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

[shunyadragon]

Why is addressing what you said directly "off topic"?

Yet others reject the idea that your quotes were "unambiguous" and your assumption that the only way someone can make an intertextual reference to another story is that they believe it literally true.

You have assumed a reference to Adam, Flood, etc. can only be interpreted as an endorsement of the literal truth of that event. This is obviously false.

How to interpret an intertextual reference requires you to consider genre, historical and cultural context, etc. yet you have deemed these "off topic".

What genre were the Gospels? What was their purpose? In the ancient world, when people wrote history, what was their primary concern: objective reporting of fact or using the past to construct a narrative pertinent to the present? Was there a difference between recent history and primordial history in the minds of people?

Others views are absolutely meaningless unless you and the so called others can document in the NT that the authors did not considered both LITERAL history, and the use of Genesis and the Pentatuch in allegorical and other non-literal uses of Genesis and the Pentateuch. I acknowledge both and you taand the nebulous 'others' take the extreme position of allegorical and non-literal is the only option.

The thread on the Church Fathers and other scholars views toward Genesis and the Pentateuch which will demonstrate that the dominant view of a literal Genesis and the Pentateuch is the foundation of Orthodox Christinaity in history.

 

[shunyadragon]

Dude, you started a debate on what the NT authors believe.

Yes, and you failed to respond with citation in the NT that the suthors did not believe in a literal GEnesis

The point of a debate is for your opponent to disagree with you.

Mine and Augustus' whole purpose in this thread is to dispute your claim.

Yes, and you both take the extreme position that the authors of the NT did not believe in a literal Genesis. I supported my view with citaions and acknowledge both lieral and allegorical and non-literal uses of the text of Genesis and the Pentateuch.

 

[Rival]

I acknowledge both and you taand the nebulous 'others' take the extreme position of allegorical and non-literal is the only option.

This is not our position at all.

All throughout this thread we've been saying we don't have enough information to pass any meaningful judgement.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is not our position at all.

All throughout this thread we've been saying we don't have enough information to pass any meaningful judgement.

My citations concerning the belief by the the authors of a historically literal Genesis were clear and specific and I wil demonstrate theis in the next thread that the dominant view of the Church Fathers and later church scholars is theis was the dominant belief that resulted in the foundation of Orthodox Christianity.

 

[Rival]

My citations concerning the belief by the the authors of a historically literal Genesis were clear and specific

No they weren't.

 

[Augustus]

Others views are absolutely meaningless unless you and the so called others can document in the NT that the authors did not considered both LITERAL history, and the use of Genesis and the Pentatuch in allegorical and other non-literal uses of Genesis and the Pentateuch. I acknowledge both and you taand the nebulous 'others' take the extreme position of allegorical and non-literal is the only option.

I can never tell if you are being intellectually dishonest or simply really struggle with basic comprehension.

1. As you know, I have said the evidence is ambiguous and we can't tell to what extent they viewed it literally either from the text alone or using all available information. Why pretend I've taken an extreme position which is the mirror image of yours?

2. You seem to think you have demonstrated they took it literally simply because they refer to Adam, flood, etc. You seem completely oblivious to the absolute fact that people can refer to things they do not see as literally true. For example, people might refer to what Harry Potter did without prefacing their reference with "I know he is a fictional character, but..." and we would need to use other evidence to infer they didn't believe in a literal Harry Potter (such as genre, context, social convention, etc.)

So, without some other silly attempt to avoid answering the question, why do you assume the references you cited can only be interpreted as statements of belief in a literal Genesis?


For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Source: 15 Bible verses about Noah's Ark

 

[Augustus]

@shunyadragon Actually, Paul does explicitly state he is taking some things allegorically:

Galatians 4:

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.


So can we all agree you are wrong without needing to further explain the other, more nuanced reasons why you are wrong?

 

[shunyadragon]

This is not our position at all.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!! It is

All throughout this thread we've been saying we don't have enough information to pass any meaningful judgement.

Which confirms your 'opinion' in a nebulous slippery way beyond any reasonable doubt.

The next thread documents that by far most Church Fathers, early scholars and theologians up until the 20th century agree with me as the foundation of Orthodox Christianity.

 

[Rival]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!! It is



Which confirms your 'opinion' in a nebulous slippery way beyond any reasonable doubt.

No, it is not my opinion.

I've said the whole time we cannot know.

Please stop misrepresenting my position.

 

[Augustus]

I can never tell if you are being intellectually dishonest or simply really struggle with basic comprehension.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!! It is

Thanks for confirming you were being intellectually dishonest (and quite astoundingly childish for a fully grown man in his 8th decade or so on this earth)

Sometimes we all make mistakes in reading comprehension and accidentally misrepresent others, but why even engage with people if you are just going to just outright pretend they said something you know fully well they didn't?

Everyone else here can see you behaving like a churlish 7 year old, don't you find that embarrassing?

 

[shunyadragon]

No, it is not my opinion.

I've said the whole time we cannot know.

Please stop misrepresenting my position.

We cannot know reflects a nebulous slippery view that yes YOU reject a literal understanding very literal view described in the NT and endorsed as the basis of Orthodox Christianity throughout the history of Christianity as documented in the other thread,

 

[shunyadragon]

Thanks for confirming you were being intellectually dishonest (and quite astoundingly childish for a fully grown man in his 8th decade or so on this earth)

Sometimes we all make mistakes in reading comprehension and accidentally misrepresent others, but why even engage with people if you are just going to just outright pretend they said something you know fully well they didn't?

Everyone else here can see you behaving like a churlish 7 year old, don't you find that embarrassing?

Thanks for confirming your dishonest slippery intellectual dishonesty documented in the next thread.

 

[Augustus]

Thanks for confirming your dishonest slippery intellectual dishonesty documented in the next thread.

@shunyadragon Actually, Paul does explicitly state he is taking some things allegorically:

Galatians 4:

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.


So can we all agree you are wrong without needing to further explain the other, more nuanced reasons why you are wrong?

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon Actually, Paul does explicitly state he is taking some things allegorically:

Galatians 4:

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.


So can we all agree you are wrong without needing to further explain the other, more nuanced reasons why you are wrong?

True, but this neglects the fact that both the literal and allegorical and other non-literal interpretations were believed by the authors of the NT.

Your biased selective citations are meaningless concerning the subject of the thread,

 

[Koldo]

@shunyadragon Actually, Paul does explicitly state he is taking some things allegorically:

Galatians 4:

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.


So can we all agree you are wrong without needing to further explain the other, more nuanced reasons why you are wrong?

Check Romans 5:14-15

"14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!"

Paul saw certain things both as literal and as an allegory, in the sense he saw a deeper meaning to events that actually transpired in the form of patterns.

 

[Augustus]

Your biased selective citations are meaningless concerning the subject of the thread,

Haha, you demand I quote the NT and then complain quoting the NT is somehow dishonest when it proves you wrong.

True, but this neglects the fact that both the literal and allegorical and other non-literal interpretations were believed by the authors of the NT.

I've always said it's not 100% literal or 100% allegorical, and for this reason we can't know to what extent they took it literally.

Good you now agree with me, unless you can explain the methodology by which we can always tell between allegorical and literal references given some is definitely taken allegorically.

So, what is your methodology?

 

[Koldo]

There are questions concerning how Genesis should or may be interprete. some lean toward the allegorical for parts of Genesis and the Pentateuch, and others consider the literal for most of Genesis. The issue in this thread is how the authors of the NT understood and interpreted Genesis including most of the Pentateuch.

A later thread will address how the Church Fathers and Early scholars considered the interpretation of Genesis.

I am taking the view that the authors of the NT considered Genesis to be literal and Divinely inspired as written. This does not eliminate other moral and symbolic application of the Genesis text.

.

Mostly literal I dare say. I see no hint pointing to another direction.