RE: [asa] biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically inconsistent?

From: Dick Fischer <>
Date: Wed Sep 10 2008 - 19:01:55 EDT

Hi George:
"River" meant either a river or a canal no differentiation. Remember,
Hebrew is a simple language and many words did double duty. In the case
of Eridu an old river channel was used which sort of blurs the
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of George Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically
Thanks Bethany,
Your view seems much more correct than mine. I think I got stuck in
looking downstream and seeing, erroneously, four rivers form, but it
clearly states 4 heads. I should have looked upstream instead.
Thanks Dick for the details. Does the "canal" term refer to man-made
waterways or is it a multiple use word like the Latin "canali" (?).
[When Schiaparelli observed Mars, he used the canali term -- it can mean
either natural or man-made waterways -- and Lowell misunderstood it to
mean the Martian canalis were not natural formations, thus Martian-built

----- Original Message ----
From: Bethany Sollereder <>
To: George Cooper <>
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2008 9:04:21 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically

I think the picture of one river becoming four is a picture of extreme
abundance, not a handy travelers guide on where to find Eden. As you
pointed out Gordon, other river join the Tigris and Euphrates. That is
the normal way of rivers - tributaries join the main flow. For this
river to work backwards, and to make the two greatest rivers of Babylon,
meant richness beyond compare - in the dry middle east, water is life.


On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:43 AM, George Cooper
<> wrote:
Hi Gordon,

Consider verse 8...

And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was
parted, and became into four heads.

It seems to me that only one river was described within the garden and
as it flowed out from Eden it became four separate rivers. This could
happen if the Garden were in a very high region near the headwaters of
Tigris and Euphrates today. An altered geology, I think, could account
two other rivers, one flowing east, IIRC.

This idea is somewhat supported with the verse that stations Cherubims
on one side of the Garden. Why only one side? Perhaps the other three
impassable. I envision bluffs in lieu of swamps.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of gordon brown
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:30 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, George Cooper wrote:

> Thanks David.
> Given the peak glacial period was around 16,000 years ago, perhaps
> geological changes existed that would give greater credibility to Eden
> very near the headwaters.
> "Coope"


Genesis appears to want to tell its readers where the Garden of Eden was
located. So it has to be the geography of the time when it was written,
which would also have to be similar to that of the period in which the
events that are described occurred in order to be relevant. The Hebrew
describes the four rivers as "heads", which would seem to fit the
situation in which all of them come together to form a single river. It
was assumed that the readers would know where the Euphrates was. The
others were described by the lands through which or beside which they
flowed. Today there is another river that joins from the east the
confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates, and in a wetter period there was
another river that joined them from the west. These fit the description
the rivers in Genesis 2.

Gordon Brown (ASA member)


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Sep 10 19:02:40 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 10 2008 - 19:02:40 EDT