Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Garden Of Eden

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by BradPimp
For years, I was taught the garden of eden was true. Now I wonder. Was the garden of eden truly a place or just a nice little story with a moral and why our lives suck so badly?

People throughout history have talked about some paradise lost, and this is an interesting one.

What do you guys think?


Some people say that Eden is hidden or cloaked so we cannot see it. However who really knows, i tend to believe its more of a state of mind than an actual place.




posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Bandit, I fail to understand what your objection is.
Read the bible, its all in there. The logical sequence puts the Garden Of Eden first, and the Flood second

What more do you want????


Originally posted by TheBandit795

Originally posted by Netchicken


Yes it was between the Tigris and the Euphrates, but those rivers are not the same Tigris and Euphrates mentioned in the Garden of eden part of the bible.


After the Garden of Eden, there was the great flood, with Noah etal in the boat. After the waters receded and people started to settle the landthen those rivers were named, with the names they remembered from their home pre flood.

So the rivers called the Tigris and the Euphrates in the Garden of Eden are different from the rivers today called the Tigris and Euphrates.

And following that through to its logical conclusion, the actual site of Eden could be ANYWHERE on the earth, that would fit the criteria back then. Not in the Iraq region at all.


Netchicken,

Those are baseless claims, unless you have evidence that this happened.


[Edited on 29-11-2003 by Netchicken]



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
Bandit, I fail to understand what your objection is.
Read the bible, its all in there. The logical sequence puts the Garden Of Eden first, and the Flood second

What more do you want????


Originally posted by TheBandit795

Originally posted by Netchicken


Yes it was between the Tigris and the Euphrates, but those rivers are not the same Tigris and Euphrates mentioned in the Garden of eden part of the bible.


After the Garden of Eden, there was the great flood, with Noah etal in the boat. After the waters receded and people started to settle the landthen those rivers were named, with the names they remembered from their home pre flood.

So the rivers called the Tigris and the Euphrates in the Garden of Eden are different from the rivers today called the Tigris and Euphrates.

And following that through to its logical conclusion, the actual site of Eden could be ANYWHERE on the earth, that would fit the criteria back then. Not in the Iraq region at all.


Netchicken,

Those are baseless claims, unless you have evidence that this happened.


[Edited on 29-11-2003 by Netchicken]


The problem is... what are you basing your assumptions that the location is not at the original Tigris and Euphrates Rivers? Is this just your speculation or is there something to back up your claim? You haven't provided evidence yet about that.

Yes, there could be another location where those names were used before, but unless you have some information backing up your claim that it is somewhere else, we should start at the current Tigris and Euphrates.



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 04:05 PM
link   
what evidence wou;d you accept? Would you like me to give you the location?



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Ahhh!!
I see...


Well considering that the earth was covered for 150(?) days, that there were wild storms, etc, then not only would the covered earth change its features, but also they might have been blown anywhere.

The chances of them staying in the same place after all that time is marginal.

Also when the water finally subsided the topography may have been so altered that they would have had no idea where they came from and where they were now.

I think that to assume they landed in the same place they left is harder to acept than they floated to a new place and landed there.



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
what evidence wou;d you accept? Would you like me to give you the location?


If you have one that you think should be checked, yeah, tell us, by all means.

But providing speculation that the place we're looking for isn't where we think it is without giving any information as to what other locations could be checked doesn't really help, I think. You have to eliminate the known stuff before looking at the unknown.

If it could be anywhere, as you and Netchicken have alluded to, we need to find something to point us in the right direction at least.

I mean no disrespect by my answers, but in a search for something like this, I think that you need to go by something a little more concrete than, "it could be anywhere, but not the place we're looking at."

I agree that Baghdad's area may not be the right spot. But if you have any ideas on how to narrow the focus in a search for another site, so we're not excavating the whole planet (except Baghdad) in search of some evidence of the Garden of Eden, that's what we need to hear.

See what I mean?



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Okay, I see now that you're both apparently going strictly by the story presented in the Bible, for your information.

What time frame in history would that place it at? And yes, I'm being serious here.

That does make a difference in whether or not the land has been changed too drastically to go by the Bible's description for the location.



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
Bandit, I fail to understand what your objection is.
Read the bible, its all in there. The logical sequence puts the Garden Of Eden first, and the Flood second

What more do you want????



That's not sufficient. We don't know for sure if that really happened. The stories in genesis were myth IMO... Where is the archeological evidence?? The archeological evidence that there were a different euphrates and tigris than there are now. That is what will satisfy me.



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795

Originally posted by Netchicken
Bandit, I fail to understand what your objection is.
Read the bible, its all in there. The logical sequence puts the Garden Of Eden first, and the Flood second

What more do you want????



That's not sufficient. We don't know for sure if that really happened. The stories in genesis were myth IMO... Where is the archeological evidence?? The archeological evidence that there were a different euphrates and tigris than there are now. That is what will satisfy me.


That's the point I was trying to make, albeit not so neatly as you just did, Bandit.


If the stories are taken as an actual occurence or not, which apparently you three disagree on, you have to go by whatever evidence exists at those sites. And if you believe the stories are true, then you really need to be even more mindful that the actual names and places match up, I think.

I personally have no problem saying that Eden existed, as I said, and given the prehistoric era I believe we're looking at, Iraq would have had an abundance of vegetation and animal life. That fits the description of the setting.



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 05:20 PM
link   
again, what proof would you accept? There are many other "clues" to where it IS. Yes, my research shows it was, and it, a real place. You want a hint? You must extract yourself frm the matrix education you have recived, and open your mind.

If you havent found it where you have searched, look elsewhere. It might even be in a place that was once thought to be strictly a myth. And you also must consider that there is in place "Secret Societies" who's only real job is to divert your eyes from its true location.

Open your mind..........................



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Nooooooooooo!!!

ASE is slipping into his "Hollow Earth" delusion....




posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Netty, I didnt say that, you did
No, Im refering to the vrill and the Thule society's that clame some kind of advanced, ancient, civalization up north. Im sure they would know where it is, if , they are real................



posted on Nov, 30 2003 @ 12:36 AM
link   
i believe the really so called garden of eden actually are some sort like a BIOSPHERE or HIGHLY ADVANCED LAB
which is the ANGEL created by the order of GOD in our term the meaning same as the earth ground station.well that my own believe anyway



posted on Nov, 30 2003 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Hmm..interesting...I always thought Eden to be a place of higher exsistance, but not quite heaven. Perhaps it is a physical place, maybe not. Cool thread, but, uh Baghdad? Yeah...right...



-wD



posted on Nov, 30 2003 @ 01:17 AM
link   
with all the crazy # people believe in today, I can't see it being far off.
the only thing I would like to know is although this was before the serpent was struck down, why would
God give the serpent the opportunity to corrupt beings created in His likeness?

don't answer that, I dont expect anyone to speak for God nor do I judge his actions. Just a thought out loud

TRUESABBATH



posted on Nov, 30 2003 @ 01:40 AM
link   
i think the garden of eden if a representation of a peaceful civilization which existed before ours and then they found something out and fell from the peace



posted on Nov, 30 2003 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
again, what proof would you accept? There are many other "clues" to where it IS. Yes, my research shows it was, and it, a real place. You want a hint? You must extract yourself frm the matrix education you have recived, and open your mind.

If you havent found it where you have searched, look elsewhere. It might even be in a place that was once thought to be strictly a myth. And you also must consider that there is in place "Secret Societies" who's only real job is to divert your eyes from its true location.

Open your mind..........................


Okay, I can see that there has to be a failure in communication here, so I'm going to explain myself more.

I asked for whatever clues you're referring to, whatever led you to this belief that it's not simply prehistoric Iraq.

Give me a starting point.

Give me something to look at.

Give me anything that supports your viewpoint that is more specific than "the land might have been washed away so they had to rename it."

Give me a source of your information.

Give me a reference.

Something.

Anything.

That's all I'm asking for here. Give me some kind of evidence that supports your viewpoint.

I already know, from reading about effects of the Ice Age, Iraq could have fit the general description of the landscape during an Ice Age, which is why I point to that one as a likely possibility. The reason you don't see it as a paradise now is because the Ice Age is over and it's a desert.

What do you have that led you to your viewpoint?

As far as being open minded, I can do that. I prefer to come to my own conclusions on matters instead of simply blindly accepting anyone else's ideas. If there is more than one story, I tend to go with the one that has the least gaps.

So please don't lecture me about blindly accepting the education of the matrix. Blind acceptance of any "education" is what leads us from the truth. In my opinion, more researchers need to keep a truly open mind and factor in information from all sources, orthodox and alternative, before claiming to have the answers to everything.

In any historical investigation, you have to accept all sources as being possibly valid until you can investigate them further. I'm simply asking you to tell me your source so I can check it for myself.

I might be right. I might be wrong. But I can't decide that without something to back up both possibilities. I go with whatever seems to have the most information to support it.

I'm sorry if that seems to be too much to ask.

I thought that was the purpose of this website and this forum, to give everyone a chance to look at other ideas and other sources of information, not to blindly accept someone else's "education" in place of the "matrix education" you refer to, ASE. Blind acceptance of any idea is neither an example of being open minded, nor is it denying ignorance.

I'd like to apologize if this seems like a personal attack on your beliefs of some kind, ASE and Netchicken. It really isn't. I just ask for reasons why I should see it from your viewpoint.



posted on Nov, 30 2003 @ 05:47 AM
link   
I see nobody uses and reacts on the ideas which I posted in my previous posts that it is just synonymous, well oke that's up to you, goodluck finding a place on earth which fits the describtions of a garden with 2 very very special trees



posted on Nov, 30 2003 @ 07:47 AM
link   
You guys are ALL wrong...

People just suggest that the Garden of Eden is between the Tigris n' Euphrates River coz that region is called the FERTILE CRESCENT.... Very fertile soil suggest more lush vegetaion n' trees which attract more animals. But this region was probably deforested by the recent activities of desertification.
In ancient times, the 1st known cilivilzation called Sumerians benefited from this fertile region but at present, we see battleground and desert....

So people just suggest and hypothesis that its there...



posted on Nov, 30 2003 @ 07:50 AM
link   
O and also the rivers once carried a rich soil called silt which is deposited yearly by flooding into the soil. The silt is now blocked by the dam in Turkey to provide hydroelectric power





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join