After doing the readings for the short time that I've been part of the group, I'm enjoying and challenged by the commentary and related ideas--I really appreciate the resources you post for us, by the way. However, I'm considering just committing to the New Testament readings for now. It's not a time issue; I'm a fast reader and can easily do the daily readings--but that's the point. I'm "doing the readings." With the variety of readings each day, I feel pulled in several directions, not seeking fullness in any of them.

I've done two previous Bible studies where the goal was an overview of the whole volume, so it's not that I'm trying to avoid the Old Testament. But I think that my spiritual malaise needs depth and contemplation, which I'm more likely to find if I'm focusing more on one reading.

I'm interested in responses, though--maybe I'm trying to rationalize slacking. Reactions?

Views: 59

Replies to This Discussion

JJ,

I've thought about doing that too. One thing that's occurred to me is that we get a lot more OT than New on this type of plan just because there's a lot more of it. I might try NT and Psalms on weekdays, & the rest of OT on weekends. I think it is important to have time to contemplate what we are reading and to enter the Spirit.

David
I've been hoping the dual story lines will help me through the drier parts of the Bible. It's like a soap opera with multiple story arcs. You might not like one story very much but the other keeps you at the TV! I can understand people reading only one part or another but I also know that this is insuring that I read books I normally skip over.
JJ, since I have something of a one track mind, I have found is it fairly mentally distracting or disorienting to read selections both the OT and NT at one sitting. They are worlds apart on numerous levels: time, culture, perception, language, vision, history, tone, style etc. I have trouble shifting gears between the two worlds. To counter this and to tune into the Inner Guide more readily, I read the OT one day, then NT the next or some approximation of that.This helps me savor what I am reading, to find Spirit in it. The other thing I like about this method is that I tend to read longer portions of scripture than the recommended ones in the One Year Bible. This gives me a greater overall perspective. The chopped up chapters don't really work for me as well as finding my own natural stopping place.

The other thing that has helped me is to (loosely) use the date structure suggested by the One Year Bible, but actually read from "The Inclusive Bible: The First Egalitarian Bible." This translation is poetic, powerful and well organized with fascinating footnotes, especially in the OT. It is more that just a cut-and-paste neutral gender rendition of the Bible. It captures, to my ear anyway, the flow and music these authors are tapping into when they reach to touch the face of God.

I wish you the best on your journey through the Bible however you decide to do it. ----Elizabeth

http://www.amazon.com/Inclusive-Bible-First-Egalitarian-Translation...
I don't think anyone can quite understand Jesus without realizing that he was a Jew loyal to whatever he knew of the Hebrew Scriptures. You can, to some extent, as in Gandhi's remark: ~"Everyone except the Christians knows that Jesus was nonviolent." But you miss the significance of various acts & statements.

Neither can you appreciate just how much the authors of the Christian Scriptures misused their Hebrew sources--or how much of the story of Jesus we're given was extrapolated from suggestive 'Old Testament' passages rather than from any biographical information.

It seems mean of me to add to your burden, but one writer I've found highly illuminating on the historical role of Jesus is William Herzog, and his latest summary is shorter, easier going than his earlier works: Prophet and Teacher(2005)

RSS

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.


You can also make a one-time donation.

Latest Activity

Forrest Curo replied to Forrest Curo's discussion 'Scriptures: Can't do with them; can't do without them?'
"Perhaps, then, lack of "faith" (as people typically misconceive it) is less of a barrier…"
6 minutes ago
William F Rushby replied to Forrest Curo's discussion 'Scriptures: Can't do with them; can't do without them?'
"When God takes the initiative, even the recalcitrant can be converted.  With God, all things…"
2 hours ago
Forrest Curo replied to Forrest Curo's discussion 'Scriptures: Can't do with them; can't do without them?'
"Um, where were we? Thanks, however, for that last example of how not to read scripture. If it were…"
8 hours ago
William F Rushby replied to Forrest Curo's discussion 'Scriptures: Can't do with them; can't do without them?'
"I don't really have a sophisticated definition of "nontheist" to offer.  I…"
19 hours ago
Keith Saylor replied to Forrest Curo's discussion 'Scriptures: Can't do with them; can't do without them?'
"Hello William, Thank you for that important correction. The specific quote that prompted my…"
20 hours ago
William F Rushby replied to Forrest Curo's discussion 'Scriptures: Can't do with them; can't do without them?'
"Hello, Keith! "Atheist" is now a naughty word that is not politically correct! …"
23 hours ago
Keith Saylor replied to Forrest Curo's discussion 'Scriptures: Can't do with them; can't do without them?'
"Hello William, When you reflect upon another another person as atheist, how are you using that…"
yesterday
William F Rushby replied to Forrest Curo's discussion 'Scriptures: Can't do with them; can't do without them?'
"Hey, Forrest, thanks for your willingness to address controversial issues, thereby helping to keep…"
yesterday

© 2020   Created by QuakerQuaker.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service