Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
Nov 30,2009, 10:04PM

EDEN PART 1: Was It Real?

The first story in the Bible concerns man's place of origin, a place ideally suited for every need and supposedly ideal for the creation of other forms of life. It is a beautiful story of a paradise that was created, inhabited, and lost, by man, supposedly forever. Was it real or just an allegory, or beautiful story to convey a moral message?

 The Bible describes it as a real place and even goes so far as to give a description of its location. Readers sometimes misunderstand that the AREA of Eden is not the GARDEN of Eden. Genesis 2:8 clearly states that the Garden of Eden is in the EAST of the area or region of Eden. In Genesis 2:10 it says that "A river went OUT of Eden to water the Garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into 4 heads.

 A River went OUT of the land of Eden and watered the Garden of Eden, and from there it seems it was fed by 4 other rivers. Genesis 2:10 describes the Garden being watered by a single river that is fed by four other rivers, two of which we know, the Euphrates and the Tigres. A documentary of Eden was presented on the History channel lately that hypothesized that the garden was at the most eastern area of what is now  Iraq, and the area of the garden itself is now under water in the Persian Gulf because of the rising level of seas worldwide in the last 5000 years.

 This would make sense because such an area, watered by four ancient rivers, two of which are now only dry shadows, only visible by satellite, would be a paradise of vegetation in a hot dry land such as Iraq. The statement "A river went out of Eden to water the Garden" indicates that the LAND of Eden lay west of the garden since the Euphrates and Tigres flow from the mountains of the west, and end at the Persian Gulf.

 Another theory is that the garden was at the headwaters of the four rivers, in the mountains of modern Turkey, to the west of Iraq. Two of the rivers have supposedly dried up with the climate change over the centuries and are no longer visible. This idea for the location is supported by statements of such an area, in sources outside of the Bible.

 In the Epic of Gilgamesh, a Sumerian legend recorded on stone tablets, there is a  story of a King named Gilgamesh who is, curiously, 2/3 God, by blood, and desires to find out if his bloodline is pure enough that he will inherit the longevity of his ancestors. He is told to travel to the West, following the Euphrates, to a place called the 'enclosure of the Gods. From there he is to travel north across the 'sea of death' to find his ancestor who came through the great flood. This was either Noah or one of his sons. He asks how to get eternal life and is told that because he is of mortal blood he cannot obtain that, but he can postpone death by obtaining a certain plant, which the Gods themselves eat to remain young.

 I believe that the 'Sea of Death' was the present Black Sea just after the flood of Noah, a large, but regional flood. When the salty Mediterranean poured into the huge, dry basin with the small fresh water lake, it would have killed all life contained in the lake and surrounding it. This whole area could have been the area the Bible calls 'Eden' It is also mentioned in the clay tablets of the Sumerians, as the area called E.Den.

Considering that God used the flood to destroy all the descendants of the "Sons of God and daughters of men" affair, it would have become a "Sea of Death" for all within the walls of the basin. We today call that area the Black Sea. Even today no life can exist below 250 feet below the water's surface because the dead remains are still preserved in the toxic water at that level.

The "Gods", who were sought by Gilgamesh who wanted to learn of the secret of life, were probably either the sons of Noah or the first generation descendants of them, who were still alive at that time. They were revered because of their long life spans. As each generation of sons after Noah would marry mortal wives who were of the primitive people the science books describe as 'Neolithic Man', they would lose some of the qualities of their parents, and the God-like properties, such as longevity and immunity to disease, would die out after a great number of generations.

 The part I find interesting is the part about the description given in this ancient tablet of the "enclosure of the Gods'. Gilgamesh had to travel a great distance in an area that was so dark he could not see his hand in front of him. When he arrived at the Enclosure of the Gods, he described the trees as being fruitful with jewels hanging from them, and the whole area being like a 'paradise'. Genesis 3:24 describes the entrance to the 'garden' as being protected by Cherubim's who had a 'flaming sword' that turned every direction. This epic describes an encounter with such a creature.

 The question might be asked "why was there only one entrance to the garden"? In the epic of Gilgamesh described earlier, the main character had to reach the area only by traveling a long distance in a very dark place. Perhaps this was an entrance to the "Enclosure of the Gods", by way of a cave. This would explain why the entrance could be protected by only one post. If that hypothesis is true, it could be that the cave has since been hidden by a landslide from the many earthquakes in that region over the centuries.

 The Garden of Eden has been the source of many explorations, quests, and speculation over the centuries, including Columbus's discovery of America, Ponce De Leon's adventures in Florida, and the Spaniards in South America, but it still remains a mystery without an answer.

 Was it real?

 The Bible describes it as a real place, Sumerian records also describe a place like it. If it does exist it certainly must be well hidden, either under water now, or inside an "enclosure" that is not seen from the outside. Or perhaps it has even been paved over as a parking lot in some modern city, as one historian described in a documentary. Perhaps we will never know in this life.

EDEN PART 1: Was It Real?
The first story in the Bible concerns man's place of origin, a place ideally suited for every need and supposedly ideal for the creation of other forms of life. It is a beautiful story of a paradise that was created, inhabited, and lost, by man, supposedly forever. Was it real or just an allegory, or beautiful story to convey a moral message?
Most recent comments
1.January 09,2010, 3:27PM
Cannog: " On the other hand, if the flood becomes a regional event how then must the message also be re-evaluated? This would mean God did not punish all mankind but only wiped out a select few but allowed their line to continue, that the rainbow was not a sign to everyone of a promise of ‘never again’ or that any similar moral could be drawn from the story."

You miss the point of my explanation of "man". If man in the biblical sense is only the descendants of Adam, then YES, ALL men were destroyed except Noah and his family. The descendants of Adam only inhabited the "region" of Eden. The creatures outside that region were the primitive "Homo sapiens" our science books speak of. This makes the moral lesson of the flood, and the rainabow, valid because it was only meant for "Man", ie. Noah and his family. The other "man" didn't count because they were NOT YET MAN in God's eyes. After the flood and the mixing of Noah's seed with THIS man, did everyone become a descendant of Adam, and therefore MAN.
--aepling
2.January 07,2010, 10:42AM
Crannog,

“On the other hand, if the flood becomes a regional event how then must the message also be re-evaluated? ...As a Christian I do not have a vested interest in the creation story per se but there are necessarily implications for the salvation story and on the relationship between God and his creation.”

I strongly share those sentiments, but I admit to having more than a passing interest precisely because of the implications you stated.

I have no doubt that the flood happened. Regardless of the mode by which God intervened in nature, it was a miracle that would not have happened otherwise. Considering whether the flood was regional requires a consideration of Aepling’s earlier point about the how we interpret the words used in the narrative. The word “world” may indeed have meant the known world of the Fertile Crescent. One could reasonably assume that all the animals saved in the Ark belonged to that region and maybe none traveled from the Amazon region of South America. One could just as reasonably assume that the entire globe was covered in the flood and took over a year for enough water to evaporate and dry land to reappear. However, one would then have to explain the diversity the animal kingdom achieved all over the globe within a mere four or five thousand years. Of course, a miracle is a miracle.

In any event, I do not think the message would have to be re-evaluated. If the account turns out to be a regional flood, then it was the account God meant to give. It just means we interpreted the account wrongly. For example, God promised Abraham that his descendants would be numbered like the stars or the sand on the beaches. Do we understand that to mean Abraham would have countless billions of descendants? Right now, there are barely seven billion people on earth and only a small fraction can be counted as Abraham’s descendants. Even if we consider Christians to be his descendants, the total is only about two billion. It makes more sense, to me, if we interpret the promise to mean that Abraham would have so many descendants it would be difficult for an individual to account for all of them. Otherwise, how far into the future would the world have to persist for a literal interpretation to hold? I am not saying that that is out of the question.


That being said, if we also accept as plausible, Aepling’s point that in spite of the presence of prehistoric hominids, “man” was not created until Adam. Therefore, those who died in the flood would constitute all of mankind save the eight in the Ark. I think the message of the Bible and the salvation story remains unfazed.
--MGT2
3.January 06,2010, 10:54AM
I have heard similar opinion and the reasoning does provide routes to plausible explanations for a number of things such as Cain’s wife and differing racial characteristics …. On the other hand, if the flood becomes a regional event how then must the message also be re-evaluated? This would mean God did not punish all mankind but only wiped out a select few but allowed their line to continue, that the rainbow was not a sign to everyone of a promise of ‘never again’ or that any similar moral could be drawn from the story. The event becomes effectively no more meaningful in the scheme of things than the Christmas Tsunami of a couple years ago.

As a Christian I do not have a vested interest in the creation story per se but there are necessarily implications for the salvation story and on the relationship between God and his creation.
--Crannog
4.December 31,2009, 6:15PM
Mgt2: "Is my imagination running away with me."

Ha Ha! Perhaps a bit. I have long held to the belief that this hypothesis explains fully Cain's wife, as being, not from Adam's line, but of the colonies of primitive Homo Sapiens outside Eden. I am still skeptical of the Lilith legend. I have a tendance to view all legends as smoke with a bit of fire somewhere in the story. I don't believe legends just appear out of thin air in someone's mind, but, I am curious as to that the Lilith legend really sprang from. I believe there was someone named Lilith somewhere in the history of man but I don't accept the accepted version of the story Ver Batim. How God formed man is still a mystery that could hold many details that are hidden in the scant description we have in Genesis. What you say may be true, but I wonder what the REAL truth is and how different from the modern version.
--aepling
5.December 31,2009, 11:36AM
This is very interesting. From what you say, you may have a reasonable answer to some questions that I have always found difficult to answer adequately. You mentioned the mixing of Noah’s descendants with the primitive Homo Sapiens, could that have been how Cain found his wife? The traditional explanation, whenever anyone tried to, is that he married a sister, or a cousin or some relative descendant from Adam and Eve. The thought is that because they all lived for so long, enough time would have elapsed to allow siblings to grow and marry each other, spread out, and populate other areas. That explanation always seemed a bit implausible to me.

Then there is the myth of Lilith. Could there be any grounds for her being in the picture at some point after the fall if she was a primitive Homo Sapien? And if so, could it have been the first act of infidelity? Is my imagination running away with me.
--MGT2
6.December 30,2009, 10:14PM
MTG2: "If Adam was created 6,000 years ago, that would create a problem unless you make the claim that the “human remains” were hominids but not man"

You are correct on one count. I do not call the bipedal hominids "man" as such because the bible doesn't. The Bible only recognizes someone who descended from Adam as man, and by that measure, man did not exist on the earth until Adam, 6000 years ago when God breathed the breath of life into him.

Who then inhabited the Sahara? The creature that our science books call "man" that originated about 2 million years ago through evolution, and perhaps also by God's hand to some extent, because Genesis Chapter 1, verse 26 say "And God said, Let us make man in our image". This does not necessarily mean Adam as most interpret it. I believe God was making an announcement of a plan to mold that ape-like creature to eventually become man. That plan was culminated after the flood of Noah when the descendants of Adam mixed with the primitive colonies of Homo Sapiens that inhabited the planet that were unaffected by the flood. From that point on ALL hominids became man through the bloodline of Adam.
--aepling
7.December 30,2009, 11:23AM
I am mostly receptive of your take on the age of the earth and the subsequent creation of man and the Garden of Eden at a much later time. However, I am not so sure about the 6,000 years time frame for the latter event. I mean, I am not convinced.

I watched a program on the history channel last night about the cycle that the Sahara desert has been going through for a couple million years now. Every 20,000 years it switches from desert to lush lake laden land bustling with vegetation and life. They found evidence of human communities dating from 5,000 to 10,000 ago, and human remains dating about 7,000 years.

If Adam was created 6,000 years ago, that would create a problem unless you make the claim that the “human remains” were hominids but not man, or that they made an error in their calculations. Maybe I am missing something here.
--MGT2
8.December 29,2009, 1:35PM
I believe the earth was hit by a comet, which is mostly ice. As it entered the atmosphere and melted, it dumped billions of tons of water into the atmosphere. The remainder which didn't melt hit in the ocean which caused the tsunami. The flood came from the west, a specific direction, in order to move Noah's ark to the east. This supports an event taking place in the west, in the Atlantic.
--aepling
9.December 28,2009, 8:48PM
If the flood was caused by a tsunami, what caused it to rain for so long?
--MGT2
10.December 27,2009, 10:11AM
PS. The Black Sea was called the "sea of death" because of all the freshwater life that was killed when the salty Mediterannean poured in. The water below 400 feet in the Black Sea is still unique in that it doesn't contain oxygen becuause of all the preserved dead plant and animal material still contained there.
--aepling
11.December 27,2009, 9:47AM
Crannog: Thank you for the comment. I believe the Book of Genesis describes a catastrophic flood that destroyed the "world" of Eden. The world "eretz" in Hebrew means land, country, or world. It was used many time in the OT to describe a land 'area' not the whole planet. Ancient Hebrew scribes interpreted it as world in the first translations because they were not aware of the creations in Eden 6000 years ago as being different from the creations of chapter one, almost 14 billion years ago and thought "all that God created" meant the whole planet. It was actually referring to all that God created in the most recent creation event, Eden.

The "flood" was an event that destroyed all that was contained in the former Black Sea Basin, a huge depression left over from the ice age that contained a small fresh water lake and hundreds of square miles of land that sat 400 feet lowere in elevation than the Mediterannean Sea, just a short distance away. Some catastophe caused the basin to be flooded, perhaps a giant tsunami caused by an asteroid impact, melting of the ice caps, volcanic activity, or some phenomenon we haven't considered yet.

This caused the flood of Noah and pushed the ark hundreds of miles to the east. It landed on the only large mountain in its path, Mt. Ararat.

I hope this provides a sufficient explanation. Thanks
--aepling
12.December 27,2009, 5:11AM
Sorry, actually the comment is in the 2012 post.

Are you referring to tow different floods?
--Crannog
13.December 27,2009, 5:09AM
- aepling
"I believe that the 'Sea of Death' was the present Black Sea just after the flood of Noah, a large, but regional flood."

How do you square this with an earlier post where you help all things in Genesis historically and scientifically accurate?

Just curious . . .
--Crannog
Comment on this Story
Don't have a christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click here
Copyright © The Christian Post. All right reserved.About Us|Contact Us|Media Kit|Registration|Terms and Conditions|Disclaimer|Corrections