It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The location of Eden

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Hurrah!
I am glad that some people took notice of my post. my ideas on this topic are ...

1. Genesis is written pre flood, and is recited by Noahs family and from there its passed down either verbally or in written form to Moses who compiled it all together.

(Don't forget Moses was one of the best educated people in Egypt having been raised in the palace with the pharoahs family. He would be well versed in the epics of Gilgamesh and other ancient texts.)

2. If Noah had been floating around for over 150 days, then they could have landed anywhere, the chances of them landing where they had originally left would be very remote. The names of the rivers are just a attempt to aleviate homesickness.




posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by frayed1
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.
That is presuming that Noah and his sons were familiar with the area on which the ark rested, which may not have been very far depending on how one interprets how the dove managed to "pluckt" a leaf from an olive tree. With waters raging 15 cubits above the mountain tops, it is not likely a leaf will remain. I agree that the topography probably changed, but does fertile land change into desert in under 2,000 years without a record event to suggest such drastic measures? I don't believe the flaming sword would be a volcano, lest it was just meant to scare trespassers away and not erupt and destroy Eden.

Edited to add: The Bible, and this Pentateuch, is supposed to be God's divine word to Moses, according to some, therefore the rivers are exactly what they were pre-flood for those believers.

[edit on 12/2/04 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Good point swib, it probably is the pre flood story.

However the sahara has remains of Roman ruins that show it was once savanna with animals, horticulture and farms. So severe land change can occur in geologically small time spans.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   
SWIB does have a good point about the "inspired scripture" angle, but seeing as I came very close to becoming a Baptist minister I think I can shed a little light on what scripture is generally considered to be.

Scripture is generally held to be inspired writing- sometimes it is dictated in a prophetic vision, and other times it is simply the writing of a person who is close to God and is considered "inspired". Scripture can make use of the writers personality, knowledge, and context, and need not be completely literal for this reason.

To most of the Christians I have known, it is perfectly acceptable to suggest that Moses was inspired by God to write Genesis from knowledge he had obtained through perfectly normal means (oral or written transmisson) and that he wrote in the imperfect context of his education as well.
Few Christians, if any, would insist in a literal interpretation- that in the days of Moses there were still 4 rivers branching off from one which included the Tigris and Euphrates.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by frayed1
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.
That is presuming that Noah and his sons were familiar with the area on which the ark rested, which may not have been very far depending on how one interprets how the dove managed to "pluckt" a leaf from an olive tree. With waters raging 15 cubits above the mountain tops, it is not likely a leaf will remain. I agree that the topography probably changed, but does fertile land change into desert in under 2,000 years without a record event to suggest such drastic measures? I don't believe the flaming sword would be a volcano, lest it was just meant to scare trespassers away and not erupt and destroy Eden.

Edited to add: The Bible, and this Pentateuch, is supposed to be God's divine word to Moses, according to some, therefore the rivers are exactly what they were pre-flood for those believers.

[edit on 12/2/04 by SomewhereinBetween]


Ahh... great point about the flamming sword. Hmm... Well, lets see if we can try to look outside the box here. Lets say the flood lasted 150 days, and Noah arrived at his destination... But where was his orginal starting point? Well, i want to look at South America. Here is a map of South America. Well, combined with its unique habitation, and woodlands, and vast rivers and mountains, there is also something that lay off the coast of Chile that perhaps you have heard of before. It is nicknamed, The Ring of Fire. Hmm, maybe we should be investigating that area a little more closely, or maybe we shouldn't, i am probably dead wrong about this, but hey, it's an idea.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Ryamp5555, you forget two things; The Euphrates and Assyria are mentioned as to the garden. So either these two were names known prior to the flood, and repeated after the flood by the descendents of Noah in areas they settled, or it is in the same geographic area.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Man, am I the only heathen on here that reads Zechariah Sitchin? He points out that Genesis is a Reader's Digest Condensed Version of several tens of thousands of old Sumerian clay tablets. Abraham was educated by the ancient Iraqi school system.

Do I believe Sitchin? No. Does he have a point? Yes.

As for ancient man having the ability to redirect rivers, beavers can do that without thumbs and with brains the size of grapes. So, yes, ancient man could redirect rivers.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
Man, am I the only heathen on here that reads Zechariah Sitchin?

Nope I read Stichen too..don't beleive it all...but theres a lot to think about in those books......I always thought prehaps Eden was not on this earth, or plane.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Earlier I realized something that should have been painfully obvious- I have been kicking myself all day for not conneting the dots earlier.

The two mystery rivers are described in relation to lands named for people who lived after the flood (Cush and Havilah- descendents of Noah through Ham and Japheth, respectively).

This nails down the flood account of Genesis to post-flood times. It also strongly implies one of two things. Either the rivers existed at the time of the writing, or the writer was able to ascertain where the rivers had been before the flood by comparing surviving landmarks to those which existed around the river before the flood. The first option is most likely, although neither seems incredibly realistic.

To me, this consideration suggests that the genesis flood account is a ficticious elaboration on the stories Moses was familiar with through his education. Since this flood story is just a copy, the discrediting of it does not necessarily discredit the entire concept of a world wide deluge, although it would obviously destroy the judeo-christian angle of the story (you might notice that Christians feel as if they "own" that story somehow).


As for the discussion of rerouting rivers- I never meant to take exception to that idea. My problem was with the inclusion of the Nile in the list. The Nile could never have shared a source with the Tigris and Euphrates. It flows an entirely different direction and is an entirely differnt place. One can scarcely argue that the Nile could have changed so radically and still been considered the same river. It is EASILY possible than some process of nature or engineering of men has caused 3 or 4 past rivers to be integrated into todays Tigris and Euphrates, but it is beyond comprehension that the Nile ever could have flowed South from the Iraq/Turkey area.

I just noticed something else interesting in my Atlas that I just think I'll toss out for everyone to chew on, even though it is heavily against the points I have just made.

Everyone turn your atlas to a low-clutter map of Asia so that you can see the heads of the Irrawaddy, Mekong, Yangtze, and Yellow Rivers, nice and close together in the mountains not far from Tarim Basin, which is basically a desert valley surrounded by some extremely high mountains and not far from the nearest point of 4 of the largest rivers in that part of the world. Just to add some extra interest to this lame coincidence, there is a city called Pishan on the south side of Tarim Basin, however there is no river near it.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
As for the discussion of rerouting rivers- I never meant to take exception to that idea. My problem was with the inclusion of the Nile in the list. The Nile could never have shared a source with the Tigris and Euphrates. It flows an entirely different direction and is an entirely differnt place. One can scarcely argue that the Nile could have changed so radically and still been considered the same river.
Take a look at a map of the area and where the Nile terminates in the Egyptian coast of the Meditterean, directly south of Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates supposedly flowed. Now note Israel to the ENE of Egypt, and the Island of Cyprus between Turkey and Egypt. Now tell me why these land masses were not one which were separated by an overflow of water of great proportions? Find the Nile delta, and trace a line northward, and you land right in Turkey. Now follow the Nile southward through Egypt and the Sudan, note the broken tributaries as you pass through Ethiopia and this: And the name of the third river is Gihon: the same it is that encompasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. Ethiopia was no mere fly by night piece of land, they in fact were not only conquerers, but had a a distinct Jewish society. It was in fact, called in Hebrew...Cush. The Nile is one of the four.




[edit on 12/4/04 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums

...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.
No. It did not terminate there as well. The verse continues...and from thence it parted, and became into four heads. Hence the garden flowed out of Eden in four tributaries. it is taken that the rivers would flow toward a lager body of water.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Take a look at a map of the area and where the Nile terminates in the Egyptian coast of the Meditterean, directly south of Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates supposedly flowed.

You have disregarded the direction of the river's flow. Tigris and Euphrates flow south out of the Moutains of Turkey into the low lying gulf of Aden.
The Nile flows North from the mountains of Ethiopia into the low lying Mediterranean sea.
For your theory to work, you need the following things to happen:
1. The mediterranean has to be dry.
2. The mediterranean has to be the same elevation as Egypt.
3. The Nile has to start in Turkey in the same place as the Tigris and Euphrates, and flow uphill into the Ethiopian Highlands.

So I say again, the Nile is not one of the rivers.



Now note Israel to the ENE of Egypt, and the Island of Cyprus between Turkey and Egypt. Now tell me why these land masses were not one which were separated by an overflow of water of great proportions?

Not to be mean, but you have not adequately expressed whatever your point is. All I see here is your statement that Israel is North East of Egypt and that Cypress is in the Mediterranean. That does not prove that they were ever linked.



Find the Nile delta, and trace a line northward, and you land right in Turkey. Now follow the Nile southward through Egypt and the Sudan, note the broken tributaries as you pass through Ethiopia


I am aware that Turkey is North of Ethiopia/Egypt. I saw a map once, back when I was in highschool. Again I'm not trying to be mean but I guess I better make sure you know this: Rivers dont all flow the same direction... well they kinda do actually. They all flow downhill, whatever cardinal direction that might be. Just because Ethiopia/Egypt is south of Turkey doesn't mean that a river would flow from Turkey to Ethiopia.



and this: And the name of the third river is Gihon: the same it is that encompasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. Ethiopia was no mere fly by night piece of land, they in fact were not only conquerers, but had a a distinct Jewish society. It was in fact, called in Hebrew...Cush.


The bible doesn't say Ethiopia, it says Cush. You are quoting a version which interprets it to mean Ethiopia in order to support your position. A lot of people agree with you. In fact so many people have believed it for so many centuries that in some cases Cush might really be referring to Ethiopia. In this case however the title was used so long ago that the meaning could easily have changed since then. By studying basic geography we can see that Ethiopia is a VERY unlikely candidate for the Cush of the river Gihon. Furthermore, by studying the locations of tribes related to Cush (Cannan) and by observing the ethnic makeup of that region, we can conclude that if Genesis is to be taken as an accurate account then Cush is almost certainly in the middle east and populated by people similar to the cannanites. Syria is far and away the most likely candidate for the land of Cush, and if the Jordan River had originated in Turkey it would flow through Syria, making Syria the land of Cush and making Jordan the Gihon.



The Nile is one of the four.
[edit on 12/4/04 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
You have disregarded the direction of the river's flow. Tigris and Euphrates flow south out of the Moutains of Turkey into the low lying gulf of Aden.
The Nile flows North from the mountains of Ethiopia into the low lying Mediterranean sea.
For your theory to work, you need the following things to happen:
1. The mediterranean has to be dry.
2. The mediterranean has to be the same elevation as Egypt.
3. The Nile has to start in Turkey in the same place as the Tigris and Euphrates, and flow uphill into the Ethiopian Highlands.
No, I don't need the Mediterrean to be dry, only the area which I previously mentioned. Which then givesGiven a flood, what is unlikely about that? or even rising waters over the course of the years 6,000? Or erosion of the banks? and yes, the Euphrates rises in Turkey. Take a look at the Euphrates at Jarabulus where it branchs off westward and halts at Gazientep, and note the river beginning just west of there which flows south toward the Mediterrean. And what is the relation of the elevation of Egypt at the coast to the like of Israel, Lebanon and Turkey that makes this impossible, today or 6,000 years ago?

The world was the area of Egypt, and Ethiopia to the south, turkey to teh north, assyria nd Persia to the west and Mesopotamia to the south of that. Given the Nile to the west, the Euphrates to the east and it's westerly low, it is safe to say that the inhabitants 6,000 years ago marked the boundaries of the world as they knew it because the rivers connected forming a square of sorts around the before terminating into the open seas.

It's fine for you to say theNile is not one, I suggest that the only reason you do is because you feel the Bible not mentioning same supports your position. While I would guess that you would not be inclined to say that topographical changes whether caused by drought/famine common to the areas, or any other reasons would not have altered the landscape. But you don't have to believe me, since I couldn't find the connection on my own either. So, in support of my connecting rivers, I give you the historical refernce from 1900 years ago. Words which come from an OT older than the thrice revised version used today.


Now the garden was watered by one river, (3) which ran round about the whole earth, and was parted into four parts. And Phison, which denotes a multitude, running into India, makes its exit into the sea, and is by the Greeks called Ganges. Euphrates also, as well as Tigris, goes down into the Red Sea. (4) Now the name Euphrates, or Phrath, denotes either a dispersion, or a flower: by Tiris, or Diglath, is signified what is swift, with narrowness; and Geon runs through Egypt, and denotes what arises from the east, which the Greeks call Nile.


Courtesy of Flavius Josephus.


Not to be mean, but you have not adequately expressed whatever your point is. All I see here is your statement that Israel is North East of Egypt and that Cypress is in the Mediterranean. That does not prove that they were ever linked.
I haven't? Then perhaps this will clear it up. The Mediterrean sea wall may not have extended east of the Nile?


Rivers dont all flow the same direction... well they kinda do actually. They all flow downhill, whatever cardinal direction that might be. Just because Ethiopia/Egypt is south of Turkey doesn't mean that a river would flow from Turkey to Ethiopia.
Really? I learn something new everyday. And not to be mean back, but I didn't realise that downhill was now a part of the compass.


The bible doesn't say Ethiopia, it says Cush...
Furthermore, by studying the locations of tribes related to Cush (Cannan) and by observing the ethnic makeup of that region, we can conclude that if Genesis is to be taken as an accurate account then Cush is almost certainly in the middle east and populated by people similar to the cannanites. Syria is far and away the most likely candidate for the land of Cush, and if the Jordan River had originated in Turkey it would flow through Syria, making Syria the land of Cush and making Jordan the Gihon.
That's right it does not. But lineage and references have led to the understanding by scholars that Ethiopia is Cush. and hogwash! We can conclude no such thing. If you want to argue that with them, then feel free. I have no need or desire cross reference the offspring of Cush to see who did what and hailed from where. Aside from your contrary bent, you can offer nothing to say it is not Ethiopia can you, despite your "furthermore?." I haven't seen god either, but I take it he is. So prove Ethiopia to be wrong and I'll hear your case then.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by The Vagabond
You have disregarded the direction of the river's flow. Tigris and Euphrates flow south out of the Moutains of Turkey into the low lying gulf of Aden.
The Nile flows North from the mountains of Ethiopia into the low lying Mediterranean sea.
For your theory to work, you need the following things to happen:
1. The mediterranean has to be dry.
2. The mediterranean has to be the same elevation as Egypt.
3. The Nile has to start in Turkey in the same place as the Tigris and Euphrates, and flow uphill into the Ethiopian Highlands.

No, I don't need the Mediterrean to be dry, only the area which I previously mentioned. Which then givesGiven a flood, what is unlikely about that? or even rising waters over the course of the years 6,000? Or erosion of the banks?

You seem to have missed my point so I will attempt to reword it to see if you and I can come to some sort of understanding and have a productive discussion. Even if dry, the Mediterranean is a low-point between Turkey and Egypt which would have to fill up entirely and then overflow on the opposite side to create a continuation of the river. This is the only way for the Nile to cross the basin which currently holds the Eastern Mediterranean.

Additionally, if the Nile originated in Turkey it would scarcely be the same river. It would flow South instead of North and would not follow a different path in Africa because what constitutes the path of least resistance for a North-bound Nile would be the path of greatest resistance for a South-bound Nile.
So like I said, for the Nile to originate in Turkey and be the River Gihon, it would have to flow uphill.



and yes, the Euphrates rises in Turkey. Take a look at the Euphrates at Jarabulus where it branchs off westward and halts at Gazientep, and note the river beginning just west of there which flows south toward the Mediterrean.

Buy an atlas which adequately depicts terrain relief, then take the most remedial science class which schools in your area provide. Water always follows the path of least resistance, which means downhill. You have described a point in Turkey where a river flows into a low area surrounded on all sides by higher points. When this happens, a lake forms (Ataturk Baraji in this case) and then the lake overflows at the lowest point on its shore, resuming the flow of the river in a downhill pattern. This function generally only causes small rises in a river and the river then continues to flow downhill towards a sea.


And what is the relation of the elevation of Egypt at the coast to the like of Israel, Lebanon and Turkey that makes this impossible, today or 6,000 years ago?

Its not the coast of Egypt so much as the depth of the Mediterranean (even if it was dry along the course of the Nile. The med is 250m or more deep in many places between Turkey and Egypt. The Med could drop so low that you could walk from Syria to Crete and the Nile still couldn't flow from Turkey to Egypt without filling up the med first. Even then it would overflow at the lowest point- not necessarily into Egypt to form a South-bound Nile.



It's fine for you to say theNile is not one, I suggest that the only reason you do is because you feel the Bible not mentioning same supports your position.

You know, that is a REALLY good reason. Suppose you are on a jury. The witnesses (the bible) say its not the defendant (the Nile). There is little if any solid evidence that it was the defendant, and other members of the jury (me) are not even convinced that it's physically possible for the defendant to have done it. All you have is the writing of a man who wasn't there (Josephus). Do you convict?



While I would guess that you would not be inclined to say that topographical changes whether caused by drought/famine common to the areas, or any other reasons would not have altered the landscape.

No you've got me all wrong there. The landscape has almost certainly changed and that has been a major part of all discussion in this thread so far. My arguement is basically that the terrain had changed so much after the flood that Gihon nolonger existed. Just look at all of the contradictions you have to stomach to make the Nile be Gihon. It has to flow from the opposite direction, starting in Turkey, fill up the Eastern Med, and overflow into Egypt and down an alternate course through Africa. It wouldn't even be the same river really!



But you don't have to believe me, since I couldn't find the connection on my own either. So, in support of my connecting rivers, I give you the historical refernce from 1900 years ago. Words which come from an OT older than the thrice revised version used today.

Flavius Josephus lived 4000 years from the incident in question and possessed an old testament from which we have many samples which show relatively strong integrity. He therefore had little advantage over us in terms of biblical integrity on the story, but was disadvantaged by a less thorough understanding/mapping of the Earth and living in a time that was more given to belief in legends.
His word on the rivers is valuable only as a look at how jews 2000 years ago thought of the account in Genesis.



Rivers dont all flow the same direction... well they kinda do actually. They all flow downhill, whatever cardinal direction that might be. Just because Ethiopia/Egypt is south of Turkey doesn't mean that a river would flow from Turkey to Ethiopia.

Really? I learn something new everyday. And not to be mean back, but I didn't realise that downhill was now a part of the compass.

Well it is. That is exactly what I said and that is exactly what I meant.

from The Vagabond When you're on a river, the needle of your compass points to the little D, which means Downhill

Now let's stop being stupid- it doesn't suit us. (You can tell me to speak for myself if you like).



The bible doesn't say Ethiopia, it says Cush...
Furthermore, by studying the locations of tribes related to Cush (Cannan) and by observing the ethnic makeup of that region, we can conclude that if Genesis is to be taken as an accurate account then Cush is almost certainly in the middle east and populated by people similar to the cannanites. Syria is far and away the most likely candidate for the land of Cush, and if the Jordan River had originated in Turkey it would flow through Syria, making Syria the land of Cush and making Jordan the Gihon.
That's right it does not. But lineage and references have led to the understanding by scholars that Ethiopia is Cush. and hogwash! We can conclude no such thing. If you want to argue that with them, then feel free. I have no need or desire cross reference the offspring of Cush to see who did what and hailed from where.

I give less than an aerial act of fornication what you desire to cross reference because it doesn't change the logical point which I have made. The river Gihon flows through the land of Cush, and every relative of Cush lived in the area surrounding the Jordan river.



Aside from your contrary bent, you can offer nothing to say it is not Ethiopia can you, despite your "furthermore?." I haven't seen god either, but I take it he is. So prove Ethiopia to be wrong and I'll hear your case then.

Well I'll give you one thing- you obviously haven't heard my case. unfortunately I can't prove Ethiopia wrong- I can only prove that it wasn't the land of Cush, which I have done. It is you who I have proven wrong.
So if my contrary bent, my geographical arguement, my biblical tribes arguement, and my repeated personal jabs at you have not impressed you, then I suggest that you answer them and press your case home, because until you have answered them I will stand by them in affirmation of my signature, which warns that I will defy ignorants.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
this is eden. y have u forgotten? r u asleep? r u sure?



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   
This book answers the question of where Eden is located:

www.amazon.com...=1102288062/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-1226363-9818365?v=glance&s=books&n=507846



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Ridicule extended in order to portray a failed sense of superiority is a waste of time on your part Vagabond. So dont fret, I understand what you have written, if you think otherwise, then it may be that you have confused yourself. As to coming to an understanding, I very much doubt it, since it seems to have not yet sunken in with you that the current condition of the landscape in the area is not necessarily an exact reflection of the area 6,000 years ago. But I note for you that the Surtsey Island and Metis Shoal attest to that. When you get around to that concept, you will have caught up a tad. You can further narrow the gap by picturing a solid land mass between Egypt and Turkey, where the Nile still flows into the Mediterranean, but prior to doing same joins the Euphrates, in much the same way the Khabur joins that, or the formation of the Shatt al Arab. In case you think this concept impossible and as I presume that you are American, I draw your attention the Wabash, Ohio and Mississippi rivers.


Buy an atlas which adequately depicts terrain relief, then take the most remedial science class which schools in your area provide.
Now now, dont be petty, I am not the one mentioning the Nile originating in Turkey. Nor am I the one who erroneously read from a post that the Nile turned 90 degrees. Nevertheless, a whole 250 metres makes it impossible for Egypt to have linked with Turkey does it? All right, lets review this thread which asked about the location of Eden, and was asked by you I might add:

So if Eden exists as per the only source of this information, then we presume we have no more than 5,764 years to its creation, leaving out the geological knowledge that the Mediterranean was at one time reduced to two lakes which probably even dried up (or maybe it was dry to begin with) over a period of almost 1 million years. Since we cant go there, lets go to the source which brought about your query then, the Bible:

The flood waters covered all the high hills by 15 cubits or 11.6metres. Well that leaves out Iraq unless these high hills do not include mountains, where in Iraq you find them bordering Turkey and Iran, and where we have the Elzburg peering down at you from its 5,737m summit. It would also leave out anything in Egypt as per the Euphrates since the highest peak is Mt. St. Catherine at 2,624m above sea level, as well as Ethiopia with Mount Ras Deshen at 4,620m feet. It is obvious that you find 250 metres an insurmountable height for waters to cover, considering of course you knew of the heights I provide above. Waters that gathered for forty days and nights, which took 270 days from start to the return of the dove with good news, for the waters to recede. Noah speaks of no other rain, so to where exactly did all this water disappear? It certainly did not all evaporate, or we would have read of another deluge, wouldnt we? But maybe you have forgotten even the light explanation you gave:

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. And 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?
Is it that you are only looking to be contrary as I have stated already, or are you also forgetful, even tossing out whatever comes to your fingertips?

You offer that the Jordan, and the proviso; if it stills exists at all is the Jordan, and Havilleh as Iran, because of nomadic flows, and albeit you do so with no support, yet you are quick to argue to the point your fonts are almost blue with my claim of the Nile.

Still further, you toss this noodle;

A volcano could qualify for the sword of fire
Really? Only if it is not meant to erupt, and by the way, is there any volcano today which has not been investigated by man? Have any found a sword of fire? Do you suppose God would have planned for this?

Then this:

I also just realized that the Tigris and Euphrates are a single river just above the gulf. Just? You just realised this and you are arguing about the rivers in the region?
Still lingering far behind you then suddenly surprise yourself:

It also strongly implies one of two things. Either the rivers existed at the time of the writing, or the writer was able to ascertain where the rivers had been before the flood by comparing surviving landmarks to those which existed around the river before the flood.
If they existed then what happened to them that causes you to challenge my claiming they existed as an interconnected system at one time and those surviving landmarks that in your own words suggest some no longer survive?

In closing, your opening post stated:

If they (Euphrates and Tigris)had ever shared a common source it would have been in Turkey.


I stated;

Take a look at a map of the area and where the Nile terminates in the Egyptian coast of the Meditterean, directly south of Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates supposedly flowed.


How confused are you really and just lhow much are you ooking to be argumentative?

You have disregarded the direction of the river's flow. Tigris and Euphrates flow south out of the Moutains of Turkey into the low lying gulf of Aden.


I am not demanding you or anyone else believe my theories Vagabond, for if the reality of the issues were known they would not be theories. What I do ask though is that you post with consistency of thought unless you make it clear that your research leads to believe otherwise. One does not learn by presenting fallacy and whimsical notions as refutation especially when it counters ones own argument, and this is precisely what you have done. If you want a bone to bolster your own delusion, I will throw you oneThe garden of Eden story had nothing to do with the globe. Now you decide just how you wish to reduce that statement into something which pleases you.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Never in my life have I experienced such dire failure to communicate. I dont think you and I have successfully replied to the true meaning of eachothers posts even once.
We each seem convinced that the other is a moron, and if this bickering continues we will prove eachother right.

If you insist that the battle of wits continue, you and I may see fit to join the debate forum at some point in the future, but for the present I am sick of speaking in inuendo and disguising points simply for the joy of accusing eachother of misunderstanding.

I do not understand what you are proposing about the Nile because the Nile today origniates in the South. The obvious question is this: Do you think the Nile formerly originated in the North and flowed South? If so it changes the origin and the course of the river and I would suggest that perhaps its not really the same river at all then. If you believe the Nile always flowed South to North, I do not understand how it can meet the description of a river which shares its source with Euphrates and Tigris, and I would need you to explain your vision for that. The depth of the mediterranean is a secondary issue which we can raise later if relevant, although I do not believe it to be relevant unless you argue that the Nile flowed out of Turkey and into Egypt without varying significantly from its modern path. Your adequate explanation would go along way towards making me receptive to your claims. I strongly encourage you to be explicit, even to the point of drawing pictures, rather than making non-specific allusions to terrain features which you feel are similiar in modern times. Why post at all if we aren't going to communicate our points in a clear manner?


My point, which I fear has been either misunderstood or ignored, is that there is some evidence for the Jordan because of the locations of other Hamitic peoples and the racial composition of those people, which is not so similiar to that of the Ethiopians, which makes them less likely as descendents of Cush if we honor the account provided by the Bible. I understand that you do not respect this evidence, and you are free to disagree, but it would be unfair to continue saying that I have claimed the Jordan without evidence in order to be contrary.
If Jordan and Orontes joined, and were fed by extinct tributaries from the mountains of Turkey, it would be a relatively small logical leap to see the Jordan as having common origin with Euphrates.


A few seeming contradictions in my posts that I should clear up:
1. Some rather unforunate phrasing on my part has lended itself to humor. I obviously did not "just figure out" that Tigris and Euphrates join, so much as I had "just had an idea associated with that poin which I have prevously ignored".
2. I consistently have believed that major affects on terrain resulted from the weight of flood waters, however this information is little good to us because we have little if any clue what changes occurred.
3. The realization that the Genesis account originates after the flood is highly problematic. It creates almost insurmountable confusion about the tense (pre or post flood) of the writers description, and therefore of the relevance of the description. As I have pointed out, I believe this to be evidence that the Genesis flood account is a purely ficticious summary of the Gilgamesh epic with a Hebrew spin on it. This of course makes this entire debate an excercise in futility. I have set this aside for the moment simply because I can not know the authenticity of the Genesis flood account for certain, but it is still possible to debate the logic of various theories apart from the truth or fiction of the event.
4. I have in fact proposed ideas in which I had little or limited confidence simply because there is no reason to limit our consideration of possibilites. I have just randomly promoted anything which comes to mind as if it were a fact written in stone.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Never in my life have I experienced such dire failure to communicate. I dont think you and I have successfully replied to the true meaning of eachothers posts even once.
We each seem convinced that the other is a moron, and if this bickering continues we will prove eachother right.

If you insist that the battle of wits continue,...
Well I have experienced this failure to which you refer, there have been those who would steal the cake from you.

I do not partake in debate forums on internet boards, it is after all, just an internet forum. I had enough of debating at St. Cross college for teh two years I was there, and those at least were rewarding. If you look to have others in ATSN validate your opinions that a 40 day flood 6,000 years ago could not raise the water level and alter the landscape, or that the rivers could not have been diverted, or that famine did not play a role, or that you did not allude to my claiming that the Nile would have risen from Turkey, or that you understood erroneously that I suggested same was once the Euphrates, and that it took a 90 degree turn, or that your 250m is just too high a depth for flood waters to fill claim has merit, then just ask the members to endorse your stance. I am sure you will find many willing to support you. Does it prove anything? Are they willing to provide their credentials to attest to their knowledge of the subject? Your behaviour has been like that of a child looking for acknowledgement.

I dont really care where the Nile today originates or where it may have originated 6,000 years ago. What is so difficult in that for you to understand? The question in that regard is; did it once converge with the Euphrates? and until you can prove to me that two rivers despite flowing in opposite directions (regardless of your downhill directional nonsense), can converge or empty into the same basin, you do not have a plausible argument against my position. Since I presented to you the statement of Flavius Josephus, which must have brought about a mild heart attack, as you deliberately ignored same, will the following synopses assist you at all on the information you lack, or will you ignore them as well?

en.wikipedia.org... The geology of the Mediterranean is quite complex, involving multiple periods of drying and re-flooding from the Atlantic OceanThe Sea was reduced to a couple of lakes with varying salinity and probably even dried up, leaving for quite some time a desolate salt basin.
The first solid evidence for this came in the summer of 1970, Other evidence of drying comes from the remains of many (now submerged) canyons that were cut into the sides of the Mediterranean basin by river action when it was dry. The area underwent repeated flooding and dessication over a 700,000 year span.
www.fig.net...
Seal level data over the period 1990-2001
A figure of monthly mean values at Ashdod and tel-aviv stations during 1990-2001 shows a gradual increase of Mediterrean sea level in the last decade.
www.agu.org...
The steric sea level variability in the Mediterranean Sea is estimated from the Medar climatology. Temperature variations cause most of the overall steric sea level change in the upper 400 m. Between 1960 and the 1990s cooling of the upper waters of the Eastern Mediterranean caused reduction in the steric heights while after 1993 warming caused sea level to rise.
Cyprus: archaeology.about.com.../XJ&sdn=archaeology&zu=http://www.nyu.edu/projects/yeronisos/ severe erosion has left its flanks dangerously steep and exposed

Need I continue, and for the Atlantean theorists? Sure, why not?

www.atlantishistory.net... the Mediterrean sea level must have dropped from one hunded fifty to three hundred meters or more several years ago, by chance divers found submerged entrances (below sea level) in southern france, which subsequently led them to discover the now famous prehistoric cave paintings there.There are many man-made stne structures around the Mediterranean that are now under water as well.

Do you think you have a case really, other than De Nile? You have offered nothing but naysaying, as if that effectively counters a position. Now that you have reduced me to toying with you. I will leave it at that until you actually come forward with more than just a mish-mash of conflicting thoughts and a demonstrable propensity to avoid substance in your rebuttal.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   

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.
Thats interesting.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join