Originally posted by Agerg
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!??
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 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.