Bible in a Year! v. February

[yeshaberto]

our entire church did the chronological bible together, and those who had never read it through (and those that had several times) were all saying they loved the format
for example, you are reading the psalms about David's anxiety over Saul hunting him as you are reading about Saul hunting him, etc
very powerful

[rumborak]

In that Bible, are the gospels interleaved too? That would be an interesting read, and something that Ehrmann also suggested doing in his book. (even though it's essentially impossible to fit John in without changing its order)

rumborak

[Ħ]

^ You can do that, but it is really hard to read (and to do), because the gospels present the material in a different order.  When you have discrepencies, whether there is one man, two men or one angel at the tomb, how are you supposed to merge them together without taking liberties in assuming things that may not be true?  That would be decietful to the reader.

[bosk1]

In that Bible, are the gospels interleaved too? That would be an interesting read, and something that Ehrmann also suggested doing in his book. (even though it's essentially impossible to fit John in without changing its order)

rumborak

Yes.  Obviously, any time one creates an "edited Bible" that does that, there are lots of editorial judgment calls that have to be made.  For example, where we don't necessarily know the order of certain events for certain.  Or if it is unclear whether two gospels are recording one event, but each providing some different details, or whether they are simply recording two different but similar events.  There are bound to be disagreements over those types of decisions.  But it still makes for an interesting read that leads one to pick up on things he otherwise probably would not have.

[rumborak]

^ You can do that, but it is really hard to read (and to do), because the gospels present the material in a different order.  When you have discrepencies, whether there is one man, two men or one angel at the tomb, how are you supposed to merge them together without taking liberties in assuming things that may not be true?  That would be decietful to the reader.

Well, if there are discrepancies, I think one is justified to take liberties too. So, you could say there were "some" angels, and the sidenote would then enumerate which gospel said how many. I mean, this is the same kind of decision process a translator had to do when choosing an appropriate translation to some Greek phrase.

rumborak

[Rina]

I'm just gonna use my own bible, but I do think that the NT is easier for someone who isn't familiar with the bible or hasn't read the whole thing through yet.

[sneakyblueberry]

Maybe we should vote on whether or not to do it chronologically.

[yeshaberto]

In that Bible, are the gospels interleaved too? That would be an interesting read, and something that Ehrmann also suggested doing in his book. (even though it's essentially impossible to fit John in without changing its order)

rumborak

they are interweaved, but as larger sections rather than the individual words. 
the diatessaron of Tatian (from the 200's I think) is my favorite harmony of the gospels.

[yeshaberto]

Maybe we should vote on whether or not to do it chronologically.

it would be nice for all of us to be on the same page at the same time, but not sure if it is necessarily something we have to do

[Ħ]

If you really want to vote on doing it chronologically, we will do that closer to January.  And I don't think we should limit any particluar version...NIV, Chinese, whatever.

I was checking out my bookstore today and I stumbled upon a Chronological Bible.  I'm not sure if it's the one you guys are talking about, but this one was a NKJV.

[Adami]

If you really want to vote on doing it chronologically, we will do that closer to January.  And I don't think we should limit any particluar version...NIV, Chinese, whatever.

I would participate, but not if it's not limited to chinese.

[sneakyblueberry]

Maybe we should vote on whether or not to do it chronologically.

it would be nice for all of us to be on the same page at the same time, but not sure if it is necessarily something we have to do

Oh, I thought the whole point of it was that we'd all be reading the same part at the same time?

[Ħ]

Maybe we should vote on whether or not to do it chronologically.

it would be nice for all of us to be on the same page at the same time, but not sure if it is necessarily something we have to do

Oh, I thought the whole point of it was that we'd all be reading the same part at the same time?

That was one of the goals.

Well, I am going to limit the discussion to only certain areas at a time, which will progress with the canonical order.  Most of the people that won't read it in the canonical order have probably already read it, so they'll still be able to participate.

[bosk1]

I was checking out my bookstore today and I stumbled upon a Chronological Bible.  I'm not sure if it's the one you guys are talking about, but this one was a NKJV.

No, that's a different one.  I have that as well, and I LOVE it.  There are some interesting editorial choices, but I find it very good.  And I like that it has a timeline across the top of each page that always reminds you of what year (approximately) you are in for each given section.  However, it has lots of "explanatory" notes along the lines of what you would find in a study Bible, and most of them are just horribly, horribly off-base.  

The one Yesh was talking about is the "Daily Bible."  https://www.amazon.com/Daily-Bible-International-Devotional-Insights/dp/0736901981/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289254303&sr=8-1  I think it only comes in NIV.  

As far as doing this in chronological order, I don't think we should.  It's a great study.  But I think we should all be on the same schedule.  That makes discussion easier.  Whatever the schedule is that we decide to use, let's all use it.  I wouldn't want to necessarily choose the Daily Bible and have someone not participate just because they don't want to buy it.

[yeshaberto]

I was checking out my bookstore today and I stumbled upon a Chronological Bible.  I'm not sure if it's the one you guys are talking about, but this one was a NKJV.

No, that's a different one.  I have that as well, and I LOVE it.  There are some interesting editorial choices, but I find it very good.  And I like that it has a timeline across the top of each page that always reminds you of what year (approximately) you are in for each given section.  However, it has lots of "explanatory" notes along the lines of what you would find in a study Bible, and most of them are just horribly, horribly off-base.  

The one Yesh was talking about is the "Daily Bible."  https://www.amazon.com/Daily-Bible-International-Devotional-Insights/dp/0736901981/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289254303&sr=8-1  I think it only comes in NIV.  

As far as doing this in chronological order, I don't think we should.  It's a great study.  But I think we should all be on the same schedule.  That makes discussion easier.  Whatever the schedule is that we decide to use, let's all use it.  I wouldn't want to necessarily choose the Daily Bible and have someone not participate just because they don't want to buy it.

agreed...even though I was expecting the stock I have in it to go up with the mass purchases, but oh well

[rumborak]

However, it has lots of "explanatory" notes along the lines of what you would find in a study Bible, and most of them are just horribly, horribly off-base.  

I have to admit, at this point in time you commenting on some Bible commentary as "horribly off-base" piques my interest

rumborak

[bosk1]

  Fair enough. 

[juice]

I'd be interested!  I've never really read the whole way through.  How does this work exactly?  Whats the scheduling?

[hefdaddy42]

If anyone cares (and they probably don't, but whatever), the way I read it the time I did it in a year was to read the entire Hebrew Scriptures first, but not in Christian Bible order, but Hebrew Bible order (first the Law, then the Prophets, then the Writings).  Then I read the 7 undisputed letters of Paul, then Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, and John.  Then James, Hebrews, and the rest of the Pauline corpus.  Then the rest of the NT Epistles, and lastly Revelation.

But for something like what we are proposing here, for a large number of people (both believer and non-believer) reading through the Bible together, we should all follow the same schedule, and probably the given order of the Bible would work the best.

[Ħ]

If anyone cares (and they probably don't, but whatever), the way I read it the time I did it in a year was to read the entire Hebrew Scriptures first, but not in Christian Bible order, but Hebrew Bible order (first the Law, then the Prophets, then the Writings).  Then I read the 7 undisputed letters of Paul, then Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, and John.  Then James, Hebrews, and the rest of the Pauline corpus.  Then the rest of the NT Epistles, and lastly Revelation.

But for something like what we are proposing here, for a large number of people (both believer and non-believer) reading through the Bible together, we should all follow the same schedule, and probably the given order of the Bible would work the best.

That sounds like a great way to read through.  It totally allows you to put yourself in the shoes of an ancient Israelite.

24 books in a Hebrew Bible.  39 in a Christian Old Testament.  24 is twice 12, the number of Israel.  39 is three times 13, the number of rebellion. 

[Perpetual Change]

I support just reading it the way it's already organized, too.

[02T]

I'm in.  I recommend M'Cheyne's plan, but the ESV daily reading plan is also good.

[Ħ]

I looked over it, and while I appreciate the recommendation....I don't think it'll work.  I'm not saying it's bad or anything, but I don't think we'll be using it.

I just googled a progam that looks good and I will add it to the OP.

[hefdaddy42]

As for me, I've been a non-Christian for about a year and a half.  My general approach to it is to take it literally as much as I can.  I'd rather err or the side of being too literal than being too allegorical.  So..."fundamentalist," basically, even though that's considered a "bad word" in today's media.

Why would a non-Christian be a fundamentalist?

[Ħ]

Whoops.  Fixed.

[Perpetual Change]

This still happening?

[Ħ]

Of course.  Check the OP for a website that has the plan we will follow.

[hefdaddy42]

This still happening?

Why ask now?  It won't start until January.

[Perpetual Change]

This still happening?

Why ask now?  It won't start until January.

For some reason I thought we were starting sooner.

[Philawallafox]

I didn't see the bit to say what denomination/history etc. we are/come from

I'm an Australian Presbyterian in the tradition of the Reformation. I have some slight charismatic influences but I'll err to the side of conservativism than all out fainting and stuff. I haven't made my mind up about the gift of speaking in the the tongue of angels yet.

To expand a little further:

Some theologians or pastors that I like:

Mark Driscoll
John Piper
Tony Bird
Greg Goswell
John Calvin
John Knox
Ulrich Zwingli
William Tyndale

[hefdaddy42]

I didn't see the bit to say what denomination/history etc. we are/come from

I'm an Australian Presbyterian in the tradition of the Reformation. I have some slight charismatic influences but I'll err to the side of conservativism than all out fainting and stuff. I haven't made my mind up about the gift of speaking in the the tongue of angels yet.

To expand a little further:

Some theologians or pastors that I like:

Mark Driscoll
John Piper
Tony Bird
Greg Goswell
John Calvin
John Knox
Ulrich Zwingli
William Tyndale

That's all interesting enough, but I'm not sure that it matters very much in the context of this enterprise.

Or, it might.  *shrugs*

[Ħ]

John Calvin

We are going to have a tough time with you on board. 

[Jamesman42]

Count me in, tentatively.

our entire church did the chronological bible together, and those who had never read it through (and those that had several times) were all saying they loved the format
for example, you are reading the psalms about David's anxiety over Saul hunting him as you are reading about Saul hunting him, etc
very powerful

I think this is a great idea.

[Rina]

This still happening?

Why ask now?  It won't start until January.

For some reason I thought we were starting sooner.

Me too, guess we have another month and a half.

[Philawallafox]

That's all interesting enough, but I'm not sure that it matters very much in the context of this enterprise.

Or, it might.  *shrugs*

BrotherH asked us to say....I just went into depth....

John Calvin

We are going to have a tough time with you on board. 

what now?