That’s one.
The “G” spot, as it is more commonly known, is a conspiracy hatched by a cabal of Cosmopolitan editors and cruel feminists to vex and confuse men seeking the holy grail of certain orgasm, that their women awaken smiling and make them breakfast. Alas.
And Platinum Snare-drums.
Hey we are a people with rhythm!
From slavery’s bond
Many myths spawned
Exodus leads into diaspora.
On modernists, dawned
that they’ve been conned
So now the tale’s just not enough for ya?
Well, but the Bible is a collection of writings, from different sources and of different genres. It’s as if you said “It seems surprising to get real literal with one book in the library…” though not as extreme, and admittedly nothing in the Bible was written as history in the modern sense.
On one hand you say we shouldn’t treat it as one book when it comes to how literal it is, but on the other hand you say “nothing in the Bible was written as history in the modern sense”, as if we should treat the Bible as a whole as a non-literal work of literature. What if we were to rank the books of the Bible from most accurately historical to least?
…because everything in the Bible predates historical writing in the modern sense.
As I understand it, it’s not a matter of ranking them, but of recognizing how they were intended to be understood: what genre or category of writing they each belong to, and what the conventions of that genre are/were.
But if one were to rank them from most to least accurately historical, how would they rank?
The Bible is not taken to be a library of various shades of truth. It is taken to be unified, and as a whole, by it’s takers. So I think it’s relevant to call it out if someone wants to place some stories as truthier than others, and ask whose ox is gored, and whose is spared.
Be that as it may, what the Bible is not (theological issues of divine inspiration aside) is a single work with a single authorial intent. It’s the combined work of dozens of authors, over a period of a thousand years or so, with varying religious, historical, and cultural perspectives, combining elements of folklore, oral history, personal testimony, allegory, and prophecy. Any given part of the Bible can and should be judged in the context of when it was written, who its likely authors were, and what moral or viewpoint it’s intended to impart.
That doesn’t address anything that I said.
The Bible is a single work with a unified intent read into it on the part of it’s audience.
Things were included and things were excluded based on this. There’s the Bible (meaning Book, and not magazine, or library, or sheaf) and there’s apocrypha.
And the authors were the audience too, while they were authorially intending.