Chronological order of the books of the Bible.

[left-of-center2012]

Here is a listing of the books of the Bible in the order in which they were written:
http://ichthys.com/mail-Bible%20chrono.htm

You can buy (on Amazon and other sites) a Bible (King James, NIV, etc) which contains the books in chronological order. One example:

“The Chronological Study Bible presents the text of the New International Version in chronological order - the order in which the events actually happened - with notes, articles, and full-color graphics that connect the reader to the history and culture of Bible times and gives the reader a dramatic, "you are there" experience.”
http://www.amazon.com/Chronological-Study-Bible-Hardcover-Multicolor/dp/1401680119?ie=UTF8&keywords=Bible%20in%20chronological%20order&qid=1462584598&ref_=sr_1_8&s=books&sr=1-8

[itsrobert]

1. " the order in which the events actually happened"

Just like Harry Potter.

[left-of-center2012]

2. "Just like Harry Potter"

Hmm
No.
I don't think you'll find Harry Potter in the Bible.

[cleanhippie]

3. But you will find pure fiction, just like in Harry Potter.

But you knew that already.

[onager]

4. Blasphemy!

The Bible is absolutely perfect as written, since it was personally dictated by the omniscient/omnipotent Supreme Ruler of the Universe. It doesn't need any re-arranging.

At least that's what I constantly hear from a million or so local preachers, here in the Buckle On The Bible belt.

God's probably figuring out a suitable punishment for these arrogant fools right now. Maybe he'll give them leprosy...no, that won't work, the damn atheistic scientists came up with a cure for leprosy. So maybe a rain of frogs or the death of all their first-born children or something.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Whatever their religion is like, that page's opinion of the order is held by almost no one else

Everyone gives Mark as the first written gospel, for instance, because Matthew and Luke are clearly derived from it. But they claim it was written after those 2. Even biblical literalists will acknowledge this.

It also claims the Pentateuch was written before 1400BC, which implies they take literally the claim that 'Moses' wrote them.

I see they go on to 'the coming tribulation'. So they're fundamentalist nutjobs.

[edhopper]

6. The dates in that list are earlier

than I have read. It puts John at 60 AD for intstance, when it was probably written after the 1st century (110 AD).

And Mathew was probably after 70 AD, not 40 AD. And Mark, the first Gospel, only a decade before.

The Gospels weren't written that early.

I suspect the earlier dates are an attempt to make them more contemporary of Yeshua.

[Act_of_Reparation]

7. Many reputable scholars don't cite their sources.

Oh, wait. I meant disreputable. My bad.

[trotsky]

8. It does get confusing.

Mainly because the first book, "A New Hope" was released quite a bit before the first chronological story, "The Phantom Menace." But it's understandable why the authors wanted to start in the middle because those were better stories.