How to Read the Bible – A Three Step Plan (written for Catholics - valid for all)

taylormarshall.com ^ | September 30, 2013 | Dr. Taylor Marshall

[NYer]

How do you read the Bible? Today is the feast day of Saint Jerome, who once quipped, “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.”

“Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” – Saint Jerome

It’s a running joke that if you want to find a Bible verse, you ought to ask a Protestant and not a Catholic. Protestants read the Bible. Catholics not so much.

This raises the question:

Why Don’t More Catholics Read the Bible?

I think the answer lies in the fact that we Catholics go to Mass. The Holy Mass has at least two Bible readings every time. If you pray the Breviary or Liturgy of Hours, multiply that several times.

Joe Catholic says to himself, “Why should I study the Bible? I go to Mass. I hear it there. Check and check.”

There is something beautiful in this. For Catholics, Bible reading is liturgical. Hence, Bible reading remains chiefly a community experience.

Three Step Plan to Kick It Up a Notch

It’s good to listen to the readings from the Bible at Holy Mass. However, we also need a personal (even private) encounter with God in the pages of Sacred Scripture. All of the saints breathed Sacred Scripture. Scripture served as the grammar for their souls. They couldn’t communicate without it.

Here are some basic spiritual needs that you have every single day of your life:

1. Praise – Voicing your delight in God and His provision for your life. Gratitude destroys discouragement.
2. Wisdom – You need practical advice to navigate the complexities of life.
3. Challenge – You need to be lifted higher. You need to grow in your faith. You need to be inspired. You must be an intentional Christian.

So when you wake up tomorrow, do the following:

1. Read a Psalm. Start with Psalm 1. Make it your anthem of praise for that day.
2. Read at least one Proverb. Proverbs are the wisdom morsels of your day. There are 31 chapters. Why not read one chapter every day during the month. Oct 1 is Provers 1. October 31 is Proverbs 31. You get the idea.
3. Read a chapter of the one of the Gospels. This is your challenge. Your Savior challenges you in the four Gospels. He calls you to be not merely a nominal Catholic but a disciple. You cannot seriously read the Gospels and stay lukewarm. Christ speaks in a way that cannot be ignored.

“But I’m so busy. I don’t have the time!”

What? You’re too busy. Sorry, you just got served a yellow card:

That’s a yellow card. You’ve been warned…

Doing these three readings will take you only 3-5 minutes. That’s the time of a commercial break. It will change your life for good. I promise. It takes 21 days to make a habit, so give it 21 days and see if you aren’t hooked. Put the Bible on your night stand and read it in the mornings. Start fresh.

“Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” – Saint Jerome, Doctor of the Church

[metmom]

Let's see if I understand the Catholic teaching...

One person canNOT interpret Scripture when led by the Holy Spirit, but a GROUP of these people who can't figger it out by themselves somehow mange to VOTE on what it really means.

Did I state it correctly?

Looks that way.

Somehow, Scripture interpretation by popular vote doesn't seem to be quite so reliable either.

[NKP_Vet]

“Now THAT’s funny, coming from a Catholic, considering the RCC’s history of dealing with those who dare to disagree with it”.

Catholics have the truth on their side. Protestants do not, hence the neverending guilt trip of protestants. Attacking anything and everything Catholic. Catholics are called to protect the Church from heresay and that is exactly why they attempt to lead protestants and everyone else to the truth.

“What we have here is a failure to communicate”.

~ Strother Martin, “Cool Hand Look”, 1967

[NKP_Vet]

The Catholic Church start started when Christ commissioned Peter to build His Church.

[metmom]

why would God, the creator of everything that ever was, allow His Son to come to Earth in a stained vessel????

Why would God, the Creator of everything that ever was, allow His Son to come and live in us, stained vessels that we are?

Ephesians 3:14-19 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

1 Corinthians 6:18-20 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

[smvoice]

The KINGDOM, MESSIANIC Church started when Christ commissioned Peter to build His Church. Are you Israel?

[metmom]

Spell check don’t catch numbers.

[metmom]

You know what I meant, you heretic you.....

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Well the truth is the truth.”

We agree on that cryptic statement. The issue however is that you’ve not stated anything true. You’ve stated assumptions that are unprovable, wild statements that have been refuted on this thread, and provide no backup to prove any of it. That is not trugh.

“And the truth is if Martin Luther had not lived and there had been no break up of God’s Church, you my friend would be a Catholic.”

I thank God for your Catholic Priest, Ol’ Luther, who despite his faults accomplished the recovery of the Gospel and launched the reexamination of the Scriptures by God’s people.

Again, the “truth” you are claiming is without merit, proof, etc. It presumes the Roman version of pagan Christianity is “God’s Church”. It presumes God was unable to deal with the loss of His Holy Gospel of Grace without Luther. Not so, thankfully.

[daniel1212]

Pick a verse and we'll post some links to commentaries and we can compare and see how far off from each other they are

That would be extensive, but Help yourself. Get the free E-sword program for more. And which contrary to your charge, testifies to a overall strong unity in basic truths and thus contentions against those who deny them, and limited disagreement in others.

And contrary to the fantasy many RCs seem to have, the official teaching of Rome is neither so extensive or clearly consistent so that Catholics cannot validly have extensive things they can disagree on. Nor was comprehensive doctrinal unity was ever a goal not realized.

.if 2,000 different interpretations come in to your blog, doesn't that tell you that you should let those, far more capable than you, interpret scripture?

Which does not prevent the extensive things Catholics can disagree on, and the various interpretations we see here by Catholics. Nor were so-called "church fathers " all unified, nor does Rome doctrines actually have the stipulated “unanimous consent ”

However, as there are those called and gifted to be teachers, thus we have helps such as in depth comprehensive classic evangelical commentaries, the likes of which Rome has not. Even sincere RCs who esteem Scripture can find Matthew Henry edifying, esp in practical application.

Meanwhile, your polemic infers that Rome solves the problem of various interpretations of Scripture, and inaccurate ones, with assuredly true interpretations. Thus we must ask,

1. How many texts of Scripture has Rome infallibly defined?

2. How many official comprehensive commentaries has Rome produced?

3. Is the teaching of Romes such as to prevent RCs from having great liberty to variously interpret Scripture to defend Rome?

4. As regards sanctioned Roman interpreters as being more capable than evangelicals, would you agree we must agree with the RC sanctioned commentary in your own official American Bible which teaches :

that Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel: the footnotes on which state, in part, “an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”) are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson.

the story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, while the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are "historical at their core," but overall the author simply used mere "traditions" to teach a religious lesson.

Think of the ‘holy wars’ of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine. The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional."

It also holds that such things as “cloud, angels (blasting trumpets), smoke, fire, earthquakes,lighting, thunder, war, calamities, lies and persecution are Biblical figures of speech.”

On Gn. 1:26 states that “sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth,” thus negating this as literal, and God as referring to Himself in the plural (“Us” or “Our”) which He does 6 times in the OT. Likewise, the current footnote regarding the Red Sea (Ex. 10:19) informs readers regarding what the Israelites crossed over that it is literally the Reed Sea, which was “probably a body of shallow water somewhat to the north of the present deep Red Sea.” Thus rendered, the miracle would have been Pharaoh’s army drowning in shallow waters!

t likewise explains as regards to the sons of heaven [God] having relations with the daughters of men, as “apparently alluding to an old legend.” and explains away the flood as a story that “ultimately draws upon an ancient Mesopotamian tradition of a great flood.” Its teaching also imagines the story as being a composite account with discrepancies. The 1970 footnote on Gen. 6:1-4 states, “This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology.” It goes on to explain the “sons of heaven” are “the celestial beings of mythology.”

All of which impugns the overall literal nature the O.T. historical accounts, and as Scripture interprets Scripture, we see that the Holy Spirit refers to such stories as being literal historical events (Adam and Eve: Mt. 19:4; Abraham, Issac, Exodus and Moses: Acts 7; Rm. 4; Heb. 11; Jonah and the fish: Mt. 12:39-41; Balaam and the donkey: 2Pt. 2:15; Jude. 1:1; Rev. 2:14). Indeed “the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety” (2Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9), and if Jonah did not spend 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the whale then neither did the Lord, while Israel's history is always and inclusively treated as literal.

it states under "Reading the Gospels,

“The Church was so firmly convinced that the risen Lord who is Jesus of history lived in her, and taught through her, that she expressed her teaching in the form of Jesus’ sayings. The words are not Jesus but from the Church.” “Can we discover at least some words of Jesus that have escaped such elaboration? Bible scholars point to the very short sayings of Jesus, as for example those put together by Matthew in chapter 5, 1-12”

It does allow that the slaughter of the innocents by King Herod, was “extremely probable,” and that people leaving Bethlehem to escape the massacre, is equally probable, but outside the historical background to this tradition, “the rest is interpretation.” This means is taught as justified due to the authors intent.

It additionally conveys such things as that Matthew placed Jesus in Egypt to convince his readers that Jesus was the real Israel, and may have only represented Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, to show that Jesus wa the s like Moses who received the law on Mount Sinai. (St. Joseph edition, 1970; How to read your Bible, "The Gospels," 13e, f, g. and i)

The “Conditioned thought patterns” (7) hermeneutic also paves the way for the specious argumentation of feminists who seek to negate the headship of the man as being due to condescension to culture, a very dangerous hermeneutic, and unwarranted when dealing with such texts as 1Cor. 11:3.

In addition, the current edition will not use render “porneia” as “sexual immorality” or anything sexual in places such as 1Cor. 5:1; 6:13; 7:2; 10:8; 2Cor. 12:21; Eph. 5:3; Gal. 5:19; Col. 3:5; 1Thes. 4:3; but simply has “immorality,” even though in most cases it is in a sexual context.

It is a slippery slope when historical statements are made out to be literary devices, and Muslims have taken advantage of the NAB's liberal hermeneutic to impugn the veracity of the Bible, http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/nab.htm.

The NAB has gone through revision, but a Roman Catholic apologist lists some of the above errors from the 1992 version, and is likewise critical of the liberal scholarship behind it (though he elsewhere denigrated Israel as illegally occupying Palestine), while the online NAB also reflects liberal “scholarship.” A Roman Catholic cardinal is also critical of the NAB on additional grounds.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“I am saying when the Bible was compiled the only Christians were Catholic. Therefore, Catholics COMPILED THE BIBLE.”

What is that sound???

The prideful rooster crows and believes his crowing raised the sun! Oh, foolish rooster!

Do you not know God Himself has set the sun in motion. You strut and preen and brag and chase hens as a king, yet you are just a simple bird - one of millions of birds - created just to announce what God has done. You could no more make the sun rise than stop it. Your bragging is pride.

So are the statements here on FR about the Bible being a Catholic book or that it was written by Catholics, etc.

It could just as easily be claimed by the pen that it wrote the entire Bible. It was simply a tool, used by choice of the ultimate Author. He moved men to write His inspired word. Yet they brag like a rooster.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“The Catholic Church start started when Christ commissioned Peter to build His Church.”

That statement contains at least 2 presumptions that are false.

[metmom]

Folktales?

Did God REALLY say....?

Catholicism impugns the word it claims it wrote.

[NKP_Vet]

Luther was a heretic who tried to change the Holy Bible to fit his viewpoint. His followers who deny the True Church, i.e., the Catholic Church, i.e., the Church that gave us the Holy Bible, are also heretics. Luther never wanted for the church to break apart. He wanted reforms, which were accomplished. His followers, who he would not recognize if he lived today, would just as soon God’s Pilgrim Church on earth, disappear from the earth. To deny the Catholic Church is to deny Jesus Christ.

[Just mythoughts]

Strong delusions.

[BlueDragon]

I did - at 1508

Yes, you did, and very well, thank you. And I did at 1502, but in segmented fashion.

Now, NKP, are you going to retract the statement which in effect doubled the percentage of [ahem] "Catholics" in the US military -- or not?

20-25% turned into 45-50% is to take the actual (the 20-25%) double of it's actual value. Which mathematically, is error rate of 100%. An error rate of 50% would have only inflated the numbers to 30-33%, for example...

If one cannot do the math as to contemporary occurrence --- does not investigate before posting to see if their own Romanist propaganda which is picked up from who knows where to be thoughtlessly repeated is in fact true, and resists acknowledgement of the same when it is shown to be not true --- how should that one (who was 100% in error) be seen by anyone (other than themselves, perhaps) as being some sort of singular truth bearer?

Catholics have the truth on their side. Protestants do not, hence the neverending guilt trip of protestants

Guilt trip? You (and other Romanists) keep using that phrase. I do not think that phrase means what you seem to think it means...

I have no "guilt trip" for those areas and conditions under which I have come to the knowledge of truth --- and those truths having set me free.

What I do have is some amount of anger towards fabrications and exaggerations being presented as "truth".

[dsc]

“I could give you links to the threads for all those examples”

No, you can’t.

“(as well as false charges against me)”

Unless you are Protestantism personified, false charges against you would not be indicative of bigotry—if such charges were in fact laid.

“but i doubt if anything would suffice”

Doesn’t matter. You don’t have anything.

“we are expected to believe the word of a Catholic over substantiated documentation”

There has been no documentation of anti-protestant bigotry whatsoever. However, that “word of a Catholic” remark actually *is* indicative of bigotry—bigotry that holds Catholics, *all* Catholics, to be dishonest.

“And in any case, what you protest is not against forum rules”

Oh, don’t even try that gambit.

Firstly, I am not protesting anything. It is the protestants who are whining about imaginary anti-protestant bigotry. Besides, I have demonstrated on several occasions that it is quite possible to say anything whatsoever about an individual poster—making it unmistakably personal—without drawing any comment from moderators. One need only veil one’s insults with transparently meretricious disclaimers, and the moderators let it pass.

“Posters may argue for or against beliefs, deities, religious authorities, etc. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule. “Open” RF debate is often contentious.”

Then why all the whining about this nonexistent anti-protestant bigotry?

“…you are too thin-skinned to be involved in “open” RF debate. You should IGNORE “open” RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.”

I guess you’ve had success with that line of argumentation in the past. This time, however, it is the protestants who are whining, not the Catholics. Tell *them* to get more thick-skinned and stop crying about imaginary anti-protestant bigotry.

“It is within the bounds of “open” Religion Forum town square style debate for a Freeper to express his hatred of a belief.”

So, if there were any anti-protestant bigotry here, the expression thereof would not violate forum rules. Interesting, but irrelevant, as there is no anti-protestant bigotry here.

“Protestants are heretics” is not making it personal. “You are a heretic” is making it personal.”

It is hard for me to believe that anyone capable of using a computer is incapable of seeing the rank hypocrisy of that rule.

Under that rule, one can make sweeping comments about all protestants, but cannot report personal observations of the behavior of individuals. Where else in life are broad-brush generalizations considered preferable to thoughtful comments on specific remarks or conduct?

I can say “some protestants are hate-filled bigotry sewers,” as long as I make it clear that I am not talking about anyone here (nudge nudge, wink wink, nod’s as good as a wink to a blind man).

Of course, I would never point out that anyone on FR makes repeated claims that he cannot substantiate, nor that those claims are the worst sort of self-serving, malicious lie. I would never say that about another poster on FR.

If I were bigoted against protestants, I might say something like that about *all* protestants, and that would not violate the rules. However, as I am not bigoted against protestants, I would never say that about all protestants, and the rules forbid me from saying anything like that about an individual poster, no matter how many lies he might tell.

Not, of course, that I’m saying that any poster on FR is a habitual purveyor of lies and deceit. I would never say anything like that.

The point is that if I say something about *all* protestants, which is not likely, then what I have said applies equally to each protestant, individually and personally. To make the distinction you quote between remarks aimed at groups and those aimed at individuals is, and there’s no better way to put it, stupid as a sack of hammers.

[NKP_Vet]

“He who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however laudable his conduct may otherwise seem, will never enjoy eternal life, and the anger of God remains on him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ.” ~ St. Augustine & the Council of Cirta (412 AD).

[dsc]

“Well; this is NOT a ‘broad’ example, but Tery says that just ONE example should be sufficient...”

Looks like you need to join your bud E in searching for the meaning of “bigotry.”

My remark stems from observation, and does not—brain-dead religion forum rules notwithstanding—arise out of any opinion, prejudiced or otherwise, regarding protestants in general.

I know protestants whose minds are *not* clouded by hatred. I have known protestants whom I am morally certain are at this very moment in Heaven with Our Lord. (Not, of course, that time exists in Heaven.)

So, which is it? Are you truly mistaken as to the meaning of the word “bigotry,” or is it that you just don’t care whether your remarks are accurate or not?

[dsc]

—She returned her soul to God two millennia ago, certainly.—
“Another MORMON teaching?”

That is a plain-vanilla Christian teaching, common to all denominations.

What, you don’t believe in the soul?

[dsc]

“Aw... shucks...”

Sneezy?

That’s really not much of an insult.