The location of Eden

Obviously there is going to be some disagreement as to whether or not there ever was an Eden in the biblical sense, but I am curious exactly what location the book of Genesis is describing. My goal is to map out the various locations and tribes named in Genesis to see if it makes any sense at all. (My initial feeling is that Genesis if full of holes, as if it were a copy of a copy of a very poorly understood history tale.

The key to the location of Eden is that a river flowing from Eden becomes 4 riverheads. 2 of the rivers are known today (Tigris and Euphrates) the other two are forgotten or no longer exist at all.

The Garden of Eden is commonly placed in Iraq, however that is not the source of Tigris and Euphrates. If they had ever shared a common source it would have been in Turkey.

Furthermore, the bible says that the land of Cush is encompassed by one of the 4 rivers. Cush is normally taken to mean Ethiopia, which would make the river in question be the Nile. We know the nile never originated anywhere near Turkey. By my reading of Genesis, Cush should have been in the Jordan/Syria area though.

Anyway, i wondered if anyone had any bright ideas about the identity of the rivers and the locations of the various lands and peoples named in Genesis.

At least it has always been one of my favorite theories. My dad was a civilian contractor in the middle east for a number of years and one of the men he did business with in Bahrain believed that his homeland was actually Eden.

I found this site for you - Biblical Archaeology - Bahrain

Let me know what you think.
B.

A little south-west of Van Turkey, near Daldere. Van Golu Lake could have been the source of the four rivers issuing out from Eden.

First, let's give the readers something to work with:

Genesis 1-10
And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from hence it was parted and became into four heads.

Gen 1-11

The name of the first was Pison; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold

Gen 1-12

And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

Gen 1-13

And the name of the second river is Gihon; the same is it that compasseth the whold land of Ethiopia.

Gen1-14

And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it that goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth is the Euphrates.

Okay...THAT said, I'd say Hiddekel is now the Tigris. It is possible that the Pison is now the Jordan river and Gihon is the Nile. Hmm...sounds to me like Moses is trying to describe the Persian Gulf. If Bahrain isn't Eden, maybe it's underwater nearby. Of course, there's nothing in the Bible to indicate the Garden's size. Also, to read it JUST AS IT'S WRITTEN, Eden and the Garden could be two differents things. Just maybe Eden was the Persian Gulf itself, and the Garden was a greenbelt that ran from there to the Nile. Hey, anything's possible, right?

[edit on 30-11-2004 by Toelint]

Check out the follow URL for more information, there is much to be found on this site. I typed in 'location of Eden' and found audio & video as well as text links.

www.answersingenesis.org...

Could the garden of Eden ever be found?
The Bible says regarding the location of Eden: �And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads� (Genesis 2:10). Two of these rivers are called Hiddekel (Tigris) and Perath (Euphrates).

This is why many Christians believe that the original garden was located somewhere in the Mesopotamian region (around present day Iraq) where the modern Tigris and Euphrates rivers flow. However, the Bible records a devastating worldwide Flood, many centuries after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden. Sedimentary layers, sometimes miles thick, bear mute testimony to this massive watery upheaval which tore apart and buried forever the pre-Flood world.

After the Flood, the survivors moved to the plain of Shinar (Sumeria/Babylonia) which is where we find rivers today called Tigris and Euphrates. These are therefore clearly not the same rivers. They run on top of Flood-deposited layers of rock containing billions of dead things. They were probably named after the original pre-Flood rivers, just as settlers from the British Isles to North America and Australasia applied familiar names to many places in their �new world.�

Note also that the Bible speaks of one river breaking into four, only two of which were called Tigris and Euphrates. This is not what is found in the Middle East today.

The Garden�s actual location on the globe can never be established�maybe it was where we now find the middle of the Pacific Ocean!

To paraclete777, I appreciate the link. I will be reading a great deal from that page in the future I'm sure. To be honest, I have a really hard time taking Christian apologists seriously (and back when I was active in a Baptist Church apologetics was one of my favorite topics). All the same, I'll be giving this page a chance and running a few things by some of the knowledgeable (and insanely skeptical) people here on ATS to see if it holds water.
So thanks .

Originally posted by Toelint

Gen 1-13

And the name of the second river is Gihon; the same is it that compasseth the whold land of Ethiopia.
Gihon is the Nile. Hmm...sounds to me like Moses is trying to describe the Persian Gulf.
[edit on 30-11-2004 by Toelint]

You Bible reflects a common interpretation which I took the time to challenge in my original post.
I'm pretty sure that any direct translation of the bible says that Gihon encompasses the land of Cush. Bible scholars commonly believe that Cush is Ethiopia, however this is not all that likely in reality.

Cush a grandson of Noah. Ham was his father. Cannan (for who the land which became Israel was named) was his brother. Nimrod (who founded the major cities of the Akkadian and Assyrian empires, including that which bears his name) was a son of Cush.
So here is what we know: Cush's father got off the Ark in Turkey (Arrarat). Cush's brother ended up in modern day Israel. Cush's son inded up in modern day Iraq. That tells me that Cush himself settled in Jordan or Syria.
The river which encompasses the land of Cush is probably the Jordan, if that river still exists at all.

As for Havilah, he was a Grandson of Cush and son of Nimrod. It seems unlikely that the river encompassing his land still exists in the same state that it once did. Havilah might be surmised to have moved further east as his father before him, which would put him in Iran. North of Iran there is the Kura River which connects the Caspian and Black seas. There is another river, not named in my Atlas, in Northern Iran which flows to the Caspian.

[edit on 30-11-2004 by The Vagabond]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Obviously there is going to be some disagreement as to whether or not there ever was an Eden in the biblical sense, but I am curious exactly what location the book of Genesis is describing. My goal is to map out the various locations and tribes named in Genesis to see if it makes any sense at all. (My initial feeling is that Genesis if full of holes, as if it were a copy of a copy of a very poorly understood history tale.

The key to the location of Eden is that a river flowing from Eden becomes 4 riverheads. 2 of the rivers are known today (Tigris and Euphrates) the other two are forgotten or no longer exist at all.

The Garden of Eden is commonly placed in Iraq, however that is not the source of Tigris and Euphrates. If they had ever shared a common source it would have been in Turkey.

Furthermore, the bible says that the land of Cush is encompassed by one of the 4 rivers. Cush is normally taken to mean Ethiopia, which would make the river in question be the Nile. We know the nile never originated anywhere near Turkey. By my reading of Genesis, Cush should have been in the Jordan/Syria area though.

Anyway, i wondered if anyone had any bright ideas about the identity of the rivers and the locations of the various lands and peoples named in Genesis.

Euphrates, Tigris(Hiddakel), Ganges((Pison) and Nile(Gihon). Ganges on the east as we know it. Euphrates and tigris coming from Turkey on the north, Nile from the west. It was a common tactic to divert the rivers for flooding or military purposes, hence, their routes today have been changed.

Babylon/Iraq is excluded because of their lack of Gold, where India, Ethiopia(Cush) and Egypt are abundant. Both have Onyx/alabaster, but none is finer than India's.

Bdellium also known as Myrrh was found in most places, but used in Egypt for mummification.









Gold is not prevalent in Iraq, therefore, Babylon was not the area.

Umberto Ecos book "baudolino" uses alot of medieval geography and stuff. Baudolino makes a trip to the Orient to find the land of Prester John.


However they discuss the location of Eden, in terms of this medieval geography. Might want to have a peek in there....

[edit on 1/12/2004 by Corinthas]

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Euphrates, Tigris(Hiddakel), Ganges((Pison) and Nile(Gihon). Ganges on the east as we know it. Euphrates and tigris coming from Turkey on the north, Nile from the west. It was a common tactic to divert the rivers for flooding or military purposes, hence, their routes today have been changed.

Beg your pardon, but did you just say that the Nile was turned 90 degrees or more by the engineering of primitive man, and that it was done so quickly that it was of military value at the needed time?

I am afraid that without further convincing explanation, I will stick with the theory that the weight of water applied by the flood changed geography somewhat by virtue of its weight (remember that water is actually heavier than a glacier of equal volume) and has altered the course of the rivers.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Euphrates, Tigris(Hiddakel), Ganges((Pison) and Nile(Gihon). Ganges on the east as we know it. Euphrates and tigris coming from Turkey on the north, Nile from the west. It was a common tactic to divert the rivers for flooding or military purposes, hence, their routes today have been changed.

Beg your pardon, but did you just say that the Nile was turned 90 degrees or more by the engineering of primitive man, and that it was done so quickly that it was of military value at the needed time?

No, I did not because I did not single out any of teh four rivers I mentioned. However, if you doubt my statement on diversion, then you might want to do some reading of the history back in those days.

I am afraid that without further convincing explanation, I will stick with the theory that the weight of water applied by the flood changed geography somewhat by virtue of its weight (remember that water is actually heavier than a glacier of equal volume) and has altered the course of the rivers.

I have no issue with geographic changes.

Eden existed BEFORE the flood that Noah survived. During the flood any land features may have been destroyed or severly modified.

After the flood, when noah and his family settled they named the local feature using the names they remembered from their past. Just like the british did when settling new countries (The city christchurch is in a couple of places in the world for example, as is the Avon river).

So what you are looking at, using the names of the rivers is not the REAL or original rivers but merely other rivers renamed.

Has anyone ever considered that we are in Iraq, not for oil or liberation, but because religious zealots might feel that Eden is inthat part of the world and is looking for something or feels the need to reclaim it?

I know it seems far fetched, but the thought has crossed my mind on several occasions.

Hi,

I saw a TV special (don't recall the name) where an archeologist review Hebrew and ancient civilizations and made a very convincing argument that the Garden of Eden was in a valley halfway between Tabriz and the Caspian Sea in Northern Iran. It seemed to fit all of the Biblical descriptions and I found the valley on a topographical map. It is a valley on on three sides with an opening/gate to the East side of it.

I've always believed that the Garden of Eden was in some part of Africa.

Genesis Chapter 2 Verse 8 states that the Garden was planted "In Eden" to the east. My guess here is that Eden itself would be a larger geographic area of which the Garden took up some part of, but not the entire thing. That idea is seconded in Chapter 2 Verse 10 where it says the River went out of Eden to water the Garden, meaning it's origin was in Eden but it ended up in the Garden itself.

So we're talking about two locations here. In the Bible the Garden itself is where there is now supposed to be a "rotating sword of fire" guarding the entrance from the east side.

I think that could be taken as a possible clue as to a location. Not that we'll find a flaming sword anywhere, but perhaps that's a reference to some sort of geophysical barrier? Might be a clue.

Based on how God keeps going to the same area, Israel. The "Garden" may have been in of near the "Holyland". The Euphrates is nearby, wan't that one of the rivers?

Well those everso wacky Mormons believe that it was in western Missouri. Don't ask me how it got there, I just know it's what they believe... www.utlm.org... ...Wacky, wacky Mormons.

Originally posted by Netchicken
Eden existed BEFORE the flood that Noah survived. During the flood any land features may have been destroyed or severly modified.

After the flood, when noah and his family settled they named the local feature using the names they remembered from their past. Just like the british did when settling new countries (The city christchurch is in a couple of places in the world for example, as is the Avon river).

So what you are looking at, using the names of the rivers is not the REAL or original rivers but merely other rivers renamed.

Although I think that's a likely explanation there is a catch. Genesis was written by Moses according to believers and by someone later according to most skeptics. The writer was unlikely to have a great understanding of antedeluvian geography unless he had access to a previous text. Which perspective is the writer using then, and if he is using they past, why has a writer after the flood made no attempt to clarify the changes which have taken place?
I'm not really arguing against your point so much as wondering why the heck the writer would have done this to us if Genesis is 100% post-flood.

I also think it's likely that the survivors of the flood would have named familiar looking landmarks after those they had grown up with. ( Just think of all the new world cities named after those in the old world.)

It would also seem likely that much of the post flood landscape would have changed permanently, erasing the physical clues to the location of the garden.

Considering that God banished man from the garden, I would think it is some place where man still could not live--could not return to. The Sahara desert seems one possible area.....a once lush area that is no longer, river beds that have been covered by depths of sand, changed perhaps by floods (or other forces), even guarded by the firey heat of the sun ( rotating sword of fire??)....so preventing man from returning.

Originally posted by frayed1
Considering that God banished man from the garden, I would think it is some place where man still could not live--could not return to. The Sahara desert seems one possible area.....a once lush area that is no longer, river beds that have been covered by depths of sand, changed perhaps by floods (or other forces), even guarded by the firey heat of the sun ( rotating sword of fire??)....so preventing man from returning.

Somehow I had completely forgotten that, thanks for bringing it up. When I was younger I believed that the sword of fire was certain to be the greatest clue of them all. I mean how could you miss a big freakin sword made of fire meant to keep humanity out!?
Unfortunately I'm not about 90% sure that it's a metaphor. There is no shortage of desert in the area in question, so that is certainly an option. A volcano could qualify for the sword of fire, as could perhaps a meteor impact (in which case the garden may now be a crater-lake.
Another thing you point out which is interesting is that there is a LOT of sand covering that region. The missing rivers and the garden itself could be hidden under the sands.

I also just realized that the Tigris and Euphrates are a single river just above the gulf. If the gulf were dry the common river could have been there and the 4 river heads could have been further south.