Bible - Fiction?

[cressida 1,551]

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (if they are real) were authors of stories, There is no tangible evidence that jesus existed except their words and as said above, the quality of evidence expected when outlandish claims are made tends to be a little higher.

 

 

Don't you find it odd that if they were all storytellers they all told more or less the same story?

[aliceBB 10]

Don't you find it odd that if they were all storytellers they all told more or less the same story?

 

Not in the slightest. This happens with fairytales all the time. 'Little Red Riding Hood' dates back to at least 1400 and has been told in many countries in slightly different versions ever since.

 

---------- Post added 07-12-2013 at 18:58 ----------

 

For the sake of discussion, I'd use a dictionary definition...

 

But 'a thing which is known or proved to be true' still isn't very helpful (as a definition) when it comes to texts embodying religious beliefs, is it? Those with religious faith will say 'I know/believe it is true' and those without, will say 'I believe it isn't'. We are no further on.

 

Even if you could prove the historical accuracy of some of the events related in the Bible, you cannot prove the supernatural elements of the narrative. That's the whole point of the supernatural - it transcends natural, provable reality.

[poppet2 13]

There is real evidence for the existence of Jesus - Josephus.

Whether or not Jesus was who He said He was is another matter.

 

I think this settles this argument.

[SnailyBoy 10]

Not in the slightest. This happens with fairytales all the time. 'Little Red Riding Hood' dates back to at least 1400 and has been told in many countries in slightly different versions ever since.

 

---------- Post added 07-12-2013 at 18:58 ----------

 

 

But 'a thing which is known or proved to be true' still isn't very helpful (as a definition) when it comes to texts embodying religious beliefs, is it? Those with religious faith will say 'I know/believe it is true' and those without, will say 'I believe it isn't'. We are no further on.

 

Even if you could prove the historical accuracy of some of the events related in the Bible, you cannot prove the supernatural elements of the narrative. That's the whole point of the supernatural - it transcends natural, provable reality.

 

That's convenient

[aliceBB 10]

That's convenient

 

It is neither convenient nor inconvenient and I am not trying to make a case for the truth (or otherwise) of religious texts; I am simply trying to point out that unless you define your terms more clearly in your question, it is not going to produce any meaningful debate!

 

So have you decided yet : what do you mean by 'fiction'?

 

Blimey, this is harder work than teaching...

[Anna B 1,401]

I've been watching 'The Bible' on Channel 5 and found it really interesting. It's a dramatised serial with high production values, good actors, and moves on at a cracking pace putting in all the incidents from the Bible that I remember from my childhood.

 

With it all being in chronological order it all fits into place, and I've found it fascinating.

 

I've also realised a lot of things I didn't know I knew, and a lot of things I didn't know at all. I never realised for instance that King David took Jerusalem off the Arabs through combat, (I always thought he'd built it from scratch - if I thought about it at all) but I also knew it is the Holy place of Muslims, Jews and Christians, and never really knew how that came about. Now I do.

 

So far it's all been fairly straightforward, nothing contentious, about the founding of the Jewish nation mainly through battle. So this seems to follow historical fact. It also puts in the 'mystic' bits, and prophecies etc but in such a way that it can be personally interpreted by the viewer according to their beliefs and perspectives.

 

It's very enjoyable TV (except for the sponsor bits round the adverts, which some might find a bit offputting,) I'd certainly recommend it.

[SnailyBoy 10]

It is neither convenient nor inconvenient and I am not trying to make a case for the truth (or otherwise) of religious texts; I am simply trying to point out that unless you define your terms more clearly in your question, it is not going to produce any meaningful debate!

 

So have you decided yet : what do you mean by 'fiction'?

 

Blimey, this is harder work than teaching...

 

I didn't actually ask a question, I linked to an article regarding Costco and their apology.

[charmer 10]

And your definition of 'fiction' is...? 'A work of the imagination'? 'Something which isn't true'? 'A lie'? 'Something which is not about real life'?

 

Or something else? (What?)

 

---------- Post added 07-12-2013 at 18:19 ----------

 

 

You are still missing the point. Until you decide what you mean by 'fiction' or even 'the truth' you cannot dismiss any text as 'fiction' .

 

Please define your terms.

 

I am not trying to compare it to biography btw - I was simply making the point that commonly used labels for genres of writing are generally unhelpful!

 

I wouldn't class the Bible as a work of fiction or non-fiction, personally, but as a religious text. Sadly many retailers seem to think everything that is written can be divided into 'fiction' or 'non-fiction' when in reality it cannot!

 

 

 

I am sorry but you do not make sense. It isn't for us as individuals to decide what words mean. How the hell would language work if we all had different ideas of what the words mean? Can I just decide that the word "table" means something else? If I was talking about a table, would you say "And your definition of table is".

 

For your information the definition of the word is

 

"literature in the form of prose, especially novels, that describes imaginary events and people" or,

 

"something that is invented or untrue".

 

I think you are being obtuse, though admittedly I haven't read the whole thread.

 

Of course the Bible is a work of fiction. Any one who denies it and is an intelligent person is in denial.

[angos 10]

I am sorry but you do not make sense. It isn't for us as individuals to decide what words mean. How the hell would language work if we all had different ideas of what the words mean? Can I just decide that the word "table" means something else? If I was talking about a table, would you say "And your definition of table is".

 

For your information the definition of the word is

 

"literature in the form of prose, especially novels, that describes imaginary events and people" or,

 

"something that is invented or untrue".

 

I think you are being obtuse, though admittedly I haven't read the whole thread.

 

Of course the Bible is a work of fiction. Any one who denies it and is an intelligent person is in denial.

 

I would have thought it was based on stories concerning the early history of a people, passed from one generation to the next and embellished on the way to include the supernatural. So whilst each bible story could be based on a fact, it as be exaggerated to the point were it no longer resembles the truth, but still not total fiction.

[jfish1936 10]

I am sorry but you do not make sense. It isn't for us as individuals to decide what words mean. How the hell would language work if we all had different ideas of what the words mean? Can I just decide that the word "table" means something else? If I was talking about a table, would you say "And your definition of table is".

.

 

And my definitions of table are:

 

A raised flat surface for working or eating;

An orderly laid out group of numbers, as in a table of results for an experiment;

A multiplication table;

The table d'hote at a restaurant.

 

So which table shall we talk about?

[RootsBooster 24]

But 'a thing which is known or proved to be true' still isn't very helpful (as a definition) when it comes to texts embodying religious beliefs, is it? Those with religious faith will say 'I know/believe it is true' and those without, will say 'I believe it isn't'. We are no further on.

Of course we are, if someone claims they know something, the next step is to ask how they know it

 

Even if you could prove the historical accuracy of some of the events related in the Bible, you cannot prove the supernatural elements of the narrative. That's the whole point of the supernatural - it transcends natural, provable reality.

 

I disagree, if somebody claimed they had supernatural powers, the ability to walk on water (for example), then they would simply have to walk on water and be able to repeat the ability

[aliceBB 10]

Of course we are, if someone claims they know something, the next step is to ask how they know it

And all they can say is 'I cannot prove it scientifically, but I just know it in my heart/soul/inside me'. Who are we to say they are wrong, even if we think they probably are? Their perception is their reality. As I said, we are no further on.

 

 

I disagree, if somebody claimed they had supernatural powers, the ability to walk on water (for example), then they would simply have to walk on water and be able to repeat the ability

Yes, if they were alive now, that would be a useful starting point. But it's not very useful when we are trying to decide whether the stories in ancient texts are 'fiction' or 'fact'. How can you prove that Jesus did ( or did not) perform miracles? The simple answer is that you cannot.