The Bible was not meant to be literally interpreted.

This is a wonderful topic, which has been in question in Christian circles since the first century AD, and in Jewish circles long before that. Thank you for the opportunity to debate it with you. First of all let me disclose that I am an Atheist, who no longer believes in God, however, I have 30 years of Christianity under my belt, and have read the bible many times over in my personal life, and while attending seminary. My contention is that the bible MUST be interpreted literally for several reasons. 1. God has failed to provide a Rosetta stone for determining which parts are literal and which parts are metaphor, leaving that determination up to humans like you and I. In essence God's silence on the subject reduces His word to subjective human interpretation, which is flawed and sinful as claimed by His followers. This supports your contention that there is no gray area, so the bible is either all metaphor or all literal. 2. There are parts of the bible that clearly read as 'historical' accounts, most notably lineages. The bible has an incredible amount of 'begats' that act to provide literal relevance to the accounts surrounding the people that are listed. This shows a literal intent by the writers, whether inspired or not. Matthew 1:2-16 is exhaustive in its attempts to connect Jesus to David and Abraham, precisely because the account that is about to follow, requires weight and a literal connection to Judaism. It done so that Matthews claims of Jesus Messiah ship can fulfill Jewish prophesy. This is not a metaphorical attempt, it is completely literal and would not be required if Matthew's intent was for a metaphorical interpretation. 3. The bible seeks to change human behavior, utilizing rules (ten commandments and the Golden rule) This is a literal, physical endeavor, not a dharmic contemplative effort. The bible is not written like the Tao Te Ching, utilizing metaphor for contemplation, rather it commands the reader to behave in specific ways, relating to specific events. Numbers 5 gives a chilling example of a literal directive of how husbands and high priests should deal with wives accused of infidelity. A dharmic approach would utilize metaphor designed to help the reader think about the emotions surrounding cheating. The bible however, tells the reader to make the woman drink water tainted with dust from a temple floor that is invariably tainted with sacrificial animal blood, and that if she rots from the inside, she was indeed an adulterer. yikes. 4. Utilizing Metaphor without strict definitions and rules of engagement reduces salvation, and the idea of escaping the finality of death through heaven or hell pointless. If biblical accounts are only metaphor then its entire premise is called into question. Escaping death and going to Heaven and a loving God may simply only be metaphor's and living a life for Christ is pointless. If Christs life on earth and death on the cross are metaphor, then so is salvation. 4. The fact that a literal interpretation of the bible is hard to justify given scientific understanding, does not require an assumption that the writers of the bible meant for it to be non literal. It is more reasonable to understand that it simply is outdated and not an accurate representation of history. The utility of metaphor in Christian apologetics is used specifically to maintain a God connection to the bible and to excuse its scientific and historical inaccuracies in the light of modern education and understanding. While making a strong argument for the inaccuracies of the bible, it in turn, reduces the essential claims of the bible as meaningless, beyond subjectivity. The bible is literal, therefor wrong -OR- its metaphorical therefor meaningless beyond subjective contemplation. your round.