Hebrew and Islamic Mythology Essay

While science and religion are nonorious for their contentious and a smashing deal violently severalise recountingship, they bear much in common in their agenda. Both set out to provide explanations for the populaces mysteries. And as such, they also share a large hand of unanswered questions. Perhaps main(prenominal) among them, the question of the reasons population, and by extension, universes ascension to awareness, is one with very few empirical explanations. And in an absence of any conclusive evidence, theories a backlash from all camps.A common draw off in historys chapters, myths regarding the Earths conception provide insight into the lives and cultures of their respective societies. In western society, the Judeo-Christian anecdote is easily the most well-known. This story is the primary constructist mythology for hu humansy monotheistic sects. Herein, paragon creates the nation in six days, with man arriving on the last. On the seventh day, the omnipotent re sts and at that placefrom, deliver-coloreds man the Sabbath.However, in the centuries that preceded the inflection point where monotheism began to take popular hold, polytheistic idolaters provided the most commonly held ideas about the earths origin. One of the earliest examples of the literate and elaborated nature that these myths could take on comes from the rich tapestry of classical mythology. The Greeks were idol-worshippers who had developed a complex and extremely colorful cast of gods. Though not omnipotent standardized the Judeo-Christian almighty, these gods were believed to possess real and considerable power over the lives of their human subjects.The Greek myth of creation is an exposition of that relationship. It was believed that, prior to earth, on that point was nothing but darkness. And amid this darkness, the only object was a black-winged bird called Nyx. This bird, solely in the void, was impregnated by the wind. (Note the parallel to the immaculate concep tion of Christ. ). As a result of this cosmic union, she yielded a golden egg, which she proceeded to roost upon for many thousands of years. Eventually, this egg hatched and the god of love, Eros, sprang forth.Just as Eros was born, so too were his siblings, whom he was precondition the honor of naming. They were the upper and lower halves of his shell, which rose to the air and sank to the ground respectively. They became the flip and the earth. Eros called them Uranus and Gaia and blessed them with love. This love resulted in children and grandchildren who would blossom into twisted, war-bent gods whose better judgment would be often blinded by a hopeless quest for power.A first-generation child of Gaia and Uranus, Kronus took a married woman in Rhea and produced many children, whom he grew to fear immensely. Kronus, a problem-solver by nature, swallowed his children piece of music they were still infants, thus preventing what he considered to be the inevitable scourge of usu rpation. The youngest of his sons, however, was also the most beloved to Rhea so she deceived her hubby into consuming a rock in the childs place. This youngest child, Zeus, would grow strong in mankind and ultimately bring to realization Kronus ampleest fear.Zeus liberated his brothers and sisters from his fathers malicious and all-consuming grasp. accordingly he led them to revolution, waging a war against the tyrannical god. In their victory, they turned their benevolent attention to the great creations of Nyx. The gods began to populate Uranus with the stars thus creating space. They began to furnish Gaia with life, thus birthing nature. After creating the appropriate backdrop, the gods recognized that the earth was correct excepting its want for animals and humans.Zeus set to the task his sons Prometheus and Epimetheus, whose names translate literally to mean maintenance and afterthought. This provides some interesting insight, perhaps, into the Greek perspective about man s intellectual capacity and ultimate self-awareness. In addition, it offers literal details about the unique abilities and idiosyncrasies that mark the species which populate the earth. When assigned to the job of aim creatures, the brothers were given a variety of gifts to offer their creations.While Epimetheus set upon the task of creating the animals and awarding them all with gifts, Prometheus cautiously sculpted man to be in the image of the gods. (Again, mans definition as being in the image of god holds much in common with Judeo-Christian creationism). When he completed his task, he found that Epimetheus had given away all the gifts, leaving humankind with the shaft. Prometheus sought to rectify the matter by stealing a trace of fire from the setting sun and giving it to man. When Zeus awoke to find man in possession of that which was to belong only to the gods, he was furious.He punished Prometheus to an eternity stapled to a tree, having his liver chewed on by vultures. But the damage was done. Man had been created and given the power of fire. There is a great deal more to Greek mythology, as with the bible. The usage of the gods takes on a wide array of purposes, stepwise divining all of mans vices and virtues. But in the story of the earths creation alone, on that point is much illumination. The Greek legend begins to tell part of the story of Greek culture insofar as it offers some true self-examination.In this story of violence, deception and a natural tendency toward roguishness, the Greeks provide a piercing look into a psyche long since perished from the world. Surviving with far greater ideological inspiration are those creation myths driving modern faith. The traditional structure of the dominant monotheistic faiths incorporates a yarn regarding the creation of earth and man into its formative doctrines. Herein is typically contained an originating explanation for the relationship in the midst of god, man, paradise and earth that pr ovides grounding for the entirety of the faiths sacred text.This is a fundamental commonality between the texts of the Hebrew Bible and the Holy Quran, both of which dedicate significant portions of their second chapters to delineating the story of the first man. It is prominent to compare the qualifyings concerning the creation of the first man as they appear in the two texts. Though straightaway Judaism and Islam function almost as antecedents to one another, with their practitioners often viewing their respective texts as placing them into diametric and working opposition of one another, these passages provide evidence of their common derivation.The creation myths of the two religions suggest that their political, social and ethnical differences today may stem from the nuances therein, which had the effect of placing their interests in close confines with one another while arming them with divergent perspectives on how best to achieve said interests. The details surrounding theologys deliverance of crack to the tend are essentially the alike according to the two texts, but the phraseology of each calls for closer speculation.In generation, the first book of the Hebrew Bible, beau ideal follows his work of creating the heaven and the earth by creating man Then the LORD divinity formed man of the dust of the ground, and tiped into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.. (Gen. 27) From here is taken a substantial self-assertion in the Judeo-Christian faith which proceeds from it, that man is created in the image and likeness of God. The breath of God, this passage indicates, circulates in the body of every man, suggesting a responsibility to godliness for all of us.The Quran, in its recognition of the same deliverance to the Garden, fussts a different image in acknowledgment of Gods endowment of life. In keeping with a prominent thematic impulse of the Quran, convicting its readers to note the distinction in fates for beli evers and nonbelievers, the phrase render Adams creation is posed with a similar connotation How do you deny Allah and you were shortly and He gave you life? Again He will cause you to die and again bring you to life, accordingly you shall be brought back to Him. (Koran, 228) This is a passage which demands not just belief in the creationist role of Allah but also a devotion to eradicating or combating non-belief. More explicitly and ideologically pertinent though, it carries with it a description of the process of reincarnation. Man, in this passage, is described as an entity being fully at the mercy of God within the bonds of the creator-to-created relationship. And where the berth into Gods image, held in the Hebrew Bible, ultimately predisposed man to elysian im mortality, this infinitude is represented differently in Islam.The overtones of reincarnation here suggest that man is not considered to be made in the image of God, nor even an cistron of the earth as also implied by Genesis 27, but is a soul perpetually disposed to take forms according to the will of Allah. This does not necessarily indicate a fundamental difference in the dispositions of the gods in question, Yahweh and Allah in the bible and Quran respectively. In Genesis, there is an articulated statement regarding Gods willingness and right, as creator, to snuff out his subject for wrong-doing of his law.At the time, this law was constituted summarily of one directive in which the LORD God commanded the man, verbalize Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat but of the tree of the knowledge of dependable and evil, thou shalt not eat of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Gen. 216-17) These foreboding words are those which assured our mortality on an earth characterized as the forum for shipping from the Garden. The air which god breathed into us through Adams nostrils would, as God promised, be the price paid for partaking of the fruit.This fa ll from the grace of godly immortality would define the nature of mans life-cycle, and by extension, theoretical concepts such as time and space and spiritual assumptions about death and the afterlife. Gods proposition to Allah as depicted in the Quran is not endowed with the same consequence, perhaps a harvest-feast of the initial divergence between the two texts with regard to the fundamental construct of man in relation to his god And We said O Adam Dwell you and your wife in the garden and eat from it a plenteous (food) wherever you wish and do not approach this tree, for then you will be of the unjust. (Koran, 235) The fall from grace is described quite differently here, with man incurring no such threat as explicit as a certain death. This is a condition already possessed of man in the passage concerning his formation. It is not a punishment but a state of being given grounded in mans relationship to Allah. Original sin is still a common element to the doctrines of the two fa iths, but its consequences appear as quite different actually. In the Hebrew Bible, the serpent is a creature which plays the role of deceiver and, by metaphorical extension, the antithetical and fundamentally evil counterpart to Gods unchanging benevolence.This is contrasted by the Qurans direct address of a Satan figure, a victimisation affirming its composition as having occurred at a far later date than that of Genesis But the shaytan made them both fall from it, and caused them to depart from that (state) in which they were and We said Get forth, some of you being the enemies of others, and there is for you in the earth an abode and a provision for a time. (Koran, 236) A punishment dealt herein concerns mans occupation of earth as a home, with God endowing it only a bounded capacity to host mortal life.Again, the contrast between the implications to mans punishment for Original viciousness in the two texts can be traced to the contrast in mans assumed composition. In the H ebrew Bible, God punished Eve and her offspring to a perpetuity of painful childbearing and unto Adam He said Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying Thou shalt not eat of it goddamned is the ground for thy sake in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. (Gen. 317)In this passage, a fundamental difference in perspective is illuminated, that mans lot, to toil on the land, is a punishment profoundly connected to his violation of Gods will and his organic relationship to the soil. Where the Garden of Eden was a sanctuary at Adams disposal, the Earth would be his responsibility and his shackles. His mortality would be profoundly chained to his capacity to manage the earth. Where Islam casts its subjects as inhabitants of a land inevitably bound to eventually leave them to resource-deprived oblivion, Judaism confines its followers to a eternity of suffering knowledge of the earths hard reality.God tells Adam of this fate as being a mixed blessing, with the knowledge every bit capable of delivering him to pain and pleasure, for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil. (Gen. 35) In a way, this is a complete fulfilment of mans emulation of the creator-image just as it is the downfall from godliness. Indeed, the serpent cavorts Eve by say her that she and Adam will be endowed with knowledge and fortitude, and be gods themselves.In exchange for this transgression, god casts man without guidance into the desert abyss. This is contrasted by the denouement of original sin in the Quran, where Allah casts his children out but does so under the auspices of mercy We said Go forth from this (state) all so surely there will come to you a guidance from Me, then whoever follows My guidance, no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve. (Koran, 238) Here, God reaffirms his commitment to man even in his failing, offering him an unconditional love as sanctuary for the pain and suffering of the land.The intricacies that differentiate the two texts offer a useful set of variations on a creation story that is highly associated with the evolution of monotheism. Particularly, the mutual centrality of the texts on mans role and purpose in the earths creation and the heavens sanctity illustrates the capacity of each to elucidate its pursuant(predicate) cultures views on Gods divine plan for humanity. Bibliography Fahs, Sophia Lyon, Spoerl, Dorothy T. Beginnings Earth, Sky, Life, Death.Beacon Press. Boston. 1965. Freund, Philip. Myths of Creation. Washington self-coloured Press, Inc. New York City. 1965. Koran Text. (1997 edition). The Holy Quran. University of Virginia Online Book Initiative. Online at Masoretic Text. (JPS 1917 Edition). A Hebrew-English Bible. Mechon Mamre. Online at