The Garden of Eden

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so effhim you were telling us what the genesis account is allegorical for.

The relationship between the Hebrews and their God figure in terms of obedience and the struggle between good and evil.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You will now tell us why this not being explicitly stated has any bearing on the veracity of this.

The veracity of what? You have on several occasions declined to assert the veracity of a passage in the Bible on this thread. What "veracity" are you now seeking to assert? If something is not stated in the Bible and you or galveston75 seek to add something, fill a gap, or extrapolate a detail that is not in fact there, then surely this is an example of a "mere self-certified opinion" like the ones you often mention?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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..

So is it or is it not your personal opinion that the supposed "Tree of Life" was destroyed by "The Flood"? Is it or isn't it?

Originally posted by FMF
So you decline to answer my question unequivocally. Noted.

Noted? Perhaps it was that huge boulder hanging over the tree bird seed. Note that!

-Removed-

Its an example of a principle not explicitly stated in scripture, will you now tell us why its not being explicitly explained in scripture has any bearing on its veracity because so far you have failed to do so.

Originally posted by FMF
The relationship between the Hebrews and their God figure in terms of obedience and the struggle between good and evil.

How that effhim? Its rather vague, loose i think is the term you used earlier.

-Removed-

No you are the one making things up, you have dishonestly represented his position, he did not say it was explicitly stated in scripture, did he, that makes your questions dishonest and a straw man argument, but that just about sums you up, doesn't it.

Originally posted by FMF
So is it or is it not your personal opinion that the supposed "Tree of Life" was destroyed by "The Flood"? Is it or isn't it?

Its an inference from scripture and a plausibility. so you were telling us how, given the example that I cited of cigarettes why their not being explicitly mentioned in scripture has any bearing on the veracity of the claim that their use is forbidden in scripture the Christian being counselled to refrain from anything which defiles the spirit or flesh.

-Removed-

He did not state that it was explicitly stated in scripture and as i pointed out to you a principle or idea does not need to be explicitly stated, does it and i even provided an example, didn't I, so you were telling us why its not being explicitly stated in scripture has any bearing to its veracity, weren't you, Elmer.

-Removed-

there is nothing to get off the hook from, you are building a starwman argument, he does not hold that anything he said is explicitly stated in scripture, did he, in fact he even said that it wasn't, didn't he. Then one is left to wonder just what all your slobber and drool is about, isn't one. So you were telling us why if something is not explicitly stated in scripture this has any bearing on the veracity of the claim. I provided an valid example demonstrating that the veracity of the claim is not dependent on something being explicitly stated, you will be telling us soon, why that's not the case, wont you.