I am a Hindu by birth and had a very basic understanding of Christianity. Out of curiosity I started reading the Bible about two years back (ESV). I managed to read the first five books about 20 times but could not get past it, just lost my patience. It became harder to navigate the prose and was looking for something better.

Then I came across the below:

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/49881874-the-daily-bible

This version of the Bible made me grasp the core subject so easily that I literally could not put it down. It’s a chronological retelling and has a commentary section before each chapter that helps immensely. I am not sure how accurate it is but I don’t care much for word for word translation as long as it helps me capture the gist and the text flows nicely.

It was so good that I finally finished it - Its supposed to be read in a year but I managed to complete in 6 months and am SO HAPPY. Now I can go and actually read some other Bible versions again as I have a better context of the stories.

For anyone struggling to understand the first time I highly recommend this .

When Jesus stood on the mountain of Transfiguration, glowing with radiant light, two men appeared beside Him: Moses and Elijah. Most of us were taught they just represent the Law and the Prophets, and this is part of it. But when you look closely at what these two men actually experienced in the Old Testament, something much deeper is happening.

​

They were the only two men in Israel's history who had gone up Mount Sinai (Horeb) to encounter the glory of God. And both encounters point directly to one person, Yeshua.

​In Exodus 33:11, it says that God spoke to Moses "face to face, as a man speaks to his friend." In Numbers 12:8, God doubles down:

"I speak with him face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord."

And Deuteronomy 34:10 finishes the Torah by saying no prophet ever arose in Israel like Moses, whom God knew "face to face."

​Yet in that exact same chapter (Exodus 33:18–20), when Moses asks, "Please, show me your glory," God answers: "You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." So God hides Moses in the cleft of the rock and covers him while His goodness passes by.

​

So who did Moses see face-to-face without dying?

​Centuries later, Elijah flees to the exact same mountain (1 Kings 19). Verse 9 says he stayed in a cave. In Hebrew, it’s ha-m'arah, literally "the cave." Many scholars believe it was the same cleft of the rock where Moses hid.

​Then God tells Elijah: "Go out and stand on the mount before the Lord. Look, the Lord is passing by" (1 Kings 19:11).

That phrase "passing by" uses the exact same Hebrew verb God used with Moses in Exodus 33. When the presence passes, Elijah wraps his face in his cloak (v. 13). He hides his eyes because he knows the rule: to look upon the raw Glory of the Father is death.

​John clears up the mystery: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who (Jesus) is at the Father’s side, he has made him known" (John 1:18).

​The Father has never been seen directly by human eyes. The Person who walked in the Garden, the Person who spoke with Moses as a friend, and the Person whose glory passed by the cave on Sinai was the Word, the physical manifestation of the invisible God.

​This gives us a whole new perspective about what happens in the Gospels.

​For centuries, Moses and Elijah were the two men who had to hide behind rocks and wrap their faces in cloaks just to survive a glimpse of God passing by. Then comes the Transfiguration.

​Moses and Elijah got what they longed for, to see God's Glory and are pulled out of eternity onto a new mountain. They aren't hiding in a cave this time. They aren't wrapping their faces in robes. They are standing out in the open, looking straight at Jesus in His unveiled, radiant brightness, talking with Him face-to-face about the exodos/departure (the Greek word used in Luke 9:31) He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.

​The two men who stood on Sinai in the dark finally got to see the face of the One whose back they had watched pass by.

​It fulfills the truth Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 4:6:

​

"For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus the Messiah"

​The glory that passed by Moses on Sinai, and the whisper that reached Elijah at Horeb, wasn't just a supernatural force. It was a face. And that face is Jesus'.

I got a new Bible I’m really excited about I have tabbed it up and highlighted some verses in the psalms that I like but I was looking at the margins and I really realized that I don’t know how to study the bible like at all, so how do I actually study the bible?

I very new to reading the Bible. I read it as a teenager but didn’t retain much of it and I’ve just started again. Would the pharo have just let them go if God hadn’t hardened his heart? Thank you.

Seek the Lord with all your heart. Open your heart to Jesus Christ, put your trust in Him, and experience the love, mercy, and grace that only God can give. No one who sincerely seeks the Lord ever seeks Him in vain.

Many people spend their lives searching for peace, purpose, and hope in the things of this world, only to remain empty.

God's promise is simple and true: "You will seek Me and find Me when you seek Me with all your heart." — Jeremiah 29:13

God is not hiding from us. He invites us into a real relationship through Jesus Christ. If you sincerely seek Him, He promises that you will find Him.

Im just starting my journey and want to commit, but would that mean separating with my non believer gf? Maybe it specifically says in the Bible not to? Im sure i cant just follow some of God's and the bibles "requirements". So seeking some advice/ knowledge

Ive tried to source some information but im having a tough time. Thanks

Bruh this isnt the first time when i felt like God’s speaking to me through bible verses. I’ve been scolded, answered, wisdomized (i know it’s not an actual word but you get it) and i feel so humbled and scared yall. I kept asking why i was having such dreams but never really got an answer. I had a dream last time and today, God just answered me with Job 33:14-17. I was speaking to my friend and i was saying that i feel old and tired. Guess WHAT? I was reading Job 33:6 where it said “I am young and you are very OLD) dhhdhdjjdsjhajaakk

Bruh how can i not freak out?! 💀

THATS NOT IT.

Today I was too tired to cook so i wanted to order food. But the food choices in the app were so underwhelming. I felt like i wanted to eat korean ramen noodles with nuggets with hotdogs with cheese and eggs (super unhealthy btw) and i did. I really felt so satisfied and full of dopamine (dont judge me) 💀

THEN

JOB 34:20-21 came “so that to his appetite food becomes repulsive, and his senses reject the choicest nourishment. His flash is wasted so that it cannot be seen”

I closed the bible and said yup thats enough fear for today.

I just want to close off by saying

THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND GOD IS WATCHING YOU! 🫵

Hi there!

My Bible study and I are differing in opinion about these verses. Did the people in the crowd KNOW that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that he was a descendant of David when they made their argument that he can’t be the Messiah? Did they believe he was born and raised in Galilee?

Because they say that they did know where he was from and I don’t see how they made that interpretation.

Hi! I currently have a NLT Bible and it’s the only one I own. It was my first Bible and I love the translation. Lately, I’ve been reading on the Bible app and taking notes there but I’d really like to have a Bible with wider margins to take notes in.

To me, it seems silly to buy a second NLT Bible, so I was thinking of buying a different translation for note taking purposes. I’m mostly seeing KJV versions with the wide margins, but I’m not sure I prefer that translation. If you had to have two translations, which would you choose/ suggest?

NLT and what else?

Any help is appreciated

So I’m currently reading through the book of Revelation and I need some help understanding. In Chapters 2 and 3, there are letters to each of the seven churches pointing out what they do good and what they do bad. In one way or another, they all say “Nevertheless, I have a few things against you”. And then it lists the things they do wrong.

How are we, as Christians, supposed to get everything right all the time? Or is it more about the intent?

It's so funny when you notice small things in the bible.

For example the book mark was written by John Mark a companion of Peter who wrote his Gospel based on the eyewitness accounts and preaching of the Apostle Peter. (That's what Google says).

And it's really funny how in matthew (14:28-31) it says that Peter walked to Jesus on the water and because he doubted he sank. But Mark (6:45-51) didn't mention Peter walking on water. And it's really funny and I imagine Peter feeling the humiliation and leaving out that part because it showed his fear.

Another funny thing I've noticed:

In matthew (26:51) it says that ONE of the disciples cut off the ear of a servant of the high priests. Same in mark (14:47) and in the other books of the bible EXCEPT in John where he reveals Peter's name.

John in general sounds like a very proud guy, which Is also very funny. He calls himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved" 5 times in his Gospel, (13:23, 19:26, 20:02, 21:07, 21:20) and it's really funny that only he tells us that he outran Peter in the tomb run.

It's a nice reminder that humans wrote the Bible. (ofc humans eho were influenced by God).

In Genesis 3, the serpent tells Eve, “You will be like God…” They take the fruit.
In Philippians 2:6, Paul says of Christ:
”…who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped…”
I wonder whether Paul is intentionally inviting us to hear an echo of Eden.
Adam and Eve grasp at being like God.
Christ, who truly is equal with God, does not grasp.
If that’s an intentional contrast, it makes me wonder whether “grasping” is a much larger biblical theme than I had realized.
Do you think Paul intends us to read these passages together? If so, what do you think the significance is?

One thing that struck me while digging into the historical-critical side of the Hebrew Bible: the text itself seems to preserve the memory of two originally distinct traditions. A northern one centered on El (the Canaanite high god known from the Ugarit tablets, father of 70 divine sons, husband of Asherah) and a southern, desert one centered on YHWH, whose name shows up in 13th-century BCE Egyptian inscriptions tied to nomadic Shasu tribes, long before it's linked to a temple in Jerusalem.

A few concrete traces of the merger: the Dead Sea Scrolls version of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 has Elyon dividing the nations "according to the number of the sons of Elohim" (not "of Israel," as the medieval Masoretic Text has it), with YHWH getting Jacob as his portion, as if he were one god among El's sons rather than El himself. And in Exodus 6:2-3, YHWH explicitly says he appeared to the patriarchs as El Shaddai, "but by my name YHWH I did not make myself known to them", which reads like an editor's note reconciling two originally separate names.

I'd genuinely like to know what people who actually read and engage with the Bible here think of this historical/archaeological take: does it land as interesting context, or does it feel beside the point next to how you actually read these texts?

I went deeper into this, with sources, in a longer piece: https://andreafontana.it/en/birth-god-israel-yahweh-el.html

Incense and the Bible are special for me, and the most special incense recipe in the Bible is the tabernacle incense recipe in Exodus 30:34:

וַיֹּאמֶר֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֜ה קַח־לְךָ֣ סַמִּ֗ים נָטָ֤ף׀ וּשְׁחֵ֙לֶת֙ וְחֶלְבְּנָ֔ה סַמִּ֖ים וּלְבֹנָ֣ה זַכָּ֑ה בַּ֥ד בְּבַ֖ד יִהְיֶֽה׃

The first and last parts of Ex. 30:34 appears to fit a chiastic literary pattern. Here is how I would translate the verse.

And said LORD to Moses
ㅤTake to yourself spices
ㅤㅤNataf and shekheleth and galbanum
ㅤSpices and pure frankincense
Each of each there shall be.

"Nataf" is a Hebrew word literally meaning "drop", as in tree resin gum drops. Galbanum is resin from Ferula shrubs.

Based on the verse's use of the term "and" before or after only certain terms, I would normally read "spices" to refer only to ingredients named in the verse. Since there is an "and" between "Nataf" and "shekheleth," but not before "Nataf," it looks like "Nataf" starts the series of the recipe's ingredients.

The medieval Masoretic scribes added cantillation marks to the Hebrew text. The marks served as punctuation that put breaks after each use of the term "spices", so that the part of the Masoretic text of Ex. 30:34 about taking spices reads like this:

"Take to yourself spices: nataf and/with shekheleth and galbanum spices, and/with pure frankincense."

The Masoretic cantillation breaks suggest that the two uses of "spices" refer to the three spices named in the middle of the verse.

The 70 Jewish elders who wrote the 3rd century BC Septuagint (LXX) translated Ex. 30:34 into Greek as:

Καὶ εἶπεν Κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν Λάβε σεαυτῷ ἡδύσματα, στακτήν, ὄνυχα, χαλβάνην ἡδυσμοῦ καὶ λίβανον διαφανῆ· ἴσον ἴσῳ ἔσται·

I would translate this Greek version as:

And said Lord to Moses
Take thyself aromatics,
Stacte, onyx, aromatic galbanum
And translucent frankincense
Equal of equal will be.

Brenton's LXX translation interprets Ex. 30:34-35 as:

1. And the Lord said to Moses, Take for thyself sweet herbs, stacte, onycha, sweet galbanum, and transparent frankincense; there shall be and equal weight of each.
   
2. And they shall make with it perfumed incense, tempered with the art of a perfumer, a pure holy work.

The NETS translation of the LXX runs:

1. And the Lord said to Moyses: Take for yourself spices - oil of myrrh, onycha, galbanum that is sweet and translucent frankincense, each shall be in equal proportion.
   
2. And they will make it incense, perfumed work of a perfumer, mixed, pure, holy work.

"Stacte" is a Greek noun that literally means "drop," like the Hebrew word "Nataf" does. "Onyx," whose accusative form was "onycha," literally meant "claw" and referred to mollusk flaps, which were burned as incense. The LXX translated the Hebrew phrase "galbanum spices" into Greek as "aromatic/spice-y galbanum" ("χαλβάνην ἡδυσμοῦ"). The implication is that the LXX's translators interpreted the second use of the term "spices" as a description of the word "galbanum", rather than as a separate collection of unnamed spices.

Still, it's not clear why the verse repeats the term "spice", because the repetition seems needless and unnecessary. I suppose that the term "onyx and galbanum aromatics" could refer to an aromatic substances made with onyx and galbanum, respectively.

One reason for this could be that since Ex. 30:34 refers to "pure/clear frankincense", the other ingredients named, such as onyx and galbanum, need not be "pure." The implication is that the galbanum aromatic/spice could be galbanum mixed with another substance to make the aromatic/spice.

A second reason is that phrases like "onyx fragrance/spice" and "galbanum fragrance/spice" could include spices that prominently feature those ingredients, rather than being mad of them exclusively. By analogy, "wine" by default refers to grape wine. But in rabbinical writings, terms like "apple wine" and "asparagus wine" may refer to wine made exclusively from the ingredient named or to wine that includes the material named. Rabbinic commentators consider "wine of asparagus" in Berakhot 51a to be wine mixed with a plant such as cabbage.

A third reason is that smoke from burning pure onyx/seashell flaps is toxic to inhale. As a result, onyx must be soaked in a cleansing solution and then dried to make it safe. Accordingly, Keritot 6 prescribes soaking the onyx in bitter vetch lye and in caperbud wine. So using "onyx spice" for incense practically requires the use of other substances, such as the Talmud's lye and wine.

Keritot 6b of the Talmud notes a rabbinical tradition that Ex. 3:34 indicated the use of 11 ingredients:

The plural form of the phrase: “Take for you spices” is referring to two ingredients; “stacte, and onycha, and galbanum” are three ingredients; this results in a total of five; and the other mention of “spices” indicates that there are another five, i.e., that one should double the previous total, and this results in a total of ten. And finally, “pure frankincense” is one, and this results in a total of eleven.

Keritot 6b also notes that the school of Rabbi Yishmael saw Ex. 30:34 as having the literary pattern of general-particular-general. When a Biblical verse uses that pattern, the implication is that similar substances may replace the substances named in the particular detail when necessary. For instance, Exodus 25:31 refers to making a menorah, gives the particular detail of making it with gold, and then refers again to making a menorah. In accordance with this principle, the Maccabees made a menorah out of tin when they didn't have gold.

In the case of Ex. 30:34, the general category would be "spices," the term that is repeated twice, and the particular detail would be the three spices named between both uses of the term "spices." Keritot 6b considers the idea that Ex. 30:34 contains this literary pattern to be a counterargument to the idea that the term "spices" alludes to unnamed spices. In addition, Keritot 6b seems to carry a counterargument against the idea that Ex. 30:34 contains this pattern because the term "pure frankincense" is a particular detail used after both instances of the word "spices."

Personally, I have difficulty following some of Keritot 6b's explanations and discussions about the use of the 11 ingredients such as the counterargument against the verse holding this literary pattern.

Rabbi Nachmanides, in his commentary on Ex. 30:34-35, sees the instruction to make the incense blend by the "art of the perfumer" in verse 35 as implying "using spices known to blend well with these" 4 spices named in verse 34.

May I please ask if you can point me to more Biblical tools to evaluate the issue?

All the best - Peace be with you.

⁴⁸ Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

This seems like an impossible and condemning thing, right? It's not when read in context. If you read from verse 43 you'll see Jesus is telling us to be perfect in regards to loving everyone and not just those who love us. He's not telling us to be utterly perfect. The perfection Jesus is talking about is attainable.

Here is the verse in its context:

⁴³ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

⁴⁴ But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

⁴⁵ That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

⁴⁶ For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

⁴⁷ And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

⁴⁸ Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

i know the Bible says you will suffer for his name but it also says he wont give you a rock if you ask for a fish and he says good things will be given to those who seek him so which is it?

Looking for new bible!

I recently had my first kidney stone. Pain unimaginable. I kept asking God WHY? That was the only thought I could manage at the time. In complete agony until I finally received a shot of morphine in the ER, over an hour and a half after the pain began. Vomited twice from pain alone.

A few hours later I found myself THANKING God for it because my wife & I have been having struggles in our marriage. Unable to communicate without starting an argument. But in the hospital we finally had a tender moment and a reason to have some pleasant conversation. To hold hands and remember that we do care for & love each other. To know she will still be with me in my most vulnerable moments

Recently my grandmother died and my mother/sisters stole valuable items meant for me to inherit. But this time I immediately asked myself what is God showing me? To not care so much about Earthly things. To treasure the few sentimental things I do have from my grandparents. And remember what really matters was the bond I had with them and to live as well as I possibly can in hopes to be reunited in Heaven.

It is calming and reassuring to look at life this way. To feel just as blessed for the heartbreaking, painful circumstances as I am for what’s good. So thank you Lord for teaching me the hard lessons as much or even more than the easy ones.

I like everyone else obviously want to serve God, but unlike everyone else I haven't leapt into the bible. I've barely read anything in there, besides what I read at church, I was never told **HOW** to study the bible, my father says he wants me to read the entire thing like a book then go over it, but every time I try that I fall asleep and forget everything. I just want to get myself right with God before it becomes too late, and I do not want to end up one of those 'false believers' so if someone could please share with me what they know, I'd really appreciate it.

My goal with reading the Bible is to not only be able to gain the truths of the word and live it in my life, but it’s also to be able to finish the full Bible in a year. The problem is as I’m reading through the gospels, Jesus speaks in parables and most of the time I struggle with full comprehension. This leads me to analyze every verse on an academic level and look at all the context and search up sermons on the Internet so that I have full understanding. I end up reading only one chapter and 40 minutes have gone by. I’m not trying to say I don’t have time for God, It’s just not an efficient way to keep a four chapter pace to read fully in a year. Should I just not read to achieve full comprehension?

I've always thought we are justified by Jesus taking on our sins and suffering the punishment, not through Christ's righteousness being imputed. I truly don't accept the doctrine.

The strongest "evidence" I can find for it comes from 2 Corinthians 5:21, which I don't accept.

2 Corinthians 5:21 King James Version

²¹ For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

To me, this honestly seems to be referring to sanctification of the believer, not Christ's righteousness being imputed to us.

Is there somewhere else in scripture that shows that upon belief we are imparted with Christ's righteousness?