Does God Need a Defence Attorney? (Part 1)

One of the things I teach my students, in the Religious Studies classes for which I am their TA, is that, before they can read any text with as objective a perspective as possible, they must take everything they think they know about that text and "put it on a shelf." Then they can try to read the text with fresh eyes, unencumbered by preconceived ideas and personal agendas.  Is that easy to do? No, in fact, it is quite challenging and even when consciously striving to do so, we are unsuccessful.

I am part of a group of men who have committed to reading through the entire Bible (Hebrew Bible and New Testament) in 2018. We come together (online) to discuss what we are learning from our readings. Everyone of these men have been followers of Jesus for at least 10 years, and most for more than 25 years. I, for one, am trying to read, what I do by faith consider Scripture, from as objective a perspective as I possibly can. As a result in our discussions I think I might be developing a reputation of being the proverbial "devil's advocate." I can only hope that these men understand that I'm not trying to undermine or tear down anyone's faith. Rather, I am personally striving for a more authentic and honest faith--a faith that recognizes the historical, ethical and moral challenges that reading the Hebrew Bible objectively (i.e., from an academic rather than confessional perspective) raises.

A good example this past week came from reading the early part of the book of Exodus with a special focus on the plagues that Yahweh brought upon the people of Egypt and the resulting horrors they experienced. Most scholars do not believe this describes any events that actually happened, but even if that's the perspective one has, this is how the author of Exodus wanted its readers to see how God works. The reason that the Egyptians experienced ten absolutely horrible plagues is because of Pharoah's hardness of heart. He refused to let Moses take the Hebrews away for a time of worship and sacrifice to Yahweh. Under the pressure of a certain plague he would agree and then he would renege, withdrawing his approval, because "his heart was hardened."

At least 19 times from Exodus 4 through 14, the text talks about Pharaoh's heart being hardened. What people often miss seeing, however, is that it is the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, who credits himself as the one who hardens Pharoah's heart. Even before Moses meets with Pharaoh, he says, "And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders that I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go" (4:21. See also 7:3; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17). Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, "hardened Pharaoh's heart" so that he would not let the Hebrews go. This was, according to the author of Exodus, Yahweh's plan all along. It's not just that God foreknew that Pharoah's heart would be hard, but that God, himself, would harden his heart.

The result of Pharaoh's heart being hardened was that not only he, but all the Egyptians had to suffer terrific and, at times, personally devastating, disasters. Imagine, as I do as a father of two sons and a grandfather with two (of my six grandchildren) grandsons, waking up one morning and find my firstborn son and my firstborn grandson had died in the night. But then when I share my grief with my family, friends and neighbours, I find that each of them has suffered the death of their firstborn sons. In fact, this unspeakable loss was experienced by every family in my country!  Then, imagine again, that your fathers, husbands, brothers and sons who serve in the army follower their commander and chief on a mission that fails terribly. How terribly you ask. So terrible was the defeat that not a single man survived! Not one father, husband, brother or son returned. The reason this reputedly happened in Egypt as that Yahweh, the God of Hebrews, hardened Pharaoh's heart.

When I read story of the Egyptian plagues from an objective perspective, this is what I "hear." But then I want to jump to God's defence. I know people are going to put the God of the Bible on trial for this action and I try to create a strategy with which to justify God's actions. But is that really what I need to do? Will that result in my having an authentic and honest faith?

More to come...

Who was Moses' father-in-law and why does it matter? Part 1

According to Exodus 2:18, Moses' father-in-law was רְעוּאֵל (Reuel). He was Zipporah's father, whom he gave in marriage to Moses (2:21). Reuel was "the priest of Midian" (2:16). Then according to Exodus 3:1, his father-in-law, "the priest of Midian" was יִתְרוֹ (Jethro) and in Exodus 4:18, his father-in-law's name is יֶתֶר (Jether). In Exodus 18, Moses' father-in-law is called Jethro throughout. So who was Moses' father-in-law and why does it matter?

The oldest Hebrew manuscripts that we possess today are dated between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE. They were discovered among, what are commonly called, the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) in the caves near Qumran between 1947 and 1956. Over 1000 manuscript fragments have been identified of which about 25% are manuscripts of what would later (1st-2nd centuries CE) be canonized as books of the Hebrew Bible (HB). Prior to their discovery, the earliest Hebrew manuscripts were dated to the 9th or 10th centuries CE and represent the Masoretic text (MT), which until recently was the textus receptus for the HB and the Christian OT.  So, it is impossible to overstate the significance of these DSS. They do confirm that there was a significant preservation of the Hebrew texts throughout the centuries. However, at the same time, the DSS demonstrate not a tiny number of differences, called "variants," when compared to the MT. In addition, there are multiple manuscripts of several books of the HB among the DSS that differ from one another.

In the centuries prior the canonization of both the HB, and later, the canonization of the Christian New and Old Testaments, there did not exist one standardized, authoritative text of all biblical books, but multiple manuscripts of key HB texts, that contain numerous variants when compared to one another. Please read the following quote carefully and as objectively as possible:

• "But the real blow to the Masoretic Text...was their contention...that biblical texts were highly fluid in the last centuries before the Common Era. Scribes could add to older texts and rearrange their elements without impairing the status of those texts as Holy Scripture. this means that very different literary editions of the same biblical books were used alongside each other. Take the book of Jeremiah as a particularly illustrative example...The translators of the Septuagint had before them a very different and much shorter book of Jeremiah than the Masoretic version. yet, both editions were clearly seen as authoritative. Even the Torah existed in different, equally authoritative versions." (Martin Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, 63).

• "In the case of the Hebrew Bible it is difficult to define what the ‘original’ means, since each book is the product of a complicated and often unrecoverable history of composition and redactions. The ‘original text’ that lies somewhere behind the archetype is usually not the product of a single author, but a collective production, sometimes constructed over centuries, perhaps comparable to the construction of a medieval cathedral or the composite walls of an old city.” (The Oxford Hebrew Bible: prologue to a New Critical Edition [2008], p. 322)

What does all this do to the understanding of "all scripture is God-breathed?" While some of the variants can certainly be explained as scribal errors, resulting in obvious deletions of text, or as scribal updates, as the Hebrew language changed over time (re: spelling and grammar), other differences cannot be so easily explained. Were the "original autographs" (which we don't and won't ever have) God breathed (word for word) but then scribal errors and innovations introduced these variants? If so, how are we to think of the biblical texts that we do possess?  Is there another way to think about "God-breathed scripture" that would allow for and help explain these multiple texts and their variants? More to come...

What does "every scripture is God-breathed" (θεόπνευστος) mean?

In my reading, I came across this quote a couple of days ago, from the pen of C.S. Lewis in his book, Reflections on the Psalms (p. 47 Kindle ebook).

"The human qualities of the raw materials show through. Naivety, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed. The total result is not 'the Word of God' in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God; and we (under grace, with attention to tradition and to interpreters wiser than ourselves, and with the use of such intelligence and learning as we may have) receive that word from it not by using it as an encyclopedia or an encyclical but by steeping ourselves in its tone or temper and so learning its overall message.

To a human mind this working-up (in a sense imperfectly), this sublimation (incomplete) of human material, seems, no doubt, an untidy and leaking vehicle. We might have expected, we may think we should have preferred, an unrefracted light giving us ultimate truth in systematic form--something we could have tabulated and memorized and relied on like the multiplication table. One can respect, and at moments envy, both the Fundamentalist's view of the Bible and the Roman Catholic's view of the Church. But there is one argument which we should beware of using for either proposition: God must have done what is best, this is best, therefore God has done this. For we are mortals and do knot know what is best for us, and it is dangerous to prescribe what God must have done--especially when we cannot, for the life of us, see that He has after all done it."

In his book, The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It, Peter Enns states, "Many Christians have been taught that the bible is Truth downloaded from heaven, God's rulebook, a heavenly instructional manual--follow the directions and out pops a true believer; deviate from the script and God will come crashing down on you with full force...What I discovered, and what I want to pass along to you in this book, is that this view of the Bible does not come from the Bible but from an anxiety over protecting the Bible and so regulating the faith for those who read it...When you read the Bible on its own terms, you discover that it doesn't behave itself like a holy rulebook should. It is definitely inspiring and uplifting...But just as often it's a challenging book that leaves you with more questions than answers."

Rereading Genesis and Exodus has been a challenging read for me. I feel like I need to defend some of its stories, whether they are accounts of what actually happened, historical fiction or stories that are more parabolic in nature. There are inconsistencies in details. There are moral choices that are at best questionable and at times downright evil of which the main characters, the ancestors of the Israelites, are guilty and seemingly unrepentant. But as both Lewis and Enns note, that doesn't mean I am going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Over the last few years, my understanding of inspiration has changed and thus the way I view the Bible has changed. I still love it, I still read it, I still strive to put its principles into practice in my life and I still teach it to others, because (again to quote Enns), "...I meet God in its pages...[and] I want to help others meet God, too."

What is the Bible's Achilles Heel?

I read this on a recent Facebook post: "The achilles heel of the Bible is Exodus." What did this person mean by that statement? The following is a Wikipedia post on Achilles and his heel:

"Achilles' most notable feat during the Trojan War was the slaying of the Trojan hero Hector outside the gates of Troy. Although the death of Achilles is not presented in the Iliad, other sources concur that he was killed near the end of the Trojan War by Paris, who shot him in the heel with an arrow. Later legends (beginning with a poem by Statius in the 1st century AD) state that Achilles was invulnerable in all of his body except for his heel because, when his mother Thetis dipped him in the river Styx as an infant, she held him by one of his heels. Alluding to these legends, the term "Achilles heel" has come to mean a point of weakness, especially in someone or something with an otherwise strong constitution."

So, obviously, the Facebook comment was meant to say that you can bring down the Bible, just as Paris brought down Achilles, by attacking it through the book of Exodus. I replied that, in my opinion, the Bible has no Achilles Heel if Christians are willing to stop trying to defend it for what it never has professed to be. Exodus could certainly be the Achilles Heel to certain perspectives on the Bible because these perspectives claim absolute and totally accurate historicity of everything contained within the pages of the Bible.  Many religious groups and individual believers have backed themselves into a corner and have had to create "proofs" and provide "explanations" for claims that are indefensible. The Bible is not modern historiography nor a scientific textbook. To represent it as such is to misrepresent it. 

The Bible is a collection of writings, of various genres, which originated in the ancient Near East. These writings, collectively, were written over a vast period of time and were, individually, copied, edited, revised, recopied, transmitted, translated, etc., until they were brought together in "one" book as we now have it - though various religious groups have some different books in their canonized version than the one you probably possess. Even by the second century CE (i.e., AD), the Bible, as we have it today (in one of various collections/canons) as one volume, did not exist - all the individual writings existed (some of which existed in more than one version). Only by sometime in the second century CE did the Jews formalize the books that make up the Hebrew Bible - though the sect of the Samaritans would disagree with their canon. It was not until the fourth century CE that Christians brought the books together that make up our various modern Bibles.

The Achilles Heel of the Bible is not the Bible itself, but can be found among the dogmatic assertions that at least some religious groups and individuals make about the Bible, because it is often misrepresented as something it is not, could never have been, and never will be. But also, those who oppose the dogmatic assertions of the religious groups or individuals have their own Achilles Heel(s) because they often counter with dogmatic assertions of their own that are just as indefensible. We will touch on a number of these dogmatic assertions that misrepresent the biblical books individually, and the Bible collectively, as we continue our journey through the texts in 2018.

Recommendations for further reading: 
1. Ulrich, Eugene C. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999. 
2. Dever, William G. What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001.

Understanding Genesis 1-11

Even before I decided to be a follower of Jesus, when I was atheistic in my thinking as evidenced by my lifestyle, I knew and acknowledged, that if God existed, he could do anything that he chose to do, absolutely anything! I also knew that if God existed, the only way he could make himself known would be to do things that we, as time-bound, physically-limited and intellectually inferior beings, would consider miraculous. He would be able to create and control the physical universe any way he chose, in order to make himself known and to accomplish whatever his purpose might be. If any being revered as a "god" could not do this, then that being would not be divine.

As a follower of Jesus, I still believe that God is able to do things that I can neither understand or explain with my very limited human knowledge. He is not confined by what he brought into existence. He certainly isn't limited to what I think he could or should do, that is, he doesn't have to conform to what I think he should be and/or do.

I say that, especially to those who, like me, are striving to follow Jesus. The events described in Genesis 1-11 that are superhuman/miraculous are completely within the ability of God, as I understand him. He could have created the world in seven literal 24-days in exactly the way and order that the authors of Genesis 1 state. He could have brought about a universal flood. He could have miraculously sustained Noah, his family and all those creatures in a ark made of gopher wood. He could have sustained humans to live for centuries. But is that what the authors of Genesis were trying to say? Is Genesis 1-11 to be taken as literally and historically accurate, word for word? I, personally, do not think so.

Did you know that there are other creation and flood stories, written much earlier than Genesis, which originated among the polytheistic nations that existed long before Israel was a nation? Did the author of Genesis know of these other stories? I can't see how they could not have known them, as the literary evidence indicates that many of these were ubiquitous in the ancient Near East for centuries. Did the authors of Genesis borrow from these creation and flood stories?

I think they did - for a very specific purpose - in order to counter the polytheistic explanations offered by the creation and flood stories written in Sumerian, Akkadian and Ugaritic (among others), that had been circulating for centuries. The authors of Genesis used these well known stories, however, to communicate their belief that one God, not many, creates, sustains and destroys; and that God (Elohim) is the LORD (Yahweh, the Elohim of Israel). While, as the minimalists note, there are significant similarities between portions of Enuma Elish, Adapa, The Epic of Gilgamesh (and others) with Genesis, there are also very significant differences - changes obviously inserted purposely to communicate a monotheistic worldview.

If this is news to you, that's OK. I would encourage you to read an article published in Christian Research Journal, volume 35, number 01 (2012), "Creation Accounts and Ancient Near East Religions" by John A. Bloom and C. John Collins (http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAF3351.pdf). For some, this article will be too "minimalist" and for others it will be far too "maximalist." While I don't agree with every point made, I think this is a decent introduction for those for whom the concept of communicating "truth" via myth is a new idea.

"The goal of early Genesis is not to entertain its listeners nor to justify the political status quo, but to convey a history of God’s actions in creating the world for man, its caretaker, to enjoy in fellowship with his Creator. Of course Genesis uses language and imagery that made sense to the original audience, but these images are universal, timeless, and transcultural, conveying a sequence of creation events both to primitive cultures and to modern scientific ones....the uniqueness of Genesis is readily apparent if they read the other ancient accounts for themselves. Ancient near eastern parallels provide some helpful cultural insights, but they do not explain the Genesis creation account away."

If you're in the ICOC (or not) and a Douglas Jacoby fan, check out the following podcast: https://www.douglasjacoby.com/gqmp3/ or read chapter 4 of Your Bible Questions Answered.

Can Truth be Communicated Through Myth?

In the New Testament, Jesus is recorded as having used parables to communicate his truth to those who followed him, and even to those who were only curious. In striving to understand those parables we do not stop to think (at least not for long) whether or not they describe actual people and historically verifiable events. We understand that the characters and actions may not represent living individuals, but that, regardless, the stories communicate various spiritual realities related to God and his workings in this world.

Does it matter to you whether or not the Samaritan was a real person (though unnamed) who actually did exactly the things this story relates (Luke 10:25-37)? The point of the story is very clearly summarized by Jesus' question and response: "'Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?' He said, 'The one who showed him mercy.' Jesus said to him, 'Go and do likewise.'" Did the first-century sowers of seeds (real farmers) throw their seeds on hard paths and rocky or weedy soil, as depicted in Jesus' parable (Luke 4:5-8)? While it might happen inadvertently, a real farmer would be as careful as possible to prepare his soil, removing rocks and weeds. Does the absurdity of a farmer wasting his precious seed on obviously unproductive ground take anything away from the spiritual reality Jesus was communicating through this parable (Luke 4:11-15)? Does it matter whether or not Lazarus and "the rich man" were real, flesh and blood human beings, or just characters made up in order to communicate a truth point to Jesus' hearers (Luke 16:19-31)?

Stories, whether based on real historical people and events or on fictitious characters and made up events, have always been used by speakers and authors to communicate what they consider to be real life-applicable, and absolutely true, concepts and principles. Whether communicated via poetry,  parable, proverb or apocalyptic literature, truth, reality and/or life-applicable principles have been clearly communicated both by the spoken and written word.

But what about myth? The idea that something communicated by myth is equivalent to something that is, at best, fanciful or, at worst, false, is a modernist understanding (or should I say misunderstanding) of the nature and purpose of myth. Dictionary.com provides the following definitions for the English word "myth":

1. A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. Stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. Any invented story, idea, or concept: e.g., His account of the event is pure myth.
4. An imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. An unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

The etymology of "myth" is found in the ancient Greek word "μῦθος" (muthos) and means: 'something said' (i.e., word, speech, conversation, a saying, a proverb, a message, even advice or counsel) and/or 'tale, story, narrative' (i.e., legend, fable) and carries with it no inherent idea of something that is "without a determinable basis of fact or natural explanation" or "a unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution."

If "myth" means a tale or story or narrative that is not inherently false or intended to be deceptive or misleading, but rather a genre used by ancient peoples/cultures to communicate what was understood to be reality, does that open your mind to the possibility that Genesis 1-11 is mythical - not false, but a story/narrative used to inform its hearers/readers of reality?

In my next blog, I'll will attempt to explain why I understand Genesis 1-11 to be mythical and thus intended to communicate certain eternal realities or truths as understood by the ancient Israelite people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVMjX-CCcpo

What did you notice?

If you took up my challenge to re-read Genesis 1-7 as objectively as possible, placing what you think you know about these stories on a shelf, what did you notice?  I also hope, as you continue to read through the Hebrew Bible, that you will try to read without prior prejudice. Years ago, Kellogg's filmed a number of commercials trying to motivate people to eat Kellogg's Corn Flake with the punch line: "Try them again, for the first time!"  I think that's what we need to do every time we read any portion of the Bible - try reading it again, for the first time.

So, did you notice...

• That "God" is used exclusively in some passages (e.g., Genesis 1:1-2:4a, among others) and that either "LORD God" or "LORD" is used exclusively in other passages? (BTW - any time you see "LORD" it is "Yahweh" in Hebrew. So "LORD God" is "Yahweh Elohim".)
• That the order of creation is different in Genesis 1:1-2:4a than in Genesis 2:4b-25, especially in relation to the creation of humans (Hebrew = "adam") and animals?
• That "the sons of God" took for themselves "the daughters of men" who bore children, "the Nephilim," who were "the heroes of old, the men of renown"? Who are the "the sons of God"? Who are the "Nephilim"?  
• That the numbers of animals varies throughout the flood account? In some places Noah is commanded, "And of all that lives, of all flesh, you shall take two of each into the ark to keep alive with you; they shall be male and female." In other places Noah is commanded, "Of every clean animal you shall take seven pairs, males and their mates, and of every animal that is not clean, two, a male and its mates..."
• That Noah sends out a raven which "went to and fro until the waters had dried up from the earth" but yet then sent out a dove three times with seven days between attempts until on the third attempt "it did not return"?
• That, if you read on through chapter 11, in chapter 10 the descendants of Noah's sons each had their own language, but Genesis 11:1 reads, "Everyone on earth had the same language and the same words"?

I am not saying that there aren't reasonable explanations for some (or even most) of these textual inconsistencies, but what we can't do is simply ignore them.  And if we raise questions and seek answers we are not guilty of doubting God or his word. This is the Bible as we have received it and for those who hold to it being the inspired word of God, we need be able to provide some kind of explanation for the numerous textual issues in Genesis 1-11, or else it appears to others that we are operating on "blind faith."  And I know by experience (40 plus years as a Christians and more than 35 years working in ministry) that "blind faith" does not withstand the challenges of life. 

In my next blog, I will present what I think is a reasonable explanation for these (and other) issues in Genesis 1-11. You may disagree with me (and others)...and that's OK. As we re-read the biblical texts and strive to determine their messages, let us be respectful of each others' quest to understand and communicate our faith.

Do You Have "Blind Faith"?

The creation story (actually, stories) and the story (again, stories) of the flood in the book of Genesis are probably among the best known biblical stories in the western world. You, reader, probably think you know them quite well.  If so, I have a challenge for you - a challenge that gave myself - to take what I think I know about these Genesis stories and put that knowledge on a shelf, to do my best to read these accounts as objectively as possible, and to be willing to see if there's anything I've missed in all my previous readings or anything I've misunderstood.

If you're willing to take that challenge, do so now, even if you've already done your readings for today. Stop reading this blog and go back and read today's reading (Genesis 4-7, and Genesis 1-3 if you are willing) again. Look for those things you've missed in previous readings and/or things you've possibility misunderstood or misinterpreted, things that are different from what you've heard or believed and that appear to be internal textual inconsistencies.

The goal here is not destroy or undermine faith, but to challenge "blind faith." My definition of "blind faith" is having a belief that ignores facts and thus is based to some degree on wishful thinking and is ignorant of certain textual realities. These textual realities can be obstacles to faith in those who want to create God in their own image (i.e., they want God to conform to their idea of what God should be and do), and/or whose faith requires that there be no textual problems in any of the 66 books that we, as Christians, believe to be inspired by God.

In my next blog, I will take note of some textual realities which, for many years, I refused to see, or when they were pointed out to me, I quickly explained away. Yet, I believe in doing so, I weakened or cheapened my faith rather than strengthened or cherished it. I am going on record to say, that because my eyes have been opened to certain textual realities, rather than weakening it, my faith has been sharpened and focused and thus refined and strengthened. I wish only the same for you.

"And he studies his teaching day and night"

What a great passage with which to begin a new year - Psalm 1. If we desire to grow in our knowledge of God and his will for our lives and be assured that we will bear fruit, we must start with a determination and a decision to "study his teaching day and night." To put it in Paul's words, in order to no longer conform to the world, we must renew our minds. To put it in the vernacular, "garbage in, garbage out." The person who desires to live a righteous life must study (ponder, meditate on, utter, etc.) God's Torah (i.e., instruction, teaching, law) daily.

In Genesis 1-3, we are reminded that God/the LORD God, is the one who brought everything into existence. Why did he do this?  We don't know the why, but only that he it was his will/desire to do so. God, by definition, is self-sufficient. He doesn't need humanity. In contrast to numerous Near Eastern creation myths, the authors/redactors of Genesis wanted to communicate that it was God, YHWH God, who was the creative designer behind the world as we know it.

If taken literally, word for word, this passage presents many challenges, especially when comparing Genesis 1:1-2:4a with Genesis 2:4b-24. As Brettler notes (in How to Read the Jewish Bible), "Genesis 1-3 is inconsistent. It recounts several events twice - for example, the creation of humankind is narrated first in 1:26-28 and then in 2:7-23...[and] these two accounts differ significantly in their detail" (pp. 31-32). He continues that Genesis 1-3 should be taken as a myth, but not as something "false" (our usual understanding of "myth"), but as a metaphor which is neither right or wrong that "are often true - often profoundly so - on a figurative level" (p. 39).

In the big picture, what I learn from Genesis 1-3 is that YHWH Elohim (the LORD God) is the creator, and that humankind is not an accident of impersonal and temporal physical and chemical processes, but the chosen purpose and plan of a Creator who wants us to know that, in some respect, we all have been created in his image.

Bible Reading Plan for 2018 - Do you have one?

If you are seeking to know God or to know God better in 2018, you need a great Bible reading program; a plan that is organized and scheduled and provides great resources so that you can understand what you are reading and how to apply it to your life. Personally, I'm a big fan of "The Bible Project" (https://thebibleproject.com/) or "Read Scripture" (http://www.readscripture.org/).

Personally, I'm committing to their daily reading plan which takes one from Genesis 1 through Revelation 22 (and twice through the Psalms) in just under one year. They have creative videos and other resources that enhance the Bible reading experience.

In this blog, I hope to share some of things I'm learning and thinking about as I go through the readings and resources related to those readings. One book that is already helping me in preparation for readings from the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible is "How to Read the Jewish Bible" by Marc ZVI Brettler. If you are a maximalist, you won't agree with some (or perhaps much) of, what he presents. However, you will understand what a more minimalist approach is all about, plus you'll be exposed to what academic research has determined regarding the text of the Hebrew Bible. If you want something more consistent with a maximalist approach, I would recommend, "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth" by Gordon Fee.

In addition, it is important to have a really good translation and a theologically less biased Study Bible. I would recommend the NET Bible with study notes (http://netbible.com/) or the NRSV Oxford Annotated Study Bible (https://www.amazon.ca/Oxford-Annotated-Bible-Apocrypha-9530/dp/0195289609).

Also, having a Bible Reading partner or being part of a Bible reading group, where you help each other, share with each other and hold each other accountable is essential for most people.  Reading the Bible through in one year, while learning and growing, is seldom accomplished by individuals without support and accountability.

Whether you are novice or an experienced Bible reader, there is much to learn from the most popular book ever written. You owe it to yourself to either check the Bible out or to grow in your knowledge of this convoluted, somewhat confusing, yet informational and inspiring book. 

All the best to you and yours for 2018!