Talk:Garden of Eden

The Garden Of Eden

It is located offshore in the Persian Gulf. This region was once land, then probably around the time of the flood it was covered with water. One Pison (Saudi Arabia)no longer exists. One Gihon (Iran) still exists. The other two Tigris and Euphrates are well known in Iraq. The problem with finding it is because it is buried under the sea.

Wayne

---

Is it worth pointing out that God lies to Adam, while the serpent tells the truth (Gen. 2:17, 3:4-5, 5:3)? I always thought the fact that God is revealed to be a liar is one of the most interesting parts of the story. —Ashley Y 05:42, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

Then you ought to read some of the Gnostic interpretations of the story. They believe that Yaldabaoth, an evil god, wanted to keep humanity enslaved to him. But the creator-goddess Sophia came to earth in the form of a snake to free humanity and show them spiritual truths (the knowlege of good and evil). It was Yaldabaoth who gave the Jews the Law (to keep them in line) -- until Sophia, in the form of Jesus, told his/her disciples the true way to salvation: love everyone, and don't be bound by the law. Fascinating stuff. Quadell (talk) 15:32, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not God lies depends on what you believe was being said. I understand that the Hebrew for "die" used here has the meaning or connotation of an ongoing process ("dying you shall die", or "you will be dying, dying, dying, until you are finally dead"). It is true that Adam didn't die as we normally understand the word today, on the day that he ate the fruit, but it is true that on that very day Adam changed from a being that would live forever into a mortal man that would one day die. And thus began the process of "dying", of deteriorating with age, that led to his eventual physical death. It is also true (assuming that what the Bible describes is true) that he "died" spiritually that very day.

To suggest that "God lied", presupposes a different interpretation of the passage, and as such is hardly an NPOV.Philip J. Rayment 14:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to watch the intellectual contortions is revealing. Wetman 16:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Did God lie? 2 "This article is about the mythological location..." 3 myth vs belief 4 Though most readers with a secular outlook interpret the Garden of Eden as no more than a legend

Did God lie?

The Hebrew of Genesis 2:17 can more literally be translated "for in day of your eating of it dying you will die." The expression parallels that in v. 16: "eating you may eat." The man and woman ceased to be immortal (or became aware of their mortality), and "began to die."

I believe there is also a rabbinic rationale that goes like this: To God, 1,000 years = 1 day (Psalm 90:4). The man Adam lived only 930 years (Genesis 5:5). Therefore, in the "day" he ate the fruit, he died. DonEtz

"This article is about the mythological location..."

A neutral point of view would not refer to the Garden of Eden as a mythological location. To call the belief system of two of the worlds main religions (Judaism and Christianity) a myth is not neutral. Many of the followers of these religions believe that the book of Genesis is literal. Whether you beleive Eden to be fact or fiction is irrelevant. Personnal opinion is automatically interjected and assumed to be truth when you refer to it as "mythological." Personnal opinion is fine, AS LONG AS YOU RECOGNIZE IT AS PERSONAL OPINION.

Since this article assumes personal opinion as truth, let me indulge. My opinion is valueless. According to the infalable word of God, the earth and all other things were created in six days. His crowning touch were Adam and Eve. The very fact that we all exist is testament to this fact. God placed this first man and first woman, the crown of His creation, those made in His own image, into a place prepared specifically for them i.e. the Garden of Eden. Read your Bible. It's right there.

A better choice of words might be "This article is about the Judeo Christian Biblical location."

This rant may be mainstream talk in Utah and upper Arkansas, but the writer can't imagine how odd it sounds in the world of cities. --Wetman 21:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In response to the person's remaks about Utah and Arkansas; I am writing fom Albany N.Y., the capitol of N.Y. Friend, God's word is absolute and true in city and country from the U.S. to China. --Entrprs6

Oh, you Hare Krishna people are just everywhere. Nevertheless the Garden of Eden is mythic... --Wetman 18:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Eden is fact. The scripture is fact. Whether you or I believe it or not, God remains living and faithful. For you to refer to me as "Hare Krishna" is like me refering to you as a man or a woman without regard to your actual gender. I will belabor this no more. Jesus is Lord and I sincerely hope you see this one day. For the record, I am born again Christian. From hereon, I will not respond, because I will not drag His word through the mud for the sake of an arguement. You can have the last word if you choose, but God will have the final say. --Entrprs6 18 Nov 2004

Wikipedia is not My Big Bible Coloring Book.

Neither is it My Little Atheist Book of Religious Put-downs. Philip J. Rayment 00:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The word "myth" does not mean "untrue". Abraham Lincoln is a mythical figure in U.S. history. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:39, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

You are correct about "myth". However, I have found that people that believe in evolution vehemently object to using the word "believe" with regard to evolution, as I have done in this sentence. It is a perfectly legitimate use of the word, except for the connotations that it has in some people's minds. Similarly with "myth"; it is an accurate use of the word, but the connotations that exists in many people's minds is offensive. I would rather see it changed, and wording similar to Entrprs6's suggestion should be more acceptable all round. Philip J. Rayment 06:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it, Quadell. Philip J. Rayment 21:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

myth vs belief

I changed the text "creation myth" to "creation belief." The latter terms sounds less disparaging (and therefore more NPOV).
--ZekeMacNeil 03:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you think "myth" is disparaging, one supposes that you will be able to resist tampering with any. --Wetman 04:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Though most readers with a secular outlook interpret the Garden of Eden as no more than a legend

I removed this phrase again because it was completely out of place. Though it is true its placement serves no purpose where it is. Criticism of literal and historic interpretitaions of the Genisus account should be handled in a professional and NPOV manner. I suggest a new section be created to deal with the various views on the accuracy of the Genisus account which can deal with the strength and weakness of each point of view as well as descriptions of how popular each theory is and with whom.