Why is the Bible hard to read?

[midori]

Remember that the Bible isn’t one big novel; it’s lots of different books that have been assembled together between one set of covers. And just like you don’t read law in the same way you read correspondence, and you don’t read poetry in the same way you read prophecy, and you don’t read allegory in the same way that you read history, you need to read each part according to the reason why it was composed in the first place.

At the same time, however, you read some bits… and you get excited, because you realize that foreshadowing is happening, in anticipation of 500, 1000 pages in the future. So having a good idea as to what’s going on overall is also important, to help you appreciate what’s happening at a given moment.

When we were small, we read it two chapters per night. I think it takes about three years to finish it at that pace. Then later on, in college, I took Survey of the OT, and then Survey of the NT. Each of those classes would assign a book at a time, and we’d discuss. It’s easier to read, say, Tobit or Esther in one big go, versus, say, Psalms or Numbers.

But there’s plenty of Bible-reading programs/schedules out there. Find one that works for you, and see if the extra guidance can help you appreciate what you’re reading, instead of getting bogged down by wordswordswordswordswords.

Also, you might try putting your hands on the Knox Bible. Not only is the translation very elegant— sort of what you might have gotten if the KJV was written in the mid-20th-century— but the type layout is deliberately in paragraph form, vs the usual two-or-three-column layout you get with other Bibles. So that really helps with the narrative flow, if you like your Bible-reading to be more like a novel than a reference book.

 

[Prodigal1984]

I did that in college.
It has its ups as yes you will have read it all, but that is about it.
The Bible isn’t a book, for one. It is a collection of books a Church has considered the inspired word of God.
This is different in different groups. A Protestant Bible will generally have 66 books, a Catholic one will have 73. Orthodox generally have a few more. The largest Canon in the Christian world is the Ethiopian Orthodox Church who has 81 books.
Now, there are certain ways I would recommend. Most think just reading through will show the earliest times to the latest but this isn’t always true. For example, in newer Catholic Bibles the books of Maccabees are placed in the historical books section, however timeline wise the events are from the second century B.C. ( Douay Rheims Bibles however follow the traditional list and they are the last books in the Old Testament, really old Douay Rheims that would be worth a lot of money now most likely also have an appendix which contained the Prayer of Manasseh 3 and 4 Esdras. )

If you start with Genesis, I would say read Genesis, and then a New Testament book like a Gospel.
I think the problem when reading the Bible is a lot of it seems irrelevant to us and we forget the bigger picture. Reading of an Old Testament book and then new allows you some different lessons. Also don’t make it a thing to rush through a book just for the sake of finishing it. We miss so much doing that.
However I will say even after you have read the entire Bible, the journey of studying it has just begun. I can tell you reading it through the first time, you only scratched the surface on everything that is there.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I find this interesting that people actually find it helpful to skip around and read the Bible in this sort of disjointed way.

I myself much prefer the straight on through, cover-to-cover method. With respect to certain things maybe not being in the right place in the timeline, the notes at the beginning of each section would explain it.

Maybe it’s because I’m already pretty aware of all the foreshadowing from years of Mass readings, but I don’t really need to read Genesis and then skip up to the Gospels. It already drives me a bit nuts to have all the skipping around going on in the daily Mass readings. I understand it’s because the Mass readings are directed towards a particular theme or teaching of God for each day, but one second I’m back in the OT for 5 minutes and then I’m up after Jesus’ Ascension with St. Paul for 5 more minutes and then I’m hearing from Jesus himself somewhere in between…it’s like flipping TV channels and getting 5 minutes each of 3 different shows.

I’ve been at my straight-through Bible reading (second time I’ve done this) for about a year and a half and am about halfway through Nehemiah. It works for me.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Something I don’t like about new Bibles, say the NABRE is the notes.
When I was at Holy Apostles, one of the professors brought this up that being the more promoted Catholic Bible these days, the notes are sometimes openly hostile and make you question things.
Open to the introduction of 2 Peter. It basically states it wasn’t written by Peter. That is fine in an academic Bible to make a claim like that, but in just a regular Bible it can be extremely scandalous to the faith.
Not to mention a lot of scholars traditional views on when books were written are being challenged now in view for an earlier date of composition. Some New Testament books such as Hebrews or some of the Epistles seem to make it sound like the temple is running like it always had with the temple tax etc. This would make no sense if written after year 70 as it was destroyed. And one would assume someone would have said something about that or even it being retribution etc. You never hear a word like that which is leading many to think these facts were overlooked in the past.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I ignore that sort of note. I can see where it might bother someone with less faith or just checking out the faith. A lot of the NABRE footnotes are also “Thank you Captain Obvious” sorts of things. But the part at the beginning that says “this was written in year X at the time after Babylonian Captivity” is all I need to see for background.