Christians don't read their Bible as often as they use too.


#1

When I visited a Non-Denomination Center, the Non-Denomination Minister inform the guest that Christians these days don’t read their Bible as often as they use too.

I ask Non-Catholic Christians and fellow Catholics if there is any truth to this. Are Christians these days not reading their Bible as they should?


#2

Hi,
I just recently came back to the fold (thank you Jesus for leading me back) and i have only just started to read the bible.
I attempted to a few years back, but my heart was not fully in it.
Now all i want to do is read more about God and Jesus and cant wait to read the bible through and through.
I pray that others will pick up their bibles and read it.


#3

Welcome Home. The Angels, Saints, Mary, and God rejoiced when you return Home. Welcome to the Holy Family.


#4

Hi,
I honestly have no idea. I think we can never really know. That is personal and you would have to ask the individual. I can only vouch for the ladies in my bible study and 2 friends who are reading it on their own.:thumbsup: OH AND ME OF COURSE:D


#5

we have given away many Bibles these last years… one was to an elderly and very devout and faithful Roman Catholic lady who had told me that the Psalms were not in the old family Bible that was all she had.
She simply did not know where to look for the Psalms. We taught her.
She had never read the Bible for herself.

RHIM;1974221]Hi,
I honestly have no idea. I think we can never really know. That is personal and you would have to ask the individual. I can only vouch for the ladies in my bible study and 2 friends who are reading it on their own.:thumbsup: OH AND ME OF COURSE:D


#6

Was he speaking ex-cathedra?


#7

Now was that necessary? :ehh:


#8

'Twas. :slight_smile:


#9

No, Bible-reading has been declining for decades. Oddly, it has declined even as the number of contemporary-English, user-friendly translations have increased. When I was grade-school age, many Evangelical/fundamentalist Protestant churches encouraged a considerable amount of memorization: the Ten Commandments, the Greatest Commandment and the Second Greatest Commandment (Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, etcetera), the Lord’s Prayer, the Beatitudes, Genesis 1 and 2, John 1, I Corinthians 13, Hebrews 11, and numerous individual verses and parables were on the list of things learned by rote in many Sunday Schools: there were competitions both within one’s own church, and often with neighboring churches to see whose children had memorized the most Scripture passages.

By the time I was in Jr. High/High School, a lot of ‘experts’ discouraged memorization and even implied it might be harmful. (Why I’m not certain). Instead, Sunday Schools focuses on what is called ‘Inductive Learning’, otherwise known as ‘Talking A Lot About Feelings And Not Really Learning Anything’. That was the method of non-teaching favored by Sunday Schools and churches throughout the 70’s and 80’s. In the 90’s, a lot of ‘seeker sensitive’ churches sought to become more ‘culturally significant’ by abandoning any genuine study of Scripture at all: Bible texts became a pretext for whatever latest fad topic the speaker wanted to discuss, whether the verse or two which might be referenced actually pertained to the topic or not.

Hence, too many Protestant churches are completely ‘dumbed down’ to the point that most congregants not only don’t read the Bible, but assume that it is ‘too hard’ to read, even in translations simplified to a 3rd-grade or 5th grade reading level.

By the way: Roman Catholics went through the same process. Folks my age or slightly older learned Catholic teaching by the memorization of large portions of a Catechism–usually the Baltimore Catechism. During the 1970’s and beyond, they too abandoned memorization for some other fast-and-loose pretence at religious teaching. Religious ignorance in the RCC compounded at the same time it did among Protestants. Fortunately, a few folks in both camps figured out that ‘Inductive Learning’ and similar schemes are a fraud and have gone back to actually teaching instead of playing at religious education.


#10

I love reading Sacred Scripture. That out in front, I have a huge problem with the people that insist on the reading of Sacred Scripture as some sort of proof of the Holy Spirit working in the life of the reader. One may be an absolutely wonderful Christian and be completely illiterate. People for hundreds of years walked with Christ without the benefits of having a leather bound copy of the Bible tucked under their arm.

How would anyone know if this claim is true or even valid? If I would had been there I’d of had to have taken Mr. Minister to task at his claim. How do you know that? On what do you make that assertion? And do you, Mr. Non-Denominational Minister, read the WHOLE of Scripture? Have you read both books of Maccebees, Sirach, Baruch, Wisdom, Tobit, and Judith?

And what in Hades is “reading Scripture as one should” ??? Is there a way not to read the Bible? Wouldn’t even the most rudimentary glance at Scripture still hold the possibility of seeds being planted in the heart of the reader? Even if one read the whole of bible with the eye of finding fault or inconsistencies; wouldn’t his reading of it be a good ?

Lamenting the falling off of Scripture reading on the part of the general population just doesn’t make sense to me.


#11

The decline may be caused (in part) by the very wealth of versions now to be had. When there is just one, such as the AV-KJV, it has no competitors; as it is the only one available, it’s the one that can be taken as being, for all practical purposes, “the Bible”.

In England at least, this was still possible until the 1950s; the AV had not been displaced by the RV, and in fact, the men who worked upon the Revised Version were instructed to make as few changes as possible, consistent with faithfulness to their work as revisers. Even the RSV, despite being much more recognisably modern in language than the RV, was still recognisably in the same tradition as the AV.

There were plenty of translations after the AV - but the only one that seems still to be used, is the Challoner modernisation of the Douai-Reims Bible. AFAICS, things didn’t really change until the 1970s - Challoner & Knox were for Catholics; the 1917 Tanakh was for Jews; JWs had their version; whereas the AV was common to English-speaking Protestantism. Perhaps it’s not wrong to think of it as an English Protestant equivalent of the Vulgate.

But after 1960, there was the NEB, NAB, JB, LB, GNB, REB, RJB…a flood of versions; & when there is a flood of Bibles jostling each other for attention, it’s no longer possible to think of any one of them as uniquely “the Bible”. It’s easy to be confused, & far simpler to give up trying to understand the Bible.

Maybe the changes in the Liturgy have had an effect too; much liturgical English is eminently forgettable. Cranmer, OTOH, knew how to write memorable & rhythmic English - as did Tyndale: the AV is (so I’ve read) 90 % Tyndale.

The loss of close familiarity with Greek & Latin has almost certainly had an effect on English style. To study them, meant having to read a great deal of elegantly expressed verse, much of it very memorable indeed - anyone who has no knowledge of either can hardly be described as educated; such a person should on no account be allowed to translate the Bible or the Liturgy. IMHO, there has also been a grievous loss of the ability to distinguish between art & trash. ##

By the time I was in Jr. High/High School, a lot of ‘experts’ discouraged memorization and even implied it might be harmful. (Why I’m not certain). Instead, Sunday Schools focuses on what is called ‘Inductive Learning’, otherwise known as ‘Talking A Lot About Feelings And Not Really Learning Anything’. That was the method of non-teaching favored by Sunday Schools and churches throughout the 70’s and 80’s. In the 90’s, a lot of ‘seeker sensitive’ churches sought to become more ‘culturally significant’ by abandoning any genuine study of Scripture at all: Bible texts became a pretext for whatever latest fad topic the speaker wanted to discuss, whether the verse or two which might be referenced actually pertained to the topic or not.

Hence, too many Protestant churches are completely ‘dumbed down’ to the point that most congregants not only don’t read the Bible, but assume that it is ‘too hard’ to read, even in translations simplified to a 3rd-grade or 5th grade reading level.

Laziness is another a cause of ignorance - it’s very easy to assume that one is going to be be spoon-fed the answers to one’s questions: Christianity is not an easy form of faith; it often requires a lot of hard work. There’s a point beyond which simplified Bibles become caricatures, so there is only so much that can be done to make it more digestible. Besides, its message is intended to change people - not leave them as they are. If the Bible really is “of God”, it’s going to tell people a lot about themselves that they are not likely to welcome. It can be very challenging.

By the way: Roman Catholics went through the same process. Folks my age or slightly older learned Catholic teaching by the memorization of large portions of a Catechism–usually the Baltimore Catechism. During the 1970’s and beyond, they too abandoned memorization for some other fast-and-loose pretence at religious teaching. Religious ignorance in the RCC compounded at the same time it did among Protestants. Fortunately, a few folks in both camps figured out that ‘Inductive Learning’ and similar schemes are a fraud and have gone back to actually teaching instead of playing at religious education.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.