&gt; <i>That&#x27;s frequently the case</i><p>In my experience that is rarely the case.  The reasons given are generally only compelling to others who already hold the same beliefs.  If you&#x27;re arguing against biblical literalism to others who consider the bible to be metaphorical, you will of course be successful.  If you&#x27;re arguing with a biblical literalist, you&#x27;ll find that they fail to see the logic in your arguments.  If you&#x27;re arguing with a non-Christian, they&#x27;ll likely just not care, but they might also find your arguments no more convincing than those of the literalist.<p>&gt; <i>for the latter, the existence of flat-out contradictions within the canon when interpreted literally is one of the more common.</i><p>This is only compelling if you start with the axiom that the bible (or whatever text) is correct.  If you start with that, and then add contradictions, then the only way to resolve the discrepancy is to say that the bible is metaphorical.  If you don&#x27;t take correctness as an axiom, it&#x27;s quite reasonable to say that the bible is mostly if not completely literal but that parts of it are simply wrong.  It&#x27;s not a question of correctness of interpretation, then, so much as a question of correctness of the canon.