There are things I have read in the Bible I didn't understand until years later, why would anyone at all think they had to grasp all meaning at the time of the reading? I think you are pushing something here to dismiss plain text that only modern man would attempt to do not the readers of the text the year it was written.
Non-literal approaches to Genesis have been around for a long, long time. In the 3rd Century A.D., a Christian scholar, Origen, argued against a literal-historical approach to Genesis. It’s not a modern concept by any means.
That's an excellent point. But I do want to make clear that I think it's not a difference of literal vs. non-literal interpretation, but correct interpretation. Some things in the Bible are meant to be understood literally. Some things are meant to be understood figuratively or symbollically. And quite a few passages in the Bible includes elements of both. So again, I don't think it's a question of literal vs. non-literal. I think that's the wrong question to ask. The first question to ask is always, "How would the original intended audience have understood it? What would it have meant to them?"
For example, in Corinthians when Paul says there are 'lords many and gods many but to us there's only one God the Father...and Lord Jesus Christ", the church at Corinth clearly would have understood Paul to be referring to the false pagan Greco-Roman gods of that time that so pervaded and influenced everything in their society; *NOT* the erroneous, anachronistic reading of say the church of latter day saints (mormons) who claim this passage teaches that there are actually many gods and lords--but only one God and Lord of our planet--and that one day we can become gods ourselves over our own planet!
There are things I have read in the Bible I didn't understand until years later, As have I why would anyone at all think they had to grasp all meaning at the time of the reading? No one thinks that. No one that I know of anyway. I think you are pushing something here to dismiss plain text that only modern man would attempt to do not the readers of the text the year it was written. The only thing I'm 'pushing' is sound biblical interpretation. I'm honestly not advocating anything different from what every pastor who's ever attended seminary already knows. It's pretty basic stuff actually. I'm kind of surprised that you're challenging it. Maybe you're just so used to us disagreeing that you're assuming I'm saying something disagreeable.