In the Random God Rant thread me and Faith were having a (quite heated) discussion about the inerrency of the bible and the relevance of myths and so on.
Basically the argument got to a point where the question essentially became when can we regard something as literal vs. metaphorical.
It seems to me that when concrete, indisputable evidence is presented, the retreat for the Christian becomes "Oh, well then that's a metaphor." This seems to me to be intellectually dishonest.
It is based on the foregone conclusion that the bible is inerrant and cannot contain any error. Thus if a factual error is presented, it becomes a metaphor, safe from scrutiny.
Now this is my view, perhaps I am mistaken. What is the criteria inerrantists use when determining weather or not something is metaphor or literal? Is it the level of believability of events? Or something else.