"Cosmic" trees

TOUCHSTONE SAID:

“Right. And that’s the problem. Conspicuous by their absence are the magic cosmic trees, the talking snake, etc. – see above.”

He keeps using the same buzzwords and catchphrases. “Cosmic” trees. “Magic trees,” &c.

Cosmic in what sense? They are not cosmic in scale.

Does he mean cosmic in their consequences?

But how would that render them merely symbolic or mythical?

You could just as well say the crucifixion was cosmic in its consequences. Or the Parousia.

Does that render the crucifixion account a nonrepresentational description which stands for something else?

Is the Parousia mythical because of its cosmic scope?

“The contradictions in the sequences, etc.”

No contradictions. Gen 2 is not a full-blown creation account. Rather, its viewpoint is localized. The creation of man and his immediate habitat (the garden).

So there’s no need to harmonize Gen 1 with Gen 2 since they don’t cover the same ground.

As to the allegation of internal contradictions respecting Gen 1 (day 1 in relation to day 4), Gene has already explained that relationship.

“I don’t use that word lightly, but advisedly. It’s really, literally a ridiculous interpretation to maintain if you believe the God’s world is real, and basically is at it appears. And yes, I’m completely aware of the pedantry that gets invoked by Steve and other who find themselves clever hiding behind the idea that we can’t *prove* the world is as it appears. I don’t claim we *can* prove such, and don’t seek or need to. That’s just belly-button gazing, this is the real world.”

This is coming from a man who believes in atomic theory, quantum mechanics, and the theory of relativity.

No one who subscribes to modern science is in any position to invoke common sense or naked eye observation as the standard of comparison. Modern science is committed to many counterintuitive theories, and a deep discrepancy between appearance and reality.

The Evangelutionist is attempting to play both sides of the fence. When you try that with a picket fence, you may impale yourself on your own duplicity.