I'm confused, and a little worried.
Beads, it seems to me you're not looking at this the wrong way. You're faced with a GRAMMATICAL TECHNICALITY which divides two options. The first would let you agree with practically all of modern, tested and reliable science, and still go with the Bible word for word. To me, bonus! Grab it quick. But it seems you're still clinging onto the "exact, literal, every little nuance must be clinically and blindly observed" approach which laughs in the face of modern technology and refuses to take on board what common sense asserts.
I don't mean to attack you, I just really wonder why you don't want to shift your concepts to something, which whilst being perceived as some as "liberal heresy", might just hold the answers to our existence.
Your thoughts?
God Bless
Nick