One small pushback. I hear what you are saying about the mythic or even mythical message of the Genesis creation narrative. But to say it makes no claims as to historicity raises some very awkward questions, as surely key sections of later texts do assume its historicity. Paul, for example, develops a theology of being in Adam or in Christ. If the Genesis creation narratives are not true historically (as in, Adam was not the first human being), then surely Paul’s theology falls flat, don’t you think? Likewise the genelogies, clearly in historical sections of scripture, would have the veracity questioned…and the string would keep on unravelling.

Therefore, although I share with you a mythic interpretation of the creation narratives, they must be in substance also in some way historical.

I really agree with you statement here, and in the next comment about the city being like, but also unlike the garden. i don’t think we can necessarily read back from the city to the garden. I would also add that one thing has changed is human. Adam and the new man, in his resurrection body, are different. God has done something even better, through the sinfulness of human being. Amazing.

So in other words, we can’t really safely infer back from the City-Garden to the original garden.

BTW this is mostly from a brilliant book by G K Beale (The Temple and the Church’s Mission)

I find Gen 2-4 one of the most interesting passages in the entire bible. Its a fascinating and incredibly complex text, which seems to defy most analysis…to me, there is clearly a “mythic” slant to the entire text…yet I believe its veracity to be beyond question. As you say, to literally read it is often to miss the point entirely. Yet to dismiss is mythology or parable is I believe an equal mistake.

For me the story of Gen 1-3 is about God’s original intention, regardless of how literal the story is. It connects with our longings, which should propel us forward (rather than back) to the hope of the new Jerusalem.

I really liked your story and think you captured the essence of the Genesis 2-3 narrative really well, especially for a four year old!

As a small aside, I do wonder if we go too far when we ascribe perfection to the Edenic State. I’ve heard someone say once that in the garden of Eden you couldn’t even stub your toe!

But this calls into question the nature of free will in the garden, or the reality of the environment lived in. I just can’t see why it would be impossible to stub your toe before sin entered into the world. Likewise, I’m not sure I see the connection between sin entering the world, and something breaking.

So I wonder if the garden was “very good” without being “perfect”. Perhaps if you tripped on a rock in Eden an angel would attend and steady you, as the Psalms themselves promise for a fallen world, let alone a pre-fall world.

Anyway, not really anything to do with your main point, just I started thinking about this when I read the story.

BTW I agree, disputes about days, dinosaurs, and even design can miss the point entirely with these ancient (true) stories.

never give kids too much info, lol, now if only God had thought of that and not mentioned the tree they couldn’t eat