Myth does not mean untrue. Myth does not mean having no basis in history. However, myth and history are different. The truth of a myth may well be different to the truth of history. I do not need to read Genesis 1-5 as a history book, nor even as National Geographic. Genesis 1-5 for me are stories of origin which are the accounts that represent the self-understanding of the community, and the various aspects of the community, and in this case specifically in relation to the understanding of themselves as God's people. None of that rules our revelation, as the only way we can comprehend anything of God is if God chooses to reveal something of the divine nature. Some people find the need to confine the creative purpose and activity of God to a seven-day period. I prefer to understand the importance of the story to understand the divine impetus, the divine purpose, and something of our own nature and our relationship to the whole inhabited earth (œcumenenos). I don't have to believe science, for in the main it is pragmatically true, and whilst with the accumulation of more evidence it may be that there is a better answer down the track, it does not require faith. Myth per see does require some level of faith in its acceptance, even where the essence of that belief is in the message that the story carries rather than simply the story itself. There is a lot of untidiness in the Genesis accounts, which we should either be embarrassed about or celebrate. Attempts to justify and explain away these untidinesses are ultimately unhelpful.