There is no proof that it is not literal.
Balderdash. We see galaxies that are millions, nay, billions of light-years away. The speed of light is constant in a vacuum. Space is (effectively) a vacuum. Therefore that light took millions/billions of years to reach us. Therefore the universe is more than 6,000 years old. We could do the same thing with radioactive isotopes.
The birth of Jesus Christ was predicted according to the Bible. The facts surrounding where and why and what were all answered from centuries to thousands of years before they transpired.
This may be true but has nothing to do with a literal reading of the Bible. Again, perhaps some
parts of the Bible are meant to be read literally--although, you would have to define what you mean by "literal," how it is opposed to "figurative," and so on. But even if some
parts of the Bible (e.g. Messianic prophecies) are or are meant to be taken literally, you have not demonstrated that all
of the Bible is literally true word-for-word as written.
Locations provided in the Bible are factual.
Some of them, yes.
Many of the characters mentioned in the Bible have been discovered.
In the New Testament, yes, but I was under the impression we were discussing the Hebrew Bible. Sure there was a Nebuchadnezzar, nobody disputes that. But we're not talking about Nebuchadnezzar, we're talking about Noah.
There is no refutable evidence that anything in the Bible is in error.
1) Define "error."
2) Explain the propagation of light/the existence of fossils/quantum physics
I might add that the very same cannot be stated concerning the Book of Mormon.
I agree completely. The Bible is a work of demonstrably ancient origin which furthermore describes, at least in rough outline, real historical events, in much the same (mythologized-legendary) manner as the Iliad
describes the real historical events surrounding the real historical Trojan war. The same cannot be said of the Book of Mormon.
The Best proof of Bible claims is the Jew. The Bible predicted that Israel would return and it has against all odds. So if predictions are literal and true, then it follows that what God had written about His chosen people is also as literal as it is presented.
Again, just because some
prophecies have come true, that does not mean that all
prophecies will come true. Furthermore, prophecy is only one of the genres in the Bible. There is also history, poetry, song... I wonder, what is the "literal" meaning of poetry? Of song? What would a "literal" reading of the Song of Songs even look like?
You still haven't answered the basic question: what reason does the Bible give you to assume that it is meant to be interpreted literally? Where in the Bible does it say that you should read the Bible literally?
Finally, what Biblical manuscript tradition do you think is the "right" one? The Alexandrian
or the Byzantine
? If you follow the Byzantine, are you claiming that the Alexandrian is not meant to be taken literally? That it is in error? They cannot both be literally correct word-for-word.