Why Is This Fact Not Taught In Churches?

[OldLady]

The verse describes 4 rivers that exit the Garden near Eden and where they lead to.
The rivers lead to various levels of physicality.
It is our spiritual quest to stay in the Garden and not be tempted by anything outside the Garden.

I thought scholars guessed that the Garden of Eden was somewhere in the Euphrates triangle in the Middle East?

The verse describes 4 rivers that exit the Garden near Eden and where they lead to.
The rivers lead to various levels of physicality.
It is our spiritual quest to stay in the Garden and not be tempted by anything outside the Garden.

Where did you get this metaphysical explanation and what makes you believe it is fact?

Do you really think you understand the context of a cherry picked verse?
Do you really believe your soul won’t live on after your body dies and you won’t see existence from a spiritual point of view?
Now read the verses in context; they are not a geography lesson.

You didnt answer my question. You suggested a metaphysical explanation but you didnt support it. I read the verses in context. Its describing where the garden of eden is at the time of the writing of Genesis. If no geography "lesson" as you put it is implied why mention directions, rivers, and the lands these rivers were in?

I thought most people thought the Garden of Eden was in the area of the Euphrates, which is in present day Iraq?
Though it may not have sported Adam and Eve and all that, the Bible does seem to be saying that its people originated in that physical spot and they described it.

Common misconception. Its simply white desire that places it in the Middle East which was actually part of Africa at that time. Anything to get it away from Africa. We know because as you said they jump to the euphrates and Tigris instead of the more important rivers mentioned first. The Gihon and the Pison. The Gihon being in Kush

I dunno, A. There are other translations for Pishon and Gihon, but there is no way to get the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers into Ethiopia. From Wiki:

Genesis 2:10–14 lists four rivers in association with the garden of Eden: Pishon, Gihon, Chidekel (the Tigris), and Phirat (the Euphrates). It also refers to the land of Cush—translated/interpreted as Ethiopia, but thought by some to equate to Cossaea, a Greek name for the land of the Kassites.[22] These lands lie north of Elam, immediately to the east of ancient Babylon, which, unlike Ethiopia, does lie within the region being described.[23] In Antiquities of the Jews, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus identifies the Pishon as what "the Greeks called Ganges" and the Geon (Gehon) as the Nile.[24]

According to Lars-Ivar Ringbom the paradisus terrestris is located in Shiz in northeastern Iran.[25]

I'm always very disappointed in people who say the Bible is 100% myth and fiction, because there is a lot of history recorded in those stories. The Garden of Eden, where the people of God originated, has always interested me, too. I saw a show on it not too long ago where they think the location is actually under water now.

 

[irosie91]

The verse describes 4 rivers that exit the Garden near Eden and where they lead to.
The rivers lead to various levels of physicality.
It is our spiritual quest to stay in the Garden and not be tempted by anything outside the Garden.

Do you really think you understand the context of a cherry picked verse?
Do you really believe your soul won’t live on after your body dies and you won’t see existence from a spiritual point of view?
Now read the verses in context; they are not a geography lesson.

You didnt answer my question. You suggested a metaphysical explanation but you didnt support it. I read the verses in context. Its describing where the garden of eden is at the time of the writing of Genesis. If no geography "lesson" as you put it is implied why mention directions, rivers, and the lands these rivers were in?

I thought most people thought the Garden of Eden was in the area of the Euphrates, which is in present day Iraq?
Though it may not have sported Adam and Eve and all that, the Bible does seem to be saying that its people originated in that physical spot and they described it.

That is most probable because Avraham traveler South West to get to Canaan and Egypt.
The issue is living in the Garden and not being tempted to leave via the 4 “rivers”.
The 4 rivers represent (1) Thought, (2) Putting thought into action, (3) Refiing the product to no end and (4) Using the product.
In other words, all objects of non-Godly orientation are ever good enough for the ego driven free will human.

Avraham was not Adam

Adam didn’t travel anywhere, Avraham did and based on his travels, Avaraham started off in Iraq.

PUHLEEZE ----those Baghdad jews are arrogant enough already---
don't encourage them

 

[Carl in Michigan]

In the bible

So you can't tell us. The Bible says Asslilps is an idiot

 

[Votto]

Was doing some research on the bible and was reading Genesis 2:11-13. The first 2 nations that are mentioned in the bible are Black nations. The first nation listed is Havilah. Havilah is the son of Kush and it was located in East Africa. The second nation is of course Kush. Kush is the son of Ham and it was also located in east Africa. It is known today as Ethiopia.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 2:11-13 - English Standard Version

11 The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush.

I would think that preachers across the country would be preaching about the land of Havilah and Cush pretty much every day.

What is wrong with them?

 

[Asclepias]

We arent talking about migrations. We are talking about origins which begin in east Africa biblically and scientifically.

when you talk about HUMAN BEANS in social groups----or in geographical locations, you are talking about a HISTORY OF
EXTENSIVE MIGRATIONS. Human beans never stayed put.

Thats has nothing to do with the point. The point is that homo sapiens appeared somewhere first. That place was in Africa as pointed out by the bible and science.

so------what does that have to do with the color of their skin?-----
you are confused as to what a "MUTATION" is--------ALL GENES
ARE MUTATIONS

It has everything to do with the color of their skin. People in Africa are melinated. They are not white unless they are albinos. Secondly the gene for lighter skin didnt appear until about 8k years ago which is another scientific fact.

skin color determination is MULTIALLELIC

Which doesnt really help your argument.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

"When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today."

 

[RodISHI]

Was doing some research on the bible and was reading Genesis 2:11-13. The first 2 nations that are mentioned in the bible are Black nations. The first nation listed is Havilah. Havilah is the son of Kush and it was located in East Africa. The second nation is of course Kush. Kush is the son of Ham and it was also located in east Africa. It is known today as Ethiopia.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 2:11-13 - English Standard Version

11 The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush.

Two little problems here:

1.) This is an early chapter in Genesis giving the account of Creation and describing the Garden of Eden. The only person who existed at this point in the narrative is Adam. However, the lands mentioned here - Havilah and Kush - are supposedly named after descendants of Noah. Problem is, Adam being the only person alive at this point, Noah himself hadn't been born yet, much less his descendants.

2.) The English Standard Version you cite from mentions the rivers in the past tense; "...that flowed around...". The original Hebrew text does not use the past tense when describing these rivers. The original Hebrew text reads thus:

"The name of the first is Pishon; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon; the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush."

I have no idea if these were black nations or not but these inconsistencies need to be bore in mind.

At this point Adam was just created. Yes these are descendants of Noah but more importantly they are closer descendants of Ham and Kush respectively. Why you see that as "a problem" needs explaining.

Because Ham and Kush were born even later. How could these lands be named after people who did not yet exist?

People tell stories using past or present tenses all the time. All this tells me is that the Hebrew rendition was obviously the original and the christian one was written later after something had changed.

Two problems with this:

1.) One does not transcribe and translate an historic text by changing meanings and timelines. That's not translation, that's interpretation.

2.) By changing passages to the past tense, it appears that the original author was speaking in the past tense when he was not.

These are definitely Black nations. Havilah as I pointed out is a son of Kush and Kush is a son of Ham. These were all Black people.

Perhaps.

Easy. God is telling the writer the location by speaking about the people of those lands.

Correct. The version that was translated uses past tense. The Torah uses present tense. Regardless they say the exact same thing which doesnt change the location.

The Bible teaches about the Spirit yet humans like you and many others want to limit that to a carnal view. That is the problem.

1 Timothy 4 - Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Avraham was not Adam

No, and they ALL died except Noah. It was Noahs offspring that populated the world we have today.

 

[irosie91]

when you talk about HUMAN BEANS in social groups----or in geographical locations, you are talking about a HISTORY OF
EXTENSIVE MIGRATIONS. Human beans never stayed put.

Thats has nothing to do with the point. The point is that homo sapiens appeared somewhere first. That place was in Africa as pointed out by the bible and science.

so------what does that have to do with the color of their skin?-----
you are confused as to what a "MUTATION" is--------ALL GENES
ARE MUTATIONS

It has everything to do with the color of their skin. People in Africa are melinated. They are not white unless they are albinos. Secondly the gene for lighter skin didnt appear until about 8k years ago which is another scientific fact.

skin color determination is MULTIALLELIC

Which doesnt really help your argument.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

"When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today."

so? skin color is no more useful in determining "ORIGIN" of humans than flower color is in determining the origin of ONIONS

 

[irosie91]

Avraham was not Adam

No, and they ALL died except Noah. It was Noahs offspring that populated the world we have today.

that's uncle Noah's version

 

[Asclepias]

The verse describes 4 rivers that exit the Garden near Eden and where they lead to.
The rivers lead to various levels of physicality.
It is our spiritual quest to stay in the Garden and not be tempted by anything outside the Garden.

I thought scholars guessed that the Garden of Eden was somewhere in the Euphrates triangle in the Middle East?

Where did you get this metaphysical explanation and what makes you believe it is fact?

Do you really think you understand the context of a cherry picked verse?
Do you really believe your soul won’t live on after your body dies and you won’t see existence from a spiritual point of view?
Now read the verses in context; they are not a geography lesson.

You didnt answer my question. You suggested a metaphysical explanation but you didnt support it. I read the verses in context. Its describing where the garden of eden is at the time of the writing of Genesis. If no geography "lesson" as you put it is implied why mention directions, rivers, and the lands these rivers were in?

I thought most people thought the Garden of Eden was in the area of the Euphrates, which is in present day Iraq?
Though it may not have sported Adam and Eve and all that, the Bible does seem to be saying that its people originated in that physical spot and they described it.

Common misconception. Its simply white desire that places it in the Middle East which was actually part of Africa at that time. Anything to get it away from Africa. We know because as you said they jump to the euphrates and Tigris instead of the more important rivers mentioned first. The Gihon and the Pison. The Gihon being in Kush

I dunno, A. There are other translations for Pishon and Gihon, but there is no way to get the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers into Ethiopia. From Wiki:

Genesis 2:10–14 lists four rivers in association with the garden of Eden: Pishon, Gihon, Chidekel (the Tigris), and Phirat (the Euphrates). It also refers to the land of Cush—translated/interpreted as Ethiopia, but thought by some to equate to Cossaea, a Greek name for the land of the Kassites.[22] These lands lie north of Elam, immediately to the east of ancient Babylon, which, unlike Ethiopia, does lie within the region being described.[23] In Antiquities of the Jews, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus identifies the Pishon as what "the Greeks called Ganges" and the Geon (Gehon) as the Nile.[24]

According to Lars-Ivar Ringbom the paradisus terrestris is located in Shiz in northeastern Iran.[25]

I'm always very disappointed in people who say the Bible is 100% myth and fiction, because there is a lot of history recorded in those stories. The Garden of Eden, where the people of God originated, has always interested me, too. I saw a show on it not too long ago where they think the location is actually under water now.

Sure there are ways to get the Tigris and Euphrates into Africa. You just have to understand the history and meanings. First off those are not even the stated names. Those are merely interpretations. The names were Haddakel and Prath. When you look at the meaning of those two names they describe rivers in East Africa. Haddakel means "swift and narrow" This describes the Tekkeze river in Ethiopia. More importantly it is connected to the Atbara river which would form a bondary. Now this is purely coincidental but the name Tigris is suspiciously close to the name Tigray. This is also an area in Ethiopia.

 

[Penelope]

The Bible forbids worshipping gold.

And when has that stopped you Hebrews??

 

[Asclepias]

Thats has nothing to do with the point. The point is that homo sapiens appeared somewhere first. That place was in Africa as pointed out by the bible and science.

so------what does that have to do with the color of their skin?-----
you are confused as to what a "MUTATION" is--------ALL GENES
ARE MUTATIONS

It has everything to do with the color of their skin. People in Africa are melinated. They are not white unless they are albinos. Secondly the gene for lighter skin didnt appear until about 8k years ago which is another scientific fact.

skin color determination is MULTIALLELIC

Which doesnt really help your argument.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

"When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today."

so? skin color is no more useful in determining "ORIGIN" of humans than flower color is in determining the origin of ONIONS

So? So that means the people were all dark and only recently in the last 8k years they have mutated to light.

 

[Indeependent]

The Bible forbids worshipping gold.

And when has that stopped you Hebrews??

Never.
At least we didn’t spend 1,000 years raping and pillaging and doing little boys and girls behind the pew.

 

[Penelope]

Was doing some research on the bible and was reading Genesis 2:11-13. The first 2 nations that are mentioned in the bible are Black nations. The first nation listed is Havilah. Havilah is the son of Kush and it was located in East Africa. The second nation is of course Kush. Kush is the son of Ham and it was also located in east Africa. It is known today as Ethiopia.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 2:11-13 - English Standard Version

11 The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush.

It is taught in Churches.
It's also taught that Jesus is Jewish and that the first Christians were Jewish.
Jesus also represents all people from all nations.
Each nation has art depicted of Jesus in their own races, Black, Asian, Jewish and White.

While Paul preached to Gentiles.

 

[Asclepias]

Was doing some research on the bible and was reading Genesis 2:11-13. The first 2 nations that are mentioned in the bible are Black nations. The first nation listed is Havilah. Havilah is the son of Kush and it was located in East Africa. The second nation is of course Kush. Kush is the son of Ham and it was also located in east Africa. It is known today as Ethiopia.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 2:11-13 - English Standard Version

11 The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush.

Two little problems here:

1.) This is an early chapter in Genesis giving the account of Creation and describing the Garden of Eden. The only person who existed at this point in the narrative is Adam. However, the lands mentioned here - Havilah and Kush - are supposedly named after descendants of Noah. Problem is, Adam being the only person alive at this point, Noah himself hadn't been born yet, much less his descendants.

2.) The English Standard Version you cite from mentions the rivers in the past tense; "...that flowed around...". The original Hebrew text does not use the past tense when describing these rivers. The original Hebrew text reads thus:

"The name of the first is Pishon; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon; the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush."

I have no idea if these were black nations or not but these inconsistencies need to be bore in mind.

At this point Adam was just created. Yes these are descendants of Noah but more importantly they are closer descendants of Ham and Kush respectively. Why you see that as "a problem" needs explaining.

Because Ham and Kush were born even later. How could these lands be named after people who did not yet exist?

People tell stories using past or present tenses all the time. All this tells me is that the Hebrew rendition was obviously the original and the christian one was written later after something had changed.

Two problems with this:

1.) One does not transcribe and translate an historic text by changing meanings and timelines. That's not translation, that's interpretation.

2.) By changing passages to the past tense, it appears that the original author was speaking in the past tense when he was not.

These are definitely Black nations. Havilah as I pointed out is a son of Kush and Kush is a son of Ham. These were all Black people.

Perhaps.

Easy. God is telling the writer the location by speaking about the people of those lands.

Correct. The version that was translated uses past tense. The Torah uses present tense. Regardless they say the exact same thing which doesnt change the location.

The Bible teaches about the Spirit yet humans like you and many others want to limit that to a carnal view. That is the problem.

1 Timothy 4 - Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

If the bible was just teaching about spirit it wouldnt specify locations, genealogies, people, names, etc. Thats simply a cop out people use when they dont want to address the point.

 

[Penelope]

The verse describes 4 rivers that exit the Garden near Eden and where they lead to.
The rivers lead to various levels of physicality.
It is our spiritual quest to stay in the Garden and not be tempted by anything outside the Garden.

I thought it meant the 4 corners of the earth and that the center spread out in four directions to encompass the 4 corners of the earth.

That does not mean the garden of Eden did not have a geology location.

 

[irosie91]

so------what does that have to do with the color of their skin?-----
you are confused as to what a "MUTATION" is--------ALL GENES
ARE MUTATIONS

It has everything to do with the color of their skin. People in Africa are melinated. They are not white unless they are albinos. Secondly the gene for lighter skin didnt appear until about 8k years ago which is another scientific fact.

skin color determination is MULTIALLELIC

Which doesnt really help your argument.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

"When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today."

so? skin color is no more useful in determining "ORIGIN" of humans than flower color is in determining the origin of ONIONS

So? So that means the people were all dark and only recently in the last 8k years they have mutated to light.

you are confusing melanocyte with dark skin--------or even NEURAL CREST CELLS

 

[Asclepias]

It has everything to do with the color of their skin. People in Africa are melinated. They are not white unless they are albinos. Secondly the gene for lighter skin didnt appear until about 8k years ago which is another scientific fact.

skin color determination is MULTIALLELIC

Which doesnt really help your argument.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

"When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today."

so? skin color is no more useful in determining "ORIGIN" of humans than flower color is in determining the origin of ONIONS

So? So that means the people were all dark and only recently in the last 8k years they have mutated to light.

you are confusing melanocyte with dark skin--------or even NEURAL CREST CELLS

You are confusing your opinions with facts and science. The link is there for you benefit. Educate yourself.

 

[RodISHI]

Two little problems here:

1.) This is an early chapter in Genesis giving the account of Creation and describing the Garden of Eden. The only person who existed at this point in the narrative is Adam. However, the lands mentioned here - Havilah and Kush - are supposedly named after descendants of Noah. Problem is, Adam being the only person alive at this point, Noah himself hadn't been born yet, much less his descendants.

2.) The English Standard Version you cite from mentions the rivers in the past tense; "...that flowed around...". The original Hebrew text does not use the past tense when describing these rivers. The original Hebrew text reads thus:

"The name of the first is Pishon; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon; the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush."

I have no idea if these were black nations or not but these inconsistencies need to be bore in mind.

At this point Adam was just created. Yes these are descendants of Noah but more importantly they are closer descendants of Ham and Kush respectively. Why you see that as "a problem" needs explaining.

Because Ham and Kush were born even later. How could these lands be named after people who did not yet exist?

People tell stories using past or present tenses all the time. All this tells me is that the Hebrew rendition was obviously the original and the christian one was written later after something had changed.

Two problems with this:

1.) One does not transcribe and translate an historic text by changing meanings and timelines. That's not translation, that's interpretation.

2.) By changing passages to the past tense, it appears that the original author was speaking in the past tense when he was not.

These are definitely Black nations. Havilah as I pointed out is a son of Kush and Kush is a son of Ham. These were all Black people.

Perhaps.

Easy. God is telling the writer the location by speaking about the people of those lands.

Correct. The version that was translated uses past tense. The Torah uses present tense. Regardless they say the exact same thing which doesnt change the location.

The Bible teaches about the Spirit yet humans like you and many others want to limit that to a carnal view. That is the problem.

1 Timothy 4 - Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

If the bible was just teaching about spirit it wouldnt specify locations, genealogies, people, names, etc. Thats simply a cop out people use when they dont want to address the point.

Only in your own decrepit ideology. The Bible is teaching 'you' about the spiritual makeup within you as a human 'IF, you have an ear to hear'; if you don't you are merely sleeping in the dust of the earth; meaning you are dead to the spirit within.

 

[Penelope]

The verse describes 4 rivers that exit the Garden near Eden and where they lead to.
The rivers lead to various levels of physicality.
It is our spiritual quest to stay in the Garden and not be tempted by anything outside the Garden.

The verse describes 4 rivers that exit the Garden near Eden and where they lead to.
The rivers lead to various levels of physicality.
It is our spiritual quest to stay in the Garden and not be tempted by anything outside the Garden.

Where did you get this metaphysical explanation and what makes you believe it is fact?

Do you really think you understand the context of a cherry picked verse?
Do you really believe your soul won’t live on after your body dies and you won’t see existence from a spiritual point of view?
Now read the verses in context; they are not a geography lesson.

You didnt answer my question. You suggested a metaphysical explanation but you didnt support it. I read the verses in context. Its describing where the garden of eden is at the time of the writing of Genesis. If no geography "lesson" as you put it is implied why mention directions, rivers, and the lands these rivers were in?

I thought most people thought the Garden of Eden was in the area of the Euphrates, which is in present day Iraq?
Though it may not have sported Adam and Eve and all that, the Bible does seem to be saying that its people originated in that physical spot and they described it.

That is most probable because Avraham traveler South West to get to Canaan and Egypt.
The issue is living in the Garden and not being tempted to leave via the 4 “rivers”.
The 4 rivers represent (1) Thought, (2) Putting thought into action, (3) Refiing the product to no end and (4) Using the product.
In other words, all objects of non-Godly orientation are ever good enough for the ego driven free will human.

What is this new age stuff?