Mormons and the Garden of Eden

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris-WA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
zerinus said:
Thank you. Assuming that you are right, it is a minor point in the discussion. In that case, what I said about Euphrates is equally applicable to Tigris. The two rivers need not be the same ones.
Click to expand...
The discussion, as I recall, started with the question, “How and why do Mormons place the Garden of Eden in the Americas, given that the book of Genesis names four rivers associated with the garden (the Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates) and we know that the Tigris and Euphrates are in present-day Iraq?”

Dr. Juris Zarins theorizes that the Garden was situated at the head of the Persian Gulf, based in part on evidence from LANDSAT images. C.R. Schlabach concurs. Is there any archaeological evidence for the Garden being in Missouri?
 
Erich said:
The discussion, as I recall, started with the question, “How and why do Mormons place the Garden of Eden in the Americas, given that the book of Genesis names four rivers associated with the garden (the Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates) and we know that the Tigris and Euphrates are in present-day Iraq?”

Dr. Juris Zarins theorizes that the Garden was situated at the head of the Persian Gulf, based in part on evidence from LANDSAT images. C.R. Schlabach concurs. Is there any archaeological evidence for the Garden being in Missouri?
Click to expand...
There is no “archaelogical evidence” for either story.

zerinus
 
I have both a New American Bible and A Douay Rheims Bible One says Ethiopia the other says Cush. I have no trouble with either as before the flood it could have ran through the land of Cush all the way to Ethiopia.

Now It is my understanding of Mr. Smiths writings that native Americans are the descendants of a lost tribe of Israel. If that is true and Eden was In the American continent then would not the other tribes of Israel be the one that got lost?

Also there is no support in either Jewish writings secular history to support any of this. Not to mention other that the book of Mormon there is no evidence to any of this. Thing that make you go hummmm.
 
zerinus said:
Not so well known. We think that the KJV is a better translation.
Click to expand...
How can you say that when it’s missing books? Do we really need to go through a whole other history lesson on how the bible has been translated over the centuries?
Perhaps the river didn’t originate in Mesopotamia. That is your assumption. Just because the river Euphratese is mentioned, it does not mean that it originated in Mesopoatmia. Most of the geographical landmarks mentioned in the Genesis account can no longer be identified. It is your assumption that it was in Mesopotamia. The Bible doesn’t say that it was there.
Click to expand...
No, but the fact that we have a Euphrates and Tigris river today definitely points to the Mesopotamia region as the location of Eden. That’s the reasonable approach.
Those civilizations were after the Flood. We don’t know what the geography and topography and demographic landscape of the world looked like before the Flood. We don’t know who lived where. The river that is currently called Euphratese may not even be the same river that originated in Eden. It may be a river that the people after the Flood decided to call Euphratese, after the name of the one that existed before the Flood. But it need not be the some one.
Click to expand...
Oh give us all a break! You really think a later civilization renamed some other river the Euphrates after the flood? Now you’re grasping at straws. Your post doesn’t clarify anything. It simply adds confusion to the question and opens up a window of limitless possibilites, through which Joseph Smith can make up anything he wants in order to fit his own personal paradigm.
We believe that because the Lord has revealed to us that that is the case.
Click to expand...
Is this an official revelation recorded in Mormon scripture or another case of speculation? It’s really hard to tell the difference sometimes. When you support it, it’s official, when you don’t, it’s speculation.
 
If anyone is interested, NPR radio is featuring the beliefs of Mormonism in its “matters of faith” segment next Saturday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top