Hither and thither, 1/30/09

Well, children, I've been hunting and gathering for you all week, and I have a bushel-full. This actually may just be The Best Hither And Thither, Ever. Tell a friend. Seriously.

Let's get going:

• Turns out not all Britons are enamored with our newly-anointed president. Among other things, Gerald Warner correctly observes, "It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents." (h-t Michelle Malkin).
• Indeed, I'm seriously considering a Bloody Hands Update meme, to keep Obama-supporters and enablers abreast of how their man is doing in his war against the unborn (or, as they may call them in the White House, "the little punishments.")
  
• Now, to pleasanter things. Aww. Sweet story about a real-life Sleeping Beauty awakened by her husband's kiss. Worth a prayer for her full recovery, as well.
• Mark Driscoll gets 'buked, but it's hard to say by whom exactly. The writer says "I," but the byline is "Staff." He has so much good to say and do, Driscoll really decisively has to step away from the naughty quip-from-the-hip, and fall out of love with the adoring laughter of his audience. If he doesn't do that, it will ruin (or sideline) the vastly more important aspects of his ministry, and that's a bad thing.
• Ouch! Important reminder to pastors with wireless mikes. (Or: Naked Gun — it's more than just a movie.)
  
• About Ted Haggard: this guy is right. Haggard should shut up. Put in about ten solid years of repentance, restitution, and rebuilding, and then maybe get back to us. (h-t Joel Griffith)
• Coffee: it's more than just a pleasant diversion. It's a health-food.
• Puzzlingly, Anne Rice continues to get a "pass" from Christian/oid writers. I remarked on this phenomenon once here, at its most baffling (WORLD magazine). Now up it comes again here, in a conversion story that, strikingly, features no conversion. Not to Christ, anyway, though it's titled "An atheist returns to Christ." It's really "An atheist returns to Romanism," with its ritualism and false gospel of works. The article is an interesting-enough read, but a sad one. Here's the puzzling punchline: "[Rice] describes sensing with her entire being that she was surrounded by God's love. The next day she went to Mass for the first time in 38 years. Her re-commitment to Christianity began with that miracle shortly before Christmas of 1998, but was not completed until 2002." No, I didn't delete anything. Going to the blasphemous re-sacrifice of Christ = "re-commitment to Christianity." There is nothing in that about the Biblical Christ who saves. But we read that God talks to Rice, tells her to write more books. Not very good books, though, judging by the one I read (to be reviewed later). Towards the end of the article, we read that "to be a Christian is ...to act differently." Well. There y'go. It's all about works after all!
  
• Great news (I hope): Dawn Treader is back on track, with another studio.
• Tangentially relatedly: I want these cakes.
  
• Another peek at the dark future looming in consequence of pretending that serial acts of sexual perversion = "family."
• Just sad, truly: actor Patrick Swayze has been battling his cancer to the best of his ability, and has kept working. But now he's told doctors to end all medical treatment, which signals that the end must be drawing near. What I've read and heard sounds proud and defiant; pray that the Gospel gets through to him. We all should know that we're literally a half-tick from Judgment. Some get warning shots, many don't. Swayze's had his. Pray he heeds.
• Breaking news: for once, I agree with Hillary! Clinton: US has a 'lot of damage to repair.' My only demurral is that her observation comes eight years late.
• More breaking news: MSM still Obamolotrous! But first, riddle me this: if all the "Yea" votes for a bill come from Party A, and all the "Nay" votes come from both Party A and Party B, which vote is partisan, and which is bipartisan? The "Nay" vote is the bipartisan vote — unless you're the AP, and Party B is the GOP. And, similarly....
• Totally-unbiased MSM meme update. Patterico does a comparison on how the LAT (Lost ObamaAngeles Times) reports GOP opposition to Obama today, verses Dem opposition in 2001. Enlightening, but unsurprising to any regular reader of this blog.
  
• Obama's America: want to butcher helpless unborn babies? No problem! Want to offer help and alternatives to women about to take out the contract on said babies? GUILTY!
• Reason #479 to be glad you're not Canadian. If you aren't. If you are... soe-ree, eh?
• Another Top-50 Guitar Solo List = Dead Wrong. I don't know whether Chicago is the greatest rock/jazz/ballad band ever, but I do know this: they're the most underappreciated. Constantly snubbed in "top" lists in favor of nothingburgers, never inducted into the Hall of Fame. And now this. Keith Richards' rambling, unstructured, nothing work on "Sympathy for the Devil" is top 50, but Terry Kath's soaring, chilling unforgettable solo on "25 or 6 to 4" isn't? I'll retire to Bedlam.
• All you need to know about Hollywood. Count it up. Number of movies about Reagan and the fall of the Berlin wall: zero. Number of moral-boosting movies generated during the War on Terror and the liberation of Iraq: zero (unless I'm forgetting one). Number of movies about the amazing (and successful) efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the liberation of an enslaved populace: zero. Number of biographies in the works about Steve McQueen: two.
• On that subject: Andrew Breitbart is attempting to light a candle, rather than merely cursing the darkness. Though, Lord knows, that's some darkness that calls for some serious cursing.
• On a totally tangential note: Brietbart is the son-in-law of Orson Bean, who I remember as a wacky liberal from my childhood. Yet Breitbart says Bean has become a Christian, and is now to the right of him. (Some confirmation in the Wiki article on Bean.)
• You know... when you have to insist to the world that you're not stupid, really, it just might be time for serious, root-and-branch re-evaluation.
  
• This is kind of fun — for a second or two. (At least in FireFox, every time you right-click then go back without selecting anything, it changes color.)
• And now some graphics. The first is Mesa Mike's LOLcat depiction of The One's approach to one of our enemies.
  

"Black History Month" — hey, I didn't say it

Morgan Freeman did.

Gotta love anyone who leaves Mike Wallace goggling like that.

(I know, you probably already saw this. But I hadn't; so... maybe not?)

False MSM headline about the late Roddenberries

"Star Trek" Creator And Wife To Spend Eternity In Space

Yeah. Except...

No. They really aren't.

Wow

I really have a loaded Hither and Thither on-tap for tomorrow.

Just sayin'.

Piper now, Piper then

Okay, let's just lay this out.

Here's John Piper, after the election, when it's too late to have any impact on its outcome, and Barack Obama has begun to do exactly what he has said his entire political career he would do:

Got that?

But here is John Piper, before the election, when something he said might have had an impact of some sort on its outcome:

I... whew.

Your thoughts?

Ban modification

We have had an unhappy soul or two gleefully get themselves banned... and then persist in coming back. They've either tried to sneak back in, or just knowingly barge in where they've already made themselves unwelcome in addition to blowing their credibility.

"How pathetic is that?" you ask. With fifty gazillion other blogs wide-open to the barkingest, droolingest trolls in Christendom, I can't argue with you.

It is an act of cyber-rape to violate a ban. It is using force to barge into a place where you're not welcome, simply because you can. It is using sheer power for sheer self-gratification.

Now, Blogger doesn't give much else to do beyond deleting posts. Calls for some creativity. So here's what I'm going to do.

They'll still be deleted. I may or may not leave the stub of their deleted post.

But I will "tell" you what they said, at my discretion.

OK? So, there y'go.

PS —

1. Note well: I do not guarantee that my version of their comment will be faithful, accurate, or in any way related to what they actually wrote.
2. If you violate your ban, you are authorizing this treatment of your comments!
   

Care for some Boingo?

(Rated V for Very Eclectic)

Long before he did the musical intro for The Simpsons, and the music scores for movies such as Batman, Mars Attacks!, Men in Black, and Spider Man, Danny Elfman had been recording with a band called Oingo Boingo. I remember seeing them in the seventies on public TV, when their name was The Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo, they wore strange costumes, it was more performance art than music, and Elfman was... scary-looking.

But here you can see Oingo Boingo performing two of my favorites live. Their performance is so tight and disciplined I thought it might be synched — but it's not. Enjoy (—if it's within your style-range).

One more? Why not. Here's my other Boingo favorite:

Hunh; looks like Eugene Levy on bass. But I don't think so.
If you want, you can find vintage Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo on Youtube... but it's too weird even to go here under Eclectic.

Biblical Christianity Statement on Mary

I read with mixed emotions — almost all bad — Chuck Colson's reflections on the passing of apostate Lutheran Richard John Neuhaus, co-perpetrator with him of ECT. Among other troubling and baffling things, Colson bubbles that the dithering of ECT has continued apace. Particularly, "We've been dealing with Mary for the last year and a half."

My. For a year and a half.

Well, I'm always willing to help.

So let me just step up and slice the Gordian knot for them. Here's my statement on Mary:

Mary, the mother of Jesus, is a pivotal yet relatively minor figure in the New Testament, of no more ongoing direct personal impact on the lives of Christians than any other exemplary (yet flawed) redeemed sinner depicted in the Bible.

There. Done.

Glad to be of help.

PS — you might find amusement in this old post on B2W, and my comments on it. Doesn't look like I've shifted much.

Public Service Announcement: killing the "Restart Now" nag

If you have Windows XP, some updates and other operations are followed by a "Restart Now" nag. To wit:

But maybe you don't want to Restart Now. If you pick Restart Later, you get nagged periodically.

There's a way to kill it altogether, so you can restart at your convenience. Do this:

1. Click on Start, then select Run (or do Windows-key + R)
2. Paste in sc stop wuauserv
3. Click OK or press Enter
4. Say "Biblical Christianity is the best blog, ever!"

Now, you should reboot eventually. In fact, in general, it's good for your pc to reboot at least every few days.

But this way, you get to decide when, without nags.

Hither and thither 1/23/09

And then there's this:

• John Stossel points out that liberals like Obama are largely anti-choice. (Similar to the point I made here.)
• If you ever find yourself tempted to elevate your estimation of Obama voters, read this. Poor moonbat's disappointed in Obama. Not because he's an empty suit who's all charisma and image and no good substance — though the writer admits as much. No; it's because Obama lacks moral courage. "Oh, that's good," you say. "He surely does!" Yes, true. But you think "moral courage" would be repenting of his insane pro-abort extremism, or figuring out that sodomy isn't marriage or anything like it, or such things. No no no. "Moral courage," to this poor soul, means prosecuting the Bush administration for war crimes. And so, you see: BDS rules all, and may be incurable by normal, secular means.
• The hands that cast that pro-Obama vote may soon be blood-stained, as we long and often warned they would be. None can claim to be surprised; Obama was quite up-front in his pro-infanticide extremism.
• A study confirms what I've long heard: that a major reason for abortion was lack of supportive partner/father. Now, before God's throne, nobody is going to be able to say "He made me sin." Adam and Eve both tried it, and it didn't float. HSAT, each abortion will have more than one set of bloody hands.
• See why existentialists make lousy board games.
• Oh no! A reporter irritated The One! President Obama "stared down" a reporter who dared ask a question he didn't like, provoking a testy little whine from the Commander in Chief. They will learn not to stretch out their hands against the Lord's anointed. But, eager to make up, a fawning worshiper with a camera burst out: "I'd like to say it one more time: 'Mr. President.'" Aww, isn't that sweet?
• And yeah... I can't quite get used to it, either.
  

Inside scoop on "Prince Caspian," and some hope for "Dawn Treader"

Reportedly, it was and is all about money; and there are a number of studios interested in Dawn Treader. So it's far from dead. Which — if they don't sabotage the story, and particularly the ending — yay!

h-t Challies

Unfortunately, Obama may keep at least some of his wretched promises

According to the White House's civil rights agenda page:

• Make a horrid liberal idea even worse: "President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act...." Judges and juries become mind-readers and psychologists, rather than interpret and apply laws to actions. If A beats up B, some penalty applies. But if A beats up B because B is homosexual/whatever, and because A hates B, he gets punished worse. We're punishing thoughts, beliefs and emotions; and that requires godlike powers. But liberals are OK with that whole ye-shall-be-as-gods thing.
• Spend more money on criminals: "President Obama and Vice President Biden will provide job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling to ex-offenders, so that they are successfully re-integrated into society." Me, I like the Biblical idea of restitution better. It would pretty much prevent obscenities like THIS.
• More civil rights for particular sexual perversions: there is a whole section titled "Support for the LGBT Community." Innocent unborn children get nothing; people who commit themselves to embracing and living out one particular form of sexual perversion (so far!) get eight action-items!
• Forcing perverse morality on citizens: if Obama has his way, more people could either be forced to hire sorts they don’t want to hire – or to prove why they didn’t hire sexual perverts, even if that wasn’t a factor; they will be forced to subsidize sexual perversion they may find morally repulsive; perverted pairings (so far, only same-sex) will be married in every sense but the label, and society forced to accept their perversion; citizens will be denied the option of amending attempts to amend the constitution explicitly to protect the definition of marriage (and citizens' right not to be forced to redefine it) will be opposed; force the military to accept sexual perverts of (so far) one particular kind; and expose parentless children to being thrust into destructive and immoral situations.
• Some repercussions: more people considering starting or expanding a business will think, "Forget it. I wanted to run a business, not have Barack Obama run a business off my hard work." More people considering a career in the military will say, "Forget it." More parents will counsel their children considering entering the military, "Forget it." And that may eventually mean Obama will have to revive the draft, and force people into the military — though he'll doubtless find a way to blame it on Bush.
• In the name of being for honest, decent, hardworking Americans, Obama plans to make life far harder for honest, decent, hardworking Americans.
• We should pray for our President — that he fail in these endeavors.
  

He said / but he said...

President Obama, yesterday:

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.

...greatness is never a given. It must be earned.

Joseph Lowery, benediction:

...we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around ... when yellow will be mellow ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.

Question: will the president disown the fear-driven, discordant, false, entitlement-affirming, childish, petty stereotyping of this "prayer"?

And now, for a little Star Wars levity

Star Wars: Retold (by someone who hasn't seen it) from Joe Nicolosi on Vimeo.

Warren's prayer — first impression

Pathetic.

If this is an accurate transcript, pathetic. Edgeless, billowy nothing.

The man who transcribed the prayer asks, "Seriously, is there anything there that Christians, or even simply religious people across the spectrum, would strongly disagree with?"

Yes. With that. That Warren is supposed to be serving one who said that He came to cause division and bring a sword, who was hated by the world and said His students would suffer the same fate. Who pronounced a woe on us when God's enemies speak well of us.

The unborn had no advocate in Warren. The lost heard no Gospel from Warren. The land heard a call to niceness. Not to repentance.

Obama made a good pick in Warren.

From his perspective.

FAIL

Keep pastor David Wayne (Jollyblogger) in your prayers

My family has too much experience with cancer, and I hate it like it was a person. I'll rejoice greatly the day the Lord throws it into Hell along with all the other evil brought in by our idiot first father in his sin. (Fathers who sin and do not rectify it hate their children.)

Now it touches pastor David Wayne. read more about it here and here, and keep him and his family in your prayers.

Now Piper says something unambiguous

Having released a muddled, unhelpful video before the election (more comment on that here), John Piper now criticizes Obama's selection of an unrepentant homosexual "priest" to pray (h-t JT).

I have no problem, of course, with what Piper is now saying. He's right.

My problem is that we already knew such things about the most unqualified and radically-liberal man ever to pose a credible run for the presidency. My problem is that Piper could have "thrown down" on such issues before the election, when it might have made a difference.

Now is good.

Then would have been better.

Bible reading progress report 1/19/09

Some poor soul asked me to give periodic reports on how my Bible reading plan (see also here) is working. Praise God, so far it's working very well, suiting me very nicely.

What I'm doing is reading three consecutive chapters a day at minimum, plus the day's chapter of Proverbs (i.e. today I read chapter 19, tomorrow should be chapter 20, and so forth).

Today I finished Exodus, which I guess means I've averaged 4.7368421052631578947368421052632 chapters a day (plus Proverbs). I've been able to do it fine so far. Reading was only rough for a few days around my daughter's wedding last week.

But I'm much preferring it over last year's M'Cheyne schedule, which I've done many times. Instead of reading in four places, I'm following a narrative, and getting a lot more out of it. I'm thinking of retooling the way I do Proverbs, though... but not sure how to. It's a funny thing, but my familiarity with Proverbs in part is working against me.

How are you doing with your plans?

Hither and thither 1/16/09

It's been awhile, so... here we go:

• Darn well time somebody did "this"!
• So you, like me, get inundated with these "Dear One In Christ"-type spams, telling you of this great inheritance you have, contact immediately, blah blah blah. And you think "Yeah, right. Who falls for this?" Sadly, now we know who falls for it: this guy.
• For fairly obvious reasons (unless there's no media access under your rock), President-elect Barack Obama has been named "Gun Salesman of the Year" by The Outdoor Wire. Why? "It's credit where credit is due. Mr. Obama has consistently voted against individual rights to firearms, appointed a re-tread Clinton administration full of gun banners, and made it plain to anti-gun groups that despite what he might say to the contrary, he's on their side." So nervous folks exercised what's left of their Second Amendment rights while they still have them. To some degree, Obama actually shielded the gun industry from the general economic slump.
  
• Surprise surprise, hand-wringing love-me-love-me-love-me "conservative" sellout/Palin-disser Peggy Noonan, for one, welcomes her Obamessiah overlord. (As you may recall, we don't.)

• A Roman Catholic news source provides the (to it) hopeful headline, "New survey shows Protestants’ loyalty flagging." The substance? More Protestants would consider going to a church of another denomination than would Roman Catholics. Yep, that's it. In other words: Breaking news! Christians deify God, not their denomination! While to Roman Catholics — as anyone who's tried to point a Roman Catholic to Christ will agree — in every way but formally, their sect is their god. I once went door to door evangelizing, doing a survey, offering an earlier printed version of my How Can I Know God? People of every description would talk to us, would accept the paper, and would actually read it — except one. You guessed it: Roman Catholics. Often, they don't even attend church. But they check the boxes (which is all Rome requires), and are just Roman Catholic enough not to be willing to listen to the Gospel.
• Proof #497 that actors should only say things smarter people write for them: Tom Hanks delivers himself of the opinion that Mormon supporters are "un-American."
  

Turning tables (or pulpits)

I hit pretty hard on the Biblical teaching concerning local-church involvement here, here, and here, recently. One of the excuses/sad stories you hear is about bad pastors, of which (lamentably) there is no lack. But — as I keep asking — what does that have to do with my responsibility to obey out of faith?

Have you ever thought of this, though? Pastors have all had bad experiences with sheep! Every one of them. Probably, the better pastors have had the worst experiences.

So what if you came to a church because you'd heard there was terrific Biblical preaching and living, real fellowship, and the pastor saw you come in, and he got up, came back, and asked you to leave?

Or what if you came for counsel or direction or instruction or encouragement, and he said he just really didn't feel moved to do that anymore?

What if he said, "You know, I've had really bad experiences with people who come to church"?

What if he said, "I had this one couple who were part of the pulpit committee who persuaded me to move from the east coast to the west coast, and promised they'd never leave. Five weeks later, they didn't like something. They left. That really soured me on people."

What if he said, "I led this guy to Christ once, discipled him, baptized him, led him to Christ, introduced him to his wife, performed the wedding — and one year later, I find he led a whisper-campaign to run me out of town on a wave of lies. So I just really don't get involved in people's lives anymore."

I could go on and on. Of course, any Christian who got a truckload like that would retort, "Dude, it's your job. God says it's your job. You need to deal with your issues, and do your job."

Right!

...and obeying God isn't your job, too?

Next time, O man/woman, you trot out your Note From Mommy On Why You Are The Exception, imagine the tables turned.

It all boils down to the penultimate question: is someone else's sin ever an excuse for my sin?

Underneath which lies the ultimate question: is God worthy of believing obedience?

Spurgeon (and sanity) on pastor's wives

I've said similarly, but never better (italics his, bold added):

Churches do not give a married minister two salaries, one for the husband and the other for the wife; but, in many cases, they look for the services of the wife, whether they pay for them or not. The Pastor's wife is expected to know everything about the church, and in another sense she is to know nothing of it; and she is equally blamed by some people whether she knows everything or nothing. Her duties consist in being always at home to attend to her husband and her family, and being always out, visiting other people, and doing all sorts of things for the whole church! Well, of course, that is impossible; she cannot be at everybody's beck and call, and she cannot expect to please everybody. Her husband cannot do that, and I think he is very foolish if he tries to do it; and I am certain that, as the husband cannot please everybody, neither can the wife. There will be sure to be somebody or other who will be displeased, especially if that somebody had herself half hoped to be the minister's wife! Difficulties arise continually, in the best-regulated churches; and the position of the minister's wife is always a very trying one. Still, I think, that if I was a Christian young woman, I would marry a Christian minister if I could, because there is an opportunity of doing so much good in helping him in his service for Christ. It is a great assistance to the cause of God to keep the minister himself in good order for his work. It is his wife's duty to see that he is not uncomfortable at home; for, if everything there is happy, and free from care, he can give all his thoughts to his preparation for the pulpit; and the godly woman, who thus helps her husband to preach better, is herself a preacher though she never speaks in public, and she becomes to the highest degree useful to that portion of the Church of Christ which is committed to her husband's charge' (from his autobiography The Full Harvest)

John Wycliffe did "Ebonics"? Who knew?

Wycliffe's rendering of Exodus 3:22 —

...but a womman schal axe of hir neiyboresse and of her hoosteesse siluerne vesselis, and goldun, and clothis, and ye schulen putte tho on youre sones and douytris, and ye schulen make nakid Egipt.

(I was seeing what history there was behind the KJV's misleading "borrow.")

For any readers uninitiated in re. Ebonics:

The word
The academic-ish la-de-da-dification
The incomparable La Shawn Barber (and again)
The translator
The bumper-sticker

TIWIARN

Don't expect too much out of me ("When did we ever?", the crowd retorts) for the next few days... because of the SECONDLY.

My neologisms

Occurs to me maybe I should make some kind of a "sticky" post, to make question-answering easy. I'll just update it as I add words.

Here are some words or abbreviations I've invented.

emerg*** — a lot of people think Phil invented this. That makes perfect sense: Phil's all over the emerg* movement, has written about it, has given talks on it, has lampooned it in PoMotivator posters. Heck, I'd think he made it up, if I hadn't made it up myself. The truth is, Phil's too smart to have invented it. I fabricated it, because I kept seeing Those Folks faulting people for saying "emergent" when they should have said "emerging," and vice-versa. Since to me the difference is largely historical and academic, I just came up with this convenient shorthand. Hardcore geeks will observe that I strictly should have said either emerg*, or emerg???. They'd be right, of course. Oh well, too late. [UPDATE: Stefan Ewing has made a credible claim to be the originator, and the earliest use I can find is his. Yet I have a really distinct memory of making it up. So either I haven't found my earliest use, or didn't notice his use and made it up independently later, or saw his and forgot seeing it. So... this is suspect as a DJPical neologism.]

HSAT — Having Said All That. I was using the phrase enough that a acronym seemed called for.

nomicophobia — irrational fear of any kind of law; knee-jerk dodge-reaction to anyone to mentions a commandment of God that you don't want to obey. Refusal to do anything unless it's on your terms. See further here.

obama — An empty thing onto which people project their own ideas, thoughts, fears and/or aspirations. See further here.

sarkicophobia — The fear of obeying God or doing anything for the glory of God in the flesh. A sarkicophobe would much rather disobey God outright, or do nothing whatever for His name, than do something "in the flesh." See further here.

Have I missed anything? Remind me, if so, and I'll expand.

Oh, dude — now that's a scathing book review (of Bart Ehrman)

Man oh man, this review of Ehrman's God's Problem makes me think my commentary (like, oh, I dunno... this one?) is pretty tame stuff. Not a wasted word, not a bullet misses its target.

And the guy's a United Methodist Bishop? Whoa.

(h-t m'man Andy Naselli)

Great insult

I just thought of a wonderful insult. Now, I just have to find a place to use it.

Ready? Here we go:

"The closest he ever gets to culture is when he walks past the yogurt in the grocery store."

You're welcome! No extra charge! I'm here all week! Try the veal!

See? Shouldn't everyone be reading and linking to this blog?

At least it's moved me to create a new tag.

More about Bible reading

I started making a comment on this meta under my post at Pyro. Then I realized it was getting so long, it might warrant a post of its own. And so....

A couple of things:

Some of the comments actually do seem to go in the direction of, "__ chapters?? That's nothing! A real Christian would read at least __ chapters!"

I don't for a minute think that's the intent, but here are a few clarifiers:

First, any number can be rubbished and upped by some factor.

Second, some commenters seem to think I'm setting a minimum. But if you read the whole post, you'll note I'm not sticking to that minimum, myself. It's just a minimum... to get through the Bible in a year.

Third, I'm not suggesting that's all the Bible-reading I'll do! Hel-lo, it's a minimum!

Fourth, some of the comments come from the opposite direction of my own thinking. They seem to feel I'm taking huge-Bible-readers and telling them to slow down.

By contrast, I'm looking at a professing-church-full of undisciplined Bible readers, many of whom have NO plan, TOO many of whom have never actually read the whole Bible through even once.

Many of them would find M'Cheyne overwhelming, and would quit after the first busy day. Any honest person would have to admit, it's a bear to catch up on M'Cheyne! To them, I'm saying, "Read at this rate, and you'd get through the Bible in a year."

Fifth and finally, I'm not sure the goal is to see how fast you can blaze through the Bible. Is it? I don't doubt that, if you can read quickly and attentively, you will see certain themes and developments more like the writers meant you to. But you'll miss a lot, too. You do know the phrase "Whirlwind tour," right? And the pluses and minuses of such an approach?

So let's keep in mind a few minimums:

1. The only really bad Bible reading plan is to plan not to read it. Bad plan. Bad plan!
2. Second-worst is no plan at all.
3. The plan you pick should be both doable and challenging. A verse a day is just silly. A book a day is probably too much... well, unless it's Jude, 3 John or Obadiah.
4. If your last-year's plan was quick, then maybe do a slower one this year. If you were reading 4-7+ chapters from various books, consider mine of 3-minimum through mainly single books, for this year. (That's why I'm doing what I'm doing, BTW; I've probably read through the Bible dozens of times on various plans over the last 35+ years.)
5. The most important thing is to do it. I just don't see the value in picking a marvelous plan I'll never do. Pick a doable/challenging plan, and do it, by God's grace.

There.