# Chronological Bible



## Hamalas (Dec 9, 2014)

I'm wanting to read through the Bible chronologically next year in my private worship and was wondering what you thought of getting something like this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/NIV-One-Yea...sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=chronological+bible+esv 

I know there are online plans, but having to flip back and forth through different books sounds much more choppy and awkward than having a simple Bible laid out in order. I usually use the ESV but I'm content to use the NIV for survey reading so the translation doesn't bother me too much (please let's avoid discussing/dissecting the NIV as a translation for the moment) so to me the biggest question is if they have the order right and whether or not anyone else has done this and found it profitable. Thoughts? Are there better chronological Bibles out there?


----------



## Jack K (Dec 9, 2014)

Although there are benefits to skipping around from book to book to see how the entire Bible fits together as _one book_, the Bible has come to us as _a collection of several books_. The normal way to read it, I would think, would be as it has been given: by book, rather than purely chronologically. There's richness is seeing the themes and unity in a book that could be missed when books are cut and pasted into a timeline.

So as a one-year exercise it might have advantages. As a standard practice I would gently question it. It seems one could generally follow a timeline in selecting the order of books to read and still keep individual books whole so as not to lose their thematic unity.

As for the order... where certain Psalms fit in, when Job lived, what prophets ministered when, when the Epistles were written... much of that is guesswork. Getting it exactly "right" is, frankly, not very important.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 9, 2014)

Chronological according to when written or actual events recorded therein?


----------



## psycheives (Dec 9, 2014)

A while back, I've looked at all the major Chronological bibles for the most accurate and determined The One Year Chronological Bible NLT (2000 version) was by far the most accurate in listing events in chronological order.

http://www.amazon.com/The-One-Year-...p/B006MK0JB2/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8

The One Year Chronological Bible NIV (Hardcover – November 29, 2007, Bright green cover & paperback September 29, 1995) is highly inaccurate to the point it is unreadable. Coherent stories are split in half in the oddest places and inserted in the weirdest places. This occurs throughout the bible. This is the worst chronological bible I've ever seen. (*Keep in mind the 2012 version may have made corrections*)

The Chronological Study Bible (NKJV) (2008) is better than the NIV one but worse than the NLT. If I recall correctly, this reads like a half-attempt, where someone did part of this bible in chronological order, then had a deadline to meet and gave up and just turned in an incomplete work. I believe the OT in this bible was especially left incomplete. And the NT usually gets the chrono order wrong when compared with the NLT. I'd say the NLT chrono order is correct 3 times compared to 1.


----------



## Hamalas (Dec 9, 2014)

Jack K said:


> Although there are benefits to skipping around from book to book to see how the entire Bible fits together as _one book_, the Bible has come to us as _a collection of several books_. The normal way to read it, I would think, would be as it has been given: by book, rather than purely chronologically. There's richness is seeing the themes and unity in a book that could be missed when books are cut and pasted into a timeline.
> 
> So as a one-year exercise it might have advantages. As a standard practice I would gently question it. It seems one could generally follow a timeline in selecting the order of books to read and still keep individual books whole so as not to lose their thematic unity.
> 
> As for the order... where certain Psalms fit in, when Job lived, what prophets ministered when, when the Epistles were written... much of that is guesswork. Getting it exactly "right" is, frankly, not very important.



100% agreed. I'm looking at this as an occasional exercise to give me a different perspective. 

I can't say I'm excited about using the NLT...


----------



## Hamalas (Dec 9, 2014)

Romans922 said:


> Chronological according to when written or actual events recorded therein?



The events themselves.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 9, 2014)

I've been involved in yearly Bible reading for some time now. Most of the years were straight through readings. I've tried Chronological once and didn't care for it. There's some scholarly guesswork about where to place things but it just ended up being very hodge podge to me.

One of the drawbacks to reading the Bible straight through (or Chronological for that matter) is the length of the OT. By the time you're through with the OT, it's practically September. Now, on the one hand, it *really* makes you long for the coming of Christ as you're reading through the Prophets at the end but, on the other, a good portion of the year has no NT readings.

For the past few years I've gone with the M'Cheyne reading plan. You end up reading through the Gospels and the Psalms twice in a year but you do pretty much go through all the other books in order (a chapter a day).

As far as "skipping" around when reading, I use the Olive Tree Bible on my iPad and it's not a problem for me.


----------



## psycheives (Dec 9, 2014)

Hamalas said:


> I can't say I'm excited about using the NLT...



I also had to get over it and once I got past my snobbery against the NLT (not really recognizing it in any way as the Word of God with the gospel still in it), I found it wasn't as bad a translation as I had assumed. Since then, I've come to prefer a few of the NLT's translations of the Greek more than that of the KJV/NASB/ESV/NIV versions. Where these versions (which tend to be more literal at the expense of the Greek meaning) render a vague English translation (which misses the Greek) that leaves the reader guessing what the author meant, the NLT (NIV also tends to do this) will actually capture the precise translation from the Greek. In the Greek it is not vague and the NLT (and NIV) will capture this more often.

Also, I found reading the chronological bible to be an AMAZING EXPERIENCE and one I hope every Christian does once in a while. You notice things you never would have noticed before (which is why their getting the order accurate is so essential) - especially in the events of the gospels. I highly recommend it, questioning the accuracy of the chronology the entire time you read it.

And reading through the OT in chronological order is amazing! Finally you see the History books lined up with one another and you see a MUCH FULLER story. Things that left you wondering as you read Kings are now filled in from Chronicles. Seriously, I highly recommend this.


----------



## Hamalas (Dec 9, 2014)

psycheives said:


> Hamalas said:
> 
> 
> > I can't say I'm excited about using the NLT...
> ...



That's helpful Psyche! So what makes you prefer the chronology of the NLT over the NIV?


----------



## psycheives (Dec 9, 2014)

Ben, please see my first post above. I ranked 3 popular chronological versions and explained the differences and the reason the NLT version is superior - it's the most chronologically accurate. I'm sure you will enjoy reading chronologically


----------



## jambo (Dec 9, 2014)

I devised my own chronological plan but I was not too struck on this type of approach. It was ok until you come to Kings/Chronicles and the prophets. The book of Jeremiah was so difficult whilst where do the Psalms fit in? If you break up Jeremiah and scatter it through the relevant parts of Kings and Chronicles, you then lose the thrust of the book of Jeremiah as a whole. I would be in favour of a rough chronological order but I would not break the books up to do so.


----------



## Justified (Dec 9, 2014)

For reading plans, I recommend a book by book chronological order, meaning don't skip around, but read whole books in chronological order. For example, read 2nd Samuel, then read 1st Chronicles (the story line lines up). It helps you understand the chronology of the OT while understanding the authors specific message to the reader


----------



## psycheives (Dec 9, 2014)

Stuart, did you use a reading plan to read in chronological order or did you in a word processor cut and paste bible verses? Unsatisfied with some of the Chronological Bibles' sequence of events (esp with the prophets), I did the later and created a promise-fulfillment OT bible that really helped show a fuller account of the OT events. The great thing about reading the bible chronologically is that you can see how these events played out over a timeline with prophecies and then fulfillments. You can also see the inter-relatedness of some of the prophets who lived during the same years. And you can see more clearly what is spoken to united Israel, Northern Israel and Southern Judah. 

Example: Without a chronological Bible, someone might assume Isaiah is writing chastising and prophesying against united Israel/ALL of bloodline Jews. 
Example: With a chronological Bible, can trace the 10 tributes of Israel prophesy (about Is 10-11) and whether they might have returned (2 Chr 11:5-17 and others)
Example: Really helps place who the prophets are writing against: Assyria, Babylon, Egypt etc. and which Egypt? As some nations rose to prominence several times.
Example: In gospels, it helps place Jesus and John the Baptist along the timeline of feasts and Passovers. I've heard pastors accidentally place the events of John the Baptist as having occurred or not occurred based on wrong chronology.



jambo said:


> I devised my own chronological plan but I was not too struck on this type of approach. It was ok until you come to Kings/Chronicles and the prophets. The book of Jeremiah was so difficult whilst where do the Psalms fit in? If you break up Jeremiah and scatter it through the relevant parts of Kings and Chronicles, you then lose the thrust of the book of Jeremiah as a whole. I would be in favour of a rough chronological order but I would not break the books up to do so.


----------



## jambo (Dec 9, 2014)

psycheives said:


> Stuart, did you use a reading plan to read in chronological order or did you in a word processor cut and paste bible verses? Unsatisfied with some of the Chronological Bibles' sequence of events (esp with the prophets), I did the later and created a promise-fulfillment OT bible that really helped show a fuller account of the OT events. The great thing about reading the bible chronologically is that you can see how these events played out over a timeline with prophecies and then fulfillments. You can also see the inter-relatedness of some of the prophets who lived during the same years. And you can see more clearly what is spoken to united Israel, Northern Israel and Southern Judah.
> 
> Example: Without a chronological Bible, someone might assume Isaiah is writing chastising and prophesying against united Israel/ALL of bloodline Jews.
> Example: With a chronological Bible, can trace the 10 tributes of Israel prophesy (about Is 10-11) and whether they might have returned (2 Chr 11:5-17 and others)
> ...



I actually composed this plan back in the olden days before home PCs were common. I identified passages from the prophets according to their own internal references, ie 'during the 3rd year of Josiah...' etc. In Jeremiah some passages can be clearly identified to the reign of a particular king but in other places it jumps about quite a bit.

Although reading the bible chronologically gives a continuous progression through the OT period but I felt it took away from the character of the book. Each book deals with particular times or issues and you might not always grasp those issues unless you read the book on its own. (Although keeping in mind the general OT context)

The historical books and most of the prophetical books of the OT are basically arranged in chronological order anyway.


----------



## Jonny. (Dec 9, 2014)

Justified said:


> For reading plans, I recommend a book by book chronological order, meaning don't skip around, but read whole books in chronological order. For example, read 2nd Samuel, then read 1st Chronicles (the story line lines up). It helps you understand the chronology of the OT while understanding the authors specific message to the reader



I've found this helpful too and easier to follow than jumping around from book to book.


----------



## MW (Dec 9, 2014)

Imagine being wiser than holy Scripture. It's just too clever for me.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Dec 9, 2014)

Walk through the Bible sometimes suggests read through these books first, then fill in the others...

1st read through OT:
Genesis 
Exodus 
Numbers 
Joshua
Judges
1 and 2 Samuel
1 and 2 Kings
captivity in Babylon
Ezra 
Nehamiah

2nd read through
then go back and fit the books in the right places..


Genesis Job (after Noah) and if you do it poetically book 1 psalms
Exodus Leviticus and if you do it poetically book 2 with Ex 3 psalms with Lev
Numbers Dueteronomy and if you do it poetically book 4 with Num book 5 with Duet else only Ps 90 here the one Moses wrote
Joshua
Judges Ruth
1 and 2 Samuel 1 Chron and 2 Chron Book 1 Psalms with David.... Book 2 with Soloman ( ok this isn't exact... and if more chron than poetic )
Song of SOloman, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes
1 and 2 Kings 

Book 3 and 4 of Psalms if more chron than poetic
Joel Amos Hosea Jonah Micah Isaiah Nahum Ob Hab
Ez Jer Lam 
Esther
Zep Hagiai Zeph Malichi
Book 5 of Psalms if more chron than poetic


Maybe then for NT

1st read through:
Luke 
Acts

2nd read through:
Then, for the gospels, go back and read a book with the synoptic gospels ordered together, maybe read John separate and last )
Then, for the non Jewish epistles, go back and read Acts again and the epistles ad the places are encountered?_
Then
Pastoral letters
Heb epistles
Revelation last


maybe something like that


----------



## Jonny. (Dec 9, 2014)

Seems a bit harsh - obviously we should primarily read Scripture in the form God has given it to us, but that doesn't mean following a chronological plan now and again isn't of some value in helping us to understand the context.


----------



## jambo (Dec 9, 2014)

Jonny. said:


> Seems a bit harsh - obviously we should primarily read Scripture in the form God has given it to us, but that doesn't mean following a chronological plan now and again isn't of some value in helping us to understand the context.



The Jewish scriptures, which is our OT, have the same books but are in a different order. Thus Chronicles, not Malachi, is their final book. There are only 26 books as Samuel, Kings and Chronicles comprise of 3 books and not 6, while the minor prophets are considered 1 book.

Also as we classify the books as history, wisdom and prophetical and it seems logical to do so, Jews categorise them as Moses, the Prophes and the writings. It is surprising as some of the books we would consider as the prophets, the Jews classify as writings whist some of what we would think if as history, they class as prophetical.

The doctrine of biblical inspiration relates to the scriptures as originally given, not as they are translated, nor in their order in the canon.


----------



## Jonny. (Dec 9, 2014)

What I meant by "the form God has given it to us" was that God has given us the Bible in the form of specific books.

For example, he has given us 4 different gospels which outline different events, rather than 1 big gospel which has them all put in together. Clearly he has done this for a reason, and so, rather than chopping and changing between the three synoptics, or even meshing them together, we should read them on their own terms to see the particular contribution they make. 

Having said that, I still think that following a chronological or topical plan is of value, just not as the primary way of reading Scripture.


----------



## Edward (Dec 9, 2014)

Hamalas said:


> was wondering what you thought of getting something like this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/NIV-One-Year...ical+bible+esv



I think it's a really bad idea.


----------



## Eoghan (Dec 10, 2014)

At some point I had a concordance of the gospels which I leant to a friend, (he still has it!). I have since replaced it with a printed arrangement of the events of the gospels in chronological order. I laminated it and frequently use it to check parallel passages or put things in context. One of the other things I have noticed is the date of some of the NT epistles re:miraculous gifts of healing.

As regards the OT I was under the impression that the dates of certain books is a matter of conjecture? How are the psalms divided up, surely some are tied to definite events while others we have no knowledge of their date or specific context.


----------



## nick (Dec 11, 2014)

The digital era allows for great flexibility in this regard. I did a chronological plan on my iPad (in the Olive Tree app) and it inserted a button at the end of a particular passage or chapter that linked to the next section. It didn't matter which version of the Bible I was using, if I had two windows open (could keep two versions linked or a commentary and a version). All the while, my Bible was still in the "given" order.

Now, reading on an iPad/iPhone... not quite like paper or the newer Kindles... so keep that in mind. Also, after so far I didn't really "see the point" in reading chronologically. It was interesting here and there where certain books show up in the middle of other books, but like some have said, it took away from the overall message of certain books as they were broken up.

Bookmark this thread and return when you finish and let us know how it went.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Dec 11, 2014)

The lists wont be perfect... we don't always know... and for some books the start and end dates overlap

I like the idea of reading the whole book at once, keeping in mind the theme
Kings emphasises prophets.... Chronicles emphasies priests and temple, for example


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 11, 2014)

A.T. Robertson compiled and added notes to a chronological edition of the New Testament. The books in the order that they were written, as far as the order was known at that time (1904). I was very interested in getting a copy and searched and found a used one. Once I had it, aside from the notes, which I was glad to read, I found I didn't like the order differing from that found in standard editions of the canon. We become used to finding the individual books in the order that we usually read them, and I found reading them in a different order might confuse me in accessing the particular book being exposited in a sermon, or discussed in a Bible study.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 11, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> For the past few years I've gone with the M'Cheyne reading plan. You end up reading through the Gospels and the Psalms twice in a year but you do pretty much go through all the other books in order (a chapter a day).


This is one of the most sensible and helpful bible reading plans I have encountered, and it is endorsed by good men such as Dr M Lloyd-Jones [and R.M. M'Cheyne ]


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 11, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > For the past few years I've gone with the M'Cheyne reading plan. You end up reading through the Gospels and the Psalms twice in a year but you do pretty much go through all the other books in order (a chapter a day).
> ...



The M'Cheyne plan is included in the additional resources within the just released Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible. I plan on beginning this method on the first day of January.


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 12, 2014)

Ben, I've had the same idea -- the way our Bible is arranged doesn't always make the most logical sense. I purchased a loose-leaf NASB with the idea of putting it together in a better order, but immediately ran into problems because the two-sided printing put smaller books on the reverse sides and forced the traditional order. 

Another possibility would be to stock up on toner cartridges and _thin_ printer paper, then print out the books one-sided from a study software. Use tabs to help find your way around. I'm assuming that if you are doing this for personal study, you would not be in copyright violation. I think doing your own research to decide on order would be beneficial -- you'd gain understanding for the differences in scholarly opinion and could always change your mind later. 

I do think going through whole books at one time is beneficial, especially in the prophets. At the right chronological point, I'd likely work through Kings, interspersing the minor prophets in their entirety. Then do the major prophets before doing Chronicles. It wasn't until I started working in Jeremiah recently that I wished I had done this in my own flip-back-and-forth order. You'd get the minor prophets in their historical context, have the history pretty fresh when doing the major prophets before plowing back through the history with the prophecies at your (mental) fingertips. 

Just some ideas that came up while trying to coax my youngest to work on his multiplication tables!


----------

