05 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI thought about it, but I didn't want to make things too difficult for Robbie at this stage - he's a bit shy you see when it comes to defending his Bible properly! Just going to give him one thing to think about at a time for now.
you should also include the tree/fruit that gives eternal life.
Come on Robbie - tell us all about how trees of knowledge don't involve magic :]
05 Oct 12
Originally posted by Agergare you aware of the concept of pearls before swine?
I thought about it, but I didn't want to make things too difficult for Robbie at this stage - he's a bit shy you see when it comes to defending his Bible properly! Just going to give him one thing to think about at a time
05 Oct 12
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou can tell us all about pearls and swine after you tell us all about how trees of knowledge don't involve magic. You don't seriously want people to think you're just making stuff up again to deflect challenges towards your pseudo-literal
are you aware of the concept of pearls before swine?
i.e. literal in most parts, but with some random \"interpretation\" when it takes your fancy, and an added dose of crazy for good measure
interpretation of the Bible do you!??06 Oct 12
Originally posted by Agergah, i see you've taken the pearls before swine literally by keeping the pearls of your statement hidden before the swine!!
You can tell us all about pearls and swine after you tell us all about how trees of knowledge don't involve magic. You don't seriously want people to think you're just making stuff up again to deflect challenges towards your pseudo-literal[hidden]i.e. literal in most parts, but with some random \"interpretation\" when it takes your fancy, and an added dose of crazy for good measure[/hidden]interpretation of the Bible do you!??
06 Oct 12
2 edits
Originally posted by AgergI did not introduce magic, you did, i did not introduce apples, you did, I did not
You can tell us all about pearls and swine after you tell us all about how trees of knowledge don't involve magic. You don't seriously want people to think you're just making stuff up again to deflect challenges towards your pseudo-literal[hidden]i.e. literal in most parts, but with some random \"interpretation\" when it takes your fancy, and an added dose of crazy for good measure[/hidden]interpretation of the Bible do you!??
introduce talking snakes, you did, just saying and unless you are willing to make
room for a supernatural element, which you are not, then nothing in scripture will
make much sense to you and you will be doing yourself and me a favour by not
wasting our time in this way.
Our understanding of the so called tree of knowledge of good and bad was that the
fruit itself held no properties, for the prohibition was, if you read the account
carefully, that they were not to 'eat', or 'touch', the tree or its fruit. Thus the tree of the
knowledge of good and bad symbolised the divine right or prerogative, which man’s
Creator retains, to designate to his creatures what is 'good' and what is 'bad,'
thereafter properly requiring the practice of that which is declared good and the
abstention from that which is pronounced bad in order to remain approved by God
as Sovereign Ruler. Both the prohibition and the subsequent pronouncement of the
sentence passed upon the disobedient pair emphasize the fact that it was the act of
disobedience in eating the prohibited fruit that constituted the original sin.
One only needs to look around for verification of the utter folly of complete moral
independence from God.
06 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePrecisely, sir.
I did not introduce magic, you did, i did not introduce apples, you did, I did not
introduce talking snakes, you did, just saying and unless you are willing to make
room for a supernatural element, which you are not, then nothing in scripture will
make much sense to you
This apple/intelligence garbage is a self-contradictory and self-defeating argument. The unbeliever first--for the sake of argument--declares the bible literal and true by suggesting that an apple from a tree gives instant knowledge of good and evil. Then, the unbeliever discards all the rest of the bible as untrue, declaring miracles as impossible, and tries to compare the tree in the Garden of Eden to everyday apple trees we see in the rest of the world.
It's a "have your cake and eat it too" cherry-pick argument which unbelievers are famous for.
If you're going to allow for the bible to be true for the sake of argument, then you also have to allow for a all-powerful Creator who can make *ANYTHING* happen.
Originally posted by sumydidMy only regret sir is that we are not living in the South, whereupon, I would slap the
Precisely, sir.
This apple/intelligence garbage is a self-contradictory and self-defeating argument. The unbeliever first--for the sake of argument--declares the bible literal and true by suggesting that an apple from a tree gives instant knowledge of good and evil. Then, the unbeliever discards all the rest of the bible as untrue, declaring miracles as ment, then you also have to allow for a all-powerful Creator who can make *ANYTHING* happen.
blither with my glove across the face and challenge him to a duel at dawn, pistols or
French foils at his choosing, for this slight upon the sacred word 😛
06 Oct 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you sure he did; I think he would be quite aware that the 'tree of life' and of the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil', are symbolic.
It appears you are not following the discussion. It was Robbie who declared the tree (and the garden it was in) to be entirely natural.