Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JayW · 02-14-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Sure, there could have been four rivers flowing into eachother back in Biblical time.
But the Bible says they had a common source and flowed out of Eden before dividing in to four rivers. That's quite different.
What's more, the Bible associates these rivers with lands (basically, Ethiopia and Arabia) which directly contradicts the theory that they all flow in to the Persian Gulf (Ethiopia does not border the Persian Gulf)

Where does the Bible say Ethopia or Arabia? Where does the Bible say Persian Gulf? I have no idea where the Bible believes Eden to be,but ancient inscriptions placed it between the Euphrates and the Tigres. Since that land has been flooded many times,not counting the yearly flooding, it would be difficult to find any ancient that doesn't exist today.

Exciter · 02-14-2008, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

http://irismonroe.org/stories/gardenofeden.asp

You can go there yourself and see it. Don't expect the angels or a flaming sword to appear, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malintent

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.

So you have actually seen physical evidence of evolution... okay. Personally I've seen fossils and photo's of fossils, but um, those things can be pretty much faked. I like the theory, btw. There's a lot written about evolution, but then, like you say words and paper.

When I was a kid dinosaurs looked different then they do today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malintent

The bible is not a historical record. It is a compilation of assorted works that have been translated, re-translated, reorganized, edited, omitted, and thoroughly revised by man over the centuries.

As is all history! He who controls the past, controls the future... There are some fools that still think all men were created equal.

JayW · 02-14-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Malintent
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?

If you actually sw it would you admit that it does exist, or would you try to expose it as a hoax? Eden did exist. It was known by ancient Mesopotamians as Gu-Eddini,or Gu-Idinni, the bank of Eden, or in some interpretations, the plain of Eden.
It was the most fertile part of the valley,and the only place that would grow mny different types of fruit and vegetables. Compared to the rest of Mesopotamia, it was a virtual garden,and apparantly interpreted by the Hebrews as garden.

Hex · 02-14-2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayW

Quote:

Hex
JayW's view above indicates that in order for you to have confluance of four rivers, you've got to be setting up your rivers against the flow. But them the question is begged, if that's what was meant, did Yahweh 'mis-speak' on the subject? (Note: Spelling fix by Hex)

You seem to understand the Bible fairly good,in which case yo should know that the Bible claims that there were four rivers. It says nothing bout the direction of flow. That's a human understanding of what should have been said. There are four rivers there today.

Again, I quote Genesis 2:10 "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads."

I interpret water flowing as one river through the garden and then breaking into four 'heads' to constitute a direction of flow. Namely, the flow is from the garden toward the split, not away. So it can't be four rivers flowing together into one river that went through the garden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayW

The Bible only made the claim that the rivers flowed out of the garden. Unless you know for sure the exact location of the garden, you can't say if they were against the flow or not. Does anyone know if eden was upstream or downstream? If they do their not saying.

But they do. It's right there in that one verse. One river flows out of Eden and into the garden (Remember that the garden doesn't take up all of Eden - Yahweh plants it "eastward in Eden"), and then (or 'from thence' if you prefer) it becomes the headwaters of four rivers.

If a river 'went out of' New York State and runs through Pennsylvania, which way is it flowing? Into or out of New York State?

Rivers start at the head and end at the mouth. The flow goes from head to mouth. (Our NY river would have it's headwaters in NY and it's mouth somewhere along the Atlantic coast, and would thus flow 'out of' NY.

Thus, Eden is upstream of the division of the four rivers from the single river.

Enjoy. :wave:

- Hex

Hex · 02-14-2008, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayW

Eden did exist. It was known by ancient Mesopotamians as Gu-Eddini,or Gu-Idinni, the bank of Eden, or in some interpretations, the plain of Eden.

Can you please give me a citation for these alternate terms to describe Edon? I just did a quickl search through JSTOR, and -none- of the terms you mentioned brought up anything the the scholarly works ...

Thanks! :wave:

- Hex

Keith&Co. · 02-14-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

If you actually sw it would you admit that it does exist, or would you try to expose it as a hoax? Eden did exist.

Really won't know until we see it, now will we? If we see it, will it stand up to scrutiny? Would we appear more foolish for accepting it or for rejecting it?
SHow it to us, see what happens.

Stephen T-B · 02-14-2008, 01:56 PM

Just a comment, in passing, on this: "I think it's wise to use multiple versions. I usually use KJV with Greek and Hebrew interlinked, NASB with Greek and Hebrew interlinked and a more modern version like NIV. That's enough to have parallel at any one given time. Then I use many others, especially when the text is a little more difficult to understand. Software is great these days. I have about 20 versions easily available." (Ibelieve)

Twenty versions easily available! Thanks to software!
Pity, then, the poor souls whose lifespans did not coincide with modern technology; pity the poor souls who only ever had one version of the Bible, and had to make sense of that the best they could.
And this is the Word of God!
How careless of this god to be so very unspecific that a serious devotee needs KJV with Greek and Hebrew interlinked, NASB with Greek and Hebrew interlinked and a more modern version like NIV, and software making 20 versions available in order properly to understand what his Word is!
My my

Robert Byers · 02-14-2008, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

No need for anger here. I'm making my points. Damn good ones.
Its logical to see the area where the Ark was floating as being less damaged by the flood in order to preserve the inmates. Still changing the land however in some ways.
I see my thoughts here as persuasive to any audience.
If you say the eden account is based on the world when it was written then you have biblical geography error. Run with it.!
Otherwise humbly agree that the bible authors expected the readers to understand the geography had been rearranged by the flood. The Euphrates is not a head of a larger river. Back then everyone knew that.

No anger here, Rob. Amusement, maybe, but no anger.

OK. Here we go again.

IF you have a global flood, where everything is covered over with water, and the only thing not under water is this miniscule wooden box (miniscule on the scale of an 8000 + mile diameter mostly spherical surface of water), the sea conditions at any given point are gonna look pretty much the same as the sea conditions at any other given point.

Even if I generously allow, for the sake of the discussion, that the Ark might have enjoyed some protection from the maelstrom (which, if you recall Gen 8:1 "And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark:", may be a stretch - that reads almost like God had basically forgotten about them, and only remembered at the last minute that he had some unfinished business), you've still got to deal with the effects of this enormous volume of water acting on the surface of the Earth. By your own "reasoning", this volume of water is scouring, reshaping, laying down vast, thick sediment beds, building mountains, and all manner of other stuff. Yet, apparently, the part under the ark isn't affected? That just doesn't hold togther - your own scenario lacks internal consistency.

Is it possible that you're really so convinced of your own worldview that you honestly fail to see that you haven't convinced anyone here?

Now as Hex and others have pointed out, if Eden was intended to be located in some vastly different pre-flood geographic configuration, which, within the context of the narrative, none of the readers would have ever seen, it makes no sense whatsoever to have used place names that would have been familiar to the readers. Eden might as well have been located at the corner of Hollywood and Vine in that case.

The fact that familiar place names were used is fairly strong evidence that the intended audience was expected to relate the setting to a geography that they were familiar with, and significantly undercuts the notion that the geography was significantly different.

I don't buy your assertion that "everyone" would've known that the Euphrates "wasn't the head of a larger river". People in that area at that time just generally didn't travel that far, and the finer points of geography would have been secondary to other things like, say, eating. In any event, it doesn't support your view anyway, as it reinforces the notion that the Euphrates before Da Fludde was the same as the Euphrates after.

You simply don't have a case here Rob.

regards,

NinJay

I have the only accurate case.
The point of creationism and the flood is not that the flood water did the work on earth but the pressure of moving water. I see the separating continents as the source of the pressure. Therefore this area, perhaps, in some great eddy was protected from moving water though not the weight of the water.
The place names are accurate to the reader as the actual rivers. I see no problem here. The difference from the reality now and for the original readers is evidence that the geography was different.
The riber came out of eden. So eden was where , for examplwe, there is now sea water. Plus the water of the rivers now flows into the sea and not into four heads.
I don't see any problem with my equation. Either the bible is wrong on geography or it shows a different pre-flood world including that the audience knew this was the point. The bible always references "the river" they knew as Euprathes.
Rob byers

Robert Byers · 02-14-2008, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayW

The Tigris and euphrates rivers come together just befoe they reach the gulf. The Lower Zab river joins with the Tigres just before it combines with the Euphrates. There's three rivers that combine to mke one. It's possible there could have been a fourth one or a branch of one of the three rivers.

First I didn't know the rivers come together like you say. I don't know if the Zab counts as a head of a river like the bible puts it.
Still the damage was that the river came out eden and so eden is not there as land today.
It seems the bible is saying flow was from the river into the four heads but maybe not. Today water flows into the sea.
In any case it bears little resemblence to the reality of the reading audience.
The land descriptions seem to place the rivers around Africa.
In all these matters it is to be understood to any modern or ancient reader that the geography was very different before the flood.
Rob byers

Robert Byers · 02-14-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

If I understand you.
The flood/chaos probably was less severe in this area in order to preserve the Ark. perhaps some giant eddy actions going on. Yet the area would still be changed a little.
The reason for the location of eden is the evidence. The readers knew thee was no river with four heads. The river, Euphrates, was famous for going into the sea. it was not a head of another river.
If you disagree then this should be a case of biblical geography error. Am i wrong in my reasoning?
Read more carefully the account.
Rob Byers

First, please recognize that 'giant eddy actions' would provide more turbulence in the water (and hence more destruction) than less. The ark, according to the descriptions, was sealed tight by Yahweh. Imagine an empty (air-filled) soda bottle with it's cap on as an analogy. No matter how turbulent the water's actions, it's going to bob to the surface, and the inside will stay dry.

And I would argue that yes, no one should be confusing the mouth of a river with it's headwaters. JayW's view above indicates that in oder for you to have confluance of four rivvers, you've got to be setting up your rirvers against the flow. But them the question is begged, if that's what was ment, did Yahweh 'mis-speak' on the subject?

And please, don't assume that I've no clue what I'm talking about. I quoted, directly, those bits that were important for the location of Eden. If you'd like to try and explain this with the flood, let's take a look, shall we?

Quote:

From Genesis 7:

12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
... <snipped Noah's family, creepythings entering the ark, and the sealing> ...
17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

From Genesis 8:

2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.
6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

From this, please show me where I've missed the 'selective depth' and 'selective turbulence' of the water. From what I can see, it's gradual in it's coming and gradual in it's leaving. (Though it seems to only reach a height of 22.5 feet?)

And please find your answers in the text quoted, not from any other source. I don't want speculation, I want to understand where the text backs up your statements and thus becomes relevant to understanding this 'Quest for Eden' ...

Thanks, :wave:

- Hex

The bible places boundaries only. Standard practice. Creationism can and does see the flood as part of a bigger brakup of earth. The pressure from continenal breakup cause most of the destruction on earth. In the area of the ark a eddy, like in a river, could of protected the Ark and so the land underneath was less damaged. Some damage however is indicated by the eden account.
Rob Byers

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-14-2008, 01:56 PM	#57
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	Just a comment, in passing, on this: "I think it's wise to use multiple versions. I usually use KJV with Greek and Hebrew interlinked, NASB with Greek and Hebrew interlinked and a more modern version like NIV. That's enough to have parallel at any one given time. Then I use many others, especially when the text is a little more difficult to understand. Software is great these days. I have about 20 versions easily available." (Ibelieve) Twenty versions easily available! Thanks to software! Pity, then, the poor souls whose lifespans did not coincide with modern technology; pity the poor souls who only ever had one version of the Bible, and had to make sense of that the best they could. And this is the Word of God! How careless of this god to be so very unspecific that a serious devotee needs KJV with Greek and Hebrew interlinked, NASB with Greek and Hebrew interlinked and a more modern version like NIV, and software making 20 versions available in order properly to understand what his Word is! My my

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.