The Garden of Eden

Originally posted by FMF
Are you making a "truth claim" about what Jesus purportedly said?

Originally posted by FMF
OK, I will reword it. Stating that "no amount of evidence would be enough evidence" for the person questioning the veracity of the account does not mean that you not providing ANY evidence somehow affirms its veracity. Stating "no amount of evidence would be enough evidence" is just sidestepping the question of the account's veracity.

Originally posted by lemon lime
What makes you think I was addressing that statement (or presenting proof) to anyone "questioning the veracity of the account"? Blow your soap bubbles for the galleries amusement...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
... Christ himself held the Genesis account to be real, in fact he quoted directly from it when answering a loaded question from the Pharisees about divorce. This is important because it sets a Christian precedent, that Christ taught a literal garden of Eden.

Originally posted by moonbus
That Christ too held the garden and the tree in it to have been real still isn't the point of Genesis, and that point is being missed by all the people here who keep insisting that the garden was real (not allegorical) and that the tree was real (not allegorical) and had real (not allegorical) leaves. The story recounted in Genesis is not about botany, so in ...[text shortened]... of the story, and the point would be the same even if there never was a flood of such magnitude.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its not missing any point at all, if Christ taught that the Genesis account was literal, and he did, then we have grounds for logically and rationally asserting that the trees in the garden must consequently also be literal, that is actually the entire point as it relates to the discussion at present.

stating that its not the really the import ...[text shortened]... ing that at this moment in time, are we? how you could have failed to notice this, I cannot say.

Originally posted by moonbus
Ah, so the point of Genesis is this (I paraphrase):

There was this garden (a real one), see, and there was this tree, see, (a real one), and it had leaves on it, see, (real leaves!). Then there was this fruit, see, a real fruit. Then there was this guy, see, a real guy. He was lonely--real lonely. Then there was this girl, see--a real girl. Then they weren't really lonely. ...

Is that it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is pure unadulterated straw, no one is disputing the point of the book of genesis, what we are disputing is whether the trees contained in it are considered literal or allegorical from a christian perspective.

Originally posted by moonbus
I implore you to transcend the plane of literal but mute fact and discover a universe of meaning beyond it. Did you not "consider" that in the hierarchy of possible interpretations of Scripture--1. literal, 2. allegorical, 3. moral, and 4. mystical--the literal is at the BOTTOM (i.e., the most primitive and the least conducive to transmission of the salvational message)?

"I ..... [Robbie] dispute the assertion that a literal interpretation is the least conducive to the transmission of a message of salvation, in fact i think its the most conducive,"

The Bible not merely contains, but encourages, multiple layers of meaning. My 'pure unadulterated straw' version of Genesis is all that is left of it if you subtract the allegorical, moral, and mystical layers and prioritize the literal (the real, the factually verifiable).

A man finds only as much depth in Scripture as he brings to it himself. If you find that the literal is the most conducive, that says a lot about you, nothing at all about Scripture.

Originally posted by moonbus
I implore you to transcend the plane of literal but mute fact and discover a universe of meaning beyond it. Did you not "consider" that in the hierarchy of possible interpretations of Scripture--1. literal, 2. allegorical, 3. moral, and 4. mystical--the literal is at the BOTTOM (i.e., the most primitive and the least conducive to transmission of the salvational message)?

Originally posted by shavixmir
Uh? Wasn't the old testament just a tool to try to scare the Hebrews into believing in a single God?

Originally posted by moonbus
"I ..... [Robbie] dispute the assertion that a literal interpretation is the least conducive to the transmission of a message of salvation, in fact i think its the most conducive,"

The Bible not merely contains, but encourages, multiple layers of meaning. My 'pure unadulterated straw' version of Genesis is all that is left of it if you subtract the allego ...[text shortened]... at the literal is the most conducive, that says a lot about you, nothing at all about Scripture.

Ok, we'll get back to the script:

I'm willing to grant that at some point in pre-history, there was a real tree with real leaves and real fruit on it. Not because the Bible says so, but because it is highly probable based on the observation that trees today have leaves and fruits, and because fossil remains are very strong evidence that trees in ancient times also had leaves and fruits. On the same basis I am willing to grant that the substance of the soil of some fictitious or real pre-historic garden was dirt.

However, claiming to prove that some particular tree had leaves or fruit because somebody (Jesus or whoever) assumed so in the Bible is a misuse of the word "prove." "Believe it" if you wish, but "proof" it is not.

Without accepting the prior premise that the Bible is the Word of God, the account in Genesis is not more credible than is, say, Homer's account of the Trojan War--broadly based on events which very probably did take place but with lots of poetic embellishment.

Originally posted by FMF
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.