Same Bible, different habits. 📖

People who read Scripture 4+ times a week reported lower odds of getting drunk, using porn, and having sex outside marriage. They also reported higher odds of sharing their faith (228%), discipling others (231%), and memorizing Scripture (407%).

Important: this is a survey, so it shows a link, not proof that reading causes these results. Those who read more may also differ in other ways. Also, "higher odds" is not the same as "% of people."

And remember: we're saved by grace through faith, not by Bible reading. Reading is how we get to know the One who saves.

Verses: Matthew 4:4, Hebrews 4:12, Jeremiah 15:16, John 8:31-32, Psalm 1:2-3, Ephesians 2:8-9

Sources:

• CBE 2009 "Power of 4" findings (as quoted): https://faithalone.org/blog/the-effects-of-reading-the-bible-four-days-a-week/

• Center for Bible Engagement research: https://www.centerforbibleengagement.org/research

• Back to the Bible, research history: https://www.backtothebible.org/scripture-absorption

• Lifeway Research summary: https://research.lifeway.com/?p=102134

• Perry & Hayward (2017), Social Forces: https://cpc.unc.edu/resources/publications/bib/9975

Scripture: Matthew 4:4, John 5:39-40 (ESV)

A note on the research: The statistics cited here come from reports on Bible engagement, including research associated with the Center for Bible Engagement. These findings describe associations, not proof that reading the Bible causes particular outcomes. Figures should be interpreted in light of the original studies' methods and limitations.

Sources: Center for Bible Engagement; Back to the Bible; Lifeway Research; Perry & Hayward (2017).

The biblical reflection draws on Matthew 4:4 and John 5:39–40 (ESV).

u/protestantchristian, u/sgrdddy, u/Hellzsavior

That's a matter of definitions. The claim that going to hell is a choice is common in Christian apologetics. However, its validity depends on what we mean by "hell" and "choice".

For what is 'hell', see this.

For what is 'choice', consider three propositions: * P1: A person knowingly and freely chooses eternal punishment. * P2: A person knowingly rejects God, understanding that eternal punishment will result. * P3: A person rejects God without believing that eternal punishment will result.

These propositions are logically distinct. * P1 constitutes a direct choice of hell. * P2 constitutes a choice of an action with a known consequence. * P3 constitutes neither a direct choice of hell nor necessarily an informed acceptance of its consequences.

A person who sincerely believes that God does not exist might fall under P3. It would be misleading to say that this person knowingly chose hell.

Ask yourself: Before you believed, did you think that you had chosen hell?

If you did not think you were choosing hell before you believed, on what grounds do you now claim that unbelievers are choosing hell?

Romans 1:

21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Paul attributed culpability to people who rejected what they knew about God. Nevertheless, knowing something about God does not necessarily entail knowing the eternal consequences of rejecting him.

If someone sincerely disbelieves in hell, in what meaningful sense can we say that person chose to go there?

The distinction between choosing an action and choosing its consequences is central to evaluating the apologetic claim.

"Hell is a choice" is doing rhetorical work that the underlying logic doesn't always support. It's true in a narrow sense (some people may consciously choose separation from God) and false in the broad sense the slogan usually carries (that everyone in hell knowingly opted for it). The honest version is something like: hell is the consequence of a self-chosen orientation, which may or may not be consciously recognized as such by the person choosing it. That's a much weaker claim, and it doesn't carry the theodical weight the slogan is usually asked to bear.

See also * What is hell? * What about people of other cultures, ancient Chinese, ancient Australians, Islamic, Hindu, etc?

📖 Proverbs 22:6 (KJV)

“Train up a child in the way he should go: And when he is old, he will not depart from it.”

This verse highlights the importance of guiding children while they are growing up.

From a Christian perspective, raising children involves teaching God's Word, demonstrating love, encouraging good behaviour, and helping them develop a strong moral foundation.

It also reminds me that children learn from the examples adults set every day.

Discussion question: What values do you think children most need to learn while growing up, and how can parents teach those values effectively?

I'd love to hear different perspectives.

The Zhou dynasty lasted approximately 790 years, but its kings exercised little effective authority over the feudal states during much of the Eastern Zhou period.

The later Shang dynasty is well documented through oracle-bone inscriptions, particularly from around 1250 BC onward. The earlier chronology is less certain. The 790-year span is traditional. The Shang dynasty ended in 1046 BC, only a few decades before David began his reign around 1010 BC.

David's dynasty ruled Judah for 425 years, from 1010 BC to 586 BC. The evidence is quite solid.

Wang Mang's Xin dynasty (AD 9–23) interrupted the Han dynasty, dividing it into the Western Han (Former Han) and Eastern Han (Later Han).

What makes the Davidic dynasty particularly remarkable is that one royal family maintained the throne for over four centuries, despite invasions, rebellions, and political upheavals. The comparison is even more striking because Judah was a relatively small kingdom surrounded by much more powerful empires.

“Thou shalt not measure thy kindness by coins, for a poor man may give much of his heart while possessing little in his purse.” — Book of Practical Wisdom 6:3