Jac: It's your preorgrative, of course, to respond however you like or don't like, Phil. But it's just as much mine to say that, in my assessment, what you've just written is dishonest. Your language in response to neo's point was that it was a "literalism" that people with theological education wouldn't adhere to.
I didn't say scholars wouldn't necessarily deduce various passages are meant to be literal. I said they wouldn't merely "ASSUME" it - meaning, without qualification. And I was more referring to literal interpretation of the MEANING of the word "day" - as obviously many scholars have conflicting views of what the actual meaning is referring to. AND, one can symbolically have in mind a use for a word they intentionally used, as one would normally understand it, but that its' meaning is symbolic of some other thing - a sequence, or period of time or whatever. But I was also referring to other passages in which there is scholarly disagreement over whether it was meant literally/as normally understood, yet without a deeper or symbolic meaning. So, Jac, ONLY if you can dismiss so many other scholars on some of the things you insist are literal, can I not credibly make my statement.
Also, I qualified that I have not studied the Joshua passage in any depth: Me: "I've not studied the passage with Joshua sufficiently, so I won't comment on that.
And I again referred back to a central topic of Neo's - the "days": Me: "But again, your assertion concerning the days is simply not backed by the views of many, many qualified scholars."
So, Jac, you can continue to strain your one sacred gnats of literalisms that many disagree with, but it won't change the fact that the ULTIMATE meanings may not be as YOU assert. I'm not even sure that Moses knew the greater symbolic meanings of certain Genesis passages. There is much of Scripture that only became clear much later. But the FAR bigger issue that I am speaking to is not merely an argument over ANY one specific passage's meaning - your great passion - but of the great danger of one dismissing whole passages of Scripture because they think it just isn't true. THAT is what I'm arguing against here - not your rabbit trail over what is and what isn't literally meant, and what scholars can and often do conclude that is or isn't. Go argue with whatever scholars you might want over whatever issues of meaning. I would think you would see the far bigger picture here - and that is - and I would hope you agree - Scripture is ALL God-inspired. But Neo's view discombobulates it into a meaningless mess that he has no idea of what is what - although he seems to think he can logically parse that. I'm not a scholar, but I do recognize that there is much scholarly disagreement. And I do understand that Scripture is so intricately intertwined that one cannot just surgically extract what they want without making much of it meaningless. THAT is the far more important issue here!