The proliferation of writing materials in the ancient world proceeded at an extremely slow pace. Even by the time of the New Testament there were nothing like the "newspapers" we have today. Never mind television or cell phone cameras. When stories were written there was no "mass" audience and more importantly there was no expectation to be "literally" true. Many concepts in "religion" cannot be put literally anyway because they involve experiences that the audience has never had yet. The expectation for literal truth is very much an aspect of modern newspapers and their avoidance of anything that requires a higher level of reading ability than extremely rudimentary language can accommodate. The evening news does not generally address religious concepts. If some news item involves a religion it only covers things that are literally true such as how many people go in the buildings, did members of a religion involve themselves in some political question, how so, was anyone shot, and other things that can be measured by anyone regardless of their religion.
Religious sources became quite comfortable communicating in what is often described as "poetry." The Bible for example is replete with parables, analogies, similitude, and other "poetic" language or indirect language at a much higher reading level. It can be especially obvious that the last book of the New Testament was in no way intended to be entirely literal. A serious problem developed when modern newspapers created an expectation of literal truth. If you count everything that is not literally true as a lie, you are wrong. It does not work that way.
When newspapers covered the Scopes trial (1925, 100th anniversary this year) that created the impression that there is a "debate" between Creationism and Evolution. There is not. There never was. There never will be. People had been breeding plants and animals more or less wittingly for centuries before the Bible was written. There is even a story of gene pool modification in the Old Testament. See the story of Jacob tending Laban's flocks in Genesis 30:31 to 31:13. The question is not how existing species change, we "all" "knew that happens, the question is how life began in the first place. No "science" has any valid answer for that.
Instead it is rather obvious that every agency of construction in the inanimate universe is likewise an agency of destruction. Whatever force moves one molecule into position with another for attachment also detaches molecules. As any "construction" proceeds, the likelihood of destruction increases. If twenty molecules are attached they have a higher probability of being detached than where only five molecules are attached. When hundreds of molecules get attached, if that ever happens, the likelihood they are detached becomes extremely high. In readily observable fact, long before anything resembling life is constructed, destruction happens. One way to express that is the "probability" of destruction reaches P=1. If you are the sort of person who likes to distinguish probabilities from certainties, there really is no "probability" of 1, instead it makes more sense to speak of the certainty of that event. Assembling life from lifeless matter alone is something that will certainly never happen.
Even after all these years there are still armies and armies of mentally impaired atheist kids who think there is a "debate" between Creationism and Evolution. Web site after web site discusses how "Evolution is not a belief" and "Science is self correcting" and "Every 'vaccine' is safe and effective." It is still just bad science fighting bad religion as it ever was. It is "bad" religion because it is using the new found dependence on literal communication like newspapers now have. It is "bad" science because science cannot begin to address most political problems. A stunning example is that there is no science that can help anyone decide between communism and capitalism. The novella by George Orwell, "Animal Farm," can be useful, but it is a fairy tale, not science, not front page news.
The expectation that "science" can be all we ever need has been a terrible mistake. The neglect of other arts has led to the domination by godless idiots in the world. If you think religion is the cause of war, you are wrong. It is the lack of ability to communicate at a higher level that causes war in the modern world. It is a tragically simplistic worldview that causes war. It is the lies people tell on each other and some people believe that causes war.
Religion typically deals with things beyond common experience. In order to be literal, communication must be about common experiences. If a source and an audience have all experienced the color green there can be literal communication about the color green. If some audience has been blind since before birth and never seen anything, much less colors, much less green, there can be no literal communication about green.
If ten different people try to explain green to a person who has been blind since before birth you might get ten different descriptions of green. That does not mean any of the ten are lying. That does not mean they are describing different things. In a similar manner different cultures in an attempt to describe their "god" or their "philosophy" or the "universal" laws might have very different descriptions. It can require communication that is not literal.
Understanding that most religious scriptures were written before there were newspapers and the abject literalism of newspapers became the way of the world, what should you believe? Realizing that writing of that time mostly could not be literal even if being literal was preferred, what should you believe?
After escaping servile captivity in Egypt the people of the god in the Bible crossed the river Jordan in their attempts to reach their promised land. However miraculous crossing that river "on dry ground" might have been, it was nothing like having to cross the Mississippi River at St. Louis, which is much wider and much deeper. The Jordan River, and for that matter the northernmost part of the Red Sea, which the people of God also crossed "miraculously" in fleeing from Egypt, are at no time very deep, and depending on the season and other factors might be almost dry. In order for ships to pass between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea it was first necessary to dig the Suez Canal (began 1859, completed 1869) through that region. There was not enough water before.
The story of the people of the god of the Bible crossing the Jordan in their flight to the promised land is found in the book of Joshua chapters 3 and 4. The way the story is written it is difficult to follow. There is some indication the miraculous crossing took place at a time when the Jordan was near its deep phase, however deep that might have been. Then too, there is a discussion of placing stones in the Jordan to "commemorate" the miracle, which stones also might have stopped water flowing. It might be best to study those scriptures with a Strong's Bible handy to check the original Hebrew.
While the prophet Elijah was competing with the prophets of a foreign god, Ba'al, he challenged them to put water on an offering and cause it burn. They could not, however much they prayed, because water does not burn. Elijah tried a similar task and his offering caught fire. See 1Kings 18:33-38. Had anyone tested Elijah's "water" they might have become ill though. It really might have been some distillate of petroleum that is fairly easy to produce and appears much like water such as kerosene. Some fellow students I met in high school called kerosene "girl scout water" because their "joke" (not funny) was that girl scouts need kerosene to start a fire.
There are a few stories in the Bible of the dead being restored to life. In the Old Testament the son of the Widow of Zarephath was restored to life. In the New Testament Lazarus was restored to life, and of course more famously Jesus came back to life after being killed on the cross.
There is another story of resurrection involving the daughter of Jarius. Some people thought she had died, but Jesus explained in Mark 5:39 that she was not dead, only sleeping.
In none of those examples did the "dead" person have brain, heart, or lung damage. Some people might try to argue that the heart of Jesus was pierced when the soldier stabbed him in the side, but the Bible does not say that exactly. Blood supposedly did come out of his side, but people bleed a lot without having their heart pierced.
There is another story of "dry bones" being restored to life (Ezekiel 37), but in verse 11 it appears that is only a vision meaning Israel would be restored.
There are people who seem to believe in miracles and think the Bible requires belief in miracles, but there is usually some more or far less miraculous way to explain things in the Bible. Can the Bible be taken literally? Yes. Do many people take the Bible literally? No, and they do not have to take it literally. Most scriptures were written before the abject literalism of newspapers became the way of the world. Stories were often told in an "artful" way to increase the chances of survival of some group or other. That does not mean there are no miracles. It means you will just have to see miracles for yourself to be certain there are any.
If you have the impression that much in the media lately is just a bunch of lies, you are probably correct. Science can be a wonderful thing in the right hands. I wish I had a job where I could just use science all day, then go home. But there is an expression, "It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it." There are indeed serious problems in the world that no science can ever solve. There are efforts to find solutions beyond science. Then the people who believe science should have all the answers we ever need get upset with that. As much as many of them like science they are terrible at it themselves.
Instead of truth we just get stories designed to help some "side" in some conflict have some advantage. It is like the days before newspapers only this time the so called "scientists" are getting ridiculous too.
Complications about whether language should be literal and whether miracles are possible can make meaningful communication rather difficult. Do not forget that life itself is a miracle. If you ask people who won the lottery whether they prayed to win, you might get the impression that prayer was a factor. However if you ask the people who did not win whether they prayed you will likely get a much different picture.
Among the many profound events in the Bible is the "transfiguration" (Matthew 17:3-4, Mark 9:4-5) where Jesus is with the disciples Peter, James, and John, and they see a vision of him talking with Moses and Elijah.