NIV

http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2011647.html
http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2047769.html

First off, I don't think I actually would recommend reading the Old Testament (or indeed the Bible) through from start to finish as I did. It wasn't written or compiled to be read in that way, and it doesn't do the text any services to read as if it were a novel, a short story collection, or a book of essays and meditations. I chose this approach because I wanted to feel that I had control of what I was show more reading, and that I was not missing anything, but if you want to get a fair flavour of it, it's probably better to follow one of the many reading guides available online and elsewhere, which are designed both to showcase the good bits and to keep the reader interested.

Second, a lot of it is pretty dull, actually. 2 Chronicles in particular comes close to Mark Twain's description of the Book of Mormon, as "choroform in print". Large chunks of the Pentateuch are lists of laws and, even less exciting, census returns. The historical bits have an awful lot of tediously horrible ethnic cleansing and dynastic struggle, leavened by the occasional good bit (the Saul/David/Solomon succession in particular). The prophets are rather indistinguishable in tone of outrage. I recommend finding some way of skipping the dull bits.

Third, the good bits are indeed good. I've singled out the Book of Job in a previous post; I found the Psalms generally inspiring and uplifting, and I've always been a fan of Ecclesiastes. The narrative histories, which I thought I knew fairly well, still had some surprises for me - in Numbers 12, God smites Moses' sister with leprosy for racism towards Moses' black wife, for instance. There are some fun bits in the prophets - Jonah, and the deuterocanonical addenda to Daniel (Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon). I also rather liked Sirach, aka Ecclesiasticus, which again is deuterocanonical. And 2 Maccabees is a fairly lucid, if brutal, historical note to finish on.

Fourth, there were indeed a few themes running through the entire OT whose importance I hadn't perhaps fully grasped: the importance of God's endowing his people with the land, the importance of the cult of the Temple, and the trauma of the Babylonian exile (which of course shaped most of the text we have very directly). I'm not saying that these are the only or even the main main themes, but that these are the ones whose importance was enhanced for me by reading through the entire thing.

As for the New Testament: it falls rather naturally into three sections. The Gospels and Acts are among the most readable narratives in the Bible; the most striking things are that the three synoptic gospels are so very close to each other, leaving John as the outlier, and that Luke's better Greek prose style comes through in almost any translation of his gospel and Acts. I am also struck every time that the Feeding of the Five Thousand is the only miracle other than the Resurrection reported in all four gospels.

I was much less familiar with the various epistles. They are not as easy to read as the gospels, combining as they do advice on local disputed, personal salutations, declarations about correct practice and belief, and attempts to put words on the ineffable (Hebrews in particular is an attempt at a theological manifesto avant la lettre). I was struck by how hardline Paul is, particularly in the early letters, on the issues that hardliners still stick to today, and also on the question of justification by faith; but there is a significant counterbalance from some of the later letters, especially 1 Peter which seems to be a direct response in some ways. (And the Epistle of Jude seems strangely familiar after 2 Peter ch 2...)

Finally, Revelation is the most Old Testament-y of the New Testament books. (There is nothing like the letters in the Old Testament, and the gospels and Acts are quite different in style from the OT historical books.) Again, Revelation is an attempt to express in words that which cannot be expressed in words; it is clearly not meant to be taken literally, but as one person's attempt to concretise the underlying truths. show less

As far as translated versions go, this is one of the more popular ones, even if in recent years it has lost some footing to the English Standard Version in terms of exactness of translation and conveyance of meaning. So whatever Bible is preferred is up to the reader/scholars who peruse and study it, my rating is not based on the exactness/word choice used in translation, but its content.

As far as a story/chronicle goes, this is all over the map - which is understandable as not one single show more person worte it, and the various books within it were collected over hundreds of years, with a bug difference in the narrative of the Old Testament and New Testament.

There's some good advice in here, but it's advice that can be found elsewhere. I.e. be frugal, be kind, be honest, etc etc. There's a lot of awful stuff in here, much of it enabled if not actually committed by Jehovah/YHVH himself. Hell, the story of Genesis is pretty fucked in itself. Adam and Eve were ignorant, because they'd never known hurt or other bad things while living in Eden, so how could Eve NOT be decieved by the serpent who tempted her to eat the forbidden fruit which sat there in Eden with no barrier?

The fruit was knowledge of good and evil - which means that before Eve ate the fruit, she literally did not know what good or evil was. So how could she have performed a misdeed, not knowing what a misdeed was? This was a game that Adam and Eve were set up to fail, especially because if Jehovah created everything, that means he also created the serpent.

And ever since then, man has continued to fail all these tests that have been thrown at him by a god who seems determined to see people fail and suffer.

Christians like to harp on about how loving their god is, but really, would someone who was loving and sane treat people that way? This book has done so much harm through the ages, from different Christian factions fighting one another (i.e. Catholics vs Protestants) to religious folks shoving Christianity down the throats of foreigners and indigenous folk, through force and brutality. A truly loving god wouldn't be allowing this kind of shit to be committed under his name, but the excuse is that he has a "plan".

Yeah, no.

I only gave this book an extra star because of its historical context, particularly the Old Testament. It should not be used for anything else. show less

The NIV Chronological Study Bible seeks to present the Scriptures in their probable chronological order, with historical notes, chronologies, maps and pictures throughout. This Bible has full color throughout, and the headers that note the changing of epochs are so vivid they almost look 3d. But sadly, some of the pictures were inappropriate/indecent and it's not very nice to have such things in one's Bible, let alone have them be so visually crystal clear.

I thought it was interesting that show more they note that, "The Bible is not a theology book arranged according to topics: God, man, sin, salvation, etc. Nor is it simply a chronicle of events from creation to the final consummation. Historical events are often the Bible's subject matter, but these events are always reported from a particular perspective. That perspective is theological history. It is in the arena of history that he has chosen to make himself known. " But I must add that though it is not arranged according to topics, it is still a, or rather, the theology book.

I'm not positive why it is called a 'study Bible', as the notes seem more historically and culturally informative than exegetical. Sometimes they do delve into concepts a little more, but I found myself disagreeing with them. I'll give three instances: First, they seem to not believe in a literal six day creation. And second, in 1 Corinthians 7, they come to the conclusion that Paul allows divorced Christians to remarry. Third, they are feministic in their explanation of the role of a wife in a marriage, they make it seem like male headship was a cultural thing, not a Biblical institution. For instance, "If female authority was allowed in the church, opposition may have increased against the small Christian community." and, "The model for how to best win over these husbands to Christianity involves adopting the societal norms of a wife's submissiveness…." And in another place they sound like they are apologizing for the Apostle's statement: "Paul's command 'Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands' (Eph 5:22) is at least partly related to concern for Christian witness within the surrounding culture, and is quite mild in comparison to the rest of his culture." They are apparently disregarding 1 Timothy 2:11-15 which makes the differing roles of males and females to be of God, not from the culture.

Also, I didn't like some of the chronological arrangement. For instance, they have prophecies from Isaiah being read after the fall of Jerusalem. Part of their reasoning is that, "Other prophetic passages speak of times later than the traditional date of composition for the passage itself. For example, parts of the Book of Isaiah refer to events that took place centuries after the prophet Isaiah lived. Though Isaiah prophesied in Jerusalem during the 8th century B. C., the passage of Isa 44:28; 45:1 refers by name to Cyrus, a Persian king who lived in the 6th century . For this reason , some chapters form the Book of Isaiah appear in the time of Cyrus…" Umm… didn't God have the prophets prophecy LOTS of things that hadn't happened yet? It would hardly be unthinkable for God to have the prophets give out a particular name of someone in the future. Besides, right before God starts prophetically addressing Cyrus He states, "I am the Lord, the maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself, who foils the signs of false prophets and makes fools of diviners, who overthrows the learning of the wise and turns it into nonsense, who carries out the words of his servants and fulfills the predictions of his messengers."

All in all, there are too many negatives for me to highly recommend this Chronological Bible.

I am grateful to have received a free review copy of this book from the Book Look Blogger program(My review did not have to be favorable) show less

I keep this small volume in my Chaplain Kit. All 150 canticles are displayed with frequent paragraphs in a size meant to be read. (Or sung!)

The Preface notes that "In the life of Christians, there can never be too many translations of the Psalter." The "unity of the chosen people's prayer guided its elaboration as well as its adoption by the Church." [Preface 7] We take this as a signed form of Unitarian Universalism.

The short Liturgical Introduction enumerates uses and issues concerning show more the Psalms. They are received without a discernible basis for their Order, and often the meaning and function remains unknown -- Psalm 2 and 110 for example. The Superscriptions themselves are not definitive or clear. [18]

The Intro goes on to acknowledge both a wide spectrum of "attitudes toward God" [19]. We also take as an admission the fact that Christianity attempts to usurp, wholesale, the legacy and significance of a Chosen People. This point is underlined with the curious and unlikely claim that Jesus rejoiced with these canticles. [8] Did he dance like King David?

The rejoicing and unity expressed by cited Psalm 122:1 provides nothing to suggest Christ sang of his own coming. The indulgence in overstatement is not a weakness of the Notes, but a delicious provocation. I love these Notes which cite Scriptural authority and are numerous.

Understanding the topical grouping of the Psalms can ease their usage for the synthetic functionalist. The "Alleluia" psalms largely appear in the first half. Then there are psalms of the Kingdom, which acclaim the Lord as King--47; 93; 96; 97; 98; 99; 145. Christians expressly re-read royal psalms "in a Messianic perspective". [20]

Another cluster voices love of the People for Jerusalem, known as the "canticles of Zion"--24; 46; 48; 78; 84; 87; 122.

Many songs of thanksgiving are expressed in modulations of gratitude, often mixed with complaints, repentance, and sorrow. 13; 16; 22; 23; 31; 32. Indeed, most of the Psalms are laments. Psalms 22 and 77 echo theodicies from Book of Job. Indeed, the last words of Jesus on the Cross repeat Psalm 22:1--"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" show less