Bible - Fiction?

[RootsBooster]

I think we agree that it's difficult to say with any certainty whether the Bible is fact or fiction.

It didn't seem to me like that was what he was saying

Not just because it is difficult to prove its truthfulness (or otherwise ) by means of scientific testing, but also because of the semantic problem set up by the terms 'fact' and 'fiction', which are frequently bandied around (especially with regard to books/written texts), but which in that context are probably indefinable.

For people such as myself, the Bible doesn't even get that far in terms of scrutiny.

There's simply no reason for me to even consider such a book as fact, any other book with similar contents would be considered nonsense or ridiculous.

 

You're trying to compare it with biographies but if you really want to make a decent comparison it should be compared to the many other holy books/texts.

 

If you're going to question factual/fictional content of the Bible the question shouldn't be "Is this Holy text the truth?" the question should be "Are any of the many Holy texts the truth and if so, which one?"

[goldleaf]

Costco in America have made a public apology for labelling a stock of bibles as fiction

 

http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-costco-apologizes-for-labeling-bibles-fiction-20131121,0,1596330.story#axzz2lO1DSTiV

 

For starters, isn't the Universe and everything in it being created in 6 days a kind of a give-away?

 

The bible is fiction in my opinion.

[aliceBB]

The bible is fiction in my opinion.

 

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 ----------

 

It didn't seem to me like that was what he was saying

 

For people such as myself, the Bible doesn't even get that far in terms of scrutiny.

There's simply no reason for me to even consider such a book as fact, any other book with similar contents would be considered nonsense or ridiculous.

 

You're trying to compare it with biographies but if you really want to make a decent comparison it should be compared to the many other holy books/texts.

 

If you're going to question factual/fictional content of the Bible the question shouldn't be "Is this Holy text the truth?" the question should be "Are any of the many Holy texts the truth and if so, which one?"

 

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!

[RootsBooster]

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.

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

Fact

-a thing that is known or proved to be true

[cressida]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.