I may not have understood what you mean by ‘true myth’; I do have a problem if the concept encourages disconnection from the outside world - the very nature of which is a primary source of engagement of the Judeao-Christian tradition.

Where do the truths asserted by the Judaeo-Christian tradition come from? Despite your own assertions, I do believe that the existence of one God who created the universe is ‘intuitively obvious’, without recourse to tradition or texts. A comparison of the three ‘theories’ of creation which you describe appears to me to point to the reasonableness of believing in a God who created everything there is. It cannot be ‘proved’, so in the end it involves a step of faith to believe this is so. But the step of faith rests on assessment of the evidence, and comparing this belief with the alternatives. It is likewise a step of faith to look at the evidence and assert that there is no God who created everything. But such an assertion is stepping beyond the bounds of empirical science - whose task is by its very nature not to seek evidence either for or against the existence of a supernatural deity in the workings of the natural world.

The bible, OT and NT, does not seek to provide proofs of God’s existence; such an assumption is taken as a first truth. But on the basis of that assumption, there is a great deal of evidence in the natural world, and yet more evidence in the particular historical narrative of intervention which the biblical texts present. Further, the narrative is a continuum which connests with the experience of believers today.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘speculative details’ of the author of the Genesis text. But for instance, a ‘speculative assumption’ of modern science is that processes which can be observed today hold good for all time and periods of history, including the origin of things. Theism asserts that God exists, and is involved in his creation. A dimension is introduced which is not subject to empirical science, though you would expect to find its imprint there.

I don’t subscribe to any theory of dating the universe; I simply observe that a 2.5/4 billion year old universe is the assumption of modern science, based on data which assumes that currently observable processes in the natural world hold good for all time. Actually, our understanding of currently observable processes is changing all the time.

An understanding of Genesis 1-3 holds good on different levels. It tells us a great deal about God and the nature of the world - order and design rather than randomness and chaos; an origin in such order and design which held good also for moral beings; an introduction of disorder which affected both moral beings and the natural world which was subsequent to the origin of things, and which remains the case today. If science does date the world at billions of years old, it is just as much a faith assumption to assert that naturalistic forces as we presently observe them held good then as it is to assert that a supernatural deity was the source of the origin of things, and that Genesis 1-2 give some idea of how this came about.

What science does not address is the phenomenon of self-awareness, our sense of moral obligation which overrides social conditioning or any kind of origin in environmental considerations, our intuitive sense of purpose which conflicts with our observation of tendencies within us and in the world around us, our search for resolution of these conflicts, the satisfying resolution which is to be found in the figure of Christ, both as a historical person and an on-going reality in people’s lives today.