I like to discuss with you why I think your apologetic position about the bible is untenable.
The bible is either
A. literally true,
B. metaphorical, or
C. partly literal true and partly metaphorical.
You obviously do not take position A because of the various contradictions in the bible to our best observed facts.
If your position is that the bible is metaphorical, then you have to also take the position that god in the bible is also metaphorical and hence you are just an atheist like me - who do not believe in the existence of the bible god.
The interesting part is of course the position that some parts of the bible is true and some is metaphorical and you believe that god exists - that's the true part at least. Think about this: How can *anyone* distinguish between metaphorical parts and truths in the bible? The bible itself does not expressively say which part is metaphorical and which part is not. We need an *external* agent (meaning evidence outside the bible) to determine which part is true and then the rest is metaphorical.
Now show me, using evidence besides the bible and derivative works from the bible that the bible god exists. Over the past 2 centuries, no one has even been able to do so, else we would not still be discussing this thing.
Without any evidence to show that the bible god exists, what would be the most *simple* conclusion one can draw?