Is the Bible a Fairytale?

By: Omar Rushlive L. Arellano

Fairy tales give some people a heartwarming picture of their childhood — the nostalgia of one’s uninterrupted quality time with beloved parents whose bedtime stories bring them into a heroic adventure in a magical world filled with wonder. Be that as it may, this loving experience is turned into a weapon by atheists and skeptics. They use the term fairy tale as a pejorative, to say that the things written in the Bible are laughable and are unworthy of any serious intellectual consideration. This is best portrayed by the meme below:

The meme states that they call the Bible a book of fairy tales. In other words, they say that Christians are upset when they make that judgment, even if the Bible affirms the existence of “mythical” creatures such as dragons, unicorns, talking snakes and donkeys, and the like. However, we can respond to this objection by (1) bringing to light some of its possible unspoken assumptions and by (2) addressing each of the entities that the meme claims are in the Bible.

Fairy Tale Rhetoric Assumptions

The rhetoric of the meme states, “All of these are in the Bible, so why do Christians get upset when we call it a book of fairy tales?” This commits the fallacy of begging the question. Heather Rivera points out that this is petitio principii in Latin, which means “seeking the beginning.” She explains that this is a logical fallacy that already assumes the argument's conclusion in its premises, or her own words, “the argument takes for granted what it is supposed to prove.”¹ The meme begs the question because the question already assumes that naturalism is true and theism false when it said that the Bible is “a book of fairy tales,” and it did not even attempt to prove naturalism to be true and theism false. Also, we see that the bias of the rhetoric is already against theism when the examples enumerated that are “in the Bible” are portrayed in a way that looks silly without justification, that this is how Christians properly interpret it. In other words, the atheist says that we cannot believe the Bible because naturalism is true.

Now, how should naturalism be defined? In my Master’s thesis, part of my postulate is to give a perspicuous account of what definition of naturalism I aim to critique. I relied heavily on Kelly James Clark to help me lay the important groundwork. He concedes that atheists do not agree on how this should be defined. He even complained that narrowly defining the term can remove an enormous part of human thought and experience, and if we define it too broadly, then it risks including things that naturalists would want to exclude. Thus, he resorts to giving different examples to show us what he means.²

For example, he cites Alexander Rosenberg’s view that the natural world is just composed of fundamental particles. This equates naturalism with materialism, which is the view that “the only things that exist are matter.”³ He comments that this definition is problematic since we cannot fully know what fully constitutes the natural world. Another definition he cites is the logical positivists who reject anything that goes beyond the human experience. He remarks that since “experience is mental for the positivist,” then naturalism entails idealism. Clark also mentions that atheists disagree on whether immaterial entities such as numbers, moral facts, mere possible beings, and other abstract objects exist, but that most of them would agree that “God, spirits, angels, demons, and souls are supernatural entities” and that they do not exist.⁴

With that said, Clark defines naturalism as a view that there are no supernatural entities. For him, everything that exists is in the natural world. This definition is problematic since it makes existence a “defining criterion for what is natural.” So if any non-material object exists, then it becomes “eligible for being deemed as natural.” With that said Clark does not treat all immaterial objects as the same. He mentions that there are naturalists who believe in abstract objects and see it as part of the natural world, and he does not include God as “natural” even though He is immaterial, so he counts God as a “supernatural entity” ad hoc. Be that as it may, this is the definition that we will assume in this article since this is the definition that is consistent with Graham Oppy’s conception of minimal naturalism.⁵ This is a good criterion since Oppy’s conception makes fewer assumptions, so it is consistent with different kinds of naturalisms that disagree.

In addition, although it is not explicitly mentioned in the meme, it is possible the truth of scientism is assumed by people who agree with it. J.P. Moreland helpfully borrows Tom Sorrell’s definition of scientism, which is the view that

science, especially natural science, is. . . the most valuable part of human learning . . . because it is much the most [sic] authoritative, or serious, or beneficial. Other beliefs related to this one may also be regarded as scientistic, e.g., the belief that science is the only valuable part of human learning. . .⁶

Moreland comments that scientism crowns science supreme in determining what is true and rational. In light of this, I think that the assumption of the fairy tale rhetoric is consistent with what he calls as “strong scientism,” which is the view that

something is true, rationally justified, or known if and only if it is a scientific claim that has been successfully tested and that is being used according to appropriate scientific methodology. There are no truths that can be known apart from appropriately certified scientific claims, especially those in the hard or natural sciences.⁷

Granting the truth of these assumptions would mean the impossibility of miracles and supernatural beings. Angels, demons, ghosts, witches, talking snakes, talking donkeys, and even God would not be true.

With that said, we do not have good reasons for holding these assumptions. First, if they question-beggingly assume naturalism, then their beliefs are based on a fallacy. They are assuming that naturalism is the “default position,” when they have not given any positive substantial evidence, to sway the scales in favor of God’s absence. And assuming for the sake of argument that we do not have evidence for God’s existence (we really do), at least it can be said that God’s existence and miracles are an open-question, making them possible. This means that it is not rational for us to automatically reject the reality of the supernatural. Now, for the sake of space, the purpose of this essay is not to give a detailed argument that gives evidence for the existence of God.⁸ The goal is rather modest, which is to show that Christians are not irrational and superstitious when they believe what the Bible says.

Second, scientism as a philosophy is self-refuting. Moreland argues this to be the case. He first exposes that scientism proposes that “only what is testable by science can be true.” And then he asks three questions, which he answers to the affirmative:

“1. Does this statement establish a requirement of acceptability?

Yes: it says that something must be testable to be true.

2. Does this statement place itself in subjection to the requirement?

Yes: it purports to convey truth.

3. Does this statement fall short of satisfying its own requirement?

Yes: this is a philosophical statement about science that cannot itself be tested by science.”⁹

Therefore, strong scientism is both false and self-refuting.

Now, these considerations challenge the meme’s assumption, such as the fallacy of begging the question, and the possible tacit agreement with scientism. Therefore, it is sufficient to say that Christians are not irrational and superstitious when they believe the supernatural things in the Bible. With that said, the following section addresses each of the entities mentioned in the meme to further strengthen the Christian’s rational defense.

Specific Items Mentioned in the Meme

1. Demons

Wayne Grudem defines demons as “evil angels who sinned against God and who now continually work evil in the world.” He notes that all of God’s creation is good and that demons were not really there as part of God’s original creation. But when angels rebelled, then they became evil. He cites 2 Peter 2:4 to show this rebellion: “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;” Another passage is Jude 6: “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day — ” Although these passages mention that the demons are in chains, he remarks that we should not think of them as no longer having any influence in the world.¹⁰

Now, if it could be said that we are not irrational and superstitious for believing in the supernatural such as the existence of God, then the lesser entities that God created are not impossible.

2. Witches

The image of an ugly, old woman who flies with her broom is not the kind of witch mentioned in the Bible. Witchcraft is a forbidden practice, as stated in Deuteronomy 18 along with other abominations the non-Israelite nations practiced. In verse 10, the word is used interchangeably with sorcery and is connected to practices such as divination, telling fortunes, interpreting omens, or being a medium.

One such example is the Witch of En-dor in 1 Samuel 28. In context, the Philistines gathered for war against Israel. Saul, afraid of their armies, tried to ask the Lord to answer him by dreams or by Urim because Samuel was already dead. No matter what instrument he used to inquire of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him. In desperation, he consulted a medium at En-dor to hear from Samuel the word of the Lord through forbidden means. To accomplish this, Saul disguised himself, put on other garments, and sought for the witch, since he himself had forbidden them in the land. And the woman was shocked that a supernatural appearance of Samuel was there. This suggests that her previous activities are only deceptively fraudulent ones, or demonic imitations that do not really bring the dead’s spirit back and that though Saul sought God’s word through forbidden means, He sovereignly brought Samuel’s spirit to bring His judgment to Saul, which removed all strength that is left for him to fight.

Now, this does not mean to claim that all things related to witches cannot happen in real life, but if we take for granted a supernatural worldview, then it is possible that demons can do a cheap imitation of God’s power, which will make people experience something supernatural apart from the God of the Bible.

3. Zombies

This is a clear strawman of what the Bible talks about. The skeptic just used the term as rhetoric to make it seem that theism is already defeated and naturalism is true without making an argument. The Bible never talked about zombies, which are the undead. Zombies are entities that are already dead, but they move and act as if they were alive. The Bible, however, talks about the resurrection, which refers to people who are already dead, then by God’s power, they are made alive and continue to act consistently in their nature of being alive. So if God exists, then miracles are possible. As the agnostic philosopher Peter Slezak said: “For a God who is able to create the universe, the odd resurrection would be child’s play!”

4. Seers

Seer is just another name for prophets. There is nothing wrong in itself when the term is used.¹¹

5. Talking Snake and Donkey

According to Michael Heiser, the Hebrew for serpent is nachash (נָחָשׁ). The meaning in English is serpent. Though the concept is a wordplay, Heiser explains that it is a triple entendre of “divine throne guardian,” “divination,” and “shining appearance.”¹² His point in revealing this wordplay is to tell us that Genesis 3 did not intend to inform us about what we should believe about zoology that “snakes talk,” since no ancient person such as an Egyptian in the ancient Near Eastern context believed that.¹³ But ancient people interpret an animal’s ability to speak in their literature as having a supernatural or divine presence at play. The “shining appearance” hints that it was not a mere snake but a supernatural being.

To further show that this is the case, Heiser also cites Ezekiel 28, starting from verses 12–13:

Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord God: “You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created, they were prepared.

With this account, Heiser says that the “king of Tyre” was a supernatural entity, pointing out that the king was adorned with sparkling gemstones, and connecting this to the fact that luminescence was characteristic of supernatural entities in the ancient Near East. Verse 14 confirms that this entity was a “guardian cherub” God had placed in His holy mountain which was, as Heiser explains, a “divine throne guardian” in the ancient Near Eastern worldview. He says that many art and engravings show the guardians as animals, including a serpent.¹⁴

The same could be said that ancient people did not expect Donkeys to normally talk. The narrative is not meant as a zoological textbook anyway. Heiser’s logic is consistent when we apply it to the Donkey, that if we see an animal being able to speak, then it points to something supernatural at play. Numbers 22:28 supports this when it says: “Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”” This shows that the donkey’s ability to talk was a supernatural work of the Lord (and not a claim to say that Donkeys normally talk), which was used specifically for God’s purpose in making the evil Balaam do His bidding.

6. Cockatrice

A cockatrice in mythology is a serpent-like creature with a head of a rooster. Matt Slick mentions that the translators of the KJV erroneously used the word as they understood little Hebrew back then (one example is Isaiah 11:8). With an improved understanding of Hebrew at present, modern translations have rendered the word as “viper,” “adder,” and “poisonous snake” instead.¹⁵

In light of this fact, though we are talking about the Old Testament, there are many differences in the Greek New Testament in the KJV as well. People should be aware that different Bible versions could be using different Greek texts, which James White refers to as “a textual dispute,” or they could be relying on the same text but differ in the proper way on how to translate the words, which he calls to be a “translational dispute.”¹⁶ The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR). It is a representative of the Byzantine text-type.¹⁷ This is different from modern texts that are based on the Alexandrian and Western text-types, and as White comments, the TR sometimes has a reading that is not supported by Greek texts.¹⁸ With that said, the Byzantine text-type has the largest number of handwritten manuscripts and they “were made long after the writing of the New Testament.”¹⁹ Since they were written much later and more readily available, this was the text-type that translators used, and this is where we got the KJV. However, White comments that evidence indicates that the Alexandrian text-type is the one that is closer to the Greek New Testament. With that said, we are not saying that they are two different kinds of Greek New Testaments, but different scholars made different translation efforts based on the texts that were available at their time, since we have more access to earlier manuscripts now, it explains why there might be some discrepancies in translations, but they have the same goal in terms of doing their best to uncover what the original Greek New Testament really said. This needs to be pointed out so that we do not use this information to make different Bible versions fight each other. We just need to be aware so that if we use a certain translation, we can put this to mind so that we can understand why there are certain differences, and so that we can identify what translation is closer to the original.

7. Satyr

A satyr in mythology is a half-man-half-goat or a half-man-half-horse. But this is not what the Bible means when we see it in the passages there. For example, Isaiah 13:21 in the KJV mentions it, but it is just referring to wild goats.²⁰

8. Dragons

Christians debate on what this refers to, and since this is treated as a non-essential doctrine. Differing on this issue is allowed among Christians, so if you don’t find one side convincing, perhaps the other side can give you a better explanation.

For Young Earth Creationists, they explain that before the word dinosaur was introduced by Sir Richard Owen in the mid-1800s, large reptiles were called dragons. And they concede that the legends about dragons could be embellished, but the general characteristics are said to fit dinosaurs. For example, the behemoth in Job 40 is said to fit a sauropod like a Brachiosaurus. The Leviathan in Job 41 is said to fit the picture of a Kronosaurus. And they believe that these dinosaurs have lived with humans.²¹

For Old Earth Creationists, we can see that they reject the idea that dinosaurs have lived with human beings. Hugh Ross explains that this idea implies that “dinosaurs lived long after well-established dates of their extinctions.” He also mentions that this fails to take into account the fact that it was only until 1819 that fossil bones of dinosaurs were found. He also notes that specialists in the knowledge about dinosaurs “can be traced back only a couple of centuries.”²²

Ross interprets the behemoth differently, since the part in Job 40:17 that mentions that its tail “sways like a cedar” does not talk about dimensions but movement. And since no animal fits its description of having limbs like iron or bones of bronze, then it is a metaphor that evokes “hardness and strength.” He further points out that verses 21–23 show that its territory is in the “marsh, stream, and river surrounded by reeds and lotus plants.” It is dangerous because it is stealthy in its aquatic habitat. But it is not a threat to humans in a predatory sense, since it is a herbivore. And this is why many animals play near it. It is just a threat because it is territorial and “enormously strong.” Thus, Ross concludes that the behemoth is a hippopotamus. With that said, he remarks that the point of the passage is to point to man’s limitation in taming this beast during their time. As Ross puts it: “No human has ever been known to tame an adult hippopotamus. Some have achieved success in taming a hippopotamus separated from its mother soon after birth and raised mostly apart from contact with other hippopotami, but these successes can be counted on one hand. Even then, the human caregivers must exercise considerable caution to avoid accidental injury by these powerful creatures.”²³

In addition, Ross paints the picture of the Leviathan in Job 41 as having “fearsome teeth,” “a mouth like “doors,” “a back covered with “rows of shields,” “a chest “hard as rock, hard as a lower millstone,” and an “underside like “jagged potsherds.” This shows that no human weapons at their time, such as “swords, spears, javelins, clubs, slingstones, and arrows can penetrate its armor. Another angle painted is that this creature is ferocious and prideful, that it is deadly for human beings because it is a carnivorous predator. The flames and sparks of fire are said to not be interpreted literally, but it is a picture that evokes imminent death if a human is close in proximity to the jaws of this beast. Also, he points out that this creature likes to spend much time in water. Thus, he concludes that this creature refers to a crocodile. He explains that this creature does not fear anyone and that even lions could become prey in its wake. Furthermore, he notes that Bible scholars constantly referred to the alligator or the crocodile as the leviathan.²⁴ In fact, the resource on their website even adds that the NASB includes this interpretation of Job 40–41 in their footnotes.²⁵

With that said, they both agree that the dragon symbolizes the devil in Revelation 12 and 13, which shows that he is a monster that is crafty to deceive and devour people. At least, based on either position, we cannot deny the existence of dinosaurs, since they are not mythical creatures in their own right. And even if we deny the Young Earth Creationist view, we can see a different interpretation that does not fit the atheist’s attempt to just rely on question-begging rhetoric to dismiss the Bible.

9. Wizards

The Bible never meant this in a mythological sense as well. This is just based on the KJV mistranslation of what should mean “mediums or spiritists.”²⁶

10. Unicorns

This is just an uncharitable portrayal of the Bible. The word unicorn is based on the King James Version of passages, such as Numbers 23:22 or Job 39:9. The original Hebrew word is said to be re’em, and it was translated to monokeros in the Septuagint and unicornis in the Latin Vulgate. It does not refer to the unicorns that we know of in mythology, which are horses that have one horn, but the term is said to possibly refer to rhinoceros, aurochs, or wild oxen. Regardless of the specifics, the image is said to refer to a powerful and untameable animal.²⁷

11. Ghosts

According to Douglas Beaumont, the word ghost is from an Old English word that is related to the German word geist, meaning “spirit,” and he reasons that God, angels, and the souls of the dead count as spirits. So there is nothing in the word ghost per se that should make us reject it. His reasoning about the Witch of En-dor, the appearance of Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration, and Jesus not correcting the disciples about ghosts when they thought that He was a ghost, suggests that it is possible that ghosts manifesting on earth is possible.²⁸

He gives a disclaimer, however, that this does not explain every spiritual encounter. And it would be unwise to assume that all supernatural encounters are automatically demonic in nature.

Conclusion

The argument against naturalism and scientism as assumptions addresses the wrong notion that supernaturalism is automatically not worthy of rational consideration. Supernaturalism being possible at least shows that we cannot rule out the existence of spiritual beings and miracles. This addresses the mention of demons, witches, the resurrection, seers, mediums, and ghosts, as not automatically deserving of intellectual contempt. The discussion about the specific things mentioned in the meme has revealed that zombie is based on a strawman about the resurrection to make it look silly, that complaints about a talking snake and donkey show a misunderstanding of ancient Near Eastern context, that cockatrice, satyr, wizards, and unicorns are based on the mistranslation of the KJV, that ghosts just means spirits, and that dragons could either be just dinosaurs or creatures that fit the picture of the hippopotamus and the crocodile.

If the atheist could not give substantial positive evidence of God’s absence, assuming that the supernatural could not be possible is question-begging and is not worthy of epistemic allegiance.

References:

1. Heather Rivera, contributing on chapter 70, “Begging the Question,” in Robert Arp, Steven Barbone, and Michael Bruce, Bad Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Fallacies in Western Philosophy, 308.
2. Omar Rushlive Arellano, “A Christian Theistic Review of Graham Oppy’s Case for Minimal Naturalism Over Minimal Theism in Morality” (master’s thesis, University of the Philippines Diliman, 2024), 14.
3. Arellano, A Christian Theistic Review, 15.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid., 16.
6. J.P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 29.
7. Ibid.
8. If you want to read detailed arguments that prove the existence of God, it is highly recommended that you read William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland’s The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. The chapters there are written by many contributors, which includes the Leibnizian cosmological argument, the kalam cosmological argument, the fine-tuning of the universe, the argument from consciousness, the argument from reason, the moral argument, the argument from evil, the argument from religious experience, the ontological argument, and the argument from miracles.
9. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism, 51.
10. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020), Chapter 20 Satan and Demons, “A. The Origin of Demons,” Ebook.
11. “What was a seer in the Bible?,” Got Questions, accessed December 27, 2024, https://www.gotquestions.org/seer-Bible.html.
12. Michael Heiser, Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), Chapter 11 Like the Most High?, “Divine Judgement,” Ebook.
13. Heiser, Unseen Realm, Chapter 10 Trouble in Paradise, “Genesis 3 in Context,” Ebook.
14. Heiser, Unseen Realm, Chapter 10 Trouble in Paradise, “Another Approach,” Ebook.
15. Matt Slick, “Why does the Bible mention the mythical cockatrice?,” CARM, accessed December 27, 2024, https://carm.org/about-the-bible/why-does-the-bible-mention-the-mythical-cockatrice/.
16. James White, King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1995), 22.
17. White, King James Only Controversy, 69.
18. Ibid., 64.
19. Ibid., 151–152.
20. “Isaiah 31:21,” Bible Hub, accessed December 27, 2024, https://biblehub.com/isaiah/13-21.htm.
21. “Dragons: Fact or Fable?,” Answers in Genesis, accessed December 27, 2024, https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/dragon-legends/dragons-fact-or-fable/?srsltid=AfmBOoreOQKrG1sPcAOpHivyaMw3rYe11C-bezMXaDnC7Hcq7rU2nhrJ.
22. Ross, Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job, 12 Answers to Dinosaur Questions, “What is the Behemoth?” Ebook.
23. Ross, Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job, 12 Answers to Dinosaur Questions, “What is the Behemoth?” Ebook.
24. Ross, Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job, 12 Answers to Dinosaur Questions, “What is the Leviathan?” Ebook.
25. “Past Watchful Dragons,” Reasons to Believe, accessed December 27, 2024, https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/take-two/past-watchful-dragons.
26. “Leviticus 19:31,” Bible Hub, accessed December 27, 2024, “https://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-31.htm.
27. “Why does the KJV Bible mention the unicorn?,” Got Questions, accessed December 27, 2024, https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-unicorn.html.
28. Douglas Beaumont, “What Are Ghosts?,” accessed December 27, 2024, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-are-ghosts.