To what degree do you consider Biblical truth to be inherent to Christianity?
First off, for full disclosure, I am an agnostic atheist (I believe in no deities, but don't claim to have active knowledge of their non-existence). I'm creating this post to try and have a better understanding of the broader spectrum of Christianity from the outside, rather than the more limited perspective I gained from my religious upbringing. Also, fair warning, I'm not particularly interested in attempts to reconvert me - I will happily ignore any comments or messages along those lines.
Back on topic, I was presented with certain ideas with regards to Biblical truth - though I'll keep those to myself for now to avoid biasing answers. Since my exit, I've seen more possible viewpoints presented, and would be interested to know how valid or required the general Christian population view them to be.
Which of the following viewpoints do you interpret to be part of a valid - if possibly theologically suboptimal - form of Christianity (with all of the potential benefits post-death as advertised):
1. The Bible is entirely literal truth (as it is the Word of God), barring perhaps a few obviously poetic exceptions like Psalms, explicit metaphors and parables, and descriptions of the indescribable, such as in Revelations. This would mean that the Earth was created in a week (and likely not billions of years ago), people once lived much longer than we currently do, Noah's flood occurred, Jonah spent some time in a fish, Sampson had supernatural strength, etc.
2. The Bible is mostly literal truth, but there's some more nuanced metaphor in there. However, every verse is still divinely inspired and has a purpose for being present in the Bible. As an example, in this view the story of Sampson is perhaps just embellished as a fable about the importance of loyalty and strength in the face of temptation. This would also allow for the events of early Genesis to be more poetically interpreted and perhaps allow for (macro) evolution to coincide with the creation story. Additionally, this would also allow for some of the more potentially draconian rules and prohibitions of the Old Testament to be considered outdated and irrelevant to the modern age.
3. The Bible contains literal truth and at least the main points of Jesus's role are true, but some is essentially noise, archaic to the point of meaninglessness, or perhaps tainted by history. This viewpoint would have the same basic message with regards to what is necessary to go to heaven (depending on which of the Catholic or Protestant perspectives is being used), but might not claim that the flood occurred, would see no need to reconcile evolution with Genesis, and might not believe in all of the miracles or miraculous occurrences. Also, this viewpoint would be less inclined to believe that something is (im)moral just because a verse says so. Essentially, this allows someone of this viewpoint to "pick and choose," so long as part of what they pick is the resurrection and its role in life after death.
4. The Bible is a useful tool with some good ideas about morality, and little more. This viewpoint might or might not believe in the story of Jesus and his resurrection as presented, but probably wouldn't require it of others either way. Someone with this viewpoint would probably quote "love your neighbor as yourself" far more often than John 3:16. This approach would value a personal conviction and Christian identity far more strongly than adherence to a book, and would not necessarily inherently trust the words of that book. As in the last case, this allows the holder of this view to "pick and choose," but this time without restriction.
5. Mostly for completion's sake, a viewpoint that doesn't ascribe any particular measure of truth or import to the Bible. When it's right, it's right, when it makes sense, it makes sense, and when it doesn't, it doesn't.
If you think I'm missing or misrepresenting an option, feel free to make mention of that as well - I just think providing some structure on my end could help clarify my question and the responses I might receive. If you've read this far, thanks for your time. I know I can get a bit needlessly wordy.