The first sin and its punishment

The first sin and its penalizationThe First Sin and Its Punishmentno(prenominal) the ophidian was more silklike than any other wild animal that the Lord divinity had make. He said to the woman, Did god say, You shall non extinguish from any manoeuver in the garden? 2 The woman said to the snake in the grass, We may eat of the harvest-festival of the trees in the garden 3but immortal said, You shall non eat of the ingathering of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die. 4 But the serpent said to the woman, You will not die 5 for God knows that when you eat of it your eyeball will be opened, and you will be like God, well-educated practiced and despicable. 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one and only(a) wise, she took of its fruit and ate and she as well as gave few to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. 7 h ence the eyes of twain were opened, and they knew that they were naked and they stitch fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. 1The book of genesis is one region in an anthology of materials that ask been launch together over a considerable period of m. Pertaining to be part of a various oral tradition, it does not, according to Burnette-Bletsch, wealthy person any comic authorship.2 The book of contemporaries is known as the primeval taradiddle, as it is believed to be expressive of a time before, thither were any recorded histories. As a dissolving agent, these histories were often recorded at much later stages3 However, there be both(prenominal) parallels with Ancient near Eastern literature which rebut this statement. As a result, this debate will, in all probability detain sterile. Regardless of the debate, propagation is deemed to be an historical book. However, not in the redbrick common sense, it is history with a purpose. It is a collecti on of instructional, educational, and religious material. The very event that this tradition had been passed down through the generations, may even have conduct to omissions of material, however, this should not be viewed by the modern academic as a setback.4 One must also take into account the fact that some people will not all share the same viewpoint. In this respect Biblical narratives are often a complex potpourri of sources, genres and interpretation, both in their written and oral formats.5Known as photomosaic authorship the traditional Jewish and Christian belief denotes that the first fiver books of the Old volition were Gods inspirational words which were written down by Moses. P J Wiseman somewhat supports this surmise, however, he cites Moses as the redactor quite a than its author. He also states that there are several clues within generation which reveal how it was written. He refers to the to conductots or genealogies in propagation and draws attention to the colophons, accept them to be a specific symbol of authorship. Thus, concluding that the people that are actually named, ( go game, Noah, Shem et al), were the ones who wrote on the clay tablets in cuneiform, therefore, making them the true authors. Moses, subsequently, as a result of his Egyptian influences, just brought together and edited this escape from the tablets.6However, more liberal theologians generally accept the Wellhausen theory, or documentary guessing which asserts that propagation and the remaining Pentateuch was written by a group of authors, from di measure locations throughout Palestine, over a substantial period of time. The theory is that these books were redacted or compiled from the text editions of pre- pull throughing documents. Within this theory there is also the belief that for each one author wrote with their own particular style. This effectively meant that the mosaic element contained many layers of material which overlapped in some places. Thes e generators are also believed to have had both their own styles and narratives. For example the J writer, wrote with affection for the Hebraical name for God (YAHWH). The E writer alternatively favoured the divine name Elohim. Whilst the D and P documents were names for the Deuteronomic and Priestly writers.7 The J, E and P authors are believed to overlap in the book of genesis, which because gives both complementary and contrasting elements to the understanding of some of Genesiss abstract concepts. However, it is with critical consensus that the J writer is believed to have edited Genesis 31-7.8 In contrast Wenham cites Rendtorff, in that he has challenged the mosaic theory by stating the heterogeneous nature of material in Genesis brooknot be ascribed to J.9 Indeed, who and to what writer, wrote which parts, still remains a contentious issue within theological debates todaySome scholars, such as Freidman and Bloom, have also departed so far as to suggest and imply that the J writer was also a fe manful. Bloom specially exploits the fact that she may have been someone who had access to royalty, perhaps the daughter of Solomon, Rehoboams sister. This would fit with the general consensus that J had royal connections and wrote during the tenth century BCE. However, Bloom argues that Rehoboam (922-915) was the king at that time, not David (1000-961), or Solomon. (961-922).10 The importance of this is that the kingdom under Rehoboam was experiencing internal unrest and ascension. This was a stark contrast to the kingdom under the reign of David and Solomon.11Similarly other interesting point is made by Alicia Ostriker on Blooms feminist perspective. She compares the male characters in The Iliad, The Odyssey, and the Gilgamesh with the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses. In comparison she asserts that the biblical ancestors were family men who initiated negotiation and deflected potentially dangerous situations. Whereas, the characters in the above texts were warriors and fighters, this alone may make a case for the survival of a female perspective within the overwhelmingly male dominated traits contained within the Hebrew bible.12The book of Genesis covers the largest time period than any of the other books. It covers the periods from creation, up to the time when the Israelites arrived in Egypt and grew into a nation. The literary structure of Genesis is built near eleven split units. Beginning with the creation and the origins of the universe, through to the early history of the Israelites.13 This proprietary text also gives and puts the biblical patriarchs into a creation framework. Originally written in Hebrew the title bereshit translates to in the beginning and is a translation of the Hebrew word toledot. 14 As a result Genesis is a history of origins, births, genealogies, and generations.The primary intent of Genesis one to eleven is focused around the parables. These cover the two creation stories, the Fall, Cain and Abel, The Flood and the Tower of Babel.15 These myths centre upon difficult philosophical meaning as opposed to fable or untainted legend. They are also far removed from scientific theory. Indeed, the parables of Genesis with its poetical imagery and symbolism must be read, according to Richardson, as poetry and not as prose. In this context, Adam, eventide and the serpent should be viewed as poetical, religious figures, and not as real individuals.16Genesis 3 1-7 has been the dependent of many theories and interpretations between scholars alike. It is taken by many as an rendering of original sin. However, the word sin never occurs. Disobedience and its instants, however, do occur. Phyllis Trible sees Genesis chapter two and three as A love story gone awry. She identifies that the plot is simple and uncomplicated. However, she also believes it to be full of uncertainty and plurality. She identifies that some may interpret Adam as superior to Eve and be both dependant and worthy, of the description troublemaker. However, Trible also notes that Adam remained silent in this text, a sign of his passive weakness perhaps.17 Schungel-Strauman believes that no gender can claim dominance over the other, as the author of Genesis distinctly provided a male and a female, translucent in Genesis 1.26-28.18Richardson expresses the view that the serpent within the text is a personification of come-on and should not be thought of as external to that of human nature. However, the J writer does not attempt to answer the philosophical question of where and how evil came into the demesne, he just tries to portray humanity. For example, the serpent may appeal to ones vanity and may suggest that Gods goodness can be emulated.19The serpent appears to be impersonal towards God as he refers to him as God and not Lord God. This bold rhetoric may be a read challenge on his divinity.20As a result this challenge introduces a sense of unease into the text and is maybe a preamble of manipulation and trickery, is thus, obligate upon the reader. However, in contrast the serpent asked Eve an inquisitive, innocent question. Did God say, You shall not eat from any tree in the garden? This could imply that it was God himself speaking.21 there is also the question of how did the serpent know firstly that God had spoken and secondly, what God had instructed. This could again imply that that the serpent was indeed artful and had an ultimate objective.A common interpretation is that the serpent is identifiable as either Satan or the devil. However, the serpent in antique times was a symbolic figure, prominent and adored around ancient Egypt, Babylon, and Palestine. There was also an opinion that the serpent was intrinsically wise. Indeed, they often guarded the doorways of Egyptian Tombs, which symbolically, represented the mansions of heaven. They were also kept in temples and in the tombs of Kings.22 To some, the serpent was also seen as a religious emblem, phallic in nature, it was connected to life, especially everlasting, or continuing. This would fit with the theme of both lineage and fertility of beginnings, evident within the book of Genesis.Next the focus appears to be on Eve the woman. Eve begins a dialogue with the serpent and explains both the instruction and consequence of declineing Gods word. Eve uses the word God just as the serpent had, which possibly could indicate that she felt it was a somewhat harsh command.23 The fact that the fruit could not be touched or eaten denotes that the action of disobedience would result in death. This could be taken literally, given the fact that both Adam and Eve had not previously touched these items. However, when the serpent answers you will not die and God knows what will happen, implies that God knew that they were going to both disobey and fashion enlightened in some way. Death therefore, may not have meant physical death but an ending of another sort. Your eyes will be opened, could be where crafty, the description of the serpent fits, or it could be where a bilateral view of good and evil in the world becomes evident to man. In so much as God had positive a death sentence and the serpent had predicted increased knowledge.24However, Eve discern to ignore Gods instruction and take those of a crafty serpent, lured by his telephone of liberation, freedom and knowledge, rather than the consequences of death. Yet in her ignorance, disobedience and doubt become parallel processes in so much as, when we obey God we pass out to assert ourselves. This failure can then cause doubt and consequently, disobedience. Thus, when the serpent suggests that God did not forbid the eating of the fruit, it may have signified Gods divinity or his concern for humanity. Comparatively, human assertion may have highlighted the need for them to be the commutation figures, and not God. As a result, this rebellion may have signified human pride, which in turn led to sin, and equated to them wanting a parallel and equality with God.25Eve again is the central figure in Genesis 3 6 and rather than be under the steerage of God, she possibly tries to assert her independence. One interpretation comes from Clare Amos, who believes that this verse is a metaphor for the maturity of both society and human beings. She suggests that capital of Minnesota in (Rom7.7-12) also supports this theory. She further highlights the idea by explaining that the use of the adjectives, sweet and desirable draw upon the idea of sexual maturity .Indeed, under the counselor-at-law of the serpent, a phallic symbol, the bodys senses became more obvious. When the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. Amos, attributes this as a representation of them difference an immature state of mind and thus, conforming to the constraints of society.26 As in non biblical primeval narratives, clothing was a mark of civilisation.27In conclusion, Genesis 3 is the prologue to mans salvation, resulting from man disobedience towards God, However, it should not be read literally, but in context to ones own understanding. It serves as a theoretical text for the normal question of disobedience. However, it culminates in God not destroying man, but preserving his life. This redemption consequently sets him on a path towards salvation.28 The book of Genesis is that path as it portrays a concept of human conduct, which both illustrates and illuminates our choices. It offers both subtle guidance and regulations and deals effectively and metaphorically with the possible consequences of noncompliance. Regulation is the backbone of any society, it cannot exist effectively without some controls. As a result the book of Genesis served as an interactive narrative that highlighted these issues and that in turn united the ancient societies.1 Coogan, Michael, D, (ed), The New Oxford Annota ted rule book with the Apocrypha 3rd Edition NRSV, (Oxford, 2007).pp.14-152 Burnette- Bletsch, Rhonda, Studying The Old Testament, (Abingdon Press, U.S, 2007).p.83 Ibid, p.1254 Vawter, Bruce, A Path Through Genesis, (London, 1957).p.215 Edward L. Greenstein, The Formation of the Biblical Narrative Corpus AJS Review, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Autumn, 1990), p.1626 http//www.british-israel.ca/Genesis.htm7 Vawter, Bruce, A Path Through Genesis, (London, 1957).p.238 Speiser,E,A, The Anchor Bible Series, Genesis, (New York, 1964). p. xxvii9 Wenham, Gordon, J, World Biblical Commentary, Genesis 1-15, (Nelson word Pub Group, 1987). p.xxix10 Phyllis Trible The Bible in Bloom The Iowa Review, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Fall, 1991), pp.21-2211Hill, A, Walton J, H, A Survey Of The Old Testament 2nd Ed, (Grand Rapids Zondervan, 2000). p.15712 Alicia Ostriker, The Book of J The Iowa Review, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Fall, 1991), p.1613 Speiser, The Anchor Bible Series, Genesis, p. LV14 Burnette- Bletsch, Studying The Old T estament, p.2515 Richardson, Genesis 1-11, p.2716 Ibid, p.3017 Trible, Phyllis, God And The Rhetoric Of Sexuality, (Philadelphia, shelter Press, 1978). p 7218 Brenner, Athalya, (ed), A Feminist Companion To Genesis, (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).p.7519 Richardson, Alan, Genesis 1-11, (Torch Bible series, London, 1953).p.7120 Burnette- Bletsch, Studying The Old Testament, p.3021 Wenham, World Biblical Commentary, Genesis 1-15, p.8822 W. G. Moorehead, catholicity of Serpent-Worship, The Old Testament Student, Vol. 4, No. 5 (Jan., 1885), p.20723 Wenham, World Biblical Commentary, Genesis 1-15, p.8824 Burnette- Bletsch, Studying The Old Testament, p.3025 Richardson, Genesis 1-11, p7226 Amos, Clare, The Book Of Genesis, (Peterborough, Epworth Press, 2004).p.2327 Coogan, Michael, D, The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, p1528 Richardson, Alan, Genesis 1-11, p.79