.

There is only one name that means perfect dependability every time, and it isn't followed by a trademark symbol or a clever logo. What is that name? God.

We can rest assured that no matter what happens, God is in control. And secondly, we can be sure that God is perfectly dependable.

(362) Amen.

And that not only is the Lord in control, and is dependable, but He knows what He is doing.

And all that He does is for a purpose, and for our good, see Romans 8:28.

> 361. It's my understanding that, in the original, within each stanza, each of the eight verses begins (in Hebrew) with the appropriate letter.

So the first stanza would read, with just a little tweaking of the KJV, as follows:

Aleph:
All blessings to those undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
And blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.
Also they do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.
As thou has commanded us: let us keep thy precepts diligently.
Ah, that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
Ashamed shall I never be, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.
Always will I praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.
Abandon me not utterly: I will keep thy statutes.

However, that still wouldn't be faithful to Hebrew since Aleph has no sound. Yet, Wikipedia tells us that: "Aleph is sometimes used as a mater lectionis to denote a vowel, usually /a/. "

I'm not sure I've ever seen a translation into English that tries to do this. Maybe that's because it probably isn't worth doing?

(364) The translation would probably not be as correct if they tried to put 'a' at the beginning of each verse.

But it's a nifty thing to know, thanks for posting that. :)

363: Amen!

Read the first three chapters of Leviticus last night. Will try to read at least three tonight (it's a little dry going so far). :)

About "The Incident at the Inn": Exodus 4:24-26
After God commissions Moses as His emissary to lead His people into freedom, He tells him that all who tried to kill him are dead. He almost immediately tries to kill him, Himself. The attack is bizarre and seemingly inexplicable. Who does Zipporah think she is talking to?

Does this material belong here, or is it some sort of error?

> 368. The attack is bizarre and seemingly inexplicable. Who does Zipporah think she is talking to?

This is an odd story, indeed. I've read somewhere that the person Yahweh tries to kill is Moses' firstborn son, because the child is uncircumcised. In other words, the Lord tells Moses to tell Pharaoh to let Israel go because Israel is the Lord's firstborn son. But, the Lord also tells Moses that Pharaoh will refuse, so Moses is to tell Pharaoh that the Lord will put Pharaoh's firstborn to death.

This pronouncement comes in v. 23, which reads, in 3 different translations:
-- "and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.” If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.’”" ESV
-- "And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn." KJV
-- "I ordered you to let my son go to offer me worship. You refuse to let him go. So be it! I shall put your first-born to death'" Jerusalem Bible

At this point, it seems very clear that the Lord is talking about putting Pharaoh's firstborn son to death.

But then, one of two things happens: (1) either the Lord decides to kill Moses for some reason never explained, or (2) Yahweh, or the author of Exodus (or a later interpolator) gets confused and decides that the Lord tries kill Moses' firstborn son -- presumably because Moses' son is not circumcised. Verse 24:

-- "At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put him to death." ESV
-- "And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him." KJV
-- "On the journey, when Moses had halted for the night, Yahweh came to meet him and tried to kill him." Jerusalem Bible

The problem comes in with personal pronouns. Who is "him" referring in this verse? It seems that "him" is Moses -- but some claim it refers to Moses' son. This claim is somewhat validated by what happens next, because --

Zipporah circumcises her son with a sharp rock, in v. 25:
-- "Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” ESV
-- "Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me." KJV
-- "At once Zipporah, taking up a flint, cut off her son's foreskin and with it she touched the genitals of Moses. 'Truly, you are a bridegroom of blood to me!, she said." Jerusalem Bible.

So Zipporah is trying to propitiate the Lord by circumcising her son. The ESV and the Jerusalem Bible make it clear that she is addressing Moses with her remark about bloody bridegrooms. The KJV remains ambiguous -- it remains remotely possible that she is referring to her son as a bloody bridegroom.

So, the question is, what is God saying to us with this passage of scripture?

(369) I don't know what the Lord is saying in this passage.

I don't claim to understand everything that is in the Bible, only those things which have been made clear to me. Sorry.

There are things that I have read and went "huh?". After rereading and study and prayer, I still have gone "huh?" and so left it for later.

And then, later, it is made clear to me. It might be the same with this passage, that someday it will be made clear to me.

Until then, I'll wait. :)

Back to the topic:

1. I made a mistake, I'd read through Leviticus 6 the day before. Last night I read up to Leviticus 12.

Go! Go! Go!

2. While walking to work this morning (I have to park about a half mile from my office) I was talking to the Lord, and was meditating upon 1 John 1:9, when I thought of another verse in the Bible. Compare, and be blessed:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9

"All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death." 1 John 5:17

Not only will God forgive our sins, but will cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness, which is also sin.

Think on that for a minute, or hour... :)

~370

"I don't claim to understand everything that is in the Bible, only those things which have been made clear to me."

Is that a tautology, or were you just assuming the "by G-d" at the end of the sentence?

>373 thomashwalker2:
And would you agree that no two people experience things in exactly the same manner ? Or that the method that works well for teaching one individual may not work on another ?

>373 thomashwalker2: Thomas, I think many Christians would agree with you that the bible is not just a dead book to be studied, but is God's living word, with which we interact. It does speak to us today.

However I think you set up a false dichotomy between experience and study. If you have access to both, why not use them both? If God gives me exegetical tools and a wealth of scholarship by wise, holy and learned men and women through the ages, it would seem rather arrogant not to use them but to rely solely on my limited experience.

The Bible is an instruction book or owners manual for Christians

I assume you're using these as analogies, which are necessarily imperfect, but I don't think either "instruction book" or "owner's manual" are particularly good analogies. One of my scripture scholars always used to insist that the bible is not a book, it is a library containing different books of different genres written by different people at different times in different locations, cultures and contexts, for different purposes, aimed at different readers. I find that a better analogy.

I think your lawecon analogy is also flawed. Rather, if lawecon were in fact a pilot, surely it would be useful for him to study the theory as well as knowing the practice? I'd feel much more comfortable with a pilot who has both experience and theory than one who has only his own experience. What happens when the latter comes across certain weather conditions or something else unusual which he has never experienced personally, but he could have learned how to handle it if he had read a manual or two and seen how others had handled the same situation?

>370 fuzzi:
(369) I don't know what the Lord is saying in this passage.

I don't claim to understand everything that is in the Bible, only those things which have been made clear to me. Sorry.

There are things that I have read and went "huh?” After rereading and study and prayer, I still have gone "huh?" and so left it for later.

And then, later, it is made clear to me. It might be the same with this passage, that someday it will be made clear to me.

Until then, I'll wait. :)

=============
For some, this is a great response.

Some people however, respond to such WTF moments by looking outside of the box for answers.

Amen and Halleluiah ;)

I think I'll try this practice, giving myself permission to skim through Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Psalms, etc.--but also giving myself the opportunity to not skim, if the Spirit so moves me. The Inclusive Bible is 808 pages long, so reading three pages a day will have me having read the whole thing by the end of 2012, even with the month-long handicap.

Of course, I'll be approaching this with my own beliefs guiding me: that " God still speaks to us through the Bible" (as the BCP catechism states) but that the Bible is not literally true (well, not always, anyway) and that the historical-critical best allows us to understand Scripture most fully.

thomas, I liked your analogy.

"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." (Proverbs 3:5)

I don't lean upon my understanding, or what other men think they know, I trust only in God to show me what I need to know.

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:12-14)

Studying the Bible is good, but understanding comes from God to those who have accepted His offer of salvation.

You can't know without the spiritual assistance of the Holy Spirit.

And without the Holy Spirit's discernment, it's all foolishness.

>379 thomashwalker2: No, you're once again setting up a false dichotomy using an extreme case. I said it's better to have both experience and theory.

>380 thomashwalker2: Fair enough. But there does seem to be a trend on this thread to play down any sort of academic study of the bible, as if it automatically means that one isn't also reading the bible in the light of one's personal faith journey.

373: Amen, Thomas! Very well said.

378: Amen, fuzzi.

379: Again, amen, Thomas!

(383) Good Scripture. :)

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures ..."

I'm not discounting academic study, not at all. I'm just pointing out that the Bible teaches that one needs the Holy Spirit to teach, and that we should not put our trust in men.

I don't need any man to teach me if I have God's word and His Spirit. "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1 John 2:27)

Peter and John were unlearned and ignorant fishermen, but they were still used by God. See Acts 4, as an example.

Paul, though educated, did not rely upon his own wisdom to preach, but instead relied upon the power of God, and the Holy Spirit:

"And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)

Our faith should not be based upon a teacher/preacher/book, etc, but upon God and His word.

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." (1 Corinthians 2:12-13)

I rely upon the wisdom of God, and not upon the wisdom of men.

I am new here and have enjoyed this thread immensely. We know that God is all. He is our creator, our redeemer, our peace, ad infinitum. But many people including Christians when thinking of all that God is seldom think of God as an author. Yet He is! And what is the best thing you can say to an author? "Hey, I read your book." God is well pleased when His people read His book.

~373

This is perhaps the strangest post I have ever read.

Let's see if I understand. First of all, a book that is an anthology that is principally comprised of texts that existed hundreds of years before there was a Jesus or a Christianity is an "instruction book or owners manual for Christians."

Second of all, you recommend reading the Bible so as to "dissect every word," but not, of course, in the original languages in which those words were written and not with any background about the authors writing them or the societies in which they lived.

Third, I'm sorry to break it to you, but the particular parts of the Bible that contain a rant about the Pharisees and Sadducees are apparently just confused, they can't even keep these two enemy groups straight and contradict everything else we know about them from Josephus or the Talmud or other sources referring to them.

One suspects that what you are experiencing is your own history and psychological imagination, not the Bible at all.

> 388. God is well pleased when His people read His book.?

And He gives autographs, too -- only He writes His name on your heart. And He doesn't mind taking the time to write a personal message, just for you.

390: That is very well said, jburlinson. Amen.

387: Amen, fuzzi.

Fuzzi, the only caution I would add to what you said is the following:

As I have stated before, I also rely on God's Holy Spirit to speak to me through His Word (and as you mentioned, 1 John 2:27) is a good verse supporting this belief. I would only say that I do read what others (many learned men/women) before me have written about God's Word, because I believe there is much to learn from others.

I guess the reason why I am hesitant to "only" rely on my interpretation of what I believe God's says is because I am fallible and I could misinterpret something incorrectly. I also believe this is one of the vital characteristics of cults- one person interprets the Bible a certain way and then he "runs" with his interpretation and leads many in to error. I am just always hesitant when I hear someone's interpretation of something that seems very different from what I have learned (or in some cases, totally contradictory).

However, with this caution in mind, I agree with your interpretation of the mentioned verse- it is certainly something that many Christians do not seem to rely enough on- the Holy Spirit's leading.

>392 jntjesussaves: I am fallible and I could misinterpret something incorrectly

Precisely. So am I. I believe God's Spirit does help me to interpret the bible, but I also believe the same Spirit helps other people to do the same, and therefore there is a lot to be said for finding some sort of consensus. Call me old-fashioned, but I find that Christ's Church is rather a good forum for doing so. If I rely solely on what I think God is telling me personally about the bible, then fallibility and misinterpretation are an ever present danger.

(388) Wemick, glad to have you with us.

I like your description as God as an author: Amen!

Feel free to let us know where you are in reading God's word, whether or not you're trying to read it through in a year.

Last night I went on a reading jag, and read through Leviticus 22. :)

(392) John (jnt), I always compare Scripture to Scripture, and compare what I read to what my preacher teaches, and to what I read in other books and on the web.

But the Holy Spirit is the final judge, He convicts me of the truth or 'non-truth' of what I read and hear. And the Bible confirms that, too.

Last night our pastor was teaching/preaching on how God alone can satisfy, the world cannot. He compared it to eating fast food versus cooking yourself a nutritious meal. The former is easy (fast food, watching television, etc.) and the latter takes work (making a salad, studying your Bible). :)

Becoming a Christian is easy, but growing in your faith is much harder than many worldly pursuits, hence the dust on many Christians' Bibles...

>395 fuzzi: I don't really think much of your pastor's example in the context of this conversation, fuzzi. We're not talking about backsliders, about people who take the easy way out. We're talking about committed Christians, certainly as committed as you, who believe that God helps us to understand the bible through serious study, and that just as God "convicts" you or me (that's an interesting term which I hadn't heard used in that context - is it part of the evangelical Christian lexicon?), God also convicts a lot of other Christians and it would be rather arrogant for me to assume that my interpretation of what God is convicting me is the only true one.

Of course I suppose one could interpret the pastor's analogy to mean that we shouldn't take the easy way out (waiting for God to convict us) but should put some real effort into studying the bible, using all the tools which God has put at our disposal?

Becoming a Christian is easy, but growing in your faith is much harder than many worldly pursuits...

Almost certainly true, but we're not discussing "worldly pursuits", we're discussing reading and studying the bible.

>396 John5918: "I don't really think much of your pastor's example in the context of this conversation"

I think Fuzzi was trying to move the conversation on to those who don't read/study the bible at all

I was reading the Bible recently and the spirit told me that everything in it was bunk. In fact, only those who adopt atheism will have an afterlife. Everyone else will just vanish into nothingness. Since the spirit told me this, it must be true.

From the book "God Laughs & Plays" by, David James Duncan

"Ever since the advent of the printing press, there have been readers who slip from enthusiasm for a favorite text into the belief that the words in that text embody truth: do not just symbolize it, but literally embody it. Not until the past century, though has an American alliance of self-styled "conservative Christians" declared that this slip is in fact the true Christian religion, that a single bookful of words is Absolute Truth, and that this Truth should become the sole basis of the nations's political, legal, and cultural life. The growing clout of this faction does not change the theological aberrance of its stance : fundamentalism's deification of the written words of the Bible----in light of every scripture-based Wisdom tradition in the world, including Chrisianity's two-thousand year old own----is not just naivete': it is idolatry.
Words in books can remind us of truth and help awaken us to it. But in themselves, words are just paint and writers are the painters., Old Testament and gospel writers, bhakti and Sufi saints, Tabetan lamas and Catholic popes included.
There are of course, crucial difference between scripture and belles littres, and between inspired and merely inventive prose. But the authors of both write with human hands and in human tongues."

Political implications aside....Mr. Duncan has an interesting take on the written word. He goes on to say :

"God is Unlimited. Thought and language are limited. God is the fathomless but beautiful Mystery Who creates the universe and you and me, and sustains it and us every instant, and always shall, The instant we define this fathomless MYstery It is no longer fathomless. To define is to limit. The greater a person's confidence in their definition of God, the more sure I feel that their worship of "Him" has become the worship of their own definition. I don't point this out to insult the fundamentalists' or anyone else's God. I point it out to honor the fathomless Mystery."

One of the important points I gathered from this is the fact that when we take the Bible to "embody the truth" we start to worship the "truth" and lose sight of what it is we are supposed to be doing. We are limiting God...creating him in our image rather than the other way around. Perhaps this is a help to some but if taken to extreme, it is no different than any other religious text taken to extreme...the Koran as an example. It is the Islamic "embodiment of truth" . I do not believe any living human being can say whose "embodiment" is the correct one.....my guess would be neither as they have both been touched by human hands and minds.

Nothing wrong with studying the Bible.....the problem, as I see it, comes into play when someone or some group decides that there is no wiggle room.....the Bible is "truth" and the only "truth"....

>395 fuzzi:
"Last night our pastor was teaching/preaching on how God alone can satisfy, the world cannot"

I take exception to that....God created the world.....nature is ALL.....the written word is just as stated above.

"Becoming a Christian is easy, but growing in your faith is much harder than many worldly pursuits, hence the dust on many Christians' Bibles..."

Would you agree that perhaps there are those who are becoming "children of God" without the words of the Bible and that neither way is the "right" way or the "wrong" way ? If we define a "right" way and a "wrong" way than we are doing so using a text that is written by human hands. The Bible is a beautiful collection of the written words....inspired writing, and can lead us to our individual truths but it is limiting.

>399 faceinbook: God is Unlimited. Thought and language are limited. God is the fathomless but beautiful Mystery Who creates the universe and you and me, and sustains it and us every instant, and always shall, The instant we define this fathomless Mystery It is no longer fathomless. To define is to limit. The greater a person's confidence in their definition of God, the more sure I feel that their worship of "Him" has become the worship of their own definition. I don't point this out to insult the fundamentalists' or anyone else's God. I point it out to honor the fathomless Mystery.

faceinbook, if I were an "Amen" sort of person I would certainly shout "Amen" to most of your post, possibly even in capital letters. This quote really sums up for me the greatness of God, as opposed to the limited god of our own understanding. God is revealed to us in many ways, including the whole of creation/nature, the Christ, the scriptures and our own experience - but never wholly.

>398 StormRaven:
Storm cloud alert !!!

>400 John5918:
David James Duncan was raised in the Christian faith, his family was Seventh-Day Adventist. Having read all of Mr. Duncan's work, both fiction and nonfiction, he has never to my knowledged disavowed his Christian faith but he does have a huge issue with fundamentalism.

Actually his thoughts about God being Unlimited could be described by the first verse of the Tao
My translation reads as thus :
"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal Name."

The point made by Duncan is not a disrespect of Chrisitianity, the Bible or any other faith for that matter...it is about the danger of fundamentalism....which leads those who aspire to acknowledge the mystery, to think that they have found the answers.....the answers become the "God" so to speak and in turn are used as a tape measure to judge others.
Obviously, there are Christians who believe much like Duncan, but I would argue that most of those who do, have probably studied many religious texts and have found that the Bible speaks to them personally in the best way.

Not easy to put a finger on when "faith" becomes "fundamental" but there is definately an "aura" around individuals who seem to have a need to take a hold of all that is "fundamental" about a religion and make it "the" religion.

IMO, studying the Bible without learning of it's context within all of the Spiritual writings through out history is much like studing the history of the United States without knowing it's place within the history of the entire world.
Something I fear that public schools in this country were guilty of when I was a student.

You're welcome.

>398 StormRaven:
I was reading the Bible recently and the spirit told me that everything in it was bunk. In fact, only those who adopt atheism will have an afterlife. Everyone else will just vanish into nothingness. Since the spirit told me this, it must be true.

===========
That might have been some evil Beni Elohim. The Bible makes it clear that you should always be on the alert for them and their kids; those nasty Nephilim.

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matthew 22:36-40.

If you use all your heart, all your soul and all your mind to do something, then there isn't room left in your heart, soul or mind for anything else, is there?

So, if reading the Bible through from cover to cover in a year helps you do either commandment 1 or commandment 2, great -- more power to you.

If it doesn't, perhaps it would be best to stop and do something that does.

If you're already busy doing commandments 1 and 2 (which would be accomplishing a great deal, I would think), then reading the Bible through would be optional, at best.

The question that Christians who are contributing to this thread might want to ask themselves is -- am I doing commandments 1 and 2 by participating in this discussion?

In my own case, I can't really say that I am -- at least not all the time. But that's my problem.

395: Good points, fuzzi.

393: "If I rely solely on what I think God is telling me personally about the bible, then fallibility and misinterpretation are an ever present danger."

I agree, however, I do believe that God leads us to His truth by His Holy Spirit. I, like fuzzi, also am highly reliant on the Holy Spirit in guiding me as I read the Bible; to me, according to the mentioned verses, is the Bible way.

400: All "amen" means John is you agree with what has been said.

>396 John5918: "I don't really think much of your pastor's example in the context of this conversation"

(397) eclecticdodo replied "I think Fuzzi was trying to move the conversation on to those who don't read/study the bible at all"

Thanks for your input, friend.

The preacher's reference was from Mark 8, about how after Jesus fed the 4000 the disciples were worried about having only one loaf of bread. They were with the Lord Who had just taken seven loaves and fed 4000 people, and they were worried about not having enough to eat? And the Lord could feed them with more than physical bread, as He is the true bread from Heaven, given so that we never have to hunger again (John 6).

No wonder Jesus said "And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened?
Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?
When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.
And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven.
And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?"

God meets our needs, physically and spiritually (Philippians 4:19). If we seek first the kingdom of God (that which is within us - Luke 17:20-21), all the things we need will be given to us (Matthew 6:25-34). And we should be content with our food and clothing (1 Timothy 6:8).

Finally, when comparing DVDs to the Bible, keep in mind that we are not to love the things of the world... (1 John 2:15-16)

>409 jntjesussaves:
"The question that Christians who are contributing to this thread might want to ask themselves is -- am I doing commandments 1 and 2 by participating in this discussion?"

How is participating in this tread breaking the first and second commandment ? This is a discussion about the Bible and the study of the text, which is bringing up a lot of different aspects of that book and the words/lessons it contains. Guess I don't see how this can be seen as leading one astray from the first and second commandments. We are not discussing a crime or committing evil acts.

>411 fuzzi:
Not sure that anyone actually expressed a "love" for a DVD. If they did, I missed it. Have to admit that I love my "Out of Africa" DVD.
I guess I am guilty of loving the things of this world...nothing more beautiful than a rose in full bloom, a sky before a storm, the sound of a river running, the birds on a spring morning, the first night of spring when the frogs come alive, the wind in spruce trees, animals with all their complexity.....these things of this world I do love. I believe that God made these things and by not loving that which he provided, I would be showing a lack of respect for the beauty he has provided.

Have to admit that I have a love for my books as well. They contain the imaginations of so many children of God.....writers who have been gifted by the Creator and are able to pen to paper in ways that have allowed me to travel, to feel things I may never have experienced other wise, to live life much more fully than I could have without them. Can't imagine a God who wouldn't want me to love and appreciate these gifts.

I love a lot of things I guess.

>407 jburlinson: Good challenge, jburlinson. I suppose I would just say that I find this a fascinating topic of discussion and enjoy exploring it. It's also an opportunity for me to interact with and try to understand a type of Christianity and a way of interpreting the bible which I rarely encounter in real life, in a forum which is relatively civil.

>410 jntjesussaves: jnt, I suspect most of us already knew that. But using "Amen" in this context in a conversation has a particular cultural context. One could also say, "Agreed", "Hear, hear", "I second that", "Bravo" and a host of other things. Only a certain sub-group of Christians use "Amen" in this way (as opposed to using "Amen" as part of prayer and liturgy, or occasionally ironically), and I'm not part of that "Amen" culture.

>411 fuzzi:, 412 I was also wondering where the DVDs fit in with this conversation.

> 413. a way of interpreting the bible which I rarely encounter in real life, in a forum which is relatively civil.

So, in a way, it's a way of loving God and loving your neighbor. Having read many of your postings over the past few months, I believe you do approach it in this way and I find that quite lovable.

So good on ya'.

Back on topic:

Finished Leviticus last night.

On to Deuteronomy! :)

~411
"Finally, when comparing DVDs to the Bible, keep in mind that we are not to love the things of the world... (1 John 2:15-16) "

Interesting. You do realize, don't you, that the Bible you are reading from is a technological miracle? It isn't a manuscript created by hand from a previous text that has been used for decades. It isn't written on vellum. It is printed in ink, but not anything like the sorts of inks that were traditionally used - inks that would easily run if wet and that had to be specially dried when first applied. Each version is run in literally tens of thousands of copies on high speed presses that can produce ten thousand copies in a day. They are mechanically bound, using materials that, again, are very modern inventions.

Clearly "a thing of the world." One most of don't appreciate. You might try reading this for another, much more simple, example I Pencil

>411 fuzzi:
"Finally, when comparing DVDs to the Bible, keep in mind that we are not to love the things of the world... (1 John 2:15-16) "

Another aspect of the Christian faith that tends to leave me a bit befuddled. Certainly not all Chrisitains but many seem to feel that we are here to "endure" this life so as to be rewarded in the next. If God indeed created all that is around us, why then must it be perceived as something to be endured ?
I believe many of the other well known religions follow a different creed, in that, they feel that we are here to enjoy life. I have plenty of Jewish , Native American and a few Buddist friends who shake their heads at the willingness of some Christians to forgo the enjoyment of this precious life. This life is a gift, do you not feel that it is squandered when it is not enjoyed to the fullest ?
Kind of like hiding one's Easter candy for later....only to find that when you unwrap it the chocolate has turned white with age and no longer tastes the same. (speaking from experience)

I think I understand the verse John 2:15-16 But to my way of thinking it doesn't mean that we can not enjoy to the fullest all of the talent, techno abilities and imagination that create our stories, this life and time and who we are now. The very act of sharing one's bounty, be it talent or monetary wealth is supported in the Bible as well. Are we not bound to appreciate these things ?

I have an issue with using the verses of the Bible as a "point maker". It speaks of using the text as a tape measure to judge others. REALLY don't like that !

Simply can not believe in a God who would judge me because I love my "Out of Africa" DVD....to suggest so is pretty judgemental. I understand that this DVD is a thing of this world.
Like to think that John was pointing out that their is love and then there is LOVE....it is important to distinguish between the two and keep one's priorities in order. But, he didn't mean I shouldn't enjoy and appreciate to the fullest that which God has graced us with.

See how one verse can be interpreted in two different ways ? Who is the judge as to which of us is correct ?

>413 John5918:
See the link in post #406
Took me a while to find it and I'm not sure how it was perceived that the DVD was "loved"

Congrats fuzzi for finishing another book!

Following the scheme in my fist post (#15 I think) I have finished my first book..... Joshua. Next week I'm on to Judges.

I still ike the method I'm following with a different book each day, even though it looks like there isn't much progress week to week. I'm still behind in Isaiah and struggling with the commentary on Paul.

Thanks to those who made the suggestions of other commentaries. I think I'll stick with the set I'm using right now. Some of these (like Job and Psalms) I have read several times. Some I had started and given up; others are unread. They are part of my huge TBR mountain (and these weren't even marked in my catalog as TBR). I think I'll continue reading them and then I can decide which to keep and which to let move on to new homes.

(419) Thanks, streamsong.

Do your Bible reading as you prefer, whatever works for you. :)

BTW, Isaiah is one of my most favorite books of the Bible, possibly because of all the references to the Messiah and how they match up to the books that describe His first coming. :)

413: Understood; just wanted to make sure.

417: You make some very valid points, faceinbook. As someone has said, "Christians are in the world, but they should not be of the world." I would also say that we can (and sometimes) do speak dogmatically about issues when God's Word is not dogmatic. I for one, do not believe watching movies (Out of Africa) in your case is in anyway (in and of itself sinful). I believe God does desire His children to be holy (not holier than thou). I have never viewed Out of Africa, therefore I wouldn't have any opinion on that movie. The only thing I would add would be to say that some movies that contain many things that God does condemn are not the best thing to allow into one's life. I only am speaking from a Christian perspective, because I don't believe God holds the unsaved to the same standard as He holds Christians. We should know better than to allow (or not allow) certain things into our lives that will damage us.

So I am with you, I don't believe everything that is new and advanced is evil (or sinful). I do believe much of the newer technology allows the opportunity for sin more, but it can also allow more opportunity to grow closer to others (and God). I think God uses new technology to advance His kingdom. Many things (new or old) are not in and of themselves sinful, however, they can be if used in an unwise way if Christ's followers are not careful.

She can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe fuzzi was saying all new technology was evil and sinful. I apparently did miss something with the "DVD" example- I am not sure what post discussed it. I thought I had read all of the posts, but maybe I missed something in one that mentioned this subject.

415/418: Congrats, fuzzi and streamsong. Stay faithful. God's blessings.

(421) "She can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe fuzzi was saying all new technology was evil and sinful. I apparently did miss something with the "DVD" example- I am not sure what post discussed it. I thought I had read all of the posts, but maybe I missed something in one that mentioned this subject."

I won't correct you, because that was not what my preacher was saying, nor something that I believe. If I thought that all new technology was evil and sinful, I certainly would not be using a computer or conversing with people here on LT!

Let me try again:

Eating fast food is not nutritious.
Eating salads and other 'home cooked' food is better for you.

Watching DVDs do not advance your spiritual growth (is not nutritious)
Reading your Bible does advance your spiritual growth (is better for you)

Both eating fast food and watching DVDs is 'easy', and something we tend to do even when we know we shouldn't, or rather, we do it too much and neglect the better part.
Both eating home cooked/nutritious meals and reading your Bible is not easy, but we should do it anyway, for our health, especially more often than we tend to do.

See?

423: Yep, I missed it because you never said "watching DVD's," but watching television.

Now I have a better understanding of what others were commenting about.

I do agree with you on the point that you were trying to make. If we were watching wholesome television (or dvd's), preaching, or a dvd on the Bible- then we might very well be advancing spiritually, but as I believe you were trying to point out- most do not (even Christians)- which proves your point, that reading the Bible is harder (and therefore done less often). I agree with your analogy.

Reading the Bible really isn't that hard. What's hard is clothing the naked, tending the sick, visiting people in prison, etc. This is the kind of stuff that I, for one, do very little, almost nothing, of. And when I do, I find myself congratulating myself for it for years.

>421 jntjesussaves:
"because I don't believe God holds the unsaved to the same standard as He holds Christians. We should know better than to allow (or not allow) certain things into our lives that will damage us."

My head hurts ! Happy reading !

>425 jburlinson: Well said, jburlinson.

Well, what was I thinking! The book after Leviticus is Numbers, not Deuteronomy!



So I read six chapters of Numbers this morning. :)

Because of streamsong's excellent suggestion, I've decided to create a ticker/counter for my Bible reading.

ooh. How do I get me one of them? I'm doing the 50 books challenge and everyone else seems to have them!

Go to tickerfactory.com
Scroll down to 'Crafts and Hobbies' on the left side
Click on 'Objects/Actions' Counter
Choose a password, and put in the information you want displayed
You also choose the background for the counter, and the counter itself (my dog)

What I found out is that once you make a counter, you can just click on it in the thread, enter your password and update it. Nifty stuff.

Have fun!

fuzzi,
What have you unleashed upon us?

Thanks!

thankyou!

425: While I do believe disciplining oneself to read God's Word is hard work, I would also agree with you that the things you mentioned are probably a lot harder to discipline ourselves to do. Great point, jburlison.

(432) quicksiva wrote "fuzzi,
What have you unleashed upon us?"

My dog ticker has been "unleashed". :D

I am not sure if I will read the Bible through all the way or not, but I have started reading the book of Genesis. I have been reading about a chapter a day meditating more thoroughly on passages that I find interesting (or those which speak to me more directly).

I started several days ago and just read chapter 5 today. I will comment some on what I am reading later.

God's blessings.

Amen !! Pursuant to #434, you display considerable endurance and fortitude to have to read G-d's word.

437: How is your Bible reading going this year so far, lawecon? What book are you on? How do you study the Bible? How do you choose which books you will study?

Have a blessed night, lawecon.

I guess you didn't pick this up from the above extensive comments: I don't "read the Bible through in a year." I don't do that because it doesn't make any sense to do so for all the reasons I've mentioned at least a half dozen times now.

How do I choose which part of the Bible to read? Well, there isn't any one way. Sometimes I am reading a book like this one Who Wrote The Gospels? or this one Jesus In His Jewish Context or this one Jesus and Judaism or this one The Jewish Annotated New Testament and I see a reference to the Bible, and then go read the Bible around that reference - trying to figure out if the reference seems to make sense in the context of the surrounding text. Sometimes I then go to a source like this Anchor Bible Commentary and see what scholars have to say about that passage or story.

I almost never "study the Bible" by reading a particular one translation and asking myself "Gee, I wonder what that means for me in terms of my life experience." I guess, if I worshiped the Bible, or considered it as a magic text, rather than trying to understand it, I might do that sort of thing.

Update: Read through Numbers 30 last night. Just six chapters to go until Deuteronomy!

Interesting note: in previous readings of my Bible I thought that Korah's children died with him in Numbers 16:33, but then I noticed while rereading Numbers 26:11 that the children of Korah did not die.

Nice little nugget, there. :)

439: Thank you for your answers, lawecon. The Bible gives us some very good verses on the importance of reading, knowing, and making applicable in our lives, Scripture (i.e. the Word of God, the Bible, etc.).

2 Timothy 3:14
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

2 Timothy 3:15
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy 3:17
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. {throughly...: or, perfected}
(KJV)

It says it "is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." All of these things I search for when I read/study God's Word. I read for doctrine (God's teachings), for reproof (to see what God disaproves of), for correction (to learn how to correct my sin/mistakes), for instruction in righteousness (to learn how to live righteously).

And certainly, in reading "the holy scriptures," it will "make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." It seems the most imortant reason for knowing the Scriptures is to make sure someone "is wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." It seems like so many fail to see the most important reason why God gave us the Bible- for salvation (hence, having a personal relationship with the God of the Universe, through His Son).

I, along with others, put a lot of emphasis on learning what God desires to teach us and His desire for us to live under His direction. These verses epitomize this belief. You emphasize making sure you understand the correct setting and concerns of those speaking and those being spoken to. What verses in God's Word do you use to validate your idea that this should be our main emphasis?

Keep in mind, I have said numerous times that I believe studying the Bible within context is important, but when I read God's Word- I am looking therein to find out what God has for me. What He is desiring to teach me.

440: Amen, Thomas! Great quotes.

441: It is amazing, fuzzi, no matter how many times we read the Bible- we see new and fresh things each time. Great insight.

~442

Well, jnt, as you know, I am a Jew. So that isn't a part of my Bible. (And if you are reading the Bible straight through, you surely must be a very great speed reader.)

Even if it were a part of my Bible, however, I would recognize the quotations you give as a part of correspondence by or an appeal by Paul to one of his followers. That is what it says it is. It isn't a letter to you.

I would further recognize that this purported letter by Paul is a particular essay written at a particular time and place, in a particular society, in the a particular context of a leader of what were only small groups who feels abandoned by his former followers. It isn't G-d speaking to you. Paul isn't G-d, and despite what you would like to believe, you aren't that important.

Further, I would take account of the fact that it is clear from this purported correspondence and other correspondence allegedly written by Paul that some of Paul's fundamental assumptions were dead wrong. Jesus didn't come back immediately. It has been 2,000 years now and he shows no sign of coming back. The world hasn't ended. Heaven hasn't descended upon the Earth. Paul was fundamentally wrong about his key assumptions, so why should we believe that he was right in what he says here?

In any case, if G-d wanted to speak to you, jnt, he would simply do so. He doesn't require that you read and wonder about the meaning of a 2,000 year old letter to figure out what he wants. If G-d can do anything and if he cares about you personally, he certainly can speak to you without a purported 2,000 year old text.

Further, jnt, before I went on trying to interpret this text myself I would have found out what scholars, those who have spent their entire lives on this type of question, think about this text. Here is what they think: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2timothy.html In short, they think that this text is a forgery that wasn't even written by Paul. It is like that "true translation" of Ben Hur that we talked about before. It is a fraud.

Now if you are truly seeking guidance for your life, jnt, shouldn't those matters make some difference to you in determining whether this is properly the source of that guidance?

>445 lawecon: lawecon, some of what you say summarises the exegetical method which is used by most mainstream Christians to interpret the bible.

I agree, of course, that Paul (and probably his whole generation) were "dead wrong" about the end of the world and Jesus' immediate return. Later generations of Christians generally recognise that and it leads to a different interpretation of what was written.

It is also pretty generally accepted by Christians that Paul did not write a number of the letters attributed to him. However whether that makes them "inauthentic" is a different question. They were included in the canon of scripture by the Church and thus their teaching is considered valid regardless of authorship.

~446

That is a worthwhile clarification for a faithful Roman Catholic, John, but I wasn't addressing a faithful Roman Catholic. I was addressing jnt.

Jnt can't fall back on Church teachings when a "plain meaning" approach to his Scriptures doesn't work. He is stuck. The only choices he has are to start reading his Scriptures much more critically or ignore 300+ years of mostly Christian scholarship. With the exception of Spinoza, who was expelled from his Jewish community, and a minority of Jewish scholars writing in the past 50 years, this has been mostly an intraChristian controversy.

I think by what has gone before we know which of those alternatives jnt will chose, chose of his own free will. The sad thing is that he will feel righteous about making that choice.

~448

So, you honestly believe that Paul thought that it was going to be thousands of years before Jesus' return. Honestly? My, I guess some people can convince themselves of anything.

Here is a thought to ponder : I think God sends "Jesus" back repeatedly. I think that we ignore him, assassinate him, degrade him and continuiosly kick him to the crub. I do not think he comes with wings and a shining halo and it is my belief that we are not supposed to recognize him as "the Jesus"......
We are too busy either "waiting" for the "right" Jesus or hating someone for being different, or claiming that we know all about the great mystery and exactly how it works, to pay much attention to what is really important.

Finished Numbers last night, on to Deuteronomy!

(446) johnthefireman wrote: "I agree, of course, that Paul (and probably his whole generation) were "dead wrong" about the end of the world and Jesus' immediate return. Later generations of Christians generally recognise that and it leads to a different interpretation of what was written."

Maybe some mainline types believe that Paul was wrong, and the Bible in general is full of mistakes, but not all.

If the Bible has errors in it, how can anyone know for sure what is correct doctrine and what isn't?

The answer is, of course, that you can't know. Either the Bible is without error and to be believed, or it has errors and can be changed and edited to fit the personal beliefs of the editor.

"It is also pretty generally accepted by Christians that Paul did not write a number of the letters attributed to him. However whether that makes them "inauthentic" is a different question. They were included in the canon of scripture by the Church and thus their teaching is considered valid regardless of authorship."

How can the teaching be valid if you think that Paul was wrong about the end of the world and Jesus' return? If Paul, probably the greatest apostle there was, could be wrong, what about the rest of his epistles?

Either the Bible is true, or it isn't. Personally, I believe that God has preserved His word, holy and pure, as He promised. Any so-called "errors" are due to a misunderstanding of what is written in the Bible, and an unwillingness to admit that there is something we don't understand in God's word.

:)

"If Paul, probably the greatest apostle there was, could be wrong, what about the rest of his epistles?"

If Paul was an apostle, then anyone can be an apostle just by claiming the title.

"How can the teaching be valid if you think that Paul was wrong about the end of the world and Jesus' return?"

End of the world in it's entirety ? OR the end of the world as we personally know it ? The first option keeps us a safe distance from any type of reckoning, while the other could happen on a daily basis.

>451 fuzzi: Well, fuzzi, it does seem fairly clear that Paul, and most early Christians, expected the world to end and Jesus to return within their lifetime (or do you dispute that?). It didn't and he didn't. That doesn't make the bible wrong, and it doesn't mean that there aren't truths that we can find even without a deeper exegesis, but it does mean that it needs interpreting if one really wants to unlock the riches of God's word. In >448 thomashwalker2:, Thomas offers one interpretation, probably not a mainstream one. Others would simply accept that Paul and his generation erred on the date of the end of the world and the second coming of Christ but that nevertheless these writings still have a message for us from God, who inspired them.

>455 thomashwalker2: Maybe so, but 2,000 years and counting is not normally what is meant by "near". Thus you are interpreting rather than taking the literal meaning of the concept of "near". You are reading something into Paul's writings. All of which I have no problem with, although I would probably read a different interpretation into it.

448: Amen, Thomas! You took some of my thunder. Great insight.

451: Amen, fuzzi. Good points.

~450

This is a prime example of the use of the phrase "It is my belief." It is my belief that many people are controlled by demons sitting on their shoulder and whispering into their ears. Of course, I have no evidence for that belief, but then...........

445: "Even if it were a part of my Bible, however, I would recognize the quotations you give as a part of correspondence by or an appeal by Paul to one of his followers. That is what it says it is. It isn't a letter to you."

As you state, you are a Jew (not a Christian), therefore you will certainly interpret the New Testament different than myself and others within this thread. Did Paul write 1 Timothy to "me?' No, he literally wrote it to Timothy, however, in a general sense- yes, he did write it to me and to all followers of Christ. Since you, by your own admission, are not a follower of Christ- he didn't write it to you even in a general sense. But, along with the other 65 books making up the Old and New Testaments, He did write to me (and all other Christians) in a general sense.

"I would further recognize that this purported letter by Paul is a particular essay written at a particular time and place, in a particular society, in the a particular context of a leader of what were only small groups who feels abandoned by his former followers. It isn't G-d speaking to you."

Yes, he was speaking to an entire different age and generation of people, living in a particular society (much different than ours). However, Paul's intention wasn't to speak culturally (to one particular generation of people)- his message (Christ's message) transcended his particular time. You look at everything from the perspective of, "If I can't understand it, then it must be false." Your understanding is very limited (especially on Christian things), because your eyes have been darkened to the truth. If you ever allow God to open your eyes to "believe" on His Son, things will become much clearer to you. You would understand God's Word to be speaking to you. No matter how many times you say, "It isn't God speaking to you," it will not change the fact that He does.

"Paul isn't G-d, and despite what you would like to believe, you aren't that important."

I am not sure if you believe Paul is God or not. I am not sure how this came into the conversation. I have not even remotely made this claim. Jesus Christ is God, Jehovah (the Father) is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, period. I can't be more clear than that. I do believe I am important, not based on anything I have done, but because what Jesus Christ has done for me. While you may not place high regards in the New Testament, Christians do and John 3:16 (along with many other verses) are quite clear in God's love for mankind- and that includes me, fuzzi, thomas, johnthefireman, stormraven, and all else on this thread (and in the world). He proved His love for us in sending Jesus Christ to died for us, "even while we were yet sinners." Praise God!

"In any case, if G-d wanted to speak to you, jnt, he would simply do so. He doesn't require that you read and wonder about the meaning of a 2,000 year old letter to figure out what he wants. If G-d can do anything and if he cares about you personally, he certainly can speak to you without a purported 2,000 year old text."

He does speak to me (through His Word). Based on your view, this is why we have terrorists strapping bombs to the children (done in the name of what Allah has told them); this is why we have murder in the name of religion; this is the reason why we have many things done in the name of religion. Because, they have said that God "told them to do so." Unless you have have an authoritative source of truth (which is the Word of God), then you will have these types of ideas. I will continue, but I must go for now.