Was the Garden of Eden actually in the Sunni Triangle?
Lorentz
as I am not clear where the action is supposed to be taking place. I
do not know where the Garden of Eden is supposed to be relative to the
world of today. I do not know where that sword is supposed to be that
blocks man, Adam and Eve's descendents, from returning to the Garden.
If the story of Genesis is literally true, there has to be a physical
location to the Garden of Eden.
I do not know where Creationists believe the Garden of Eden is
supposed to be. The description has landmarks that suggest that Eden
was in what we now call Iraq. There are three rivers named which
nonbelievers often associated with the three rivers near Baghdad. Do
Creationists believe that is the true place where the Garden of Eden
was? Or do Creationists think that this is a false identification of
the geographical region?
I remember when I was a child, hearing Bible stories from my
parents, I believed the story literally and completely. However, I
also pictured the Garden of Eden as being on some other world or some
magical place on earth somehow invisible to mortals. Otherwise, there
would be artifacts pointing to such a place on earth including a fiery
sword. There would be a place on earth people couldn't get to, a place
that blocked by clearly supernatural barriers. It would still have the
Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life, but mortals at the present
time couldn't get there because of man's sin. But it still had to
exist, because the Bible never said that God destroyed the Garden or
removed it contents. It was Adam and Eve that was exiled from the
Garden, which wouldn't have been necessary if God merely destroyed it.
The nearby region just outside the Garden would also have all animal
species of the world simultaneously living there. How else can one
literally believe such a story?
If there was such a fiery sword, it would be a rather dramatic
piece of Creationist evidence. Maybe instead of looking for Noah's
ark, Creationists should look for the sword that blocks the Garden of
Eden. Photograph it from a distance, publish the location, and then
let some atheistic idiots try to examine.it close up. That'll show us
atheists!
Paulo Riven
> I have problems discussing the literal interpretation of Genesis
> as I am not clear where the action is supposed to be taking place. I
> do not know where the Garden of Eden is supposed to be relative to the
> world of today. I do not know where that sword is supposed to be that
> blocks man, Adam and Eve's descendents, from returning to the Garden.
> If the story of Genesis is literally true, there has to be a physical
> location to the Garden of Eden.
> If there was such a fiery sword, it would be a rather dramatic
> piece of Creationist evidence. Maybe instead of looking for Noah's
> ark, Creationists should look for the sword that blocks the Garden of
> Eden. Photograph it from a distance, publish the location, and then
> let some atheistic idiots try to examine.it close up. That'll show us
> atheists![quote]
See For YourSelf and Bare Witness.
http://www.mts.net/~perasa1/The%20Garden%20of%20Eden%20in%20Avila.htm
Thanks Lorentz
King Paulo
Paulo Riven
Here you Go Lorentz
http://www.mts.net/~perasa1/The%20Garden%20of%20Eden%20in%20Avila.htm
Thanks
King Paulo
Steven J.
> as I am not clear where the action is supposed to be taking place. I
> do not know where the Garden of Eden is supposed to be relative to the
> world of today. I do not know where that sword is supposed to be that
> blocks man, Adam and Eve's descendents, from returning to the Garden.
> If the story of Genesis is literally true, there has to be a physical
> location to the Garden of Eden.
>
Dante Alighieri posited that the Garden of Eden had been removed from
the world after the Fall, and placed atop the mountain of Purgatory
(approximately where Hawaii is, but taller). He could be wrong about
the location, and still, from a creationist perspective, right about
the principle of the thing. Or the original Eden could simply have
been destroyed, so that the angel with the sword of fire could be
stationed elsewhere. Many YECs argue that the original distribution
of lands was radically altered by Noah's Flood and its aftermath, so
that the lands and rivers mentioned in the early chapters of Genesis
no longer exist in those forms and places. In other words, today's
continents and major terrain features don't have the same locations
relative to one another that their pre-flood counterparts did, so it
makes no sense to say where Eden was in the pre-flood world (of
course, just as it's too much to ask YECs for a detailed chronology of
Egypt that puts its entire history after 2300 BC, it's too much to ask
them to reconstruct a map of the pre-Flood Earth).
-- Steven J.
Ken Rode
How long have you been suffering from involuntary pareidolia?
DougC
> I have problems discussing the literal interpretation of Genesis
> as I am not clear where the action is supposed to be taking place. I
> do not know where the Garden of Eden is supposed to be relative to the
> world of today.
The book of Genesis gives details of a location relative to the Tigris
and Euphrates rivers plus a couple of other rivers with names lost in
the mist of time. It's in eastern Iraq. What more do you want to
know? Why do you need a precise GPS reading? Do you also need a
weather report for the fateful day of the Fall? Spend your time
studying the "action."
Doug Chandler
Kermit
Um, no. Paulo, you are delusional. Of course you have been told this
before. You are not a king, and there was no Atlantis.
Kermit
Lorentz
debate is whether Creationism (or intelligent design) is a science.
The things that you are so flippant about are all things that are part
of science.
Scientists investigate things. If it can't be investigated, it is not
science. The details that you are flippantly disregarding are things
that can be investigated. Your disregard of the physical facts
indicates that deep down you don't believe the story yourself.
If one can't investigate the physical aspects of Genesis, then
the story of Genesis isn't a science. One believes purely on account
of authority, and one stops investigating when the authority gets
comfortable. Then the claims that some people put forth, concerning
the Creationist model being scientific, are lies. If I can't
investigate the physical aspects of the Garden of Eden, then the story
that I was told as a child is a lie.
This is independent even of whether the Garden of Eden existed
or not. Asking people not to ask valid scientific questions is a form
of misdirection, because it is a way of slandering the person who ask
them. The person who asks the question is not being foolish, and you
are claiming that they are.
>Do you also need a
> weather report for the fateful day of the Fall? Spend your time
> studying the "action."
By "action" I think that you mean the morality issues in the
story. However, your flippant disregard of physical facts is in my
book immoral. As far as I can see, the main purpose of the Talk-
Origins discussion board is concerns the relationship between religion
and science. A disregard of the other issues is an implicit admission
that the story of Genesis is not real. After claiming that only the
"action" is important, any claim that the story of Genesis is real is
a type of lie. Lying is considered immoral among some people.
Lorentz
> of lands was radically altered by Noah's Flood and its aftermath, so
> that the lands and rivers mentioned in the early chapters of Genesis
> no longer exist in those forms and places. In other words, today's
> continents and major terrain features don't have the same locations
> relative to one another that their pre-flood counterparts did
of Eden was destroyed at the time of the flood. The Garden of Eden may
or may not have been located in Iraq, it probably wasn't. I agree,
given this belief, that it would be unfair to ask the exact location.
All traces of it were probably erased. The angel with the fiery sword
was faithfully guarding the Garden until the Flood, he probably got
reeployed elsewhere just before the event. This brings a whole lot
more importance to finding traces of the Flood. But I am now
comfortable with the Garden gap.
Your other hypotheses are interesting, but fundamentally
flawed.
> Dante Alighieri posited that the Garden of Eden had been removed from
> the world after the Fall, and placed atop the mountain of Purgatory
> (approximately where Hawaii is, but taller).
Satellite pictures would clearly show the Mountain of
Purgatory. Furthermore, it would certainly be visible to tourists. As
well as being the main attraction. If I visit Honolullu, I will
definitely look for it. I gues what I am asking is, "In what way was
it removed from the world."
>Or the original Eden could simply have
> been destroyed, so that the angel with the sword of fire could be
> stationed elsewhere.
Why place him there at all? What was he guarding?
Desertphile
wrote:
> I have problems discussing the literal interpretation of Genesis
> as I am not clear where the action is supposed to be taking place.
Sunnydale was built on top of a Hellmouth. Many scientists want to
find the city so that they can study vampires, demons, and
assorted Hell monsters but so far they have been unable to locate
the city, though it is of course known to be somewhere in
California USA.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
DougC
> Scientists investigate things. If it can't be investigated, it is not
> science.
So anything at all can be called a science simply by launching an
investigation?
> The details that you are flippantly disregarding are things
> that can be investigated.
And the geography is the only thing about the story than can be
investigated. Even if that investigation is a total success and all
indications lead one to beleive that "here" is the place, what
follows? Can it be demonstrated that Adam and Eve were ever there?
When? Does it reveal who said what?
> Your disregard of the physical facts
> indicates that deep down you don't believe the story yourself.
I don't disregard facts. You have no idea what I believe.
> If one can't investigate the physical aspects of Genesis, then
> the story of Genesis isn't a science. One believes purely on account
> of authority, and one stops investigating when the authority gets
> comfortable. Then the claims that some people put forth, concerning
> the Creationist model being scientific, are lies. If I can't
> investigate the physical aspects of the Garden of Eden, then the story
> that I was told as a child is a lie.
And if you do start to investigate, that alone proves that the story
cannot be a lie?
> This is independent even of whether the Garden of Eden existed
> or not.
Strange twist, but it fits. See above.
> Asking people not to ask valid scientific questions is a form
> of misdirection, ......
You have a loose grasp of the definition of science and what is
valid. Misdirection is not redirection, which is not bad if you are
going in the wrong direction.
Doug Chandler
Woland
But what about the eels, man!
skyeyes
I don't know about your home town, but where I live, bare witnesses
are usually arrested and charged with public indecency. ;->
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
John Wilkins
> On 22 Apr 2007 16:01:53 -0700, Lorentz <drose...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I have problems discussing the literal interpretation of Genesis
> > as I am not clear where the action is supposed to be taking place.
>
> Sunnydale was built on top of a Hellmouth. Many scientists want to
> find the city so that they can study vampires, demons, and
> assorted Hell monsters but so far they have been unable to locate
> the city, though it is of course known to be somewhere in
> California USA.
"In" being the operative word. I gather it was swallowed up at the end
there...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Bodega
> I have problems discussing the literal interpretation of Genesis
> as I am not clear where the action is supposed to be taking place.
Hey, bro, know whatcha mean. When I was a kid I always wondered
whether Gotham in "Batman" was supposed to be New York City.
As an adult, I'm still confused. But I'm sure the scholars will figger
it all out someday.
Ron O
When they put the Bible together my take is that they didn't believe
in a literal garden of Eden. If it did exist it would be burried
beneath thousands of feet of flood sediments, and you wouldn't need a
sword to prevent people from visiting there.
Ron Okimoto
Robert Carnegie
> >Why do you need a precise GPS reading?
>
> Because the educational issue in the Creationist-Evolutionist
> debate is whether Creationism (or intelligent design) is a science.
> The things that you are so flippant about are all things that are part
> of science.
> Scientists investigate things. If it can't be investigated, it is not
> science. The details that you are flippantly disregarding are things
> that can be investigated. Your disregard of the physical facts
> indicates that deep down you don't believe the story yourself.
>
> If one can't investigate the physical aspects of Genesis, then
> the story of Genesis isn't a science. One believes purely on account
> of authority, and one stops investigating when the authority gets
> comfortable. Then the claims that some people put forth, concerning
> the Creationist model being scientific, are lies. If I can't
> investigate the physical aspects of the Garden of Eden, then the story
> that I was told as a child is a lie.
Only if you were told as a child that the Garden of Eden is /
scientific/ fact.
Which it looks like not being; plants across the world could never
have survived in one habitat. They like cold, hot, dry, wet, sunny,
shady; some are pollinated by bugs and such, some are eaten by them.
> This is independent even of whether the Garden of Eden existed
> or not. Asking people not to ask valid scientific questions is a form
> of misdirection, because it is a way of slandering the person who ask
> them. The person who asks the question is not being foolish, and you
> are claiming that they are.
If the scientific question is "Do they sting?" or "What happens if I
stick my finger in there?" or "So where's this huge, wet, angry angel
with a former flaming sword then?", independent investigation may be
considered foolish.
Clearly the function of the angel in the story is to discourage people
from going to look for the place; they might be unlucky and find
it... It doesn't appear in the plot again, and the Flood is a
completely separate myth.
> >Do you also need a
> > weather report for the fateful day of the Fall? Spend your time
> > studying the "action."
"I can get all the news I need from the weather report."
> By "action" I think that you mean the morality issues in the
> story. However, your flippant disregard of physical facts is in my
> book immoral. As far as I can see, the main purpose of the Talk-
> Origins discussion board is concerns the relationship between religion
> and science. A disregard of the other issues is an implicit admission
> that the story of Genesis is not real. After claiming that only the
> "action" is important, any claim that the story of Genesis is real is
> a type of lie. Lying is considered immoral among some people.
Judge not, lest you be absolutely right.
Desertphile
Wilkins) wrote:
> Desertphile <deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > On 22 Apr 2007 16:01:53 -0700, Lorentz <drose...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I have problems discussing the literal interpretation of Genesis
> > > as I am not clear where the action is supposed to be taking place.
> >
> > Sunnydale was built on top of a Hellmouth. Many scientists want to
> > find the city so that they can study vampires, demons, and
> > assorted Hell monsters but so far they have been unable to locate
> > the city, though it is of course known to be somewhere in
> > California USA.
> "In" being the operative word. I gather it was swallowed up at the end
> there...
Much of Califonia would be greatly improved if that were a common
occurance. The problem is how to first get all the people out and
moved to the eastern side of the USA where they belong.
Lorentz
> in a literal garden of Eden. If it did exist it would be burried
> beneath thousands of feet of flood sediments, and you wouldn't need a
> sword to prevent people from visiting there.
Furthermore, it is obvious that if there was a Flood then it
would have to have flooded the Garden of Eden. It was my fault as a
child for not having put the two together. Unless the Garden was built
with a really high wall, one would have to assume it was flooded.
Of course, Cain was exiled to the East of Eden, and there are
other references to places relative to Eden. All these locations must
have been erased by the Flood. Has any of this Antediluvian geography
been mapped? I mean relative to itself, not to the postFlood world.
TCE
> On 22 Apr 2007 16:01:53 -0700, Lorentz <drosen0...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I have problems discussing the literal interpretation of Genesis
> > as I am not clear where the action is supposed to be taking place.
>
> Sunnydale was built on top of a Hellmouth. Many scientists want to
> find the city so that they can study vampires, demons, and
> assorted Hell monsters but so far they have been unable to locate
> the city, though it is of course known to be somewhere in
> California USA.
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
No, no, the garden of Edan is now called "Detroit". That's where the
vampires hang out now.
---
Strange.
CreateThis
>If the story of Genesis is literally true, there has to be a physical
>location to the Garden of Eden.
Dude, buy a vowel. If the story of Genesis is literally true then
everything was poofed into existence by a magical god-thing - so
nothing "has to be". Anything and everything could be true, all at
the same time if you want.
Except evolution, of course. No matter how powerful the magical
god-thing is, evolution is simply impossible. It's like the magical
god-thing's anti-magical Krytptonite or something.
Hey, them's The Rules. I just work here.
CT
DougC
> Of course, Cain was exiled to the East of Eden, and there are
> other references to places relative to Eden. All these locations must
> have been erased by the Flood. Has any of this Antediluvian geography
> been mapped? I mean relative to itself, not to the postFlood world.
All of the geography books (scrolls) got wet in the flood. All of the
scholars who had been doing the mapping drowned. Noah and his family,
the only human survivors, had nothing to say about geography.
If a space ship with intelligent aliens happened to fly by immediately
after the flood, they would have seen Earth as a perfect sphere of
water, since all the mountain tops were covered. Assume that they
didn't spot the ark floating alone. Where did all that water drain
off to, and how?
Doug Chandler
Lorentz
> off to, and how?
>
earth, of course!