And yet
no one argues that Luke 10:25-37 refers to a literal Samaritan man who existed and helped a man in need. That particular book
already has a clear standard of prophets talking in parables and that particular passage about Eden was written by a prophet, Moses, who lived thousands and thousands of years after the claimed event. If people are willing to accept Jesus' sayings as mere parables why not the stories written by other prophets in that same book?? It's a weird double-standard.
Now in my Faith we don't think the Bible is 100% authoritative. But just realize that if we are to hold the Bible to the standards you propose, that means the Bible claims that the Good Samaritan was a literal person who existed, and that God made Moses into a literal God (Exodus 7:1), and that we are all literal Gods (Psalms 82:6). There's plenty of stuff in the book that is obviously not intended to have a literal meaning.
You aren't arguing for a literal interpretation, you're arguing for a
vacuous one.
But in the case of my religion, the Bible, especially the old testament, is not considered authoritative but books that have corrupted and their meaning lost over time. And furthermore authoritative texts from recent messengers of my Faith outright state that the meaning of Genesis was as I stated. Your criticism might work for someone else, but I'm using a technically
literal interpretation based on my own scriptures, as that is what is
literally written within my scriptures.
Now if I was a member of a faith that said "the Bible is literally true" you might have a point. But in this case I'm part of a faith that says different books are literally true, and that's what those books say on the subject of that story. Literalist figurativism, if you will.