As a first step, let me try to point to areas where you and I have basic differences. First, I do not accept the Fall or Original Sin or even that Adam sinned. Reading the account in Genesis I just cannot see any of those.
I do not believe that there was an Adam or a Garden of Eden.
Yet I have faith and consider myself an active and devout Christian.
So we have a difference in basic initial position.
Before going much further I think we need to understand at least the initial starting positions each holds.
You should also know that I do not believe that a belief in GOD or Jesus are a prerequisite for salvation, and that they are totally unrelated to salvation. I think that far more Atheists will be saved than Christians, and in fact that more Wiccans, Satanists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Taoists, Agnostics and Hindus will be saved than Christians.
That said, I do believe that the Bible is a work inspired by GOD, as is the Qur'an, the writings of Mencius, of Confucius, of the Norse Skalds.
When I read a morality tale, a fairytale, a myth, I can learn from them and the lessons I learn can help me in my day to day living, both with my fellow man and with GOD. The tales in the Bible are like that. As I pointed out in the other thread, when I read Genesis I see quite different Gods in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2.
In Genesis 1 I see an aloof, distant, transcendent God, one who simply wills or speaks things into existence. But that God is truly distant. There is no interaction between that God and creation.
The God we find in Genesis 2 is entirely different. There we see a very personal God, one that creates by hand from the dirt of the earth, who shapes and molds and breathes life into Her creation.
The God of Genesis 2 is not sure, is uncertain, makes mistakes, is not knowledgeable, is powerful but still something a human can grasp, can understand.
The people that compiled and edited these stories still decided to put both in, even though the Gods appear to be mutually exclusive.
The question then seems to be why? Why include both tales? We know they were not opposed to merging such tales, they did so in the Flood tale and it appears, throughout out Genesis after Genesis 2:4. Yet the stuck the younger tale intact into the books, and went further, they placed it first before the older tales we find beginning in Genesis 2:5. IIRC.
I believe they did so because the purpose of the Bible is to help man
towards understanding GOD.
GOD is not the God of Genesis 1 or Genesis 2, GOD is not any of the God's we see in the Bible.
GOD is.
The Bible does not reflect the limits of GOD communicating with man. The Bible, and all other scripture including the scripture you post here and on your website, reflects man's ability to communicate with man.
I see the Quadralemma as trivial because something like the Bible does not reflect GOD communicating with man but simply man communicating with man.
Aslan is not a
Tame Lion