I consider that a fallacy of false dichotomy. You either have to believe it's literally true in every aspect, or that none of it is true at all. Those are not the only choices you have.
“I consider that a fallacy of false dichotomy. You either have to believe it’s literally true in every aspect, or that none of it is true at all. Those are not the only choices you have.”
I did not say that you have to believe it’s “literally true”. In fact, I would advise you not to believe that everything in Genesis, or any book of the Bible is “literally true”, without giving heed to the writing style or context. When Genesis says Ishmael was a wild ass, you should not read that to mean that Ishmael was literally a donkey.
Now, what I said was, either it is an accurate account of events that actually happened, or it isn’t. There is no “third option” there. If an account is “partially accurate”, it is the same as saying it is “inaccurate”. It also cannot be an “accurate account” of events that didn’t actually happen. That would also make it “inaccurate”.
If you think there is a third option, then what is it? Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the term “reliable”? Genesis is either a reliable record of actual events, or it isn’t. Do you have a problem with that statement, or see some third option available?