Abstract Discussion of the topic of honor and trust found in stories in "Gilgamesh" and "Genesis" 1-3 and 6-9. The stories are compared to a contract whether verbally or written. In the story of "The Flood" in Gilgamesh and in Genesis, God or the Higher Power is asking Utnapishtim and Noel to put their trust in Him and believe what he directs them to do in building a ship. In any contract, whether verbal or written, the parties must honor and trust the other parties involved. In the two stories both men are asked to trust and honor the higher power or they will die along with wicked mankind. Both men willingly listen and follow the specific directions given to them. Whether it is the story of Gilgamesh or Noah, both men put their trust and honor in their Gods and obey the instructions given to both.
Abstract This paper discusses the historical, grammatical and literary aspects of Genesis 22:1-19. The historical analysis in this article suggests that Genesis may be myth or it may be rooted in history. At any rate, the writer claims that its religious significance surely outweighs its historical significance. The writer discusses that research on grammatical points has hopefully aided in a better understanding of the text. Further, the writer suggests that literary analysis has highlighted the development of the story, its theme and implications.
From the Paper "The story of God's command for Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, found in Genesis, is perhaps one of the more well-known biblical stories. Genesis may or may not be a story of actual people but most will agree that its religious meaning is more important than proof. The grammatical structure of the modern English translation of biblical Hebrew provides some difficulty to understanding the text. This paper briefly explains research conducted on grammatical points in relation to ... "
Abstract This paper compares how Genesis 12 and Genesis 20 treat the subject of incest. The writer notes that one of the most taboo topics, even in our own society, is the question of what constitutes incest. The writer then relates that in Genesis, this topic is addressed not once, but twice, in Genesis 12 and Genesis 20. These incidents in the life of the patriarch Abraham (Abram) and his wife Sarah (Sarai) are, like other significant episodes in the first book of the Pentateuch, told and retold, virtually right after one another in ways that are similar but with some critical differences in plot and tone. The writer maintains that these two different versions of the same incident of the life of Abraham and Sarah are used to shed new light upon the meaning of the same anecdote. The writer concludes that although it has the same plot of the sister-as-wife, Genesis 12 is more interested in showing how God will intervene to protect Abraham on earth, and to show this is a demonstration of God's plan for Abraham to be a father of Israel. Further, the writer maintains that textual resonances with the later Mosaic covenant take predominance over character development, or even explaining basic details of the plot, like how Pharaoh understands the relationship between the husband and wife.
From the Paper "Abraham believes that as a woman, Sarah's life (still Sarai) will be protected although very likely she will be violated, if the two of them are known to be married. He fears his own life will be at risk. But if the two are taken to be unmarried strangers, the Egyptians will be less hostile to them as foreigners. He anticipates her resistance to this idea (as it may still put her chastity in danger) but begs her to do so, so his soul might live. Abraham seems to make a plea that this is a God-fearing thing to do by invoking the soul, rather than merely asking his wife to engage in a potentially immoral deception to save his life.
"Interestingly, in both versions of the incidents, Abraham is not blamed for his deception by either his wife, the man he deceives, or the Lord, even though it places Sarai's life at risk, not his own."
This well-researched paper analyzes the differences and similarities in Daniel Quinn's 1992 novel "Ishmael" to that of the book of "Genesis" in the Bible.
Abstract This in-depth paper examines the views and opinions of author Daniel Quinn in his novel which focuses on an alternative take on human history as compared to that told in the book of "Genesis." This paper delves into the characters of Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel as portrayed in "Genesis" and as Quinn perceived them in his own novel. This paper compares the actions of Cain and Abel in the book of "Genesis" to those depicted in Quinn's novel which presents a somewhat different version of events. This paper examines the traditional teachings related to the creation of the world while comparing them to the differing views and perceptions of Daniel Quinn. One example focuses on the story of Cain and Abel and the traditional yet simplistic explanation which recounts the first recorded murder. Quinn delves deeper and more critically into this specific story exposing a much more complex and underlying meaning to that of a simple disagreement between two brothers which are detailed in this paper. The writer attempts to prove in this paper that the book of "Genesis" may be more than just simple tales of morality but an actual plausible glimpse into the development of human culture and man's own inner-psyche.
From the Paper "It is here where the stage is set for the first man's imminent self-condemnation. Shortly afterward, the book documents God's abstraction of Eve from Adams rib. The author makes it clear that in this golden age, Human beings could co-exist with their environment in perfect harmony until the emergence of the enigmatic character of the serpent.
When Eve tells the serpent what God has said will happen were she and Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and bad, he says to Eve,
"You won't die! Because God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you'll be like God- knowing good and bad." The snake, whose intentions are ambiguous, tempts Eve to eat of the tree. She does so and then takes the fruit to Adam, who eats of it as well."
Abstract This paper compares and contrasts the first two chapters of the 'Book of Genesis' within the Old Testament. It describes the events that occurred during the first two chapters and discusses their literary style. The paper particularly focuses on the way that God maintained full control of all created in 'Genesis':1, while in 'Genesis': 2, God gives humans both the autonomy of choice and free will, thereby setting up the conflicts that ensue in 'Genesis':3.
From the Paper "Chapter 1 of Genesis is different from Chapter 2 of Genesis, in that in Chapter 1, the very beginning, most basic elements of the earth are created from waters and darkness. In Chapter 2, God creates the first man, and then, to keep the man company, creates the first woman to live with the man on the earth, and everything around them that they need in the Garden of Eden. The tree of knowledge is also created in Chapter 2, and God instructs the man" "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2: 16-17, p. 58). But it is not until Chapter 3 of Genesis that the woman and then the man are tempted by the tree of Knowledge."
Abstract Throughout the book of Genesis, each generation features brothers or sisters who competed, often bitterly and often for their parent's attention. This paper shows that the sibling rivalries between Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:1-26), Esau and Jacob, Ishmael and Isaac, and Joseph and his brothers were similar in some ways and different in others. The conflicts and actions between all the siblings can all be tied together by responsibly dealing with conflict and resolution. The paper shows that the Book of Genesis poses the well-known question, "Am I my brothers keeper?," which gets answered by the end of the book. In addition, the actions of the parents may have had an impact on the actions of their children.
From the Paper "The portion that illustrates Jacob's moral maturation is by the tale of Jacob's struggle with a godly being the night before he was to meet his estranged brother (Genesis 32:23-32). Jacob wrestled with the god sent figure and left the attack morally enhanced but physically injured. He then received a new name, "Israel," which is interpreted to mean, "the one who strives with beings divine and human and prevails". Therefore, when he finally meets Esau, he is no longer the proud youngster who is out to take advantage of his brother, but a mature man, bearing the scars of life and offering gifts to his brother."
Abstract This paper analyzes sibling rivalry relationships from two perspectives of analysis ? structuralism and by emphasizing the importance of the concept of sacrifice, drawing on the relationships of Jacob and Esau, Cain and Abel and Leah and Rachael, taken from the "Book of Genesis".
From the paper:
"One of the predominant themes in the Book of Genesis is that of sibling rivalry: We see in the pairs of Jacob and Esau, Cain and Abel and Leah and Rachel a series of oppositions presented to us in the form of these sibling relationships. This paper analyzes those relationships from two different perspectives. The first of these is the Structuralist one, which allows us to see these sibling relationships within the broader context of sacred and folk writings in a number of cultures and the second is within the framework of sacrifice as the ancient Jews understood this concept."
Abstract The following paper analyses sibling rivalry relationships from two perspectives of analysis ? that of structuralism and that of emphasizing the importance of the concept of sacrifice, drawing on the relationships of Jacob and Esau, Cain and Abel and Leah and Rachel's, taken from the "Book of Genesis".
From the paper:
"One of the predominant themes in the Book of Genesis is that of sibling rivalry: We see in the pairs of Jacob and Esau, Cain and Abel and Leah and Rachel a series of oppositions presented to us in the form of these sibling relationships. This paper analyzes those relationships from two different perspectives. The first of these is the Structuralist one, which allows us to see these sibling relationships within the broader context of sacred and folk writings in a number of cultures and the second is within the framework of sacrifice as the ancient Jews understood this concept".
Tags: Jesus, bible, figures, Jews, cultures, tradition, living, dead
Abstract This paper explains that, in Genesis, the modelss of righteous characters in Noah, Joseph and Abraham is described as a complete obedience to God, which is shown continuously throughout the book. The author believes that one of the greatest examples of righteousness in Genesis is Abraham's willingness to risk an unknown future under God's guidance when he leaves his land of birth and the place of his father to journey to Canaan. The paper stresses that Abraham also maintains a resolute faith in God at all times and obediently follows His orders such as when God demands that Abraham sacrifice his long-desired dear son Isaac.
From the Paper "Joseph also shows obedience to God. In fact, Joseph is righteous in the way that no one else around him is. Though God does not explicitly state His will to Joseph, Joseph seems to intuitively know His will. . In chapter 40, Joseph says, "Are not solutions from God? Pray, recount them to me." It shows that he considers himself such a person God favors with insight into the meaning of the dream. Then things eventually turn out exactly as he interprets, proving his ability to know God's will. When he works in the house of his Egyptian master, the master's wife asks Joseph to lay with her. It is difficult for him to decline as she holds great control over him."
Abstract This paper explores the differences and similarities between "The Epic of Gilgamesh", one of the oldest recorded writings from Sumerian or Babylonian mythology, with "Genesis" from the Judeo-Christian Bible. The paper argues that one of the main differences between the epic and "Genesis", is the Babylonian view that the gods are dangerous for mortals, and that their laws are irrational and cannot be predicted by the human mind. For Judaism and Christianity, on the other hand, God is the bearer of righteousness and a symbol of justice and everything that is morally virtuous. Nonetheless, the paper holds that there is a striking resemblance between the two accounts. The paper attempts to provide evidence sustaining the claim that the Mesopotamian account of the great flood is highly relevant to Christianity. It concludes that the myth of the flood is valid and incorporated in Judaism and Christianity and also in the collective conscience of the peoples who did not follow Yahweh.
From the Paper "The Judaic-Christian and the Mesopotamian systems of belief are in clear opposition. Christianity and Judaism praise respect and obedience for the divinity as evidence of God's greatness and moral righteousness. God is the central figure of the faith system because He represents all that is good and right thus humanity must obey Him; here obedience is understood as a definite obligation. On the other hand, for Mesopotamians, respect and piety are the result of humanity's acknowledgement that it is both mortal and weaker than the gods. In this sense, the two virtues are not moral obligations, but a practical attitude which serves as an acknowledgement of the superiority of nature in terms of its power over humans."
Abstract The paper shows how the Book of Genesis in the Bible recounts two versions of the story of creation. The author shows that while both accounts involve relating the story of how God created the world and Man, they differ largely in the chronology of events, and in approach. Despite these differences and the inevitable contradictions that result from these differences, both stories actually complement each other due to the different perspectives that are provided of the same event.
From the Paper "Another factor that demonstrated the complementary nature of each account of the creation is the greater elaboration of God's relationship with his creation. Whereas God's aloofness is further displayed in there being no account of God interacting with His creations, in the second account God lays down some ground rules to Man such as "You may eat indeed of all the trees in the garden. Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die." (Ch. 2; Verse 16-17; P. 6) Also, in the first account there is only one perspective given, that of God. However in the second account an additional perspective is provided, that of Man: "Now both of them were naked, the man and his wife, but they felt no shame in front of each other." (Ch. 2; Verse 25; P. 7)"
Abstract This research examines the development of the concepts of land, nation and country as elements of spirituality that begin in Genesis and that surface repeatedly throughout the Old Testament. The research describes why and how the concept achieves resonance and importance in the text.
From the Paper "This passage, echoed in various ways throughout Genesis and the books following, indicates that God intends to create a special relationship with the people of whom Abram is the patriarch. In some passages, the terms land, nation, and country seem to be used interchangeably, while in others the word of choice appears meant to refine and narrow meaning. What is especially noteworthy, however, is that the word land is most often associated with the people of Israel, who are also the people of God. Indeed, it will be seen that the concept of the people of Israel as a nation is often subsumed into the image of the people (or indeed the nation) on the land. This theme comes to dominate narrative development of the entire Old Testament, with the physical presence of the people of Israel on the land being tied to the status of their relationship with God."
Abstract This paper discusses how the principal difference between the use of sexuality in "Genesis" and the "Epic of Gilgamesh" is that in the former it is part of the curse of suffering and mortality while in the latter it precedes mortality -- literally. In both cases sex is domesticated, in the sense that it is necessary for procreation and the continuation of the human race. And in both cases sex is also domesticating, in the sense of being an agent of domestication. The writer explains that there is an enormous difference between the role of sexual relations in the account of the domestication of Enkidu and in the Biblical account of the sin of Adam and Eve and their expulsion from Eden; in the former it is a powerful human urge that can lead to advances in human civilization and in the latter it is something that humanity must overcome.
From the Paper "Sex is far more incidental in the Gilgamesh epic than it is in the Book of Genesis in that while sexual relations can be a source of controversy -- as in Ishtar's frustration over Gilgamesh -- it is not repeatedly shown to be a source of conflict and an occasion of sin as it is in Genesis. The murderous sexual jealousy of Potiphar's wife resembles that of Ishtar in some ways but it takes place on the level of human-human interaction that has little to do with the kind of divine-human interaction that is central to Gilgamesh. In Genesis the all-powerful, ungendered god creates humanity and gives it free will which allows it to make mistakes in choosing between serving god and offending 'him.' But the god of Genesis is always interested in what happens to his people and wants them to persevere and win out. In the Gilgamesh epic the gods are largely indifferent to the fates of human beings whom they have created as servants and human procreation is just an ingenious means of perpetuating this race of servants. When the gods decide that Enkidu, and all humanity, must be mortal, however, there is no essential connection between this fact and the fact of human sexuality. This is not the case in Genesis."
Abstract This paper shows how and why the biblical book of "Genesis" serves as inspiration for the three major religions of the world - Christianity, Judaism and Islam. It provides a summary of the main stories of the book and gives a brief analysis of certain highlights and characters.
From the Paper "The story begins with the creation of the world. This creation story is told twice, from different narrative standpoints, so that the reader can have a full picture of the scope of creation. Like Greek creation myths, the story starts with Chaos, for the universe is ?without form and void.? Yet God moves across the surface of the earth. He creates light, day, and night. Such is the first morning and night, empty void space, lightness and darkness. Then God separates the waters in the earth from the waters in the sky (clouds, one assumes) and creates the sky. A second day passes. God breaks the oceans apart, and dry land comes forth. Upon the land he creates vegetation, green and growing things. A third day passes. On the fourth day, God creates the sun, stars, moon, and other celestial bodies. The light now has a central focus and cause, rather than simply ?being.? On the fifth day, God populates the oceans and the air with fish and birds and living things. On the sixth day, God creates the rest of the animals -- everything that lives upon the land. He makes man, and instructs "them" to be fruitful and multiply and fill the world. He also instructs that they only eat plants, and not kill animals. The world is good."
Abstract After the publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species in 1859, many have looked upon the book of Genesis as a myth that no longer tells us anything of real importance about our beginnings or our selves. In this paper I want to show that empirical thought is not the only legitimate means of obtaining an authentic understanding of our origins; that as a mythic narrative The Holy Bible also offers us a true and valid account of our beginnings. Today, most scholarship tends to focus on the differences between science and religious myth, and often forgets that both disciplines share the same agenda.
