Garden of Eden and it's location
A prevalent theory has always been that the Garden of Eden was in Mesopotamia near the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. After having read Vol I of Dr. Andrew Snelling's "Earth's Catastrophic Past", I have come to the conclusion that there is no way for us to know if the garden was located there or not. In fact, it most likely was not at that location. I'll elaborate more after hearing what others think about the subject.
Views: 188
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin W Anderson on -
I too have read of reports that the Garden of Eden was in Mesopotamia, one report had it located under the waters of the Persian Gulf. If that were true then I have sailed right over it when I was there in the Navy. Just like the the Noah's ark, there is a drive for us to find these special places as if they would prove the Bible is correct to those that doubt and mock it. But we can not ever enter Eden for after the fall, the Lord placed a guard, as a bessing. to keep us from the tree of life. This guard was in place until the flood, for then the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. After the flood, the world had changed, we find evidence of this over all of the continents that were covered in flood sediments. A world wide flood would have left no place untouched and that would have included the Garden of Eden. Afterward, as people started to settle, they would find places and rivers that needed a name and they would use the names that they were familar with. So the modern rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates were named after two of Eden's rivers. If they were the original rivers of those names, where are the rivers Pishon and the Gihon? There were one river that flowed from Eden that separated in to four rivers, which does not fit any current location on earth. Even if we could figure out how the continents were onced arranged and what direction they were orientated it would still be mere speculation. That paradice was lost to us! What was not lost to us is the revelation of what happen there in that world and why we are so in need of a savior. The creation and the fall both very important points in 'His'tory.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Poe on -
Good response Kevin and it's basically the same thing Dr. Snelling lays out. Did you read the book??? LOL.
But you are right. These were the names of the four rivers BEFORE the global deluge. Now, if the flood account is true, which we believe it is, then yes, everything was wiped out and "changed". Dr. Snelling makes the name comparison to an analogy of when the settlers came to America, they used some of the same names that they brought with them from the "old world". The other problem we have with the modern day Tigris and Euphrates rivers is the fact that those originally had some sort of underwater reservoir which the water flowed to all four rivers. The modern day two rivers do not have such a reservoir.
So, unfortunately, we will probably never find a Garden of Eden, or even an exact area location.
Thanks for the response Kevin...it was well thought out.
Kevin W Anderson said:I too have read of reports that the Garden of Eden was in Mesopotamia, one report had it located under the waters of the Persian Gulf. If that were true then I have sailed right over it when I was there in the Navy. Just like the the Noah's ark, there is a drive for us to find these special places as if they would prove the Bible is correct to those that doubt and mock it. But we can not ever enter Eden for after the fall, the Lord placed a guard, as a bessing. to keep us from the tree of life. This guard was in place until the flood, for then the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. After the flood, the world had changed, we find evidence of this over all of the continents that were covered in flood sediments. A world wide flood would have left no place untouched and that would have included the Garden of Eden. Afterward, as people started to settle, they would find places and rivers that needed a name and they would use the names that they were familar with. So the modern rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates were named after two of Eden's rivers. If they were the original rivers of those names, where are the rivers Pishon and the Gihon? There were one river that flowed from Eden that separated in to four rivers, which does not fit any current location on earth. Even if we could figure out how the continents were onced arranged and what direction they were orientated it would still be mere speculation. That paradice was lost to us! What was not lost to us is the revelation of what happen there in that world and why we are so in need of a savior. The creation and the fall both very important points in 'His'tory.
-
Permalink Reply by Terrance Egolf on -
The Spring 2009 CRS Quarterly includes a paper on this subject. Here is the abstract:
The Region of Eden: Analysis and Debate
Joel D. Klenck
Eastern Anatolia, southern Iraq, and Jerusalem have been proposed as the regions that once contained the Garden of Eden. Several creationists have argued that it is impossible to locate the region of Eden due to the dramatic changes to the surface of the earth during the Noachian Deluge. However, a close analysis of relevant Biblical passages and the archaeology, geography, geology, paleontology, and paleobotany of Anatolia, the Near East, and North Africa suggest that the region of Eden was located in Southeastern Anatolia. This region provides source waters for four rivers, following Precambrian rift valleys or faults, which are connected to the Biblical locales of Asshur, Havilah, and Cush. The rivers traversed a landmass that originated in the Precambrian not covered by the alleged expanse of the Tethys Ocean. Furthermore, southeastern Anatolia is associated with the ancient kingdom of the House of Eden. Although the Bible states that the Flood was a global catastrophic event, the confluence of biblical texts with geographical, geological, and other data provides a compelling indication that its effects did not eradicate all evidence of Eden’s original location.
I used to be of the camp that the original location of Eden was wiped out in the Flood, and this is unknowable. But the paper makes some strong arguments that have temporized my dogmatism.
-
Permalink Reply by Arthur Smith on -
2 Peter 3 says the earth was destroyed by the flood. If Scripture is indeed the infallible word of God, then Eden was destroyed. If Eden was not destroyed, 2 Peter 3 is wrong.
In His Service... Arthur Smith
www.HaveYouNotRead.com
http://YouDontHaveToHaveAPhD.blogspot.com/
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin W Anderson on
-
No I have not been able to afford it yet, but I am familar with "The Genesis Flood" and have had my copy signed by Mr. Witcomb LOL. I am a speaker with Creation Science Association for Mid America www.csama.org, so I have fielded this question before. Evidence for a catastrophic flood is one of my subjects.
Justin Poe said:Good response Kevin and it's basically the same thing Dr. Snelling lays out. Did you read the book??? LOL.
But you are right. These were the names of the four rivers BEFORE the global deluge. Now, if the flood account is true, which we believe it is, then yes, everything was wiped out and "changed". Dr. Snelling makes the name comparison to an analogy of when the settlers came to America, they used some of the same names that they brought with them from the "old world". The other problem we have with the modern day Tigris and Euphrates rivers is the fact that those originally had some sort of underwater reservoir which the water flowed to all four rivers. The modern day two rivers do not have such a reservoir.
So, unfortunately, we will probably never find a Garden of Eden, or even an exact area location.
Thanks for the response Kevin...it was well thought out.
Kevin W Anderson said:I too have read of reports that the Garden of Eden was in Mesopotamia, one report had it located under the waters of the Persian Gulf. If that were true then I have sailed right over it when I was there in the Navy. Just like the the Noah's ark, there is a drive for us to find these special places as if they would prove the Bible is correct to those that doubt and mock it. But we can not ever enter Eden for after the fall, the Lord placed a guard, as a bessing. to keep us from the tree of life. This guard was in place until the flood, for then the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. After the flood, the world had changed, we find evidence of this over all of the continents that were covered in flood sediments. A world wide flood would have left no place untouched and that would have included the Garden of Eden. Afterward, as people started to settle, they would find places and rivers that needed a name and they would use the names that they were familar with. So the modern rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates were named after two of Eden's rivers. If they were the original rivers of those names, where are the rivers Pishon and the Gihon? There were one river that flowed from Eden that separated in to four rivers, which does not fit any current location on earth. Even if we could figure out how the continents were onced arranged and what direction they were orientated it would still be mere speculation. That paradice was lost to us! What was not lost to us is the revelation of what happen there in that world and why we are so in need of a savior. The creation and the fall both very important points in 'His'tory.
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin W Anderson on
-
Sorry I have not read the article and could not find it online. I did take a look at a relief map for that area of Turkey.
Wiki describes it as "Anatolia's terrain is structurally complex. A central massif composed of uplifted blocks and downfolded troughs, covered by recent deposits and giving the appearance of a plateau with rough terrain, is wedged between two folded mountain ranges that converge in the east." It is the folded ranges to the east that gives clue that this area has had horzontal compression causing the plateau to uplift. This makes it seem unreasonable to believe that any preflood river beds could have survived the upheaval. The new valleys formed by these actions would have formed their own streams and rivers as suggested in Psalm 104. So, although I am not dogmatic that this could not have been the site of Eden, I find it more reasonable to believe that the names of the rivers flowing from there were simply reused along with Eden in "the House of Eden." I have been to Waterloo, it is found right along with Napoleon and Wellington and is not that far from Paris - Missouri USA..
Terrance Egolf said:The Spring 2009 CRS Quarterly includes a paper on this subject. Here is the abstract:
The Region of Eden: Analysis and Debate
Joel D. Klenck
Eastern Anatolia, southern Iraq, and Jerusalem have been proposed as the regions that once contained the Garden of Eden. Several creationists have argued that it is impossible to locate the region of Eden due to the dramatic changes to the surface of the earth during the Noachian Deluge. However, a close analysis of relevant Biblical passages and the archaeology, geography, geology, paleontology, and paleobotany of Anatolia, the Near East, and North Africa suggest that the region of Eden was located in Southeastern Anatolia. This region provides source waters for four rivers, following Precambrian rift valleys or faults, which are connected to the Biblical locales of Asshur, Havilah, and Cush. The rivers traversed a landmass that originated in the Precambrian not covered by the alleged expanse of the Tethys Ocean. Furthermore, southeastern Anatolia is associated with the ancient kingdom of the House of Eden. Although the Bible states that the Flood was a global catastrophic event, the confluence of biblical texts with geographical, geological, and other data provides a compelling indication that its effects did not eradicate all evidence of Eden’s original location.
I used to be of the camp that the original location of Eden was wiped out in the Flood, and this is unknowable. But the paper makes some strong arguments that have temporized my dogmatism. - Attachments:
-
-
Turkey_topo.jpg, 463 KB
-
-
Permalink Reply by Terrance Egolf on
-
Arthur,
I think we all agree that the original Eden was destroyed in the Flood. But what I believe is the topic here is whether we can identify its original geographic location--its coordinates, if you will.
If I have some time in the near future, and if someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll try to summarize the reasoning and conclusions of Klenk from his paper. We have that issue of CRSQ in our office here.
Terry
-
Permalink Reply by Richard K on -
If the entire planet is buried in a mile of sedimentary layers, such as the Grand Canyon, what can the current surface of the Earth tell us?
-
Permalink Reply by Terrance Egolf on
-
Richard,
I found the CRSQ issue I mentioned, but the article wasn't in it. I will have to keep looking. The author suggested that the rivers followed depressions in the "Precambrian" basement rock that still represents the crust at the time of creation. Although a lot of tectonic activity occurred during and after the Flood, especially in the Anatolian region, the extremities of the river valleys are, he believes, still recognizable.
One interesting approach he takes is suggesting that the pre-Flood locations given in Genesis were actually described through inspiration using contemporary landmarks in order to provide an understandable geographical reference to the Israelites.In other words, Havilah, Ethiopia, Assyria, and the Euphrates were landmarks that God used to locate the pre-Flood Eden, even though they weren't called that before the Flood, except perhaps for the Euphrates River.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard K on
-
Interesting... I never heard of that before, and it does make sense. It would be the same as if we were to say, for exa., "The 1000 year old burial mound, is down on Mason Street, in Green Bay, WI.
Terrance Egolf said:Richard,
I found the CRSQ issue I mentioned, but the article wasn't in it. I will have to keep looking. The author suggested that the rivers followed depressions in the "Precambrian" basement rock that still represents the crust at the time of creation. Although a lot of tectonic activity occurred during and after the Flood, especially in the Anatolian region, the extremities of the river valleys are, he believes, still recognizable.
One interesting approach he takes is suggesting that the pre-Flood locations given in Genesis were actually described through inspiration using contemporary landmarks in order to provide an understandable geographical reference to the Israelites.In other words, Havilah, Ethiopia, Assyria, and the Euphrates were landmarks that God used to locate the pre-Flood Eden, even though they weren't called that before the Flood, except perhaps for the Euphrates River.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin on -
I'm pretty sure it was buried much like most of the Earth. Its kinda hard to believe rivers that exist today have any bearing on the old world when most of it is miles below the surface. If you could find cities going back 13 civilizations underground why would you find a river which predates all those civilizations on the upper part of the surface? However the location is pretty meaningless as it won't benefit knowing where its buried when you can't get to it...and namely when it doesn't exist anymore. It would be nice to know, but speculation will have to suffice.
-
Permalink Reply by Allen Roy on -
I'm of the school that the surface of the earth was so radically changed the earth that it was and is impossible to know anything about the location of any pre-flood place. Not only are some areas of the earth covered by miles deep sediments, but other places, like the Canadian Shield region has had all sediments completely stripped off down to bare basement rock. I read the CRSQ article and was not impressed.
I find it very interesting the all the deepest sediments are found on continents and very little is on the ocean bottoms. What ever flood model you come up with has to explain that somehow, especially since water and mud flow down hill....
Resources
© 2012 Created by Creation Conversations.
Powered by
