Rivers Prove Christianity Is True

The truth of the world has been searched by man for millennia, many of the worlds greatest and well-known leaders have established themselves by pursuing their own philosophies that they viewed to have brought for the revelation of mankind, and one after another these leaders fell looking for the truth, although it was right under their noses the entire time.

Two thousand years ago, a Galilean preacher, God in the flesh, delivered the truth of mankind. It was confirmed at His rather well-documented resurrection. Yet, aside from that, aside from the secrets revealed to mankind by the Bible and God’s literal guiding of history, how can we know this?

Well, rivers of course! Not just any rivers, though. Four rivers that appear in the second chapter of the great Book of Genesis.

Genesis 2:8-14The Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there He placed the man He had formed. The Lord God caused to grow out of the ground every tree pleasing in appearance and good for food, including the tree of life in the middle of the garden, as well as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. A river went out from Eden to water the garden. From there it divided and became the source of four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon, which flows through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. Gold from that land is pure; bdellium and onyx are also there. The name of the second river is Gihon, which flows through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris, which runs east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

The rivers of Tigris, Euphrates, Pishon (modern-day Wadi Batin) and Gihon (modern-day Karun) establish the truth of the Scriptures, and more importantly, Christianity. According to the Book of Genesis, these four rivers meet together in a single, large source of water, and that the river is fed by underground water that rises to the surface of the Earth (Gen. 2:6). Supposedly, one problem emerges — and that is that today, and in fact in the time that Genesis was written (over 3,000 years ago), these four rivers of the Tigris, Euphrates, Pishon and Gihon do not actually meet each other anywhere on Earth. However… That is only true for the world geography of today. Genesis takes place during the early days of humanity (about 150,000-100,000 years ago).

Behold, a geographical map of the Gulf Oasis, a no longer present massive body of water that existed more than 100,000 years ago.

Several years ago, in 2010, a considerable geographical survey by Jeffrey Rose based on the geography of the Gulf Oasis region that existed more then one hundred thousand years ago, located in the Middle East, was published to the journal Current Anthropology. In this body of water that once existed in the Middle East (that would have exceeded the size of the land mass of Britain), the four rivers of Tigris, Euphrates, Pishon (modern-day Wadi Batin) and Gihon (modern-day Karun) met. Exactly what the Book of Genesis says existed in the early days of humanity.

Not only that, but the paper documented that these four rivers, and the water mass they met in known as the Gulf Oasis, was watered by subterranean aquifers that flow beneath the Arabian subcontinent, also proving that, just as Genesis tells us, water flowed from beneath the surface of the Earth to water the land, where the four rivers of Tigris, Euphrates, Pishon and Gihon met. The author of the Book of Genesis understood very well the geography that existed during the beginning of the human age, and this geographical information had not been around in the time that the Book of Genesis was written. Indeed, when Genesis was written, these four rivers met nowhere on Earth, making it impossible for him to have known that such a thing ever existed during the early age of humanity. Yet, it is right there in Genesis 2. The author of the Book of Genesis tells us something he could not possibly have known as a human living over 3,000 years ago. This knowledge could not come from man, it must have come from God.

Image result for euphrates river

Advertisements

29 thoughts on “Rivers Prove Christianity Is True

  1. Nice post. Just wanted to clarify something – does this mean that the gulf oasis was a body of water located within Eden and from which 4 rivers flowed put or was the Oasis located partly located outside of Eden and the splitting of rivers took place put of Eden? Also, was the Oasis a body of water which flower under the landmass or was it a regular body of water just being fed from underneath? Sorry if I’m not being clear.

    Like

    • The Gulf Oasis was certainly a ‘regular body of water just being fed from underneath’, not underwater. It was also fed by rivers like the Tigris and Euphrates.

      As for whether or not the Gulf Oasis was in Eden or partly outside of Eden, I have no clue, because I don’t know the exact location and boundaries of Eden. I guess you should just see what Genesis 2 has to say about that. Hopefully I was able to answer some of your questions.

      Like

  2. I am confused about something. Doesn’t the Tigris and Euphrates flow into the Persian gulf, so the source would have to be in modern-day Turkey. How could the source be in the low level area of the Persian gulf?

    Like

  3. “Ok, the Gulf Oasis is the source of the water in the four rivers.
    Next step. What does “source” mean? Doesn’t this mean that if Body X is the source of water for Body Y, then the water in Body Y originated in Body X? Yes or no. And yes this is relavent to your evidence.”

    LOL? Relevant for my evidence? This guy is actually joking himself – no it isn’t lOL.

    What does my evidence say, behind your fanciful imagination? Genesis once says these rivers are all connected. However, they were not connecting during the time of Genesis, but *were* connected in the early days of humanity, exactly when Genesis says they were. Miracle. Done. Christianity is true LOl.

    Now, does my evidence have ANYTHING to do with the Gulf Oasis being the source of them? Despite the fact that it is true, no — it doesn’t. LOL.

    The water in the Gulf Oasis flowed into the Tigris, Euphrates, Karun and Wadi Batin. Likewise, the Gulf Oasis itself is well watered through these four rivers, as well as subterranean aquifers. Nice try.

    Like

    • Genesis says more than “connected.” It says the river out of Eden is the source of water for the four rivers. That means that the river out of Eden supplies the water for the four rivers. I think we agree on this point.

      Now take look at the map in the Rose paper on page 852. See the darkly shaded area just beneath the number 16? In the legend, this shade corresponds to depression/paleolake basin. See it? Is this the river out of Eden?

      Like

      • “Genesis says more than “connected.” It says the river out of Eden is the source of water for the four rivers. That means that the river out of Eden supplies the water for the four rivers.”

        OR it could mean that Tigris originally came from the water that was at the Gulf Oasis — of course, it never implies continual flowing. And even if it did, this wouldn’t be a problem — but you sound like the text says one specific thing without taking a look at all possibilities.

        ” See the darkly shaded area just beneath the number 16? In the legend, this shade corresponds to depression/paleolake basin. See it? Is this the river out of Eden?”

        OL. Some water would have flowed from the rivers into the Gulf Oasis, but it is certain without conception that the other way happened as well. Otherwise, if water was continually going *into* the Gulf Oasis without coming out, it would have literally overflowed out of its proportion. However, the study of Rose shows that multiple times throughout the history of the Gulf Oasis, the water levels of it were rapidly declining — how do you exactly think that happened? LOL.

        Like

    • If you look at Rose’s map, it appears that there is an outlet to the Gulf of Oman.

      Your “river out of Eden” is in a depression. Today it’s in the deepest part of the Persian Gulf. Water drained into the area from the surrounding area, not the other way around.

      Like

  4. Oh, and “mouth of the river is” a valid, widely-used, non-arbitrary GEOGRAPHICAL term. This isn’t debatable. Why are you saying otherwise? I think you’re getting a little overheated here.

    Like

    • “Oh, and “mouth of the river is” a valid, widely-used, non-arbitrary GEOGRAPHICAL term.”

      “MOUTH” is arbitrary, and “MOUTH OF A RIVER” simply means “ONE END OF A RIVER INTO A LARGER REGION”, and remember, both sides of the rivers are ‘ends’. There is no such thing as a ‘start’ of a river. It’s like two ends of a line.

      Like

    • The headwaters of a river are different from the mouth of a river. Of course rivers have a start. Try googling Fairfax Stone if you want to see how important this concept can be.

      These are not like two ends of a line drawn on a piece of paper. Instead, this is more like the 3 prime and 5 prime ends of DNA. The two ends of a strand of DNA are not identical.

      Like

      • “The headwaters of a river are different from the mouth of a river. Of course rivers have a start. Try googling Fairfax Stone if you want to see how important this concept can be.”

        More arbitrary nonsense. I also googled ‘Fairfax Stone’ and found a rock — what’s the relevance of this rock?

        “These are not like two ends of a line drawn on a piece of paper. Instead, this is more like the 3 prime and 5 prime ends of DNA.”

        LOLWHAT? You could not have made a worse analogy — it is definitely like a line. Geographically, if you look high enough from the air, a river looks just like a (curved) line.

        Like

      • “Yes, from the air, a river looks like a line. But the headwaters end is clearly different from the mouth end.”

        What ‘headwaters’ end are you speaking of? You’re simply hopelessly confused about geography, and simply cannot come to bear the established miraculous prediction of Genesis — the fact that all four rivers were connected in the early days of humanity. You’ve yet to address this.

        “A river flows in one direction. That differentiates one end from another.”

        More fiction by you; you seem to be inventing the basic geography of rivers every time you respond, LOL. Anyways, while you’re at it, you seem to be really bad at giving citations — once you fail to find any citations, you should apologize for wasting my time.

        Also, river directions change all the time. Here’s one example:
        https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHZL_enCA709CA709&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=direction+fo+river+changes

        “If you look at Rose’s map, it appears that there is an outlet to the Gulf of Oman.
        Your “river out of Eden” is in a depression. Today it’s in the deepest part of the Persian Gulf. Water drained into the area from the surrounding area, not the other way around.”

        What the heck are you talking about? Everyone knows the water levels of the Gulf Oasis receded into the Indian Ocean (it didn’t “drain”, wherever you got that from), what’s the point of this? Are you trying to throw around red herrings assuming I’ll forget something?

        Like

  5. But the Gulf Oasis is not the source of these rivers. The sources are at higher elevations. The Gulf Oasis would be the terminus for these rivers.

    Like

    • What on Earth are you talking about? There’s a reason I gave you a link to Jeffrey Rose’s study, and that was so you would actually read it. And right there, in the abstract of the paper (I literally couldn’t have made the information more easy for you to get access to), Rose writes regarding the Gulf Oasis…

      “These data are used to assess the role of this large oasis, which, before being submerged beneath the waters of the Indian Ocean, was well watered by the Tigris, Euphrates, Karun, and Wadi Batin rivers as well as subterranean aquifers flowing beneath the Arabian subcontinent.”

      Seriously.

      Like

    • Yes, I read the papee. the Gulf Oasis is watered by the four rivers. This means that the rivers END at the Oasis. So the Oasis is not the source of the rivers. It’s not a source that divides into four rivers.

      Genesis talks of the source of the rivers. A source that divides into four rivers. This cannot be the Gulf Oasis.

      Like

      • “Yes, I read the papee. the Gulf Oasis is watered by the four rivers. This means that the rivers END at the Oasis.?”

        LOLWHAT? You seem to be geographically unable in a vast way. There is no such thing as a river “ending” at one side or the other. The complete idea of a river ‘starting’ at one end, rather than the other, is entirely arbitrary. It’s not a factual/geographical claim.

        “So the Oasis is not the source of the rivers”

        ?????????????????????????????????

        One river divided into four rivers. Perhaps reading more would have helped you — the Gulf Oasis was one, all itself, a massive mass of water. Then, the water levels of the Gulf Oasis decreased, revealing the Tigris, Euphrates, Pishon and Gihon. It basically literally split into the four rivers. I actually might add that to the article.

        Anyways, you’re obviously crazy. Your objections are all crazy and you obviously have no clue what you’re talking about. “This cannot be the Gulf Oasis” — this statement is so self-contradictory it’s not even funny, and you’re probably completely oblivious to that.

        Like

    • Rivers have a source end, a beginning end. Rivers flow downhill to the mouth end, an end end. Yes? Can we agree on that? This isn’t an arbitrary labeling of ends. This is limnology.

      Now Genesis says that Eden is clearly at the source end. This is not an arbitrary labeling. A river FLOWS out of Eden, and it flows downhill from its source, and it splits into four rivers. According to Genesis, Eden has to be at the high point of all four watersheds because water only flows downhill.

      The Gulf Oasis is at the mouth end of these rivers. It’s at the low point of the watersheds. It can’t be the source, it can’t be the river out of Eden.

      All four rivers existed before the water level in the Oasis changed. Their channels extend far beyond the Oasis boundary and far beyond the current Persian Gulf. The changing water level did not create these four rivers.

      Like

      • “Rivers have a source end, a beginning end”

        More useless arbitrary statements.

        “Rivers flow downhill to the mouth end, an end end. Yes? Can we agree on that?”

        “Mouth end” — a term I cannot find in Google, and is also arbitrary. The ‘end’ of a river (which arbitrarily appplies to both sides) simply means the geographical location of the extent of a river, and the final location it is in before ceasing to be a river.

        This objection is so ridiculously stupid that I am almost flabbergasted that you would even have the nerve to say something so utterly vacuous. And the worst thing of all, according to the arbitrary use of the word ‘end’, Genesis is entirely right, because both sides of a river are ‘ends’, LOL. My IQ has been permanently scarred by your logic-chopping. Freaking seriously. The best part is where the words ‘start’ and ‘end’ are never used in Genesis. You’re a professional clown.

        “All four rivers existed before the water level in the Oasis changed. Their channels extend far beyond the Oasis boundary and far beyond the current Persian Gulf. The changing water level did not create these four rivers.”

        Almost all this is blatantly in geographical error. You obviously know nothing about the Gulf Oasis.

        Like

    • Do I understand you correctly?

      You’ve never heard of a river having a mouth? You’ve never heard the expression “mouth of the river” meaning the place where a river ends when it empties into another body of water? Really?

      I don’t understand the problem here.

      Let me take this one simple step at a time.

      The river out of Eden is the source of the four rivers, right? Yes or no. The river out of Eden is the source of the water for the four rivers. Yes or no. Does Genesis say this or not?

      Like

      • “You’ve never heard the expression “mouth of the river” meaning the place where a river ends when it empties into another body of water? Really? ”

        I have heard it, and as you funnily point out it is an EXPRESSION LOL. Arbitrary crap, get out of here.

        “The river out of Eden is the source of the four rivers, right? Yes or no. The river out of Eden is the source of the water for the four rivers. Yes or no. Does Genesis say this or not?”

        You are obviously an insane and vacuous person. Truly a crazy man. The word ‘END’ never appears in Genesis. Where is the error? And in fact, which part of your comment ever addresses the evidence brought forth in my article? LOL. It clearly doesn’t.

        DOES GENESIS SAY THAT THE ‘OASIS’ IS THE SOURCE OF THE RIVERS?

        Yes. “A river went out from Eden to water the garden. From there it divided and became the source of four rivers.” Because of Jeffrey Rose, we know this is a fact. The entire accusation is worthless and arbitrary, and fails to take into account the miraculous knowledge of the Book of Genesis that wasn’t possibly known at its time. This maddening failure on your part to understand basic geography, and apply arbitrary terms and expressions to it is thoroughly laughable.

        Like

  6. “Ah, a single source of water connects the four rivers. And that source is…the Gulf Oasis?”

    Looks like it, according to geography. Why are you asking me questions that answer themselves? Christianity is true, get over it. You should be focusing on more important questions, Christianity being true is just one of those obvious “oh, I get it” moments in life. Maybe learn about Rome or something.

    Like

  7. “I’ve read the verses several times, and I don’t see how they say that the four rivers met again after the division of the one river into four rivers. What am I missing?”

    LOLWHAT?

    You seem to be missing a brain. Genesis says “A river went out from Eden to water the garden. From there it divided and became the source of four rivers” — a single source of water connects four rivers, which are later named as Tigris, Euphrates, Pishon and Gihon. You couldn’t have actually missed that. Put on your glasses. Funnily enough, before 2010, this passage was accused of error. Now the poor skeptics can’t even see where the claim is made 🙂

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s