What if I told you that the Garden of Eden cannot be located on a map today.[1] Of course, skeptics will agree. But I am not saying that the Garden cannot be found today because it was not a real place. I believe that Eden existed at one point in history. I just believe that if you use the geographical details that Genesis provides us with then you will not find it on the earth today.

The Garden appears in the second and third chapters of Genesis. The relevant information needed to locate the Garden is found in Genesis 2:10-14:

“A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.”

These verses have been interpreted in many different ways throughout history. Some been proposed that the Garden’s geography is only symbolic,[2] and there are a wide range of views calling it a world that lies “outside the sphere of real geographical knowledge,” a “Never-never land,” a literary utopia, an entryway into the numinous world, or even that Eden was an old recollection of the period when mankind was in transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers.[3]

Scripture, however, treats the Garden of Eden as a real place where a real Adam and Eve lived. [4] Thus, it is obvious that most Christians have believed that the Garden of Eden could be located somewhere. The most common location for the Garden of Eden is in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq). The primary reason is the mention of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers which flow through that country. This view has been accepted by Christians from antiquity down to modern times.[5]  Another location that has been proposed is the region around Armenia because this is the general area where the Tigris and Euphrates originate.[6]

There is also the view that I brought up in the introduction; that Eden cannot be found anywhere on earth today. This is not a new perspective as it has been brought up many times before. To put it simply, Eden cannot be found anymore because the earth’s surface has been dramatically altered as a result of the Great Flood.[7]

The Rivers of Eden

I will present my argument for why I believe this later. First, I want to examine the arguments in favor of placing Eden in the Middle East. The main argument in favor of a Middle Eastern Eden centers around, as I mentioned before, the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. It is easy to understand the importance of this argument since these rivers exist in the region today.[8]

Pishon

However, difficulties arise when we examine the other two rivers mentioned in the account, the Pishon and Gihon. Let’s begin with the Pishon. Ancient Christians and Jews identified the Pishon with either the Ganges River in India[9] or the Danube in Europe.[10]

In the Nineteenth Century, well-known Bible scholars Carl Friedrich Keil (1807-1888) and Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890) identified the Pishon as the Phasis River in the region of Armenia and the Caspian Sea. It is therefore possible, according to Keil and Delitzsch, that the land of Colchis may be equivalent to the land of Havilah mentioned in Genesis 2 because both were well-known for their gold.[11] This interpretation would place the Garden of Eden in the region of Armenia and the Caspian Sea.

Others have placed the Pishon River in Arabia. Remember that Genesis 2 says that the Pishon winds through the land of Havilah. Well, Havilah means “land of sand.” Since the Arabian Peninsula is a big desert, then Arabia is a natural choice for the location of Havilah.[12]

Those who locate the Pishon in Arabia believe that satellite imagery may point to the possibility that the Wadi Batin, in northern Arabia and which is now dry, was the Pishon River. This may indicate that Havilah was in the northern half of Arabia. Interestingly, the Wadi Batin met with the Tigris and Euphrates in the ancient past.[13]

In this region, we find a place known as Mahd adh Dhahab, which means “cradle of gold.” Scholar Carol Hill says that it “was the largest and one of the richest gold mines of the ancient world.” It is, therefore, possible that this could be the location of the gold that Genesis associates with the land of Havilah.[14]

Other passages (Genesis 10:7, 29; 25:18; 1 Samuel 15:7; 1 Chronicles 1:9, 23) suggest that Havilah is in Arabia or close by. Bible scholar Gordon Wenham summarizes, “On this basis the Pishon must either be identified with an Arabian river, or with the Persian Gulf and Red Sea ‘which goes round all the land of Havilah.’”[15]

Gihon

What about the Gihon River? It was very common for ancient authors, whether Jewish or Christian, to identify the Gihon with the Nile River.[16] The Gihon was identified as the Nile because of Genesis 2:13 which says that the Gihon winds through the land of Cush. Cush was the region in Africa south of Egypt (modern-day Sudan and Ethiopia).

The Gihon was identified by Keil and Delitzsch as the Araxes River in Central Asia and the land of Cush as Koccaia.[17] As I mentioned before with their interpretations this would place the Garden of Eden in the region of Armenia and the Caspian Sea.

Scholar John Munday disagrees with the African location of the Gihon when he says, “…an African location [for Cush] is not at all indicated in Gen 2:13, unless Eden’s geography is regarded as fantasy.” He continues, the “data indicate an Arabian-Mesopotamian context for Cush in Gen 2:13.”[18]

Since many believe that Eden was in Mesopotamia, then it is likely, according to them, that the Gihon is in this area. Interestingly, the Nuzi tablets, which are an archive of old writings from Mesopotamia, give the name “Kussu for the Kassite people who lived in the area east of Babylonia.” Kussu is thought to maybe be the Cush mentioned in Genesis 2. It is, therefore, possible that the Gihon may be one of the rivers flowing from the Zagros mountains east of Babylonia. Two possibilities are the Karun and Kerkha Rivers. Both of these rivers wind through the land of the Kassites (Cush).[19]

Problems with a Middle Eastern Eden

To many, the arguments to locate Eden in the Middle East seem to be airtight. However, I do not believe that is so as the arguments are riddled with problems. For example, according to Genesis, the Pishon River is supposed to wind through the land of Havilah. However, the Wadi Batin in Arabia is a particularly straight stream of water and does not wind about at any point. In fact, there are no rivers in this area of Arabia that fit the biblical description of the Pishon. The Wadi Batin is also not part of a four-branch estuary that Genesis 2 describes.[20]

The same can be said of identifying the Gihon as the Karun or Kerkha Rivers east of Mesopotamia. These rivers do not fit the biblical details since they are not part of a four-branch estuary.[21] Also, neither of these rivers flow from Mesopotamia and encompass the Kassite country or any Cush for that matter.[22]

The fact is simply that the geography of Eden does not match any location on the globe today. There is nowhere on Earth where we can find one great river splitting into four smaller rivers. There is no four-river estuary that includes the present-day Tigris and Euphrates in Mesopotamia, nor do we find one in Armenia.[23] The ancient belief that the Pishon and Gihon were the Nile and Ganges (or any other major river) also fall short. None of these rivers fit the description of Genesis 2 in any way.[24]

Today, smaller rivers flow into larger rivers (tributaries), the opposite of Genesis 2.[25] Quite simply, the lands of Havilah, Assyria, and Cush mentioned in Genesis 2 do not match up with any known geography today.[26] As Ken Ham says, “No matter how one tries to fit this location in the Middle East today, it just can’t be done.”[27]

This very fact has led to many different ways of reconciling the text to modern ideas. Skeptics will argue that it is entirely made up. Since they cannot find Eden today some Christians come to the belief that Moses simply got the geography of Eden wrong.[28]  Scholar Gordon Wenham attempts to solve the problem by saying that Genesis takes up old mythological motifs and radically transforms them for a new purpose.[29] He also brings up the idea that Eden is full of symbolism instead of history.[30] One scholar even comes up with the idea that the four rivers of Eden represent the Milky Way with its four arms.[31]

Many will agree with the idea that Eden was not a real place because no place on earth today matches the description. Instead of concluding that Genesis 2 is wrong, there is another possibility, and that is that Genesis 2 presents us with “a much different past…”[32] Basically, this is saying that the geography of the region or world has changed drastically since that time. The question then is “how could the topography change so much?”

One possibility is the destructive force of the Great Flood. Studies have shown that if the Flood occurred as Scripture teaches, then the surface of the world would have been completely rearranged. This would make it impossible for us to know the location of the Garden of Eden.[33] This means that the rivers of Eden no longer exist in our world anymore.[34] This idea is not old as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and even Augustine recognized the likelihood of a changed geography.[35]

Writer Andrew Kulikovsky summarizes the issue well when he says, “It should be clear from the above discussion that the description of the geography of Eden and the garden corresponds to no place on earth at this time or in recent history…The only way [biblical] inerrancy could be saved is if the earth’s geography had dramatically changed after the account of Eden had been constructed. The most obvious explanation of how such a change could have occurred is by means of the global catastrophic flood described in Genesis 6-9.”[36], [37]

Young-Earth Creationism

Even though the Great Flood provides us with a logical reason why the Garden of Eden cannot be found today, many Christians simply will not accept this idea. Many today follow the rest of the world in believing the materialistic philosophies of Darwinian evolution and an old earth. In this section, I want to look briefly at some objections that are brought forth that try to debunk the belief that the Flood changed the geography of Eden.

Linguistic Borrowing

The first objection is that the geographical names in Genesis 2 fit very well with modern geography. We have the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, we have Cush (whether it be the Kassites, Koccaia, or even Sudan and Ethiopia), and Havilah (Arabia). John Munday says, “Genesis portrays a landscape little changed by the Flood, particularly, that the Tigris and Euphrates ‘are still in existence today.’”[38]

This argument is not as strong as it may first seem. Similar geographical names are easily explained by linguistic borrowing. Ken Ham says it perfectly, “This being the case, the question then is why are there rivers named Tigris and Euphrates in the Middle East today? In my native country of Australia, one will recognize many names that are also used in England (e.g., Newcastle). The reason is that when the settlers came out from England to Australia, they used names they were familiar with in England to name new places/towns in Australia. Another example is the names given to many rivers in the United States. There is the Thames River in Connecticut, the Severn River in Maryland, and the Trent River in North Carolina—all named for prominent rivers in the UK. In a similar way, when Noah and his family came out of the ark after it landed in the area we today call the Middle East (the region of the Mountains of Ararat), it would not have been surprising for them to use names they were familiar with from the pre-Flood world (e.g., Tigris and Euphrates), to name places and rivers, etc., in the world after the Flood.”[39]

In response to this, Munday argues that there is no evidence in Scripture for renaming or naming a place after an earlier one (that is, more than one place with the same name).[40] This, however, is incorrect. There are many different examples of place names being used for more than one location. These include Cush (Gen 2:13; Ezk 29:10), Asshur (Gen 10:11; Gen 25:18), Kadesh (Josh 12:22; 15:23; 20:7; 21:28; 1 Chr 6:72), Goshen (Gen 47:6; Josh 10:41; 15:51), and Zanoah (Josh 15:34; 15:56; Neh 3:13; 11:30; 1 Chr 4:18).[41]

Interestingly, Munday even agrees that the Cush of Genesis 2 is not the same Cush as the rest of the Bible where it always refers to Sudan/Ethiopia as he places it around the Iraq/Iran border. Why does he allow this here but not with the other names?[42] The only way to know if the places of Genesis 2 are the same or different with similar place-names after the Flood is by context.

In the East

A controversial detail in Genesis 2 is that God planted the Garden “in the east.” This has been interpreted in a few different ways. The first view is that “in the east” is from the perspective of someone in Israel or Moses in Egypt or Transjordan. Thus, Mesopotamia is likely in view here. This makes sense since Moses was writing to a post-flood audience.[43] This is the view accepted by those who place the Garden in Mesopotamia.

However, another interpretation is consistent with the Flood view. This teaches that “in the east” refers to the eastern portion of the country of Eden since a literal translation of the Hebrew would be “in Eden, on the side of the east.”[44] Skeptics of this view could argue that this detail would be pointless if the Garden no longer existed. Kulikovsky responds to the skepticism by saying, “But if the geographical description [in Genesis 2] was no longer applicable [because the Flood destroyed Eden] then why did Moses include it when he wrote/edited/constructed the book of Genesis? The geographical description was most probably included simply to reinforce that the original author believed that the garden was a real and physical place on this earth, and to highlight the perfect and sufficient state of the pristine earth.”[45]

A third view interprets the phrase “in the east” as referring to the east of Adam’s point of view. For example, Henry Morris says, “The garden was planted ‘eastward’ (Adam’s location at that time being somewhere west of Eden) in the land of Eden.”[46]

Both of the latter interpretations fit with the idea that the Great Flood changed the surface of the earth. To summarize, the objections that the place-names and the phrase “to the east” refute the idea that the Flood destroyed Eden are not strong, and they fit with the view very well.

Conclusion

Locating the Garden of Eden relies mostly upon whether a person believes that the Great Flood was a real, universal, destructive Flood. If the Flood happened, then it is easy to see that the Garden cannot be located using modern geography. If however, one rejects a universal, destructive flood then one must try to locate the Garden using modern maps. However, there is no place on earth currently that matches up with the geographical details in Genesis 2. This can easily lead a person to believe that the Garden was not a real place but simply a fairy tale. How we interpret one part of Scripture (in this case the Great Flood) will affect how we interpret other parts. We will not find the truth if we are looking in the wrong place. That is, searching for the Garden on the world map today is the wrong place to look.

Appendix – Sedimentary Rocks & the Garden of Eden

If the Flood did alter the geography of the world then there is good reason to believe that Eden would be underneath the sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is where scientists find fossils. This makes sense in a Christian worldview since death did not enter God’s creation until after Adam and Eve’s sin. How could the Garden of Eden (called “very good” by God) be on top of sedimentary rock filled with dead things before sin entered the world? Ken Ham notes, “To insist that the Garden was located in the area around the present Tigris and Euphrates Rivers is to deny the catastrophic effects of the global Flood of Noah’s day, and to allow for death before sin.”[47]

However, Christians who do not accept a literal Great Flood argue that the sedimentary rock in Mesopotamia is proof that the Flood did not happen as Young-Earth Creationists believe. David Snoke summarizes this argument:

“But this river [the Wadi Batin in Arabia] lies on top of sedimentary geological layers that young-earth creationists would say were deposited in the flood of Noah. So do the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. To accept this convincing case for the historicity of Genesis, Bible scholars must either accept an old-earth view or believe that God created sedimentary rock at the beginning, before the fall and the flood. Young-earth scholars must necessarily place the Garden of Eden in a long-lost land, since they believe sedimentary rock was created in the flood; therefore none of these rivers could have existed before the flood of Noah. For that matter, a flood large enough to create all sedimentary rock would wipe out all rivers. While Moses goes out of his way to place the Garden of Eden in our world, young-earth creationists make these geographical indicators irrelevant.”[48]

Snoke, and those who think like him, accept that the rivers of Eden have been discovered on a modern landscape. However, as we saw earlier, no place on earth matches the geography of Genesis 2. Snoke and others have simply ignored this because they have accepted the materialistic philosophy of evolution and an old earth. Since the Great Flood could not have happened, then the Garden is either myth or is somewhere in Mesopotamia (even if the geography is not perfect). They then argue that their interpretation proves that the Flood never happened because a catastrophe that big would have changed the topography of the world!

They understand the Flood view of the Garden of Eden but cannot accept it because of the assumptions they make about the creation-evolution debate. This teaches us that how we interpret the Garden of Eden is based on our worldview. If we allow the possibility of miracles (like the Flood) and believe that the Bible is authoritative, then the idea that Eden cannot be found today becomes a real possibility. However, if we believe that the Bible is wrong about the age of the world, then we must reinterpret the early chapters of Genesis.

It is the Flood view that 1) accepts a straightforward interpretation of the geographical clues; 2) fits with there being a historical flood, and 3) fits in with sound biblical theology about death and restoration.

[1] This essay was updated on September 17, 2021.

[2] Gordon Wenham also seems to have viewed Eden and its rivers as symbolic and real – sort of (Genesis 1-15 in Word Biblical Commentary Volume 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987). The same is for Wolfgang Musculus (Mosis Genesim [1554], 58 and 62. In RC 78, 84-85); Ambrose (Paradise 3.14-18. In ACC 56-58); Cyprian (Letters 63.10. In ACC 59); Konrad Pellikan, Commentary on Genesis 2:17. In RC 84. He interprets the Garden as having spiritual meaning – tree of life = perfect wisdom; tree of knowledge = “human reason…natural reason, self-concern, and love of self”; Pishon = faith; Gihon = “modesty of spirit and the virtue of humility”; Tigris = “it indicates that obedience to God is to be unsurpassed”; Euphrates = teaches “that love of neighbor is to increase.”

[3] John Skinner. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis in ICC (New York: Scribner, 1910). 62. Herbert E. Ryle. The Book of Genesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1921). 32. J.L. McKenzie. “The Literary Characteristics of Genesis 2-3.” TS 15 (1954). 555. Yairah Amit. “Biblical Utopianism: A Mapmaker’s Guide to Eden.” USQR 44 (1/2, 1990). 11-17. Dan E. Burns. “Dream Form in Genesis 2.4b-3.24: Asleep in the Garden.” JSOT 37 (1987). 3-14. Dora J. Hamblin. “Has the Garden of Eden Been Located at Last?” Smithsonian (May 1987). 129-131.

[4] Simon Turpin, “The Importance of a Historical Adam.” Answers Research Journal (2013, volume 6), pp. 195-209. The Importance of an Historical Adam | Answers Research Journal. Andrew Kulikovsky says it well, “Note also that the mention of Adam reinforces the historical veracity of the account. Adam is clearly viewed by the New Testament writers as a truly historical figure, so if Adam is a real physical person but Eden and the garden are allegorical, how can a literal something be placed into and tend to an allegorical/mythical anything? (Andrew Kulikovsky, Creation, Fall, Restoration (Geanies House: Christian Focus Publications, 2009), 190. Also see Snoke, 154. He notes that the details of Genesis 2 indicate that the Garden of Eden was a real place.

[5] Chrysostom. Homilies on Genesis 13.15-16. In Andrew Louth Ed. Genesis 1-11 in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Old Testament Vol. 1 [ACC from here on out] (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001). 58. Ephrem the Syrian. Commentary on Genesis 2.6. In ACC 56. David Snoke. A Biblical Case for an Old Earth (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006). 154. Andrew Willet. Commentary on Genesis 2:8, 10. In John L. Thompson Ed. Genesis 1-11 in Reformation Commentary on Scripture Old Testament Vol. 1 [RC from here on out] (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012). 78-79, 85. Henry H. Halley. Halley’s Bible Handbook 24th Ed (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965). 64. Carol Hill, “The Garden of Eden: A Modern Landscape,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 52 (March 2000) http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Hill.html. John C. Munday Jr. “Eden’s Geography Erodes Flood Geology.” Westminster Theological Journal 58 (1996). Gordon J. Wenham. Genesis 1-15 in Word Biblical Commentary Volume 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987).

[6] C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949). 82-83.

[7] H.C. Leupold. Exposition of Genesis Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942). 124; Andrew Kulikovsky. Creation, Fall, Restoration (Geanies House: Christian Focus Publications, 2009). 189; Jonathan D. Sarfati. The Genesis Account (Powder Springs: Creation Book Publishers, 2015). 312, 316-317; Ken Ham. “Where was the Garden of Eden Located?” In The New Answers Book 3 ed. Ken Ham (Green Forest: Master Books, 2009). 13-15. Henry M. Morris. The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976). 89-90; J.R. Hughes. “An examination of the assumptions of ‘Eden’s Geography Erodes Flood Geology,” CRSQ 34 (3): 9-11, 1997. http://www.epctoronto.org/Press/Publications_JRHughes/An%20Examination%20of%20the%20Assumptions%20CRSQ.pdf. Martin Luther. Lectures on Genesis 2:8, 11. In RC 79, 85. John Calvin. Commentary on Genesis 2:10. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.pdf. There is also the possibility of Augustine (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 5.7.20.)

[8] Wenham 66; Hill; Munday, 143-144, 154.

[9] Ambrose, ACC 56-57. John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith 2.9. In ACC 58. Interestingly, Ambrose later says it flows through Lydia. It is also worth noting that John of Damascus (ACC 58-59) and Flavius Josephus believed that the Great River of Eden was an ocean that encircled the earth and broke into four other great rivers (Jewish Antiquities in The New Complete Works of Josephus. Trans by William Whiston. Commentary by Paul L. Maier. Revised and Expanded Edition (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999). 50).

[10] Ephrem explains, “Although the places from which they flow are known, the source of the spring is not known. Because paradise is set on a great height, the rivers are swallowed up again, and they go down the sea as if through a tall water duct, and so they pass through the earth that is under the sea into this land. The earth then spits out each one of them: the Danube, which is the Pishon, in the west; the Gihon, in the south; and the Euphrates and the Tigris in the north.” (ACC, 56)

[11] Kiel and Delitzsch, 82-83.

[12] Munday 138-140; Hill.

[13] Munday 140-141; Hill; Snoke, 154.

[14] Hill.

[15] Wenham, 65.

[16] Ephrem explains, “Although the places from which they flow are known, the source of the spring is not known. Because paradise is set on a great height, the rivers are swallowed up again, and they go down the sea as if through a tall water duct, and so they pass through the earth that is under the sea into this land. The earth then spits out each one of them: the Danube, which is the Pishon, in the west; the Gihon, in the south; and the Euphrates and the Tigris in the north.” (ACC, 56). Ambrose, ACC 56-57. John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith 2.9. In ACC 58. Interestingly, Ambrose later says it flows through Lydia. It is also worth noting that John of Damascus (ACC 58-59) and Flavius Josephus believed that the Great River of Eden was an ocean that encircled the earth and broke into four other great rivers (Jewish Antiquities in The New Complete Works of Josephus. Trans by William Whiston. Commentary by Paul L. Maier. Revised and Expanded Edition (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999). 50).

[17] Kiel and Delitzsch, 82-83.

[18] Munday, 141.

[19] Munday 141-142; Hill; Snoke, 154; Wenham 65 argues that Cush refers to the Kassites who were the successors to the Old Babylonian empire.

[20] Kulikovsky, 188.

[21] Ibid., 189

[22] Sarfati, 316; Morris, 89.

[23] Sarfati, 316.

[24] Morris, 89.

[25] Sarfati, 316; Leupold, 123.

[26] Morris, 89; Sarfati, 316.

[27] Ham, 14.

[28] Wenham, 66.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Wenham (p. 61-62, 64-66) suggests that the description of the Garden of Eden “in the east” “is symbolic of a place where God dwells. “Indeed, there are many other features of the garden that suggest it is seen as an archetypal sanctuary, prefiguring the later tabernacle and temples. But the mention of the rivers and their location in vv. 10-14 suggests that the final editor of Gen 2 thought of Eden also as a real place, even if it is beyond the wit of modern writers to locate.” He continues, “…the symbolism of these verses coheres well with the rest of the chapter” and that whenever the river of Eden appears in Scripture (Genesis 2; Psalm 46:5; Ezekiel 47:1-12) it “is symbolic of the life-giving presence of God.” He even says, “Maybe the reversed flow of the rivers suggests that paradise is beyond man’s present experience.” I have already written an article describing how there are similarities between Eden, the Tabernacle, the Temple in Jerusalem, and the New Jerusalem. Wenham is correct on that. However, this does not mean that Eden was not a real place or that it was beyond our reach. The geographical details point to a real place on the map.

[31] Gunkel in Leupold, 124.

[32] Leupold, 123.

[33] Sarfati, 312, 316-317; Ham, 15; Leupold, 124; Morris, 89-90.

[34] Morris, 89.

[35] Sarfati, 317; Ham, 13-14. Luther, RC 79, 85. Calvin. Augustine, 5.7.20.

[36] Kulikovsky, 189-190.

[37] Andrew Kulikovsky brings up a possible problem concerning the Tigris River. To put it simply, it is doubtful that the Tigris of Eden is the same river as the Tigris of the Middle East. Assyria is an ancient nation and region in northern Iraq. The Tigris in Eden is described as flowing eastward of Assyria but the Tigris of today is on the west side of Assyria (Morris, 89). This seeming contradiction is usually explained away by referring to Assyria of Genesis 2 as Asshur, the old capital city of Assyria since it was located on the west side of the Tigris (Leupold, 126. Hill. Munday. Wenham, 66).

However, describing the course of a river as flowing on the east side of a city “is a particularly odd way of describing its path: stating that the Rhine river passes to the east of the city of Bonn says virtually nothing about its course. Thus, the description would make much more sense if Asshur was actually a much larger area” (Kulikovsky, 189). The only reason why some Christian scholars believe that Asshur is in view here is because the geography of Iraq does not match Genesis 2.

Kulikovsky brings up (p. 189) another problem: “Yet neither the Assyrian empire nor the city of Asshur would have existed when the source for this account was written. One could argue that Moses inserted the reference for clarification, but it is doubtful a reference to Assyria would have had much meaning or significance to Moses’ audience” who had been in Egypt for more than 400 years.

[38] Munday, 150-151.

[39] Ham, 15. See also Sarfati, 318; Morris, 90; Hughes, 4.

[40] Munday, 152-153.

[41] Hughes, 4.

[42] Munday, 141.

[43] Munday, 127, 130, 134; Wenham 61; also see Leupold, 117-118 where he says, “From, the author’s point of view this garden lay ‘eastward.’ Though miqqedhem literally means ‘from the east’ not ‘to the east,’ nevertheless our translation is correct. For the Hebrew point of view is gained by transporting oneself to the utmost limits in the direction indicated, then coming back: from the east.”).

[44] Kulikovsky, 186.

[45] Ibid., 190.

[46] Morris, 87. The last two interpretations take into account Genesis 5:1 which says, “This is the written account of Adam’s line.” The Hebrew word toledot (“Adam’s line” or often translated “generations of Adam”) is used here and other places throughout Genesis. This has led to the conclusion by many conservative scholars that Moses used different sources when compiling Genesis. There is, however, a big debate about whether the phrase with toledot is a heading for the following section or a signature for the previous. For example, 5:1 speaks about a “a book” or “written account” of Adam. Does this mean that Adam wrote the information contained within and does it speak about 2:5-4:26 or does it refer to 5:1–6:8? Whichever one is correct can fit with both views of “in the east” since the original author would have been Adam or God.

[47] Ham, 15; Sarfati, 317.

[48] Snoke, 155, see also Munday, 152, 154; Hill.