Genesis creation story as inspired mythology

[TedO]

What puzzles me though is the way that YEC's (and others) seem to pick which science to trust. They seem to have no problem getting on an airplane and trusting the science that is behind aeronautical design. It seems to be just science that conflicts with their own interpretation of the Bible that they distrust. Well, all science uses the same methodology. If it works so well in so many areas, why discard it out of hand in others?

....

I don't get this. Many scientists are Christians, yes. I would guess that most of them don't hold to a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story.

A couple of things enter into play here. BTW, I am an engineer, not a scientist, but I have technical training and have been working as a researcher for 17 years.

1) Aeronautics, or other engineering sciences rely very heavily upon experimentation. You can have confidence in the thing you have designed or analyzed by testing it in the conditions you wish to operate it. Science as it relates to creation history is more dicey. Yes, I understand there is much that is testable and such, but in the end you are then taking something in the now and applying to something in the distant past. Assumptions and biases play a huge role in how what we can determine now about geology, fossil records, biology, chemistry is applied to saying what happened then.

2) The second thing is that there are more scientist than you might first think that are YECs. Again, I do not qualify as a scientist (nor do I play one on TV) but I personally know a couple PhD level Chemists who are also YECs.

[Alien]

1) Aeronautics, or other engineering sciences rely very heavily upon experimentation. You can have confidence in the thing you have designed or analyzed by testing it in the conditions you wish to operate it. Science as it relates to creation history is more dicey. Yes, I understand there is much that is testable and such, but in the end you are then taking something in the now and applying to something in the distant past. Assumptions and biases play a huge role in how what we can determine now about geology, fossil records, biology, chemistry is applied to saying what happened then.

Yes, I agree, up to a point. But, even if the details may be subject to disagreement, the scientific evidence for an old earth (and the consensus among scientists in that field) seems to be overwhelming, don't you think?

2) The second thing is that there are more scientist than you might first think that are YECs. Again, I do not qualify as a scientist (nor do I play one on TV) but I personally know a couple PhD level Chemists who are also YECs.

Oh, I don't doubt that there are YEC scientists. As a percentage of all scientists, I'll bet the number is very small. Also, have you heard of any YEC geologists?

[xtreem5150ahm]

Hi. Yeah, I know what you mean.

I'll reply one more time in this thread, as I think we are starting to beat the subject to death.

Health to you, Tony;

Since you are done, i guess there is no need for me to respond to much.

Just a couple..

Once again I'm forced to point out that a myth never pretends to "have it right" in the same sense that science does. Myth contains truth, yes, but the story itself does not have to be factually correct. If I can get just this one point over in this thread, I will be content.

If myth is inspired, as per the OP, then the first question is , "by whom?"... since we (i think) are both claiming God (Holy Spirit), then that question is moot, for our purpose in this discussion.

The next thing to look at, is, if it was inspired by God, is Truth one of His Divine attributes?

If we agree so far, then the order of Creation must be the correct order, even if it is "myth". Since it is a different order that what science "tells" us, then there is only two possibilities:

science is wrong or God is.

There is a third possibility, we misunderstand the translation/interpretation, but the nature of the wording in Genisis (e.g. the ordering of the days), lumps this into one of the first two.
Which you touch on, in your next statement, here:

On the other hand, taking Gen 1 literally, as you do, I agree that we have a choice between accepting what the Bible says and accepting the findings of science. I have to say though that I take issue with "trusting God over science". If you word it that way, of course I and any other Christian would trust God. What you are really saying though, is "trust a particular interpretation of the Bible or trust science", and that is a different thing entirely

.

However, it seems as if Paul understood it literally too...

Scripture Verse:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

I disagree. Do we need the Bible to tell us that the holocaust was sinful? A small child that has yet to learn to read will protest "It's not fair!" when he perceives that he is being wrongly treated. People in other cultures that don't read the Bible have codes of ethics. It's "written on our hearts".

They believe "wrongs" happen, but they do not believe in Sin. They dont believe in Sin, because they dont know it.

Scripture Verse:

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Once more: If it is mythical it doesn't have to be factually correct. Myths are not lies. Myths are stories that convey a message about something. You don't have to believe that Gen 1 is mythical, and I'm not trying to convince you that it is, but please understand what it is you are arguing against.

Respectfully, i do understand. And the reason that i am arguing is because this is a foundational topic.

i've heard many kids (and adults) say words to the effect of, "Why should i believe in your Jesus, when science (evolution and big bang) have proven that your 2000 year old book is just a bunch of fairy tales?"

And now here are Christians that are basically saying that the Bible is fairy tales.

I am not attacking you or anyother Christian.. i'm attacking this concept. And it's a foundational concept.
Also, please note, somewhere at the core of my belief, i do not think a human can argue another to the Faith... that is the work of the Holy Spirit. So you might ask, "why are you arguing then?" The answer is,

Scripture Verse:

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Scripture Verse:

Mat 5:15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

And to paraphrase a parable, i dont want to be the servant that buried that which the Master has entrusted.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Parables are not "true stories", they illustrate a point. Yes, some such stories are more obviously parables than others.

Ok, trying to stay on topic, or atleast not stray too far... When Jesus, telling a parable, said, "there was a man"... i believe that that parable was true about "that man, & what that man did"

But when Jesus said, "Heaven is LIKE..", then He is drawing a parallel.

The difference being, in the Creation account, it is written in a way that begs a literal understanding.

No. The purpose of the story was, if I remember it correctly, to warn against letting curiousity get you into dangerous situations.

So then, the difference between this story and God's is, well, Holy inspiration.

Ok, that's your opinion. I don't see how a belief in the existence of God is at risk in any of this though.

Between Christians, no, probably not. And ultimately, through God's Sovereign hand, i agree. But He has given us responsibility to share the Gospel. And as we humans "water down" His Word, less unbelievers end up taking any of it seriously.
Right now, they dont take anyone who believes in YE serious, but, if it is true, should we back down on our convictions?
NO. They already call us hypocrites (well, we are, but that is more because they dont know Sin), but should we be hypocrites by watering down the foundational Truth, too?

Don't put yourself down, I quit school at the age of 17 (for various reasons) and have no college education. That doesn't make me "a dumb anything" and it doesn't make you one either.

Actually, i wasnt putting myself down. This is just something that i've heard, and something i was "accused of".... as in, "wow, before i got to talk to you, i thought you were just a dumb truck driver". I also got a similar "label" when i drank.... "just another dumb barfly" (that one came from a bartender, college chick that i had been hitting on, over and over.... we never went out, but we did have a chance to talk at a mutual friend's wedding, and that was the reason that she gave for turning me down.. she also included the dumb truck driver thing. When she gave me that answer, i never hit on her again)

Thing is, the point of me calling me a dumb truck driver, is that it is a preconceived idea that people have.... just like weighing the truth/Truth, when discussing science vs. the Bible.

Thanks for sticking up for me though.

What puzzles me though is the way that YEC's (and others) seem to pick which science to trust. They seem to have no problem getting on an airplane and trusting the science that is behind aeronautical design. It seems to be just science that conflicts with their own interpretation of the Bible that they distrust. Well, all science uses the same methodology. If it works so well in so many areas, why discard it out of hand in others?

Flop the meaning of this statement, as to Christians that pick and choose what part of God's Word they discard as myth....

Just so you know, that was not a cut or a dig or an attack at you... but all Christians, myself included.


I think we all do things like this, in various places... i heard of a woman that wanted her Pastor to supply her with Biblical approval to divorce her husband because she was maturing as a Christian faster than him, and she thought he was holding her back....

Turned out, she had met a guy at a Christian retreat (or some such), and had "fallen" in love with the new guy.

Since i dont know, first hand, that that last story is true.... so, that would be a myth (definition #1) , right?

I'm not sure what you are saying here. You do think there is a conspiracy among scientists to deliberately give false information in order to discredit the Bible?

Some, yes... but there is the fallen world aspect, not to mention, a literal Satan and his underlings... No, i am not saying that the scientists are possessed (sp?), but i'm sure they (demons, not scientists) have their hands in any attempt to steer anyone away, that they can... in anyway that they can.

Er, yes, that's what we are talking about. My question would be "how far do I go in rejecting the evidence of my own senses in order to hold on to a particular belief?"

Where does knowledge and wisdom come from?

(Here is the answer that i'm looking for:)

Scripture Verse:

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Scripture Verse:

Pro 2:6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

Well, i responded to much more than i planned. Your responses (or anyone elses) are welcome, but since you did say you were done, i wont be surprised (or feel slighted) if you dont.

You said that you feel that we are beating a dead horse... but why beat a live one? they kick and the animal rights folks are on your back.

God Bless,
johnny

[The Plain Jane]

Between Christians, no, probably not. And ultimately, through God's Sovereign hand, i agree. But He has given us responsibility to share the Gospel. And as we humans "water down" His Word, less unbelievers end up taking any of it seriously.
Right now, they dont take anyone who believes in YE serious, but, if it is true, should we back down on our convictions?
NO. They already call us hypocrites (well, we are, but that is more because they dont know Sin), but should we be hypocrites by watering down the foundational Truth, too?

Where are you getting at with this?

You said that you feel that we are beating a dead horse... but why beat a live one? they kick and the animal rights folks are on your back.

[Alien]

Well, i responded to much more than i planned. Your responses (or anyone elses) are welcome, but since you did say you were done, i wont be surprised (or feel slighted) if you dont.

I'll just answer this one last time to thank you for an interesting and above all respectful discussion. I've enjoyed it. What you said in the last post is interesting, and I'm tempted to continue, but I'm not sure I can say anything that I haven't already said. Perhaps we will meet again in another thread.

I respect your opinions, though I may not share them. I hope you will agree that nothing here prevents us seeing each other as a brothers in Christ; I certainly see you that way.

You said that you feel that we are beating a dead horse... but why beat a live one? they kick and the animal rights folks are on your back.

I would certainly never beat a horse, live or dead, though I do ride, and they can sometimes be exasperating!

God Bless,
johnny

And you.
Tony

[xtreem5150ahm]

Where are you getting at with this?

HI Jane,

I am assuming that Tony meant it doesnt really matter whether we take Gen. 1- 11 literal or figuative, when he said that he didnt see how belief in God was at risk.

And i was trying to point out that the bottom line is belief in the Savior, so between 2 Christians on each side of the fence, no, it doesnt matter so much, since both are saved, and it wasnt the literalness of Gen. that Saved them (us).

Then i was also trying to point out that ultimately, God will not allow belief in Him to totally go away (in the world).


I was basically explaining where i agreed with Tony. The next part is where i felt the risk is:

.

But He has given us responsibility to share the Gospel. And as we humans "water down" His Word, less unbelievers end up taking any of it seriously.
Right now, they dont take anyone who believes in YE serious, but, if it is true, should we back down on our convictions?
NO. They already call us hypocrites (well, we are, but that is more because they dont know Sin), but should we be hypocrites by watering down the foundational Truth, too?

When Christians see the conflict between what science says, and what God says, many seem to try to soften the difference, in order to "fulfill" the responsibility of sharing the Gospel.... thinking, "well, the bottom line is that the unbeliever becomes Saved".

By doing this, they (we) think that it is helping... in the case of this topic, saying to the unbeliever, "well, that part is myth....it's not really important , but believe that Jesus died for your Sins... that's what is important". From a believers POV, that thought is basically true.

BUT...

The unbeliever hears, "you dont trust your bible when it talks plainly about origins, why should i trust the same bible, when it talks about some dude that may or may not have lived, died and lived again? Why should i believe in sin, when i dont even really know what Sin is?" then the unbeliever goes on to basically say, " ... so that compromising Christian is really just a hypocrite.. he/she doesnt even believe what he/she is telling ME to believe".

***the letters were bolded to show that the capitalizition or lack of, was intentional***


In a nutshell, that is what i have run across many times, on a different forum site, that is mainly populated by non-believers.


Now, where you ask, "Where are you getting at with this?", in:

They already call us hypocrites (well, we are, but that is more because they dont know Sin), but should we be hypocrites by watering down the foundational Truth, too?

Have you ever heard something like, "why should i go to church, it's full of hypocrites? " ? (how do you quote a question in a question?... sorry)

Unfortunately, we are hypocrites.
Jesus taught, "Love your neighbor".... do Christians ALWAYS love neighbor?
Jesus said, "Love God with all your heart, mind and soul"... As a sinful human, is that possible?... if it is, then what is the need for the Christ?

Sinful nature answers these, but because an unbeliever only see what is taught and how the Christian lives.. and doesnt know Sin, then they respond, "Hypocrite!!"

But, i was asking, should we (as Christians) be even greater hypocrites, by watering down the foundational Truth, because the bottom line is, Christ paid the penalty for our Sins.

I say, NO, we should stand on the foundation of the Truth, as well as fall at the feet of our Savior.



i hope this helped clear it up.

God Bless,
johnny

[xtreem5150ahm]

..... to thank you for an interesting and above all respectful discussion. I've enjoyed it. ...Perhaps we will meet again in another thread.

I respect your opinions, though I may not share them. I hope you will agree that nothing here prevents us seeing each other as a brothers in Christ; I certainly see you that way.

Ditto

.... errr, wait, were both male

just kidding.


In Christ,
johnny

[TedO]

Yes, I agree, up to a point. But, even if the details may be subject to disagreement, the scientific evidence for an old earth (and the consensus among scientists in that field) seems to be overwhelming, don't you think?

Perhaps, but there is also significant evidence for catastrophic formation of many features we see today. Catastrophy can make huge changes in a very short time, and when a uniformitarian assumption is applied to these features you "see" an old earth that really isn't that old.

Oh, I don't doubt that there are YEC scientists. As a percentage of all scientists, I'll bet the number is very small. Also, have you heard of any YEC geologists?

Very small? Perhaps - just remember that truth is not determined by popular vote.

Here is a list of geologists (and others) associated with ICR:
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci/

AIG has a list too, some are repeats of the ICR list and many more. Unfortunately it is not categorized by discipline.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

Note - I commend everyone for a good discussion without the normal immature responses and such.

[TedO]

*catastrophe*

[Alien]

Note - I commend everyone for a good discussion without the normal immature responses and such.

Thanks, and yes I agree, this has been a very "mature" thread. Rare on these subjects, unfortunately.

I originally responded on the subject of mythology, and as you may have noted, I've said all I want to on that subject. As far as evidence for old/young earth views is concerned, I'm no expert on that subject and I'll leave it to anyone who is to engage you on it. I read your points and the links with interest, however. Thank you.

[The Plain Jane]

Thanks, and yes I agree, this has been a very "mature" thread. Rare on these subjects, unfortunately.

Indeed.

[Marshall Janzen]

This thread seems too good to let die, and since I just came across it, I'll try to further the conversation.

But, what simple truth is being conveyed by "evening and morning, day X, if it does not simply mean literal days?

And why would an enumeration of days be in the account, if it were not meant to mean literal days?

Why would there be an enumeration of bowls in an account, if they were not meant to be literal bowls? See Revelation 16. Do you think God's wrath will literally be stored in and then poured out of seven literal bowls? If not, is it hard to imagine that God could inspire a similar kind of account (with seven items neatly divided with a repeated refrain) to describe both the earth's creation and its (at least partial) uncreation?

How does that order jive with the Big Bang/Evolutionary order???

Answer, it doesnt.

So, what we have here is, either God's Word is false or BigBang/Evolution/long ages being false.

If it were that both were true, then the order would atleast be the same.

Let's try a thought experiment. Look at the order of Jesus' temptation in Matthew. Now, look at the order in Luke. How well do they jibe? Would you say that what we have here is, either God's word in Matthew is false, or God's word in Luke is false? Or, can you see how there may be other reasons aside from strict chronology behind at least one of the author's orders of Jesus' temptation?

According to God's Word, He created Adam. I realize that 'Adam' COULD mean 'man-kind',..... BUT, if it meant (billions of years of) man-kind, then why does God's Word say,:

Scripture Verse:

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

and:

Scripture Verse:

Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

If Adam is only a literal individual, why does Genesis 5:2 say that the first humans (more than one) were called Adam by God? It seems that in that verse, Adam is more than an individual, while in a later verse (Genesis 5:5) it may be referring to an individual. The issue is not clear-cut: interpretation is necessary.

About the definition of "myth" being used in this thread:

the reason that i include 5 is that in #1 it says:
"with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation"

which is pretty close to:
"an unproved or false collective belief ".

I think you misunderstood the first definition ("a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature"). If I said that poetry is "metrical writing with or without a determinable rhyme scheme", this is not pretty close to "metrical writing without rhyme". Do you see why?

Now, look back at the first definition of "myth". Neither being historical nor being ahistorical disqualifies something from being a myth in this sense. Someone can believe Genesis 2-3 has a basis in history while still believing it is a myth. Someone can believe that Genesis 1 is largely ahistorical in that it encompasses God's ongoing work in creation into a template of a week and still believe it is a myth.

And now here are Christians that are basically saying that the Bible is fairy tales.

No, we have some Christians missing the difference between a myth (as defined earlier) and a fairytale.

And as we humans "water down" His Word, less unbelievers end up taking any of it seriously.

If Adam represents humanity, then claiming he is just a literal, historical, long-dead ancestor is watering down the Eden account. If the serpent represents Satan, then claiming it is just a literal snake is watering down the Eden account. If the tree of life represents God's sustaining, life-giving power, then claiming it is just a magic tree God had to prevent the humans from eating from is watering down the Eden account (and also watering down Revelation, where the tree shows up again). Further, if all these things are true, then a literal view of the account with talking snakes and magic trees and humans judged for actions before knowing right from wrong makes the story into a caricature that is hard for anyone to take seriously.

Flop the meaning of this statement, as to Christians that pick and choose what part of God's Word they discard as myth....

Note that in this thread, the only ones who view a mythical interpretation as a way to discard Scripture are those who disagree with that interpretation.

[Marshall Janzen]

Imho, Christians don't believe a literal Genesis because they don't want the get mocked.

That has not been my experience. The mocking and verbal attacks I have faced about origins theology has come since I accepted TE, and mainly from fellow Christians. As long as I was a YEC, I was following the status quo in the circles I am part of. I don't have many friends in scientific fields, so mockery from them has never been an issue, regardless of my creation perspective. I did not change my view to either escape mockery or seek it out, but rather to follow the truth as best I could.

When Jesus spoke in parables, He made sure everyone knew: “The kingdom of heaven is like."

From later posts, I think you realize this exaggerates the ease in discerning what is a parable. If not, I'm open to discussing this further.

I never said God only speaks in a straightforward way. All I'm saying is science, which is conducted by falliable men, shouldn't be on par with Scripture.

No, science isn't on par with Scripture. Science is on par with theology (both human interpretations of God's truth), and God's revelation in creation is on par with God's revelation in Scripture. Comparing science with Scripture or creation with theology makes a category error.

But when Christ Himself quotes Genesis and Jonah as if they are actual events, I suggest we lend an ear lest Jesus say "Why didn't you believe Me," at the Judgement Seat of Christ.

Jesus quotes from the books of Genesis and Jonah. The "as if they are actual events" could be substituted with "as if they are symbolic events" with no change in accuracy. He quotes them as if they are actual Scripture, which we all agree they are.

The Spirit would not lead some Christians to one intrepretation and some to another. [...] The Spirit is certainly leading some of us in truth and some of us just think He is.

Yet Christians don't agree, and this disagreement affects far more than merely origins theology. I don't think it's helpful to resolve an issue by claiming that the Spirit is leading oneself and not those who disagree. (I realize you haven't explicitly done this.)

I don't think a symbolic view and a literal view can both be correct.

When it comes to Genesis 1:1-2:3 or Genesis 2:4-3:24, I agree. I can't see how a literal interpretation can be reconciled with creation itself and so I do not believe it is correct. There are other passages where a literal interpretation seems quite evident to me from all portions of God's revelation I've seen, and yet these passages may also have symbolic meaning (such as Hagar and Sarah).

God is bound to His word. Therefore we are to study His word, not science, to come to what God really has to say. If God never met for Genesis to be literal, He certainly mislead His people for a long time. Misleading people with His word is against God's nature, because God is bound to His word.

Creation is the product of God's word even more directly than Scripture. Unlike Scripture, creation did not come about through a mystical partnership between humans and God, but rather was ultimately the result of God's word alone. Science is the study of some of God's work, regardless of whether a particular scientist views nature this way. God's word for us through inspired authors and his word made works are both truthful. As such, it is improper to create a dichotomy between the accuracy of creation and Scripture. In our interpretation of both (through science and theology) we must allow for error.

There is another difference between Scripture and nature. Interpretations of nature may be wrong, and nature can be used symbolically, but in and of itself the revelation of nature is entirely factual and literal. It does not have the flexibility of literature to be figurative. If we are tempted to hold to a figurative interpretation of nature in order to jibe it with a literal interpretation of a passage of Scripture, we have entered the Matrix and left reality.

Well, we see the first promise of the Messiah immediately after Adam and Eve sinned. And we see the promises of Jesus from then on out all throughout the Old Testament. As He said "These testify of Me."

In order to see a promise of the Messiah in Genesis 3:15, it is necessary to use a symbolic interpretation: seeing the snake as more than a snake, for instance. I believe that same style of interpretation should be used for the rest of the account. This does not make the account non-historical (any more than Ezekiel 16 is non-historical), but it means it is presenting history in a different form than plain literal prose.

[Alien]

Mercury,

You are explaining this very well. If you have read all through the thread, you will have noted that I have been trying to get one thing over, above all, and that is the true meaning of "myth" and how it differs from "fairy stories" in the derogative sense of "just fiction". I'm not sure how much success I've had, some I think. I quit when I realised that I was just repeating myself, and that's fine, no one has to believe any particular interpretation of the Bible and I would be the last to try to force others to accept my own viewpoint.

Anyway, good luck with getting this over. I'll continue to follow the thread from the sidelines, unless I feel particularly pressed to jump in.

As an aside, I suspect this whole thing relates to another question that I rarely see discussed, as many seem to treat it as a given. That is, exactly what do we mean by "inspired", "God breathed", "Word of God" and so on? There is actually a whole spectrum of meanings that are used from "literally dictated word for word by God" at one end to "the thoughts and experiences of godly people" at the other. As with "mythology", we are going to be talking past each other if we don't establish what meaning we are each using before debating the implications.

[The Plain Jane]

Why would there be an enumeration of bowls in an account, if they were not meant to be literal bowls? See Revelation 16. Do you think God's wrath will literally be stored in and then poured out of seven literal bowls? If not, is it hard to imagine that God could inspire a similar kind of account (with seven items neatly divided with a repeated refrain) to describe both the earth's creation and its (at least partial) uncreation?

Just because the bowls are symbolic, doesn't mean that Genesis is symbolic. We know Revelation is symbolic because of John was writing under persucution and couldn't just come right out and say what he needed to say. Revelation was in code. Genesis, there is no historical evidnece to say it was written in code. The only evidence, to my knowledge, we have that Genesis is symbolic/inspired myth is science.

Let's try a thought experiment. Look at the order of Jesus' temptation in Matthew. Now, look at the order in Luke. How well do they jibe? Would you say that what we have here is, either God's word in Matthew is false, or God's word in Luke is false? Or, can you see how there may be other reasons aside from strict chronology behind at least one of the author's orders of Jesus' temptation?

It's called harmonizing the Gospels. This has nothing to do with Genesis.

If Adam is only a literal individual, why does Genesis 5:2 say that the first humans (more than one) were called Adam by God? It seems that in that verse, Adam is more than an individual, while in a later verse (Genesis 5:5) it may be referring to an individual. The issue is not clear-cut: interpretation is necessary.

Genesis 5:2

2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.

What translation did you use? The KJV is faulty.

If Adam represents humanity, then claiming he is just a literal, historical, long-dead ancestor is watering down the Eden account. If the serpent represents Satan, then claiming it is just a literal snake is watering down the Eden account. If the tree of life represents God's sustaining, life-giving power, then claiming it is just a magic tree God had to prevent the humans from eating from is watering down the Eden account (and also watering down Revelation, where the tree shows up again). Further, if all these things are true, then a literal view of the account with talking snakes and magic trees and humans judged for actions before knowing right from wrong makes the story into a caricature that is hard for anyone to take seriously.

I don't know the rebuttle to this one.

Note that in this thread, the only ones who view a mythical interpretation as a way to discard Scripture are those who disagree with that interpretation.

I disagree with the interpretation, and I never said that Alien and others discard Genesis.