Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,871 Year: 4,128/9,624 Month: 999/974 Week: 326/286 Day: 47/40 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How old did the Garden of Eden appear on Day 7?
ramoss
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 31 of 35 (330243)
07-10-2006 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by randman
07-09-2006 2:35 PM


Re: Life & Death
If you claim that, you can give chapter and verse.
Give chapter and verse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by randman, posted 07-09-2006 2:35 PM randman has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2792 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 32 of 35 (331143)
07-12-2006 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by musicman
07-10-2006 2:40 AM


Re: Evidence of Death
Hello Musicman,
Thank you for your reply; and,
Welcome to the forum.
musicman writes:
God planted a garden.
The curious thing about this is that he planted a garden at all, don't you think? I mean, the creation was done, yes?
quote:
"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, ..." Gen 2:1
Earth was all good, yes? A sort of tropical paradise according to the general view. No problems.
But Wait! What's this? Beginning at chapter two verse four we begin to encounter Problems:
  • A land without rain. - Problem.
  • A field without crops or cows. - Problem.
  • No man to work the farm. - Problem. (And later on),
  • No mate for the man. - Big Problem.
These are all Serious Problems. But then:
  • God brings a "river" to water the garden. Problem solved.
  • God plants crops and brings in livestock. Problem solved.
  • God makes a farmer and puts him to work. Problem solved.
  • God makes a woman for the man to mate. Problem solved.
So tell me: Which was it in the beginning? Tropical Paradise? Or, Desert Garden?
You don't have to answer now. It's just something to think about.
He must have known what kind of soil He was planting in. After all He had just formed a man from it not that long ago.
This brings up an interesting point. Not three days ago I re-read the story and noticed that when Adam was thrown-out-the-garden he landed in the soil from which he was taken. (Gen 3:23) Adam was apparently not taken from the soil of The Garden but rather from the soil outside the garden. Land outside the garden was apparently inhospitable (Gen 3:18), which we may assume to be the reason for planting the garden in the first place. The garden itself was apparently unaffected by the curse which was placed on its surroundings (Gen 3:17). Some say the Garden of Eden is now "in heaven" and will be restored to earth someday. But why was the Garden not cursed? It was, after all, the scene of the "crime." Why should the Garden of God be exempt over and above the balance of creation? If the soil of the Garden was especially holy and sacred then what does this say about the remainder of the globe? Or is the creation story NOT global in scope?
Here again, don't feel that you have to answer. It's just something to think about.
If, say, a soil was nitrogen rich, and at that time the process was such that carbon was formed from that, rather than the other way round like we see plants take in carbon now, and produce, I think, nitrogen-- then the seed planted might do alright if it had water.
I must recommend you study Chemistry. A course in Soil Science would also be helpful. These enlightenments are required of Agriculture students and provide knowledge which you might find interesting and useful.
And we are told it did. So, how it would have worked in the beginning of things would have to be different that how it works now.
Your argument is "circular." You assume that things were different then, and you conclude, that they were different based solely (apparently) on the assumption that they were different. Where does evidence and reason enter into the formula? Consider this: According to the scenario you suggest, God radically redesigns the entire foundation of existence (physics, chemistry, biology i.e. Natural Law) because a couple of Jews ate something non-kosher. How reasonable is that and what evidence do you offer in support of it?
Therefore I do not see how as that the thought entered Adam's head, that the soil looked old.
I agree. I doubt Adam gave it a second thought. I'm sure he was too busy ogling Eve.

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by musicman, posted 07-10-2006 2:40 AM musicman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 07-12-2006 2:44 PM doctrbill has replied
 Message 35 by musicman, posted 07-13-2006 2:46 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 33 of 35 (331181)
07-12-2006 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by doctrbill
07-12-2006 12:58 PM


Defining 'paradise'
doctrbill writes:
Which was it in the beginning? Tropical Paradise? Or, Desert Garden?
Since 1948, we have heard a lot about how the (Jewish) Israelis have turned the desert into rich farmland. The implication is that the Arabs had let the once-rich land go to wrack and ruin.
A long time ago, I read somewhere (possibly James A. Michener's The Source) that the Arabs may have deliberately turned the farmland to desert.
We Westerners (of European stock) have gone around the world converting every environment we found into an image of western Europe. Why would the desert-dwelling Arabs not be expected to convert other environments to what they were used to?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The authors of the Bible seem to have been conflicted as to the relative merits of the (free) nomadic lifetyle and the (secure) agricultural lifestyle. Maybe our notions of the garden of Eden are just our projections of what we think paradise should be.
Where I live, the buffalo used to roam - until European settlers plowed up the native grasses to plant European crops. Now, some agri-scientists are saying that much of the farmland should be returned to grassland (albeit for grazing European cattle). The nutrients (fertilizers) that were put into the soil have not succeeded in turning Canadian soil to European soil.
So, maybe God injecting the necessary nutrients into the soil of Eden wasn't the best idea either.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by doctrbill, posted 07-12-2006 12:58 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by doctrbill, posted 07-12-2006 9:13 PM ringo has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2792 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 34 of 35 (331324)
07-12-2006 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ringo
07-12-2006 2:44 PM


Re: Defining 'paradise'
Yours is an interesting hypothesis but I'm not sure how it is relevant to the Eden story.
In the Eden story it is made clear that masterful agriculture (relying on irrigation rather than depending on rain) is more to be desired than the sod busting, thistle and thorn bearing, realities of subsistence farming.
The Garden of Eden story, among other things, contrasts the marvels of corporate agriculture with the agonies of the small family farm. In the end, the rebellious farmworker goes back to where he started: as a lump-o-dirt farmer in an nowhere land, without the benefit of the irrigation project. It's a Mesopotamian myth by origin and nature. But then the Jewish writer were themselves Mesopotamian at the time.
So, no problems mate.

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 07-12-2006 2:44 PM ringo has not replied

  
musicman
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 35 (331364)
07-13-2006 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by doctrbill
07-12-2006 12:58 PM


Re: Evidence of Death
quote:
The curious thing about this is that he planted a garden at all, don't you think? I mean, the creation was done, yes?
No. ...Maybe. What if this garden that was planted was a prt of it? Say, the part where plants were introduced to the earth? How would we know?
quote:
So tell me: Which was it in the beginning? Tropical Paradise? Or, Desert Garden?
Paradise, unless you mean the part of the beginning before life got here. Even then, there was still lots of water.
quote:
Why should the Garden of God be exempt over and above the balance of creation? If the soil of the Garden was especially holy and sacred then what does this say about the remainder of the globe? Or is the creation story NOT global in scope?
The garden was exempt, you say, why? Because the tree of life was still there? No, that is not enough. What else you got?
quote:
I must recommend you study Chemistry. A course in Soil Science would also be helpful. These enlightenments are required of Agriculture students and provide knowledge which you might find interesting and useful.
Oh, I thought we were talking about the early earth, and what went on there. I guess you want to talk about now. Or were they the same?
quote:
Your argument is "circular." You assume that things were different then, and you conclude, that they were different based solely (apparently) on the assumption that they were different. Where does evidence and reason enter into the formula? Consider this: According to the scenario you suggest, God radically redesigns the entire foundation of existence (physics, chemistry, biology i.e. Natural Law) because a couple of Jews ate something non-kosher. How reasonable is that and what evidence do you offer in support of it?
Jews came much later, forget that. Were not Jews after Judah? I notice Adam could have eaten the tree of life and lived forever. This is what, the same as now? No. What is wrong with redesigning things? What of heaven? Is that redesigned? What of the new heaven that comes according to the bible, is that not redesigned? Lifespan of the ancients- is that like we see this day? No. Of course God changes things as needed. Look at the flood.
quote:
I agree. I doubt Adam gave it a second thought. I'm sure he was too busy ogling Eve.
Is that what they used to call it, ogling? OK. I guess he ogled the hell out of her.
Edited by musicman, : No reason given.
Edited by musicman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by doctrbill, posted 07-12-2006 12:58 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024