how is the Bible any different from a million other historical fiction and science fiction books?
2007-10-30 08:00:57 · 11 answers · asked by I'm an Atheist 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
it isn't different..
2007-10-30 08:05:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I think it is funny when people call the Bible fiction. You'd be hard pressed to find an expert (i.e. historian) that does not regard it as a historical document. Does that mean everything in it is accurate? Of course not. But people come on here and put it forth as a complete work of fiction, completely ignorant of the historical significance of the work, and totally ignoring all the historical and anthropological evidence that shows the accuracy of much of it. It is funny, because people who do not believe in the Bible put forth the argument that those who do are ignorant, stupid, or crazy... but then they make illogical, ignorant, crazy arguments to prove it. They also accuse Christians, and often rightfully so, of cherry-picking the Bible to say what they want it to say, but then they do the same thing. In the end, you have two things: ignorant religious folks who look down on non-religious folks, and ignorant non-religious folks who look down on religious folks. The common denominator here: ignorance and intolerance on both sides. Good for you.
2007-10-30 15:07:38 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There are no "false" parts. Figures of speech, allegories, alliterations, etc. are part of the text and quite easy to distinguish from that which is straightforward teaching or history. For example, when Jesus said "I am the door", any reasonably intelligent person would know He did not mean He was wooden structure with a handle and hinges.
2007-10-30 15:08:53 · answer #3 · answered by BrotherMichael 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Bible is different because it is fact not fiction. Non of the bible is false it is all inspired by God.
2007-10-30 15:09:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
When you go to a library or any place, the Bible isnt't in the "history" section, therefore making it no different from "mythologies" etc, taught in public school.
There is very little historical fact in the book that I personaly, through intense study, call the "The Great Mis-interpretation".
2007-10-30 15:12:24 · answer #5 · answered by lleigh03 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's claimed to be inspired by God, and the one true way to save your soul.
If it's meant to be taken completely literally, how does it make it different than a history or science book? Except for the obvious fact that if it were meant to be taken that way, half of the book would make absolutly no sense. I don't know how any one can take that book as 100% literal.
2007-10-30 15:05:35 · answer #6 · answered by word 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
So if there was no Bible, assume it never existed. And now I or someone else wants to teach you some lessons in morality, do I have to only tell you true stories? Can't I mix in some metaphorical stories in there to so I can get my point across?
2007-10-30 15:06:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The only true parts of the bible are some of the geographical locations.
2007-10-30 15:07:43 · answer #8 · answered by darwinsfriend AM 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
There is no false parts.
2007-10-30 15:09:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hello dear friend.
The buy-bull should be ignored in it's entirety.i
2007-10-30 15:07:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
What exactly is false............ (?)
2007-10-30 15:06:44 · answer #11 · answered by Nobody Special 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋