Why Believe Literally In The Bible?

The Bible is a good book. Would make a huge blockbuster. .But it's funny that people believe it.
I mean it's gotta be known that it's all symbols'n suff.

You shouldn't reverse your logic: just because it is uncertain where the big bang or the first living organism came from, doesn't mean to say you should fill the gap in with God. Instead, you should wait until their is evidence for such a hypothesis. Then again, there well-supported theories about how the first life-form emerged, and others for the cause of the big bang. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the specific accounts of natural and cosmological history offered by ancient religious texts are grossly incorrect. Some kind of supernatural creator is possible (although metaphysical), but God, Yahweh, Allah, Brahman or any other spiritual entity described in religious mythology is logically impossible, for too many reasons to list here.

Yes, Vanished. I could say "Hey, there is uncertainty in science, so the SPACE ZEBRA did it." just as easily.

i did not day i beleive in god creating the big bang. just saying you can believe in both. TBH it is all hupothetical but i would rather not believe in god and find out there is one the believe in god and find out there is'nt on. lol
never read the bible but heard it is an entertaining story

For those who criticize people who take the Bible literally. Every few years, there are archaeological discoveries which verify the historical accuracy of the Bible. Even modern "critical scholars" have backed off their rhetoric. If one is so inclined, there is a powerful CD demonstrating the accuracy of the Exodus. They have found the remains of chariots at the bottom of the biblical "sea of reeds" dating to the EXACT dynasty of that period in ancient Egypt. There are several other proofs, in addition. I think many attack the Bible without looking into all the issues which may verify its correctness.

I'm an amateur archaeologist and I've never heard of this "evidence". Archaeological discoveries tend to prove that a PLACE existed, not that the Bible was right. The Egyptians did have contact with the Jews and even passed on the concept of Hell (actually Hel). I have looked into these issues many times over basing my opinions on evidence. Archaeological evidence tends to ontradict the Bible rather than prove it.

Next time, please take the evidence into context. The Egyptians often tried to expand their borders beyond the Red Sea, which can explain the chariots reasonably well but to top it all off, the landscape of Egypt has changed several times in the last few thousand years due to changes in atmospheric conditions. These changes are usually big, not surprising since we are talking about a river and a few oasises surrounded by desert. There have been several severe droughts in that time period centred around catastrophic events affecting the whole world. At least one would have been strong enough to push the sea back a bit.

Your turn to show me your evidence.

Love how you back up this with proof (links)

Don't take this the wrong way, but you have to be the geekest girl i have ever met

But you haven't really met me. But tis true. It's not my fault, I was raised by a bunch of trekkies, sci-fi aficionados, mad people and scientists (2 uncles). It's kinda hard not to be.

I like to think scientifically which means i don't take everything literal from the Bible but i do belief a lot of it has to be trusted on Faith.

You know what i mean.

Come on. Show me the evidence 00trex. I don't know you or what you're like so I can't take what you say in good faith. Don't make me type Latin.

Yes. Is that Yoda I see there?

Dressed as santa

My gran had a plant that looked kinda like Yoda's head. She kept it in the bathroom, it was kinda creepy.