21 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI've told you repeated that I've repeatedly posted in this thread the scriptural reasoning behind by assertion. That you haven't read any of these directive posts nor the several evidential posts indicates that you are either intellectually lazy or dishonest.
tell us how the garden of Eden was literal and the trees in it were not, third time asking.
21 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeestertell us how the garden of Eden was literal and the trees in it were not, fourth time asking.
Hilarious! You are now trying to demonstrate that something existed and was destroyed, through arguing that it is not here.
I have found not a single scriptural reference that you cited, simply point us in the direction, you know 1 Corinthians 5:2 or whatever.
21 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo, are you're saying that "the day" was literal, meaning a real day which started at sun up and ended at sun down, on the very same day as the literal eating of the forbidden literal tree? If so, how do you account for the circumstance that Adam did not die on that day, as God said he "surely" would? Either
if you can offer any evidence for a non literal interpretation of eating, day, dying or anything else then please do so. We have already established from a christian perspective that Jesus taught that the Garden was literal and no amount of intellectual jive talk can change that fact. If you wish to engage in pure speculation then its your affair.
1. God lied;
or
2. the claim that "the day" in Gen 2:17 is literal does not stand up to scrutiny.
Which is it?
21 Aug 14
Originally posted by moonbusbecause he started to die on that day, how hard can it be?
So, are you're saying that "the day" was literal, meaning a real day which started at sun up and ended at sun down, on the very same day as the literal eating of the forbidden literal tree? If so, how do you account for the circumstance that Adam did not die on that day, as God said he "surely" would? Either
1. God lied;
or
2. the claim that "the day" in Gen 2:17 is literal does not stand up to scrutiny.
Which is it?
21 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI've posted in this thread a synopsis of my reasoning several times.
tell us how the garden of Eden was literal and the trees in it were not, fourth time asking.
I have found not a single scriptural reference that you cited, simply point us in the direction, you know 1 Corinthians 5:2 or whatever.
Do you agree with Galveston's view that the garden of Eden was destroyed in the flood? Is this the official Jehovah's Witness position?
21 Aug 14
Originally posted by divegeesterso tell us how is it possible from a Biblical perspective for the garden of Eden to be literal but the trees in it not to be. I have not seen a single scriptural reference you have provided, simply show me the page number on this thread and i will go there.
I've posted in this thread a synopsis of my reasoning several times.
Do you agree with Galveston's view that the garden of Eden was destroyed in the flood? Is this the official Jehovah's Witness position?
21 Aug 14
Originally posted by divegeesterI am actually more interested in how its possible for the garden of Eden to be literal but the trees in it not to be, if you have any evidence to substantiate the claim then please point me in that direction for having looked through the thread i cannot find a single scriptural reference you have made.
I've posted in this thread a synopsis of my reasoning several times.
Do you agree with Galveston's view that the garden of Eden was destroyed in the flood? Is this the official Jehovah's Witness position?
21 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusBut as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.* - Genesis 2:17
So, are you're saying that "the day" was literal, meaning a real day which started at sun up and ended at sun down, on the very same day as the literal eating of the forbidden literal tree? If so, how do you account for the circumstance that Adam did not die on that day, as God said he "surely" would? Either
1. God lied;
or
2. the claim that "the day" in Gen 2:17 is literal does not stand up to scrutiny.
Which is it?
*You will certainly die.
Literally, “dying you will die.” Hebrew mohth ta 'muth
representing a continuous action.
21 Aug 14
Originally posted by moonbus"the day" means the day he eats of that fruit. It doesn't mean he will die on that day. Cause and effect. If you do this, then that will surely happen. If I say you will surely die, it doesn't mean you will die right now. It just means that it will surely happen.
So, are you're saying that "the day" was literal, meaning a real day which started at sun up and ended at sun down, on the very same day as the literal eating of the forbidden literal tree? If so, how do you account for the circumstance that Adam did not die on that day, as God said he "surely" would? Either
1. God lied;
or
2. the claim that "the day" in Gen 2:17 is literal does not stand up to scrutiny.
Which is it?
Getting back to the tree, I don't see any reason why it couldn't have been a real tree having symbolic significance. And I don't necessarily need to believe it was a supernatural event as both you and I have already demonstrated.
I don't know why anyone here would assume or insist that this be an either/or question demanding only either/or answers. But if Dive is only looking for simple one dimensional answers then that's okay. It's his thread, he owns this thread...
pffft, no he doesn't
21 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm afraid I can't converse with you until you acknowledge that Galveston's assertion that the garden of Eden was destroyed by Noah's flood is his self certified zombie drool.
I am actually more interested in how its possible for the garden of Eden to be literal but the trees in it not to be, if you have any evidence to substantiate the claim then please point me in that direction for having looked through the thread i cannot find a single scriptural reference you have made.
I'm enjoying this.
21 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHers a clue dimbo; revelation.
can anyone else find a single divegeester scriptural reference? try as I might i can find none? are they hidden? typed with invisible ink? cryptic and symbolic? couched in inhouse terminology and flowery language, or non visible to the human eye?