I debated for a while whether or not to respond to SpiritSong's last input, but since nothing has been submitted lately, I decided to respond:

I agree 100% that one can get the truth out of Genesis 3:10 that SpiritSong does; and probably many others. But why should that mean that the literal translation isn't true? I can buy Adam simply hiding his physical nakedness. Eventually, everyone's children suddenly realize they are naked and don't want mom and dad to see even though they have seen them hundreds of times (seems like thousands when I think back on diapers). Why can't Adam feel the same way once he realizes he is physically naked? Plus Genesis also states that they made clothes to cover themselves. The nakedness is not just symbolic or there would be no need to go into that detail.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe SpiritSong once said something like, 'The writers of the New Testament taught in parables, so why not the writers of the Old Testament?'. But for me that doesn't ring true because:
• In the New Testament, they tell us when it was a parable
• Unlike New Testament parables, the Old Testament stories are about real people and a real God (that is, not a symbol of God). The Bible would lose credibility quickly if it mixed fables with history.
• Telling a story that isn't true without clarifying that point is the same as lying. I do not believe the Bible can serve its purpose if it is full of lies.

I believe it is extremely important for people to live their lives like the whole Bible is true, not just parts of it. How wrong can one go if they do that? But if people start picking and choosing what parts to believe, it is not hard for a disaster to occur. At least for me, the slope is too slippery to venture upon. And I believe the sloop is too slippery to invite others to venture upon. Hence why I've not been able to give the horse a break.