You're conflating two different questions: whether a document contains supernatural claims and whether those claims are true.
I never said an author's intention makes a document true. I said it tells us what kind of claim they're making. Harry Potter is presented as fiction. The New Testament is presented as history. Those are different genres, and historians approach them differently. Whether the historical claims are correct is a separate question.
You're also creating a false dilemma by saying that if one part of the Bible is debated, then the whole thing must be false. Historians don't treat any ancient source that way. They evaluate claims individually. For example, historians don't discard everything written by Herodotus because some of his reports are legendary. Likewise, historians don't accept every claim in any ancient source uncritically. They weigh each claim against the available evidence.
You also said that if God inspired Scripture, then every claim must be true. That's a theological claim, not a historical one. Whether Scripture is inspired is precisely one of the questions under discussion. You can't assume it is false as a premise and then conclude it isn't inspired—that's circular.
Finally, I've never argued that "because some biblical places and events are historical, therefore every miracle happened." I've repeatedly said that's not my argument. My argument is that the historical reliability of a source is one factor in ssessing its claims. It doesn't automatically prove every claim, but neither does the presence of miracles automatically make every claim false.
So we're back to the real disagreement: you begin with the assumption that miracle claims should always be rejected because miracles have not been demonstrated to your satisfaction. I don't begin with that assumption. I think the question is whether the total historical and philosophical evidence makes belief in God and the resurrection reasonable. That's where we differ.
"Presenting" Harry Potter as fiction doesn't make it fiction. The lack of magical proof and lack of being real makes it fiction. Just like presenting the bible as true doesn't automatically make it truth or presenting as history doesn't make it history. That's why I told you intentions don't mean jack.
Yes historians evaluate every claim individually and conclude if something was true and something that was fake. You can maybe claim there are kernels of truths in the bible but you cannot claim all of it is true. HOWEVER that is a contradiction that goes against what the bible claims. We are evaluating a claim that a perfect, all powerful, all knowing god wrote this. IF its not all perfect and not all truthful then it CANNOT be called word of god. You can call it man made story with mistakes, contradictions and occasional true events.
Inspired by god doesn't mean it was god. It could mean people thought they were inspired by god or just lied. There are plenty of examples of people who think god talks to them. They think the voices in their head are from god. Thats why we have thousands of religions. Why should we treat christianity any different from a mental institution patient?
I didn't "assume" it wasn't inspired by god I "concluded" it based on the lack of proof it makes. You can't accuse me of being circular.
Since magic has never been proven to be real its a natural and logical place to start categorizing it as fiction.
The day you prove magic is the day we can begin with "it could be possible"
Humans have devised millions of stories and myths over millenia. You want me to disregard all the gods and magical explanations except for 1. Why is it reasonable to believe in magical being created 2 people in a magical garden with a magic serpent , then that magic wizard got mad at the two people he created then he drowned everything then favoured one race of people over another, then send his son/himself to pay for our sins, but didn't realy die, walk on water, cure cancer resurrect from the dead. Hell, heaven, angels, demons, unicorns, satyrs, cherubs, leviathans, dragons, nephillim, virgin birth etc etc. That is more reasonable to you over << its just another man made superstitious story>> ?