>so much that now the religious must claim that most of that "knowledge" was not meant to be verbatim anyway //
You know that's a very recent turn to read scripture literally? The idea that figurative interpretation is somehow a reaction to scientific challenge would be easy for you to dispel with a modicum of research.
>it is claimed that the texts in the Bible are the preserved words received directly from the God //
Not by mainstream Christianity or the Bible itself (which claims scripture is inspired by God).
> You know that's a very recent turn to read scripture literally?
Yes, and if you read my first now unfortunately gray comment, I addressed exactly the literal readings as those that limit what's easy to pass in the US: I wrote that Pi "doesn't question the literal interpretation of the Bible, 6000 years and all that. So let's celebrate that innocent number." It's right there.
> >it is claimed that the texts in the Bible are the preserved words received directly from the God //
> Not by mainstream Christianity or the Bible itself
I've meant the texts of the "ten commandments" in the Bible (you've cut the first part of my sentence, it's obvious it's about the ten commandments and I've mentioned the whole Quran as the exact words as believed by Muslims(!)) not the whole Bible, of course! If you're a believer, do you consider the text of the "ten commandments" (e.g. in Deuteronomy 5:4–21) as the actual words of God or not? Were these words exactly preserved or are they already "corrupted" in the Bible?
You know that's a very recent turn to read scripture literally? The idea that figurative interpretation is somehow a reaction to scientific challenge would be easy for you to dispel with a modicum of research.
>it is claimed that the texts in the Bible are the preserved words received directly from the God //
Not by mainstream Christianity or the Bible itself (which claims scripture is inspired by God).