"lying"
A complicated accusation involving "lying" is sometimes used to discredit non-literal readings of Scripture.
The non-literal reader isn't accused of being a liar, but of making a liar of a Bible character. The accuser, meanwhile, finds some "real" meaning, as a way of defending a literal reading.
Example
For a hypothetical example: Jesus called mustard the smallest of seeds — but many seeds are smaller than mustard. If I say that Jesus was not speaking literally but using a normal, easily understood exaggeration, I might be accused of "making him a liar": this in defence of a false, but Bible-based, belief that mustard has the smallest seed of all species. It is contrary to common knowledge as well as biological science, but it would be accepted on account of faith in the literal word of the Bible. It is assumed that Jesus must have believed it, too: it may even be said that "Jesus taught it"! Thus, the science cannot be trusted. . .
The error, of course, is to start with taking the exaggeration literally and believing it — an act of misguided faith, perhaps. Exaggerations are not the only form of communication that are treated this way: generalisations, symbolism, metaphors, and other figures of speech can be misunderstood in a similar way. (See Didactic, Rhetorical and Literary Devices.)
This example is extreme, but real — though not Christadelphian! The link above cites a genuine attempt to understand these words of Jesus as literally true!
In this wiki
"If Jesus’ and Paul’s claims are based on ‘faulty biology’ as claimed by TE, then it follows they say Jesus and Paul are not telling what is right, i.e. lying." ref.
