Is the Genesis story of creation and fall a myth?

Here, dear reader, continues the conversation of Mr. A and Ms. B first begun at "Do Christians need a historical Adam and Eve? (Part 1)":

Mr. A: So to sum up our conversation thus far, you're saying that Genesis 1-3 could be a myth that God appropriated as part of his divine revelation.

Ms. B: Emphasis on could be, so long as you recognize that "myth" here does not mean "not true" but rather true in the way that myths are true.

Mr. A: Hrumph. Sounds like double talk to me. How are myths true?

Ms. B: Imagine you're telling one of Aesop's fables to some children, perhaps "The Tortoise and the Hare." After you finish one child looks at you quizzically and asks whether the story really is true. When he asks that he is really asking whether the story happened just as it was narrated. And of course the answer is no, it didn't. But that doesn't answer the question of whether it is true. Indeed it is, for it illustrates the principle "slow and steady wins the race" and that is a true principle indeed.

Mr. A: So you're saying the account of creation and fall in Genesis should be understood as a fable?

Ms. B: A myth, like a fable, uses vivid story to communicate universal truths. I'm saying that Genesis creation-fall could be this kind of literature which teaches important truths. Remember I made the point that there is no risk-free interpretive position. Thus, if the creation-fall account is indeed mythic then to interpret it as literal is to do it a grave disservice.

Mr. A: We all know the moral of "The Tortoise and the Hare." But what do you propose is the moral of the Genesis creation-fall?

Ms. B: Well first off, it is just very naïve to think that people living three thousand years ago in a culture and with a language vastly different than our own asked the same questions and sought the same answers that we do. They didn't. Unfortunately we often suffer under the illusion that our reading of texts as literal narrations is a universal default position. As a result, today many people are like that little boy, thinking that stories are only truth bearers if they communicate what literally happened.

Mr. A: Aren't you just stepping back from a literal reading because science has forced you to?

Ms. B: No, but even if that were true, so what? Science may have yielded insight into how a text is properly read. Still, the real issue is that this is false. It is a staggering anachronism to think that ancient near eastern cosmogonic creation narratives muts be read like a newspaper article or perhaps a report in "Nature". It is also important to observe the diversity of ways the texts were read in the Christian tradition. Try reading Augustine's sixteen hundred year old "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis" for starters and you'll see I offer no new innovation here.

Mr. A: So basically you're saying that the ancient Hebrews were not asking the questions of the contemporary physicist, geologist or biologist.

Ms. B: That's correct. When they told a story like Genesis creation-fall it would have been concerned primarily with establishing a sense of God's sovereignty over creation as well as the universal estrangement of creation that we recognize as suffering and sin. In order to communicate these truths, the text narrates a vivid story.

To get a sense of how ridiculous literalists look at this point, imagine two hermeneutically challenged biology students who read poet Robert Burns' claim that "My love is like a red, red rose". One rejects the text by averring that love really is a complex neurochemical reaction between serotonin and oxytocin. The other defends the text by arguing that the text is presenting a synesthetic account of the nature of emotional bonding associated with light in the wavelength range of roughly 630-740 nm. What would you think of that debate?

Mr. A: I think it would leave poor Bobby Burns spinning in his grave.