Sorry, I'm just not convinced. It seems very clear to me that in all these groups, there is a clear gap between what the book actually says and what those who venerate it would like it to say, and these are all too-clever-by-half means of trying to close that gap. They aren't taking it "more seriously" than the literalists; they are just trying desperately to take it seriously while disagreeing with what it actually says.
The one and only obvious solution that would truly solve the problem is the one that is simply unthinkable to them: ADMIT THE BOOK IS WRONG.
Sorry, I'm just not convinced. It seems very clear to me that in all these groups, there is a clear gap between what the book actually says and what those who venerate it would like it to say, and these are all too-clever-by-half means of trying to close that gap. They aren't taking it "more seriously" than the literalists; they are just trying desperately to take it seriously while disagreeing with what it actually says.
The one and only obvious solution that would truly solve the problem is the one that is simply unthinkable to them: ADMIT THE BOOK IS WRONG.
How did it take me so long to find this? Fascinating stuff!