Why should we interpret the Bible literally?

I believe that to have a BIblical worldview, we must interpret the Bible literally. But what is the reason for doing so? Why can't we interpret the Bible figuratively? I was talking with my dad on this subject and got some good answers, but I am curious to hear what you all have to say.

Discuss!

We must interpret the Bible literally when it is speaking literally (ie the days of Creation were 6 literal 24 hour days). But when it is clear that the Biblical authors are speaking poetically (ie the Psalms) or allegorically (ie parables, some parts of Revelation) we are to take it figurally.

Very true. Perhaps I should have clarified what I meant. It seems like some people choose not to believe the Genesis account literally, or some of the commands of Christ. Why should we literally believe them today?

Well, do you think the Lord is the same yesterday today and forever?
If you think God changes then His word may also change.
But if God remains the same then it is fairly impossible for what was once true to not be true anymore in the Word.

One thought, I don't know if this is from the Bible directly or not; If there is no literal First Adam, then how can we be sure that there is a literal Last Adam who actually attones for our sins. If the Bible was inaccurate in its beginning what makes us believe that it is accurate when it tells us of salvation?

I think that an important point needs to be made in light of this interesting question. I think that taking the Bible figuratively doesn't necessarily mean that you believe it to be inaccurate. Following the logic of those who do believe God's Word to be figurative, the Bible is God's Word and inspired by Him, but the meanings behind the words are not meant to be taken in at first glance. According to them, there may not be an Adam, but he symbolizes the sin nature in each one of us. Those who believe the Bible is figurative don't believe it is inaccurate, but only that it is not something to be taken for granted at face-value. Just to be clear, I don't believe the entire Bible (particularly Genesis) is figurative, but I do want to help stir up discussion. :)
In answer to your question, though, I would say that, if Adam was figurative, representing our sin nature, than those who believe the Bible to be figurative would say that our Salvation does not occur as the result of a single event (let me be clear that, from what I have read, these people believe in the existence of Jesus and his death), but rather as a result of our faith we receive salvation. Perhaps they believe that no one instantaneous recorded action can cause salvation, but they do know that they are saved?
These are just my thoughts on your question. I would like to know what you think. :)

I believe that if you choose to take that whole of the Bible figuratively, e.g. Adam., then all actual meaning and interpretation is ambiguous and left up to personal interpretation.
If one says that the First Adam is a figurative representation of something else, then it would follow that Christ is also. If Christ was not really a man in the flesh, then he would not have suffered the punishment for man's sins, to satisfy God's justice, and could not attone for the sins of mankind. That is my opinion.

I agree with MilesChristiSum; if people take passages like Genesis to be figurative, then where do they stop? Genesis is just about as non-figurative-looking as it gets, so how can they decide whether or not other parts of the Bible are literal or figurative? I think the main problem with people who take Genesis figuratively is not that they think it appears more figurative than the rest of Scripture, but that it MUST be figurative, since "modern scientific evidence" supposedly proves it false if it is taken literally.

I think I would agree with you. If some choose to take seemingly historical passages literally, they have virtually no point at which they can stop. I believe that the Theory of Evolution has a large part in this way of thinking. Being convinced that it is right, some people become desperate to align the two so that both are correct. The result is an interpretation (most commonly of the opening part of Genesis) that believes that section to be mostly figurative. I would, however, like to point out that, while it might perhaps be understandable that these people might believe in the figurative view of Scripture (considering their worldview), I think that there is a certain extent to which they cannot extend their beliefs. For instance, some might say that believers in the figurative interpretation would say Jesus Himself was figurative. However, it is a common fact (both evolutionists and creationists do not dispute this) that Jesus did indeed exist. We know it from the Bible and from ancient historians. There is no doubting that fact. In that way, then, those who believe in the figurative interpretation can't simply deny Jesus and say He was figurative. They have history before their eyes as a well as a clear choice: whether to follow him or not, and while there is countless evidence supporting the flood and other such real events, we know very little regarding the actual creation of the world and Adam himself (therefore causing dispute and a variety of interpretations).

By the way, please don't think that I am in any way in support of this view. I am just providing some ideas and questions for the purpose of discussion. :)

I think if we do not interpret the Bible literally, there is no limit to what we can simply surmise on… (i.e. If 6 days doesn't mean 6 days, then how can we be sure that the just really do live by faith?)

From what I've seen, interpreting the Bible allegorically (With the exceptions of what Marie mentioned) can very often lead to someone who will completely reject Christianity.