The bible is rather boring
-
I disagree that one should start with the gospel.Originally posted by munyc:New Testament - I wonder if your friends tell you specifically which part of the New Testament you should start. Majority of the N.T. consists of letters or epistles, and that I would not recommend as a place to start. The best book to start is the Gospel according to Matthew - 1st book of the N.T. Never read from the last book [yet], that would confuse you.
It is good to follow the chronological order in which they were written. And the gospels were not the earliest to be written.
Ideally one should start from the Pauline Epistles. Paul wrote about the "good news" without going into the details.
This generates an interest. So what is this good news about this risen Lord? What were the thoughts and deeds of this Christ Jesus? Why was Paul so fanatical about him?
To answer this question, we turn to the gospels .. -
my bible in camp ahhaha. do u guys read it everyday?
-
i try to lah. but sometimes lack the discipline especially when work load is piling upOriginally posted by dumbdumb!:my bible in camp ahhaha. do u guys read it everyday?
-
There is always church service to let you listen to bible reading and God's words.Originally posted by jaydunkfull:one of the ways to learn about God is to read the bible, but to me the bible is kinda the most untouchable book around the house. sorry about that. i really would like to try to read the bible but its really rather dry and boring. to make it worse, the print is so fine that it makes reading it a chore. im not trying to flame anything but seriously, how do you christians read the bible? can anyone tell me how to get interested in the bible. people have told me to start reading from the new testament onwards but my interest starts to wane away once i get started and i end up throwing the bible to one side and not touching it for months. -
Last time, I also like that.Originally posted by jaydunkfull:one of the ways to learn about God is to read the bible, but to me the bible is kinda the most untouchable book around the house. sorry about that. i really would like to try to read the bible but its really rather dry and boring. to make it worse, the print is so fine that it makes reading it a chore. im not trying to flame anything but seriously, how do you christians read the bible? can anyone tell me how to get interested in the bible. people have told me to start reading from the new testament onwards but my interest starts to wane away once i get started and i end up throwing the bible to one side and not touching it for months.
My interest grew when I desire to know who is this God that created heaven and earth and to understand His ways. (personal incident, cannot say)
Of course, the Dan Brown who sold Jesus for 3 billion dollars (is this the right amount? jesus is worth so much nowadays compared to 1 AD
) accelerated my interests more.
God works in ways we cannot see -
I try to read a few chapters on my way to church.Originally posted by ben1xy:i try to lah. but sometimes lack the discipline especially when work load is piling up -
Bible is always boring as you can't understand head nor tail of it...
-
i use daily bread.Originally posted by askxyz:I try to read a few chapters on my way to church.
i also subscribe to this e-mail thingy that sends verses everyday. When i have time before i start work, i'll do some light-reading.
it's still a struggle i guess.
that's why sloth is one of the 7 capital sins.
-
The bible is not used for reading, it is for burning. Especially, when the weather is cold.
-
Actually what is considered reading the bible?Originally posted by ben1xy:i use daily bread.
i also subscribe to this e-mail thingy that sends verses everyday. When i have time before i start work, i'll do some light-reading.
it's still a struggle i guess.
that's why sloth is one of the 7 capital sins.
Re-read chapters or read new chapters?
Don't tell me deu and lev you also want to cover. -
answer to your question is...Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually what is considered reading the bible?
Re-read chapters or read new chapters?
Don't tell me deu and lev you also want to cover.
reading the whole Bible is commendable, if cannot, start with the books that interest you.
-
after procrastinating for many yrs, i completed the Bible cover to cover when i was 21. But sheepishly, i read it more like a storybook. Deu and Lev was actually pretty interesting if you're reading it like a storybook or at least that was what i did. I did not get much spiritual input though, but it was something that i had set out to do.Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually what is considered reading the bible?
Re-read chapters or read new chapters?
Don't tell me deu and lev you also want to cover.
Now when i read the Bible, it's more reflective. Or like i mentioned havings aids (commentaries) and Bible study classes are always fun
i actually know of Bible Study that covers Deu and Lev, maybe i should bring that to my Uni Bible Study thingy.
u reckon it's a good idea
-
I was advised by a Priest that starting from Acts is the best. Cause it's all short stories that doesn't not require too much in depth knowledge and it's pretty descriptive. This should then be followed by a Gospel.Originally posted by vince69:answer to your question is...
reading the whole Bible is commendable, if cannot, start with the books that interest you.
He then told me to re-read Acts immediatelt after Luke's Gospel to see the similarities. It really helped actually. I reckon i gained a lot hedding his advise -
I believe reading Pauline epistles first is the best, followed by the gospels, followed by acts.Originally posted by ben1xy:I was advised by a Priest that starting from Acts is the best. Cause it's all short stories that doesn't not require too much in depth knowledge and it's pretty descriptive. This should then be followed by a Gospel.
He then told me to re-read Acts immediatelt after Luke's Gospel to see the similarities. It really helped actually. I reckon i gained a lot hedding his advise
It is just like science, it is better to read historical discoveries chronologically. If you read quantum theory first, then the early atomic theories by the Greeks will seem very silly.
There is an "evolution" in thought in the way the individual books were written. Is it any wonder the "cheam" Gospel of John (it differs from the synoptics) was written last?
Is it any wonder the first books to be written, i.e. the Pauline epistles, never specifically mention about the resurrection of the flesh, the resurrection account? -
that's because the gospel according to Luke and the book of Acts are 2 letters written by the same author to the same person (Theophilus; ref Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1)Originally posted by ben1xy:I was advised by a Priest that starting from Acts is the best. Cause it's all short stories that doesn't not require too much in depth knowledge and it's pretty descriptive. This should then be followed by a Gospel.
He then told me to re-read Acts immediatelt after Luke's Gospel to see the similarities. It really helped actually. I reckon i gained a lot hedding his advise -
Actually the only storybook in the bible is .. Esther.Originally posted by ben1xy:after procrastinating for many yrs, i completed the Bible cover to cover when i was 21. But sheepishly, i read it more like a storybook. Deu and Lev was actually pretty interesting if you're reading it like a storybook or at least that was what i did. I did not get much spiritual input though, but it was something that i had set out to do.
'cos God not mentioned! -
How do you feel when you desire to know more about your crash or your gf?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Bible is always boring as you can't understand head nor tail of it...
God will help you along...if you have the desire to know Him...
It is not easy to understand intially.... Maybe you can get some mature christians to help you along, join a bible study group or you buy some books and self-study ....and so on... -
haha, everyone will have differing opinions i guess. i remember someone once told me i should start from Genesis. I nv made it pass chapter10Originally posted by Icemoon:I believe reading Pauline epistles first is the best, followed by the gospels, followed by acts.
My theory is this. They were expecting Christ to return pretty soon. Thus no one bothered to write down the Gospels. Well, they waited n waited and then some. then they realised that the 2nd coming might not be so soon and then they decided to put the teachings down in writing.Originally posted by Icemoon:Is it any wonder the first books to be written, i.e. the Pauline epistles, never specifically mention about the resurrection of the flesh, the resurrection account? -
yeah. The writing style for both sorts of give it away i guess. the Bible Study that i am in now, we're doing Acts and the commentary draws a lot of attention to the various similarities. pretty interestingOriginally posted by vince69:that's because the gospel according to Luke and the book of Acts are 2 letters written by the same author to the same person (Theophilus; ref Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1) -
nay .. how much difference you expect from the same author?Originally posted by ben1xy:yeah. The writing style for both sorts of give it away i guess. the Bible Study that i am in now, we're doing Acts and the commentary draws a lot of attention to the various similarities. pretty interesting
I suggest you read the similarities on the various Pauline epistles. Or you compare Hebrews and see whether this one could come from Paul? -
Where to start depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you want to know Christ, makes no sense to start from Genesis and after 1 year then reach the gospels!Originally posted by ben1xy:haha, everyone will have differing opinions i guess. i remember someone once told me i should start from Genesis. I nv made it pass chapter10
My theory is this. They were expecting Christ to return pretty soon. Thus no one bothered to write down the Gospels. Well, they waited n waited and then some. then they realised that the 2nd coming might not be so soon and then they decided to put the teachings down in writing.
One other reason why we should start from the Pauline works is this - they were written to fledging Christian communities.
Starting from the gospels is not such a good idea because they contain no essentials, unless you love reading parables. The essentials are all covered in the epistles.
Put it this way, if you were to write an abstract or executive summary on the Christian faith, where will you take your materials from?
Your theory is interesting. Well, at least you have a theory. I suspect some people just read and never think about such issue. -
hmm, and which Epistle would u then recommend? i have a friend that wants to know more... i told him to read the GospelsOriginally posted by Icemoon:Where to start depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you want to know Christ, makes no sense to start from Genesis and after 1 year then reach the gospels!
One other reason why we should start from the Pauline works is this - they were written to fledging Christian communities.
Starting from the gospels is not such a good idea because they contain no essentials, unless you love reading parables. The essentials are all covered in the epistles.
your way makes sense, esp the essentials part. -
Are you sure about this statement my friend?Originally posted by Icemoon:IIs it any wonder the first books to be written, i.e. the Pauline epistles, never specifically mention about the resurrection of the flesh, the resurrection account?
have u read them?
1) Ro 1:3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.
2) 1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
3) 2Co 5:14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;
15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.
4) Ga 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),
5) Eph 1:20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,
6) Php 3:10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death,
7) Col 1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
8] 1Th 1:10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
NOTE: 1 THESSALONIANS IS CONSIDERED BY SOME SCHOLARS AS THE VERY FIRST LETTER OF PAUL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
We do not need to go to other epistles to show that Paul wrote about the resurrection. I think the verses above are enough to show that fact.
may i ask you my friend upon what ground did you base your statement? -
try reading kids bible...
interesting and easy to read and understand...
-
I said resurrection of the flesh .. duh.Originally posted by Ironside:We do not need to go to other epistles to show that Paul wrote about the resurrection. I think the verses above are enough to show that fact.
may i ask you my friend upon what ground did you base your statement?
The gospels actually talk about physical resurrection whereas the apostle Paul saw the resurrected Christ in the spiritual.