I want to finish up reading through the New Testament then go back and do some rigorous study of the OT starting with the books of Moses

It's been a while since I've tried any sort of determined Bible reading project. It's too past my bedtime for me to start right now, but tomorrow I think I'll try to get started of St. Matthew's Gospel.

I'm at the part where Abraham has to bury his wife.

If you're looking to read the Bible all the way through I'd recommend getting a daily walk Bible. It splits it up into sections that you read each day over the course of a year. I have one that is NLT, it's ok but the language gets watered down a bit too much for my taste. If there was one that was NIV or KJV I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

>>24571 Read through Matthew I-IV today. For the first time I think I'm going to actually consult a map to try to get a rough idea of where exactly everything is happening. It sounds really simple, but it's not something I've actually done in the past. Unfortunately, the Bible I'm reading from doesn't have any maps, so I need to consult a separate copy for those.

>>24573 Have you considered following a lectionary? You can use whichever Bible you like and a good lectionary should cover almost the entire Bible in the appointed time. >>24577 Which translation is that? I can tell it's a Catholic Bible but it's weird that it's not in two column format.

>>24577 Read through Matthew V-VII today. I feel like these three chapters are worth revisiting every now and then just on their own. Naturally you could say that about many parts of the Bible, but a whole sermon from our Lord is especially worth meditating upon. >>24578 >Which translation is that? I can tell it's a Catholic Bible but it's weird that it's not in two column format. It's the Knox translation. It might be too English and too unfamiliar for some. I've included pictures of a couple of familiar verses for comparison. I'm not sure exactly why they printed it in a single column. Perhaps the original editions of the Knox version were also printed in a single column and the publisher sought to preserve that. I think the single column, paragraph printing is nice if you're just trying to read the Bible through, but it makes finding and picking out particular verses difficult.

>>24587 I've seen this specific single-column format with the 1966 Jerusalem Bible as well. I'm wondering if it was a preference in the mid-1900s.

The last time I called myself a "Christian" I got really into it and burned myself out like it was a hobby, partially because I did treat it like one. I'm trying to start slow, so I'm reading Proverbs and seeing how I can apply it to my life to separate this second try from purely mental to real life application. I know there's truth in here, I've always known, but I used that acknowledgement to convince myself I was taking everything else seriously, and I wasn't. I was on the outside, and convinced myself inside, but I wasn't ready. Proverbs it is for now. Wish me luck. I want to say I'm trying, but I'm just dipping my toes in here.

>>24658 Go to church, Anon.

>>24658 Read from the beginning chapter or two every night in bed, read a proverb each day, and read a psalm or two each day. And pray without ceasing. That last bit will be a little hard until you learn to listen to the Holy Spirit and be candid with God rather than repeating mantras and sayings and phrases you've heard. It can be good to recite specific prayers, but it should always be from the heart because it's not like you're going to fool God. God already knows what you need anyway and you may not even know, and in such a case you can pray that God's will be done. >>24675 Going by the numbers, that's more likely to do more harm than any good in these last days. Just "going to church" isn't even guaranteed that you'll hear the true gospel or that you'll learn about the true Jesus of the Bible or of the true God of the Bible. In my opinion, your comment is not helpful at all in helping anyone get closer to God, only closer to some institution or group of men, who may or may not hold fast to Biblical Truths and more often wouldn't so they can get along with this world or get along with the kings of this world. I really don't know why you worship church instead of God, at least most who say "go to church" so lazily as advice worship church instead of God in my experiences.

>>24676 >Just "going to church" isn't even guaranteed that you'll hear the true gospel or that you'll learn about the true Jesus of the Bible or of the true God of the Bible. You aren't going to hear if it you read one of the perverted modernist translations at home either.

>>24676 >Going by the numbers, that's more likely to do more harm than any good in these last days. Hebrews 10:25 >Just "going to church" isn't even guaranteed that you'll hear the true gospel or that you'll learn about the true Jesus of the Bible or of the true God of the Bible. It does if you're going to the right church. There are churches out there which have held firm. >In my opinion, your comment is not helpful at all in helping anyone get closer to God Do we get closer to God by disobeying Him and spurning His worship?

>>24680 Do you trust that God has preserved the intent of His word? Isn't it regarded as a 'living book' for a reason? I think the NASB will do me just fine.

>>24683 God has preserved His word, that doesnt mean that whatever youre reading is the preserved version

>>24683 >he doesn't know about the NASB 2020 https://j.hn/nasb-1995-nasb-2020-every-change/

>>24690 Do you understand how languages work? Do you think than any English translation, ever, has read EXACTLY and precisely as the original manuscripts? It's one thing to omit verses, sure, but words change around, the intent can stay the same. That's such an obtuse thing to imply, that because a translation changes or is different, that it's not the same. Language is a man-made institution/construct. It isn't perfect, I'm certain God knows this. It's like saying sermons don't count because it's not the Bible verse verbatim. Anyway, that's ridiculous, come on now. Do we really believe this? Are we not going to employ a little bit of common sense and critical thinking? Do you think that the Bible isn't preserved in languages without the intricacies of English? Let's all learn Koine Greek and Aramaic.

>>24694 >It's one thing to omit verses, sure, but words change around, the intent can stay the same. That's such an obtuse thing to imply, that because a translation changes or is different, that it's not the same. They are literally ADDING words to be gender-neutral, not just changing the grammar around, because what the Hebrew and Greek ACTUALLY read is too masculine for our politically correct times. If you were diligent in studying God's word you would know that the translators that wanted to stay faithful to the literalness of NASB95 came out with their own translation, the Legacy Standard Bible, because they saw that the Lockman Foundation was going down the wrong path. Translations can be updated but they have to remain true to the source and one of worst conceits of modern scholars is thinking that they always know better than those that came before them, and therefore can write up whatever they want. All you've proven is that you just read whatever's handed to you without any scrutiny. >Let's all learn Koine Greek and Aramaic. Unironically YES. Use an interlinear Bible and Strongs concordance. Learn Latin too.

>>24698 They are ADDING words to clarify intent in a modern climate while STILL retaining the original meaning. If you actually read the mission statement of the NASB and why they changed it, you'd understand. If the point you're getting at is some NWO muh gender politikz garbage, that's absolutely not the case. The Bible is not compatible with modern 'gender theory' and despite the new wording is still, in intent, unequivocally opposed to it because it is still the Word of God. They also still preserve every one of Paul's verses about homosexuality completely, still using the word 'homosexual' to refer to the Greek word. Example: >Verse uses 'he' in general sense to literally just refer to a person >Gramatically, there is nothing wrong with using 'he' to refer to a person in general, but it's somewhat outdated and might be a little bit of an antiquated term for modern readers >Translation swaps 'he' for 'person' This way, the full context and intent of the translation is preserved. Yes, words are often swapped, interchanged, etc. That is indeed the point of a translation. If you are still under the impression this has anything to do with appealing to gender politics outright, you'd be wrong. Unfortunately, we live in a society that is outmoding masculine descriptors in favor for neutral ones. While the gender stuff might have something to do with it, it's still primarily a leftover antiquity of older English, simply because it has fallen out of common use as is normal fro an ever-evolving language. That being said, I apologize for the anger, and thank you for the recommendation of the LSB translation. I'll have to check that out.

>>24699 >homosexual >the Greek word Problem is μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται are two separate words listed separately. This kills any claims the writing style is for clarity since it so flattens the original words and creates implications absolutely not present in the original (which specifies men with men, and that it's the act that is the sin). >While the gender stuff might have something to do with it, it's still primarily a leftover antiquity of older English, simply because it has fallen out of common use as is normal fro an ever-evolving language. Except Koine is a gendered language. In-fact, it being physically possible to write a full sentence about a person and not mention if that person is male or female ("Alex is reading a book." "Sam was unable to attend the event due to illness.") is extremely unusual in terms of European languages and is a feature relatively unique to English (Indeed, in many it's impossible to write about an inanimate object like a doorknob and not say its male or female. Yes, you just sorta have to remember which objects are boys and which objects are girls.).

I don't really want to read the bible, because they've made new versions with lots of sjw stuff in it, like removing the gender of Jesus and God, and it looks to me like the kjv might be the same. Right now I grow based on what is revealed to me to be sinful - I am no longer a glutton, lustful, etc.

>>24763 >and it looks to me like the kjv might be the same >Right now I grow based on what is revealed to me