Why Does The Perfection Of The Bible Prove The Bible?

[Neon Genesis]

Even if we presume that the bible has no contradictions or internals errors within it, I still don't get the logic of why that proves the bible is true. If there's no non-scriptural evidence that proves the stories of the bible are true, even if every page of the bible is perfect, how does that mean the bible is true? Disney's Beauty And The Beast has no internal contradictions and errors within its plot but that doesn't mean the Beast is real and there's a magic castle somewhere with singing, dancing objects. It just means Disney makes better fairytales than the bible authors do. If perfection = divinity, then xtians should apply it to all fiction and not just the bible.

[Karhoof]

Because Mother Goose doesn't threaten them with eternal damnation for not believing in Jack and the Beanstalk.

As far as all the other religions that DO threaten... well, we all know that's just silly myths.

 

Logic simply does not apply.

[florduh]

I think if various authors over several generations had written a cohesive narrative that clearly and consistently told the same story, it would be something worth investigating. Perhaps a god might have a hand in such a project.

 

However, that's not the case.

[oddbird1963]

Modern Christian apologists try to point out how 'discovery after discovery' in archaeology somehow "proves" the bible or proves it is a historically accurate book.

 

But when you actually read authors who contribute to the discipline or ask one in a biblical backgrounds class, their answers are always less than supportive or definitive about the so-called accuracy of the bible. They are always less than enthusiastic.

 

So, even if the bible were free of internal contradiction and error, it's grounding in reality would be no more proof of divine origin than "Gone with the Wind" or one of my favorite author's murder mysteries.

[Ozymandias]

I think oddbird and florduh pretty much said what was on my mind: there's no perfection within the Bible to defend. Just lots of cobbled-together texts that, if taken objectively, read like a hodge-podge of mythical and tribal literature.

 

And even if it was perfectly written (as I'd argue some literature is), it wouldn't prove divinity. I'd just tip my hat to the (human) writer for a job well done.

[Guest Davka]

You guys are a bunch of muggle-born squibs. Clearly, any book (or book series) which is internally consistent must be true. So even though I'm beginning to get pretty hoarse from repeating "wingardium leviosa!" over and over again, I will continue waving my genuine, patented wand (which is itself proof that wizards exist, otherwise why would there be wands for sale at Wal-Mart?) with a swish-and-flick until my monitor floats.

 

Wingardium Leviosa!

[OpheliaGinger]

With that logic, the Elder Ones must be real.

[Neon Genesis]

I think if various authors over several generations had written a cohesive narrative that clearly and consistently told the same story, it would be something worth investigating. Perhaps a god might have a hand in such a project.

 

However, that's not the case.

But what if you had four different eyewitnesses that claimed to have witnessed a UFO crashing yet there was no evidence at the supposed scene that a UFO was there? Even if their accounts synced up with each other and had no internal contradictions, wouldn't you still be suspicious that there was no physical evidence the UFO crashed there?