Thorns in Eden?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
What kind of thorns was Adam going to face?

Were the from roses or desert plants?

Thanks

Also, is Sinai thorn mountain in English?

Also, was the burning bush a thorn bush and if so what kind?

Are they related to the parable(s) with thorns and the crown of thorns?

Thanks!
 
I don’t really know the kind of plant, but many of the Church Fathers linked the thorns of Genesis 3, Exodus 3 with the Crown of Thorns, St Clement of Alexandria, St John Chrysostom, Tertullian…The Bush of Exodus 3 was a thorn bush. We are not sure what Sinai means, many words resemble with even the word for “thorn bush” seneh
 
What may be of interest and consideration is that huge fossilised thorns were found in strata dated millions of years before man appeared on earth.So here we have one of the reasons why Biblical Christianity and Evolution are incompatible - twinc
 
twinc said:
What may be of interest and consideration is that huge fossilised thorns were found in strata dated millions of years before man appeared on earth.So here we have one of the reasons why Biblical Christianity and Evolution are incompatible - twinc
Click to expand...
The bible says plants came before man.
 
The thorns themselves are not as important as what thorns mean -thorns are frequent in biblical imagery. The wicked are like thorns, useless and painful and dangerous(2 sm 23:6;Mi 7:4), and one’s enemies asre like thorns(Jos 23:13)A l path through thorn patches is a life of difficulty and misfortune(Pr 15:19;22:5;Ho 2:6) Jeremiah warns not to sow among the thorns(Jer 4:3)Jesus illustrates the impossibility of good works from a bad intention by asking if one gathers grapes from thorns (Mt7:16; Lk 6:44) they are also a symbol of destruction and desolation…
I’ll try to dig out my plants of the Bible to get you a more botanical answer.
 
at 2Cor.12:7 in some Bibles Paul states “lest I should be exalted there was given to me a thorn”.The thorns we are discussing appeared after Adam’s Fall[Gen.3:18] and not before when everything was very good[Gen.1:31] - twinc
 
juliamajor said:
The thorns themselves are not as important as what thorns mean -thorns are frequent in biblical imagery. The wicked are like thorns, useless and painful and dangerous(2 sm 23:6;Mi 7:4), and one’s enemies asre like thorns(Jos 23:13)A l path through thorn patches is a life of difficulty and misfortune(Pr 15:19;22:5;Ho 2:6) Jeremiah warns not to sow among the thorns(Jer 4:3)Jesus illustrates the impossibility of good works from a bad intention by asking if one gathers grapes from thorns (Mt7:16; Lk 6:44) they are also a symbol of destruction and desolation…
I’ll try to dig out my plants of the Bible to get you a more botanical answer.
Click to expand...
last time I looked the above happened after the fall.Thorns symbolize the negative-OT or NT
 
The metaphor of Genesis 3:18, like many elements of Old Testament typology, finds its actualization in The Passion of Our Lord.

The thorns signify the rebellion of creation against fallen humanity and its attendant suffering, the tragic fruition of satan’s plan and the symbol of the separation between man and his God; however, Christ took Flesh to crush the enemy and his designs (1 John 3:8), and so allows His Sacred Head to be crowned with their standard as He bears them to destruction on His Victorious Cross.
 
Mad Amos and all others who are helping, I am most thankful for your help and insights. Thanks!

Again, I am not sure if I asked this correctly in the eariler posts: What kind of thorns would be in the desert of Sinai?

Thanks

Jim Baur
 
Mad_Amos said:
The metaphor of Genesis 3:18, like many elements of Old Testament typology, finds its actualization in The Passion of Our Lord.

The thorns signify the rebellion of creation against fallen humanity and its attendant suffering, the tragic fruition of satan’s plan and the symbol of the separation between man and his God; however, Christ took Flesh to crush the enemy and his designs (1 John 3:8), and so allows His Sacred Head to be crowned with their standard as He bears them to destruction on His Victorious Cross.
Click to expand...
okay,even if,how about the thistles - btw the literal or obvious sense must always be accepted unless reason or necessity dictate otherwise - twinc
 
twinc said:
literal or obvious sense must always be accepted unless reason or necessity dictate otherwise
Click to expand...
Agreed; however, I believe we would also be in agreement that God’s decrees to Adam and his wife were also meant to enjoin their progeny (i.e. all of humanity). In that sense the flora of ancient Palestine is of little value to the inhabitants of, say, Iceland - for whom the censures of Genesis were also intended.
 
Mad_Amos said:
Agreed; however, I believe we would also be in agreement that God’s decrees to Adam and his wife were also meant to enjoin their progeny (i.e. all of humanity). In that sense the flora of ancient Palestine is of little value to the inhabitants of, say, Iceland - for whom the censures of Genesis were also intended.
Click to expand...
it seems you have a problem with it.Could it be that you do not understand that it does not say only the literal or obvious sense must be accepted -twinc
 
Jim_Baur said:
Mad Amos and all others who are helping, I am most thankful for your help and insights. Thanks!

Again, I am not sure if I asked this correctly in the eariler posts: What kind of thorns would be in the desert of Sinai?

Thanks

Jim Baur
Click to expand...
Ever seen real cactus thorns etc - twinc
 
There may be a disconnect in our communication; permit me to trouble you for a bit of clarification?
twinc said:
it seems you have a problem with it
Click to expand...
.
twinc said:
Could it be that you do not understand that it
Click to expand...
does not say only the literal or obvious sense must be accepted

What is the antecedent of the ‘it’ to which you refer in the quoted statements above?
 
Mad_Amos said:
There may be a disconnect in our communication; permit me to trouble you for a bit of clarification?

What is the antecedent of the ‘it’ to which you refer in the quoted statements above?
Click to expand...
it = Providentissimus Deus -twinc
 
Providentissimus Deus: Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on proper Catholic exegesis; I am familiar with the aforementioned document and take no issue with it.

My exposition on Genesis 3:18 supposes that the thorns are metaphoric, and I confirm that opinion. I certainly do not mean to imply that Adam and his immediate family did not also have thorns with which to contend in the literal sense, only that such would have been incidental in the context of this passage.

The premise of my last post was simply this: you can certainly construe the thorns and thistles of Paradise in either an idiomatic or literalist fashion; however, should you pursue the latter course, the issue becomes something of a non sequitur when extension to the lands beyond Eden is considered. If you are willing, therefore, to view the elements of the verse in question as purely figurative constructs, then any possibility of parallel literalism becomes ultimately irrelevant.
 
Mad_Amos said:
Providentissimus Deus: Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on proper Catholic exegesis; I am familiar with the aforementioned document and take no issue with it.

My exposition on Genesis 3:18 supposes that the thorns are metaphoric, and I confirm that opinion. I certainly do not mean to imply that Adam and his immediate family did not also have thorns with which to contend in the literal sense, only that such would have been incidental in the context of this passage.

The premise of my last post was simply this: you can certainly construe the thorns and thistles of Paradise in either an idiomatic or literalist fashion; however, should you pursue the latter course, the issue becomes something of a non sequitur when extension to the lands beyond Eden is considered. If you are willing, therefore, to view the elements of the verse in question as purely figurative constructs, then any possibility of parallel literalism becomes ultimately irrelevant.

so when all your suppositions and expositions are exhausted 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 - twinc
Click to expand...
 
Mad_Amos said:
Providentissimus Deus: Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on proper Catholic exegesis; I am familiar with the aforementioned document and take no issue with it.

My exposition on Genesis 3:18 supposes that the thorns are metaphoric, and I confirm that opinion. I certainly do not mean to imply that Adam and his immediate family did not also have thorns with which to contend in the literal sense, only that such would have been incidental in the context of this passage.

The premise of my last post was simply this: you can certainly construe the thorns and thistles of Paradise in either an idiomatic or literalist fashion; however, should you pursue the latter course, the issue becomes something of a non sequitur when extension to the lands beyond Eden is considered. If you are willing, therefore, to view the elements of the verse in question as purely figurative constructs, then any possibility of parallel literalism becomes ultimately irrelevant.

how do you surmise it has to be a question of either or when in fact it is both - twinc
Click to expand...
 
Mad_Amos said:
Providentissimus Deus: Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on proper Catholic exegesis; I am familiar with the aforementioned document and take no issue with it.

My exposition on Genesis 3:18 supposes that the thorns are metaphoric, and I confirm that opinion. I certainly do not mean to imply that Adam and his immediate family did not also have thorns with which to contend in the literal sense, only that such would have been incidental in the context of this passage.

The premise of my last post was simply this: you can certainly construe the thorns and thistles of Paradise in either an idiomatic or literalist fashion; however, should you pursue the latter course, the issue becomes something of a non sequitur when extension to the lands beyond Eden is considered. If you are willing, therefore, to view the elements of the verse in question as purely figurative constructs, then any possibility of parallel literalism becomes ultimately irrelevant.
Click to expand...
All you’ve said makes perfect sense to me. Good luck trying to get that through the Twincster:thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top