• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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.

.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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.

.

I have also been thinking about this topic. I find it interesting that you ask how the authors of the NT understood and interpreted Genesis. What about the original OT author(s). Additionally, was the OT version of Genesis an original written work or was it a transcription of an oral tradition? In either case, I would be more interested in understanding what the OT author(s) intent and purpose was.

If Genesis, or at least the primeval history portion (Chapters 1-11), is an allegory, I would love for someone to explain to me what symbols or abstract ideas all the characters, actions, settings or objects represent. What are the hidden abstractions and meaning beneath the surface narrative? Why would the author(s) choose the allegorical form? Often allegory is used as a means of addressing controversial or taboo subjects in an indirect way, or to express criticism in a way that is less risky to the author. Additionally it can be used as a vehicle to get around the readers biases by presenting the topic, or delivering the message in a way that doesn't automatically trigger a bias discussing the topic openly. What message would need to be delivered in this manner, at that time in history?

If there is no hidden meaning or subtext, but the story is not literal, would it be more appropriate to label the story as myth or legend as opposed to allegory?

Looking forward to being enlightened on the subject.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I have also been thinking about this topic. I find it interesting that you ask how the authors of the NT understood and interpreted Genesis. What about the original OT author(s). Additionally, was the OT version of Genesis an original written work or was it a transcription of an oral tradition? In either case, I would be more interested in understanding what the OT author(s) intent and purpose was.

If Genesis, or at least the primeval history portion (Chapters 1-11), is an allegory, I would love for someone to explain to me what symbols or abstract ideas all the characters, actions, settings or objects represent. What are the hidden abstractions and meaning beneath the surface narrative? Why would the author(s) choose the allegorical form? Often allegory is used as a means of addressing controversial or taboo subjects in an indirect way, or to express criticism in a way that is less risky to the author. Additionally it can be used as a vehicle to get around the readers biases by presenting the topic, or delivering the message in a way that doesn't automatically trigger a bias discussing the topic openly. What message would need to be delivered in this manner, at that time in history?

If there is no hidden meaning or subtext, but the story is not literal, would it be more appropriate to label the story as myth or legend as opposed to allegory?

Looking forward to being enlightened on the subject.

Well, this thread narrows the topic to specifics that can be addressed. Other threads as note a future thread on references from the Church Fathers.

Despite the lack of provenance and known authorship of Most of the Bible it may be assumed that those who compiled, edited and redacted the text up to the present form believed what was written.

There always may be 'hidden meaning' in any ancient text, but this the fuel of secret societies and cults. Too nebulous a topic to address.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well, this thread narrows the topic to specifics that can be addressed. Other threads as note a future thread on references from the Church Fathers.

Despite the lack of provenance and known authorship of Most of the Bible it may be assumed that those who compiled, edited and redacted the text up to the present form believed what was written.

There always may be 'hidden meaning' in any ancient text, but this the fuel of secret societies and cults. Too nebulous a topic to address.

The only alternative I have heard to the Creation story being taken as literal is to claim that it is allegory. Since allegory requires a subtext or hidden meaning, I am curious as to what that is and why the authors felt it necessary.

You seem to take the position that the author(s), and later editors, intended the text to be taken literally. That would be my assumption as well and is why I am curious as to what arguments or evidence supports the position that the Creation story is allegory.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
I disagree. The authors of the NT: Paul, Peter, the gospel writers, John + a few others would object to such a reduction. Paul directly calls the prophets 'Poets' and also says the law was administered through angels -- directly countering a literal reading of Moses on Mt. Sinai and the way the law is given in the stories. Jesus says things that make no sense to people listening, and he knows they don't understand him. He also says things his disciples don't understand, and then Jesus tells them they are too dull to understand. A poet says that the messiah comes gentle, riding upon the foal of a donkey. The point is that he is not a warrior. The gospels put Jesus onto a foal and call this fulfillment, but it cannot literally fulfill anything. It is a form, an imitation. The gospel writers know this. Any time they speak of fulfillment they directly imply imitation. It is in the context, so the word fulfillment is itself not used literally. By this we can know for certain that the lessons in the gospels are not in fixating upon literal statements but upon assessing the meanings of the figures, assessing the arguments, assessing the actions of Jesus whether they are righteous or not. Above all we cannot presume that these are historical narratives. They discuss the fall of the temple. To presume that they are written before the temple is destroyed (33AD by Titus) is simply to avoid the question....

...leading to the result. No, we cannot presume the authors would treat Genesis as literal, either. In a story in the NT Jesus implies that a group are sons of Cain. How can that be literal? It cannot. The fact is, Genesis itself belies itself as any kind of literal account. In it the LORD directly says to Cain that sin is crouching at his door, desiring to overpower him. Paul later calls this the law of sin in our flesh. James says God tempts no one and that each one is enticed and dragged away by his own evil desires. The usages are non literal, but they sound literal.

1Co 8:1-2 "1 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that "We all possess knowledge." But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2 Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know."
! Corinthians 13:2 "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
This is a principle which all NT authors agree upon. It isn't your head knowledge, so they don't write to fatten your head. When they write, think what concerns the people they are writing to. For example if you had been a Jew living in those times and had seen or heard of the terrible destruction of the temple and the slaughter of Jerusalem, what would you be thinking about while reading these gospels? What would you think when Jesus says "Destroy this temple, and I'll rebuild it in three days!" These things are not written to fatten your knowledge, and they are not literal.
 
Last edited:

stanberger

Active Member
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.

.
the parts in error. ' earth a flat circle does not move. sun orbits the sun ' are played off as not literal
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
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.

.
Could be, but I feel discovering that actual authors of the Bible are hopelessly lost to history.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I disagree. The authors of the NT: Paul, Peter, the gospel writers, John + a few others would object to such a reduction. Paul directly calls the prophets 'Poets' and also says the law was administered through angels -- directly countering a literal reading of Moses on Mt. Sinai and the way the law is given in the stories. Jesus says things that make no sense to people listening, and he knows they don't understand him. He also says things his disciples don't understand, and then Jesus tells them they are too dull to understand. A poet says that the messiah comes gentle, riding upon the foal of a donkey. The point is that he is not a warrior. The gospels put Jesus onto a foal and call this fulfillment, but it cannot literally fulfill anything. It is a form, an imitation. The gospel writers know this. Any time they speak of fulfillment they directly imply imitation. It is in the context, so the word fulfillment is itself not used literally. By this we can know for certain that the lessons in the gospels are not in fixating upon literal statements but upon assessing the meanings of the figures, assessing the arguments, assessing the actions of Jesus whether they are righteous or not. Above all we cannot presume that these are historical narratives. They discuss the fall of the temple. To presume that they are written before the temple is destroyed (33AD by Titus) is simply to avoid the question....

...leading to the result. No, we cannot presume the authors would treat Genesis as literal, either. In a story in the NT Jesus implies that a group are sons of Cain. How can that be literal? It cannot. The fact is, Genesis itself belies itself as any kind of literal account. In it the LORD directly says to Cain that sin is crouching at his door, desiring to overpower him. Paul later calls this the law of sin in our flesh. James says God tempts no one and that each one is enticed and dragged away by his own evil desires. The usages are non literal, but they sound literal.

1Co 8:1-2 "1 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that "We all possess knowledge." But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2 Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know."
! Corinthians 13:2 "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
This is a principle which all NT authors agree upon. It isn't your head knowledge, so they don't write to fatten your head. When they write, think what concerns the people they are writing to. For example if you had been a Jew living in those times and had seen or heard of the terrible destruction of the temple and the slaughter of Jerusalem, what would you be thinking about while reading these gospels? What would you think when Jesus says "Destroy this temple, and I'll rebuild it in three days!" These things are not written to fatten your knowledge, and they are not literal.

These are interesting points, but not the subject of the thread. The question is how the authors and or compilers viewed the book of Genesis and the Pentateuch in terms of being literal or allegorical.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Yes, but regardless of who the authors were tne intent can be reasonably derived from the text.
I dunno. Text alone without an author might be just confined to the scope of the subject, but limits any further background behind its purpose and reason for it being written.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
These are interesting points, but not the subject of the thread. The question is how the authors and or compilers viewed the book of Genesis and the Pentateuch in terms of being literal or allegorical.
No, we cannot presume the authors would treat Genesis as literal, either. In a story in the NT Jesus implies that a group are sons of Cain. How can that be literal? It cannot. The fact is, Genesis itself belies itself as any kind of literal account. In it the LORD directly says to Cain that sin is crouching at his door, desiring to overpower him. Paul later calls this the law of sin in our flesh. James says God tempts no one and that each one is enticed and dragged away by his own evil desires. The usages are non literal, but they sound literal.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
No, we cannot presume the authors would treat Genesis as literal, either. In a story in the NT Jesus implies that a group are sons of Cain. How can that be literal? It cannot. The fact is, Genesis itself belies itself as any kind of literal account. In it the LORD directly says to Cain that sin is crouching at his door, desiring to overpower him. Paul later calls this the law of sin in our flesh. James says God tempts no one and that each one is enticed and dragged away by his own evil desires. The usages are non literal, but they sound literal.

Use as non-literal reference does not negate the prevalent belief reflected in the NT text that the stories of Creation, Adam and Eve, the Fall, and Noah and the Ark Flood are believed to be real history. These citation acknowledge allegorical and symbolic meaning as well as an endorsement of the belief in Genesis as literal history.

Matthew 24:38-39
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

1 Peter 3:20-21who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Source: 15 Bible verses about Noah's Ark
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
To add: The reality of Adam and Eve and the Fall from a perfect world sinless world without death in a God Created humanity are necessary for the foundation of the belief system of Christianity.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
the prevalent belief reflected in the NT text
That is not what I see reflected, and I believe you are perhaps working with a model which presumes that it reflects this rather than actually demonstrating that it does. First of all the NT takes an arcane and contrary view of the story of Adam and Eve. Calling it a 'Fall' is not at all consistent with the story. According to the story in Genesis, Adam and Eve give up immortality in exchange for wisdom. This is a story of triumph, not of failure. It is impossible for the NT authors to be ignorant of this. The NT authors consistently yield flags that they are discussing current events, such as the fall of the temple, and what to do about it. Saying that Adam and Eve have fallen is another way of saying that Jerusalem's destruction is for a good purpose.

Do not imagine that the Jews of the time had no reaction to the fall of the temple. This was a disaster beyond proportion. Some of Jesus parables are about the causes of disaster: such as the story of the man born blind. There is a non-literal discussion going on.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
That is not what I see reflected, and I believe you are perhaps working with a model which presumes that it reflects this rather than actually demonstrating that it does. First of all the NT takes an arcane and contrary view of the story of Adam and Eve. Calling it a 'Fall' is not at all consistent with the story. According to the story in Genesis, Adam and Eve give up immortality in exchange for wisdom. This is a story of triumph, not of failure. It is impossible for the NT authors to be ignorant of this. The NT authors consistently yield flags that they are discussing current events, such as the fall of the temple, and what to do about it. Saying that Adam and Eve have fallen is another way of saying that Jerusalem's destruction is for a good purpose.

Do not imagine that the Jews of the time had no reaction to the fall of the temple. This was a disaster beyond proportion. Some of Jesus parables are about the causes of disaster: such as the story of the man born blind. There is a non-literal discussion going on.

You need to respond to whole post and citations with explanations.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Use as non-literal reference does not negate the prevalent belief reflected in the NT text that the stories of Creation, Adam and Eve, the Fall, and Noah and the Ark Flood are believed to be real history. These citation acknowledge allegorical and symbolic meaning as well as an endorsement of the belief in Genesis as literal history.

Matthew 24:38-39
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

1 Peter 3:20-21who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Source: 15 Bible verses about Noah's Ark
Those are the verses that I think of when asked the questions in the OP. So, yes, I do think that the authors of the New Testament interpreted Genesis literally. That does not affect my beliefs at all.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
You need to respond to whole post and citations with explanations.
Use as non-literal reference does not negate the prevalent belief reflected in the NT text that the stories of Creation, Adam and Eve, the Fall, and Noah and the Ark Flood are believed to be real history. These citation acknowledge allegorical and symbolic meaning as well as an endorsement of the belief in Genesis as literal history.

Matthew 24:38-39
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

1 Peter 3:20-21who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Source: 15 Bible verses about Noah's Ark
The literalness has everything to do with when the gospels material is first made. It is a mistake to presume that the fall of the temple and destruction of Jerusalem (in 33AD) is not the all distracting event of the time, and when Jesus says anything about the temple it is in the shadow of the temple's ruin. Peace has been rejected by people who simply don't care -- the Romans and the entire world. All seems lost, but gospels come talking about these painful issues, if indirectly, dealing with the issues.

I suggest they discuss "Why was Jerusalem destroyed?" "Did we do something wrong?" "Can we go on?" "What next?" But even if this is not the case: to presume the authors of the NT barely notice the massacre of Jerusalem and such great loss is like missing the sun; although people do it every day by staying indoors. It is a time of horror and of soul searching, and the entire project of Judaism has been disrupted and called into doubt. They are not discussing Adam and Eve at all when Jesus talks about Adam and Eve or Cain, because unlike the setting of the stories suggests the temple has already fallen. Jerusalem has already been pillaged. The women are suffering, and the children's futures have been disrupted.

When Jesus is quoted to say "Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days!" what are the authors intending? Everything depends upon when this happens.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
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.

.
How Genesis is interpreted seems to have more to do with personality than anything else. Some people are good at picking up on figurative speech, and other people err on the side of literalism. I'm sure that some people took the opening chapters of Genesis as legend and myth, and others took it for history, just like people today.
 
Last edited:
Top