Garden of Eden

[Tellyontellyon]

Was the garden of Eden in Africa? Genetic studies seem to point to humanity starting there. What do you think?

 

[BobRyan]

Was the garden of Eden in Africa? Genetic studies seem to point to humanity starting there. What do you think?

It is doubtful - since Moses tells us that it is at the head of the Tigris and Euphrates.

Garden of Eden - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The location of Eden is described in the Book of Genesis as the source of four tributaries. Various suggestions have been made for its location:[3] at the head of the Persian Gulf, in southern Mesopotamia where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers run into the sea;[4] and in Armenia.[5][6][7]"

 

[d taylor]

-

​

The earth as it is now, is not the same earth God created in Genesis 1. The earth God created in Genesis 1 was a single piece of circular land.

 

[AlexB23]

It is doubtful - since Moses tells us that it is at the head of the Tigris and Euphrates.

Garden of Eden - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The location of Eden is described in the Book of Genesis as the source of four tributaries. Various suggestions have been made for its location:[3] at the head of the Persian Gulf, in southern Mesopotamia where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers run into the sea;[4] and in Armenia.[5][6][7]"

The Persian gulf looks pretty dry nowadays, compared to thousands of years ago, same thing happened with Mesopotamia. Goes to show how much has changed in the world.

Desertification since the 1950s:

Fertile Crescent

The Fertile Crescent, also known as the “Cradle of Civilization,” is the boomerang-shaped region of the Middle East t...

www.history.com

From NASA: The Persian Gulf

 

[SuperCow]

The earth as it is now, is not the same earth God created in Genesis 1. The earth God created in Genesis 1 was a single piece of circular land.​

This is not in the Bible. The only way to get to this belief is that you somehow equate the archaeological continent of Pangea to a pre-flood world, thereby mixing secular (albeit throwing away two billion years of their timeline) and religious ideas together. (Which I am assuming you believe that the shape of all the continents changed during the upheaval of the flood.)

However, if you believe that, then that contradicts the setting of the garden of Eden in Genesis 2. Look at the four rivers that originate in Eden.

Genesis 2:11 : Pishon - flows through the land of Havilah.
Genesis 2:13 : Gihon - flows through the land of Cush.
Genesis 2:14 : Tigris - flows along th east side of Asshur.
Genesis 2:14 : Euphrates - The author assumes everyone recognizes that river.

Do you notice anything odd here? First thing you see is that all of the rivers in pre-flood Eden are described in terms of post-flood lands named after people that never existed before the flood.

Havilah is a region named after either a son of Cush (Genesis 10:7) or Joktan (Genesis 10:29).
Cush is the first son of Ham, mistakenly translated in the KJV to land of Ethiopia.
Asshur is a son of Shem.

If the land had changed that much (from Pangea to today), then these descriptions are either meaningless or made up centuries after the flood. The only way this description makes sense is if someone recognized the rivers from before and after the flood, and there's only eight people who could possibly have seen the land before and after. Not necessarily exactly, but enough to recognize some kind of geographical markers.

I'll note as well, that it seems somewhat impossible that the origin of the Tigris and Euphrates could be anywhere near any river in Ethiopia; however, in the ancient Sumerian records, the first dynasty of Kish ruled in Mesopotamia, and this probably refers to the land where Kish=Kush=Cush ruled, before they migrated to Africa shortly after the Tower of Babel incident.

So the garden of Eden (entirely my opinion of course) is probably in the vicinity of modern day eastern Türkiye or northwestern Iran.

 

[d taylor]

This is not in the Bible. The only way to get to this belief is that you somehow equate the archaeological continent of Pangea to a pre-flood world, thereby mixing secular (albeit throwing away two billion years of their timeline) and religious ideas together. (Which I am assuming you believe that the shape of all the continents changed during the upheaval of the flood.)

However, if you believe that, then that contradicts the setting of the garden of Eden in Genesis 2. Look at the four rivers that originate in Eden.

Genesis 2:11 : Pishon - flows through the land of Havilah.
Genesis 2:13 : Gihon - flows through the land of Cush.
Genesis 2:14 : Tigris - flows along th east side of Asshur.
Genesis 2:14 : Euphrates - The author assumes everyone recognizes that river.

Do you notice anything odd here? First thing you see is that all of the rivers in pre-flood Eden are described in terms of post-flood lands named after people that never existed before the flood.

Havilah is a region named after either a son of Cush (Genesis 10:7) or Joktan (Genesis 10:29).
Cush is the first son of Ham, mistakenly translated in the KJV to land of Ethiopia.
Asshur is a son of Shem.

If the land had changed that much (from Pangea to today), then these descriptions are either meaningless or made up centuries after the flood. The only way this description makes sense is if someone recognized the rivers from before and after the flood, and there's only eight people who could possibly have seen the land before and after. Not necessarily exactly, but enough to recognize some kind of geographical markers.

I'll note as well, that it seems somewhat impossible that the origin of the Tigris and Euphrates could be anywhere near any river in Ethiopia; however, in the ancient Sumerian records, the first dynasty of Kish ruled in Mesopotamia, and this probably refers to the land where Kish=Kush=Cush ruled, before they migrated to Africa shortly after the Tower of Babel incident.

So the garden of Eden (entirely my opinion of course) is probably in the vicinity of modern day eastern Türkiye or northwestern Iran.

-​

I do not buy into science globe earth lie. So talk about mixing secular into The Bible that is exactly what 99% of christianity does saying God created a globe earth in Genesis 1.

Read Genesis 1 waters gathered into one place and then God states, let the dry earth appear. That plainly states a single circular piece of land that was surrounded by water.
How do we know the land was circular. It is stated in Isaiah 40:22 God sits above the circle of the earth.

Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

There is no let the land masses appear

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Was the garden of Eden in Africa? Genetic studies seem to point to humanity starting there. What do you think?

Concisely speaking, I think the Garden of Eden, whether taken in a woodenly literal fashion or even an allegorical, spiritualized or paradigmatic fashion, would be placed in the Middle East in association with the ancient Fertile Crescent and the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, at the barest minimum, and not in Africa.

Genetics wasn't even in the mindset of the writer(s) of Genesis, so I don't think we should assume a naturalistic, Modern outlook on the Garden of Eden's meaning, even in relation to humanities' origins. But who knows for sure, historically speaking?

 

[BobRyan]

-

​

The earth as it is now, is not the same earth God created in Genesis 1. The earth God created in Genesis 1 was a single piece of circular land.

No doubt - but Moses writing after the flood- tells us the location of Eden.

 

[Apple Sky]

No doubt - but Moses writing after the flood- tells us the location of Eden.

Where is it ?

 

[SuperCow]

I do not buy into science globe earth lie. So talk about mixing secular into The Bible that is exactly what 99% of christianity does saying God created a globe earth in Genesis 1.

So what do you mean by that? Are you saying that the earth is not a globe? If you're talking about the earth being without form, I don't think anyone in Christianity believes the earth was its present shape until day three. (Or maybe the completion of day two.)

Read Genesis 1 waters gathered into one place and then God states, let the dry earth appear. That plainly states a single circular piece of land that was surrounded by water.

The waters were gathered, and then the dry land appeared. It says nothing about the shape of the dry land. However, being an old-earth creationist, I would have no problem believing that the initial continent was the Pangea continent in any shape that was convenient for God's purposes.

How do we know the land was circular. It is stated in Isaiah 40:22 God sits above the circle of the earth.

Isaiah 40:22 speaks about the earth's people, so therefore the circle of the earth was present tense. It speaks nothing of what the earth was like during the creative days.

Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

There is no let the land masses appear

I think your quote clearly says "let the dry land appear". And if you want to get technical, as you quote, the gathering of the waters he called Seas, which is plural. If there was only one land mass, then there is only one Sea.

Despite all this you never answered any point in my original post, so perhaps you have nothing to say about it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So what do you mean by that? Are you saying that the earth is not a globe? If you're talking about the earth being without form, I don't think anyone in Christianity believes the earth was its present shape until day three. (Or maybe the completion of day two.)

.... as hard as it is to believe, there actually are a handful of flat-earthers here on CF.

 

[Apple Sky]

Concisely speaking, I think the Garden of Eden, whether taken in a woodenly literal fashion or even an allegorical, spiritualized or paradigmatic fashion, would be placed in the Middle East in association with the ancient Fertile Crescent and the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, at the barest minimum, and not in Africa.

Could the Garden of Eden be at the North Pole ?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Could the Garden of Eden be at the North Pole ?

How can that be if Genesis says that God planted a Garden in "the East"?

 

[SuperCow]

Could the Garden of Eden be at the North Pole ?

How can that be if Genesis says that God planted a Garden in "the East"?

East is relative to the author or reader; however, it still can't be at the North Pole for a dozen other reasons.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Was the garden of Eden in Africa? Genetic studies seem to point to humanity starting there. What do you think?

Eden is a mythologem location. According to Genesis 2
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

East is relative to the author or reader; however, it still can't be at the North Pole for a dozen other reasons.

You're right, "... it still can't be at the North Pole for a dozen other reasons," as well. So, that means, when we pull out a ton of scholars' books on Biblical Hermeneutics and Exegesis and use them to better our method of reading the Bible, we'll realize that "the East" is contextually associated by its own author with the 4 rivers mentioned in Genesis.

 

[Apple Sky]

It is doubtful - since Moses tells us that it is at the head of the Tigris and Euphrates.

Garden of Eden - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The location of Eden is described in the Book of Genesis as the source of four tributaries. Various suggestions have been made for its location:[3] at the head of the Persian Gulf, in southern Mesopotamia where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers run into the sea;[4] and in Armenia.[5][6][7]"

I think your right, the Garden of Eden is just where Moses tells us it is.

 

[SuperCow]

Eden is a mythologem location. According to Genesis 2
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
View attachment 353957

The problem I have with this map is the headwaters of each of the four rivers in this case are at least 3000 miles apart. The biggest problem is the Gihon River. Yes, it is a candidate for winding through the land of Cush (traditionally synonymous with Ethiopia today), but it is nowhere near the Tigris and Euphrates River heads. If it refers to the first Sumerian dynasty of Kish, then we are squarely back in the middle east again. Vowels were not used in most ancient language written forms. Also Nimrod was a son of Cush, and would also be part of the Kish dynasty.

You can eliminate the White Nile as Pishon, because Genesis says there is gold, onyx and aromatic resin there. There was plenty of gold in Egypt, but onyx was only mined in Turkiye or India, both of which also had gold. Aromatic resin is harder to narrow down, since it is from a tree and the climate in the middle east is different than it was 4000 years ago. (Today's surviving locations wouldn't fit the narrative)

Then the Tigris and Euphrates both have their headwaters in Turkiye. (today anyway)

You'd have to allow for minor (or even some significant) changes to the path of these rivers, but the author recognized their path. Moses did not live through the flood, so his description would be based on information from Noah or Shem, likely through Abraham-->Isaac-->Jacob-->Levi (direct ancestor), or alternatively through Abraham-->Midian-->[...]-->Jethro, (his father-in-law) or God himself.

Finally if you look at the mountain ranges, there's no way for a river to pass from India to anywhere near the headwaters of the Euphrates, but if they all originated far enough north of Iraq, it is possible for rivers to diverge in many directions, depending on the original size and position of Eden.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The problem I have with this map is the headwaters of each of the four rivers in this case are at least 3000 miles apart. The biggest problem is the Gihon River. Yes, it is a candidate for winding through the land of Cush (traditionally synonymous with Ethiopia today), but it is nowhere near the Tigris and Euphrates River heads. If it refers to the first Sumerian dynasty of Kish, then we are squarely back in the middle east again. Vowels were not used in most ancient language written forms. Also Nimrod was a son of Cush, and would also be part of the Kish dynasty.
View attachment 353992

You can eliminate the White Nile as Pishon, because Genesis says there is gold, onyx and aromatic resin there. There was plenty of gold in Egypt, but onyx was only mined in Turkiye or India, both of which also had gold. Aromatic resin is harder to narrow down, since it is from a tree and the climate in the middle east is different than it was 4000 years ago. (Today's surviving locations wouldn't fit the narrative)

Then the Tigris and Euphrates both have their headwaters in Turkiye. (today anyway)

You'd have to allow for minor (or even some significant) changes to the path of these rivers, but the author recognized their path. Moses did not live through the flood, so his description would be based on information from Noah or Shem, likely through Abraham-->Isaac-->Jacob-->Levi (direct ancestor), or alternatively through Abraham-->Midian-->[...]-->Jethro, (his father-in-law) or God himself.

Finally if you look at the mountain ranges, there's no way for a river to pass from India to anywhere near the headwaters of the Euphrates, but if they all originated far enough north of Iraq, it is possible for rivers to diverge in many directions, depending on the original size and position of Eden.
View attachment 353993

Nobody has been able to look at modern maps of the regions mentioned in Genesis and figure out exactly where the Garden of Eden was, at least by the present topography of the lands of the Middle East. What are we to make of this aporia?

 

[SuperCow]

Nobody has been able to look at modern maps of the regions mentioned in Genesis and figure out exactly where the Garden of Eden was, at least by the present topography of the lands of the Middle East. What are we to make of this aporia?

True, but since the location is described in post-diluvian topography, and assuming one actually believes the biblical record, you can narrow it down to a wide region. You can also eliminate many places from contention where it can't be according to the biblical record and archaeological records.