do you believe that the Garden of Eden is a real place?

[PureX]

That doesn't work because according to Genesis the lands outside of Eden were called the Land of Nod.

It's a STORY, created using symbolic and metaphorical characters and circumstances intended to represent the ideals of the story-makers and users. The talking snake is not intended to be taken as an historical biological talking snake, it's meant to represent the human ego and it's propensity for deceiving us into thinking we are more/better/smarter/righteous/etc., than we are. The "land of Nod" is meant to represent a view of the world devoid of the miracle of divine creativity; the view that we humans have of it once we have fallen victim to the lies of our own egos.

 

[shmogie]

Because the Jews tend to know more about their own religion than the two of us combined will ever know.

The Torah is there for anyone to read. One need not be a Jew to read and understand it..

 

[shmogie]

It's a STORY, created using symbolic and metaphorical characters and circumstances intended to represent the ideals of the story-makers and users. The talking snake is not intended to be taken as an historical biological talking snake, it's meant to represent the human ego and it's propensity for deceiving us into thinking we are more/better/smarter/righteous/etc., than we are. The "land of Nod" is meant to represent a view of the world devoid of the miracle of divine creativity; the view that we humans have of it once we have fallen victim to the lies of our own egos.

We all have opinions

 

[ecco]

Again, the Bible not intended an all cases to be clear.

This is exactly my point. URAVIP2ME stated it is clear for certain people...

it is clear to those with an acquiring mind who really want to know when studied by subject or topic arrangement.

...and unclear to others...

It is Not clear to God's enemies.

Christ frequently taught in parables for a reason. What He taught was intended for those who could understand what he was speaking about. Some can't understand and cannot ever know any different.

What about the OT? Is Genesis parables, allegory or historical fact?

 

[ecco]

The writers of the NT are not anonymous. Scholars know who they were except in one or two cases.

Then please show scholarly articles that clearly state the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The following is from a book by a Christian scholar who disagrees with you.

Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels

Excerpt: 'Jesus, Interrupted'

JESUS, INTERRUPTED: REVEALING THE HIDDEN CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE (AND WHY WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THEM)
BY BART D. EHRMAN
HARDCOVER, 304 PAGES
HARPERONE
LIST PRICE: $25.99
Chapter Four

Students taking a college-level Bible course for the first time often find it surprising that we don't know who wrote most of the books of the New Testament. How could that be? Don't these books all have the authors' names attached to them? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the letters of Paul, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2 and 3 John? How could the wrong names be attached to books of Scripture? Isn't this the Word of God? If someone wrote a book claiming to be Paul while knowing full well that he wasn't Paul — isn't that lying? Can Scripture contain lies?

When I arrived at seminary I was fully armed and ready for the onslaught on my faith by liberal biblical scholars who were going to insist on such crazy ideas. Having been trained in conservative circles, I knew that these views were standard fare at places like Princeton Theological Seminary. But what did they know? Bunch of liberals.

What came as a shock to me over time was just how little actual evidence there is for the traditional ascriptions of authorship that I had always taken for granted, and how much real evidence there was that many of these ascriptions are wrong. It turned out the liberals actually had something to say and had evidence to back it up; they weren't simply involved in destructive wishful thinking. There were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles). Other books were written by authors who flat out claimed to be someone they weren't.​

No, his understanding of the OT

"His understanding"? Why are you commenting on his understanding? Shouldn't URVIP2ME comment on his understanding?

... as accurately written in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You cannot prove otherwise

There is substantial evidence to conclude that the authors of the Gospels are unknown.

There is substantial evidence to conclude that the authors of the Gospels were not eyewitnesses.

If they were not eyewitnesses how can they accurately quote Jesus' words and actions. Did they use shorthand to accurately record all 2000+ words of the Sermon on the Mount?

 

[ecco]

and why does all that exists, exist ?

So that people like you can ponder it?

All intelligent people ponder this at one time or another. Sorry that people like you haven´t.

So here you go with the insults. That's usually a sign that someone cannot formulate a decent argument.

Nevertheless, no, I don't spend a whole lot of time pondering "why does all that exists, exist ?"

When I briefly do, I always come back to: Why does there have to be a why?

Why is only important if the answer provides a means to make changes. If we understand why children fail in school, we can do things to address the problem.

Why is meaningless if there can be no rational answers. Why do good people die and bad people live? Meaningless and irrational.

Why is meaningless if there can be no rational answers. Why does all that exists, exist, is meaningless.

 

[Elliott5779]

Possible, but the Bible is pretty clear as to where it was.

Maybe it's not as clear cut as it seems. Where in the Bible do we learn that the Garden was removed or destroyed?

 

[shmogie]

Maybe it's not as clear cut as it seems. Where in the Bible do we learn that the Garden was removed or destroyed?

It says where it was, and itś not there now

 

[Subduction Zone]

We all have opinions

Some Christians reinterpret the Bible so it does not disagree with reality. To me that is a better translation than one that calls God a liar.

 

[shmogie]

So here you go with the insults. That's usually a sign that someone cannot formulate a decent argument.

Nevertheless, no, I don't spend a whole lot of time pondering "why does all that exists, exist ?"

When I briefly do, I always come back to: Why does there have to be a why?

Why is only important if the answer provides a means to make changes. If we understand why children fail in school, we can do things to address the problem.

Why is meaningless if there can be no rational answers. Why do good people die and bad people live? Meaningless and irrational.

Why is meaningless if there can be no rational answers. Why does all that exists, exist, is meaningless.

Not having a why defyś the rules of logic. Tigers eat goats, why ? Darwinian theories explain why. A photon can be a wave or a particle, why ? because apparently that is the nature of light, and light exists. A plant has clorophyll that responds to the light, why ? so the plant can grow.

since everything has whyś, why doesn´t everything in total, the universe, have a why ?

So, you do think about it, I thought so. You are comfortable with the answer being unknowable, I am not.

I think there are rational answers for most everything. Philosophy and theology are the disciplines that explore these questions and offer answers. The answers may be wrong, but they are comfortable and rational to me. That is better for me than being extremely uncomfortable with the idea that I am a brief anomaly in a massive universe that exists for no reason or purpose, other than to be the briefest existence possible in eternity

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not having a why defyś the rules of logic. Tigers eat goats, why ? Darwinian theories explain why. A photon can be a wave or a particle, why ? because apparently that is the nature of light, and light exists. A plant has clorophyll that responds to the light, why ? so the plant can grow.

since everything has whyś, why doesn´t everything in total, the universe, have a why ?

So, you do think about it, I thought so. You are comfortable with the answer being unknowable, I am not.

I think there are rational answers for most everything. Philosophy and theology are the disciplines that explore these questions and offer answers. The answers may be wrong, but they are comfortable and rational to me. That is better for me than being extremely uncomfortable with the idea that I am a brief anomaly in a massive universe that exists for no reason or purpose, other than to be the briefest existence possible in eternity

No, not having a why can be a correct position to take based upon the evidence available. Sometimes the correct answer is "We don't know yet". A god that poofs things into existence without any evidence for that god is not a logical position to take.

The universe probably does have a "why" but it is currently unknown. The way to get to that "why" is not to say "goddidit" and stop searching. The way to the "why" is to use our current knowledge and build upon that.

If you want to claim that "god" is the answer then you put the burden of proof firmly upon yourself. I am satisfied with "we don't know yet and we are still looking" for now. It is the best that we can do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are confused and ignorant of the meticulous Hebrew records and prophecies regarding the Messiah.

That's why I tend to take my information about Judaism from those who are Jewish. I realized long ago I knew very little about Judaism, and it's entirely inaccurate to think of it from a perspective of Christianity because the two religions are not congruent.
I can say many Christians are confused and ignorant when they look to the OT for laws and policy, as they don't realize there are specific meanings, contexts, and conditions for the Law to apply. And they don't realize, very often, that Jewish law does not apply to them, because those are laws to affirm the covenant between Jehovah and Abraham and his descendants.

You underestimate the Hebrew God and the Hebrew people who produced those records and prophecies,

Not at all. I don't believe in the Hebrew god, obviously, but as I've said prior I take my information about Judaism from those who are Jewish. It's how I learned that the Satan character from Judaism and Christianity are two completely different characters, with the Christian Satan being a blasphemous concept in Judaism.

The Christians could not possibly have done what you claim.

They did though. The very fact the Jews reject Jesus as messiah is telling that there is a great divide between the two religions, and that they have superficial similarities at best. The Prophets are prophets from Jehovah, prophets for Jehovah's people, those he set free from bondage in Egypt.

Jesus was the only person in recorded history that could ever claim, rightfully to be the authentic Messiah promised to the Jews by the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, namely, Jehovah God.

Then why were the days of Jesus not the end of days (not Armageddon)? Why do we still have war? Why did he not return all the Jews to Israel? If Jesus could claim such a thing, why do the Jews still pray for the Messiah to come to bring about the Messianic Age?

 

[PureX]

We all have opinions

Interpreting a mythical story as an ideological metaphor is the proper way to do it because it's based on the function of myth in human culture. Throwing around words like "opinion" may appear to negate intellectual honesty and propriety, by making everyone's interpretation appear to be equal, but they aren't. Some people's interpretations are much better informed and reasoned than others. But in the end you will have to decide for yourself, as we all do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Torah is there for anyone to read. One need not be a Jew to read and understand it..

It really helps because it revolves around Jewish tradition, custom, and culture. You don't need to be a Jew, but if you lack that understanding you do not understand it.
BTW, do you know what the Torah is?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's a STORY, created using symbolic and metaphorical characters and circumstances intended to represent the ideals of the story-makers and users. The talking snake is not intended to be taken as an historical biological talking snake, it's meant to represent the human ego and it's propensity for deceiving us into thinking we are more/better/smarter/righteous/etc., than we are. The "land of Nod" is meant to represent a view of the world devoid of the miracle of divine creativity; the view that we humans have of it once we have fallen victim to the lies of our own egos.

It's a story that never implies all the world is Eden or that we are all in Eden. It gives us some clues as to the location of this mythical place, but it also defines the lands outside of it and, basically, "not-Eden."

 

[syo]

Eden is in Mesopotamia.

 

[jhwatts]

This is exactly my point. URAVIP2ME stated it is clear for certain people...

...and unclear to others...

What about the OT? Is Genesis parables, allegory or historical fact?

I am assuming you are asking me for my perspective on the creation described in Genesis. I don't think that the intent of Genesis is considering a historical fact describing the creation of the earth in a 7 24 hour periods.

That being said, I do think it does tell a story about something in mans history that is very important and yes it deals with his origin. I would probably brand it allegorical but with historical fact. A good example is the description of the location of Eden. We can take this description and locate it. Going further we can trace it to place ripe with archaeological evidence concerning the origin of civilization.

As I stated two creations, one made from the dust of the earth and a recreation of the ones from the dust being modified and made into a new man.

We live in a dualistic universe. There are evil humans, those who are in a sense primitive, animal like, and indulge in damaging and hurting other people. There are others who are peaceful, philosophical, artistic, scientific etc.

Those from the dust (the animal like) and lets just they are those who are made much more in the likeness of something much more intelligent.

 

[ecco]

Not having a why defyś the rules of logic. Tigers eat goats, why ? Darwinian theories explain why. A photon can be a wave or a particle, why ? because apparently that is the nature of light, and light exists. A plant has clorophyll that responds to the light, why ? so the plant can grow.

since everything has whyś, why doesn´t everything in total, the universe, have a why ?

As I said: Why is only important if the answer provides a means to make changes. If we understand why children fail in school, we can do things to address the problem. Did I really need to post it again?

So, you do think about it, I thought so. You are comfortable with the answer being unknowable, I am not.

That explains why I am an atheist and you are a theist. You think all things are knowable. When they aren't, you make up stories, usually along the lines of GodDidIt.

I think there are rational answers for most everything. Philosophy and theology are the disciplines that explore these questions and offer answers.

Philosophy and theology provide meaningless answers to meaningless questions. What causes gravity is a meaningful question. Why do bad things happen to good people is a meaningless question.

The answers may be wrong, but they are comfortable and rational to me. That is better for me than being extremely uncomfortable with the idea that I am a brief anomaly in a massive universe that exists for no reason or purpose, other than to be the briefest existence possible in eternity

Yeah. That's one of the reasons for the existence of thousands of gods and thousands of religions, people who can't accept the realities of life and cry for more. How sad.

 

[ecco]

I am assuming you are asking me for my perspective on the creation described in Genesis.

<snip>

No. I was pointing out the differences in the beliefs between two Christians, you and URAVIP2ME. Specifically the clarity of scripture and to whom it can and cannot be clear.

 

[ecco]

As I stated two creations, one made from the dust of the earth and a recreation of the ones from the dust being modified and made into a new man.

I don't think many of your fellow Christians agree with you.

We live in a dualistic universe. There are evil humans, those who are in a sense primitive, animal like, and indulge in damaging and hurting other people. There are others who are peaceful, philosophical, artistic, scientific etc.
Those from the dust (the animal like) and lets just they are those who are made much more in the likeness of something much more intelligent.

Are these racial or ethnic or religious divides, or the they just bad and good people all intermixed?