I really would like to hear how metis interprets that.
Much how we interpret scripture relates to how we approach scripture. Most Christians, according to surveys I've seen in the past, do not believe in scriptural inerrancy because of the human element in its writing. Neither did the Church believe in inerrancy either, with the exception of major teachings found within the NT.
It's only in the last two centuries that the issue of inerrancy has been accepted by certain Christian groups. But anyone who's been involved in serious Bible study, especially as long as I have been doing it, well knows that there are what theologians call "variations" on a great many narratives, at least as far as details are concerned.
One should always remember that the #1 and #2 issues with Jesus was 1. belief in God and 2. love and compassion for God and all of God's creation. That's what we repeatedly read about in the Gospels, especially strongly worded in the Sermon On the Mount. Thus, it is not about having all the politically-correct belief on all the details.
BTW, this is a one-and-out post for me, just to be clear. And thanks for asking instead of just assuming.
Take care.