Well, the bible is clearly not literally true in everything. For example, in 1 Kings 7:23, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is given as three. We know that this value (pi) for the mathematical, is actually 3.1428..., so the bible is not literally correct here.
Once you understand that the bible is not absolutely literally correct everywhere, and that interpretation is necessary and subject to error, it pretty much throws the possibilities of modern science wide open to persons of faith.
"True" and "literal" aren't really the same thing although some people try to use them interchangably to try to trap people. The Bible is true; but it is not always literal. Poetry is poetry, parables are parables (espicailly when told by the writer that it's a parable) When God says He will cover us with His wings, it doesn't mean He's a chicken. Then ever someone says that they recognize these parts as figurative, they're then accused of picking and choosing what to believe, in an attempt to cast doubt on the person's crediblity. If they say they belive it's all literal, they're mocked as being stupid. If they try to explain the difference, they're accused of semantics. There is nothing that a Christian can do or say that is right for some people.
Exactly. Many words and phrases had totally different meanings back when the Bible was written than they do today. That's why there are many scholars trying to study the Bible.
For another example, "The meek shall inherit the earth." Meek meant something totally different back then.
Genesis might be evidence of the Big Bang Theory. How do we know? But that said, evidence of evolution and survival of the fittest is so clear. How can anyone deny it? We are evolving out our appendix and little toe because we don't need it anymore. Neither is necessary for our survival.
But it might not be inconsistent with the Bible either. Who knows? The Bible cannot be taken literally because of historical interpretation.