The Garden of Eden

Originally posted by divegeester
Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
Genesis 2:8

I'm inviting speculation or theology.

What did the soil in the garden consist of?

Soil
noun
1 : firm land : earth
2 a : the upper layer of earth that may be dug or plowed and in which plants grow
b : the superficial unconsolidated and usually weathered part of the mantle of a planet and especially of the earth
3 : country, land <our native soil>
4 : the agricultural life or calling
5 : a medium in which something takes hold and develops

Dirt-microbial life-moisture-bugs-minerals-roots of plants-mud puddles 😉

I would imagine the soil was free of foreign contaminants or disease.

Originally posted by divegeester
[b]you have demonstrated that your entire approach is nothing but an opinion piece...
Actually everyone here is here because they have an opinion - why would anyone be here debating something they had no opinion about? I think I've demonstrated my opinion, why I hold that opinion and presented Biblical evidence to support it. I'm not saying I'm rig ...[text shortened]... bility in the forum. What he thinks of me, my posting style or beliefs is therefore irrelevant.[/b]

Oh stop your crying just because no one agrees with you. Such a baby!!!!!

🙁

Originally posted by galveston75
Oh stop your crying just because no one agrees with you. Such a baby!!!!!

🙁

Do you have any scriptural reference to back your claim that your God figure deliberately destroyed the Tree Of Life? robbie carrobie has pointedly refused to concur with you. Perhaps a Bible quote from you will settle the issue.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you have any scriptural reference to back your claim that your God figure deliberately destroyed the Tree Of Life? robbie carrobie has pointedly refused to concur with you. Perhaps a Bible quote from you will settle the issue.

God has a good sense of humor, maybe it was 'star poop' (ask sonhouse)

Originally posted by FMF
Do you have any scriptural reference to back your claim that your God figure deliberately destroyed the Tree Of Life? robbie carrobie has pointedly refused to concur with you. Perhaps a Bible quote from you will settle the issue.

Well first of all I never said there was a scripture that explains the fate of the Garden of Eden or of anything within it's boundries. Correct?
So perhaps this is where common sense and not confusing some hocus pocus symbolisms into what the Bible says about the Garden of Eden and take it for what it says.
There is no indications in the book of Genesis or in fact in the entire bible that it was not real and had only some symbolic meaning to it.
So the trees were real and would have lived a life span like any other tree in the garden.
But...if for some reason they would have survived all the way to the beginning of the flood which it is anyones guess if they did, they would have been destroyed like all other plant life that was alive before the flood.
Simply enough?

My question which has still not been answerd by ANYONE here is where is scriptural proof that the trees were not real?????????????????????? I think the burden of proof is in yours and Dive's court. Lets see it or stop the arguing over something you haven't proved yet.

Originally posted by galveston75
Well first of all I never said there was a scripture that explains the fate of the Garden of Eden or of anything within it's boundries.

[I notice how you stay out of the discussion long enough for the "evidence" posts to become buried beneath the plethora of "nothing" posts from your friend.]

Anyway, this comment here from you is another slippery example of your dishonesty Glaveston75; nowhere has anyone claimed you said there was a "scripture" saying that the garden of Eden was destroyed in the flood - this the whole point, there isn't one. And yet you have still claimed that the tree of life was real, it was in the garden at the time of the flood and the garden was destroyed. You have absolutely no scriptural basis for this whatsoever do you? Even robbie carrobie will not back you up.

I have given (several times now) scriptural evidence that the tree of life was symbolic and what it symbolises.

I'm afraid the burden is on you to now to refute my scriptural assertions with something that is more substantial than your SELF CERTIFIED OPINION that the tree was real and destroyed in the flood with the rest of the garden of Eden.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I could try but it would take time to research my material.

Oh dear Robert?! I disappear for a couple of days and look what a tangle you've got yourself in, and it's all of your own making using your own defined terms. Why not just admit you have no 'empirical evidence' that this exact conversation took place between Jesus and Pilate and that it is a 'religious belief'? It would save you a whole lot of trouble and you wouldn't have to resort to your usual 'politician spiel'.

Originally posted by galveston75
So perhaps this is where common sense and not confusing some hocus pocus symbolisms into what the Bible says about the Garden of Eden and take it for what it says.

OK, fine, if you suggest we use "common sense", then I will. I think it's simple common sense to see the Tree of Life as allegorical and also simple common sense to therefore think there was no actual tree of that name to be destroyed in any flood.

Originally posted by divegeester
[I notice how you stay out of the discussion long enough for the "evidence" posts to become buried beneath the plethora of "nothing" posts from your friend.]

Anyway, this comment here from you is another slippery example of your dishonesty Glaveston75; nowhere has anyone claimed you said there was a "scripture" saying that the garden of Eden was destr ...[text shortened]... D OPINION that the tree was real and destroyed in the flood with the rest of the garden of Eden.

I see that you are still equating "allegorical" with "not real." This is a false dichotomy. There are at least four ways of reading the Bible (even among the faithful): 1. literal, 2. allegorical, 3. moral, and 4. mystical. (Plus 5. as literature, i.e., fiction, for the non-faithful.) The first four are not mutually exclusive.

See for example:

http://ncse.com/religion/how-do-i-read-bible-let-me-count-ways

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Oh dear Robert?! I disappear for a couple of days and look what a tangle you've got yourself in, and it's all of your own making using your own defined terms. Why not just admit you have no 'empirical evidence' that this exact conversation took place between Jesus and Pilate and that it is a 'religious belief'? It would save you a whole lot of trouble and you wouldn't have to resort to your usual 'politician spiel'.

Ok i have no empirical evidence at this time.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ok i have no empirical evidence at this time.

How about audio tapes?

(You do know that no amount of evidence would be enough evidence, right?)

Originally posted by lemon lime
How about audio tapes?

(You do know that no amount of evidence would be enough evidence, right?)

Speculating that "no amount of evidence would be enough evidence" for the person questioning the veracity of the account [of the conversation] does not mean that you not providing ANY evidence somehow affirms the veracity of the account.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ok i have no empirical evidence at this time.

soon to be Famous Last Words:


"What is this? What's going on?"

~ This is Judgement day ~

"Oh yeah? Prove it!"

Originally posted by lemon lime
How about audio tapes?

(You do know that no amount of evidence would be enough evidence, right?)

LOL, no audio tapes or video footage 😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
LOL, no audio tapes or video footage 😵

And no "truth claim" from you about the conversation either. 🙂