CRS Quarterly Research Database

An Examination of the Assumptions of "Eden's Geography Erodes Flood Geology"

Hughes, James R. (1997) An Examination of the Assumptions of "Eden's Geography Erodes Flood Geology". Creation Research Society Quarterly, 34 (3): 3.

[thumbnail of An Examination of the Assumptions of "Eden's Geography Erodes Flood Geology".pdf]
Preview
PDF
An Examination of the Assumptions of "Eden's Geography Erodes Flood Geology".pdf

Download (69kB) | Preview

Abstract

In "Eden's Geography Erodes Flood Geology" (The Westminster Theological Journal, Spring, 1996, pp. 123-154), John C. Munday argues that a cataclysmic view of a world-wide Flood cannot be supported after an analysis of the geography of Eden. Munday bases his argument on two unproven assumptions: 1) Moses was the author of Genesis 2 and 2) the account was written from the perspective of the Israelites living in Canaan around 1500 B.C. These assumptions are invalid. It is more consistent with the data to attribute the account to Adam. He communicated it (possibly orally) from a pre-Flood perspective. Moses used Adam's account (unchanged) when compiling Genesis. The geographical terms in Genesis 2 are generic. They are not specific to any location, and could have been used for both pre-Flood and post-Flood geographic features. Eden's geography was destroyed by the Flood. Its location cannot be found in a post-Flood setting.

Item Type: Article
Subjects: Q Science (General) > QS Creation Science (General) > QS11 Preflood Conditions. Garden of Eden
Q Science (General) > QE Geology > QE101 Flood Geology. Catastrophism
Depositing User: Admin
Date Deposited: 18 Mar 2025 21:43
Last Modified: 18 Mar 2025 21:43
URI: https://crsq.creationresearch.org/id/eprint/855

Actions (login required)

View Item
View Item