Results of the Flood

[Rob Osborn]

Just now, Vort said:

Right. So was there a talking serpent, or was there not?

It's irrelevant, it doesn't matter. But I would weigh in favor there was a literal snake before Eve.

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

God planted the trees. They arent merely metaphorical or mythical trees.

Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?  Alma suggests that the reader (reader of the Book of Mormon) plant the very seed that becomes the unique one of a kind tree you insist that G-d and only G-d planted in Eden.  Do you believe in the Book of Mormon?  Or are you now going to insist that Alma was a metaphor or mythical prophet?

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

14 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

It's irrelevant, it doesn't matter. But I would weigh in favor there was a literal snake before Eve.

Rob, don't be obtuse. It's obviously completely relevant. If you insist on the trees being literal trees, then for consistency you must insist on the snake being a literal snake. If you allow that the term "snake" could be a metaphor, then you must allow that "tree" could also be a metaphor.

[Traveler]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Rob, don't be obtuse. It's obviously completely relevant. If you insist on the trees being literal trees, then for consistency you must insist on the snake being a literal snake. If you allow that the term "snake" could be a metaphor, then you must allow that "tree" could also be a metaphor.

Actually the term is serpent and serpent is used often in scripture as a metaphor as well as in many places in the ancient world that Moses was raised and educated in - likewise so are trees and the fruit of trees mostly used as a metaphor to enable someone that is humble to be taught by the Holy Spirit.  I am beginning to think that Rob may be fearful of the implications in considering that G-d would speak of such important and critical things using metaphors.  He is confusing the meaning of metaphor with mythical as though the two terms carry the same idea - that if there is any metaphor in the Eden epoch - he is fearful that Eden would just be another old mythical fable from an ignorant past. 

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?  Alma suggests that the reader (reader of the Book of Mormon) plant the very seed that becomes the unique one of a kind tree you insist that G-d and only G-d planted in Eden.  Do you believe in the Book of Mormon?  Or are you now going to insist that Alma was a metaphor or mythical prophet?

 

The Traveler

Look, there are dual meanings to things, symbols, etc. As for the question- were there actual physical trees God planted in the garden of Eden? Yes. Im done debating it already.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Rob, don't be obtuse. It's obviously completely relevant. If you insist on the trees being literal trees, then for consistency you must insist on the snake being a literal snake. If you allow that the term "snake" could be a metaphor, then you must allow that "tree" could also be a metaphor.

And by your standards everything must be metaphorical and nothing really exists. It goes both ways.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Actually the term is serpent and serpent is used often in scripture as a metaphor as well as in many places in the ancient world that Moses was raised and educated in - likewise so are trees and the fruit of trees mostly used as a metaphor to enable someone that is humble to be taught by the Holy Spirit.  I am beginning to think that Rob may be fearful of the implications in considering that G-d would speak of such important and critical things using metaphors.  He is confusing the meaning of metaphor with mythical as though the two terms carry the same idea - that if there is any metaphor in the Eden epoch - he is fearful that Eden would just be another old mythical fable from an ignorant past. 

 

The Traveler

Im so way above what you think I know. Good day.

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

And by your standards everything must be metaphorical and nothing really exists. It goes both ways.

I have no such standards.

If you insist that there must have been growing trees made of wood because Genesis represents them as trees, then logically you have to believe that there must have been an actual talking snake -- because that's how Genesis represents Satan. Conversely, if you agree that the "serpent" representation of Satan need not have been literal, then you must acknowledge the possibility that the "tree" representation could likewise be figurative.

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have no such standards.

If you insist that there must have been growing trees made of wood because Genesis represents them as trees, then logically you have to believe that there must have been an actual talking snake -- because that's how Genesis represents Satan. Conversely, if you agree that the "serpent" representation of Satan need not have been literal, then you must acknowledge the possibility that the "tree" representation could likewise be figurative.

By that own standard of which you seem to be revealing, nothing was real, it was all figurative- God, Adam, the Earth, it was all figurative.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

By that own standard of which you seem to be revealing, nothing was real, it was all figurative- God, Adam, the Earth, it was all figurative.

Really, Rob, you need to read what I write, not make things up out of your own insecurities and then assign them to me. If you want to know what I believe, ask me.

You continue to dodge the question. Why should a figurative serpent be okay, but a figurative tree not be okay?

[MrShorty]

If I may interject -- why must the debate be an all or nothing binary? All of scripture must be inspired fiction or all of scripture must be historical fact? What if one of the big challenges of reading scripture is about teasing out what parts are inspired fiction and what parts are historical fact (along with the careful exploration of when and why the question of historicity makes a difference to modern readers)?

It sometimes seems to me that part of Creationists' concerns with non-literal readings of Genesis is a "slippery slope" kind of argument where, if the first few chapters of Genesis are nothing but inspired creation myth, then we are on the slippery slope to where all of scripture is myth. I'm not sure that the latter conclusion is a necessary fallout of accepting that parts of Genesis are allegory. The hard part is trying to understand what scripture really is. Or, maybe it would be better in the plural -- The hard part is trying to understand what scriptures are, because the answer for one verse/chapter/book may not be the same answer for a different verse/chapter/book.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

If I may interject -- why must the debate be an all or nothing binary? All of scripture must be inspired fiction or all of scripture must be historical fact? What if one of the big challenges of reading scripture is about teasing out what parts are inspired fiction and what parts are historical fact (along with the careful exploration of when and why the question of historicity makes a difference to modern readers)?

It sometimes seems to me that part of Creationists' concerns with non-literal readings of Genesis is a "slippery slope" kind of argument where, if the first few chapters of Genesis are nothing but inspired creation myth, then we are on the slippery slope to where all of scripture is myth. I'm not sure that the latter conclusion is a necessary fallout of accepting that parts of Genesis are allegory. The hard part is trying to understand what scripture really is. Or, maybe it would be better in the plural -- The hard part is trying to understand what scriptures are, because the answer for one verse/chapter/book may not be the same answer for a different verse/chapter/book.

I take an even less radical view: What if (basically) all of Genesis is factual, but some parts are represented in a figurative manner? To me, it seems obvious that Adam and Eve were real people, that Eden was a real place, and that Satan really did tempt them. But what was the nature of that existence and temptation? It is represented as a garden with fruit trees and a seductive snake -- symbols that we can grasp and that have meaning. Perhaps the literal reality would be outside our experience, so that we would completely miss the important elements. This is done all the time in scripture, with allegory, with parables, with proverbs, and so forth. Seems eminently reasonable, and perhaps even so obvious that we can't doubt that much scripture is that way.

I won't convince Rob, whose mind is very firmly shut, but others might want to consider the possibilities.

[Rob Osborn]

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

Really, Rob, you need to read what I write, not make things up out of your own insecurities and then assign them to me. If you want to know what I believe, ask me.

You continue to dodge the question. Why should a figurative serpent be okay, but a figurative tree not be okay?

Look, I will be honest, I havent really given the talking serpent much thought, just never dawned on me I guess. Whether it was real or figurative, whatever, Im okay with it. As for the trees, they were real trees. 

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

I take an even less radical view: What if (basically) all of Genesis is factual, but some parts are represented in a figurative manner? To me, it seems obvious that Adam and Eve were real people, that Eden was a real place, and that Satan really did tempt them. But what was the nature of that existence and temptation? It is represented as a garden with fruit trees and a seductive snake -- symbols that we can grasp and that have meaning. Perhaps the literal reality would be outside our experience, so that we would completely miss the important elements. This is done all the time in scripture, with allegory, with parables, with proverbs, and so forth. Seems eminently reasonable, and perhaps even so obvious that we can't doubt that much scripture is that way.

I won't convince Rob, whose mind is very firmly shut, but others might want to consider the possibilities.

My mind is open. But what I cant stand is for people to make the entire garden mythical.

[Traveler]

28 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

By that own standard of which you seem to be revealing, nothing was real, it was all figurative- God, Adam, the Earth, it was all figurative.

 

This post implies that when ever G-d uses a metaphor in scripture that it is not real.   Am I understanding you correctly?  Neither myself nor @Vorthave ever posted Eden is not real what we have said is that there are some obvious metaphors used by G-d in attempting to teach us (mankind) about Eden.   Since you do not seem to understand the difference between a metaphor and a myth - I will explain one small point - METAPHORS are symbols of something.  What it is a symbol of can be just as real as a tree in your front yard.  Sometimes the metaphor can be real - like the image of a serpent that Moses put on the poll - but weather a metaphor is a real physical thing or an idea - The metaphor is not what is important - it is what it symbolizes is important.  My concern is that you are too centered on the metaphor itself.  To be clear - I believe there is a term for this kind of thinking - it is called Idolatry. 

For everyone to understand here is a list of what I believe to be metaphors from the Eden eopch:

1. The Tree of Life

2. The Serpent

3. The Cherubum

4. The flaming sword

5. The way to the Tree of life.

Based on the use of these metaphors - I have suggested the possibility that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and it fruit is also a metaphor.  If we refuse to consider that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and it fruit is also a metaphor then it is impossible for anyone following this thinking to ever understand what G-d meant - assuming that it is a metaphor.

 

The Traveler

Edited August 23, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

This post implies that when ever G-d uses a metaphor in scripture that it is not real.   Am I understanding you correctly?  Neither myself nor @Vorthave ever posted Eden is not real what we have said is that there are some obvious metaphors used by G-d in attempting to teach us (mankind) about Eden.   Since you do not seem to understand the difference between a metaphor and a myth - I will explain one small point - METAPHORS are symbols of something.  What it is a symbol of can be just as real as a tree in your front yard.  Sometimes the metaphor can be real - like the image of a serpent that Moses put on the poll - but weather a metaphor is a real physical thing or an idea - The metaphor is not what is important - it is what it symbolizes is important.  My concern is that you are too centered on the metaphor itself.  To be clear - I believe there is a term for this kind of thinking - it is called Idolatry. 

For everyone to understand here is a list of what I believe to be metaphors from the Eden eopch:

1. The Tree of Life

2. The Serpent

3. The Cherubum

4. The flaming sword

5. The way to the Tree of life.

Based on the use of these metaphors - I have suggested the possibility that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and it fruit is also a metaphor.  If we refuse to consider that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and it fruit is also a metaphor then it is impossible for anyone following this thinking to ever understand what G-d meant - assuming that it is a metaphor.

 

The Traveler

 

The Traveler

Metaphors can also be combined with mythical. If there were never any real trees then the story of God planting them would be mythical.

[Traveler]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

My mind is open. But what I cant stand is for people to make the entire garden mythical.

Who has said it was mythical?  Can you quote the post?

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Who has said it was mythical?  Can you quote the post?

 

The Traveler

existing only in the imaginationhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mythical

[Traveler]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Metaphors can also be combined with mythical. If there were never any real trees then the story of God planting them would be mythical.

Wow - by your logic Alma in the Book of Mormon was mythical because he planted seed that were not real seeds.  

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

existing only in the imaginationhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mythical

you are misleading readers - this does not say anything about metaphors.   If this is the case then by your logic all the parables of Christ are mythical and there is no truth to them.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

existing only in the imaginationhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mythical

Also this is not a post claiming that the Eden epoch was mythical.  Again you do not seem to understand what is being said in discussions.

 

The Traveler

[Grunt]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

I take an even less radical view: What if (basically) all of Genesis is factual, but some parts are represented in a figurative manner? To me, it seems obvious that Adam and Eve were real people, that Eden was a real place, and that Satan really did tempt them. But what was the nature of that existence and temptation? It is represented as a garden with fruit trees and a seductive snake -- symbols that we can grasp and that have meaning. Perhaps the literal reality would be outside our experience, so that we would completely miss the important elements. This is done all the time in scripture, with allegory, with parables, with proverbs, and so forth. Seems eminently reasonable, and perhaps even so obvious that we can't doubt that much scripture is that way.

I won't convince Rob, whose mind is very firmly shut, but others might want to consider the possibilities.

Or perhaps it IS literal.  Does it really matter?  Why do we argue over these things, when the end result is the same.  It is so destructive.

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, Grunt said:

  Why do we argue over these things, when the end result is the same.  It is so destructive.

Welcome to the internet. Is it your first day here? Have some cookies. 😉

[Grunt]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Welcome to the internet. Is it your first day here? Have some cookies. 😉

I guess I'm just not cut out for it, or I'm just getting sick of the places I go to for inspiration becoming less inspirational.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I guess I'm just not cut out for it, or I'm just getting sick of the places I go to for inspiration becoming less inspirational.

How so? I find this site incredibly inspiring. 

Edited August 23, 2018 by MormonGator