why read the Bible

[justpassinby]

:"

Question: "Why should we read the Bible / study the Bible?"

Answer: Simply stated, we should read and study the Bible because it is God's Word to us. The Bible is literally "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16). In other words, it is God's very words to us. There are so many questions that philosophers and people have asked that God answers for us in Scripture. What is the purpose to life? Where did I come from? Is there life after death? What happens after death? How do I get to heaven? Why is the world full of evil? Why do I struggle to do good? In addition to these "big" questions, the Bible gives a ton of practical advice in areas such as: What do I look for in a mate? How can I have a successful marriage? How can I be a good friend? How can I be a good parent? What is success and how do I achieve it? How can I change? What really matters in life? How can I live so that I do not look back with regret? How can I please God? How can I gain forgiveness? How can I handle the unfair circumstances and bad events of life victoriously?

We should read and study the Bible because it is totally reliable and without error. We have the ability to test it by checking the hundreds of detailed prophecies that it makes, by checking the historical accounts it records, and by checking the scientific facts it relates. Jesus once asked which is easier to say, "Your sins are forgiven you," or "Rise, take up your bed and walk." Then He proved He had the ability to forgive sins (something we cannot see with our eyes) by healing the paralytic (something those around Him could test with their eyes). Similarly, we are given assurance that God's Word is true when it discusses spiritual areas that we cannot test with our senses, and by showing itself true in those areas that we can test (historical accuracy, scientific accuracy, and prophetic accuracy).

We should read and study the Bible because God does not change and because mankind's nature does not change; it is as relevant for us as it was when it was written. While technology changes around us, mankind's nature and desires do not change. We find, as we read the pages of biblical history, that whether we are talking about one-on-one relationships or societies, "there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9). And while mankind as a whole continues to seek love and satisfaction in all of the wrong places, God—our good and gracious Creator—tells us what will bring us lasting joy. His revealed Word, the Scriptures, are so important that Jesus said of them, "Man does not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4). In other words, if we want to live life to the fullest as God intended, we must listen to and heed God's written Word. It is even more important than eating!

The Bible gives us the measuring stick by which we can distinguish truth from error. It tells us what God is like. To have a wrong impression of God is worship of an idol or false god. We are worshiping something that He is not. The Bible tells us how one truly gets to heaven, (John 14:6; Ephesians 2:1-10; Isaiah 53:6; Romans 3:10-18, 5:8, 6:23, 10:9-13). Along this line, God's Word shows us just how much God loves us (Romans 5:6-8; John 3:16). And it is in learning this that we are drawn to love Him in return (1 John 4:19).

The Bible equips us for serving God (2 Timothy 3:17; Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12). It helps us know how to be saved from our sin and its ultimate consequence (2 Timothy 3:15). Meditating on it and obeying its teachings will bring success in life (Joshua 1:8; James 1:25). God’s Word helps us see sin in our lives and helps us get rid of it (Psalm 119:9, 11). It gives us guidance in life, making us wiser than our teachers (Psalm 32:8; 119:99; Proverbs 1:6). The Bible keeps us from wasting years of our lives on that which will not last and does not matter (Matthew 7:24-27).

Reading and studying the Bible helps us see beyond the attractive "bait" to the painful "hook" in sinful temptations, so that we can learn from others' mistakes rather than making them ourselves. Experience is a great teacher, but when it comes to learning from sin, it is a terribly hard teacher. It is so much better to learn from others' mistakes. There are so many Bible characters to learn from, both positive and negative role models, both often coming from the same person's life at different points. For example, David, in his defeat of the giant, Goliath, teaches us that God is greater than anything He asks us to face (1 Samuel 17). David, in his giving in to the temptation to commit adultery with Bathsheba, reveals just how long-lasting and terrible the consequences of a moment's pleasure can be (2 Samuel 11). Knowing the Bible gives us a real hope and peace when everything around us seems to be falling apart (Romans 15:4; Psalm 112:7; Habakkuk 3:17-19).

The Bible is a book that is not for mere reading. It is a book for studying so that it can be applied. Otherwise, it is like swallowing food without chewing and then spitting it back out again—no nutritional value is gained by it. The Bible is God's Word. As such, it is as binding as the laws of nature. We can ignore it, but we do so to our own hurt, just as we would if we ignored the law of gravity. It cannot be emphasized strongly enough just how important the Bible is to our lives. Studying the Bible can be compared to mining for gold. If we make little effort and merely "sift through the pebbles in a stream," we will only find a little gold dust. But the more we make an effort to really dig into it, the more reward we will gain for our effort.

[Anxiety75]

Good job! I would have written the same kind of presentation. A good example for Christians or those interested in learning about the Bible or becoming a Christian.
Do you believe in the coming of peace on earth as in heaven as brought out in the Lord's prayer?

[anonymid]

Originally Posted by Anxiety75

Good job! I would have written the same kind of presentation.

Not written by the original poster. This is spam.

http://www.gotquestions.org/why-read-Bible.html

[Anxiety75]

Okay still good description of a presentation.

[justpassinby]

Yes, I must say I didn't write this, (thank you anonymid), but I search for things that speak to me and then share it when I learn something. It stood out to me so I decided to share it. The reason why is because I used to read the bible differently than I do now. I use it more as a life compass than an actual book. Lessons jump out at you if you approach from a certain angle. A couple descriptions from other Christians of the bible I know is "its Gods living word" or "the bible is the breathing word of God." Or "the bible is alive." It flows better that way, if that makes sense, and if you're hurting or troubled, it draws you in.

I think its God's will to have peace, so yes it will eventually come.

[socially inept]

nobody should take the bible literally cos its just a coded message.

peple wo read the bible beleive there are suvch things as the ten commandments and the fear of god. but in trut neither of these things exist, they ar both codes.

the ten commandments is a code for the ten dinemsions of the universe. the story of the ten commandments was written to tell mankind that there are ten dimensions in this universe

the fear of god is a code for the laws of cause and effect. the story of fear ofgod is writen to warn people that their actions always have an effect and your bad actions will always produce consequences cos that just te way the system works.
god never does any harm to anyone. god should never be feared. he doesnt even get involved with the casue and effect system. its just the way it works. gravity just exists as does casue and effect, its got nothing to do with god. god never punishes anyone or delivers conseguences

[screwjack]

Originally Posted by socially inept

nobody should take the bible literally cos its just a coded message.

peple wo read the bible beleive there are suvch things as the ten commandments and the fear of god. but in trut neither of these things exist, they ar both codes.

the ten commandments is a code for the ten dinemsions of the universe. the story of the ten commandments was written to tell mankind that there are ten dimensions in this universe

the fear of god is a code for the laws of cause and effect. the story of fear ofgod is writen to warn people that their actions always have an effect and your bad actions will always produce consequences cos that just te way the system works.
god never does any harm to anyone. god should never be feared. he doesnt even get involved with the casue and effect system. its just the way it works. gravity just exists as does casue and effect, its got nothing to do with god. god never punishes anyone or delivers conseguences

Psalm 137:8. O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, how blessed will be the one who repays you with the recompense with which you have repaid us. 9. How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.

[jonnyam87]

I am a Christian myself, I firmly believe in God, that there was a Jesus like figure in our history, but I have an extremely hard time reading the bible. My big problem with it is that it was been translated, shared with new cultures through history, translated again, and that was all done by man. I do not trust that the bible we read today is the same that it was when it was created. And as much as their might be some true words of God still in there, there is no way of telling what is real and what has been added, erased, or modified. I think God would understand that better than anyone, seeing as how he has witnessed all of the dishonesty of man through our history. So I just try to live by God's way, being a loving person, a forgiving person, and understanding of everyone everywhere and keeping a close relationship with God because that's what I believe he wants for us, to love each other.

[socially inept]

Originally Posted by screwjack

Psalm 137:8. O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, how blessed will be the one who repays you with the recompense with which you have repaid us. 9. How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.

what on earth does all that mean ?

[screwjack]

Originally Posted by socially inept

what on earth does all that mean ?

It means I agree with you (well the first sentence anyway, the rest kind of reads like time cube)

[pi_sedoff]

Originally Posted by jonnyam87

I am a Christian myself, I firmly believe in God, that there was a Jesus like figure in our history, but I have an extremely hard time reading the bible. My big problem with it is that it was been translated, shared with new cultures through history, translated again, and that was all done by man. I do not trust that the bible we read today is the same that it was when it was created. And as much as their might be some true words of God still in there, there is no way of telling what is real and what has been added, erased, or modified. I think God would understand that better than anyone, seeing as how he has witnessed all of the dishonesty of man through our history. So I just try to live by God's way, being a loving person, a forgiving person, and understanding of everyone everywhere and keeping a close relationship with God because that's what I believe he wants for us, to love each other.

This is incorrect.

We know from the manuscript evidence that the Bible is historically accurate.








See here also:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html



.

[screwjack]

Originally Posted by pi_sedoff

This is incorrect.

See here also:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html



.

I apologize that I can't view the videos but my connection is too slow for them so please correct me if i'm wrong but I am guessing that like your link they have no real historical evidence or sources to backup to their claims. The examples they give are skewed logic, if you translate something into another language you don't just miss a couple of words there are words and meanings that just don't translate into other languages. There are also verses and parts of the bible that have been removed and added.

Before anyone jumps on me for agenda pushing or debating, this is fact and not up for any credible debate you do a great disservice to your religion when you pervert history to validate your beliefs. It is a whole other thing to believe that those that translated the bible where guided by God to create the perfect literal word of God in the bible without any mistakes, that is faith and what religion is all about and I respect it.

The bible and it's history is a topic that fascinates me greatly as I believe it is a very powerful book that I also recommend reading personally (revelations is an awesome piece of literature) and I enjoy reading any comments on it, so if anyone has any sources even if (especially if) they disprove my understanding I would honestly enjoy reading them.

[pi_sedoff]

i apologize that i can't view the videos but my connection is too slow for them so please correct me if i'm wrong but i am guessing that like your link they have no real historical evidence or sources to backup to their claims.

We are talking about the manuscript evidence here. There are over 5300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament as well as over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9300 other early versions. This is just fact and common knowledge to Biblical scholars, critics and believers alike. I've provided some sources at the bottom.

The examples they give are skewed logic, if you translate something into another language you don't just miss a couple of words there are words and meanings that just don't translate into other languages.

With over 5300 early Greek manuscripts we know very well what was written in the original Greek documents.

There are also verses and parts of the bible that have been removed and added.

With over 24,000 early manuscripts this is not a problem at all.

Before anyone jumps on me for agenda pushing or debating, this is fact and not up for any credible debate you do a great disservice to your religion when you pervert history to validate your beliefs.

From the material i presented what exactly perverts history. Can you give me a specific example?

The bible and it's history is a topic that fascinates me greatly as I believe it is a very powerful book that I also recommend reading personally (revelations is an awesome piece of literature) and I enjoy reading any comments on it, so if anyone has any sources even if (especially if) they disprove my understanding I would honestly enjoy reading them.

John Warwick Montgomery says that " to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament"
*Montgomery, John W. 'History and Christianity' Downers Grove, IL 60515: Inter-Varsity Press, 1971


Kenyon states: "The interval then between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."
*Kenyon, Frederic G. The Bible and Archaeology. New York: Harper and Row, 1940


J. Harold Greenlee states, "...the number of available MSS(manuscripts) of the New Testament is overwhelmingly greater than those of any other work of ancient literature. In the third place, the earliest extant MSS of the N.T. were written much closer to the date of the original writing than is the case in almost any other piece of ancient literature."
*Greenlee, J. Harold 'Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism' grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,1964


F.F. Bruce says: "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament."
*Bruce F.F. 'The Books and the Parchments' Rev. ed. Westwood: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1963


Just a very few of the sources regarding the number of manuscripts:

Kurt Aland's 'Journal of Biblical Literature', Vol.87, 1968
Bruce Metzger's 'The Early Versions of the New testament', Clarendon Press1977
'New Testament Manuscript Studies', (eds.) Merill M. Parvis and Allen Wikgren, The University of Chicago Press, 1950
'The Bible and Modern Scholarship' (ed.) J. Phillip Hyatt, Abington Press, 1965


Here's another short article on the subject:

http://www.carm.org/questions/about-...nt-reliability



.

[screwjack]

Originally Posted by pi_sedoff

We are talking about the manuscript evidence here. There are over 5300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament as well as over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9300 other early versions. This is just fact and common knowledge to Biblical scholars, critics and believers alike. I've provided some sources at the bottom.



With over 5300 early Greek manuscripts we know very well what was written in the original Greek documents.



With over 24,000 early manuscripts this is not a problem at all.



From the material i presented what exactly perverts history. Can you give me a specific example?




John Warwick Montgomery says that " to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament"
*Montgomery, John W. 'History and Christianity' Downers Grove, IL 60515: Inter-Varsity Press, 1971


Kenyon states: "The interval then between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."
*Kenyon, Frederic G. The Bible and Archaeology. New York: Harper and Row, 1940


J. Harold Greenlee states, "...the number of available MSS(manuscripts) of the New Testament is overwhelmingly greater than those of any other work of ancient literature. In the third place, the earliest extant MSS of the N.T. were written much closer to the date of the original writing than is the case in almost any other piece of ancient literature."
*Greenlee, J. Harold 'Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism' grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,1964


F.F. Bruce says: "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament."
*Bruce F.F. 'The Books and the Parchments' Rev. ed. Westwood: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1963


Just a very few of the sources regarding the number of manuscripts:

Kurt Aland's 'Journal of Biblical Literature', Vol.87, 1968
Bruce Metzger's 'The Early Versions of the New testament', Clarendon Press1977
'New Testament Manuscript Studies', (eds.) Merill M. Parvis and Allen Wikgren, The University of Chicago Press, 1950
'The Bible and Modern Scholarship' (ed.) J. Phillip Hyatt, Abington Press, 1965


Here's another short article on the subject:

http://www.carm.org/questions/about-...nt-reliability



.

It is still not providing me with any real citations or sources. What manuscripts? How about a source that isn't a biblical scholar just repeating the exact same thing? The example they use again in your link dosen't have anything to back it up, it seems like circular logic "The bible is accurate because we have manuscripts showing that it is accurate, what manuscripts? The greek manuscripts showing that the bible is accurate"

They say "the New Testament is approximately 99.5% textually pure" based on what and who's study?

As I have repeatedly said no matter what your spiritual beliefs on the bible are I am 100% with you even if it's not my cup of tea. Im not trying to disrespect anyones beliefs, I view it as a perversion of history when you try to revise history to suit your religion (perhaps perversion is too much of a negative word?). I don't pretend that there where never any samurais that practiced buddhism or that many of the things the buddha said aren't apocryphal, it dosen't make the content any less just because history dosen't match my faith.

[Hippo]

Originally Posted by jonnyam87

I am a Christian myself, I firmly believe in God, that there was a Jesus like figure in our history, but I have an extremely hard time reading the bible.

I used to enjoy reading the bible, but the past few years I find it too boring to read.

Also , i believe it is possible to over-read the bible. There are so many other aspects of the christian life. the early believers didn't even have bibles.

[pi_sedoff]

[QUOTE]

It is still not providing me with any real citations or sources. What manuscripts? How about a source that isn't a biblical scholar just repeating the exact same thing? The example they use again in your link dosen't have anything to back it up, it seems like circular logic "The bible is accurate because we have manuscripts showing that it is accurate, what manuscripts? The greek manuscripts showing that the bible is accurate"

They say "the New Testament is approximately 99.5% textually pure" based on what and who's study?

"At present, we have more than 6,000 manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament or portions thereof. No other work of Greek literature can boast of such numbers. Homer's Iliad, the greatest of all Greek classical works, is extant in about 650 manuscripts; and Euripides' tragedies exist in about 330 manuscripts. The numbers on all the other works of Greek literature are far less. Furthermore, it must be said that the amount of time between the original composition and the next surviving manuscript is far less for the New Testament than for any other work in Greek literature. The lapse for most classical Greek works is about eight hundred to a thousand years; whereas the lapse for many books in the New Testament is around one hundred years. Because of the abundant wealth of manuscripts and because several of the manuscripts are dated in the early centuries of the church, New Testament textual scholars have a great advantage over classical textual scholars. The New Testament scholars have the resources to reconstruct the original text of the New Testament with great accuracy, and they have produced some excellent editions of the Greek New Testament.

"Finally, it must be said that, although there are certainly differences in many of the New Testament manuscripts, not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. Frederic Kenyon, a renowned paleographer and textual critic, affirmed this when he said, 'The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries.' " -- Philip W. Comfort, The Complete Guide to Bible Versions, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1991.

more references regarding New Testament textual criticism:

* Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1995). ISBN 0802840981
* R. C. Briggs, Interpreting the New Testament Today: An Introduction to Methods and Issues in the Study of the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1982). ISBN 0687193273
* Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford Press, 1992). ISBN 0195072979
* F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments: How We Got Our English Bible (Revell, 1984). ISBN 0800712145


I have given you more than enough references. If you doubt the claims examine the evidence for yourself. Also the link I gave you in my last post has it's own sources.

Im not trying to disrespect anyones beliefs, I view it as a perversion of history when you try to revise history to suit your religion (perhaps perversion is too much of a negative word?). I don't pretend that there where never any samurais that practiced buddhism or that many of the things the buddha said aren't apocryphal, it dosen't make the content any less just because history dosen't match my faith.

This is the second time you have accused me of perverting or revising history. I asked you in my last post for a specific example of this. You can't back your statement up and yet you repeat yourself. I expect that's going to be the last time you accuse me of this.



Center for the study of New Testament manuscripts:

http://www.csntm.org/



.

[screwjack]

[QUOTE=pi_sedoff;929386]

The New Testament scholars have the resources to reconstruct the original text of the New Testament with great accuracy, and they have produced some excellent editions of the Greek New Testament.
'[/B] " -- Philip W. Comfort, The Complete Guide to Bible Versions, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1991.

more references regarding New Testament textual criticism:

* Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1995). ISBN 0802840981
* R. C. Briggs, Interpreting the New Testament Today: An Introduction to Methods and Issues in the Study of the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1982). ISBN 0687193273
* Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford Press, 1992). ISBN 0195072979
* F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments: How We Got Our English Bible (Revell, 1984). ISBN 0800712145


I have given you more than enough references. If you doubt the claims examine the evidence for yourself. Also the link I gave you in my last post has it's own sources.


Center for the study of New Testament manuscripts:

http://www.csntm.org/



.

Again they are just repeating themselves saying they have sources saying that the manuscripts are accurate but never link to any scholar that will say it is so with actual scholarly links to the manuscripts themselves. Linking to untranslated greek manuscripts is not evidence, anyone can collect and show them. If you are so invested in this and want to believe it that's fine, I just don't personally see any real evidence there but that's what I believe.

[persistent1]

[QUOTE=screwjack;930191]

Originally Posted by pi_sedoff

Again they are just repeating themselves saying they have sources saying that the manuscripts are accurate but never link to any scholar that will say it is so with actual scholarly links to the manuscripts themselves. Linking to untranslated greek manuscripts is not evidence, anyone can collect and show them. If you are so invested in this and want to believe it that's fine, I just don't personally see any real evidence there but that's what I believe.

The Bible and its manuscripts have been studied by biblical and non-biblical scholars and using the same standards that are applied to any other ancient texts such as Homer's The Illiad and The Oddysey they pass scrutiny every time! If you were really looking for proof yourself you would find it. You simply want to write off the Bible using your own biased standards or lack thereof! The Bible has been researched more than any other ancient text because of its importance to our society. If you do not want to accept it so be it, but do not try to create doubt when it is so unfounded and non factual. The Bible is the best-selling book of all time and it historicity and accuracy has been proven by biblical and non-biblical scholars repeatedly. To believe or not to believe that is your choice!

[screwjack]

Originally Posted by persistent1

The Bible and its manuscripts have been studied by biblical and non-biblical scholars and using the same standards that are applied to any other ancient texts such as Homer's The Illiad and The Oddysey they pass scrutiny every time! If you were really looking for proof yourself you would find it. You simply want to write off the Bible using your own biased standards or lack thereof! The Bible has been researched more than any other ancient text because of its importance to our society. If you do not want to accept it so be it, but do not try to create doubt when it is so unfounded and non factual. The Bible is the best-selling book of all time and it historicity and accuracy has been proven by biblical and non-biblical scholars repeatedly. To believe or not to believe that is your choice!

Thanks for reiterating my point for me you've just repeated everything those sites said, again without any real sources to show me wrong. Look I don't want to start a debate. All i've seen is links to christian based sites that say the same thing as "proof" and when i've tried to research it myself all sources from a secular nature state that there are many missing bible verses (the dead sea scrolls et al) and translations have been changed around to change the meaning of verses.

In fact heres a christian based website that aknowledges mistranslations in the kjv: http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html even while coming to the conclusion that it is still the best and most accurate version in english

You believe what you like. I find inspiration in the bible and without a doubt many of the things in it happened, but I also believe a great deal of it is parables and fables to teach a lesson and that some of it was changed by men later on to push what they believed.

[persistent1]

Originally Posted by screwjack

Thanks for reiterating my point for me you've just repeated everything those sites said, again without any real sources to show me wrong. Look I don't want to start a debate. All i've seen is links to christian based sites that say the same thing as "proof" and when i've tried to research it myself all sources from a secular nature state that there are many missing bible verses (the dead sea scrolls et al) and translations have been changed around to change the meaning of verses.

In fact heres a christian based website that aknowledges mistranslations in the kjv: http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html even while coming to the conclusion that it is still the best and most accurate version in english

You believe what you like. I find inspiration in the bible and without a doubt many of the things in it happened, but I also believe a great deal of it is parables and fables to teach a lesson and that some of it was changed by men later on to push what they believed.

I would remind you that sites of a secular nature may be pushing their beliefs as well. The Bible is considered a sacred writing and has stood up to more scrutiny than any other writings. I dont want to argue about missing verses but I do believe that some people try to poke holes thinking they can deflate the whole balloon this way! Whatever you are looking for in life you tend to find. So maybe we should just agree to disagree on this one. But I reiterate my belief that the scriptures have more than stood up to the test of time and all hole-pokers for thousands of years. They are more than a source of inspiration to believers and of course as to be expected they are something much less valuable to non-believers. The Bible even says there is nothing new under the sun and this certainly applies here.