Good teachers will acknowledge an omitted technicality if it's brought up to them, and Religion isn't a simplified version of anything anyway.
EDIT:
...It's a complicated version of nothing.
My main point is that just because something is "wrong" doesn't necessarily make it "bad". (Also a lot of lies we tell to children aren't just wrong on a technicality, many of them are just blatantly wrong. Go to any early math class and you'll run into sentences like "you can't take the square root of a negative" or "you can't subtract 5 from 3" on a very regular basis. These statements are arguably "wrong", but we still use them as a tool for teaching.
Religion does a similar thing. I'd be willing to say that pretty much any religion has two major goals:
1) To explain the natural world (which personally, I'd say science does a bit better)
2) To spread it's moral system (which religion is probably the best carrier for)
Religion uses analogies and other things that may be "wrong" in order to teach you and accomplish those goals, notably goal number 2. Things like Abraham being told to sacrifice Isaac might never have happened and may be "wrong" in that sense, but if you look on them as steps to accomplish one of the goals of religion (that of making you share their moral code) then they work identical to the steps math and science use to explain simpler topics to younger students, as an easy way to package a lesson to promote the student's understanding of a more complex whole (in this case their entire moral code).