One Binding

[Willtor]

Another thread got me thinking about the interpretation of the Gospels in connection with the interpretation of Genesis. I was wondering how many of the non-evolutionists, here, hold the view that the figurative interpretation of Genesis calls into question the literal interpretation of the Gospels? Ignore other reasons, for the moment.

Additionally, would you feel the same way if we didn't tend to bind them together in the same book? If we held them apart as independent books, linked together by a common Author (ultimately), would interpreting one literally necessitate the literal interpretation of the other?

 

[theophilus40]

Jesus quoted from Genesis.

He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?"
(Matthew 19:4-5 ESV)
​

He believed Genesis was literally true so a belief in the gospels requires a literal interpretation of Genesis regardless of whether or not they are bound together in a single book.

In his time the Old Testament was never bound as a single book but the various books were all separate because they were written on scrolls and combining them would require a scroll that would be too big to handle. Whether the books of the Bible are bound together or published separately has no bearing on how they should be interpreted.

 

[Willtor]

Jesus quoted from Genesis.

He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?"
(Matthew 19:4-5 ESV)
​

He believed Genesis was literally true so a belief in the gospels requires a literal interpretation of Genesis regardless of whether or not they are bound together in a single book.

In his time the Old Testament was never bound as a single book but the various books were all separate because they were written on scrolls and combining them would require a scroll that would be too big to handle. Whether the books of the Bible are bound together or published separately has no bearing on how they should be interpreted.

So you see the figurative interpretation of Genesis as irrelevant to the literal vs. figurative interpretation of the Gospels? This is a different view from the one that I held when I was a creationist. Have you heard the view expressed that the figurative interpretation of Genesis calls into question the literal interpretation of the Gospels by other creationists and creationist organizations?

 

[juvenissun]

Another thread got me thinking about the interpretation of the Gospels in connection with the interpretation of Genesis. I was wondering how many of the non-evolutionists, here, hold the view that the figurative interpretation of Genesis calls into question the literal interpretation of the Gospels? Ignore other reasons, for the moment.

Additionally, would you feel the same way if we didn't tend to bind them together in the same book? If we held them apart as independent books, linked together by a common Author (ultimately), would interpreting one literally necessitate the literal interpretation of the other?

I don't have the mind to think about the literal interpretation of the Gospel (what is wrong with it?). But I do know a figurative interpretation of the Genesis missed A LOT of the content intended by the Scripture. There might be nothing wrong with the figurative interpretation (no guarantee, though), but it just missed A LOT of the content.

ANY ridiculous statement could be interpreted as a right/correct message if read it figuratively. That is no good.

 

[Willtor]

I don't have the mind to think about the literal interpretation of the Gospel (what is wrong with it?). But I do know a figurative interpretation of the Genesis missed A LOT of the content intended by the Scripture. There might be nothing wrong with the figurative interpretation (no guarantee, though), but it just missed A LOT of the content.

ANY ridiculous statement could be interpreted as a right/correct message if read it figuratively. That is no good.

I see. So you, too, frown upon reasoning that suggests a slippery slope from reading Genesis figuratively to reading the Gospels figuratively?

 

[juvenissun]

I see. So you, too, frown upon reasoning that suggests a slippery slope from reading Genesis figuratively to reading the Gospels figuratively?

Not a "slippery slope". It is not a good description.
By the way, how do people read the Gospels figuratively?

 

[Willtor]

Not a "slippery slope". It is not a good description.
By the way, how do people read the Gospels figuratively?

I don't know of anyone who does.