because the children are not literal children. Fwiw you can continue to believe that they are as long as you like, and still consider that they represent another concept that might serve you now, simply as a thought exercise. If it yields no fruit, toss it then.
With regard to your first sentence, long ago I explored that as perhaps an option.
However:
Job 1:2 And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters.
Job 1:18 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house;
If we start here and attempt to rationalize it as not being literal, where do we stop?
To use an example that verges upon hyperbole: Do we then allow it to be considered that "Jesus" is not literal, but merely represents some other concept?
From my perspective, that is the inherent danger when we start to allow the text to be merely "figurative" and remove any "literal" aspect. Once it becomes merely "figurative" or "spiritual", we have what amounts to nothing more than the "Gospel of SkyAngel".
Yes, some things are perhaps hard to swallow:
Joh 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when the heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? 61 But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, Doth this cause you to stumble?
From my perspective, one has to admire Job:
Job 2:10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.
Anyway, just my 1/2 cent. I appreciate your post.