Editor’s note:  The following is a recent answer to a question from an on-line
class I have been teaching from the book Is There a God?  The response from
John Laing was so good, I thought I would share it with users of the EFC web
site.

What is your argument for how we should interpret this central chapter in the
Bible? In evaluating this question, I believe it is helpful to provide an overview
of the range of the most prominent positions as it relates to Genesis, evolution,
etc. SPECTRUM OF CREATION BELIEFS From Flat Earthism to Atheist Evolutionism This Spectrum
shows some of these differences between major types of creationism. Beliefs
in the table are listed from most conservative to most liberal biblical interpretati
ons.

Type of Creationism
???????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????? Allows for Faith?
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Literal Reading of Genesis?
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Allows for Evolution?
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

1
???????????????
???????????????
??????????????? Flat Earth
???????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? No
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

2
???????????????
???????????????
??????????????? Geocentrist
???????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? No
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

3
???????????????
???????????????
??????????????? Young Earth Creationism
???????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? No
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

4
???????????????
???????????????
??????????????? Old Earth Creationism
???????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Longer Timeline
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Varies
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

4a
???????????????
???????????????
??????????????? Gap Creationism
???????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Longer w/ with Gaps
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? No
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

4b
???????????????
???????????????
??????????????? Day-Age Creationism
???????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Longer Days
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? No
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

4c
???????????????
???????????????
??????????????? Progressive Creationism
???????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Longer + Interventions
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Microevolution
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

4d
???????????????
???????????????
??????????????? Intelligent Design
???????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Longer + Interventions
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Microevolution
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

5
???????????????
???????????????
??????????????? Theistic Evolution
???????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Varies
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

5a
???????????????
???????????????
??????????????? Evolutionary Creationism
??????????????? ???????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Outside Normal Time
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

5b
???????????????
???????????????
??????????????? Theistic Evolution
???????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? No
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

6
???????????????
???????????????
??????????????? Deistic Evolution
???????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????? Maybe
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? No
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

7
???????????????
???????????????
??????????????? Agnostic Evolution
???????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????? Maybe
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? No
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

8
???????????????
???????????????
??????????????? Atheistic Evolution
???????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????? No
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? No
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Source: http://www.allviewpoints.org/RESOURCES/EVOLUTION/spectrum.htm

More detailed descriptions of each perspective are provided at The_Creation/Evolution_Continuum
website. Categories 1-3 represent "Young Earth Creationism" (YEC). It is recognized
that position # 3 is the most prominent of this broad category. Because of
the incompatibility of these positions with modern scientific evidence, I do
not consider any of them to be viable. For any of these positions to be valid,
it would be necessary that God created the universe, the earth, and living organisms
in a deceptive manner. Such a conclusion is inconsistent with the character of God as
reflected in the scriptures. Accordingly, the varying levels of literal interpretation
reflected by YEC positions 1-3 are considered to be incompatible with God?s
general revelation. Consequently, they are categorically rejected.

2

Positions 6-8 are incompatible with a Christian worldview as they fail to recognize
the role of Yahweh in creation. Accordingly, these positions are also categorically
rejected. The remaining possibili
ties fall under the broad categories of "Old
Earth Creationism" (# 4) and "Theistic Evolution" (# 5). It is recognized that
there may be some variation in the definitions among proponents of the various
views reflected in the table on the previous page. Nevertheless, these general
categories are considered to be valuable for the purpose of evaluating the various
positions held by those who maintain a Christian worldview and also accept the
general age of the earth to be approximately 4.6 billion years (consistent with
prevailing scientific evidence).

As reflected in the table, one of the characteristics that distinguishes category
# 4 from category # 5 is the issue of Macroevolution. Personally, I had never
considered category # 5 until I read The Language of God. The book includes
compelling evidence from the Human Genome Project for Common Descent. I consider both
general revelation (nature) as well as special revelation (scripture) to be
from God. Accordingly, it seems logical to develop hermeneutical principles
for interpreting the special revelation that recognizes the extensive general revelation
that has been provided over that last 13.7 +/- billion years. In evaluating
the various perspectives within the broad category of "Old Earth Creationism"
(# 4), it is noted that Intelligent Design (ID) is more of a scientific philosophy
than a specific perspective on the interpretation of Genesis. While it is similar
to Progressive Creationism in terms of its implications regarding evolution,
it does not address hermeneutics. The remaining perspectives (4a, 4b & 4c) are
considered below. 4a) Gap Creationism ? Gap Creationism?also known as Gap Theory,
Restitution Creationism, and Ruin-Resurrection Creationism, Gap Creationism?
represents an efforts to bring science and religion together by looking between
?the lines of Genesis to see where geologic (but not evolutionary) science might fit. 4b)
Day-Age Creationism ? Day-Age Creationists believe that the days of Genesis
are not 24-hour days and can be read more accurately as years (thousands, millions
or billions of years). This is considered a more liberal interpretation of Genesis because
of this change in the length of the days of creation; however, Day-Age Creationists
are not necessarily any more receptive to evolution. 4c) Progressive Creationism
– This is a somewhat liberal interpretation of Genesis that allows billions of
years for cosmic evolution, including the Big Bang. Progressive Creationists
also allows some roll for natural development of life forms (microevolution),
but only after God has stepped in to create the major species at various points
in time?culminating with the creation of man.

After considering these views, I am convinced that the Literary Framework View
provides the best harmony between God?s general and special revelations. A book
entitled Across the Spectrum surveyed a number of controversial issues relevant
to Evangelical Christianity. One chapter addressed the issue of "The Genesis
Debate". The following excerpt provides the rationale behind the "Literary Framework
View".
?

"Young earth creationists try to force modern science into a literal reading
of Genesis 1. Day-age theorists try to fit Genesis 1 into modern science. Proponents
of the restoration view try to have their cake and eat it too by inserting a
speculative gap between verses 1 and 2 of this chapter. All three views
?

3
?

are fundamentally misguided and are rooted in contradictory opinions about the
meaning and significance of various words and phrases in Genesis 1 (e.g., "day,"
"formless void"). None of them have seriously considered the more fundamental
question concerning the kind of literature we are dealing with in Genesis 1. More specifically,
young earth creationists, day-age theorists, and restorationists (Gap theorists)
all assume that the author of this passage was centrally concerned with providing
his audience with a literal chronology of how creation came about-though they
disagree over the length and nature of this chronology. The literary framework
view is that the biblical author was interested in nothing of the sort. The
discussion surrounding the seven days of creation was not meant to satisfy a quasi-scientific
curiosity about the order of creation. Rather, it provided a literary framework
within which the author could effectively express the Hebraic conviction that
one God created the world by bringing order out of chaos. He was interested
in thematic rather than chronological organization. We can appreciate the thematic
organization of this chapter best if we step back from the various issues related
to particular terms and look at the structure of the chapter as a whole. The first
verse (1:1) functions as a general introductory statement. The second verse
(1:2) sets forth a problem that the rest of the chapter is going to solve. The
problem is one with which ancient Near Eastern people would have been familiar:
The world is engulfed in a primordial chaos. More specifically, the earth is
enveloped in "darkness," covered by "the deep," and in a state that is "formless"
and "void" (tohu wabohu).The author’s goal was to show how Yahweh solved each
of these problems and thus succeeded in bringing order out of chaos. The creation
week is divided into two groups of three days (days 1-3 and 4-6) with the seventh
day acting as a capstone. Within each three-day grouping, four creative acts
of God are identified by the phrase "Let there be . . ." Most significantly, the creative
acts in the second group mirror the creative acts in the first group. That is,
day four mirrors day one; day five mirrors day two; and day six mirrors day
three. The first set of three days addresses the problems of the darkness, the
deep, and the formlessness of the earth as spelled out in 1:2. God addresses
these problems by creating spaces within which things may exist. The second
set of three days addresses the voidness problem of 1:2. God solves this problem
by creating things to fill the spaces he created in the first three days. More
specifically, on day one God created light (which addressed the darkness problem)
and separated it from the darkness (1:3-5). On day two God created the heavens
(which addressed the watery abyss problem) and used it to separate the waters
above from the waters below (1:6-8). On day three God created dry land and vegetation
(addressing the formless earth problem) and separated the earth from the waters be
low (1:9-13). Thus, by the end of day three the first three problems had been
addressed: darkness, water, formlessness. The second set of three days addresses
the final problem of voidness-the lack of things to fill the spaces God has
created. This is how the second set mirrors the first set of days. Day four
fills the space created on day one. Day five fills the space created on day
two. And day six fills the space created on day three.

More specifically, on day four God creates the lights to fill the skies that
he created on day one (1:14-19). On day five God creates fish and birds to fill
the water and air that he created on day two (1:20-23). And
?

4
?

on day six God creates animals and humans to fill the dry land that he created
on day three (1:24-31). On day seven God rested from his labor, celebrating
the goodness of creation (2: 1-4). The f
ollowing charts summarize the findings.
(2nd chart obtained from another source)

produce form by separation
???????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????? fill each form
???????????????????????????????

1

???????????????
??????????????? separating day and night
???????????????
???????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????? 4
???????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????? sun and moon for day and night
???????????????????????????????????????????????

2

???????????????
??????????????? separating sky and sea
???????????????
???????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????? 5
???????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????? sky animals, sea animals
???????????????????????????????????????????????

3

???????????????
??????????????? separating land and sea, land plants are created
???????????????
???????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????? 6
???????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????? land animals and humans, plants are used for food
???????????????????????????????????????????????

Source: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/fw.htm Genesis 1 is thematically
and logically organized and expresses how the Creator solves the problems he
needs to solve in order to bring creation out of chaos. Therefore, we have every
reason to suppose that the succession of days was not meant to refer to a chronological
succession but to a logical, thematic, and literary succession.

In this respect, Genesis 1 is not exceptional. Though it may strike modern historically
minded people as odd, biblical authors frequently emphasized thematic unity
over historical exactitude. For example, it is a well-known fact that some Gospel
authors grouped Jesus’ sayings and deeds by theme rather than by the order in
which they occurred historically. As a result, the order of events in the Gospels
differs considerably, just as the order of events in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2
differ significantly. This would be of concern only if the authors intended
to provide an exact account of how things happened historically. If their concern
was more thematic, as we suggest, then the contradictions are inconsequential." 1 While this book
does not specifically address "Progressive Creationism" (as advocated by such
apologists as Hugh Ross, etc.), the comments are still applicable as the chronology
and "day" = "era" assumptions are comparable to those associated with "Day-Age Creat
ionism". In view of these observations, I consider the "Literary Framework View"
to be the preferred basis for interpreting Genesis 1.
?

1 Gregory A. Boyd & Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2002), 67-69
?

Before concluding this analysis, some discussion of the issue of "myth" as it
relates to the book of Genesis seems appropriate. An excellent book addressing
this topic is Inspiration and Incarnation. Some relevant excerpts are provided
on the following pages.

5
?

"The degree to which Genesis and Enuma Elish are truly parallel is a debated
point, but some of the more agreed upon similarities are the following:

1) The sequence of the days of creation is similar, including the creation of
the firmament, dry land, luminaries, and humanity, followed by rest.
2) Darkness precedes the creative acts.
3) There is a division of the waters (waters above and below the firmament).
4) Light exists before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars.

?

However different the two stories may be, they unquestionably share a common
way of speaking about the beginning of the world; both Genesis and Enuma Elish
"breathe the same air." Whether or not the author of Genesis was familiar with
the text known to us as Enuma Elish, he was certainly working within a similar
conceptual world. So, as unwise as it is to equate the two, it is also ill advised
to make such a sharp distinction between them that the clear similarities are
brushed aside. The Genesis account must be understood in its ancient context,
and stories like Enuma Elish help us glimpse what that context looked like.
One could suggest that the purpose of Genesis was to contrast such ancient Near
Eastern stories as Enuma Elish. The God of Genesis simply speaks things into being.
It is reasonable to suggest that the Genesis story is meant to be contrasted
to the reigning Babylonian ideology; that is, one could argue that an important
purpose of the Genesis story is to argue that the God of Israel is truly mighty
and that he is solely and fully in control of the cosmos. His creation of the
world is an act of his will, not the result of a power struggle within a dysfunctional
divine family. We must remember that such a contrast can be fully appreciated
only when we first acknowledge that the Genesis story is firmly rooted in the
worldview of its time. My intention is not to argue precisely where and how
the Akkadian texts-Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, and Gilgamesh-parallel the biblical
accounts. This is done too often, and it is typically done on the basis of an
assumption that I very much call into question, namely, that the more Genesis
looks like the Akkadian texts, the less inspired it is. Critical scholars tend
to augment the similarities, even going beyond what has been warranted, and draw
the general conclusion that Genesis is fundamentally no different from other
ancient stories. On the other hand, conservative Christian scholars, particularly
early on, have tended to employ a strategy of selective engagement of the evidence:
highlighting extra-biblical evidence that conforms to or supports traditional
views of the Bible, while either ignoring, downplaying, or arguing against evidence
to the contrary. Regardless, both sides of the debate recognize that there is some
relationship between the Akkadian texts and their biblical counterparts. If
we can properly define the nature of that relationship, debates about the implications
of that relationship will fall into place. The problem raised by these Akkadian text
s is whether the biblical stories are historical: how can we say logically that
the biblical stories are true and the Akkadian stories are false when they both
look so very much alike? It is a common position among many modern scholars
and biblically educated people that the ancient Near Eastern creation and flood stories
are myth. This has led to the suggestion that the biblical story of creation
is every bit as fanciful and unhistorical as the ancient Near Eastern stories.

Christians recoil from any suggestion that Genesis is in any way embedded in
the mythologies of the ancient world. On one level this is understandable. After
all, if the Bible and the gospel are true, and if that truth is bound up with
historical events, you can’t have the beginning of the Bible get it so wrong.
It is important to understand, however, that not all historians of the ancient
Near East use the word myth simply as shorthand for "untrue," "made-up," "storybook."
It may include these ideas fo
r some, but many who use the term are trying to
get at something deeper. A more generous way of defining myth is that it
?

6
?

is "an ancient, pre-modern, pre-scientific way of addressing questions of ultimate
origins and meaning in the form of stories: Who are we? Where do we come from?"
Ancient peoples were not concerned to describe the universe in scientific terms.
In fact, to put the matter more strongly: scientific investigation was not at
the disposal of ancient Near Eastern peoples. The scientific world in which
we live and that we take so much for granted was inconceivable to ancient Mesopotamians.
But ancient peoples, perhaps more contemplative than we are today, owing to the
simplicity and rigor of their lives, wonder how it is that things are the way
they are. Where does the sun go at night-or how did it get up there to begin
with, and what keeps it from falling down like everything else does that gets
tossed up in the air? Why are there seasons? Why does the moon move across the
sky? Where does rain come from, and why does it seem to not be there when we
need it most? Why do things grow out of the ground? Why do some animals feed
off others? How did all we see around us begin? Of course, not everyone went
through this questioning process, but they lived within traditions that had
already provided some answers. Ancient peoples composed lengthy stories to address
these types of questions, and on some level the cause was attributed to unknown,
powerful figures. It is impossible to know when the stories of the gods arose,
but they did. I like to think that the imprint of God is so strong on his creation
that, even apart from any knowledge of the true God, ancient peoples just knew
that how and why they were here can be explained only by looking outside themselves.
So, stories were made up that aimed at answering questions of ultimate meaning.
And one way of getting at these kinds of questions was by telling stories about
the creation. But this leads to a big problem for Christians today and their
Bible. If the ancient Near Eastern stories are myth (defined in this way as
pre-scientific stories of origins), and since the biblical stories are similar
enough to these stories to invite comparison, does this indicate that myth is
the proper category for understanding Genesis? Before the discovery of the Akkadian
stories, one could quite safely steer clear of such a question, but this is no
longer the case. We live in a modem world where we have certain expectations
of how the world works. We neither understand the ancient ways-nor feel that
we need to. To give a hint of where this discussion is going, it is worth asking
what standards we can reasonably expect of the Bible, seeing that it is an ancient
Near Eastern document and not a modem one. Are the early stories in the Old
Testament to be judged on the basis of standards of modem historical inquiry
and scientific precision, things that ancient peoples were not at all aware of? Is it
not likely that God would have allowed his word to come to the ancient Israelites
according to standards they understood, or are modem standards of truth and
error so universal that we should expect pre-modern cultures to have understood
them? The former position is, I feel, better suited for solving the problem.
The latter is often an implicit assumption of modem thinkers, both conservative
and liberal Christians, but it is somewhat myopic and should be called into
question. What the Bible is must be understood in light of the cultural context
in which it was given. The parallels between the opening chapters of Genesis
and Enuma Elish and Atrahasis/Gilgamesh raise the issue whether there is myth in
?the Old Testament. This has certainly been a pressing issue among evangelicals,
for, if Genesis is myth, it seems to bring the Bible down to the level of other
ancient literature.

Taking the extra biblical evidence into account, I question how much value there
is in posing the choice of Genesis as either myth or history. This distinction
seems to be a modern invention. It presupposes-
?

7
?