For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2 Peter 1:16
The writers of scripture made clear distinction between truth and lie.
Nothing in all the scriptures would call something true which was not in fact true.
The first century writers of all the new testament scriptures wrote of things they saw and were told by Jesus and those who saw and walked with Him.
Later fables were vehemently rejected by those who desired only truth but were accepted by others who desired power and control by any and all means including by deceptive ways.
These include things such as the following legend and methods as referenced here.
The clay bird account did not happen.
This was written LONG after the eyewitness evanjeel of the first century.
The clay bird account was written about 100 years after the rest of the new testament was written.
It was used by gnostic heretics through at least the 6th century and then shows up in another text with which many are well familiar.
There is similar evidence about
أَصْحَابُ الكَهْف
These later accounts which did not stick to the earlier eyewitness facts had no claim whatsoever to being true and were simply based in other stories which were made up and completely unreliable.
So, regarding eyewitness accounts and fables, let it be very clear:
We accept by faith what is shown by strong evidence to be from eyewitnesses.
We are utterly intentional about NOT taking by faith things which are known to be from legends. These are two diametrically opposed positions.
One is faith in strong evidence of history.
The other is faith in strong evidence of legend.
Now let’s look at an ancient writing and even consider it two different ways.
Let’s look at this as scripture shown by evidence and if we want, let us look at it critically examining the evidence also.
But as we look at it let us note in our responses here whether we are using the critical historical approach or the scriptural approach grounded in evidence.
We should find these two approaches amounting to the same result but only because these scriptures have already undergone intense scrutiny using historical and textual criticism and stood the test as first century scripture.
…
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:16-21
This first century passage written by one of Jesus closest three disciples is actually packed with evidence which tie it and other new testament references both to the other strong evidence in the old testament scriptures as well as to other historical evidence from the first century and also to other New Testament evidence from and about Jesus and his other eyewitness hearers and followers.
Wisdom in the WORD 