The Garden (east of Eden) was not in our world.
Don't get me wrong - I agree. Genesis is fiction and Eden is an idealized paradise imagined by Bronze Age story tellers. But if we are going with a literalist interpretation of those stories - which is the point of view we have been discussing from - your claim here is completely wrong and nonbiblical.
Gen 2, when it talks about the garden in the East Eden, follows right after the creation of everything else and man. Because of that, it appears that the writers intended to say it was on the earth that was just created. It even mentions actual rivers in Iraq. There is no indication otherwise. It definitely does not say, "and then yhwh created a completely separate place that was not connected to the flat earth he just built..." There would be no point in building the earth and then building a second, unconnected place and drop the man in there.
"Hmm. Lemme see. I'll build an earth. And do nothing with it. It's just "there". Oh, I know. I'll make a guy out of the dirt from it. Okay. Now, over here
, Imma build Eden. And I'll drop the guy into it. yeah. That's good. I'll just keep earth as a backup."
And let's not forget to mention that gen1 makes no mention of Eden at all. All the plants, animal and people - there is no elaborate story about Eve being made from a rib - are all in the same place: on earth.
If so, we would find it with a couple of cherubs floating near the gates keeping us out. Plus it has some unusual trees and a talking serpent wandering around. Oh, and God walks there.
yep. And since we do not find any of that, anywhere I would say that is a strong indicator that it is not real and never was. Or do you think perhaps the Gingerbread Man, Puss in Boots and Jack's beanstalk were all real, just not on our world?
Unless you have pictures....the Garden was not our world.
Unless I have pictures. That's hilarious. You crack me up. Of course I don't have pictures. I don't think Eden is real and I'm not trying to argue it was
. I'm arguing literary criticism here. Within the context of the story we are discussing, I've successfully argued that sin was not brought into the world by Eve and her slow witted mate, as you have claimed. I have successfully argued it was already present
in the form of the serpent, however the serpent is interpreted. Every post from you since then has been a big, fat red herring. Ask yourself why that is.
But do I get to use that argument too? Let me try it.
Unless you have pictures, there was no exodus.
Unless you have pictures, Isaac was slaughterd by Abe
Unless you have pictures, Mary got knocked up by Joe and fabricated the whole virgin thing.
Unless you have pictures, jesus was never crucified.
Wow. Works like a charm. (I saw median's post after I wrote this. Good work median. You did a better job than I.)
You know, there is no harm in getting rid of a belief that is demonstrably wrong. There is no shame in thanking me for teaching you something new or seeing a different perspective.