I read the article you posted.
My comment to both the author and the lead archeologist that the author interviewed is that the conclusions (or the hypothesis they have so far) is conflicting. They use both the literal interpretation of Genesis AND the figurative interpretation of "myth" of Genesis to BOTH validate this find when the two interpretations of Genesis conflict each other. The archeologist almost combines the two interpretations to support his findings but ignores the parts that don't go together.
Taking the literal interpretation alone, there was no temple in Eden. There were only two people in Eden. If a civilization, that would have, of course, decended from Adam and Eve built a temple outside of Eden or in honor of Eden, that's more feasable.
Taking the "Eden is just a myth to describe the hunter-gatherer era" interpretation, then why would then need to build a temple in the literal garden? (cont.)
at 10:55 PM on Sep. 4, 2009