Interpret Genesis 1 to make sense

[tabibito]

Not quite. Adam was created outside of Eden. Then transferred to Eden. (subsequently?) Plants, animals, Eve were created in Eden. That is the Genesis 2 account.

Some pointers are available through rabbinical records and in the non-protestant books of the Bible, but not much. Virtually nothing in the 66 book Protestant Bible.

And no - not according to Christianity - this is self assigned research.

ETA
I have often wondered, since starting this little project, whether C.S.Lewis might have drawn something of the same conclusions.

[whag]

Not quite. Adam was created outside of Eden. Then transferred to Eden. (subsequently?) Plants, animals, Eve were created in Eden. That is the Genesis 2 account.

You're all over the map here. I can't make sense of what "outside of Eden" means. According to my count, you're talking about three separate places.

Wouldnt it be easier to interpret it as myth? All the evidence points to human beings evolving from lower primates. We didn't come from a "first couple."

no - not according to Christianity - this is self assigned research.

I'm starting to gather that.

I have often wondered, since starting this little project, whether C.S.Lewis might have drawn something of the same conclusions.

This is a project of yours?

[shunyadragon]

As I stated, the traditional interpretation is that there are two Edens.

However, with the tree of life being located in Paradise (Revelation 2:7) the traditional view becomes highly doubtful.

you are presenting an alternate explanation, ok, as you describe 'self-assigned research. This alternate explanation is not what Christianity has traditionally believed, and today the dominant belief for those who believe in a literal Adam and Eve is that the Garden of Eden was an earthly paradise where the tree of knowledge and the tree of life were located.

[Doug Shaver]

And no - not according to Christianity - this is self assigned research.

Pretty much by definition, then, it is not traditional.

[tabibito]

You're all over the map here. I can't make sense of what "outside of Eden" means. According to my count, you're talking about three separate places.

Wouldnt it be easier to interpret it as myth? All the evidence points to human beings evolving from lower primates. We didn't come from a "first couple."




I'm starting to gather that.




This is a project of yours?

Putting it in terms that will be less confusing -

Making sense of Genesis begins with making a determination of what exactly is recorded in the Bible, without reference to extra Biblical information.

I started out looking at how much, if anything, of the Genesis account of creation could be regarded as valid. Doing that involved an examination of what the Bible records with precision - sans all presupposition (including whether or not it might be right).

So - where does the Bible say that the creation of life took place? Eden.
Where is Eden? - Tree of life is located in Eden according to Genesis, Paradise according to Revelation, and the Koine Greek translation of Eden is Paradise.
The indications of the Bible are that Eden and Paradise are one and the same. There is nothing BIBLICAL that shows otherwise. (if someone can point to something in contradiction, feel free to provide it)
Traditions state that the Eden of the creation account was on Earth ... which is a little difficult to accept because it continues to exist.
Traditions also state that there were two Edens, one on Earth and the other in Heaven. No Biblical record makes such a differentiation possible.

Adam was not created in Eden, according to Biblical account, but first on Earth from whence he was transferred to Eden.

The record of the creation of life refers to that creation taking place in Eden. Whether or not Eden was on Earth, the creation account doesn't make any mention of what happened elsewhere.

[tabibito]

you are presenting an alternate explanation, ok, as you describe 'self-assigned research. This alternate explanation is not what Christianity has traditionally believed, and today the dominant belief for those who believe in a literal Adam and Eve is that the Garden of Eden was an earthly paradise where the tree of knowledge and the tree of life were located.

There are dominant beliefs in Christian teaching that are clearly erroneous, and there have been a few dominant beliefs, historically, that were based on a flawed interpretation of what the Bible says.
Scientific method in part involves forming a hypothesis based on observation and then seeing if it can be broken. So far, all I have is what seems to be a reasonably solid hypothesis.

Further, the traditional beliefs are speculations based almost entirely on what the Bible doesn't say. It says very little about the matter of creation.
Some claim that it says Heaven and Earth were created in a span of 6 solar days - based on a stated span of evening to morning (which would be a night: neither solar day nor daylight day) - ignoring the record of Genesis 2 which says all life was created in a day. And ignoring the fact that the word translated as "day" has a range of meaning that includes "era".

[Cerebrum123]

Putting it in terms that will be less confusing -

Making sense of Genesis begins with making a determination of what exactly is recorded in the Bible, without reference to extra Biblical information.

I started out looking at how much, if anything, of the Genesis account of creation could be regarded as valid. Doing that involved an examination of what the Bible records with precision - sans all presupposition (including whether or not it might be right).

So - where does the Bible say that the creation of life took place? Eden.
Where is Eden? - Tree of life is located in Eden according to Genesis, Paradise according to Revelation, and the Koine Greek translation of Eden is Paradise.
The indications of the Bible are that Eden and Paradise are one and the same. There is nothing BIBLICAL that shows otherwise. (if someone can point to something in contradiction, feel free to provide it)
Traditions state that the Eden of the creation account was on Earth ... which is a little difficult to accept because it continues to exist.
Traditions also state that there were two Edens, one on Earth and the other in Heaven. No Biblical record makes such a differentiation possible.

Adam was not created in Eden, according to Biblical account, but first on Earth from whence he was transferred to Eden.

The record of the creation of life refers to that creation taking place in Eden. Whether or not Eden was on Earth, the creation account doesn't make any mention of what happened elsewhere.

Here you go.

Source: Genesis 4:16

So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

© Copyright Original Source

[tabibito]

?

Here you go.

Source: Genesis 4:16

So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

© Copyright Original Source

It would seem that heaven is at least likely. Another planet wouldn't be an option, given that Eden is directly** accessible from Earth.
(** but maybe a wardrobe would be necessary).

It is always a toss up whether "not on Earth" or "not in the universe" would be a better choice of phrase.

[whag]

?

Cain stepped through a wardrobe/portal to get to earth?

[tabibito]

Access was open according to the Biblical record, but is not now available. So - in the time since Cain's offence, it would be reasonable that access was closed.

Also noting that a guard placed on the eastern side was sufficient to prevent access. No area in the Tigris Euphrates region can only be approached from the west. It's a fair bet that the chroniclers of the Bible would have been aware of the fact. If they weren't, there would a problem of why they would assume approach was possible from only one direction - it certainly isn't a common place circumstance, particularly given the assumed size of Eden.

Rabbinical literature

places Cush (Ethiopia) as 60x the size of Egypt and 1/60 the size of the (then known) world, the (then known) world 1/60 the size of Gan, which was in turn 1/60 the size of Eden. With Eden being 3600x the size of the then known world it is quite a tough job to slot it into the Tigris Euphrates area. (not sure what is meant by Gan, so I won't say it is the globe: nor can I think of anything else it might be.)
With all that, there is another body of Rabbinical literature declaring that Eden still exists, though no-one can find it.

ETA
Just discovered that Islam teaching is that Eden is in Heaven. Not sure if that is a plus or a minus for my argument.

[Cerebrum123]

?

The verse I gave directly contradicts your nonsense. Your later post is also nonsense, as there are many places that can only be entered from one area by way of land. At the time of Adam there would be no need for a guard from any other direction, and after Noah Eden would be destroyed(as would everything else "under heaven"). Then there's the fact that Eden is given a specific location here.

Source: Genesis 2

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

© Copyright Original Source

This is obviously describing an earthly location, although a flood large enough to destroy all things "under the whole heaven" would massively alter the topography.

You asked for something that contradicts you that is Biblical, I have done that.

[tabibito]

The verse I gave directly contradicts your nonsense.

The verse you cited shows that access to Eden was unrestricted at the time spoken of: a point I had already noted in an earlier post. What did your post contradict, rather than support what I had already said?

Your later post is also nonsense, as there are many places that can only be entered from one area by way of land.

You seem to have missed part of my post, which stipulated the Tigris/Euphrates region, and stipulated that Eden is rather too large (to fit into a box canyon for example).

At the time of Adam there would be no need for a guard from any other direction, and after Noah Eden would be destroyed(as would everything else "under heaven"). Then there's the fact that Eden is given a specific location here.

I had neglected the flood's effect on anything that might have been on Earth. Perhaps you can explain how it continued in existence at least until the time of Ezekiel?

Source: Genesis 2

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

© Copyright Original Source

This is obviously describing an earthly location, although a flood large enough to destroy all things "under the whole heaven" would massively alter the topography.

And again - how do you explain Eden's continuing existence after the flood.

You asked for something that contradicts you that is Biblical, I have done that.

If you say so.

[Cerebrum123]

The verse you cited shows that access to Eden was unrestricted at the time spoken of: a point I had already noted in an earlier post. What did your post contradict, rather than support what I had already said?

It shows that Eden was on earth, and not in some other dimension, or Heaven.

You seem to have missed part of my post, which stipulated the Tigris/Euphrates region, and stipulated that Eden is rather too large (to fit into a box canyon for example).

You neglected the part that those rivers flowed out of Eden, and were not necessarily part of Eden.

[QUOTE[I had neglected the flood's effect on anything that might have been on Earth. Perhaps you can explain how it continued in existence at least until the time of Ezekiel?[/QUOTE]

Um, Ezekiel is not speaking literally for one, and secondly, just as other places that were destroyed were renamed after previous location(Euphrates and Tigris being examples), so too could a place later be named Eden. Heck, a search of the word Eden even shows that someone named their son that in the Bible.

And again - how do you explain Eden's continuing existence after the flood.

I don't see that happening. Ezekiel certainly doesn't seem to be saying that at all. In fact, the wording in Ezekiel 36 seems to be rather different than the Eden in Genesis 1-3.

Source: Ezekiel 36

35 They will say, “This land that was laid waste has become like the garden of Eden; the cities that were lying in ruins, desolate and destroyed, are now fortified and inhabited.” 36 Then the nations around you that remain will know that I the Lord have rebuilt what was destroyed and have replanted what was desolate. I the Lord have spoken, and I will do it.’

37 “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Once again I will yield to Israel’s plea and do this for them: I will make their people as numerous as sheep, 38 as numerous as the flocks for offerings at Jerusalem during her appointed festivals. So will the ruined cities be filled with flocks of people. Then they will know that I am the Lord.”

© Copyright Original Source

Doesn't sound much like the Eden in Genesis 1-3. Ezekiel is speaking of more than one Eden, because he speaks of one trading with others. When has the Eden of Genesis 1 had a trade relationship with other areas?

Some of Ezekiel's words fit the Genesis Eden, other don't.

If you say so.

At this point there has been more than a little given to show that an otherworldly Eden isn't in view.

[tabibito]

At this point there has been more than a little given to show that an otherworldly Eden isn't in view.

More than a little has been given to show that an alternative interpretation is possible - which I don't deny is possible, but I don't find it believable.

What does the Biblical record explicitly state?

That the creation was brought to fruition through a span of six days? No - if day is interpreted to mean a span of 24 hours Genesis 1 is pitted in contradiction of Genesis 2. The definitions appropriate for day do include "era" (or similar), which can be confirmed by a simple check of a dictionary. No conflict exists if "day" is interpreted to mean era.

Was Adam created in Eden? No - He was moved to Eden after he was given life.

Does the Bible declare the location of Eden? No.

Does the tree of life still exist? Yes

Is the tree of life in the midst of Eden? Only if Eden is Paradise.

Now - which of the details explicitly stated in the Bible declare Eden to have been on Earth?

Ezekiel is speaking of more than one Eden, because he speaks of one trading with others. When has the Eden of Genesis 1 had a trade relationship with other areas?

Eze 27:23 “Haran, Canneh, Eden, the merchants of Sheba, Assyria, and Chilmad were your merchants.
You are quite correct - this Eden has nothing to do with the Garden of Eden. The relevant passages of Ezekiel no more include trade cities than they do Eden Valley in Australia.

[Truthseeker]

Two points: The word in Hebrew translated "day" has two principal senses, dependent on context: 1) a moment or period of time when the sun is up between dawn and dusk; 2) an indefinite period of time probably greater than 12 hours (e.g., 300 hours or one gigayear).

The other point: "Like Eden" does not mean there are two Edens. "That is like Eden" does not mean the subject is Eden. A drawing of supposed similarity is merely being made.