First, this is a debate. I want contrary opinions. I want you to prove me wrong. I also want mutual respect between any debating partners and rational discourse.

I believe the bible to be 100% divinely inspired and therefore 100% accurate and true. Like most believers, I do not think the entire bible is a history lesson; some parts are poetry, others are parables, etc.

I do not believe Genesis 1-3 to be historical.

There are many ways to interpret scripture, but not all ways are correct in all instances. If I were to take 1 & 2 Kings and say they are just parables, I would be ignoring all context saying otherwise. However, I hope to show why these specific chapters should not be interpreted historically.

Our first clue is in the first paragraph. On the first day, God created light, but for some reason there is already heavens, the planet earth, and water on the surface. These are not a part of the creation story, but kinda just assumed. The creation account, if historical, omits these. While it doesn't itself mean this is not historical, it does make a historical interpretation look awkward.

Verse 11 has plants. Remember that.

Continuing forward, light-creating objects were created on the fourth day (well, moon reflects light, but not important). Light exists before the things that make light?

Chapter 2 verse 1-3 I think is badly placed. It's a continuation of chapter 1. Has nothing to do with a non-historical interpretation. Just commenting.

Remember how there were plants in chapter one? There are no plants as of verse 5. There is no explanation for this. If this is a historical account, it has more missing information as well as contradiction.

Also, man in chapter 2 is not like man is chapter 1. In chapter 1, man is like the animals, but king over them. In chapter 2, man is taken from dirt and filled with God's "the breath of life" (rauch is the Hebrew, meaning "wind" or "spirit"). The man is so different from the animals that not a fit helper could be found. Chapter 1 says man is the king of animals, while chapter 2 says he is entirely different.

Genesis 2:17 says that the very day that Adam and Eve eat the fruit, they die. They don't. They don't die for years. The account does not say they will die one day, but that very day. The account errs in historicity. But this doesn't seem to be an issue. It again seems not to be important in the story to be congruent like in historical writings.

In chapter 4. Genesis 4:14 says:

"Behold,you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." (ESV)

Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” (NIV)

There are other people wandering around. Cain feels threatened by these other people, very obviously not family members, and they are completely unmentioned in chapters 1-3. More incongruity.

Finally, what is the purpose of the scriptures? Is it to give us a history lesson? Absolutely not. The scriptures are to give us a deepened relationship with God through the Word. These passages tell us that the Lord designed this universe and is in control. God established order, purpose, and peace. God freely gave life and demanded we do not misuse what we were given (like how we are to "tend to the garden" and "not eat of the tree"). These passages show us the original plan of God and the promise of our redemption.

To force these passages into science is to add to the scriptures. Lets not add to the scriptures.