I guess perhaps our definition of "literal" may be different... but I do understand your point. I don't believe any significant part of the Bible is untrue or incorrect. I just believe that much of what it says cannot be taken literally. The underlying spirit of the messages are true just not all the literal words.
The moral of the story is true... the message is true...but not always the story itself...
I asked because I just heard a minister on the radio make a great point. He said if you do not believe in literal creation..then there was no literal Adam and Eve. If there was no literal Adam and Eve there was no Garden.If there was no garden there was no tree of knowledge of good and evil. If there was no tree of knowledge good and evil then Eve never disobeyed God and ate of the fruit.If Eve never ate neither did Adam.
If Adam never ate the fruit in disobedience to God there was no sin of Adam ,there was no sin separation between God and man.
There was no need for "the second Adam" Christ to come to earth in the form of a man to reconcile man to himself .
I had never considered how often one book or "story " build on another.Before long you have denied Christ and His purpose