The proposal that postdiluvian geographical features were merely named
after antediluvian ones rather than being the same ones is a most
unnatural interpretation of Genesis 2. Why should Moses give their
relative positions (e. g. that the Tigris flows east of Assyria) unless it
is to more clearly locate them for his readers? Why did he comment on the
minerals in Havilah if it wasn't the same Havilah as before? The countries
or regions mentioned in Gen. 2:4-11 were all named after descendants of
Noah (cf. Gen. 10), a marked contrast to the system in your example of
Londons named after London, England.
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Allen Roy wrote:
> > From: gordon brown <gbrown@euclid.Colorado.EDU>
> > On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Allen Roy wrote:
> > > Then, some 4000 years ago, the Flood occurred which compleately altered
> > > surface of the globe.
> > This is NOT what the Bible says. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers were not
> > erased by the Flood (Gen. 2:14). Moses undertook to geographically locate
> > the Garden of Eden for his readers, mentioning geographical features of
> > his day (and even minerals occurring in certain areas), a project that
> > would have been an exercise in futility if the Flood had completely
> > altered the surface of the globe.
> Two points.
> 1) It is common practice to name new places with old names: take for
> London, England,
> London, Arkansas,
> London, Indiana,
> London, Kentucky,
> London, Ohio,
> London, Texas.
> Londonderry, N. Ireland,
> Londonderry, Nova Scocia,
> Londonderry, New Hamshire,
> Londonderry, Ohio,
> Londonderry, Vermont,
> Cape Londonderry, Austrailia
> Isla Londonderry, Chile.
> Therefore it would not be surprising to find both pre-flood Tigris and
> Euphrates rivers and post-flood Tigris and Euphrates rivers. These need
> not be the same rivers at all.
> 2) There is literary evidence in Genesis that Moses edited Genesis from
> about 11 family histories which were likely written on clay tablets in his
> day, but which had likely originated as oral family histories. Thus the
> references to geographical features in the stories may not be Moses'
> identification of locations at all, but rather that of the originators of
> the family histories.