Where is Eden?

[nablaise]

Holy Prophets always use temporal/contemporary images and languages to point to something which is beyond the temporal.

The real Eden is the place where the eternal meet the temporal. It’s gate is the human heart. That’s where we feel the fire of the swords of the Cherubim; the purging fire for those who are going back in Eden. Jesus said “happy are the pure of heart for they shall see God”.

Else we feel hostility in our hearts and brokenness, hint that we are in the wilderness. Jesus shows us the way back, the way of the cross. Once on the cross, like the good thief we can here Jesus saying: “you will be with me in paradise”.

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

From what I gather from recent publications, there is a probability that “Eden” is under the present Persian Gulf. There are indications that in the past when sea levels were lower there was a location where 4 channels flowed into the sea. This also fits with the fact that the vast desert across North Africa and the middle East was much wetter at that time.

Genetic research seems to indicate that modern humans are decended from a very small group that well may have lived in that area for some time before spreading out into Europe and Asia.

 

[rben20]

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.

This is actually an ERROR my friend. Do not reinvent Church teaching so as to POLLUTE it with this new age filth.

Pope Pius XII in his encyclical HUMANI GENERIS had this to say

“37 When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”

 

[rben20]

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?

This is not a “far cry” I hope you know that. My position is what the Church teaches. Why are you trying to change the account of Adam and Eve?

 

[rben20]

What the Church teaches as mentioned altogether in an issuance by the Pontifical Biblical Commission confirmed by Pope St. Pius X:

1. The creation of all things out of nothing by God
2. The special creation of man
3. The creation of woman from man
   4. All of humanity is descended from an orignal pair of human beings, Adam and Eve
4. Adam and Eve were created in state of holiness, justice, and immortality
5. A divine command was communicated to them to prove obedience to God
6. The transgression of that commanded at the instigation of satan
7. Lost of the state of holiness, justice, and immortality of our first parents because of their disobedience
8. Promise of a future redeemer

another source

 

[larkin31]

Why must Adam and Eve be historically real in order for original sin to be valid?

Your Church says so, very explicitly and emphatically. I have had it quoted for me many times here.

If there was a moment of creation and first Fall, then there had to have been a place as well (since we exist in time and space).

This is a great question.

 

[larkin31]

How can the “first parents” of CCC390 be anything other than a single pair?

Fair enough.

So where was/is the location of that first place of creation and Fall (called “Eden”)? I have never considered the question in this way. Was this Garden destroyed at some point despite the protection that was given it? Or is even the location (Eden) metaphorical?

 

[scameter18]

Thank you for referencing that rben20, I wanted an infallible validation that Adam and Eve were two individuals, our first historical and biological parents, not a group, so thanks for showing us those encyclicals.

However, the real topic of this is not the reality of Eden, but what it is, and where it is now. My next to last post was the last to try and answer that.

 

[larkin31]

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?

The Euphrates and the Tigris rivers are not typically seen as rivers in heaven (very real locations on this planet), and the landscape of Eden–such as it is–is not celestial in nature. Would there be a serpent in Heaven? Running amok as it does?

I have never heard anyone suggest this before. But interesting, nevertheless.

 

[rben20]

Thank you for referencing that rben20, I wanted an infallible validation that Adam and Eve were two individuals, our first historical and biological parents, not a group, so thanks for showing us those encyclicals.

However, the real topic of this is not the reality of Eden, but what it is, and where it is now. My next to last post was the last to try and answer that.

You are welcome. I understand that it didn’t have to deal with Eden’s location but I couldn’t let the multiple parents clause or Adam and Eve not real thinking go uncorrected.

 

[JackQ]

This is actually an ERROR my friend. Do not reinvent Church teaching so as to POLLUTE it with this new age filth.

Pope Pius XII in his encyclical HUMANI GENERIS had this to say

Would you say that what Pope Pius XII said in Humani Generis constitutes infallible teaching? If so, what about Exsurge Domini, the Bull wherein Pope Leo X condemned the errors of Martin Luther? In that Bull the Pope laments that the error originates from Germany, saying this:

“These errors have, at the suggestion of the human race, been revived and recently propagated among the more frivolous and the illustrious German nation. We grieve the more that this happened there because we and our predecessors have always held this nation in the bosom of our affection. For after the empire had been transferred by the Roman Church from the Greeks to these same Germans, our predecessors and we always took the Church’s advocates and defenders from among them. Indeed it is certain that these Germans, truly germane to the Catholic faith, have always been the bitterest opponents of heresies, as witnessed by those commendable constitutions of the German emperors in behalf of the Church’s independence, freedom, and the expulsion and extermination of all heretics from Germany. Those constitutions formerly issued, and then confirmed by our predecessors, were issued under the greatest penalties even of loss of lands and dominions against anyone sheltering or not expelling them. If they were observed today both we and they would obviously be free of this disturbance.”

Pope Leo goes on to provide a list of the errors he sees as being propagated by Martin Luther. One of the errors cited was number 33: “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” In other words, the Pope was saying that it is error to take the position that burning heretics is against the will of God.

So, I have to ask you: Is it Church dogma that heretics should be expelled and exterminated? Would it be a good thing if the United States adopted such a policy? Is it Church dogma that anyone who shelters heretics or fails to expel them should lose their lands? Moreover, is it heresy or New Age filth to suggest that God does not favor the burning of heretics?

The reason I bring this up, obviously, is because you condemn as error, actually as New Age filth, any apparent deviation from the position taken in Humani Generis. It seems to me that what would be true for Humani Generis would apply equally to Exsurge Domine.

It can be difficult to go through all the Church documents down through history and discern what is dogma and what is not. Thankfully, the Church has provided the Catechism so that those of us who want to conform our minds to the teaching of the Church will have a ready reference. What the Catechism says on this issue is: “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.” To me, the words “figurative language” are key here.

Now for one humble suggestion. Be careful about insinuating that those who disagree with you are somehow doing so in bad faith. It might have consequences for them that you don’t intend if they take offense. Sometimes people might actually be sincerely trying to live according to their Catholic faith, yet honestly disagree with you. Sometimes you might even be wrong.

 

[JackQ]

This is not a “far cry” I hope you know that. My position is what the Church teaches. Why are you trying to change the account of Adam and Eve?

Well, yes it is. I’m not not so sure your position is what the Church teaches, and I’m not trying to change anything. See my previous response to you.

 

[rben20]

JackQ,

The figurative language has much to do with the talking serpent and the fruit. Could it have happened through this way literally? Yes or no but either way the point is that man fell through some means and that was through disobedience and listening to the devil. You are certainly twisting the catechism’s words. Nowhere does it imply also that Adam and Eve were figurative. You are the first person I have ever known to imply that but of course that doesn’t make it illegitimate…just saying it is unique. Your interpretation is just that…an interpretation. It’s fallible. You are quick to say that encyclicals are not infallible but I hope you realize the catechism is not infallible either. While encyclicals are themselves not infallible documents, they can contain infallible teachings. I’ll be honest, I don’t understand what is and isn’t but the Popes have spoken as through their teaching authority of which we as Catholics should submit to in conscience.

I don’t know your intentions but I do know what you believe and I am telling you the Pope disagrees with you…not one but TWO who felt it was important enough to put together a Papal Commission and one to write an encyclical. Those Popes are Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII. If you want to disagree not just with the Popes but also the tradition of the Church then go ahead. Your belief is new age filth because it was never taught until now in quirky theologian circles. It goes against the teaching authority of the Magisterium and Tradition of the Church.

In the end, I don’t see what is so troubling about believing in a historical Adam and Eve, our first parents.

 

[larkin31]

Back to the topic: anyone want to answer where Eden might be, might have been?

 

[pablope]

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?

The other two rivers are the Pishon and Gishon (I won a trivia contest when I correct named the 4 rivers). When these two rivers are able to be located, together with the Tigris and Euphrates, so theoretically, the geographical of Eden may be discovered (if ever )

 

[JackQ]

JackQ,

The figurative language has much to do with the talking serpent and the fruit. Could it have happened through this way literally? Yes or no but either way the point is that man fell through some means and that was through disobedience and listening to the devil. You are certainly twisting the catechism’s words. Nowhere does it imply also that Adam and Eve were figurative. You are the first person I have ever known to imply that but of course that doesn’t make it illegitimate…just saying it is unique. Your interpretation is just that…an interpretation. It’s fallible. You are quick to say that encyclicals are not infallible but I hope you realize the catechism is not infallible either. While encyclicals are themselves not infallible documents, they can contain infallible teachings. I’ll be honest, I don’t understand what is and isn’t but the Popes have spoken as through their teaching authority of which we as Catholics should submit to in conscience.

I don’t know your intentions but I do know what you believe and I am telling you the Pope disagrees with you…not one but TWO who felt it was important enough to put together a Papal Commission and one to write an encyclical. Those Popes are Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII. If you want to disagree not just with the Popes but also the tradition of the Church then go ahead. Your belief is new age filth because it was never taught until now in quirky theologian circles. It goes against the teaching authority of the Magisterium and Tradition of the Church.

In the end, I don’t see what is so troubling about believing in a historical Adam and Eve, our first parents.

Well, of course my interpretation is fallible, but I’m not the one identifying another person’s opinion as filth. You acknowledge that you don’t know what is infallible and what isn’t, yet feel free to condemn with incendiary language opinions you deem to be opposed to the tradition of the Church. And the punch line is that I’ve never denied the reality of original sin, nor would I. What’s more, you have not answered the question of whether it would be wrong to suggest that God opposes the burning of heretics, a point critical to the foundation of your position.

 

[JackQ]

The other two rivers are the Pishon and Gishon (I won a trivia contest when I correct named the 4 rivers). When these two rivers are able to be located, together with the Tigris and Euphrates, so theoretically, the geographical of Eden may be discovered (if ever )

Well done.

Gihon is the one that flows around Cush (aka Ethiopia). Given that two of the rivers are the Tigris and the Euphrates, I’d have to say that a geographically impossible location has been given for Eden, and I think that was deliberate.

 

[larkin31]

Well done.

Gihon is the one that flows around Cush (aka Ethiopia). Given that two of the rivers are the Tigris and the Euphrates, I’d have to say that a geographically impossible location has been given for Eden, and I think that was deliberate.

Perhaps, so. Certainly the names chosen are deliberate (and not random).

No one else seems to want to discuss this.

 

[JackQ]

Perhaps, so. Certainly the names chosen are deliberate (and not random).

No one else seems to want to discuss this.

Discuss what? I thought this was what the thread was about.

 

[rben20]

Well, of course my interpretation is fallible, but I’m not the one identifying another person’s opinion as filth. You acknowledge that you don’t know what is infallible and what isn’t, yet feel free to condemn with incendiary language opinions you deem to be opposed to the tradition of the Church. And the punch line is that I’ve never denied the reality of original sin, nor would I. What’s more, you have not answered the question of whether it would be wrong to suggest that God opposes the burning of heretics, a point critical to the foundation of your position.

JackQ,

This is not my own opinion. I have shown you the authoritative documents. It is your opinion that is opposed to the tradition of the Church. It is opposed to two Popes who have already commented on your belief and how it is in opposition. That’s the point I am trying to get across to but you seem to ignore it. There is no “punch line” as I never said you denied original sin but it’s clear you want to accept multiple parents for whatever reason. I am not going to get side tracked by your heretic argument if you can’t even respond to mine. I was trying to help you but if you wish to run in circles then I am done. Others have already accepted the Popes teachings on this matter. Maybe you will too. That’s what is truly critical.