Board index ‹ Bible

[Squeaker]

why do most bible stories usually take place somewhere in the middle east?

not sure if i just answered my own question, but i always guessed it’s the same reason vedic stories always take place somewhere in india

[jimwalton]

The place known as Canaan, which we now call Israel, was the crossroads of the world. Because of its location and water supply (the freshwater Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River), anyone traveling between the continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa passed through there. It's the place God chose to reveal Himself so that the message of Him could most easily spread to the whole world.

The earliest archaeologically-known settlement in the world, Jericho, dates back to at least 7000 BC.

It was also the cradle of civilization. Current scientific opinion is that writing began there. The first evidence of human writing is in Mesopotamia in about 3200 BC.

It seems to have been a good choice for a location to make Himself known.

[Goo Goo Dolls]

> It's the place God chose to reveal Himself so that the message of Him could most easily spread to the whole world.

As opposed to simply revealing himself in multiple locations? Wouldn't that make his message even more easily spread?

[jimwalton]

Good question, but I think there are at least a few good reasons for God's strategy.

One, knowing human nature, to reveal Himself in multiple locations would before too long turn into two different messages. It's better to keep things consistent and unified. Even with one source, you are probably aware of the various traditions that have sprung up anyway.

Second, there was actually a point to God investing Himself in one people group, so that they could become models to the world of how a people could be in the world and be godly. As we know, the Israelites blew it pretty badly. In addition, it's just possible that revealing Himself in multiple locations could have just exacerbated that problem rather than helped it.

[Goo Goo Dolls]

Let's say you want to send a message to a group of people.

Option #1: You can send a single message.

Option #2: You can send as many messages as you want. One message per year to every member of the group, perhaps. Or one message per day, even. With each new iteration, you can clarify any misunderstandings of your message. You can reiterate your message. You can answer questions about your message. You can elaborate on the details of your message...

Do you really think choosing option #1 will result in your message being heard more clearly and consistently than the alternative? Of course not. Although he is certainly capable of interacting with everyone in a direct and unambiguous way, God apparently values being hidden, nigh indistinguishable from completely absent, over spreading his message to everyone.

"It's possible God has a good reason" is just acknowledging your theology doesn't make any sense, but you're going to believe it anyway.

[jimwalton]

> "It's possible God has a good reason" is just acknowledging your theology doesn't make any sense, but you're going to believe it anyway.

Not at all. Let's be a little more open-minded and free-thinking than that. What it really means is that God didn't tell us why He chose only one people group, so we are left to speculate. That's radically different from "your theology doesn't make any sense, but you're gong to believe it anyway." Where God doesn't tell us, we use our brains to do our best to make sense out of it, as opposed to what you've implied.

> Opeiont #1...Option #2:

You've given two options, but the reality is between the two and including both. God sent a message to one people group, but it happened at the hand of 40 authors over the course of 1300 years from three different continents. So the Bible is a message to one people group, but God sent as many as he wanted. Even within some books, like Jeremiah, the messages came one a day, one a month, or once a year, as God desired, and with each iteration added to the revelation.

So, once again, your conclusion that my theology doesn't make sense but I'm choosing to believe it anyway is distinctly inaccurate and an unfair perception that doesn't reflect either my statement or my beliefs.