How can a Christian reject part of the Bible and still call themselves a Christian?

[FallentoReason]

"We" didn't sin. God created the conditions for A&E to eventually sin without knowing what they had done, because only through the tree could they hold the ability to know. It's like being accused of breaking a law without being taught what the legal system is. Once again, that's God's slip up.

Of course Adam and Eve knew that they would be offending God if they ate of the fruit of that tree.  It's not that they didn't have the ability to know that they should obey God.  You have to give the writer of Genesis credit for having some smarts.  Do really think that the story is portraying God as setting up Adam and Eve?  He made it clear.  "Read my lips.  Don't eat from the fruit of that tree."  I can picture Adam saying to Eve:  "Duh.  God said not to eat this, but he didn't teach us to know evil, so I guess it's alright."  When they disobeyed God, then they obtained knowledge of the effects of evil.  You need to consider what the writer was trying to relate through the story.

The multiple writers of Genesis (there is evidence of 4 traditions, 2 of which got melded together into "Genesis") are either being poetic, or historical. If it's poetic, then there's room for all sorts of allegorical interpretations, but then there's the awkward contradiction of the already contradicting couple of lineages leading from A&E to Jesus, the contradiction being how you can possibly descend from an allegory? If it's historical, then that implies truths and matter-of-facts. And considering it is the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it seems like A&E lacked the metaphysics of ethics until they ate from it, by which time it was too late. It can't be that the tree merely gave them knowledge of the consequences, because if it did, that would imply that A&E could of had ethical metaphysics - they would have subscribed to deontology, the belief that right and wrong are inherently right and wrong regardless of the consequences. They would have to be deontologists since they precisely lack the knowledge about consequences. But see, that can't be, because their metaphysics would have been incomplete. To be a deontologist is to deny consequentialism. To be a deontologist, one accepts right and wrong in spite of the consequences.