“That we have a grammatical construct that states otherwise in biblical verbiage undermines the concept of biblical literalism.”
Most people I know who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible don’t ascribe the type of “literalism” that you are implying. That would mean that when the Bible said Jesus was the Lamb of God, one would have to believe he was not a man, but an actual lamb. If no reasonable people carry “literalism” to that extent, why would you assume they would take the usage of common idioms such as “sunrise” or “sunset” as literal statements of scientific doctrine?
Not being a literalist I have a hard time understanding where those who can arbitrarily apply their own threshold for literalcy, but denounce as heretics anyone whose threshold differs. How do you determine that deviation from the text is OK when reaching a logical conclusion that Jesus was not an actual Lamb or that the sun didn't actually rise, but advocate stoning those who don't believe that creation took place in six 24 hour days?