A literal interpretation of the New Testament is hard to justify, since there are a number of outright contradictions even in different Gospel passages that are supposed to describe the same event (the discrepancies between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke regarding the two thieves who were crucified next to Christ, for example).
??
What are the "discrepancies" there?
Simply getting rid of the "new testament" will fix that little problem quite nicely.
That is no justification for not taking the Bible literally here.
It is simply two different disciples describing an ongoing event.
It went on for three hours and it is quiet probable that one when faced with death at Christ's side repented and was saved.
If you are going to say that Matthew, Mark and all the disciples where recording the same event at the same time and the fact that they where reported to say something different is definitely a contradiction and that they each recorded all that the thieves said, then what do you say when Luke and John did not record that they said anything at all?
There are things in the Bible that are not meant to be taken literally such as parables,figures of speech etc. and some that seem contradictory but if you study the context and prayerfully reference the whole Bible you will be able to tell what is to be taken literally and what is not.