Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In Genesis 3:22 through 24 KJV man is ejected from the Garden of Eden and Cherubims are stationed on the East side of the garden to prevent man going back and eating from the tree of life.

22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

From the fact that the Cherubims were stationed on the East side it would necessarily portend that the rest of the World would be to the West otherwise they would have been stationed all around assuming that entry could be gained through other than the eastern gate.

My question then is assuming that the Garden of Eden was a physical place why isn't it known of today, and if it is not a physical place then there are whole new batch of questions in my mind.

share|improve this question

closed as primarily opinion-based by David Stratton, maj nem ɪz dæn, Jayarathina Madharasan, Flimzy, fredsbend Jun 24 at 22:11

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1  
If it does still exist, I don't think we could go there because of v24... –  Wikis Nov 19 '13 at 19:29
2  
Strongly related / possible duplicate: In which country is the Garden of Eden located? –  Wikis Nov 19 '13 at 19:30
1  
@ Wikis Can't argue with that!! –  Bye Nov 19 '13 at 19:31
    
@ Wikis I considered that it might possibly be a duplicate, but that presumes that it was or still is a physical place my question is whether or not it is a physical place. –  Bye Nov 19 '13 at 19:38
1  
This is what we call a "truth" question--that is, it asks for the specific, real truth on a topic. We can't handle truth questions. There are (at least) three answers to this question, and which one is "True" depends on your opinion. 1. yes it still exists. 2. It no longer exists. 3. It never existed. Naturally, we cannot put ourselves in a position to decide which of these answers is TRUE. If you wish to narrow your question to a specific theological viewpoint, then we can answer the question from that viewpoint. –  Flimzy Jun 24 at 19:06

3 Answers 3

up vote 4 down vote accepted

The garden of Eden was a physical place. It was believed to be situated south of Lake Van in Turkey. Ancient Turkey.

We cannot know the exact location of Eden because of the flood. The flood could have changed the geography of the whole area. It almost certainly would change how the 4 rivers flowed. Those 4 rivers are really the only way of knowing the exact spot of Eden. You can speculate the exact spot, but nobody knows for sure.

Here is an article from Insight from the Scriptures Volume 1:

"The traditional location for the garden of Eden has long been suggested to have been a mountainous area some 225 km (140 mi) SW of Mount Ararat and a few kilometers S of Lake Van, in the eastern part of modern Turkey. That Eden may have been surrounded by some natural barrier, such as mountains, could be suggested by the fact that cherubs are stated to have been stationed only at the E of the garden, from which point Adam and Eve made their exit."

"With the sudden opening of the ‘springs of the watery deep’ and “the floodgates of the heavens,” untold billions of tons of water deluged the earth. (Ge 7:11) This may have caused tremendous changes in earth’s surface. The earth’s crust is relatively thin (estimated at between 30 km [20 mi] and 160 km [100 mi] thick), stretched over a rather plastic mass thousands of kilometers in diameter. Hence, under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the crust. In time new mountains evidently were thrust upward, old mountains rose to new heights, shallow sea basins were deepened, and new shorelines were established, with the result that now about 70 percent of the surface is covered with water. This shifting in the earth’s crust may account for many geologic phenomena, such as the raising of old coastlines to new heights. It has been estimated by some that water pressures alone were equal to “2 tons per square inch,” sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora quickly.—See The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, by D. Patten, 1966, p. 62."

So to answer the question, no it is very unlikely. If Eden had mountains everywhere, but east, then Eden was in a small valley of sorts. The genesis account says even the tallest mountains where covered. This means that the valley would have been underwater for quite a long time. It is speculated that the water took almost a year to subside. That is more than long enough to drown any plant life that was in Eden. The site of Eden may still exist, but because of the flood it would be vastly different than what it originally was.

share|improve this answer
1  
Just to add a little what-if action to this. There is no way Noah could have been sure that he was even in the same place where he started. –  wax eagle Nov 20 '13 at 12:34
    
I completely agree. There would have been no landmarks, just an endless ocean. Even if he could figure out which direction he was going by the sun, He would have no clue how far he had floated. Even if man could figure out its location, assuming it wasn't destroyed, angels where stationed at the entrance to Eden to keep man out. –  Jeremy Nov 21 '13 at 2:17

This is a partial answer.

The whole world was destroyed by the flood (Genesis 6-9), so it is unlikely there are any recognisable remains of the garden of Eden.

Presumably there is some location that corresponds to where it was, but it is hard to identify. Though we do have some clues.

The ark landed in the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4), which may be a clue depending on how far it travelled.

10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. Genesis 2:10-14

So it may be near: a place where there is gold and onyx; Ethiopia (if that corresponds to modern day Ethiopia; and the Euphrates, if that is located in anything like the same location as the modern day Euphrates.

So it is likely it was somewhere in the middle east, but as to exactly where, I am unwilling to speculate.

share|improve this answer

I believe that the Garden of Eden was located in modern-day Israel, probably at or near Mount Zion. There are a number of reason for this view:

First, the fall of man requires a Saviour and for that Saviour to have completely redeemed His people, then complete spiritual restoration-in my view-would suggest that the physical location would definitely be a factor in this restoration. One need not look far to see that G_ds plan throughout the ages and with His people (written in the bible) is inextricable linked with the physical location of His plans as well (the whole book of Genesis is based on physical location of the nations of the earth, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (this is an obvious fact).

So, we have the fall of man in Eden and the subseqent banishment from Eden (Genesis 3). Now, we also know that Abraham offered his son on a mountain under instruction by G_d (Genesis 22). This was a type or foreshadow of G_d offering His Son, Jesus Christ our Saviour.

There are numerous verses which mention Mount Zion being very special to G_d and of great importance. Mount Zion I believe has a literal as well as a spiritual significance. Spiritual in that born-again believers are seen as being linked to Zion (Psalm 45, 48...)

Coming back to my main point: for full and complete restoration to have been brought about by Jesus Christ who laid down His life for the world, He must have been offered up as atonement for our sins at the same physical location as the original sin that was committed by Adam in the Garden of Eden.

There are also other forms of evidence suggesting that Eden was in Israel. We read in Genesis 2 of the river Gihon which may resemble the natural springs in King Hezekiah's tunnel, located underground in Israel.

share|improve this answer
    
I kind of get your argument that because place matters therefore it should be the same place, but I don't think anything really links Eden to Jerusalem... –  curiousdannii Jun 24 at 11:24

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.