Author Topic: Adam's 1st wife  (Read 3483 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Sarevok

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2013, 11:27:47 PM »
Apologies for this long post. Lots of things to respond to.

@screwtape:
That mentions a creature that was given the name Lilith.
How many Liliths do you think there were?  That's sort of like saying "Sure, it says 'Adam' got kicked out of eden, but that was Adam Finkelstein.  Adam Munchnik got to stay."
Point being the creature was not given the name Lilith after Adam's apparent first wife, it was called a Lilith simply as a name to give the creature, after which the folklore filled in gaps and associated Adam's first wife with the same name (several centuries later). Note also that originally lilith was a group of beings, which was then consolidated into a single being.

I don't see how that references the Genesis account.
In what way does it not?  I said the story was found in the Talmud, which, if I understand correctly, is used to expound on, clarify and interpret the Torah, aka, the Old Testament.  So if it is found there in relation to Adam, Eve and creation, then it relates to the the genesis account.
So the Talmud is like a biblical cometary these days? Someone's opinion/view about what is written. And this is obviously infallible, and in no way is influence by the writer? I say this to elaborate on what was mentioned when people tried to consolidate Gen1 and Gen2. They felt the need to fill in this cap, but there is no need.

@Quesi:
...If you simply take Chapter1 as a quick overview, and Chapter2 as expanding on the 6th day.
Or if you understand that those reflect two separate-but-similar stories from two separate-but-similar nations who combined cultures, myths and stories, then it makes more sense.   Check out the Documentary Hypothesis.  Suddenly the Pentateuch will make more sense.
To my knowledge, the Genesis account was written by one man, and the event was recounted by God to this man. If that book demonstrates otherwise, can you provide the extract? Saves me buying the book, waiting for shipping, reading the whole thing, THEN responding to this claim  :)

I always wondered?  If Eve had not eaten the apple would they ave just lived and that was it.  No pain of child birth which means no other humans?  And why did God make like 10,000 different kinds of butterflies and differnet kinds of birds and etc. but only 2 humans?  Why not a bunch of us all at once.  Seems like His odds of getting some of us right would have been better.  Maybe He just did not think this all thru very good?
Pain of childbirth came as a result of what happened in the garden. Originally, there wasn't going to be pain for childbirth, but now there is. So the human population would have still been able to reproduce.
You are assuming the number of different types of butterfly. Who's to say there was more than 1 pair?

(removed for space)
I thought about that, I really did. However, the point still stands. Christianity branched off of Judaism, a religion in which if you dont include Lillith you basically admits is folklore. You cant base your religion off of another religion, then claim that religion is mythology. Either you include Lillith or you admit to being mythology. There is no way around it.
So what you are trying to say is, if Judaism changed TODAY, Christianity MUST take on board that change. Despite splitting from Judaism over 2000 years ago.
If so, I don't agree. There are other religions based of Christianity, and I doubt they'd change if we suddenly changed what we believe, and I don't think they need to.
If not, then I believe my point stands. The name association of Lilith has nothing to do with Christianity, since it was developed after the split. The origins of Adam's first wife I would have to delve into deeper.

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #30 on: January 10, 2013, 07:13:21 AM »
(removed for space)
I thought about that, I really did. However, the point still stands. Christianity branched off of Judaism, a religion in which if you dont include Lillith you basically admits is folklore. You cant base your religion off of another religion, then claim that religion is mythology. Either you include Lillith or you admit to being mythology. There is no way around it.
So what you are trying to say is, if Judaism changed TODAY, Christianity MUST take on board that change. Despite splitting from Judaism over 2000 years ago.
If so, I don't agree. There are other religions based of Christianity, and I doubt they'd change if we suddenly changed what we believe, and I don't think they need to.
If not, then I believe my point stands. The name association of Lilith has nothing to do with Christianity, since it was developed after the split. The origins of Adam's first wife I would have to delve into deeper.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. When you base your religion off of another, you are held hostage by that religion's whims. When you start admitting that some of what they do is mythology and story telling you are saying your religion is based off of myths and story telling, no matter when they ADD to their mythology.

Look at it like this. In a court case they call witnesses to the stand. One of the strategies for the opposing side of any witness is to make the jury question the credibility of the witness;

"Mark Furhman, have you ever used the "N-word"?
"No."
"Well, explain this tape of you using the "N-word" then.
"Uhhhhh"

See, that destroyed his credibility, and much of the prosecution's case was built around him being a credible witness.

In this instance, Judaism is your witness, without Judaism YOU HAVE NO CASE AT ALL. So for you to release the tape of Judaism lying or making stuff up you destroy your own case. Thus you must take on anything that Judaism takes on or admit to have built your headquarters out of soda cans. And that goes for any religion that based itself on Christianity/Judaism...... star & cresent.

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1202
  • Darwins +75/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #31 on: January 10, 2013, 09:48:31 AM »
The Gawd, Christianity began to split from Judaism in 50 CE at the Council of Jerusalem. They are two separate religions, and have been for nearly 2000 years. Christians believe Jesus fulfilled the Jewish prophecies and instituted a new law for all people, and thus we are no longer tied to the nation of Israel.

Also, for the nth time, the Lilith myth is not part of the Jewish religion. It is folklore.
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12548
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #32 on: January 10, 2013, 10:45:37 AM »
Point being the creature was not given the name Lilith after Adam's apparent first wife, it was called a Lilith simply as a name to give the creature, after which the folklore filled in gaps and associated Adam's first wife with the same name (several centuries later). Note also that originally lilith was a group of beings, which was then consolidated into a single being.

I didn't get that from my sources and you cite no references.

So the Talmud is like a biblical cometary these days?

These days?  what do you mean by that?  It was not like a biblical commentary.  It was the long version explanation of what the Torah meant.

Someone's opinion/view about what is written. And this is obviously infallible, and in no way is influence by the writer?

Of course it is fallible.  What view of the bible isn't?  But if you are the kind of person who sees the bible as THE TRUTH, then you need to understand that the Pentateuch - the foundation of xianity - was not taken by the Jews on it's own.  The Talmud was a collection of explanations and interpretations by their wisest and most knowledgeable rabbis.  So it is not just some joe-schmoe's opinion.  I get to call it that because I think the whole thing is malarkey.  But you, a bible believer, do not have the luxury of being so dismissive.  For several hundred years the OT meant specific things, as explained in the Talmud.  You cannot just write all that off.


To my knowledge, the Genesis account was written by one man,

You would be wrong. 100%.  It is the consensus of Biblical scholars - scholars, not apologists - that the DH is fundamentally sound, even if they quibble over the particulars.   

Saves me buying the book, waiting for shipping, reading the whole thing, THEN responding to this claim

Go to your local library.  If they do not have it, they can probably get it.   Wiki has a reasonably good, though brief, explanation.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

You should know that this did not come out of thin air.  It is an attempt to reconcile archaeological findings and evidence with what it written.  Once upon a time, European archaeologists ran around the middle east trying to use the bible as their guide.  They failed horribly.  When they stopped taking the bible as literal history, and used the physical evidence of what they found, things fell into place.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Sarevok

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #33 on: January 10, 2013, 10:57:13 PM »
@The Gawd:
I understand the point your making, if Christianity was a sect that maintained all changes to Judaism and extended upon them to keep itself a we shale say "valid belief". But answer me this, isn't the following example a more accurate portrayal of what is going on:
Lets say a gang, we'll go with gangX, contained two different groups of people, groupY and groupZ. They all believe the same thing, as they are apart of the same group. Say gangX changes the membership rules to you have to kill someone to join. groupZ doesn't support this idea, and leaves gangX. groupZ decide to form a new gang, gangA. 5 years go by, and gangX decide you now have to kill an entire family to join. Would you say that gangA should adopt this approach/belief, since its parent gang (gangX) did? Or that since they are now separate entities, there is no need. My belief is that there is no need, and that groupY is Judaism, and groupZ is Christianity (and no, I'm not calling Jews murders, it is an example of changing belief system)


I didn't get that from my sources and you cite no references.
Sorry, thought I did:
http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishculture/a/Where-Does-The-Legend-Of-Lilith-Come-From.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#In_the_Bible (Under Hebrew text)

So the Talmud is like a biblical cometary these days?
These days?  what do you mean by that?  It was not like a biblical commentary.  It was the long version explanation of what the Torah meant.
I meant that someone looked at what was written, and tried to fill in gaps, explain things, like bible commentaries do these days.

For several hundred years the OT meant specific things, as explained in the Talmud.  You cannot just write all that off.
I'm not writing it off, though I may appear to do so. What I don't agree to is an interpretation of the OT, developed around 600 years after Christianity's split from Judaism, suddenly being required belief, because the religion another religion came from adopts an idea further down the track, like my gang example. Your opinion maybe different, and that is fine. But until someone can step me through how that can possibly work, my belief will remain that, it was developed after Christianity's foundation, thus whilst it affects where Christianity came from, it is not what Christianity was initially based off.

Once upon a time, European archaeologists ran around the middle east trying to use the bible as their guide.  They failed horribly.  When they stopped taking the bible as literal history, and used the physical evidence of what they found, things fell into place.
I also know that modern day scholars claimed the bible was wrong, because they found no evidence of cities mentioned. And later down the track, they DID find these cities after all.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12548
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #34 on: January 11, 2013, 10:43:44 AM »
Sorry, thought I did:
http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishculture/a/Where-Does-The-Legend-Of-Lilith-Come-From.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#In_the_Bible (Under Hebrew text)

thanks for the links.  I did not find in either of them support for your claim that there was an animal they called a lilith.  It appears ambiguous to me at the very least . 


What I don't agree to is an interpretation of the OT, developed around 600 years after Christianity's split from Judaism, suddenly being required belief, because the religion another religion came from adopts an idea further down the track,

I can see why you wouldn't want to agree to that.  But if the jews really are connected with yhwh, then why should their new understandings of the religion that is the foundation of yours be ignored so easily?   

...it was developed after Christianity's foundation, thus whilst it affects where Christianity came from, it is not what Christianity was initially based off.

It updates what xianity was initially based off.  It means xianity was initially based off something either wrong or incomplete.  I hate using analogies, but I cannot think of a better way to explain it.  The foundation of physics is math.  My initial understanding of physics was based on regular arithmetic.  When I learned calculus, it changed the foundation of physics.  I had to update how I did physics based on my new knowledge.  If I had not done that, my understanding of physics would be... off.  Incomplete.  In some cases, just wrong.

I know, I know, it is a travesty to compare science and religion.  But that is not the point I am making.  The point is if the foundation was changed, the derivative should also be changed.  Otherwise, the derivative is working on outdated information.

I am surprised by your gang analogy.  It treats religious beliefs as arbitrary social ideas that can be changed whimsically.  We are talking about The Truth, in capital letters, as handed down or inspired by the supreme ruler of all being.  If the jews are in fact the chosen people and they do in fact have some connection to the god known as yhwh, and you believe that, then you should take seriously their interpretations, post-xianity or not, because any updates they make or flaws they find also pertain to xianity.

I also know that modern day scholars claimed the bible was wrong, because they found no evidence of cities mentioned. And later down the track, they DID find these cities after all.

I am not so sure they used such definitive language, but in some cases that may be true.  In other cases, they still have not found the cites.  And in yet other cases they found the cities but they could not possibly have existed (or were completely uninhabited) when the bible said they did.  And they have done exactly has they should. 

What point are you trying to make here?  As far as I am aware, you've not yet read anything about the Documentary Hypothesis, and you are already laying the ground for dismissing it simply because it sounds like it might disagree with one or so of your preposterous beliefs.  What gives? Do you not want the best, most accurate understanding of the bible?  Your mortal soul depends on you getting it right.


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6771
  • Darwins +542/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #35 on: January 13, 2013, 11:49:49 AM »
Christians believe Jesus fulfilled the Jewish prophecies and instituted a new law for all people, and thus we are no longer tied to the nation of Israel.
Christians should believe what Christ said: "M't:10:5: These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
M't:10:6: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
M't:10:7: And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
M't:10:8: Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.


That explains why God doesn't heal Gentiles.

M't:15:22: And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
M't:15:23: But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
M't:15:24: But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


Now it strikes me that Jesus had a mission on Earth. He was sent to explain God to the Jews. He is most clear that the Gentiles don't count.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 11:53:15 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10491
  • Darwins +189/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #36 on: January 13, 2013, 11:52:42 AM »
Damn Gentiles...where are those people today?
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2013, 07:32:14 PM »
If this story is widely accepted in the Jewish tradition and religion then it HAS to be part of the Christian tradition considering it piggybacked off of the Jewish religion.
You're making the assumption that Judaism's myths and traditions became frozen in place when Christianity developed.  Judaism has continued to develop as its own religion for the past 2000 years.

Excellent! So, Judaism myths and traditions "continued to develop" in the same method it had started, by men sitting around making stuff up? That's what this sounds like.
But of course when Jesus came around to save Mooby, he was a jew and he knew all of this stuff was just made up shit that would continue to develop into a very fanciful story. So he didn't change any thing from the previous "developments."
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12663
  • Darwins +332/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2013, 05:01:57 PM »
Well, they made up Exodus, why not everything else?

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #39 on: January 14, 2013, 07:17:27 PM »
how does the saying go?

"What a tangled web we weave when we conspire to deceive..."

look at all the twisting and turning Christians have to do to justify their book, beliefs, and dogma... well, thats what happens when you conspire to deceive. I mean theres a system of apologetics to explain away all the BS... quite telling.

Offline Sarevok

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #40 on: January 14, 2013, 08:18:08 PM »
thanks for the links.  I did not find in either of them support for your claim that there was an animal they called a lilith.  It appears ambiguous to me at the very least .
In wikipedia, Lilith is described as an owl-like creature "there she-shall-nest the great-owl". About.com says "many believe she was inspired by Sumerian myths about female vampires called “Lillu” or Mesopotamian myths about succubae (female night demons) called “lilin.”"; describing lilith as a vampire or saccubae.

I can see why you wouldn't want to agree to that.  But if the jews really are connected with yhwh, then why should their new understandings of the religion that is the foundation of yours be ignored so easily?
Because Christianity is based of what Judaism used to believe, not what they believe today. Also, Jesus dismissed many traditions introduced by the Rabbis, and since Christianity is based off the Christ (hence the name), and far less so Jewish tradition, I don't see why this idea should be adopted.

It updates what xianity was initially based off.  It means xianity was initially based off something either wrong or incomplete.
No, it means the Rabbis believed it was wrong or incomplete, and tried to fill in gaps they saw. Since they themselves added it, it is not part of the original text, but something added to explain what is observed.

I am surprised by your gang analogy.  It treats religious beliefs as arbitrary social ideas that can be changed whimsically.
Perhaps it is a bad analogy. If you can find a better to replace it go ahead, analogies are not my strong suit. However I thought it demonstrates how just because one group changes its mind, does not mean a group based of the inital group, should also adopt this change.

We are talking about The Truth, in capital letters, as handed down or inspired by the supreme ruler of all being.  If the jews are in fact the chosen people and they do in fact have some connection to the god known as yhwh, and you believe that, then you should take seriously their interpretations, post-xianity or not, because any updates they make or flaws they find also pertain to xianity.
If the flaws they find can be shown to be non-existent, then I fail to see how it has an impact.

I am not so sure they used such definitive language, but in some cases that may be true.  In other cases, they still have not found the cites.  And in yet other cases they found the cities but they could not possibly have existed (or were completely uninhabited) when the bible said they did.  And they have done exactly has they should.
Care to provide the examples? I mean, you like to request sources, but I see none for your claims. I didn't give any also, this is true, but I was only replying to what you said, which initially had no sources anyway.

What point are you trying to make here?  As far as I am aware, you've not yet read anything about the Documentary Hypothesis, and you are already laying the ground for dismissing it simply because it sounds like it might disagree with one or so of your preposterous beliefs.  What gives? Do you not want the best, most accurate understanding of the bible?  Your mortal soul depends on you getting it right.
I have actually read up on it, despite what you think. Off the top of my head, the hypothesis is that there are four writing styles, and thus four different writers. The majority of the books, or sets of books, that are supposed to be written by one author, instead appear to be written by either several authors, or one author, and other writers have gone through and filled in the gaps to flesh out what is written. How did I go?

Offline Sarevok

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #41 on: January 14, 2013, 08:22:58 PM »
look at all the twisting and turning Christians have to do to justify their book, beliefs, and dogma... well, thats what happens when you conspire to deceive. I mean theres a system of apologetics to explain away all the BS... quite telling.
I find your statement amusing. The topic here is about Adam's apparent first wife. Ironically, the twisting and turning is not from us, but the history of Lilith. Firstly, early rabbis believe they found an issue with Genesis, and try to fill the gap by assigning Adam two wives. Then the concept of creatures called Lilith/Lili/Lilu develops. Centuries later the name of these creatures is taken and given to Adam's wife. Then a story is written about why Lilith didn't stay Adam's wife, and why Eve was created.

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1202
  • Darwins +75/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2013, 10:38:13 PM »
Christians believe Jesus fulfilled the Jewish prophecies and instituted a new law for all people, and thus we are no longer tied to the nation of Israel.
Christians should believe what Christ said: "M't:10:5: These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
M't:10:6: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
M't:10:7: And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
M't:10:8: Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.


That explains why God doesn't heal Gentiles.

M't:15:22: And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
M't:15:23: But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
M't:15:24: But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


Now it strikes me that Jesus had a mission on Earth. He was sent to explain God to the Jews. He is most clear that the Gentiles don't count.
You are absolutely correct with the first part, but you stopped halfway through the story that's the turning point of Jesus' ministry.  This is especially pronounced in the Gospel of Mark, where he uses chiastic structure to illustrate the shift of Jesus' mission from the political savior of Israel (messiah) the Jews were expecting to the spiritual savior of the world.

I foresee that being a rather long discussion, though, probably deserving of an entire thread.  For now, I'll just point out that you stopped right before Jesus started showing that Gentiles do count.


Excellent! So, Judaism myths and traditions "continued to develop" in the same method it had started, by men sitting around making stuff up? That's what this sounds like.
But of course when Jesus came around to save Mooby, he was a jew and he knew all of this stuff was just made up shit that would continue to develop into a very fanciful story. So he didn't change any thing from the previous "developments."
Right.  Other than the 600+ Jewish laws dropped and an entirely new Christian theology added, not a single thing changed.


Also, the Lilith myth is not part of Jewish theology. 
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #43 on: January 15, 2013, 08:25:17 AM »
look at all the twisting and turning Christians have to do to justify their book, beliefs, and dogma... well, thats what happens when you conspire to deceive. I mean theres a system of apologetics to explain away all the BS... quite telling.
I find your statement amusing. The topic here is about Adam's apparent first wife. Ironically, the twisting and turning is not from us, but the history of Lilith. Firstly, early rabbis believe they found an issue with Genesis, and try to fill the gap by assigning Adam two wives. Then the concept of creatures called Lilith/Lili/Lilu develops. Centuries later the name of these creatures is taken and given to Adam's wife. Then a story is written about why Lilith didn't stay Adam's wife, and why Eve was created.
Okay, and Christianity stood on those shoulders to create itself. So Christianity is built upon what Christians would call shaky ground. So the twisting and turning occurs when you have to explain why this bit is not in Christianity, then how Judaism was okay to build upon then and it got mythological afterwards... How you cannot see that you are in one stance saying Judaism is true and in the other moment that they are full of shit. And we're supposed to ignore this problem for you?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12548
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #44 on: January 15, 2013, 11:21:08 AM »
In wikipedia, Lilith is described as an owl-like creature "there she-shall-nest the great-owl".

That was not my understanding.  I saw that as an alternative translation, no?

About.com says "many believe she was inspired by Sumerian myths about female vampires called “Lillu” or Mesopotamian myths about succubae (female night demons) called “lilin.”"; describing lilith as a vampire or saccubae.

??  I don't see the point.  she was a demonic presence in the hebrew mythology as well.  And if you want to go down the road of comparative religion, you are not going to like how El and yhwh come out, particularly when we get into yhwh's wife.

Because Christianity is based of what Judaism used to believe, not what they believe today.

I must not have articulated my point well.

1. judaism is legitimate in that it accurately portrays history and the correct relationship with a particular god.
2. xianity is based on judaism.  thus, xianity is legitimate.
3. judaism discovers it got a few things wrong.
4. that means xianity was not completely legitimate afterall.

The way you make it sound, judaism is just a bunch of cultural preferences that jews are free to change any time they like.  But if that is the case, it was never legitimate to begin with, and thus xianity is rotten at its foundation.  By the way, that was the conclusion I came to and how I came to it when I lost my faith.  I saw the OT as mythology and bullshit, thus anything based on it was also mythology and bullshit. 

Quote
Also, Jesus dismissed many traditions introduced by the Rabbis

that is debatable.  You know, jots and tittles and all.

Quote
since Christianity is based off the Christ (hence the name), and far less so Jewish tradition,

christ is supposed to be the jewish messiah.  No jewish tradition, no christ.  That means christ, hence xianity, is completely dependent on jewish tradition.  They are inextricably linked.


Quote
No, it means the Rabbis believed it was wrong or incomplete, and tried to fill in gaps they saw. Since they themselves added it, it is not part of the original text, but something added to explain what is observed.

You act as if yhwh were not inspiring their thoughts and interpretations.  You act as if the OT were conceived as one, monolithic text in a single sitting.  Every part of the bible has had "the original" added to in some way.  The fable about the jews bringing the adulteress to jesus H where he says "let he who is sinless among you cast the first stone"?  Fabricated centuries after John was "originally" written.  And do not forget the Comma Johanneum - the whole idea of the triune god was added!  Everything by Paul was decades after jesus H.

And if the jews were legitimate, and you believe in this sort of thing, then it is perfectly reasonable to think their later additions were also legitimate.



Quote
Perhaps it is a bad analogy. If you can find a better to replace it go ahead, analogies are not my strong suit.

Don't feel bad.  Analogies are always a pain in the ass, especially in a situation where you are trying to communicate with someone who disagrees with you.  Analogies are never perfect.  The discussion becomes about the analogy and not the point you were trying to make. Sorry if I made it that.

Quote
Care to provide the examples? I mean, you like to request sources, but I see none for your claims. I didn't give any also, this is true, but I was only replying to what you said, which initially had no sources anyway.

Jericho was empty at the time the jews "conquored" it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho#Historicity

exodus never happened.
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2004/12/Did-The-Exodus-Really-Happen.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity
the important source in wiki is the Finkelstein book The Bible Unearthed.  He is pretty much authoritative on the subject.

Quote
How did I go?

Fair to middlin'.  And you reject it why?
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #45 on: January 16, 2013, 06:46:12 AM »
@The Gawd:
I understand the point your making, if Christianity was a sect that maintained all changes to Judaism and extended upon them to keep itself a we shale say "valid belief". But answer me this, isn't the following example a more accurate portrayal of what is going on:
Lets say a gang, we'll go with gangX, contained two different groups of people, groupY and groupZ. They all believe the same thing, as they are apart of the same group. Say gangX changes the membership rules to you have to kill someone to join. groupZ doesn't support this idea, and leaves gangX. groupZ decide to form a new gang, gangA. 5 years go by, and gangX decide you now have to kill an entire family to join. Would you say that gangA should adopt this approach/belief, since its parent gang (gangX) did? Or that since they are now separate entities, there is no need. My belief is that there is no need, and that groupY is Judaism, and groupZ is Christianity (and no, I'm not calling Jews murders, it is an example of changing belief system)

Sorry I missed this post.

Thats is not a valid analogy at all. We dont have two groups of people side by side. We have Jews who dont believe Jesus was the messiah, period. They had their religion and customs. One "gang" if you will. Theyre already established. Then you have, after some time, a new gang that come about that agrees with the Jews, but wants to add to what the Jews already have.

A better example is mathematics. You start with the basic concepts of math and work your way up algebra, geometry, calc, trig, etc. What youre trying to do is claim to be Calculus while discrediting all the math you had to learn to get to that point. It cant be done since calc relies upon everything you learned thus far.

Now, I want to be clear that this is not a perfect example either because math is verifiable and it works, which are two characteristics it doesnt share with religion. But the idea is the same.

Offline Sarevok

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #46 on: January 17, 2013, 11:10:39 PM »
I find your statement amusing. The topic here is about Adam's apparent first wife. Ironically, the twisting and turning is not from us, but the history of Lilith. Firstly, early rabbis believe they found an issue with Genesis, and try to fill the gap by assigning Adam two wives. Then the concept of creatures called Lilith/Lili/Lilu develops. Centuries later the name of these creatures is taken and given to Adam's wife. Then a story is written about why Lilith didn't stay Adam's wife, and why Eve was created.
Okay, and Christianity stood on those shoulders to create itself. So Christianity is built upon what Christians would call shaky ground. So the twisting and turning occurs when you have to explain why this bit is not in Christianity, then how Judaism was okay to build upon then and it got mythological afterwards... How you cannot see that you are in one stance saying Judaism is true and in the other moment that they are full of shit. And we're supposed to ignore this problem for you?
How about we define what were talking about and go from there. Perhaps it is just me, but I think we are merging two events that should be looked at separately. From what I've read, the concept of Adam's first wife, and this wife being called Lilith are two separate events.
The idea of Adam's first wife, arises sometime before Christ's birth (to my knowledge), and is used to explain what seems to be two different accounts of creation. Rabbis at the time noticed the difference, and tried to reconcile the two accounts by saying there was an original wife, followed by Eve. I don't think their interpretation was correct, and since they are now dead, they can not change their mind/correct themselves/clarify themselves. I also wish to note that what I believe, is that Christianity started when Jesus started he's ministry. The only thing Christianity used of Judaism was the Old Testament. So all folklore, rules, etc were left out.
The naming of Adam's first wife to be Lilith, occurred sometime in the 6th century CE. Why she hadn't been given a name for so long I have no idea, and why they decided then to give her that name, I also don't know. What I do know, is that the only reason Adam's first wife is called Lilith, is for simplicity's sake (in my opinion), as there was no prior evidence for this name.
I hope this clears up my view a little more. Perhaps the reason I seem to be changing from "Judaism is correct" to "Judaism is wrong", is trying to explain both previously mentioned scenarios every time in one reply.

@The Gawd:
I understand the point your making, if Christianity was a sect that maintained all changes to Judaism and extended upon them to keep itself a we shale say "valid belief". But answer me this, isn't the following example a more accurate portrayal of what is going on:
Lets say a gang, we'll go with gangX, contained two different groups of people, groupY and groupZ. They all believe the same thing, as they are apart of the same group. Say gangX changes the membership rules to you have to kill someone to join. groupZ doesn't support this idea, and leaves gangX. groupZ decide to form a new gang, gangA. 5 years go by, and gangX decide you now have to kill an entire family to join. Would you say that gangA should adopt this approach/belief, since its parent gang (gangX) did? Or that since they are now separate entities, there is no need. My belief is that there is no need, and that groupY is Judaism, and groupZ is Christianity (and no, I'm not calling Jews murders, it is an example of changing belief system)
Thats is not a valid analogy at all. We dont have two groups of people side by side. We have Jews who dont believe Jesus was the messiah, period. They had their religion and customs. One "gang" if you will. Theyre already established. Then you have, after some time, a new gang that come about that agrees with the Jews, but wants to add to what the Jews already have.
They didn't just come about though. Initially every Christian (before the "Gentiles" joined) was originally a Jew. Then Gentiles joined them. Hence one group came from another, as opposed to starting their own.

Offline Sarevok

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #47 on: January 18, 2013, 12:26:41 AM »
In wikipedia, Lilith is described as an owl-like creature "there she-shall-nest the great-owl".
That was not my understanding.  I saw that as an alternative translation, no?
Doesn't need to be. If one translated the description (had no name for it), and another the name of the creature, then the creature would be described as the first translation put it. I would say direct hebrew to english would be best to work out what is written.

About.com says "many believe she was inspired by Sumerian myths about female vampires called “Lillu” or Mesopotamian myths about succubae (female night demons) called “lilin.”"; describing lilith as a vampire or saccubae.
??  I don't see the point.  she was a demonic presence in the hebrew mythology as well.  And if you want to go down the road of comparative religion, you are not going to like how El and yhwh come out, particularly when we get into yhwh's wife.
When in hebrew mythology did the name come about.

Because Christianity is based of what Judaism used to believe, not what they believe today.
I must not have articulated my point well.

1. judaism is legitimate in that it accurately portrays history and the correct relationship with a particular god.
2. xianity is based on judaism.  thus, xianity is legitimate.
3. judaism discovers it got a few things wrong.
4. that means xianity was not completely legitimate afterall.
From my point of view:
1. The OT is legitimate in that it accurately portrays history
2. Christianity is based of Christ's teachings and the OT, thus making it legitimate
3. Judaism's beliefs based off the OT as well discover they got a few interpretations wrong
4. Christianity is unaffected, since it is based off the OT, and not Judaism.

Quote
Also, Jesus dismissed many traditions introduced by the Rabbis
that is debatable.  You know, jots and tittles and all.
Ok, lets leave this out then

Quote
since Christianity is based off the Christ (hence the name), and far less so Jewish tradition,
christ is supposed to be the jewish messiah.  No jewish tradition, no christ.  That means christ, hence xianity, is completely dependent on jewish tradition.  They are inextricably linked.
Christ is the messiah of the OT. And the jews base their faith of the OT. Which means Christianity is completely independent of Judaism, though they both use the same book (like the Jehovah's Witnesses).

Quote
No, it means the Rabbis believed it was wrong or incomplete, and tried to fill in gaps they saw. Since they themselves added it, it is not part of the original text, but something added to explain what is observed.
You act as if yhwh were not inspiring their thoughts and interpretations.  You act as if the OT were conceived as one, monolithic text in a single sitting.  Every part of the bible has had "the original" added to in some way.  The fable about the jews bringing the adulteress to jesus H where he says "let he who is sinless among you cast the first stone"?  Fabricated centuries after John was "originally" written.  And do not forget the Comma Johanneum - the whole idea of the triune god was added!  Everything by Paul was decades after jesus H.
You speak as if the jews never screwed up and ignored God. Like everything they did was perfect. And I assume that the last two parts about John and the trinity you will back up with your DH correct?

Quote
Care to provide the examples? I mean, you like to request sources, but I see none for your claims. I didn't give any also, this is true, but I was only replying to what you said, which initially had no sources anyway.
Jericho was empty at the time the jews "conquored" it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho#Historicity

never happened.
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2004/12/Did-The-Exodus-Really-Happen.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity
the important source in wiki is the Finkelstein book The Bible Unearthed.  He is pretty much authoritative on the subject.
I'll have to look at these next week for you. Don't have time to look into them at the moment, sorry.

Quote
How did I go?
Fair to middlin'.  And you reject it why?
I never said I rejected it. But that doesn't mean I automatically accept either. I would have to look at it more myself.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12548
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Adam's 1st wife
« Reply #48 on: January 18, 2013, 09:29:58 AM »
When in hebrew mythology did the name come about.

That's a good question.   The earliest traces of lilith go back to Akkadians, around the 7th century bce. Or there is evidence of such a character[1]  This is pre-judaism.  Understanding that religions in the region freely traded mythical ideas, it is reasonable to think that lilith entered canaanite (jewish) folklore shortly after.

There was a babylonian figure that could possibly have links to lilith which dates to the 2nd millennium bce.  However that is a more controversial link.[2]  If the Canaanites referred to lilith as Baalat, as this source suggests, then she was sort of a female Baal and part of their proto-jewish pantheon long before they could be considered jewish.  The "at" at the end is the feminine. 

For the record, that pantheon was headed by El and included yhwh and his wife, Asherah.  The pantheon was called Elohim - literally, "the lords".  Not coincidentally, this is a name the Israelites (as opposed to the Judaeans) used for their god.  In fact, they incorporated their god's name into their name - Isra'El.  Jewish monotheism evolved from this polytheistic religion.  But I digress...

If you are asking for strictly jewish sources, it was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date to the late 1st century bce to the first decade ce.[3]

From my point of view:
1. The OT is legitimate in that it accurately portrays history
2. Christianity is based of Christ's teachings and the OT, thus making it legitimate
3. Judaism's beliefs based off the OT as well discover they got a few interpretations wrong
4. Christianity is unaffected, since it is based off the OT, and not Judaism.

1. I've shown that to be incorrect. 
2. But if you take jesus H's teachings out of a jewish context they have a completely different meaning.  And if xianity is based on a wrong interpretation of the OT, you end up with an illegitimate xianity.
3. I don't understand that sentence.
4. If you are basing xianity on the OT, xianity is based on an incomplete understanding.  As I said before, the jews used the Torah (OT) with the Talmud to understand what it means.  xians threw out the talmud, thus throwing out the entire context, tradition and understanding of the OT that preceded them by 500 years.

Christ is the messiah of the OT.

That is debatable. If it were that cut and dried, the jews would agree and all be xians.  They don't and they aren't.

And the jews base their faith of the OT. Which means Christianity is completely independent of Judaism,

I am not quite sure what you mean.  "Faith" is not a word of great precision or accuracy.  It has many meanings and I am not sure which you intend.  In this context it looks like it means "religion", but I am not sure.  Could you please clarify? 

As far as xianity being completely independent of judaism, I disagree. Judaism is the foundation.  xianity is essentially an addition to judaism. Since monotheism was invented, each monotheistic religion has claimed to be built on those that came before it, because they all claim to know something about the one god.  Islam is built on xianity is built on judaism.  LDS is built on xianity is built on judaism.  The legitimacy of the later religions hangs on the legitimacy of the predecessors.

You speak as if the jews never screwed up and ignored God. Like everything they did was perfect.

Not at all.  I am speaking from a religious perspective.  To my mind, you're all crazy and of course the jews got it wrong.  I am trying to speak within your bubble, within the context of the xian-jewish relationship.

It is not that the jews are perfect.  It is that you must recognize jewish authority when it comes to the OT.  Any xian literalist must.  Otherwise, the OT has no validity.  If the jews are not to be trusted or as suspect when it comes to the Ot, then the OT cannot be trusted because the OT is their product.  And if the OT is unreliable, well, then who is to say a messiah was even really predicted?  Maybe that was just wishful thinking on the part of a troubled people?

You really only have two viable positions here.  One is where you recognize jewish authority with regards to the OT.  That is the religious position.  The other is where you adopt my position - the OT is unreliable, thus the NT is unreliable, thus the grounds for believing in yhwh are highly suspect.

And I assume that the last two parts about John and the trinity you will back up with your DH correct?

No.  DH is not related to the NT.  It only applies to the Torah.  The John additions are quite easy to reference as they are well know in scholarship.  And please understand that apologetics is not scholarship. 

On the Comma Johenneum:
http://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

On the Pericope Adulterae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#Textual_history
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/117-31.0.html

I'll have to look at these next week for you. Don't have time to look into them at the moment, sorry.

No problem. They are ancilliary to our discussion.

I never said I rejected it.

It sounded that way when you said you believed the penateuch was written by one person.


edit - corrected quotes
 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#Mesopotamian_mythology
 2. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/l/lilith.html
 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#Jewish_tradition
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 02:01:36 PM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.