Parallel to my posts on inerrancy and literal reading, Denny Burk has interacted with John Wilson's recent op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal on the debate over the historical Adam. What interested me in Denny's piece is that we both pick up on the inappropriate definitions of literal that are common in the discussion. A literal reading of the Bible does take into account issues of genre, authorial intent, language, etc. as it understands the text. To make a blanket claim, as Wilson does in the title of his piece, that "No One Reads the Bible Literally" is to not really understand the current state of the discussion about what literal means in theory and practice.