One thing that was brought to my attention today during a Bible study time was that something (in this case the Bible) can be true without being fact. I've always been particularly aware of the fact that the Word was passed on verbally for years and years, and even once it was written, has been translated I don't know how many times, into the numerous English versions I read now. Of course things have gotten jumbled or turned around, I could talk about this point for days. However, it is still all true. What was pointed out today, is that it is not necessarily fact. Point in case: Jonah. Was he going away from where God told him to go, and then was presented with such an obstacle that he couldn't ignore and had to go where God wanted? Yes. Was he literally swallowed by a whale and put where God told him? Perhaps. The point being it presents truth, but not fact.
I liked this point. I am skeptical, sort of, but I think it's the skepticism of a new theory. This is how I approach this: 1) fact is defined as "an event or thing known to have happened or existed," (this was my first flag in this conversation, because I tend to equate fact and truth); 2) we can't know for sure that this happened, so therefor it can't be considered a fact; 3) sola scriptura, I believe the Bible is the Word of God, and while I know it was written by humans, I also believe the Holy Spirit has/does keep it holy and true.