Tradition places the garden of Eden between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in the modern nation of Iraq. Modern science disputes this and places the cradle of civilization on the African continent.
2007-03-31 05:20:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by icb 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
Location of Eden.
The original site of the garden of Eden is conjectural. The principal means of identifying its geographic location is the Bible’s description of the river “issuing out of Eden,” which thereafter divided into four “heads,” producing the rivers named as the Euphrates, Hiddekel, Pishon, and Gihon. (Ge 2:10-14) The Euphrates (Heb., Perath′) is well known, and “Hiddekel” is the name used for the Tigris in ancient inscriptions. (Compare also Da 10:4.) The other two rivers, the Pishon and the Gihon, however, are unidentified.
Some, such as Calvin and Delitzsch, have argued in favor of Eden’s situation somewhere near the head of the Persian Gulf in Lower Mesopotamia, approximately at the place where the Tigris and the Euphrates draw near together. They associated the Pishon and Gihon with canals between these streams. However, this would make these rivers tributaries, rather than branches dividing off from an original source. The Hebrew text points, rather, to a location in the mountainous region N of the Mesopotamian plains, the area where the Euphrates and Tigris rivers have their present sources.
Thus The Anchor Bible (1964), in its notes on Genesis 2:10, states: “In Heb[rew] the mouth of the river is called ‘end’ (Josh xv 5, xviii 19); hence the plural of ro’s ‘head’ must refer here to the upper course. . . . This latter usage is well attested for the Akk[adian] cognate resu.” The fact that the Euphrates and Tigris rivers do not now proceed from a single source, as well as the impossibility of definitely determining the identification of the Pishon and Gihon rivers, is possibly explained by the effects of the Noachian Flood, which undoubtedly altered considerably the topographical features of the earth, filling in the courses of some rivers and creating others.
The traditional location for the garden of Eden has long been suggested to have been a mountainous area some 225 km (140 mi) SW of Mount Ararat and a few kilometers S of Lake Van, in the eastern part of modern Turkey. That Eden may have been surrounded by some natural barrier, such as mountains, could be suggested by the fact that cherubs are stated to have been stationed only at the E of the garden, from which point Adam and Eve made their exit.—Ge 3:24.
2007-03-31 13:23:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by jvitne 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Eden was a larger area than the garden, since the Bible states: "God planted a garden in E′den, toward the east, and there he put the man." Genesis 2:8
Please note what Genesis 2:10-14 says about the area called Eden:
" . . .there was a river issuing out of E′den to water the garden, and from there it began to be parted and it became, as it were, four. The first one’s name is Pi′shon; it is the one encircling the entire land of Hav′i·lah.  And the name of the second river is Gi′hon; it is the one encircling the entire land of Cush. And the name of the third river is Hid′de·kel; it is the one going to the east of As·syr′i·a. And the fourth river is the Eu·phra′tes."
Where are those 4 rivers today?
The Euphrates is still there.
Hiddekel is an early name for the Tigris.
The others have had name changes.
It is not possible to pin-point the exact location, however it must have been in the area north of Ninevah, near the Caspian Sea.
2007-03-31 12:58:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by Uncle Thesis 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
If you believe that the Garden of Eden was a literal place; then, "locating" the garden is problematic because then you should also accept Noah's Flood as a literal event. A worldwide flood would have obliterated all traces of the original garden and so reworked the landscape the locating the original site would be an impossibility.
Again, if you treat those stories as a literal construct, the river names that watered the Garden of Eden were probably given to the new rivers which existed after the flood. (Just like settlers in the "New World" often gave names to major rivers/cities that came from the Europe.) Therefore, the currently named rivers that are named in the Genesis account (Tigris, Euphrates, etc.) would just be names that were used both before and after the flood.
Of course, its possible that the people that wrote the Genesis account in the first place just used the names of those rivers.
2007-03-31 12:32:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by Sister Spitfire 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
A lot of people point to where the Garden of Eden is or was in today's world, but honestly ... you can never know. If you read in Genesis you find that during the global flood, God restructured the face of the earth; he pulled up mountains and pushed down valleys. it is here the plates were probably split and moved from the original Pangaea (one big island).
The Garden of Eden is lost forever. It could be anywhere.
But what about the rivers? Most people point to the Tigris and the Euphrates and say that the Garden of Eden must be here, but Genesis mentions two other rivers that we find no other sign of, no evidence of two other major rivers exists. That is because our Tigris and Euphrates are not the same as in Eden. As in most cultures, when a group of people go from one place to another, they often rename new places after the old places. Our Tigris and Euphrates are probably renamed from the old ones, but not the same.
Hope this helps!
2007-03-31 12:31:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by justin singleton 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
It wasn't on earth at all, it is in the "romulan neutral zone"
There's a whole star trek episode that details exactly where it is, "the way to eden" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_to_Eden
(check out the cool photo of Spock reasoning with the futeristic (though looking very 60's) hippies!)
The federation era hippies commandered the Enterprise to take it to Eden (if memory serves me right). Along the way they sing and chant and talk about paradise and are generally groovy. When they get there they're warned to be careful on a new planet, but they jump out, the leader climbs a tree and grabs an apple
it's poisenous, and actually everything that looks pretty is deadly. There's a moral in there somewhere. Shatner's not talking, unless it's a "negotiation"
2007-03-31 12:37:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymoose 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Don H tells a lovely answer.
As it is, I think theres much truth in it. Because logically speaking, life has come forth from water. And that would mean that Adam evolved like the normal animals did.
If I assume that Eden was on earth or even on another dimension, Id have to say that theres no such place in Iraq and the oldest remnants of mankind are in Africa so that dont make sense either.
2007-03-31 12:27:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by Antares 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
~~~billbob ,,,, If you study Creation Myths of all peoples you will find that, coincidentally, THEY are the Center of The Universe, and whatever is the phonetic pronunciation that they call themselves ALWAYS translates to "The People", consequently it will be in a nearby region. The reason the Christian Myth is so confusing is because of it's original plagiarism of Zoroastrianism, Mithraism and Egyptian Osiris/Isis Religion,,,, and the many edits and revisions by self appointed experts over the centuries of time. The consesus is The Tigris Euphrates Region of current Iraq.
2007-03-31 12:48:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by Sensei TeAloha 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Your in the middle of it right now.
When the bible speaks of partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you are reading what is called a metaphor. Knowledge of good and evil is a metaphoric reference to judgment. When you judge something you attempt to determine if it is acceptable or not. In effect you are deciding if it is good or evil from your point of view.
Once we were just like the animals and recognized that everything in the garden that God had given us was good. At some point we started to judge some thing as being better than others are. This set up a situation where something’s were more appealing to us than others. We started wishing for these things and were no longer happy with some of the other things in the garden.
This is what is referred to as the fall of man, or separation from God. Some references actually call this the detour into insanity. This self-induced separation from the knowledge of the perfection of god’s gifts to us was never shared by the animals. They were too smart to fall for this silly idea and were not fooled by the ideas of good and evil. For this reason they exist along side of us still experiencing the perfection of the garden. While we have excluded ourselves with our ideas of judgment. This is a truly fascinating subject that has many interesting facets. Including how to reverse the process and return to the original state. If you feel the need to discuss it further send an email.
Love and blessings.
don
2007-03-31 12:19:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋
in genesis it is written that the garden is between the Euphrates and Tigress river, aka the Fertile crescent
2007-03-31 16:30:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by Alley C 3
·
0⤊
0⤋