For the literalists

[philadiddle]

For anyone who accepts a literal interpretation of the creation account and flood story, are there any places or landmarks mentioned before the flood that could be identified as a currently existing place?

 

[juvenissun]

For anyone who accepts a literal interpretation of the creation account and flood story, are there any places or landmarks mentioned before the flood that could be identified as a currently existing place?

Mentioned by who? They are all dead. And their works are all lost.

But, the land would still be the land. What do you want to identify about? Name of the land?

 

[philadiddle]

Mentioned by who?

Mentioned by the bible. For example, does the description of the Garden of Eden give us any hints about where it was? Was the town that Noah lived in before the flood a real place in the middle east?

 

[marlowe007]

Since the word 'Euphrates' is mentioned, it's fairly obvious the ancient scribes located Eden in Mesopotamia.

 

[philadiddle]

Since the word 'Euphrates' is mentioned, it's fairly obvious the ancient scribes located Eden in Mesopotamia.

Is this an "official" creationist stance? Was Eden in Mesopotamia? Juvy can you comment?

 

[juvenissun]

Is this an "official" creationist stance? Was Eden in Mesopotamia? Juvy can you comment?

I know what you are going. You think you are setting a trap, which would make literal interpretation difficult.

The problem is obvious and you are not the first one who noticed it. Everyone would think the Garden could be at the present Iraq. I am not sure what would be your argument. There could be several versions of it.

But, my thought is that the Garden is not on the current earth. Somehow, the "earth" then is different from the earth now. The idea is inspired by the "multiverse" theory in physics. If the Garden still existed today (must have a purpose), then we can not see it unless our spirit leaves our body. (everything in there should still be the same as it was when Adam left it).

Nevertheless, this should not be included in the question asked in the OP. The Garden will never be affected by the Noah's Flood. Any place mentioned in the Bible before the Flood, but after the sin, should still be on the current earth. I could not remember. But is there any such locality be named in Genesis during this period of time?

 

[philadiddle]

I know what you are going. You think you are setting a trap, which would make literal interpretation difficult.

The problem is obvious and you are not the first one who noticed it. Everyone would think the Garden could be at the present Iraq. I am not sure what would be your argument. There could be several versions of it.

But, my thought is that the Garden is not on the current earth. Somehow, the "earth" then is different from the earth now. The idea is inspired by the "multiverse" theory in physics. If the Garden still existed today (must have a purpose), then we can not see it unless our spirit leaves our body. (everything in there should still be the same as it was when Adam left it).

Nevertheless, this should not be included in the question asked in the OP. The Garden will never be affected by the Noah's Flood. Any place mentioned in the Bible before the Flood, but after the sin, should still be on the current earth. I could not remember. But is there any such locality be named in Genesis during this period of time?

So the multiverse is a silly idea but we'll borrow from it to make a metaphysical explanation of Genesis work since a physical explanation goes against the evidence. Hmmm....

What about the mention of specific rivers as mentioned earlier, are they references to the rivers that we know?

 

[juvenissun]

So the multiverse is a silly idea but we'll borrow from it to make a metaphysical explanation of Genesis work since a physical explanation goes against the evidence. Hmmm....

What about the mention of specific rivers as mentioned earlier, are they references to the rivers that we know?

I don't think you want to say that. It is not my idea. Top notch physicists said it.

Was that river mentioned in Genesis again after the sin?

I guess you may wrap up the discussion and this thread should come to an end.

 

[Assyrian]

Was that river mentioned in Genesis again after the sin?

Gen 2:14 And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

Gen 15:18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,

 

[juvenissun]

Gen 2:14 And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

Gen 15:18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,

One is about the Garden and one is after the Flood.

 

[Assyrian]

So not the same river then?

 

[philadiddle]

Gen 2:14 And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

So it seems that the Tigris and the Euphrates were both around before the flood. Am I reading this right?

 

[juvenissun]

So not the same river then?

I would say not.

See, there were four rivers in the Garden (one of them has GOOD gold, do you know what kind of gold is "good"? There is no such thing on the current earth). Now two of them are not there any more. The idea is:

There are still four rivers in the Garden today somewhere. But on the earth, two of them are gone due to geological processes (simply, tectonics). And the two still exist are greatly modified. This change could happen at the moment when Adam was kicked out. Or it could happen during and/or after the Flood.

 

[philadiddle]

I would say not.

See, there were four rivers in the Garden (one of them has GOOD gold, do you know what kind of gold is "good"? There is no such thing on the current earth). Now two of them are not there any more. The idea is:

There are still four rivers in the Garden today somewhere. But on the earth, two of them are gone due to geological processes (simply, tectonics). And the two still exist are greatly modified. This change could happen at the moment when Adam was kicked out. Or it could happen during and/or after the Flood.

So you think that the Tigris and Euphrates that we know today are the rivers mentioned in the above passage but of course, with modifications due to geological processes over time?

 

[teddyv]

I would say not.

See, there were four rivers in the Garden (one of them has GOOD gold, do you know what kind of gold is "good"? There is no such thing on the current earth). Now two of them are not there any more. The idea is:

There are still four rivers in the Garden today somewhere. But on the earth, two of them are gone due to geological processes (simply, tectonics). And the two still exist are greatly modified. This change could happen at the moment when Adam was kicked out. Or it could happen during and/or after the Flood.

From a mining perspective, good gold would be free of impurities and easy to mine and refine.

 

[juvenissun]

From a mining perspective, good gold would be free of impurities and easy to mine and refine.

Glad to talk to you again.

Natural gold as we know it are scattered in other substances. Even we have a sizable gold nugget, as you said, there are impurities in the nugget. So, (physical) impurity and size are limiting factors to gold which can be called "good". A good gold, in my perception, is something like a gold brick. It has already been refined.

You work in mining industry? What kind of stuff do you mine?

 

[juvenissun]

So you think that the Tigris and Euphrates that we know today are the rivers mentioned in the above passage but of course, with modifications due to geological processes over time?

In general, yes. But not an accurate description.

An analogy: You take a digital image (original) and photoshop it by creating a copy and then modify the image on that copy. The rivers we see today are that on the duplicated image. The original is still not changed.

 

[teddyv]

Glad to talk to you again.

Natural gold as we know it are scattered in other substances. Even we have a sizable gold nugget, as you said, there are impurities in the nugget. So, (physical) impurity and size are limiting factors to gold which can be called "good". A good gold, in my perception, is something like a gold brick. It has already been refined.

It seems a stretch to suggest that "good" gold implies a refined gold brick. It just says it's good. It could be a source of placer gold for all we know which also tends toward less impurities.

You work in mining industry? What kind of stuff do you mine?

Not a miner. I work in the hard-rock exploration side of things. I've mostly worked on precious metals projects but lately on a copper project.

 

[juvenissun]

It seems a stretch to suggest that "good" gold implies a refined gold brick. It just says it's good. It could be a source of placer gold for all we know which also tends toward less impurities.


Not a miner. I work in the hard-rock exploration side of things. I've mostly worked on precious metals projects but lately on a copper project.

I would not normally make that stretch. But I simply could not figure out any other way to interpret the description. What is "good" gold? There isn't any "bad" gold. When people think about gold, they would not have a picture of gold ore, but only a picture of solid gold coin or gold brick. Only we who know how does the raw gold ore look like would appreciate how good is the coin or bullion.

Yeah, may be you are right. A gold deposit of > 50% gold would be really "good". But if God makes it go over 50%, why not simply makes it to be 100%?

 

[teddyv]

I would not normally make that stretch. But I simply could not figure out any other way to interpret the description. What is "good" gold? There isn't any "bad" gold. When people think about gold, they would not have a picture of gold ore, but only a picture of solid gold coin or gold brick. Only we who know how does the raw gold ore look like would appreciate how good is the coin or bullion.

Yeah, may be you are right. A gold deposit of > 50% gold would be really "good". But if God makes it go over 50%, why not simply makes it to be 100%?

I don't really dispute your thoughts here. I think the writer knew from his contemporary craftsmen that gold from that area was "good". What I would expect is that it is particularly pure (since most gold deposits tend to contain many other metals) and easy to work with. It appears to sound like it was a sought after source of gold.

Since the text as rendered in English is in parentheses, it reads as an anecdotal tidbit of information or a geographical cue. I don't see or attach a great deal of theological significance to this.

As an aside, I ran across an old exploration company from the 1980's called Havilah Gold Mines. Gotta like that.