Thanks for your informative responses. Please let me continue to ask you clarifying, not challenging, questions. Your view is novel and I am trying to make sure I understand it. It sounds like John Walton on steroids; I'm guessing you may feel that's a crude comparision, which is why I want to grasp the finer points of your view.
Is it fair to say that you view Gen 1-11 as a succession of parables (i.e. fictions) and Gen 12-50 as a succession of historical accounts (i.e. facts)?
It is correct to say that you take this view based on these three factors: 1) the differences in the underlying Hebrew text of Gen 1-11 when compared to Gen 12-50, 2) the coincidence of written history in the broader world, and 3) "the historical synchronicity of the Bible with events in the surrounding cultures."
If I was aware of them, I've lost the awareness. Can you please copy and paste or re-state?
You seem to have extracted this as a "fact" from Genesis 1-11. So, even though you see Gen 1-11 as figurative (i.e. parables, fiction, whatever), you believe there are embedded there facts - like this one - that can be safely extracted, while other aspects - such as the period of rest described in Genesis 2:1-3 - should not be regarded as factual. How do you go about deciding which is which?
Of what "details" are you here speaking?
You don't think Jesus perceived His audience as understanding that He was referring to Adam and Eve?
If you think that Jesus held your view because He did not use the personal nouns "Adam" or "Eve," do you think that Paul did not hold your view because he did?
Can you give me a sense of how many of the miracles (i.e. how much of the hard-to-believe stuff) this leaves as factual in Gen 12 through Mal 4 - 10%? 50%? 99%?