"I’d suggest that framing this discussion in terms of “acting as though
the text were not inerrant” is a mistake."

I wouldn’t be a bit surprised. I agree that there are many ways to construe the Biblical creation narratives as true or meaningful or inspirational without asserting their historical accuracy. (One could, of course, extend the same courtesy to other non-canonical ancient myths, extracting their symbolic meaning and regarding them as God-inspired texts.) I’m proposing that, whatever these texts are, factual historical records of how the universe and humankind came into being is something they probably are not. So, if we set aside the historicity of the events these narratives describe, regarding them as neither true nor false but nonexistent, to what extent is the rest of the Bible affected by this act of excision? I.e., to what extent do other Biblical writings depend on their interpreting Genesis 1-3 as literally and historically true? If not at all, then the reader can make figurative or spiritual sense of the creation stories without losing anything substantial. But if, say, a particular passage in a Pauline letter seems to make sense only if we infer that he read Genesis 1-3 not as "true myth" but as a historically accurate account, then the hermeneutical task gets more complicated.