Apocryphal books in the New Testament

Genesis literalists make much of Jesus quoting Genesis 1 & 2 in one incident. This proves much less than they claim.  But let’s run with the ‘logic’ for a second.  Jude quotes from the apocryphal book of Enoch in v 14-15 and alludes to it in v6.  Jude also refers to another odd book – the Testament of Moses – in v9 (and probably alludes to it several other times).  Should we then take these odd books as authoritative?  Should we accept they have authority because they are quoted under inspiration?  The use of texts was more nuanced than the literalists realise in their rush to disprove “evilusionists”.

How do OT citations work in the NT? (responding to bro Heavyside)

We have demonstrated composite Old Testament uses are thematic (using Mark 1:2 and Acts 13:22 as examples).  Bro Heavyside responds claiming Matt 19/Mark 10 is a different type of citation because it is introduced (slightly) differently.  But composite citations don’t work as bro Heavyside claimed and his response is to propose a new taxonomy without any evidence.  His argument pushes the idea (inadvertently) that less precisely introduced citations reveal more about the underlying passages than precise citations.

Does the grammar of Matt 19:3-5 link Genesis 1 & 2? (Responding to bro Peter Heavyside)

Bro Peter Heavyside has responded to our critique of his book Gen 1 2.  A copy can be accessed here.  We will review his responses.  His first response claims Jesus (and the grammar) in Matt 19 :3-5 links Gen 1 and 2 because of grammar. He claims the governing pronominal for the whole citation is “the beginning”. Evidence in the Greek is contrary, pointing to the clauses being independent. Plus Jesus argument is “from the beginning” God intended one man one wife, ie the earlier revelation can’t be minimised (the same logic Paul uses in Gal 3:15-18). Jesus is not arguing the unity of Genesis 1 & 2 but that the initial creative purpose of sustained marriage demonstrates a narrow view should apply to later divorce regulations.

Peter Heavyside’s Genesis 1-2: A Harmonised and Historical Reading

A recent book is being heavily promoted by The Lampstand Magazine and others as treatise against Evolutionary Creationism. The book “Genesis 1-2: A Harmonised and Historical Reading” was written by bro Peter Heavyside. Proceeds from sale are going to a charity which is a good thing.  The book contends there is no break between Gen 1 & 2. His scriptural case is good on the surface but not very strong.

Does Christ quoting Gen1 & 2 together prove they are one record?

When putting forward the principles of marriage, Christ in Mark 7 apparently quotes from both Gen 1 and Gen 2 (although it could be Gen 2 and Gen 5:2).  Does this mean Christ thought the two passages describe the same event/day?  No necessarily.  He doesn’t say any such thing.  All it proves is that both chapters are relevant in considering the principles of God.  Hardly a radical idea.