If given the question "Is Genesis an entirely literal history of creation and origin or a complete allegorical fiction" I imagine, given this is an Anglican forum, most people might answer "a combination of both". But on what specific passages we read as myths that teach us something meaningful about salvation, and what specific passages we read that are hard, undeniable historical truths, I imagine we all differ significantly. For example, I imagine few of us here are 'Six Day Creationists'. The Apostolic Christian view, which is assumed to be representative of 1st Century Jewish thinking at the time (e.g. Philo), was that the six days are an allegory displaying some significance in the order of things, and not literally six 24-hour days. Why would God have operated within the bounds of the rotation of the Earth before He had even created the Earth? This opinion held true even after Christian thinking became much more literalist in the succeeding centuries, contrary to what some fundamentalists others might also have met try to claim. For example Saint Augustine was still arguing against a literal reading in the 5th Century when he wrote: It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. ~ from 'The Literal Interpretation of Genesis' - St. Augustine But when we move on to Genesis 2 I imagine opinions will diverge significantly on the historical existence of a singular human Adam and Eve, and if their literal existence and participation in literal events matters for the creation of original sin (I think the question is irrelevant, as Augustine who invented the Christian understanding did). When we go further into Genesis from the named descendents of Adam, to the flood, to the existence of one family repopulating the Earth, to the literal existence of a Tower of Babel I imagine opinions will again fluctuate from fable, to literal, to fable, to literal and so on. I'm curious what the general opinion of the diverse members of this forum on the nature of Genesis is, and to what extent our opinions are similar or disparate. Perhaps in vain, I would encourage participants in this thread to remember that the Anglican perspective on Genesis, like the Church Fathers perspectives, is wide and can range from almost entirely literal (St. Basil) to almost entirely allegory (Origen), and that both opinions are held widely by pious and faithful believers.