It’s allegorical of human psychology, particularly the unconscious. Religions are a collective waking dream that helps, at the species level, to process mostly unconscious conflicts.

“The Bible does not discuss allegorical interpretation anywhere, as far as I know.”

par·a·ble
/ˈperəb(ə)l/

noun
noun: parable; plural noun: parables
a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels."the parable of the blind men and the elephant"

synonyms: allegory, moral story, moral tale, fable, lesson, exemplum; Haggadah; rare apologue "the parable of the prodigal son"

Origin

Middle English: from Old French parabole, from an ecclesiastical Latin sense ‘discourse, allegory’ of Latin parabola ‘comparison’, from Greek parabolē (see parabola).

Strong's Bible Concordance reports that the word "parable" appears in the Bible some two thousand four hundred fifty seven times, at least one of which strikes me as being of particular interest to this conversation:
Matthew 13:34 (King James Version)
"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them."
 
Perhaps it would not be far off the mark to assume the entire Bible is parable, or allegory.

It is the height of irony that we may now say with certainty that none of the three, Moses, Adam and Jesus, are fictional characters.

No contemporaneous documentation nor any other sort of evidence. But we do have extensive evidence in hand that the stories were re-purposed plagiarisms.

It DOES make for fairly entertaining fable, if read as fiction, doesn't it?

@TheMiddleWay Are you quote mining on purpose? You even deleted the part after "accepted by scholars" that says "[who?]", and then dropped the very next line, "That view has been challenged:"

Then you conveniently left out...

"[Augustine] was familiar with the Greek theory of a spherical Earth, nevertheless, (following in the footsteps of his fellow North African, Lactantius), he was firmly convinced that the Earth was flat, was one of the two biggest bodies in existence and that it lay at the bottom of the universe. Apparently Augustine saw this picture as more useful for scriptural exegesis than the global Earth at the centre of an immense universe.[89]"

Moreover, you skip the entirety of the lengthy quote directly from Augustine that supports everything I just said and more:

"But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the Earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the Earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part that is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the Earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled. For Scripture, which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information; and it is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man.[86]"

Why would you skip all the salient points to give the impression that Augustine thought the earth was round, and not flat, as the bible says because the bible "gives no false information"?

@TheMiddleWay Perhaps the passage is too difficult for you to read. "Supposed" means people SUPPOSE the earth is round, and SUPPOSE it is scientifically demonstrated. The entire passage is an argument for a flat earth and against a round earth as a round earth cannot be suspended in the concavity of the sky. The "concavity" of the sky is the firmament dome described in Genesis that fits over the flat earth. Augustine is saying it is absurd to believe a round earth is suspended in that dome. Rather, the dome is covering the flat earth, and the flat earth is at the bottom the dome, as described in genesis.

The bible describes the four corners of the earth (that's where the phrase comes from), says the entire earth can be seen from high places, that all eyes will see Jesus come down from heaven, that an angel can stand on east, that the solid firmament has "floodgates" to let down precipitation, that god set the pillars of the earth to hold up the earth, etc.

The book of Enoch goes into even more heavily.

@TheMiddleWay I am curious. What is it you think the first sentence means?

"But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the Earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours that is on no ground credible. "

@TheMiddleWay He doesn't believe people live on the other side of the earth because believing such would entail accepting a round earth where you could sail to the other side, and walk around upside down. He calls this idea a "fable", and he calls the possibility of a round earth "scientific conjecture" that there would be as much room on one side as on the other.

He is certainly hedging his bets, but the entire passage denigrates the idea of a round earth, the idea that there is something "where the sun rises where it sets to us", etc. To read it any other way is simply obstinance.

@TheMiddleWay I don't think scholars are in the habit of quote mining and altering quotes "[who?]" to make it appear they exist. It's also baffling why a lengthy passage of Augustine's spherical earth theory is pasted right in the middle of the "flat earth" wikipedia page. Weird! (If those scholars are walking around upside down on the other side of the earth, they don't count anyway.)

@TheAstroChuck Interesting...

I’ve lived nowhere but Tennessee, Alabama, and Florida. Does that qualify? I’m very familiar with what the fundamentalists say. But their majority status doesn’t make them the entirety of “religion”. And it doesn’t make them right. I love Dawkins too. But he totally is a fundamentalist. The “New Atheism” of today believes that “god” is to be taken literally, just like the fundamentalists do, the only difference being that they then reject that god instead of accept it. There is little to no recognition in them that there is any other way to see the matter.