The Garden of Eden

Genesis 4:10-14
A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one, which flows around the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is Tigris, which flows East of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

Theologists and Cartographers have long debated the location of the fabled Garden of Eden. Both the Tigris and the Euphrates are well documented and emptied into the Persian Gulf. Gihon and Pishon are up for discussion. Many believe that Gihon is the Nile.

However, this seems to make the location of Eden impossible to locate.

I have a theory, as we all know, the Bible is much different from its original form, much has been changed and completely removed. My theory is that perhaps the four rivers did not emanate from Eden, but maybe they emptied into it. Remember, Eden existed at the beginning of time, and the continents have long since seperated. Maybe Eden's original location has been reclaimed by the sea. The four rivers (depending on whatever Pishon was) may have sent it under water. Much of the world has been explored, and it seems unlikely that the Middle East could hide something as significant as Eden for as long as it has. At the same time, the ocean is not nearly as explored as land or even other planets. It would be relatively easy to hide Eden under the waters of the mediteranean or the waters around the Middle East.

Thoughts?

I believe, if the Bible is even true, that accordingly, Eden would be located in the Middle East. Which back then, would have meant Mesopotamia. It's known that man was first recorded there, before the Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, and that it was the start of man, for evidence of the beginning of man has been found there. And when I say man, I mean Homo Sapien.

For Eden to be true, you have to account for Adam and Eve, right? And since the first settlements of man is recorded to have started there, well I say, and if there was a Eden, that the Middle East would be the location of Eden. For it to have existed before this time, well, thats wishful thinking I say. The Middle East would have been the harbour for Eden, if in fact even existed...

Both of you are on the right path here...
Since we don't know how long Adam and Eve remained in the Garden, it could have been thousands of years (remember they were immortal), the world around them could have been changing. Also, those other two rivers could have simply dried up.
The Sumarians brought about much of the desert we have in the Middle East, so they simply could have erased those rivers.
Personally, I think the Garden was distroyed in the Flood and all evidence, including the rivers, were washed away or diverted.

Well i for one believe that Eden is an extremely mythical story which has little basis in reality...

For me if there was ever a place called Eden it probably existed somewhere deep in the folk memory of the Jewish people as a land that they had once existed in and would exist again of course over the thousands of years this myth grew more elaborate until it turned into Theology.

If we entertain the Biblical Account (which i do not believe we should do but anyway) it would be situated in the fertile crescent of fertile land in present day Iraq, the Iraqis in fact have a site that they think is eden and is a venerated site for some muslims!. I think that any evidence of Eden if we take the Biblical Story seriously would have been annhilated in the flood and i always got the impression that there was more than just a big wall preventing man from returning there when i read the story.Also if we take Bible seriously i doubt Tigris etc would have survived the flood and the names would probably have been given to different rivers in only vaguely similar postions.

bob said:

i doubt Tigris etc would have survived the flood and the names would probably have been given to different rivers in only vaguely similar postions.

Click to expand...

My point exactly! Since the world has changed so much over the past 15,000+ years of human existance (whether or not you believe in the Deluge), the world's face has changed. Rivers have changed course or even dried up entirely. Therefore, we can never be positive of the exact location of Eden, the Tower of Babel (which was not built by the Babylonians like Infernal Machine says), and other Biblical & Mythilogical locations/things.

I agree with Aaron H. But this is also what I think. Would God want us to find the Garden of Eden? Probably not. Good Indy story and all, just not on God's real life script, just like we'll never find the Ark or the Grail.

I don't think we'll ever find the grail or the garden of eden. It doesn't matter how hard we try, He doesn't want us to find them. It even said specifically in the Bible that man could never return to Eden. It's the same way with the Ark of the Covenant. They make great stories, but frankly it's too much power for man to handle. Things that are mysterious will always make great stories.

I found this sight, and there are some fascinating things that might make good detail for the mysterious film yet to be confirmed. Aaron H, you seem partial to the idea of Eden somewhat. What do you think of this article?
Eden

I believe Eden was destroyed during the Flood. "Why, then," one may ask,"was the river Euphrates named as existing after the Flood?" I'm glad you asked. If I missed home, one thing I would do is name things that reminded me of home after familiar places.

The article is good. However, I believe it is flawed at a very basic level. The geographic landscape has changed dratically in the past 8,000-10,000 years. So while a good theory is the "Cradle of Life" area (Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc) it cannot be precise simply because of the dramatic change the Earth has seen since that time. Thanks for the article, however, I found it to be a great read!

A) Aaron, if I have been too prolific, let me know

B) Do both of you really believe the geography can change so much in one part of the world, but not another?

I just read previous posts and found I restated Aaron H's opinion. Sorry.

However, I believe it was destroyed by different means. The Bible says that "the fountains of the deep" were broken up. These are theoretically the subterranean aquaducts that "watered the face of the earth," and would have contained vast amounts of pressurized water. This would have completely blasted the terrain, as well as set in motion continental drift and fault lines. The topography, including Eden, would be decimated.

So, not to antoagonize your Doc; but you believe Eden has been destroyed, but the Ark is under the Temple Mount?

Yes and no. I believe Eden is destroyed, and I believe the Ark is under Golgotha. The latter took place long after the former.

things that make you go hmmmmm...

apalehorse said:

things that make you go hmmmmm...

Click to expand...

Ahh, C+C Music Factory...whatever happened to good ol' Freedom Williams.

And why did I make you go "hmmmmmmm?"

apalehorse said:

A) Aaron, if I have been too prolific, let me know

B) Do both of you really believe the geography can change so much in one part of the world, but not another?

Click to expand...

A) I like prolific...whats wrong with prolific? (okay as long as it isn't flooding.) I like <small>almost</small> everything you post...expecially when it is on the Arch. table.

B) Yes, if the Genesis account of the Flood is correct, and I have no reason not to believe it, (another topic all together) then the world was covered in massive amounts of water. Such a dramatic event surely would cause tetonic activity. There have been some theories that I have read that suggest a large continent (like Pangea) was as recent as 10,000 years ago, but some kind of cataclismic event changed the landscape...a comet seems to be a likely candidate.

[Edited by Aaron H on 02-10-2004 at 12:41 am]

Another theory is one that I saw discussed on the Discovery Channel, if my memory serves me correctly. This theory is that Eden is in a valley in eastern Turkey, near the headwaters of the Euphrates River. This site was believed to be Eden, because the geographic details given in the Bible matched. Personally, I don't have a favorite theory.

Aaron H said:

A) I like prolific...whats wrong with prolific? (okay as long as it isn't flooding.) I like <small>almost</small> everything you post...expecially when it is on the Arch. table.

B) Yes, if the Genesis account of the Flood is correct, and I have no reason not to believe it, (another topic all together) then the world was covered in massive amounts of water. Such a dramatic event surely would cause tetonic activity. There have been some theories that I have read that suggest a large continent (like Pangea) was as recent as 10,000 years ago, but some kind of cataclismic event changed the landscape...a comet seems to be a likely candidate.

Click to expand...

I only flood when it has to do with Noah's Ark

Pilot said:

Another theory is one that I saw discussed on the Discovery Channel, if my memory serves me correctly. This theory is that Eden is in a valley in eastern Turkey, near the headwaters of the Euphrates River. This site was believed to be Eden, because the geographic details given in the Bible matched. Personally, I don't have a favorite theory.

Click to expand...

I've heard this bedtime story as well.

This is where I have my money, esp. concerning the events surrounding Revelations.

[Edited by apalehorse on 02-10-2004 at 08:37 am]