John, in regard to your statement:
“Suppose, in keeping with Andrew’s Principle 2, the emerging church were to acknowledge what is most likely the case; namely, that Genesis 1-3 are myths in the usual sense of the term: works of individual or collective imagination, speculative attempts to explain mysteries in the absence of adequate information.”

I like what you have to say, but I wonder if the emerging church perspective should even be approached as you suggest. In other words, to decipher what is factual or nonfactual in regard to Genesis 1-3 seems more of a modernist experiment, whereas the emphasis on narrative apart from ‘claim’ investigation is more post.

I suppose an example might be in hearing one of Jesus’ parables, the recipients probably didn’t question if the parable was true in a factual sense, but rather, the questions were about how the parable is to be understood. the discussion is still about truth… but the supposition derives from a different framework.

just some thoughts…

vapor