"But what about the moderates?"

[Vicki Q]

If the Bible is "inspired" or "metaphoric", then we must have some means of discerning which parts are divine and which parts are human in origin.

I'm really not sure that's the case at all.

Why do we need to know, for example, whether someone called Moses actually lead the Jewish nation out of Egyptian slavery? It doesn't affect at all my actions, or my decision to follow Jesus. It makes a crucial part of the meta-narrative, but that works whether or not it is wholly, partly, or not at all true. The historicity is irrelevant.

Where it becomes perhaps more significant is NT historicity. But unless one wants to insist on the gospels as Jesus-cam transcripts, there is oodles of room for a mixed view on NT historicity, within a strong faith (many Xian scholars don't take the pastoral letters as being written by Paul, for example).

I believe firmly that history is the friend of Xianity, not its enemy.

The second reason has to do with the burden of proof lying with the one making the claim. For example, apologists like to argue that the TF is "partially authentic". They assume the burden of proof to show us exactly which parts are contaminated and which parts are not. When we consider just how dire the consequences are in a false positive (thought to be divinely inspired but actually not), it only underscores the importance of the one making such a claim to prove their assertions.

I'm not sure what is meant by TF, and Google doesn't help.

As with the post by Deistpaladin, you're actually attacking a strong view of inspiration here, because I'm not making a claim about inspiration, hence no proof burden. The meta-narrative of the Bible coming to a climax with Jesus I believe to be true. Which “parts are contaminated” is therefore a non-issue.

It's all true, and some of it actually happened.