Wikipedia explains the term "straw man":
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
So, if one were to take the story of the Virgin Birth from the Bible, and completely misunderstand it or misrepresent it, one might ask a question on Skeptics.SE about whether human parthenogenesis is possible. Such a claim would be a straw man, because no-one is arguing that virgin births are naturally possible. In fact, if they were, it would be evidence against the story in the Bible, which is about the miraculous powers of God.
Similarly, when you ask if it is (naturally/empirically) possible for a man to be swallowed by a fish, we could attempt to answer it by looking at the stomach volumes, throat sizes, air levels, pressure levels, and conclude - dickishly - that those silly people who believe in a literal bible have no idea of human physiology and ichthyology.
However, you haven't provided a notable claim that people believe that a fish naturally swallowed a human. Instead, the claim you provide shows a miraculous, interventionist god getting directly involved. If you don't include the supernatural in your model, you have missed the point of the story, which shows how powerful the Biblical God is.
But the straw man argument doesn't stop there.
When you say that we say that the Bible isn't notable, you are (again) misrepresenting the claims of others to make them easier to dismiss.
These are just some of the many questions about claims in the Bible. Biblical claims that don't involve the supernatural are on-topic here. Biblical claims that invoke the supernatural are from a non-overlapping magisteria that is meaningless to test with science. We can only expect to answer religious questions where there is overlap: claims about the natural world.