Where was the Garden of Eden located?

[grannymh]

And nothing that you posted stated anything in opposition to what I said. The Church does not teach that scripture is at all times literal and historical.

Correct. Not every biblical verse automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine.

However, the Catholic Church, guided by the promised Holy Spirit, has properly declared Catholic doctrines per se which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis. The foundational Catholic doctrine is that Adam and Eve literally existed, period.

 

[Marie5890]

catholic.com/magazine/articles/before-sin

 

[minkymurph]

That’s what I thought…but other Catholics here on the thread say otherwise?

.

As far as my knowledge serves me what Hans has said is correct.

I was always taught Catholics do not adopt a literal approach to Scripture and in terms of Catholic theology, whether Eden was a literal place is neither here nor there.

 

[z_0101]

As far as my knowledge serves me what Hans has said is correct.

I was always taught Catholics do not adopt a literal approach to Scripture and in terms of Catholic theology, whether Eden was a literal place is neither here nor there.

I’m not really too sure what you’re saying here…

Catholic teaching on scripture is a “BOTH/AND” not an 'Either/Or" when we read scripture as to when and how to read it literally… There are certainly parts of scripture that were intended to be read and taken in a literal sense, and yet other sections (i.e. the parables that Christ used to explain heaven, faith, etc…) that are intended to be allegorical in nature and to really know which is what one needs to read the entirety of the Bible and long with the magisterium of the Church. Properly catechized Catholics are aware of this duality within the text and we’re very careful in our RCIA class to point this out as many in the class are from a sola scriptura bases in faith. Start telling them that there is no literal meaning within the text and they walk out the door, after pointing out a dozen examples in both the old and new testament.

 

[Tous_Logous]

As far as my knowledge serves me what Hans has said is correct.

I was always taught Catholics do not adopt a literal approach to Scripture and in terms of Catholic theology, whether Eden was a literal place is neither here nor there.

There are multiple Catholic principles when it comes to interpreting the Bible:

1. Contextual Approach (See Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) ch’s 109-110)
2. Taking into account unity of both the Old and New Testaments (CCC ch. 112)
3. Analogy of Faith (CCC ch. 114)
4. Expression and Language (See for example Luke 17:6, Matthew 5:29, Luke 14:26)
5. OT passages and how they are interpreted to relate to Jesus/New Testament (CCC ch. 129)
6. I suppose we can throw in the Fundamentalist Approach

Overall, it can be rather complicated. There is no single “one way” of interpreting scripture. What we do know is that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church to truth; to interpret the Bible means to do so with Church guidance (CCC ch. 113).

It sounds like, perhaps, you may have been misinformed, or like what I see happens in most of catechesis, this subject was never explored further.

 

[minkymurph]

I’m not really too sure what you’re saying here…

Catholic teaching on scripture is a “BOTH/AND” not an 'Either/Or" when we read scripture as to when and how to read it literally… There are certainly parts of scripture that were intended to be read and taken in a literal sense, and yet other sections (i.e. the parables that Christ used to explain heaven, faith, etc…) that are intended to be allegorical in nature and to really know which is what one needs to read the entirety of the Bible and long with the magisterium of the Church. Properly catechized Catholics are aware of this duality within the text and we’re very careful in our RCIA class to point this out as many in the class are from a sola scriptura bases in faith. Start telling them that there is no literal meaning within the text and they walk out the door, after pointing out a dozen examples in both the old and new testament.

To clarify what I am saying:

In relation to the OP’s question, and solely in relation to the OP’s question, not in relation to any other passage of Scripture, is purely and simply this. I was never taught Catholics must believe Eden was situated in the exact geographical location as described in Genesis. No more, no less. In terms of Catholic theology, it is of no significance whether or not you believe Genesis describes the exact geographical location to Eden or not.

It is of no significance because the significance of Genesis account is not the geographic location of Eden. The authors intention in writing the account was not to convey to readers the exact geographic location of Eden beyond repute. It is a minor detail in the grand scheme of things. It is not a point of major significance to the author whether or not one believes the authors description of the geographic location is important. The geographic location of Eden is incidental to the whole account.

It cannot be said God inspired the author of Genesis to write the account so future generations would know the exact geographical location of Eden for the purpose of proving to people who don’t believe it was a literal place. People who do not believe Eden was a literal place will not be persuaded otherwise by the fact Genesis gives a geographic location. Their opinion is, so what if Genesis gives a geographic location of Eden?

In short, what I am saying is this. It is irrelevant whether Genesis describes the exact location of Eden or not. The exact geographic location of Eden is irrelevant to the deeper message contained in Genesis. It is irrelevant in terms of whether or not the Bible is inspired, and irrelevant in terms of the message of Salvation. We should not fall into the trap of attempting to prove the exact geographic location of Genesis is ‘proof’ the bible is inspired, and ‘proof’ it is scientifically accurate. Genesis was not written for either of these reasons, and it is a mistake and detrimental to the message of salvation to attempt to argue the author of Genesis included the exact geographic location of Eden in an attempt to ‘prove’ this.

I hasten to add and emphasize am not saying you or anyone else on this thread is attempting to do that. It is a general statement. In short, it is of no significance in terms of the truth of God contained in Scripture for many reasons which I will not go into here as it is not the forum. I maintain that as Catholics, we should not be consumed with these debates as it detracts from the true message of Scripture.

 

[minkymurph]

There are multiple Catholic principles when it comes to interpreting the Bible:

1. Contextual Approach (See Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) ch’s 109-110)
2. Taking into account unity of both the Old and New Testaments (CCC ch. 112)
3. Analogy of Faith (CCC ch. 114)
4. Expression and Language (See for example Luke 17:6, Matthew 5:29, Luke 14:26)
5. OT passages and how they are interpreted to relate to Jesus/New Testament (CCC ch. 129)
6. I suppose we can throw in the Fundamentalist Approach

Overall, it can be rather complicated. There is no single “one way” of interpreting scripture. What we do know is that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church to truth; to interpret the Bible means to do so with Church guidance (CCC ch. 113).

It sounds like, perhaps, you may have been misinformed, or like what I see happens in most of catechesis, this subject was never explored further.

I cannot comment on whether I was misinformed or not. I may have been. I may not have been. That said, what leads you to believe I was misinformed and you were not? Please do not take that as an aggressive assault on your beliefs. I am merely saying on what basis do you conclude I was misinformed?

Let me make what I was taught clear. I was taught, in short, it is neither here nor there whether or not you believe Genesis gives the exact geographic location of Genesis because it is of little significance to the message contained in Genesis what you believe in terms of Eden’s exact geographic location. No more no less, other than to say I was always taught this point is significant only to fundamentalist Christians who adopt a very literal interpretation of Scripture, which Catholics do not. That is all I am saying. No more, no less. If I discovered tomorrow irrevocable proof Genesis does not describe the exact location of Eden, if the Pope himself said he had had a revelation from God to that effect, it would change nothing in terms of my beliefs because it is irrelevant.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Theologically, it is the same garden in john 18. In one unnamed garden, sin entered. In another unnamed garden, sin is taken away.

Dear friend,

Brought an interesting thought to mind. the Tree of life = Olive Tree, Jesus’ passion starts in the Garden of Olives, Gethsemane. He died on Golgotha, the place of the skull, because as the Head of His body the Church, He must die to save us, a dead head becomes a skull. Just thoughts …

Adios…

Blessings & peace:thumbsup:

 

[grannymh]

catholic.com/magazine/articles/before-sin

I can see why this article is interesting.

However, the article needs a bit of updating regarding the Catholic Tradition doctrines related to the main point of the first three chapter in Genesis, which point appears to have disappeared. Perhaps, I have missed the symbolic Original Sin …

Where is the Traditional Catholic Teaching on the reality of Original Sin mentioned in depth? That happens to the the main, prominent sin committed in the Garden of Eden, wherever it was located. Finding the location of Eden is useless without the main event.

 

[Tous_Logous]

I cannot comment on whether I was misinformed or not. I may have been. I may not have been. That said, what leads you to believe I was misinformed and you were not? Please do not take that as an aggressive assault on your beliefs. I am merely saying on what basis do you conclude I was misinformed?

Let me make what I was taught clear. I was taught, in short, it is neither here nor there whether or not you believe Genesis gives the exact geographic location of Genesis because it is of little significance to the message contained in Genesis what you believe in terms of Eden’s exact geographic location. No more no less, other than to say I was always taught this point is significant only to fundamentalist Christians who adopt a very literal interpretation of Scripture, which Catholics do not. That is all I am saying. No more, no less. If I discovered tomorrow irrevocable proof Genesis does not describe the exact location of Eden, if the Pope himself said he had had a revelation from God to that effect, it would change nothing in terms of my beliefs because it is irrelevant.

Perhaps I was wrong in stating misinformation. Even though this thread was specifically about the Garden of Eden, it brings up questions of how Catholics are to interpret the Bible. I suggest reading the chapters I have provided from the CCC, if you haven’t already.

There are other chapters that talk about Adam/Eve (though I’m not sure about the Garden of Eden) in the CCC but I don’t have them at the moment. I’m confused…do you reject a “literal” (fundamentalist) approach of the first few chapters of Genesis (meaning there was no Garden of Eden, Adam/Eve, etc.)? Whether we believe wholly in what the first few chapters of Genesis state or not, the Church believes that Adam and Eve were real people. The genealogy of Jesus is traced all the way back to Adam, among other things.

 

[johnmann]

Genesis points to modern day Iraq. There’s no other way to interpret “Tigris” and “Euphrates,” but literally. They’re proper names, not metaphorical “spiritual” rivers. We also have to reconcile the fact that the years don’t match up to when we scientifically know humans came into existence.

So if we aren’t Creationists, we have to acknowledge that the Creation story is not historically accurate regardless of how you interpret it. They impart greater truths using myths.

 

[edwest2]

I thought it wasn’t Catholic teaching that one had to believe the Adam/Eve in Eden story actually happened/is a real place?

Anyone know?

.

Here’s a quote from a Catholic Answers tract:

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “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” (CCC 390).”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am no biblical scholar but I have sometimes wondered about the following:

Is is possible that Eden wasn’t a place but a state of being? Might Eden have been the whole earth? After all, prior to the fall, Adam and Eve were in harmony with God. They lived in perfect accord with His Providence and it was satisfactory to them. If a person truly lived in harmony with Providence (as in “see the lilies of the field”…) would he be dissatisfied with anything in his life? Ravens have a pretty tough life, and yet Jesus bade us to “Consider the ravens, for they sow not, neither do they reap, neither have they storehouse nor barn, and God feedeth them. How much are you more valuable than they?”
Would a person totally aligned with Providence even see death as “death” in the way we see it, or would he see it as a mere transition from a lesser state to a greater one? Would he be so filled with faith that he would see death as a trifle? Some saints appear to have thought of it that way.

And in willing to “know good and evil”, was that a choice to reject Providence and arrogate to ourselves the “power” or “right” to decide what we think is good or evil? And did everything then seem to go sour because we became discontented?

And even the angel with the sword of flame. It’s pretty obvious that all human attempts to re-create Eden on this earth have been disasterous failures because they seek a false Eden. Do we look for that angel somewhere in the Middle EAst, or do we see it all around us all the time, turning the results of our own concupiscence back to us? Do we really need to look somewhere in Turkey to find that angel who, the bible indicates, is still there guarding the gates?

Again, I’m making no claim to biblical scholarship or theological analysis. But I really do wonder about that sometimes.

 

[johnmann]

I don’t like the idea of overfitting the Bible onto currently known facts. Could a “day” mean millions of years? Sure. But at some point it gets ridiculous. Could “Tigris” refer to a spiritual river that fed the souls of Adam and Eve? Um… that’s a stretch. Rather, I like the idea of taking the story as is. Not as a historical account but a story used to reveal truths about God and the human condition. This places me in an unusual category of people who read Creation literally but believe it allegorically.

That might raise the question: Why didn’t God just reveal the historical truth? One might retort that he revealed himself in a way that could be easily understood by the people at the time. But on the other hand, the Bible is often very specific when it need not be. Why place Eden in modern-day Iraq? Why not just say it was in a place far away? Maybe God wanted people to see paradise as not a distant place but a state that was within grasp.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Wherever you’ll find this guy standing guard:

http://www.terrariaonline.com/attachments/metron-jpg.52568/

If anyone asks, yes I’m planning a raiding session on Eden. No Leeroy Jenkins shenanigans please.

 

[LoganBice]

I listened to a video by Fr. Barron and he said the Garden of Eden was the world in right worship of God. He said after the fall we are consistently trying to Edenize the world by bringing it back to right worship of God.

 

[grannymh]

I listened to a video by Fr. Barron and he said the Garden of Eden was the world in right worship of God. He said after the fall we are consistently trying to Edenize the world by bringing it back to right worship of God.

Who in the world would want to go back to Eden when the Beatific Vision awaits us in heaven?

I do not remember Jesus teaching that His mission was to Edenize the world.

Now I am familiar with the world in right worship of God That is the mission of the Catholic Church. However, the Catholic Church did not exist in Eden before the Fall. Perhaps the problem is that some, not all, people are afraid to admit that there was an Original Sin committed by the original person. Or maybe some, not all, people are afraid to admit that only two first humans are the founders of humankind.

 

[LoganBice]

Who in the world would want to go back to Eden when the Beatific Vision awaits us in heaven?

I do not remember Jesus teaching that His mission was to Edenize the world.

Now I am familiar with the world in right worship of God That is the mission of the Catholic Church. However, the Catholic Church did not exist in Eden before the Fall. Perhaps the problem is that some, not all, people are afraid to admit that there was an Original Sin committed by the original person. Or maybe some, not all, people are afraid to admit that only two first humans are the founders of humankind.

I have done a poor job explaining that because thats not what he meant . Let me find the video and Ill post it on here.

 

[twf]

That’s what I thought…but other Catholics here on the thread say otherwise?

.

They are probably Americans who have been heavily influenced by what was traditionally a very conservative Protestant culture. Pope St. John Paul and Pope Emeritus Benedict were definitely theistic evolutionists. Pope Emeritus Benedict, at the time Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote in his commentary on Genesis that the common descent of all living creatures (including man) is “virtually certain”.
Adam and Eve certainly existed, but when and where is unknown. Personally I believe that God set apart two hominids, a male and female, somewhere in ancient pre-historic Africa, and “breathed one them” (to use the language of Genesis), endowing them with souls: thus Adam and Eve came to be. Catholic scholars certainly agree that the Sacred Writer employed various symbolism and metaphors in writing the account of the Fall of man in Genesis. Did Adam and Eve rebel against God? Yes, original sin is a dogma of the Church…but did the story literally take place in a garden with a talking snake? Not necessarily.

 

[LoganBice]

They are probably Americans who have been heavily influenced by what was traditionally a very conservative Protestant culture. Pope St. John Paul and Pope Emeritus Benedict were definitely theistic evolutionists. Pope Emeritus Benedict, at the time Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote in his commentary on Genesis that the common descent of all living creatures (including man) is “virtually certain”.
Adam and Eve certainly existed, but when and where is unknown. Personally I believe that God set apart two hominids, a male and female, somewhere in ancient pre-historic Africa, and “breathed one them” (to use the language of Genesis), endowing them with souls: thus Adam and Eve came to be. Catholic scholars certainly agree that the Sacred Writer employed various symbolism and metaphors in writing the account of the Fall of man in Genesis. Did Adam and Eve rebel against God? Yes, original sin is a dogma of the Church…but did the story literally take place in a garden with a talking snake? Not necessarily.

That’s what I tend to believe. I think people don’t give enough credit to God using secondary causes to bring about his plans. He created the mechanism for how it all works, why would he not use it?