Originally posted by divegeesterAnd as usual there is no reasoning with you on anything. I'd get better results talking to a brick wall.....Lol.
[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.
The 'script' cont.:
If the author's intent in Genesis is literally to tell us about a tree, then, obviously, it must have mattered to him whether that particular tree really existed or was merely symbolic. But consider this: if the account was meant to be about literally some one particular tree, why did the author tell us so little about that all-important tree? How many cubits tall was it? Was the trunk straight or crooked? What was the fruit like? Round or pear-shaped, red or green, sweet or sour? What were the seeds like? Single big ones like avocados or many little ones like apples? What shape were the leaves (pointy or rounded, striated or smooth)? Was it deciduous or evergreen? What about the bark? Gnarly or .... ? If the account is supposed to be about a particular real tree, it is astonishingly (I could say incredibly) lacking in real detail.
But if one reads Genesis as allegorical-moral-mystical, then the author need not have had any one particular tree in mind. And then it does not matter that there is so little detail about the tree in the story, and then one does not have to bend over backwards to try to make some literal sense out of it (or project some literal sense into it). Indeed, it need not have been a tree at all. It could have been a bush or a vine or weed patch, and the allegorical-moral-mystical meaning would still shine through (to those with ears to hear it...).
Isn't it bloody obvious that the author's intent was to illuminate the moral consequences of transgression in general, namely that man now lives in sin because he disobeyed? So it need not have been eating a forbidden fruit at all. It could just as well have been swimming in a forbidden lake or climbing a forbidden mountain or spelunking a forbidden cave. And now you ask whether THE lake or THE mountain or THE cave REALLY existed! Can you not abstract, just a little, or is yours a world of minutiae only?
Originally posted by moonbusUmmmm you don’t seem to be reading from the script, its not that there was trees, not that they had leaves, its not even about trees or soil in general, its about a Biblical tree in the garden of Eden when viewed from a Christian perspective, for goodness sake if you cannot understand the question what hope is there to formulate an answer?
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 t ...[text shortened]... roadly based on events which very probably did take place but with lots of poetic embellishment.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiegalveston75 has provided no "empirical evidence" that the Tree of Life was an actual tree. It's just his opinion.
No that all you are doing, others provide empirical evidence for their claims. Others even provide empirical evidence with their questions.
Originally posted by FMFNo he is expressing the Biblical perspective, he did not author the Bible and therefore that perspective is not of his own originality, you tried this before and failed.
galveston75 has provided no "empirical evidence" that the Tree of Life was an actual tree. It's just his opinion.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiegalveston75 has expressed his opinion that the it's-an-allegory view is wrong. It's his opinion. Countless Christians have the it's-an-allegory perspective. That's their opinion. And galveston75 has his opinion. All that's happening here is opinions are being traded.
No he is expressing the Biblical perspective, he did not author the Bible and therefore that perspective is not of his own originality, you tried this before and failed.
Originally posted by FMFNo he has expressed the Biblical perspective, as espoused by Christ as I have admirably demonstrated, that other Christians also profess believe in an allegorical interpretation is naught but an argumentum ad populum and again, all that you are doing is trading opinions because you have nothing else, not everyone is the same as you and some generally try to provide some substantiating evidence for the claims they make, something you have failed to do, because all you have is opinion.
galveston75 has expressed his opinion that the it's-an-allegory view is wrong. It's his opinion. Countless Christians have the it's-an-allegory perspective. That's their opinion. And galveston75 has his opinion. All that's happening here is opinions are being traded.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWe're talking about Gen 2:17:"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (KJV)
Ummmm you don’t seem to be reading from the script, its not that there was trees, not that they had leaves, its not even about trees or soil in general, its about a Biblical tree in the garden of Eden when viewed from a Christian perspective, for goodness sake if you cannot understand the question what hope is there to formulate an answer?
Well, they ate and did not die, not literally "in that day." They lived to be banished and to conceive children. So if THAT bit's not literal, why take the rest of it literally? Why assume it was literally a TREE and not a metaphor for 'forbidden fruits' of a more generic nature?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have heard and I acknowledge galveston75's opinion. It is interesting. It's the kind of thing I come here to hear.
No he has expressed the Biblical perspective, as espoused by Christ as I have admirably demonstrated, that other Christians also profess believe in an allegorical interpretation is naught but an argumentum ad populum and again, all that you are doing is trading opinions because you have nothing else, not everyone is the same as you and some generally ...[text shortened]... ence for the claims they make, something you have failed to do, because all you have is opinion.
Originally posted by moonbusThe did die and there is no indication that the sentence of death was to be instantaneous, unless of course you can provide evidence that it was.
We're talking about Gen 2:17:"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (KJV)
Well, they ate and did not die, not literally "in that day." They lived to be banished and to conceive children. So if THAT bit's not literal, why take the rest of it literally? Why a ...[text shortened]... sume it was literally a TREE and not a metaphor for 'forbidden fruits' of a more generic nature?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo it's not argumentum ad populum. It is simply pointing out that among Christians there are different perspectives and opinions.
...[to say] other Christians also profess believe in an allegorical interpretation is naught but an argumentum ad populum