Malintent

"And can you point to any evidence that indicates where this garden was?"

"Genesis 2:8 It was in Eden"


Can you please provide geographical coordinates (latitude and longitude)? Where is this "Eden" place you speak of? We should be able to find some evidence of an ancient garden, no?

Darwin's "Origin of Species" is NOT evidence of evolution. It is a bunch of words put together that describe this one person's take on the matter. After over 100 years of examination, actual, physical evidence (the kind that anyone can look at and draw their own conclusions from) has been found in great abundance to support those man-made words.

A bible is the same thing... just a bunch of man's words that express an idea. After 2000 years NO physical evidence has been found to support any of the statements therein regarding 'creation'.

Words and paper are not evidence in themselves.

Betenoire

Yet another case where an atheist knows the Bible better than the Christian:
The Bible specifies in Genesis that the Garden of Eden lay between Ethiopia and the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Which means we should be able to excavate in the middle of the Arabian Desert and find the remains of this garden, dating to 6,000 years ago.

Betenoire

Along with the names of the rivers, the Bible also names the lands through which they flow (Cush, Ashur), names that were post-flood appellations.
It should be remembered that, according to the Bible, all of the first five books were written down by Moses after they were revealed to him by God. Therefore any name given to a river or a land would be in Moses's post-flood context.

Way, way too much Bible study when I was young.

Though it does mean I know another important verse: Revelation 22:18. Which basically says that if you alter, add to, or remove any part of the Bible, God will strike you down. So, every time a Biblical literalist says "Well, God just made the animals on the Ark not hungry", even though it doesn't say that anywhere in the whole damn Bible, take a few steps away from them so that the lightning bolts don't get you.

Ibelieve

Yet another case where assumptions get an atheist into trouble. A careful reading of the text clearly shows that there is a river that waters Eden. That river then flows from Eden and branches into four headwaters. Those four rivers are named, and the lands that they flow into are named. Those are the rivers you are mentioning. They are not in Eden.

Everyone please step aside from Betenoire, because he just "alterred or removed" some information that was written in the Bible.

I wouldn't assume that I don't know the Bible if I were you. My answer of "Gen 2:8 It was in Eden" was very specifically worded.

Now please explain how you would excavate for a 6000 year old garden? (One without buildings that is). Citations please???.

Betenoire

"2:10 A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers."
The antecedent of there being "the garden". Or, it's possible, that we're both referring to lousy English translations of the original Hebrew, which does not really translate to "flowed out of". If only Biblical scholars thought this might be the case...

Well, were I in the middle of the desert, I would dig until I ran out of sand and hit tree trunks. Then I'd carbon date them. No citations needed.

Ezkerraldean

paleosols? lignite/coal? plant remains? in the appropriate geographical location? and all dateable to the appropriate time?

of course, with a global flood happening a mere 2000 years later, all the above would be nicely preserved under a massive turbidite a la Burgess Shale. so it should be extremely easy to find.

Ibelieve

Ithink you should read multiple versions, and look at the context. It will clear this up for you.
Well, when you get there, I will provide the shovels! So tree trunks last 6000 years? What makes you think anything from this garden would be preserved?

Why must I always have to provide citations, but IIDBers don't.

Ezkerraldean

if they were buried by a big flood or by desert sand, then yep they do. regardless of the trees, you should find an identifiable and dateable ancient soil. where is it? and while you're at it, where's all the flood sediment that must have covered it?

-Jay-

You know where I'm gonna go with this, don't you? Which versions?

In any event, you're dodging. The question is "Where was Eden?"

Of course tree trunks can last 6000 years. Haven't you ever heard of petrified wood?

Do you view citations as a bad thing?

regards,

NinJay

Betenoire

Biblical interpretation by committee, then?

Yes, yes they do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrifi..._National_Park

Because your claims are directly in contravention of observed fact whereas my claims are generally pithy, vague statements about the world we live in that I can source with five seconds on Google and absolutely no mental calisthenics on my part.