Read Genesis 1:1 to 9:17, stopping frequently to make notes about your observations and questions. Post your notes here in one entry.
What surprises you about this ancient text? What doesn't seem to be here that you had thought was part of this story? What confuses you? What are you noticing about the use of language in this text, about the subtle patterns that emerge?
Reading the holy scriptures in the context of a secular class has allowed me read the text with more focus to what was being said, rather than what message I am to take of it. I was taken aback when I saw how many times women are degraded or vilified within this section of the text alone. Eve is created out of one of Adam’s ribs, while Adam was created out of dust. This shows woman’s dependence on man, even in the realm of creation. Further along the text, it is says that the husband “...shall rule over thee” when speaking of the wife (4:16). These sections, among other similar sections surprised me, as I had thought of Jesus Christ’s message as one that all people were equal in the eyes of the Lord, while this concept does not seem to be evident in the case of women. As for elements of the stories that I thought would be included but were not, I thought a greater punishment was going to be given to the serpent. It is confusing that he caused such immense chaos in the garden, he disrupts the entire course of history according to the Bible, yet he was only condemned to slither around on his belly. In the beginning of the piece epistrophe is used with the statement, “...and God saw that it was good”, which put emphasis on the statement (1:9). It is also compelling that it is written in the the third person, and the narrator knows all that happened, although I am confused as to who wrote the accounts of Genesis.
ReplyDeleteGenesis explains how God created mankind, and the essential tools necessary for life, but I was not expecting the text to be as straight forward as it is. I presumed it to be an elaborate and detailed story of how mankind was created. For instance God says, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” Every stanza is similar to the one just quoted. They are not very detail oriented, and there is not much flow to the story. Also, the phrases, “...after their kind”, and, “God saw it was good” were repeated multiple times. I am not exactly sure why, but a point brought up in class that I found very interesting was that the text did not say “God saw it was good” after he created a man and a woman. Instead the text said, “...and it was so.” After the class discussion, I was left with some questions: Is there a reason as to why God did not find that the man and the woman he created were good- did God put some sort of evil in humans? If so, then why is it that the one thing God creates after himself is the one thing that is flawed?
ReplyDeleteThe Bible is a massive book, and as with all works of writing the beginning is crucial. The Book of Genesis starts with the creation of Earth, which is expected, but it also immediately states how powerful God is. He is omnipotent; He controls the land and the sea, the sun in the sky and the people that live underneath. Before the stories of men, before the tree of life, and before the idea of right and wrong, He chooses to make the seventh day a hallowed day of rest, stating that nothing is more important than the worship of Him. The beginning of the Bible beautifully sets the mood for the rest of the book. In the first story of mankind, Adam and Eve, they are confined to a garden, where their needs are provided for and their life is bliss. However, to God they were like pets, un-knowledged and ignorant. When Eve eats the fruit of knowledge, she obtains true human traits and is punished for it. In the eyes of God her deed was a sin, by defying His word she justifies His anger. Adam and Eve are like bugs underneath a foot, they are powerless before Him, and their punishment sends a message that must not be forgotten. The beginning of the Bible and the first story of mankind are an anthem to the power of God, that no matter what - He is all powerful.
ReplyDeleteAs this if my first time reading Genesis, I find that my expectations are a lot different from reality. It appears that there is a rather large emphasis placed on the language used and poetic elements as opposed to strictly conveying a message. The phrases “it was good” and “after their kind” are used a lot; however, the lack of these phrases after all their repetition conveys contrast that is meant to be very obvious. For example, the lack of “and it was good” after the creation of man seems to immediately highlight the intrinsic evil within man. Language aside, I also found some objective elements of Genesis interesting. It’s evident that ownership is being placed on man for the situation that he is in. 2:19 was the first instance of God transferring some ownership over to man, albeit a small responsibility. It was intriguing that whoever wrote the Bible found it necessary to express that God gave man the job of creating animal names. This small act seems to cast man as an entity separate from god, which would mean that man could stray from his intended purpose. I also find it interesting that the miserable situation of man was explained as being his own fault. When a fruit is eaten from the tree that contains knowledge of good and evil, only then does God cast out Adam and Eve from paradise. I find it strange however that Eve was portrayed as being the reason humans were kicked out of Eden. Although the Bible is meant to be a historical text, it certainly conveys huge significance to Christians. By transferring subservience to women by describing them as basically man’s servants and being created from men, a domino effect would occur that would greatly lower the position of women in society for many years to follow. Is it possible that if Genesis had portrayed women as being equal to men, or even greater that the gender roles society faces today would be switched?
ReplyDeleteBesides my analysis of Genesis, I found myself to have a lot of questions while reading. For example, where does the name Adam suddenly appear from? In verse 2:20 God’s original man is deemed Adam but there is no aforementioned record of such a name appearing. Unless I missed something, there was also no event of naming him Adam, but he was simply described as Adam and it was up to the reader to make the leap. Also, is there significance to all the specificity found in Genesis? For example, does the naming of the various locations described in Genesis simply act as credibility? There is no other reason I can think of for bringing up all these different locations. Another strangely descriptive portion of this text was the construction of the arc. Why were the plans of the arc construction described to such a length? On the note of credibility, it was interesting to analyze Genesis as a historical document. Although the Bible is thought to be the transcribed word of God, there are definitely elements of past ancient history found early on. The description of the heroes of old and the notion of demigod type people going on to be the heroes of the time carries on from the Greek and Roman stories.
The strangest element of Genesis that I can’t wrap my mind around involves God’s flooding to eliminate man. God decided to flood the Earth because he only found evil in man’s heart, but why then did he decide to spare Noah? If Noah had earned God’s respect, wouldn’t this example of a good human being serve to prove that human’s aren’t all constantly evil? AND if humans were the ones who had sinned, why did every other living thing on the planet have to suffer? Couldn’t God eliminate them as easily as he created them, as he is omniscient and all-powerful? The notion of God having to rest on the seventh day and his feelings of remorse in Genesis 8 portray God as an entity more similar to man than to an all-powerful being. Overall, Genesis 1:1-9:17 wasn’t quite what I expected from this ancient text, but examples of poetic elements and some oddities (such as the casting of women as subservient in a holy text, being overly specific, etc.) were certainly interesting
The first chapters of the bible I found to be fairly straight forward, however a question that this posed in my head was, “are these words supposed to be taken for their literal meanings?” For example, I found myself wondering if after God had created the earth in only 7 days, was a day to be taken as a literal 24 hours or instead perhaps 700 years? Was man literally created from dust and Eve from a rib of Adam? On many occasions the Bible quotes or alludes to man having conversations with God. In the modern world, this seems to be a rarity. Many even find themselves questioning their faith for they are not sure if God hears their prayers. In contrast, there are many who claim that god does speak to them, however normally through symbols or dreams. It is not very often that you hear someone claiming to be spoken to by God through actual conversation. This made me curious about the stories of the bible, and whether people such as Eve, Cain, and Noah had actual contact with God.
ReplyDeleteOne additional curiosity that I came across stemmed from the story of Adam and Eve. I had a previous knowledge about the story: that man was not allowed to eat from the tree that grows the forbidden fruit. What I did not know was that this forbidden fruit grew from the tree of knowledge. I thought that it was interesting that God had created man to be ignorant. Living in a modern society that focuses so much on the quest for knowledge and understanding of science, it is strange to think that human curiosity is not what God initially had wanted. It always seemed to me that God had complete control of his creations, but after reading the stories of the bible, I saw that that is not so. God let his creations live, not controlling every aspect of their development. Even in God’s world things don’t always turn out as planned.
As I began reading the book of Genesis, there were many aspects of the writing that caught me off guard. I feel like this can mainly attributed to the fact that there are many preconceptions about the Bible because such a large part of society is centered on this one book. Almost immediately, it was obvious the intentions of writing Genesis. Its simplistic and repetitive language leaves no room for confusion about the main ideas presented in the writing. With the repetition of God, rarely referred to as “He”, and his almighty powers, the reader can immediately see the immense power that God holds. I was definitely surprised to see how explicitly it was stated that God created all of these wonders and creatures, and simply that “it was so”. There is no discussion of his actions, simply statement after statement of what took place in the first few days of God’s presence on Earth. Another aspect of the text that I found interesting was the introduction of the woman to the story. The relationship between Adam and Eve is rarely discussed in terms of their equality, and I found it surprising that Eve was introduced as a “helper” to Adam. It seemed as if she was placed on Earth solely to keep Adam company and to aid him in his work. This relationship seems slightly unbalanced, as if Adam is the superior half of the two. Ultimately, Genesis provides a simple and stable introduction for the rest of the Bible to build off of.
ReplyDeleteThe book of Genesis (and the Bible as a whole) obviously begins with the story of creation. To sum up, in the first 6 days, God creates light and the earth, the sky, dry land, the sun, moon, stars, sea creatures, birds, animals, and finally humans. Finally, on the 7th day, as we all know, He rests. One thing I want to focus my observation on is the creation of man, and what almost seems as God’s indecisiveness towards what man should be. With all of God’s creations, he determines they are good, so He keeps them. The only creation God doesn’t explicitly say was ‘good’ is man. This suggests that God may have not intended for man to be good. However, Genesis 3:22 states, “And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” Since God says man “has now become…” to me it implies that man was different before. Therefore, prior to eating the forbidden fruit, man was purely good, as he did not know what evil was. This seems to contradict the message conveyed in the latter parts of Genesis’s The Beginning that I mentioned earlier in how God did not specify that man was good. Another way I see God being indecisive about man is his role on earth. In Genesis 1:28, God states that man’s role was to rule the earth and control everything on it. However, in Genesis 2:15 God takes man and puts him to work in the Garden of Eden. This is obviously a contradiction with man’s purpose role on Earth.
ReplyDeleteOne explanation I have that may explain the inconsistency in God’s view of man is that God was omniscient, and knew man would start off as good, but turn evil and corrupted. This would explain why God created man for a purpose than what He initially used him for. God knew that man would eat the forbidden fruit, making him ‘not good’. Therefore, when God created man, he knew man would turn out to not be good, and thus he did not proclaim man as “good” (as he did with his other creations).
As I read Genesis, I was struck by the parallels between Christian stories and those that I have studied in Latin. When God is creating the world and all living things in Genesis, he narrates his actions. Epic poems, such as the Iliad and the Aeneid, feature god and goddesses who narrate their actions or internal feelings. These long monologues are not given in address to anyone, nor are the ones that God gives in the creation story. God also refers to himself as “Us” and “Our”. This is also something that is found in Roman epic poetry. In Latin, we call this a “royal we”. It is used to show the power and authority that gods and kings hold. The similar story lines are also very interesting to me. In the Prometheus story, Prometheus makes man out of clay and breathes life into man. God’s action in creating man are very similar to this story. He creates man from the ground and gave man the “breath of life.” The Cain and Abel story also follows a similar plot as that of Romulus and Remus. Both sets of brothers were raised together and formed a close relationship. When Remus was favored by the gods and made fun of Romulus’ city, an enraged Romulus killed his brother. Cain sees that Abel is favored by God based upon his offerings. Cain also slays his brother because of his jealousy. I find that these similarities can be explained in a few ways. Perhaps these stories were carried out of the cradle of life and brought to different cultures. Through word of mouth, these stories changed to take on slightly different forms of the same basic plot line. The similarities in these stories could also have been used as a conversion tactic. As we can see in The Book of Luke, the Roman empire and Christians were heavily connected, though the Christians were persecuted by the Romans. As Christians began to gain power, they may have adopted some of the stories from the Roman culture as a way to convert the masses to Christianity, much in the way that the adoption of Christmas as the birth of Jesus was used to convert those in pagan religions.
ReplyDeleteThis not being my first time reading Genesis, I was not shocked by anything. Even though I have read it many times, I have never read for. I have always had the question of when God says “one day”, does he literally mean one day, or maybe a couple million years. I developed some new questions from reading Genesis more closely. One question I had was if it was intentional that after every thing God created he put “and it was good,” but after God created man nothing else was said, why is this? Another question I had was when it said that sons of God are marrying mortal wives, did that mean that angels were marrying human wives? If so I think it is interesting that this is very similar to Greek stories of gods coming down and marrying humans. Also, how is it that if God makes everything perfect, how can he mess up the creation of man? Later in the passage it says, “Lord then saw man was evil and grieved that he had created them.” I just found that interesting. One pattern that emerged, that also lead into my earlier question, was that after everything was created it says, “and it was good.” This passage is a key component to the bible. Setting a base for everything to follow. It establishes how this strange world came to be.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting how the idea of nakedness is used as the marker for the fall of man. Genesis 2:25 states that when man and woman were created, they were “both naked and were not ashamed.” Like every other animal put on the planet by God, they have no issue with their own bodies. However, once the serpent persuades Eve and Adam to taste the forbidden fruit, “the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked” (Gen. 3.7). For the first time, one of God’s creations is ashamed of the body God gave them. Adam and Eve sewed together clothing from fig leaves and even hid from God. Never before was there mention of any of God’s creations being scared when God approached. Why does eating the fruit of knowledge lead them to this shame? What are Adam and Eve seeing for the first time? The initial idea I had was that the fruit exposed them to the bad in the world. Before, Adam and Eve were ignorant to the evil in the world, and God wanted to keep them this way. However, once they ate the fruit, their eyes were open to everything, good and bad. They feel the need to cover their bodies because they see it as unsuitable to be exposed. They then hide from God because they feel they are no longer worthy. Eating the fruit distances man from God. I think that this interpretation leads to the idea that the human body is inherently bad, though, and I am not sure that that is the case. If man was created out of the image of God, and God is good, wouldn’t all parts of man (other than the choices he makes out of his own free will) be inherently good?
ReplyDeleteThis is my first official reading of the Bible in English and the version we are reading is a lot more formal than I anticipated. The Polish version I have at home is translated more modernly, but then again it’s also pocket sized. A key thing that I noticed in the way God’s role changes, as if God is in a different form when he is talking to the early humans. In the beginning of Genesis, God was regarded an almighty figure, but in the second chapter, his role and the “name” change. He from then on is called “Lord God”. This “new” face of God has a different personality and speaks different to them. I imagine this version of Him to have a condescending, parentlike behavior. During the Fall of Man, he talks to Adam and Eve like they are little kids who don’t know any better. Despite creating them, God failed at making man purely good creature, and I do not understand why he did not try to stop Eve from eating the forbidden fruit. It does not seem like something an omnipresent being would do. If he wanted humans to be good, I feel that he should guide them if he created them not the way he wanted too. I really like the way Moses tried to explain some of life’s little things when he wrote about God punishment of Adam and Eve in chapter 3. Verse 3:16 is about God telling Eve that childbirth will be a very painful experience. 3:18 shows that Earth’s fields will be infested with weeds. This is a very interesting and early way of explaining some small things in life. One thing that I found confusing is the belief that the world took 6 days to be constructed and that the seventh day was meant for rest, but in today’s modern society, Sunday is regarded as the first day of the week. I guess we believe this because Americans have developed secular beliefs. In Poland on the other hand, Sunday is regarded as the last day of the week, as according to the Bible.
ReplyDeleteThe word for Genesis in Hebrew means “In the beginning” and in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. God creates light, the sky, the earth, the stars, the earth and all the plants and the animals “each according to their own kind”, and then he creates “man in his own image”. Now one point brought up in class was that if man was created in his own image and God later admits than man is evil is God then evil? I contend that this is not true, because for man to be evil may not have been in the original plan of God, as evidenced by Adam and Eve’s ignorance in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve are not innately evil, and were created for the purposes of cultivating and ruling over the bountiful land that God had created. God is fascinated by man throughout history and walks with Adam and Eve in the Garden. God is proud of his creation, and it is not until the arrival of the serpent and temptation that man is even exposed to evil following the fall of man through the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The serpent also tricks Eve into eating from the fruit by saying that they would become more like God, wise and knowledgeable of good and evil, not necessarily innately good or evil. It is up for a man to determine his own fate and the extent of giving into the serpent or temptation himself. And men take different paths. The different lineages of Seth and of Cain follow different paths. We are all descendants of either Cain or Seth. Children of Seth are those children of God “who call upon the name of the Lord” and love while those of Cain are the opposite, those who selfishly use others for personal gain rather than giving love. It was also interesting the contrast of the descriptions of the lineage. The selfish lineage of Cain is described in terms of what they founded or accomplished while on earth, showing that those who do not follow may be remembered for what they accomplish on earth. But the line of Seth is just described by names, and for they walk with God who they are determines how they will live after death. What first confused me was the two different Lamechs. It was hard to try and differentiate between the two at first, but even the differences in Lamechs shows the differences in the lines of Seth and Cain. The Lamech of Cain spilled blood and was known to be a violent man, while the Lamech of Seth (who was grandson of Enoch “who walked with God” and son of Methusalah the oldest man to ever live) raised Noah. It was also interesting that the ark rested in the seventh month upon the mountains of Ararat. The use of the wording rested in the seventh month has an interesting tie back to when God rested on the seventh day. A few major questions I had were why did Methusalah die the year/day/days before the flood (depending on who you ask) Noah “was a righteous man and perfect in his generations”? Although his name means “his death shall bring judgment” and is foreshadowing of the event, why was it Methusalah’s death that marked the date? “If There has to be some greater importance. Another question I had was the mention at the end of book 3 what was the “Cherubim and the flame of a sword which turned everyway to keep the way of the tree of life” that God places at Eden. The powerful description has to imply that the Cherubim and flame have some great importance. Could that importance be to guard Eden and the original abode of man and God or does it mean something else? Was Noah the only righteous man remaining in the eyes of God or was he just the best capable of carrying out God’s vision?
ReplyDeleteI find the idea that god supposedly acts as an omnipotent figure interesting because of the flaws you find in his character. Several times, god shows that “they” displays human characteristics despite being this all powerful and knowing being. The first of which when god lies to Adam and Eve. God Says, “but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” God lies to Adam and Eve, on the day they eat the fruit they do not die. Even though god is omnipotent, he cannot control everything showing his more mortal side. God creates humans in his image, and after he sends them to live on the earth to cultivate the lands they are all evil. Perhaps, as god refers to himself as “us” that god is both good and evil. Now at this point when god sees humans are evil and decides to flood them, he refers to himself as I. Why does he refer between I and us? After the flood subsides and Noah leaves the ark, he builds an altar. Noah offers burnt sacrifices from the cleanest of flesh and appeases god. God seems to show his less omnipotent side again, and he regrets removing all the flesh of Earth. “I will never again curse the ground on account of man,” the tone almost seems sad. My question here is why does removing flesh as sacrifices from the earth appease him?
ReplyDeleteGenesis, simply put, is the chronicling of mankind's origins as told by the Christian religion. Actually reading the text and scrutinizing it, instead of listening to short stories told during Sunday school, gave me a whole new perspective on things. There's some interesting details I'd never realized before. As others have said, the language and text is sort of long-winded and repetitive. It likes to repeat certain phrases and draw back to similar themes. One of the early things that really caught my attention was that God was physically walking and searching for Adam in the garden. I had always pictured God as everywhere, but could appear as a floating-like entity if he wanted to. The visualization of him walking around gives off a more personal touch, which is what Faisal was talking about in regards to Christianity's relation to Greek mythology. The going through generations seems unnecessary, but if I remember correctly, it's to show the lineage of Jesus and who he came from. Obviously, most of it is exaggerated with people living hundreds of years.
ReplyDeleteIt's also difficult to differentiate the intentional poetic language from what is meant literally. The first instance coming to mind is the creation of Adam. Supposedly he was made out of dust, and his partner, Eve, was made from his rib. The Bible references this multiple times in just the first several chapters, but it's unclear if that's what the author of this particular book actually meant. Another case is when the snake is described as eating dust, as well as the flaming sword that's designated to safeguard the Garden of Eden (after the banishment of Adam and Eve).
In regards to God's imperfections, I feel as though it was written like that on purpose. Since God had created man in his image, and man was subject to evil, that in turn, made him victim of the same weaknesses. This is noticeable when he feels remorse after creating humanity. If he was really all-knowing like most depictions of him, he would've foresaw Eve taking the apple. Or maybe he wanted it to happen all along, but that's getting into something much more complex. Either way, he expresses a human-like characteristic, and that's not usually associated with his image. And this is without even mentioning the fact he's the one who created evil to begin with. That implies he's able to carry on a spectrum of emotions, just like us.
How Eden could've actually been a real place is a big revelation. That would mean the flood stories were probably carried on through word of mouth. Mistranslations and simply passing down the stories like a prehistoric game of telephone would most likely account for some oddities present.
The straightforwardness of Genesis surprised me; I have always perceived the bible to be an extremely poetic text, when it is in fact very straightforward. I found it intriguing that after the creation of man God knew that man was not all good, and that he took measures to keep man in his place. He knew that man had the capacity to act upon his own free will and he knew the repercussions that that would cause. He knew this well enough that he regretted his creation for he saw that “ every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5). I also found it interesting that in the story of Noah that God allowed man to live. Noah is described as a righteous man yet he is man nonetheless. If God created the flood to rid the world of evil and to allow it to begin again then why did he allow man to stay? It still confuses me however I think that God allowed man to survive partially because he knew that an imperfect world was inevitable, and if he let the best of mankind live he could reinstate a balance between the good and evil that he created. This is the first time that I have read the bible and truly analyzed its meaning. It surprised me that God is not as self-assured as I was led to believe. He makes mistakes and he doubts himself, which interestingly enough are two key qualities that we see in the early formation of man.
ReplyDeleteGoing into this, I had no idea what to expect, being that this is my first time reading the bible. I was surprised to find that God has some distinctly human characteristics. For example, God feels regret. He regretted creating humans and then he felt bad after creating the flood. He promised to never do it again, and to this day, he has not broken his promise yet. I also find it ironic that God created man to govern, but in reality, it was man who created God. I think this is the reason that God is personified in Genesis. In Genesis 8:20 God smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.” One thing that confused me is how God said that human heart is evil from childhood, but all men are descendents of Noah, who God perceived to be good. Some questions I had reading Genesis is that is the bible reflective of the people living in that era? For example, the belief that man should rule over women is reflective of patriarchal societies. Genesis 3:16 “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” One thing that I noticed while reading Genesis is that God is sometimes called God and sometimes called Lord. I feel like calling God Lord kind of personifies him because a God indicates a greater being, someone that is not human while Lord indicates a human, albeit a powerful human. Also, I noticed that there are some references to ancient epics and tales, such as the reference to a flaming sword in 3:24 which I took to symbolize Thor’s hammer.
ReplyDeleteIn the past I had never really taken the time to sit down and read the creation story of the bible. Being a Christian myself I realized that this was somewhat surprising. My mother or pastor had always been the ones to explain how our world was created and what had occurred at the beginning of time. Being able to read it myself allowed me to see some of the small tweaks that had never come to light in the teachings from Genesis that I had heard. The major example of this came in Genesis 1:26-31, in the creation of man. The bible states that God had created man in his own image, meaning that he used himself as a template. Throughout all of the creation story, after each thing God created he stated that what he saw was good, but this statement could not be found after discussing the creation of man. I found this to be very intriguing - the one thing that God had created to be modeled after himself was the only thing that he did not view as good. No matter how many times I pondered this in my head, I could not wrap my mind around the idea of God seeing himself as flawed, but the bible itself seems to point in this direction. The question still remains, does God see himself as imperfect or flawed? And if so, how does this affect Christianity as a whole? Also, why would God even think to put something that is flawed into this world? Did he mean for evil and wrongdoing to come into the Earth, or was it something that had been realized after the fact? Although on the contrary, in Genesis 1:31, it states, “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” Could this mean that God did in fact have reason to make man flawed? Or does it mean that God saw everything as good, even man? Reading the book of Genesis, and even just the creation story, has given me a whole new look on the religion I supposedly know so much about. Although everything still remains the same that I have known for the most part, small details such as man being flawed but still being created in the image of God, the story of Adam and Eve, and the story of the flood have shown me that I do not necessarily understand everything completely. Paying attention to the small details can show you a whole new perspective on what you believe in.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Genesis there are multiple instances of small subtleties that seem to convey or allude to a different message than what I initially thought would be in the bible. The most surprising trend that I noticed within the first 9 chapters of Genesis was how often God is referred to as almost a human like being. For example, in the second chapter, the almighty God decides to take a rest after his six days of creation, indicative of him being not as Godly as he is often portrayed. To further humanize god, in 3:8, Adam and Eve are described as hiding from God as he is heard walking through Eden. Prior to reading this section I would have never assumed that God would walk amongst humans, and not only walk amongst us, but also not be able to find us if we were to hide from him. The final example of God being human-like, can be shown in 7:16, in which God himself is the one to close the Ark containing Noah, his family, and the animals. Although arguably not as significant as the other instances of God acting like a human, it is definitely an oddity for someone who is able to create the Earth and all the beings in it, to go down and help close a boat that could easily be closed by its own occupants and builders.
ReplyDeleteAlong with the surprising amount of God being humanized, there are also a lot more instances within Genesis that act as an origin or explanation for something in the more modern day world. The ones that I noticed throughout the reading are mainly during the Fall of Man, but also strewn about in other sections. These explanations being: the reason for snakes having to slither on the ground, why childbirth is so painful, and why humans must constantly cultivate the earth in order to get ample food. Of course there are many other examples within Genesis, but these three points in particular are more than enough to show that Genesis, along with being a story of morals and lessons, is also a story to help explain aspects of the world. Whether it be as simple to why women need to suffer so greatly if they want to bear children, or why a snake has to slither on its stomach in order to move around, Genesis is able to answer a lot of these questions while simultaneously telling the story of creation.
Finally, after more analytically reading the story of Eden and the Tree of Knowledge a lot of questions arise that were previously not as apparent to me. The initial question that I had once I read this chapter was: Why did God even put the tree into Eden? The idea that God would put something into Eden that would give the chance of destroying the utopia that he created for man seems very counterintuitive. Furthermore, upon putting the tree into Eden, “God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” (3:3) However, after they eat the fruit they show no indication of dying or even being sick (unless you consider being aware of evil a sickness), which raises the question of: Why would God lie to his own creations? Before they even eat the fruit, Eve and Adam are presumably only aware of what is good in the world (if anything), because Eve states that the knowledge of the tree is of good and evil, and she is only able to eat the fruit once the snake convinces her of a good within the tree. Because Eve is able to see good within the fruit prior to eating it, does this implies that there is good within evil? If the fruit was simply just evil and the woman were to be completely tricked into eating the fruit by the serpent, it would be no question that there is not good within evil. However, within the story of Genesis the fruit/tree is not phrased like that, but rather described as, “good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise.” (3:6) This seems to be indicating that there is good within evil, even if that evil is forbidden by God.
More than just a story of creation, Genesis is a story of a god who displays human characteristics, an explanation for aspects of life, and a puzzling situation regarding whether or not evil is truly evil.
During the reading of Genesis I was very fascinated to the readings and what stood out. What really surprised me was when we as a class disused the actions of God and how he was portrayed. Given that I have never actually read the Bible, I solely assumed that God was an Almighty, Eternal, All-Knowing Being. Though, through the reading It seemed as if God was portrayed to have Human-like characteristics; He expressed a feeling of remorse in a certain situation after He created the flood (6:1-8). God also shows that he is capable of making mistakes; God tells Adam and Eve that if they are to eat from the Tree of Knowledge they will surely die, but they did not die. I liked the reading of how the Body of Man was created from nothing but the powder from the ground. It was enlightening to see that the names of the animals were all given from the thought of man, and how every animal had a mate, except for Man (Adam). So God formed the creation of Woman through the body of a Adam. Given all of this though, what I found most interesting was that God had created Man in "His Own Image". I believe that this shows that, above all, God passed down all of his own flaws down to man, as well as the physical and positive attributes.
ReplyDeleteReading Genesis for the first time in English (we translated it in Latin class) I was surprised by how literal the text was and how straight forward. Everything god says is thought of and done. This greater being, god, said that he wanted earth to have something and that it was good. In my mind I see god as this sculptor sculpting away at the world trying to form a perfected piece of art. God thinks of something that he wants on the earth and “sculpts” it. I was particularly drawn by the line “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” I think god creating man in an image of himself is deeply powerful. It connects human to feel like the chosen beings on this earth which by the text it somewhat says they are. Humans are told to rule over every living creature on the earth. I think it is also interesting how at the beginning of Genesis when earth is dark and formless, only the spirit of god hovers. But as the text continues the spirit is no longer mentioned and god is referred to as “God”. It seems as though the “Spirit of God” is not creating the oceans, sky, and animals, but rather a greater being itself, “God”. Once god begins to create the earth we know god is seen in a more comprehensible form.
ReplyDeleteI have had a lot of experience with the bible and other related works. Throughout the book there are many different uses of literary elements that can amplify or alter the given message. One of the biggest ones that I see in the beginning of Genesis is the irony of the Fall. God created Adam and commanded him to multiply and replenish the Earth but because Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil, they couldn't do this. When Eve listened to what the serpent said and partook of the forbidden fruit, she disobeyed God but also allowed for the replenishment of the Earth. By disobeying what God said she ultimately followed what he wanted accomplished earlier. The Bible also uses symbols that add underlying meaning to the messages. In the story of the flood there are multiple symbols that correlate to other messages later in the Bible. For example Noah received the message that there was dry land when he sent out the dove and it returned with an olive leaf. Later in the Bible there are other mentions to doves and receiving messages from God. The flood can also be related to baptism that is brought up in the New Testament. In baptism, sins are cleansed away from the soul and the person starts again with the intent of following God and his commandments. In the flood, the Earth is covered in water because of the sins of the people on the Earth. These are a few of the elements that I saw used in the beginning of Genesis.
ReplyDeleteMy parents were always strict about me going to church as a child yet I was never really introduced to the bible. While reading Genesis, I started questioning some of the things I was taught in church. Being brought up as a Christian, I was always taught how God was "ultimate creator" and the people in my church would worship him for that. Reading genesis now, I realize that there were many faults in His creations. 2:8 of genesis states, "And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed". This verse does not mention the goodness of man like it does with God's other creations. This was interesting to me since it proves that man is not all good and that God created a being that does not know the difference between good and evil. The thing that really interested me was that there was another creator introduced during the creation of man, "Lord God". I am still not sure if this character is a helper of God or just another character introduced. As mentioned in class, Lord can be defined as part of the court or a higher power above man. Although God is the ultimate creator, the Lord God could have been a helper of evil in man.
ReplyDeleteThis was my first time really reading through Genesis, and what I saw surprised me. It started off in the beginning there was a repetition of “And God saw that it was good”, after everything he created; except one. That isn’t said after God creates mankind. That was peculiar that the one thing made in his image is the one that he doesn’t see as good. Following that, I was introduced to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. What stuck out to me most in this section was that God makes Eve out as the villain. If God faults Eve for falling victim to the serpent’s temptation, than why doesn’t he fault Adam for doing the same with Eve? He makes it seem as if Eve was more in the wrong when they both did the same thing. Continuing on after that we see God with Abel after he killed Cain. God faults Abel for killing Cain and punishes him, despite never saying it was wrong. Abel was unaware that what he was doing warranted such an action against him. Later on we hear God saw that man was evil at heart. This leads to the idea that maybe God wasn’t as pure as he is made out to be. He is the one that created evil and evil was essentially made in his image. Does this mean that God has evil in him? Regardless, he goes on to say that he regrets there creation and then kills them all, save Noah and his Arcs inhabitants. The part that surprised me the most in all of this is how harsh God was. In the New Testament, God is seen as forgiving and merciful, however in the beginning he is shown as a strict Ruler. This contradicting image of him is what struck me the most through Genesis.
ReplyDeleteLearning about Genesis and the seven days of creation was something my mother took charge of. As a child, she would verbally speak them to me or have the stories transferred to an “easier-to-read” picture book. I’ve never had the chance to read directly from the bible. Reading this in class was interesting because it allowed me to study it from a secular standpoint. I noticed more specific things, like when God uses different pronouns to separate the creation of animals and plants (where He referrers to himself as He) versus the creation of man (where He referrers to himself as Our). I was also very interested in the location of Eden. The bible mentions the two rivers that many ancient civilizations were founded on, the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. I’ve always thought that Eden was on a different plane other than of earth. It wasn’t heaven, but because it had rivers and trees and animals without sin it wasn’t on earth. Reading the bible and seeing it directly mention two rivers that were in my freshman global studies class, makes me wonder about it’s location. It also makes me wonder about man, and how we were first placed on earth without sin. With that, a few things confuse me. When God tells man that he is now ruler and conqueror of the plants and animals, why is it that Eve is so easily swayed by the serpent to eat the poisoned fruit? Why was it that the serpent targeted Eve and not Adam? Was it because Eve was a woman that the serpent was able to persuade her? God mentions only man being able to conquer the animals in his new world. Was God being literal when he said that Man is to conquer the earth? But when Adam says that, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”, it seems clear that, while woman comes from man, they are equal. I enjoyed reading from Genesis because it gave me the chance to read the bible without that much of a religious bias.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Reagen
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I found that shocked me in my reading is the difference in God in how he addresses man at man’s creation and after the Flood. For example, in the beginning God says to man, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over the all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” This duty that God bestows upon man gives the impression that man has dominion over the earth. However, after the Flood, God says to Noah, “The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given.” This demonstrates a harsh contrast between how man rules the earth. The first seems to imply control and power over all, while the second seems to be more tyrannical and ownership of everything with how all the animals are given into man’s hand as if possessions.
Also, there are other differences in how God instructs man before and after The Flood. When Cain kills Abel, God is upset and banishes Cain, however God had never told man that killing was bad. In contrast, after the Flood, God says to Noah, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed.” These actions of God can be compared to a painter creating a flawed work of art, destroying almost all of the work, and then fixing the flaws. Furthermore, this seems to further show the imperfection of God with how he had to destroy man and correct their flaws just like the painter and the painter’s work. This imperfection in God is also shown by how man is made in His image and man is imperfect. I did not think that God's imperfection would be a part of the Bible.
Additional, I found interesting was the use of alliterion, with the repeating of the phrase God saw it as good, but did not say so when he created man. Demonstrating that God either did not originally see man as good or did not know if they would be good.
My parents were raised as Christians, but religion has never been a part of my life. I have faint memories of being taken to Sunday School with my friends after sleeping over on a Saturday night, and being taken to a church camp, taking part in fun activities that represent some of the most important biblical events. Never have I actually read the bible or thought about the stories it told in any capacity. The only things I thought I knew were that God is almighty, and humans are his favorite creation. But in reading Genesis what I thought to be true changed. The thing that struck me most was the creation of Adam and Eve. Every other creation was said to be good, implying it’s purity and the presence of God in these creations. When God created man, this statement was inexplicably missing. All the other statements that were repeated with the creation of anything else were repeated, but that statement was left out. On top of this telling lack of words, they were said to be made in the image of God. This comparison to the one creation that is not explicitly stated as good leads to an interpretation of God as not wholly perfect and good, creating the biggest question for me. Is the almighty God truly the one who is flawed?
ReplyDelete