# Chronological Study Bible



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 23, 2008)

New Bible Is a Matter of Time - washingtonpost.com (August 23, 2008)


----------



## JBaldwin (Aug 23, 2008)

Wouldn't doing the Scriptures like that mess up some of the continuity of some of the books? 

We studied OT in college in chronological order, and I loved it, but we never stuck books in the middle of books.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 14, 2008)

Any thoughts on _The Psalms Chronologically Arranged_ (1891)?

The Psalms Chronologically Arranged ... - Google Book Search


----------



## FrielWatcher (Sep 14, 2008)

Very dumb idea. Probably using the NIV. I can't believe all the bible flavors they are making and yet the evangelicalism still sucks. It should be that if the word is more available, the nation should be more revived with their Men's Personal Promises bible, and Women's Daily Devotional Bible, and Teen bible with steel case cover in seven different colors, Joyce Meyer's commentary bible - I saw most of these at Half-Priced Books today. 

We don't need another bible flavor - we need preaching it and teaching it correctly and expositionally.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 14, 2008)

I think part of the problem is all these "Bible Versions". There is a serious problem with all these translations and "Study Bibles". Me wonders whether this is in anyway a way to honor God.


----------



## Grymir (Sep 14, 2008)

This is curious - "At issue for scholars is a question they have grappled with for generations: When -- and by whom -- was the Bible written?" Mostly a problem for liberal scholars that don't take the Bible seriously.

This next part -

"For some biblical accounts, such as the Israelites' exile to Babylon, there are historical accounts to support the narrative. Other stories require a leap of faith. Scholars say trying to rearrange individual books requires getting to the bottom of some of the world's oldest known cases of identity theft: Many biblical works were the handiwork of multiple authors, all writing under a single name."

Bob Sanford who edited (chopped up) this Bible says the above. I think it shows some bias.  That passage and the one's following the above is right out of my copy of the liberal playbook.

"It was very common in antiquity to attribute one's own writings to the most important historians in the past," said Michael D. Coogan, a professor at Stonehill College in Easton, Mass., and editor of "The New Oxford Annotated Bible." "It happens not just in the Bible. Socrates certainly didn't say everything Plato quotes him as saying."

and

"Take, for example, the Book of Jeremiah, which was written by an undetermined number of authors over an unknown period. Some narratives are repeated, and any semblance of chronology devolves into a jumble of dates and places. "

Hmm. I'd wager good money that it fades into obscurity.


----------



## JohnGill (Sep 14, 2008)

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Sep 15, 2008)

Such a venture is too horrible to think about. I pray for its failure.


----------



## jwithnell (Sep 15, 2008)

OK, I'm going to be the contrarian here. First, don't forget that the article appeared in the _Washington Post_, which will be writing from the presupposition that the Bible is old-fashioned myth. Don't expect to find much with which you can agree.

For the Bible itself, the Old Testament we use is greatly reordered from the original Hebrew texts, so I don't think we can add any authority to the order of the books. The Word is the Word, no matter where it appears. 

I have thought about trying to give a chronological order to the Old Testament for my own study, but haven't had the time to do it. I find it distracting to have books like Nehemiah, that occurs historically so much later in history, appearing fairly early in the text, but having the associated prophets tossed in much later.

The primary argument I can think of against the project is liking the sense of order that comes from having everyone "on the same page." Literally. In reality, I think its greatest use would be as a _study_ Bible, not one that would be used in public worship.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Sep 15, 2008)

I have used a chronological bible for reading and found no great fault, but this maintained the integrity of the individual canonical books. As pointed out, we have reordered the Hebrew books in our english Bibles. 

But the new venture (linked in the OP) will pull individual books of the canon apart and re-integrate them on some false attempt at chronology and synthesis. It presupposes higher criticism, redaction, JEDP, and who knows what all. It will be an abomination.


----------



## JohnGill (Sep 15, 2008)

Here's the website for it:

Chronological Study Bible | Thomas Nelson

It has some of the articles about it.

I think it might be easier just to follow this plan: Chronological Bible Reading


----------

