I read through the Bible one year using a chronological order but I've never purchased a chronological Bible. I LOVED the method because it just suddenly really made sense - so many things happening in different books at the same time. The best part of this was reading Psalms as I read through David's life in the Samuels.
I don't need another book but again - reading this way was really good to me.
Chronological Bible reading versue Chronological Study Bible -- I suspect this is one that the CBS will never be all that popular. I searched online and it seems that there are several guides for reading through the Bible chronologically in a year. For example, I found the
Blue Letter Bible Daily Bible Reading Chronological Plan, described thusly:
1-Year Plan. These readings are compiled according to recent historical research, taking into account the order in which the recorded events actually occurred. This is a fantastic plan to follow if you wish to add historical context to your reading of the Bible. If the schedule provided is followed, the entire Bible will be read in one calendar year.
In 1980's I taught college/seminary Bible classes. A resource students purchased was "Reese's Chronological Bible" that was well-received and "fundamentalist/dispensational" in perspective. And LOTS of suck-out-of-your-thumb arrangement of texts and commentary that often overshadowed the English translation of God's Word. Very hard to follow, but causes one to think thru each passage (we who have been believers a long time get "used to" the layout of the Bible and need to "shake up" our rote understanding.
I'd recommend it as a variant study/text like you would read other English translations than your favorite text, to give some ideas and insights you might miss.
Thanks, Dr. Bob, for mentioning a specific CBS. I think this is the one I heard of way back when, about the same time frame you mention. I also agree that shaking up what we normally do can cause us to think in directions we normally would not.
My personal take on Chronological Bibles - they're novelty items.
Each book of the Bible was written with a message and a purpose.
To break up a book and piece it together in a timeline may help a reader understand history (at least a history invisioned by the person putting it together) but it destroys the authors message.
Rob
I'm in general agreement with Rob, although I think a chronology of the Pauline epistles is helpful because you understand how his emphasis changes over time.
I agree with the big picture point -- that each book of the Bible was written with a message and a purpose. I would further say that divine truth transcends time and history. On the other hand, the Bible is an historical book. Internal evidence shows numerous places that the events of a book are specified with an historical reference point. For example, God tells us that Isaiah began his ministry in the year King Uzziah died. The book of Ruth belongs in the time period of the Judges. A number of Psalms are tied to historical events. God even bothered to identify the rebellious rascal Jonah as a prophet mentioned in 2 Kings, which drops him in a certain time in history. We might not miss much by not knowing that, but knowing that can suggest there were other prophets living at the same time and cause us to meditate on why, of these available, that God chose the one he knew would run?
Doubtless we could weary ourselves digging around in little historical details and miss the weightier matters such as judgment, mercy, and faith. But if we can see the Bible in historical perspective while seeing the big picture, we will not have studied that in vain.
