Whats makes people think that the Bible is more than a really long fictional story?

Great Debates
1

Ok, bear with me here. I am not a very articulate person which is why I have stayed out of GD for my entire tour of duty on the SDMB. But I want some peoples thoughts on this so I am going to try to throw it out here.

(BTW, I tried to search a few times but it didn’t go thru so I’m sorry if this topic has been covered before)

Ill try to keep this short. I have a friend who is a very religious person and for some reason he lives to debate with me about how the bible is a factual book and not just a story. I am agnostic by the way, and I do not believe that the Bible is the answer to all, or any, important religious questions.

His reasons that the Bible is a true account of the events that it depicts:

He says that there are many historical records from other sources (i.e. non-bible, non secular sources) that match up with the areas, people, and time period of the time presented in the Bible. He says that there are a few different records of a man called “Jesus Christ” that lived in that time period and did magic things. Most all of the time when I ask him for “proof” of the Bibles truth, he ends up referencing the Bible, which is a no isn’t it? You cant prove something by pointing back to what you are trying to prove can you? I went to a Christian school for a few years that used the same line of reasoning when asked tough questions.
My reasons to doubt the validity of the Bible:

I think that there is a VERY good chance that the Bible is a collection of stories written by people for there own reasons. I don’t think that just because there are references to locations that we know actually existed in those times makes it any more “factual” Let me give you an example to show what I mean. I am not very good at this as you can tell:

I wake up tomorrow and decide to write a book. I make the setting of the book a real place (Chicago), I make reference to the Illinois river, the Sears Tower, the Cubs, and John Daley. But when I write about John Daley, who was really the mayor of Chicago, I add stuff about his “magic powers”. How he teleported people out of burning buildings, made a million tons of food out of one Big Mac to feed the masses, and he also died and came back to life. Oh, he sad he was the son of god too.

Fast forward 3000 years into the future. Some excavators find my book. They study and analyze the book and determine that everything must be factual because obviously there really was a Chicago, Cubs, Sears Tower, Daley etc… So since all of that is true, and can be referenced in a trillion books by that point I’m sure, then they assume that he really did make a massive Big Mac to feed everyone. Now you have people 3000 years in the future thinking that this is a factual account of a brief period of miracles in human history, and they start worshipping John Daley because he made a huge Big Mac.

Now WE know that the story I wrote is fiction, but they don’t. If they use the same methods of reasoning that people seem to use with the Bible, then they will be worshipping John Daley right? Sounds dumb huh? What makes people think that they did’nt write fiction for entertainment back then? And who REALLY knows when the Bible was first written? It was written over the course of mayn years and pieced togther and translated a bunch of times too right?

So that brings me back to the question, why do people seem to believe in the Bible with all their hearts when, as far as I know, there is nothing you can hold in your hand that shows you concretely that there was a JC and he did some amazing stuff…

Except the Bible right?

2

Like many religions, Christianity teaches its followers to not require proof, but have faith that its tenets are true.

It as just as possible IMO that if you were to write a book as you described, that a faith could arise that worships Daley; as long as the Daleyists made sure that their followers are taught not to require proof, but faith, that the Holy Book is true.

3

You also have to convince people to be willing to lay down their lives for John Daley (whoever he is); this might be easy once the myth is established, but try convincing someone like me today (who has never heard of John Daley) to make a big sacrifice just because of something that you say…

4

Well, the Bible isn’t all one thing or all another. It’s an anthology of diverse literary forms–myth, legend, folklore, history, poetry, etc. Parts of it probably are fictional stories: the Books of Ruth, Job, Jonah, or Esther, for example. Some of those may even have been consciously written as fictional stories. Other parts of the Bible (Genesis, for example) are considered “myth” by most people, but completely accurate factual accounts by a fairly substantial but declining portion of American Protestant Christianity–did the person or persons who edited together a couple of creation stories into what is now the first few chapters of the Book of Genesis consider it to be a straightforward factual account of things, or a symbolic or allegorical statement of the theological idea of a Creator God, or what?

Parts of the Bible generally are considered to be historical accounts of real people and events. Much of the material from, say, 1 Samuel through Nehemiah are probably accounts of real people and actual historical happenings (reigns, battles, conquests, etc.) However, those accounts may be “slanted”, they are certainly told from a particular philosophical point of view which is not simply non-controversial fact–in other words, if Israel is defeated in battle, that may in fact be an accurate account of a real historical event, but a Biblical chronicler will likely add something to the effect of “…and this was because the Israelites were backsliders and were worshipping idols”, whereas a secular historian might look to the greater wealth, superior military technology or organization, or sheer size of the army of whatever nation inflicted the defeat on Israel. The historical bits are also mixed in with other literary forms–in the account of the rise to power of David (who was probably a real person), we have the famous story of David versus Goliath, which seems to be a folktale or legend roughly along the lines of George Washington and the cherry tree. There are also instances of sheer inaccuracy; for example, chronological confusion caused by people attempting to write histories of events well after the fact, without access to detailed records using a single well-established dating system.

The historicity of the Gospels is one of the more controversial questions in Biblical scholarship, in part because the issue is so central to Christianity. If the Book of Job is really just a very long parable, and there never was a man of that name in history, it wouldn’t necessarily shake the foundations of Christianity, but if Jesus never lived, or if he lived but was never resurrected, it would mean Christianity would need to be radically re-thought at the very least. I would say “there are a few different records of a man called ‘Jesus Christ’ that lived in that time period and did magic things” is rather an exaggeration, if by that your friend means to imply there are extra-Biblical sources which say that. In fact, there are a relatively small number of extra-Biblical sources, most or all of which are at least somewhat controversial, which present evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure, but that is not the same thing as evidence for Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, rising from the dead, etc. Conversely, your friend may mean the four Gospels themselves. But these aren’t really four independent firsthand biographies–in the case of Mark, Matthew, and Luke in particular, we have three authors borrowing from each other or from common source material; and in the case of John, someone writing considerably later and passing all aspects of the life of the person whose biography he was writing through a specific philosophical or theological lens.

In the Old Testament, the historicity of the Exodus occupies a similar position. It’s central to Judaism, but there isn’t really any outside evidence to back the story up, and it may be variously regarded as a historical account of real events, either including real supernatural events, or with secular explanations of the seemingly miraculous parts of the story (giant meteors or volcanic eruptions or what you will accounting for the parting of the Red Sea and so on); a legendary story, incorporating some elements of real people and events, but with many details changed or added; or a completely mythical story, which arose much later to explain and justify the existence and status of a particular tribal confederacy.

There are many whole books written about any one aspect of this topic. One place to start would be the Straight Dope’s very own Staff Report Who wrote the Bible? (a multi-part series; you’ll find part one and links to the next four parts on that link) by a couple of SDMB Admins/Mods, C K Dexter Haven and Eutychus.

5

Like Revtim mentioned, many of us simply take it on faith rather than relying on proof. The same goes for the very existance of God.

In any event, your comparison to your Daley book is flawed. The Bible was not lost for thousands of years and then found. It has been a document that has been continuously belived in since it was written. If you started a Daley religion and wrote a book and the book was still around thousands of years from now, then your comparison would hold water.

Zev Steinhardt

6

I think zev_steinhardt gave the most honest answer anyone could give in this thread over a year ago.

7

Of course, the story in 2 Kings 22:3-13, in which the “Book of the Law” is reportedly discovered in the Temple, evidently after having been forgotten by the people for some generations, is internal Biblical evidence for “gaps” in the transmission of parts of the Scriptures.

8

I don’t know if this is just a joke (and I recognize your claim that your overall story is fiction), but Richard Daley is the mayor of Chicago.

Surprised no Chi-town Dopers have pointed this out yet.

9

I think that Buck hit the nail very much on the head. It’s not an all-or-nothing question – there is very sound evidence that several Assyrian, Chaldean, and Persian monarchs mentioned in the Bible actually did exist and did some of the things ascribed to them. There’s also the tendency of human beings to attribute the good or bad things that occur to the acts of a deity, whether true or false, influencing how the stories were told.

If I mentioned something about the time my wife and I went to hear a speaker, and he ran on until lunchtime and then used the example of a kid’s generosity to shame everybody into sharing what they had stashed away for snacks in their cars, with the net result that we had a potluck feast with a lot of leftovers, you wouldn’t have any reason to doubt my story. But that is equally as possible an explanation for the “Miracle of the Feeding of the 5,000” as the idea that Jesus miraculously “multiplied” the kid’s loaves and fishes into enough food for everybody (look up the story; it’s in all four Gospels, and both answers fit the written text).

Too, there’s what I’ve called the Jacob Brown effect. Who? You’ve never heard of Jacob Brown? He was a general who won the War of 1812 for the U.S. – or so you’d understand if you grew up five miles from his home town, as I did. In other words, the Bible writers were narrowly focused on events where their families and countrymen played a part, and tended to overemphasize the importance of what they did. Hadassah may very well have been a concubine or secondary queen of Xerxes who intervened for her people, even though the events of the Book of Esther are probably akin to a modern historical novel like Desiree.

10

This is easier than you may think. Any person having some amount of charisma and the intelligence to efficiently apply it to an appropriate audience can do this.

Hello, my name is David Koresh…

After all, everyone doesn’t half to be susceptible to the message, just enough to grow (and avoid extermination by the local authorities).

See also, Jim Jones, who apparently had no desire to avoid extermination. But the Church of the Latter Day Saints (Mormon) has successfully avoided extermination so far, as has B’hai.

11

But this doesn’t help those of us who did not receive a sticky faith prior to the formation of our ability to reason logically (e.g., as youths, generally). After the transition to adulthood, when one no longer accepts ideas from others at face value without analysis, logic must lead one to the point of the faith leap, otherwise, how does one know when, where and how high to jump when making that faith leap? That is what’s going on in this discussion, I think.

No analogies are perfect, but the OP analogy is not totally without merit. After all, the Christian Bible wasn’t a “document” until several hundred years after Christ’s death.

The Gospels were written many decades after the events being described. (It really makes one wonder how they got direct quotes, does it not?) 70 years in a time without persistent audiovisual storage media compares well to a thousand years in our time when it comes to discerning the veracity of eyewitness reports.

Also, remember that the final content of the Christian Bible wasn’t selected until more than 350 years after the described events. Some Gospels were trashed, and the final four made the cut at a time well after anybody had any real basis to choose between them other than Church politics. This is no small issue.

12

I agree pretty much with Buck, though I might bicker over a spin here and there, and I think Topo went way over the top (it wasn’t, for example, 70 years). For me, what makes the Bible more than a really long fiction story is Jesus. I can’t prove that He lived and was resurrected as the scriptures claim, but I believe it based on my own life experience. On that same basis, I know also that He is alive now.

13

Actually, I think you did a very good job of explaining your point, and for what it’s worth, I agree with you. The Bible simply is not as cut-and-dried as your friend believes it is. MEBuckner has covered it extremely well, and saved us all a lot of typing.

14

Well, I thought John was written shortly after the turn of the century, but a quick Internet search gives one reference (admittedly Christian) indicating that the Gospels were written circa65-95 AD.

Jesus was, what, 32 years old at the time of his death?..with most of his ministry occuring in the last years of his life?

He was born sometime around 6 BC (once calendar errors are accounted for), correct? (I’ve seen references saying 3 and 4 BC, and just saw one Jewish reference saying it could have been as early as 10 BC; I chose 6 BC for the calculations since that was what I was taught and it is in the middle–quite arbitrary, I know.) With no year zero, he died around 26 AD, right. (Seriously, correct me if I’m wrong on any of this, I’m figuring it out as I go.)

That puts the Gospels written around 39-69 years after the fact. That puts 70 just beyond the long side of that range.

Again, I am neither a Biblical scholar nor a mathmatician. The above seems reasonable to me, but I welcome any correction. I only seek the truth.

More power to you–seriously! I am still the prodigal Topo.

Your statement carries quite a bit of power. Are you saying you have a personal revelation separate from the Bible to back up your belief that the Bible is true?

15

Funny; I was going to mention the spiritual corroboration that many believers (myself included) claim to have, but I held back because it’s not something I can throw on the table as solid evidence.

16

When Christians are challenged by non-believers, shouldn’t they just say something along the lines of, “My religion teaches me to accept its truth, and the validity of its holy book, on faith, and I do just that. For myself, I need no proof. For others, I’m sorry, I can talk about what Christianity and the Bible have done for me, and what I think they can do for others, but I can’t supply hard proof of their validity.” No doubt some Christians do respond thusly to questions. But some Christians, when challenged by non-believers, try to claim that there is all sorts of real, concrete, unassailable proof of whatever point is under discussion. But, this is not really the case, and anyway, Real Chistians don’t need proof. These claims of proof just serve mainly to make the Christians making them look foolish.

17

He still is? I would have thought he might have retired after dying in 1976… :wink:

18

Topo

There is nothing more excellent to seek. God go with you on your journey to find truth.

That the Bible is true, no, but that Jesus is Truth, yes. Many. Daily.

19

Goodness.

Well, there’s another Richard Daley who is currently mayor–quite like the current situation with the Presidency of the United States, in fact. (And just the sort of thing to potentially confuse future chroniclers.)

Although being dead has traditionally not been an absolute bar to involvement in Chicago politics.

20

Faith is all well and good, but the proof problem comes down to “the bible says it’s the word of God and God wouldn’t lie, so it must be true,” which of course begs the question, how do we know it’s really the word of God, and the response becomes, “because it’s the bible.”

At that point I just walk away.