YECists attempt to dig into sheol

Yes. Where are you going with this?

Exacly! Are you sure you're not a TE? Similarly, whether the Hebrews thought the earth was old, young, flat, or round doesn't change the meaning of the creation or Flood stories! I'm glad we could clear this up.

How should the glory be given? Publicly, privately or both? Does it matter?

The problem with that line of thinking is that the Bible clearly states the truth to these stories.

Besides the meaning to the stories gets changed quite a bit when you state trillions of days as opposed to 6 days and whether the characters and genealogies of the story are real or not.

For most people the whole sin originated from a man who never existed story would change everything. To be perfectly honest, I truly can't and won't allow myself even entertain such heretical thoughts.

I'll play along. Both.

What truth? The spiritual truth or the historical truth?

It seems to me that any time the ancient Hebrews referenced the "windows" of heaven, the stars in the "firmament", or the "pillars" on which the earth rests, they believed it to be historical, literal truth as well.

Not because God told them it was true, but because that's the worldview framework which they possessed at the time.

God can teach us the same lessons He taught those ancient Hebrews through our current worldview framework, too, if He chose.

And I would fully expect people in the distant future would laugh at our naive understanding of the world, too.

What do you feel are the ultimate spiritual meanings we are meant to take from the Genesis account? How does interpreting (some) of the account allegorically change the morals God intended us to learn?

It's something all TEs wrestle with, too. Similarly, people used to wrestle with the idea that God would allow his 'perfect' creation to go extinct, or that God would not put his earthly creation at the centre of the universe.

That said, I personally believe man is accountable for his own sin regardless of whether we evolved from "lower" lifeforms or not.

I believe sin did enter the world through man, for I do not believe it to be a sin if animals die. It is only a sin for man to do die like the animals, for they do not have eternity in their hearts (Psalm 49).

I do believe the spiritual meaning would change if the account were allegorical. Allegory is best used to convey a previously known or stated truth that is hard to understand; at least that's how I've always seen it used. So the morals of the story don't change, but the effectual impact of them does when the individual who reads the story knows that the individuals and circumstances of the story are fictional. I can attest to this personally, when I read a book or see a movie that is based on a true story its personal impact is far greater than one which isn't.

I'm personally not convinced that this is the case with Genesis 1. Would you care to show how this is true with that particular passage? For me, I think an Israelite living a few thousand years ago, thinking of the earth as a flat plate propped on foundations with a transparent dome over his head covered by immense waters, would get the same meanings out of Genesis 1 as I do today treating it allegorically: that God is in control, that the created is not to be worshiped as the Creator, that man is made in the image of God, that God is orderly in all He does, etc.

I don't see how reading it literally in this age and time adds anything to its meaning, other than making it an isolated passage speaking about a certain moment in creation (instead of a paradigmatic passage speaking to us at every point in life) and making it say that "evolution is an evil atheist lie!". But perhaps you see it differently. How do you think the message of Genesis 1 changes when it is read allegorically? Specifics please.

Thing is: we didn't always know the earth was round. The ancient Hebrews certainly didn't believe this, which is why they wrote about it having four corners and resting on pillars.

God speaks to me loud and clear. He probably spoke to the Ancient Hebrews loud and clear as well, and they tried to relay the message onto us. But after a few thousand years... well, It's their attempt at communication that got a bit garbled, not God's.

If six days doesn't mean six days and Adam wasn't real how can I know that sin he committed was real? How can I trust other key elements? Again, this is me, I can't speak for anyone else.

I do believe the spiritual meaning would change if the account were allegorical. Allegory is best used to convey a previously known or stated truth that is hard to understand; at least that's how I've always seen it used. So the morals of the story don't change, but the effectual impact of them does when the individual who reads the story knows that the individuals and circumstances of the story are fictional. I can attest to this personally, when I read a book or see a movie that is based on a true story its personal impact is far greater than one which isn't.