The Bible Thinks Genesis 1-3 is Historical

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

I think I would begin by quoting what I said in the other thread:

@mitchellmckain

I am all about accepting the adjustments needed to embrace science and evolution, but keeping them only to the minimal changes needed. Too often, it seems to me, this unavoidable challenge is taken as an excuse for changing the religion completely to something nearly unrecognizable, till it hardly seems any different than popular culture. It is not that I am hostile to that kind of religion, but only that the reconciliation with science doesn’t require anything of the sort. And the fear that this is some kind of slippery slope is one of the reasons for resistance to science.

So I see no reason from science why Genesis 1-3 should not be historical – just not completely literal. No reason why Adam and Eve should not be taken to be people who really existed - just not the beginning of the biological species (and other parts of the text like Genesis 4:14 supports this). I see no reason why the events described could not have happened – just not with talking animals and magical fruit for that would make it more like a Disney movie than life as we experience it, and other parts of the Bible support this also (talk of the tree of life symbolism and an ancient serpent who is a fallen angel). And there is plenty of support for seeing this as the beginning of spiritual death rather than physical death, since the latter would actually make God the liar in the story, and the serpent the teller of truth, since they did not physically die that day when God said they would die on that day.