Eden in Africa?

[Psalms18_28]

There've been alot of news that say human orginally came out of Africa.. Such as this: http://www.physorg.com/news122738126.htm
Was Eden located in Africa? Or Was Adam and Eve sent to Africa after the fall of sin?
There is another website- a website designed for christians who believe in old earth or things like that-says Eden was not in Africa:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... frica.html

Do you agree? I have no idea where Eden might be, but I guess alot of us don't

[DaveW]

As far as I can tell Eden was destroyed in the flood.

I assume that the landscape is totally different after the "breaking up of the fountains of the deep etc, and so wherever Eden was doesn't exist in that form anymore.

We have rivers of the same names because Noah and his sons named the features of the post flood land with familiar names.

[Jerry]

Two possibilities:

1) The rivers were named for the pre-flood rivers, but have no actual relation to their original locations. Which would mean there would be no way whatsoever to figure out where man originated before the flood.

2) Or, the two rivers that are named by names we know now are actually in the general places they were before the flood, which would make Eden's location somewhere in Asia.

[John81]

Many of the theories for Eden being in Africa are based upon the theory of evolution which claims man first sprang from apes in Africa.

We can't know for certain where Eden was located, but somewhere in the area of Mesopotatamia is possible given the names of the rivers cited.

Of course, Eden could have been in the Arctic, Arkansas or Argentina too.

If it were important to know for certain Scripture would have told us for certain. If we go only by Scripture then we must consider the rivers named and consider that area as the highest possible area where Eden once was; but again, we can't know for certain.

[Jerry]

I don't have a map handy - but how does Mount Ararat relate to those two rivers in their location? If anything, I would say where they landed after the flood was more than likely the area where they were originally located (at least Noah's family - that in itself doesn't indicate where Eden was). But that is opinion - educated guess, nothing more.

[John81]

Mount Ararat is within that region. That portion of the mountian within the current nation of Turkey is where many think the Ark might have came to rest.

It seems probable that the beginnings occured within the area of the Middle East area between the Mediterranean Sea and Iran.

[Anon]

As far as I can tell Eden was destroyed in the flood.

I assume that the landscape is totally different after the "breaking up of the fountains of the deep etc, and so wherever Eden was doesn't exist in that form anymore.

We have rivers of the same names because Noah and his sons named the features of the post flood land with familiar names.

:goodpost:

[heartstrings]

Is there a "Mount Ararat"?
The Bible says the ark came to rest on the moutains of Ararat.
:puzzled:

Is it possible that Eden was a very large place, and that it encompassed part of Africa?

Gen 2:13 And the name of the second river [is] Gihon: the same [is] it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

[Jerry]

One thing the Bible indicates is that the rivers came out of Eden - so the area the rivers covered would be larger than Eden itself.

I noticed this after your post though:

Genesis 2:10-14 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

The verbs are in present tense - these are the rivers that were currently spoken of by Moses (not were, but are - ie. is), Assyria wasn't even named until after the flood. Perhaps Gihon is the same river as the Nile.

Obviously, there would be some changes in the layout of those rivers - but this passage makes it look like these are the same rivers, not just named after them.

[282Mikado]

Is there a "Mount Ararat"?
The Bible says the ark came to rest on the moutains of Ararat.
:puzzled:

Is it possible that Eden was a very large place, and that it encompassed part of Africa?

Gen 2:13 And the name of the second river [is] Gihon: the same [is] it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

Mount Ararat =is the tallest peak in Turkey. This snow-capped, dormant volcanic cone is located in the I?d?r Province, near the northeast corner of Turkey, 16 km (10 mi) west of the Iranian and 32 km (20 mi) south of the Armenian border.

[John81]

I would think Eden covered a rather large area. If Adam named all the animals there it couldn't have been too small.

[Guest Guest]

Eden was more than likely some place in the general Syria and Assryia area.

"Amos 1:5 I will break also the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitant from the plain of Aven, and him that holdeth the sceptre from the house of Eden: and the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto Kir, saith the LORD."

However where Eden was would not be relevant to the genetic studies, remember that the earths population went down to eight people at the time of the flood. Any genetic "footprints" or migration routes that science might find would have to be post flood. If I were to venture a guess, and that is all this is mind you, I would say that the focus on Africa may well be due to the fact that Egypt was such a focal point nation for so long. We see in scripture that many, many, nations had significant contact with Egypt so it would not be surprising if Egypt had left genetic footprints in a wide array of cultures. Like I said, that is just a guess though.

[John81]

True, the "cradle of civilization" and such would have been post-flood. In this regard, I was thinking along the lines with Jerry that the Ark probably came to rest somewhere near the general area it departed from.

The evolutionists who claim man first sprang from apes in Africa point to areas well below Egypt as their starting point.

From a biblical viewpoint, and taking into account the evidence for what they call the "cradle of civilization" in Mesopotamia, I believe it's likely Eden was somewhere in the area we refer to as the Middle East today, which would be between the Meditteranean Sea and Iran, and would be the likely area Noah built the Ark and where God returned the Ark after the flood. This would account for the flourishing of "civilization" in this area first as it would have took longer for man to migrate to other areas and to settle and build.

Of course, evolution teaches an unbiblical view of things which points to man evolving from apes and trudging up out of the jungles of central Africa heading north as they further evolved and finally became human and began to work together more. This view, naturally requires them to believe in these things taking millions of years to happen.

Biblically, we can see that man was fully man from the time God created him and it didn't take long before man began working together and forming cities and such. After the flood, we see that it didn't take long before repopulation was well under way and once again man was intelligent, working together and building cities and such. All of this taking place within the realm of hundreds of years rather than in terms of millions of years.

[Madeline]

I have heard that Eden was in Africa, but as far as I know, the BIBLE does not tell us where it was. lol

Love,
Madeline

[John81]

I've never understood why we should believe Eden was in Africa, outside evolutionary 'reasoning'. The Bible doesn't tell us where Eden was located, but the clues would lean towards Eden having been in the Middle East somewhere.