I suppose there are some (besides yourself and Elizabeth) who interpret Genesis 1-3 literally, but I have not met or worked or worshiped with such.
It seems to be a game you play, intentionally or not, to attempt artificial divisions – categorically putting people in a corner to dismiss them. FYI, genuine scripture scholars do not speak of “literal” interpretations, because that term is meaningless as applied to literature, including sacred literature. (Church authorities may use the term to make distinctions to lay people on occasion, but they understand scripture the way other scholars understand Hebrew and Christian scriptures: as conveying meaning.) As with other literature, various images, phrases are used to carry and connect various meanings within chapters and within books. Jewish religion and culture considered numbers and units to have spiritual significance, with special import given to numbers like 3, 7, 12 and 40.
One doesn’t have to interpret, nor does the Catholic Church interpret, the sacred language of scripture in the kindergarten way you seem to ascribe to anyone who disagrees with your peer group. That was clear from the earlier postings I made – quoting Pius XII, quoting JP2, etc. Pope BXVI is a savvy scripture scholar with a similarly sophisticated view of scripture,
shared by those of us who have studied these deeply in academia.
No one from my own peer group believes that the cosmos had a “firmament.” Yet that was the limited cosmological understanding of the early biblical writers. But we’re not talking about biblical scientific views here. That’s not – how often must this be repeated?–what the Church concerns herself with. It’s the spiritual messages and the spirtual truths --as opposed to physical facts – which is the mission of the Church to preserve, communicate, and interpret from scripture – in the context of all of Sacred Tradition, which goes far beyond Genesis.
The doctrine about the human soul proceeds more than just from supposedly poetic statements in Genesis. One is allowed to believe one thing about some of the retellings of stories surrounding key Jewish figures, and unless such beliefs compromise Church doctrine on the metaphysics of human existence, variations in the details are less important than the spiritual truths they deliver.
There are not two artificial groups, created by you: the supposed Catholic intelligentsia, which dismisses Hebrew scriptures as largely fanciful because of their primitive scientific basis, vs. uneducated idiots who supposedly misinterpret the transparent symbolism in Hebrew scripture, substituting modern understandings for ancient semantics. There’s a vast educated Catholic population out there, over the age of 5, apparently none you’ve ever met, and several on this thread whose intelligence and education you refuse to acknowledge. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We both analyze and synthesize, think and pray without conflict. Stop trying to attribute false beliefs to us just because we do not agree with a heterodox view that it was not God’s action that is responsible solely for a unquely human, non-evolved soul.
It would be awesome if Catholic posters could actually agree on the Church’s doctrine in this area, but as long as they don’t the choice is either to pick one lay poster’s pet theory because they have the nicest sig. or look elsewhere for the doctrine. Having read a bit of Benedict’s theology, I go with the Pope on the grounds that he makes good sense and talks of a living scripture and a living God rather than hair-splitting ye olde documents, or relying on what some scientist wrote in her blog last week, and so on. You kind of know this from previous conversations, so I take it you were a bit fiery when you wrote that post. 
).