As clear as the Bible is on the origins of the heavens and the Earth, the world is even more clear: "God's truth is not a tolerable view". For the unbelieving world, this should not be at all surprising. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:18-31, those who are perishing will find His truth very foolish. But "...the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (v25). Therefore, no matter what the world thinks of our doctrines, we shouldn't take that opinion on board. They have the foolish view, we have the truth.
Sadly, even the most faithful of believers can often tremble before the might... of childish insults resulting from disagreement with the mainstream narrative. Rather than follow in the footsteps of Christians who have given their very lives for the foolishness of God, many have sought to compromise with the "wisdom" of men.
For some Christians, that goes as far as just throwing Genesis in the bin and acknowledging fairy tales about man descending from apes. Their faith is virtually indistinguishable from atheism, and if they believe there is any value in the Bible what so ever, they certainly don't consider it the word of God. But not everyone is so faithless. For some, Genesis is still sacred. Thus, they acknowledge the historical Adam and Eve, the historical garden of Eden, and even the real, historical fall of man. However, they still see a certain degree of strength in the atheistic narrative.
One of the more "believable" compromises is the so-called "Eden Sanctuary" idea. That is, the earth outside of the Garden was untamed wilderness, which could very easily included thorns and things Creationists typically associate with the Fall. God's command to "subdue and have dominion" included taming that wilderness and extending the Garden over the earth. The Fall resulted in their expulsion into the already horrific world, but did not actually change the world itself.
In the compromised worldview, this would explain things like fossilised thorns supposedly millions of years older than mankind, fossilised diseases like cancer, even on dinosaurs, fossil evidence of carnivory pre-fall, and many such things. In short, it seems the world has always been a fallen wilderness because there never was a time when the whole world was a paradise. Only this one corner of the world, from which man was expelled post-Fall.
There are a large number of problems with the Eden Sanctuary idea, starting with the simple fact it is neither mentioned, nor even implied, in the Scriptures. This is why it, along with all other compromised theories, is brand new. Rather than being a hypothetical model based on what Scripture tells us, it is a rescuing device designed to explain away what Scripture actually says in light of more worldly theories on the origins of the heavens and the Earth.
Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the Garden of Eden was a special place. So, is it at least plausible that it was special in the sense of being the only truly safe place in the world until the Fall?
To begin with, we must take into account that although Eden is a localised place discussed primarily in Genesis 2 and 3, it cannot be entirely separated from the account in Genesis 1. In fact, when He discusses the morality of divorce in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, Jesus draws on both Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as being a part of the same, authoritative narrative, to establish His point. They are the same narrative, it's just that Genesis 2 is more localised and focused on the 6th day.
Genesis 1 is less localised, of course covering all 6 days of creation. Following this, God saw all that He had made, and declared it "very good". This, especially when you consider it is God's standard we're talking about, is not compatible with an untamed wilderness full of death and violence.
This becomes more apparent when we consider the specifics of the Fall. This is what God says to Adam: "“Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.”" (Genesis 3:17-19).
This is clearly describing new effects. This is an unavoidable, Gospel-altering truth when it comes to death. Scripture repeatedly reaffirms that death entered the world not merely through Adam, but specifically through his sin. This is directly connected to how we receive eternal life through Christ, the "last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45). Thus, we cannot claim death was already present, but Adam was merely shielded, from it while in the garden.
In fact, none of this even makes sense if any of this was in the world already. If thorns, thistles, and the like, were all present in the world already, God wouldn't have had to say the ground would bring forth these things, but rather "you see that gate right there, where all the horrible things are? Walk right through it." Boom, punishment served.
But no. God didn't merely send Adam into a horrible place where bad things already existed. Rather, He said "Cursed is the ground for your sake". In other words, "listen Adam, you've done this thing, so now I'm doing these things". This makes a lot more sense than suggesting the Dominion Mandate, which was given prior to the Fall, would have required Adam, or at the very least His children, to encounter these things anyway.
The one response I've heard to this is, much as I would expect from an unbeliever, that it is silly, dare I say foolish, to expect that even Eden itself would have been completely free from suffering. For example, could Adam not possibly stub his toe? It was said in the same discussion that a perfect paradise Eden is a very Westernised viewpoint. But consider the words of Psalm 91:11-12: "For He shall give His angels charge over you, To keep you in all your ways. In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone."
Psalm 91 is, of course, a post-Fall Psalm. Adam would have never read it. In fact, it describes a great many horrors. Diseases, war, terrors of the night. Yet, it describes how those who make the Lord their dwelling place will not fall prey to these things. In a fallen world, His angels can protect us from the very thing that, in an uncorrupted world, this particular compromiser believed it would be foolish to suggest they could do so fully.
Perhaps most worrying is that if people believe it is foolish that we should have such protection before sin, they must realistically assume we will not be safe after sin, either. If God, in His sovereign power, cannot prevent pain and suffering now, why should we believe He will magically gain this ability? Of course, if it turned out that the worst thing in Heaven would be a stubbed toe every so often, that would still be more amazing than the outright nuclear warfare that may occur right now, but it is a very low view of God to suggest that in all His might, He could only manage to make a very good garden, requiring us to go out with shovels and pitchforks to finish the job.
The simple fact is, the horrors of this world, up to and including thorns and thistles, are a part of the curse. A curse which would not have been present anywhere on Earth prior to sin. But then, what was so special about Eden that would require banishment?
One could as reasonably ask the same question about the land of Israel in the post-Fall world. Objectively, there is little different about that land than any other land. Sure, it has its unique eco-system, topography, history etc., but it's not like anyone who sets foot there has magically gained 40 years of life expectancy. Israel is as stained by sin as any other land.
Nevertheless, it is the land promised to Abraham and his descendants - with a caveat. Under the Old Covenant, while the Jews obeyed the Lord, they would receive His blessings and protections. He has even sworn to place His name in Jerusalem forever (2 Kings 21:7). Thus, just as the tree of life was uniquely placed in Eden, so also is the temple of God a unique landmark in Israel. Yet, disobedience lead to great calamity for the Jews. When they would fall into idolatry, they would be punished with famine, war, disease, and even exile. The temple itself was destroyed - twice - and Jews spread across the planet.
In much the same way, Eden may not have been uniquely spared the curse that followed the Fall, but it was uniquely touched by God. There, not only did God walk with His own two feet, but also the tree of life was rooted, still standing so strong and effective that God placed an angel to guard it in order to prevent man from using it (Genesis 3:22-24). Thus, while Eden was certainly unique, this is not because it was some special sanctuary in an otherwise untamed world, but because of the direct presence of God, as well as two unique, sacred, and apparently useful trees.
With all of this in mind, the Eden Sanctuary idea is just one more shoddy excuse for we, who should stand firmly in the Kingdom of God, to dip our toes in the devil's river. But we have no business with such compromise. Let Scripture say what it says, and if the unbelieving world views this as foolish, then let them continue to fulfil Scripture by doing so. Let this be their error, and theirs alone.