# How long do you read your bible each day?



## satz

When you guys do your daily readings, say you read one chapter, how long, on average do you spend on it? Do you reread it? If so how many times? Or do you meditate upon it? 

Just wanted to know more about your bible reading habits...


----------



## Dagmire

Not nearly long enough.


----------



## larryjf

satz said:


> When you guys do your daily readings, say you read one chapter, how long, on average do you spend on it? Do you reread it? If so how many times? Or do you meditate upon it?
> 
> Just wanted to know more about your bible reading habits...



I generally read between 3-9 chapters per day, but i only study & meditate on 1-3 chapters. When i just read a chapter it can take just a couple of minutes, but when i study/meditate on one it usually takes about 1/2 hour.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Davidius

When I am able to read I read 3-4 chapters/day (using M'Cheyne's plan) but some days go by in which I do not read any. 

I'd like to add that I think the modern conception that one must read the bible every single day to be spiritually healthy is a legalistic, unscriptural and potentially damaging assertion.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

It really depends. I can chew through ten chapters, or just one. I try to keep it at about four, which is long enough to establish good context, but not long enough to become a blur.


----------



## Augusta

I vary also. Some days several chapters, others only one, still others none. I take anywhere from a 1/2 hr to 1 1/2 hrs. Sometimes I am riveted. I take 1/2 hr lately to read only one chapter because I am going through Isaiah and I read Matthew Henry's along side of it to help me understand the context.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Augusta said:


> I vary also. Some days several chapters, others only one, still others none. I take anywhere from a 1/2 hr to 1 1/2 hrs. Sometimes I am riveted. I take 1/2 hr lately to read only one chapter because I am going through Isaiah and I read Matthew Henry's along side of it to help me understand the context.


*Does the "also reading Isaiah high five"*


----------



## larryjf

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I'd like to add that I think the modern conception that one must read the bible every single day to be spiritually healthy is a legalistic, unscriptural and potentially damaging assertion.



Interesting comment.
In your opinion would prayer fall into the same category?
Also, must one do anything to be spiritually healthy? Would doing anything for spiritual health be considered legalistic?

I have counseled folks who were not reading their Bibles to read them every day, even if they didn't feel like it.It paid off for them in the end.


----------



## Davidius

larryjf said:


> Interesting comment.
> In your opinion would prayer fall into the same category?
> Also, must one do anything to be spiritually healthy? Would doing anything for spiritual health be considered legalistic?
> 
> I have counseled folks who were not reading their Bibles to read them every day, even if they didn't feel like it.It paid off for them in the end.



No, I would not say the same thing about prayer. It is something that all Christians everywhere have always been able to do. 

You see, sometimes people forget that the common man did not have his own bible until the 16th century. This was an issue that never really seemed to concern the apostles. Emphasis was given in the early Church to the teachers with whom God had gifted the church. People focused more on the preached word instead of their own reading and their own interpreting. 

If it is necessary to read the bible everyday in order not to fall into spiritual destruction (or, conversely, just to generally grow in grace), then Christians for a very long time were without much hope. As far as your experience in counseling is concerned, I definitely don't think there's anything wrong with reading the bible every day. Of course that can be beneficial. But that's a very different thing than saying that one _must_ read the bible every day. If you've never come across that sort of teaching then it may just be my background. I used to believe that it was banking on sin to not read the bible everyday and that I would undoubtedly fall into some other kind of heinous sin without it as well. The guilt and condemnation that people can fall into for not reading the bible enough when daily reading is not even required in scripture is terrible.

Sermons used to be just a nice thing to do but the "real deal" was in my own "personal time" throughout the week. This just doesn't seem to be what the New Testament teaches. These days I put a lot more emphasis on my teaching elder's exposition of the Word on the Lord's Day. I take notes during the sermon and think about it more during the week instead of being so concerned with finishing the next book of the bible. I also have a much more biblical understanding of the Christian's role in the world and don't despise my secular calling like I used to. Whereas before I would skip doing homework and other such things in order to read, I no longer find that a more spiritual thing to do.


----------



## Kristine with a K

My Bible-reading-in-a-year program takes anywhere from 20-45 minutes a day, depending on the day. I read for several hours on Sundays: Bible + "spritiual" books.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> You see, sometimes people forget that the common man did not have his own bible until the 16th century.


Unfortunately. There is a reason they were called the Dark Ages.

I have worries about a Christian who doesn't want to read the Bible every day. How can we train ourselves in righteousness if our days are not soaked in the scriptures?


----------



## Davidius

Exagorazo said:


> Unfortunately. There is a reason they were called the Dark Ages.



The "Dark Ages" did not begin until 500+ years after the Apostles. What did all the Christians do during the first few centuries A.D. when they had no access to their own bibles? Why didn't Paul ever tell the local elders to have his letters copied for everyone? 

Again, I'm not saying that I don't like reading the scripture or that I have a problem with reading it every day. I have problems adding man's commands to God's. 



> I have worries about a Christian who doesn't want to read the Bible every day. How can we train ourselves in righteousness if our days are not soaked in the scriptures?



[bible]Ephesians 4:11-12[/bible]

The short answer, according to Paul, is that we first and foremost are not our own trainers. 

Again, I'm not saying that I don't like reading the scripture or that I have a problem with reading it every day. I have problems adding man's commands to God's. There's way too much emphasis on personal reading and interpretation today and not enough on the sermon.


----------



## InChains620

*-Reading The Scriptures-*



CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I'd like to add that I think the modern conception that one must read the bible every single day to be spiritually healthy is a legalistic, unscriptural and potentially damaging assertion.



I think it is important to read the Scriptures and pray daily. I have been a Christian for less than a year, and fail God often. I have missed days of my daily Bible reading, but I am convicted and set aside time to catch up. I find myself amazed at how easily I can just skip my time with God after all he has done for me. That is why I believe it is important that a child of God prays for a hungry spirit for the Word and for prayer. We should pray remembering Jeremiah 23:29. Pray that God would consume us with the flame of His Word, and that he would use it as a hammer to shatter the hard hearts we so often get. If we rely on God's grace for our salvation, is the same not so with our edification? We should be in constant prayer for God's grace and help with our slothful study habits. May God help us all to delve into the Scriptures and grow in grace!



> Here, then, is the real problem of our negligence. We fail in our duty to study God's Word not so much because it is difficult to understand, not so much because it is dull and boring, but because it is work. Our problem is not a lack of intelligence or a lack of passion. Our problem is that we are lazy. --R. C. Sproul


----------



## VaughanRSmith

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> The "Dark Ages" did not begin until 500+ years after the Apostles. What did all the Christians do during the first few centuries A.D.? They listened to their preachers.


And now, with the advent of the printing press, the scriptures are available to every layman. Would the Christians during the first few centuries AD have preferred to listen to their preachers over owning and reading daily their _very own copy of the scriptures?_ I think not. 

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. 
(Acts 17:11)

Your argument really doesn't stand.


----------



## Davidius

Exagorazo said:


> Your argument really doesn't stand.



Yes, I would rather have a trained pastor than my own bible. Try not to be such a product of your time and place in history. Did you totally skip over my quote from Ephesians 4? Teachers are given to train us. I am not an ordained bible teacher. "Just me and my bible" is not my way of going about growth.

Perhaps you could tell me just what my argument is that doesn't stand, because I don't think you're understanding it. Does the Word of God entail a command to read the scriptures every day or does it not? Were Christians in the Early Church and up until the printing press lacking? Did God leave them without everything they needed?


----------



## Civbert

I read daily but not regularly. Often I'm jumping from place to place, and reading for 10 minutes one day and a couple hours another. I might read a whole book in one sitting, or just a few verses. 

I wish I were more disciplined to read the Word regularly - but I find I digest more if I'm not trying to read on a schedule or through a reading plan. I've been working on my reading plan for years now and don't get as much out of it as when I am searching on a topic or comparing different verses and following the cross references in a study bible.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Yes, I would rather have a trained pastor than my own bible. Try not to be such a product of your time and place in history. Did you totally skip over my quote from Ephesians 4? Teachers are given to train us. I am not an ordained bible teacher. "Just me and my bible" is not my way of going about growth.


I apologise for not seeing your Ephesians 4 quote, it wasn't there when I hit reply. I agree, adding man's commands to God's is wrong. However, I believe there is scriptural mandate for the necessity of everyday reading of the word. Just because there are people better trained in it's exposition doesn't mean we are to neglect personal reading. 



CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Perhaps you could tell me just what my argument is that doesn't stand, because I don't think you're understanding it. Does the Word of God entail a command to read the scriptures every day or does it not?


If you mean a command as in "thou shalt", then no it does not. However, as I said above, there is scriptural mandate to necessitate daily reading. 

And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD. 
(Deuteronomy 8:3)

How can we eat bread daily and live, and then be expected not to eat of God's word daily and live? 



CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Were Christians in the Early Church and up until the printing press lacking?


Of course they were. I have several Bibles in my home. Are you suggesting that I am not better off than they were?



CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Did God leave them without everything they needed?


No, but you can bet your life savings that they would give their right arm for the opportunities to read the scriptures that we have.

We are a blessed people, with Bibles coming out of our ears. Blessing brings responsibility. Daily reading of the word is just as much a necessity to Christians as daily eating of food.


----------



## turmeric

The Bible seems to recommend in several places to memorize and meditate on the Scriptures - I have trouble with "through-the-Bible-in-a-year" plans because by the time I've read all that I couldn't tell you what it was about.

And what about the folks where Bibles are illegal and hard to come by? I think it's wonderful that we can own Bibles and I don't want to go back to strictly relying on the preached Word - that's how we ended up with the Bible in an archaic language no one knew and "preachers" making it up as they went along...


----------



## Davidius

Exagorazo said:


> And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.
> (Deuteronomy 8:3)
> 
> How can we eat bread daily and live, and then be expected not to eat of God's word daily and live?
> 
> 
> Of course they were. I have several Bibles in my home. Are you suggesting that I am not better off than they were?
> 
> No, but you can bet your life savings that they would give their right arm for the opportunities to read the scriptures that we have.
> 
> We are a blessed people, with Bibles coming out of our ears. Blessing brings responsibility. Daily reading of the word is just as much a necessity to Christians as daily eating of food.



I can agree to disagree on this because I know it's a pretty popular view since the Reformation. 

Quickly, I just wanted to point out that your scripture references necessitating the ingestion of God's Word do not imply a commanded daily reading of it. For instance, you quoted from Deuteronomy about living on God's Word. How many of those Israelites to whom that quote is addressed do you think had their own bibles? The same thing goes for pretty much every other like passage, whether it be on meditating on the Word, loving the Word, etc. I can take in God's word by listening to it preached and thinking about the sermon and the text upon which the sermon was based. I have Psalms memorized from singing them in public worship and I meditate on God's word by singing to myself through the day (see Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16). I agree that the Word of God is as important for us as you say it is, but I do not believe that this necessitates daily reading. I will agree with you that in some ways it may be "extra helpful" that we have ready access to bibles unlike previous generations of Christians, but that also does not necessitate anything. It's unfair to say "Look at all these bible we have. Christians should be ashamed of themselves!" People harp so much on that but I hardly ever hear anyone chide Christians for not caring enough about public worship and the preached word. *shrug*


----------



## Civbert

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> ... Does the Word of God entail a command to read the scriptures every day or does it not? Were Christians in the Early Church and up until the printing press lacking? Did God leave them without everything they needed?


 I think we are to be in the Word all the time, just as we are to continually pray for one another. This does not mean one has to have a strict regiment of morning readings, but I think going for a whole day without looking at the Word is too long. Not that I have managed to do this myself, only that I try because I think this is what God demands of me. To always, at any time of the day, be reading or thinking of or meditating on God's Word. 

If your reading the Word once a week, that not enough. If you're reading the Word every hour, than you're retired and living alone. But the Scriptures should be near your heart(|mind), if not your hand, at all times. It would be hard to over emphasis how important the Word is to Christians. If you know the lines from Napoleon Dynamite (or insert some other movie or book) more than you know God's Word, then you know something is wrong. We live by the Word.

P.S. If nothing else, daily reading of the Word is good practice even if it is not explicitly commanded.


----------



## Davidius

Civbert said:


> I think we are to be in the Word all the time, just as we are to continually pray for one another. This does not mean one has to have a strict regiment of morning readings, but I think going for a whole day without looking at the Word is too long. Not that I have managed to do this myself, only that I try because I think this is what God demands of me. To always, at any time of the day, be reading or thinking of or meditating on God's Word.
> 
> If your reading the Word once a week, that not enough. If you're reading the Word every hour, than you're retired and living alone. But the Scriptures should be near your heart(|mind), if not your hand, at all times. It would be hard to over emphasis how important the Word is to Christians. If you know the lines from Napoleon Dynamite (or insert some other movie or book) more than you know God's Word, then you know something is wrong. We live by the Word.
> 
> P.S. If nothing else, daily reading of the Word is good practice even if it is not explicitly commanded.



All I'm saying is that we can't look back into the scriptures at the verses talking about the Word and read our 21st century context with bibles flowing out of our ears into them. Since believers from the beginning of time until 500 years ago didn't have their own bibles then I think it's fallacious to use those verses to _mandate_ daily bible reading. What would "being in the Word" have meant to a devout Jew in the Old Testament or to a believer in the first century? It would've meant attending public worship, meditating throughout the week on the preaching/reading of the word, singing in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, discussing the greatness of God with fellow believers, prayer, etc.

I really hate the fact that this has turned into this much of a debate because it makes me look like I don't like reading the bible or something. Of course we should love the word but it's not a sin if we miss a day of reading. I don't want to derail this thread anymore; sorry for even making the comment.


----------



## Civbert

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> What would "being in the Word" have meant to a devout Jew in the Old Testament or to a believer in the first century? It would've meant attending public worship, meditating throughout the week on the preaching/reading of the word, singing in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, discussing the greatness of God with fellow believers, prayer, etc.


 You are correct. I think that was part of the point I was trying to make. The Jews would meditate on the Word, and memorize it. They did not need to keep a pocket scroll with them at all times in order to stay in the Word. 



CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I really hate the fact that this has turned into this much of a debate because it makes me look like I don't like reading the bible or something. Of course we should love the word but it's not a sin if we miss a day of reading. I don't want to derail this thread anymore; sorry for even making the comment.


 Not a problem. This is part of working out things. Hopefully it leads to more understanding.


----------



## Bladestunner316

I try to read a chapter or more a day. Emphasis on try.


----------



## turmeric

I apologize, I'm trying to get this thread back on track by splitting off CarolinaCalvinist's very interesting discussion to its own thread, but so far it isn't working. I'm a little _verklempt_ please feel free to discuss this. Sorry!


----------



## heartoflesh

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I really hate the fact that this has turned into this much of a debate because it makes me look like I don't like reading the bible or something. Of course we should love the word but it's not a sin if we miss a day of reading. I don't want to derail this thread anymore; sorry for even making the comment.





Don't be sorry. I understand what you are saying and I'm in complete agreement with you. For me, meditation on the Word is better acheived when I don't bite off more than I can chew. And losing the guilt-trip of not keeping up with my "Bible-in-a-year" has been a relief.


----------



## satz

Well, since this thread was split to accommodate the discussion that sprung up, I wonder if I might be able to tempt anyone else to address the OP?

Prehaps I should give an example of what I was asking. Say today I decide to read a particular chapter, say Phil 3. So I read it though once, which should take say... three minutes at most. So, what now? Should I re-read it? Think about the points that struck me? Look at a commentary? Meditate on individual verses?

I don't mean this in any legalistic 'you must do this manner'. I only meant for people to share what are their personal bible reading habits, since often I will read a chapter, and only a short while later I will think to myself '_what was that I read again?_'

How can I make my bible reading time more profitable?


----------



## MW

Scourby's AV on CD. I continue to be amazed by the insights which are to be found by "listening to the text." There are verbal structures which are not so evident in the reading. You learn pure English pronunciation at the same time.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

satz said:


> How can I make my bible reading time more profitable?



Mark -- Here are some resources which may be helpful:

How We May Read the Scriptures With Most Spiritual Profit (Part I) by Thomas Watson

How We May Read the Scriptures With Most Spiritual Profit (Part II) by Thomas Watson

Useful Directions for Reading and Searching the Scriptures by Thomas Boston


----------



## satz

Andrew,

Thanks, I'll check those out.

Pastor Winzer,

I've actually been wanting to get Scourby for some time now, but it does seem very expensive.


----------



## MW

Mark, the expense of Scourby is definitely worth it. Koorong marks up 100%, so that is why it's so expensive here, and probably also because they set their prices when the Aussie dollar wasn't doing as well against the greenback. With an improvement in the exchange rate it may be profitable to order from overseas, but then there's the risk of not knowing who you are dealing with.


----------



## Archlute

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Yes, I would rather have a trained pastor than my own bible. Try not to be such a product of your time and place in history. Did you totally skip over my quote from Ephesians 4? Teachers are given to train us. I am not an ordained bible teacher. "Just me and my bible" is not my way of going about growth.



I realize that this argument has been more or less resolved since it was first posted, but the initial sentence caught my eye, and I thought it might be wise to make comment. It should be recognized that this statement is not far removed from Popery, and in fact, one of the main reasons that Rome kept bibles from the laity was that they felt that only a priest under the interpretive instruction of the Magisterium could accurately teach the Scriptures. Let's not begin edging towards that position unawares. Just because a pastor may have academic training does not mean that the Spirit is absent in assisting believers in reading and understanding the Word of God. I still wonder what you do with the Jews of Berea? Paul was not only a well trained teacher, he was inspired! Yet, they are commended by Luke for searching the Scriptures _of their own accord_ in order to judge whether or not what he was teaching was true. We should never feel as if we are somehow inadequate to interpret the Scriptures on our own for personal edification (which is different from public teaching), and if we do then we should reevaluate the emphasis that we may have placed in an unbalanced manner upon the ministry. Pastors are important for the church, and they are gifts, but that does not negate the responsibility (and joy, might I add!) of a believer to study the Word and to grow on their own. 

Also, the arguments that have been pressed trying to make it sound as if early Christians had no access to Scripture of their own is a distortion of the facts. There was a significant percentage of the population that was literate, and along with that, codices were quite common at the time of the early church. It is not unlikely that numerous Christians had a codex in which they kept portions of Scripture that they had copied. Most likely they did not have the entire bible, but a chapter of an epistle could be copied upon a single page of parchment. I think that these Christians loved the Word, and that many of them would have had portions copied for themselves to study, if not entire copies made by the more wealthy among them. You can find this information in various modern works on early Christianity or letter writing in the time of the NT.


----------



## Davidius

Archlute said:


> Also, the arguments that have been pressed trying to make it sound as if early Christians had no access to Scripture of their own is a distortion of the facts. There was a significant percentage of the population that was literate, and along with that, codices were quite common at the time of the early church. It is not unlikely that numerous Christians had a codex in which they kept portions of Scripture that they had copied. Most likely they did not have the entire bible, but a chapter of an epistle could be copied upon a single page of parchment. I think that these Christians loved the Word, and that many of them would have had portions copied for themselves to study, if not entire copies made by the more wealthy among them. You can find this information in various modern works on early Christianity or letter writing in the time of the NT.



Thanks for clearing that up, Adam.  

Just out of curiosity, do you have any sources to which you could refer me?


----------



## turmeric

I just want to find Scourby! My folks used to have it and it puts Max MacLean in the shade! I can still hear passages of Revelation in his voice in my mind. (My folks were Dispensationalists, they _loved_ Revelation.)


----------



## matthew11v25

Although I wish I studied more, I believe that the scripture implies atleast daily reading/meditation (the amount of time seems to be personal conviction) 

Joshua 1:8 - "This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it *day and night*, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it."

Psalm 1:2 - "on his law he meditates *day and night.*" 

Psalm 119:97 - "Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation *all the day*."


----------



## VaughanRSmith

armourbearer said:


> Mark, the expense of Scourby is definitely worth it. Koorong marks up 100%, so that is why it's so expensive here, and probably also because they set their prices when the Aussie dollar wasn't doing as well against the greenback. With an improvement in the exchange rate it may be profitable to order from overseas, but then there's the risk of not knowing who you are dealing with.


Koorong marks up 100%?!?!

I had a hunch, but that is just disgusting.


----------



## Theogenes

For me it depends on what is being read. Psalm 119 vs. Psalm 117  . Or a passage of OT narrative can be read faster than say Ephesians chapter one. And meditation, as I understand the word is likened to a cow chewing the cud. It should be "without ceasing", throughout the day. You can keep bringing up the same passage in your thinking and chew on it for awhile (like when you're stuck in traffic, etc.). Of course, I'm only a toddler, nay, perhaps an infant in this practice compared to what I would like to be doing. There are so many distractions in life. May the Lord help us all!


----------



## AV1611

Exagorazo said:


> *Does the "also reading Isaiah high five"*



 verse by verse with Calvin, Gill and Young


----------



## Archlute

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Thanks for clearing that up, Adam.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, do you have any sources to which you could refer me?



I'm going out today for my birthday (just turned 32), but I'd gladly look up those resources for you sometime this weekend.


----------



## Archlute

AV1611 said:


> verse by verse with Calvin, Gill and Young



And I'd like to add most emphatically (for those of you with the dough and the know) that Alec Motyer's independent IVP commentary on Isaiah is an indispensably excellent fruition of 30 years of study on that book. I've found it both evangelically edifying and scholarly. For a condensed version, which would also be easier to read (although I don't know what they cut out...) you can find it in the Tyndale OT commentary series.


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> Scourby's AV on CD. I continue to be amazed by the insights which are to be found by "listening to the text." There are verbal structures which are not so evident in the reading. You learn pure English pronunciation at the same time.



I agree, Matthew, that Scourby's reading of the Bible is still the best you can get. What I find amusing is that, in some of the advertising for it that I've seen, it tries to push the "fact" of Scourby's sterling British accent.

I find that amusing because Alexander Scourby was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York. His "British accent" is entirely a product of his talent and his actor's training.


----------



## bookslover

turmeric said:


> I just want to find Scourby! My folks used to have it and it puts Max MacLean in the shade! I can still hear passages of Revelation in his voice in my mind. (My folks were Dispensationalists, they _loved_ Revelation.)



Scourby (1913-1985) made his recording in around 1970 or so. In repeated listenings, I've not yet found a flaw in his reading. His is the best!


----------



## Civbert

bookslover said:


> I agree, Matthew, that Scourby's reading of the Bible is still the best you can get. What I find amusing is that, in some of the advertising for it that I've seen, it tries to push the "fact" of Scourby's sterling British accent.
> 
> I find that amusing because Alexander Scourby was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York. His "British accent" is entirely a product of his talent and his actor's training.




You mean it's not really sterling, it's just silver plated?!?


----------



## bookslover

Archlute said:


> And I'd like to add most emphatically (for those of you with the dough and the know) that Alec Motyer's independent IVP commentary on Isaiah is an indispensably excellent fruition of 30 years of study on that book. I've found it both evangelically edifying and scholarly. For a condensed version, which would also be easier to read (although I don't know what they cut out...) you can find it in the Tyndale OT commentary series.



Happy birthday, you old geezer! (I'm 54.)

The Tyndale version of Motyer's Isaiah commentary is not a condensed version of his big book. He says in his preface (if I remember rightly) that he wrote the second, smaller commentary from scratch. His conclusions regarding the text are the same, but it's a completely different book. So, nothing was cut out.


----------



## bookslover

Civbert said:


> You mean it's not really sterling, it's just silver plated?!?



Not only that: he's a Yankee!


----------



## Brett McKinley

I once heard Al Martin recommend a method, which I've found very profitable and flexible: Consecutively read 1 Psalm, 1 OT chapter, 1 NT chapter and a Proverb set. If your time is crunched, you can read part, but you keep moving through the Bible.

Also, sometimes it's good to read a whole book to see the forest and not just the trees. I've even tried this with the Proverbs with great profit.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> I agree, Matthew, that Scourby's reading of the Bible is still the best you can get. What I find amusing is that, in some of the advertising for it that I've seen, it tries to push the "fact" of Scourby's sterling British accent.
> 
> I find that amusing because Alexander Scourby was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York. His "British accent" is entirely a product of his talent and his actor's training.



Hi Richard. I'm not sure about the blurbs, but three cheers to the US for reproducing something British without corrupting it.  Now that we've made a start on diction we'll see what we can do with spelling.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

armourbearer said:


> Hi Richard. I'm not sure about the blurbs, but three cheers to the US for reproducing something British without corrupting it.  Now that we've made a start on diction we'll see what we can do with spelling.


And your comedy. I can't believe what the Yanks did with Red Dwarf and The Office.


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> Hi Richard. I'm not sure about the blurbs, but three cheers to the US for reproducing something British without corrupting it.  Now that we've made a start on diction we'll see what we can do with spelling.



You mean "humour" instead of "humor", etc.?


----------

