If by fruit you mean "fiction", then yes I agree, they're both the same in that regard. 
No, by "fruit", I mean "book". Fail!
You brought up Harry Potter to begin with, I can't help you had to resort to fictional works for comparison. Now you're trying to suggest science books also fall under the same category. A science book is different, it's based on observation of reality and is mathematically backed, there's no way in hell one could misinterpret that 1 + 1 does not equal 2. That's an axiom which even a toddler can demonstrate with toy blocks.
Good, so if someone argues that science/math books state that 1 + 1 = 3, wouldn't you want to correct him and let him know that's not what the books say? Or do you just tell him that, since this is his interpretation, it is true for him?
And is it the fault of the books that he interprets them wrongly?
The fail is getting too much now, even god would facepalm at you. You're not doing a good job selling your case to 'save us' from eternal damnation, and if Heaven sounds like what it is, I rather go to Hell anyway.
You're so cool, man. You definitely did NOT fail at all.
Cracking are we? Excellent.
Oh sorry, yes there's two things, they're both books and fictional, oh sorry, my mistake.
Mathematics is logical and of course it's not open to personal interpretation, but it's logical because it has capacity to demonstrate real-life proofs to say indeed, 1 +1 does not equal 3 but 2 and is universally accepted. You need to play with toy blocks or a calculator more if you honestly are stupid enough to make such an argument. I mean you can't even concisely answer the question given to you about what makes the Bible legitimate and which denomination is correct. Your church of Jesus Christ answer is not specific enough, as there's dozens of denomination that fit that category, and yet all have different interpretations of the Bible. If you cannot even answer for why that is the case and provide a real-life proof that is unanimously accepted, then it's obvious the Bible is flawed. How do you know what you believe is correct, not the work of a fraud if there's no empirical way to authenticate it?
All you're offering is vague answer and twisting of words to suit your own arguments. You're hoping to tire us into submission, which I'm afraid isn't going to work.
