I have specifically cited the text as to what they believed.
And I have specifically pointed out the same passages work equally well with an allegorical reading.
Not an argument from ignorance, because I am only basing my argument on specific text. You are arguing from ignorance basing your argument on unknowns, which cannot be found in the text of the NT.
I said you are begging the question, not arguing from ignorance. I am not arguing from ignorance either as I'm saying the evidence is ambiguous.
You simply assert the reference was literal statement of literal truth because the authors believed in a literal Genesis.
That's begging the question.
Why should we accept that your interpretation is correct when it is based on a logically fallacious argument?
Genesis:
Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 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.”
To me this makes more sense if you interpret Adam as being figuratively the first man as it seems to assume a world populated with other people, not simply the descendants of Adam and Eve.
Again, I could not state this as definitive fact as it is ambiguous like your example.
When you take an ambiguous text then state that it is best to interpret without recourse to genre, convention, historical context, nuance, or any other factor and simply interpret it in a naive, literalist manner what do you actually expect to uncover?
What evidence would you actually expect to see if they did interpret it, at least in part, allegorically?
