Ok, maybe its me again misexpressing myself ...
Then my refutation stands. Because the author's intent is not enough to support your argument.
Ok I'll clarify my argument, then maybe all this will sort out. what I was saying in the OP was this:
If you write down a story you heard, and say to me that it is a not true, Then there is no possibility of it being true, since you (the author) acknowledged it to be not true.
If you write down a story you heard, and say to me you think it really happened. There both possibilities are possible: it may be true, or it may not be.
Obviously my example doesn't include lying amongst other things, which would have made my example pretty long and boring. My point was only this: if the author of genesis thought it was real history, then it leaves us the possibility to test it to see if it is true. But if the author thought it was a myth, then there is absolutely no reason for us to think it could be history.
Which is why I was trying to say that the author did think it was history, which leaves us the possibility to test it. Which is what we will be doing in other threads throughout the summer.
I hope I was clear enough, because really, I don't disagree with the fact they misinterpreted myth as fact. Sorry I didn't express this concept in the OP, it would have saved both of us some time.
BTW, theology is not the same as mythology.
Here are some people that I know of who spoke on the intention of the author to record history: James Barr, Dr. Andrew Steinmann, Dr. Robert Mccabe, Dr Ting Wang.
Dr. Clifford Wilson also said this which is pretty compelling:
I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen