Why are literalists literalists?

I believe that the words that later became the Bible were of God. The problem is that it was written and interpreted by men and reinterpreted and recopied by other men, many who were bearly literate.
An interesting point is that the 'Bible' didn't exist until men gathered together and voted on what was and what wasn't the Word of God... which happened AFTER God supposedly stopped communicating with man through Prophets. So... the Bible(s) as we have today, that many accept as the total Word of God, were handed down through interpretation, personal bias or desire of scribes and were sifted to fit the directions of leaders, many of whom were more political than spiritual, and without the guidance of God.Literalists ignore the development of the Bible and say that the 'canon is closed' and has been since the time of Christ yet accept the many versions and interpretations as inerrant. It seems there is no 'right and wrong', but just a lot of gray to fit the point of the day!If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then there cannot be different 'versions'. Anything but His Word as originally expressed is not correct.I think literalism in God's Word is correct, but there have been too many 'fingers in the pie' to say that the Bible is perfect.

Those are fiction because they aren't worshipped as truth... except for Darwin's tale. When someone has their mind set on something it is very unlikely it will change.
I don't think the Bible is fiction. I know that God and Christ sure are not fiction, but I don't think that what we have today is inerrantly the 'Word of God' because of it's history. It is filled with Truths, but one should not have to try to discern whether something is historical or a teaching fable. Interpretation should not be part of Truth.

A simple matter of perception.

"Educational" Science labs. Anywhere that 'Darwinism' is worshipped. An interesting note is that I understand that Darwin was quite disenchanted with his theory before he died. Maybe that's just a rumor, or maybe he was more 'scientific' than those who still worship his writings.

Or maybe Einstein stating that the universe and life are too complicated to have happened by chance. 'Chance' says that a room full of monkeys can statically write a novel, but don't hold your breath!Those things you're talking about are manipulated to push to a goal. The random processes that the evolutionists worship do not push toward a goal, but tend to flow toward the path of least resistance.I see posters here who only see things in their light or way of thinking. 'The earth must be so old because of the testing that we've done has proven that it's that old.' Sounds great, but who established the tests?
Is it just slightly possible that a God who could create all this could make it test out any way He wanted it to?
Is it just slightly possible that the 'stories' in the Bible are of actual events sifted through the retelling of thousands of years?
Is it just possible that the 'experts' don't know as much as they would have us believe?I don't accept the Bible as completely the Word of God, as I've stated before, but I do believe that it is much more in line with the reality that we live in than the theories that try to undermine it.

I agree with you here. This is one of the reasons that I dropped out of 'religion' as a youth..."It is a fact that these people do NOT care about the Bible itself - only their ideas about it. They are quite happy to put their words into God's mouth and then claim that they should be believed beacuse "God said it". But whenever the Bible actually does say somethign that they don't like then they see no problem in twisting it into something they find more palatable.This is not insult. This is the reality of their religion."

"Scientists know some of the biblical figures existed we have evidence of them, but there is no evidence for the stories in the bible about them"If literalists are wrong because there is 'no evidence' for their position, then you must apply the same criteria to the ToE. Evidence keeps coming up that shows that their previous position was wrong, or there is no evidence, just speculation, for some conclusions.
When I was growing up, archologists discovered an 'ancient site' that got them all excited about indian tribes' culture... until they realized they were digging in a not-so-ancient outhouse pit! Of course they had already projected enormous scientific wealth from their 'find'!
Just recently they've found that a mammal that according to their theories shouldn't have existed, did. So evidence proves their postion wrong.
I've yet to see evidence of the 'missing link' that the monkey-to-man theory hangs on, so I guess that isn't acceptable, according to your 'evidence criteria'.Man has this habit of seeing and accepting only that which man wants to see or accept. ToE proponets accuse all others of this, yet they pretend they don't have the 'log' in their eye.