IF you read the Bible ever, what are your favorite books?

You beat me to it with Proverbs.

Ecclesiastes, Psalms, and Revelations… *Because what else can you read while listening to Metallica?

Job. Shows the nature of the Hebrew God in an intimate way.

Psalms.

I always Loved Corinthians because of 1 Corinthians 13. I really like Ephesians because it so eloquently reveals the concept of Grace. I love John’s writings because he is obcessed with letting us know the loving nature of God.
I Like Genisis because it is full of compelling stories. I love the poetry books because they speak to my heart.

Old Testament: Ecclesiastes
New Testament: Acts

*I forgot Proverbs…

Proverbs, Revelations (badass) and Song of Songs/Song of Solomon are my favorites.

Genesis is pretty interesting as well. So are a lot of the Apocrypha.

Proverbs, Wisdom, Psalms, Song of Songs, John, and James are probably my favorite. For one of my classes this quarter, I’m going to be reading most of the New Testament with a side-by-side English translation and original Greek text and word-for-word translation.

Exodus…because it (the exodus of the Jews) actually came before Genesis.

@AmWiser Can you please explain that?

@DominicX You should enjoy that, it is interesting in contrast. Try Aramaic as well, that brings things home!

After reading the Bible a few times I can say I love “Ezekiel”. Why? I have personal reasons but it’s the best I found. I like the other books but this books tops any other book.

Proverbs, 1 Samuel, Luke.

*OOOoOoOh… I love the song of songs too…

The first book I ever loved in the Bible was the book of Daniel. I read it in Kindergarten or the first grade. I was drawn to the book and the character because my name, too, is Daniel.

Psalms is an easy book, makes me feel like I am floating down a lazy river. Of course, I keenly appreciate the wisdom books. The best of the new testament epistles, in my opinion, are Hebrews for how it ties things together, and John for making the deep things simple:

Quote—Little children, let no man deceive you, he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

There are books of the Bible that hide special treats for those of us who look for them.

An example is found in Genesis. God told Noah, after the catastrophe of the flood had destroyed mankind, to ‘be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth’. Because of the fact that the whole of humanity had just been wiped out, that little bit of advice makes perfect sense.

However—

In the case of Adam and Eve, who were supposedly the first humans, God used the same advice: ‘be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the earth’. Now, how does one replenish the earth if one is the first? Sounds to me as if Adam and Eve were survivors of a really bad catastrophe, just like Noah.

Cool stuff.

Good stuff.

@Hibernate will have to check out Ezekial..
@starsofeight That is some deep stuff – I liked what you had to say about “special treats” =D

@Paradox1 you might not like it, it’s not a book where you gain good insight or new knowledge or anything. I like it for personal reasons.

@Hibernate Will check it out regardless when I have time.

Everything except Leviticus, Numbers, and the prophets. The first two are dull, the rest I typically lack enough context to really appreciate them. Though my shiny new Bible has all kinds of notes…

@starsofeight As far as I can tell, replenish is being used correctly there, in King James English – it means ‘to fill up like you mean it’. We’ve moved on, linguistically, making things a bit more awkward.

@Nullo Leviticus is my least favorite too…though probably for different reasons >.<

@DominicX That nixes Genesis, Romans, and 1 Corinthians, too.

@Nullo It is my opinion that the Bible comes to each generation, and each individual, in just the way we need to see it. I have studied the word ‘replenish’ from all sides – studying the wording of the Bible is what I do. There are people enough who will say: that just means this, or that just means that, but there are a growing number of us who practice looking beyond the norm.

The parable of the buried treasure speaks of those who read the Bible. The owner died having never discovered it; the son inherited the land and did not so much as work it, but sold it. The buyer, while working the land, found it and dug it up. Moral of the story: the treasure that is there belongs to those who dig below the surface.

@starsofeight There just isn’t that much ambiguity about ‘replenish.’ Just be sure that you aren’t digging up a bit of granite and calling it treasure.
There is no mention of anybody else in the parable of the hidden treasure, just the guy who found it and hid it and bought the field that he found it in. The message: the Kingdom is the treasure, God is the guy.

Sorry. Forgot to mention that parable came from Gnostic Phillip.

@starsofeight Wikipedia has it as from the Gnostic Thomas.

You might be on to something ( . . . decides not to slap forehead, but, stroke chin instead . . .)

@starsofeight There’s a reason why the Gnostic books didn’t get included, you know.

In my studies, I do not concern myself as much with the writers of the books, or their societies, or their religious institutions, as I do with the signature of the Holy Spirit. I find that the spirit communicates equally as well with the Gnostics as it does with the prophets and apostles.

@Nullo that site offers a lot of crap. There was no orthodox church in the first few centuries. There was a primary church but it had NO DENOMINATION. I did not bother to read beyond the first phrase. It started with something which is not true so it’s gonna be filled with a lot of arguments like that. I’m sorry but when one starts “narrating” fiction as facts in the end it’s gonna be ugly.

@Hibernate Judging by capitalization patterns in common use, GotQuestions ’ reliability in other matters, and the fact that Church history is pretty widely known, they aren’t referring to the Orthodox Church, but rather orthodoxy as a modus operandi within the Early Church, in contrast with the more heterodox Gnostics.

It pays to inquire before jumping to conclusions. First impressions – especially the ones flavored by anticipated controversy – can be misleading.

I know that .. but when starting with statement they can’t back up with facts means they are just suppositions.

What’s the “statement that they can’t back up with facts?”

The facts check out, if you bother to do some research. I fired up the ol’ Wikipedia and found that they had nailed Gnosticism. Anyway, they’re referring to Church history, which is a matter of record, and besides is old enough to be common knowledge .

Each page has a suggested resource at the bottom, books written by credentialed persons. This is similar in function to the citations at the bottom of the Wikipedia pages.