By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Garden of Eden lays in the Persian Gulf? Not a religious thread.

 

Do you think it is here?

yes 8 18.18%
 
no 6 13.64%
 
need more proof 3 6.82%
 
I dont believe it ever existed 19 43.18%
 
possibly 6 13.64%
 
other 1 2.27%
 
see resultz 1 2.27%
 
Total:44
Jumpin said:

Well, like the City of Atlantis, the Garden of Eden is fictional; probably based on Mesopotamian Gardens, like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. You don't need any documentary or additional texts other than the Bible to see where the authors wanted it to be located. It is written to exist in the Middle East, probably at the location of southern Iraq given the text; which mentions 4 rivers including the rivers Tigris and Euphrates.


Atlantis is not necessarily fictional.



Around the Network

meh it could be but i'm having a hardd time believing anything now adays involving religion or the bible.



spurgeonryan said:
sapphi_snake said:
I don't get the point of this thread, or what the author is claiming.


I am saying the garenda of eden was perhaps a real place, and that this is where it was. Whether you believe the bible or not, it is usually correct historically.

I have a hard time thinking the garden of eden was a real place. I don't even know what would make you say such a thing.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

spurgeonryan said:
sapphi_snake said:
spurgeonryan said:
sapphi_snake said:
I don't get the point of this thread, or what the author is claiming.


I am saying the garenda of eden was perhaps a real place, and that this is where it was. Whether you believe the bible or not, it is usually correct historically.

I have a hard time thinking the garden of eden was a real place. I don't even know what would make you say such a thing.


Well I think something was there. Whether it was the Garden of Eden or some biological labratory that aliens used to create us as the Ancient aliens show said in the op, if something was there then this was it.





"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

I don't believe it ever existed, we already know the human species originated in Central Africa. And that a global flood never happened. (If you want me to explain, please let me know) The story probably originates from a smaller flood, but obviously back then, people would of seen the world as a much smaller place, they didn't know what the world was. But that's for a different thread haha.

Not wanting to start an argument, if you choose to believe in the bible/qu'ran etc. I don't have a problem with it :)



Around the Network
spurgeonryan said:
sapphi_snake said:
I don't get the point of this thread, or what the author is claiming.


I am saying the garenda of eden was perhaps a real place, and that this is where it was. Whether you believe the bible or not, it is usually correct historically.

Weeeeell that depends on what you mean by historically. Noahs ark, adam and eve and the creation story altogether really have all been debunked, but I guess you could qualify that as "science" in the bible. Jesus is about as historically accurate as Robin Hood, he's recorded, but we know hardly any facts about him, and most of what we claim to know about him is mostly speculation, we aren't even 100% sure he existed (I think he did though). But some things in the bible are also present in recorded history, plenty of things that aren't though. 



spurgeonryan said:
There you go everyone the true expert has arrived! Arrivederci! Is that how you spell it?


I wouldn't call him an expert, smart guy sure, but he's saying those things with the idea that it actually happened in the first place, and choosing not to accept the overwhelming evidence agaisnt it. But I've already had this debate with him before xD It got us nowhere in the end. I'm just glad he's a cool guy and didn't go all jesus-freak on me!



padib said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
spurgeonryan said:
There you go everyone the true expert has arrived! Arrivederci! Is that how you spell it?


I wouldn't call him an expert, smart guy sure, but he's saying those things with the idea that it actually happened in the first place, and choosing not to accept the overwhelming evidence agaisnt it. But I've already had this debate with him before xD It got us nowhere in the end. I'm just glad he's a cool guy and didn't go all jesus-freak on me!

I appreciate the complement, but that's not a very nice thing to say.

In my description I was careful to mention that it was a theological perspective to the article. I gave the most neutral opinion I could possibly give. I'd appreciate you not label my post as religiously biased.

In other words, (I really wish you understand what I mean) if what the bible says is true, you have to take everything into account if your going for the biblical Adam and Eve (which is what the article was doing). If you want the Quranic Adam and Eve there would be an entirely different theology to it. I went with the events as stated in the bible and worked my way from there. Given that the garden of Eden is a biblical location, I found it suitable to take that route. Let me know if you have any better way to look at it.

Oh no no no, I didn't mean that you are a "jesus-freak" and I was glad you didn't act like that towards me. I meant I'm glad you AREN'T a "jesus-freak" and you didn't give those "your going to hell comments". Instead you had arguments that you came to logically (in our message debate), and not the ones I'd attribute to "jesus-freaks" like pascals wager and science is a conspiracy etc.  
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

About this thread, I'm not too sure what you mean. Did you assume the bible was literally true for the sake of the article? Or is it what you personally believe? Or something else?




padib said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
spurgeonryan said:
There you go everyone the true expert has arrived! Arrivederci! Is that how you spell it?


I wouldn't call him an expert, smart guy sure, but he's saying those things with the idea that it actually happened in the first place, and choosing not to accept the overwhelming evidence agaisnt it. But I've already had this debate with him before xD It got us nowhere in the end. I'm just glad he's a cool guy and didn't go all jesus-freak on me!

I appreciate the compliment, but that's not a very nice thing to say. I was at a party last weekend, and towards the end of the party a young man started stroking my elbow. Despite being homosexually curious I am not gay. I didn't make him feel bad about it for 1 second I just politely but directly asked him to stop. There is no reason for making people feel bad because they want to share something that gives them joy. If you don't like it just tell them to stop.

In my description I was careful to mention that it was a theological perspective to the article. I gave the most neutral opinion I could possibly give. I'd appreciate you not label my post as religiously biased.

In other words, (I really wish you understand what I mean) if what the bible says is true, you have to take everything into account if your going for the biblical Adam and Eve (which is what the article was doing). If you want the Quranic Adam and Eve there would be an entirely different theology to it. I went with the events as stated in the bible and worked my way from there. Given that the garden of Eden is a biblical location, I found it suitable to take that route. Let me know if you have any better way to look at it.

I just read that, I though you were making some sort of joke at first xD But I get your point, I really didn't mean that in any insulting way, I meant I'm glad you AREN'T a jesus freak. I explained in the other reply :)



padib said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
padib said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
spurgeonryan said:
There you go everyone the true expert has arrived! Arrivederci! Is that how you spell it?


I wouldn't call him an expert, smart guy sure, but he's saying those things with the idea that it actually happened in the first place, and choosing not to accept the overwhelming evidence agaisnt it. But I've already had this debate with him before xD It got us nowhere in the end. I'm just glad he's a cool guy and didn't go all jesus-freak on me!

I appreciate the complement, but that's not a very nice thing to say.

In my description I was careful to mention that it was a theological perspective to the article. I gave the most neutral opinion I could possibly give. I'd appreciate you not label my post as religiously biased.

In other words, (I really wish you understand what I mean) if what the bible says is true, you have to take everything into account if your going for the biblical Adam and Eve (which is what the article was doing). If you want the Quranic Adam and Eve there would be an entirely different theology to it. I went with the events as stated in the bible and worked my way from there. Given that the garden of Eden is a biblical location, I found it suitable to take that route. Let me know if you have any better way to look at it.

Oh no no no, I didn't mean that you are a "jesus-freak" and I was glad you didn't act like that towards me. I meant I'm glad you AREN'T a "jesus-freak" and you didn't give those "your going to hell comments". Instead you had arguments that you came to logically (in our message debate), and not the ones I'd attribute to "jesus-freaks" like pascals wager and science is a conspiracy etc.  
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

About this thread, I'm not too sure what you mean. Did you assume the bible was literally true for the sake of the article? Or is it what you personally believe? Or something else?


Well, I'm glad you wrote that, and clarified what you meant. If ever I do go Jesus-freak, I won't go ignorant on you (like I guess pascals wager, idk who that is though). If I did, what it would be is I would have an overflow of joy and want to share my faith with everyone around me. If ever that did happen and it made you uncomfortable yeah you would have to tell me, like when the guy touched my elbow I was uncomfortable. :) But in general I am very discrete about it, which is the right way to go.

I really like your two last questions. What I did, to remain neutral, was to describe what geological history would be like if the words of the bible were taken literally. To remain neutral, I pushed aside as much as I could the aspect of whether I believed what I was saying or not, so you could get the most theological and neutral perspective on the matter. So, yeah it would be answer 1: "assume the bible was literally true for the sake of the article".

I appreciate your courtesy. Onus is on me to be able to have more intelligent conversations with you, I really wish I could get across to you last time but I think I didn't express myself properly, and you needed to give your friend some attention. (:

And I appreciate your elbow ;) Let's continue the convosation! But how about we keep it on a small scale so e aren't presenting a few different arguments at once, I tend to do that :S 

What's your stance on Noahs Ark? Do you think it literally happened? Do you think the story is based on a local flood? I'll be glad to talk to you about this, or Adam and Eve etc. Just something specific would be cool :D