The Orginal testiment, the old one, the one directly created by god un-altered by man, said many harsh things that man chooses to reshape through ignorance. To ignore the harsh things god has said in the old testiment and therefor has directly said himself is wrong, maybe their are translation errors but that doesn't explain the 100s of in-depth details and merciless slaughtering of Jews and children and other stuff.
The context of rhea verses in the bible can be easily determined if they are natural or metaphorical. Here is an example. Catholics say that Jesus said the Eucharist was his body and blood, but just below that he says these words are spiritual. If this verse is interpreted naturally then does that mean Jesus was an actual vine or an actual door. No! You have to read context! Thank you and God bless
Many people argue that God could not create the world in seven days. They use this argument as the basis for scorning the literal interpretation of the Bible. Other people have difficulty believing in the virgin birth of Jesus, or complain that the gospels have too many differences to each be correct. Nowhere in the Bible do authors claim that God meant to exaggerate to show Himself to be greater than He is. If God is truly the all-powerful, all-seeing being that the Bible claims He is, He can do anything, including resolving these seemingly contradicting details. God is exactly who He claims to and no literal interpretation of the Bible is incorrect or gives God more power than He claims to have.
Although the Bible can be literally interpreted, is difficult to do with certainty, due to translation problems. For example, some scholars say that god did not part the Red sea for moses - he parted the Reed Sea - which would mean that god guided the Jews through a swamp and caused the Egyptians to follow and get stuck. Some people would say "Well, that's a big difference - one was a miracle, the other just good luck" but in my mind, it makes no difference - the core principles of the story are the same
Further - a danger with literal interpretation is that we know god doesn't always guide us or reveal things to us in a direct way. For instance, when Jesus says "destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three days" he is referring to his body, not to the main temple it took the jews 46 years to build. Of course, Jesus could have used more direct language - but he chose not to - instead giving a message of prophecy for the apostles and desciples to remember and understand because of their faith and his guidance
Yes, the bible can be literally interpreted, but whether something actually happened or metaphorically happened is largely irrelevant - the underlying message is the core truth, and these messages may be beyond literal interpretation
Although the bible is considered the commandments and words of god conveyed to mankind, I do not believe we would be able to properly interpret it in a literal sense. In fact, I believe that we should not even attempt to. The generality of the bible and acceptance that it brings is that of an open book to all.