The Bible has stood the test of time, repeatedly rebutting the criticisms concerning non-theological matters contained in it. And the theological ones are beyond proving scientifically. So one can accept the Bible, with Paul, or discount the whole thing as being just another set of sacred writings.
This is actually demonstrably not the case, especially when it comes to certain objective clashes with both historical and scientific reality... or even its own claims that seem to be inconsistent and are generally rationalized away in order to preserve some inerrant view.
Some of the more progressive Christians religions today, and even some which are more fundamentalist, no longer claim that Bible is inerrant when it comes to the historical record. At the very least is that scholarly consensus of people and Christians who do some deep research on this subject know that there are factual issues and problems.
But no other of the world's great religions has anything like it--a record of thousands of years of man's interaction with God. They have inspirational poetry, instructions for daily living, a collection of tales with no historic context, or something of that sort, but nothing like the Bible.
But you are describing a preferred and a rather subjective judgement of religious dynamics. Every culture has instructions for daily living that ties into the moral narrative of religion for validation.
The fact that Christianity has a more developed one is a more geographic and state-driven cultural development that would explain it, rather than a divine one.
Hence, we don't really see any exceptional knowledge beyond its time in this particular culture. You still have the same old misconceptions, and amazingly God fails to mention basic things that would help people save 3 of out 5 of their children from dying prior the age of 5.
I think any of us transplanted in these societies would at the very least mentioned something about germ theory of diseases. It would alleviate a tremendous amounts of suffering through ignorance of this subject.
In short, these conceptions of God doesn't seem to be extra-cultural. These seem to follow and build off the per-existing cultural narrative, while borrowing some elements from their immediate surroundings.
In fact, it can be argued that there is nothing like Christianity. Other religions either have borrowed their basic concepts of God and Man from the Judeo-Christian traditions and writings or else they don't posit the existence of a supreme being at all, being more like ethical systems or philosophies than what we would think of as religions.
Actually, quite the opposite can be argued, that Judaism is derivative of a wide variety of local traditions that eventually was written down in some consistent manner and formulated through a nationalistic narrative of the day.
Christianity then builds of that mindset and follows the same nationalistic route when it comes to using a religion to build a traditional and moral culture of the day.
When we evaluate the dynamics of its establishment, it doesn't seem to be differing.
In fact, it would be different if the surrounding cultures were attesting the exceeding greatness of Israel, especially during the time of David or Solomon reign. Ironically, both go virtually unmentioned in surrounding historical narrative, and the God of Israel is primarily a nationalistic God that we only find in historical narrative of Israel.
Hence, it's a very good indicator that it's merely a surviving religion that avoided being falsified through setting up unfalsifiable premise of invisible God that acts in "mysterious ways" instead of testable ones.
