I've touch on the subject before, but I want to revisit it here. I know for many, that in order for the Biblical accounts to have truth in them or for the rest of the Bible to be credible, then the accounts must be historical.
I know this understanding of historicity works well for some, but falls short for others. For some of us we find beauty and truth in the mythical/allegorical understandings of some of the events recorded throughout scripture, while others find security in a more literal/historical view.
I've mentioned before some stories which many consider historical where others, such as myself, consider them allegorical or mythical. For instance: The creation poems, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the Flood narrative, tower of Babel, Jonah, Job, and of course there are many more.
I think of Peter Rollins quote at Big Tent last fall when he said, "the question is not whether or not the snake actually spoke, but rather, what did the snake say?"
I am interested in knowing your views on the literal Vs mythical reading of the text. Feel free to affirm (wink) or oppose what you have just read.
This was intended to be one post, but is too long. Tomorrow will be presenting one argument I always hear opposing a non-literal reading of the Bible. I find the argument funny.