Do I believe the Bible is literally true?

Yes. A thousand times yes.

But to answer this question "yes" is not to say every text of Scripture is intended by the Holy Spirit to be interpreted literally. These are two different uses of the word 'literal' and the second use does not logically follow, and is not necessarily connected to, the first:

1. I believe the Bible is literally true.
2. I believe the Bible should always be interpreted literally.

For instance, when modern Bible translators and publishing companies want to take the Hebrew and Greek words 'man,' 'brother,' 'son,' and 'he' out of the text of Scripture and replace them with gender-neutral words such as 'person,' 'sibling,' 'child,' and 'they,' we publicly oppose it because part of the literal meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek words inspired by the Holy Spirit is now missing from the English translation--namely, the masculine inclusive.

To change the historic translation of the Greek word, adelphoi, from 'brothers' to 'siblings' is wrong because 'siblings' is not the word literally used in the original Greek. The word was adelphoi, 'brothers,' and it ought not to be removed as an appeasement of our politically correct society where feminist sensitivities run rampant. We may not appreciate the Holy Spirit speaking in this way, but that is how He spoke and He is God, so it would be wise for us to assume that there's a lesson in His use of the male-marked Greek word adelphoi for men and women together.

But when it comes to interpreting this Greek word adelphoi, we must not say that only the literal interpretation of 'brothers' can be the right interpretation. When the Holy Spirit inspired the word adelphoi in the Sacred Canon, He was not always referring to male children born of the same father and mother.

When we say we believe in the literal interpretation of Scripture, what we are really saying is that we believe the simplest and most obvious meaning of a word—the meaning that occurs to us at first blush—must be the correct and only interpretation of that word. But interpreting the Bible in this way will often lead us astray...

Yes, there are many passages of Scripture that must be interpreted literally, and anyone interpreting these passages figuratively would, by doing so, deny the Christian faith. Jesus did not die figuratively, but literally. Jesus did not rise from the dead figuratively, but literally. But what about Heaven's streets of gold? You can see, I hope, that the sky won't fall in if someone claims this is to be taken figuratively—that it's meant to communicate that the element that is priceless on earth will be worthless, like dirt, gravel, or asphalt, in Heaven?

Without question, many who reject a literal interpretation of particular texts of Scripture indicate by their rejection that they have an unbelieving heart resistant to the miraculous and the power of God. We've all heard unbelieving statements such as, "You know, the Red Sea was shallow there, and it only appeared to part for the Children of Israel. But actually, they walked through the shallows." Or, "We have no historical record of the sun standing still, a hatchet floating, a man walking on water, or stones burning up. You can't seriously believe these things." And so on.

In each of these cases, the rejection of the literal interpretation of Scripture is really a rejection of the power of God miraculously at work, and it indicates that the one doing the interpreting has an unbelieving heart.

But there are other cases where to interpret a text literally is to miss the Holy Spirit's true meaning, and therefore to be guilty of twisting Scripture. In fact, sometimes such literal misinterpretation of a text is an indication of hardness of heart and unbelief.

Take for instance this exchange between Jesus and His disciples:

And Jesus said to them, "Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, "He said that because we did not bring any bread."

But Jesus, aware of this, said, "You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Matthew 16:6-12).

Jesus used the word 'leaven' to warn His disciples away from the Pharisees' and Sadducees' doctrine. He did not intend the word to be understood literally, but figuratively, and when the disciples misunderstood him, reverting to their default position of literal meanings, Jesus didn't commend them for their piety. Rather, He rebuked them quite severely saying their literalism with His words indicated that they were "men of little faith" and lacked understanding.

So when we are woodenly literal in the interpretation of texts that God the Holy Spirit, the Author of Scripture, intended to be taken figuratively, metaphorically, or typologically we may not simply be wrong in our understanding, but with the disciples we also may be lacking faith. In other words we may be wrong and our error may be sinful unbelief. It's rather shocking to realize this sin may be committed by those who always revert to the literal interpretation of Scripture, and that it's not just those who are anti-supernaturalist and believe that much of Scripture is religious legend or mythology who have this failing. But Jesus' rebuke of the disciples is clear.

A few years back, I was talking with a man who was suspicious of me because I was not agreeing with his dispensational interpretation of several texts of Scripture. After a while, he blurted out, "Well, I take the Bible literally." And of course, the implication was that he was on the high road and I was on the low road. Thus my lack of piety and spirituality was clear.

People play this card all the time, walking away from the conflict certain that they have bested their opponent. But that's not the way Scripture works. It's filled with metaphors, types, allegories, parables, and other literary devices. Song of Solomon, anyone?

So before we get on our high horse huffing and puffing about how we believe in the literal interpretation of Scripture, let's take a dose of meekness and humility by keeping in mind Christ's rebuke of His disciples:

You men of little faith... How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?