"But what about the moderates?"

[robvalue]

I don't mean to be rude Vicky, but it appears you are just seeing what you want to see.

You talk of this meta narrative as if it was a clever intention, and I have no idea why you would think that, or how you could conclude it.

It seems like you're admitting the text is less than reliable, but it somehow still allows some truth to shine through the cracks. I think you are too forgiving of the utter nonsense the bible becomes when analyzed critically.

Most important are the supernatural claims. Without them, it's just a bunch of silly stories and dubious history. And there is no possible way to show there's even a fighting chance any of that happened. It's contrary to everything we know, and totally consistent with what you would expect people of that era to write. Including incorporating mythology popular at the time. To expect them to be all true but somehow mimic "made up" previous stories so closely is pushing beyond any reasonable limit in my opinion.

And as I keep bringing up, the best a textual account can show is what people believed happened, not what actually happened. When it comes to supernatural claims, you wouldn't believe people making them today, so why believe these guys? And that's before the text got corrupted over and over.

I assume you are a Christian, and I would take a good guess that if you didn't already have a sold belief in this stuff that you'd dismiss it as easily as you presumably dismiss other religious texts. Apologies if this is wrong, my iPad doesn't tell me the religous bit for some reason.

---

On the other hand, you are far more reasonable than most theists who I've given up on ever having anything worthwhile to say.