The Garden of Eden

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so effhim you were telling us what the genesis account is allegorical for.

The relationship between the Hebrews and their God figure in terms of obedience and the struggle between good and evil.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You will now tell us why this not being explicitly stated has any bearing on the veracity of this.

The veracity of what? You have on several occasions declined to assert the veracity of a passage in the Bible on this thread. What "veracity" are you now seeking to assert? If something is not stated in the Bible and you or galveston75 seek to add something, fill a gap, or extrapolate a detail that is not in fact there, then surely this is an example of a "mere self-certified opinion" like the ones you often mention?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so the crux of the matter is this, the Gman has not said that its explicitly stated in scripture, that makes your question to him, a strawman argument and not a very clever or subtle one at that and a blatant misrepresentation of his position. Now why would anyone need to resort to assigning false values to someone and then attempting to use those f ...[text shortened]... t you Pesky Galveston and all the time you are left with gunpowder covering your blackened face.

I contend with Galveston because he is making stuff up and presenting it as scriptural truth. He then avoids questions about this made up stuff and wheels out his "too busy to post" excuses which he frequently does when cornered. I am not going to let him off the hook and no amount of chest thumping and bluster from you will prevent it.

Edit: earlier in this thread I questioned you on Galveston's claim and you said "I am only interested in commenting on what is in scripture". Now you are saying " whether something is explicit in scripture is neither here nor there"

Which is it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its been explained to you three times, Garden was literal, trees literal, great flood came, garden was gone, how hard can it be. Thats it does not explicitly state this in scripture is simply neither here nor there..

So is it or is it not your personal opinion that the supposed "Tree of Life" was destroyed by "The Flood"? Is it or isn't it?

Originally posted by FMF
So you decline to answer my question unequivocally. Noted.

Noted? Perhaps it was that huge boulder hanging over the tree bird seed. Note that!

Originally posted by divegeester
That cigarettes are bad for you is supported by scientific fact. That the garden of Eden was destroyed in the noah flood is not supported by science nor scripture; it is complete "self certified opinion".

However as you Jehovah's Witness feel that, and I quote you from this page:

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]...Thats it does no ...[text shortened]... .

...I guess it is no surprise that you feel licensed to add to scripture as you see fit.[/b]

Its an example of a principle not explicitly stated in scripture, will you now tell us why its not being explicitly explained in scripture has any bearing on its veracity because so far you have failed to do so.

Originally posted by FMF
The relationship between the Hebrews and their God figure in terms of obedience and the struggle between good and evil.

How that effhim? Its rather vague, loose i think is the term you used earlier.

Originally posted by divegeester
I contend with Galveston because he is making stuff up and presenting it as scriptural truth. He then avoids questions about this made up stuff and wheels out his "too busy to post" excuses which he frequently does when cornered. I am not going to let him off the hook and no amount of chest thumping and bluster from you will prevent it.

Edit: earlier ...[text shortened]... saying " whether something is explicit in scripture is neither here nor there"

Which is it?

No you are the one making things up, you have dishonestly represented his position, he did not say it was explicitly stated in scripture, did he, that makes your questions dishonest and a straw man argument, but that just about sums you up, doesn't it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its an example of a principle not explicitly stated in scripture, will you now tell us why its not being explicitly explained in scripture has any bearing on its veracity because so far you have failed to do so.

You're just deflecting robbie. I'm not going to let Galveston off the hook and you bring up these lame examples of where something is not written in scripture to defend him is just making you, him and your Jehovah's Witness cult look silly.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No you are the one making things up, you have dishonestly represented his position, he did not say it was explicitly stated in scripture, did he, that makes your questions dishonest and a straw man argument, but that just about sums you up, doesn't it.

How have I dishonestly represented him? That his claim is not supported in scripture is the whole point here you nit-wit.

Originally posted by FMF
So is it or is it not your personal opinion that the supposed "Tree of Life" was destroyed by "The Flood"? Is it or isn't it?

Its an inference from scripture and a plausibility. so you were telling us how, given the example that I cited of cigarettes why their not being explicitly mentioned in scripture has any bearing on the veracity of the claim that their use is forbidden in scripture the Christian being counselled to refrain from anything which defiles the spirit or flesh.

Originally posted by divegeester
How have I dishonestly represented him? That his claim is not supported in scripture is the whole point here you nit-wit.

He did not state that it was explicitly stated in scripture and as i pointed out to you a principle or idea does not need to be explicitly stated, does it and i even provided an example, didn't I, so you were telling us why its not being explicitly stated in scripture has any bearing to its veracity, weren't you, Elmer.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its an inference from scripture and a plausibility.

But earlier in this thread I challenged you when you tried to initially support Galveston and you said

"I am not interested in anything than what is written in scripture"

But now on the previous page you are saying:

that something is not explicitly written in scripture is neither here nor there

You seem to be changing your opinion quite dramatically as you wriggle to support Galveston's "self certified opinion".

Originally posted by divegeester
You're just deflecting robbie. I'm not going to let Galveston off the hook and you bring up these lame examples of where something is not written in scripture to defend him is just making you, him and your Jehovah's Witness cult look silly.

there is nothing to get off the hook from, you are building a starwman argument, he does not hold that anything he said is explicitly stated in scripture, did he, in fact he even said that it wasn't, didn't he. Then one is left to wonder just what all your slobber and drool is about, isn't one. So you were telling us why if something is not explicitly stated in scripture this has any bearing on the veracity of the claim. I provided an valid example demonstrating that the veracity of the claim is not dependent on something being explicitly stated, you will be telling us soon, why that's not the case, wont you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
He did not state that it was explicitly stated in scripture and as i pointed out to you a principle or idea does not need to be explicitly stated, does it and i even provided an example, didn't I, so you were telling us why its not being explicitly stated in scripture has any bearing to its veracity, weren't you, Elmer.

Are you now being deliberately obtuse as a tactic? Those reading this are well aware that Galveston has not supported his self certified opinion that the tree of life was destroyed with the garden of Eden in Noah's flood. I'm contending with him because he hasn't supported it in scripture. That he has not claimed it was supported in scripture is irrelevant and actually obvious - because it isn't!

Keep trying.