No, I have not read the Bible. The Bible consisted of orginal inspired apostolic autographs, none of which still exist. If you are referring to translations of copies of manuscripts, yes I have read those. However, as you and every Christian should have figured out by now, such writings are NOT self-interpreting. Someone "must" both translate and interpret. Whoever translates and interprets becomes your master for it is they who write on behalf of God. The glaring problem is, nowhere does Scripture say anyone but the original writers would be infallable and inerrant enough to translate from the originals. In order for your book to be inerrant, copyists and translators would have to be gifted with the same infallability and inerrancy as those who penned the autographs. Are Biblians willing to say that modern scholars are supernaturally inspired in the same way as the apostles? If they are, then why have none of them heard something new from God in 2000 years? Why was the Bible not left open for new revealed truths and as the need arose. Surey if the copyists, translators and interpreters of the book possess the same gift of apostolic inspiration for hearing God so as to inerrantly reproduce the same words and meaning as the original authographs, then Christianity would not have split into hundreds if not thousands of varying denominional branches all claiming to know God's absolute truth better than the others. Those claiming to have authority started multiplying and it has yet to stop. Even Luther realized he had opened up a pandora's box by putting Scripture in the hands of just any Joe who thinks he hears the whisper of the Spirit. Don't point me to a Bible unless you are willing to give ME the authority over myself to interpret it for myself according to what "I" believe the Spirit says through personal revelation. No Biblian has any right to shove that book in my face and tell me to bow to their relevation on Scripture, whether conservative, moderate or liberal. Again I say "somebody" is going to have to interpret that book because it is not self-interpreting. If it was, Christianity would not be so fractured. Of course, I don't expect the believers in Biblianity to admit such an inconvenient truth. Now, go ahead and ignore all the things I wrote about copyists, translators, interpreters, autographs and manuscripts. I'll just expect a Bible verse instead of a real answer.