Thorns in Eden?

[Mad_Amos]

…are you stating that there were thorns and thistles on God’s very good earth before the curse that brought them into being at Gen.3:18?]

To paraphrase your question, am I of the opinion [emphasis added] that thorns and thistles existed prior to the fall?

The answer is yes, although I did not address - implicitly or otherwise - the pre-existence of such botanical structures in my previous posts on this topic.

 

[Mad_Amos]

how do you surmise it has to be a question of either or when in fact it is both

I do not see such necessity; in fact I allow that both senses are likely true; however - in my estimation of the passage - only the tropologic sense holds any real theological value.

Certainly the Bible’s purpose is soteriological rather than merely academic; therefore I feel that undue focus on temporal minutiae tends to devalue an otherwise productive spiritual conversation.

 

[twinc]

I do not see such necessity; in fact I allow that both senses are likely true; however - in my estimation of the passage - only the tropologic sense holds any real theological value.

Certainly the Bible’s purpose is soteriological rather than merely academic; therefore I feel that undue focus on temporal minutiae tends to devalue an otherwise productive spiritual conversation.

of course if you are suggesting,as you seem to be to keep ones head down and refuse to face the flak and to appease and compromise whilst Rome burns,at least they should stand aside and not obstruct.At Lk.16:8 we are told that the children and adults of this world are wiser and cleverer than us and as stated in Matt.10:16,25&36 and our first Pope at 1Peter.3:15-16 tells us exactly what we must do but this advice seems to be ignored in the main - twinc

 

[Mad_Amos]

of course if you are suggesting,as you seem to be to keep ones head down and refuse to face the flak and to appease and compromise whilst Rome burns…

I am an ardent proponent of strident apologetics when necessary, but there is - in terms of spiritual significance - a manifest lack of equality between; say; a debate over The Real Presence and a disagreement concerning the logistical difficulties of Noah’s menagerie.

As to the rest of your post - well, what can I say apart from ‘amen’?

 

[twinc]

I am an ardent proponent of strident apologetics when necessary, but there is - in terms of spiritual significance - a manifest lack of equality between; say; a debate over The Real Presence and a disagreement concerning the logistical difficulties of Noah’s menagerie.

As to the rest of your post - well, what can I say apart from ‘amen’?

it does,now that you mention the real presence,seem strange to me how most Catholics have no problem with John 6 as literal yet seem to stumble at the very idea of literal elsewhere in Scriptures - twinc

 

[Mad_Amos]

it does,now that you mention the real presence,seem strange to me how most Catholics have no problem with John 6 as literal yet seem to stumble at the very idea of literal elsewhere in Scriptures - twinc

I find a similar paradox, although in reverse, to be true quite often among those who espouse a strictly fundamentalist view of Christianity.

 

[twinc]

I find a similar paradox, although in reverse, to be true quite often among those who espouse a strictly fundamentalist view of Christianity.

Yes this is also true for John 6 is a literal stumbling block for Protestants - strange to say the least - twinc

 

[Benadam]

Adam didn’t stoop down to get his food from the ground. adam reached up and ate fruit from trees. The thorns don’t have to appear in plants after the fall because Adam didn’t eat plants. That would require that something had to die for Adam’s body to be sustained. Adam and Eve ate fruit. After the fall they had to eat what grew out of the ground. The olants from the ground have thorns.