Somewhere in the mists of mythical presentation there is historical truth, you say. If you’ve got an interpretation of historical truth presented in mythical form that’s different from the ones I’ve already proposed I wish you’d spell it out, especially since in the next sentence you reject the True Myth explanation. Does it, for example, mean “historical truth commingled with historical untruth”? If so, why not say it and be done with it? Or does it mean something like this: “Genesis 1 is true to the extent that it validates my a priori intuition, but the rest of it adds nothing of certainty to my conscious understanding of this intuition?” Or are we perpetually awaiting further light that will penetrate the mists and clarify the mystery?

I wouldn’t want to spend a great deal of time and energy over explanations of Genesis 1-3, you say. I take it, then, that you’ll not be placing a pre-order for my book. How do we find the time? We must find these cogitations either more entertaining or more important than alternative pursuits.