The Rivers of Eden

In the past I've been skeptical of thinking the description of Eden in Genesis 2 should be expected to line up to any Post-Flood geography, and I still am.  But I have become aware of the fact that there is a translation issue involved here.  A number of scholars have argued that most translations are confused by a misunderstanding of what a river's "head" means.  The text can be interpreted as describing four rivers flowing into one river, rather then one river splitting into four as the KJV translation tends to lead people to assume.

If the Euphrates here is the Euphrates we assume it is, then I don't think any of the rivers should be looked for in Arabia, or anywhere south/west of the Euphrates.  What leads people to look there is an assumption that this Havilah must be the same one that shows up in Arabia elsewhere in The Bible.  But there are two Havilahs in Genesis 10, I feel every Arabian Havilah is of Joktan while this Havilah being close to a Cush could be the Havilah of Cush.  In fact it could be in this context Havilah and Cush are different names for the same place existing between the Pison and Gihon.

I've talked before about how Cush wasn't only in Africa, I see evidence to link him to India, and I suspect some of the Indian Cushites were initially in Iran for awhile.  This Havilah is probably Hoveyleh.

I believe there is significance to the order the rivers are listed in Genesis 2, something most popular theories about them don't consider.  Particularly I think it likely they are starting in the East and going Westward.  They are listed in the order Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel and lastly the Euphrates.  So if that is the Euphrates we assume it is, and the Hiddekel is indeed the Tigres, then the Gihon would be the Karkheheh river and the Pison would be the Karun river, known in classical times as the Pasitigres.  Here is a map taken from the Wikipedia page for the Karun.

Thus making the main River of Eden the Shatt al-Arab.

I'm not the first to propose these two rivers, my exact theory was proposed by at least one prior scholar, and another makes my Pison the Gihon.  But some want to take one of these while also trying to place the Pison or Gihon in Arabia.  And one website dismissed these two rivers by saying they are too small.  But the text of Genesis 2 says nothing about their size, it's merely man's imagination that wants to assume all four rivers were as epic and history defining as the Tigris and Euphrates.

Both of these rivers start in the Zargos mountains, which is why previous arguments for one of them being the Gihon tend to be based on saying the land of Cush in this context is the homeland of the Kassites commonly speculated to come from somewhere in the Zargos mountains.  

Al-Qurnah is a place on the Shatt al-Arab that locally claims to be where the Garden of Eden was.

The Karkheh river also plays a role in arguing that the land of Aratta from the Sumerian epics about Enmerkar was in the area of Mt Alvand and ancient Ecbatana, modern Hamdan, which in turn factors into B.J. Corbin's theory about where Noah's Ark landed.  His theory also involves using information from Jubilees to suggest the area around where the Ark landed was the ancient settlement of Arphaxad, remember the Book of Judith names the king of Ecbatana as Arphaxad which has always confused scholars.

Why I say Universal Salvation and not Universalism or Universalist

Currently anyway, I used to use those latter two terms more.  The issue is those terms do not clarify what it is I think is Universal.

I don't think "all religions lead to God", I believe Zero religions lead to God.  We are not Saved by finding God, we are Saved by The Good Shepherd finding His Lost Sheep.

I can't say with certainty that I think everyone's Ultimate Fate is exactly the same.  What I teach with certainty is that everyone will be Saved, and will ultimately be Happy with whatever their life in the New Creation winds up being.

By being Saved I mean we will be Resurrected, Body, Soul and Spirit, and won't be Annihilated and whatever Judgment/Punishment we may receive will be finite and for correction not endless.

You see people want to use against Universal Salvation verses that say certain people won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. But what they're blind to is that not everyone who's Saved enters the Kingdom (at least not right away), in Revelation 21-22 the Kingdom is New Jerusalem, and we're explicitly told that there are Nations of the Saved outside New Jerusalem.

The notion that Universal Salvation somehow contradicts Free Will is predicated on thinking Salvation equals being in New Jerusalem, it doesn't.  I don't think God will be "taking love that isn't freely given", I believe He's not going to punish people only for rejecting Him.  His invitation is for everyone and that invitation will never be rescinded, Revelation 21:25 makes clear the Gates of New Jerusalem are never shut.

A number of people seem to be insisting they don't believe in Universal Salvation, but then argue for "Hell" not being literally a place of Torment but simply Separation from God.  So if you think the Unsaved will still exist and are not really being tormented, how are they NOT Saved?

C.S. Lewis explicitly rejected the Universalism of George MacDonald who he admired, but in both The Great Divorce and The Final Battle he paints a picture some Universal Salvation preachers like Peter Hiett see as pretty compatible with their views for two reasons.

1, He allows After Death repentance, a doctrine clearly taught in 1 Peter.

2. He basically presents "hell" as simply not being in Heaven, and seems to think the only thing keeping sinners out of Heaven is their own choice not to enter.

Mormonism basically teaches a form of Universal Salvation (at least the scenario depicted in Doctrine and Covenants 76 does).  Yet most Evangelicals prefer to criticize them from the opposite direction, insisting they teach very few people are Saved, they read that scenario and act like you're only Saved if you're in the Celestial Kingdom, which ironically is the one level depicted here I see as not having an analogue in Revelation 21, the Celestial Kingdom is where you become a god starting your own Universe.

Perhaps this bizarre perception of what it means to be saved is why so many people think Zach Snyder's Superman never saves anyone?

I am optimistic that eventually everyone will accept the invitation to enter New Jerusalem.  But my point here is that's not what Salvation is and so is not what I'm certain about.

A Reforming Reformer

I was raised Catholic but have spent most, maybe technically all, of my adult life being a Protestant of some form.  I have never been as pathologically anti Catholic as many Protestants, especially ones who were formerly Catholics, but I did used to have conspiracy theory tendencies that have waned over the last couple of years.

I'd have to say I'm probably still a Protestant, on most of the core issues upon which the Reformation was based I still side with the Protestant position.  The very title of this Blog references a Pillar of the Reformation and I haven't changed my mind on that, it's only gotten stronger the more unconventional interpretations of Scripture I accept.  And in terms of Church hierarchy I'm to a Catholic or Orthodox POV worse then mainline Protestants, I'm even more Anarchical then the Independent Baptists and even more Democratic then the Presbyterians.  And I recently made a post on how I don't regard the Ecumenical Councils even if I do think some of them were right on some things.

However I no longer believe in accusing people of not being true Christians no matter how wrong I think their views are.  1 John 4:15, 1 Corinthians 12:3 and Romans 10:9 tell me all Christians are true Christians.

Sometimes when Protestants, Evangelicals, Baptists and Torah Observant Christians are arguing with each other they will use a view being like a doctrine Catholics have been associated with as an inherent argument against it.  Like when someone tries to explain a view on the After Life or the Coming Judgment that has even the vaguest similarity to Purgatory they'll get shouted down with "That's Purgatory, a Catholic doctrine".

And I've come to realize that is also a violation of Sola Sciprtura, saying "if the Catholics taught it, it must be wrong" is adding to Scripture just as much as blindly following their tradition does.

The Catholic Church also Believes Jesus is The Son of God, and The Word Made Flesh, and born of a Virgin, and was Crucified and died for our Sins and rose again on the third day, and contrary to what you may expect the Catholic Encyclopedia even stresses that the General Resurrection of The Dead is of the Flesh.  And they believe in The Trinity.  Heck most issues behind the 1054 Great Schism are ones mainline Protestants still take the Western Position on,  (as for me I understand the Orthodox issue with the Filioque but have to raise my eyebrow at saying it's "Jewish" to use unleavened bread in communion).

So when you start saying the Pope must be wrong on everything you're opening a pretty awkward can of worms.

The problem with the Medieval Purgatory doctrine was how it was a form of Spiritual Extortion, the Church getting Peasants to pay them money to do special masses to shorten their loved ones time there.  Obviously I'm not arguing anything like that is valid.  And even what the modern Catholic Church teaches on the issue isn't really the same as anything I believe.  However there are Bible verses they cite in support of the doctrine that are also verses I have cited in support of my ideas throughout the history of this blog.  It's the simplistic idea that "good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell" that comes from Plato and Zoroastrianism not The Bible.

I still mostly hold a Baptist position on Baptism.  However contrary to popular assumption the Catholic Church does not officially definitively state that all babies who die unbaptized go to Hell.  Support for the idea of doing something like an Infant Baptism comes from the comparison of it to Circumcision in Collisions 2:11-12, and Acts 2:38-39 implying a link between Baptism and vowing to raise your children to be Believers, and undetailed references to entire households being Baptized.

The thing is, there are two Water Baptisms in the New Testament.  There is the Baptism of John that was for Repentance, and then the Baptism Apollos still hadn't had when he joined The Church at Ephesus.  For someone raised a Christian the Baptism of Repentance is what happens second, that is only for adults.  If you join the Church as an adult normally one Baptism covers both.  But people who came out of John's movement were in a unique position.

I've noticed that Protestantism is more susceptible to Nationalism, a product of seeing Spiritual Allegiance to someone who's technically a foreign head of state as potentially treasonous.  In Italy it's different since The Pope isn't so far away, yet in the 19th Century the Popes still opposed Italian Unification.  The history of Religion in Nazi Germany is complicated but generally the Lutherans were more willing to work with Hitler then the Catholics.  And it's mostly among Protestants you'll find people who try to make whatever tribe they were born into a Lost Tribe of Israel.  Catholics are a lot less susceptible to forgetting that The Gospel is not Ethno-Centric.

I agree with the Catholic view that The Church is the real Nation we should be loyal to.  But I disagree that that means we need a highly organized Church institution. The Holy Spirit and The Bible should be the source of our Unity not a man made hierarchy.

But what about my Soterology?  Am I still Sola Fide?  Well I now believe in Universal Salvation, and there are supporters of some form of that Soterology among Protestants and Evangelicals and Catholics and the Orthodox and Nestorians.  No major denomination is willing to label Gregory of Nyssa a heretic, so there is room for the True Gospel everywhere.