THAT is the point of the discussion. What is to be taken LITERALLY, and what is NOT. When Paul was caught up to the third heaven, was that a LITERAL third heaven he was caught up to? In The Revelation did John LITERALLY SEE the things that Christ told him he was going to SEE? "Write the things which THOU HAST SEEN, and the THINGS WHICH ARE, and the THINGS WHICH SHALL BE HEREAFTER;" Rev. 1:19.
If you ask that question seriously, then you are not a complete literalist.
And yes that is the point. You started on me with:
it seems the very Book you are studying is not one the Catholic Church takes literally. What good is Bible study if the Book you are studying is not considered the truth?
I.e., literal interpretation = truth.
I'm questioning what your commitment to literalism is that you consider = truth.
Completely? Or not? Is everything in Scripture to be interpreted completely literally or do you ask: "What is to be taken LITERALLY, and what is NOT?"
Before your first position is successfully argued, let's not go on to another.
Simple question: Is your position that only a completely literal reading of Scripture is true?