Where is Eden?

  • Thread starter Thread starter scameter18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

scameter18

Guest
Assuming that the Garden of Eden story in Genesis is not purely allegorical but was a real place with a real Adam and Eve, the Bible never says Eden was destroyed but rather is guarded by angels and flaming swords. But if Eden was on the Earth, where is it now?
 
scameter18 said:
Assuming that the Garden of Eden story in Genesis is not purely allegorical but was a real place with a real Adam and Eve, the Bible never says Eden was destroyed but rather is guarded by angels and flaming swords. But if Eden was on the Earth, where is it now?
Click to expand...
Eden is a legendary place located in Sumer, what is now Southern Iraq.

The story of the garden of Eden is likely based on Sumerian mythology which the Hebrews learnt in captivity in Babylon.

The above is just my personal opinion, I understand a literal interpretation of Genesis is popular Stateside, and no offence is intended.
 
Hi. I was always taught that Eden had been located in Mesopotamia. The name derives from the Greek for “between the rivers”.

But I’m a great believer that in all science, engineering and industry where a point of impasses is reached, that a multi-disciplinary approach that works on multiple levels right the way across the scientific disciplines, makes greater progress, much faster, than any other method. Sometimes it heralds a completely innovative breakthrough. Here’s a Video by Michael Palin, that if you watch it all through will help you understand the kind of thing I am writing about!

youtube.com/watch?v=PMcJgjhXYAQ

Although my background is in music, today I am linked to wider Industry altogether. So in regard to this multi-disciplinary approach, I can tell you that by utilising knowledge derived from science involved in understanding how water flows through ravines, a Manufacturer I am linked to was able to design a new form of air intake that is 14% efficient that anything previous designed. As they make extremely powerful engines this is an enormous surge forward.

Furthermore, by studying science that involved the manner in which trees grew and distributed their strength, they were able to redesign their engine cylinder blocks reinforcing stressed areas that are critically important but removing material wherever it was not needed. The result is a lighter more powerful engine, with a reduced kerb weight for the car, making it more fuel efficient and economical to run, and better for the environment with lower emissions. They were even able to produce and entirely new form of lighter stronger wheel using the same science.

The reason I am writing to explain this, is because in the link below, the Scientist behind the theory of where Eden is that put it forward claims to employ a similar multi-disciplinary approach, and therefore may have produced a more successful explanation than others hitherto.

I do not or endorse or deny anything at all written in the following link.

Only present it to assist in answering your question.

It seems to be a very interesting read.

ldolphin.org/eden/

PP

**I hope you enjoy all the information.

But the really important thing is appreciate about this.

Is that mans sin, and our sin have separated us from a relationship with God. That is what all this is really all about.

And that through Jesus Christ, and his sacrifice for sin on the Cross, we can be fully restored to a right relationship with God, through His Forgiving Grace! **
 
Hi!
One of the teachings from my former religion is that Eden was guarded by angels until the flood came and destroyed it.
I suppose that could be possible…
 
Thank you all for your answers, I do appreciate it. I know this is a difficult and mysterious issue, but I believe it is historically factual (not legendary or allegorical), and I also believe it was not simply borrowed from another mythology. Correlation implies a common source, not borrowing without evidence of borrowing. Thus, I believe it is historical, and because the Church teaches that it is. I am looking for an answer to this that assumes the historical validity of the story, and an answer based on religious tradition in some way. I know the Bible doesn’t tell where Eden went, but the Church has 2,000 years of other tradition, and Jewish tradition before that to work with.
 
Quote: “I believe it is historical, and because the Church teaches that it is. I am looking for an answer to this that assumes the historical validity of the story.”

Good for you!

I am completely with that thought.

If you belong to a Church, its right to accept its teaching.

Quote: “and an answer based on religious tradition in some way.”

The problem is.

If such an answer was given.

People would be preoccupied with the place.

Rather than focussing upon the salient point of the Biblical Story.

But it’s the story’s Moral, that sets the scene, for the need of humankinds Salvation.

And gives the very reason Christ came. All the Old Testament leads us to Christ and the Cross.

In matters such as this, what is revealed to us, is simply and clearly, precisely what we really need to know.

PP

**Great Musicians know that what you leave out of a Score is as important as what you put into it. The space around the notes is as vital to the sound as the notes that are written.

The problems comes when ants walk onto the score, or a fly lands on it, and people start to play them as if they were notes.

That’s pretty much how doctrinal errors, and various denominations come about.**
 
I completely agree. The various denominations that broke off from the original Church due to such errors or blotches they put on dogma. But, obviously that is another discussion which goes beyond the point of this topic.

If the tradition of the Church doesn’t have any propositions about the historical location of Eden, that is fine. As you said, because of this and otherwise, it is best to examine the spiritual meaning of Eden and its attached stories. I was simply following curiosity, more or less. I believe it was a historical place, whether we know where it was exactly or not, so its geography is doctrinally irrelevant.

I appreciate all the answers though. Thanks again. 🙂
 
scameter18 said:
Assuming that the Garden of Eden story in Genesis is not purely allegorical but was a real place with a real Adam and Eve, the Bible never says Eden was destroyed but rather is guarded by angels and flaming swords. But if Eden was on the Earth, where is it now?
Click to expand...
Eden was an actual geographical place. The question is where the Garden of Eden is. Genesis gives a geographically impossible description of its location. Specifically, it says that four rivers branch out of the garden, two being the Tigris and the Euphrates, and another being one that goes by Ethiopia. I suppose a literalist could say that the continents were closer together at the time, but the configuration of rivers simply would not have been possible at the time Genesis was written. So, the answer is: Eden is, by design, no place in particular, since it was described the way it was to give indication that something other than literal history was being written. Or, if you want to take a literalist approach, you can say the continents were closer together at the time of Adam and Eve. But even under that approach, you wouldn’t be able to find it based on the biblical description.

It would be interesting to get lost one day and stumble upon cherubim guarding a tree, wouldn’t it?
 
For what it’s worth, Cherubim with flaming swords were on the temple veil, with parts of the Temple being patterned off of Eden as well. Since the Temple Veil was torn, feel free to ponder connections, etc.😃
 
Nathan_Wagar said:
For what it’s worth, Cherubim with flaming swords were on the temple veil, with parts of the Temple being patterned off of Eden as well. Since the Temple Veil was torn, feel free to ponder connections, etc.😃
Click to expand...
There are two cherubs on the ark of the covenant, on each side of the mercy seat, which is the throne of God. The ark was placed within the veil, in the Holy of Holies, in Soloman’s temple. In Ezekiel’s vision, God’s throne is over the cherubim, and in Revelation the cherubim are stationed in front of God’s throne. The cherubim guard the place where God is, which is the tree of life, i.e., the cross, i.e., the throne of God.
 
I’m aware of that. They are also on the veil itself. The second veil, separating the Holy of Holies. They were also embroidered on the corresponding inner covering of the Tabernacle prior to the building of the Temple.
 
There seems to be a connection between Eden and Heaven, both in its literal portrayal in the Book of Revelation, and the presence of God in the Holy of Holies, Temple, Ark of the Covenant, etc. And Eden can mean “paradise”, which is what Christ called Heaven at His Crucifixion. Further, while Genesis says a river ran out of Eden and broke off into two real rivers and two less identifiable rivers, that could easily be symbolic, like the river of life in Revelation. But what this would mean for Adam and Eve, two figures who must be historically real for original sin to be valid, as the Church teaches? Did they come from Heaven, or possibly a “Heaven on Earth” akin to the Temple and, now, every Catholic church?
 
scameter18 said:
There seems to be a connection between Eden and Heaven, both in its literal portrayal in the Book of Revelation, and the presence of God in the Holy of Holies, Temple, Ark of the Covenant, etc. And Eden can mean “paradise”, which is what Christ called Heaven at His Crucifixion. Further, while Genesis says a river ran out of Eden and broke off into two real rivers and two less identifiable rivers, that could easily be symbolic, like the river of life in Revelation. But what this would mean for Adam and Eve, two figures who must be historically real for original sin to be valid, as the Church teaches? Did they come from Heaven, or possibly a “Heaven on Earth” akin to the Temple and, now, every Catholic church?
Click to expand...
Why must Adam and Eve be historically real in order for original sin to be valid?
 
JackQ said:
Why must Adam and Eve be historically real in order for original sin to be valid?
Click to expand...
Yes. The Church has reaffirmed this…that Adam and Eve were real people and the first parents of all mankind.

Only real people can sin…
 
rben20 said:
Yes. The Church has reaffirmed this…that Adam and Eve were real people and the first parents of all mankind.

Only real people can sin…
Click to expand...
This from paragraph 390 of the Catechism:

“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.”

This is a far cry from the assertion that there were two historical persons named Adam and Eve. Can you point us to some other authoritative Church document that supports your position?
 
JackQ said:
This from paragraph 390 of the Catechism:

“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.”

This is a far cry from the assertion that there were two historical persons named Adam and Eve. Can you point us to some other authoritative Church document that supports your position?
Click to expand...
How can the “first parents” of CCC390 be anything other than a single pair?
 
davidv said:
How can the “first parents” of CCC390 be anything other than a single pair?
Click to expand...
They wouldn’t have to be a single pair. It could have been a larger group from whom we are all descended. Even if it was a single pair, there doesn’t appear to be any requirement that they were named Adam and Eve.
 
As the Catechism says, our “first parents” were real historical people who committed the original sin. Parents implies two - a group of ancestors would be called ancestors, forefathers, etc., not first parents. But the names Adam and Eve, in Hebrew, have specific meanings. According to Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam Adam is both the generic Hebrew term for “man”, as it is also applied to “woman” and in the mention of man in Genesis 1, but in Genesis 2 it also has the personal meaning, implying an original parentage, the fact that we are all derived from one ancestor or ancestral group. Whether Adam was one person or not is difficult to determine, although humanity would have logically had a single set of parents at some time in the past from which all others derive. Eve, on the other hand, meaning “living one”, or “mother of all living” as she is called in Genesis 3.

As to their names, Adam was simply called man until Genesis 2:19, when the writer of Genesis begins using it as a name, or at least St. Jerome and all English translations do. Eve was simply called woman until Genesis 3:20, when Adam named her Eve as the “mother of all living”. Why Adam wasn’t specifically named, and why Eve was named such by Adam, is difficult to determine, but either way their designations are fitting as names or references.

With such an ancient text, in a completely different languange from ours, it is difficult to determine if Adam and Eve were two individuals or a group. But either way, their historicity is a dogma of the Church which cannot be conscientiously denied according to the Catechism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top