Eden-1: Discovering God's Plan for Your Ultimate Redemption

Where was Eden? Part 1—Examining Pre-Flood Geographical Details in the Biblical Record

The location of the Garden of Eden has been a topic of much speculation and debate. The Bible provides limited geographical information about the pre-Flood world, leading to various theories about the relationship between antediluvian and postdiluvian topography. This study aims to analyze and refute popular modern locations for Eden and establish that Eden was completely destroyed by the Flood. Attempts to place Eden in a modern geographical context are misguided because the biblical conditions for its location are not based on modern landmarks but on pre-Flood topography.

Genesis 2 describes the geography of Eden, but its interpretation is challenging. Throughout history, scholars have proposed different locations for the Garden, often based on allegorical or metaphorical interpretations. Some have suggested that the four rivers mentioned in Genesis 2 (Pishon, Gihon, Hiddekel, and P’rath) represent underground rivers or spiritual concepts rather than literal bodies of water. However, this study aims to show that these rivers and their associated lands were real-world places in the pre-Flood world.

The geographical details provided in Genesis 2 are sparse but significant. The Garden of Eden was located in the east of Eden, indicating that it was in the eastern part of the region. The name "Eden" may be related to a Hebrew word meaning luxury or delight. The four rivers mentioned in Genesis 2 are key identifying features of the geography surrounding Eden. These rivers divided from one river originating in Eden and flowed into different regions: Pishon around Havilah, Gihon around Cush, Hiddekel east of Asshur, and P’rath (Euphrates).

The identification of these rivers and associated lands has been a challenge for scholars. The Pishon river flowed around the land of Havilah, where there was gold. However, the location of Havilah is uncertain, and the Pishon river does not appear again in Scripture. The Gihon river flowed around the land of Cush, but its identification is also difficult, and there are no historical records supporting its location. The Hiddekel river is associated with Asshur, but it is unclear which Asshur is referred to in Genesis 2. The P’rath river is identified as the Euphrates in other biblical passages, but its description in Genesis 2 lacks specific details.

Some scholars propose that these geographical references are symbolic or metaphorical rather than actual places. They argue that Eden represents a place where God dwells and provides for humanity's needs abundantly. However, this interpretation does not align with the overall context and style of Genesis, which presents a detailed narrative of historical events and locations.

The post-Flood world has undergone significant geological changes due to the global Flood. Modern biblical creationists attribute the geological record to the Flood and assume that the geography described in Genesis 2 would have been destroyed. They suggest that post-Flood place names are often renaming of pre-Flood landmarks. While this explanation provides some insights, it fails to account for all the data and complexities involved.

The study acknowledges previous attempts to locate Eden, such as those by Calvin and Luther, but points out their inconsistencies and problematic explanations. It also highlights the work of James R. Hughes, who provided a comprehensive study on the geography of Eden. This current study aims to bring clarity to the text while refuting attempts to locate Eden in the post-Flood world.

In conclusion, the geographical details provided in Genesis 2 describe a real-world pre-Flood geography. The identification of specific locations like Havilah, Cush, Asshur, and the rivers remains challenging due to limited information and geological changes caused by the Flood. The study refutes popular modern locations for Eden and emphasizes that attempts to place Eden in a modern geographical context are misguided. In part 2 of this paper, additional physical and textual considerations will be discussed to further support the idea of a unique pre-Flood geography and the complexity of post-Flood place names.