The Bible: The One Year Chronological New Living Translation

This review is written with a GPL 4.0 license and the rights contained therein shall supersede all TOS by any and all websites in regards to copying and sharing without proper authorization and permissions. Crossposted at WordPress, Blogspot, Librarything & Bookype by Bookstooge’s Exalted Permission

Title: The Bible: The One Year Chronological New Living Translation
Author: Jehovah
Pages: 1720
Words: 789K


This takes the Bible, all 66 books, and chunks them up by Chapter and Verse into what this set of scholars believe is chronological order. This is translated in the New Living Translation which really isn’t a translation but an “interpretation”. It’s intent is to be an easy to read and understand version without worrying about literal interpretation.

My Thoughts:

I’m obviously not rating this but that is because I’m not putting the Word of God on the same level as some book written by men. This review is more about the translation, the chronology and the setup of this version of the Bible itself.

I’ve been reading my Bible through each year since I was 12 or 13. I slacked off for a decade in my mid-20’s until my mid-30’s and have started again. Mrs B and I read each section each morning or evening and then we talk about what we read, what we thought about it and what we got from it. As such, the One Year line of Bibles have been wonderful, as they’re internally divided up by date and we don’t have to refer to a external reading chart. Another thing that is important to us is having wide margins to write in, as we don’t want notebooks either. We always look for extra wide margins when choosing which Bible to read through for the next year. This had those and we wrote in them a lot. The only downside is that they would sometimes take up an entire margin with one verse from that day’s reading and have lots of cutesy little pictures around it. It was extremely frustrating to want to write something and not have the room because some artsy fartsy jackass decided that the margins needed to be filled up by them instead of leaving them open for the reader.

This NLT version was also a nice change up in the version we read. We tend to read as literally as possible and as such use the New King James, the New American Standard and the English Standard Version with a smattering of others as needed. While neither of us would ever study with a version like this, it was good for trying to get something in a new perspective. If you’ve never read a Bible before, this might be the version to introduce you but it should never be the one you stick with. Just like baby food is perfect for babies and adults CAN eat it, adults need adult food eventually.

Reading chronologically was also a bit different. There are times where histories are repeated throughout the Bible in different books. It is much easier to read them separated than one after another. There were times when we read the same instance 3 times (some of the histories recorded in Kings, Chronicle and either Isaiah or Jeremiah for example) and our eyes kind of glazed over. Speaking of eyes glazing over, the amount they put into each day really seemed to vary. Sometimes you’d read 1 ½ pages and other days you’d read 5 or 6. I found it extremely frustrating to never know how much time I was going to need. There were times Mrs B had to warn me “Long one today. Be prepared” and I would groan deep within myself.

I realize I’m complaining here but it is about issues that are specific to this particular Bible, not the Bible itself. Please don’t think I’m complaining about the Bible itself.

We finished this up in September and it has taken a little bit to find our next one. For this time through we’re going with the New International Version Journal the Word edition. It is not a One Year Bible so we’re going to be using one of the traditional charts for that. It does however have very wide margins and I didn’t see one artsy-fartsy drawing in the whole thing. That should balance out it being the NIV (which is another “interpretation” instead of a true translation).

47 thoughts on “The Bible: The One Year Chronological New Living Translation

        1. Ahhh, the Schofield edition. I read through that in my bibleschool days 😀

          If you do choose to read through it again, I’d recommend the English Standard Version. Much more modern language than King James while still sticking to being as literal as possible.


          1. Well, my dearly loved Mother sent this one as a gift after just one word. 3k pages! 🤯 Not saying anything bad though, just after reading a bit last night in between baby time I can say that it looks great and I’ll be looking forward to learning some more things! My girlfriend says “That’s not a book, that’s a weapon!”.

            Liked by 1 person

              1. Oh, that looks nice! I love study Bibles.
                I had an NAS study Bible in bibleschool where they outlined at the beginning of each book the program and there was a lot of underlining and circling and highlighting. It really brought themes and subject matters together and since you were supposed to use specific colors for specific things, it was so easy to visually see the connections afterwards.

                Anyway, sorry. I tend to go off about that kind of thing 😀

                I hope this works out really well for you. My biggest piece of advice would be to take your time with it AND to find someone you can study under, preferably someone well versed in the Bible.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Got it! Yeah, one of my favorite books is Ezikiel and within 10 minutes I newly learned that he ate the scroll that God gave him! Never caught that in the KJV.

                  Liked by 1 person

  1. Sounds fabulous.

    I’m very impressed that you started reading through the Bible every year when you were 12 or 13.

    I’m an NIV gal myself. It just worked out that way because I started with the NIV as a tween, and by the time I thought about switching translations, I had already done so much memorizing in that version that I didn’t want to give up all my progress. I have done all my growing with the NIV and have been perfectly able to receive the Word of God through it, despite some people thinking it is not literal enough and others feeling that it is too literal.

    Some members of the translation organization that I used to belong to, dislike the NIV because they feel that it still follows the original languages too closely, in a way that can obscure the meaning to an English speaking reader. For example, in Acts, “Everyone was filled with awe, and the apostles performed many miracles …” is actually a direct translation of a Greek construction where “A and X” means “A because X.” This does not come through in the English.

    Translations that are written for people who are not very conversant with biblical history, theology, and culture tend to be written as freer translations, or what you call “interpretations.” The better educated a person is about biblical languages and cultures, theology, and church history, the more ready they are for a more “literal” translation.

    The most “literal” translations, of course, would just be a series of glosses (one-word rough translations) of each word in the source language, set down in the same word order they appear in the source language, perhaps with notes about noun case and verb endings. In other words, they would be unreadable to anyone except perhaps someone who already reads Hebrew or Greek and; in fact, they would not really be translations at that point.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Great comment!

      I started that early because at summer camp one of the pastors made it his mission to pay every kid who would read their Bible through in a year $25 the next year. For me, that $25 was about the only money I would get for the summer. But the hook was set and I’ve been going ever since 😀

      Our current pastor loves, preaches from and uses the New Living Translation. He’s got his greek degree, so he know’s his stuff. But we have a lot of non-scholarly people in the congregation (not stupid, just not into books) and he realizes he has to use the appropriate tool. But when it comes to issues of doctrine, and talking about doctrine, he immediately switches over to the ASV and straight up greek and hebrew interpretation. Mrs B and I love it 😀

      I’ve looked into getting a greek lexicon of the New Testament (which is as close to a word for word as you could get), but honestly, it wouldn’t do me enough good as I’d lose interest after a couple of weeks.

      That balance of literal and meaning is a tough one. I also tend not to trust interpretations that use a lot of non-christians in the process, because they will be thinking their worldly ways and lose a lot of meaning from bias.

      The funny thing is, overall, that while I’ve been reading it for so long, it feels like I’m still a complete newbie to it. I don’t know how pastors and ordained elders do it, but more power to’em!


  2. Isn’t every translation an interpretation? A 100% “literal” translation is an illusion.

    I don’t fully the chronological aspect. Do you mean internally, as for events described, or chronologically in the sense of when they different pieces were written? Either way: how do they assign a section to a day of our 365 day calendar?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You are technically correct. But I suspect you know exactly what I mean and are choosing to “interpret” it so as to make this comment. 😉

      Chronologically, internally. For example, after reading the first couple of chapters of Genesis (the first book of the Bible), then we would read the book of Job (which many scholars believe took place before God called Abram out of the Chaldeas).

      As to assigning it to our 365 day year. They rearrange the Bible chronologically, how they believe it was, and then divide it into 365 daily readings. Here is a picture I found of an external plan that gives the idea:

      Not sure if that will come through on the app or not, so you might have to visit my site to see it. But what that does externally (on a piece of paper), is what the editors did for this Bible internaly, so as to exclude the need for a separate, external, piece of paper.

      Let me know if that makes sense, or not.


      1. Yes makes sense, thanks.

        As for the first comment, not really a technicality, as there are numerous outstanding issues about translation choices (e.g. the status of Mary) that are quite crucial to certain points of faith, so I’m guessing you mean you tend to stick to more traditional translations/interpretations. I was wondering what criteria you use to base the validity of any given translation – maybe I should have asked that more directly.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Glad to discuss this with you, as your initial statement did come across as begging the question instead of an actual interest.

          I guess in a nutshell I tend to stick to versions where the group of translators has stuck to as close a literal word for word interpretation as possible in that “word X means X” and it is written in the english that way. I’m not sure of the issues you’re referring to in regards to Mary, but I’ll use that as an example to show what I mean. Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus. So, does the word virgin mean that literally, ie, she’d never had sex with a man before, or that she wasn’t married? I tend to give more weight to a translation that corresponds to the Apostle’s and early Church’s interpretation, ie, she had not had sex.

          This is actually a perfect example of what I was referring to in my comment to Mrs Mugrage. Someone who is interpretating the Bible who doesn’t believe in God or the supernatural is going to assume that word “virgin” HAS to refer to her not being married, because what else could it mean since she was pregnant? Modern interpretations HAVE to not only look at the text itself, but also how the original writers viewed it.

          Wicked interesting stuff. I’m currently reading a book, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell which is talking about this very kind of thing. He’s got an updated version that I’ll probably eventually buy too.

          Thank you for your sincere question. I do apologize for taking it the wrong way.


          1. No offense taken.

            The word for ‘virgin’ was actually what I was refering to, as the original Hebrew word “ha-almah” doesn’t necessarily translates as virgin, but just as young willen or maid of childbaring age. As such, the original choice to translate this in Greek with virgin is an interpretation in itself.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. For me, the intent is a compilation of how it fits with the Old Testament prophecies (ie, in Isaiah it states that the Savior will be born of a Virgin, and I’m sure that word means not had sex. Hence the choice of word usage in the new testament), how it was taken by the disciples and apostles and the first century church.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Do you refer to Isaiah 7:14? There the Hebrew word is also just ‘almah’.

        What’s interesting is that Isaiah 23:12 and Isaiah 47:1 use the actual Hebrew word for virgin, ‘bethulah’, but obviously not refering to Mary.

        (I’m not pretending to be a bible scholar, I just used, seems like a trustworthy source.)

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I was referring to Isaiah 7:14. If you read various commentaries from even the Old Testament times, while the word is young woman, the intent IS virgin. If it was mean to be just young woman, it wouldn’t have made any sense as a Sign from God, because there is nothing that is a “sign” (ie, miracle) about a young woman conceiving and giving birth. What made it a “Sign” was that it would be a virgin, something impossible, something that only God could do.
          Sorry, don’t mean to go off track there.
          But yes, you were right that it was young woman. I used my Strong’s Concordance to look that up. Man, I love that book as a resource.

          For me, this whole conversation just goes to show that while we can argue about stuff like this, I am not opposed to interpretations of Scripture in other languages. The whole point of Scripture is to have it be available to everyone, in their language. Hence why organizations like Wycliffe Bible Translators exist.

          Thanks again for sparking this off 😀

          Liked by 1 person

          1. No prob, I learned a few things too. I think it’s safe to say the intent in the new testament was ‘virgin’ for sure, and Isaiah is very probable indeed.

            Not really related to translation issues, but I’ve never understood people that argue against religion use the argument that there are miracles in religious thought. Of course there are. It’s part of its essence. Moreover, how can anybody (atheist of not) argue against reality being a miracle? I think it’s a severe sign of arrogance and/or stupidity to insist miracles can’t be real.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. If someone is convinced that miracles don’t occur, despite all the evidence that they do, then they’ve already made up their minds.
              There are very few people who are intellectually honest enough to face up to that. People like Lee Strobel (Stroble?), Josh McDowell and CS Lewis might have argued themselves into being christians, but they are the exception that proves the rule 🙂

              Liked by 1 person

              1. I’m guessing you’re not talking about “scientific” evidence here, because I haven’t come across any of that, but you are 100% right about prejudice. (Then again, prejudice cuts both ways in this matter obviously 😉 )

                Liked by 1 person

    1. I’d recommend a New Living Translation. Hang on, let me get a link….

      That’s a really cheap edition with small font.

      If you’re feeling a bit more, technical, then I would recommend the English Standard Version.

      Knowing what I know about you, I’d recommend the ESV because it’s not really “technical”, even though I used that word. That edition I linked to also looks nicer and is more lowkey. I realize that might sound shallow, but nothing is worse than someone being a Bible Thumper in real life 😉

      Liked by 1 person

  3. If ever I hear you complain about the Bible, I will know that the end times are indeed near. Even though I am not a religious man anymore, i did take my Afrikaans Bible with me when i moved over. The Book was a gift from my parents and it just felt wrong leaving it lying somewhere. I have a lot of respect for people keeping the faith, concidering the current world we live in. I have even loads more for those that can tolerate me not being who i once was. Hats off to you my friend.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s