Reassessing: Genesis as the foundation of Scripture

I'm definitely sliding into the Abyss here. The opening chapters of Genesis are foundational for what follows -- Paul in fact builds his entire argument in Romans on the need for Christ on the sin of Adam and the entry of sin into the world.

But I'm not convinced that one needs to go with a literal interpretation of those chapters to get that foundation. The Bible was written in a culture that prized storytelling as a means of conveying Truth. That doesn't mean the stories necessarily are absolutely factual in every detail. It'd pretty damn near impossible anyway. The synoptic gospels quote the same stuff -- the Q source, for lack of a better way to describe it -- with minor alterations like "kingdom of God" for "kingdom of heaven," end stories at different places, and vary on the number of people present at one scene or another.

A friend of mine once told me that the "Literal Six Days" doctrine is only about 400 years old. I don't know whether that's true or not, but it's unlikely to affect my thinking in any way on the matter.

When pressed, I generally go with creationism and an historical Fall because these match my paradigm better. I lack substantive proof either way of life's origins.