Given that the Bible is a really a book of books written over thousands of years from multiple authors, from a different culture and time period, then I would say that we should look at the cultural context. Many portions of Scripture are not meant to be read literally. The first 11 chapters of Genesis come to mind. They are mythic in nature and are meant to tell the stories of how we got to where we are. The literal nature doesn't matter. Song of Solomon should certainly not be interpreted literally. And in the New Testament, it is easy to argue that Revelation is not meant to be interpreted literally. That doesn't mean they are not important or valuable, it just means that there is more than one way to read Scripture. The way Scripture is organized gives some clues to this also. There are sections that are listed as wisdom literature. There are the prophets. There is apocylpse. There is Gospel, Epistles, poetry, etc. we can read Scripture non-literally and still find value in it and hear God's word in it. And at the same time see the problems that are in Scripture. I had a seminary professor once say that he didn't take Scripture literally, but he did try to take it seriously. I follow that path. It allows me to hear Good News. The literal interpretation ends up be too Pharisitical for me and seems like people spend too much time trying to prove the unprovable and defending the undefensable, rather than hearing the overall story and message of Scripture. It's what allows me to hear the Word within the word. Does that makes sense?