Yes, the Bible is a the literal word of God. We all know that from step one. But does this mean that every word is supposed to be taken literally? The answer is yes, except in those cases where it isn't.
For example, the Bible clearly says that God hates homosexuality. That part is literal. The bible also says that God hates mixing different fibers in clothing. That part is not literal.
Now, critics will ask "Ok, but how did you decide?" If this happens, do not panic. A few simple rules of thumb will help:
a) Everything in the Bible is literally true until it is questioned.
b) If the section is question is not in contradiction with anything else in the Bible, it is most likely literally true.
c) If the section is question is in seeming contradiction with something else in the Bible, it is a possible candidate for requiring interpretation.
d) If the section is question is in seeming contradiction with something in the outside world, it is a possible candidate for requiring interpretation.
e) If the section is question would lead to ridiculous or uncomfortable conclusions if taken at face value, it is a possible candidate for requiring interpretation.
Note the words "possible" and "candidate" on these last few: the preferred situation by far is to have everything be literally true. In cases where this is unfortunately not possible, your job as an apologist is to properly interpret the nearly literal statements to make them figuratively literal and relevant again.
Many non-apologists incorrectly assume that since God wrote the Bible, it should be clear, concise, and without the need for interpretation. We apologists know better. The real skill is to know when the Bible is clear, concise and not needing interpretation, but also to know when it does. Following the rules above will show you the way.
So, God hating homosexuality is literal. God hating mixing diverse fibers in clothing is not literal. Perhaps it is a metaphor for not mixing with other races, or possibly it has to do with the way the ancients divided their world into categories, or following the practice of not mixing fibers was a sign of love for God, or it only applied to the ancients and not to modern people, etc. Which one you choose is not important. The important part is that you can now wear wool and linen at the same time without being sent to hell, but still know that Liberace is there.
In a similar manner, when God says to keep some law "forever", it may or may not mean a literal "forever". To find out if it was meant literally, just look around:
Is the law still practiced by Christians today?If the answer to either of these is "yes", then it probably meant "forever" literally. If not, check to see if a later passage says something which would lead you to believe it wasn't a literal "forever". Chances are it was not a literal "forever". It could have been just a metaphor for "a good long time" and only said "forever" as a kind of hyperbole to show He meant it really good and proper.
There is one caveat though: while it may be all well and good to interpret large portions of the Bible as metaphor and hyperbole, you should still know that those sections are still literally true and not at all the same as saying the Bible should be read as an allegory today.
And always remember, it's you, the apologist, who gets to apply these rules and interpretations; not the critics. So if someone else's interpretation of a section makes the Bible say something you personally disagree with, you can simply discard it. You must always keep in mind the purpose of this whole project is to make the Bible literally true and relevant for today: so, anything that makes it worse is obviously not a proper interpretation.
Another, more advanced, technique in re-interpreting so-called problem sections takes a bit of practice: pretend to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek better than almost anyone else so you can re-translate a section to know what was "really meant" instead of the meaning from the more common translation that is causing the problem.
An example of this would be the global flood in Genesis. If you think this is causing a problem because of a (supposed) total lack of evidence of such an event, just say that when it said "all" the world was flooded, the word that was used in the old text was really not intended to mean "all" like it is commonly translated, it really just meant "some part of" the world. But again, this is optional: You could take any number of angles to make it literally true.
Many many "problems" can be set straight by interpretation. However, I cannot stress enough that you should only attempt to re-translate and interpret those sections being questioned. You would not want to go to a random passage and see if there are any mis-translated words or areas that can be taken as hyperbole. So do not, under any circumstances, interpret or re-translate a section which no one is questioning, those are by definition already literally true!
The best part of re-interpretation is that you can still believe in the common meaning when you want: you only have to acknowledge the re-interpreted meaning when someone questions it, which is the subject of our next step:
Step Three