It's not just my view. You're both departing with the view of early Christians too -
No, we're disagreeing with your assumptions of what early Christians believed.
I think, and this is my final repetition of the point I've been insisting all along, is that the Ancients saw the world as much more permeable than we do. Above all they believed in their God or their Gods, and that everything descended hierarchically according to the Divine Will, whether by causation or emanation ... in the end it boils down to splitting cultural hairs.
But above all they saw some order of Supreme Being, who arranged the worlds around Themself accordingly. And so it's not so much of a literal belief in a series of shells enclosing the mundane world, but rather a spiritual vision that manifested itself all the way down ... they saw such things as physical entities and understood them according to a certain spiritual or supernatural paradigm.
In short, they saw it 'all in all' whereas modernity views it as two very separate things.
So when the dove descended, of course it was a real dove. Why not? What's to prevent God's Holy Spirit manifesting in the form of a dove? In the Sacred Scriptures the Spirit takes many forms. It's a reasonable, rational and logical assertion when you believe the world exists by virtue of the Divine Will. Why a real dove? Because a real dove is better and more real – in our world – than a phantasmagorical dove, and God is Good, and God is True, and so if God is true, and something of God appears as a dove, it is truly a dove.
Tell the Ancients that the laws of physics disallow the Divine to manifest Itself in any physical way, shape or form, and they'll laugh at you, or sympathise with your spiritual myopia.
So yes, their descriptions might appear naivé to us, but that naiveté is founded on a very real and holistic spiritual sense and understanding and belief in God as a Very Real Thing, here, there and everywhere, present in and to their own lives. All while simultaneously sitting enthroned on high ... as opposed to the modern view that renders the whole world as material, and places the spiritual domain somewhere 'over there', beyond our ken or reach.
So our current reading might very well be very, very urbane and sophisticated, but in actuality perhaps further from the truth, further from the reality of world as theophany, to such an increasing degree that our gods today are little more than projections of our own ideals, which is a subtle and blinding idolatry.
+++
We understand the surface so much better than they, they saw through the veil so much clearer than us.
+++
My question was:
Question: Do Baha'i accept the use of 'figurative language' and analogy is discussing spiritual matters, or not?
Then that's why I find SQA Q25.3 contradicts itself.