From the post Imprecise Language about the Bible’s Authority: The Second Summary Statement of CSBI | The BioLogos Forum
You probably need to read the development of Dr. Enns’ argument building to this paragraph to understand it’s full import, but this is the paragraph that contains the major point of the article so it’s the paragraph that I excerpted.
It should not be presumed that Scripture’s authority in touching on the matter of creation demands a literal reading of Genesis 1. Put differently, it is not at all clear that the Spirit’s superintendence of the biblical writers means that historical and scientific accuracy is now required of a faithful reading of Genesis 1 simply because Scripture is “authoritative” and “touches” on the issue of creation. The Spirit’s superintendence might have led the ancient biblical writers to “touch” on the matter of creation according to ancient ways of understanding Scripture, not beholden to our current notions. In that case, just what we mean by biblical authority with respect to Genesis 1 becomes a far more complicated matter than CSBI lets on.