Actual human laws based on those "symbolic stories" existed since many, many years before the XX century. And as I said, I think that the Bible and other religious books should be studied as part of human history and they give a good view of the ideas, opinions, people and societies that generated them. And that is very valuable! But they are no reason to keep believing in any "God Almighty", let alone considering a book a proof of its existence. But we are probably at very least a couple of centuries from that, if we will ever get there.

It's worth noting that none of the many authors of the various texts that now constitute the bible would have considered their texts 1. to be part of "the bible" at all (or, indeed, know that any such idea existed) or 2. to constitute "proof" of existence of any particular deity.

anachronistic thinking is tricky and will bite you.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about 2. The book of John is a clear counterexample.

Reaching for the sabians is a bit of a stretch!

anyway, my point is that you and i think of “proof” from an implicit or explicit metaphysical background that simply did not exist in the first century.

Far more important to the authors of the constituent works that are now codified into bibles was an exploration of the nature of god, and what that should tell us about how to live well, simply given as an axiom that god exists (or, that god is that by which existence is itself able to be, but let’s not get too fancy!)

Genesis, for example, is not really concerned about “how” the world came to be; it is very, very concerned with grappling with what the right ways to participate in creation are.

Fair points. But I think that John was intended as a proof in the sense of "here is sufficient evidence for you to believe that this is true". It pretty explicitly says so.

I didn't understand your first sentence?

I had to guess at what "book of john" was, and i went with the obscure answer :)

There's the gospel according to john, which is the fourth, and non-synoptic, canonical gospel. It's what you get when you take a Hebraic metaphysical worldview and try your damned best to cram it into the heads of hellenestic (neo)platonists, which accounts for the whole Logos thing, etc. And even when trying to speak neoplatonist, the author(s) of john can't resist falling back on revelatory rhetoric.

There's the revelation to john, which i, at least, (as a preterist) think is a survival guide to not getting crucified more than anything else.

and then there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaean_Book_of_John , which i don't know anything about at all. If it does structure itself like a proof, i'd be very surprised.

I don’t see why that should happen since Christians think the Bible contains (for the time) careful documentation of Jesus’ supernatural birth and resurrection.

in modern times:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/how-can-the-bible-be-aut...

and again, the phrasing 'careful documentation' is anachronistic at best. We moderns, most of us, do not really know what to do with revelatory narrative. Or midrash. The synoptic gospels contradict each other in a myriad of ways about seemingly the most basic of facts; plenty of adherents are totally fine with this because it is quite clear that there are other rhetorical games afoot than "write down what happened just like a police report" style of historical recording.

I appreciate the links and response.