April 1, 2002, Vol.2, No.7.
Two new articles every two weeks.
Bible Question? E-mail
us.
THIS ISSUE: "Was
There Such a Place as Eden?" (below)
and "What Is The Lord's
Supper?"
ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS:
Was There Such a
Place as Eden?
by Keith Sharp
 QUESTION:
Was there such a place as Eden, and where was it? Science figures
life started in Egypt area or North East Africa so would Eden
be there? Do you believe the Garden of Eden was an actual place
or a story to relate a message to the Jewish people?
ANSWER: Thanks for this
excellent question.
Genesis 2:8 states, "The Lord God planted a garden eastward
in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed." From
this verse we learn that to Moses, the author of Genesis, who
was probably in the Desert of Sinai when he wrote Genesis, Eden
was "eastward." In verse 10 we read, "Now a river
went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted
and became four riverheads." These rivers are identified
as the Pishon, Gihon, Hiddekel, and Euphrates (verses 11-14).
The only one of these rivers that still bears the same name is
the Euphrates, which is in modern Iraq. However, one of these
rivers, the Gihon, is said to encircle "Cush," which
was south of Egypt.
History is the written record of the past. If Genesis is history,
the events recorded therein actually happened as they are written.
Epic poetry, on the other hand, is "a long narrative
poem recounting the deeds of a legendary or historical hero."
(Webster's dictionary). Poetry abounds in figures of speech and
appeals to imagination and emotion by the use of various literary
devices.
Those who contend that Genesis is epic poetry do so to throw
doubt on its historical accuracy. They think the book is a collection
of Hebrew legends about the distant past. If the book of Genesis
is such a work, it is simply the product of the Hebrew people,
not inspired of God, and has no higher claim for acceptance as
truth than myths of other ancient peoples.
There are several reasons to reject the position that Genesis
is myth and to accept the fact it is sober history. The book
is not written in the style of Hebrew poetry but of history.
Moses introduces each new section with the phrase, "This
is the history" (or "genealogy") (2:4; 5:1; 6:9;
10:1; 11:10,27; 25:12,19; 36:1; 37:2). So far as archaeology
has been able to check the Genesis record, it has proven accurate.
The author displays amazing historical objectivity, a quality
unknown to other ancient records. He records the drunkenness
of Noah, the lies of Abraham, and the adultery of Judah; at the
same time he tells the noble qualities of Pharaoh and Abimelech.
Since Jesus accepted the Genesis record as literal history (Matthew
19:3-6; 24:37-39), all who claim to be Christians must accept
that Genesis is history. Furthermore, the apostles add their
testimony to the fact Genesis is literal history (1 Timothy 2:13-14;
1 Peter 3:18-21; 2 Peter 2:5-8). To claim the Genesis record
is mythological is to reject the testimony of the Son of God
and of His apostles.
Science is knowledge gained by observation and experimentation.
To be a subject of science, a process must be something that
can be observed, measured, and repeated. Genesis is not intended
to be a science book, but neither are its statements which touch
on science inaccurate. It is true that human assumptions about
Genesis often contradict science. For example, Catholic theologians
of the Middle Ages asserted that Genesis teaches that the earth
is the center of the universe. In reality, the book teaches no
such thing. At the same time, human assumptions about science
may contradict Genesis. Thus, the false philosophy of general
evolution does indeed contradict the Genesis account of creation.
But the facts of natural science do not uphold general evolution.
However, there is no conflict between the actual Genesis record
and the facts of science.
A little thought will lead one to recognize that the location
of the Garden of Eden cannot be definitely identified. With the
current geography of the earth, it would be physically impossible
for the Euphrates River and a river flowing south of Egypt to
have a common source. Furthermore, nowhere in the world today
do four great rivers start from a single source. Obviously the
geography and geology of the earth were different immediately
after creation than now. The great flood of Noah's day (Genesis
chapters 7-8), lasted over a year, covered all the great mountains
on earth, and involved the breaking up of the fountains of the
deep (underground sources of water) as well as continual rainfall
for 40 days over the whole earth (something now physically impossible).
This implies that the geology and atmosphere of the ancient earth
were different than now. Furthermore, this great flood so altered
the physical geography and geology of the earth as to make it
impossible to definitely state what the surface of the earth
was like before the flood. This also means that geological digs
involving the origin of man by nature yield skewed results.
Further, conclusions of anthropologists (those who study human
evolution) are based as much on philosophy as on scientific evidence.
The same set of facts taken from an archaeological dig can be
variously interpreted, depending on the philosophy (and desire
for fame or need for publishable, sensational claims) of the
anthropologist.
Unbelieving scientists reject the creation account, including
the garden of Eden, not because the evidence disproves the Genesis
record, but because they reject the reality of miracles. If one
believes in God, who is all powerful (Genesis 17:1; 18:14; Hebrews
12:25-26; Revelation 19:6), miracles pose no problem. If one
believes the Bible is the word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17), the
reality of miracles is a fact. If one rejects the story of the
garden of Eden, there is no logical reason to accept any other
biblical miracle, including the resurrection of Jesus Christ
from the dead. In that case, we have no hope for our own resurrection
(1 Corinthians 15:1-20). What a pitiable position!
Genesis chapters one through three are crucial to our faith.
They tell us our origin and nature. If Genesis is correct, God
created mankind in His own image, and we are moral creatures
with the purpose of believing, fearing, obeying, and glorifying
God. If evolutionists are correct, we evolved as higher apes
and have no purpose or duty whatever.
Do not abandon faith in the creation account. Here unbelief
begins; here faith comes to rest.
~ ~ ~
|
|
