I am sure many of you have heard the stories about a woman named Lilith who was, by some accounts the very first woman and Eve was the second.
She was [allegedly] cast out from the Garden of Eden for wanting to be Adam's equal and not under him (sounds like Women's rights isn't a new item).
Now I am not saying this is factual, accurate, or that I myself believe it or not...but I would love to hear anyone's opinion on this.
To be honest I had never ever heard of Lilith of the Garden of Eden. Note that I don't believe in it which is probably why I've never heard of it, also RE in the UK is not the best (its actually not even compulsory).
Anyways I decided to search google and didn't get no good definitions - take a look here. Basically the best definition that Google gives is.....
| Quote: |
| (aka Lillith): Originally, she was a female demon who formed part of Babylonian and Canaanite Pagan religion. She was incorporated into the religion of the ancient Hebrews and is mentioned in Isaiah 34:14. The Revised Standard Version of the Bible refers to her as a Night Hag. She was believed to be a female demon that seduced men, terrified children at night, etc. Some later Jewish sources identified her as the first wife of Adam, created at the same time as he was. ... |
which was originally from www.religioustolerance.org/gl_l.htm
I decided that this wasn't good enough so searched it properly through Google and fount this site. the first paragraph states...
| Quote: |
| According to Jewish folklore, Lilith was the first wife of Adam. She was banished from the Garden of Eden when she refused to make herself subservient to Adam (specifically, she refused to get into the missionary position with him during sex). When she was cast out, she was made into a demon figure, and Adam was given a second wife, Eve, who was fashioned from his rib to ensure her obedience to her man |
...... | Quote: |
| Other folktales describe of how Lilith captured Jewish babies in the night and ate them, and how she led young girls and young husbands astray. Although Lilith was demonized by early Jewish culture as a symbol of promiscuity and disobedience, many modern Jewish feminists see Lilith as a positive figure, a model of woman as equal to man in the creation story. |
Just wanted to let the members that didn't know who Lilith was to easily find out.
What made you think that peolpe woudl know who she was, Vrythramax ? (You say "am sure many of you have heard")
Its hard to say that I do believe in it simply because I don't believe in the Garden of Eden. But if I did I would most likely believe in Lilith.
I wonder what dedicated Christians think of the story 
Hello:
I know something about her. Let's Start. First of all I want you to open yor bible in Genesis and read 1:27. It should say something like this:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
notice how it says "Male and "female created he them"
Later in the same book, but this time in chapter 2, article 18 it says:
"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him."
So...¿What happened with the first female of chapter one article 27??? It seems that suddenly Adan Was left alone so he needed another company, so god created Eve from his rib. But the real first women was created just like him from dust. You may read the bible yourselves and see the mismatch in the story.
In cahpter one god command the men (man and woman) to go be fiructiferus and populate all the earth. Later in cahpter two he created another female after adan has named all the creatures.
This misconcordance is the origin of the myth of lilith Adan's first wife. A medieval reference to Lilith as the first wife of Adam is the anonymous The Alphabet of Ben-Sira, written sometime between the 8th and 11th centuries. Lilith is described as refusing to assume a subservient role to Adam during sexual intercourse and so deserting him ("She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be the superior one.'"). Lilith promptly uttered the name of God, took to the air, and left the Garden, settling on the Red Sea coast. As a side note, this places Lilith in a unique position, for she left the Garden of her own accord and before the Fall of Man, and so is untouched by the Tree of Knowledge. However, according to legend, she also knows the "true name of God". To know the true name of God is to have power over him, this story is similar to Isis and the Secret Name of Ra.
Lilith then went on to mate with Asmodai and various other demons she found beside the Red Sea, creating countless lilin. Adam urged God to bring Lilith back, so three angels were dispatched after her. When the angels, Senoy, Sansenoy, and Semangelof, made threats to kill one hundred of Lilith's demonic children for each day she stayed away, she countered that she would prey eternally upon the descendants of Adam and Eve, who could be saved only by invoking the names of the three angels. She did not return to Adam.
The background and purpose of The Alphabet of Ben-Sira is unclear. It is a collection of stories about heroes of the Bible and Talmud, it may have been a collection of folk-tales, a refutation of Christian, Karaite, or other separatist movements; its content seems so offensive to contemporary Jews that it was even suggested that it could be an anti-Jewish satire [4], although, in any case, the text was accepted by the Jewish mystics of medieval Germany.
The Alphabet of Ben-Sira is the earliest surviving source of the story, and the conception that Lilith was Adam's first wife became only widely known with the 17th century Lexicon Talmudicum of Johannes Buxtorf.
In the late 19th century, the Scottish Christian author George MacDonald incorporated the story of Lilith as Adam's first wife and predator of Eve's children into a mythopoeic fantasy novel in the Romantic style.
The role of Lilith as Adam's faithless wife has parallels with the ideas about Eve herself in the Unification theology of Sun Myung Moon.
So what do you thing about Lilith????
The Bible doesn't in my knowledge mention anything about her, so I don't beleive that! 
When God said let us make a male and female, I believe that he was referring to Eve in that!
If there had been Lilith and if she would have been the first woman, the Bible would state that! 
| Whong wrote: |
The Bible doesn't in my knowledge mention anything about her, so I don't beleive that!
When God said let us make a male and female, I believe that he was referring to Eve in that!
If there had been Lilith and if she would have been the first woman, the Bible would state that! |
Not necessarily, it is my experience that the christian version of the bible has been hevily edited from its original text. As the Jewish Bible IS the Old Testement, if you do a comparison, there will be some differences. | Whong wrote: |
The Bible doesn't in my knowledge mention anything about her, so I don't beleive that!
When God said let us make a male and female, I believe that he was referring to Eve in that!
If there had been Lilith and if she would have been the first woman, the Bible would state that! |
good for you! this is a free country so you can say and believe whatever you want. Me as a scientist am encoureage to doubt of everything and do not believing anything just because of faith.It's interesting to think that god would hate women so much that he would banish one for demanding equality and start off "on the right foot" by making a subservient one.
The mythology of lilith is very prominent in feminist ideology, as it is a myth that epitomizes the female struggle in the most basic sense. Man, who has written the bible, started off by placing woman underneath him, even before talking about the more complex ideas about religion.
Feminism, therefore, makes use of the name Lilith to represent strength and equality in the face of huge odds.
While a possibility, I believein the word of the Bible.
to be honest, I don't know if I believe the stories about her or not (aka *Catholic upringing*), but they are certainly well documented and the story pretty much stays the same. The possibility however would answer some things I have wondered about though.
Nice posts 
Wow--Lillith? That's a topic I'm very interested in.
For some reason, I always thought that Lillith was Cain's wife. But then, while watching Neon Genesis Evangelion (mechanime, yes, but including many Jewish/Christian symbols, names, and snippets), the second "Angel" to hit Tokyo-3 was Lillith. Though obviously not the human being Lillith, a later angel referred to humans as Lillims, which struck me as odd. I thought that the producers of the show were way off base when they implied Lillith was made with Adam (i.e. first woman), but I guess this here settles it. I'm very curious to hear more if anyone has some more links. 
Im sure if Lilith were true, she would have gotten over her sexual misconceptions by now. It doesnt really matter if your on top or on the bottom... some times i like being on the bottom, let them do all the work, eh guys?! you wit me?
I have done a bit more reading on this topic since my orginal post and from 5 vastly differant sources I have gotten the exact same story/legend from each...the wording was a bit differant, but they said the same thing...which in and of itself is rather strange considering how far organized religion as a whole has downplayed her [alleged] existance.
@NemoySpruce
From what I have been able to gather (so far...still looking) her anger does not stem from a "sexual misconception", she knew what sex was and had no problem with it...she didn't like being second, or being made to feel lesser to, or dominated by, Adam (or any man for that matter). Her contention was that SHE was the dominant one and Adam should be second to her.
If You are loocking in the bible.... At Genesis...
Se self it says There That Adam was The first but he was alone...And needed some to be with...So God Took a rib-bone and kreated Eva!
The Bible is 101% true:P
God Bless!
| LeviticusMky wrote: |
| It's interesting to think that god would hate women so much that he would banish one for demanding equality and start off "on the right foot" by making a subservient one. |
Didn't risuarez say taht she left of her own free will? I mean of course, if you think about christianity, woman have a lot more rights, so I dunno... maybe thats the reason that christian woman have more rights is in there anyway...
| Juparis wrote: |
| For some reason, I always thought that Lillith was Cain's wife. |
You're thinking of Seth I beleive... she (if I'm remembering correctly was The third Child of Adam and Eve
It's an interesting topic to be sure, especially if Lillith was un-touched by sin, then technically she wouldn't need to be baptized or anything of that sort, Its an interesting topic to think about... | xeroed wrote: |
| Didn't risuarez say taht she left of her own free will? I mean of course, if you think about christianity, woman have a lot more rights, so I dunno... maybe thats the reason that christian woman have more rights is in there anyway... |
I always thought the opposite, but maybe that's only because I focus on the Lutheran/Protestant sects. Women are allow much fewer rights than men; no woman is allowed any authority over men or to teach any men about the gospel, if memory serves
| xeroed wrote: |
| You're thinking of Seth I beleive... she (if I'm remembering correctly was The third Child of Adam and Eve |
Yes, that's correct. I don't know why I thought she was Cain's wife, but I know I had heard the name at least once before..
| xeroed wrote: |
| It's an interesting topic to be sure, especially if Lillith was un-touched by sin, then technically she wouldn't need to be baptized or anything of that sort, Its an interesting topic to think about... |
Wouldn't sleeping with a demon be a sin? And what would her children be like, if they were only half-demon? Could they, in theory, be saved? I doubt that they'd want to, with their upbringing..hmm, I have only heard about Eve...
I never heard anybody mention something about Lilith.
I should see about that 
| risuarez wrote: |
| Whong wrote: | The Bible doesn't in my knowledge mention anything about her, so I don't beleive that!
When God said let us make a male and female, I believe that he was referring to Eve in that!
If there had been Lilith and if she would have been the first woman, the Bible would state that! |
good for you! this is a free country so you can say and believe whatever you want. Me as a scientist am encoureage to doubt of everything and do not believing anything just because of faith. |
Faith is a very important thing, you need faith. You don't see the air and you don't see the atoms and other small bits there, but you BELIVE that they are there, that already my friend is faith. As you believe that the univers was started from the Big Bang, there is no real proof on that, just speculations, so thats faith too! So way not have faith that God created this beautiful world! The nature itself shows God's infinite mercy! Have faith my friend! | Whong wrote: |
| Faith is a very important thing, you need faith. You don't see the air and you don't see the atoms and other small bits there, but you BELIVE that they are there, that already my friend is faith. As you believe that the univers was started from the Big Bang, there is no real proof on that, just speculations, so thats faith too! So way not have faith that God created this beautiful world! The nature itself shows God's infinite mercy! Have faith my friend! |
There is a world of difference between faith supported by evidence and blind faith. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean that you have to have blind faith that it exists. I have "faith" that the air exists because I can feel it, I can see its effects, and I know that if I were to get in a plain the properties of the air would hold the plane up by the pressure differential across the wings. I know that if I were to jump out of an airplane and open a parachute, the air will fill the canopy of the parachute and slow my descent. No blind faith required.
Although I can't see or feel atoms, I have "faith" that they exist because their existence can be measured, and their effects can be predicted and observed. I don't need to see atoms to know what I'm going to get if I mix sodium hydroxide with hydrochloric acid, or what the electrical properties of a silicon wafer will be after it's been doped, or what will happen to the mechanical properties of steel with a certain atomic crystalline structure and how to get that structure. No blind faith required.
"Believing" in the Big Bang doesn't require blind faith either, and no, while we may not have "proof" we do have strong evidence. We know from what we observe that everything has to have a beginning - nothing can just have always existed. We can observe that the universe is expanding - Hubble did so. If the universe is expanding, then if we went backwards it would compress - and eventually it would compress to a single point. Thus we can infer that the universe began as a single point then exploded outwards, and is still expanding. No blind faith required.
Why not have faith that God created everything? Well, then why not have faith that Satan did? Or that the entire universe exists in a bubble in some scientist's lab somewhere, and we're being studied? There is equal proof of all of these things, and the only reason for believing the first over the others is a millenia-old body of vague, contradictory writings. That requires faith. Blind faith.
Nature shows God's infinite mercy, does it? Then why not go swim with the infinitely merciful, natural alligators? Why not eat the fruit of the infinitely merciful, natural manchineel tree? Why not put a couple of wolves in a sheep pen and watch them all play naturally and infinitely mercifully together? Why not sit on a beach and watch a natural, infinitely merciful tidal wave or tsunami roll in over you?
Anyway, from what I've read of Lilith, the idea that she was the actual first woman isn't part of any biblical writings. Rather, it seems to have been biblical "fanfiction", written in the middle ages. It may be that there was never any intention for the Lilith of that story to be the same as the Lilith referenced in Isiah - that idea may have been tacked on later. Lilith may have been a traditional name for a demon temptress or succubus which was then appropriated for the fanfic, and then post-rationalized back into biblical lore after the fact.@wumingsden
I am sorry I missed your question earlier...I said "many of you have heard" because the original subject of Lilith was not brought up by me but by another member in a differant thread. I suggested to them to start a new topic on her and they told me to start one as they were too busy...so I ran with it.
| Indi wrote: |
Nature shows God's infinite mercy, does it? |
I mean for example when the winter turns into spring and the trees, flowers, animals etc. come to life! And everything fuctions very well in nature!
Risuarez wrote:
| Quote: |
| ("She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be the superior one.'"). |
I believe in equality for everyone, why then would woman want to dominate man if man should not dominate woman. I believe that men and women should be equal as one without the other would mean the end of natural procreation. STOP all those who are going to cry out for the use of cloning, I said natural.
Indi wrote:
| Quote: |
"Believing" in the Big Bang doesn't require blind faith either, and no, while we may not have "proof" we do have strong evidence. We know from what we observe that everything has to have a beginning - nothing can just have always existed. We can observe that the universe is expanding - Hubble did so. If the universe is expanding, then if we went backwards it would compress - and eventually it would compress to a single point. Thus we can infer that the universe began as a single point then exploded outwards, and is still expanding. No blind faith required.
|
my problem with the big bang theory is where did it all start, all the evidence is circumstantial. Gases gathered under thier own gravity, etc, etc, but like I have said before, where did those gases come from. No-one knows. Blind faith there, no proof, evidence is flimsy to say the least. No-one cannot create something from nothing. Anyone who can do that has the right to call themself God.
As for the original question: "do I believe that Lilith existed" frm the evidence given there is reason to believe that such a being existed. I have seen no mention of a Lilith in the NIV Bible (though I will look into this again) therefore I say no as all other evidence is based mostly on folklore.
Believe what you wish and do not push your beliefs on others. Merely express them in the open that those that might hear them can do so and make up their own minds. | Whong wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
Nature shows God's infinite mercy, does it? |
I mean for example when the winter turns into spring and the trees, flowers, animals etc. come to life! And everything fuctions very well in nature!
|
What about earth-quakes and storms? Is it also part of infinite mercy? | nam_siddharth wrote: |
| Whong wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
Nature shows God's infinite mercy, does it? |
I mean for example when the winter turns into spring and the trees, flowers, animals etc. come to life! And everything fuctions very well in nature!
|
What about earth-quakes and storms? Is it also part of infinite mercy? |
We can't blame God for them because usually they are because of our sins! Read the bible.
It's the truth...
Noone can be selective, and choose what they like, what they dont like, and what needs to be added. It's not scripture, if it doesen't hold up.
Eve was the first woman.
Just out of curisoty, where did this other woman come from?
| robdoar wrote: |
Read the bible.
It's the truth...
Noone can be selective, and choose what they like, what they dont like, and what needs to be added. It's not scripture, if it doesen't hold up.
Eve was the first woman.
Just out of curisoty, where did this other woman come from? |
| Quote: |
Read the bible
It's the truth... |
It you would have read the whole of this thread, which I doubt you have done, then you would notice the thread which states the following:
| risuarez wrote: |
open yor bible in Genesis and read 1:27. It should say something like this:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
notice how it says "Male and "female created he them"
Later in the same book, but this time in chapter 2, article 18 it says:
"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him."
So...¿What happened with the first female of chapter one article 27??? It seems that suddenly Adan Was left alone so he needed another company, so god created Eve from his rib. But the real first women was created just like him from dust. You may read the bible yourselves and see the mismatch in the story. |
| Quote: |
| Just out of curisoty, where did this other woman come from |
Again, already mentioned above | robdoar wrote: |
Read the bible.
It's the truth...
Noone can be selective, and choose what they like, what they dont like, and what needs to be added. It's not scripture, if it doesen't hold up.
Eve was the first woman.
Just out of curisoty, where did this other woman come from? |
apparently the same place Eve [allegedly] came from. I also never claimed this was "scripture" or fact...I was seeking opinions on Lilith's [also alleged] existence. | springbok wrote: |
Indi wrote:
| Quote: | "Believing" in the Big Bang doesn't require blind faith either, and no, while we may not have "proof" we do have strong evidence. We know from what we observe that everything has to have a beginning - nothing can just have always existed. We can observe that the universe is expanding - Hubble did so. If the universe is expanding, then if we went backwards it would compress - and eventually it would compress to a single point. Thus we can infer that the universe began as a single point then exploded outwards, and is still expanding. No blind faith required.
|
my problem with the big bang theory is where did it all start, all the evidence is circumstantial. Gases gathered under thier own gravity, etc, etc, but like I have said before, where did those gases come from. No-one knows. Blind faith there, no proof, evidence is flimsy to say the least. No-one cannot create something from nothing. Anyone who can do that has the right to call themself God. |
"Flimsy" evidence is still evidence, which means that blind faith is not required. At any rate, the big bang theory doesn't have to have anything to do with what came before or how it came into being, it's about how the universe was created - by an explosion from a single point. We know the universe is expanding, thus we can presume it began at a single point without making any huge leaps of faith. Where did the thing that exploded come from? *shrug* Another theory will cover that. The big bang theory doesn't have to answer everything in one swoop.
| springbok wrote: |
| As for the original question: "do I believe that Lilith existed" frm the evidence given there is reason to believe that such a being existed. I have seen no mention of a Lilith in the NIV Bible (though I will look into this again) therefore I say no as all other evidence is based mostly on folklore. |
Oh, she's "there", it's just not obvious in English translations. Go to Isaiah 34:14. In the NIV it says something like "there the night creatures will also repose". "Night creatures" is how they've translated the Hebrew word לִּילִית, which is "lilit" or "lilith" (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1034.htm#14 - reading backwards, right-to-left, from the end of the Hebrew bit, look for the first closed square ("ם"), then three or so characters over there is something that looks like a "y" with a little "T" next to it ("עָ"), and then the word "lilit"). So it kind of reads like "there Lilith will also repose" if you consider "Lilith" a proper name. Some other English translations translate "lilit" as "owl" and things like that, or even "vampire".
| Vrythramax wrote: |
| robdoar wrote: | | Just out of curisoty, where did this other woman come from? |
apparently the same place Eve [allegedly] came from. |
Actually, according to the theory, not quite. ^_^ Lilith (allegedly) came from the same place as Adam - that is, dust - whereas Eve came from Adam (his rib, remember?).
That's always made me scratch my head about the feminist adoption of Lilith as their figurehead. I mean (if you assume the myth is true), Lilith and Adam truly were equals, created at the same time in the same way, so sure, Lilith had every right to get snippy about being made subservient to Adam. But Eve was made as a sex toy for Adam after Lilith left and Adam got bored... and all women are daughters of Eve, not Lilith. So by taking on the mythology, feminists are implicitly admitting that they're all... well, I think I've made my point. ^_^hi i done some research about Lilith ( i dont belive in her ) but any way this is what i found
| Quote: |
| The Hebrew's mystify that the first woman was Lilith. Adam cried to God, "Every creature but I have a proper helpmate." Some say God created Lilith out of filth and sediment instead of pure dust. And others say she and Adam were born back to back from the same dust. Lilith and Adam quarreled consistently, because she refused to accept Adam "the man" as her superior. She also disapproved of the posture he demanded when making love. Lilith said, "Why must I lie beneath you when we were made from the same dust and therefore are equal?' |
| Whong wrote: |
| nam_siddharth wrote: | | Whong wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
Nature shows God's infinite mercy, does it? |
I mean for example when the winter turns into spring and the trees, flowers, animals etc. come to life! And everything fuctions very well in nature!
|
What about earth-quakes and storms? Is it also part of infinite mercy? |
We can't blame God for them because usually they are because of our sins! |
Then our sins are more powerful than God?
Then nature runs from our sins, not from God.
Then where is God?@Indi
Love your last post! I stand corrected, Lilith apparently did not come from the same place.
I'm really glad I started this topic, the differing opinions are great and I am very happy that there seems to be no flaming going on. It's great when people of differant belief structures can actually talk about something without getting themselves all worked up over it.
Keep it going people, this is exactly the kind of response I was hoping for 
| nam_siddharth wrote: |
| Whong wrote: | | nam_siddharth wrote: | | Whong wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
Nature shows God's infinite mercy, does it? |
I mean for example when the winter turns into spring and the trees, flowers, animals etc. come to life! And everything fuctions very well in nature!
|
What about earth-quakes and storms? Is it also part of infinite mercy? |
We can't blame God for them because usually they are because of our sins! |
Then our sins are more powerful than God?
Then nature runs from our sins, not from God.
Then where is God? |
I feel all of this is just natures way of pruning itself.
Now about the original topic, let's look at the original verses brought up,
| Quote: |
Ge 1:26
¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Ge 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. |
Does them mean only 2 or could it have been more?
Look at the beginning of chapter 2:
| Quote: |
Ge 2:1
¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Ge 2:2
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Ge 2:3
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Ge 2:4
¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Ge 2:5
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. |
God had already created male and female plus everything about the earth and rested on the seventh day. But the bible says that there was no man to till the ground. Why does it say that when we've read earlier that male and female were already created? In verse 7 of chapter 2, it states that God made man out of the dust. If the male and female from Ge 1:27 is in actuality Adam and (for arguement sake) Lilith, why does it wait until Ge 2:7 to state how He made man?
I realize this is my opinion only, but since you asked, here it is.
I think the male and female referred to in 1:27 is where Cain's wife came from. I don't think Adam was made until the 8th day, after God had rested. | livilou wrote: |
| I think the male and female referred to in 1:27 is where Cain's wife came from. I don't think Adam was made until the 8th day, after God had rested. |
I can't explain the incongruities of the Bible, I am no Biblical expert. I don't believe anyone can really explain them to any definable degree that would be acceptable to everyone. You must keep in mind that the Bible as we know it today was writen by many people over centuries, and much has been added and subtracted from the original work by scribes by way of translation. This is not to say that it is not accurate or true to the original, just that somethings do not translate to the exact word of the original.
Your final comment has me just a bit confused, would you mind elaborating on how you came to that conclusion?hmm...never heard of lilth...all i know is adam and eve cast out becoz they disobey god's command not to eat the fruit
| Vrythramax wrote: |
I am sure many of you have heard the stories about a woman named Lilith who was, by some accounts the very first woman and Eve was the second.
She was [allegedly] cast out from the Garden of Eden for wanting to be Adam's equal and not under him (sounds like Women's rights isn't a new item).
Now I am not saying this is factual, accurate, or that I myself believe it or not...but I would love to hear anyone's opinion on this. |
I can do nothing more than just paraphrase my post from another topic in that section :
I don't know how do other Churches interpret this, but the Catholic Church says about it something like this. The first historical character in the Bible was Abraham, all of the previous ones are symboles, that illustrate the relationship between God and people.
You just can't take the Genesis literally, and get into that far details. Here's an example - there are two different descriptions of creation of the world. They both cannot be literally accurate as they are different (First is Genesis 1:1 - 2:3, second Genesis 2:4-24). This is because the division of Jewish Kingdom in VII - IV centuries B.C., so there were two different 'legends' about creation of the world. The whole Bible existed then only in spoken tradition. Later, when the Bible was written down (and it was no earlier than II century B.C.) they decided to put them together. They both are different ways of coding the same truth: that God created the world, that humans are the creatures that He loves the most, and that He really cares about us and loves us.
And about Lilith.. there was nothing about her in Bible, but it was a very popular character in Jewish apocriphes (stories similar to Bible, but not agreeing with it, and not included in Bible books, one of them is the Gospel of Judas). Apocriphes contain enough rubbish for me not to care about them | Vrythramax wrote: |
| livilou wrote: | | I think the male and female referred to in 1:27 is where Cain's wife came from. I don't think Adam was made until the 8th day, after God had rested. |
I can't explain the incongruities of the Bible, I am no Biblical expert. I don't believe anyone can really explain them to any definable degree that would be acceptable to everyone. You must keep in mind that the Bible as we know it today was writen by many people over centuries, and much has been added and subtracted from the original work by scribes by way of translation. This is not to say that it is not accurate or true to the original, just that somethings do not translate to the exact word of the original.
Your final comment has me just a bit confused, would you mind elaborating on how you came to that conclusion? |
Sure. I came to that conclusion from the way it reads. I'll be the first to state that I'm not a bible scholar, but by reading Gen 1 & 2 in the order it's written, and following it as a timeline, nothing is said about Adam until after God had rested. We all agree that God rested on the 7th day, so if we assume that what follows is the start of the 8th day, then Adam was created on the 8th day.
This is my opinion, but it makes as much sense as some of the other opinions out there. I could be wrong, it's only a theory, but it's my theory. I hope this helped some.Eva is not first woman, nor Lilith. There is no prove that Bibli is true. Bible is full with many stupid things, as creation of world in 7 days, virgin mother etc. First humans were not much advance to have names.
On topic, but a bit off discussion...
I've heard about Lilith, as is said here, through feminism. She's been used as
a symbol aswell of womens liberation as one for lesbians. Don't know about
that, but a symbol is always a symbol. Rasta have their Simson
For an other aspect, Lilith has often been used in modern mythology as the very
first vampire around. An appealing thought, I must say. And for you out there
thinking it's crazy-talk, vampires and all, I just have to remind you that what we're
discussing is make-belif, with more or less morals behind it. Just don't tell anyone,
thus they may be offended 
@Idoru
In support of your theory I too have heard (read) similar things pertaining to Lilith. In some texts she is credited with being the very first witch and in others she has been called a demon. The only constant I have been able to find is that organized religion as a whole will not speak of her in any tangable fashion. Which in and of itself is absolutly amazing. How is it that this one charactor, male or female, is a subject that no holyman from any particular sect I have found, won't talk about in any real fashion? The differant religions don't seem to be able to agree on if it's raining outside or not.
That in itself gives me food for thought.
Ayup, some bible versions even translate "לִּילִית" ("lilit" or "Lilith") in Isiah 34:14 as "vampire". (Actually, I tend to agree with not taking it as a proper name, given the context. I suspect that the word originally meant something akin to a vampire or demon, and wasn't actually the name of a specific person or thing.)
But actually, Vrythamax, you're not quite right. I don't know of any Christian sects that include her in their mythology, but some forms of Judaism have quite a bit to say on the subject of Lilith. I'd have to ask for the details again, because I don't remember them off-hand, but apparently Lilith is believed to be some kind of succubus. The story is that if a man sleeps alone in a house, Lilith will get him (which I suspect was used as a sneaky way to pick up dense Jewish chicks: "but baby, you have to come home with me tonight, or I'll be alone and Lilith will get me!"). Also, if a woman gives birth to a baby - living or dead - with wings and/or horns, the woman is considered to be somehow cursed or a spawn of Lilith (I can't remember the details), and she should be "cast aside" or something else similarly biblically cruel (again, I can't remember the details, but the important thing is that lilin are apparently winged and/or horned).
These myths aren't just old Jewish wives tales (if what I recall is correct), they're actually in the Kabbala or possibly even the Talmud (which I suppose means that they actually are old Jewish wives tales, just official ones). Those are not apocryphia in most forms of Jusaism, but rather another aspect of the "Law", to be taken alongside the Tanakh (the "old testament") - particularly the Talmud; in fact, the Talmud may be considered to be equal in importance to the Torah, and thus possibly more important than the prophets (Joshua, Isiah, Ezekiel, etc.) or the writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, etc.), although I doubt any actual Jew would say that explicitly.
They don't mention that she's Adam's first wife, though, although she was the consort of Asmodeus, which is, I assume, where the lilin keep coming from. Unless she gets them from regular men or other demons, I suppose. Whoever she's getting busy with, the woman must be damn busy. If 100 lilin are murdered by God every day to punish Lilith (I don't recall if that's in the Jewish myths, but it is one of the Lilith myths), to keep the population up she has to *ahem* at least a hundred times a day, get pregnant and carry it to term at least a hundred times a day, and give birth at least a hundred times a day. Yikes. Of course, pain during pregnancy is apparently a wonderful gift from God given to Eve during the expulsion from Eden, so maybe for Lilith, popping them out en masse is no big deal.
@Indi
I do not claim to have read all the religious texts to gain a knowlege of this [alleged] person, and you are quite possibly correct in your statements. I will not debate you on matters concerning religion in this particular thread. However, from what I have read it seems a likleyhood that this person (if indeed she existed) would be reviled by religious standards, and as such would [over the course of years] take on the status of "Demoness", "Vampire", "Witch"...et al ad nauseum. It is a common traight of human beings to make what we don't understand, or that goes against what we have been taught to believe, into some kind of monster that may lurk in the shadows waiting for us.
Kinda like the theory that she was used to pick up women though....sorry folks, just hormones speaking outloud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
| Quote: |
| Lilith is a female Mesopotamian night demon believed to harm male children. In Isaiah 34:14, Lilith (לִּילִית, Standard Hebrew Lilit) is a kind of night-demon or animal, translated as onokentauros; in the Septuagint, as lamia; "witch" by Hieronymus of Cardia; and as screech owl in the King James Version of the Bible. In the Talmud and Midrash, Lilith appears as a night demon. She is often identified as the first wife of Adam, a legend that arose in the Middle Ages. |
| Vrythramax wrote: |
| However, from what I have read it seems a likleyhood that this person (if indeed she existed) would be reviled by religious standards, and as such would [over the course of years] take on the status of "Demoness", "Vampire", "Witch"...et al ad nauseum. It is a common traight of human beings to make what we don't understand, or that goes against what we have been taught to believe, into some kind of monster that may lurk in the shadows waiting for us. |
Oh yeah, certainly - every good story needs its villian(s).
Actually, you bring up a neat point. >_< What is the purpose of Lilith? Or, given that she has so many different interpretations and myths, what is the purpose of each myth? What aspects of Lilith are being depicted as "wrong" in each myth? What has she done that make her a villian, and why were those acts evil?
In the myth where she refused to be subservient to Adam, and left Eden of her own free will to become a demon hunted and harassed by angels of God - with a hundred of her children murdered every day just because Adam wanted her back and she didn't want to go - what exactly was her crime? What did she do to make her the villian of that myth? What is the myth trying to teach us?
In the Jewish interpretation of Lilith, it's a little easier. Lilith's failing that makes her a villian is her insatiable lust. The message seems to that not only has her lust damned her, it destroys her "victims" as well. To me, this seems to be a way of making lust an external sin. See, without this, what really is the harm of being a nymphomaniac? Unlike wrath, envy, greed and the like, lust seems to be a victimless sin. Lilith seems to have been invented as a way to show that lust can indeed be destructive - and at an extreme it is not only destructive to the person who lusts too much (Lilith, by being a demon and thus reviled by God), it is also destructive to others (her "victims"). By extension, it also serves as a warning to people to stay away from the lustful, for they could potentially destroy you.
So, in the same way that pride is Lucifer's failing, which makes him evil, lust is Lilith's. From that point of view, Lilith is the metaphorical embodiment of what is wrong with lust, and that is the purpose for her existence in Jewish mythology.
I'd be really curious to hear thoughts on the other aspect of the Lilith myth - her rejection of Adam and the fallout from that - and what that might be trying to teach us.
| Vrythramax wrote: |
| Kinda like the theory that she was used to pick up women though....sorry folks, just hormones speaking outloud. |
^_^ | Indi wrote: |
| Vrythramax wrote: | | However, from what I have read it seems a likleyhood that this person (if indeed she existed) would be reviled by religious standards, and as such would [over the course of years] take on the status of "Demoness", "Vampire", "Witch"...et al ad nauseum. It is a common traight of human beings to make what we don't understand, or that goes against what we have been taught to believe, into some kind of monster that may lurk in the shadows waiting for us. |
Oh yeah, certainly - every good story needs its villian(s).
Actually, you bring up a neat point. >_< What is the purpose of Lilith? Or, given that she has so many different interpretations and myths, what is the purpose of each myth? What aspects of Lilith are being depicted as "wrong" in each myth? What has she done that make her a villian, and why were those acts evil?
In the myth where she refused to be subservient to Adam, and left Eden of her own free will to become a demon hunted and harassed by angels of God - with a hundred of her children murdered every day just because Adam wanted her back and she didn't want to go - what exactly was her crime? What did she do to make her the villian of that myth? What is the myth trying to teach us?
In the Jewish interpretation of Lilith, it's a little easier. Lilith's failing that makes her a villian is her insatiable lust. The message seems to that not only has her lust damned her, it destroys her "victims" as well. To me, this seems to be a way of making lust an external sin. See, without this, what really is the harm of being a nymphomaniac? Unlike wrath, envy, greed and the like, lust seems to be a victimless sin. Lilith seems to have been invented as a way to show that lust can indeed be destructive - and at an extreme it is not only destructive to the person who lusts too much (Lilith, by being a demon and thus reviled by God), it is also destructive to others (her "victims"). By extension, it also serves as a warning to people to stay away from the lustful, for they could potentially destroy you.
So, in the same way that pride is Lucifer's failing, which makes him evil, lust is Lilith's. From that point of view, Lilith is the metaphorical embodiment of what is wrong with lust, and that is the purpose for her existence in Jewish mythology.
I'd be really curious to hear thoughts on the other aspect of the Lilith myth - her rejection of Adam and the fallout from that - and what that might be trying to teach us.
| Vrythramax wrote: | | Kinda like the theory that she was used to pick up women though....sorry folks, just hormones speaking outloud. |
^_^ |
Excellant! I think that the thought, or in this case the existance, of Lilith has been down-played by organized religions as a whole. "Better the demon we know" kind of mentality. Lilith she has been relegated to the status of "demoness" by religion, yes shs is reviled and hated by some texts,...so is my ex-girlfiend, doesn't mean she warrents this paticular status though.
Is it possible that some of the texts written about Lilith may be sexually biased? Is it a crime, or sin, to like your woman "on top"??
Please don't mis-interpret my post....I mean nothing more than the questions asked.
*EDITED* for glaring errors...sorry.i know a cartoon!
i wanted to post it but i could't find it
adam is sleeping , eve is awake
adam wake up and ask to her
"what are you doing"
she says
"i am counting your ribs" hello Vrythramax!! You said that Lilith was the first woman and Eve was the second one. Where did you get this info? I will not believe except if there's a verse in the Bible to prove it. If this info came from other source, then this is not true because everyone can publish books.
| sweet_lhizy wrote: |
| hello Vrythramax!! You said that Lilith was the first woman and Eve was the second one. Where did you get this info? I will not believe except if there's a verse in the Bible to prove it. If this info came from other source, then this is not true because everyone can publish books. |
Read your history...the bible was, and is, simply a book created by Constatine the great (a roman pagen) as a political manuvuer (ie the council of nicea).
Check your history before you bump an old topic.
And for the record...I never said Lilith was first...I asked.Wow. I have never heard of this! I'm not so sure I believe it, either. In my eyes, Eden is still the first woman.
Just fiction. Lilith is Hebrew for some kind of owl. The word only appears once in the verse mentioned in opening post:
Isa 34:14
(KJV+) The wild beasts of the desert6728 shall also meet6298 with854 the wild beasts of the island,338 and the satyr8163 shall cry7121 to5921 his fellow;7453 the screech owl3917 also389 shall rest7280 there,8033 and find4672 for herself a place of rest.4494
Strong says:
H3917
ìéìéú
lîylîyth
lee-leeth'
From H3915; a night spectre: - screech owl.
H3915 = night as in Gen1:5 and many other places.
Note that the following verse mentions an owl again, using a word unrelated to 'lilith'.
Isa 34:15 There8033 shall the great owl7091 make her nest,7077 and lay,4422 and hatch,1234 and gather1716 under her shadow:6738 there8033 shall the vultures1772 also389 be gathered,6908 every one802 with her mate.7468
H7091
÷ôּåæ
qippôz
kip-poze'
From an unused root meaning to contract, that is, spring forward; an arrow snake (as darting on its prey): - great owl.
Now here's a topic I thought had died....but simply because she is not mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean she could not have existed. I am not taking any side here, but there were many things left out of the Bible after the Council of Nicaea created the New testament.
The Bible wasn't a fax from God....it was written by man.
| Arnie wrote: |
Just fiction. Lilith is Hebrew for some kind of owl. The word only appears once in the verse mentioned in opening post:
Isa 34:14
(KJV+) The wild beasts of the desert6728 shall also meet6298 with854 the wild beasts of the island,338 and the satyr8163 shall cry7121 to5921 his fellow;7453 the screech owl3917 also389 shall rest7280 there,8033 and find4672 for herself a place of rest.4494
Strong says:
H3917
ìéìéú
lîylîyth
lee-leeth'
From H3915; a night spectre: - screech owl.
H3915 = night as in Gen1:5 and many other places.
Note that the following verse mentions an owl again, using a word unrelated to 'lilith'.
Isa 34:15 There8033 shall the great owl7091 make her nest,7077 and lay,4422 and hatch,1234 and gather1716 under her shadow:6738 there8033 shall the vultures1772 also389 be gathered,6908 every one802 with her mate.7468
H7091
÷ôּåæ
qippôz
kip-poze'
From an unused root meaning to contract, that is, spring forward; an arrow snake (as darting on its prey): - great owl. |
Ah, no. You misunderstood.
We don't actually know what the word "ללת" ("lilit") originally meant. The true intended meaning has been lost to time. Some versions translate it as "screech owl". Others as "vampire" or "night demon".
i believe that "night demon" or "night creature" is probably closer to the original meaning than anything to do with owls, where the "night demon" is a mythical creature that we don't know about anymore. That fits with the feel of the verse, which is describing a place - a kingdom - that has been abandoned by man, where wild and unclean animals from all over gather. The wild animals include animals from the deserts and the islands (which would normally never mix), and horrible, mythical monsters like dragons (v13) and... lilit - whatever lilit are. But putting owls in that description kinda deflates it. Whatever lilit were originally, the context of the verse suggests that they are considered unclean or evil (by the fact that they are listed here), they are nocturnal (by the root of the name), and they have some affiliation with female sexuality and/or lust (by virtue of the parallel with the satyr/he-goat). Yes, they could be owls... but if that's the case, why use a different word for owl in the next verse?
As you say, owls are mentioned in the next verse. But that actually weakens the case for them being in v14, too. v14 describes the assortment of wild creatures that have gathered in that place in ways that you would never see normally. v15 then describes how owls and vultures have taken nest in the ruins - both birds were considered unclean scavengers. Owls fit there, very nicely actually. If v14 were describing owls taking nest... why does v15 then decide to repeat that? And why does it use different words?
And Strong actually agrees with that. From the way you pasted the Strong's info, i can't tell if you realize that you've misused it or not. But in your paste:
| Quote: |
H3917
ìéìéú
lîylîyth
lee-leeth'
From H3915; a night spectre: - screech owl. |
The red part is the actual definition of the word (so far as we can determine). The blue part is what it's translated as in the KJV.
So, no, lilit is not Hebrew for owl. It is Hebrew for "night spectre", according to what you have pasted. It was translated as owl.
In my Strong's it gives the definition as:
| Quote: |
"Lilith", name of a female goddess known as a night demon who haunts the desolate places of Edom
1. might be a nocturnal animal that inhabits desolate places |
(It then goes on to note that it is used once in the bible, and the KJV translates it as screech owl). That definition fits with the analysis i made above.
(For the second word, my Strong's notes that it means arrow snake or owl, and that the KJV translates it as great owl.)Quite a coincidence then that there's another owl in the next verse. The context strongly suggests that it's an animal.
| Arnie wrote: |
| Quite a coincidence then that there's another owl in the next verse. |
No, you're still not getting it - it's actually not a coincidence. It only looks like a coincidence because you're seeing the final result, not the original text and the process of translation. There's not another owl in the following verse, there's another word translated as owl.
The KJV translates four words as owl in Isaiah 34. H3244 in v11; H3284 in v13; H3917 in v14; and H7091 in v15.
Now when the KJV translators in 1604-1611 sat down to try to translate these verses, they knew Hebrew, but they didn't have the kinds of detailed etymology that we have today - and they certainly didn't have the volume of research on Biblical Hebrew that we have now (remember, Biblical Hebrew was and is a dead language, and wasn't used for anything but reading religious texts between the 4th and 19th centuries, and in fact had to be reconstructed at one point). When they were confronted with words they didn't know the meaning of, they didn't really have anywhere to turn except Jewish tradition and previous translations, such as the Latin Vulgate. In other words, it was pretty much a matter of guesswork.
So they are presented with Isaiah 34, which is a tale of a kingdom that has fallen out of God's good grace and now lies in ruins, and is now populated only by a laundry list of nasty creatures. The KJV translators didn't know what many of the words literally meant, and they didn't understand the original intent. Was the original intent to list real animals in an attempt to ground the story in reality? Or was it to list fantasy creatures in an attempt to create allegory? Further complicating the issue were questions like: which animals did the ancient writers consider real, and which did they consider fantasy? And now today we have an additional problem trying to determine which animals the KJV translators thought were real.
What the KJV translated opted to do was to interpret it all as literal truth, not allegory - which means the animals listed must all be real. Thus whenever they encountered an animal name that they didn't recognize, they assumed it was a real-life animal - not a mythological one. And of course, the concept of extinction didn't occur to them.
So they translated all of the animals as real animals not supernatural or mythological ones... but there's a catch. The animals they thought were real include animals that we now know of as mythological, such as dragons and unicorns. So they thought they were being quite literal, although we now don't see it that way.
Anyway, when presented with animal names that they didn't understand, they tried their damndest to make them real-life animals. That's how unicorns ended up in there. The actual word isn't the Hebrew word for unicorns, but that's the only thing the KJV translators could think of that made sense given the context and the root. They mucked up other places too, such as when they translated as bittern - we now know that was just plain wrong.
So they had these four words to translate that they didn't know what to do with. One (H3244) was clearly owl, no problems there. The rest were ambiguous.
One (H3284) was related to the word for "ostrich" but translated literally as "daughters of the owl". Ostrich just sounded wrong in context (and it probably was wrong), but owl didn't sound so bad. So they just threw up their hands and put "owl", not bothering to question what the "daughters" part meant. Most likely the word referred to some other kind of bird, possibly real, possibly mythological (and once again, we don't know whether the ancient writers thought it was real or mythological). The true meaning was lost to time, so they opted for owls. But owls is most likely not the correct translation.
H7091 is even more ambiguous. It comes from a root meaning to contract or spring forward (as you noted), and the translation offered is "arrow snake". i don't know what an arrow snake is - maybe an adder or a whip snake - but then neither did the KJV translators. All they knew was that they had a creature that did something releating to breaking apart (they assumed hatching) and made nests and hid in shadows. They guessed owl. This one i don't agree with because the context doesn't really sound owlish. Do owls gather in groups? Not really, they're solitary birds. Do owls contract and spring? No, not really, they swoop. On the other hand, owls do fit nicely in the context of predatory birds, which comes up in the second clause of the verse. So i don't think it was originally meant to be an owl, but i can see how the KJV translators opted for that. Nice parallel they made too - vultures are day scavengers and owls are night scavengers. But while it may be aesthetically pleasing, that doesn't mean it was the original meaning. In fact, it very probably wasn't, or they would have used the word for owls, which they used elsewhere. It was probably something else, maybe not even a bird. Once again, the real meaning has been lost to time. But owls is most likely not the correct translation.
And finally, lilit. All the KJV translators knew was that it was a night creature. Nothing more, nothing less. They guessed owl. The context suggests that the original intent was a creature associated with female sexuality, because the previous clause is about male goats. There is also an element of strangeness or unnaturalness hinted at. Given the context, "Lilith" isn't actually a bad choice, because she is noted in Jewish tradition as a female demon/succubus kind of thing, and is associated with night. But i think it's more likely a creature or animal named for Lilith, not literally Lilith. That creature may or may not be mythological - it may even be mythological but the ancient Jews thought it was real. Personally, i think that "night demon" fits the bill best. And once again, owls is most likely not the correct translation.
So out of the four words translated as owl, only one is actually owl and the other four are a bit of a stretch. But it's easy to see why the KJV translators chose owl in each case. That is why you see what you identify as a coincidence. It's not a real coincidence, it's a case of the KJV translators making guesses for the names of animals that they didn't have based only on the characteristics they can see from the context. Given that the context is one of desolation and mystery, and generally the animals are mysterious, unclean predators, it's not really surprising that they translated anything vaguely night or bird oriented as owl. Most other translations don't do that.
One more thing to consider. Except for owls, every animal in Isaiah 34 is mentioned once. That kind of fits the narrative form - it's a list of animals that have taken nest in an abandoned kingdom, and when making a list most people don't repeat themselves. Only one instance of owl is actually owl, and the others can all be interpreted as something else. Interpreting them as something else actually makes more sense, both by considering the words individually, and by looking at the larger narrative.
| Arnie wrote: |
| The context strongly suggests that it's an animal. |
Absolutely true.
But, dragons are animals too. You argue that they're not because they're mythological. i point out that the ancient Jews did not know that, and considered them quite real.
The lilit, whatever they were, may have been mythological demon-creatures, and still considered to be quite real by the ancient Jews. | Vrythramax wrote: |
...the bible was, and is, simply a book created by Constatine the great (a roman pagen) as a political manuvuer (ie the council of nicea).
|
I cannot add much about Lilith, because where the Bible is silent I prefer to be silent also. It appears to me that the Gen 2 creation story describes in detail what was stated briefly in Gen 1:25-29.
The emporer Constantine never created the Bible, since parts of it existed at least 1500 years earlier, and even the New Testament books can be shown to exist and be accepted as reliable during the second century. Neither did Constantine choose which books were to be included, since there was a long-standing tradition about the use of most of them. At the most, you might give him credit for including the seven NT books that were still questioned, and for eliminating three or four other books that might have been included.
Constantine could not have modified the books, either, as they were already widely available in different versions, spread throughout the ancient world. Least of all could he have made any changes to the Jewish scriptures, as these were maintained by Jewish scribes and beyond his control. In addition there were the Septuagint and the Samaratin Pentateuch to compare with. What he would not even have known about, is that the Dead Sea Scrolls would someday surface to be another witness for the reliability of the original text.I have nothing further to add. This way, you can make a whole theory behind everything. I have yet to see the proof.
1) The parts of the Bible that were "edited out" were done so usually because the only copy was in pretty bad repair (The Apocrypha were omitted because they were in a pretty sorry state, and thus were either unreadable or untranslatable). The KJV is probably the worst translation; but that's a personal opinion...
2) Wish I could add more about her being the first wife of Adam. But it is interesting that it was apparently because of her need to be superior, not Adam's; if she hadn't made it a political statement about who was on top I don't think there would have been a problem 
...After all, most guys don't really care as long as they are invited in on the act !
HM Feel lucky: Eve could have ended up with the snake...
You know, I'm sort of curious if Lilith inspired any of the distraught insane women, like Medea or Morgan Le Fey. It seems to have all of the hallmarks of the usual "mad women" stories (messed up by a man, children killed, and the possibility of supreme power, but it somehow eludes them). I know she wasn't that big prior to the Middle Ages, but still, it is interesting to add another woman to that category.
If I had to argue that people have been arguing about feminist rights for a while, she's definitely in the evidence pile...
HM | HereticMonkey wrote: |
Feel lucky: Eve could have ended up with the snake...
You know, I'm sort of curious if Lilith inspired any of the distraught insane women, like Medea or Morgan Le Fey. It seems to have all of the hallmarks of the usual "mad women" stories (messed up by a man, children killed, and the possibility of supreme power, but it somehow eludes them). I know she wasn't that big prior to the Middle Ages, but still, it is interesting to add another woman to that category.
If I had to argue that people have been arguing about feminist rights for a while, she's definitely in the evidence pile...
HM |
If one is to put any stock in the myth's about Lilith...she was the founder of women's rights as have been known throughout time. She isn't part of the evidence pile, she started it.I'm not christian or a believer of the bible, but personally (no offence to anyone) i think it doesn't matter who came first, though its food for thought. Men & Woman can never be equal physically or mentally. There are somethings we do better, and others that they do better at.
Anyway not to digress, after doing my research and reading the posts , i still can't decide on who came first, but i'd say it's possible that before eve there was somebody, likewise before adam there could have been someone, just that it prolly was never documented.
Adam - the first Man. Homo Sapien? Homo Habilis? Homo Erectus? or was he the famed neandrathal man?
or was he a representation of the dawning of civilization as we know it?
to take the timeline of genesis there would have to be other women besides Eve. as we have previously seen in this thread that there was a time when God created male and female in his image. then we see that Eve is created from the rib of Adam. then a garden is constructed for the two of them. how lucky for them that the lord god created them after his image and provided for them. this is compasion and love. but there where others. for when eve eats of the fruit of knowledge God bans adam and eve from the garden. once they are out of the garden eve bares her first son: cain. and another Able. once cain kills able God curses him and he is not able to produce from the ground no more and must leave. he tells god that surely others will kill him for what he has done. but lest God places a mark upon Cain so that all will know that if they shall kill Cain that God will avenge him 7 fold.
i ask you who are these others that Cain will encounter? where did they come from? and was there already murder in the land since others would have notion of the idea of commiting murder?
| ralphbefree wrote: |
Adam - the first Man. Homo Sapien? Homo Habilis? Homo Erectus? or was he the famed neandrathal man?
or was he a representation of the dawning of civilization as we know it?
to take the timeline of genesis there would have to be other women besides Eve. as we have previously seen in this thread that there was a time when God created male and female in his image. then we see that Eve is created from the rib of Adam. then a garden is constructed for the two of them. how lucky for them that the lord god created them after his image and provided for them. this is compasion and love. but there where others. for when eve eats of the fruit of knowledge God bans adam and eve from the garden. once they are out of the garden eve bares her first son: cain. and another Able. once cain kills able God curses him and he is not able to produce from the ground no more and must leave. he tells god that surely others will kill him for what he has done. but lest God places a mark upon Cain so that all will know that if they shall kill Cain that God will avenge him 7 fold.
i ask you who are these others that Cain will encounter? where did they come from? and was there already murder in the land since others would have notion of the idea of commiting murder? |
That's not really a good question. >_< One could simply say the others would be his other brothers and sisters that Eve had afterwards. Cain and Abel may have been the first children... there is no indication whatsoever that they were the only children (and we know that they cannot have been).
The others might also have been Cain's and/or Abel's children. There is no clear indication that i can recall that both Cain and Abel weren't already married with kids.I started this post, but now it's getting out of hand.
-locked-
I started this topic, and it taken a bad turn from some users. locked by me...if another mod wishes to open it...fine....but I will have no further compliance.
