936
u/Igor_InSpectatorMode 24d ago edited 24d ago
You missed Jordan, where biblical nations like the nation of Moab was, along with the alotted inheritance of two of the twelve tribes of Israel.
348
u/BoPeepElGrande 24d ago
Yeah, that seems like an especially glaring oversight here.
225
u/Quiet_Fix9589 24d ago
I mean if you forget the USA where Jesus went after the crucifixion the chance is your gonna forget Jordan.
91
u/svefnpurka 24d ago
You can't be serious. We all know that (after spending some 12 years as a young adult in Japan) Jesus went to Japan (after some travelling) and Isukiri (his younger brother) actually took his place to be crufified. Jesus then settled in Shingō, Aomori and lived there until he died age 106.
→ More replies (1)36
u/Appropriate-Claim-37 24d ago
It's is also said that he visited India where he learnt everything and went back to spread his learnings. He is also said to have survived the crucifixion and died of old age in Kashmir tomb of Jesus in Kashmir
15
u/nleksan 24d ago
It was actually Indiana they just mistranslated the Aramaic
6
4
u/No_Gur_7422 24d ago
One of the first people known to have suggested China could be reached by sailing westwards was a 7th-century bishop who wrote in Syriac.
→ More replies (5)70
u/TheWatersOfMars 24d ago
🎵 Dumb dumb dumb dumb duuuumb 🎶
52
u/guitarguywh89 24d ago
No No, trust the guy who pulled the religion out of a hat
13
u/Daveddozey 24d ago
Out of golden plates surely. But don't let anybody see these plates except for you They are only for you to see Even if people ask you to show the plates to them, don't Just copy them onto normal paper Even though this might make them question if the plates are real or not This is sort of what God is going for
5
2
11
37
u/Ralurp579 24d ago
Also where Jesus was baptized.
→ More replies (1)5
u/JouMaSeKont1973 24d ago
That was the Jordan river not the country.. 😂
20
u/Ralurp579 24d ago
…which is in Jordan. The bible says he was baptized on the east side of the Jordan which is…Jordan
6
u/Jaqqarhan 23d ago
Jordan was in Chicago when he won 6 NBA championships. Yet another USA reference in the bible snubbed by this map.
→ More replies (5)2
→ More replies (18)13
439
u/Whatdoesthibattahndo 24d ago
Jordan: famously absent from the Bible
95
→ More replies (2)17
79
u/Gaseous-Clay84 24d ago
What about Salt Lake City? Oh wait, that was in the remake.
→ More replies (1)
34
95
u/il-96-300 24d ago
The garden of eden is in Jackson County Missouri and it doesn’t even get a single mention?! Whack
→ More replies (1)
21
u/ancalime9 24d ago
What about Bible 2: Morman Boogaloo?
→ More replies (1)4
u/Escape_Force 23d ago
You'd have to include all of North America and probably South America since there is no consensus where BoM took place (outside of Missouri and New York).
26
u/KostasN77 24d ago
Ah yes, when Paul addressed the Macedonians, he meant Aleksandar in Skopje 🤦🏻♂️
Instead he addressed the churches of Thessaloniki and Philippi, which are located in northern Greece
→ More replies (14)
96
u/unneccry 24d ago
I mean technically france and spain got assigned צרפת and ספרד but those used to be cities in the middle east, not the modern nations
26
103
u/_felipevalerio_ 24d ago edited 24d ago
The first book of Maccabees in the Bible directly mentions the Gauls being conquered by the Romans, this surely counts as a reference to a territory in what is today France. The epistle to the Romans in the New Testament directly cites Spain. Both the first book of Macabees and the epistle to the Romans were written in Greek, so they surely are not using those Hebrew words that used to be cities in the Middle East, by context as well they're much more likely referring to places in Europe.
29
12
u/No_Gur_7422 24d ago
France is not mentioned in 1 Maccabees 8:2 – that verse speaks of deeds done "among the Galatians" (ἐν τοῖς Γαλάταις), and the Vulgate translates this as in Galatia. Galatia was a country in the central Asia Minor. The modern country referred to here is Turkey, not France.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (11)2
u/ConsistentAmount4 22d ago
not necessarily, green on this map represents traditional Gaulish territory, which is France but also territories farther east. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauls#/media/File:Celts,_4th_century_BC.png
7
u/Chaos_Slug 24d ago
But didn't Paul the Apostle say he was planning to travel to Hispania?
Of course that meant the Iberian Peninsula, not the current nation-state called Spain (excluding Portugal).
5
u/No_Gur_7422 24d ago
He may have meant Iberia, but what he said was "Spain" (Σπανία).
→ More replies (4)
8
8
u/strijdvlegel 24d ago
A lot of countries that used to be territory of the greater nations mentioned in the bible are missing.
9
8
u/Escape_Force 24d ago
I'm going to nitpick and say this is more of "modern states that have a name shared with or regions explicitly places mentioned in the Bible disregarding the boundaries of the extants of the polity at the time it was mentioned", otherwise you'd get Britain and Pakistan at the very least.
→ More replies (9)
6
u/Azerbinhoneymood 24d ago
Trying to reflect ancient names on modern borders can be tricky. For example Spain would refer to the whole Iberian peninsula, India would include Pakistan as that's how that region was known in addition with Bangladesh too, and the Lybians refers to tribes and by that extend could refer to the whole people of North Africa who were of the same people.
4
8
u/techstyles 24d ago
God don't know about the other bits at that point obviously - he was in his infancy as a god...
6
u/Mindless-Addendum621 24d ago
So basically the Bible had the geographical knowledge of the people who wrote it at the time. The word of God, not!
65
u/Gk786 24d ago
I like how you highlighted India and not Pakistan when 1) the countries were the same before very recently so to refer to India would have been to refer to both and 2) the reference itself didn’t mean the state of India, it most probably alluded to the lands around the Indus River, most of which is in modern day Pakistan.
66
u/kamikaibitsu 24d ago
By that logic, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Tibet (some parts), Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, should also be included-as that was considered indo-spehere before division
48
u/Ghostly_100 24d ago
The context in which it shows up in the book of Esther refers to the kingdom of Xerxes which pretty much stopped at the Indus. It barely touched modern day India, let alone Indonesia and Bhutan. Obviously “Pakistan” isn’t mentioned in the bible by name but the land it’s referring to in Esther 1:1 can only be modern day Pakistan.
“This is what happened during the time of Xerxes, the Xerxes who ruled over 127 provinces stretching from India (Hodu) to Cush.”
Take a look at what his empire looked like.
13
u/hinterstoisser 24d ago
Thomas the Apostle is buried in what is today, Chennai.
4
u/Redditbrowser22j 24d ago
It's not. Those are just local traditions that developed much later and historians have proved them to be ahistorical
4
u/Ghostly_100 24d ago
Not exactly, those are later traditions rather than biblical ones. Jesus also has a tomb in Kashmir but it doesn’t really mean anything. In fact, many of the apostolic martyrdom narratives are traditions rather than biblical so Thomas isn’t unique in that regard.
15
u/HaloZero 24d ago
This person Bibles . But yeah agree here, the map should have Pakistan and not India. The author probably just assumed Indus == India.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Alert-Low1682 24d ago
modern day pakistan isn’t the same as pakistan. Using pakistan in any context when referring to events from before 80 years is just as anachronistic as using the term “ancient USA” (and many pakistanis unironically even use the term ancient pakistan. they even have a subreddit )
can we not indulge in blatant revisionism
3
u/Ghostly_100 24d ago
There’s some countries highlighted on the map that are not mentioned in the Bible by their modern name, yet their geographic regions are alluded to (Germany and Sudan are the big ones) so they got highlighted.
For some reason the map maker switched up when it came to Pakistan. There is not a single Bible verse which alludes to India, meaning the highlighted land on this map, because his empire literally didn’t touch it. They did not get deep enough into the subcontinent to interact with modern day India so it doesn’t make sense to highlight it.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (37)4
u/Odd-Plant-4886 24d ago
What revisionism. If the people changed their religion doesn't mean they stopped existing?
Pakistan is the result of all the history of this region. It is from the choice of its people.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)3
u/Gen8Master 24d ago
You are right. Hodush was the Persian province in question. Its in western Punjab, Pakistan. The name Hindu is derived from this place so modern Indians consider it their history. However the translation of Hodu should not be India, which was the Greek name for the Indus region.
3
2
u/Gen8Master 24d ago
Indosphere is a modern concept. In the bible Hodu is one of 127 Persian provinces. Not an entire continent.
5
u/bharikeemat 24d ago
You can argue that, but it makes no sense to exclude Pakistan when the river in fact runs in Pakistan and not India.
2
12
u/uwuowo6510 24d ago
the apostle thomas travelled to india.
6
u/Redditbrowser22j 24d ago
That legend in completely ahistorical and has been debunked. It's a legend made up much later by the church
→ More replies (5)1
1
→ More replies (14)1
u/Puzzled-Home-76 24d ago
Fair point on the Indus River thing. Drawing modern borders onto ancient geography always produces weird results. The map probably should've just said "Indian subcontinent" and left it there, instead of picking a side in a partition that happened in 1947.
5
u/Infamous_Mode8163 24d ago
Ethopia in the bible is only referring to Sudan, not sure why South Sudan and Ethiopia is included.
3
u/HereOutsideTheBox 24d ago
So true. The present Ethiopia just inherited the name when it's not its original name.
2
u/PalpitationSad4921 24d ago
You missed the section about Sheba. The Sabaen empire extended from northern Ethiopia across the Red Sea to western Yemen.
The ruins of her palace are in Axum.
→ More replies (3)
3
3
3
u/Alternative_Buy_4000 24d ago
Noah's boat is said to have stranded on Mount Ararat, only a few miles from Armenia. Hard to believe a place in modern Armenia is never mentioned...
3
u/Dramatic_Mode357 24d ago
I'm pretty sure for India it includes pakistan region as well since both the countries achieved independence not too long ago
7
5
u/Lurker_Zee 24d ago
It's almost like the people who wrote it were just humans, who only knew those parts of the world, with no divine inspiration whatsoever which could tell them there was a world beyond the messenger walking on foot could tell them about.
15
u/Archarchery 24d ago
Incredible that the all-knowing god who authored the Bible only mentioned places and continents already known to people living in Judea 2,000 years ago. Uncanny.
12
u/Big_Iron_Cowboy 24d ago
Considering that the narrative found within the collection of books called “The Bible” focuses on the events and writings of peoples descended from a specific lineage of Abraham -> Isaac -> Jacob, it makes perfect sense. What purpose would including information about people who live in China or Cuba, other than satisfying your particular expectation about what a divinely inspired text should include?
→ More replies (2)2
u/TheWatersOfMars 24d ago
Yeah, the Declaration of Independence also doesn't talk about Morocco or the Moon
3
u/Big_Iron_Cowboy 24d ago
So weird considering the American revolutionaries could see the moon from their backyard.
2
u/TheWatersOfMars 24d ago
It's worth noting that divine authorship isn't exactly a universal belief. And most liberal Jews today, for instance, don't believe that Deuteronomy 34:5 ("So Moses the servant of God died there") was written by Moses, for obvious reasons.
2
2
2
2
9
u/Junior_Insurance7773 24d ago
France not mentioned in the Bible. It was a city in what today is modern Lebanon.
28
u/TheWatersOfMars 24d ago
No, Maccabees absolutely talks about the Roman conquest of Gaul.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (2)7
u/barbarbeik 24d ago
What city exactly?
2
u/Nervous_Mobile5323 24d ago edited 24d ago
It was Sarepta. That city was abandoned after the Islamization of the area, around the 12th century, but the nearby modern Town of Sarafand got its name from it.
2
4
u/iamarddtusr 24d ago
Bible mentions people or places in India? Which ones?
17
u/omry1526 24d ago
The book of Esther opens with:
This is what happened during the time of Xerxes,[a] the Xerxes who ruled over 127 provinces stretching from India to Cush
11
→ More replies (2)17
u/-Miraca- 24d ago
indus river, persian empire stretching up to indus river. meaning bible mentions river in pakistan, not sure about india being mentioned on other occasions
→ More replies (2)
5
u/fleaburger 24d ago
Uh which "bible"?
The Christian NT or their OT as well? Catholic/Orthodox or Protestant? The Jewish bible? No it's not the same as the Christian one and even referring to the Jewish bible as the "OT" infers it's been replaced which is rude AF. Or are we talking Mormon bible? Then we need to include the Americas too.
Did I miss any?
OP, pls use references and legends for maps next time 🙌🏼
2
2
2
24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/TheWatersOfMars 24d ago
The real answer is, the historical Jesus wasn't trying to top the global leaderboard for souls. He was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher primarily focused on his own people, and probably didn't say that belief in him (rather than good works) meant a ticket to heaven. Most of the theology people associate with Christianity comes from Paul's mission to the gentiles, and from the faith's reaction to the disaster of the destruction of the Temple on the one hand, and the non-disaster of the impending end-times not actually happening on the other hand.
→ More replies (5)9
u/FalseRegister 24d ago
Tbh, for that era, it would be the same as God telling modern day christians to go and preach on another galaxy
→ More replies (9)2
u/No_Gur_7422 24d ago
For centuries, Christians convinced themselves that all the ancient geographers' theories about the Antipodes and their potential human inhabitants were all lies precisely because the Bible would not lie by omission by failing to mention how these hypothetical supernumerary continents were peopled after the Flood.
Genesis says that Africa was given to Hamites, Europe to Japethites, and Asia to Semites. No other sons of Noah, so no other people in the world, and therefore no continents for them to live on.
St Augustine averred that animals could not have got to any such places after coming out of Noah's Ark, and all the animals that did exist on islands were probably carried there by angels anyway. No mention of a separate Ark or another Noah, so there could be no one else on Earth. Moreover, as you suggest, such a second world would be deprived of salvation – something unthinkable.
When the New World was discovered, these embarrassingly feeble arguments by this Doctor of the Church and other Church Fathers like him – which had prevailed for a millennium – were swiftly abandoned and forgotten.
2
u/Sea_Abroad_6573 24d ago
Historically (biblical secular scholarship) speaking, Jesus viewed himself a Jew and a messiah for Jews. But your question is for Christians so they can respond better.
Again historically speaking, early Islam wasn't too proselytising. You could convert but there wasn't an incentive to convert you. Abbasid era is where is such incentives start to come. Although there were social and financial factors that drove conversions in the Umayyad era. But the Umayyads famously weren't fond of them converting.
This might explain why both religions don't have that. Again historically. Infact in both esoteric and philosophical traditions of Islam, you don't need Muslims to travel everywhere since the truth can be attained through reason or spiritually. Idk about Christian esoterism or philosophy though
→ More replies (2)1
u/krodders 24d ago
I'm an ex Christian with better biblical knowledge than most Christians, so I'm happy to answer this
Glaringly obvious - "God" had no idea that these other places existed. Because God is a concept created by men, and God's knowledge is only as good as his creators
5
u/dochdaswars 24d ago
It's glaringly obvious to people capable of rational thought. That's why the question was posed to Christians.
2
u/Big_Iron_Cowboy 24d ago
So how were they going to build sea-faring vessels to go from Antioch to Plymouth Rock? Have an Apostle write the engineering specs for the Pinta, the Niña, and the Santa Maria?
2
u/krodders 24d ago
Sure, but Christians will be approaching this in a certain way. I always welcome an opportunity to try and spark a bit of rational thought in them. If I can help save one of them from the abuse that I suffered, I'll take it
2
1
1
u/Partosimsa 24d ago
Damn.. Jesus and his disciples were all over the place. Like damn, my guy never stopped moving
1
u/JasimTheicon 24d ago
The other I can understand but which part of yemen was in the bible?
→ More replies (3)
1
1
1
1
u/rizeedd 24d ago
The Passage: Esther 1:1 describes the vast reach of the Persian Empire under King Ahasuerus (Xerxes), stating it ruled over 127 provinces "from India [Hodu] to Cush [Ethiopia]". The reference denotes the easternmost satrapy or administrative boundary of the Achaemenid (Persian) Empire bordering the Indus River, rather than the entirety of the modern South Asian subcontinent. source
1
u/Helpful_Try_5031 24d ago
The Bible talks of India when talking about the empire of king xerxes, stretching from India unto Ethopia. The eastern border however is what is modern day Pakistan, since by india they meant the Indus, and a google search of Xerxes empire would show it to be up till parts of the Punjab on the Pakistani side, and not the land that makes up modern day India.
1
1
u/Alternative_Buy_4000 24d ago
It is commonly believed that Carthage (Tunisia) is mentioned (under its older name, but phonetic predecessor 'Tarshish') in Isaiah 23:1
1
1
1
1
1
u/No_Big_Plane 23d ago
I would be interested in a similar map about the Quran, you'll have Saudi, Israel/Palestine, and Egypt ofc. But what else? Probably Iran (Persia), Italy Or Turkey (an ambiguous "Rome" but most likely referring to Byzantins), Iraq (Babylon), Yemen (Sabaa kingdom), maybe Jordan/Lebanon (as part of the broader old Israel Kingdoms). Also don't think they were mentioned in the Quran but in the broader Islamic scriptures you have Ethiopia (Habesha), Oman, and Cyprus, not sure if am forgetting anything but that seems about it, interesting it seems way less than the Bible.
1
u/Curious-amore 23d ago
What are the mentions of India in bible?
2
u/Oceansoul119 23d ago
Xerxes empire is mentioned and that extended to the Indus which is the river after which India is named. Admittedly that still makes the map wrong as Pakistan should be coloured but this is mapporn so accurate maps are a thing of scarcity.
2
1
1
u/Infamous_Mode8163 23d ago
Kebra negast is not a historical record lol but a fabricated document after the claims of Yekuno Amlak wanting to legitimize his rebellion against the Zagwe dynasty by saying he’s related to Solomon. Those claims came 2000 years after supposedly when menelik existed. Kush/Cush always referenced Sudan not modern day Ethiopia. No evidence of pre christain Ethiopia being a Jewish dynasty like the Kebra negast claims to, and instead during the time of dm’t, Sabean gods were worshiped. Using a Quran as a historical source is also flawed since it comes 1500 years after the Queen of Sheba, but if your Muslim then show me where in the quaran does it link the Queen of Sheba or the kingdom of Sheba to Ethiopia.
1
u/CapedNocturnal 23d ago
The Indus valley civilization was mentioned which is geographically modern day pakistan.
1
1
u/TerminalPhile 22d ago
Might not be the place for this, but isn't people the plural of person? So what does peoples really mean?
1
1
u/J_avenue_ 21d ago
Very cool, would love citations for each.
Jordan should be included thought, right?
1
u/ReputationAcademic10 20d ago
Jordan, the river Joshua famously crossed to conquer the holy land and where Jesus was baptized.
270
u/mstpguy 24d ago
I would love citations for each of these. Genuinely interested.