Where was the Garden of Eden located?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nanotwerp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is a mitochondrial Eve and a Y chromosome Adam although they lived thousands of years apart-the Garden methaphor is not essential to Christian belief-
 
Nanotwerp said:
Science would probably lean to Sub-Saharan Africa, but the Bible places it somewhere in Mesopotamia.
Click to expand...
Why do you say the Bible places it around Mesopotamia?

I’m pretty sure the Bible provides no indication of it’s location by which we might approximate on modern globes. Noah’s Flood destroyed the entire world. There’s no way the Euphrates of today is the same which flowed through Eden before Noah’s Flood.

Sure, Noah’s ark landed around Mesopotamia, but remember, it had been surfing the seas for a year so no telling how far from it’s original location it came ashore.
 
GarretKadeDupre said:
Why do you say the Bible places it around Mesopotamia?

I’m pretty sure the Bible provides no indication of it’s location by which we might approximate on modern globes. Noah’s Flood destroyed the entire world. There’s no way the Euphrates of today is the same which flowed through Eden before Noah’s Flood.

Sure, Noah’s ark landed around Mesopotamia, but remember, it had been surfing the seas for a year so no telling how far from it’s original location it came ashore.
Click to expand...
Nice argument, maybe it WAS somewhere in Africa. I’m still rooting for Ethiopia! 👍
 
twf said:
I am quite certain that the “virtually certain” language does appear in then Cardinal Ratzinger’s commentary on Genesis…I remember reading it sometime ago, but I need to find the full text. I will keep looking. Regardless, the report was certainly approved by Cardinal Ratzinger.

Of course the soul is created directly by God. That was the point of my earlier analogy of modern human conception, wherein each of our bodies is formed from pre-existing biological matter from our parents, through natural processes, but God still endows each of us with a soul.

I’m not sure what we are actually debating. My sole and only point is that Adam and Eve’s physical bodies likely evolved from pre-existing earlier Hominid forms. I didn’t advocate any particular theory of theistic evolution, only the general concept that biological evolution is not incompatible with Catholicism, nor does the Church require us to interpret the creation narrative in a strictly literal manner as long as certain fundamental truths regarding Adam, Eve, the soul, and original sin, as I thought I had already stated in an earlier post, are left intact. Pope St. John Paul definitely was not in any way opposed to studying biological evolution as it relates to human origins.
I never once suggested that the soul isn’t created directly by God.
Click to expand...
May I point out that the current science of human evolution holds that the human species developed as a population which evolved from previous populations which diverged from previous common ancestors, for example, the Homo/Pan split. In other words, humans developed as a breeding population and not as descendants of one primary sole set of parents. Studying biological evolution as a possible approach to the material decomposing anatomy of the one first human contradicts the science of human evolution which holds that biological evolution only occurs in breeding populations.

The practical conclusion is that the one first human Adam had to live in a real place on earth because the human species came about separately from the speculations of science.
 
grannymh said:
May I point out that the current science of human evolution holds that the human species developed as a population which evolved from previous populations which diverged from previous common ancestors, for example, the Homo/Pan split. In other words, humans developed as a breeding population and not as descendants of one primary sole set of parents. Studying biological evolution as a possible approach to the material decomposing anatomy of the one first human contradicts the science of human evolution which holds that biological evolution only occurs in breeding populations.

The practical conclusion is that the one first human Adam had to live in a real place on earth because the human species came about separately from the speculations of science.
Click to expand...
I think that would deny the fact that God directly created Adam and Eve, instead of having them evolved from something else. Also, as far as my memory goes, all that is known about mankind’s history in evolution is that we came from a different type of ‘archaic humans’. Note the ‘human’ part. Although the Catholic Church, in many circumstances, conforms to science, it cannot conform to your beliefs, since the Church states God directly created us humans with souls; ie. Not evolved from apes.
 
minkymurph said:
They are not myths but rather '‘myth narratives.’ Myth narrative does not mean pure fiction.
There is an element of truth in all myths, even the most embellished.

The myth narratives of Genesis served an essential purpose and crucial to passing on believes, morals and many other things that held ancient cultures together. They are termed myth narratives to identify the form of writing they are, not to denote there is no truth in them. The purpose relating these myth narratives was to pass on truths, and those who related the stories and wrote them were not concerned about accuracy of minuscule details because such details were not important to them. What was important was the reason the narrative was told. This is why I find it hard to understand why some are of the opinion they should be given a literal reading, and not to do so is in some way rejected the truth they contain.
Click to expand...
Can you provide an official Church document, a text or texts from the Old or New Testament, a document from the fathers of the church or doctors of the Church or sound modern biblical exegesis that says the first few chapters of Genesis are simply myth narratives?
The CCC says that the inspired writer of Genesis sometimes uses figurative and symbolic language to convey religious truths to a people of the time who could understand it. The Church falls short of saying, however, that the literal meaning of the words do not contain any truth or may not contain any truth. Indeed, the first words of the Bible where it says “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth,” the Catholic Church takes literally and always has.

The CCC#115 says that according to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. In CCC#116, the spiritual and its subdivision are based on the literal.

So, for example, in interpreting whether the Garden of Eden or Paradise is a real corporeal place as it is said in Genesis, St Thomas Aquinas answers in the affirmative and has this to say :

Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 1): “Three general opinions prevail about paradise. Some understand a place merely corporeal; others a place entirely spiritual; while others, whose opinion, I confess, hold that paradise was both corporeal and spiritual.”

I answer that, As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii, 21): “Nothing prevents us from holding, within proper limits, a spiritual paradise; so long as we believe in the truth of the events narrated as having there occurred.” For whatever Scripture tells us about paradise is set down as matter of history; and wherever Scripture makes use of this method, we must hold to the historical truth of the narrative as a foundation of whatever spiritual explanation we may offer. And so paradise, as Isidore says (Etym. xiv, 3), “is a place situated in the east, its name being the Greek for garden.” (ST, I, Q. 102, Art.1).
 
Nanotwerp said:
I think that would deny the fact that God directly created Adam and Eve, instead of having them evolved from something else. Also, as far as my memory goes, all that is known about mankind’s history in evolution is that we came from a different type of ‘archaic humans’. Note the ‘human’ part. Although the Catholic Church, in many circumstances, conforms to science, it cannot conform to your beliefs, since the Church states God directly created us humans with souls; ie. Not evolved from apes.
Click to expand...
Yes, the current science of human evolution does deny God creating us with souls.
Unfortunately, there are many people who are not aware of what is happening in science.
That is why it is important to have 21st century information. I present the information in order for people to recognize the errors. My own beliefs are in accord with traditional Catholic teachings.

God as almighty Creator absolutely has the power to directly create Adam and Eve as a species separate from other species. This seems to be the whole point of Genesis Chapter 2 where Adam names the animals none of which can be a suitable mate. It is also the reason that the Garden of Eden is entirely different from all the post suggestions as to its physical location.

The scientific reference to “archaic humans” refers to “subhumans” or “non-humans” which share some similar organs, such as the digestive system, with other vertebrates which is a group which includes real, fully complete humans such as ourselves. I am using a hotel computer which insists on correcting the spelling of the correct term for the archaic beings which share a few genetic similarities with humans such as the brow ridge. Paleoanthropologists have finally agreed on what to call the Homo lineage.

As an update, the science of human evolution does not consider humans descending (evolving) directly from apes. Instead, both apes and humans descended from previous common ancestor populations which broke apart into new lineages. Divine Revelation which flows from the first three chapters of Genesis contradicts evolution via populations.

While I have laughed at various posts trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint the location of the Garden of Eden,
I did notice that none claimed the distinction of being the location for the beginning of humankind.

When comparing the Genesis description of the Garden of Eden with a scientific description of populations evolving into human populations, the first thing to notice is that the author sticks to the concept that there were only two humans, male and female in the image of God. It does not take a Ph.D scientist to figure out the difference between the two original parents of humanity and a population of archaic beings in the thousands.

This computer is getting the best of me.:eek: I look forward to continuing the discussion on the serious reasons for the Garden of Eden when I reach the home of the granny-friendly computer.
 
Richca said:
Can you provide an official Church document, a text or texts from the Old or New Testament, a document from the fathers of the church or doctors of the Church or sound modern biblical exegesis that says the first few chapters of Genesis are simply myth narratives?
Click to expand...
I did not say they were simply myth narratives. I do believe I stressed the significance of myth narratives in ancient cultures. What I said was in terms of the literary genre of of the first few chapters of Genesis has been identified by biblical scholars as that of a myth narrative.

newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/08497b.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm

sumtercatholic.org/files/Pages/BibleStudy/Reading_Genesis_with_Cardinal_Ratzinger.pdf

thefaithexplained.com/uncategorized/understanding-the-creation-accounts-in-genesis/

worldcat.org/title/new-jerome-biblical-commentary/oclc/19388491

scotthahn.com/tools-for-bible-study.html

catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=81
 
minkymurph said:
I did not say they were simply myth narratives. I do believe I stressed the significance of myth narratives in ancient cultures. What I said was in terms of the literary genre of of the first few chapters of Genesis has been identified by biblical scholars as that of a myth narrative.

newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/08497b.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm

sumtercatholic.org/files/Pages/BibleStudy/Reading_Genesis_with_Cardinal_Ratzinger.pdf

thefaithexplained.com/uncategorized/understanding-the-creation-accounts-in-genesis/

worldcat.org/title/new-jerome-biblical-commentary/oclc/19388491

scotthahn.com/tools-for-bible-study.html

catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=81
Click to expand...
I personally believe that stories like the Epic of Gilgamesh are corruptions of the Bible, but not exactly in the way most people think. My belief is that the tradition of the Flood was carried on from generations, even before the Bible was created. The Mesopotamians were bound to be not-so-distantly related to the early humans of the Bible, as even Abraham was born there. Just as tradition is important to us Catholics now, tradition was important to the holy people of centuries ago to know about their own history. 👍
 
I think it would probably clear up some important detail if the word “legend” was used instead of “myth”.
 
Darryl_B said:
I think it would probably clear up some important detail if the word “legend” was used instead of “myth”.
Click to expand...
The word ‘legend’ can be substituted for ‘myth’ as they pretty much mean the same thing.

I think I did explain in my post the term ‘myth’ is not used in a negative sense, or denote nothing of truth. To my knowledge the terms ‘myth’ and ‘legend’ and simply mean ‘story’ and it is a mistake to use the term in a derogatory way as every story, even the most outlandish ones, are based on an element of truth. It is said the only true ‘story.’ that is one of pure imagination, is Jack and the Beanstalk.

For example, in Ireland we have (among many) the legend of Finn McCool, an giant who lived in Ulster. He is reputed to have had a fight with a Scottish giant, lifted a handful of earth to throw at the giant which became Lough Neagh. He missed and the lump of earth landed in the sea. The lump of earth is now the Isle of Man.

Interestingly, there is evidence of gigantism in Ireland and it was common in Ulster. It was due to some condition of the pituitary gland. There is a skeleton of one - Charles Byrne - in the British museum.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Byrne_(giant

It is also said stories of fairies grew up around the time of the penal laws in Ireland when rock Masses were held. The story goes the priests vestments and the chalice and paten were hidden under hawthorn (fairy) trees. Parents used to tell their children not to go near the fairy trees because it was bad luck. In reality they did not want them to find the articles.

Who says there is no truth in myths and legends and they are a waste of time? 😉
 
Nanotwerp said:
Science would probably lean to Sub-Saharan Africa, but the Bible places it somewhere in Mesopotamia.

Other Question: Do you guys think us Christians/Jews should start referring to each other, if needed, our ancestor (Shem, Ham, Japheth) and their sons and grandsons instead of our ‘race’?
Click to expand...
My Mormon wife says it was in Independence, Missouri. :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top