LITERALLY 2

I suppose one of the comforts of reading every last line of Scripture as literally as possible is that it simplifies everything. 

"God said it. I believe it. That's good enough for me."

We like things black and white. Cut and dry. 

But I would maintain that some words are meant to be read literally and some words are not.

The words of a history book are meant to be read literally.

But how does one read a poem literally?

(Did Emily Dickinson really believe that hope is "a thing with feathers that perches in the soul"? Literally?)

As for my friend who insisted that all Christians are required to believe that the creation of this planet took place in 6 literal days, I wonder if he ever looked carefully at Genesis 1. 

Have you? If so, would you say Genesis 1 is written in a style which is closer to "history book" or "poem"?

Poetry has:

• Vivid Imagery - like "the Spirit of God hovered over the waters".
• Repetition - like "Then God said, 'Let there be ____ ... and it was so'" OR "And God saw that it was good" OR "There was evening, and there was morning - the __th day". 
• And Rhythm - like 1st day, 2nd day, 3rd day ...

I would maintain that one of the great attributes of poetry (and really anything not meant to be read literally) is that it forces us to think more carefully, to feel more deeply, and to ask more questions. 

And aren't those all things that God might hope to accomplish through His word to us?

(To be clear, I do not believe that ALL Scripture is to be read figuratively. You don't want to read something meant literally (like Christ's bodily resurrection) as being figurative any more than to read the figurative as literal. And - sometimes - "which is which?" might be up for debate.)