Right? One would think so, but obviously that was not the case. This is the first major difference between the two stories. In Genesis, there is a much more acceptable reason for God to eliminate mankind. The humans are so wicked and evil that, "It repented the Lord that he had made man on the
The Theodicy of Irenaeus has many weaknesses. For example, the Theodicy states that God deliberately created an imperfect world where evil exists to achieve a higher goal (a world where humans can morally develop), however if it is not acceptable to do something bad to achieve something good, then why is it acceptable for God to do this? Another point to consider is that not all suffering leads to moral growth. Some people do not develop as a result of suffering, but instead morally degrade. This contradicts Irenaeus’ Theodicy because it states that moral development is achieved through the experience of pain and suffering.
Even though there are quite a few similarities to the two stories, there also seems to be quite an astonishing amount of differences between the great Biblical story of Noah's Ark and the accounts of the flood told by Utnapishtim in Gilgamesh. Mankind had become evil. There were many sins which had become widespread and common throughout the Earth. In the story of Noah, we read “And the Lord saw that the evil of the human creature was great on the earth and that every scheme of his heart's devising was only perpetually evil. And the Lord regretted having made the human on earth and was grieved to the heart”(Genesis 6).
Either way, all life is demolished, or so they believe. An example would be document C. In the Bible, God comes before Noah and warns him about the Flood he has decided to bring upon the world. His reason being: the world is full of lawlessness, and all life shall be destroyed along with the earth. In the Epic of Gilgamesh the gods decide to end man kind because they are extremely loud and are preventing the God’s from sleep. The reason for destruction in Gilgamesh’s story seems to be more irrational than the Bible’s story but in result, life is still abolished.
Its hard to believe that throughout these thousands and thousand of generations that not one person has perverted the original story to progress their own agenda. It just seems too convenient that the Holy Bible’s answer to my doubt is faith. Not to say that faith is something I do not believe in, but faith in man? Easier said than done. I’ve said all of this for this reason; I want to hear more than just one version of our early man ancestors.
His creation was a result of the cries to the Gods for bad leadership and power of King Gilgamesh. Enkidu was created to match the Kings beauty, strength, and other assets. One more sign of divinity from the epic of Gilgamesh is Gilgamesh his self in the epic we read that Gilgamesh does some superhuman things that a regular person couldn’t do and if they could have the gods would not created Enkidu. He originally possessed the most divine blood because he was two-thirds god, his body would not tire as quickly nor would it succumb to
Utnapishtim had been warned that a great flood would be dealt to destroy all of mankind. The reasons for the flood are very much argued in different accounts of mythological studies, but some discuss the reason was that the gods were discouraged by mankind’s sins and wanted to start over by clearing out all that had been created in the beginning. Only one man was to be saved, and that was
You may say well it is just two different people and time. Well it is, but it is much more than that. In Flood for Gilgamesh, it was to wipe them off the world because they made too much noise and the flood was sent to wipe him out. In Genesis, god tried to get rid of the wickedness that was in his creation, so then he sent about the flood. Each one had the same thing about making a boat, but how it was done was different.
What triggered their resistance? As with all free people, they began with policies of procrastination and appeasement. They hoped that the problem (i.e., Caesar) would go away. In the end, however, they discovered their mistake. Everyone still hoped for peace, though none believed it was possible.
All of these reactions to Gawain’s sin are logical according to their point of view. The most appropriate reaction is that of the Green Knights, his reactioj wasn’t too mean, but it also wasn’t as forgiving as the courts. The court takes this sin too lightly while Gawain really reacts to it badly. Gawain should have just calmed down a little bit, and not have gotten too mad. The Green Knight takes the sin the best because of his mediocre response, not to harsh, and not too