Talk:Garden of Eden

Article very short

The article, in my opinion, needs a great deal of meat! I suggest laying it out in this fashion:

• The Biblical account of Eden
• any extra-Biblical account of Eden
• The physical description of Eden
• the conclusions of David Rohl, who matched Eden's physical description with a site in northwest Iran.

Karajou 03:58, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

...Or too much?

Whilst I agree that the article needs expanding, the material about the descendants of Adam and Eve belongs in a different article. Philip J. Rayment 10:55, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

...although it would still be considered incest

What does this phrase (that was removed from the article) mean?

• That it was still immoral? No, that's already been answered in the article.
• That it still involves sex between closely-related people? That's already been said.
• That it still involves someone forcing their affections on someone else (as a father on a daughter)? No, that's not what incest actually means (although it frequently has that connotation), and that is not the situation here.

So I see no reason for that phrase being in there.

I'm not happy about the reference to intercourse with Eve (besides, why not a daughter with Adam?), as that would be adultery, but between married brother and sister it would have been okay at the time.

Philip J. Rayment 09:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

The action is still considered incest. True, it is still stated that it isn't immoral, but it is undeniable that it is incest. If the theory that they had sex with their mother is true, then it is incest, whether the phrase looks nice or not. The Haunted Angel 12:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I wasn't disputing that it was incest. I was asking what mentioning that adds to the article, as the only information that it conveys was already in the article.

However, I will dispute it now, as far as the brothers and sisters are concerned. I was thinking that incest is sexual intercourse between closely-related people, but it's actually "sexual intercourse between persons too closely related to marry". Using "incest" in this case presumes that it was at the time improper for brother and sister to marry, but this is a case of applying today's standards to the time, and there is good reason for thinking that it was okay at the time.

Philip J. Rayment 21:03, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

---

TheDecider has edited the bit about Adam and Eve's descendants, asking that we "stick to the scripture". I don't see why. As long as any further information is (a) not inconsistent with Scripture, and (b) not representing itself as being Scripture, there should be no problem with adding other information. There are other problems also.

• Even his edit doesn't stick to Scripture, as Genesis doesn't say who Cain and Seth married, yet TheDecider is inserting what he believes must have been the case.
• Suggesting that they may have had sexual intercourse with Eve is inconsistent with Scriptural declarations regarding marriage; marrying a sister is one thing, but having sex with one's mother is another entirely.
• It rejects the possibility (he removed it from the article) that they married nieces. For example, Seth might have married a sister, had a daughter, and Cain married that daughter (his niece). Perhaps not a likely explanation, but a possible one, and ethically acceptable, unlike one having sex with their mother.

I intend to partially revert, but will await comments first.

Philip J. Rayment 04:28, 6 May 2007 (EDT)