Talk:Garden of Eden

message: There is a traditional Christian belief which claims that Jesus was in the Garden of Eden at the time of Eve's innocence. This belief has been represented in the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch. Since it is a fairly unusual belief, it ought to be researched more in depth in order to find out where it came from.  ADM (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus in the Garden of Eden

message: I propose a link to Gobekli Tepe as a suspected location, even if it's only in the "See also" section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobekli_Tepe
Dianaramadani (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the discussion was over five years ago.  Second, Wikipedia merely summarizes reliable sources and is more concerned with verifiability, not "truth". Ian.thomson (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

text: how does a book written by 2 fringe authors and published by a fringe publisher meet our criteria at reliable sources? Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gobekli Tepe as a suspected location 

message: "From the Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut: : On February 28th the Daily Mail published an article by Tom Cox, in which Prof. Dr. Klaus Schmidt, leader of the Göbekli Tepe excavations, is cited as follows: "Göbekli Tepe is a temple in Eden". On the basis of this, the author formulates several conclusions about the biblical paradise, Adam and Eve and other events connected to the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament. Several German- and Turkish-language newspapers and radio stations of german and turkish language have picked up on the contents of the article since its publication.
"Tom Cox" or "Tom Knox" is a pseudonym of the British journalist Sean Thomas, who used the article to get publicity for his thriller "Genesis Secret", which is due to appear in March in English and simultaneously in German. Since Sean Thomas is using a falsified version of an interview with Klaus Schmidt made in fall 2006, he presents a distortion of the scientific work of the German Archaeological Institute.
The German Archaeological Institute (DAI) distances itself from these statements and reserves the right to take legal action against further dissemination of the story in connection with the work of the DAI at Göbekli Tepe. Klaus Schmidt neither in an interview nor on any other occasion made the above mentioned statements."
That's pretty clear, we shouldn't use the Daily Mail stuff. dougweller (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement on the Gobekli Tepe claim from the Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut 

message: I think the page warrants a mention of the Earthly Paradise at the top of Mt Purgatory in the Divine Comedy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dante

message: This article needs to be present the basic facts with no POV.  This is what I mean:
* Basic fact:  "The Garden of Eden is described in the Book of Genesis"
* Personl POV's:  "The Garden of Eden is described in the Book of Genesis.  This is a myth.  The is part of Abrahamic myths."
Now the article already states that the source is the Bible.  Fact.  Done.  If you now have your own personal opinions that the Bible is all myth, which is great, but they don't belong here at all.  They belong over in the Bible article. Please go there and put them in, and leave the pedantic qualification, upon qualification out of this article. SAE (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: DreamGuy is deleting everything and called everyone who disagrees with his opinion a POV-pusher.  I would appreciate if he would begin to use the talk pages and not erase everything in sight.  This is my 4th attempt at trying to have a civil discussion with him.  Hopefully he will respond to this. SAE (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Facts with no POV 

message: This paragraph is unsourced and has other problems.  While it is true important human and pre-human fossils have been found in Ethiopia, the statement that "Paleontologists have excavated six million years of life" seems like an exaggeration or oversimplification.  I also don't believe that they have concluded "that Ethiopia is the scientific location of human origin", since australopicine fossils have been found in other areas of eastern and southern Africa, too. This paragraph needs revision.
Jbartelt9 (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethiopia paragraph, in Location - Africa 

message: The Biblical Garden of Eden story has close parallels with other Ancient Near East stories, most of which are polytheistic. I'd be interested to see inclusion of arguments for and against the view that the Biblical story retains some polytheistic elements. Is the Serpent another God? Are the Cherubim with flaming swords (Gen 3:24) Gods? When God says (Gen 3:22) "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever" who is he talking to? (clearly not to Adam or Eve). Who else is he referring to when he says "one of us'? --Tediouspedant (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources "one+of+us"+polytheism&lr=&as_brr=3&ei=dnWSS92qIaD2MNPJ_NUM&cd=11#v=onepage&q=garden%20of%20eden%20%22one%20of%20us%22%20polytheism&f=false, "one+of+us"+polytheism&ei=OXWSS-_jJ4SMNtz0lPsM&cd=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false, "one+of+us"+polytheism&ei=OXWSS-_jJ4SMNtz0lPsM&cd=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In hebrew you pluralize as a sign of veneration, not actually to imply multiple, translated to english i can see how it appears differetnly then in hebrew though.. As for the cherubim and serpent , there is nothing that suggests they are gods. Seeing as this theory would be WP: fringe, it would be giving undue weight even if you find some source that would actually suggest polytheism in early judaism (espeically given that the early books make polytheism a grave sin, and contradict this notion. Unless you word it very cleverly to simply say that there are some adaptations from other near east stories, without actually suggesting polytheism in judaism itself. I.E. they took a ploytheistic story, dropped the other gods, and baam Judaism! (written less stupidly then i just did and sourced of course) Smitty1337 (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "In hebrew you pluralize as a sign of veneration". No, you don't - there's no "royal plural" in Hebrew or other Semitic languages. The plural ending on elohim is simply a grammatical oddity, not a sign of respect. The seraphim were just snakes (literally "burning ones"), but also, with a different usage, serpent-demons (the seraphs in Isaiah were "burning" in the literal sense, but also probably had snake-bodies in addition to their wings and human heads and hands - there are depictions of them in the archaeological record). PiCo (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you can in some cases: cf. not just the data on Elohim you cited, but also things like the fact that the name of the great beast Behemoth is the plural of Hebrew bəhēmâ, "beast". Adam Restling (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is very interesting. Is there a larger set of consistent examples? A small sample of 2 is not convincing, especially considering they are different genders and the suffixes very possibly just coincidental artifacts of parent languages. Is this ever used in conjunction with "גדול" or similar adjectives? Jyg (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: The Other Gods?

message: Dougweller seems to continually delete the suggested location of Kharsag / The Rachaya Basin, Lebanon - and is mistakenly claiming Laurence Gardner's mainstream published book "The Origin of God" by Dash House Publishing is inadmissable on Wikipedia on the basis that this is "self-published". He is wrong, they are a reputable publishing house, please recheck and restore as appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.32.44 (talk • contribs) 
:::Dash House Publishing  - its front page clearly says "print on demand enables authors to print from only one book to thousands. You, the author, decide how many. You may wish to publish the family story for relatives and friends, or you may be a bestseller yet to be discovered. POD gives you the freedom to publish your work and reach your chosen readership cost effectively." This is not a mainstream publishing house, this is print on demand. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The real location of Eden

message: I'm from Romania. In highschool, my teacher for "History of Religions" class(he was 1/4 jewish ...grandmother from mother's side) told us that the correct name is Gan Bar Edhen, with a whispered, almost extinct "r". He gave us 2 versions: Gan Ba'Eden and Ba'Gan Eden, but I don't remember what was the difference between them, it was about 15 years ago. Bigshotnews 08:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard of Ge Ben Hinnom ("valley of the son of Hinnom") as being the truer name of Ge Hinnom (source of the word Gehenna), but not this "Gan Bar Eden" (which would seem to be "garden of the son of Eden", using Aramaic bar "son"), and a Google search seems to turn up nothing, either. Perhaps the teacher was wrong, or citing some other thing/construction? Adam Restling (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Bar' can also mean "(having a quality) of". E.g. "bar kayma" - sustainable development. WillNess (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not correct. The OT has one Gan b'Eden -- the b' is a prefix here meaning "in" -- in Gen. 2:8; every other use is Gan Eden. Gershonmk (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gan 'Edhen or Gan Ba(r) Edhen? 

message: Some good people have been reaserching and found that The Garden of Eden is Kashmir Valley This interesting map based on that research: http://www.jesus-kashmir-tomb.com/sitebuilder/images/Map_to_Graves-691x418.jpg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bocah anon (talk • contribs) 08:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any peer-reviewed material by modern, accredited scientists who actually have kept track of the past century of anthropological and genetic studies, and who have given up on nationalistic biases?  Because the material you're presenting doesn't look like that. You have a map from a map from a tourist trap.  That doesn't amount to any sort of evidence.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Garden of Eden is Kashmir Valley 

message: Whoever did the addition of David Rohl and his Eden (edin) theories summarized fairly... right up to the last sentence. They then wrote an opinion. My opinion is that David Rohl's ideas are some of the best I've ever heard (and I've heard a lot) but my opinion does not belong here either.
Please delete the last sentence in the David Rohl/Valley of Tabriz section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joenitwit (talk • contribs) 12:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we remove something sourced to a well knowna archaeologist? Eric Cline is a reliable source. I did remove the image however citing WP:UNDUE, none of the other fringe ideas have images (which is I think correct).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Rohl - no POV 

message: Dear "scientists"
It's totally known where is Pishon and Gihon. Pishon is ancient name for Danube river and I know minimum two middle-age documents where it is axiom:
1. Pseudo-Caesarius - "Caesarii Dialogi" or "Questiones et responsiones". For us is interesting answer of qusetion 110. where he wrote about Slavic tribes who was migrating to Balkan Pennisula "...How again that on the other land S(k)lavs and Danubians, who named Pishones, too."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarius_of_Nazianzus
book - http://www.scribd.com/doc/57783059/S-Caesarii-Dialogi-IV-Didymi-Caeci-De-Spiritua-Sancto-Contra-Manichaeos-S-Phoebadii-Contra-Arianos-De-Fide-orthadoxa-De-fide-1836
2. Constantine the Philosopher - "Biography of Despot Stefan Lazarević", the first humanistic book on the Balkan, where he said that Fishon or Pishon is Danube and Gihon is Nil.
How to understand this? Very easy, Adam is symbol of all men in the world, Eden is symbol of human civilization, place where was the easier place to live. On the Danube River was the first neolithic "civilization" of Lepenski Vir, Vinča and Starčevo, Egypt is the second civilizacion and Messopothamy is the third.
Lepenski vir - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepenski_Vir
Vinča - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_culture
Man of the Vinča has maybe the first alphabet in the world, which is prove that this is civilization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_symbols  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blexandar (talk • contribs) 10:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be the problem: you cite "middle-age" documents--for example, Caesarius of Nazianzus apparently lived around 331-368 CE--while the Torah is estimated as having been composed ca. eight centuries earlier (450 BCE), parts from sources even older. So terms like "Gihon" and "Pishon" in Genesis vs. these much-later accounts don't seem prevailing in their connections. The matter-of-fact, didactic claiming of its authenticity, thus, seems faulty. Adam Restling (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pishon and Gihon 

message: Just wanted to make this note, since without it, the current etymological section seems incomplete to me.
According to John Huehnergard's list of Proto-Semitic roots (as featured in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language), Eden does mean "delight", deriving from a Central Semitic noun *ġadan, *ġidn "softness, tenderness, verdure" (root ġdn); the phoneme ġ, as usual, became Hebrew /ʿ/ (ʿayin).
The resemblance of the Hebrew form (if not its ancestor) to Sumerian edin is often raised, and interesting, but doesn't prove much: the Bible is full of linguistic and phonetic punning with terms that don't seem to truly be related, such as connecting Hebel ("Abel") to a homophonous word hebel "vaporous, ephemeral", or Qayin ("Cain") to Eve's comment on his birth, "I have gotten (קניתי qānîtî ) a man with the help of the Lord"--despite the likely true, quite different, theorized etymologies of their names. Adam Restling (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Isn't this a bit long? Why should it be given so much space? Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely too long, and the sources look rather non-reliable to me. The best basic source is Tsumura's "I Studied...", which is a collection of important articles on the subject. Tsmumura's introduction is an excellent summary of the way scholarly thinking had evolved to that point. PiCo (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then can you fix it, as I don't have the book. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uner the Persian Gulf 

message: Is the Garden of Eden mention in the bible, Is it the land of Paradise that Jesus said to one of the two robbers that got crucified with Jesus on mount Calvary? and secondly, is that garden of Eden which some of us said that it to be Paradise, does it exist on earth or is it in Heaven?..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.62.121.67 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Garden of Eden 

message: 21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” Editor2020 (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banishment from Eden to prevent eating the Tree of Life. 

message: hi 
my question is that in bible there is no menstion about tree of life 
could you explian to me ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.74.166 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  tree of life  

message: If you read the book of EZEKIEL with understanding in some verses EDEN is used as a comparison to both SATAN and cities names in the verses, as a form of destruction to both. It is not implying that Eden is located in Lebenon  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.210.61 (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  GARDEN OF EDEN 

message: I heave reverted the addition of the Quran into the lead sentence. It read "most notably in the Quran and the Book of Genesis but the most notable appearance would be in Genesis. StAnselm (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you say that? Pass a Method talk 08:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it reasonable to say that of all the religious texts that describe the Garden of Eden, the Quran and the Book of Genesis are the [two] most notable? You could add "two" and this dispute would be resolved, although I think it's unnecessary since readers can probably just count. You could also drop "most notably".- MrX 13:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is particularly the "most notable" phrase that was the problem, since the Quranic occurrence is secondary and derivative. Doing a Google search, "Garden of Eden" Bible -Quran -Koran gives 2.94 million hits, while "Garden of Eden" Quran -Bible gives 70,800 hits. That's a significant difference. StAnselm (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I have moved the mention of the Quran to a separate sentence - it flows better that way. StAnselm (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason for that is because the Quran has dozens of transliterations including quran, koran, qur'an, alkoran, coran, alquran, qoran, Qur'ân, Qur'ān, Qurʾān, Ḳurʾān, etc. With so many transliteraions a google return count is not indicative of notability. Pass a Method talk 20:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, do you have any other suggestions for determining notability then? Is there any particular reason you think the Quranic usage is as significant or notable as the biblical usage? StAnselm (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is as notable since polls show Muslims are more religious than Christians, which is further reflected on the page religious states. is there any reason you think the Quran is not as notable as the Bible? Pass a Method talk 21:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with the notability of the Quran - what it concerns is whether the Garden of Eden is referred to in a Quranic rather than a biblical context in reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quran in the lead 

message: "From the Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut: : On February 28th the Daily Mail published an article by Tom Cox, in which Prof. Dr. Klaus Schmidt, leader of the Göbekli Tepe excavations, is cited as follows: "Göbekli Tepe is a temple in Eden". On the basis of this, the author formulates several conclusions about the biblical paradise, Adam and Eve and other events connected to the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament. Several German- and Turkish-language newspapers and radio stations of german and turkish language have picked up on the contents of the article since its publication.
"Tom Cox" or "Tom Knox" is a pseudonym of the British journalist Sean Thomas, who used the article to get publicity for his thriller "Genesis Secret", which is due to appear in March in English and simultaneously in German. Since Sean Thomas is using a falsified version of an interview with Klaus Schmidt made in fall 2006, he presents a distortion of the scientific work of the German Archaeological Institute.
The German Archaeological Institute (DAI) distances itself from these statements and reserves the right to take legal action against further dissemination of the story in connection with the work of the DAI at Göbekli Tepe. Klaus Schmidt neither in an interview nor on any other occasion made the above mentioned statements."
Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You added some political rubbish connecting Jerusalem with the garden of Eden, obviously some political religious rationale from pro Israel sentiments of some sort or another. Really it is a very lame ridiculous thing you restored. Just because there is some citation about it does not mean it could be included. Nearly any lame brained idea has followers and a citation can be mustered. Its obvious pov from someone. Also the above thing about Göbekli Tepe being some kind of scam seems far fetched. Its a famous site that happened in a time and place. You deny the significance and connection to the Garden of Eden concept, well that seems really out of line also. If this article is so controlled with pov, I will not touch it again. Right now it is not good. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it's following our policy and guideline at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Everyone has a pov - you clearly do as your objection to Professor Terje Stordalen's book seems to be that it doesn't fit your pov. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am taking this article off my watch list and will not touch it with a ten foot pole as it appears to be the playground of pov pushers. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. You clearly don't understand WP:NPOV or WP:RS, so it's a good idea for you not to edit this. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Göbekli Tepe 

message: According to Edward L. Ochsenschlager: Iraq's Marsh Arabs in the Garden of Eden (University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2004) "One of the most prominent theorists on this topic, Juris Zarins, believes the Garden of Eden lies some 200 miles south of Sumer under the waters of the Persian Gulf, and he thinks that the story of Adam and Eve, both in and out of the Garden, is a highly condensed and evocative account of the shift from hunting /gathering to agriculture.*" Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zarins view inadequately portrayed 

message: How correct is it to say that "the Garden of Eden is considered by most scholars to be mythical"? The Garden figures in the Bible. To state that it is mythical based on works of just a couple of scholars is to indirectly imply that the Holy Scripture is a compilation of myths. Whereas many geographical places and events mentioned in the Bible are confirmed by scholars to be geographically and historically correct. Other scholars believe that Garden of Eden is not only not mythical, but it had actually existed on Earth, since the Bible mentions the names of rivers that up to this day exist.71.191.12.221 (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So you'd disagree with a statement that said "Most scholars consider Adam and Eve to be mythical"?  Sorry, but unless you define 'scholars' very narrowly, you're wrong. All Creationists obviously do, but how many historians and archaeologists do? And it's a lot more than a couple of religious scholars that view it as myth. Doug Weller (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

text: It never occurred to me that we weren't considering scholars in a relevant field. So let me add that caveat. Morris isn't a scholar in this area.  Cline discusses speculations on its location but actually says at the end of the chapter that "It is hard to put the Garden...into historical context, for it belongs to the realm of prehistory, if not myth or legend." In his next sentence he says that most of Genesis 1-11 seems "to be more literary than historical." He does say that there may be a "historical kernel of truth" in that the relevant region saw the beginnings of agriculture, and that both "the Mesooptamiam myths and the stories in the Hebrew Bible have their origins in the simple fact that it was this region that first saw the flowering of agriculture...." He speculates where it might have been if it existed, and concludes the chapter with a quote from Victor Horowitz: "I doubt we'll ever find Eden outside the pages of the Bible." Doug Weller (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Many editors are more familiar with Wikipedia policies than I am. Still, I note from WP:DUE that neutrality requires articles "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". My interpretation of this is that we don't weigh content in direct proportion to the number of sources citing a certain view. Instead, reliable sources are given the greatest weight (or maybe all the weight). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Those sources might not be as reliable or as supportive as you seem to think. [21] Paradise Lust (yes, that is the title) is a summary of the culture of wanting to find Eden. [25] is an incomplete citation, which should be removed. At least one of the others is a conference paper of content I do not know. Note that these are citations to "speculation". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Why remove [21]? That is actually rather scholarly as these things go!  I've suggested that [25] be removed. Looks like [22] is self-published. Several others look odd and/or are just conference papers. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

text: We are using Hamblin's article twice, 22 and 27 - and she is only reporting Zarins, not saying she agrees. The fact that someone is claiming Greenberg is a scholar and an archaeologist is very worrying, he's a lawyer writing fringe booksw.. Doug Weller (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Brook Wilensky-Lanford isn't a scholar, she's a writer, probably a good one, but not a scholar, archaeologist, etc. Again she needs to be removed from any list of scholars. Doug Weller (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed what seem to be either dubious citations or incomplete citations, changed the sentence to accommodate the "popular" aspect of "Paradise Lust" and, more generally, speculations represented in the press. Hopefully this is a step forward, but, as always, reliable sources are welcome. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

text: No, Greenberg isn't a scholar. None of that makes him a scholar. By scholar we normally mean an academic. He's an amateur historian. The organisations he belongs to are irrelevant. And it's his publications that are fringe. Eg Moses was Pharoah Akhnaten's High Priest, etc. He's not an expert by any means. And the others you mention do not all (if any of them do) argue that there was a literal Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve were created.  Doug Weller (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed locations 

message: It seems to me that we are talking about two perspectives on the Garden of Eden. One is that of those who believe that God created man there. The other is that of those who don't believe that. As I've pointed out several sections above, with a source, Zarins is one of the latter. If you read Hamblin, she makes this clear, as does Edward L. Ochsenschlager whom I cite above. Although Rohl thinks he has found historical evidence for the stories in the Bible, he doesn't claim that there was a Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve were created. Doug Weller (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it does. There's a huge difference between believing that there was an actual Garden of Eden and suggesting that a location for the place that later became the basis for the story of the Garden of Eden. Doug Weller (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As Cline says, "It is conceivable, however, that there is a historical kernel of truth at the base of the Garden of Eden story, because, as Speiser notes, “To the writer of the account in Gen. 2:8 . . . the Garden of Eden was obviously a geographic reality.” If there is some historical truth to the account, it would seem to be the fact that the region of Mesopotamia was home to the Fertile Crescent, which stretched in an arc from the Persian Gulf to southern Turkey and saw the origins of agriculture and the first domestication of animals from approximately 10,000 b.c. onward. It may well be that both the various Mesopotamian myths and the stories in the Hebrew Bible have their origins in the simple fact that it was this region that first saw the flowering of agriculture, both back during the original neolithic revolution around 10,000 b.c. and then again during the introduction of irrigation during the fourth millennium b.c." and "As Victor Hurowitz, professor of Bible and ancient Near Eastern studies at Ben-Gurion University, once said: “I doubt we’ll ever find Eden outside the pages of the Bible.” Doug Weller (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

text: You still don't get it. There are scholars who think that the story of the Garden of Eden and other myths originated from things that happened in a particular location, eg agriculture - often a very large location, larger than the Bible suggests. Not a real Garden of Eden. Maybe some of these are atheists, maybe not, I don't know. There are others, who are definitely religious, who think that there was a real Garden of Eden as described in the Bible and propose locations for it. There's a big difference. Doug Weller (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Um, agriculture is a thing:"There are scholars who think that the story of the Garden of Eden and other myths originated from things that happened in a particular location, eg agriculture - often a very large location, "  I thought that was pretty clear especially as I've added sources for it above. And no, I didn't remove "this edit", I haven't edited the article for a month and that was something entirely different. And Zarins seems pretty clear - he is talking about the origin of the myth:""The whole Garden of Eden story, however, when finally written, could be seen to represent the point of view of the hunter gatherers,". He's saying the myth originated there, not that that was the Garden of Eden. Huge difference. But you aren't listening, as you still think Greenberger is a scholar. If you think he is, go over to Akhenaten and edit that article to show that Moses was Akhenaten's high priest. Doug Weller (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

text: You're actually getting into another area here. Graves was as you say a poet and novelist, Arthur George is an attorney, Schwartz  "a collector and re-teller of Jewish stories and midrash." according to his article, Delumeau is a specialist in Catholic Church history. He's the only academic among the lot. His History of Paradise: The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition talks of others who try to locate it, what does he say himself about it? Doug Weller (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested location does not mean 'not mythical' 

message: Previously, in the Proposed Locations section, there for a long time peacefully existed a reference-supported clause suggesting the Armenian Highland or Armenian Plateau as one of the physical locations of the Garden of Eden. All of a sudden, the view of an author cited in the reference displeased some editor and was defined as "fringe" and the clause was removed. Okay... I now attempt to insert the same clause providing three (there are more) reliable references to support this suggested location, namely: 1. Duncan, Joseph E. Milton’s Earthly Paradise: A Historical Study of Eden. 1972. University Of Minnesota Press; Minnesota Archive Editions edition (July 6, 1972), pp. 96, 212.
2. Scafi, Alessandro. Return to the Sources: Paradise in Armenia, in: Mapping Paradise: A History of Heaven on Earth. 2006. London-Chicago: British Library-University of Chicago Press, pp. 317-322, and 3.
Willcocks, Sir William, Hormuzd Rassam. Mesopotamian Trade. Noah’s Flood: The Garden of Eden, in: The Geographical Journal 35, No. 4 (April 1910), pp. 459-460. All three are non-fringe authors expressing non-fringe views. Yet, some whimsy Wikipedia editor keeps removing this edit together with the cited references. Please attend.71.191.0.18 (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  An edit with references to non-fringe scholars is being removed 

message: In the Proposed Location section it said "Pre-Christian Jews did not consider the Garden of Eden to be a physical place."  I have removed this assertion. I looked at the reference and could find no such statement nor external support or reference to Jewish sources lending to that idea. I have never heard of this before.  This does not mean that it is untrue, but it does not mean that it is, either.  So I have removed it. If someone can site more than a title and a link and provide the chapter/page which itself cites primary pre-christian jewish sources, then we can add it back in. Jyg (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Christian Jews did not consider the Garden of Eden to be a physical place? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Garden of Eden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130711094433/http://doi to http://DOI
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Garden of Eden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109135715/http://www.theeffect.org/resources/articles/pdfsetc/Eden.pdf to http://www.theeffect.org/resources/articles/pdfsetc/Eden.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: .  Many Catholics consider it metaphorical too.  Origin myths also have particular styles and purposes and mythological doesn't always mean "false", although I also recommend reading Talk:Evolution/FAQ in this case.  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve seen books by Protestant theologians writing about the mythological aspects. Doug Weller talk 21:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only secular scholars 

message: I think that this view is considered fringe.  If kept, the reference to the book should be at the end of paragraph (ideally using .  Let's see what other editors think.  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading Terence McKenna shows both that at much of his writing is fringe and that he makes no claims to be a historian, archaeologist etc. WP:UNDUE applies here as well as WP:FRINGE. This doesn't seem to be a view held by a significant minority or a well known expert on Eden. , you can't ping IP addresses. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about your assessment.  Although I didn't read all of his work, I found his material interesting in the context of shamanism and entheogens, but considered it mostly fantasy and food for thought.  Hmm I realize that without notifications  is useless versus plain text (although it wasn't more difficult to type).  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terence McKenna 

message: According to Wikipedia entry Scholar, a scholar is “a person who pursues academic and intellectual activities, particularly those that develop expertise in an area of study”. In this article, the sentence “The Garden of Eden is considered to be mythological by most scholars” is absolutely misleading, because the referenced works that follow this flawed statement are from people, none of whom is a scholar in Biblical Archaeology. Wikipedia cites: [10] Jon Douglas Levenson, who is a Hebrew Bible theologian; [11] Howard Schwartz, a folklorist and poet; [12] Arthur George, a mythologist; and [13] Robert Graves, a poet and classical novelist, and Raphael Patai, a Jewish folklorist. Wikipedia then disparagingly notes: “Among those who consider it to have been real”. Well, “THOSE” who consider the Garden to be real are many, they are certainly not the minority as compared to THOSE who consider it to be mythological. These two sentences need to be changed at least by stating that there are two camps of scholars and related academics: one camp considers the Garden mythological and the other real.98.231.157.169 (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know is creationism still pseudoscience. Also just because something is mythology, it does not mean it is necessarily "not real".--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, out of many scholars who suggested that the Garden of Eden was a physical place, only John Morris is a creationist. Others are: Juris Zarins, an archaeologist specializing in the Middle East; James Sauer, a Biblical archaeologist; David Rohl, an Egyptologist; Ephraim Speiser, an Assyriologist; Eric Cline, an archaeologist and historian specializing in ancient Near East; Ziony Zevit, a scholar of Biblical Literature; John Day, an Old Testament scholar; Joseph E. Duncan, a scholar in Ancient Literature; Alessandro Scafi, a scholar in Cultural History; William Willcocks, an engineer and Egyptologist; and Hormuzd Rassam, an Assyriologist. And if mythology, in your understanding, does not mean it is necessarily “not real”, then this sentence in the introduction: “The Garden of Eden is considered to be mythological by most scholars. Among those who consider it to have been real, there have been various suggestions for its location […]”, needs to be changed, because it clearly suggests a conflict between “mythological” and “real”. I suggest changing “real” to “physical” and removing “by most scholars”. It is beyond doubt that people referenced by Wikipedia as “most scholars” are not “most” and certainly not “scholars” in the true sense of the word. Theologians, folklorists, poets, mythologists, classical novelists, etc. cannot be scholars similarly to archaeologists, historians, Egyptologists, Assyriologists, cultural historians, and Biblical archaeologists. Equal or greater number of, indeed, scholars suggest the Garden’s physical locations.98.231.157.169 (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points: (1) being a scholar in one field does not prevent you from being a scholar in another field as well.  (2) The lead to Myth admirably summarises the meaning of Myth.  Specifically, in scholarly circles it does not imply necessary falsehood, but that there is no evidence independent of the religious narrative involved. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  this guy has posted here at least 30 times and doesn't listen. Take his claim about Cline for instance. I wrote above: "Cline discusses speculations on its location but actually says at the end of the chapter that "It is hard to put the Garden...into historical context, for it belongs to the realm of prehistory, if not myth or legend." In his next sentence he says that most of Genesis 1-11 seems "to be more literary than historical." He does say that there may be a "historical kernel of truth" in that the relevant region saw the beginnings of agriculture, and that both "the Mesooptamiam myths and the stories in the Hebrew Bible have their origins in the simple fact that it was this region that first saw the flowering of agriculture...." He speculates where it might have been if it existed, and concludes the chapter with a quote from Victor Horowitz: "I doubt we'll ever find Eden outside the pages of the Bible." This is getting tendentious, should we hat it? Doug Weller talk 12:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, did not know that. Just thought I make a quick response without further investigating the situation.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythological vs Real 

message: Why were religious traditions segregated? There is the Middle-Eastern mention of Eden or Edin & then there is the European mention of Idunn & her orchard. I remember long ago that these subjects were linked & that the page was inclusive & hyper-linked to either subject.
I'm calling vandalism on the part of Abrahamics against European Pagans. This has happened before in history where Christians vandalized Norse/Germanic Art & there was recorded violence that was initiated by the Christians/Romans against the Norse/Germanic. I have also experienced personally vandalism of my own property which was of a religious attribution as well as a scholarly one by my own Abrahamic adherent parents. They destroyed 2 pendants of mine...a Tiwaz & a Valknut. They called me Satanic & a devil worshiper....despite the fact that Tyr/Odin/etc are all fighting against treacherous family/friends, monsters, evil sorcerers, & giants...& are brave enough to face their own ends at Ragnarok.
So don't get me wrong. I'm just saying there is precedent in my experience to religious bigotry that leads to actual destruction of property & harassment of person. [there is more to my own story with my family & friends but that's too abundant to list].
This is why I'm going to find a way to link the Middle-Eastern Abrahamic/Akkadian Eden/Edin with the European Idunn. I'm just probing the waters here before I do so, so I can manage my time & "prime" the page.
True Premise (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle-Eastern/Abrahamic Religious Exclusion of European Religious Mentions 

message: Am I the only one who can't figure out what this clause in § Proposed locations is trying to say? If it had just been added I'd delete it outright, but its stuck around for two years so maybe I'm missing something. "At its source of the rivers" was added in January of 2019 with an unclear summary, and the "include:" bit was later added, making the phrasing even more confusing (the sentence continues as if there hadn't been a colon, before detouring back to mention Armenia in more of the manner you'd expect after a colon). -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 11:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ,  I get what it means -- at the source of the Tigris and Euphrates, the most commonly identified rivers, in contrast to the next clause which discusses a location at their termini. But it's very poorly phrased and I recommend you rewrite it to your satisfaction. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "include: at its source of the rivers" 

message: Recently, this article got vandalized where someone wrote in the lead section image description "The Garden of Eden is in South America...". Can this article be protected? - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi @Slaythe there's only been a couple edits reverted in the last month so likely does not warrant protection.  See WP:Protection policy for additional guidance. S0091 (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this article be protected? 

message: In the last ice age, the sea level was lower and there was no sea between Africa, The Arabian Peninsula and the Middle East. Thus using a map of today for an ancient place is not correct in the placement location. As the Garden of Eden is most likely under water today. This is where the rivers would have been.Telecine Guy (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Ice age