The geography of Eden

This is a very speculative, non-authoritative, exploration of the more obscure geography of Genesis, making no assumptions about literal inerrancy.

Firstly, the geography of the four rivers of Eden, Genesis ch2 vv10-14. It’s become fashionable to look for ways to locate all of them in Sumer, but the fact that they arise out of Eden ought to be pointing us towards the headwaters.

It’s obvious on a map that the headwaters of two of them, the Tigris and Euphrates, are fairly close together in the region of Lake Van in the northern highlands. Can’t we find two more rivers arising in the same region? We do have the Halys, which flows into the Black Sea, and the Araxes which flows into the Caspian.

We are thrown a little by the mention of Cush. Cush is associated with Egypt in ch10. Kush is known outside the Bible as a name for modern Nubia, and most of the later Bible references are consistent with that location. But if we accept the inference that the Gihon is the Nile, that makes a complete nonsense of the geography of the passage, as can be seen from the works of mediaeval mapmakers.

On the other hand, Ezekiel ch38 v5 makes Cush part of a coalition of northern tribes. And if we look closely at the ch10 reference, we find that Cush is identified as the father of Nimrod, who is firmly tied to the Babylon area. So there may be a confusion here between two peoples or areas with similar names, which is not at all unusual in historical geography. The same confusion could account for Havilah, land of gold, which would otherwise have to be in the Red Sea region.

Therefore Cush is not necessarily an obstacle to identifying Eden with the central portion of the Anatolian-Iranian plateau, in the vicinity of Lake Van and Lake Urmiyyah. I once saw a television documentary in which a man was convinced he had found the site of Eden in a raised valley in the highlands, the important clue being a slope forming a kind of “wall” at the eastern end of the valley. The flaw in his argument was that the wall of Eden is non-Biblical. It comes straight out of Paradise Lost, so that discovery adds nothing to the case.

But the highland plateau is a fitting location for other aspects of the Eden story. It would have had trees. Many modern historians think that cultivation of crops, the curse of Adam, began in that region, as climate change made hunting more difficult. This would have allowed the population to grow, encouraging them to disperse, making that region the place of origin for many peoples in the larger area. Let us make special note of Cain, who moved eastwards. That is, if I am right, onto the Iranian plateau east of the Zagros range.

Now let’s turn to the Flood. Again, the fashion is to assume that Flood stories are based on Sumerian memories of the flooding of the Persian Gulf. But other regions have flood stories too, with other versions of Noah. Greek mythology knows two versions, one for Greece (Deucalion and Pyrrha) and one for Anatolia (Philemon and Baucis). This points to flooding in the Aegean-Black Sea region. Perhaps this could be a long-distance folk-memory of the post-Ice Age event, proposed by some geologists, in which a sudden flood broke down a land barrier between the two seas. I have a pet theory that this could also account for the story of the “clashing islands”, which formed a barrier to the Black Sea in the story of Jason and the Argonauts.

If survivors from the eastern end of the Black Sea coast fled into the highland regions, their descendants could still be there, with folk-memories of flooding, when that region began to develop agriculture. It must be significant that tradition places the landfall of Noah in Ararat. Not the single mountain known by that name in modern times, but a slightly larger mountainous area. This would connect “The Flood” and “The Tree of Life” as elements in the same cultural tradition. In that order, and it’s interesting that the Babylonian version of the Flood story is also an event in the past when Gilgamesh is looking for the Tree of Life.

Another geographical statement is that mankind enters the plain of Shinar (the later Babylonia) “from the east” (ch11 v2). This fits in very well with the likely origins of the Sumerians when they first established themselves at the south-eastern end of Mesopotamia.

Nobody knows exactly where the Sumerians came from. But let us remind ourselves that Cain went east when he left Eden. This sets up the possibility that either the Sumerians themselves or the cultural tradition they learned travelled south-eastwards from the Lake Van region and along the south-western edge of the Iranian plateau before entering the Tigris valley closer to the Persian Gulf end of the Zagros range. In which case one Flood tradition could have started from the Black Sea and climbed up into the highlands to pick up the Tree of Life tradition before being taken down to Sumer to link up with the Flood traditions of the Persian Gulf.

There used to be an Hungarian poster on ATS who was convinced that Hungarian and Sumerian were the same language. I don’t know either of them, so I can’t comment. On the strength of the alleged similarity, he argued that the Sumerians must have established colonies on the Russian steppes. This strikes me as very implausible, but I can just see the possibility of movement in the opposite direction. That is, the distant ancestors of the Sumerians fleeing from the Black Sea southwards, while their proto-Hungarian relatives fled northwards from the opposite coast.

Finally, a word on Ham, Shem, and Japheth. The usual interpretation of ch10 (e.g. the Times Atlas of the Bible) confines Ham to the Nile valley and Canaan and allows Shem to occupy the Tigris-Euphrates plains. But I have already pointed out the inconvenient fact that Nimrod, the infamous ruler of Babylon, is the son of Cush and therefore the grandson of Ham. I suggest, then, that this three-part division is not ethnic but geographical. Ham occupies the Fertile Crescent, BOTH sides, which allows him to become a well-fed race of evil giants (from the perspective of the starved desert-dwellers). Shem occupies the desert to the south, Japheth occupies the highlands in the north as well as the distant islands of Greece.. If the divisions are not ethnic, there is nothing to be gained from trying to connect all this with the genetic history of the rest of the world.

I noticed a few years ago, that there is a very old town in Iraq, literally called Edin.
You might check it out.

It is also worth considering that the oldest archaeological sites yet found have been in Turkey, specifically eastern Turkey,
so that might be another place to consider.

a reply to: TheValeyard
In fact eastern Turkey is precisely the area I was looking at, thank you.

a reply to: DISRAELI2

a reply to: TheValeyard

If you are looking at Sumeria, you are talking up to 5,000 BC

If you are looking at something like Göbekli Tepe in Turkey, you are talking around 12,000 BCE

The Madjedbebe archeological site in Northern Territory, Australia uncovered stone axes with sharpened polished edges, stone spear tips, seed-grinding tools (mortars and pestles) that are somewhere between 50,000 - 75,000 years old

Homo sapien remains found in Australia (like the Mungo man) are around 50,000 years old

But homo sapien remains have been found all around the world, that are up to 300,000 years old

My point is ...

You are either trying to examine the origin of the species ...

Or the geographical lineage of named places and countries (Biblical or otherwise)

You cannot do both

They cannot be aligned in this way, there is simply to much time, missing pieces, and geological variables in-between

Linking ancient writings geographically, is at best, correlating places named after information passed down in written and spoken traditions. Not the places written or spoken of themselves

You are trying to put together a puzzle using the two edges, without any of the pieces in-between

I admire the time and effort you put into your research, but it doesn't work like that

Regardless, you are analysing veil texts, which are supposed to be metaphors for processes of creation, as if they are historically accurate places and people

Adam is Atom
Torah is Torus (the geometric shape)
Elohim is equilibrium

Flood myths talk about the formation and filling of a cell (torus/sphere)

The filling of any forming cell, working in the same was as the Earth itself was formed

With the internal waters (from which all matter and solid land are formed), seperating the cell from the upper waters, being the atmosphere

It is no different to the seed and it's shell

Or the mythological references to the "egg" or "turtle" of creation

I really do respect the amount of time and effort you put into your research DISRAELI ...

But I don't understand why you don't use that same effort to correlate the ancient texts to complex non-linear dynamics such as the underlying principles of creation, dimensions, shapes, forces and physics. Rather than linear dynamics of things like history

History can be misrepresented, mistranslated and misunderstood. Especially when written in allegory

The cycles of creation inherent within any level of form of torus, cannot

You are supposed to look at the coding within the Biblical text as being to the Earth, like the coding of DNA is to our bodies

The patterns of history form to the original writings of the texts, not the other way around

When you understand this, you realise that it does not matter which mythology, religion or "coded texts" you analyse, they are all inherent to the same cycles of propagation

Which is why we see the same stories, from mythology to mythology, religion to religion

You also realise, that the historical accuracy of texts is irrelevant to the intended understanding within the texts

If Jesus did exist, it is just as likely the he came to exist because of the "coding" of the world, such as the Biblical texts ...

As it is, the texts came to be rewritten of someone who fulfills a cycle of probability

One of the very first things the Sinai (physical orbs of light) taught me within Illumination, for understanding the source material for things like the Bible, is that:

"You need to consider them "cyclically"
"They need to be considered "Cyclically"

See what I did there?

Jesus Christ came about, because of the texts which proceeded him

Just as much as versions of the text came to be rewritten, because he proceeded them

CHRIST = CYCLE
JESUS / ISIS = RESONANCE

The filling and fulfillment of the cycle

The physics of which, is not different to someone passing on a cross, to rise again

Someone who has been before, and will be again

A cycle which also extends to the concept of its "anti", which needs be, in-between, in order for something that once was, to then "come again"

Though we perceive the things we were use to contextualised the cycles linearly, it is for the most part pointless analysing things like creation and the nature of "God" in this way

The personification, regardless of whether they historically existed or not, is there to help you understand principles about the cycles of creation

a reply to: Compendium
I myself wasn't trying to link to the origin-point of the species. Just to one of the possible origin points of farming (which would have been a source of population growth and therefore outward migration).

I'll say the same thing here that I said at DI when you started this topic there ...

There was no Eden. It's a fictional story. It is one of many creation myths made up by people to try to explain why they are here. There is a similar story out of Egypt involving a tree of life, a snake, and gods. It takes place on the Nile river.

As to Ham, Shem, and Japheth that you brought up. Noah never existed so then neither did Ham, Shem, and Japheth. There was no world wide flood in 2400BC wiping out everyone except Noah and his family.

I don't see what is important about looking up geography of a fictional story. But if it's interesting to you then go ahead. Enjoy yourself.

a reply to: DISRAELI2

OK, sorry I misunderstood

Interesting that you are looking at cultivation and farming, as it correlates exactly with things I have been researching recently

My teachers (Sinai) are helping me to learn and understand the original meanings of Egyptian hieroglyphs

A written languages they claimed to have helped create

There are a couple of things have come up, that may/might be of use to you. Or you may/might at least find interesting, because it appears they directly reference the term/name "Jesus Christ"

First quickly, the accepted method for translating hieroglyphs is backwards to how I have been shown to read them

We are supposed to read TOWARDS the direction the glyphs are facing, not FROM the direction they are facing

This is important because the concept of "farming" very literally comes up in the retranslation of the hieroglyph that is said to mean "The King of upper and lower Egypt" ("he of the sedge and bee")

The translation is actually "To sew, to bite". Which aligns in meaning with something like todays saying "reap what you sew"



The rising sun glyph, does not mean "He/King". It means "To". "To go towards". This is why they use the emerging sun. It is the process of something coming towards

This appears to have been mistranslated as "He/King" due to the context of it meaning that which "comes before". As with a King or sovereign individual, being associated with symbols of the Kingdom

It is much more general than that though. It just means "To". It does not have to mean a person coming "to", it can be anything within the perspective of going towards

The opposite of this being the setting sun, showing the half of the sun which cannot be seen behind the horizon, which is meant to mean "From". To pass away, or go from something. This has been mistakenly identified as being a cup

The sedge bush, means "sew", as in plant something that will come to provide

The bee, means "bite", as in the context of consuming something provided. The opposite of the sew

"To sew, to bite", "to reap what you sew", or "to grow and consume"

It is very literally talking about processes of agriculture and farming

The fact that the sedge and bee are used as symbols for upper and lower Egypt, could give you some context as to where commercial level industries of this type specifically emerged ...

If you look into where geographically, specifically, the hieroglyphic symbol for "he of the sedge and bee" has been found

The main one that you could find interesting, is the hieroglyph which seems to link to "Jesus Christ"

Within the Egyptian hieroglyphs, a set of out-stretched wings, such as with Isis, refers to internalised "resonance". The same as the root etymology meaning of the name "Jesus"

Isis is resonance, the internal state of cycles, which is why in Egyptian tradition she is female. Internalisation
Osiris is oscillation, the external state of cycles, which is why in Egyptian tradition he is male. Externalisation

Osiris/Oscillation is cut to pieces (expansion of the universe and matter, like air/gas)
Isis/Resonance puts the pieces back together (contraction of the universe and matter, like solids)

The hieroglyph of the circle with the two headed Ouraeus coming off either side means "Cycle"

Something which was once before (one head of the snake) connected across the sphere/disk (the cycle) to something which "comes around" again (the other head of the snake)

Together they translate to "Resonant cycle", or in the Bible "Jesus Christ"



Or more specifically, in the way they used it "Universal cycle"

Uraeus/Ouraeus is "Universal". "Wadget" the waters. Combined, they are the "carrier of the waters", "water barer", or "the source of the universe", which refers to the source of our collective creation

A symbol that would in the Biblical context translate to "God"

originally posted by: FlyersFan
I'll say the same thing here that I said at DI when you started this topic there ...

There was no Eden. It's a fictional story. It is one of many creation myths made up by people to try to explain why they are here. There is a similar story out of Egypt involving a tree of life, a snake, and gods. It takes place on the Nile river.

As to Ham, Shem, and Japheth that you brought up. Noah never existed so then neither did Ham, Shem, and Japheth. There was no world wide flood in 2400BC wiping out everyone except Noah and his family.

I don't see what is important about looking up geography of a fictional story. But if it's interesting to you then go ahead. Enjoy yourself.

And you'd be just as wrong here as you were over there. I suppose asking you for proof of your statement would be too much to ask? And please don't just respond with that tired old phrase "You can't prove a negative."

If people like you, who profess not to believe these things, haunt all these biblical story posts, it kind of makes a person wonder why they do it? Because it's exactly what Satan would do - try to make people believe there is no God. It makes a person wonder about people like you.

Go waste your time somewhere else. We have grown tired of your churlish ways.

a reply to: FlyersFan
In that case let me copy what I replied over there, because you misunderstood what was happening.

For me, the discussion doesn't depend on whether there was an Eden (or an ark). I'm not asking myself where it was. I'm asking myself where the writer of Genesis thought it was, and what part historical movements of peoples might have played in the development of the story. To students of history, that question is interesting in itself. I was going to say that at the beginning, but allowed the comment about not following literal inerrancy to take its place.

Your comment on Ham, Shem, and Japheth actually agrees with mine, if you look at mine more closely than I think you did. I suggested that these were geographical divisions, not ethnic ones, which is the equivalent of saying they were not historical individuals.

[Incidentally, I did not originally post it on D.I. I copied it across in response to a special request from someone who is a member there and only a lurker here)

a reply to: Station27

I both agree and disagree with the context of what you are saying

You are right in the context that it serves nobody to be downright dismissive of another beliefs, opinions or theories

Spit of the wine if it not to taste
Do not drink of it, merely to complain

We should at the very least be constructive in our offerings
And gentle in our approach to those we do not understand

But at the same time, your response can be deemed to be just as unnecessary and dismissive as the one you replied to

Who is to say they say they are wrong and you are right? Or the other way around?

Such things cannot be known for certain in this world

Within which lays the very beauty and essence of things like belief

Without such uncertainty, things like hope, belief, faith and trust would be meaningless

There is virtue within understanding that the choice to believe, is no different than the choice not to believe

The choice not to believe, is itself a belief. As righteous to anothers understanding, as yours is to you

Within Illumination we are taught that some of the most beautiful people in existence, have no need for a belief in God. Because it is within them instinctually, in everything they do

Just as much as some of the nastiest people in existence, are staunchly religious. Because they feel like there is something missing within their heart

Satan is a concept of opposing forces, no different to the reasoning of something within the mind which does not make sense to the perceiver

Without the question, could the answer still have meaning?

This is why it is seen as contrary to things such as belief

But it is no more or less evil, than the perception which empowers it

And it is in no way as definitive as believing in God, or not believing in God

Without having tasted lemon, could you still say sugar sweet?

You need to understand that the virtue of wisdom, is within gaining understanding through experience

Within such, it can be just as easily said that "Satanic" defines any religious who forsake possibilities within the question of their existence, believing that they definitely have the answer

Not so much in those who would simply forsake such experiences and flavours within the essence of their journey, but those who would seek to impress it upon others and deny them of such things

Within Illumination and the mysteries, we see these people as blockages, or "stumbling blocks" if you prefer

Not evil. Not Satanic. Just afraid of their own uncertainty

My point is, that they can be seen to be no more Satanic for their beliefs, than you are for believing in and empowering such concepts

Just as they are no less virtuous and connected to the source of creation for their beliefs, than your are for yours

In reality, in my experiences ...

I have found it is generally those that would point a finger at another accusing them of some type of associative evil, who actually have the most pain, fear and impurities within them, that need be dealt with

Not saying this applies to you

Only that your response was equal in measure, to everything you accused the post you were responding to of being

If it was pointless, so was yours

You could have just as easily ignored this persons response, as they could have ignored the original post

"Don't let another steal your sunshine
When you have a choice whether or not to sit in the shade"

a reply to: FlyersFan

If stories don't seem physically possible they likely be symbolically representing ethereal wisdom. The materialistic labels allowing the mind to taste which the mind can never realize. Eden for example is described by Ezekiel as the temple where the presence of God dwelled. Paul states the temple is in us. The four rivers represent the four spiritual realms of creation. From the absolute divine light to the formation of our material worlds.

Unfortunately the cherubim will not allow our physical mind to enter spiritual gardens of Eden. One must park the mind at the gate and enter with their witness. Revelation is Johns testimony that he achieved that goal.

a reply to: glend

The first three books talk about the patterns by which any TORUS /cell/sphere/celestial body (hence "Torah") is formed within a centre of influence

The allegory can be applied to any level. From the formation of a star and planets, to localised chemical reactions

To put it in context of the forming of a physical body

The womb = Garden of Eden
The ovary = Tree of knowledge of good and evil (genetic coding)
The egg = The apple
The penis = The serpent (though this is also a DNA strand)

Internalised space seeks to equalise to it's external counterpart (Eve is tempted by the serpent, her desire for man)

Externalised space seeks to equalise to it's internal counterpart (Man is tempted by Eve to partake of her apple)

Their genetic code is stripped and spliced together

They together (in the form of a child) are ejected from the garden. Into a higher and much harsher torus macrocosm

Once "ejected/born" a process of decay begins, which is counter to the process of creation within the smaller torus sphere

Within seeking to equalise within the torus sphere, there are equalised processes of balance

Growth =/= Aging

The idea is that we seek equilibrium (Elohim) with the higher layer sphere of the torus/Torah/Horus

Which is why people have the urge to seek creation or God

It is no different to seeking food because we are hungry

There is a similar hollowness within us that needs be filled, working on a higher dimensional plane

Creation =/= Decay

Because we as the creation, are ejected into a layer of the torus where we exist in decay, we seek counter back to the source of our creation

They key is within understanding that the source is carried across all layers of torus spheres

As we are the link to any source of creation or God, we must first understand ourselves, or we have no hope of ever understanding the higher layers such as that referred to as God

This is the essence of the Illumination process

To go into the dark, and bring forth light

Initiation = To go into
Ascension = To go out from

Understand yourself, understand your world
Reflects to:
Understand your world, understand it's creator

If we learn to understand how any torus, cell or sphere forms, we understand how they all form

Through such, we are given a physical, emotional and spiritual roadmap to our source

Without rewiring your brain to recognise such patterns, connection with the source is near impossible

We can rewire our mind using the veil spiritual coding, but it forsakes the physical aspect

The problem with this, is that we can only ever "reach out", as far as we "reach in"

As with things like prayer or meditation. We reach inwardly, to connect with something outwardly

That is because equilibrium/Elohim within a torus/Torah/Horus dictates everything in an internal/external balance

It is the same as being inwardly emotionally effected by something that psychically happens to you externally

The deeper we are able to reach inwardly, the further we are then able to project outwardly

It is impossible to achieve any type of true balance or connection, within polarisation to simply "light" or "dark"

You need understand them both

The darkness cannot harm me, because I have been that darkness, and met it's measure
I AM PAIN
The light cannot fault me, because I am blameless with it's source
I AM LOVE

Eden, as be an allegory, is the manifestation within this process

Like the understanding gained through experience. Which brings about wisdom

Within the experience, we are yet to reach outwardly, to be able to gain inwardly

You cannot blame those, for that which they do not know (Forgive them, for they know not that they do)

People make it much too complicated, by trying to define that which they seek, such as God. Without any attempt to understand that which seeks such things

This is like searching for a door, when you don't have the keys to open it regardless

Sadly, it means that many people can spend their entire lives researching the veil Biblical texts, looking for something they will never find

Because they don't realise something at simple as, they need to look both inwardly, as well as outwardly

So they will never understand the equilibrium/Elohim. And they will never be the Elohim/equilibrium

a reply to: Compendium

I hear you Compendium. But there is no need to feel sad or frustrated. The "they" that don't realize the "something as simple as" are all destined to return to dust. The captain of their ship acquiring a new avatar to experience life yet again. So the people you trying to save cannot be saved. The one that can be saved doesn't need saving. Its only when the captain of the ship is ready to move beyond this realm will the eyes and ears of the avatar hear the truth. So you can only resonate with people that exist at your frequency.

If you were to convince a lower frequency dust avatar of your truths. It be a total waste of time. They would not be able to enter the kingdom whilst harboring the seven devils. They would be block at the gate. I know, I have knocked on that dammed gate time and time again.

If you were to achieve enlightenment. The light from that self would radiate to all of us from within. That is the only way you can really help people. By sacrificing your self for them.