I believe there are resources out there that can help someone to faithfully interpret. And the converse also. The skeptics annotated Bible being in the latter category IMO.
A: everything in this book is literally true
B: what about this passage where it says 3+4=9?
A: my interpretation of that passage is that the 9 represents a 7 in that particular context
The salient point being: that even if A has arrived at a literally true interpretation of the passage, the truth came from A, not from the passage. Further, although A believes they're arguing that the book is inerrant, what they're effectively claiming is that their interpretations are inerrant.
> what they're effectively claiming is that their interpretations are inerrant.
I don’t think A is claiming that, as the most basic understanding of Christianity understands that the individual is terribly flawed and errant.
If your presupposition for this conclusion is based on your earlier point might have either misstated something or you’re claiming a conclusion without an expressed premise.
The animals were created globally first. Once Adam was created, God created animals again so Adam could see the process, understand that God is Creator, and participate in ruling over God's creation.
Interesting website choice. I spent a year as an agnostic because of that website before I started to realize there must be another perspective to consider.