Why didn't you ask if I believe Job was a real person too? It makes no difference, Agrarian. To me it makes no difference. I really don't care if the Bible has historical or geographical or astronomical, or botanical accuracy. I don't use and see the Bible as an Encyclopedia Judaica, from which I can reliably find out whence came the dinasaurs, the Triffid Nebula, or Hansen's disease [I see you didn't skip school that day :) ].
What matters to me, is whether it is spiritually infallible, and I believe it is. It is the message in each verse, in each chapter, and in each book that is important. What's the message? is what I ask myself. What's God telling me?
That's why I threw in the galaxies — God's Creation speaks for itself that everything is possible with God. That's why science cannot diminish God, or throw doubt into His word. It's not whether everyting is possible with God that is at stake, but human interpretation of what happens or how it happens.
Today we know that the earth is not flat and does not have four corners. Does that change anything as far as God's truth is concerned? Does the fact that ancient Hebrews could not distiniguish that bats are not fowl make Bible unreliable? Perhaps as a source of zoology, but that's not what the Bible is for, as I mentioned earlier.
So, what would happen if the Israeli scientists were right? If the writers of the Bible used not just metaphors but persons who did not exist in order to narrate a story that carried a spiritual message? What if Job really did not exist? Does that change what the book of Job has to say? What if Adam and Eve are only proverbial parents of ours and not real, historical ones? Does that change the message of their transgression, does it make us any less fallen? Can we not relate to everything that is in the Bible and see ourselves in it? It reaches into our very being, as we are, what we know, feel, believe, see, think, do. Is that not what really matters?
You talk about hesychastic Fathers. They don't reference the Scripture to prove historical facts, but to show spiritual truth that's in it. Faith, after all, is a personal experience — as you aptly say to qua. It is an entirely personal relaitonship with God that no one else can share, prove or disprove. It is, as +Gregory Nazianzen says, "that which completes our argument."
I certainly agree that the spiritual meaning of Scripture is the most important thing. There is no way to prove one way or another whether Job was a real person, so I see no point in believing that he was not. If you find it helpful to believe that he wasn't, I have no problem with that.
But taken to its logical conclusions, your statement has some disturbing conclusions:
"So, what would happen if the Israeli scientists were right? If the writers of the Bible used not just metaphors but persons who did not exist in order to narrate a story that carried a spiritual message?"
There is a very big problem with this idea that the entire Bible can be taken as metaphors and stories used to convey some sort of meaning.
The defenders of the Holy Icons against the iconoclasts were making one very real and important point. Jesus Christ was truly God and truly man. He was a real person who walked the earth and revealed, in his person, God to us. We could and can see God, because Jesus Christ is God. Jesus Christ is not a metaphor, so we not only can, but must have icons of him to remind us of the fact that he was seen and touched and heard.
The Gospels make it clear that Christ was descended from the Patriarchs and from David. They take care to establish that he was a real man with a real mother and a real "adoptive father" (Joseph the Betrothed, supposed by those around to be his father), who had real geneologies.
If Christ descended from metaphors, perhaps he is a metaphor, too? A spiritual truth, but not a real person? If, when he talks of all of these Old Testament fathers, they are really metaphors and made-up stories, then why are not all of the stories about Christ himself metaphors and made-up stories intended to convey some sort of spiritual truth.
And perhaps all of the injunctions of St. Paul are metaphors, and stories intended to convey meaning. Maybe he really didn't mean for only men to be priests and bishops, maybe he was talking metaphorically about women covering their heads. Maybe he was just trying to convey some general spiritual meaning in his injunctions against homosexuality and other moral perversions.
Maybe the prophesied return of Christ is metaphorical, maybe he won't return in the flesh. Maybe the resurrection from the dead was a metaphor, and our own resurrection someday won't really happen -- it's just a made up story to convey some sort of spiritual meaning.
For if there are some things that science is pretty certain about: virgins don't spontaneously give birth, corpses don't rise from the dead and pass through stone walls (for the stone was rolled away only to demonstrate that he was gone.)
No. While it is true that the Bible is by no means a scientific encyclopedia (nor do I see the Fathers using it as such), the Fathers seem nearly always to take the plain meaning of Scripture at face value.
I think you are unfairly applying today's standards to the standards of the time of the author. In those days, it appears they defined a "bird" as any animal that flies. There is nothing unreasonable about this. It was only later that man decided to distinguish between birds and mammals. There's nothing wrong with that either, but it certainly doesn't make the earlier designation wrong. It just means that we classify differently today. Who knows how we will classify 100 years from now?
What if Job really did not exist? Does that change what the book of Job has to say?
Absolutely 'Yes'. Since there is no arguable reason to suppose that the story of Job was an allegory or parable, then if it was just made up it would put into question every other teaching of scripture. How would anyone know what to believe? Does your church teach that part or all of the OT is only metaphor, when there is no clear context that it is so?
What if Adam and Eve are only proverbial parents of ours and not real, historical ones? Does that change the message of their transgression, does it make us any less fallen?
It completely changes the message because it never happened! Does God need to lie and invent things that never happened? If God wanted to just explain the nature of our condition at birth why not just do it, as opposed to concocting a false story about it. I believe it matters a great deal whether the stories of the OT are historically true or not. Jesus speaks of Adam for goodness sakes. Was He lying?