The NIV Chronological Study Bible seeks to present the Scriptures in their probable chronological order, with historical notes, chronologies, maps and pictures throughout.
I thought it was interesting that 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 as to 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)