Hi plmkrzy,
: I just thought since you have an unusual way of viewing "The Bible" as a whole (different then say, a "thumper") You might be able to offer a reasonable explanation for why so many various faiths can't seem to find common ground for at least THAT much.
Geez, that's a hard question and I certainly don't know the answer. I can only offer my opinions, which are worth no more than those of anyone else on a topic this fuzzy.
I view the Bible as a great piece of Hebrew literature that is so well written in a story-telling and poetic sense that it managed to stand the test of time long enough to become an integral part of world culture. An interesting read is Robert Alter's The Art of Biblical Narrative, which explains to English readers just what makes for great story telling in Hebrew. But the stories, while outstanding as stories, remain just stories.
: Not to mention actually lining the books up in proper order in the first place.
There has been much disputing through the centuries over that. As I understand it, by roughly the end of the 1st century A.D. the Hebrew canon was essentially established, except that there were still disputes over whether the so-called Apocryphal writings should be included. Eventually the Catholic Church decided that they should, but after the Reformation, Protestants decided that they shouldn't. The history of the New Testament books has been a good deal more spotty. It was the Catholic Church again that decided which writings should be considered inspired and which shouldn't.
The problem is simple in principle: How can any human decide which writings are inspired and which are not, unless they are inspired themselves? And who would dare to claim to be inspired? And so the disputing continues.
: Some will argue that entire books are spiritual (Revelations example) and others have argued that the entire Christian Greek Scriptures are "Spiritual" and the "Hebrew" Scriptures are "Literal".
: The argument never seems to end on where one meaning begins and another ends.
I don't think anyone has an answer. Sure, morons like the JWs will claim to have one, but they tend to claim virtual inspiration -- which other things they do tend to disprove.
One problem is simply defining the terms "literal", "spiritual" and "figurative". In everyday speech we use figurative language all the time: The sun rises and sets, etc. Sometimes this language is obviously figurative, sometimes its obviously really literal (we say the sun rises but we really mean that it only looks like it), and sometimes we can't decide. I don't know how to give an objective definition of "spiritual" that most everyone would agree with. With an ancient book written by people whose culture we don't fully understand, written in languages we can often only sometimes guess about, you can see the problem. And of course, there are all the interpreters who often interpret what they read based on their own desires rather on what a text says to a more objective intepreter.
I know these are lousy answers, but that's all I can say.
AlanF
