Every once in a while you find something humorous in the Bible such as this passage from the twentieth chapter of Acts:
 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
 And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.
Heh heh, that's a good one!
I've personally always found the book of Jonah to be hilarious too. It seems like a sitcom to me.
Almost as impressive as Paul shaking off the serpent on Malta and everyyone was suprised that the bite didn't kill him. If memory serves me here, the Isle of Malta had no poisonous snakes.
Just did some checking. Modern Malta has almost no trees, but did have trees at the time Paul was there. Modern Malta also has no poisonous snakes but some theist assumes that it might have had them when Paul was there. (This was all because the Buybull said it was a poisonous snake that bit Paul.) Now we have to decided what trees (or absence of them) has to do with snakes, poisonous or not. Why would only the poisonous snakes leave Malta? What would trees have to do with this? Maybe St. Patrick was here as well as Ireland and drove the snakes out?
Now let's put theist thinking aside and deal with this young man who fell out of the loft as Paul was preaching and broke his neck. How likely would it be that the man did not break his neck and was not really dead in the first place? Onlookers only assumed so.
Or it was all just fiction?
That would be my guess.
For me the flood story, the book of Job and the slaughter of any tribe that Yahawah deemed unworthy shows that he is no different from a petulant child that kills all of his pets because one didn't obey him.
Yahawah = morals= oxymoron
You have to read the bible the way the apologists do. This is why the theist only sees the good things in the bible and cannot see the bad.
Just like most Mormon speakers.
There's an interesting book, the title of which escapes me at the moment, that traces the correspondences between the Gospel of Mark and Homer's Odyssey. The introduction discusses the similarity between the story in Acts and the story of the first of Odysseus's companions to die, who gets drunk and goes to sleep on the roof of Circe's (IIRC) palace the night before the Greeks' departure. In the morning, forgetting where he is, he staggers off the roof and falls to his death. The Gospel writers were Greek speakers, and would most likely have learned Homer as part of their educations. Odysseus's companion, though, is not resurrected, except in the sense that Odysseus later meets him in the underworld.
And there are great similarites with the theist missing most of them. I find it strange that Paul (Saul of Tarsus) was a Roman citizen. Apply this to his writings and teachings and ask yourself how his message could help unify Rome. Then we have the great historian Flavius Josephus who was a Roman citizen. He was really Joseph ben Matityahu, a Jew who became a Roman citizen through the Flavian dynasty. Then there is that great emporer, Constantine the Great, who had all the books of the bible put together and had forseen that "in this sign you will conquer" meaning in the sign of the cross. His real name was Flavius Valerius Constantinus.
Too much "family" here of the same name for me. Looks like getting a state religion you can count on complete with platitudes and fairy tales was a planned thing.