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

[shunyadragon]

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.

Again , , , these are interesting issues, but not the subject of the thread,

 

[Brickjectivity]

Again , , , these are interesting issues, but not the subject of the thread,

The thread title is "Do the authors of the NT consider Genesis a literal book..." In you OP you say "I am taking the view that the authors of the NT considered Genesis to be literal and Divinely inspired as written...." Well I am not taking that view, but I am addressing the topic. I'm simply disagreeing on the basis that the material is probably from after the fall of the temple rather than before. On that basis I argue, on topic, that the NT authors probably do not take a literal view of Genesis. I'm not sure how you consider it to be off topic. I'm doing my best to please you about staying on topic, but everything I post you say is off topic or somehow tangential.

 

[shunyadragon]

The thread title is "Do the authors of the NT consider Genesis a literal book..." In you OP you say "I am taking the view that the authors of the NT considered Genesis to be literal and Divinely inspired as written...." Well I am not taking that view, but I am addressing the topic. I'm simply disagreeing on the basis that the material is probably from after the fall of the temple rather than before. On that basis I argue, on topic, that the NT authors probably do not take a literal view of Genesis. I'm not sure how you consider it to be off topic. I'm doing my best to please you about staying on topic, but everything I post you say is off topic or somehow tangential.

You have not addressed the topic concerning the the authors view of believing in a literal Genesis and the Pentateuch, You only brought up other issues issues of the NT.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You have not addressed the topic concerning the the authors view of believing in a literal Genesis and the Pentateuch, You only brought up other issues issues of the NT.

I've literally just now said I argue that they don't take a literal view of Genesis. I've said it three times now. I don't mean to be rude, and I don't understand why this is off topic for you.

 

[shunyadragon]

I've literally just now said I argue that they don't take a literal view of Genesis. I've said it three times now. I don't mean to be rude, and I don't understand why this is off topic for you.

Yo may argue that they did not take a literal vir=ew, but so far it is just an assertion with no references nor citations from the NT that support your argument..

The following needs to responded to: The foundation of Christian belief requires a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve Created in a paradise without sin or death Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve sinned eating the forbidden fruit and thus the 'Fall' in to a world punished by sin and death that we live in today.

I gave two clear and specific references that the story of Noah and the Ark and Flood are literally true from the authors perspective, and not response on your part with references nor citations from the Bible,

 

[pearl]

I am taking the view that the authors of the NT considered Genesis to be literal and Divinely inspired as written.

Yet they fully understood the concept of myth as a genre in presenting the 'truth' which they conveyed through narrative.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yo may argue that they did not take a literal vir=ew, but so far it is just an assertion with no references nor citations from the NT that support your argument..

Thanks, I see where you're coming from.

The following needs to responded to: The foundation of Christian belief requires a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve Created in a paradise without sin or death Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve sinned eating the forbidden fruit and thus the 'Fall' in to a world punished by sin and death that we live in today.

Technically it is a non literal interpretation. Literally interpreted, Adam obtains knowledge and is not sentenced to death for sinning. He is sentenced to death for literally for his knowledge. Nothing is said about him sinning.

[Gen 3:22 NIV] 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."​

Romans makes this non-literal and stylized assertion:

[Rom 5:12, 17 NIV] 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned-- ... 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!​

The NT is making a very obvious non literal interpretation here. It may not seem so, since our culture is Christian and is steeped in belief that Adam fell; but this is a non-literal treatment by Romans of Genesis. So in this example does the author of Romans know that it is a non literal interpretation? Yes. If we move forward from Romans 5 to Romans 7 this becomes more clear, as do some other purposefully non-literal NT usages.

[Rom 7:6-8 NIV] 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead.​

First of all he opens with "Dying to what once bound us." Clearly we have not died, yet he says we have. He knows we have not physically died. He is also implying several other things here: 1. the law is the knowledge of good and evil for which Adam gives up immortality, yet this cannot be if he reads Genesis literally. Adam simply obtains knowledge by eating some fruit, but here Paul says no it is by learning the law. He is showing that he does not view Genesis literally. In addition Paul borrows the same usage from Genesis 4 in which the LORD tells Cain that sin desires to control him.

[Gen 4:7 NIV] 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it."​

Paul says here that we die because Sin, already present within us as an innate part of us, seizes the opportunity afforded by the law (knowledge of good and evil), to try to make us sin. In chapter 5 he says something that literally sounds different: that sin entererd into us through one man, Adam, when he ate the fruit. So the literal story about fruit is not the real explanation for sin, according to Paul here in chapter 7. Same book, same Paul, same sin. He allows for nonliteral interpretation and he moves in and out of surface literal readings

I gave two clear and specific references that the story of Noah and the Ark and Flood are literally true from the authors perspective, and not response on your part with references nor citations from the Bible,

Ok, sorry if this is getting long. I will respond to them.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[shunyadragon]

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,

 

[shunyadragon]

Yet they fully understood the concept of myth as a genre in presenting the 'truth' which they conveyed through narrative.

You need citations to justify this response,

It neglects the fact that the authors and by far most Christians up until the 20th sntury and latter considered the story of Adam and Eve and the 'Fall' as literal history and the central justification and theme for the mission of Jesus Christ on earth in the theme of the Salvation of humanity.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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,

I cannot believe that all of those times you said you hoped for world peace that you yourself would be unwilling to treat me in a halfway decent manner. It is a game to you I suppose to try and get other people to strive and then ignore them.

 

[shunyadragon]

I cannot believe that all of those times you said you hoped for world peace that you yourself would be unwilling to treat me in a halfway decent manner. It is a game to you I suppose to try and get other people to strive and then ignore them.

Start a thread 'for world peace' and I may respond as it is the hope and eventual promise of the Baha'i Faith.

Again . . . at present not the topic of the thread.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again . . .

Hebrews 11:7

By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
Source: 15 Bible verses about Noah's Ark

 

[shunyadragon]

The New Testament and Adam and Eve, and the Fall.

Rom 5:14
14Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.

1Cor 15: 45-49

45Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.46But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual.47The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.48As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven.49Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven.50What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

1Cor 11:8
8Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man.

 

[pearl]

You need citations to justify this response,

It neglects the fact that the authors and by far most Christians up until the 20th sntury and latter considered the story of Adam and Eve and the 'Fall' as literal history and the central justification and theme for the mission of Jesus Christ on earth in the theme of the Salvation of humanity.

Given that 'Adam' is not a personal name I'm sure the writers understood Adam as a stand in for 'human, man, and the human nature of sin.
There were allegorical interpretations of Gen long before the 20th cent. Origen 2nd cent, inconceivable to consider Genesis literal history,

I guess the 'authority' in this case is the Catholic Church, since literalism is the product of Protestantism.

Allegorical interpretations of Genesis - Wikipedia

 

[shunyadragon]

Given that 'Adam' is not a personal name I'm sure the writers understood Adam as a stand in for 'human, man, and the human nature of sin.
There were allegorical interpretations of Gen long before the 20th cent. Origen 2nd cent, inconceivable to consider Genesis literal history,

I guess the 'authority' in this case is the Catholic Church, since literalism is the product of Protestantism.

Allegorical interpretations of Genesis - Wikipedia

Yes there are allegorical interpretations of Genesis, but as specifically cited there are literal understandings of Genesis by the authors of the NT. Very literally the citations provided described Adam as the first human. If you have specific citations from the NT that support your assertions please cite them.

This thread is about the authors of the NT. Stay on topic. Reread the citations from the NT and respond. The above does not address what the citations stated.

As stated in the openning post the views of the Church Fathers and early scholars WILL BE ADDRESSED in another thread.

Again please stay on topic, and respond specifically to the citations..

 

[pearl]

This thread is about the authors of the NT. Stay on topic. Reread the citations from the NT and respond. The above does not address what the citations stated.

Let me remind you I answered 'your' statement which brought up 'until the 20th cent,,,,,,, which was clearly not true.

 

[Augustus]

This thread is about the authors of the NT. Stay on topic. Reread the citations from the NT and respond. The above does not address what the citations stated.

The quotes could be read literally or allegorically, you are just asserting they were meant literally without any evidence.

In truth, we don't know as there is insufficient evidence to make a definitive case either way, especially as modern ideas about history and allegory may not map neatly onto our modern concepts.

It is though, fair to assume that Christianity emerged from a Hellenised Judaism, and that Paul sought to spread it to gentiles.

In which case we can look at other streams in Hellenistic Judaism and see there is the possibility that NT authors did indeed view them allegorically, at least in part as it was never a choice between 100% literal or 100% allegorical.

We can tell that contemporaries/predecessors of Jesus and NT authors did indeed interpret some things allegorically, so we cannot rule out this possibility regarding NT authors simply by asserting the must have seen it as literal.

The Judaism of Galilee and Judaea in any case owed much to its Hellenistic milieu. The thought-world of the New Testament is thoroughly Hellenistic, and trying to reconstruct an early form of the Christian message as yet untainted by Hellenism is likely to be fruitless. A Galilean artisan, even if he grew up in the small town of Nazareth rather than in one of the highly Hellenized cities of Galilee such as Tiberias (founded when Jesus was in his twenties) or Sepphoris, couldn’t have been immune to the Hellenized culture that permeated all the areas around the Mediterranean....

Philo (Jewish name Jedidiah), who was born around 25 BCE and died in about 50 CE, thus being partly contemporary with both Jesus and Paul...

Philo’s own writing consists mainly of a lengthy commentary on the Greek version of the Pentateuch from the standpoint of Greek philosophy, mainly Stoic and Platonic. Like Josephus, he wrote in an educated Greek. Unlike the rabbis, he interpreted the Bible allegorically, seeing the patriarchs as philosophers before their time, and treating the food laws, for example, as metaphors for various spiritual and moral realities, thus pushing them well beyond their literal meaning, while still insisting that they must be observed. His work is at least partly an attempt to explain Judaism to interested non-Jews who thought in philosophical categories. It was to become important in Christianity rather than, on the whole, in Judaism, greatly influencing Christian writers such as Origen (185–254 CE) and Clement of Alexandria (c.150–215 CE).

It is from Philo that the idea derives of Greek philosophers having borrowed from the Hebrew Bible: Plato read Moses! Implausible as this is historically, it was a notion that took on a life of its own, and helped early Christian writers to justify arguing philosophically about doctrines deriving from the Bible, especially where the status of Jesus as Son of God was concerned. Philo’s idea of the logos (‘word’), the principle of divine reason inherent in the world, was pressed into service to explain how Jesus already existed as God’s ‘word’ before the creation of the universe – as in the Gospel according to John 1:1–18. So Philo is in significant ways the father of later Christology, the doctrine of the nature of Christ, even though he himself was an Orthodox Jew who had, so far as we know, no personal contact at all with early Christians.

A History of the Bible
John Barton

 

[shunyadragon]

The quotes could be read literally or allegorically, you are just asserting they were meant literally without any evidence.

No, the evidence is the text itself and it is specifically literal.

In truth, we don't know as there is insufficient evidence to make a definitive case either way, especially as modern ideas about history and allegory may not map neatly onto our modern concepts.

It is though, fair to assume that Christianity emerged from a Hellenised Judaism, and that Paul sought to spread it to gentiles.

In which case we can look at other streams in Hellenistic Judaism and see there is the possibility that NT authors did indeed view them allegorically, at least in part as it was never a choice between 100% literal or 100% allegorical.

We can tell that contemporaries/predecessors of Jesus and NT authors did indeed interpret some things allegorically, so we cannot rule out this possibility regarding NT authors simply by asserting the must have seen it as literal.

The Judaism of Galilee and Judaea in any case owed much to its Hellenistic milieu. The thought-world of the New Testament is thoroughly Hellenistic, and trying to reconstruct an early form of the Christian message as yet untainted by Hellenism is likely to be fruitless. A Galilean artisan, even if he grew up in the small town of Nazareth rather than in one of the highly Hellenized cities of Galilee such as Tiberias (founded when Jesus was in his twenties) or Sepphoris, couldn’t have been immune to the Hellenized culture that permeated all the areas around the Mediterranean....

Philo (Jewish name Jedidiah), who was born around 25 BCE and died in about 50 CE, thus being partly contemporary with both Jesus and Paul...

Philo’s own writing consists mainly of a lengthy commentary on the Greek version of the Pentateuch from the standpoint of Greek philosophy, mainly Stoic and Platonic. Like Josephus, he wrote in an educated Greek. Unlike the rabbis, he interpreted the Bible allegorically, seeing the patriarchs as philosophers before their time, and treating the food laws, for example, as metaphors for various spiritual and moral realities, thus pushing them well beyond their literal meaning, while still insisting that they must be observed. His work is at least partly an attempt to explain Judaism to interested non-Jews who thought in philosophical categories. It was to become important in Christianity rather than, on the whole, in Judaism, greatly influencing Christian writers such as Origen (185–254 CE) and Clement of Alexandria (c.150–215 CE).

It is from Philo that the idea derives of Greek philosophers having borrowed from the Hebrew Bible: Plato read Moses! Implausible as this is historically, it was a notion that took on a life of its own, and helped early Christian writers to justify arguing philosophically about doctrines deriving from the Bible, especially where the status of Jesus as Son of God was concerned. Philo’s idea of the logos (‘word’), the principle of divine reason inherent in the world, was pressed into service to explain how Jesus already existed as God’s ‘word’ before the creation of the universe – as in the Gospel according to John 1:1–18. So Philo is in significant ways the father of later Christology, the doctrine of the nature of Christ, even though he himself was an Orthodox Jew who had, so far as we know, no personal contact at all with early Christians.

A History of the Bible
John Barton

STAY on topic this thread is about the authors of the NT ONLY. Chrich Fathers and early scholars will be covered in a separate thread. Absolutely nothing you have asserted has addresed the sitations of the NT that specifically described the Genesis stories of Adam and EVe and Noah as literal history.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let me remind you I answered 'your' statement which brought up 'until the 20th cent,,,,,,, which was clearly not true.

No you have not addressed anything specific about the authors of the NT with citations. The majority of Christians up until the 20th century and beyond consider Genesis literal. Even today ~40%+ Americans reject the science evolution, because they believe in a literal Genesis based on the testimony of the authors of the NT.