Why should the book of Genesis be taken literally?

[John D Leister]

When you have authors like Ken Ham citing all kinds of
"evidence" all of which is of a dubious nature IMHO.
They make the claim that it's quite within the realms
of scientific possibility that the Earth was made in
six literal days.

Yet church leaders and all also push this line and I can
understand why they would. They need to keep their flocks
in order and they need to also tout a common teaching to
promote unity. But this notwithstanding why do they continue
to teach this?

How can religious leaders make the claim that such a book
is a literal truth when it wasn't even written by first
hand witnesses but was handed down from generation to
generation. Plus over time wouldn't the story have changed?

Oh well that's all I shall say on this.........

[enterfornone]

> How can religious leaders make the claim that such a book
> is a literal truth when it wasn't even written by first
> hand witnesses but was handed down from generation to
> generation. Plus over time wouldn't the story have changed?

You mean God wasn't a first hand witness?