Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by TaliOrlando, Jul 13, 2006.
Where is the Garden of Eden??
Some say Africa!!! Some say Asia!!!!
305 East 2nd Street,
The ancient city of Ur (Ur translates to "original" or "ancient") in southern Iraq. The angel with the flaming sword is the desert, which swallowed up that hallowed ground.
I agree that the Garden is somewhere in that neighborhood. Now, how did you come to hold that flaming sword is the desert? You've got my curiousity up, since I've never heard that before.
I always have figured it tobe around the vicinity of the Tigris and Euphrates, my bible studies leader reckons it at the headwaters of these and the 2 rivers no longer known.
This area is known as the Cradle of Civilisation, the Fertile Crescent etc.
I would love to see some map LINKS offered in this thread.
Both the question as posed and the responses to it assume a literal understandiing of Eden as a place that could be marked on a map. But consider it as a condition rather than a location. The creation accounts can be read not as literal history, in the sense of there being two newly-minted human beings in some idyllic garden, but instead as a parable of the human condition. It is not, in my judgment, necessary to burden ourselves with unanswerable questions about geography, etc., because the story is intended as spiritual instruction, not as history or science.
That said, however, as I read the anthropologists, some do argue that the emergence of homo sapiens is best placed in the Olduvai gorge in Kenya. However, there are some others who think there are other places of early emergence in other locations. It does seem that what we call "civilization" -- that is, people living in communities and cooperating with one another -- may be traceable to the Fertile Crescent. Does the Genesis account retain a prehistoric memory of that?
The river Euphrates is one of the four rivers that continue their flow through and from the Garden of Eden according to Genesis 2:14. It is the fourth river, after the Pishon, the Gihon, and the Tigris, flowing out of the garden. The river also marked one of the boundaries of the land promised by God to Abraham and his descendants. In Genesis 2, the Euphrates, Tigris, Gihon and Pishon rivers are all said to pass through Eden. Note on the map that the Tigris and Euphrates come together just a short distance from Ur. The four rivers would then continue toward the gulf of Kuwait. The Pishon River, previously not found, was found two years ago under the desert sands leading from Ur to Saudi Arabia. This was a TV news report, so I can't give you the citation. The remaining river not yet found is the Gihon, obviously also under the same desert. "An Angel with a flaming sword" as the desert itself is the spiritual conclusion that I draw, since this region is nothing but desert. Go to expedia.com, select "World (topographic)", type in Ur, Iraq. You'll see the ancient site and the existing site, very close together.
wow. all i can say is. wow.
umm. its literal. not figurative. we didnt descend from a "condition"
sorry. unBiblical Alert!!
bmerr here. The flood covered the whole face of the earth, even the high hills. "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered" (Gen 7:20).
Imagine it: the fountains of the deep being broken up, and rain the like we have probably never seen falling from the sky. There are not many forces on the planet that can move more dirt than water does.
My guess is, the rivers we know as the Tigris and Euphrates, may not even be the same rivers we read of in Genesis. As changed as the earth was after the flood, I doubt that very much was recognizable to Noah and family as they stepped of the ark. Of course, they wouldn't be getting off at the same place they got on. But with the upheavals created by the natural forces that God unleashed on the earth, I don't think anything was where it had been before the flood. The rivers that now are named Tigris and Euphrates possibly got their names in memory of the pre-flood world.
I would imagine it's where the "Tree of Life" is currently.
If the GofE existed it wasn't in this world. It was a mystical magical place in some other place. Not on this world.
Not unBiblical. In fact, I would argue that an understanding of the Genesis accounts as parable (some would say "myth", but that's a loaded term) is closer to the intent of the editors of Genesis than a literal reading.
You seem surprised. Are you not familiar with this way of reading Genesis ... whether or not you agree with it?
The death that came from there sure was not mythical.
U go Bro Bob!
Every ancient religion has a story about the creation and man's beginning. It has been suggested that Genesis is just the Hebrew accounting for creation.
Even the term adam is generic and not a name until about the 5th chapter of Genesis. Adam early on refers to all humankind. These are not literal days in the first 11 chapters of Genesis and one fails miserably in other areas if he supposes a literalism in the least.
On the flood, it was local. God, at that point, was virtually dealing with a nation, and that nation had failed miserably. God chose Noah, the representative of that nation, to survive and to begin over....within a chosen nation. Even so, his three sons branched off to various regions of the same locality. The years required to develop the nations in the Bible alone requires more years than we can even imagine, and they certainly didn't come from three sons of one man. Imposible and unimaginable.
Was it the book titled "lost books of the bible" or another book where they spoke of this same story being found in the great egyption library in Alexandria? Then it went on to imply how Moses was educated in the egyption universities?
You are correct though, other religions have this same creation story.
Hi LeBuick, Actually it was Other Creation Accounts by Alan Millard.
By the way, Millard is a senior fellow at Liverpool University, in Archeology, Egyptology etc. A scholar indeed.) Edited to add this note.
Whilst there are other cretion accounts similar to that in Genesis, Millard speedily notes: "These factual similarities only serve to emphasize the wide difference in moral and spiritual outlook between the Hebrew Genesis and its closest counterparts......." Genesis was not drawn from the other accounts, but rather the other way around...."content is so marked that they serve to highlight the divine inspiration of Genesis rather than undermine it."
With this I quite agree. What I would affirm is that we must rightly understand what has been written and not read into what we think should be written. Some are so afraid of "other" thoughts that they refuse to face reality in understanding.
I agree but will add you have to be strong and deeply rooted in your faith before partaking "other" thoughts. A week believer may loose their faith...
I didn't realize Millard personal view, so he contends the Hebrew accounting is first and the others are copies... Interesting.
I found the book I was thinking of where the author contends the Jews "borrowed" the foundation of their religion from the Egyption library in Alexandria. It is called, "Africans who wrote the Bible" by Alex Darkwah. It's a fairly interesting book if any of you want to read it...