Do the authors of the NT consider Genesis a literal book of the Bible?

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon have you ever read the NT?

Yes many times, and studied that NT in college level courses. Apparently you have not, because you are not eilling to cite the NT to support your assertions,

 

[shunyadragon]

By 'unitary view' I mean not everyone shared the same view.

True, but we are dealing with everyone. We are only dealing with what the authors of the NT wrote about Genesis and the Pentateuch.

There was no unitary view of Genesis among any group of people at any time.

That is not the subject of the thread. This thread is devoted to what the authors of the NT described how they viewed the Genesis and the Pentateuch reflected i their writings.

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon have you ever read the NT?

If you have read the NT you would know that the geneology of Jesus Christ considers him literally a direct descendent of Adam. Luke 3: 23:38

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus obviously did.

Did he now? Jesus quite often used various literary devices. The few examples that I know of could easily be explainable as that. Also what you see in the New Testament was not necessarily what Jesus said. It is what believers in him wrote that he said. The topic of the thread was about the authors of the NT, not the subject. There do appear to be enough quotations of some of them, such as Paul, to say for him at least the answer was yet.

By the way, the authors of the NT holding that belief is not a threat to Christianity, but claiming that Jesus believed that is a threat to your religion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Did he now? Jesus quite often used various literary devices. The few examples that I know of could easily be explainable as that. Also what you see in the New Testament was not necessarily what Jesus said. It is what believers in him wrote that he said. The topic of the thread was about the authors of the NT, not the subject. There do appear to be enough quotations of some of them, such as Paul, to say for him at least the answer was yet.

By the way, the authors of the NT holding that belief is not a threat to Christianity, but claiming that Jesus believed that is a threat to your religion.

Well ah . . . everybody used literary devices at one time or the other including the authors of the NT. Yes Jesus Christ likely believed in a literal Genesis.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Did he now? Jesus quite often used various literary devices. The few examples that I know of could easily be explainable as that. Also what you see in the New Testament was not necessarily what Jesus said. It is what believers in him wrote that he said. The topic of the thread was about the authors of the NT, not the subject. There do appear to be enough quotations of some of them, such as Paul, to say for him at least the answer was yet.

By the way, the authors of the NT holding that belief is not a threat to Christianity, but claiming that Jesus believed that is a threat to your religion.

Lol, if you want to claim he didn't say what scripture says he did, you can make up whatever you like obviously. Jesus talked about the flood and Adam as real people and events.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, if you want to claim he didn't say what scripture says he did, you can make up whatever you like obviously. Jesus talked about the flood and Adam as real people and events.

No, I did not say that. I said that we really have no clear idea what he said. You have to rely on the writers of the Gospels, all anonymous and none of them eyewitnesses. In fact they were written from over a generation to two generations after the events. Why would anyone expect them to be accurate?

By the way, if you want to claim that Jesus was just an ordinary man and believed the myths of Genesis that is fine with me.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, I did not say that. I said that we really have no clear idea what he said. You have to rely on the writers of the Gospels, all anonymous and none of them eyewitnesses. In fact they were written from over a generation to two generations after the events. Why would anyone expect them to be accurate?

By the way, if you want to claim that Jesus was just an ordinary man and believed the myths of Genesis that is fine with me.

It is not the concern whether the authors were known or not. The view toward Genesis and the Pentateuch of the day were pretty much universally considered literal concerning the Creation story, Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood, and Moses Exodus were as written and recorded Divinely inspired and real history. Yes, there were allegories, symbolism and literary devices applied throughout the Bible in many forms.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, I did not say that. I said that we really have no clear idea what he said. You have to rely on the writers of the Gospels, all anonymous and none of them eyewitnesses. In fact they were written from over a generation to two generations after the events. Why would anyone expect them to be accurate?

By the way, if you want to claim that Jesus was just an ordinary man and believed the myths of Genesis that is fine with me.

Where did I say he was ordinary? He was and is God in the flesh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where did I say he was ordinary? He was and is God in the flesh.

When you said that he took the myths of Genesis literally.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

 

[Wildswanderer]

When you said that he took the myths of Genesis literally.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

He was there so he knew they were not myths.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He was there so he knew they were not myths.

Nope, that is merely your belief. Reality refutes it. Unless you want to claim that God is a huge liar. The problem is that you do not understand how we know that there was no Flood. That there never were just two people. If you did understand you would see how you are calling your own God a liar..

 

[Augustus]

If you have read the NT you would know that the geneology of Jesus Christ considers him literally a direct descendent of Adam. Luke 3: 23:38

If you assume these are intended as literally correct genealogies, rather than constructs designed to make a theological point.

Pre-modern "historical scholarship" was not the attempted recording of objective fact, but was generally constructed to make some point relevant to the present (political, moral, theological, etc.)

The view toward Genesis and the Pentateuch of the day were pretty much universally considered literal

I've already demonstrated this not to be the case. Both literal and allegorical views existed at the time.

You claimed noting this fact was "off topic", now see your mistake?

That is not the subject of the thread. This thread is devoted to what the authors of the NT described how they viewed the Genesis and the Pentateuch reflected i their writings.

Short of them actually announcing "This is obviously not to be taken literally..." what would you actually expect them to say if they interpreted them allegorically?

You can refer to events in exactly the same way whether they were literally true or allegorically true.

There simply isn't enough information to definitively state to what extent they considered them to be literally true, especially as modern attitudes towards fact/allegory and ancient attitudes are different, and believing in the literal truth of X says nothing about whether they believed in the literal truth of Y.

A genealogy might be a theological construct, while the flood a literal event (or vice versa).

 

[Rival]

That is not the subject of the thread. This thread is devoted to what the authors of the NT described how they viewed the Genesis and the Pentateuch reflected i their writings.

You do realise the NT has at least 9 different authors, right? Are you seriously suggesting they all had the exact same view when they differ so sharply in other things?

 

[Rival]

Well ah . . . everybody used literary devices at one time or the other including the authors of the NT. Yes Jesus Christ likely believed in a literal Genesis.

I think, if I may be so bold, that your issue here is that you cannot ever accept NT authors having a non-literal view as you seem to believe that in order for one to be a true Christian and their beliefs to make sense, as you have already said, a literal view is needed.

So frankly, we could sit here all day telling you this isn't true but you've already decided the NT wouldn't make sense with a non-literal view, so nothing we say will pass the damn you've built around your ideology.

 

[Rival]

If you assume these are intended as literally correct genealogies, rather than constructs designed to make a theological point.

Pre-modern "historical scholarship" was not the attempted recording of objective fact, but was generally constructed to make some point relevant to the present (political, moral, theological, etc.)




I've already demonstrated this not to be the case. Both literal and allegorical views existed at the time.

You claimed noting this fact was "off topic", now see your mistake?



Short of them actually announcing "This is obviously not to be taken literally..." what would you actually expect them to say if they interpreted them allegorically?

You can refer to events in exactly the same way whether they were literally true or allegorically true.

There simply isn't enough information to definitively state to what extent they considered them to be literally true, especially as modern attitudes towards fact/allegory and ancient attitudes are different, and believing in the literal truth of X says nothing about whether they believed in the literal truth of Y.

A genealogy might be a theological construct, while the flood a literal event (or vice versa).

The genealogies are tampered with to make them fit so many generations. They're a literary device. Plus the two accounts don't match and are going for different things. One has Jesus be the son of Joseph the son of Jacob, to tie it back to Genesis, where the other hasn't - because Luke wasn't going for that kind of thing.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you assume these are intended as literally correct genealogies, rather than constructs designed to make a theological point.

Pre-modern "historical scholarship" was not the attempted recording of objective fact, but was generally constructed to make some point relevant to the present (political, moral, theological, etc.)




I've already demonstrated this not to be the case. Both literal and allegorical views existed at the time.

You claimed noting this fact was "off topic", now see your mistake?



Short of them actually announcing "This is obviously not to be taken literally..." what would you actually expect them to say if they interpreted them allegorically?

You can refer to events in exactly the same way whether they were literally true or allegorically true.

There simply isn't enough information to definitively state to what extent they considered them to be literally true, especially as modern attitudes towards fact/allegory and ancient attitudes are different, and believing in the literal truth of X says nothing about whether they believed in the literal truth of Y.

A genealogy might be a theological construct, while the flood a literal event (or vice versa).

All the references I gave were specifically stated in the text that the writer believed to be true, Of course the geneology was not accurate, but the writer believed it to be true, and Jesus Christ was a desebdebt if a real person, 'the first human as described in text cited.

I do not argue that the text cited is true or not, but does reflect what the authors believed to be true. Neither the others nor yo have cited anything in the text that would support your assertions that the main points of Genesis auch as Adam and Eve, the Fall and Noah were in any way allegorical from the perspective of the authors who considered them historical faacts.

Still waiting for references from the NT to support your assertions instead of rambling rhetoric.

 

[shunyadragon]

The genealogies are tampered with to make them fit so many generations. They're a literary device. Plus the two accounts don't match and are going for different things. One has Jesus be the son of Joseph the son of Jacob, to tie it back to Genesis, where the other hasn't - because Luke wasn't going for that kind of thing.

No, you are misusing the concept of literary device. The authors believed in the geneologies whether true accurate or not that Jesus Christ was descendent from Adam the 'first human' as described in other citations in the Bible. Other citations I gave were specific that the authors believed Adam was the first human Created by God.

Still waiting for references from the NT to support your assertions instead of rambling rhetoric.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think, if I may be so bold, that your issue here is that you cannot ever accept NT authors having a non-literal view as you seem to believe that in order for one to be a true Christian and their beliefs to make sense, as you have already said, a literal view is needed.

So frankly, we could sit here all day telling you this isn't true but you've already decided the NT wouldn't make sense with a non-literal view, so nothing we say will pass the damn you've built around your ideology.

OFF TOPIC and misrepresenting my posts without accurate quotes. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether what one believes concerning the the interpretations of the Bible text determines whether one is a true Christian or not. I will gwt out a bag of popcorn and watch with bemusement as the various conflicting Christian divisions accuse others that believe differently as not being 'true' Christians.in my easy chair

There is no such thing as a 'true Scotsman.'

Actually from the Baha;i perspective and the fact of the fallible human nature as far as I am concerned any one who claims to be a Christian is a Christian by definition. This goes for the believers in ALL religions,

I never said a literal view is needed(?). The opening post is specific that the authors of the NT specifically describe the basics of Genesis and the Pentateuch are literally history.

Still waiting for references from the NT to support your assertions instead of rambling rhetoric.

 

[shunyadragon]

When you said that he took the myths of Genesis literally.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

Taking Genesis literally as the text of the words of Jesus and the authors of the NT indicate has nothing to do with being 'ordinary?'.