Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"

Merv said: *Or, rather, if there is a hint of mockery or critical
self-questioning, it is directed at our modern way regarding truth.
*
The cherub with the flaming sword, the reappearance of the tree of life in
Rev. 22, have always fascinated me. Clearly, Rev. 22 is representing a
recapitulation of Eden. IMHO, this is a major challenge to a thorough-going
TE position -- not just in terms of the doctrine of scripture, but also
theologically. What is the hope of Rev. 22 if the heavenly city
recapitulates the hardscrabble existence of a tribe of neolithic farmers?

We could think of the Genesis cherub as symbolic of humanity's broken
relationship with God. Usually, however, angels in scripture don't seem to
be presented as symbols. I've often wondered whether there's something even
deeper and more mysterious going on here. Is Eden, like heaven, a "place"
that is accessible to angels but dimensionally inaccessible to us? Does the
fall represent a rending of planes of existence that were once unified and
that are to be unified again? Strange ideas, but there are stranger ideas
both in modern theoretical physics and in ancient near eastern and
second-temple Jewish apocalyptic thought.

On Nov 28, 2007 10:43 PM, Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:

> Jon Tandy wrote:
>
> Wasn't the tree of life (Rev 22:19) in the Garden of Eden? Where did it
> go after that? Or was that scripture a non-scientific (non-biological)
> statement about two trees in the garden?
>
> Jon Tandy
>
> And for that matter, how long did the cherubim stand guard with the
> flaming sword? Presumably the tree of life was eventually transplanted
> (without apparent fanfare) to a less accessible local (like ... not on this
> planet), or maybe it was destroyed, and the cherubim released from his
> mundane guard duty? At least nobody in later history attempted any
> encounters with any stubborn angelic swordsman that we've heard about.
>
> These are the types of questions where the mismatch between the truth of
> Scripture and the method of modern "factual" analysis seems so obvious as to
> sound like a mockery when it is applied. But I don't mean it that way.
> Or, rather, if there is a hint of mockery or critical self-questioning, it
> is directed at our modern way regarding truth.
>
> --Merv
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 29 08:45:23 2007