Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

David:

It is not surprising that the only references to Eden are in the Bible, there 
is a difference between its description antediluvian and postdiluvian—the 
postdiluvian references lack the geographic specificity of the antediluvian 
references. In Isaiah, Ezekiel and Joel, it is used as a picture of a 
fruitful land, not as a then existing physical location.

(The New Testament, in 2 Peter 3:6, the claim exists that the earth was 
destroyed by water. Was that belief a widespread Jewish belief, or specific 
to Christianity?)

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: <david.kimbrough AT charter.net>

> Karl,
> 
> Since the only references to Eden are in the Bible, it only makes sense to 
> take a *sola scriptura* approach, although I am using that term *sensu 
> latu* rather than in its theological or sectarian sense.  I would not take 
> such an approach on issues such as steeled iron weapons and the like.
> 
> My point was to determine where the writers of the Bible thought Eden was.  
> The authors of 2nd Kings, Ez., and Genesis seem to locate it either in 
> North Western Mesopotemia near Haran or North West of Mesopotemia in the 
> highlands of eastern Turkey at the headwater of the Tigris and Euphrates, 
> near Mt. Ararat.  These authors make no indication that I can see that they 
> thought the location of Eden was lost.  The Tigris, Euphrates, Asshur, 
> Kush, and Eden are listed before and after the flood with no textual 
> evidence that the authors thought that these features had changed in anyway.
> > 
> >
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm