Ah, it's been a while. Interesting to see this topic and also to see that someone has entered the minefield of trying to answer the OP's question. All the same, I think there could be better answers than the one thus far provided.
let's start with a few thoughts before we can proceed forward:
1) if the Bible was divinely inspired, what would it say?
I would imagine that if the Bible predicts the future with 100% accuracy, it would be evidence of divine inspiration, not just taken on faith that the bible is true.
I would hope that you applied more exacting standards of evidence than the rather vague and woolly concept you've expressed here, which - as other posters have noted - lends itself to a great deal of confirmation bias and post hoc
attempts to retrofit events onto passages that were not previously established to be prophetic, or were thought to have referred to different events.
There also needs to be something remarkable about the predictions. Saying, for instance, that there will be people who don't believe the claims Christians make is hardly remarkable. This has been the case throughout the history of Christianity - and is inevitable when you have a belief-system that makes a whole bunch of claims that are, let's face it, pretty hard to believe. So trivial predictions along the lines of "there will be people who reject this message" don't really cut it as prophecy. Anyone capable of coherent logical thought could come up with that one. Hardly evidence of divine inspiration.
And of course, "100% accuracy" entails that there are no failed
prophecies - which assertion alone runs into a number of problems (RationalWiki
for instance lists a number of statements that it claims are failed Biblical prophecies).
For a start, at the very least one might hope that a series of works that were divinely inspired might avoid the kinds of errors in their statements about the physical world that might have been common to their contemporaries, but the errors in which any grade-school child with a decent education would be able to spot.
2) If the greatest moral teacher (Jesus) in existence was a fairy tale, then the author was the greatest moral teacher in existence. It would be a huge stretch to say that the greatest moral teacher in existence wasted his time writing fiction and did not mention that it was fiction when people started believing it. A great moral teacher would not be a liar and allow people to believe it.
There are a lot of concepts here to unpack, but think about what you're saying here.Problem 1.
In the Gospels, you have a character (Jesus) who is, supposedly, this great moral teacher, and who goes around telling parables. Parables are fables; fiction. The parable of the prodigal son wasn't an actual family somewhere. There wasn't an actual sower who was careless with his seed, nor the guy with three sons and a kingdom to divide among them. But Jesus did
- supposedly - go around telling these fictional tales and failing to mention that they were fictional. Whether people believed there was an actual kingdom is, of course, neither here nor there. It's the moral of the story that matters. But failing to mention that the stories are fiction to those credulous individuals who can't tell a fable from reality isn't the mark of a liar.Problem 2.
You comment appears to presume a single author who had constructed, out of whole cloth, in entirety the persona of Jesus, complete with a back-story, a set of fables, a grisly fate and a triumphant revival - and that this story, once constructed, was then seized upon and believed by people who subsequently came to call themselves Christians.
I don't think anyone believes this happened.
Christians certainly do not - whether they believe (as some claim) that the author of "Mark" at least may have been an eye-witness or whether they believe (as is more commonly held in more mainstream Christian circles) that the Gospels arose from an earlier oral tradition about the sayings and teachings of Jesus, and as such, may have had individual scribes
but had, in effect, multiple sources.
Those who do not share the Christian worldview have no serious problem with the latter account of how the Gospels came to be. It is, after all, quite possible that people recounted - and the Gospel scribes faithfully recorded - the tales of Jesus that they believed
, but that does not amount to reliable evidence that what those people believed about Jesus were true.
As such, this point 2) of yours doesn't really make much sense.
3) If the bible mentions scientific theories such as the big bang theory, it would be safe to assume that the author is of divine origin.
As per my response to 1) above, it needs to do a lot better than make statements that someone can retroactively creatively interpret to claim that it's talking about Big Bang Theory: it needs to avoid making elementary errors about the natural world. In this, the Bible manifestly fails. It may be useful for some things, but a science text book it most certainly is not.
I don't know what the previous believers on this site were like, but this is the Big Leagues now. Who can handle playing in the Big Leagues?
Proverbs 16:18, my friend. Or in contemporary vernacular, pride comes before a fall.