"Why" not "how" we are here.

The prophets of the Old Testament, the apostles of the NT, and Jesus Christ when referring to Adam did not seem to interpret it allegorically, but as an event which really happened.

That is why Christians , historically, have done the same.

Now, you can look at the story allegorically if you wish, but a Christian would seek to interpret it as Christ did.

I don't. All I asked is what parts you took as literal. I never said anything about all or nothing.

Interesting how we normally misunderstand each other in order to ease our struggle (I do it too--only semi-consciously, as I'm sure is the case with others).

Put another way, it's impossible to accept the bible literally, because there are too many contradictions and omissions.

One accepts those contradictions and omissions or one doesn't. It doesn't matter whether one is a believer or not.

And, of course, there's the fabulous quality of events like resurrections and parting seas.

That's not to say that there are no profound truths to be found in the Bible, as in the Koran. It's just that such truths have to be mined interpretively, not believed in, literally, as children believe in fairy tales and Santa Claus.

When a friend tells me the story of a book he's read I do not assume that the book is bad just because he is a poor storyteller. I do not assume that the tale is false just because he confuses the facts in telling, or because he missed some points and misunderstood others.

And when it comes to the bible, a collection of tales, some recorded hundreds of years after the events occured, we must look at it in this way. It is not a first hand account. It is a second, third, fourth and counting.

I believe that it is this that accounts for the contradictions and omissions in the bible.

Yes, and for that reasons contradictions are of no importance to me in my evaluation of the Bible as a source of spiritual inspiration or insight. It is not a logically systematic philosophical treatise. But each moment must be interepreted. Indeed, it is my impression that much of the Bible provides interpretative opportunities for personal insight. But don't expect to find gold without mining for it; it's unlikely you'll find such "gold" will be found lying on the SURFACE just waiting for you. The same applies to the Buddhist sutras or the writings of the Vedanta (late Upanishads).

I agree completely JL.

But as I see it, the condition of our treasured texts render them no more potent in conveying wisdom than any other experience. The spiritual aspect has always come from man, and if a man were to examine a rock with the same spiritual faithfulness he exerts over his holy scripts, the experiences could be equally enlightening.

Yes, "truth" comes from us, or at least from our openness to external possibilities (as in the study of physics and culture). And "spiritual" insight comes as well from within, from the courageous and honest examination of our own nature. As the Buddha put, "Be a lantern unto yourself." Therein, I think, lies our most important "Bible."

How funny.

How could an 'omission' show the Bible to be inaccurate?

If something is not there, where is the error?

Is your argument that you think something 'should be in the Bible', but it is not?

Seems like a matter of your opinion only.

It is up to the writer to decide what he ought to include or leave out.

If he didn't discuss what you thought he should, the error exists in your mind only.