Eden

[Sum1sGruj]

I would like to note that I am a very firm young Earth creationist. Even before coming to Christianity, I was agnostic, so of course I am not afflicted between Deism and such. Anyways, it is said that context is everything, and I think I may have stumbled on something that may be very significant to creationists:

Genesis 3:23-24
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

It is being spoken that he was made from earth, and so he will till the earth where he came from.
He was driven out from the east by the Cherubs and the flaming sword. It is describing an instance.

This is the King James Version. More contemporary versions have changed 'sent him forth from' to 'banished'.

If the KJV is more accurate, then the verses are directly implying that Eden is Earth.
And I think creationists will see why that would be significant to them after thinking about it.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I would like to note that I am a very firm young Earth creationist. Even before coming to Christianity, I was agnostic, so of course I am not afflicted between Deism and such. Anyways, it is said that context is everything, and I think I may have stumbled on something that may be very significant to creationists:


If the KJV is more accurate, then the verses are directly implying that Eden is Earth.

Quick test of this. Replace "garden of Eden" with "Earth" and see if it still makes sense.

Genesis 3:23-24
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the Earth, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the Earth Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Nope, not really. If man was sent forth from and driven out of the Earth, then we wouldn't be on Earth, would we?

Also, why insist on the sanctity of the King James Bible? It's just one of thousands of translations; why does it alone have to be right?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Also, why insist on the sanctity of the King James Bible? It's just one of thousands of translations; why does it alone have to be right?

I don't think that the OP is really insisting on KJV-onlyism, just saying that he would be correct if the KJV's translation is more accurate. I don't really follow, though, to be honest. Would you care explaining how it would imply that Eden was Earth?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I don't think that the OP is really insisting on KJV-onlyism, just saying that he would be correct if the KJV's translation is more accurate. I don't really follow, though, to be honest. Would you care explaining how it would imply that Eden was Earth?

The context is tricky, no doubt.

Genesis 3:23
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

If you follow carefully, it seems that God is saying that He sent him forth from the ground, to till the ground from which he was conceived.
That is, unless God was implying that Adam was not initially conceived in Eden and rather from another part of Earth, He must be speaking of Eden being Earth itself.

Genesis 3:24
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

This implies that he was driven out from the east of the garden by the Cherubs and the flaming sword. God does not put them at the entrance to the garden, he simply drives Adam away from where the Tree of Life sat.

Genesis 2:8
Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

This directly implies that Eden is Earth, and the garden is simply the paradise in which he had Adam keep and where the Trees of Knowledge and Life were.

Genesis 2:18-19
And the LORD God said , It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof

Here, we see that God created all the creatures out of the ground just as he did Adam. Since Earth is Eden, every creature was of the Earth in it's entirety. Each was simply brought to Adam to be named.
This is very significant for YEC's, because nowhere can evolutionists use these verses in any way, shape or form.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The context is tricky, no doubt.

Genesis 3:23
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

If you follow carefully, it seems that God is saying that He sent him forth from the ground, to till the ground from which he was conceived.
That is, unless God was implying that Adam was not initially conceived in the garden of Eden and rather from another part of Earth, He must be speaking of Eden being Earth itself.

I don't have a KJV handy, so I can't speak for that, but the New American Bible (with which I am more familiar) appears to state that Adam was not created in the Garden itself:

Genesis 2:7-8:
the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being. Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and he placed there the man whom he had formed.

To me though, the wording of the KJV passage would imply that Adam wasn't created in the Garden. There also still remains the problem of Adam being sent forth from the Garden. If the Garden is the Earth, then the only way that someone could be sent forth from it would be to leave the planet.

Genesis 3:24
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

This implies that he was driven out from the east of the garden by the Cherubs and the flaming sword. God does not put them at the entrance to the garden, he simply drives Adam away.

Not sure how you get this. it pretty explicitly states that God did the driving out, not the cherubs and the flaming sword. And "placed at the east..." is pretty unequivocal. It's unclear whether they were stationed exactly at the entrance, but it makes sense if the purpose of the revolving sword is to protect the tree of life.

I do not know specifically this verse as implicated by anything older then the KJV, pre-400 AD.

The KJV was translated in 1611, not 400. If that's not what you were implying, then I have no idea what this means.

But the newer translations are exactly that- translations.

And the KJV isn't?

Because of the trickiness of these verses, it makes one wonder if it may have been overlooked.

The NAB has very similar wording. It just uses the stronger "banished" and "expelled" rather than "sent forth" and "drove out."

Genesis 3: 23-24:
The LORD God therefore banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken. When he expelled the man, he settled him east of the garden of Eden; and he stationed the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I edited my last post, as I re-examined other verses in Genesis as well. When I stumbled on Genesis 3:23-24, I had yet to evaluate everything else in lieu of it with the same concentration.
It was 6am when I read it lol.

Anyways, as you will see from my edited post, I have come to the conclusion that Earth is in fact Eden. The only difference is the garden within in. From the verses I added, we see that God made all creatures of Eden and simply brought them to Adam to be named. Adam was in the garden where the Trees of Knowledge and Life were.
Therefore, Earth was already fully formed and bursting with life, and Eden was just the paradise in which Adam was in.
When they were cast out, they were simply cast away from the Tree of Knowledge and Life, which sat east of the garden. It seems God was concerned about the Trees, not much of anything else. To be driven out of Eden would have been that of Earth, and to be driven from the garden turns out to be irrelevant either way.
The idea I was venturing on was that not everything was central to the specific location. The only thing that had not yet prospered the entirety of Earth was that of humans. The only difference after observation is that only Adam was central to the specific location God had prepared.
Therefore, pro-evolutionist's Pangea is obsolete.

That was the conclusion I was reaching initially. I had just yet to bridge the connection as it correctly stands. After careful observation, we can see that Eden and Earth are the same, and the garden of Eden is merely just the paradise in which Adam was in. All else was already prospering.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Anyways, as you will see from my edited post, I have come to the conclusion that Earth is in fact Eden. The only difference is the garden within in. From the verses I added, we see that God made all creatures of Eden and simply brought them to Adam to be named. Adam was in the garden where the Trees of Knowledge and Life were. Therefore, Earth was already fully formed and bursting with life, and Eden was just the paradise in which Adam was in.

Ok, I suppose that it could be read that way.

When they were cast out, they were simply cast away from the Tree of Knowledge and Life, which sat East of the garden. To be driven out of Eden would have been that of Earth, and to be driven from the garden turned out to be a moot point on my behalf.

The idea I was venturing on was that not everything was central to the specific location. The only thing that had not yet prospered the entirety of Earth was that of humans. The only difference after observation is that only Adam was central to the Garden.

No, I don't think it's entirely moot. The tree of knowledge is within the Garden, not to the east of it, and if the Garden was a specific area of Eden (Earth), the man could have very easily been driven away from it.

Therefore, pro-evolutionist's Pangea is obsolete.

Non-sequitur much? I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion. You can't disprove science using the Bible. And that's all I'm going to say on this portion of the discussion.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Non-sequitur much? I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion. You can't disprove science using the Bible. And that's all I'm going to say on this portion of the discussion.

This is the creationist section, where did you think I was going with it .

Since when did science outweigh the acts of God? That is the underlying problem that seems to have troubled Christianity considerably. At what point in time did we feel it necessary to explain the expansion of organisms when the bible gives assurance that they prospered all over?
The context is everything. Here's another thing that touches base on all this:

Genesis 1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years

See, this was day three. All other days after this were then 24 hours. So this leaves a possibility that the universe is billions of years old.

Genesis 1:20
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven

We see here that Adam and the Garden was already established, and that this day was the day Adam was given these creatures to name.
So no matter how you look at it, an old Earth is just not possible in the context.

 

[theFijian]

If the KJV is more accurate, then the verses are directly implying that Eden is Earth.
And I think creationists will see why that would be significant to them after thinking about it.

Do any other Creationists here actually believe this?

 

[Jazer]

the verses are directly implying that Eden is Earth.

God's plan was for Eden to expand and to fill the earth.
There are people that believe the whole earth will become a Eden or a paradise.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Genesis 2:8
Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden

Genesis 2:10
A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters.

Garden of Eden.

Eden is obviously Earth. The Garden in it was the paradise.

My OP was a bit over-reaching, but I'm correct nonetheless. The only other possibility is that Eden was a region, but it definitely was not exclusively the name of the Garden.

 

[theFijian]

Genesis 2:8
Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden

Genesis 2:10
A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters.

Garden of Eden.

Eden is obviously Earth. The Garden in it was the paradise.

My OP was a bit over-reaching, but I'm correct nonetheless. The only other possibility is that Eden was a region, but it definitely was not exclusively the name of the Garden.

And again I'll ask, do any other Creationists actually believe this?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

And again I'll ask, do any other Creationists actually believe this?

You really do not have to be a creationist to see it for what it is. It's right there in the context.

 

[juvenissun]

Genesis 2:8
Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden

Genesis 2:10
A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters.

Garden of Eden.

Eden is obviously Earth. The Garden in it was the paradise.

My OP was a bit over-reaching, but I'm correct nonetheless. The only other possibility is that Eden was a region, but it definitely was not exclusively the name of the Garden.

Very interesting idea.

The Garden of Eden is obviously a region. Gen 2 describes the approximate border of the Garden. It is a region and is also the Garden, a big Garden.

However, it is interesting that you, somehow, take it as the whole earth. I am not asking "how" did you get this idea (that is your argument, so far). But I am very interesting to know "why" do you like this idea. You can certainly see the difficult point of it. But I just wonder if you can share what is the advantage of interpreting it this way. Why not just let it be a region on this very Earth?

The reason I ask is that I have a similar idea, but with different reasons.

 

[theFijian]

You really do not have to be a creationist to see it for what it is. It's right there in the context.

True, you just need to really suck at hermeneutics

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Very interesting idea.

The Garden of Eden is obviously a region. Gen 2 describes the approximate border of the Garden. It is a region and is also the Garden, a big Garden.

However, it is interesting that you, somehow, take it as the whole earth. I am not asking "how" did you get this idea (that is your argument, so far). But I am very interesting to know "why" do you like this idea. You can certainly see the difficult point of it. But I just wonder if you can share what is the advantage of interpreting it this way. Why not just let it be a region on this very Earth?

The reason I ask is that I have a similar idea, but with different reasons.

Well, it's about the expansion of life, honestly.

In the first story, we see that God just filled the Earth with creatures, and in the second story, He brought them to Adam to name.
It seems like there just wouldn't be enough room in the Garden alone for all animals, and if we assume that God brought one of every animal to Adam, then the others were outside the Garden.
And then of course, the first story does not make them central at all to the Garden.
So in many ways, there leaves much room for the possibility. I don't think what the assumed title of Eden even hurts the idea, really, but some people are just stubborn, ya know? I want to broaden the horizon on the Creation stories so to speak.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, it's about the expansion of life, honestly.

In the first story, we see that God just filled the Earth with creatures, and in the second story, He brought them to Adam to name.
It seems like there just wouldn't be enough room in the Garden alone for all animals, and if we assume that God brought one of every animal to Adam, then the others were outside the Garden.
And then of course, the first story does not make them central at all to the Garden.
So in many ways, there leaves much room for the possibility. I don't think what the assumed title of Eden even hurts the idea, really, but some people are just stubborn, ya know? I want to broaden the horizon on the Creation stories so to speak.

Again, for different reasons, I agreed that animals might not live within the Garden, but lived outside the Garden.

So, the picture so far is that "the earth has a Garden". But, it seems there is still a need to have another earth which is the same one, but is also another one.

--------

I should say thank you very much. Because I just suddenly realized a real possibility of a young (<10,000 years old) earth. It is so simple: This earth is a new one, but it is exactly the other one, and is only less then 10,000 years old since Adam sinned.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the KJV is more accurate, then the verses are directly implying that Eden is Earth.
And I think creationists will see why that would be significant to them after thinking about it.

Eden = Pangaea

 

[SkyWriting]

And again I'll ask, do any other Creationists actually believe this?

I had always thought it was the Garden, east of Eden, and that Eden was part of earth. So I don't see the mystery.

 

[ExpoTheo]

If the KJV is more accurate, then the verses are directly implying that Eden is Earth.
And I think creationists will see why that would be significant to them after thinking about it.

It is interesting to look up all the different verses that uses the word Eden. For example: "And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden." Here we see the land of NOD was east of Eden.