4 edits
-Removed-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, it does not state that you should not smoke cigarettes but the discerning scholar can use what is written to form an evaluation that its a defilement of flesh and spirit, which is written in scripture.
You yourself have made some ludicrous claims none of which you can substantiate Biblically and here you are with the same hypocrisy which brands all of your posts demanding a reason from someone else.
I shall repeat it so that you will not ask it again, the Bible does not explicitly state that the trees in the garden were destroyed but its plausible given that it records a great flood which would have a devastating effect on the environment. Its logical, rational and has its basis in scripture that being that the garden was literal and likely was destroyed past recognition because there was a great flood also mentioned in scripture. Floods do devastating damage.
Now if you have any more loaded questions based on a blatantly plastic and transparent straw man argument, feel free. Did the Gman say that it was explicitly stated in scripture? No then why are you trying to insinuate that he did? If he did not say that then your question is a misrepresentation of his position, which we know is your way of operating here.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIs your contention that the "Tree of Life" mentioned in Genesis was destroyed in "The Flood" a "truth claim" on your part?
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...
Originally posted by galveston75One of the issues here has been whether or not your assertion about the fate of the "Tree of Life" is what robbie describes as "a mere self-certified opinion" and while you may have addressed some other issues in some of your posts, you have been doggedly passive aggressive and deflective when asked how you yourself measure up against one of robbie's stock-in-trade dismissive/issue-evading put downs.
So buddy, how many times do I have to answer you this before it gets into your head? 10 more times, or how about 27 or maybe 3,000,000,000,001? Which will satisfy you? Let me know and I'll paste it over and over for you for as long as your heart desires. I live only to please you my lord!
-Removed-Holy cow man!!!!! Did I not say as clear as a bell that the bible does not specify what happened to anything in the garden? What on earth do you not understand about that? If there were a scripture that said what happened to anything in the garden, would I not have posted it?
Maybe this scripture will help: "The tree that was real but not real from the Garden of Eden that was real or maybe not real, could have had real fruit or maybe not, could have existed or maybe, who knows, certianly not "Dive" as he can't seem to figure it out but assures us all that he knows it all and no one else knows anything as he cleary tells us daily". The book of Foolish Mumbo Jumbo 8:14.
Originally posted by galveston75Do you agree with robbie when he says "That it does not explicitly state [what happened to the tree] in scripture is simply neither here nor there"? Can whether something is backed by scripture or not backed by scripture really "simply [be] neither here nor there"? This sounds very 'loose' from someone who insists on interpreting something obviously allegorical as being "literally true".
Holy cow man!!!!! Did I not say as clear as a bell that the bible does not specify what happened to anything in the garden? What on earth do you not understand about that? If there were a scripture that said what happened to anything in the garden, would I not have posted it?
Maybe this scripture will help: "The tree that was real but not real f ...[text shortened]... no one else knows anything as he cleary tells us daily". The book of Foolish Mumbo Jumbo 8:14.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWhat is it about the term 'plausible', that you fail to understand? What is it about not explicity stated that yet evades you? Oh dear another rather plastic and transparent effort effhim. You appear to me to be RHP's version of Wile. E. Cayote simply content to offer up free bird seed and paint train tunnels on the side of mountains. Better get those ACME rocket boots checked effhim!
Is your contention that the "Tree of Life" mentioned in Genesis was destroyed in "The Flood" a "truth claim" on your part?
-Removed-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 false values to ascribe to them a position they did not hold? Do you normally resort to falsely representing someone's position? why would you do that unless of course its your intent to make them appear as something they are not.
Now this is of interest because only recently you were telling us about forum etiquette. Is falsely portraying someone's position good forum etiquette. You appear to me to be a kind of RHP's version of Elmer Fudd, not very clever and not very subtle. Im going to blast you out you Pesky Galveston and all the time you are left with gunpowder covering your blackened face.
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFso effhim you were telling us what the genesis account is allegorical for.
Do you agree with robbie when he says "That it does not explicitly state [what happened to the tree] in scripture is simply neither here nor there"? Can whether something is backed by scripture or not backed by scripture really "simply [be] neither here nor there"? This sounds very 'loose' from someone who insists on interpreting something obviously allegorical as being "literally true".
Whether something is explicitly stated in scripture does not effect the veracity of its claim because as i pointed out, scripture does not explicitly forbid smoking cigarettes but one may deduce from what is written that its anti biblical. You will now tell us why this not being explicitly stated has any bearing on the veracity of this.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you decline to answer my question unequivocally. Noted.
What is it about the term 'plausible', that you fail to understand? What is it about not explicity stated that yet evades you? Oh dear another rather plastic and transparent effort effhim. You appear to me to be RHP's version of Wile. E. Cayote simply content to offer up free bird seed and paint train tunnels on the side of mountains. Better get those ACME rocket boots checked effhim!