> Logical consistency wasn't the way I meant that it coheres! The themes, arcs, symbolism, prophecies, moral structures, deeper messages, all of that stuff. Th

> Logical consistency wasn't the way I meant that it coheres! The themes, arcs, symbolism, prophecies, moral structures, deeper messages, all of that stuff. Though your argument is unconvincing, I still disagree, because now you are employing syllogism. The Bible is an anthological compilation of sacred literature of radically different genres, connected only by belief that they are revelations of God. > God, by definition, defies human understanding. Stop me when I get to anything that defies your understanding: by God, you mean the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority, the supreme being who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Or perhaps you are referring to Jesus of Nazareth, the notorious Cynic philosopher, poet and rebel Jew that dared to suggest loving one's enemy, who knocked over tables and caused a commotion at the Temple in Jerusalem, passed bread while saying, "do this in memory of me," and was crucified. I think I know what you're getting at, but, in fact, most ordinary people defy human understanding. > In the same way that the Zen people use apparently self-contradictory statements or questions to try to get across ideas, I think you must mean Buddhists. > the Bible works with more than just literal historical statements. Is there any other written work that does not work with more than just literal interpretation? Isn't that true of everything that has ever been written?