New Chronological Bible: Bad or Good?

I don't see it as a bad thing.

The order of the OT books have changed many times in history.

It used to be simply a collection of scrolls which may or may not have had a prescribed order.

The Septuagint is broken into Law, History, Wisdom and Prophets with the minor prophets as one book coming before the major prophets.

I believe the Tanakh and Masoretic Text is broken into Law, Prophets and Writings with Samuel, Kings and Chronicles being one book each and the minor prophets as one book.

And of course we have the whole issue of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon in various places in all bibles, including most protestant bibles until the 1800s.


A chronological bible could be a very useful tool for comparing the events of the biblical text with other historical events. It can also be useful for seeing how God works in multiple places in scripture at the same or similar times.

The down side is taking verses and passages out of their context and the potential for confusion or misinterpretation. That can easily be solved by reading a regular ordered bible.

 

During my third read through of the Bible this year I used a chronological reading plan.

I think it is very useful. The OT because it helps to understand when things took place, i.e. that one of the very first books (Job) was not contemporaneous one of the very last (Esther). It also helps tu understand that the prophets were not all around at the same time. We also need to realize that sometimes the OT books are not just histories, but sometimes compilations and collections. A good example are the two songs of David at the end of 2 Samuel. It is is helpful to the specific context of Isaiah's and Jeremiah's prophecies, and that they are no necessarily written in the order that they were given..

The NT, in particular the Gospels have bit of a different impression when they are read chronologically, Jesus is more three dimensional as each of the witnesses adds his detail surrounding events and teachings. It is also helpful to realize that the book of Acts covers a critical 30 year time period, which I believe we have a tendency to forget when we do a simple read through.

I recommend a chronological reading plan for at least one read through.

 

It is enlightening to read Paul's letters in chronological order. You can see the development and change in some of his thoughts. [I'll duck now!] :laugh:

 

I've used a Chronological Bible on several occassions. It was interesting to have it arranged according to a time line. I'm sure there are varying arguments as to the proper order but that was not my focus.

 

I have a Chronological Bible that I bought with intention of reading all the way trough but I didn't make it. Getting the order of things was very interesting you would about David doing something then you would read the Psalm he wrote at the same time. Stuff like that was interesting, I should have stuck with it I didn't have much more to go, best I remember. The biggest problem was those "dry" hard to read parts, with all the genealogies were longer than normal. I say go for it
Reformer

 

I'm in the process of RTBT using a chrono bible now; only problem is that I got a KJV because of the larger print, and I'm grappling with the language.

I'm planning to get another version even if I have to hold it closer to read. More chance of completing the project this way

Edited to add that I do find this approach VERY interesting and beneficial to understanding the proper sequence of events, which, IMHO, makes for more clarity and interest. For me anyway!

 

I think as a study Bible that would be a bit hard to keep up with, But as long as they didn't add to it or leave anything out, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

There is also some dispute about the time frame of some of the particular events and I don't know how they would reconcile those issues, but I don't really see any huge problems.

 

I will have to admit in my reading through I did skipped some of the repeats and scanned the geneologies.

 

It is kind of hard to know exactly what they mean by that statement. I take it to mean that they used Mark's chronology to determine the positioning of the verses in Matthew, Mark and Luke. The question begs to be asked- are they really "leaving things out" if they just avoid repetitious verses?

I don't take it as being a preaching or teaching Bible but more as a study tool. I have a Reese's Chronological Bible and it would be rather hard to teach or preach from as the layout is so different.

 

A parallel gospel study guide is a pretty common bible study tool. Isn't this is simply a variation of that. If the emphasis of the tool is chronology, I don't see a problem with removing duplicate passages if both are referenced.

 

Nothing is left out!

A statement I found from Thomas-Nelson about their Chronological Study Bible's text --

The entire New King James Version text is rearranged according to the time of the events narrated in each book or passage. Every verse of the Bible is located in one of nine epochs of time.​

The "nine epochs" are just the historic time periods by which they have organized this Bible. The Gospels may be layed out in some sort of parallel manner. Marcia may have been concerned that "merged" from the news article meant the CSB utilized a 'harmony' of the Gospels which would unavoidably leave things out.

There may been an ancient Greek 'harmony' even before Tatian's Diatessaron (about 150 AD, less than 100 years following the completion of all four Gospels). Any harmonized narrative of the four Gospels must resolve the conflicting (NOT contradictory!) statements. Tatian simply omits the two different genealogies of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke. There have many attempts to synthesize the New Testament accounts of Jesus life on Earth, and none are probably completely satisfying.

For example, a difficult chronological issue is the reconciliation of when Jesus cleansed the Jerusalem temple: was it early in His ministry (as found in John), or was it near the end (during the 'Passion' week, as in the three 'Synoptics')? I actually believe that Jesus cleansed the temple twice, but a 'harmony' would probably see these accounts as referring to the same event (thus ultimately leaving an entire event out).

I have a KJV-based Harmony of the Gospels (I forget the author offhand) and found that details were lost in the merging. For example, the color of the robe placed upon Jesus during His arrest & 'trial' abuse: Mark & John describe a "purple" robe, while Matthew describes a "scarlet" robe (Luke just describes the robe as being "gorgeous" (no color given in the KJV, although Tyndale and some others translate it "white"). A 'harmony' tends to use the majority or the 'traditional' details and ignores the rest.