We are in almost perfect agreement here! And I think I can address the subtle differences by continuing to discuss Fundamentalism vs. real fundamentalism.

The people who most often claim to be fundamentalists use the words, as you said, "literal" and "inerrant" in their description of their Biblical beliefs. These are funny words, easily misused, and difficult to fully grasp the consequences of. I'll start with "inerrant".

"Inerrant" actually means without error. But what is said to be without error when they use it? The 'fundamentalists' often say that the King James Version as it is written and translated and interpreted is what is inerrant, specifically. They extend a certain passage (I don't remember where it is, maybe John? but it doesn't matter) that says that the Apostles were granted through the Holy Spirit the divine ability to remember perfectly all that Jesus did, even some things that they were not themselves present for. They extend it to include all subsequent translations (and some, to include all subsequent interpretations, but not many are so stupid) or at least the ones they agree with. This is not what I believe, though I would use the word "inerrant" to describe the Bible as it was written originally. I believe that it is entirely possible, even likely that translations will and do fall short and even be entirely wrong, because translation involves so much understanding of the original meaning that it is painfully difficult to translate even simple phrases sometimes, let alone some of the very complicated and momentous passages found in the Bible.

Now then, "Literal". "Literal" is a very tricky word. Again, how is it being used, and is that useage appropriate to the Bible? The 'fundamentalists' use it to mean that every word in the Bible is a factual description of the world and what happened to it. I have always wanted to ask a hardcore fundie if they thought that Jesus' parables recounted factual occurances, just to watch their face turn pretty colors as the conversation continued. But the parables illustrate what "literal" really means. The Bible says that these stories that Jesus told were metaphores, and it's pretty plain about it. So the Bible says that certain parts of it (here, the parables) are to be understood non-literally, but rather that the meaning of the words is deeper than their superficial factual meaning. A little bit of fiction to reveal truths too complicated to discuss out of real life, or at least more complicated than the parable method! Believing Jesus' parables to be factual accounts of actual people etc. is a symptom of not being literal enough! "Literal" meams essentially "directly true", and taken as a whole entitiy one can, I believe say that the Bible is literal in what it says. But often it 'says' that is is not literal, and it does so in many ways. The Bible contains many bits that are "literally metaphores"! One must be so careful in reading the Bible, especially when it talks about itself and it's purpose. It is not an encyclopaedia, it is a guide "containing all things necessary for Salvation." It is irrelevant to salvation whether the universe was made in 6 days or 12 billion years, but it is vitally important that God made it, that God made us in His image, that God breathed His Spirit into us to give us Life, that we sinned and so could not live as fully in His presence as we are meant to, that there is an order to our lives that we should follow to most greatly serve God and learn about Him, that we are supposed to be the stewards of this world, etc., etc.; and a fully literal reading of the text tells us (the creation story is told in rhyme, meter and verse and has a few other clues to its nature) that God communicates these things through it and it is not a factual account of the physical creation and its methods. If we so choose to find out the actions of physical creation, we have deductive faculties whith which to do so, and it can be of great help to us in our understanding of ourselves and of God, but it is not essential to salvation or forming a relationship with God.

So, yes, I do believe that the Bible is literal, but I go further than those who claim the title "fundamentalist" and seek out the truth for myself instead of being told what to believe.

Love in Christ,