[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

It is only in recent times that moderate Christians have even been able to reinterprete many biblical stories and dogmas less literally.

This is not historically true. The steadfast, sole belief in biblical literalism is in fact a recent development.

Originally Posted by Karen Armstrong, The Bible: A Biography

Readers have encountered what seems like a presence in these writings, which thus introduce them to a transcendent dimension. They have based their lives on scripture--practically, spiritually and morally. When their sacred texts tell stories, people have generally believed them to be true, but until recently literal or historical accuracy has never been the point. The truth of scripture cannot be assessed unless it is--ritually or ethically--put into practice. p.2

Her book examines the many traditions of biblical interpretation, particularly those which have argued for a symbolic or allegorical or spiritual reading as the highest form of understanding. For the sake of brevity, here is one example, from Origen.

Originally Posted by Armstrong, from Origen "On First Principles"

Divine wisdom has arranged for certain stumbling blocks and interruptions of the historical sense . . . by inserting in the midst a number of impossibilities and incongruities, in order that the narrative might, as it were, present a barrier to the reader and lead him to refuse to proceed along the pathway of the ordinary meaning. . . . p.112

Or, further:

Originally Posted by Armstrong quoting Origen

By means of the "impossibility of the literal sense", God led us "to an examination of the inner meaning." (quotations from Origen) p. 113

Or her discussion of Philo's use of the allegorical method.

Originally Posted by Armstrong, p. 50

In applying this method to the biblical narratives, Philo did not think he was distorting the original. He took the literal meaning of these stories very seriously, but like Daniel he was looking for something fresh. There was more to a story than its literal meaning. As a Platonist, Philo believed that the timeless dimension of reality was more 'real' than the physical or historical dimension. . . . The process of allegoria 'translated' the deeper meaning of these stories into the inner life of the reader.
Allegoria was a term used by rhetoricians to describe a discourse that meant something different from its surface meaning. Philo preferred to call his method hyponoia, 'higher/deeper thought' because he was trying to reach a more fundamental level of truth.

Armstrong is not the only scholar who has examined the multitudinous ways the Bible has been understood over the centuries, but she's the quickest and easiest one for me to reference here.

And, finally:

Originally Posted by Armstrong, p. 3

It is, for example, crucial to note that an exclusively literal interpretation of the Bible is a recent development. Until the nineteenth century, very few people imagined that the first chapter of Genesis was a factual account of the origins of life. For centuries, Jews and Christians relished highly allegorical and inventive exegesis, insisting that a wholly literal reading of the Bible was neither possible nor desirable.