She thinks the Bible is a historical document

>she thinks the Bible is a historical document
Is it time to get out, Veeky Forums?

Yes.

>expecting reason from a woman
there's your mistake

Parts of it are

It is. It is a document and it's historical. You need to apply critical reasoning and cross-examination, just as with any other historical document.

>implying it isnt
>implying its not a detailed descrition of ancient Jewish laws, customs and traditions
>implying its not a detailed description of anti-Roman sentiment in the 1st century

Dont be blinded by memes.

Yes. If you don't know what a historical document is, she should btfo from you.

It is in the same way the Illiad is; truth with a lot of mythology in the mix.

it's infallible

>muh jesus was a zealot theory
All sins will be forgiven (:

Explain to her how YHWH is in fact a dark demiurge who wants to enslave you and how Lucifer is the good God of light and enlightenment who wants to emancipate us

Devil worshiping scum

relationships are spooks m8

Good argument.

>Implying there are non-historical documents
OP is a faggot

Kings yes, Samuel maybe, Judges perhaps a tiny bit, but everything before that is either mythology or pseudohistorical propaganda

>Implying there's only one kind of document
This is why OP is a faggot: they're secondary or tertiary sources, which are documents. The Bible is very much a document, citable like any other document.

it is an historical document, but without the academic rigour for veracity.

For example it correctly states the migrations that juden did from persia to babilon, from babilon to israel and from israel to egypt and back.

It correctly dates some kings and events that happened on those early kingdoms

you're just being nitpicky with OP's choice of words. You know what kind of person he was refering to

I'm just calling out OP for being a faggot.
OP should have said what he meant.

That's true though,
The Bible is a piece of historical fictional literature.