Taz,
Both the headlines and the Bible are examples of hyperbole. Hyperbole are not literally true, that is the whole point of a hyperbole. Your question seems to be, does the Bible contain hyperboles, and if it does, does that make the Bible a bad book?
I think of this in a different way, and I think I have a thread about this from a while ago. The Bible is not true, but contains truths (which may sort of be what you're getting at). Some details of the Bible are at best a hyperbole, at worst a flat out falsehood. Take the garden of Eden, did a snake literally talk to Adam and Eve? Like, really, snakes could speak to people back then? Sound a bit like Aesop's fables anyone? Well it should. Aesop's fables is another classic book that contains truth, but it not true. Animals do not literally talk to eat other, but the moral truths behind the stories in aesop's fables are what gives the stories their value. Think about it, if you want to give someone a book of truth (i.e. moral truths) would you rather give them aesop's fables, or a primer of American history? One is literally true and one contains moral truths, which is more valuable?
Does it matter whether a global or local flood even occured? What do you gain by knowing that it is historically true that there was once a flood that killed many things? Absolutely nothing. But whether the flood actually happened or not, the story tells you that God loves you and doesn't want you to sin, that's the moral truth of the flood story. Literalists degrade the value of the Bible by vainly looking for true details and ignoring moral truths.
You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith
™ Version 4.2
