For the literalists

[juvenissun]

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.

OK, thanks. This is a side point, anyway.

 

[philadiddle]

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.

Ok, so was the copy made before, after, or during the flood?

 

[juvenissun]

Ok, so was the copy made before, after, or during the flood?

It should happen right after the sin of Adam.

 

[philadiddle]

It should happen right after the sin of Adam.

OK, so after the sin of Adam then the earth was made (or copied) in it's physical form. The Tigris and Euphrates still existed. Then some time went by and geological forces changed them a bit, then the flood happened, then more geological forces modified them a bit more. Is this correct? Want to make sure I understand your POV.

 

[juvenissun]

OK, so after the sin of Adam then the earth was made (or copied) in it's physical form. The Tigris and Euphrates still existed. Then some time went by and geological forces changed them a bit, then the flood happened, then more geological forces modified them a bit more. Is this correct? Want to make sure I understand your POV.

Yes, if we only considered the physical aspects, but not the biological aspects.

Well, it seems takes a while for you to set up the stage. Wish you can surprise me.

 

[philadiddle]

Yes, if we only considered the physical aspects, but not the biological aspects.

Well, it seems takes a while for you to set up the stage. Wish you can surprise me.

Ok I'll get to the point then.

How did all of the layers of strata below the rivers get laid down by the flood if the rivers were there before and after the flood?

 

[juvenissun]

Ok I'll get to the point then.

How did all of the layers of strata below the rivers get laid down by the flood if the rivers were there before and after the flood?

Appreciate your effort in setting up all previous understandings, even I don't think it is necessary. There are several misconceptions in your recognition. To name just one:

Strata beneath any river usually do not have anything to do with the river. We need to identify the sediments that were laid down by the river and the sedimentary rocks which existed before the appearance of the river. The former is called flood plain deposits, the latter is called bedrock. River is basically an agent of erosion, rather than one to make deposition.

So the bedrock (the strata in your description) beneath the two rivers should be the same rock layers found in the Garden. I don't have time to make an essay on your question now. This suggestion is not mature and can be significantly modified by considering more factors. Nevertheless, your question is a good one and I think it means more than you realized. If I am to pursue this problem, I will focus more on those two rivers mentioned in the Garden but not found after the sin. To make a river disappear is a more significant geologic process. And a global flood probably will not do that.

 

[philadiddle]

There are several misconceptions in your recognition. To name just one:

Strata beneath any river usually do not have anything to do with the river. We need to identify the sediments that were laid down by the river and the sedimentary rocks which existed before the appearance of the river. The former is called flood plain deposits, the latter is called bedrock. River is basically an agent of erosion, rather than one to make deposition.

This is not a misconception I have made, this is my understanding.

So the bedrock (the strata in your description) beneath the two rivers should be the same rock layers found in the Garden.

This sums up my point. If the flood laid down all of the layers of strata that we see (usually the flood is attributed to everything before the tertiary period) then how could anything on the surface, above those layers, have been there before the flood? We have the rivers in the garden, then the layers of strata were laid down...beneath the rivers?

I don't need an essay. Start with a vague explanation if you like and we'll go from there.

 

[juvenissun]

This is not a misconception I have made, this is my understanding.

This sums up my point. If the flood laid down all of the layers of strata that we see (usually the flood is attributed to everything before the tertiary period) then how could anything on the surface, above those layers, have been there before the flood? We have the rivers in the garden, then the layers of strata were laid down...beneath the rivers?

I don't need an essay. Start with a vague explanation if you like and we'll go from there.

You have a good point, but it is not new.

I don't really agree that all sedimentary rocks, even most of them, were deposited during the Global Flood. It does not make sense. So, I do not know how much sediments were laid down by the Flood. In fact, I don't think most of the flood sediments can even be found. To this truly unique global feature, we can not only see a part of it. And we can not only evaluate the results by only arguing on local geologic features such as the flood deposits as we know them.

 

[philadiddle]

You have a good point, but it is not new.

I don't really agree that all sedimentary rocks, even most of them, were deposited during the Global Flood. It does not make sense. So, I do not know how much sediments were laid down by the Flood. In fact, I don't think most of the flood sediments can even be found. To this truly unique global feature, we can not only see a part of it. And we can not only evaluate the results by only arguing on local geologic features such as the flood deposits as we know them.

So there were no sediments laid down where those rivers are? Somehow those rivers survived the chaos of a force as destructive as the global flood?

 

[juvenissun]

So there were no sediments laid down where those rivers are? Somehow those rivers survived the chaos of a force as destructive as the global flood?

Of coarse there are river sediments there now. But the current sediment may have nothing to do with the sediments transported during the Global Flood. I have no idea on how thick is the current river sediments there. But I would guess about 200 ft?

When a large flood ran over any river, the river as people knew it will not exist any more. But the river valley will most likely still be the same. A new river which follows approximately the same direction of the old river will appear after the flood. River is a passive feature. Mountains control the development of river. This is why I feel strange about the other two rivers that were never mentioned again after the sin.