• afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think it is important to note what the truth is of the situation.

    If the Bible can have one fictional story in it, it can have two, if it can have two it can have three.

    • Vespair@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The whole thing is allegorical fiction; debating which is most historically fictional is pointless when the vast majority only consider the thing as a whole, not individually. It isn’t that you’re not correct, it’s that your correctness is wholly irrelevant to how the Bible is consumed

        • Vespair@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, I’m aware. Those people are even less likely to do the due diligence you seem to be requesting of examining the veracity of each book or passage. The salient point here remains - the Bible is being interpreted as a whole book, thus whether or not your specific passage passes the veracity test or not is fully irrelevant

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You really seem to be willing to generalize. I was one of those people and I did put in the leg work. Very nearly went into some sort of theological training as my career. Lost my faith before that, got a real job. It was not an allegory for me it was the word of God. So yes I studied the heck out of it.

            And no you don’t get to do that. The Bible contradicts itself. Taken as a whole does not work. Sometimes the contractions are found within the same book.