First of all, Matthew does not hold up well as being literal on its own. I won't go into it again in this post, but Matthew calls imitation 'Fulfillment', plainly modifies Jesus geneology to be 42 from Adam, and he gives many indications that this is a story not a literal account. So that is the first reason not to presume he takes Genesis literally.
Mathew's inaccurate geneology does not relate to the fact that he and other autheors considered the Genesis account of Creation, the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall, and Noah;s Ark and flood atr factual accounts in history/
Intro to reading Matthew's allusion:
Matthew writes without using any chapter or verse references. To allude to a section of the readings he makes a partial quotation. He expects us to be thoroughly knowledgeable of these and not to merely read his quotes. The quotes are not intended to be read in isolation as if they had quotations marks. Matthew does not use quotation marks. These quotations are allusions to other books. This is at first obvious when he describes the preaching of John the Baptist.
John the Baptist, says Matthew, is the Voice in the Wilderness spoken of in Isaiah. Therefore to know what John the Baptist is preaching we can refer to that section of Isaiah (chapter 40). Not only this, but it is well known that the book of Isaiah is poetry. People do not speak poetically in real life. By referring to this, Matthew is, by yet one more thing, letting us know his book is not a texbook, not a documentary. If he wished us to read his book as a concrete historical document he would refer to historical documents, not poems. He would describe in detail the preaching of John the Baptist rather than telling us that his was a familiar old lesson from our poetry readings. We know what the voice of the wilderness says, because we find hope in it by reading it yearly or every so often. So we know what John the Baptist is preaching and why the 'Pharisees' are mad at him. He is the sterotype of a prophet. He is the troublemaking voice shouting at the authorities and making annoying public demonstrations against them.
[Mat 3:3 NIV] 3 This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: "A voice of one calling in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.' "
I think there is no way that the author of
Matthew intended us or anyone to consider it a literal historical document. Its like suggesting that George Lucas wanted to graft Star Wars into American History. To a person living in the time, it is quite obvious. Just as to me, a child of the 70's, I can tell for sure that Star Wars is not historical. Its plainly not.. [/quote]
. . . which does not address the question at hand.
Here is 1 Peter. He explains the method of martyrs: winning converts by doing no evil.
He mentions events in Noah, but this does not mean he takes it literally. I can talk about Star Trek in a similar way using it to make a serious point. There is nothing wrong with doing so. If I say "We should use logic like Spock advises us to" you know that it doesn't mean I believe Star Trek real, because you live in this time and know me.
Here is an example were 1 Peter speaks non-literally very obviously:
[1Pe 4:6 NIV] 6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.
Peter refers to those Jews of that generation who do not accept Christ. He calls them "Those now dead." Obviously you cannot preach to someone physically dead but you can preach to someone who is unwilling to consider your words. He plainly also says that these dead are not dead in body, so they are not literally dead. They were preached to, but they didn't listen because they were dead...but not physically dead.
Here's a similar example from Jude:
[Jde 1:11 NIV] 11 Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.
Who has been destroyed in Korah's rebellion? Obviously you can't unless you live at the same time as Korah, yet Jude says these jerks have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion. It doesn't matter that they don't really know Korah and live in a different time. It doesn't even matter if there's a real Korah. They have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion. The story of Korah describes them.[/QUOTE]
Still waiting for your response documenting your belief that the author;s of the fospels and letters did not take the Creation, Adam and Eve and the Fall and Noh;s flood literal history,