Somewhat Different

I started the Gospel of Luke. It seems to be quite different in the beginning compared to the gospel of Mark. The story starts out with John, the Baptizer, being born by an old couple, with the help of God. Unlike the Gospel according to Mark, it explains the birth of Jesus. Then, I noticed how similar the birth of Jesus was to that of John. They were both born through the power of God, and they both taught the righteous way to heaven.

Besides that, both gospels seem to be similar, just that the gospel of Luke tells us more stories of Jesus' miracles. One of them involved a centurion's young servant being cured from a far distance for believing that it will, in fact, happen. Jesus said:

"I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." (Gospel of Luke 7:9) and the servant's sickness went away.

So yeah, cool.

Rich = Bad or Good?

I've noticed something: I seem to be questioning myself about something every time I read a story from The Bible. I just finished reading the gospel of Mark. It's sort of a short story about Jesus's adult life and when he resurrected. It was fun to read but I started wondering in my thoughts when Jesus said:

"Go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." (Mark 10:21)

This means that we have to sell whatever we have and give to the poor to be good people. I guess it makes sense since it makes others happy and that's a good thing. So, I guess I agree. But, Jesus said something else right afterward:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:25)

This is telling us that it's harder to go to heaven the richer we are, therefore we have to give our wealth to others to be good people. After I thought for a while, this didn't really make much sense. You're supposedly doing something good when you are giving your wealth to others. But, the people that receive the wealth obviously become richer. And, the richer you are, the harder it would be to go to heaven. So, wouldn't you actually be doing something bad when you give your wealth to someone else since you're technically blocking his chances to be a good person and making it harder for him/her to go to heaven? I don't know. Maybe I thought too much about something fairly simple.

Anyways, just like the usual, I end up with more questions than answers. Maybe I'm just trying to think too much and complicating my life. Whatever, I'm done with the gospel. This one was actually pretty interesting for me since it talked about Jesus and the miracles he did. I hope I get to read more from The Bible later on, hopefully without so many questions in my head.

Bread of the Great

Compared to other stories that I have read in the Bible, I think I'm actually enjoying Mark's gospel. It's not that the gospel is very exciting and fun, but I just find it interesting. I'm not exactly sure why, though. Maybe it's because the story talks about Jesus and his doings.

Anyways, I read a few more chapters of the gospel, and it was pretty much about more of Jesus's incredible miracles. He stopped a storm, walked on water, and even revive a little girl from the dead. I, of course, wasn't surprised since it's Jesus I'm talking about here. But, what did catch my attention was the part when Jesus asks this question:

"'How many loaves have ye?' And they said, Seven." (Mark 8:5)

It's just a bit odd. If Jesus has the power to satisfy the hunger of a bunch of people with any amount of food (just like he did in chapter six with five loaves of bread), then why does he need to know how many loaves of bread there are? Why does he bother asking if he can somehow divide the bread with his divine powers to fill up the bellies of any population? I mean, he still would have fed everyone even if he had one loaf of bread, instead of seven. Maybe he did that on purpose to somehow teach others something he wanted to, but I'm not quite sure. But whatever, I was just wondering.

So, I guess I should keep on reading the gospel since I'm only halfway through. As I said before, the gospel is not that exciting but sort of interesting to read. I hope it keeps on like this.

Starting to Question the Great

I recently started reading a few of the first chapters of the gospel of Mark. It's obviously very different compared to the Tao Te Ching since it's an actual story (although Jesus teaches other people throughout the story like the Tao). The gospel begins with Jesus already grown up and narrates the story of him. In the gospel, he, of course, does all these different kinds of miracles and does things that are supposedly impossible. I wasn't really surprised about anything since it was a bit obvious that Jesus had the power to make miracles happen. But, this sentence made me realize something:

"And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?" (mark 4:41)

Why does Jesus have so much power? Well, I mean because he's Jesus, but isn't it a bit unfair? Isn't Jesus supposed to treat everyone equally? Then, why does he have the right to have these divine powers that others do not? These questions just suddenly popped up in my mind while I was reading.

Oh well, I only read the first part of the gospels, so I would obviously have many questions. I guess I should keep on reading and maybe these questions might be answered.

A Balanced World

Finally, this is the end of Tao. The rest of the book wasn't that different compared to the beginning. It just had a bit of confusing riddles, but that's pretty much it.

The most important word for this book, I'd say, is balance. The Tao says that everything should be kept in balance. I do agree with this. Too much "bad" would lead the Earth into a world of evil. But, an excess of "good" will eventually lead our world with no good because there always has to be a "bad" to notice the existence of "good".

So, everything has to have an opposite to be kept in balance. And, we are not only talking about the Earth but the whole universe. Everything relies on some sort of balance. Let's look at Saturn for example. The planet, Saturn, is well known for its famous floating ring around it. The ring actually consists of many little rocks and pebbles orbiting around the planet. The reason why Saturn moves the way it does and the reason why the rocks orbit around it is because of the attraction between the rocks and the planet due to gravity. If they are not next to each other the way they are, Saturn would move differently and the small rocks would be scattered all around space. So, I think this represents a sort of balance.



Anyways, I thought the book was interesting. It was very fun to read in the beginning and later it got a bit boring. But overall, I enjoyed reading it.

Perfection

I came to a conclusion: Tao Te Ching is very repetitive. Everything seems to be talking about and giving examples of two opposites that balance each other. It sometimes felt like as if I was reading the same thing over and over again, but this part caught a bit of my attention:

"Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it?
I do not believe it can be done.
The universe is sacred.
You cannot improve it.
If you try to change it, you will ruin it.
If you try to hold it, you will lose it." (Tao Te Ching 29:1)

I like this part since it's telling us that the world is perfect the way it is and that it's better to leave it intact. It's not telling us that we can't change the world: It's telling us that we shouldn't. But, that's not the only reason why I like this quote. I like it even more because I sort of realized something while reading it. I realized that the book wasn't teaching the readers what to do to have a good balance in the world (since balance is said to be a good thing in the book). Instead, I noticed that the book actually tells us that the world is already balanced and perfect the way it is and that we shouldn't do anything to change it. So, the book wasn't actually meant to teach people what to do, but rather to teach people what not to do.

Anyways, even though I thought that the book was interesting, I wouldn't entirely agree with it since I don't think that everything in the world is perfectly balanced the way it is.

Forget for Good

The teachings of Tao go on. They all seem to point out the fact that everything in the world is balanced and good the way it is. Almost everything is written in some sort of riddle which makes it a bit harder to understand. But, this part in particular confused me a lot:

"When the great Tao is forgotten,
Kindness and morality arise." (Tao Te Ching 18:1)

It's not that I don't understand what the quote is saying. I just don't know why it's said. Here, the axiom is saying that Tao should be forgotten to obtain kindness and morality, and since kindness and morality are good things, this axiom is telling us that the Tao should be forgotten to obtain something good. I thought that the teachings were supposed to be telling us to follow the way of the Tao, not to forget it. So, this part was kind of confusing and it left me wondering what message the text was trying to give us.

So, that's how it is. I like the teachings until now since the book is divided into very short pieces of texts. A new chapter (or whatever the numbers stand for) starts every time when it's about to get boring

Balance

The book of Tao Te Ching is similar to The Analects since it teaches the reader about good morals. But, the ideas and the way it's written seem to be very different.

The ideas in The Analects were taught through dialogues between "the Master" and other characters. Tao Te Ching though, was sort of written in second person since it's like as if the author was directly talking to the reader through the text. Confucius thought that the most important things in life were family and elders. Tao Te Ching, on the other hand, seems to have some different kind of thinking. Most of Tao Te Ching seems to be talking about the existence and the importance of balance in everything. Here's an axiom that I found interesting:

"All can know good as good only because there is evil." (Tao 2:2)

Here, it's saying that good only exists because evil exists. So, technically good wouldn't exist if evil didn't exist either. This means that evil has to exist in this world in order for it to be balanced in some way. There should be as much evil as there is good. If there is no evil nor good, then the world wouldn't really exist, would it? I'm not sure, though. But, the text indirectly suggests that there should always be some kind of balance between good and evil, just like any other things in this world.

In the Beginning

Does The Bible tell us the truth of how humans were formed? According to The Bible, God created the first man out of dust from the ground and was named Adam. Then, he created the first woman, Eve, out of one of Adam’s ribs. This could have happened, but there’s no solid evidence that it actually did. It only tells us that something supposedly happened.

The Bible isn’t a very good source to rely on for evidence of the creation of man. In fact, it has many little flaws and parts that don’t match that contradict each other. First, God created the heaven and the earth. It’s a bit unclear since it’s said as if the Earth and heaven were the only things that existed in the whole universe. Then, it says that God created light and darkness on his first day. How do you know which was the first day if there was no day before he created light? If that was the first day, then what day was it that God created the heaven and the earth? It’s just not very clear. Not only that, but God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh. If God is perfect and so powerful, how is it possible that he was actually tired? Is God not perfect after all even though he’s superior to us? It is never explained.

But going back to the creation of man, The Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve were created by God and they were the first humans to ever exist on Earth. All the generations that came afterward were descendants of Adam and Eve. But, is that true? Here’s a short part from The Genesis of The Bible:

“And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch.” (Gen. 4:16)

How is this possible? Where did Cain’s wife suddenly pop out of if Adam and Eve only had Abel and Cain at the moment and Cain had already killed his brother, Abel? Did she just magically appear? Not only that, but according to the text of The Genesis, God doesn’t seem to always know what’s happening:

“And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper? 10 And he said, What hast thou done?” (Gen. 4:8)

According to this, God either didn’t know that Cain had killed his brother or he didn’t do anything about it even though he knew. Either way, the text is telling us that God has flaws, but The Bible itself tells us that he is perfect. So, The Bible isn’t a very reliable source of evidence to prove the creation of man.

Someone like Charles Darwin, on the other hand, did have actual evidence of evolution and how ape-like creatures could have evolved to humans throughout many generations. I’m not saying that God doesn’t exist or that The Bible is bad. I’m only saying that The Bible doesn’t have solid proof to justify its text.

Belief to Tradition

The Master keeps on teaching through his confusing, but yet very deep sayings. One part that I really liked was this part:

"The Master said, 'I would prefer not speaking.'
Tsze-kung said, 'If you, Master, do not speak, what shall we, your
disciples, have to record?'
The Master said, 'Does Heaven speak? The four seasons pursue their courses,
and all things are continually being produced, but does Heaven say
anything?'"

Here, the Master doesn't directly say why he prefers not to speak, but in a way, he does justify why it is okay not to speak. In a way, it's like as if the Master is telling Tsze-kung to not question him and just accept what he thinks and what he tells him since Heaven can't be questioned either.


These are sort of like laws and rules for Confucianism, and there are many of them in the book of Analects. But today, it's more of a tradition than a religion. Japan and Korea are both practice Confucianism. Since it's more like a tradition, we grow up with Confucianism as if it's something very normal to everyday life. It's not something that is practiced, it's something that is the way it is. There's just no other option. In Korea (and probably Japan also), even the language is based upon it. People in Korea have to talk in a different form of language when talking to adults. We can't just say "hi" to an adult. We have another way of saying "hi" and another way to say almost anything else. They can't plainly call others by their names either if they are older than them. This, of course, is to show signs of respect towards elders. We even have to bow to them when we say hi or goodbye.


I, being Korean, also have to do all this among other Korean people. It seems very strict and tiring, but since I grew up with it and since that's how the Korean culture is, it's very normal to me. I don't even need to think about it. So, I think Confucianism should go on, at least in Korea. It's hard to stop it anyways.

So, going back to the Analects. I think it was an interesting book to read. I wouldn't recommend others to read the whole thing unless their very interested since most of the teachings seem to be a bit repetitive. But besides that, it was nice to read.

On and On

The Analects keeps on going with more teachings from the Master. I got a bit bored after a while since most of the sentences started with "The Master said" and some ideas seemed to repeat itself again and again. It wasn't that bad though, because all the ideas was very deep and thoughtful, but I didn't like some of the phrases that suggested indirect messages like this one:

"There were four things which the Master taught,-letters, ethics, devotion
of soul, and truthfulness." (Analects Book 7)

Here, it's saying that the Master was truthful. This means that he only said the truth. So technically, this is telling us that everything that the Master said was right. That's what bothers me. It's like as if the Master is put up laws about what humans should and should not do. To me, it's more of an opinion than a fact. I might agree with most of what the Master says about what's right and wrong, but I don't think he has the right to tell others what to do and what not to do.

Anyways, The Analects keeps on going on and on just like before. Something else that I like about it though, is that it doesn't have a chronological order. So, I don't need to read it from the beginning to the end in order to understand it.

The Master Says

The Analects seems to be a very interesting type of book. It has a different style compared to most of the books that we are used to reading. Instead of a narration of some kind of story, the book is more like a list of mini lessons and teachings. And, all these teachings are taught by "the Master". I'm not sure who exactly who he is, but almost every quote in the book is told by "the Master" and most of the things he says teaches some kind of moral. I, of course, don't agree with all of them but they all seem to be very deep and thoughtful. Here's one that I did agree with:

"Riches and honors are what men desire. If they cannot
be obtained in the proper way, they should not be held. Poverty and
meanness are what men dislike. If they cannot be avoided in the proper
way, they should not be avoided." (Analects Book 4)

Here, I think that "the Master" was trying to point out the unfairness of the existence of bad people with wealth and good people with none. He, just like me, thought that if someone obtained wealth through unjust ways, he/she didn't deserve it. And, if someone escaped poverty through unjust ways, he/she didn't deserve it either. Most people would agree with this quote, but it's a bit unclear. It doesn't tell what exactly it is that we have to do to obtain something in "the proper way". I mean, sometimes we wouldn't know whether something is "proper" or not.

Anyways, whatever. Maybe I will understand more if I keep reading.

Songs/Stories for God

The book of Psalms is pretty interesting. They are supposedly sacred songs and/or hymns, but to me, they seem more like short parts of the stories from the Bible.

I, myself, have read four of them. They're all a bit confusing. It's not that I don't understand the text. It just feels like as if I'm reading a book starting from the middle without knowing the beginning. All of them seem to have different kinds of feelings about God, but yet, he is praised in all of them since he is thought to be the most powerful being.

Here's a part from the first one I read (Psalm 23):

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." (Psalms 23:4)

Here, the speaker, David, definitely shows that he believes in God and he has a lot of confidence since he is so sure that God will protect him all the time.

Psalm 42 seems to be questioning God. But at the end, God is still praised since he is anyways the father of everything.

Psalm 51 seems to be asking (begging) God for a favor since he is the most powerful being.

Psalm 137 was a bit different. The character that was speaking seemed to be remembering something that happened. But anyhow, God is still mentioned and is respected.

So, my conclusion would be that the psalms are all little bits of texts for us to believe in God and to be reminded about his greatness.

Good and Evil From Genetics

Throughout the story of David, I noticed that many of the characters always to inherit good or evil from their fathers.

First of all, Saul's son, Ish-bosheth, is named as the king of Israel (after his father's death). But, he accuses Abner, the chief commander, for something that he didn't do. Later, Ish-bosheth is betrayed and killed by his own men. He was unfortunate, just like Saul.

Then, there's David's son, Absalom. He was successful: He turned into the king of Hebron, just like his dad was.

But, not everyone gets this inheritance. This is when Amnon, one of the sons of David, is in the act of trying to rape his own sister, Tamar.

"Then Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her. And Amnon said unto her, Arise, be gone. And she said unto him, There is no cause: this evil in sending me away is greater than the other that thou didst unto me." (Second Samuel 13:15)

Amnon, of course, is not such a good guy even though his father supposedly was. Tamar even directly mentions the word, "evil".

Anyway, my point was to show how humans don't seem to change much every new generation but sometimes they do when someone like Amnon appears. So yes, the books of Samuel were fun to read.

More Stories, More Questions

So, here's yet another story from the Bible. This one is about Samuel and David of course.

David is chosen by Samuel to be the king of Bethlehem and he turns out to be very successful. Obviously he is the "good guy" of the story. And then, there is Saul, the jealous and selfish one (the "bad guy"). Long story short, Saul does things that God doesn't want him to do while David does almost everything that pleases God. So, Saul ends up cursed while David is blessed. Because of jealousy, Saul tries to kill him, but at the end of the first book of Samuel, Saul and his sons are the ones that end up dead.

This story, just like all the other ones, has a moral. But, all the stories I read in the Bible until now, I've noticed, technically share the same teaching: Always believe in God and follow His orders for you benefit (or else you will end up to be very miserable like Saul). But also, every time I read another part of the Bible, I always start asking myself more and more questions about God and the Bible itself. One question arose in my head when I read this part:

"Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel." (Samuel 28:11)

This is when Saul asks a woman to bring out Samuel's spirit for him. And, the woman just does it as if nothing happened. I thought only God had the ability to do such things. I mean, can any human bring up someone's spirit when they want to? And second of all, do the spirits of the dead just wander around Earth? Don't they either go to heaven or hell? Also, since David is so great, he is blessed by God and he's able to kill a really tough warrior, Goliath, with one single stone. So, God is technically giving David the right to kill since he has pleased God with all his doings and by obeying him. Of course, David is killing him to save his people, but isn't it weird how God is taking sides with David and not giving any chance for Goliath to win? Isn't that a bit unfair? Besides that, isn't it a bit selfish of David to kill other people only to save his? I don't know, but these small questions keep on coming up to my mind.

Anyway, the story is okay until now. It's a bit long, but still sort of interesting.

Just Like a Human

Throughout the end of the story of Job, Job realizes how mighty and powerful he is. He first started out wondering and questioning the reasons of God's acts along with his friends. But surprisingly, he never cursed God in any way (even after all the suffering). Later on, though, God reveals himself unto Job and shows his greatness and superiority. Job technically forgets all his subtleties and just assumes that God would have his own good reasons to do all his acts.

I, myself, don't have a specific religion. It's not that I don't believe in God. I just don't know whether I should. Just like Job, I always question myself. Since no one knows the exact answers to them, I can't decide what to believe in. I just want to sort of have everything clear before I know what I'm believing in.

Anyway, more questions arose in my mind while reading this story. Why is God so human-like in this story? God having control over humans is just like us having control over some kind of thing that we made (like robots for example). We know almost exactly how the robots would act if we did something to it, since we are its creators. But, we still try it out just for fun or to test it in some way. This is very similar to God testing humans. Not only that, but God also prefers some people (like Job) over other people:

"My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath. Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept." (Job 42:7)

It seems unfair to me since God is the one with the ability to change people's characteristics, and he still likes someone more than someone else.

I also noticed that Job (the "good guy") had faith in God because of fear, more than anything. Even in most of the other previous stories, the characters seemed to have praised and worshiped God because of fear, not love. Supposedly, humans are supposed to believe in Him by loving him. But in the story of Job, God doesn't really treat everyone equally (since he prefers some humans over others), and he showed his strength and superiority to them which caused them to sort of believe in God only because of the fear of his power (like Job's friends). But whatever. I can't question God if he exists.

As you can see, the book of Job has left me thinking. Therefore, it's an interesting book to read but only if you are actually paying close attention to it. So yes, it was fun.

Satan's Failed Experiment

One very typical, but interesting, story in the KJV Bible is the story of Job. Job was a man with seven sons and three daughters. He had a lot of wealth since God blessed him because of his great loyalty towards him. One day, Satan just comes up to God along with the angels:

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." The Book of Job 1:6

It's pretty strange. Satan, the king of all evil, follows God's angels and just shows up in front of him as if nothing really happened, and they just start talking to each other like old buddies. Then, Satan somehow manages to persuade God to allow him to technically do cruel things to this very innocent and loyal man. But, I guess it's okay since it's actually Satan doing the bad things and God is only letting him do it because he is testing Job.

Anyway, Satan keeps on bringing unfortunate events to Job so that he will lose faith in God. It's sort of like an experiment: Satan tries to find the right ingredient to have Job lose faith in God. Satan tries many things: He takes away his livestock, his servants, and even all his children. While still suffering from all this, Satan pushes it a little more by giving Job horrible sores all over his body, and his wife tries to persuade him to curse God. But, none of these ingredients seem to have worked on Job even though he suffered a lot, for he always praised God, no matter what.

Although the story of Job isn't very exciting because it is a bit predictable, some parts of it were still interesting. I think it had too much text, but I guess it was generally okay.

Pointless Stubborness

The first twenty chapters of the Exodus talks about the incredible and famous story of Moses, where he divided the sea into two with his blessed staff. Well, here's a short summary of the full version of it.

There was this cruel pharaoh in the land of Egypt, and he technically had all the descendants of Israel enslaved. One day, he just decided to force all male children to be killed. Moses, of course, survived while he was still a baby but was separated from his parents. He, like most heroes, managed to survive until he was older and fled to another place where he could live in peace. But, God soon gave him a sort of a magical staff and ordered him to help save the kids of Israel by leading their way out of Egypt. It's interesting how even though God has enough power to do many things, he always chooses a human to do things for him just to test them. To make it even more challenging this time, he made the pharaoh more stubborn every time some kind of consequence occurred:

"But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go." Exodus 10:20

It's funny how God was technically the one who created the disasters every time the pharaoh denied giving the children of Israel when it was he who hardened the heart of the pharaoh so that he would keep denying Moses. I'd say it was pointless. Almost all the people of the town suffered just because of this pointless situation. There were plagues of frogs, lice, flies, and later on, locusts (there were other consequences but let's not get so detailed). My point is that it's just a bit ironical how God is technically the one creating the problems just to test a guy.

Anyways, summarizing the end, Moses is finally able to get the people and he travels to go somewhere safe. He divides the sea into two with the divine powers of his staff and allows everyone to cross it. After they reach actual land, the water closes in on the Egyptians sent by the pharaoh that were chasing the people of Moses and they simply drown in the sea.

It was fun reading this part of The Bible since it had the story that I was fond of when I was young and also since I never really read the original text that it came from. Besides that, I also noticed how throughout the chapters, God tends to show himself less in front of humans. In the beginning, he would just directly talk to them, but now he has less contact and mostly sends angels to communicate with humans. Anyway, I like the Exodus until now.

A Sinful Blessing

The story gets more and more complicated. God tells Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Isaac. But, when he goes up on a mountain and is about to kill his own son with a knife, one of the angels of God comes to stop him and tells him this:

"Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." Genesis 22:12

It's like as if God was only testing Abraham to see whether he would do anything for him no matter what. It's interesting. Supposedly, it's not right to kill anyone whatever the cause (especially your own son). It's actually a sin. But, God was grateful that Abraham was about to kill his own son just for him. I'd say it's a bit selfish. They even bless Abraham and all his future descendants just because of that:

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies." Genesis 22:17

Anyway, later on, Abraham sends his servant to go get a wife for Isaac. And, so he does. After Isaac marries the woman (Rebekah), Abraham dies and everything is left for him. Now, here comes the interesting part where a new story begins. Rebekah and Isaac give birth to two sons, Jacob and Esau. Isaac likes Esau more since he hunts, and Rebekah prefers Jacob just because. And, of course there has to be some kind of problem in this kind of situation. Isaac asks Rebekah to bring Esau so that he can bless him. But, Rebekah brings Jacob instead and since Isaac was turned blind, he accidentally blesses Jacob.

I've noticed that all the problems in Genesis always occurred because of the flaws of humans (mostly because of their curiosity or their selfishness). It's like as if each little story of the Genesis is showing us our bad side so that we learn what is right and what is wrong to do. In other words, it's like teaching us many little morals.

Besides being written in long unnecessary riddles, the book is quite easy to understand. But, as I read it more detailed, I found out many different things that I haven't noticed before. My point is that The Bible is a great book to take time reading carefully, not only because of your religion.

Generations and Generations of Problems

After many generations following Noah, humans suddenly got the idea to build a city/tower in Babel that would be tall enough to reach Heaven. But, God randomly decided to give different languages to each of the humans so that they wouldn't be able to communicate with each other. I find it a bit funny how it's always human curiosity that starts some kind of a problem or situation and then comes God to try to fix it in some way. So anyway, they were now scattered all around the world and the city was never finished.

About ten generations after a guy named Shem, came the descendant, Abram. This is where it starts to get a bit complicated, so here's the long story in a short version. Abram, Sarai (his wife), and Lot (his brother's son) journey to the south because God tells Abram to leave and promises him that he will make him a very good nation. So, they go through Canaan and later reach Egypt. But, they are soon sent out because of a wife/sister problem of Sarai. So, they go back to Canaan where Abram has a son with Hagar and is named Ishmael. God comes and visits Abram and Sarai. For some weird reason, he decides to change their names to Abraham and Sarah. Then, he decides to destroy a city called Sodom since almost everyone was sinful, but of course, Lot and his family lives. Anyway, going back to Sarah and Abraham, they have a child named Isaac. Since there is a lot of jealousy and problems between Sarah and Hagar, Hagar and her son, Ishmael, are sent to another place. But soon enough, Ishmael somehow manages to become the leader of a tribe after getting an Egyptian wife.

The Genesis seems to be very interesting in many ways. It's sort of like millions of different short stories that are all connected to each other. Almost every 4 chapters, there are always new main characters throughout the book (except God). It's a bit strange since the previous characters are never mentioned afterward, as if they were forgotten after many generations. Not only that, but the main problem of the story also keeps on changing.

I also noticed how most of these short stories explain how some of the things in our world started. One example would be the part about Babel:

Gen. 11
7] Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
[8] So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
[9] Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Here, the text shows how the humans ended up scattered around the world with their different languages.

Anyway, the story of The Bible seems to have been a bit rushed, especially in the beginning. Every chapter, something new appears. But, even though some parts seems short, they all seem to state out or show what The Bible wants to show. Each little story of The Bible telling us an explanation of how something started or teaching us a moral.

The New Beginning

A lot more problems start to occur on Earth throughout chapters three to nine from the Genesis. Adam and Eve give birth to two sons, Cain and Abel. Since God seemed to prefer Abel over Cain because of his lovely sacrifices, Cain ends up killing his own brother. God of course, showing his human-like emotions, curses Cain and sends him to another place, away from his parents:

Gen. 4
[9]And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
[10] And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
[11] And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
[12] When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

Cain, then has generations of children and grandchildren, until the famous Noah is born. At the time when Noah lived, everyone seemed to be evil and unjust, so God decided to bring a flood to kill them all. As simple as that. But, he wanted Noah, the kind and generous one, to live, so he gave instructions to survive the flood:

Gen. 6
[18] But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
[19] And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
[20] Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
[21] And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
[22] Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

So, Noah happily did what he had to do and managed to survive the flood along with his family and a pair of each of all the animals on Earth. After the flood was over and Noah stepped on land once again, God decided to never do that again and made a covenant with Noah and all his future descendants.

No offense to anyone but God seems to be a bit bipolar sometimes throughout the Genesis. He seems to be very human-like and gets angry many times. Second of all, I kind of find it a bit odd how he suddenly just decides to kill everyone on Earth but leaves one alive. Afterward, he realizes that he shouldn't do it again. Anyway, The Bible seems more interesting when you analyze it as if it were any normal book.

Translating the Beginning

The Bible by King James seems to have been written in a way so that people would understand and comprehend easier. But, there still are a few confusing things. The reason isn't only because of how it's written but also because it's a translation in the point of view of King James.

The first two chapters talk about the beginning of the world and humanity. God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. Then, what confused me a bit was how God's name changed to LORD God on the second chapter, when he was creating the first man. I think that LORD God is written only in parts where he has an actual physical appearance or when he shows some kind of human-like feature, and God is written when he's more of an unknown, mysterious being, powerful than anything (superior to men). Anyway, there was something else that I also realized in this part:

[22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
[23] And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

This doesn't make sense. How can the word, woman, be created because of the word, man, if English didn't even exist at that time? As a matter of fact, I don't think any phonetic language existed in the very beginning of mankind. I'm just saying. Anyway, I think I noticed these things because I started reading The Bible as if it were just an ordinary book. I think this will help me analyze the book a lot better.

Greek Morals

Most of Greek mythology, I have noticed, are all similar to the stereotypical fairy tales of nowadays. All of them seem to have some kind of a moral at the end. The story of Baucis and Philemon is one great example, and I'd like to use this one as an example since it actually has a happy ending (at least for me), unlike most of the other Greek myths.

Zeus, the god of gods, and Hermes, his son, decided to come down to Earth and dress up as beggars to observe how human beings would act among them. No one wanted to share even a tiny piece of their happiness and time with them because they were very poor and filthy-looking. But, one couple, Baucis and Philemon, invited them in with a warm welcome, even though they lived in a really small hut and had almost nothing to give away. For being so generous, Zeus, of course, transformed their little hut into a mansion of gold and gave them extravagant lives. Not only that, but he granted them a wish and the only thing they wanted was to be able to die at the same time in the future. Wish granted. Main moral of the story: Do acts of kindness, and something good will come back. As simple as that.

What also caught my attention, not only in the story of Baucis and Philemon but while reading Metamorphoses, was the way the gods acted. They were all like ordinary people. They all had their own emotions, thoughts, and personalities just like humans do. Here's an example from the story of Baucis and Philemon:

Narrator One: "At last they came to a little hut on the outskirts of town."
Hermes: "Why bother knocking here? We've knocked on houses of all kinds, the homes of people with plenty to spare. Whoever lives here obviously has nothing."
Zeus: "Let's give it a try all the same. We've come all this way."
(He knocks.)
Hermes: "This is hopeless. Let's just go home."

In this scene, Hermes is starting to give up and lose hope. He is definitely showing signs of human feelings. This seemed interesting since the concept that most humans have today about God is the way opposite than the Greek gods because most of us think of God as a perfect being without flaws.

So, it was very fun to read this play. Not only did I learn about the stories of Greek mythologies, but the way the author wrote it was very entertaining since he added modern ideas to the text.

Modern Greek

Phaeton, I think, is one of those typical mischievous kids that are selfish and that always cause problems. But, of course, with a slight touch of the exaggeration of Greek mythology, Phaeton causes a bit more than just a little problem usually seen in fictional stories. He asks his dad, Apollo (the god of the sun), to lend him his chariot that transports the sun around the Earth. Big mistake. He ends up destroying most of Earth, the stars above, and later on, himself. So yes, that's how the story goes. But, what was so interesting about this story was the way Phaeton talked:

"Now, there's only one thing I want, I mean it's obvious, right? I say, 'Give me the keys to your car.' Immediately, he starts backpedaling, saying it's his job."

Through this, we can surely tell that this version of the story is a remake of the actual original myth. I mean, of course there were no cars in ancient times. But, I guess that made the play a bit funnier and entertaining.


The way that the story of Eros and Psyche was written in Metamorphoses was very short but to the point. The characters Q and A obviously represented the words, question and answer. But, the characteristic that interested me the most was the way that Q and A talked to each other about Eros and Psyche. Just like Phaeton, Q and A also had modern characteristics. They were both talking to each other as if they were telling some kind of a gossip about someone (just like normal people today). The whole purpose of this part of the play, in my opinion, was to briefly explain the story of Eros and Psyche in a more informal way.

What also caught my attention was when Q and A started talking about the ending of this story:

Q: "So it has a happy ending?"
A: "It has a very happy ending."
Q: "Almost none of these stories have completely happy endings."

I agree with Q: almost none of these stories have happy endings. There's always some kind of a love problem that interferes with the happiness of the characters. But, I think that it's better to have a bit of a sad ending because it makes the reader think about it afterward. This story, on the other hand, didn't leave me thinking about it because it had a happy ending. I'm not trying to say that I like sad endings. I'm just saying that sad endings makes you think more. Anyway, it was fun reading this. Even though it was a bit short, I think it was able to cover the main ideas of the actual story.

The Typical Antagonist and the Replica of Alcyone and Ceyx

Erysichthon seems to be one of those typical greedy antagonists. But, since Greek mythology is a bit more dramatic than normal stories, Erysichthon is a lot more cruel compared to most of the evil characters that come out in tales. His first act of cruelty is cutting down a tree. This is what a "bad guy" would do in a typical fairytale, but this tree wasn't just a normal tree. It was a very old tree in a sacred grove beloved by the goddess, Ceres. Besides that, Erysichthon forces another guy to cut it down by using foul language. But, this is nothing. When Erysichthon is punished with hunger, and he can't satisfy himself even after eating everything he can, he decides to sell his own mother for money and doesn't really seem to care that much:

Narrator: "Now this part is true, though you may not believe it: His hunger led him to sell his poor, his darling mother."
Buyer: "She doesn't look so strong."
Erysichthon: "Just give--just whatever--just give it to me--"
Buyer: "All right then."
(Tosses him a coin.)

So yes, Erysichthon is a very cruel and selfish character.


On the other hand, Orpheus and Eurydice has only love to share with each other. They both love each other just like the story of Alcyone and Ceyx, but this time, it's the woman (Eurydice) who dies, instead of the man (Ceyx). Here, Orpheus, the man, seems to be the intense one. He literally goes to hell for the love of his life. Trying to bring her back to life, he bargains with Hades, the god of the underworld. The only thing Orpheus had to do in order to be with her was just to not look at Eurydice during the journey out of hell while going through the Styx River. But of course, the curiosity of humans compelled Orpheus to look back, and when he did, he was separated from his wife forever:

Eurydice: "She was already loosened like long hair, poured out like fallen rain, shared like a limitless supply."
(Orpheus slowly turns to look at her.)
Hermes: "He has turned around--"
Narrator Two: "She could not understand, and softly answered,"
Eurydice: "Who?"
(She looks at Hermes, who then looks at Orpheus. Then she looks at Orhpeus.)

So, I think these short Greek stories are very interesting. They are a bit odd sometimes, but they are fun to read.

Intense Love

Most of the characters in love stories are very dramatic, but the stories in Metamorphoses seem to be a bit exaggerated. In the story of Alcyone and Ceyx, Alcyone is so in love with Ceyx that she believes that he's the only thing that matters in the entire world.

After Alcyone finally allowed Ceyx to leave, he started his long journey on a ship, leaving her alone, waiting for him. She was so intensely in love that she waited every single day on the shore, watching the horizon of the sea:

Alcyone: "...ninety-eight, ninety-nine, one hundred.. Ceyx? Come home. I'm nearer now, I'm sleeping on the shore. It's not so far until you see me."

Here, we can see that Alcyone loves Ceyx too much for her own good. When she finds out that her husband actually has died, she denies the truth and tries to ignore reality. She sees her dead husband in a dream, but does not accept the fact that he has passed away:

Ceyx: "Look at me, I charge you--look at me."
Alcyone: "No! I won't. I won't!"
Ceyx: "Look at me, and know your husband's ghost. Your prayers have done no good, for I am gone, beyond all help or hope forever."
Alcyone: "Go away!"

This whole story, in my opinion, is a bit too dramatic. But, I guess that's what makes these plays so unique and entertaining. It was very strange and random when Alcyone suddenly just transformed into a bird, but besides that, it was interesting.

The Beginning - Metamorphoses, Creation

Even though Ovid wrote the book, Metamorphoses, a long time ago, it seems to have very similar concepts and ideas compared to Catholicism today. This first chapter talks about the creation of the Earth. The way it's described in the book is very similar to the way it's described in the Bible. Both say that God created the Earth, first with nothing but emptiness, and then filled it up little by little with land, ocean, air, lakes, rivers, trees, etc. He created the heaven and the underworld and divided them apart. Technically, this first chapter only talks and describes about how the world could have started. In the beginning, the author describes how dark, sad, and lonely the world was. But then, the author starts to describe in a more hopeful and cheerful manner, the creation of the Earth and everything added on to it later on.

The first chapter was okay but the events in this book seem to be going really slowly. It might be because of how slow the guy narrates the story in the audio file but besides that, it's fine.

Wrapping Up the Teachings

This was an interesting book to read. The whole book was about Krishna teaching Arjuna about life and trying to reason him to fight in the war. There were few parts that were hard to understand but in general, it was okay. I didn't really like it in the beginning because nothing really happened in the story. Then, I noticed that the whole book was going to about the teachings of Krishna so I realized that this was, of course, a different kind of reading than the ones that I was used to. But, in its own different way, it was an interesting book because it made me think really deep at times. I sometimes even disagreed with some of the concepts explained by Krishna. And, what seemed a bit weird to me was how Krishna acted a bit arrogant sometimes because he was superior to every other being on the universe. He said that superior people are the ones that believe and praise him. This is weird to me since Krishna is a god and gods usually treat everyone equally and no one is supposedly superior than other beings. Anyways, I guess that's it. This is probably the last post that I'm going to write about the Bhagavad Gita so here's a little picture I drew that represents Krishna.

The Universal Concept of Krishna

The Greatness of the Know-It-All: Bhagavad Gita 11 & 15

In both chapters, Krishna shows Arjuna what a great and mighty being he actually is. In chapter eleven, Krishna shows Arjuna his universal form because he wanted to see it. But, it seems like as if Krishna did it on purpose to convince Arjuna to battle in the war. He tells him that all these warriors are anyways going to die, so killing them would only fulfill his duty to become a king and not change anyone's destiny:

"I am time grown old, creating world destruction, set in motion to annihilate the worlds; even without you, all these warriors arrayed in hostile ranks will cease to exist. Therefore, arise and win glory! Conquer your foes and fulfill your kingship! They are already killed by me. Be just my instrument, the archer at my side!" (p. 103)

In this passage, it is also said that Krishna has the ability to control life and death of any being since he is connected with everything on the universe (he IS the universe). This, again, shows how great and mighty Krishna is; after all, he is a god. Later on, in chapter 15, Krishna talks about a metaphor between a tree and a person's spirit. He, again, says that everyone who knows him would be spiritually advanced and understand the world better. To me, it seemed like as if Krishna kept on saying this just to keep on reminding Arjuna how important he is and that he should be worshiped.

It's strange how I already read until the end of the book and the story still didn't progress. Now, I can surely say that the main purpose of the book is the teachings and lessons of Krishna, rather than the actual events happening in the book. Also, Krishna seems to keep on teaching many different things to Arjuna, but his main goal always seems to be the same: To make Arjuna notice him and to persuade him to fight the war.

The Know-It-All: Bhagavad Gita 7-9

Krishna continues on teaching Arjuna about life. This time, he teaches him the path to knowledge and also explains to him how he is the highest being on Earth. He reveals that he is sort of a god and that everything is connected to him. Since he is a god, he knows almost everything in the world and this is obviously the reason why he is able to teach Arjuna so many things. But, what really caught my attention was how Krishna described himself. He said that superior souls bow down and worship him while the other inferior ones worship meaningless objects. Living things that don't have faith in him would be reborn again and again as a sort of punishment. In my point of view, it didn't seem that fair. But then, this caught my attention:

"I know all creatures that have been, that now exist, and that are yet to be; but, Arjuna, no one knows me." (p. 76)

In this sentence, Krishna is trying to explain that he knows every being on Earth and has faith in them, but most of them don't even know that he exists: he who is the center and highest of all. So, I guess, in a way, that it could be fair to punish the ignorant ones in some way. I mean, it is sort of unfair that Krishna is able to keep track of every living being while none of them even notices him.

So, I guess I was right. The book will probably go on talking mostly about the teachings of Krishna, rather than the actual story that is happening. I do enjoy reading it though: it makes me think deeply from time to time.

To Act or Not to Act: Teachings 3-5

All of these three chapters is about Arjuna questioning Krishna whether he should act or not. Krishna keeps on saying that he should and tells him many reasons why it's right. Everything he says is very deep and sometimes a bit confusing, but because of the way he says it, it seems like he is always right. Krishna tells him that it is his duty to fight so that there is a greater good in the future. I do agree with this because according to Krishna, the souls of humans will remain living even after the body is destroyed. So, assuming this to be true, Arjuna would not commit any sins by killing someone because they will be born again some time later. Krishna, himself, says that he was reborn many times already. In fact, he says that even Arjuna wasn't in his first life. Krishna seems to be like a god-like person because he knows a lot about life itself, and he can apparently remember all his lives that he had before.

Another one of the most important explanations of Krishna is whether it's better to act or not to act. This, of course, is a very broad topic, but Krishna is able to explain why it's better for Arjuna to act. He says that both might have give benefits, but acting is a lot better since it is more superior and it would give more chances of other things to happen:

"Renunciation and discipline in action both effect good beyond measure; but of the two, discipline in action surpasses renunciation of action. The man of eternal renunciation is one who neither hates nor desires; beyond dualities, he is easily freed from bondage."

The book, until now, doesn't seem to be focused mainly on the story but rather more on the teachings of Krishna to Arjuna (this, obviously would be why the book is divided into "teachings" instead of chapters).

Eternally Confused

Arjuna seems to be very lost and uncertain in this chapter. After he noticed that it is wrong to fight his own relative, he is really confused about whether he should fight him or not. Krishna, who's driving Arjuna's chariot, tries his best to convince him that he must fight. He says that it's his duty and since Arjuna thinks it is a big sin to kill people, Krishna tries to convince him by telling him that bodies of humans might die, but the the soul of a person cannot be destroyed:

"Our bodies are known to end, but the embodied self is enduring, indestructible, and immeasurable; therefore, Arjuna, fight the battle!" (p. 34)

I sort of agree with most of what Krishna said in this chapter, but I don't really like how he's using this belief to convince Arjuna to kill people. He even says that great warriors who battle in war are welcomed in heaven when they die. Arjuna does seem to understand Krishna's concept very well but I think he starts to feel even more confused afterward. He still doesn't seem to feel confident about battling his cousin, and I don't think he ever will because he knows that he's supposed to be battling but something in his head doesn't let him. And now, he has more questions in his mind because of Krishna's explanation. Whatever Arjuna decides to do later on (to battle or not to battle), he will never be sure whether he did the right thing or not.

I'm starting to like this book because it seems to have some kind of a teaching for every chapter. But, it might be a bit better if the book kept on with its story now.

Where You Stand: The Bhagavad-Gita - 1

Arjuna, the protagonist, starts a war with Duryodhana for the gain of a kingdom. I think it's a bit ironical because these two characters are cousins, and they are about to waste many lives just because of them. Besides that, many of the warriors have relatives on the other side of the team. In a way, we could say that this is just a big family problem between two sides that don't agree on something. I don't really think it's very smart of them to just start killing each other until one of them wins. I mean, imagine killing one of your family members, it's just not right. And, this is exactly what Arjuna starts to notice later on, when he is in the middle of the battlefield, on a chariot with Krishna. He notices that it's a big unreasonable waste and a bit unethical to just start fighting and killing our own relatives.

According to the narration of the story until now, Arjuna is sort of the character that starts out a bit confused, but then realizes something and changes to become a character with good values. On the other hand, Duryodhana will probably turn out to be the type of character that doesn't accept some kind of truth or value, and ends up losing or failing on his quest at the end. Until now, he is thought to be the enemy of the protagonist. So, obviously someone reading this would think that Duryodhana is the "bad guy" of the story.

The story was a bit hard to understand in my opinion. I think it might have been because there were too many names, and also maybe because of the way it was written in. But, the topic seems interesting until now so I guess it's a good story to read about. Also, there probably will be some kind of moral at the end of the story (since the chapters are named "The First Teaching" and "The Second Teaching".

The Nether World: Tablet XII Response

In the short story of tablet XII, Gilgamesh accidentally drops his drum and drumsticks and they fall through a hole to the Nether World, the world after death. Enkidu, his companion and the love of his life, goes into the Nether World to retrieve it for him. Gilgamesh told him not to do specific things like not wearing shoes, not putting on clean clothes, carrying no staff nor bow, etc. so that he wouldn't bring up such a commotion down there. But, Enkidu decides to (I don't know why) do everything that he wasn't supposed to do and he ends up trapped there because of Ereshkigal, Queen of the Nether World. In other words, he had died and was now stuck forever in the world of the afterlife. Knowing this, Gilgamesh asks the god of Ea for help. Ea hears his heeds and orders Nergal, King of the Nether World, to let the spirit of Enkidu rise up out into the Upper World. So then, Enkidu appears, rising up from the ground. Gilgamesh, full of curiosity, asks Enkidu about the things he saw in the Nether World. Enkidu is reluctant to tell him because it's so horrifying, but the short story of tablet XII ends as he describes his seeings to Gilgamesh.

Tablet XII was kind of confusing for me, because I didn't know whether it was part of the actual main story or not. This tablet did have the same two main characters (Gilgamesh and Enkidu) as the other tablets, but the story was kind of different. It seems to me as if this tablet was another version or another different story apart from the one from tablets one through eleven. The main difference was that this short story had an afterlife, the Nether World. And, of course this makes the whole story different because the original story was written as if there was nothing after death. Almost half of the original story was about Gilgamesh struggling with the fear of death after his companion, Enkidu, had passed away. So, the existence of the afterlife in the original story would have affected it a lot. But, besides that, most of the characteristics of both stories seem to be very similar. Gilgamesh and Enkidu are still, of course, lovers and soul mates in tablet twelve:

"The spirit of Enkidu, a puff of breath, came forth from the Nether World into the Upper. Then Gilgamesh and Enkidu, companions, tried to embrace and kiss one another, companions." (p. 90)

What seemed the most interesting in the short story of tablet XII, however, was the description of the Nether World told by Enkidu. He described the afterlife of men with different amounts of sons. And, the more sons a man had, the better afterlife he had. I think that the author was indirectly trying to tell or even persuade us that having more sons was better, in a sort of a demonstrative rhetoric:

"How is it with the man who has one son? I have seen the man. He sits by the wall and weeps... How is it with the man who has four sons? His heart rejoices as the heart rejoices... How is it with the man who has seven sons? As if he were companion of the gods he sits upon a throne and listens to music." (p. 91-92)

Through this dialogue, the author might be showing his belief towards the happiness of having sons. In a way, he is telling us to have more sons if we want to be happy.

So, I guess that's the end of the book. At first, I thought that the story would be very different from the ones that I'm used to reading and that it would be hard to understand. But, even though some parts of the story were very unexpected, it wasn't hard to understand and I actually enjoyed reading it. There were random events from time to time in the story, but I think that was what gave the unique touch to the book.

Tablet XI Response

Tablet XI is mostly about Utnapishtim, the son of Ubartutu, telling his story of how he was admitted to the company of the gods and was granted eternal life. But, the most important thing in this tablet is how Gilgamesh, after hearing the story and trying out the challenge of being awake for a week, realizes that life and death is how it's meant to be. By knowing this, Gilgamesh finally turns back to his normal self and returns back to the city of Uruk. When he falls asleep while he tries the challenge, he notices that it is really hard to stay awake for a full week. By this, he understands how it is also very hard to be alive for such a long time.

What caught my attention the most was the story that was told to Gilgamesh because it was very similar to Noah's Ark: "...abandon your house and build a boat instead. Seek life instead of riches, save yourself. Take with you, on the boat you build, an instance of each thing living so that they may be safe from obliteration in the flood." It's interesting how this story has its own version of Noah's Ark just with different characters. Even in different religions and cultures, there are some similar beliefs and characteristics that we can notice while reading the book.

Tablets IX & X

So, the grief of Gilgamesh because of Enkidu's death goes on. Gilgamesh keeps on wondering whether he should die just because his companion died. He thinks that it's unfair that Enkidu was forced to die while he had the chance to live. He seems to be very sad and lonely now that Enkidu died. He show signs of sadness and lack of courage after the death of his life companion. His first lonely journey through the mountains shows an example: "At night in the mountain passes there were lions, and Gilgamesh was afraid, and entered afraid into the moonlit mountain passes, praying to Sin the moon god... Terror in the body of Gilgamesh seized hold of him from within and held him there in terror. (p. 48)"

Gilgamesh also seems to have actually loved Enkidu, not just as a friend, but something more. He keeps on repeating long descriptions of how great Enkidu was, and besides that, he even says this: "Enkidu, the companion, whom I loved... (p. 54)" So technically, Gilgamesh is going on a journey to help save his loved one.

I also think that the author might be trying to suggest something through the situation of the story. Since Gilgamesh kind of represents civilization, his act of living like Enkidu (wearing animal skin, living in the wilderness, not being very clean, etc.) and his grief for him gives us a small indirect message. It represents how at the end, civilization is "grieving" for nature, after it's destroyed. It represents how civilization wants to go back to the way it was in the beginning: the way it was meant to originally be.

Tablets VII & VIII Response

These two tablets were kind of surprising for me. I didn't really expect Enkidu to die in the middle of the story, for he was supposed to be Gilgamesh's companion for life. Too many events suddenly happen really fast while reading this book. It seems like the author sometimes rushed through his writing in some parts, but I guess this helps the story to be more interesting since we never know what's going to happen next. The author also keeps on repeating short parts of phrases in dialogues to point out some kind of idea, feeling, or emotion. Tablet 8 is a great example for the use of this technique: "May the wild ass in the mountains braying mourn... May the pathways to the Cedar Forest mourn... May the passes through the mountains mourn for you... May the young men of the city who fought the Bull, may they mourn for Enkidu who protected them... etc." It does start to get kind of boring when a whole page keeps going on like that, but it helped a lot to show the feelings and emotions of Gilgamesh towards the death of Enkidu. Of course, Gilgamesh is very sad and feels that Enkidu should somehow be remembered by the people of Uruk. So, he decides to build a statue in honor of Enkidu. This represents the strong friendship that existed between Gilgamesh and Enkidu and all the heroic actions they have done together. But in my point of view, the death of Enkidu represents many other things too. In the beginning, Enkidu started out living in the wilderness along with other beastly creatures. Then, he earned a better life when he became more civilized in the city of Uruk. But, the price he had to pay for that at the end was death. Since Enkidu represents humanity, the story might be suggesting that humans won't last much if they are civilized for too long and if they completely forget about the nature around us that we belong in. The author might be indirectly suggesting us to pay more attention to our surroundings and to be careful because we might not be living in the correct way...

Here's a short video that shows the death of Enkidu and explains a bit about the nightmare he had before passing away: