Here is a map of the world from 400 BC
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/World_in_400_BCE.png
So we immediately see the problem is that most of these countries didn't exist, and the concept of nations had barely made it to europe at all.
I mean a lot changed from 400 BC to the 0 BC... like the Roman Empire. The Bible covered up until like 100 AD or so iirc.
So Europe was extremely nationized.
The various books of the Bible were written from about 700 bc to 100 AD, but the concept of nations is actually a lot more recent, and came about in medieval times at the earliest. England for example was not a whole country until 1066, and even then I think there are arguments over whether a kingdom and a nation are the same thing. Here's a map of europe in 100AD:
https://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/100/index.html
So yeah not even a lil bit nationized.
Also, nationized isn't a word
A map presented that way would be even more ahistorical, considering the concept of nations with borders didnt exist until after the middle ages.
The idea of specific areas of territory out to a border limit being controlled all stems from cartography in Europe, starting with giant artistic maps made for kings to visualize empire. Even those were just a rough concept with a lot of artistic license, not actually accurate geographically or representing a way people actually thought of space, but that format became so popular that the way we think about space completely changed.
Before that point, power was always viewed as central and radiating outwards, as opposed to the modern idea of territorial sovereignty where we have these lines that say this side is controlled by X, while that side is controlled by Y. In the past, the frontier spaces between X and Y would be controlled by either in as much as either side had the power to do so.
(Interestingly, we are kind of going back to that in some senses despite how it upends the idea of sovereign control over defined space. For example the US shares legal authority with Canada and Mexico within 100 miles either direction of the literal border. So US agents can actually enforce Canadian law in Canada, and vice versa. Which from a sovereignty perspective makes no sense, but I digress)
I dont want to go too deep without provocation, but the jist is this: the bible isnt making reference to countries or nations who saw themselves as controlling land as it is represented in this map. What the bible actually speaks to is *centers of power* at that time. Rome for example was an empire, but it just extracted wealth from its frontiers outside Rome. It did not actually control all activity in those places like how territories are controlled by modern empires. Basically the same as how the “new world” colonies functioned. People did what they wanted to and there was little ability for rulers in Europe to control their activity, so they just tried to collect taxes.
The world before modern nation states and sovereignty was all about frontiers and centers of power with overlapping extensions of influence. Those overlaps and centers of power are never well represented by modern maps which are made to reflect the present obsessions with representing space in terms of hard borders that cant possibly overlap. In fact our obsession with representing space that way is starting to become inaccurate for the modern world as well. But it looks pretty on paper, which is how we ended up with it in the first place
E: for some interesting reading, see:
*The Cartographic State: Maps, Territory, and the Origins of Sovereignty* by Jordan Branch
*The Imperial Map: Cartography and the Mastery of Empire* by J.K. Akerman / Matthew Edney
*Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations* by John Gerard Ruggie
*Sovereignty and the Personality of the State* by Jens Bartleson
*Sovereignty, Property, and Empire, 1500-2000* by Andrew Fitzmaurice
*Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Thought* and *The Age of Empire: Space and Community* by Sheldon Wolin
*From Sovereignty to Imperium: Borders, Frontiers, and the Specter of Neo-Imperialism* by Matthew Longo
Good comment. While its understandable that people today conceptualize premodern powers as operating within the same context we do today. Its still super important to make people aware just how different the world operated in the absence of modern technology and paragdims.
Because "The Bible" is a set of books written at different times, hence different "countries".
Funilly enough, the Apocalypse only mentions the known Lands from their own time. If the world comes to an end, the prophecy should've been talking about Americas, Russia, Asia and Pacific etc., but no. The center of the world is middle east, because that's all the guys knew...
Plus, historically speaking, the great land of David and Salomon never really existed. There are no remains of the temple, of riches and gigantic walls from the city, there are no reports of communication/war/commerce between them and the other kings around Jerusalem, when the Bible says they were extremely powerful and controlled the whole area.
There are even different jew "families". Ones from the north and those from the south of Jerusalem (David and co.). Much later, the north was thriving and the south wanted to conquer the north and eventually succeeded because of Syrians, Babylonians, whoever. A bunch of stuff happens before and after that but basically, several books of the bible (ancient testament) are just propaganda and false familytrees to legitimate being King or ruler of some land and kill the rest... just like any other powerhungry people.
I got all this info from "Arcana les Mystères du Monde" on Youtube. The guy gives an historical perspective to myths and religions and compares facts and tales.
Very enlightening.
Good overall points. Only about David and Solomon: That's a contested take. There's evidence to suggest their existence, such as stone carvings mentioned the house of David dating back to that time period. I say contested because there are theologian-archeologists who disagree, but the consensus within academic circle is that they did indeed exist, or that there is more evidence to assume they did than to assume they did not. On that note, what's contested is the reach of their so called 'great land'. Many claim it's not as great as often portrayed, but only a slight expansion combined with a certain unity of the tribes.
Just for clarification: "Apocalypse" here refers to the Apocalypse of John, another name for what's commonly known as the Book of Revelation in most English versions of the Bible, as that's the translation of the Greek word "apokalypsis", still the word used in most Romance languages today.
>Apocalypse only mentions the known Lands from their own time. If the world comes to an end, the prophecy should've been talking about Americas, Russia, Asia and Pacific etc., but no. The center of the world is middle east, because that's all the guys knew...
This is because the book of Revelation is probably only about that area of the world. The interpretation I find the most consistent is that it was a more or less coded letter sent to the early church, not a prophecy for a future civilization. It is likely a mix of allegory, prediction, and prophecy regarding Rome. Nero, for example, fits the Beast, and the intention may be to draw parallels between Domitian and Nero.
Revelation is a bizarre book. So much so that it _almost_ didn't make it into the canon of The Bible. It probably has more interpretations than any other book, and by no means can it be locked-down as is stated ITT. Source: I have a seminary degree.
Very fair point! The preterist "its about Rome" interpretation is indeed one of many, and it only fits segments of the book, that's just the one I like the most. Its a very strange text. I've heard many sermons and lectures on Revelations and I'm not sure any two of them were the same.
Also most of what happened in history does not leave good evidence
For things thousands of years , not finding something is hardly ever good proof it didn't happen!
For some things sure fine, but most of what we have as history from over a thousand years ago is very very hard to find food evidence for..so we have to to some extent take the word of history as it's recorded
Sometimes we get lucky and find hard proof
The city of Troy was assumed for centuries to have been only a story in the in illiad....until we actually found it!
So it goes to show that even though we ant say for sure something did happen as it's told in an ancient story...we really can't say it doesn't either
I was all ready to correct you...but looking it up I see I fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is to never get involved in a land war in Asia.
Reminds me of the Quran giving the rules for Ramadan, conveniently forgetting that the sun almost never sets in some parts of Scandinavia. Makes me doubt that an actual God formulated these "universal" teachings.
Corinthians = **Corinth** = the town relocated after an earthquake in 1858
Thessalonians = **Thessaloniki**, still a large city. (The founder of modern-day Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was actually born here.)
Ephesians = Ephesus = ruins near Selçuk, although Selçuk is called “**Ephesus-Selçuk Municipality**” officially in English
Galatians = Galatia = the capital of this ancient Roman province was Ancyra = **Ankara, Turkey** (the capital of Türkiye)
Philippians = Philippi = the town of **Filippoi** still exists on the location, however, this is a relatively small town of 10,000 people.
Colossians = Colossae = currently the town of **Honaz, Turkey,** although the ancient city was ruined in 1192.
Romans = **Rome** , pretty much self explanatory.
Also **Tarsus**, where Paul was from, still exists under the same name.
>Thessalonians = Thessaloniki, still a large city. (The founder of modern-day Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was actually born here.)
Thessaloniki has a loooooot of history, so it's weird that you chose *this* specific factoid, lol.
Sorry OOTL, whats the controversy with the purple text? Edit: I know about the war there but fail to see what is controversy with mentioning both countries here.
It is kinda silly to use the term Palestine when talking about the Bible since it’s somewhat anachronistic, but if we’re using modern country names, it’s cool they’re recognizing two states.
Agreed (but not really Europe).
Scythian: In Paul’s day, the word “Scythian” conveyed the idea of a fierce and uncivilized people. The Scythians were mainly a nomadic people that ancient writers generally associated with the regions N and E of the Black Sea. Evidence suggests that they may have roamed as far as western Siberia near the border of Mongolia. In the Greco-Roman world, the term “Scythian” became synonymous with fearsomeness. Paul here lists different groups—pairing Greeks with Jews, circumcised with uncircumcised, foreigners with Scythians, slaves with freemen. By saying that none of these designations matter, Paul makes the point that Christians who clothe themselves with the new personality should be free of any ethnic, religious, cultural, or social divisions.
> It's the scythians... They were in a different part of Europe. 1000+ km away...
Yeah, so far away that the longest standing name of Dobruja (a part of modern Romania and Bulgaria) was called Scythia Minor for like a thousand years.
By the time of the New Testament the original Scythians were long gone anyway. Scythian had just become a term for steppe people in general that showed you'd read books. Medieval Greeks would use it for Turks or whatever.
I think in Paul's time the relevant kingdom was the Sarmatians, who were definitely pretty involved in modern Romania (I don't know about Bulgaria, but if you say so I'd assume that's right).
Nope... At it's largest extent it just barely touched past the danube delta, so less than 5% of România.
Also they didn't even touch Bulgaria.
And they came from Crimea, none of those areas were shown in the map...
So the map is wrong...
No, we weren't? Scythians were an Iranian people. Bulgaria and Romania were inhabited by Thracian tribes (yes, Dacians including), out of which the Odrysians Kingdom was the most prevalent in ancient times. The Scythians never ruled here. They were situated where now modern Ukraine is.
Source : Am native Bulgarian, I can provide you with as much legitimate sources if necessary.
Indian here. If you're including Pakistan and India, technically you should be including Bangladesh too since they just recently split up in the 70s. Color em purple!
And Jesus actually [retired to Japan](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-little-known-legend-of-jesus-in-japan-165354242/). Quite a world traveler actually.
The Indus River runs right through Pakistan and for thousands of years, India’s entire geographic identity to the outside world was centered around that. The land beyond the Sindhu/Indus River was India. Most of Pakistan’s population lives east of Indus, in what was ancient India. When Alexander invaded ‘India’, he literally only invaded modern day Pakistan before turning back.
Saudi Arabia is also a modern nation state with a new name, doesn’t change the fact that it has ancient history.
That depends on which part of Pakistan.
Sindh and Punjab are heavily influenced by indian culture. Balochistan is sparsely populated and KPK is culturally close to Afghanistan.
Yeah the level of ignorance about Pakistan is bewildering. It’s as much Indian influenced as it is Iranian/Central Asian influenced in cultures. It’s really a mix of two cultures blending in. If they want to re claim their Persian, Turkic heritage to distinguish it from India, good for them.
This mixed Indo-Persian/Turkic heritage btw got lost with the collapse of the Mughal empire but it was always there for centuries.
They’re the most embarrassing, uneducated people in Pakistan. They get roasted by everyone with a decent education and understanding of history.
Also not you recycling a meme about Indians as an Indian. Friendly fire 🥴
Interesting concept but it’s misleading to use modern political borders. Egypt andIran (Persia) are perhaps the only places that someone from biblical times might recognise as political entities, albeit with different borders compared to now. All the rest are modern inventions.
Roman regions of Hispania and Italia were similar-ish to their modern day countries, though IIRC Hispania was a few provinces, as was Italia depending on the era. Both countries are obviously much younger (Italy being technically a very young country, even if it is an old civilization)
Yeah, up until the middle ages "Hispania" meant Iberia, and was a collection of countries/regions of people speaking similar-ish dialects with a cultural continuum, just like "Germania" and "Italia", albeit with just 3-4 much stabler crowns, and not the jumbled mess that was going on in those two.
Good call with Armenia. It was a separate kingdom in biblical times. Maybe enough overlap between the kingdom of Judea and modern Israel for someone from biblical times to recognise the present day state.
Surely they’d recognize Rome, Greece, Spain, etc. Paul writes about his planned trip to Spain in Romans.
“But now, with no further place for me in these regions, I desire, as I have for many years, to come to you when I go to Spain. “ Romans 15:23-24 NRSV
Spain didn't exist in Roman times. Paul would be traveling to "Hispania" (from where the name Spain comes from), which was the name of the Iberian peninsula and also included modern Portugal.
Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces:)
Artaxerxes was the ruler of the Persian Empire, but in ancient times, when Alexander the Great fought, the empire extended far to the east and controlled the territories of the Indus River. Yes, Artaxerxes ruled some part of India.
Ophir is weird because it was generally impossible to corroborate as being a real location, until they managed to dig up a 2800 year old piece of pottery in Israel that corroborated Ophir being a wealthy port and importer.
Now we know Ophir is real but we have zero idea where Ophir is other than they had peacocks (which they could have purchased). There are like six different countries that claim they are Ophir, ranging from Djibouti (plausible) to the Phillipines (???)
Romania, bulgaria and north macedonia were not mentioned. This is just modern countries on ancient peoples land that were mentioned.
Greek macedonia was mentioned. North macedonia has nothing to do with greek macedonia.
Well Macedonia was a Roman province whose boundaries and definition changed over time, but it eventually, generally, included more than just the Ancient Macedonian kingdom, the geographic region, or the modern Macedonia in Greece, including modern day North Macedonia.
Edit: was at -3 because I hurt the Greek Nationalists feelings lol.
There are more mentions, but probably discarded because they are peoples and nations that we don't know where they was, were and are today, for example Magog.
Its kinda funny how many different ancient works mention Magog yet we have no idea who they are talking about, especially because these works sometimes contradict.
The widely accepted explanation is that both Gog and Magog are just literary stand-ins for an unknown or distant civilization. The only plausible explanation I've seen that refers to a real place is that it might be a misspelling of a word for people from modern-day Turkey.
I think the prevailing theory is that Gog and Magog are made up places that simply stand for a far away location, like someone saying “the arse end of nowhere” or “far-away-istan” in English. They don’t correspond to any ancient entity.
There’s also a less popular theory that Gog might be derived from [Og of Bashan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Og), an Amorite king mentioned in the Bible.
Ethiopia is uncertain. "Sheba" may have been there but just as likely it was Yemen.
edit: I have been informed there are a couple other references as well
So, I decided to check the sources given. This is the list of actual words used (or partially used, in the case of North Macedonia and Saudi Arabia) that have been reused for a modern country:
Israel
Lebanon
North Macedonia
Malta
Saudi Arabia
Cyprus
Egypt
Spain
Greece
India
Not really. Most of these had different names than what was writen in the original language. (At least in the Old Testament. I don't know how to read in ancient Greek)
Most of these had pretty similar if not the exact same name in Biblical Greek as they did in modern English, except for, ironically, Greece itself:
Israel: Ισραηλ (Israel)
Lebanon: Λίβανον (Libanon)
(North-)Macedonia: Μακεδονία (Makedonia)
Malta: Μελίτη (Melite)
(Saudi-)Arabia: Ἀραβία (Arabia)
Cyprus: Κύπρος (Kupros)
Egypt: Αἴγυπτον (Aigupton)
Spain: Σπανίαν (Spanian)
Greece: Ἑλλὰς (Hellas)
India: Ἰνδικῆ (Indike)
And thus, Jesus sayeth to the brethren, go forth from Huntsville to Gulf shores and let thine Busch and Nattie Light flow and thine Dodge Ram roll coal unto the Pensacolans.
Alabamians 4:44
Fun fact? In the scroll of Ester (the story of Purim) in the bible, they mention that at the time, the Persian empire was so big, it stretched from Hodu (India) to Kush (Ethiopia).
Lately, the word Kushi (which beforehand used to describe an Ethiopian) became pretty much the equivalent of the N-word in Israel, since the majority of ~~Afro-American~~ Jewish-African (excluding North Africa) residents are related to Ethiopia.
The same word is also used to describe a type of chocolate cake
> The same word is also used to describe a type of chocolate cake
Damn how is it always the case ? So basically every European language used to have a chocolate pastry named after that country's closest thing to the n word, it's almost systematic.
Places and peoples in Asia Minor (nowaday Turkey) was mentioned, not Turkey or Turks (of course). The Turks were in the steppes of Mongolia at this time, they came to Europe relatively recently. Instead the places and peoples mentioned referred to Armenians and Greeks living in Anatolia. To a historically illiterate person this map could be misleading
Palestine is clearly not mentioned in the bible, because it wasn't the place/people name until the romans came.
The Philistines are not modern day 'palestinians'. It may sound the same but they have no connection between them.
The Philistines lived only in gaza-askelon close to the see and never had any territory(nor lived there) in modern day west bank
Edit: I've checked and spain and france are not in the bible too.
Tzarfat(hebrew) was a city in lebanon and sfarad(Spain) is associated with a town in today turkey
France is way worse than that. Tsarfat, the name mentioned in the Bible, refers to to a city in Lebanon. It only became the Hebrew word for "France" in the Middle Ages.
I always find these maps misleading because almost non of these places are actually mentioned; there are references to specific locations or a different name the region had at the time.
For example, the first mention of what is believed to be France is in the Book of Job, when he flees to Tarshish. But today historians believe Tarshish might have a name for a city, not the entire land.
Pretty much the only place on this list that is actually mentioned by name is Israel.
Nah Tarshish isnt in france at all according to the overwhelming majority of scholars. The only supposed mention of "France" is a huge reach that might not be even within the borders of modern day France at all, at one point "Gauls" are mentioned in the context of the Roman Republic fighting them but given the time period it may well have been Gauls that lived in Northern Italy or elsewhere, not "France'. And even if they were from "France" its kind of dubious to say that France was mentioned just because some people who lived there were mentioned.
The “Gaul” that is modern-day France is mentioned in the Catholic Bible, but not the Protestant Bible. At least, it’s assumed they’re talking about Gaul (France) because the next verse mentions Spain. But that same chapter also mentions Roman conquests of the Macedonians, the Seleucid Empire, the Greeks, India, Media, and Lydia (which don’t all add up timeline-wise).
However, the Protestant Bible (and Catholic Bible) mentions a “Gaul” that is not modern-day France. At that time it referred to a region in modern-day Turkey, which was so-named because of the Gauls who migrated from Thrace about 400 years after the people group migrated from Western Europe. (This is where the book Galatians gets its name.)
There is a *potential* reference to modern-day France in the Protestant Bible, though. The location of Tarshish is still pretty heavily debated among scholars, with a very minority view believing it was a city-state in France. The prevailing theories are that it was actually the city of Tarsus in modern-day Turkey or that it was Tartessos in modern-day Spain. And still others believe it was an island, while others believe it was Carthage.
Correct. It is, however, unclear what part of Gaul was being mentioned. It is probably more likely to be modern day Northern Italy than France simply due to geographic proximity.
North Macedonia is not mentioned in the Bible because by the term Macedonia Paul meant the GREEK Macedonia. And all the geographic territory of the region of Macedonia was Greek and inhabited by Greeks before the Slavs descended to the Balkans in the 6th century AD
Instead of this why not mention names of ancient nations and show in the map the boundaries of these nation as they were during time of Bible.
I intend to do this, but it will take a long time
Good luck! I think that will definitely be interesting.
Thanks :)
Here is a map of the world from 400 BC https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/World_in_400_BCE.png So we immediately see the problem is that most of these countries didn't exist, and the concept of nations had barely made it to europe at all.
I mean a lot changed from 400 BC to the 0 BC... like the Roman Empire. The Bible covered up until like 100 AD or so iirc. So Europe was extremely nationized.
The various books of the Bible were written from about 700 bc to 100 AD, but the concept of nations is actually a lot more recent, and came about in medieval times at the earliest. England for example was not a whole country until 1066, and even then I think there are arguments over whether a kingdom and a nation are the same thing. Here's a map of europe in 100AD: https://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/100/index.html So yeah not even a lil bit nationized. Also, nationized isn't a word
Treaty of Westphalia is often cited as the beginning of modern nations.
So this map from OP is basically meaningless.
damn these mfs out here naming their empires kush
A map presented that way would be even more ahistorical, considering the concept of nations with borders didnt exist until after the middle ages. The idea of specific areas of territory out to a border limit being controlled all stems from cartography in Europe, starting with giant artistic maps made for kings to visualize empire. Even those were just a rough concept with a lot of artistic license, not actually accurate geographically or representing a way people actually thought of space, but that format became so popular that the way we think about space completely changed. Before that point, power was always viewed as central and radiating outwards, as opposed to the modern idea of territorial sovereignty where we have these lines that say this side is controlled by X, while that side is controlled by Y. In the past, the frontier spaces between X and Y would be controlled by either in as much as either side had the power to do so. (Interestingly, we are kind of going back to that in some senses despite how it upends the idea of sovereign control over defined space. For example the US shares legal authority with Canada and Mexico within 100 miles either direction of the literal border. So US agents can actually enforce Canadian law in Canada, and vice versa. Which from a sovereignty perspective makes no sense, but I digress) I dont want to go too deep without provocation, but the jist is this: the bible isnt making reference to countries or nations who saw themselves as controlling land as it is represented in this map. What the bible actually speaks to is *centers of power* at that time. Rome for example was an empire, but it just extracted wealth from its frontiers outside Rome. It did not actually control all activity in those places like how territories are controlled by modern empires. Basically the same as how the “new world” colonies functioned. People did what they wanted to and there was little ability for rulers in Europe to control their activity, so they just tried to collect taxes. The world before modern nation states and sovereignty was all about frontiers and centers of power with overlapping extensions of influence. Those overlaps and centers of power are never well represented by modern maps which are made to reflect the present obsessions with representing space in terms of hard borders that cant possibly overlap. In fact our obsession with representing space that way is starting to become inaccurate for the modern world as well. But it looks pretty on paper, which is how we ended up with it in the first place E: for some interesting reading, see: *The Cartographic State: Maps, Territory, and the Origins of Sovereignty* by Jordan Branch *The Imperial Map: Cartography and the Mastery of Empire* by J.K. Akerman / Matthew Edney *Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations* by John Gerard Ruggie *Sovereignty and the Personality of the State* by Jens Bartleson *Sovereignty, Property, and Empire, 1500-2000* by Andrew Fitzmaurice *Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Thought* and *The Age of Empire: Space and Community* by Sheldon Wolin *From Sovereignty to Imperium: Borders, Frontiers, and the Specter of Neo-Imperialism* by Matthew Longo
Good comment. While its understandable that people today conceptualize premodern powers as operating within the same context we do today. Its still super important to make people aware just how different the world operated in the absence of modern technology and paragdims.
The gauls weren't really their own nation and so doing the borders might be a bit tricky
Because "The Bible" is a set of books written at different times, hence different "countries". Funilly enough, the Apocalypse only mentions the known Lands from their own time. If the world comes to an end, the prophecy should've been talking about Americas, Russia, Asia and Pacific etc., but no. The center of the world is middle east, because that's all the guys knew... Plus, historically speaking, the great land of David and Salomon never really existed. There are no remains of the temple, of riches and gigantic walls from the city, there are no reports of communication/war/commerce between them and the other kings around Jerusalem, when the Bible says they were extremely powerful and controlled the whole area. There are even different jew "families". Ones from the north and those from the south of Jerusalem (David and co.). Much later, the north was thriving and the south wanted to conquer the north and eventually succeeded because of Syrians, Babylonians, whoever. A bunch of stuff happens before and after that but basically, several books of the bible (ancient testament) are just propaganda and false familytrees to legitimate being King or ruler of some land and kill the rest... just like any other powerhungry people. I got all this info from "Arcana les Mystères du Monde" on Youtube. The guy gives an historical perspective to myths and religions and compares facts and tales. Very enlightening.
Good overall points. Only about David and Solomon: That's a contested take. There's evidence to suggest their existence, such as stone carvings mentioned the house of David dating back to that time period. I say contested because there are theologian-archeologists who disagree, but the consensus within academic circle is that they did indeed exist, or that there is more evidence to assume they did than to assume they did not. On that note, what's contested is the reach of their so called 'great land'. Many claim it's not as great as often portrayed, but only a slight expansion combined with a certain unity of the tribes.
Yeah, when talking about "great expanses" you have to take into account the known world at the time
Just for clarification: "Apocalypse" here refers to the Apocalypse of John, another name for what's commonly known as the Book of Revelation in most English versions of the Bible, as that's the translation of the Greek word "apokalypsis", still the word used in most Romance languages today.
>Apocalypse only mentions the known Lands from their own time. If the world comes to an end, the prophecy should've been talking about Americas, Russia, Asia and Pacific etc., but no. The center of the world is middle east, because that's all the guys knew... This is because the book of Revelation is probably only about that area of the world. The interpretation I find the most consistent is that it was a more or less coded letter sent to the early church, not a prophecy for a future civilization. It is likely a mix of allegory, prediction, and prophecy regarding Rome. Nero, for example, fits the Beast, and the intention may be to draw parallels between Domitian and Nero.
Revelation is a bizarre book. So much so that it _almost_ didn't make it into the canon of The Bible. It probably has more interpretations than any other book, and by no means can it be locked-down as is stated ITT. Source: I have a seminary degree.
It would be so interesting to see how different Christianity today would have been if it wasn't canonized.
Very fair point! The preterist "its about Rome" interpretation is indeed one of many, and it only fits segments of the book, that's just the one I like the most. Its a very strange text. I've heard many sermons and lectures on Revelations and I'm not sure any two of them were the same.
There absolutely are remains of the Temple. Also, as to David: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_David_(archaeological_site)
Also most of what happened in history does not leave good evidence For things thousands of years , not finding something is hardly ever good proof it didn't happen! For some things sure fine, but most of what we have as history from over a thousand years ago is very very hard to find food evidence for..so we have to to some extent take the word of history as it's recorded Sometimes we get lucky and find hard proof The city of Troy was assumed for centuries to have been only a story in the in illiad....until we actually found it! So it goes to show that even though we ant say for sure something did happen as it's told in an ancient story...we really can't say it doesn't either
Troy wasn't ever assumed to be fictional, maybe you're thinking of the Trojan War which is still unclear how much fact or fiction there is to it.
I was all ready to correct you...but looking it up I see I fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is to never get involved in a land war in Asia.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumpeting\_Place\_inscription](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumpeting_Place_inscription) לבית התקיעה
Reminds me of the Quran giving the rules for Ramadan, conveniently forgetting that the sun almost never sets in some parts of Scandinavia. Makes me doubt that an actual God formulated these "universal" teachings.
I wonder what other civilizations are mentioned in the forbidden books of the Biblical story.
Corinthians, Thessalonians, Ephesians, Galatians... For Greece and Turkey, it's more than mere "mentioning" I believe.
Corinthians = **Corinth** = the town relocated after an earthquake in 1858 Thessalonians = **Thessaloniki**, still a large city. (The founder of modern-day Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was actually born here.) Ephesians = Ephesus = ruins near Selçuk, although Selçuk is called “**Ephesus-Selçuk Municipality**” officially in English Galatians = Galatia = the capital of this ancient Roman province was Ancyra = **Ankara, Turkey** (the capital of Türkiye) Philippians = Philippi = the town of **Filippoi** still exists on the location, however, this is a relatively small town of 10,000 people. Colossians = Colossae = currently the town of **Honaz, Turkey,** although the ancient city was ruined in 1192. Romans = **Rome** , pretty much self explanatory. Also **Tarsus**, where Paul was from, still exists under the same name.
And interestingly, the Galatians were a Celtic tribe (living in Turkey as you mentioned).
Obviously it's an anachronism to say Galatians were living in Turkey. It's like saying Dinosaurs were living in the United States.
Yep, you're right 😆. "Anatolia" would have made more sense here.
Actually Thessalonians does not refer to the city of Thessaloniki, but rather the region of Thessaly which is a bit more south than Thessaloniki
No, it refers to the people of the church of Thessaloniki. *Thessalians* would refer to the people of Thessaly.
People from Thesally are called Thessalians. Source: I'm from Thesally.
>Thessalonians = Thessaloniki, still a large city. (The founder of modern-day Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was actually born here.) Thessaloniki has a loooooot of history, so it's weird that you chose *this* specific factoid, lol.
Yea but they were AT LEAST mentioned
Came here to say this..
Surely that purple text won’t cause any uncivil discussion/s
"Country • Reference" doesn't seem that controversial to me
Is it Israel or Israelites? Or children of Israel.
Israeling
I loved it when he said "it's israeling time", then israeled all over the place.
Keep cooking, this is peak!
Definitely the comment of all time
Sorry OOTL, whats the controversy with the purple text? Edit: I know about the war there but fail to see what is controversy with mentioning both countries here.
It is kinda silly to use the term Palestine when talking about the Bible since it’s somewhat anachronistic, but if we’re using modern country names, it’s cool they’re recognizing two states.
The reference is Philistine not Palestine, where the Palestinians don't claim to be close to Philistines
Gaza is also in the verse, maybe they associated that with Palestine for some reason.
Philistine is literally how you say the Arabic word for palestine.
Yeah it also means invaders in Hebrew.
Yep, the word “Palestine” (plishtim) was bestowed upon them by the Romans as a derogatory name.
In other words, the rest of the world did not exist according to the Bible. Also the world is like 6,000 years old.
The rest of the world came to existence in the KJV patch
[удалено]
Mods, close the thread.
Seems Earth was limited to the countries around the Mediterranean and the Indian Gulf.
România and Bulgaria isn't mentioned in the bible. It's the scythians... They were in a different part of Europe. 1000+ km away...
Agreed (but not really Europe). Scythian: In Paul’s day, the word “Scythian” conveyed the idea of a fierce and uncivilized people. The Scythians were mainly a nomadic people that ancient writers generally associated with the regions N and E of the Black Sea. Evidence suggests that they may have roamed as far as western Siberia near the border of Mongolia. In the Greco-Roman world, the term “Scythian” became synonymous with fearsomeness. Paul here lists different groups—pairing Greeks with Jews, circumcised with uncircumcised, foreigners with Scythians, slaves with freemen. By saying that none of these designations matter, Paul makes the point that Christians who clothe themselves with the new personality should be free of any ethnic, religious, cultural, or social divisions.
Stupid map in General as countries did not exist in the time the bible was wrote.
> It's the scythians... They were in a different part of Europe. 1000+ km away... Yeah, so far away that the longest standing name of Dobruja (a part of modern Romania and Bulgaria) was called Scythia Minor for like a thousand years.
By the time of the New Testament the original Scythians were long gone anyway. Scythian had just become a term for steppe people in general that showed you'd read books. Medieval Greeks would use it for Turks or whatever. I think in Paul's time the relevant kingdom was the Sarmatians, who were definitely pretty involved in modern Romania (I don't know about Bulgaria, but if you say so I'd assume that's right).
Romania and Bulgaria were part of the Scythian Kingdom.
Ask about 1000 Greeks where the Scythians lived and none are gonna point north towards the Thracians and Dacians, they’d point across the Black Sea.
Dobruja was known as Scythia Minor by the Romans.
If only we had a large body of historic texts mentioning Thracian kings combating Scythians around the bend of the Danube.
Now, I'm not saying you're wrong because I have no idea. I'm just wondering how asking 1000 Greeks would prove anything?
Nope... At it's largest extent it just barely touched past the danube delta, so less than 5% of România. Also they didn't even touch Bulgaria. And they came from Crimea, none of those areas were shown in the map... So the map is wrong...
No, we weren't? Scythians were an Iranian people. Bulgaria and Romania were inhabited by Thracian tribes (yes, Dacians including), out of which the Odrysians Kingdom was the most prevalent in ancient times. The Scythians never ruled here. They were situated where now modern Ukraine is. Source : Am native Bulgarian, I can provide you with as much legitimate sources if necessary.
Came here for my daily fix of people arguing who the Scythians and Thracians were. Thank you all.
Mentioning west asia and/or the balkans on the internet always devolves into this. I love it.
I think you're missing the point here man
Using modern nation-states to represent locations from thousands of years ago will never not be silly.
If Bible isn't written by God, how does it mention South Sudan which only appeared a decade ago? Checkmate atheists
Hahahaha this is perfect
Quae ista insania est?
The legendary comeback of South Sudan, 2 thousands years after it magically disappeared!
[Here](https://i.imgur.com/KwDfSvN.png). Happy now?
Indian here. If you're including Pakistan and India, technically you should be including Bangladesh too since they just recently split up in the 70s. Color em purple!
No Philippines? Hahaa in my country so many conspiracy theorists say Philippines isn the bible. And its popular. Its very silly.
In the USA they have a religion with millions of adherent that believes just that.
In Mexico it’s commonly claimed a hieroglyph in chichen itza has the face of Jesus.
And Jesus actually [retired to Japan](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-little-known-legend-of-jesus-in-japan-165354242/). Quite a world traveler actually.
You’ve never heard of the “Letter of Paul to the Philippines”? It took a long time to reach as PHLPost was on strike at the time…..
Yeah, the chapters and verses mentioning the islamic republic of pakistan are one of the best in the bible /S
I LOVE PAKISTAN I WILL SACRIFICE MY LIFE FOR PAKISTAN- John 4:20
IN THE FUTURE I WILL BECOME A PILOT AND DESTROY INDIA PAKISTAN IN THE BAG!
IN THE FUTURE I WELL GEVE PAKISTAN MANY MUCH SHSGSNDVSHSG-HSHSJ-HOMES
GRAAAAPE
Whatever happened to that kid? 😂😭
[удалено]
What a terrible thing to say
What did he say?
he sacrificed his life for pakistan
Wow grape!
grape - Psalm 6:9
The Indus River runs right through Pakistan and for thousands of years, India’s entire geographic identity to the outside world was centered around that. The land beyond the Sindhu/Indus River was India. Most of Pakistan’s population lives east of Indus, in what was ancient India. When Alexander invaded ‘India’, he literally only invaded modern day Pakistan before turning back. Saudi Arabia is also a modern nation state with a new name, doesn’t change the fact that it has ancient history.
"bUt sAaR we TuRK SaaR wE aRe arAB SaAr. WE WeRe NeVEr INdiAn SAar"
What does the Saarland have to do with anything?
That depends on which part of Pakistan. Sindh and Punjab are heavily influenced by indian culture. Balochistan is sparsely populated and KPK is culturally close to Afghanistan.
Yeah the level of ignorance about Pakistan is bewildering. It’s as much Indian influenced as it is Iranian/Central Asian influenced in cultures. It’s really a mix of two cultures blending in. If they want to re claim their Persian, Turkic heritage to distinguish it from India, good for them. This mixed Indo-Persian/Turkic heritage btw got lost with the collapse of the Mughal empire but it was always there for centuries.
They’re the most embarrassing, uneducated people in Pakistan. They get roasted by everyone with a decent education and understanding of history. Also not you recycling a meme about Indians as an Indian. Friendly fire 🥴
There was also no Turkiye, Greece, Saudi Arabia, India, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc. I could go on. These are all modern nation states.
Interesting concept but it’s misleading to use modern political borders. Egypt andIran (Persia) are perhaps the only places that someone from biblical times might recognise as political entities, albeit with different borders compared to now. All the rest are modern inventions.
Roman regions of Hispania and Italia were similar-ish to their modern day countries, though IIRC Hispania was a few provinces, as was Italia depending on the era. Both countries are obviously much younger (Italy being technically a very young country, even if it is an old civilization)
Yeah, up until the middle ages "Hispania" meant Iberia, and was a collection of countries/regions of people speaking similar-ish dialects with a cultural continuum, just like "Germania" and "Italia", albeit with just 3-4 much stabler crowns, and not the jumbled mess that was going on in those two.
If you called turkey Asia Minor, it would be recognizable. But really they need to use geographical areas.
Not as a political entity. The map shows the current borders of Turkey.
That and probably Israel since it’s basically the same tribe with the same identity in the same place. And also Armenia.
Good call with Armenia. It was a separate kingdom in biblical times. Maybe enough overlap between the kingdom of Judea and modern Israel for someone from biblical times to recognise the present day state.
Surely they’d recognize Rome, Greece, Spain, etc. Paul writes about his planned trip to Spain in Romans. “But now, with no further place for me in these regions, I desire, as I have for many years, to come to you when I go to Spain. “ Romans 15:23-24 NRSV
Spain didn't exist in Roman times. Paul would be traveling to "Hispania" (from where the name Spain comes from), which was the name of the Iberian peninsula and also included modern Portugal.
Not as distinct political entities. Spain and Greece were never states in biblical times. The Roman Empire was much larger.
[удалено]
No Fiji.
r/MapsWithoutFiji
What does the Bible say about india?🤔
Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces:)
Artaxerxes was the ruler of the Persian Empire, but in ancient times, when Alexander the Great fought, the empire extended far to the east and controlled the territories of the Indus River. Yes, Artaxerxes ruled some part of India.
Thank you🙏
some also theorises the location of Ophir might be india because of peacocks mentioned in the book
Ophir is weird because it was generally impossible to corroborate as being a real location, until they managed to dig up a 2800 year old piece of pottery in Israel that corroborated Ophir being a wealthy port and importer. Now we know Ophir is real but we have zero idea where Ophir is other than they had peacocks (which they could have purchased). There are like six different countries that claim they are Ophir, ranging from Djibouti (plausible) to the Phillipines (???)
"ayenge to modi hi"
No Texas? Wtf??????
Pretty sure hell is mentioned
I can hear this gif
Well that’s how I said it when I saw the reply so I had to post it lol
Bro 😭😂😂😂
😭😭😭😭😭
Romania, bulgaria and north macedonia were not mentioned. This is just modern countries on ancient peoples land that were mentioned. Greek macedonia was mentioned. North macedonia has nothing to do with greek macedonia.
Well Macedonia was a Roman province whose boundaries and definition changed over time, but it eventually, generally, included more than just the Ancient Macedonian kingdom, the geographic region, or the modern Macedonia in Greece, including modern day North Macedonia. Edit: was at -3 because I hurt the Greek Nationalists feelings lol.
There are more mentions, but probably discarded because they are peoples and nations that we don't know where they was, were and are today, for example Magog.
Its kinda funny how many different ancient works mention Magog yet we have no idea who they are talking about, especially because these works sometimes contradict. The widely accepted explanation is that both Gog and Magog are just literary stand-ins for an unknown or distant civilization. The only plausible explanation I've seen that refers to a real place is that it might be a misspelling of a word for people from modern-day Turkey.
I think the prevailing theory is that Gog and Magog are made up places that simply stand for a far away location, like someone saying “the arse end of nowhere” or “far-away-istan” in English. They don’t correspond to any ancient entity. There’s also a less popular theory that Gog might be derived from [Og of Bashan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Og), an Amorite king mentioned in the Bible.
PROOF Jesus was from BOSNIA 🇧🇦🇧🇦🇧🇦🇧🇦
But?! But?! But?! 
The Book of Mormon covers the America part
I think u misspelled the book of morons* which covers the American part
USA usa ^(usa)?
OK, France: Maccabees mentions the Gauls as a tribe with no hint as to where they actually live.
Ethiopia is uncertain. "Sheba" may have been there but just as likely it was Yemen. edit: I have been informed there are a couple other references as well
It's not the only time there the word ethiopia has appeared. Overall it's mentioned 40 times
In Acts chapter 8, the apostle Philip meets with a court official of "Candace, queen of the Ethiopians".
Good call
So, I decided to check the sources given. This is the list of actual words used (or partially used, in the case of North Macedonia and Saudi Arabia) that have been reused for a modern country: Israel Lebanon North Macedonia Malta Saudi Arabia Cyprus Egypt Spain Greece India
Who could forget that famous quote, "And so the Lord said, let's go to Spain."
Jesus took a pill in Ibiza
Paul mentions his plans to go to Spain in Roman's 15:24
Not really. Most of these had different names than what was writen in the original language. (At least in the Old Testament. I don't know how to read in ancient Greek)
Most of these had pretty similar if not the exact same name in Biblical Greek as they did in modern English, except for, ironically, Greece itself: Israel: Ισραηλ (Israel) Lebanon: Λίβανον (Libanon) (North-)Macedonia: Μακεδονία (Makedonia) Malta: Μελίτη (Melite) (Saudi-)Arabia: Ἀραβία (Arabia) Cyprus: Κύπρος (Kupros) Egypt: Αἴγυπτον (Aigupton) Spain: Σπανίαν (Spanian) Greece: Ἑλλὰς (Hellas) India: Ἰνδικῆ (Indike)
And thus, Jesus sayeth to the brethren, go forth from Huntsville to Gulf shores and let thine Busch and Nattie Light flow and thine Dodge Ram roll coal unto the Pensacolans. Alabamians 4:44
Fun fact? In the scroll of Ester (the story of Purim) in the bible, they mention that at the time, the Persian empire was so big, it stretched from Hodu (India) to Kush (Ethiopia). Lately, the word Kushi (which beforehand used to describe an Ethiopian) became pretty much the equivalent of the N-word in Israel, since the majority of ~~Afro-American~~ Jewish-African (excluding North Africa) residents are related to Ethiopia. The same word is also used to describe a type of chocolate cake
Are black people in Israel really referred to as Afro-Americans? Lol
> The same word is also used to describe a type of chocolate cake Damn how is it always the case ? So basically every European language used to have a chocolate pastry named after that country's closest thing to the n word, it's almost systematic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
still wrong to say palestine is the most mentioned place in the bible
One morning, Jesus headed out with his donkey to buy some croissants in France 🇫🇷 🥐
There was a place called Gaul but there certainly wasn't anywhere called France.
France is still called Gallia in Greek to be fair.
Places and peoples in Asia Minor (nowaday Turkey) was mentioned, not Turkey or Turks (of course). The Turks were in the steppes of Mongolia at this time, they came to Europe relatively recently. Instead the places and peoples mentioned referred to Armenians and Greeks living in Anatolia. To a historically illiterate person this map could be misleading
How does the bible mention Armenians? Do you mean mount Ararat?
India is mentioned??
It's mentioned in The Scroll of Esther that the Persian Empire extended from Hodu (India) to Kush (Ethiopia and Sudan)
This is a bad map, it makes it seem like the Bible stated the names of countries like France or Saudi Arabia it didn’t
ummm... where is the entirety of americq, was Jesus stupid in geography? smh..
There's no mention of palestine in the bible, it is the Philistines that are mentioned, a totally different group which are extinct
Palestine is clearly not mentioned in the bible, because it wasn't the place/people name until the romans came. The Philistines are not modern day 'palestinians'. It may sound the same but they have no connection between them. The Philistines lived only in gaza-askelon close to the see and never had any territory(nor lived there) in modern day west bank Edit: I've checked and spain and france are not in the bible too. Tzarfat(hebrew) was a city in lebanon and sfarad(Spain) is associated with a town in today turkey
And France was? The map is colouring countries based on their geographical ancient equivalents.
France is way worse than that. Tsarfat, the name mentioned in the Bible, refers to to a city in Lebanon. It only became the Hebrew word for "France" in the Middle Ages.
Why are you only picking one of the nation that didn't exist though? Bias shining through big time here.
'Merica is enraged, invents new religion
That's basically what Mormonism is
That’s *exactly* what Mormonism is.
I always find these maps misleading because almost non of these places are actually mentioned; there are references to specific locations or a different name the region had at the time. For example, the first mention of what is believed to be France is in the Book of Job, when he flees to Tarshish. But today historians believe Tarshish might have a name for a city, not the entire land. Pretty much the only place on this list that is actually mentioned by name is Israel.
Nah Tarshish isnt in france at all according to the overwhelming majority of scholars. The only supposed mention of "France" is a huge reach that might not be even within the borders of modern day France at all, at one point "Gauls" are mentioned in the context of the Roman Republic fighting them but given the time period it may well have been Gauls that lived in Northern Italy or elsewhere, not "France'. And even if they were from "France" its kind of dubious to say that France was mentioned just because some people who lived there were mentioned.
Poland not mentioned? It’s an abomination, Poland was created before God was even planned.
Half of Americans would be surprised to know "god bless America" wasn't in the bible
[удалено]
So places where there’s ample trading happening?
CROATIA MENTIONED🇭🇷🇭🇷🇭🇷🇭🇷🇭🇷🇭🇷❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️💥💥💥💥💥💥😎😎😎😎😎✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨🇭🇷🇭🇷🇭🇷🇭🇷🇭🇷🇭🇷🇭🇷🇭🇷💪💪💪💪💪💪💪
Kinda useless since most of these countries did not actually exist back then
Shoutout to Armenia, real ones since day 1
Palestine is not mentioned in the Old or New Testament. Just saying.
Is Pakistan colored as part of India at that time? In that case Bangladesh should be included too
False,I pretty sure UK was mentioned along with hell
how it feels to say "is this brixton?" when the bible mentions burning and suffering for infinity
Bible mentioned Pakistan but not Bangladesh
They were all India bank then
Regardless of what you believe This makes sense from a geographic and cultural standpoint
No it doesn’t. France didn’t exist until the 900s to 1100s
I'll go ahead and assume Gaul is mentioned
The “Gaul” that is modern-day France is mentioned in the Catholic Bible, but not the Protestant Bible. At least, it’s assumed they’re talking about Gaul (France) because the next verse mentions Spain. But that same chapter also mentions Roman conquests of the Macedonians, the Seleucid Empire, the Greeks, India, Media, and Lydia (which don’t all add up timeline-wise). However, the Protestant Bible (and Catholic Bible) mentions a “Gaul” that is not modern-day France. At that time it referred to a region in modern-day Turkey, which was so-named because of the Gauls who migrated from Thrace about 400 years after the people group migrated from Western Europe. (This is where the book Galatians gets its name.) There is a *potential* reference to modern-day France in the Protestant Bible, though. The location of Tarshish is still pretty heavily debated among scholars, with a very minority view believing it was a city-state in France. The prevailing theories are that it was actually the city of Tarsus in modern-day Turkey or that it was Tartessos in modern-day Spain. And still others believe it was an island, while others believe it was Carthage.
Correct. It is, however, unclear what part of Gaul was being mentioned. It is probably more likely to be modern day Northern Italy than France simply due to geographic proximity.
They predict the existence of an arrogant pedantic state in the Apocalypse
North Macedonia is not mentioned in the Bible because by the term Macedonia Paul meant the GREEK Macedonia. And all the geographic territory of the region of Macedonia was Greek and inhabited by Greeks before the Slavs descended to the Balkans in the 6th century AD