The controversial study also points out that what Rio Gihon mentioned in the Bible corresponds to the Nile and that the ancient wonders were an alignment with spiritual symbolism.
A new and eccentric published in Archaelogical Discovery is rekindling the old debate about the Real Garden Location of Biblical Edenmaking the sensational statement that Eden was in Egypt and that the Great Pyramid of Giza is the legendary tree of life.
The research was done by computer engineer Konstantin Borisov, who used a computational analysis, old maps and biblical interpretation to argue that Eden was near the Nile River – Traditionally not one of the four rivers mentioned in Genesis, but there is a long time as potential candidate.
The book of Genesis describes a single river that flows from Eden and divided into four: the tiger, the Euphrates, the Pishon and the Gihon. While the tiger and the Euphrates are well known, the identity of the other two remains a mystery.
Borisov suggests that GIHON corresponds to the Nile And it is based on reconstructions of ancient maps, such as the Mundi Mundi de Hecateu, dated about 500 BC, which, according to the author, portrays four rivers-the Nile, the Tiger, the Euphrates and the Indian-that emerge from a surrounding “Oceanus”, interpreted as a symbolic “river”. The scientist even proposes a connection between this mythical river and the boreal dawn, a phenomenon of heavenly light, says.
The controversial study goes further by proposing than old wonders like Machu Picchu, UR and Nazca lines form a global alignment, nicknamed “Prehistoric alignment of the wonders of the world”That he believes to have a spiritual meaning and linked to the idea of a river of heaven.
In the perhaps more dramatic statement, Borisov says that the Great Giza Pyramid is the Tree of Life. Based on light simulations of the King’s Chamber, the author suggests that reflected standards resemble a bright tree, making the pyramid the literal and symbolic center of Eden.
Although the study is rich in mythological interpretations and creative links, it lacks the empirical basis necessary for serious academic acceptance. Experts have long warned of pseudo-archeological theorieswhich are based on speculative or symbolic associations rather than verifiable data.
