Summations Only

Why?

The question is, why is the authenticity important to you?I know Treasure Island isn't authentic - i.e. the characters never existed, the events never happened - but it's still one of my favorite books. Would it have more value to me if it was "authentic"? No.So why do you care about the authenticity of the Bible?

Why can't it be authentic fiction?

No.Only the looniest of Bible literalists believe that Moses really wrote Genesis. Do we throw out the stories of the Garden of Eden, the Tower of Babel, the Flood and the partriarchs because we know Moses wasn't there to witness them? Of course not. It wouldn't change anything. Stevenson is famous because of Treasure Island, not vice versa.

The writer[s] of that particular story said that (they believed that) God did it. There's no God character in the story claiming to do it.

That isn't quite what I said. Let me try again, with emphasis: The writer(s) of that particular story SAID that they believed that God did it. Maybe they really believed it; maybe they were just making a point. There's no good reason to conclude superstition or unreliability. Lots of things only happened once. Lots of things that may nave happened more than once were no recorded at all. That 'point' is a Duh! I don't know why you would even mention it.

What difference does it make if Stevenson thinks Jim Hawkins did it or Jim Hawkins claims to have done it? Did Stevenson have to believe that Jim Hawkins really existed? Would it make any difference to the story? "Truth" is not a particularly useful concept here. It's possible for fictional characters to make "true" statements. Fiction can portray "truth". You have only a lack of evidence for your so-called "rules". if you want to claim that it's impossible for the bear story to be literally true, you'll need positive evidence.

No, I'm just saying that talking about leprechauns or voodoo or gods in a story doesn't necessarily indicate superstition. The bear story makes a point (which some people might call karma). The authors most likely did believe in God but that belief is not necessary to the story. In the story, the God character is just the "messenger of karma".

We already knew that some people don't believe it's a myth and that some people don't believe God is nuts. Your interpretation of the stories isn't the only possible interpretation.

Rational and logical thought don't require us to nit-pick every detail. Forty-two is not an entirely implausible number; rejecting it out of hand is pretty silly. I hope that isn't a prime example of your "rational and logical" thought.

Who said it was about "justice"? Justice varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from time to time.It's about consequences. There are always consequences, whether just or not. They don't need to explain it to your satisfaction, only their own.

But since it isn't a revelation of reality - or even a good facsimile - we know it's not the word of God. It's the word of men claiming to speak for God, but men who didn't have a very good understanding of reality. And people who don't have a good understanding of reality mistake it for "real". You demonstrate that every time you touch your keyboard.

When nobody can read what you write, maybe it's the writing that needs improvement.

You need a secret decoder ring.

Belief in the resurrection explains the rise of the early church, just like belief in other things explains the rise of other churches. Belief in X does not necessarily correlate with reality of X.