Why do some regard the bible as factual (or in some cases an historical record)?

To the over-religious, everything connected to God is fact.

Admitting the possibility that the Bible is a mashup of history, fabrication, hagiography, hallucination and metaphor then means that prophecy may not be reliable either. If people are to surrender their lives to a cause in expectation of a particular outcome, they need certainty that the outcome is reliable.

Also, if the Bible is actually a mixed bag, then you need people of learning and authority to sort it all out for you and tell you the bottom line. One reason that the idea arose to take the Bible as unvarnished truth was the effort to overthrow the power of the church at the time of the Reformation. If the Bible was to be understood by everyone without the filter of the clergy, and if this were not to devolve into a situation where everyone interprets according to their own whim, then you go with the assertion that it’s all very straightforward and not open to interpretation or selective editing.

Some preacher told them so, and they believed it.
In the end, nobody has pointed out the fallacy of that belief, so they don’t know any better…

The bible is for the most part a historical record of the life and times of Jewish people living under Roman rule with a modicum of embellishment by the authors to retain the interest of it’s readers. Many works of fiction will accurately chronicle the history of a time and place within the framework of its novel.

Denial

I really don’t think many serious people consider it much of a history book. However, for obvious reasons, it is possibly the most important cultural document in the West. There is extra-biblical evidence of many of the events described in both the O.T. and N.T., but some of the important ones —events integral to both Jewish and Christian beliefs—such as the 430-year enslavement of the Jews under the Egyptians, the existence of Moses and the Exodus (which includes the ten plagues, the death of the Pharaoh and the provenance of the Ten Commandments), there is none to be found. None. As yet. And because there is no extra-biblical evidence of these important events, the Bible isn’t taken seriously as a historical document in the academic world. There are careers to be made in this field—nice ones, quietly spent in libraries and lecture halls in the world’s best institutions. Nice work, if you can get it.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, there is contemporaneous extra-biblical evidence of the existence of a rather troublesome young Rabbi named Yeshua found in the writings of Josephus Flavius and Tacitus (who has proven to be an extraordinarily punctilious historian of great merit). They both write of this Yeshua living in Israel between 4 b.c.e and 40 c.e, and they both describe his execution ordered and carried out by the local Roman proconsul, Pontius Pilot. This Yeshua is said to be crucified, which was a death reserved for criminals punished by the military and not civil authorities. However, absent is discussion of walking on water, raising the dead, or turning water into wine.

None of this diminishes the Bible as the most important cultural document in Western civilization which we have for millennial based our laws, our lore, much of our classical art, literature and music, and have based our best and worst behaviours as a civilization. In so many ways, what has manifested from this book of documents has defined us and set us apart culturally.

There is some historical accuracy to certain events in the bible. The problem is that the bible was written as a persuasive religious document, and not as a historical factual description. So the bible cannot be taken literally on anything ‘factual’, although it can be seen as a general guide.

Consider the bible to be the Cliffs Notes of “A History of the Ancient Middle East”. It gives a taste of the story. But you wouldn’t write a book report on the basis of Cliffs notes.

The bible isn’t even well written. Character and plot development is piss poor. Sure, there are some heroic characters, but there are so many holes in the stories that you drive a caravan through them.

Claiming that the bible is “historical” because it references events that happened at the time, is like saying that Captain America really exists because his comics reference World War 2 and Adolf Hitler.
Jesus’ existence is not supported by non biblical evidence.
There was no census at the time the bible claimed there was.
The exodus likely never happened.
Not to mention the flood and adam and eve.

Faith.
Fundamentalists are told that the Bible is literal and that it’s part and parcel with the chosen religion. If something doesn’t seem to ‘fit’, that because you’re an inferior being and if you have patience and “faith”, all will be revealed in time.

People who do not have the skill of critical thinking take the concept of “inspired” writing (a person’s retelling of a story influenced by their spiritual belief) as turning one into some kind of writing robot whose brain and muscles are controlled by God to write down the exact word of God.

Of course, if God controlled the exact wording of the Bible, then there wouldn’t be variation in translations.

Form a circle of, say, 25 persons and ask any one of them to write down a short statement and whisper it to the next person, and that person to the next, and on and on around the circle until the last person hears it in his ear.

Ask that person to speak the statement aloud and compare what he or she says to what the first person wrote down. Dollars to donuts, it will be a very different statement.

That’s what happened to the Bible from its inception to present day. I believe human beings, not some devine being, are the authors of the Bible. Human beings are those “25 people” multiplied by countless others, each with their own interpretations, biases, religious beliefs, translations, and rewrites down through time.

I think people feel safe in considering it factual because they haven’t fully read it. They extrapolate backward from what they want to believe about their religion (“god is love” and all that), and assume that any god they’d believe in would “write” a book that is full of only good and true things.

The bible was written in a way that relates to all levels of society, not only to the educated class. So the narrative in the bible is just not conforming to the standard history text format, like those ‘facts’ conveyed in history textbooks or records or annals or whatever. This does not mean the bible is not based on facts or actual events.

I believe this because I believe the Bible is the unalterable and infallible word of the living God

@ken1 – what about the places where the bible contradicts itself? Which is unerring?

@ken1 Which translation? And what language? Do you read from the aramaic text? Or the Greek?

The King James Version (note the word “version”) was written by committee, because they didn’t understand the Greek Bibles. Were they right or wrong?

Why do some regard it as only fiction? I guess if you know the Author than you know it is factual, if you do not, then it is fiction.