Originally posted by divegeestercan you tell us how the garden of Eden is literal yet the trees in it are not? for it seems to me to be unscriptural and completely without a shred of Biblical evidence, nor could you cite any references when asked to do so making your assertion here quite hypocritical. Do you normally accuse other people of the same crimes you yourself commit? what does that make you?
And willing to add to scripture.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs I've told you repeatedly, I have stated my case several times in this thread as to why I think think the tree is symbolic and provided scriptural reference.
can you tell us how the garden of Eden is literal yet the trees in it are not? for it seems to me to be unscriptural and completely without a shred of Biblical evidence, nor could you cite any references when asked to do so making your assertion here quite hypocritical. Do you normally accuse other people of the same crimes you yourself commit? what does that make you?
Why don't you ask Galveston how he feels justified in adding to scripture in claiming that the garden was destroyed by the flood? Clearly you don't support his assertion.
Originally posted by divegeesterno you have not i have searched the thread and cannot find a single Biblical scripture you have cited, so tell us in just a few words, how is it possible for the garden of Eden to be literal and the trees in it not to be? If you will not tell us then I must assume that you have no evidence and you simply made it up making you a hypocrite in the process.
As I've told you repeatedly, I have stated my case several times in this thread as to why I think think the tree is symbolic and provided scriptural reference.
Why don't you ask Galveston how he feels justified in adding to scripture in claiming that the garden was destroyed by the flood? Clearly you don't support his assertion.
Originally posted by RJHindsWell done and thank you for supporting my point that what is written cannot and shouldn't always be taken a face value.
It is obvious from what God told Adam on the day he ate of the tree that God expected Adam to live more than just that one day for [b]God says to Adam that he would toil "All the days of your life." So we know from this that God was referring to the day that Adam ate of the tree and not to the day that Adam would die, for Adam went on to live over 900 years before he died.[/b]
Originally posted by divegeesteryou mean like saying that the garden of Eden is literal and the trees in it are not, wouldn't it be a strange garden with no literal trees? what about the plants? were they literal? or the animals? were they literal?
Well done and thank you for supporting my point that what is written cannot and shouldn't always be taken a face value.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's just common sense. Everyone here [who thinks the creation story and the Garden of Eden story are both "literally true"] can certainly ~ indeed, without a moment's doubt ~ "take me at [my] word" when I say I think it's just obvious common sense that they're allegorical. If it happens to be your personal opinion that these passages are "literally true", then so be it. I have encountered Christians with your viewpoint before.
and yet when asked you can provided a single iota of evidence to substantiate your claim. Do you really expect the people here to take you at your word when you have been caught making similar truth statements without a shred of evidence?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you keep saying over and over again. Ok I'll help you out, look at page 18.
no you have not i have searched the thread and cannot find a single Biblical scripture you have cited, so tell us in just a few words, how is it possible for the garden of Eden to be literal and the trees in it not to be? If you will not tell us then I must assume that you have no evidence and you simply made it up making you a hypocrite in the process.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI've directed you to the scriptures you were bleating and begging for and denying I had cited. Now will you address the fact that Galveston has used his self certified opinion to claim that the garden of Eden was destroyed in the flood?
you mean like saying that the garden of Eden is literal and the trees in it are not, wouldn't it be a strange garden with no literal trees? what about the plants? were they literal? or the animals? were they literal?
Bump from page 18 for those interested.
Originally posted by divegeester
But the tree, WAS the tree of life, the tree that gave eternal life and for healing. The WAY to the tree was guarded by cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way. Jesus is the WAY and the LIFE and the word of god is described as a sword so sharp it divided bone and marrow.
Do you think the flaming sword is also a literal sword? Do you think the Bible (the word) is actually a sharp sword in disguise? "The word was God" do you think God is actually a book?
Here's more for you literalists.
Revelation 22:2
"Through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side** of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."
Here is the tree of life again in revelation (correctly titled: The Revelation of Jesus Christ). With the "12 types of fruit" - do you think that this tree actually has 12 fruits that are different? 12 types of life fruit?
Do you think we should find these leaves for healing?
Or should we actually THINK about what we believe and why?
**how can one tree be on both sides of the river at the same time? And more importantly WHY would it be depicted so in a book titled "the revelation of Jesus Christ"?
The tree of life is once again symbolised in the book of Revelation of Jesus Christ.
So Galveston, your claim that it was destroyed in the flood, is not only adding to scripture (which is expressly forbidden by Jehovah), it is also completely erroneous. Your made up self certified opinion.
Will you admit you were wrong on both counts?
Originally posted by divegeesterso where does it state that the tree of life was not literal? were the angels who guarded it also not literal? why would God post symbolic angels to prevent the way for a literal couple to gain access to the tree of life if it was merely symbolic? nothing you have said here makes any sense, its a like a hotch potch of gobbledygook all cobbled together.
Bump from page 18 for those interested.
Originally posted by divegeester
But the tree, WAS the tree of life, the tree that gave eternal life and for healing. The WAY to the tree was guarded by cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way. Jesus is the WAY and the LIFE and the word of god is described as a sword so sharp it divided bone ...[text shortened]... more importantly WHY would it be depicted so in a book titled "the revelation of Jesus Christ"?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm just doing the same as galveston75 who said at the top of page 52 that he is "just seeing the obvious" when he thinks the stories are "literally true"; I am also stating that I am "just seeing the obvious". What galveston75 thinks is "obvious" and what I think is "obvious" may not be the same, but this does not prevent us from trading opinions.
an excellent suggestion.