The Garden of Eden

Originally posted by FMF
I'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.

No I think its best you put up or shut up.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No I think its best you put up or shut up.

We are simply trading opinions and viewpoints, robbie. If you choose to call our beliefs "self-certified opinions" that's OK. I'd be more inclined to simply call them "opinions", neither of which are "certified" by anyone.

Originally posted by FMF
We are simply trading opinions and viewpoints, robbie. If you choose to call our beliefs "self-certified opinions" that's OK. I'd be more inclined to simply call them "opinions", neither of which are "certified" by anyone.

nah just messin with ya ol bean, you carry on trading whatever it is makes your heart content!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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?

Why would a God figure post "angels" to prevent the way for a "couple" to gain access to a so called "tree of life"? Well, because it is obviously an allegory.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...you carry on trading whatever it is makes your heart content!

I've never suggested to you that you do anything other than exactly the same. 🙂

Originally posted by FMF
Why would a God figure post "angels" to prevent the way for a "couple" to gain access to a so called "tree of life"? Well, because it is obviously an allegory.

that was not the import of my statement, the idea that God would post figurative angles to prevent the way for a literal couple to gain access to a figurative tree is nonsensical. You keep repeating the same thing again and again and merely repeating it again and again is not proof of its veracity.

As i have pointed out, it makes much more sense from a Christian perspective and can be established Biblically that the garden was literal, the tree was literal, the couple were literal but this does not exclude the tree being symbolic for something else, as in the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, symbolic of Gods sovereignty, thus we ave literal and a symbolic values which contain no contradiction.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
that was not the import of my statement, the idea that God would post figurative angles to prevent the way for a literal couple to gain access to a figurative tree is nonsensical.

It makes sense as an allegory. Treated as being "literally true", it lacks credibility and common sense.

Originally posted by FMF
It makes sense as an allegory. Treated as being "literally true", it lacks credibility and common sense.

no i have demonstrated that from a Christian perspective it makes absolute sense to treat the tree, the garden, the couple as literal, for this is what Christ taught and we also understand that while being literal the tree also was symbolic, for example the tree of the knowledge of good and bad was symbolic of Gods sovereignty and thus a literal interpretation is not mutually exclusive with a symbolic value also being applied to the tree or trees. This is not only rational, it makes perfect sense and can be established Biblically. There is no contradiction.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i have demonstrated that from a Christian perspective it makes absolute sense to treat the tree, the garden, the couple as literal, for this is what Christ taught and we also understand that while being literal the tree also was symbolic, for example the tree of the knowledge of good and bad was symbolic of Gods sovereignty and thus a literal inte ...[text shortened]... rational, it makes perfect sense and can be established Biblically. There is no contradiction.

Yours is just one of various "Christian perspectives". What you tell me you personally happen to believe about these stories is nothing new. I have encountered it before. What would interest me though is whether your Christian faith would be diminished if those that taught you about the Bible were to start perceiving the accounts in Genesis as allegorical. If these ancient Hebrew folk tales were in fact NOT "literally true", would it affect the strength of your Christian beliefs?

Originally posted by FMF
Yours is just one of various "Christian perspectives". What you tell me you personally happen to believe about these stories is nothing new. I have encountered it before. What would interest me though is whether your Christian faith would be diminished if those that taught you about the Bible were to start perceiving the accounts in Genesis as allegorical. If th ...[text shortened]... tales were in fact NOT "literally true", would it affect the strength of your Christian beliefs?

Its nothing to do with me, Christ, Paul, Peter all taught a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. This can be Biblically established. What other Christians profess is not dependent upon this because its evident from scripture. Any other interpretation is Biblically unsubstantiated, nonsensical in many cases, irrational, illogical and quite frankly without a shred of substantiating evidence. My beliefs are affected by what is written in scripture, not with what cannot be substantiated by other people.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its nothing to do with me, Christ, Paul, Peter all taught a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. This can be Biblically established. What other Christians profess is not dependent upon this because its evident from scripture. Any other interpretation is Biblically unsubstantiated, nonsensical in many cases, irrational, illogical and quite frankly without a shred of substantiating evidence.

Your beliefs are yours, robbie. And your personal beliefs have everything to do with you. Saying "Its nothing to do with me", when what you are doing is stating your personal beliefs, doesn't really work. You say "Any other interpretation [other than what happens to be yours] is Biblically unsubstantiated, nonsensical in many cases, irrational, illogical...", and in response I would say, no one is questioning your sincerity, robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
My beliefs are affected by what is written in scripture, not with what cannot be substantiated by other people.

galveston75's belief is that the supposed "actual" "Tree of Life" was destroyed in "the flood" but he has refused to substantiate it with "what is written in scripture". Is that why you have declined to endorse his claim?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As i have pointed out, it makes much more sense from a Christian perspective and can be established Biblically that the garden was literal, the tree was literal, the couple were literal but this does not exclude the tree being symbolic for something else, as in the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, symbolic of Gods sovereignty, thus we ave literal and a symbolic values which contain no contradiction.

Your explanation seems awfully far-fetched.

Originally posted by FMF
Your beliefs are yours, robbie. And your personal beliefs have everything to do with you. Saying "Its nothing to do with me", when what you are doing is stating your personal beliefs, doesn't really work. You say "Any other interpretation [other than what happens to be yours] is Biblically unsubstantiated, nonsensical in many cases, irrational, illogical...", and in response I would say, no one is questioning your sincerity, robbie.

what is written in scripture and can be established objectively has nothing to do with me personally. what doesn't work it vain attempts to say that it has.

Originally posted by FMF
Your explanation seems awfully far-fetched.

and yet its logical, rational and Biblically established. I find belief in uncorroborated assertions more far 'fetching', on the mind.