The Lands, Maps, People and Events of the Bible

A Few Words About the Timelines & Maps

by R.E. Slater

I thought these set of timelines and maps might be helpful to those studying the traditional teachings of the bible. Nothing has been changed from the FCM bible site except to add the traditional Major Periods of the Old Testament above which I'm sure they would approve.

Myself, I was raised in 1950s-60s Christian fundamentalism and entered into 1970s evangelicalism before it decided to become conservative (1980s; which then necessarily spawned progressive evangelicalism as they made of God an evil thing which God is not).

About 13-14 years ago, after going through a deep darkness of spirit, it forced me to begin re-thinking everything I had centered my life in, and had lived through, my first fifty years of life. From this divinely appointed wilderness I began to make fundamental changes.

I first needed to deconstruct my current beliefs before reconstructing them. This journey you may read about over the first several years of this website. Anyway, I decided to drop Calvinism and go back to my Baptist roots based in Arminianism. I then updated Arminianism towards and Open and Relational Theology set which I reset together rather than leaving them apart as was currently being done.

All this time I gave preference to Jesus and God's love over that of my learned interpretation of the bible from youth through seminary (sic, a 4 year program resulting in an M.Div. with a Major in NT and minor in pastoral). I next leaned into progressive evangelical Christianity while keeping to Covenant Reformed Theology.

The final thing which the Lord's Spirit burdened my heart with was to look at my faith's philosophical foundations. Which I did. First Westernism. Then European Continentalism till finally stumbling across Whitehead's Philosophy of Organism - later to be known as Process Philosophy.

This I found was flexible enough to mimic nature around me; to incorporate today's sciences and societal-era movements. By it I could release all previous bible creeds, doctrines and dogma from their foundations of Westernized Hellenism (aka Platonism, Scholasticism, Enlightenment, and Modernistic philosophic theologies).

Why? Because I needed to re-center all these (eclectic) synthetic PHILOSOPHICAL structures around Jesus and God's Love. Hence, Open and Relational (Arminian) Theology became Open and Relational Process Theology. The theology I had worked towards required a release from Westernized thinking to a Philosophical Process which could work much better than they could in their past eras and timelines as well as form a better framework for any future eras to come... including postmodernism, metamodernism, and whatever else will come by and by.

Which is also why I write topically many times rather than expositionally. Not that I can't, but my calling of God is to write out of a process context in which to reset the bible and bible-thinking into a more proper processual framework where it has become out-of-focus and misinterpreted centuries ago through past philosophical influences.

By citing these timelines and maps below, I find them helpful for the bible student but will caution that as I have worked through Christian ideas and doctrines over the past years - and hope to continue doing so in the future - I will necessarily be recontextualizing many past and/or popular Christian teachings with processual content, events, ideas, ethics, and science all built around Jesus and God's love. 

Meaning, that all of the articles here will be distinctly different than what I once had diligently been taught and learned... and what I suspect will confront many readers here themselves. However, I was forced into this vocation by the Lord. I really didn't have a choice. I had retired to try my hand at poetry (which I did for three years nonstop) to find myself serving on governmental boards and committees, and working in local, regional, or statewide quasi-political environmentalism. I never intended to develop, expand, nor write about process philosophy, cosmology, natural or panpsychic theology. 

But we all have to start somewhere so I'll start here creating a website I didn't know how to make or maintain though my technology proficiency helped a lot. Nor did I receive help when asking for it, surrounded by those who refused acknowledging my internal spiritual pain.

So the Lord and I started where I was and went together from there. Along the way I have better channels and contacts than I once did and am glad to have spent my retirement years in these pursuits.... Not unlike AN Whitehead who quit mathematics at age 62 and went on to develop a full-scale, complex, Hegelian-like, philosophy unknown to the world. He finished at age 68, which is where my age sits as well. This makes me laugh a bit when I think of it though I never knew the prestige that Whitehead had, nor want it, frankly. It's easy to write unhindered by people's responses.

Anyway, please enjoy. And as I continue my Garden of Eden series I will ease this series into a series on The Evolution of God, Man and Religion before the bible was written; before Abraham had lived; or before the Jewish faith was even a thing. It will deal with evolutionary human paleontology where I will continue to apply process thought into both the church's language, its bible doctrines and beliefs, as well as into today's quantum sciences et. al.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

February 18, 2024

* * * * * * *

HOLY BIBLE

Old Testament / Maps

by JCM

We present to you a detailed description of the geography of the lands of the Holy Bible at the time of its events, where the best international references and manuscripts in both Arabic and English were used.

We carefully pictured the events of the Bible according to the Bible’s chronological order, placed the names of the biblical cities, and wrote titles explaining the content of each map with an assistant index to help our maps to facilitate for Bible enthusiasts studying and searching in the Holy Bible.

These maps are copyright protected for the benefit of FMC world © Copying, photocopying or using them for the interests of buying and selling is liable to legal punishment.

By sharing it through social media, you will become a partner with us in our service to the word of God †

This service was performed by the blessed servants of the LORD:

• General supervision: Maggie Khozam
• Maps studying and researching: Dr. Mattews Andraws
• Maps designing: Lama Abu Deeb
• Coordination and programming: Feras Khozam ( MSM )

DOUBLE CLICKING ON EACH .JPG WILL

ENLARGE TWICE WITH EXCELLENT CLARITY

Genealogy of Adam

The Journeys of Abraham in the Near East

Journeys of Abraham in Promised Land

The Story of Lot

The Journeys of Isaac and Rebekah

The Journeys of Jacob and Rachel

Joseph is sold in Egypt

The Fathers in the Promised Land

Exodus

Journey of The Spies

Entering the Promised Land

The Battle of Ai

Saving Gibeon

Division of Promised Land to Tribes of Israel

Israel in the Promised Land

Taking over Hazor

Judges

Ehud and the Moabites

Jephthah and the Ammonites

Capturing the ark of the covenant

The Kingdom of Saul

Saving Jabeshgilead

The Battle of Michmash

David eludes Saul

The Death of Saul in Gilboa

King's David Military Victories

United Kingdom of David

The United Kingdom of Solomon

Jerusalem in Times of David & Solomon

Solomon's Temple

The Two Kingdoms of Israel and Judah

Elijah and Elisha

Prophets of Two Kingdoms of Israel & Judah

Israel & Judah during rule of Jeroboam II

The Campaigns of Tiglathpileser

The Fall of Israel

Sennacherib's Campaign in Judah

Babylonian Empire & Babylonian Captivity

The Fall of Judah to The Babylonians

Back from the Exile

Israel after Captivity

Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah

The Prophecy of Ezekiel 38-39

Transmission of the Old & New Testament Translations

Problems with the King James Version: What Were the Translators Translating?

article link

by Bart Erhman

January 11, 2023

I’ve mentioned several problems with the King James Version in previous posts. Arguably the most significant set of problems has to do with the text that the translators were translating. The brief reality is that in the early 17th century, Greek editions of the New Testament were based on very few and highly inferior manuscripts. Only after the King James was translated did scholars begin to become aware of the existence of older, and far better, manuscripts.

The manuscripts of the New Testament (and of all books from antiquity) were copied — prior to the invention of printing — almost always by scribes who did their best to make faithful reproductions of the copies they were copying, and many of them did a remarkably good job. Others did a not-so-good job. Since mistakes can get replicated over time, and introduced over time, in general it is a good idea to consult the *earliest* manuscripts for determining what an author of a book wrote. The later manuscripts tend to be worse (that’s not an *absolute* rule, but a relatively good one).

As we saw in the previous post, the first edition of the Greek NT to be published after the invention of printing was by the Rotterdam humanist Erasmus, whose 1516 edition went through several revisions over the years. Other publishers based their own editions on Erasmus, rather than doing a careful study of the surviving manuscripts themselves. Eventually it became such a standard text that it came to be known as the Textus Receptus (the “received text” – that is, the text everyone used). Erasmus’s edition was based just on the few Greek manuscripts at his disposal, which were late medieval and that had the typical kinds of mistakes that one can find in late medieval manuscripts.

As a result, translations into English of the Greek New Testament, based on Erasmus’s editions and those that replicated, more or less, his text, include translations of passages that were almost certainly not originally in the New Testament, but that had come to be added later by scribes. The most famous of all is the so-called “Johannine Comma,” a reference to 1 John 5:7-8, the only passage in the New Testament that explicitly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.

In the Latin Vulgate – the Bible of Western Christendom for centuries – 1 John 5:7-8 states that “there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. And these three are one.” This then is the doctrine of the trinity: there are three divine beings in heaven and even though there are three of them, they are actually only one. One God, in three persons – the doctrine of the trinity. Nowhere else in the NT is the doctrine explicitly stated (although Father, Son, and Spirit are mentioned in the same breath elsewhere. But not the doctrine itself, which includes the idea that: “these three are one.”)

When Erasmus produced his first edition of the Greek NT, he left that verse out, since it was not in the Greek manuscript he was using. What happened next is a matter of debate. Some scholars have argued that the account of events widely known in the scholarly literature is apocryphal. But the way the story normally is told is as follows:

Church theologians were incensed that Erasmus had left the Trinity out of the Bible and attacked him for it. He explained that he could not find the verse in any of the Greek manuscripts he had consulted, and what he was producing was, after all, a Greek New Testament. He did agree, though, that if someone could show him a Greek manuscript that had the verse, he would include it in his next edition. And so, someone (literally) produced a manuscript – adding the verse by translating it in its proper place from the Latin.

And so Erasmus was true to his word, and included it in his next edition. It was this subsequent edition that was used by other publishers of other editions of the Greek NT, and these were the editions used by the translators of the King James. And so you will find the verse in the King James.

As more and more manuscripts were discovered, it became clear that in fact the verse was not part of the original text of 1 John, and so modern translations do not include it. When these translations started to appear at the end of the 19th century and into the 20th, there was considerable uproar when it was recognized that they did not include the leading proof text for the Trinity, and translators were roundly accused of being anti-Christian, liberal, untrustworthy, and even demonic tools of the Devil. But they were in fact simply translating the text as it had been handed down in the textual tradition. Sometimes readers don’t want the Bible as it was originally written, but only the Bible as they are familiar with it.

That is why those who insist on following the King James version insist that the story of Jesus and the Woman taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11) and the final twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-21) were originally in the NT. They weren’t. They are *terrific* stories, but, well, they were added by later scribes.

The KJV has lots of other problems like this. Like the later additions to the text, it too is powerful and moving. But that doesn’t mean it is accurate, if what you want is to know what the authors themselves actually wrote.

* * * * * * * *

The History and Popularity of

English Bible Translations

article link

by Robert

March 2015

There was a time when no one could read the Bible in their own language. Now, Wycliffe Global Alliance statistics show that most of the world’s population has a complete Bible available in their native language. The English-speaking world can choose from dozens of translations. With so many out there, it makes me wonder: which ones do people choose?

There are several ways to answer this with data at varying levels of availability and reliability. The most accessible data comes from Wikipedia. Statistics from any online source will be skewed toward younger portions of the population, hampering the accuracy but useful all the same. The visualization below shows Bible translations through time using this list of English Bible translations and view statistics for each detail page.

click here to enlarge

The rise in the number of translations each decade since the 1950s is interesting. With each new version comes increased difficulty for one to stand out in the crowd. Those that have risen above the rest are the Wycliffe Bible, the King James Version (or Authorized Version), and the New International Version. The English Standard Version also deserves mention due to its rapid climb in popularity since its first publication in 2001.

John Wycliffe is famous for bringing the Bible to laypeople, an action which paved the way for the Protestant Reformation. Therefore, it remains a prominent interest when studying the history of the Bible. The King James Version stands out not only for its history and literary achievement but also for its continued popularity. We should expect that modern readers would gravitate to a version like the NIV with more familiar language, yet the KJV stays high up the charts while its language is from a bygone era.

It’s also important to explore how well this holds up compared to other data sources. One widely accessible source is Google Trends. The chart below examines search rankings for the five most popular versions.

Overall, the rankings match reasonably well with Wikipedia page views, with some interesting exceptions. While the NIV beats the KJV on a decade-long average, they have switched places since 2012 and the KJV continues to gain steam. The ESV continues climbing slowly and steadily. Other differences are likely accounted for in the methods used to track statistics and the time frame differences (90-day Wikipedia views vs. month-to-month search trends).

This only accounts for internet users at large who express some interest in each version through a page click or search term. It says nothing about what people actually buy or read on a regular basis. Bible websites and apps like YouVersion would have data on readership but would still be limited to tech-friendly demographics.

A better source would be the Barna Group, an organization which conducts scientific studies of religious interest. In a 2014 study comissioned by the American Bible Society, they found the same overall rankings for the top four versions based on survey responses. In this case, not only did the King James Version come out on top, it did so by a wide margin.

So, which English bible version is most popular? With three ways to answer that question, the King James Version is at or near the top of every list. Finding which one belongs in second, third, or fourth place will depend on where and when you look for data.

I gravitate towards sources which are easily accessible like Wikipedia. As we’ve seen, an easy answer won’t always be the right answer, but at least it’s something. Data concerning translation work worldwide is much harder to compile and analyze.

As the mission spreads throughout the globe, aided by the continued advancements in technology, I hope to see data that shows fewer and fewer people groups and languages without access to the scriptures.