What Are We Currently Working On?
As we have pointed out on our Home Page, we continue to work on and make corrections to the 2001 Translation, its Notes, and its linked documents on a daily basis. So, something you read today may be totally changed tomorrow, because we are constantly in the process of editing and doing Bible research.
Just before we started this document (November, 2012), we had re-edited the Bible books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. And in the process, we gained a better grasp of information that clarified our understanding of several important Bible dates.
· While starting on the editing of the book of Ruth, for example, we found that we had to make changes to the possible dates of the events that we had shown in the heading, because the information we received from other sources was clearly in error.
· While editing the book of Judges we came to a much better understanding of the likely dates for the events described therein and added a new Note, Period of the Judges. This is interesting, because; until now no one thought that it was possible to date the times of the judges. Yet, we found that all the periods are given (see the links).
· This in turn led us to narrow down the dates found in the Note in the book of Ezekiel, 390 Days/Years; for, it proves that the 480 years until the laying of the foundation for Solomon's Temple started with IsraEl's entry into the Promised Land, not with their leaving Egypt, as is implied by the scripture at 1 Kings 6:1 (where, by the way, there is a conflict between the Hebrew and Greek texts). So, we also had to change the Note in 1 Kings, When Was the Foundation of the Temple Laid?
· This, along with recent input from Simcha Jacobovici of the TV show, The Naked Archaeologist (which caused us to revise our conclusions about the likely pharaoh of the Exodus), resulted in our revising estimates for the dates of the Downpour and Adam's creation by 5 years in the linked document, 1975 a Marked Date?
· More information provided to us by Jacobovici about the finding of a stele in the temple in Karnak, Egypt led us to add more proof of the authenticity of the Exodus to the linked document, The Bible's Internal Proofs of its Authentic History under its subheading, The Exodus and the Red Sea Crossing.
· Some of this latest information then caused us to change the Note about the 430 years that Paul mentioned at Galatians 3:17 into a new and expanded linked document titled, Why Much of the Popular Bible Chronology is WRONG!
· Also, clarifications about the day of Passover (found while editing the book of Exodus) resulted in our revising much of the information in our linked document, Passover and the Lord's Evening Meal, under the subheading, Nisan 14 - the Day of Preparation.
· Much of the above also led to our changing the pharaoh that JoSeph first dealt with in Egypt from SenusRet I to the earlier AmenemHat 1 at Genesis 41:1 and changing the date for JoSeph's death in the opening Genesis notes from 1870 to 1875-BCE.
· Since then, we have gone on to edit 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, and 2 Kings.
· Earlier, while researching the possible dates for the destruction of JeruSalem, we had noticed quite a few online posts claiming that the prophecies concerning the destruction of Egypt thereafter were never fulfilled. And while it is impossible to prove something in the absence of archeological confirmation, we did find some possible evidence of Egypt's destruction, which we added at the end of the article, The Problem with Setting Bible Historical Dates.
· Also, we found that we had to recalculate the dates from the start of the reign of IsraEl's King JeroBoam until JeruSalem's destruction, reducing them by 10 years.
·In addition, we found errors in the Septuagint books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, where the name JehoiAkim had been erroneously used instead of JehoiAchin.
After that, we reedited 1 and 2 Chronicles and Ezra, and added information about verses from 2 Chronicles 36 to the proofs in the document, 'The Problem With Setting Bible Historical Dates,' under the subheading, When Did Cyrus Issue His Proclamation for the Jews to Return to Jerusalem?, and the subheading, History Missed Darius as the Predecessor of Cyrus!, which show that DARIUS was the conquerer of Babylon and that Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to their homeland in the FIRST year of his reign. Both of these facts differ from accepted secular history.
In addition, we had to change the dates shown in the opening notes in the book of Ezra to reflect the results of our current research. We also tentatively changed the names of the Persian kings to try to more accurately reflect the conclusions of secular historians. However, there are unresolved problems that are likely the result of errors by the historians (a lot of problems with their dates).
In late November (2012), while starting the editing of the book of Esther, we did new research on the dates of the events described there, as given in the introductory notes, and also on the later Note concerning the Persian king to whom she was married… and we found that he may have actually been an earlier king than popular history suggests (not ArtaXerxes II, but Xerxes I or possibly even Cyrus the Great), because the distance between the historical dates is simply too great. However, all these secular dates and events are in conflict with several Bible eye-witness accounts.
And while doing some research on the radiocarbon dating of the reign of King Ahmose of Egypt, we came across a group of online notes that seem to confirm our suspicion that the reign of Ahmose may be set too late, and that he could in fact the pharaoh of the Exodus (see the linked document, 'The Problem with Setting Bible Historical Dates' at the bottom of the subheading, The Tempest Stele of Ahmose I').
While trying to resolve the problems of the secular dates and the names of the Persian kings in Ezra, we found that we had to revise the Note in the book of Daniel, Seventy Weeks.
Then in early December, as we were reediting the Bible book of Job, we noted that all from Chapter 40 verse 15 though Chapter 41 is an explanation of who was really responsible for Job's problems. Because this section starts out by describing the powers of a wild ox, we had assumed that it was some sort of a parable that led to the description of the evil one. However, upon further examination, it became clear that all the descriptions (though described as an ox) are talking about the Opposer.
Then, throughout December we worked on re-editing the Bible books of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon; thereafter, starting on the book of Isaiah. Here we noted what clearly seemed to be a major error in Chapter Seven, verse eight. So, we did some research, the results of which are found in the Note: Sixty-Five Years?
In early January, we completed editing of the book of Isaiah. And shortly thereafter, we received information about the proper rendering of verse 8 of Chapter 7, which we modified, and we again revised the Note concerning the period before the 10-tribe kingdom of IsraEl would be destroyed, in order to explain the correction. And once more, while editing the book of Jeremiah, we noted and corrected errors exclusive to the Septuagint, where things done by Judah's King JehoiAchin had wrongly been attributed to his father, JehoiAkim.
In Early February we reedited the Bible books of Daniel, Hosea, Joel, and Amos. And while just starting off with the first verses of Daniel, we found more evidence of an inconsistency with secular historical dating, which we once again added under Other Glaring Historical Inconsistencies in our linked document, 'The Problem with Setting Bible Historical Dates.' Then, while editing Amos, we noted a discrepancy between the Septuagint and Masoretic renderings of Joel 1:6 and 9, which may prove the Septuagint superior in this case. So, we added the Note, 'Captives of Solomon.' In addition, we noticed another reference to the people of Edem (Eden) at Amos 1:5, which resulted in our adding to the Note there.
Later on in the month, we had gotten through the books of Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, and Habakkuk. This led us to attempt to date the writing of each book closer in history, based on our research, which is reflected in the opening comments under the headings. In particular, we added a bit of information about the Prophet Nahum, which seems to indicated by the content of his book and the city he lived in. We also added two paragraphs to the linked document, 'The Bible's Internal Proofs of its Authentic History, ' under the subheading, 'What About Evolutionary Changes?'
Then after completing the editing of the book of Zephaniah and starting the book of Haggai, we noticed a few more clear references that prove the existence of and period of the reign of Darius, king of the Medes, which led to revising the the opening comments under the heading of that book, and a total rewriting of our document, 'The Problem With Setting Bible Historical Dates.'
By the end of February (2013) we had finished the re-editing of the OT text, as well as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, making several changes and adding to the Notes. Then we started re-editing Acts, and added several more links which prove its historical accuracy.
On March 6th (2013) we added the subheading, Jesus' Lesson of the Blind Man to the linked document, 'Removing the Wicked from the Congregation.'
Based on new information and recalculations, we removed the subheading in the linked document, 'The Problem with Setting Bible Historical Dates,' titled, 'Other Glaring Historical Inconsistencies,' we changed the calculations in the Note 390 Days/Years in the book of Ezekiel, and we revised the wording of 2 Kings 24:12 to reflect which king was being spoken of.
Then on 3/8/13 (at the suggestion of a contributor from Brazil) we made important changes to the timeline of the period of the Judges, and we added a discussion of the words of God at the burning bush to the document, 'Jehovah' under the subheading, 'Uses in the Hebrew Text Untrustworthy.'
By mid March, we had finished editing Acts, Romans, and First Corinthians, and at the suggestion of a reader from Denmark, corrected the wording of Titus 2:13 and deleted a Note that explained our reasons for the previous wording.
On March 19th, we made a major revision to the linked document, 'Christian Morality,' under the subheading, 'Divorce,' and we removed the Note of that same name, forwarding all the links to the corrected document.
Toward the end of March (2013) we had completed this editing of the Bible through Revelation and started reediting the linked commentaries. Actually, there are so many small edits and changes that we make daily, it's impossible to bring them all to your attention. However, we edited and greatly rewrote the commentary, 'Armageddon - When?' on March 26th, and on March 28th we made several revisions to the linked document, 'Baptism.' Then on March 29th, after editing several more documents, we wrote the Note on James the Half-brother of Jesus, adding it to the end of Acts, Galatians, the book of James, and the compiled Notes.
On March 31st we reviewed and decided to entirely delete the linked document, 'The Second Coming.'
During the next month (April), we worked on (reviewed and edited) many of the linked commentaries… there are too many changes to discuss here, some important and others not so much. Understand that as we have stated on our Home Page, nothing is set in stone and everything is open to revision, since we continue to study, discuss, and learn. However, one of the most important was found as we were reviewing what was already written in the document, 'The Hereafter.' For, somehow we had missed a point about the meaning of the word 'immortality,' as it is mentioned at 1 Corinthians 15:50. So, to emphasize and clarify the probable meaning of this word and this text, we expanded the explanation in the subheading, 'The Hope of the We Who Will Be Changed.'
In early May (2013) we started reediting the Notes for later inclusion into the Bible books. And in the process of checking one Note concerning the empowerment of the IsraElite Priests, we noted (and corrected) several missing verses at the end of Exodus, Chapter 28.
During the rest of the first half of May, we reedited all the Notes in the document of that name, and we will reinsert the updated Notes into each of the Bible books as we do (hopefully) a final edit of them. Several changes were made here.
Thereafter, we started reediting the book of Genesis, noting some important new points along the way. For example, we took note of God's promise at Genesis 8:21, and added the thought to the linked document, 'Armageddon -When?' under the subheading, 'Who Are Destroyed at Armageddon?.' Then, at Genesis 15:16, we found some words of God that explained what we thought was an unlikely conclusion about the number of generations that IsraEl would have between their entering Egypt and the Exodus. We then added this as an explanation to the linked document, 'Why Much of the Popular Bible Chronology is WRONG!,' in the subheading, 'A Problem With the Theory?'
Through the rest of the month of May (2013), we were reediting the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. Then, in Numbers, (at Numbers 10:29) we noted that although Jobab was shown as being Moses' father-in-law; his father's name was said to be RagouEl, which we knew to also be another name for Moses' father-in-law (see Exodus 2:18). So, we did further research, since we suspected that there was a mistake. This led to the explanatory Note in Numbers, 'Jobab: Moses' Father-In-Law or Brother-In-Law?' And this resulted in our removing the name 'Jethro' in the book of Exodus and replacing it with the title, 'His Excellence.'
By mid-June we had finished reediting all the Bible books from Deuteronomy through 2 Samuel. Then, as the result of questions raised in a letter from a reader from Germany, we took a harder look at Matthew 27:52 and 53, which talk about 'Holy Ones' being resurrected and walking about in JeruSalem after Jesus' resurrection. Then, after checking other texts (especially what was written by Luke), we decided to drop these verses as spurious, and we added the Note as explanation, Matthew 27:52, 53.
By early July we had completed the reediting all the books from 1 Kings through Ezra. And while working on Ezra, we noted that we had identified the wrong person as the Persian king who sent Ezra to Jerusalem. For, it wasn't Bardiya, but possibly Xerxes I or the much later Artaxerxes I. And in making this change, we realized that the Note at the end of Daniel, 'Seventy Weeks,' was wrong and the commonly suggested date of 455-BCE for the start of that prophetic period (which led to the coming and death of Jesus and the end of the approved Jewish form of worship) was likely correct.
We found something similar while later reediting the book of Esther; for, we had been struggling with the words of Esther 2:5, 6, where we understood it to say that MordecAi had been carried off from JeruSalem to Babylon. And although many of the life spans of the early patriarchs were exceedingly long, stretching his life out from the fall of JeruSalem to the time of ArtaXerxes (some 150 years) seemed incredible for that period, and this made us doubt that the king could have been ArtaXerxes; so, we started searching for other, more likely kings. However, after reconsidering these verses we came to realize that the person who had been taken to Babylon was not MordecAi but his great-grandfather, KisaYus. Oh, the importance of a properly-placed comma!
However, we are still unsure of who the Persian king or kings were in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. Historians seem to prefer Xerxes I, but many Bible commentators prefer his son, ArtaXerxes I. Note that the Greek text lists the kings of Ezra and Nehemiah as 'ArtaSastha,' while the king given in Esther was 'ArtaXerxes.' Were these both the same king who was given different names by the writers, or are the books speaking of Xerxes I and ArtaXerxes I? And if it is speaking of two different kings, which should be listed first in the order, since the king mentioned in Esther (under whom MordecAi became a chief official) would seem more likely to be the one who showed favor upon the Jews during the time of their return to JeruSalem. Also, since the secular historical dates are provably unreliable, we can't trust them when attempting to determine the king or the exact years of the recorded events. Therefore, our only trustworthy method for dating the period comes from the prophecy in Daniel of Seventy Weeks. Yet, all the dating methods work out to be very close.
By July 12th (2013) we had finished the reediting of the book of Job, changing its formatting entirely to reflect the poetry in which it was written. Also, at the suggestion of a contributor, we changed the words of Daniel 4:13, 17, and 21 to reflect the wording of the Hebrew text and some Septuagint texts, which point out that the angel or messenger that King NebuChadnezzar saw in a vision was also a 'watcher,' 'observer,' or 'sentinel,' and we revised the Note about Messengers to reflect this change. In addition, we added another paragraph to the Note so as to prove (from Job 38:7) that humans don't become 'angels,' as some religions teach.
On July 24th we finished reediting and reformatting the Bible book of Psalms, arranging it to more correctly represent the stanzas and verses in which it was sung.
Throughout the rest of July, August, and into September (2013), we were editing and reformatting the books of the major prophets (larger books) and started into doing the same for the minor prophets (smaller books).
As you will notice, it was after completing Isaiah that we decided to start rearranging the books to read in poetic stanzas wherever God or His messenger was speaking, since all of these words were clearly spoken and written as poetry. And in so doing (although we realize that many won't appreciate this form), it became clear that such rearrangement clarified many meanings and made many of God's pronouncements stand out better. And it also showed up the fact that many of the verse and paragraph numbers have been poorly located, since they tend to break apart the poetry of single thoughts.