Where are the lines for Bible literalism in the Christian faith? Are all aspects of the Bible treated with the same level of literal belief (as actual history), or are some parts considered to be stories that are simply provided to illustrate a principle (parables).
It would seem that as a Christian it would imply belief that Jesus is the Christ. Does that also imply belief in the story of Noah's Ark as literal history?
In the strictest sense, I would doubt anyone is truly a literalist. For example, when Jesus says that he is the door, it would be a difficult position to hold that Jesus literally is made of wood and swings on hinges.
What most people mean, on the other hand, when they speak of belief that the Bible is "literally true", is merely that what is claimed in the Bible is true, with an allowance for figurative language.
I am not aware of a direct claim or command in scripture that belief in its truth is requisite for salvation. On the other hand, as God is a talking god, to love the Lord is no less than to love his words, so if someone establishes a pattern of rejecting God's word without repentance or movement toward it, I would begin question his or her grounds for assurance of salvation.
The simple answer is "sometimes". Some of the bible is literal and some of it is metaphoric. The key to discerning what is and is not literal is context.
Most of the Old Testament is written as a historical narrative. This context indicates that it is a literal record of history. Revelation on the other hand is written in a prophetic context, indicating many metaphors and analogies.
Nobody takes the Bible 100% literally. Nobody should, because the Bible is not intended to be taken 100% literally. Even the most cursory examination will reveal parts of it that are clearly metaphors. I once saw picture drawn of a woman in which all the metaphors used for a woman in the Song of Songs (e.g. "your breasts are like two fawns") were taken literally. Believe me, that's one strange and ugly woman.
The task of identifying which parts of the Bible are literal and which parts are metaphorical is not an easy one, and Christians have come down in many different places. At one extreme a very few have considered almost everything to be metaphorical, and all the Bible to be simply uplifting and helpful stories. Some take the vast majority to be historical, and most fall somewhere in between. Virtually all will take the Gospels as non-negotiably historical, and almost all take the vast majority of the Old Testament as historical.
But I've answered your question. A more detailed treatment of 'which parts are metaphorical" is worth of years of careful research, and can't be answered here.
Being a Christian means that you follow Christ. Not just accepting Christ as a savior, but first accepting Him as YOUR GOD and your LORD. Meaning that you accept and submit to his every word as Lord over your life.
When the bible states that it is the infallible, inspired word of God, then you must take that literally.
When a bible character makes a statement, understand that the character making the statement is the Truth, the person "DID" make the statement. However, what that person stated may not be true.
When God makes a statement, that is always the Truth. When Jesus gives a parable, the parable is a description of truth.
The answer depends on who is interpreting it. In general the answer is 'Absolutely Not.'
I would suggest that the subtleties of this question are too complex to be answered directly, as different traditions exist on how to interpret the text, and variation exists within those traditions as to whether you can, if you wish, interpret something literally. A few points:
Sometimes the text will say something that seems like it must be taken literally, but even then context is important. For instance, when an Epistle says that 'all scripture is good for teaching... (etc)' this refers to not all of our scripture, but to whatever collection of scripture the writer was referring to, most likely a collection of Old Testament texts (the Septuagint.)
This then does not even begin to address the different 'Bibles' that exist, and how the addition of certain books (or their removal) could affect the context of the whole and therefore the interpretation of some verses.
