Can the Bible's inerrancy be maintained when its own quotations aren't exact?

On Wednesday, February 8th, I posted the following as my Facebook status update:

At The Fall Eve technically "quoted" the Word of God in response to Satan (Gen. 3:2), but she sinned nonetheless. Quoting Bible verses is pointless if it's not coupled with obedience.

Someone asked, “Is it really a quote if the words/meaning are modified?”

And I replied,

That’s a good question. My answer would be that a quote is verbatim. So the answer wouldbe no. It's not a quote if the words have been modified. Let’s look at the difference between what God said and what Eve said God said:
God said, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17).
Eve said to the Serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die’” (Genesis 2:3).
The point in my post is that Eve understood God’s prohibition as made known by his “word.” She conveyed the prohibition to the Serpent by appealing to God’s word and yet she disobeyed. It's the same for many today. Many people know how to quote (Copy and paste, anyone?), recite, paraphrase, allude to etc. scripture, but it is all useless if we ultimately do not submit to it.

I was not too happy with my initial answer because I didn’t think it through thoroughly, but answered rather in haste. It later dawned on me that the Biblical authors are known for quoting loosely from others and so by our modern standards they aren’t “quoting” directly, but indirectly. Quotes by today’s standards are expected to be verbatim, but one of the principles when reading and interpreting works of antiquity such as the Bible is that we ought not to import our modern standards upon such works, but apply the standards of their time.

The next day I began reading from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology in preparation for Sunday School and by God’s good providence I came across a section that deals with this issue of loose and free quotations. Grudem writes,

The method by which one person quotes the words of another person is a procedure that in large part varies from culture to culture. In contemporary American and British culture we are used to quoting a person’s exact words when we enclose the statement in quotation marks (this is called direct quotation). But when we use indirect quotation (with no quotation marks) we only expect an accurate report of the substance of the statement. Consider this sentence: “Elliot said that he would return from home for supper right away.” The sentence does not quote Elliott directly, but it is an acceptable and truthful report of Elliott’s actual statement to his father, “I will come to the house to eat in two minutes,” even though the indirect quotation included none of the speaker’s original words.
Written Greek at the time of the New Testament had no quotation marks or equivalent kinds of punctuation, and an accurate citation of another person needed to include only a correct representation of the content of what the person said (rather like our indirect quotations): it was not expected to cite each word exactly. Thus, inerrancy is consistent with loose or free quotations of the Old Testament or of the words of Jesus, for example, so long as the content is not false to what was originally stated. The original writer did not ordinarily imply that he was using the exact words of the speaker and only those, nor did the original hearers expect verbatim quotation in such reporting.

Works Cited
Grudem, Wayne A. "The Inerrancy of Scripture." Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000. 92+. Pr