ANY here hold to Genesis not being literal historical Book?

[CranberryArtworks]

Jesus (GOD) used parables to teach. Why would God and Jesus(the same person) teach different ways?

Oxford - parable
a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels.

 

[Major]

It also puts Israel on the map, setting them forth as God's Covenant people.

Very true! Excellent point.

 

[Major]

I always found that is an odd verse to understand. Because at that time, most of the New Testament had not been written.

using Biblegateway.

• 1 Timothy: 62-64 AD (or 90-110 AD if pseudonymous)
• 2 Timothy: 64-67 AD (or 90-110 AD if pseudonymous)
  
  
  
• Hebrews: 60-95 AD, but probably late 60s
• James: 45-62 AD
• 1 Peter: 60-65 AD (or 85-90 AD if pseudonymous)
• 2 Peter: 65-68 AD (or 80-90 AD if pseudonymous)
• 1 John: 85-100 AD
• 2 John: 85-100 AD
• 3 John: 85-100 AD
• Jude: 65-80 AD
  
  
  
• Matthew: After 70 AD, preserving oral accounts from the previous generation
• Mark: 64-70 AD, preserving oral accounts from the previous generation
• Luke: Debated; could be any time between 62-90 AD, preserving earlier oral accounts
• John: 90-110 AD, preserving earlier oral accounts
• Acts: 62-90 AD (by Luke)

Actually my friend, Paul would have seen the current Hebrew text he knew and read as the inspired Hebrew Word of God. But we, too, must remember that it is the Holy Spirit moving Paul along in his writings. So, Paul would have seen his writings and other NT authors as inspired because they (Apostles) had been commissioned by God Himself in the flesh.

 

[crossnote]

I always found that is an odd verse to understand. Because at that time, most of the New Testament had not been written.

True, but I thought the OP had been referring to Genesis, not the NT; even still, Peter counted Paul's writings as Scripture and yet Jesus (who spoke the parables) commissioned Paul...

2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; [16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Acts 9:15 KJV
But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he (Saul/Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

the majority of the NT was written by Paul & Peter.

 

[Major]

True, but I thought the OP had been referring to Genesis, not the NT; even still, Peter counted Paul's writings as Scripture and yet Jesus (who spoke the parables) commissioned Paul...

2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; [16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Acts 9:15 KJV
But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he (Saul/Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

the majority of the NT was written by Paul & Peter.

I have absolutely NO evidence to support this as what I am about to say is purely my opinion, however, I think that Paul certainly intended his readers to take his letters as authoritative. He knew he was an Apostle as he stated that several time. As one of the elite 12, he knew that what he was writing to those churches was instructive and authoritarian in nature and he knew he was laying the foundation of the church.

IMHO, He also anticipated that they would be incorporated into some collection of teachings as the rabbinic Jews collected the wisdom of the sages, prophets and teachers into collections as sacred writings. But we can't know if Paul anticipated the creation of the New Testament nor can we know if he expected his letters to be represented in it and no one could have anticipated what his epistles turned out to be.

 

[bobinfaith]

Hello YeshuaFan;

ANY here hold to Genesis not being literal historical Book?

As more akin to being Biblical myth or metaphor then?

Years before I heard the term Biblically literal I only believed all Genesis in the story of God's Creation, the story of Adam and Noah (the tower of Babel) is all true, (chapters 1 through 11) these events really happened.

In the continued reading of the story of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph, (chapters 12 through 50) God is revealing His Covenant, plans, salvation by faith, repentance, forgiveness and more. I remain in my strong belief all these events really happened in God's teachings.

However, today I hold to Genesis being literal but also include the figurative (Genesis 1's story of Creation) and metaphorical in many areas such as spiritual instead of objective science.

Question I ask myself, are we defending our literal, figurative, metaphorical, allegorical interpretations, etc...and does it align? Or does our interpretation stand with the faithful and correct interpretation of the Scriptures as originally intended to be understood?

God bless everyone.

Bob

 

[crossnote]

However, today I hold to Genesis being literal but also include the figurative (Genesis 1's story of Creation) and metaphorical in many areas such as spiritual instead of objective science.

If you bumped up against a passage, where 'objective science' said one thing and the Bible another, which would you choose?
Or would you tweak your biblical hermeneutic (e.g., literal to allegorical), so it would fit the scientific model?

 

[Origen]

Question I ask myself, are we defending our literal, figurative, metaphorical, allegorical interpretations, etc...and does it align?

How would the figurative, metaphorical, and allegorical interpretations differ from one another?

 

[bobinfaith]

If you bumped up against a passage, where 'objective science' said one thing and the Bible another, which would you choose? Or would you tweak your biblical hermeneutic (e.g., literal to allegorical), so it would fit the scientific model?

Hello crossnote;

Thank you for asking.

I choose the Bible over objective science regarding Genesis. My reason is the many years that I read a passage, I have doubted and grown to believe God's Word to be 100% true. This has taken years to where I stand today.

I feel when I'm "bumped up" against a passage, or when I fit the objective science, myths, tweaking or "thinking it up as I go along" then I begin to feel I'm compromising the truth of God's Word.

God bless you, brother.

Bob