• 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
Here's Paul on this verse:

Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.


And he's not applying it to literal oxen. He's saying give the elders their due for their work.

Parables are not remotely related to Paul's belief that Genesis and the Pentateuch were literal history.

Still waiting for references from the NT to support your assertions instead of rambling rhetoric.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Citations from the NT that support your assertions. None exist.
I am sorry but what are you even talking about.

I said:

WE CANNOT KNOW WHAT THE NT AUTHORS BELIEVED ABOUT THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOKS OF THE TORAH.


That includes you.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Parables are not remotely related to Paul's belief that Genesis and the Pentateuch were literal history.

Still waiting for references from the NT to support your assertions instead of rambling rhetoric.
Parables?????

What?

This is a law from the Torah that Paul has re-interpreted in a letter!

Can you understand what I'm even writing?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Wot.

That isn't what either of us were saying.

We're saying Philo lived during the era the NT was written and his writings influenced Hellenistic Jewish thought. The writers of the NT were Hellenistic Jews.

Can you honestly not see the link here?

So what?!?!?! What they wrote reflected the belief that Genesis and the Pentateuch were literal history

Still waiting for references from the NT to support your assertions instead of rambling rhetoric.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I am sorry but what are you even talking about.

I said:

WE CANNOT KNOW WHAT THE NT AUTHORS BELIEVED ABOUT THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOKS OF THE TORAH.


That includes you.
We can know by what they wrote in the NT as cited. The authors were very specific as cited as to what they believed.

Still waiting for references from the NT to support your assertions instead of rambling rhetoric.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
So what?!?!?! What they wrote reflected the belief that Genesis and the Pentateuch were literal history

Still waiting for references from the NT to support your assertions instead of rambling rhetoric.
Right so you've made up your mind and nothing anyone says will move you.

Have fun with that.
 
I have been corrected xero times.

Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Either Philo is a church father who appeared after NT authors as you claim, or he was a Jewish contemporary of Jesus and Paul as multiple people have pointed out to you.

The answer is here, wonder who was right....

Philo - Wikipedia

Still waiting for references from the NT to support your assertions instead of rambling rhetoric.

It's like talking to a YEC who demands you show him the monkey humans evolved from :D

There is no unambiguous evidence either way.

The verses you quoted work just as well with an allegorical reading as they do a literal one:

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

Yes the topic was the view of the authors of the NT ONLY concerning whether the Genesis and the Pentateuch represented a literal history. The opening post and later posts were the views of the Church Fathers and other early scholars would be considered in a later thread.

Given the above, why would anyone want to look at a text completely devoid of context using only a small part of the information available to us and in a manner that basically forces us to interpret it in a highly anachronistic manner as a kind of primitive scientific text?

(Especially strange considering you kept making the false assertion that it was near universal that people interpreted it literally at the time NT was written. Seems you actually do think noting context might offer insight when it supports you, but it is off topic when someone corrects you on that very point)
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Either Philo is a church father who appeared after NT authors as you claim, or he was a Jewish contemporary of Jesus and Paul as multiple people have pointed out to you.

The answer is here, wonder who was right....

Philo - Wikipedia

Philo was a Jewish philosopher and contemporary of Jesus, and never mentioned the existence of Jesus Christ. Philo was NOT a Church Father, and his views never reflected the beliefs of the Roman and Protestant Churches.



It's like talking to a YEC who demands you show him the monkey humans evolved from :D

Seperate topic of many repetitive threads.

There is no unambiguous evidence either way.

The verses you quoted work just as well with an allegorical reading as they do a literal one:

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

Absolutely NO they are statements of the literal belief in a literal Genesi. Yes they may have allegorical interpretations, but this does not detract from Pauls' belief in a literal Genesis.



Given the above, why would anyone want to look at a text completely devoid of context using only a small part of the information available to us and in a manner that basically forces us to interpret it in a highly anachronistic manner as a kind of primitive scientific text?

(Especially strange considering you kept making the false assertion that it was near universal that people interpreted it literally at the time NT was written. Seems you actually do think noting context might offer insight when it supports you, but it is off topic when someone corrects you on that very point)[/QUOTE]

I have been corrected xero times.

Still waiting for references from the NT to support your assertions instead of rambling rhetoric.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
@shunyadragon Why did you start this thread if you refuse to engage with the opposing viewpoint? It seems you are just here to tell us that the NT authors had literalist views.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Do you not accept that we don't know what the NT authors believed about Genesis or the rest of the Torah and can only make educated guesses?

It is abundantly clear they wrote what they believed, and later chruch doctrine is based on Adam and Eve and the 'Fall' and the purpose of Jesus Christ, and it is well documented up today that these beliefs are the foundation of all the major churches,

I mean, seriously, what do you expect anyone to say? What kind of arguments are you looking for?

Again . . . very literal they believed what they write concerning the literal Genesis,

Still waiting for references from the NT to support your assertions instead of rambling rhetoric.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
It is abundantly clear they wrote what they believed, and later chruch doctrine is based on Adam and Eve and the 'Fall' and the purpose of Jesus Christ, and it is well documented up today that these beliefs are the foundation of all the major churches,



Again . . . very literal they believed what they write concerning the literal Genesis,

Still waiting for references from the NT to support your assertions instead of rambling rhetoric.
So you've just admitted you're only looking for literalist arguments that already support your viewpoint?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
So you've just admitted you're only looking for literalist arguments that already support your viewpoint?

No my argument for the literal view of the authors of the NT is based on the text of the NT only. This does not remotely reflect my view of the nature of the text of the NT.

Still waiting for references from the NT to support your assertions instead of rambling rhetoric.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
What kind of thing would convince you that a NT author had a non-literalist view?

My arguments are directly documented by citations from the NT, which is, by the way reflected in the doctrines and beliefs of the Roman Churches and the main stream Protestant churches since. This does not negate additional allegorical interpretations of the text throughout the history of Christianity.

Example citations from the NT that Adam and Eve, and Noah and the Flood were not literal history.

Still waiting for references from the NT to support your assertions instead of rambling rhetoric.
 
Philo was a Jewish philosopher and contemporary of Jesus, and never mentioned the existence of Jesus Christ. Philo was NOT a Church Father, and his views never reflected the beliefs of the Roman and Protestant Churches.

So you have been corrected after all... ;)


Absolutely NO they are statements of the literal belief in a literal Genesi. Yes they may have allegorical interpretations, but this does not detract from Pauls' belief in a literal Genesis.

They work either way, and we have nothing else to go on.

On what grounds should I accept what you say is definitely true, rather than it simply being you begging the question?

The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question.

Begging the Question
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
My arguments are directly documented by citations from the NT, which is, by the way reflected in the doctrines and beliefs of the Roman Churches and the main stream Protestant churches since. This does not negate additional allegorical interpretations of the text throughout the history of Christianity.

Example citations from the NT that Adam and Eve, and Noah and the Flood were not literal history.

Still waiting for references from the NT to support your assertions instead of rambling rhetoric.
This isn't what I asked.

What kind of argument from the other side would make you change your mind?

What kind of example are you looking for?

I brought a quote and you dismissed it as a parable, which it wasn't.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Parables are not remotely related to Paul's belief that Genesis and the Pentateuch were literal history.

Still waiting for references from the NT to support your assertions instead of rambling rhetoric.
Please explain to me how this is a parable.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Nope, that is merely your belief. Reality refutes it. Unless you want to claim that God is a huge liar. The problem is that you do not understand how we know that there was no Flood. That there never were just two people. If you did understand you would see how you are calling your own God a liar..
Your opinion isn't important here.
It's just your " reality" not the truth.
 
Top