That is probably very much what happened. In fact, I suspect that the Jews themselves may have revolted and killed the people (including the children) that were killed during the massacre. That doesn't make a good bedtime story to tell your Jewish grandchildren though, so it became an act of God.
"But wait!" you say, "You're saying that it was people and not God! You heathen!"
Nope. I'm saying that God acted through people. That without Him they would likely not have prevailed.
I am trying to find out how you distinguish between what is real and what is allegorical. Where do you draw the line.
I draw the line by critical thinking. If you know a source book has a lot of good facts in it, and also has some allegorical information then you have to decide what to take literally. But here's the thing: Even if you take NONE of it as absolutely literal, the Bible (particularly the New Testament) teaches us a way to live that (if followed) improves our communities. The fact that much of it is based on historical accounts makes it all the more useful. If you believe that the writings in it are divinely inspired (as I do) then you also know that it is a manual for communing with God.
What if the birth wasn't virgin?
This has actually been my most frequent source for crises of faith. It's central to my religion that Christ is the son of God. But what if Mary and Joseph got busy pre-maritally and got themselves in trouble? Contrary to popular belief, the hymen does not always break the first time a woman has intercourse. Mary's intact hymen would have been the proof to the clerics at the time that she was virginal. She and Joseph had a very strict Jewish upbringing, and would have known their religion well enough to really put one over on everybody if they noticed her hymen was still intact.
Thinking about that really does bother me. And it's my one major test of faith. There's no way it can ever be proven either way. When fundamentalists call fossils tests of faith I just kind of laugh about it because fossils are absolute proof that their faith lies in misinterpretation of evidence. But this one isn't a matter of proof either way. It's a matter of me believing. And that is hard sometimes for me when so much of the rest of my faith relies on science to back it up.
What if there was no snake in the garden?
That's an easy one: There was no garden. Genesis itself gives two entirely separate and contradictory creation stories. When the book contradicts itself in it's very first book, it becomes obvious that you are reading allegory.
However, consider this: Somewhere, back in the mists of time, is a single male and female couple - probably great apes, but maybe even before the great apes - from which we are all descended. What set those two apart from their brothers and sisters and parents and uncles? Nothing. And yet they are the ones from which the entire human race sprung. Couldn't you call them Adam and Eve? They certainly became set apart, even if only posthumously, and that setting apart could be interpreted as leaving Eden.
What if there was no crucifixion as reported by Islam?
The Crucifixion was witnessed by many people and historical accounts exist outside the Bible confirming it.
w
