Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity

[Srecko Sostar]

9 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Indeed, the leaves were carefully arranged to ensure they felt adequately concealed and protected. It's not hard to believe that's how they left the garden.

Wrong. They are inside Garden and have conversation  with God inside Eden. Maybe the problem is in Moses' writing? lol

In Eden, God teaches them a lesson about disobedience, prophesies trouble, dresses them in animal skins, drives them out, and sets guards at the entrance to Eden.

And Jehovah God made long garments from skins for Adam and for his wife, to clothe them.+ 22  Jehovah God then said: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad.+ Now in order that he may not put his hand out and take fruit also from the tree of life+ and eat and live forever,*—” 23  With that Jehovah God expelled him from the garden of Eʹden+ to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken.+ 24  So he drove the man out, and he posted at the east of the garden of Eʹden the cherubs+ and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning continuously to guard the way to the tree of life.

Let me know, please, if you have trouble reading the red letters. lol

[BTK59]

2 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Wrong. They are inside Garden and have conversation  with God inside Eden. Maybe the problem is in Moses' writing?

What's wrong is your comprehension, lol!

What were they wearing when they were talking to God?

5 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In Eden, God teaches them a lesson about disobedience, prophesies trouble, dresses them in animal skins, drives them out, and sets guards at the entrance to Eden.

No, I don't struggle with reading the words in red. I simply enjoy contemplating. It is when people rely on a literal translation without grasping the context and significance that they end up going in endless circles.

Consider the contrast between tunic and linen versus animal skins within the garden from a literal perspective. Delve into the concept of purity in this context. Once outside the garden, feel free to let loose and be uninhibited.
I suggest delving into additional sources to gain a deeper understanding of your argument. The rest of the scripture comes into play after the garden, but some aspects are not applicable until after Noah received instructions. It's important to avoid generalizing and instead consider each aspect individually.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

It's highly unlikely that you believe you know better than the lexicons. However, what does it matter if you think about @BillyTheKid-55, as if it should mean something to me.

That's true, I do not believe I know better than the lexicons. I was merely pointing out that you had presented a point that was pretty much the opposite of what that lexicon was saying. It brought to mind previously related monikers because this same type of error was often pointed out to "BillyTheKid" when he was active under that name. When the same type of error is pointed out again and again, it can be something to watch out for, and be alert to, so that it doesn't keep happening. It's a good thing about these forums that we can ALL learn from our past errors, and of course that includes me.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Wrong! I mean specifically inside the garden, not outside. The mistake you perceive in me is actually your own mistake in assuming a literal translation.

That's called "projection." Since I didn't assume a literal translation, I only assumed that you wanted to present the meanings given in the lexicon. And you were the one saying the opposite about outside vs inside the garden, but to others here, not me.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

The abstract on Genesis 3:21 would have been written after Adam and Eve were expelled.

I am not making any kind of point about inside vs outside the garden. It was pointed out to you that the verse comes just before they were expelled, but you have every right to say it was after. But it should be pointed out that there is a logical fallacy in believing that just because something the order of events was written down after it happened that you can therefore change the order to your own liking. 

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

There are numerous non-conventional books that challenge the validity of your perspective.

I have no skin in the game here, so I don't know what you mean by the validity of my perspective. If the Bible says something, it's easiest to take it at face value. If you need to change it, I'm sure you can find some non-conventional books that will support almost any perspective. But I didn't offer mine on that matter, only the matter that the Watchtower says they were animal skins.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

and according to other sources, they were "sheep" skins obtained from animals killed by lions. Once again, it refers to a deceased animal, not for food but to use its skin as clothing.

ChatGPT again? I heard it had some hiccups a day or so ago.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Therefore, it would be incorrect to consider those passages as suitable for consumption,

The expression "passages as suitable for consumption" reminds me of the joke about the goat that gets into a movie "projection" studio and eats up all the rolls of film. Another goat asks him how he liked it. So the first goat said it was OK but the book was better.   

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Visitors should refrain from endorsing your perspective. They need to use their own judgment and critical thinking to correctly interpret a lexicon.

Might be too late for that; because you already quoted the lexicon here and I doubt that ANY current reader here with the exception of George88, Alphonse, and their ilk read it the way you did. 

 

[BTK59]

If there are any doubts regarding my use of "AI" with your use of illustrations to present AI mistakes, let me clarify. There are moments when thoughts are written spontaneously, and as one idea develops, another thought may arise. To simplify, I will write in the manner that feels most natural to me, and you are free to make decisions based on what you think is best for you. If you need to wait to respond in order to seem intelligent, you are only fooling yourselves, thanks.

[Srecko Sostar]

5 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

What were they wearing when they were talking to God?

Their choice of clothing was fig leaves. So, very primitive and unworthy of a "perfect mind", but hey, they were in a panic so they took the first thing they could get their hands on.

But God had a stable mind that was not influenced by anger or disappointment. He also showed fashion awareness as he gave them a very nice leather set so they wouldn't embarrass him with their looks in that world outside of Paradise. lol

[Srecko Sostar]

15 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

It is when people rely on a literal translation without grasping the context and significance that they end up going in endless circles.

In your opinion, what is literal and what is symbolic in Genesis? The record of Moses? Or a translation?

Ah, now we will still look at the text in Genesis as a symbolic and not a literal description of what was happening?
Excellent. That suits me too. I will also manage in such a view of the description in Genesis. Then we can also question the "tree of life", right? Was it a literal or symbolic "tree"?

[BTK59]

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

That's true, I do not believe I know better than the lexicons. I was merely pointing out that you had presented a point that was pretty much the opposite of what that lexicon was saying.

Your statement is still incorrect, as I have accurately illustrated its intended meaning. You may not want it in order to create a misleading perception on your behalf.

But, that's the nature of the beast here, isn't it?

7 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

That's called "projection." Since I didn't assume a literal translation, I only assumed that you wanted to present the meanings given in the lexicon. And you were the one saying the opposite about outside vs inside the garden, but to others here, not me.

You are the one projecting. I provided an accurate interpretation, whether it meets your approval or not. It's of no consequence to me. Tunic and Linen can be used inside the garden, and animal skin outside the garden after the expulsion. So, the only one creating confusion is you.

15 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I am not making any kind of point about inside vs outside the garden. It was pointed out to you that the verse comes just before they were expelled,

Before being expelled, Adam and Eve had already clothed themselves, but this fact was perhaps not fully grasped by everyone here. This passage serves as a compelling and reflective commentary on the events that occurred after their departure.

However, everyone is free to accept their own interpretation of scripture.

22 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The expression "passages as suitable for consumption" reminds me of the joke about the goat that gets into a movie "projection" studio and eats up all the rolls of film. Another goat asks him how he liked it. So the first goat said it was OK but the book was better.   

LOL! In some cases, that goat would be correct, especially when we have other references to consider. I guess that goat would say, more food for thought.

24 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Might be too late for that; because you already quoted the lexicon here and I doubt that ANY current reader here with the exception of George88, Alphonse, and their ilk read it the way you did. 

 

Your consistent dishonesty and lack of sincerity are evident once again, along with your usual inaccuracy. Your attempt to pass as a Jehovah's Witness is quite a stretch, given your track record.

[BTK59]

18 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Their choice of clothing was fig leaves. So, very primitive and unworthy of a "perfect mind", but hey, they were in a panic so they took the first thing they could get their hands on.

Once God had taken notice, and you have confirmed it, it becomes a matter of perception. The fig leaves have served their purpose well by covering their nakedness, as they had discovered.

22 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

But God had a stable mind that was not influenced by anger or disappointment. He also showed fashion awareness as he gave them a very nice leather set so they wouldn't embarrass him with their looks in that world outside of Paradise. lol

As I mentioned, you can focus on sequencing and accessories for the garden as you prefer after the exit. The issue with this argument is that it indicates the speculated moment of Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden. Regarding God's disappointment, it is quite significant that a cherub was placed at the entrance to prevent the first pair from returning. This is a clear indication of the extent of disappointment.

41 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

n your opinion, what is literal and what is symbolic in Genesis? The record of Moses? Or a translation?

Ah, now we will still look at the text in Genesis as a symbolic and not a literal description of what was happening?
Excellent. That suits me too. I will also manage in such a view of the description in Genesis. Then we can also question the "tree of life", right? Was it a literal or symbolic "tree"?

For sure, Genesis 3:7,  talks about when they spoke to God. Now, Genesis 3:21, not so much. Why? It's the point of expulsion. If we were to consider the circumstances leading up to the departure, it could be argued that God would have had to sacrifice part of his creation to facilitate that. What message would have been sent to the realm of angels? Satan's corruption of his creation was already unacceptable, but murdering within the garden would have been a step too far. According to other sources, Adam and Eve obtained sheep skins "following" their expulsion, through lions feasting on sheep. In that case, it was the animals that did the killing, not God. This occurred outside the garden where imperfection had already started to spread.

"The tree of knowledge held both concrete and abstract significance.". It bore real fruit and became the "first" commandment of God to humanity, demanding obedience.

[TrueTomHarley]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is completely wrong, Billy. Before I realized how you might have made the mistake, I thought you were attempting satire, @BTK59, but that would be quite a stretch from the @BillyTheKid-55  and previous B.T.K.s we've all come to know and love on this forum. 

Whoa.

I would never say we are dealing with typ/antitype here, but clearly we are dealing with a ‘this reminds me of that.’

And since we’re speaking of eating here, and I’m not following closely enough to make a contribution, but wish to make a contribution nonetheless, if only to placate the Librarian (that old hen), here is an observation of 300 lb G.K Chesterton interacting with rail-thin George Bernard Shaw:

GKC: “To look at you, anyone would think a famine had struck England.”

GBS: “To look at you, anyone would think you had caused it.”

[TrueTomHarley]

2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

300 lb G.K Chesterton

Also (you must not tell JR about this), an excerpt about Chesterton’s style that much resonates with me: 

“He deployed a set of rhetorical devices that enabled him to create common ground with his readers. He used these devices to present himself as a friend, and to claim that he presented religious questions to his readers in the manner of an unbiased explorer, in spite of his own faith commitments. As part of this strategy, he restricted the range of theology he used in his apologetics so as to remain as far as possible within boundaries his non-religious readers could easily relate to.”

And (no connection with the above), the reason for Father Brown’s success in solving crime? The padre explains that “a man who does next to nothing but hear men’s real sins is not likely to be wholly unaware of human evil.” 

[JW Insider]

Trolls-R-Us: @BTK59 @BillyTheKid-55 @George88 @Allen Smith @AllenSmith35 @Alphonse and many more.

What would this forum be like without them?

[Pudgy]

…