But even in the sense of desiring consistency, is it still a valid sort of argument to make to imply that everything has to be consistent or none of it's true? Especially in the case of a book, even if it wasn't the bible, if you were reading a nonfiction book on spiders and one of the things stated was symbolic language and if it were stated to be a fact it would be out of context, whereas the rest of the book all said what it meant, would that still be a valid conclusion to make?