An Examination of the Assumptions of “eden’s Geography Erodes Flood Geology”

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 two 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 two are generic. They are not specific to any location, and could have been used for both pre-Flood and postFlood geographic features. Eden’s geography was destroyed by the Flood. Its location cannot be found in a post-Flood setting.