spin

Aber du bist zu schwer.

You are aware that when the sea people came stomping down the Levantine coast en route for Egypt they settled on the Palestine coast to stock up for the Egyptian assault. When the Egyptians managed to beat them off, they fell back to Palestine. Along with the Peleset and various other peoples there was also a group known to the Egyptians as the Denyen. The Hebrew bible actually tells us for some reason that the tribe of Dan (miraculously to me) lived on ships!? Jdg 5:17. How does a bunch of semi-nomads suddenly live on ships? The secret is that the "tribe" of Dan were those sea people known as the Denyen who settled on the coast of Palestine. It is only later according to the Judges legend that the Danites migrated to where they would later live. This logic is that of one Joel Arbeitman for anyone who'd like to find out more. I'm running on memory, but he argues that Gen 49:16 says that Dan was not originally perceived as a tribe of Israel but that he would be "like/as one of the tribes of Israel."

And I must admit the Danes I've met are pretty strange. (They'd say the same about me.)


spin

CX

I didn't note said collection of facts. In fact I did not see a single reference or footnote.

I'm not sure why an atheist (or any other non-Xian for that matter) would need a "theory of Eden".

Additionally, I'll reiterate what others have said, that the name "Eden" used in the myth could correspond to a real place is of little significance if said place is materially unlike the utopia described in Genesis. Ultimately, as someone else said, who cares?

Celsus

Ok, a bit harsh, but it's still funny. I know that the mystery of the disappearing sea peoples is an attractive proposition, but I don't even think the tribal league can be demonstrated to begin with, so I don't know why Dan should get any special treatment. Are there Mycenaean IIIC:1B layers in Danite sites?
Strangely, this has crossed my mind before, though I don't think Judges 5:17 necessarily points to sea-faring ways (and as a question doesn't make sense). Do you have a reference for this? Like I said above, it's possible, but I'll only accept it when I see some sort of mark of arrival of the Denye/Danaoi/Dadadum in some stratum of soil. Maybe it was just a small group of wanderers who inflicted their traditions on everyone else.
I'm going to tell on you. Did you see the upcoming Lemche colloquium? We'll do a peanut gallery back at Ebla, be there or be carted away in little boxes.

Joel

EdwardSmith

"This looks like something written for a high school creative writing class."
-That is a false portrayal of the article, as can be seen
by reading it. I request that interested third parties
actually read the article and judge it for themself so as
not to be fooled by that deception.

"That it can be argued the author of a fable had an actual
geographic location in mind when creating the fable in no
way establishes or even suggests that the events of the
fable actually took place. If I wrote a story about seeing
a unicorn on a hill by a creek where a large tree had
fallen over but remained alive because the root system was
still buried, you would not be justified in concluding the
events actually happened if you discovered this description
corresponds to the vicinity of my childhood home."
-That falsely assumes that the myth of the mystical fruit
trees, the serpent, and Adam and Eve were supported by the
article, whereas the article does not do so.

"What's the point if a place named Eden existed at some
time in the past? Does this change anything in our thinking
of the bible or what? Please explain."
-It is a matter of curiosity. It's purpose is to bring
clarity to an otherwise hazy part of the ancient past.

"What you are doing is presuming that everything in the
Bible that isn't supernatural is factual, which is a load
of bollocks."
-That falsely portrays statements in the bible that have
clear relationships to historical and geographical facts as
those that do not. The least credible non-mythical stories
are those that demonstrate a moral, by the way. The
location of Eden isn't even a story, but a location, except
for the minor parts that say 'guarded on the east' and
'arrived from the west' (paraphrased). Also, 'load of
bullocks' is a crude forceful statement that serves to
distract from the truth by the sheer force of words. It is
similar to 'bullsh-t', and I have never met a person that
used such crude forceful language that was actually in the
right, as such language is used to forcefully distract from
honest curiosity.

" 'The very first paragraph of the article proves why Eden
was a true place, without supporting any of the obvious
biblical fallacies regarding Eden.'
It does nothing of the sort."
-That is simply a false statement, as can clearly be seen
by actually reading the article.

"All it does is presume what atheists think, and I'll wager
good money that none of the regulars in this forum believe
that Eden is some mystical place in another dimension."
-That falsely portrays the beliefs of what Eden is
considered to be as the beliefs of what Eden actually is.
That is a rather blatant deception. Does Celsus use these
types of deceptions on several people? I see that he has
made a large number of posts on the infidels' forum, which
suggests that he has a general desire to disrupt the truth.
If he tries this kind of stuff just one more time, then I
recommend that he be banned from the forum.

"Philistines and other Sea People are from Mycenaea, not
Anatolia, for a start. Abraham was not the founder of
Judaism."
"Cush is known as an anachronism"
-Those are all unsupported statements.

"when did the Sumerian empire fall? When did Israel rise? hint: round to the nearest 1000"
-The sumerians were conquered near 1900BCE if I remember
correctly; they were not eradicated, the latter of which
would ensure the eradication of their mythology.

"(wherever that is)"
"The funniest part"
-Those statements are false portrayal via emotional
reaction, clearly indicative as a desire to avoid logic. I
request that interested third parties actually read the
article and judge it for themself so as not to be fooled by
that deception.

"Graham Hancock, Zechariah Sitchin, David Rohl, Eric Von
Daniken, any of these people sound familiar to you, Ed?"
-That falsely portrays valid name relationships as grossly
invalid name relationships. It is also an emotional
response which contains the aforementioned false
assumption. I request that interested third parties
actually read the article and judge it for themself so as
not to be fooled by that deception. (I know that I've said
that last sentence many times, but it serves to emphasize
it's importance)

All of these deceptions indicate that Celsus has a strong
blind bias against the people that he perceives as his
enemies or opponents, which is in turn caused by a blind
bias toward oneself, namely the dominance drive. That in
turn means that everything that Celsus says, in every
thread and not just this one, should be regarded with a
high degree of scrutiny. He's high-maintenence. It is my
guess that Celsus is politically a laizzes-fairist, that
is, a person who believes in the chaotic competitive state
of an absence of government regulation, as such a state is
conducive to dominance. Am I right?

"The article uses a large quantity of historical,
linguistic, and geographical facts

I didn't note said collection of facts. In fact I did not
see a single reference or footnote."
-That is a rather blatant deception that portrays the
abscence of fact-numbering or footnotes as the absence of
facts. I therefore recommend that the person that made that
deception be banned from the infidels forum. It is
ridiculous that such deceptive behavior exists on this
forum. If a moderate christian were to read such
deceptions, they may very well consider fanatical
christians to be more rational people than atheists, not
realizing that there are in fact many rational atheists
such as myself.

I will be sure to report all of the aforementioned
underhanded deceptions to the moderator. I will try to
ignore the deceptions that will inevitably follow in the
replies to this reply. All I can say to third parties is
this: Read the original article and all of my posts and
judge them and everything else for yourself, and be
cautious of deceptions by all individuals, including
myself, though I have made no deceptions.

Julian

Just a quick comment on the first paragraph. Just because some of the places are real does not confer any kind of believability to the myth of eden. I could say, "I live in Maryland and I have a invisible pink unicorn on my shoulder." Would you assume that because Maryland is a real place that the IPU is therefore believable?

When people want footnotes it is so they can check the facts for themselves. The text states that Babylonian records mention eden. I do not know this to be true and I am, frankly, skeptical. Without a footnote I have no way of knowing if this is reliable or not.

Julian

Edited to add: Chill out. You want an intellectual discussion? Then be prepared to defend yourself rather than complaining like a petulant child.

Weltall

Actually I did read the article. From a technical perspective it contains numerous grammar mistakes. There is also a complete lack of supporting evidence and not one reference or footnote. My phrasing might have been harsh but I stand by it. That was not a scholarly article you presented. I'l refer you to the other posters who have taken the time to explain why we react the way we do for a more in depth explanation.

ex-xian

Well, I read the article. Except for a certain amount of naivete wrt judaism's origin, there's nothing that I can really criticize--mainly because history isn't my area. Since there are no supporting references, I can't judge the veracity of the writing.


But you seemed to have fun doing it!

livius drusus

Not only are you hilariously wrong, but your speculations are entirely inappropriate. Perhaps you could refrain from reading people's entrails and stick to the point.

As for the article in the OP, I have several problems with it. First of all, it is absolutely appallingly formatted. The section headers are poorly punctuated and do not stand out all. Your capitalization of proper nouns and the beginning of sentences is also haphazard. That does not mean your essay is factually incorrect, of course, but it does make it hard to read and less likely to be taken seriously.

Secondly, I would like to see your evidence for the following assertions (I am not necessarily disputing them, mind you; I am just asking you to name your source):

• Eden is mentioned in babylonian trade records.
• Section 2 of genesis, which describes Eden, is from the older jehovian reference.
• Judaism had began simply as the belief that there is one god and not many gods, founded by Abraham at about 1900BCE, such that it originally contained no complex creationist mythology.
• Also, the sumerian cuneiform symbol for 'rib' is the same as that for 'life'
• The hebrew word that was translated so as to mean 'garden' literally means 'a penned in area', thereby referring to mountains

Also, you make multiple deductive leaps which you describe as "clear" based solely on loose phonetic similarities, most of which strike me as not at all clear. For instance, hurlili does not sound in the least like havila to me. Do you have some linguistic analysis beyond what things "sound like" to you to support these leaps?

Welcome to IIDB.

chapka

I think the article misses the actual question, which is, "Did the name 'Eden' as used in the Genesis myth derive from a real location?" (That is, did they use "Eden" in the sense we might use "Timbuktu"?) This might be an interesting question, along the lines of "What the hell did they mean by 'gopher wood'?" Sadly, the strange logical jumps, lack of organization, and total lack of references mean that the article posted doesn't really address the basic question, instead asking, "What's the actual location that most closely resembles the description of Eden used in the Bible to which someone, at some point, attached a name like 'Eden'?"

Why not start, instead, with the Hebrew etymology. I know some of the names in the creation story are archetypal (i.e., "Adam" = "The Man/The Human"). Does "Eden" have a straightforward Hebrew meaning, or not?

Fr.Andrew

Re: Location of Eden
Thelesar was an Assyrian provence that straddled the middle part of the Euphrates River, east of Canaan.