[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / asmr / hisrol / hwndu / leftpol / sw / vg / zoo ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

File: ec78ca2d32473f2⋯.jpg (43.19 KB, 600x601, 600:601, 50-pieces-of-wisdom-from-b….jpg)

405ed9 No.653512

What books should I read to build a foundation for reading the Bible? Should I just hop right into the Bible instead?

cc9fbb No.653514

>>653512

It's history, not some /lit/ philosofag novel. Jump right in.


b9ce01 No.653519

>>653512

Just read the Bible my man. I'd suggest starting with the new testament and then reading from the beginning. Getting a Bible with good commentary isn't a bad idea either. I like the Orthodox study bible but I'm sureyou can find good commentary for any denomination if you look around.


2c27ff No.653550

File: 2ebdd479b90f1a3⋯.gif (424.92 KB, 285x190, 3:2, cDdL87d.gif)

>>653514

there's a whole range of genres, not just history.

>>653512

Don't know what you're background/current understanding/level of knowledge is, but although you can go ahead and press on with the NT, I personally would hold off on the OT until you've done a bit of prep. There's a lot in there, and I would think without said prep a lot of it would go over a first-time reader's head. I haven't started it properly yet for this reason.

I've watched Bruce Gore's yt lecture series 'a history of philosophy and early christian thought' (or similarly titled) thats really good, and I also bought a big book of his called 'the historical and chronological context of the bible' which was a labour of love from him. Haven't read it yet.

What I found very useful for a grasp of the OT was the first 12 or 13 lectures of Chuck Missler's 'learn the bible in 24hrs' series, again on yt. Pretty sure he's a bit of a zany zionist but that doesn't play into the content of the lectures, which are very enlightening and provide a very extensive, but still seemingly brief, overview of the OT (I assume the NT lectures are just as insightful). I say still seemingly brief because although providing a good surface level overview interspersed with a good few snippets here and there, it really provides the indication that there is so much within the bible that you just know you have a lifetime of reading and studying and comtemplating and praying the word and due to said depth and breadth of what's within it will never get old and you'll always be discovering something new. It really whets the wistle.

I've heard good things about (((Robert Alter's))) book 'the art of biblical narrative' too, although there's some considered reviews on good reads setting out it's apparent limitations. But goes into more about the genres, literary styles, purpose and audience of the books of the OT I think, useful things to know like that.

Worth noting also that the relationship between the two testaments/covenants is sometimes phrased as 'the new is in the old concealed, the old in the new revealed,' i.e. to get the most out of the NT you need to understand the OT also, and goes without saying vice versa. I didn't find NT an especially easy read first time through, I had done limited prep which I thought would be useful. I had many questions, and still do to some extent. Sometime's I found it difficult to grasp what was being said in some of the epistles, I think due to Paul's writing style mostly, although this has become much easier on a second read with more background understanding and and just getting a better feel for how the text's syntax flows. also may have just been because I dumb.


0df80e No.653563

Get a study bible, start with the Gospels, and just jump right in d00d


6a95d9 No.653578


2c27ff No.653598

File: e6bfc6b6fd86d71⋯.pdf (4.38 MB, the backpack.pdf)

File: 84f44d5ccf2e3cb⋯.jpg (3.35 MB, 3264x2448, 4:3, 1463459920895.jpg)

also couple resources

>40 day bible reading plan taking you through the key bits to understand the basics

>pdf with a section on the bible designed to take people new to the faith through the basics

Also, when starting, as >>653563 says, go gospels, then all the rest of the NT sans the revelation of John, then do OT then NT again this time inc. Revelevation. Like I said I haven't even started OT yet but seems like a very sensible way of doing it.

Also feel free to prayerfully read the psalms and meditate on the proverbs to supplement going through your chapter by chapter readings in order.


b56ffb No.653904

>>653512

Definitely read the Bible first. There's a lot of man-made doctrine that change the way people interpret the Bible, so I would avoid that completely if you haven't read the Bible yet.

Also, I recommend reading the NT first, since that's the core. It'll also help you understand the OT better.


d8efd8 No.653913

Get the Orthodox Study Bible, OP.


2724e9 No.653939

just read it, but The Pilgrims Progress might make the core ideas stand out a little more.


4c2222 No.653953

>>653904

>There's a lot of man-made doctrine that change the way people interpret the Bible, so I would avoid that completely if you haven't read the Bible yet.

This of course implies that if you read Bible by yourself at first, you will necessarily understand it correctly, and you won't unwittingly come to believe some manmade doctrine - some false interpretation that you will have - as a Biblical truth.

This assumption is an an unfounded one - if you want proof, simply look at the sheer diversity of "Biblical beliefs" seen in the people that read and interpret the Bible all by themselves, without any guidance. Surely, if the Bible was so blatantly obvious and easy to understand correctly, we would see a uniformity of belief among such people?


b56ffb No.658787

>>653953

The Bible says that those who seek God will find Him (e.g. Matthew 7:7). So, no. People interpreting the Bible without human guidance is not the reason that there are so many different "Biblical beliefs". Rather, it's because most people either belief what they want to belief, or are deceived by false teachers or the devil.


eda287 No.658790

File: f75c84191797feb⋯.jpg (181.45 KB, 516x787, 516:787, 548018_4_exc.jpg)

>>653512

I would recommend the Expanded Bible translation. The Autists' Bible.


07ed33 No.658804

>>653512

the Bible is the foundation, all the rest (writings of saints, church fathers, catechism) is built upon it.

Go with the Bible, always check for a traditional interpretation for the parts you don't understand. Learn also the historical and cultural context.


0f4160 No.658817

File: 7d35db261232a53⋯.jpg (27.2 KB, 320x240, 4:3, BibleKJV.jpg)

>>653913

It's just a reprint of the NKJV.

The NKJV (and OSB) changes "narrow" to "difficult" in Matthew 7:14. It removes the words "through faith in his blood" from Romans 3:25.

The NKJV (and OSB) adds the word "merely" to 1 Peter 3:3. The NKJV in Titus 3:10 says "reject a divisive man" but in Luke 12:51 says that Jesus came to bring division

The NKJV also adds footnotes in hundreds of places because it's not sure what is scripture so it refers to many "eclectic" texts, giving strange results in places. The NKJV also changes "are saved" to "are being saved" in 1 Corinthians 1:18, but strangely doesn't apply this same change to Revelation 21:24.


49f4e3 No.658863

>>658817

Or…

The KJV changes "difficult" to "narrow" in Matthew 7:14. It adds the words "through faith in his blood" from Romans 3:25.

The KJV removes the word "merely" to 1 Peter 3:3. The NKJV in Titus 3:10 says "reject a divisive man" and in Luke 12:51 says that Jesus came to bring division showing that readers understand that one word can have different meaning in context.

The orginal KJV also adds footnotes in hundreds of places because it's not sure what is scripture so it refers to many "eclectic" texts, giving strange results in places. The KJV also changes "are being saved" to "are saved" in 1 Corinthians 1:18, and addit to Revelation 21:24.

At their face values both those post are of the same probabilities. First you must answer but one question:

Why should KJV be a standard?


0df80e No.658866

>>658863

>Why should KJV be a standard?

Don't expect an answer.


0f4160 No.658876

>>658863

>Why should KJV be a standard?

Because it's the received word of God, not something dug out of a landfill in 1871 like the supposed "best" manuscripts. God preserved his word for all generations, see Psalm 12:6-7, Isaiah 59:21, Matthew 24:35, Proverbs 30:5-6, 1 Peter 1:23-25, Luke 16:17.

>>658866

Not helping.


49f4e3 No.659104

>>658876

>Because it's the received word of God

Proove it.

>not something dug out of a landfill in 1871 like the supposed "best" manuscripts

So pet project of catholic monk from 1500s is to be standard? How something that is here for 1/4 of existence of Church is "preserved for all generations"?

Much better candidate would be Vulgate, recived much ealier, by much more Christians. And since it's used by Erasmus to translate some chapters to make TR and even by KJV authors to translate from greek it's case should be even stronger by you.


16f8eb No.659349

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx2Q9K0iKDs

http://orthodoxoasis.com/files/vitamins/An%20Encounter%20with%20St%20Silouan%20the%20Athonite.pdf

http://ww1.antiochian.org/sites/default/files/akathist_to_saint_silouan_the_athonite.pdf

http://dro.dur.ac.uk/15305/1/15305.pdf

https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/download/fedora_content/download/ac:146168/content/9.2.mcguckin.pdf

http://stpaisiusmonastery.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Canon-to-St.-Paisius.pdf

If you're serious about any of this, it's best to look for books written by or about SAINTS, there's other things you can look for but you would be more than certainly safe sticking to the saints.

Also, it's not an ideology or political/cultural movement that'll work to bring you success in life or a comfortable living, pursue anything relating to god you're going to find yourself exceedingly out of your comfort zone the more you remain a christian, and most people relapse.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / asmr / hisrol / hwndu / leftpol / sw / vg / zoo ]