The Garden of Eden

Originally posted by FMF
What you say is important in so far as it affects whether you can be taken at your word. You suggest that the Bible's Adam to Jesus lineage is corroborated by other accounts. Turns out this isn't true and you back pedal from it. You suggest that you have never heard of 'The Garden of Eden' story being seen as allegory before. Turns out this isn't true and you back pedal from it. What you say matters.

"You suggest that the Bible's Adam to Jesus lineage is corroborated by "other" accounts."

Not my wording at all. I said "all accounts" and was speaking of the Bible only as I explained in an earlier post. I guess you missed it, again.

And now for the third or fourth time I said I had not heard of his version as I keep explaining. I guess you keep missing that too?

So are you going to keep asking these same questions over and over or will you get it this time around? Well see huh?

Originally posted by galveston75
Not my wording at all. I said "all accounts" and was speaking of the Bible only as I explained in an earlier post. I guess you missed it, again.

The Bible cannot be corroborated by the Bible.

Originally posted by galveston75
And now for the third or fourth time I said I had not heard of his version as I keep explaining. I guess you keep missing that too?

You have never heard of 'The Garden of Eden' story being seen by many Christians as an allegory rather than literally true even after 40 years of discussing the Bible with Christians?

Originally posted by FMF
The Bible cannot be corroborated by the Bible.

Wouldn't that be literary incest?

Originally posted by HandyAndy
Wouldn't that be literary incest?

No; incest requires another intimate relation. Self-corroboration would be literary masturbation.

-Removed-

The wages of sin is death, correct. So we know no dead people were
there at that time. I'm not sure about plants or animals not dying before
the fall, someone else can speak to that.
Kelly

Originally posted by galveston75
Why would I not be serious? Yes I've talked to many who believe that to be so but all have a different take on it and I'm just asking him to hear his version.

Your sloppy fib and clanger strewn writing is the product of a mind that also insists that the text of some Iron Age mythology must be taken literally. It may sound like an ad hominem to tackle you on your absurdity-riddled posts and constant passive aggressive backpeddling, but a key issue here is your credibility as some sort of self-appointed expert witness on the history of mankind.

As an allegory, 'The Garden of Eden' story at least has some semblance of philosophical relevance or interest as it tries to portray a relationship with a perceived God figure; as a supposedly 'literally true' story, there is absolutely no convincing reason to believe it without wholesale adoption of circular logic.

-Removed-

Your welome to your view. How about we just agree to disagree and avoid each other here on the forums? Deal?

Originally posted by FMF
The Bible cannot be corroborated by the Bible.

Well actually it can and does corroborate perfectly with it's collection of 66 books with each other as they were all inspired by God. No other book like it ever in existance on this planet so it can't be compared with any normal book.

Originally posted by galveston75
Well actually it can and does corroborate perfectly with it's collection of 66 books with each other as they were all inspired by God. No other book like it ever in existance on this planet so it can't be compared with any normal book.

Your fixation on the Bible is peculiar (and peculiarly Protestant, if I may presume to guess your affiliation).

1. At the time of Jesus and for the first three centuries after his death, there was no such book as The Bible. There were innumerable sacred scrolls circulating round the Mediterranean in the first three centuries CE. Not everyone who thinks of himself as a Christian accepts that there were always exactly 66 books, never more, never less.

2. If I may suggest, read about how the Bible came to be; it didn't just drop out of the sky fully-formed, you know. (Unless you're a Mormon, in which case it _did_.) Find out why just those particular scrolls (or 'books' ) were canonized, by whom, when, and how often they were redacted over the last two millennia. For your info, the earliest _complete_ extant OT (known as the Masoretic Text) dates from 1524. That is very very far removed from the time of Jesus and the Apostles, and a huge amount of editing when on during the gap in between. Only fragments survive from earlier centuries.

3. The Bible is not the primary source for the revelation of God's will for man. As any Catholic, Greek or Russian Orthodox, or Anglican priest will tell you, the Bible is only the menu, not the meal.

And finally, the Bible is not the final word of God to man; God's will for man is being continuously revealed (updated, refined) through Ecumenical Councils. Ignore them at your (eternal) peril.

The Bible was suited to purpose at the time, but it is frozen in time. Now it's time to move on.

Originally posted by galveston75
Well actually it can and does corroborate perfectly with it's collection of 66 books with each other as they were all inspired by God. No other book like it ever in existance on this planet so it can't be compared with any normal book.

So, when it comes to the history of mankind, you reckon the Bible can be corroborated by... the Bible?

Originally posted by moonbus
Your fixation on the Bible is peculiar (and peculiarly Protestant, if I may presume to guess your affiliation).

1. At the time of Jesus and for the first three centuries after his death, there was no such book as The Bible. There were innumerable sacred scrolls circulating round the Mediterranean in the first three centuries CE. Not everyone who thinks of ...[text shortened]... The Bible was suited to purpose at the time, but it is frozen in time. Now it's time to move on.

Just the view of the bible that satan loves all to have....