Pardon me for not replying to your recent comment but for whatever reason there isn't the option to, where it normally is, under the post:
My answer is that I didn't consent to the use of that passage in Job as a basis for comparison. It is a contrived example that I feel constitutes cherry picking. If we treat any and every untenable claim of scripture as allegorical then none of it is literal, there is no real God, he is only a metaphor, etc.
Of course Christians don't go this route, even the most liberal ones, but then what is the basis in their exegesis for distinguishing literal from allegorical?
In the case of seemingly matter of fact statements about nature, like classifying bats as birds or describing the sky as a hard dome of reflective metal formed in the same manner as beating out a bowl, they decide these verses are allegorical. While the claims which are still beyond the ability of science to investigate are considered literal.