Opinion of the Bible's literalism/historic-truth/scientific-truth/perfection?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

All of the Bible is divinely inspired and all of it is true.  Not all of it is literal, but all of it is true.

Since the 19th century, higher criticism has crept into seminaries and then crept into churches.  Higher critics taught that the Bible is not 100% divinely inspired, and that some parts reflect human biases.  This idea would be utterly foreign to the early church and is still utterly foreign to the vast majority of Christians today.  Some of the people behind this undoubtedly thought that they were saving Christianity from going the way of the Greco-Roman religion.  Ironically, its the churches that still believe the Bible is true that are making converts.

There's a great book called Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus.  It tells the story of Nabeel Qureshi, a Muslim who converted to Christianity.  He grew up thinking that Christians didn't even believe their own scriptures.  Later, he made a friend who actually took the Bible seriously and was able to defend his beliefs.  If he had only been exposed to progressive Christianity he wouldn't have become a Christian.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

All of the Bible is divinely inspired and all of it is true.  Not all of it is literal, but all of it is true.

That is demonstrably false. There are specific claims made in the bible that are statements of 'truth' (if you believe it is all true) that have no other value, either non literal or metaphorical and therefore have to stand as false.

To take a very simple example, Leviticus 11 20:23 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.' That is just false. It has no other value than as a statement of fact. The Bible also gets the value of pi wrong.

If there is no other value to 'false' statements (like say wiping out the Caananites, who weren't actually wiped out, or the entirety of Matthew 27: 50-53 which is a historical claim to which there is no evidence but still works as a statement of 'look how immense an act this was') then those statements are just false because they cannot stand on their own and don't need laborious (and literalists really really do this) explanations as to why ackshually.

Well, BRTD did a good job of explaining why you are wrong.

As far as the Canaanites, I don't think there's any around today.  Some people mistakenly think that the Palestinians are the descendants of Canaanites, but that's not true.