&gt; This is only compelling if you start with the axiom that the bible (or whatever text) is correct.<p>Which would perhaps be a serious problem with criticizing biblical literalism with that argument if the literalism being criticized ever failed to included a strong form of inerrantism; since, as a doctrine, Biblical literalism is <i>always</i> tied to strong-form inerrantism (which <i>is</i> the axiom that the Bible is, in every particular, both moral and factual, correct), and subsidiary doctrines on matters of fact and&#x2F;or morals can only be derived from it through its intersection with inerrantism, it really isn&#x27;t a problem that challenges to literalism rely on arguments that are valid in the presence of inerrantism.<p>&gt; If you don&#x27;t take correctness as an axiom<p>Without inerrantism, whether something is a correct or incorrect interpretation of the Bible doesn&#x27;t have any significance. Literalism or not only has any meaning in the context of inerrantism.