1. Historical documents such as the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven today's Bible to be more than 98% accurate. The corruption that you presuppose does not exist.
2. Moses, through an inspired process, authored Genesis, which includes the creation event and Noah's flood. There is no difficult vision to translate in these chapters of the book of Genesis. The style of writing is historical prose and the shepherds and Moses were in complete understanding of the Hebrew words for "day", "evening" and "morning".
3. It is accurate to state that the Bible contains different language styles. However, it is an impossible logical leap to conclude that therefore all passages of the Bible are only a moral message and/or some form of non-historical literature. Hebrew and Old Testament scholars have clearly defined the language style in Genesis 1 to be historical prose.
4. Yes, it is a genealogy.
BTW, your screen name wasn't intimidating; The latter part of your qualifying statement was assumed.
1. The point remains. The Dead Sea Scrolls are not original source materials either. They are copies and transcriptions of earlier writings and oral histories that are now lost. What makes them important is that they are the earliest versions known to exist, and thus (presumably), the most accurate. They are also roughly contemporaneous with the documents compiled in the aftermath of the sacking of Jerusalem which eventually served as the basis for our current Old Testament. Then there's the Apocryphal books and the writings, now lost forever (?) that Josephus referred to while writing his History of the Jewish People. The point is simply that our current Bible has been heavily (or less heavily if one assumes a large dose of divine guidance) influenced by editors, translators and scribes.
2.Moses may have authored Genesis, but its original version, like Homer's Epic of Troy, was oral, rather than written. He was also not writing a scientific tretise, but showing the power and majesty of God. In other words, IMO, a little poetic license was very much in order. While much of Genesis is written in "historical prose", I find that substantially less true of the antediluvian period of the early chapters.
3. I never said that "all portions" of the Bible are merely moral messages, etc. It's a big leap to turn the observation that certain books like Job and Jonah are (probably) allegorical into a statement that ALL the books are allegorical in nature. That's simply not true. I simply noted that different portions of the Old Testament served different purposes and intents (Nor was I referring just to language styles).
All the best.