The Most Advanced Ancient Book of All Time?

Possibly people who are making this claim about the ‘most advanced book of all times’ should read their own ‘holy book’ first, before making unsubstantiated claims, especially without a single proof to back up why the teaching in the Bible is scientifically or morally most advanced.

1) That the world was created in 6 days in September 4004 BCE, is flat a square at the center of the universe, light before stars, has the wrong sequence of evolution, initial separation of water above (clouds) and below (sea, lakes), stars which might fall down to earth …etc… are utter mythical Bronze age drivel made up from primitive goat herders and has nothing to do with divine knowledge describing reality unknowable at the time.

2) God gambles with Satan about poor Job, Lot’s family is well so good to be worth of rescue from Sodom and Gomorra – so good like offering his 2 virgin daughters for gang rape and later Lots daughter make their father drunk to have intercourse with him resulting in incestuous offspring – oh it is pleasing god so much; god demanding the sacrifice of firstborn sons to please him ; god likes the sprinkling of blood ; the smell of burning inner organs of oxen is pleasing him ; god is ordering the genocide of all neighboring tribes, raping of women … and so on and on …. With more than 2,8 million death committed or ordered by god : morally superior and advanced ? hardly !

3) Huge parts of the Bible are plagiarized form earlier writings so it is not original genuine anyway: Genesis from Babylonian Enuma Elis ; the flood myth from the Epos of Gilgamesh ; Assyrian Sargon myth of a secretly born baby floating down a river in a bitumen sealed basket (sound also familiar ?) ; virgin born sons are nothing special in the ancient world (even Plato, Romulus & Remus….) ; resurrected heroes are coming in the dozen from Asclepius, Attis, Horus, Osiris, Mithras ; the Ester story (last supper) plagiarized from Egyptian Osiris/Horus myth including copy the mama Isis and baby Horus statues ; the birth narrative on 25.December plus visiting Magi from Mithras ; and the birth of the messiah from a unmarried ‘harlot’ girl wandering around the holy land with apostles existed also before 100 BCE and was found out from Biblical scholars already more than a century ago : http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/jesus_live…
The golden rule (do not do unto others….) was taught in Buddhism since 500BCE e.g. is predated the Gospel writing very long, the other positive Q-gospel sayings (like give away your belongings and life ascetic) are randomized spread over Mark’s narrative from Luke and Matthew and are obviously a copy stoic/cynic teachings like from Diogenes of Sinope.

And to show some earlier ‘holy scriptures’ with a morally much more advanced and peaceful teaching than the repugnant genocidal misogynic slavery hailing Bible verses:

Buddhist Mahayana school (details of the various ancient scriptures inside):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana_Sutras

Buddhist Theravada school (details of the various ancient scriptures inside): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali_Canon

Hinduism sacred scriptures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita

And about the scientific nonsensical writings and self contradicting Bible narrative here a challenge from Scot Bistrup (details in the link): http://www.bidstrup.com/bible2.htm

//” In addition, I'm making all of you this offer and issuing this challenge: Give me novel, logically consistent and factually correct explanations for any or all of the problems I list above, and I'll put them on this web site. If you can offer me a complete, logically consistent harmonization of the problem of the account of the death and resurrection of Jesus that accounts for all the facts, places and incidents recorded in the four gospels plus Acts, I'll post it here. Don't just tell me it exists, send it to me. I genuinely want to see it, and I am honest enough to post it here and publicly eat crow over it. Furthermore, I'll go even one better, and that will be to help you claim the $10,000 prize that the Skeptics Society has offered for such an account. “//

If you can't tell us what is the most advance ancient book of all time, other than the Bible, then it's obvious that you have not done all of the necessary research, knowledge and understanding that can oust the Bible from being the most advance ancient book of all time.

Hi to all,

If the author of this post is not agreeing that the Bible is the Most Advanced Ancient Book of All Time, then what is the most advanced ancient book of all time??? Can we contest all the ancient books out there – so we can prove the veracity of this article? Any other ancient book that can surpass the glory of the Bible?

May tungkol ba sa "Kama Sutra" @ Wes? Well…alam mo na kung saan ako mag-cacast ng vote…hehehe.

@ Nomadic Gadfly

When the evidence should be all around but is not found despite extensive search we can surly dismiss the most outrageous claims made in the Bible.

Like the ‘big flood’ around 2300 BCE with nearly 9000m water level, or that humans were reaching 900 years of age before 2300 BCE and like Moses or Abraham reaching 150 and more years of age.
Read some history book like Foinkelstein/Silberman ‘The Bible unearthed’ or ‘David and Solomon’ or Robin L. Fox ‘The unauthorized version’ or other history and archeology books about the topic :

Story of Abraham : it’s not about finding his saddle or not – but about crossing inhospitable deserts (impossible), riding on camels around 1900 BCE several centuries before camels were domesticated, alliance or hostility against kings/kingdoms not existing back then but in the 7th century BCE …and so on

The story of Jacob : like before – no camel caravans at this time, no confirmation of any alleged event in Egyptian history writings.

The Exodus: heavy fortified military camps of Egypt all over ancient ‘Israel’, no mentioning of plagues over years or the loss of the entire army, 600,000 men (e.g. with women and kids 2 million people plus animals ! ) roaming an inhospitable desert for 40 years – and do not leave a single scrap of trace there, despite heavy digging of the faithful !

The invasion of the holy land : no walls at Jericho (surrounding mound collapsed a millennium earlier), during the entire timespan (Biblical 1400 BCE – up to 1200 BCE if the sea gypsy invasion of coastal areas might be willfully misread as ‘the Biblical invasion’ ) just a single small hut with 1 pottery was found. The huge city of Gideon where the sun had to stand still as support – just a few burial caves found for the alleged time no city.

David and Solomon : David more a warlord of the area with shifting alliances, the single evidence a small fraction of an inscription found some years back mentioning ‘the house of David’ otherwise even Jewish hardcore believers start considering this entire David staff as myth. Solomon : nothing, definitely no huge golden palace around 950 BCE in Jerusalem, with Judea a poor collection of villages with together 5000 people ergo not hundreds of women in his harem … etc… all made up stories.

So in history and archeology books written from professionals not from Christian apologists with wishful thinking : The Bible is not a history book, and it is more exceptional if some event is historical properly mentioned. Not really what I learned in Sunday school, but that’s how it is considering the knowledge of today.

And Finkelstein/Silberman (‘The Bible unearthed) also put this also in perspective : the story were made completely up in the 7th century BCE – to produce a shared history of Judea and Israel and assimilate the huge influx of refugees from the northern tribes of Israel after they were invaded 722 BCE. For that reason you will still find 2 gods mentioned in the original Hebrew version (obfuscated translated both gods to ‘The Lord’) Elohim god(s) from the Northern tribes (who created the universe in 6 days – Genesis-1), Yahweh created Adam & Eve in Eden (Genesis version-2).

About the round earth : well someday someone climbed up a mountain and recognized the horizon is slightly rounded, looked at the moon and the sun – also round – and made the conclusion that earth might be also round, however a flat round disk resting on pillars at the center of the universe.
When the sacred book was really written from the creator himself or at least he revealed the unknowable secrets to his prophets to write them down – I would expect some more sophistication than uneducated Bronze age myth floating around from the time !
And this is what the article here is all about : the Bible is just a book with myth and some historical more of less accurate stories — not divinely revealed otherwise human unknowable highly advanced scientific knowledge.

@Nomadic Gadfly: glad to have you back, no hard feelings from the last debacle I hope. I think you both are at par with John here when it comes to biblical knowledge so I'm looking forward to constructive discussion from you guys. its rare to have stimulating yet civil discussions on biblical interpretations from both sides on the fence so I'll be looking forward to it 🙂

@John: can't we put the title of "most advanced ancient book of all times" to a vote first? I was going to campaign for the Kama Sutra pa naman 🙂

And quick phone-in question that always bugs me: if biblical interpretation has always been the root cause of a lot of problems and conflict, why did none of the Popes ever think of publishing an annotated version of the bible? He can invoke his powers of infallibility and settle once and for all which biblical passages are literal and which are not, then provide the "official" literal meanings to all figurative chapters of the bible. Given that the bible is supposed to carry both the history and law of an entire society, shouldn't it be made as idiot-proof as possible? God knows we already have a lot of idiots like Fred Phelps running around.

Thanks for those comments @ Gadfly and rest assured that they were fully noted…Sa ngayon po,eh medyo…well parehas mo lang…medyo pagod sa job so I think wala akong time for now to reply to some of the issues you have raised.

Now it will be quite arrogant in my part to say that Eliseo Soriano is not a Christian. If you want to point the finger at Soriano of not being a Christian…well that will be between you and Mr. Soriano.

Hi, good morning.

Before going to work, let me add something.

In previous comment, I delved on the cosmology of the ancient Hebrews as shared by israel’s neighbors, like the babylonians, the assyrians and the egyptians. It means that the bible as a written text of history shared common worldview from israel’s neighboring cultural communities. One implication here is to avoid anachronism – accusing the bible of error in view of the modern understanding of spherical earth. The bible is also a product of its time – of its historical and cultural milieu. My addition is to show how the text is structured in the book of Isaiah.

Understanding Isaiah 40:22

The book of Isaiah is divided into two parts– First Isaiah (chapter 1-39) and Second Isaiah (chapter 40-55). First Isaiah, in anticipation of the return from exile, stresses the rule of YHWH over the nations and ultimately the vigorous exercise of YHWH’s sovereignty over all recalcitrant forces, including the power of death. The Second Isaiah, situated in the historical background of the upheaval in the fertile crescent where Cyprus of Persia defeated the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, has been theologically interpreted as YHWH’s intervention to restore Israel from exile. Thus, the proclamation of the sovereignty of YHWH of Israel. However, in a careful reading of the book of Isaiah, there is a gap between 39:5-8 and 40:1-11 which is characterized with the reality of loss, suffering and dismay reflective of the judgment of YHWH and at the same time leads into YHWH’s will for restoration. Isaiah 55:5-9 tells about the “plan” of YHWH that entails restoration and well-being. (see Brueggemann. 2003. An Introduction to the Old Testament)

Isaiah 40:22 belongs to the “Cyprus texts” (Isaiah 40:21-45:7) – the centerpiece illustrating Cyprus as YHWH’s agent of rescue, declaring in poetic language YHWH’s singular power as Creator and assaulting the defeat and humiliation of the Babylonian gods which are portrayed as impotent. In short, God the creator is the Lord of heaven and earth, which is for the ancient Hebrew, sitting in a circle of the earth (v 22). (for detailed exegesis of the text see Brueggemann; and commentary on Isaiah 40:22 in http://biblebrowser.com/isaiah/40-22.htm)

++++++++++++++++

Nuances of the term "circle" is discussed here: http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat….

One entry is notable:

The Geographical Meaning of Earth Seas in Genesis 1:10
by Paul Seely

"There is one verse in the OT, however, which has often been cited at least by laymen as a proof that the earth was understood to be a globe. I refer to Isaiah 40:22 which speaks of God as the One sitting above the circle of the earth. This verse does imply that the earth is circular, but there is nothing either in the underlying Hebrew word (hug) or in the context which necessarily implies anything more than the circularity of the flat earth-disc which the historical context and Genesis 1 have given us as the meaning of. If Isaiah had intended to speak of the earth as a globe, he would probably have used the word he used in 22:18 (dur), meaning 'ball.' "

Hi, pinoyatheist,

I wrote this comment while waiting for my wife in the office and hurriedly closed my laptop when she arrived. I thought it was not posted. Let me continue it or better re-write it for the sake of clarity and fairness.

It seems that I'm against your two points here (1) Soriano's dome and magical bible, and(2) the historicity of the bible and the reception of the christians of the findings of archeology. I'm not totally in disagreement with your data but more critical on the interpretations.

(1) Your article is a reply to Soriano’s “The Most Advanced Ancient Book of All Time” (May 2007). It would be helpful to point your finger directly to Soriano, rather than the general “[a]ccording to Christians”. In doing so, your reader will have a proper perspective in reading your article.

I listened to some of Soriano's teaching/preaching sessions in TV and I categorized his interpretation of the bible as literalist (fundamentalistic) and his disdain for his opponents can be likened to Hitchens' contempt on religious people. Nonetheless, let us listen to what Soriano is saying.

Soriano wrote:

"Why the Bible? The Bible is the one and only book on earth that carries with it an authority and authentication not coming from any human person, but from somebody whose knowledge is above nature and humans. This person is God."

If you notice, this is a response to the question raised by Alastor who noted that the bible is a literary work written by human writers –underwent translations from the original and the bible as we have today passes through various copying and editing — thereby not immune to error in typography, conscious/unconscious alterations, additions or deletions of texts due to faulty eyesights or hearings (in monastery, verbal dictation was used), etc. In short, due to a possibility of human error, the bible is not a reliable book. That's why Alator asked if there are other books. Here, Soriano focused on the "authority and authentication" of the bible as the word of god. Soriano called to mind that despite the possibility of human error, its authority and authenticity is divine, thereby the bible is reliable.

This is the background in which Soriano discussed that even the "most powerful" (most informed) people of old times believed that the earth is flat, as it was the accepted cosmology, the bible itself already speak of a world that is "round or spherical in shape". Soriano asserted: "This truth is already revealed in the Bible, less than 3000 years before it was seen by man." Then he quoted here the texts from Isaiah 40:22 and Amos 9:6 to support his statement.

The point is not to prove that the earth is round or spherical (against the accepted worldview that the earth is flat), but to inform Alastor and his listener that the Bible, because it has authority and authenticity from god, can reveal "truth" that is discovered by science "less than 3000 years before it was seen by man."

++++++++

Now, you are correct in attacking this "biblical evidence" of Soriano by disclosing that the term "circle" nor the description of Amos 6:9 illustrate the modern understanding of the spherical earth. In my reading, this is a typical literalist interpretation of the bible. This is eisegesis — "the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, reading into the text" (wikipedia) — an opposite of exegesis. "While exegesis attempts to determine the historical context within which a particular verse exists – the so-called "Sitz im Leben" or life setting – eisegetes often neglect this aspect of Biblical study." (wikipedia)

Exegesis, using historical criticism, is useful in this discussion. Biblical scholars found out that this ancient hebrew cosmology of the israelites was no different from other ancient people:

"[E]arth is a disc surrounded by water not only on the sides, but underneath and above as well. A firm bowl (the "firma-ment")keeps the upper waters back but has gates to let the rain and snow through. The sun, moon, and stars move in fixed tracks along the underside of this bowl. From below the disc, the water breaks through as wells, rivers, and the ocean, but the earth stands firm on pillars sunk into the waters like the pilings of a pier. Deep below the earth is sheol, the abode of the dead, which can be entered only through the grave." (Broadt. 1984. Reading the Old Testament).

Even the babylonian account of creation (enuma elish), for example, is compared to the genesis account of creation and found a number of similarities in both accounts.

According to biblical scholar Fitzmyer, this development in biblical exegesis is largely due to the recent discovery of rosetta stone (written in hieroglyptic egyptians, demotic and greek) by an officer of napoleon's egyptian expeidatory force in 1798-1799 and later on deciphered by jean francois champollion in 1827. Likewise, the decipherment of the ancient bisituin inscription of king darius the great by a german scholar g.f. grotefend in 1846, from the copy made by englishman henry rawlinson in 1835. The old testament was then read against the literary background of israel's neighboring countries like egypt, assyria and babylonian. (Fitzmyer. 1994. Scripture the Soul of Theology)

In using the eisegesis-exegesis distinction, we can criticize Soriano who is obviously imposing his own interpretation of the text. His motive is to make the bible as the "most advanced ancient book of all time" leads him to erroneous interpretation of the biblical text. Motive is good but its method of finding the truth is erroneous. Poor Soriano.

(2) On bile and history— I will explain later on. I'm sleepy now.

Thanks.

Hi,

Your article is a reply to Soriano's "The Most Advanced Ancient Book of All Time" (May 2007). It would be helpful to point your finger directly to Soriano, rather than the general "[a]ccording to Christians". In doing so, your reader will properly situate himself about your article.

+++++++++++

"In summary, the Bible is not a book of history, yet it contains history and culture, which is more or less borne out by archeology. It’s a book of teachings, and it’s the ideal way to learn the patterns of history. And if we understand that the reason why we’re learning history is to learn lessons, then we have to pay extra special attention to what is going on in the Bible." This is direct quote from the blog "The Bible as History" http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/bible-…

The previous quotes may help appreciate the quote, if not read the entire article:

"Keep in mind that the same thing that applies in a court of law applies to archeology: Lack of evidence is no evidence of lack. The fact that I haven’t found Abraham’s camel saddle doesn’t mean Abraham didn’t have a camel or a saddle. And, indeed, there is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence supporting the basic historicity of the Bible.

"Archeology doesn’t definitively prove the Bible, and it certainly doesn’t discredit it. In fact the more we find, the more we see that there’s a tremendous amount of historicity in the text.

"In summary, the Bible is not a book of history, yet it contains history and culture, which is more or less borne out by archeology. It’s a book of teachings, and it’s the ideal way to learn the patterns of history. And if we understand that the reason why we’re learning history is to learn lessons, then we have to pay extra special attention to what is going on in the Bible."

Pinoyatheist wrote: "Christians are well delighted when archeological proof confirms parts of their beliefs. However, since parts of the Bible are historically true still does not make that the rest of the Bible is true as well. The Bible is still not an accurate history book."

No biblical scholars admit that the contents of the bible is all historical. In fact, archeological facts does not merely confirm the historicity of the text but more on shading light in understanding it.

[ Jed says: “but i think it’s about time we think of another way how to disprove the whole idea of religion, not by battling with them punto por punto, but maybe in a convincing tone.”]
Well what is a “convincing tone” preach scientific facts in the form of a sermon ??

The Bible is just another ancient book full of myths and made up stories, whether some consider it sacred or not. So if a fact is claimed as true from a theist it is the proper reaction of the scientists to refute the alleged evidence if it is invalid, answer it with counter facts, discuss in a proper open and honest style.

And if there are scientific claims made that there was light before stars, the earth is at the center of the universe, flat a square with 4 corners guided by archangels, resting on 4 pillars …. We cannot just let nonsense like this stand unchallenged and crawl away in deep respects because that outrageous claim is made in someone’s holy scripture.

There are books published which try to explain how advanced the Genesis story in the Bible is (on 400 pages), and it can only come from god as creator and eyewitness of his own creation and dictated the unknowable scientific facts to his prophets.
A famous example is the big bang: creation of everything out of nothingness. Well looking at the original Hebrew rather than the English biased mistranslation of the faithful, the Genesis first act says this:
[[“ When Elohim began to shape the heavens and the dry land – the dry land being formless and empty and darkness on the face of the waters and the breath of Elohim blowing over the waters – Elohim said: “ Let there be light”. “]]

Not really Bronze age knowledge of a big bang ….

@Jed

To quote one blogger's tagline, "A statement of fact cannot be insolent." Pinoyatheist just took a common trope (the Bible is advanced), which some Christians cite as a reason for their faith, and actually examined what was in it. That's hardly aggressive and quite scientific.

Dear Jed,
I know what you feel and I respect that, but please don't accused me of "your purpose is to convert". Nah, my purpose is not to convert…that's a religious way of thinking. My purpose is to INFORM.

Also, remember…to fight iognorance, you have to inform people of the more factual side of the coin. If I will just keep myself quite and let these "fundies" post misinformation with their heart content…well apathy is not a solution.

That is the purpose of my articles.

before i react, please let it be known that i don't believe in god/gods (since highschool) so i'm on your side here, but just a small reaction to this (and the many posts on the internet like it).

the way we (non-believers) sometimes attack the religious, it's pure aggression. we try to take a point from their opinion/belief and we try to slice it and explain how wrong it is bit by bit. it's something akin to another religion arguing with another religion. something like a bro. eli tv show.

maybe i'm just tired of all the arguments. i don't know. i'm a man of science. been like that since my early childhood. been quite vocal about my belief.

but i think it's about time we think of another way how to disprove the whole idea of religion, not by battling with them punto por punto, but maybe in a convincing tone.

we sometimes tell them they only preach to their own flock. we do that to. but if your purpose is to convert, then i guess we have to gradually move to convincing them instead of arguing with them.

i'm not an expert on arguments. i abhor debates. i just keep to myself most of the time and respect what others believe. but i salute people, like you, who keep up the fight against the closed-minded.