-Removed-Soil
noun
1 : firm land : earth
2 a : the upper layer of earth that may be dug or plowed and in which plants grow
b : the superficial unconsolidated and usually weathered part of the mantle of a planet and especially of the earth
3 : country, land <our native soil>
4 : the agricultural life or calling
5 : a medium in which something takes hold and develops
Dirt-microbial life-moisture-bugs-minerals-roots of plants-mud puddles 😉
I would imagine the soil was free of foreign contaminants or disease.
Originally posted by galveston75Do you have any scriptural reference to back your claim that your God figure deliberately destroyed the Tree Of Life? robbie carrobie has pointedly refused to concur with you. Perhaps a Bible quote from you will settle the issue.
Oh stop your crying just because no one agrees with you. Such a baby!!!!!
🙁
Originally posted by FMFGod has a good sense of humor, maybe it was 'star poop' (ask sonhouse)
Do you have any scriptural reference to back your claim that your God figure deliberately destroyed the Tree Of Life? robbie carrobie has pointedly refused to concur with you. Perhaps a Bible quote from you will settle the issue.
Originally posted by FMFWell first of all I never said there was a scripture that explains the fate of the Garden of Eden or of anything within it's boundries. Correct?
Do you have any scriptural reference to back your claim that your God figure deliberately destroyed the Tree Of Life? robbie carrobie has pointedly refused to concur with you. Perhaps a Bible quote from you will settle the issue.
So perhaps this is where common sense and not confusing some hocus pocus symbolisms into what the Bible says about the Garden of Eden and take it for what it says.
There is no indications in the book of Genesis or in fact in the entire bible that it was not real and had only some symbolic meaning to it.
So the trees were real and would have lived a life span like any other tree in the garden.
But...if for some reason they would have survived all the way to the beginning of the flood which it is anyones guess if they did, they would have been destroyed like all other plant life that was alive before the flood.
Simply enough?
My question which has still not been answerd by ANYONE here is where is scriptural proof that the trees were not real?????????????????????? I think the burden of proof is in yours and Dive's court. Lets see it or stop the arguing over something you haven't proved yet.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh dear Robert?! I disappear for a couple of days and look what a tangle you've got yourself in, and it's all of your own making using your own defined terms. Why not just admit you have no 'empirical evidence' that this exact conversation took place between Jesus and Pilate and that it is a 'religious belief'? It would save you a whole lot of trouble and you wouldn't have to resort to your usual 'politician spiel'.
I could try but it would take time to research my material.
Originally posted by galveston75OK, fine, if you suggest we use "common sense", then I will. I think it's simple common sense to see the Tree of Life as allegorical and also simple common sense to therefore think there was no actual tree of that name to be destroyed in any flood.
So perhaps this is where common sense and not confusing some hocus pocus symbolisms into what the Bible says about the Garden of Eden and take it for what it says.
-Removed-I see that you are still equating "allegorical" with "not real." This is a false dichotomy. There are at least four ways of reading the Bible (even among the faithful): 1. literal, 2. allegorical, 3. moral, and 4. mystical. (Plus 5. as literature, i.e., fiction, for the non-faithful.) The first four are not mutually exclusive.
See for example:
http://ncse.com/religion/how-do-i-read-bible-let-me-count-ways
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobOk i have no empirical evidence at this time.
Oh dear Robert?! I disappear for a couple of days and look what a tangle you've got yourself in, and it's all of your own making using your own defined terms. Why not just admit you have no 'empirical evidence' that this exact conversation took place between Jesus and Pilate and that it is a 'religious belief'? It would save you a whole lot of trouble and you wouldn't have to resort to your usual 'politician spiel'.
Originally posted by lemon limeSpeculating that "no amount of evidence would be enough evidence" for the person questioning the veracity of the account [of the conversation] does not mean that you not providing ANY evidence somehow affirms the veracity of the account.
How about audio tapes?
(You do know that no amount of evidence would be enough evidence, right?)