So you're saying that the events related in the gospels didn't necessarily happen either? You're consistent, got to give you that. Makes me wonder why you criticized modern Biblical scholarship in your first post to me though, since you seem to swallow it whole cloth.
Now as far as Genesis is concerned, so much of this is, in form, prologue to the story of Abraham, which is the real beginning of the story. I see many ellipses,the Creation stories being not allegories but sketches. The Bible as a history of the world narrowing eventually to the history of a people and finally of a widening as the Church begins to grow. No, I will take that back a bit. The Catholic Bible brings to story almost up to the time of Jesus. When the people begin to return from the exile, only some return. The exile has dispersed the people of Israel, and when in good time, our Lord comes, he sends his Church into the world,, following paths laid down by the Jews, to preach the Gospel. It is history, as much as-no, more than anything by Wells,
Now you're confusing me. The fact that the contents of the Torah are sketches (which they are) doesn't negate in the slightest that those sketches are literally true. Why you think that they do so is beyond me, other than that the Catholic Church since the Reformation has developed an animus against the Bible as a "Protestant" book.
Tell you what. Let me know when you're as literal as Robert Bellarmine. Till then, good night.
And you seem to misrepresent the contents of the Torah. The part that deals with events before Abraham is very episodic and often is hardly more than a list of names. When we get to Abraham, all of a sudden the narrative becomes very focused. As to thinking like the good Cardinal, I am afraid I have the advantage of him. Like Pascal, I know more than this great scholar did about the Cosmos.