Wayne wrote:
"Nope. I'm saying that God acted through people. That without Him they would likely not have prevailed."

But they might have. We just don't know. If your version is correct then god is reduced from being the actor, as portrayed in the book to serving in a capacity floating somewhere between irrelevant and vaguely influential.

Using a Catholic website as my source:
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/exo013.htm#15
I find this:
"13:15. For when Pharao was hardened, and would not let us go, the Lord slew every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of man to the firstborn of beasts:"

It seems you are unequivocally saying that this is not true. And yet, it would seem, it is the basis for your belief. Thus, you can understand, my puzzlement.

Wayne wrote:
"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."

I'll grant everything you wrote true or probable ... but if that is what happened then it was nothing but a deception. Hardly the basis for the worship of the Virgin Mary or for the tremendous amount of attention given to her in the Q'ran. Thought the Islamic texts speak of her more than the Christian they never once refer to her as a virgin.

Wayne wrote:
"That's an easy one: There was no garden."

Actually, it seems, there actually was a real garden to which the story refers.
http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readNews&itemid=1957&language=1
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-19-garden-of-eden_x.htm
But I too doubt the veracity of the biblical telling.

Wayne wrote:
"The Crucifixion was witnessed by many people and historical accounts exist outside the Bible confirming it."

And it is also discussed in the Q'ran where the story is told very differently. Why is one historical telling more accurate than the other? Especially given that we have an incredible amount of historical evidence that what you have read, in English, is highly modified from the original text?

In the Q'ran you will find Jesus referred to as Issa, John the Baptist as Yohanna, Mary as Marium ibnata ?Imran.

You will, I suspect, find this fascinating.
http://assyriatimes.com/engine/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3209
You too Blacknad.
Of course whether Arabic or Aramaic is a matter of some debate. And you won't find many people supporting the authors POV.

But you still seem to be artfully dodging the intent of my questions which is HOW do YOU distinguish? And thus is it possible that those things you think "real" today you might think "allegorical" tomorrow?

DA Morgan