It’s not “creation vs evolution”

If Genesis isn't to be interpreted literally, does that mean other parts of the Bible aren't, too? Or do we pick and choose which parts are literal depending on scientific developments? Could that imply that Jesus was not literally real?

This is absolutely a hair concern. I would ask what the purpose of the Bible. It is, of course, to explain the relationship between God and His people, not to teach us specifics about how the natural world was created. The language in Genesis 1 is very vague, while the language in passages like Jesus’s death is very specific. I postulate that rather than teaching scientific truths, Genesis 1 was meant to convey theological ideas.

Some things that point to Jesus being literally real and literally having lived the life that's described in the Bible is that the gospels are written very much like you would expect a biography from that time period to be written, and there are 4 of them which do not contradict each other but have different writing styles, which shows they were really written by different people who wrote those gospels as a documentation of Jesus' life. Not only that, but also historians like Tacitus or Josephus wrote about Jesus as a real historical person who was crucified.

And we know that the claim of Him being the Son of God was also literally understood, because people literally gave their life for this.

When we look at Genesis 1, however, we can look at the genre and see that it has almost complete resemblance with an Ancient Near Eastern myth, which we know that the cultures who had these myths didn't interpret them as scientifically explanatory. (Short clarification, myth does not mean that something is false, it's a story about the creation of the world which is meant to convey religious or philosophical messages, which can be true or false. In the case of Genesis, I believe these are true)

So we have three sources of evidence that Genesis is mytho-history (scientific, hermeneutic, and the history of the Jewish culture) - that's what I consider, maybe there are more sources of evidence - that it should not be taken as a scientifical explanation for the creation of the world.

When we look at Jesus and His life, we see absolutely no evidence that it's a legend or fiction, and even atheist scholars agree on this! The gospels, the New Testament, are not to be understood as metaphors for something; they can be criticized by non-Christians, but their genre is clear even for the most skeptic ones, so that is not doubted.

And we know that the claim of Him being the Son of God was also literally understood, because people literally gave their life for this. In fairness, people have been giving their lives for false things for ages. How many people died for Communism? I think it's perfectly probable that there was a person named Jesus who preached and was crucified for it. That was common for the time. The question I was asking was more in the vein of : if the Bible is the word of God, and part of it is not literally true, 1. can other parts be assumed to be figurative too, and if so, how far can this be taken and 2. Why would God send word that was highly misleading. People have literally been executed over debating the scientific veracity of the Bible. Why would God not make it clear?

Also, could the Bible theoretically be entirely a metaphor - even God? Could he be a metaphor for goodness and morality, say? How can anyone know if the book was divinely inspired? The writers could say it, but that's like JK Rowling saying Harry Potter came and told her what to write. Is there any evidence that the Bible isn't a complex, fictional religious text to instruct people on morality, other than in the Bible?

The claim is not "people died for it, so it's true." Rather it is, "the early Christians, including the apostles, received it as a literal, historical event, so that's how it should be understood."

1. I do believe that Genesis 1 is historical, but that it is written in a very different style of narrative from, say, Numbers or 1 and 2 Kings. Similarly, I believe that Revelation is detailing real future events in a very symbolic, non-literalist way. The broad-stroke tone of the early chapters of Genesis lends itself to a more symbolic reading.

2. Scripture is misused all of the time: Satan did in Matthew 4. But here's an even greater consideration: the Bible is essentially God's "baby talk:" He makes His Word accessible to all, so that people of all cultures (and education status) can understand it. I suppose it just seemed good to Him to pass down the knowledge of the creation of the world in this simplified, poetic way. Think about this: if the theory of evolution is true, how would God have explained the creation of the world? Would the Bible have said, "The universe began over 13 billion years ago when all of the matter in the universe exploded from an infinitesimally small point in spacetime, with just the right speed of expansion to allow for atoms to form. From there, due to the force of gravity, stars and other celestial bodies began to form..."? Moses wouldn't have written that!

"In fairness, people have been giving their lives for false things for ages." Very true. My point was that they gave their life for this, that Jesus was the Son of God, so we know that this claim is to be interpreted literally. It's either true or false, but it should be interpreted literally. (but by the way, the evidence is that it's true; the people who gave their life for Christ did so but based on their own conclusions, because they were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus. Nobody gives their life for something they made up and know is false, and the disciples claimed to have seen him resurrected. Maybe people give their life for something they believe is true, like many Muslims do, thinking Muhammad is a prophet. The thing is, their faith is blind and not based on evidence; the early Christians and Jesus' disciples claimed to have seen his resurrected body, which they gave their life for, so it couldn't have been made up, while no muslim claimed to have seen Muhammad perform miracles or get messages from God, so Muhammad, who didn't die for Islam, could've made it up that he is a prophet of God and people wouldn't have had a way to check if it's true or not.) So the resurrection of Jesus, which would be God approving that Jesus really is his Son, is based on a lot of evidence, that it was a historical, literal event.

1. To answer your first question: yes, but not assumed. It has to be analyzed and decided based on the evidence

2. We have to remember that the Scriptures were written for us but not to us. For Jewish culture, nothing in the Bible (when it comes to genre interpretation and understanding of metaphors, not necessarily theological truths) would've been confusing. The Scriptures were written for them and they knew how to interpret it. And yes, people have been executed for doing that, but that is the sin of man, not a result of how God wrote the Bible.

Augustine, in the first centuries, wrote about why the Bible (especially Genesis) is written the way it is. He said that it's written in such a complex and deep manner that it contains a truth for everyone. A child may read Genesis 1 and understand that God created humans and animals and the whole world, because that's how much the mind of the kid can comprehend. But a theologian may read it and understand a much deeper truth about the nature of God, which is hidden in symbols and metaphors. This way, the creation account doesn't intimidate humans with a simple understanding, but also has deep truths for those with a deeper understanding.

So God made it clear and for everyone. If people got executed over something, it is because those humans sinned and were too prideful to accept any other view than theirs; it's not God's fault.

Theological liberalism (which you'll often find nowadays in classical Protestant churches) often does view the death and resurrection of Christ, or even God's existence, as a metaphor to inspire to "make the world a better place" or something. Hopefully you understand how shallow this is, and this is why the denominations that have been overrun with these ideas are struggling with membership: they teach nothing more than what the culture does. Remember what Paul says: if Jesus did not rise, then we are of all people most to be pitied.

that verse was actually one of the focus points in today's sermon

Us too, what better topic for resurrection sunday