Where was (is?) the Garden of Eden? (Genesis 2:10-14)

According to the text, a river came out of the Garden of Eden.  This river had four branches, the Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates.  We know where the latter two are - they are in present-day Iraq.  However, the first two remain a mystery.

A few things come to mind.

The Garden of Eden river seems to run backwards.  Branches flow into a river.  They do not split off from a flowing river.

To a reader of long ago, I think the inclusion of the Tigris and the Euphrates would indicate that the entire Mesopotamia region is watered by the river coming from the Garden of Eden.  We also know what happens in Genesis 3.  The flowing of the Tigris and the Euphrates did not stop with events of Genesis 3.  So, the effect of Eden to be a spring to the Mesopotamian world did not entirely stop at Genesis 3 either.

I have seen modern attempts to locate where the Tigris and Euphrates would have met and possibly where two other rivers joined it.  Although I do not have a cited source for this information, I believe there is such a location under the current day Persian Gulf.  When sea levels were lower 10,000 years ago, this location existed.

But really, I think that is beside the point.  They're still looking for a convergence of four rivers, not a backwards flow divergence.

Also, the text provides the most detail about the location of the Pishon and the Gihon.  This suggests that the author did not expect the reader to be familiar with their locations.  The 

Pishon is given the most detail and is associated with deposits of gold, onyx, and pearls.  The location of the Euphrates is understood for the reader.

The location of these four rivers, two of which are known, two of which are unknown, connects the paradise of Eden to our actual world.  This reinforces a subtle notion that emerged in Genesis 1 and we see contrasted in Genesis 2.  That is that Genesis 1 speaks of all humanity and the entire earth.  Genesis 2 focuses in on two individuals, Adam and Eve, in a particular place, Eden.  The location of these rivers bridges the gap between these two chapters.  Yet, this location is still mysterious since we do not know the exact identity of the Pishon and Gihon, nor is it reconciled how a river can flow backwards into four distinct branches.

Finally, jumping ahead to Genesis 3, I think this exact mystery is fine given that we will also see a change in the nature of animals.  If animals biologically changed and herbivores become carnivores in Genesis 3, then it is fine with me that the four rivers of Eden change as well.

The rise of agriculture (Genesis 2:4-9)

Finally, we get to the Garden of Eden and the first named people, Adam and Eve.

Prior to that, we see something very interesting.  Before Adam appears, verses 4-6 state that there were no "plant" or "shrub" in the "field".  We saw the rise of plants on Day  Three of Creation Week (1:11-13).  So, what is this?  

On one hand, if we view Genesis 2 generally as a retelling of Genesis 1, but with a stronger emphasis on the role of mankind, then perhaps 2:4-6 cover the situation on Day Three.  I think that is a fair interpretation.

Alternatively, 2:4-6 could cover the rise of agricultural, I.e., field plants.  The text emphasizes that these are "field" plants and verse 6 further links this concept to man working the ground.  There was no man to "work the ground", so God's solution was to have springs of water emerge from the ground and the create man in verse 7.  Finally, in verse 8, we see that God "had planted" a Garden, named Eden.  The concept of "Garden" inherently requires agriculture.

Looking back at Genesis 1, do we consider these events straddling the Creation Week?  We have a separate creation account, so what to do with them?

I think it generally is commonly accepted that the events of Genesis 2 straddle Genesis 1.  However, if we take them as separate distinct events, we get a sense of God's re-creative abilities.  God can not only only create once, but can recreate creation to match the needs of man.  This opens up an interesting perspective and possibilities about nature.  

First, nature is not "static", but rather there is a flux.  This actually is confirmed in science, including evolution on any level (micro evolution and macro evolution).  Likewise, we see both a destruction and creation of new species today.  From what I remember in my ecology classes, the background rate for both is about 1/1,000,000 species a year.  Meaning that for every 1,000,000 species, one species goes extinct and one species is formed each year.  The net natural rate is on balance, but although humanity has upset the balance.

Second, far more practically speaking, we can go to God for help in environmental problems and despoliation of the planet.  If God created once and recreated again to fit man's needs, then we today can go to God for help with nature.

This latter function of recreation and restoration is something that is strongly emphasized throughout the Bible.  In Ezekiel 37:1-14, we see the valley of dry bones come to life.  In Joel 2:25, God promises to repay the years that the locusts have eaten.

In the New Testament, Jesus provides living waters (John 4:13-14) and brings the dead to life (Lazarus, John 11:38-44; the open tombs, Matthew 27:52-53).

Science v. Religion (Genesis 1)

Is there a way to harmonize science with Genesis 1?

Let's break the issue into more precise questions.

Is the Bible a science textbook?

On one hand, the answer is fairly easy.  No, the Bible is not a science textbook.  

That said, the Bible speaks of historical events.  Likewise, the tone of Genesis 1, at least superficially, feels "historical".  

Let's take a quick tangent and ponder the implications of the Bible speaking on scientific as well as spiritual matters.  In short, the "Bible is scientifically true".  

That is a dicey situation.  A Young Earth Creationist Christian ("YEC") means one thing by the statement, but the statement is generally completely misunderstood by a scientist.  To a scientist, science requires conducting statements to verify the accuracy of the claims.  If evidence is contrary, then the idea must be discarded.

Like it or not, there is a vast amount of evidence that the earth is lot older than a few thousand years.  If a YEC holds firm about the age of the earth being a thousand years old against the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then a scientist will conclude that YEC and perhaps Christian.  This is because the Bible's claims become the focus not of faith, but is critiqued scientifically.  Since you cannot prove or disprove the existence of supernatural entities through natural (scientific) experiments, because the supernatural exists outside of the natural.

On one hand, the beliefs of the YEC might be helpful to remove the dichotomy of science v. religion, but I think the YEC mindset underestimates the problem it creates for people outside of Christianity.

Did we evolve?

I have no idea.  

A few possibilities come to mind when I ponder this.

1. God created all life via evolution.
2. God re-created life in greater complexity.  For instance, the creation of life outlined in Genesis 1 happened multiple times during the span of billions of years.
3. God created everything else by evolution, but for humanity, a unique creative event happened.
4. Jumping ahead to Genesis 2, God created (or directed the evolution of) multiple strains of humanity.  

At this point, I just want to bang my head against the wall.

I find a lot of different mindsets and misunderstandings from various Christians.  These are:

1.  If we evolved from monkeys, then we are monkeys.  We are not monkeys, so we did not evolve from monkeys.

This perspective actually misunderstands what evolutionary models even say.

2.  Evolution is tantamount to atheism.  

This is more of an implicit assumption and usually focuses on the gaps of the fossil record or the statistics required for evolution to happen.  Proponents generally overlook the possibility that perhaps "God directed evolution".  This would not have been a problem for God.

What about the scientific claims?

I do have some problems of the general scientific approach.

First, there is an underlying assumption that there is no involvement by God.  On one hand, it is so persuasive that is impossible to begin to look for alternatives.  That said, science by definition intentionally excludes supernatural elements.  So, this assumption should not surprise anyone.

Second, cladograms (evolutionary family trees) can be presumptive with statements what our ancestors looked like.  

The Dawn of Controversy (Genesis 1)

People get so many different things out of Genesis 1.  The following represents my perspective on how to make sense of it.  

Although I point out areas of disagreement, it is not intended to be argumentative.  Rather, I seek to explore various ideas, their logic, and implications.

1.  On Reading Genesis, Generally

The creation account of Genesis 1 is, in my opinion, the greatest poem ever written. I think it should be aloud to really sink into the language and power of the text. For instance: "Let there be light [pause] and there was [1/2 pause] light".

But if it is poem, how literal should we take it? Does it reflect an historical record or a metaphor, describe events on a spiritual level, or was intended to contrast the Enuma Elish and show God's might over the Sumerian gods? I must admit that I just don't know. If anything, I'm leaning towards - Yes! - all of the above.

I'm actually confounded by the mystery of the questions raised by the answers. Particularly, why is light created on day 1, yet the sources of light and the sources for measuring the intervals of time are created later. 

As I was beating my brain for an answer to these paradoxes, I was reminded of the beauty, harmony, and rhythm of the language of Genesis 1 itself. It feels like a soft and gentle breeze. 

If we let Genesis speak to us, we can find a mystery, wonder, and awe.

We could also interject that some events could represent spiritual level events and not necessarily on the physical.  For instance, the separation of the "light" and "water" describe events that happened on a spiritual level, interwoven with the description of the natural world, with "water" being symbolic of evil. Thus it describes a spiritual war in the heavens which God has already won. The vanquished were sent from Heaven down to earth, for humans to "subdue". In Genesis 3, we find that the man failed at that objective. 

2.  Quandary - Aquatic plants

Interestingly, aquatic plants are not given the same details as terrestrial plants or aquatic animals.  In fact, it is somewhat unclear which day they were created on.  Day Three covers terrestrial plants (v. 11-13) and Day Four covers sea life, but the emphasis is on moving creatures (v. 20-21).  Verse 21 does state that God created every "living and moving thing" in the waters. 

We could also assume that the terrestrial plants were created three days before terrestrial animals so that the animals would have food when they arrived.  If we take this analogy, then aquatic plants would have to be created on Day Three.  

I say this as sort of a joke.  But it does highlight the perspective and biases of people reading this and the targeted audience of Genesis 1.  Genesis 1 does not provide a comprehensive and clear answer of things.

3.  The epoch and eon theory

One theory I have heard to try to harmonize this text with science is that these creation days generally represent epochs and eons from the Big Bang.

This has some logic to it, but also some difficulties, depending on how literal we want to be.

A.  The Big Bang

Generally, the Big Bang model goes as follows:

• 15 billion years ago

All mass of the universe exploded from a central point.  The universe has been expanding ever since.

• 15-5 billion years ago 

Various stars are born and die.  

Note, life as we know it requires heavy metals, for instance iron.  In a naturalistic model, these are only created in stars through nuclear fusion.  The protons of hydrogen atoms fuse and become helium.  This fuses with another hydrogen atom, which becomes lithium, and so forth.  That is how we have all chemicals other than hydrogen.  Consider these as elemental seeds of the earth we know today.

• 5 billion years ago

Our own solar system is born.  

The earth is a gaseous ball.  The solar winds burn off the gases and consolidate the mass of the earth until it is a molten rock.

• 5-3 billion years ago

The earth cools.  Life begins.

• 3 billion years ago- present

Multicellular plants emerge in the oceans.  The release oxygen as a waste product which transforms the atmosphere.  Moving sea creatures form and plant life colonies land.  Sea creatures move from the ocean to land.  

Land creatures give rise to birds and eventually humans.

B.  How does this compare with Genesis 1?

Pre-day one:  God created the heavens and the earth.  If we want to add a "then" to make it a "heavens and 'then' the earth", that roughly equals what scientists say about the first 10-15 billion years.

Day one: a formless earth, separation of lights.  This somewhat matches, especially if we consider the solar winds blowing against the gaseous ball of the earth.  But we can also use this to interpret the prior verse to read:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the 'formless' earth."

Thus, the events of Day One and Two give it form.  These are the separation of lights and the separation of water from land.Day Three is the formation of the rise of terrestrial plants.  

Up to now, this generally follows the order events in the Big Bang model, if we allow that "days" are actually eons of time, representing billions of years.

Day Four presents a big problem.  Here, we have the creation of the sun, moon, and stars.  In the Big Bang model, it is the sun and stars that enable the development of the earth.  Here, it is reversed.

Day Five potentially presents another problem - the rise of sea life.  Particularly, if we assume that this includes aquatic plants, since they would need to rise before terrestrial plants.  However, if we read into Day Four that aquatic plants also rose with the terrestrial plants, this problem goes away.

Day Five presents another problem - the birds before terrestrial animals.  The scientific model has dinosaurs rising before birds.

Day Six - the rise of terrestrial animals and finally, man.  That generally follows the scientific model.

4.  The "Gap Theory"

One attempt to get around this problem is that verse 1 covers 15 billion years, up to roughly about 6,000 years ago.  Verse 2 picks up there, thus making a huge gap of time.  In the interim, we had the dinosaurs, etc...and eventually a massive spiritual war that left the earth a formless mess, requiring a re-creation.  This re-creation is the focus of what we know as Creation Week.

I am generally comfortable with this idea, but one problem with this theory is that the sun, moon, and stars are created after the earth has form.  One way of getting around that is to assume that the sun, moon, and stars were already there, but unseen due to something like a "cosmic smog".  On Day Four, God is clearing out this smog.  The text does not explicitly say that the sun, moon, and stars come into existence on Day Four, they just need to "be" - "let there be lights in the expanse of the sky."

5.  The “appearance” of an older earth

Another theory I have heard is that the entire universe was created in Creation Week but has the appearance of a much older universe.  It uses an analogy that Adam and Eve were created in the adult form.  They appeared to be twenty-five - or however old you imagine them - but actually are only minutes, hours, and days old as the story unfolds.

Several problems with this model:

(1) The text explicitly states that Adam and Eve had the appearance of being much older than they are.  They obviously were not created as infants because they carry on conversations.  The text does not state this about the earth, sun, moon, and stars.  

(2) It actually gives deference and acceptance of the scientific principles underlying the rationale for an old earth.  In essence, this model says "yes, the scientist measurements are absolutely right".

(3). What about fossils?  The model would be a lot easier to accept if we were only talking about the abstract expanding universe.  But we have fossils, not just of dinosaurs, but of plants that show continuous plant growth cycles that go back 10,000s of years.  

If God made the appearance of an older earth, then God made the fossils to give the appearance of an older earth.  Why would God do this?  This idea walks a fine line of making God to out like a liar.

To harmonize this, some go as far as to say that devil put fossils here to confuse scientists.  This saves God's reputation for honesty, but lacks intellectual satisfaction.  It also comes across paranoia, as if a person's faith hinges on whether or not God made the earth 6,000 years ago.  If a person accuses the devil of making fossils, then the person's faith is threatened by the existence of fossils.

Another problem with this is that it gives an attribute of God to the devil.  This is the creative power of God.  One of the things that makes God distinct and Holy is that God can create.  God created the world and the universe and this makes God amazing.  God is distinct in this ability to create the world.  In the Bible, only God is given credit for the creation of the world or any part in it. That said, mankind is made in the image of God and given the ability to create things.

If we believe the devil created fossils or the appearance of past life, then we are giving an attribute to the devil something that prior to that was a distinctive characteristic of God.

6.  Does the Bible even say that the earth is 6,000 years old?

Despite the quandaries and lack of information, I actually do not have much problem with a literal six day Creation Week.  I do have a problem with the extrapolation from this that the earth is 6,000 years old.

I have done a quick survey of the logic of this and it seems to be as follows:

1. God created the earth in six literal days and rested on the Seventh.
2. God likes the number "Seven". 
3. Humanity with rest with the Millennium (Rev. 20).  Essentially, it will be like a Sabbath for Humanity since Satan will be bound.
4. The Millennium has not happened yet.
5. A day is "like a thousand years to God" (2 Peter 3:8).  The rest of the verse is usually omitted, that the "a thousand years is like a day".  The following verses emphasize the patience of God.
6. Combining these principles, then if Humanity will experience a Thousand Year Sabbath, and a day is a thousand years to God, then on creation week, God created six thousand years for age of humanity, pre-Millennium.
7. Therefore, the earth and humanity is less than six thousand years old.

Nowhere in the Bible does it actually state that the earth or humanity is less than six thousand years old.  This is something people put together based on combining verses from three different areas of the Bible devoid of the context that the verses appear.

The worst part of the logic is the application of the day is a thousand years.  In context, it emphasizes the patience of God.  Likewise, the rest of the verse that a thousand years is like a day shows the interchangeability of time for God, rather than providing a road map to conclude about the age of the earth or humanity.

Likewise, there is is no reason to expect that the number "Seven" is more important than other numbers that God uses elsewhere in the Bible.  For instance, "Three" marks the Trinity, "Twelve" is the number of Tribes of Israel and the number of Apostles, and "Fifty" sets the years of Jubilee and the date of Pentecost.  Why use "Seven" as a special number for use in a way the Bible does not instruct - multiplied by a 1,000 to set the age of the earth or humanity? 

Rather, in context, the number Seven is used to set a date of rest.  This is what we do - every seven days - rest.  Culturally, we observe rest every seven days.  In fact, it lasts for two days.  We call them weekends.

7.  A metaphorical approach

This is my personal favorite.  If you consider the ancient near east creation myths, particularly the Enuma Elish, then the symbolism falls into place.

People in the ancient near east worshipped stars, God created them on Day 4, almost like an after thought.  It is literally like this:  "He also made the stars".  (v. 16).

The people feared the deep waters, symbolic of evil.  Here, God shows dominance and power over it.  In fact, God's spirit hovered over it.  (v. 2).

They also feared chaos.  Here, God reaches into the chaotic universe simply by speaking.  Through speaking alone, God draws out light, land, life, and eventually humans.

The Dawn of Civilization (Genesis 1)

We can look back at the end of the Genesis account Creation Week and see all the pieces are in place for human civilization to flourish.  

How does this differ from the Dawn of Mankind?  It clearly is related, but the combination of elements is far more subtle and deserves special attention.  The text calls out specific attributes, which get the majority of focus.  

1.  Calendar

Creation Week is the beginning of a calendar.  It is not just a series of days, but an order to the days.  

A week

We can only live one moment, one day at a time.  It is the concept of a week that is the basic unit of time that gives order to our days.  The time interval of a week is created alongside the creation of the earth.

Months, seasons, and years

We extrapolate from one week to make a month or a year by simple multiplication.  Or, we can look to the lights in the heavens, created on Day Four (v. 14).  Verse Fourteen even states that marking “seasons and days and years” is a principal function of the lights of the heavens.

For instance, the word “month” is derived from the word “moon” because four weeks approximately equals one lunar cycle.  So, people could say “one moon” which meant “one month”, or 28 days, or 4 weeks.

A year represents the time required for the earth to pass around the sun.  The position of the sun in the sky or against the background stars changes as the year progresses.  This marks various seasons.  Once the sun returns to the original position, a year has passed.

2.  Navigation

This is related to the concept of a celestial calendar.  In short, if we know the time, then we can use the celestial bodies to determine direction or even location.  Everyone knows that the sun (and the moon) rises in the east and sets in the west, although the exact position of the arc changes with the seasons.  Likewise, people in the northern hemisphere can use the location of North Star to determine both the direction of north at night and also their latitude.

This use of the heavens allows people to travel without getting lost.

3.  Separation of lights and waters

This is a more subtle characteristic of Civilization specified in the Creation Week account.  In verse 3, God separates light from darkness.  Likewise, in verses 6-9, God separates water from the heavens and from the land.

Taken together, both light and water are relegated to their proper places.  Light and water have boundaries that they must obey.

Mankind, made in the image of God, is given the ability to harness and manipulate the boundaries of light and water.

The use of water enables important aspects of Civilization, including agriculture, domestication of animals,, plumbing and sewer systems, and digging wells to name a few.

Likewise, the harnessing of light enables Mankind’s use of fire, including candles, and electric lights.

The Dawn of Dawns - Mankind (Genesis 1)

Of all God’s creation, mankind has a special role.  The text makes this clear both explicitly and stylistically.

1.  “created” in the “image” of God

Verse 27 (NIV) states:

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them”.

In one verse, the verb “created” appears three time.  Further, the term “image” appears twice, as “in his own image” and “in the image of God”.  This applies to both “male and female” of the species.

Jumping ahead slightly to Genesis 2, some things stand out.  First, there are no proper names for these people.  In Genesis 2, we meet Adam and Eve.  Here in Genesis, the emphasis is on Mankind without regard to specific individuals or specific genders.

I will return to this distinction between Genesis 1 and 2 later when I discuss the controversies about this very beautiful chapter.

2.  dominion over the earth

In verses 28-30, God gives Mankind over all the earth.  Again jumping slightly ahead to Genesis 2, the emphasis is on the “earth”, not Eden.

In verse 28, Mankind is instructed to do several things:

• “be fruitful” -

Since this paired with “multiply”, it has the connotation of childbearing, but it is not necessarily.  It could also mean agricultural development as Mankind is given plants for food (v. 29).  It could also mean develop “fruits”, such as spiritual fruits.

• “multiply” - this is commonly read to mean have children.  

Since the context of Genesis 1 applies to Mankind and not individuals, we should not read a requirement for every individual must have children.  For instance, the text is silent about many leaders not having children or even getting married - many of the prophets, the Apostles, and even Jesus.

Likewise, there is another way to “multiply” without having natural children.  One could adopt an orphan.

Also, the current population of humanity is roughly 7 billion people.  Thus, humanity has indeed multiplied.

• “fill the earth” 

Having children is necessary to fill the earth.  Currently, humanity has colonized every continent but Antarctica, humanity has filled the earth.  Even on Antarctica, there are many military and scientific bases.

• “subdue [the earth]”

This is a strange statement to make given the otherwise idealic conditions for Humanity at in Genesis 1.  Something around the world need to be “subdued”.  We find out what this is in Genesis 3.

Mankind is told to “rule” over the following:

• “the fish and the sea”
• “the birds of the air”
• “every living creature that moves on the ground”

“Rulership” does not mean autocratic tyrant.  There are rules and boundaries to proper rulership.   What are the boundaries?  Genesis 1 contains an implied boundary to not kill or eat animals, since plants are given to humanity for food, not animals.

A harmonious relationship between man and nature does not mean over-exploitation or that man should drive species extinct.  

To say that there are no boundaries and Mankind can do as he pleases with regard to nature would be dishonest.  For starters, we cannot rule something that is extinct.  I would posit that we get a better sense of the boundaries of balance later with the establishment of Israel.  Later, we see clean and unclean meats, which actually protects species.  Likewise, we also see the institution of “land-Sabbaths”.  

In verse 29, God gives Mankind the following:

• “every seed-bearing plant” and “every tree that has fruit with seed in it” for food

Note, Mankind is not given food from animals.  In verse 30, God gives the same thing to all animals.  Thus, they were originally meant to be vegetarian. 

This always stands out to me.  I think most people overlook the implications of this.

If we take this literally, this would require a massive physiological changes in animals and humans.  Just as a quick example, predator animals like dogs and cats have large sharp teeth for tearing into flesh.  Further, the facial muscles of predators are very different than those of herbivores.  Herbivores (horses, deer) have larger cheek muscles for the grinding action needed to eat plants.  In contrast, carnivores have greater muscles higher in their skull, particularly the temporalis muscle.  This allows a very strong bite.

We could also consider other differences in digestive anatomy and physiology between carnivores and herbivores.  Did predators ruminate?  

If we really consider this, then the animals we know today are not the animals that were created in Genesis 1.

This is just one example in which the world of Genesis 1-11 looks very, very different than our own.  

3.  The finality of Genesis 1

The importance of humanity as God's creation is emphasized because it is the last thing God creates in Genesis 1.  God creates all the heavens and the earth all other life, and after all this, God creates humanity, and chapter 1 ends.

Jumping ahead slightly to Genesis 2, we see that Creation Week still continues and God rests on the Seventh Day.  For some reason, the organizer of Genesis put it at beginning of Chapter 2 as opposed to the end of Chapter 1.  The placement of this in Genesis 2 makes the first Sabbath an afterthought in comparison to creation of Mankind.   Thus, the creative element of God culminates in the Creation of man, not in the culmination of the Sabbath. 

We get a sense of this dichotomy later in Mark 2:27 when Jesus states that “The Sabbath was made for man, not. man for the Sabbath.” 

Dawn of Dawns - Time (Genesis 1)

The Dawn of Time

The opening verses of Genesis also provides the dawn of time, as we know it.

On Day One, God separated light from darkness.  (v. 4) God then called the light "day" and darkness "night".  This resulted in "evening" and "morning", the first day.  God declaring that light is "day" and darkness is "night" creates a time interval of a day, the first day.  God even declares that this is a “day”, the first day, which is a unit of time.  Prior to this part of the text, there is no mention of any time intervals.  

God declares time and it happens.  This happens before our celestial clocks even exist.

Days One, Two, and Three each happen before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars.  These celestial bodies are necessary to mark the passage of time.  

Without our sun, how would we know when a day ends and another begins?  We can look to our clocks, but the ancients could not do this.  Rather, the sun was the clock.

The author does not explain a resolution to this mystery of time before time-pieces, aside from stating that Days One, Two, and Three happened.

So when we get to verse fourteen and the celestial time markers, they are for us, not God.  God does not need them to understand the passage of time.  Verse fourteen says the sun, moon, and stars are there to serve as signs to mark seasons, days, and years.  

Still though, an enigma remains and it makes one wonder - prior to the creation of the sun, what did a day look?