What distinguishes a fantasy book from the bible?

[Statler Waldorf]

---

So basically, Rhythm is defining fantasy as anything not proven to be real, and you're being a bit more stringent in your (valid) definition, saying that it is a specific genre of literature. Both right.

Now even though it was written by multiple authors over centuries, that doesn't make it any less a fantasy. I think the Old English fantasy poem Beowulf is thought to have multiple authors and have been written over about three centuries, if I remember correctly. So while it is different in that respect to something like LotR, the difference doesn't take it out of the realm of fantasy. If you're looking for specific examples of things in the Bible that would qualify as fantasy writing, I think I can oblige through a reasonable knowledge of the Bible and a good knowledge of Tolkien's works:

1. Nature being conscious
2. Talking animals
3. Spirits/demons (In the Tolkien universe, Morgoth is essentially Satan)
4. Miracles
5. Gods intervening in human affairs (Gandalf is actually a demi-God of sorts whose purpose is to lead Men to victory over Sauron)
6. Resurrection
7. A flood washing away the impure people (Tolkien sinks the island of Numenor after the people attempt to reach the Undying Lands)
8. Fulfillment of prophecy (Aragorn, also see Darth Vader and Harry Potter)

I could go on and on, honestly. Some fantasy works, like the Chronicles of Narnia, are direct allegory to the Bible, with Aslan replacing Jesus, so it really isn't hard to make comparisons. All of the above are common elements of many fantasy works, from Harry Potter to Pirates of the Caribbean to Star Wars.

To the original question posed, I will flippantly add that most fantasy books have a protagonist that is likeable.

---

I love your style; you seem like a fair minded person. I do take issue with one line of reasoning I believe you are using here though. Are you suggesting that because there are fantasy books that have similarities with the Bible that this means the Bible is also fantasy?

---

Don't worry Emanuel, we all know that these fantasy stories are simply echoes of the Truth. Except in those cases where Satan has created fabrications in advance.

If you want to educate yourself on why the Bible is not a work of historical non-fiction, then jump into an Exodus thread, or google it.

The hypothesis they made was the "goddidit" hypothesis. Where are we from, why are we here, why must we suffer, why do we die. GODDIDIT!

I want to make something very clear to you, no one here has any obligation whatsoever to prove that any part of the bible is fiction to you. If someone picks up a book, and says "this is a book" that's the end of it isn't it. Nothing more need be said. It is incumbent upon you, as a believer, who maintains that theses things actually happened, to show that they did. I'm only stating the obvious; that it is a story. No part of my outlook of life, or anything, hinges on whether or not this story is factually accurate, I make no claims that it is anything more than a story. That's your baby. This is called the burden of proof. What you are doing is called shifting the burden of proof. Almost as a rule, before a believer decides to engage in a debate about their beliefs, they have learned to do this. It is dishonest, and I treat anyone who does this the same way I treat slimy used car salesmen, or con-men of any kind.

---

On the contrary, all you have done here is engage in intellectual laziness. You just simply do not understand how the burden of proof works here; you are claiming the Bible is a work of fiction, something completely contrary to what it claims to be. Since you are the one not taking the Bible at its own word you are the one who has to justify this. The burden of proof falls equally on both sides once people take a position. You took the position it was fantasy, Emmanuel took the position it was what it says it is.

There are thousands of things science cannot explain!

I agree with you that science has not explained a lot of things yet, however how is goddit is any better of an explanation?

I think it is more complex than just saying “God did it”, but there are certain truths that cannot be explained by purely natural occurrences and I believe require the God of the Bible. Ruling out certain explanations before you have even looked at the problem seems to me ridiculous (Naturalism), it would be like saying, “Before I solve this physics problem I am prohibiting the use of odd numbers.”

---

As a former wrestling nut, I won't have people doing a disservice to The Rock.

Honestly Emanuel, just this afternoon I thought of a couple of other things. The list of ways that the Bible is comparable to fantasy writing is as long as my leg. As Rhythm points out, to show that they are MORE than this, you're going to need some pretty hard evidence. Nothing over the last two thousand years has been terribly convincing, but best of luck.

Well just not terribly convincing to you right? They have been convincing to atheists who have converted right?