"to decipher what is factual or nonfactual in regard to Genesis 1-3 seems more of a modernist experiment, whereas the emphasis on narrative apart from ‘claim’ investigation is more post."

I can see how it’s important to understand what a text means before carving it up into propositional truths. Genesis 1-3 certainly reads like narrative, with distinct characters participating in sequences of events. The straightforward meaning isn’t hard to discern. But is this narrative true, did these characters really participate in the events as described in the text? The usual mythic dodge is to de-narrativize the narrative, to say that what it "really" means is that the one true God somehow created the universe, that the details of the story aren’t really important. This move denies the narrativity of the narrative, transforming it into an underlying propositional truth.

If the events of the Biblical creation narratives really happened there’s no compelling need to turn the text into doctrinal propositions. If it didn’t really happen then we can just read it as a fictional tale. Which is it? How do you maintain the integrity of the narrative without addressing its historicity? I’m suggesting that, based on scientific evidence, the creation story is unlikely to be a historical narrative. So why not just call it a fictional story. Maybe some other meaning can emerge if we stop expecting this narrative to be a description of actual events.

Parables are a good example of the challenge in upholding narrative vis-a-vis propositional truth. Jesus tells a story, but it’s clearly a made-up tale, a fiction. Then Jesus says what the story means in terms that no longer rely on the narrative structure. I.e., he uses the narrative as an engaging context in which to embed propositional truths.