Talk:Garden of Eden/Archive 1

Old posts

This statement - 'However as the four rivers were never intended to be anything other than spiritual concepts, the point is moot.' - doesn't seem NPOV. Setting aside questions of biblical truth, it makes a statement about authorial intent on the part of biblical author(s) - and given the debate over biblical authorship, I suspect it's difficult to assign uncontroversial intent to the author of Genesis. I also don't see what the sentence adds to the article, and recommend that it be deleted. It may, however, be worthwhile for someone with some sources to write a section in the article that discusses the implications of the Garden as a metaphor - but that discussion would seem to best be in a seperate section of the article and not appear as a direct modifier on statements about a hypothetical location for the Garden.

69.230.104.77 05:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I find the whole statement that the rivers were meant only symbolicly to be opinionated. There is no evidence whatsoever that the people who place eden as the source of the four rivers intended it to be metaphoric. You can argue that A) they are talking about four other rivers B) The rivers have shifted because of the "Flood" or C) They are wrong and assumed a common source based entirely on heresay. I don't beleive in creationism, but I don't doubt for a second that the people who attributed Eden to be the source of the rivers weren't working from a long and evolving story that had been handed down for generations until it took form when the book of Genesis was finally written down by Hebrew scribes. That's my opinion, but I think that the statement that they intended for it to be taken metaphorically is stupid at best (a modern Christian might take it metaphorically but I doubt that ancient Hebrews did)and at any rate is pure conjecture and has no place being written down as fact.

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

---

The Genesis account clearly states that Eden is located near the source of the four rivers. Noah is recorded in the Book of Jasher as referring to Eden as part of a boundary when dividing the earth between his three sons, so he is clearly referring to a particular location which existed prior to and after the flood, and which no one disputed. The rivers are not buried under the sea, and they are not difficult to find.

Cobblers 10:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Did God lie?

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)

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 kind of discussion points out the absurdity of literalism. If you realize that it's all a metaphor, it works. Wahkeenah 09:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Also, God can lie if He wants to. "Thou shalt not lie" was a commandment to humans, not God's rule for Himself. Wahkeenah 13:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• He didn't lie, satan told a half truth. God never said they wouldn't become like him, in fact he said he made them like him. The lie satan told was that they would not die, when God said they would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.190.208 (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Did God Lie? I also think that is the most interesting revelation of the story. But you're missing a few key elements.

First, If I may indulge in an analagy: The story of the butterfly.

The butterfly sits in its cocoon, right?

The cocoon nourishes and protects the forming butterfly.

Then the butterfly busts loose. It flys away.

One day a scientist cut open the cocoon, and the butterfly escaped, but it didn't fly away. It just fell and died.

Turns out, the actual act of busting loose from the cocoon strengthens the butterfly's wings before entering the world to the point where it may survive it.

Without exercising its wings upon entering the world, it fails in the world.

Ok. Now to the Garden of Eden.

Let's, for the sake of conversing, say that what the Bible says is true:

1. God created the heavens and the angels 2. God created earth 3. God created Adam and Eve with free will 4. And God placed them in the Garden of Eden 5. God told them not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge 6. The Devil told them it was OK 7. Once having eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, they are banished from the garden and sent unto the whole of the Earth

A couple of things are amiss.

Supposedly:

1. God created the whole Earth

and

2. God created Adam and Eve with the capacity to survive adversity on the whole Earth

however

3. He created them with minds, having the ability to make choices and to understand

yet

4. He wanted them to abstain from the Tree of Knowledge?

and furthermore

5. Remain in the Garden of Eden which insures their nourishment and protection?

even stranger

6. The Devil is just an angel, and has no free will

thus

7. Lucifer's actions are not of his own will, unlike Adam and Eve's, but of God's will

The only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that God's original plan all along was for man to roam the Earth in its entirety, and to possess the fruits from the Tree of Knowledge;

But not until man exercised the ability to make choices, and to choose on the side of desire and self-interest (qualities necessary for surviving in the harsh reality of mother nature) and curiosity (a quality necessary for real knowledge).

Just as the butterfly must prove itself worthy of life as a butterfly, so did man (through Eve, oddly enough).

So you can choose to see the Garden of Eden as a cocoon, where a catipilliar dies and butterfly is born.

Thus, God didn't lie.

Or you can view it as some well meant reverse-psychology.

"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)

To call Lincoln "mythical" is a stretch. Regarding evolution, people don't "believe in evolution" as such, they believe in science, which can demonstrate the validity of evolutionary theory. People "believe" in the Bible because they want to, but it is not demonstrably valid. Wahkeenah 04:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Not demonstrably valad, of course, except for the many historical parallels from other cultures among other things, but I digress. Anyway, 'myth' is on the list of words to avoid for obvious reasons. --208.127.64.127 19:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

To anyone who may take the time to read this, please i beseech you email me any information that you may have on the location of the garden of eden. Anything is welcome a their may be something i have overlooked. If you wish to help me on my search please also email me. yours, A. Franklin franklinaj@sherborne.org

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.

The Garden of Eden in North West Iran

Rohl's view and the evidence that supports it is pretty convincing. What do you think?

That Sumer lay in the northwest of Iran and that the land of Cockaigne lay in modern Belgium? --Wetman 19:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Here are the 4 rivers mentioned in the bible:

[Media:http://www.ramsdale.org/eden1.jpg]

This article had some interesting points in it:

link

David Rohl does not appear to have thoroughly investigated the geography of the area. Most importantly, water flows downhill. So unless Eden is hundreds of kilometres wide, and includes a couple of mountain ranges, the concept is impossible. His river flowing east into the Caspian is the Mlktavi, which starts in the Caucasus at the north. In my view, therefore, Rohl's suggestion is not convincing.

Cobblers.

The rivers flowing east into the Caspian are the Gibon and Pishon I thought. What does your reference to rivers flowing downhill relate to?

Just cause the rivers have the same name doesn't mean its the same river. We name places and people after old or parished stuff all the time. After the global flood, the Garden of Eden would be covered by hundreds of feet of sediments. All the different random rock layers formed during Noah's flood. When he got out of that ark, it was a very different world. completly new land mass, alot more ocean. So in reality, there is no way to tell cause where ever it is, its under hundreds of feet of ground,

What do you base your notion of river names being arbitrary? To my recollection names of rivers are among the most persistent names there are. 83.250.194.180 22:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Yoki

garden of earthly delights

I think the exact subject matter of this painting is too ambigious to be included in this topic. As an encyclopedia, I don't think it is appropriate. <<< posted by a-none 24.9.154.109 at 18:36, 22 October 2005

• Your comment is even more "ambigious" than the painting is. Wahkeenah 18:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Religion vs Information

It is rather interesting to read many of the comments. Some of the comments are very informative, but many seem to be based on religious bias. As there are many religions in the world, it would be impossibale to say that one or an other is the"true" religion. It is also clear that the majoritty of the population of the world is neither Christian nor Jew. I fall into this category. But I am interested in both for their historic value.

One thing very apparant is the lack of discussion of the origin of the Paradice storey. It is very clear that the Abrahamic religions developed the Paradice storey from the Sumerian storey. Fortuantely the Sumerian texts have survived. Abraham having lived somewhere between 1900 and 2250 BCE, whereas the Sumerian texts date to around 3500 BCE. The Sumarian texts refer to Dilman (Paradise) and the original Man and Woman, the tree, the fruit and indeed the snake.

It would be very helpful for some learned person out there to elabourate on the Sumerian storey, as this is the first written version "Paradise" storey and clearly gives rise to the Abrahamic version. After all Abraham was born in or around the city of Ur, first established by the Sumerians, where at the time of Abraham, the Sumerian writing system was still in vogue, although the language was Akkadian and after the Ur-111 period, whence the first Semethic rulers of the region reigned.

- -

It is widely accepted that the Torah account was written by Moses, based on verbal tradition from the time of Noah, who survived the flood. It does not therefore follow that a Sumerian account is "older", but may well have been first written. An account of the creation of everything of necessity has to be unique, so all paradise stories must relate to the singular event, or be fabricated. It is therefore not surprising that the Sumerian story includes the same unusual key features.

Cobblers 10:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is not "widely accepted that Moses wrote the Torah". That is Hebrew mythology. The Pentateuch is, of course, called "The books of Moses", although it is just as often called "The Law" portion of the Jewish Bible (i.e. the Old Testament). But ol' Mose would have to have been pretty clever to write about his own death after the fact, ja? The Hebrews took words from their various captors, such as the names of the months in the Jewish calendar. Be careful about trying to impose your literalist viewpoint of the Bible upon this article, my son. 0:) Wahkeenah 11:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I guess I could have said that it is generally accepted that Moses wrote most of the Torah, but even that statement cannot be adequately supported. I do have a literalist view point, and believe that such a perspective has its place in a topic like this, of course stated with balance and objectivity. It does appear, though, that the topic may be becoming too broad, as it is starting to extend into an alternative topic of relative creation myths.

Your removal of my Sumer alteration is accepted. I do not have definitive proof for precedence, and therefore should not have made the change.

I do however have some concerns with the usefulness of the entire Sumerian statement, and now wonder (trying not to show any bias) what positive benefit its inclusion provides. The Garden of Eden is for many a literal story of beginnings, and is recorded as a Hebrew story. The suggestion that the principal name of Eden is derived from another language group, particularly for a creation story, tends to undermine or derogage the belief system, and may imply fabrication. The statement is therefore best not made unless there is strong supporting evidence, certainly more than a suggestion based on the assumed sound of the words. I would not expect a link between the Sumerian word for plain and the Hebrew word for pleasure. I would therefore like to see the statement removed.

Cobblers 03:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Alternatively, just keep it to the fact that the Sumerians and the Hebrews had a similar word, and since we weren't around at the time, and in the absence of any concrete evidence, you can't say that either is derived from the other, only that they are similar, ja? That's why, when I put the statement back, I said it was possible, as opposed to the previous statement that indicated it was certain. In fact, my flippant comments aside, it is equally possible that the Sumerian word came from the Hebrew, as implied by the Judeo-Christian belief system. So, leaving it that the words are similar is all we can say for certain. However, that leaves a separately-headed section with a single sentence, so perhaps it should be simply part of another section. Have we sufficiently over-analyzed this by now? :) Wahkeenah 08:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I done did it myself. Please check the results. :) Wahkeenah 09:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Much appreciated. Cobblers 11:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a minor epiphany... you made a correction about the garden being "east, in Eden". That's the biblical phraseology, right? Even if "Eden" supposedly means "delight" in Hebrew, that usage sounds a lot more like geography, i.e. like the Sumerian word, and maybe the Hebrew also originally meant "plain" or whatever, and took on the meaning "delight" due to its association with the garden. My apologies if the article already states this, but if it doesn't: to put it simply, the presumed location of the garden was probably perfectly obvious to those who wrote the book, and like many "topical" references, it was lost over time. That would also explain why nobody can figure out where the other two rivers are. At the time the story was written, it was probably well-known, but not any more. Wahkeenah 14:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It could also be that the writers were deliberately making an allusion to a place that was understood to not be specific geographically. Here's a trivial comparison: there is a movie called "Finian's Rainbow", in which the title character is always searching for a place called "Glocca Mora". At the end of the film, a man asks Finian's daughter, "Where is Glocca Mora?" and she says, "Well, it's always somewhere out there." meaning that it represents an ideal, not a place that can be geographically located. What if that's what the writers of Genesis were getting at, when they gave the supposed "location" of the garden? Even if it literally meant, "east, in The Plain", maybe their original audience understood that to mean just "somewhere, out there". Wahkeenah 14:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Jubilees, Noah used the location of Eden as part of the boundary dividing the earth between Shem and Japheth, but yet still giving Ham access to it. The location was obviously well known at the time.

The inclusion of east is from Genesis, and adds to the logic of the existing statement; it is also geography that is important in regard to the heads of the rivers. Very subtle. Particularly if you can indeed figure out the other 2 rivers. Only Glocca Mora for some.

Cobblers 16:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I take it that the Genesis record intended to be very specific, and that there was no secret to Eden. I'm a literalist, right. The location of Eden is able to be pinpointed quite accurately merely from the detail of the Genesis record (although an extensive set of satellite images would help). Quite a number of people I would suspect want to keep the location theoretical. So I guess it's up to those who want to, to search it out for themselves. As I said, Glocca Mora for some. I still don't think the plain and delight words are related, but I have to admit that the concept of a plain does suit the Garden of Eden, which one could discover is fairly flat but only in the east, and that the river running west to east through Eden did not have that much of a fall.

Cobblers 16:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• It may have intended to be specific, and maybe it made sense for its contemporary audience, but it is not possible now. Whether it was literal or allegorical, it is not possible to cite a specific location from the information in Genesis. Wahkeenah 16:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The point I am making is that it is possible now. Cobblers 16:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• One wouldn't think so, given all the "what about this and that" stuff in the article. Wahkeenah 18:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Where can any information about the Garden of Eden come from, that is at all likely to be valid? All the speculation in the world counts for nothing. Even the ancient texts should not be assumed to be error free, but that is all we have, and then it comes down to an interpretation of these. I am happy with a literal view because I find no conflict in the detail provided by Genesis, the Book of Jubilees, and relevant parts of the Books of Adam and Eve relating to the location of the Garden of Eden. I find nothing need to be forced, and all information complements the existing picture. However, this page is about various perspectives and interpretations slanted to a symbolic, mythical, or non-literal viewpoint, and I fear it would not be appreciated if I now went and supplied Eden's postcode. Cobblers 19:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Feel free to supply Eden's postcode. I would enjoy to read it. In general, I think the article could have two primary sections: the literal view (complete with the biblical self-contradictions) vs. the allegorical view (based on nothing but sociological theory). Wahkeenah 23:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Many of these topics dealing with belief systems are handled atrociously in Wiki, so it needs a fair bit of thought. What is required is to state the fact of a belief, and possibly the reasons for the belief, not to then put 90 percent of the page to opposing perspectives and paraphenalia to show why the belief 'cannot possibly be true", as with the Noah's Ark page. In this Eden topic, many people have a vested interest. The veracity of the Eden story implicates creation, God, and the whole shooting match. So I now consider that the page must not seek to prove the location, but I do see the need for giving due weight that the belief was about a physical literal place. It needs a better opening, the garden story is quite relevant but it basically reads as the leading text. I'll see what I can do, but I don't have much time now. Cobblers 01:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is also well to keep in mind that this kind of topic, no matter what you do with it, will likely result in a never-ending "edit war" with the myriad pros-and-cons who populate this site. I had quite enough of that kind of thing on the Apollo Moon Landing "Hoax" discussion, which seemed to take on religious fervor in itself and got very annoying. I'm sure the both of us have better things to do. 0:) Wahkeenah 01:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. So where do you think Eden was? I won't tell anyone. :)

Pandora says that I can't say so here. Perhaps you might spot a cryptic hint over time. Cobblers 07:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Should I read down the first letter of each sentence? Anyway, I'm an allegorist, not a literalist, so I won't lose any sleep over it. :) Wahkeenah 12:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No clues then, I think I might write a book. btw I just had a look at the Biblical Mount Sinai page. Apart from the 'it might be this one or that one', someone noted that there was a real intention for the location to be 'terra incognito'. Cobblers 13:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Just like when Moses asked God what His name is, wanting to "get something on Him", as it were, God's answer "I am that I am" was an elegant way of saying "Wouldn't you like to know!" Wahkeenah 13:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Urantia section

The Urantia Papers (1955) state that three locations were considered for the garden: The first was an island in the Persian Gulf; the second, the river location subsequently occupied as the second garden; the third, a long narrow peninsula--almost an island-- projecting westward from the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea. The committee almost unanimously favored the third selection.

"This Mediterranean peninsula had a salubrious climate and an equable temperature; this stabilized weather was due to the encircling mountains and to the fact that this area was virtually an island in an inland sea. While it rained copiously on the surrounding highlands, it seldom rained in Eden proper. But each night, from the extensive network of artificial irrigation channels, a "mist would go up" to refresh the vegetation of the Garden.

"The coast line of this land mass was considerably elevated, and the neck connecting with the mainland was only twenty-seven miles wide at the narrowest point. The great river that watered the Garden came down from the higher lands of the peninsula and flowed east through the peninsular neck to the mainland and thence across the lowlands of Mesopotamia to the sea beyond. It was fed by four tributaries which took origin in the coastal hills of the Edenic peninsula, and these are the "four heads" of the river which "went out of Eden," and which later became confused with the branches of the rivers surrounding the second garden.

"The mountains surrounding the Garden abounded in precious stones and metals, though these received very little attention. The dominant idea was to be the glorification of horticulture and the exaltation of agriculture.

"The site chosen for the Garden was probably the most beautiful spot of its kind in all the world, and the climate was then ideal. Nowhere else was there a location which could have lent itself so perfectly to becoming such a paradise of botanic expression. In this rendezvous the cream of the civilization of Urantia was forgathering. Without and beyond, the world lay in darkness, ignorance, and savagery. Eden was the one bright spot on Urantia; it was naturally a dream of loveliness, and it soon became a poem of exquisite and perfected landscape glory." --The Urantia Papers, Paper 73

"Suspected locations"

To watch editors fight over whether "Some Christian theologians believe that the Garden never had a terrestrial existence' or "Many Christian theologians believe that the Garden never had a terrestrial existence" is unenlightening, to put it tactfully. Both statements are fatuous assertions. 'Fatuous' means 'empty'. If the reader is told who makes such a statement— then that becomes information. Too many assertions, too little information. --Wetman 15:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• That's also known as the "Weasels R Us" school of writing. It would make more sense to say that conservatives believe Eden was real and liberals believe it was allegorical. Wahkeenah 15:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"a life of killing animals and scavenging for berries on a daily basis as somehow more pleasant"

The phrase 'the other view holds that human culture remembers a life of killing animals and scavenging for berries on a daily basis as somehow more pleasant' is blatantly biased. I suggest rewording this to something like, 'the other view holds that the authors of the genesis account are recalling a simpler time without the restrictions and toils of agriculture'.

'Killing animals' makes the people sound barbaric, and 'berries' is a word that somehow carries a very condescending tone. Besides, as far as I'm aware, it is generally considered to be the case that early man spent less time and effort during the 'hunting and gathering' days on getting food.

This comparison of this phrase with the earlier part of the sentence exposes the bias very clearly. User:137.222.10.58 22:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• It was part of a series of changes done by an anon on May 20th. Since you brought it up, you might want to examine all of its changes, and repair accordingly. Wahkeenah 01:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• I (user 137.222.10.58 above) have gone through the whole 'Eden As Paradise' section, making changes for the sake of clarity, grammar and impartiality. I hope people find it to be a better version.Nom DeGuerre 15:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• You need to cite sources for some of these claims. Who are these "some anthropologists" and "some scholars"? We need to be sure that this isn't Original research. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, very true and a point I overlooked, sorry. I'm afraid that my ability only runs to the clarity, grammar and impartiality I mentioned before; as such I personally am unable to cite references - I meerly re-phrased information provided by others. Perhaps citation is a job someone else could take on? Thanks, Nom DeGuerre 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Actually it's just one, the guy who wrote the Smithsonian article listed in the links. Wahkeenah 00:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Rivers Were Real

The four rivers were actual rivers. Keep in mind that when God created Adam; Adam was not yet in the Garden of Eden. God created Eden, and then placed Adam in the Garden to care for the Garden of Eden. This is when God breathed the breathe of life into Adam and he became a living soul. The remaining land mass that surrounded the Garden was with vegetation, creatures and souls. God created these animals again in the Garden so that Adam could name them, and also so that the beast of burden could help Adam tend the Garden. The four Rivers which spew forth from the Garden, was the source of irrigation throught-out the earth or terra firma. It stands to reason that the Garden was strategically placed at the centermost part. Keep in mind that Adam was never meant to leave the garden. His purpose was to be keeper of mankind.

Removal of pictures/illustrations...

Poor and nescient choice of pictures by whichever editor added them. They are incorrect depictions of what the first man and woman of this earth looked like. Whether creationist or evolutionist in thought, it is not known (and will never be known) what Adam and Eve or the first man and woman on earth looked like. In fact, a creationist would state that since Adam and Eve are the father and mother of the human race, they had a mixture of all features we see in every race today. If I see these pictures tomorrow, I will remove them myself. Panda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.24.46.144 (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

I disagree strongly with you on this matter. The notes accompanying the pictures specifically stated that they were depictions made way after the events are believed by some to have happened, so whether or not they are accurate is rather irrelevant. Anyway, how can you tell they are "incorrect depictions of what the first man and woman .... looked like."? I'm adding them back in. Galanskov 09:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Eden in Fiction and comics

Please refrain from removing these pieces of information. They are accurate insofar as I know. Godzilla at World's End was written by Marc Cerasini and published by Random House during the late 1990s, and can by searched for (though it may no longer be in print) and it's ISBN number is 0679888276. The Spawn "Armageddon" story arc has just recently been collected into trade paperback in two collections. The Garden of Eden appears in thge second collection, whose ISBN number is 1582406863.

Warwolf 19:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Latter day saints geography

I recommend to put this sub-text to the page The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to just point with a link to the place inbetween it.

I think to let this opinion of a minor christian group be placed under the header " Latter day saints geography" is to much an attempt to promote and propagate its religious beliefes and concepts.

I recommend to use (as a minimum) the name of the location as the header, as seen in the sub-texts above it.

87.160.255.167 16:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with this as it is common knowledge that LDS suffers from serious archaeological and geological deficiencies to put it charitably. A.S. Williams (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Location

Another considered location in Iran, "Qeshm (Island) is also considered a supposed site of the Garden of Eden according to Cassells Bible." --Englishazadipedia (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jewish tradition states . . .

The article states that "Most put the Garden somewhere in the Middle East, . . ." which is fine, but then it goes on to say ". . . in Armenia with Jewish tradition citing Yerevan at 40°10′12.0″N 44°31′12.0″E, and with Mount Ararat only 30 miles to the south west". Jewish traditions says that the Garden of Eden was at Yerevan? This is so totally wrong that I removed it instead of adding . I'd be happy to discuss if someone could provide some documentation. Thanks, Oscar (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Term Cush

Quote from the reference book, entitled insight on the scriptures: The term “Cush” at Genesis 2:13 is, therefore, connected by some scholars with the Kassu or Kassites of the Assyrian inscriptions, a people of uncertain origin inhabiting the plateau region of central Asia. An article by P. English in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies (1959, Vol. XVIII, pp. 49-53) presents evidence of a Negro population in ancient times in the region of the SE corner of the Black Sea and later in the Caucasus region farther N. It suggests a relationship between the names of the regions of Abkhazia and Khazaria, inhabited by such tribes, and the Biblical Cush. There is, of course, the possibility that the reference to Cush at Genesis 2:13 could apply to some segment of the Cushite family that did not migrate southward with the main body of Cushites but settled in the region of Asia Minor described above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.144.241 (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Was Garden of Eden in Hunza Valley, Pakistan ??

What do you think of the theory based on geographical data and numerics as promoted by Prof. Emilio Spedicato, of University of Bergamo, Italy, that the Garden of Eden was really located in Hunza Valley of Northern Pakistan ?

Please check the following two very interesting articles by him :--

1. "Geography and Numerics of Eden, Kharsag and Paradise: Sumerian and Enochian Sources Versus the Genesis Tale": URL: http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep7/ep7-eden.htm

2. "EDEN REVISITED: GEOGRAPHY, NUMERICS AND OTHER TALES (REVISED VERSION", URL: http://www.unibg.it/dati/persone/636/419.pdf

Does his theory warrants a mention of it anywhere in the Wiki article ?--Monmajhi (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

He also claims to know where Atlantis is, I see. He's a mathematician with an interest in fringe stuff, but although his academic work is published in reliable sources, this stuff is not, thus does not belong on Wikipedia. Thanks though. See WP:RS. dougweller (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Close to a Body of Water?

The 'Southern Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf' section opens with the statement

The garden region according to Genesis 2 was close to a sizable body of water (the mandate to rule fish of the sea)

However, Genesis 2 says nothing of the sort. There is certainly no mention of a body of water and there is no mention of any mandate to rule anything (I think the author here has confused this story with that of Noah). In fact, Genesis 2:19-20 reads

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

This clearly only includes land animals and birds. The implication is that there are, in fact, no fish at all in this vicinity.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole section was a mess and still is. I've removed a lot of original research, something sourced on someone's website, added a reference for Gihon Spring. Some of the other stuff can be better referenced, some should be properly referenced or removed, the LDS stuff probably cut down as it is larger than other sections but is a very minor viewpoint. dougweller (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. When I get time I'll take a closer look and maybe have some suggestions.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)