Doesn't have to. It just states it plainly.
"States plainly" is a good definition of "literal". But just because something is stated plainly doesn't mean it is not a story. Jesus' story of the Sower is stated plainly. But it is not history. Being stated plainly (either in the original or in a reference to it) does not turn a story into an actual event.
Then why are you denying it to be literal?
I don't deny the flood story to be literal. It is a straightforward, plainly told story with little if any figurative embellishment. I do deny it was an actual event if interpreted to be a global event. Like many stories, it may have a historically-based core such as a massive regional flood. But it wouldn't bother me if it were pure fiction. Pure fiction can also be literal.
Actually what I said is that the Bible clearly presents is as literal and nobody has provided Scripture proof otherwise.
What are the characteristics of presenting a story as literal? How do you distinguish between presenting a story as literal and presenting a story as not literal?
I know of a few cases where Jesus presents a story as literal in public, but then presents an allegorical meaning of the story to his disciples. The Parable of the Sower is a good example. The story, as Jesus first tells it, is entirely literal--using the definition above. It is stated plainly, without embellishment. There is no obvious symbolism. Anyone hearing the story without the followup would take it to refer to an actual person sowing actual grain in an actual field with actual birds, actual stones, actual weeds and actual good ground producing the results indicated.
Yet Jesus takes this quite literal story and gives is a quite different meaning using allegorical interpretation.
Based on Jesus' example and Peter's reference to the flood, the Church also gave the whole flood story an allegorical meaning: the flood waters are the water of baptism and the Ark is the Church outside of which there is no salvation.
I don't consider the many clear Biblical accounts to be negatives. Do you believe any of the Bible to be literal?
Depends on what you mean by "literal". I certainly agree that much in the bible is plainly stated without figurative embellishment. And I certainly agree that it is true theologically.
I don't agree that many of the stories are reliable history--though they may be legendary recountings of what was an actual historical event.
But even a plainly-stated passage may have an allegorical meaning that is more to the point than the obvious meaning.
Take something from European history. We probably all learned, as children, the little rhyme of Jack and Jill. It is a simple, plainly-stated incident which could have happened to some actual children. But what we don't learn as children is that it is actually a bit of political satire referring to the downfall of King Louis and Marie Antoinette of France during the French Revolution.
The Flood account is simple, clear and abundant in the Bible. I can't deny it. You have offered no Scriptural proof for denying it to be literal.
I agree, the Flood account is simple and clear and often referred to in other parts of scripture. Furthermore "simple" and "clear" are good definitions of "literal".
In this sense I agree the flood story is literal. I even agree the windows in heaven are literal.
That doesn't make it about an actual historical event--which is what I think you really mean by "literal". And if that is what you mean, you should be saying "historical" not "literal".
What is the big deal with the bible being literal anyway? The flood story as told is literal but not historical. It may be based on an actual historical flood, but what would it matter if it is not? It would still be true, provide a valuable moral lesson and be an appropriate allegory of salvation through Christ.