My main problem with studying Scripture

[rotlex]

Honestly it’s not that hard. Three chapters a day will get you through the Old Testament in a year. I generally read through once a year; choosing a different translation. I read 3 Chapters from the Old Testament every day, reading Proverbs during January as an additional chapter, a Psalm every night, and at least one chapter a day from the New Testament.

That’s really minimal reading time, and can be easily finished in year or less. (I think I’ve read through it in total a dozen or more times).

I agree with the study part. I’ve done that too, and frankly, if done so I actually think I’m getting something out of it, I can take a year just to do the New Testament alone, or even longer.

 

[Gorgias]

I guess I should have said studying scripture, not reading.

That’s probably not too bad a way of describing it. After all, from a Catholic perspective, if the question is about “interpretation of Scripture”, then (in the absence of a priest who might want to lead a Scripture study) the Catholic perspective in the past might be described as having been “we do ‘Scripture study’ at Mass, when the priest explains the readings in his sermon.”

I’ve heard from my parents and others that they were discouraged from reading the Bible so I don’t think it’s an urban legend. There were surely different ways of doing things, but I don’t think I’ll be going around calling the old timers liars when they say they were discouraged from reading scripture.

When you wrote “Catholics were discouraged from reading Scripture”, I took that to mean the usual red herring that “the Church discouraged Catholics from reading Scripture”, which is something that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Were there those who didn’t encourage Catholics from reading Scripture? Sure – I said as much in my previous post. Did the Church discourage it? Nope.

 

[oldgraymare2]

Thanks everyone, for all your different ideas and suggestions.

I am going to take a little bit from each idea, and speed-read the the “story” books, taking notes about chronology and issues that come up, then read for “questions,” like finding all the prophecies, reading to see how to live a good life, reading for prayers in different times (praise, sorrow, etc.).

So maybe I won’t end up reading everynword in the Bible, but I will end up reading it!

Thanks again, to each of you: hearing different ways of thinking about reading the Bible was very helpful

God bless you, St. Francis!

I hope that you find a way that works out well for you!

 

[adamhovey1988]

Catholics were discouraged from reading the Bible until 1943, and after Vll things changed even more. So, I think that a practicing Catholic could do just fine without reading the Bible.

I’m more interested in understanding the Bible as a whole, and understanding typology. I also just enjoy picking up the Bible and choosing a book to read, whichever book it might be…even if it’s part of Numbers or Deuteronomy. And, I’d be lost without the introductions and footnotes.

I’m pretty sure the part about Catholics being discouraged to read the Bible is false considering Chesterton knew scripture quite well and died in 1936

 

[adamhovey1988]

I have read the entire Bible Genesis to Revelation it took about eight months now I read it slower at least one chapter a day, and I have read the New Testament a few times. I find the device. If I spped read ecen though I am capable of it,I miss a lot. I have an Ignatius Study Bible New Testament which I used sometimes but not all the time and I’ve read that in its entirety too

 

[Gorgias]

I’m pretty sure the part about Catholics being discouraged to read the Bible is false

Correct. Were some Catholics discouraged from picking up Scripture? Certainly. Was it only in the context of “don’t interpret Scripture yourself”? Without a doubt. Were nuns and priests involved in this bad advice? Probably.

Does this mean that all Catholics were thus advised, or that the Church itself discouraged Bible reading? Nope. And I think that’s why we’re balking at the notion, since in the absence of any qualifiers, it reads like that’s what’s being suggested.

 

[abucs]

Hi St Francis,

as you probably know, if you attended daily mass for 3 years you would basically hear all of the Bible, both New and Old Testament.

The EWTN daily mass video broadcasts only last about 20 minutes and you could ‘hear’ (if not read) the bible in this way. (with the bonus of commentary from a priest )

God Bless.

youtube.com/user/EWTN

 

[St_Francis]

Hi St Francis,

as you probably know, if you attended daily mass for 3 years you would basically hear all of the Bible, both New and Old Testament.

The EWTN daily mass video broadcasts only last about 20 minutes and you could ‘hear’ (if not read) the bible in this way. (with the bonus of commentary from a priest )

God Bless.

youtube.com/user/EWTN

No, not exactly. The entire Bible is not covered through the cycle, but much more than before V2.

 

[St_Francis]

God bless you, St. Francis!

I hope that you find a way that works out well for you!

Thanks very much

I realized that I had two conflicting “pictures” of what reading/studying/praying the Bible would “look” like, and in reading everyone’s responses, I saw that I could combine the pictures and not feel like I was shirking anything (completeness vs slow study). I hope I have a few years left in which to carry out the longer part of my project!

I remember singing the song your name is from with my mother, many long years ago, and think to myself: these old gray knees, they ain’t what they used to be

 

[abucs]

No, not exactly. The entire Bible is not covered through the cycle, but much more than before V2.

Thanks for the stats.

 

[May1980]

I am reading it all through. Now, I found myself stopping to Google a lot. WHAT did that just say, for example? Old Testament is tricky! But I do that less now and just keep reading or I won’t finish. I think the New Testament and the life of Jesus will be most important, and I am impatient to get there. But I don’t want to skip anything, no matter what it is.
I don’t think there is a right way to read it. Most I know have not read it at all, or parts of it. I am just someone who if I buy the full book, wants to read the whole book. I felt kind of sheepish not having read it, before now.

 

[psalm90]

My main problem has always been a total division in my mind between reading the entire Bible and studying the Bible. The two seem incompatible. It seems like it would take *forever *to read the entire Bible if one studied it, or at least several years.

And it’s so dumb, because I probably could have finished the Bible since I returned to the Church, no matter how slowly I had done it.

I just can’t wrap my mind around how long this will take unless I zip through it. I have bought Bibles of all different sizes, and even cut one up into “manageable” bits, but still have not just read it, only parts of it.

(To be honest, I have the same problem in some other areas of my life: I either have to zip through, which makes me feel like I did a bad job, or do it so thoroughly that it takes forever, I can’t figure out what is ok not to do.)

Could a Catholic get by without reading the *entire *Bible? Could I just say, OK, not all these books are the most important, so I am not going to read all of them?

I’ve wrestled with the same problem. Now, I’m taking medication that really puts me off my pace of reading commentaries.

The truth is, there is so much inspiration in the Bible and so much to absorb. I’ve never found a complete commentary that didn’t leave me with questions. The complexity of the Old Testament revolves around the meaning of the ancient texts, at the first level. The questions people pose on these forums force me to think about things I never thought of, like the thread about whether Adam and Eve were initially “divinized.” (qv)

I just picked up a commentary from the Jewish Publication Society about the life of Joseph (in Genesis). It supposedly surveys the thinking over the centuries about him. Why did he want his bones taken to the Promised Land and buried there? and what difference would that make? I’m going on a short trip and plan to look that over.

A friend and I used to joke that we knew so much, that to learn anything new, we had to purposefully forget something else to make room for it. That is happening to me, whether I like it or not. I underline books and take notes – later I can’t recall ever having read that book. I’m falling behind faster than I’m going ahead.

 

[slMike]

Could a Catholic get by without reading the *entire *Bible? Could I just say, OK, not all these books are the most important, so I am not going to read all of them?

Just stick to the basics when getting tired, that means 14 books of the Bible:

I highly recommend The EWTN series Our Father’s Plan which lays out the basics of
understanding the Bible from beginning to end using only 14 books of the Bible to lead
you through the twelve periods contained in Scripture. After you have done that you can
begin to add other books of the Bible to your Scripture study after having been set on
a solid foundation.

OUR FATHER’S PLAN - DVD

*“This 13-program series, featuring Dr. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins, walks through salvation history from Genesis to the formation of the Catholic Church using the chronological narrative of the Bible. Each session gives the broad overview of Bible history by breaking the Scriptures into 12 periods, followed by an in-depth discussion with Scott Hahn. 7 discs. 13 hrs.” *

Meat and potatoes are always best in the end.