To those who believe Bible is not literal...

[fr0d0]

It's easy to dismiss something when you make it ridiculous. The original meaning is quite clear chatty.

[downbeatplumb]

It's easy to dismiss something when you make it ridiculous. The original meaning is quite clear chatty.

No it isnt.

[Minimalist]

It's easy to dismiss something when you make it ridiculous. The original meaning is quite clear chatty.

Putting lipstick on a pig does not change the fact that it is a pig, Frods.

[chatpilot]

This is why I think that Genesis account of creation was meant to be interpreted as a literal six days fr0d0. In Genesis 1: 8,13,19,23,31
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Now we know why we have night and day and how it happens; the Earth spinning on its axis takes 24 hours to complete one rotation. One side of the planet is exposed to the sun (day) and at the same time the other half of the planet is facing away from the sun (night). During the telling of the six days of creation it makes sure to emphasize in the text between each day that it was evening and morning. The real reason I believe that some organization within the Christian community allegorized the days of creation was to make up for the fact that science had demonstrated that the Earth was actually 4.6 billion years old as opposed to 7,000 yrs. Others have inserted a gap of undetermined time between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2 to try and make their beliefs stand up to the test of science.

[fr0d0]

Shame then there's the other version of events that completely blows a hole in all of that. If you research the historicity of the text and the way it was written I think it's a long stretch to conclude that a literal interpretation fits.

[Entropist]

After centuries of theological quibbling, even resulting in death... it is clear that the Good Book isn't so clear.

[theVOID]

God is essentially worse at communication than your average sufferer of Down Syndrome.

[annatar]

If you believe that there is absolutely a god and he sent that book, you can't conclude that this is literal becouse it doesn't make sense when you read it as literal. (well it does make sense but not in a good way..) But since there is no evidence that this book is sent by god (or there is a god.) You dont need an explaination to make it meaningful. And probability of god is same as the probability of any other fictional character such as superman.
I believe that is one of your problems. You presume that there is a god and he sent this book to guide us. But first you should think about the possibility of god being non-exists.
And even if there is a god It is unlikely for him to communicate with us in this way. Becouse it is the dumbest way to do it.
Frodo said that (and many believers agree) if he sends clear proofs then there will be no need for faith. But why is faith good? Why believing something without evidence (or in this case on the contrary of evidences) is nessesary? Its not rational its not logical. Its just bullshit..

[Watson]

Maybe God is communicating in other ways, as well, anna and you simply do not see them. Have you ever considered that possibility? That God is speaking to you, but that you just aren't listening?

As for why faith is necessary at all, allow me to demonstrate; when you love someone, and they love you, you trust and believe them when they say and do things to that affect. When things between you and a lover or loved one are tough and that person says "It's going to be okay", the ultimate show of your love for them is faith in what they have just said. If you truly believe them when they say "It's going to be okay", they don't need to give you proof; it is enough that they love you and that they mean it when they say it.

That is faith, and why it is necessary, especially between humanity and a being like God.

[Minimalist]

and a being like God.

If there were one.