It is not surprising that the only references to Eden are in the Bible, there
is a difference between its description antediluvian and postdiluvianĀthe
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