Who was Adam supposed to mate with before Eve? Is God a 14 billion year-old virgin?

[Beerina]

If God created Adam, complete with penis, testicles, the ability to become erect, penetrate something, and thrust until ejaculation of his seed occured...what was this seed for since there were no women, yet?

Oh, sure, it was obviously modeled on animals, for whome males and females and their reproductive interaction was well-established. But God just made Adam as a singular being. So why make him with penis unless God had a plan to create women all along?

For that matter, "in the image of God" is interpreted as sentient, and capable of reasoning and judgement, but is also typically a male of same. After all, if God were female, there'd be no reason females couldn't be clergy, unless God is a freak.

But if God is male, then he has a penis, and reproduces with females. With female humans goes without saying, but also by necessity with female goddesses, who must also therefore exist, or used to.

And if not, is God a virgin? He's never stuck his wiener, which he must have, into any females, goddesses or mortals. Mary doesn't count since the Bible goes to great pains to maintain she was physically a virgin -- even after the birth.

[Marquis de Carabas]

If God created Adam, complete with penis, testicles, the ability to become erect, penetrate something, and thrust until ejaculation of his seed occured...what was this seed for since there were no women, yet?

Oh, sure, it was obviously modeled on animals, for whome males and females and their reproductive interaction was well-established. But God just made Adam as a singular being. So why make him with penis unless God had a plan to create women all along?

For that matter, "in the image of God" is interpreted as sentient, and capable of reasoning and judgement, but is also typically a male of same. After all, if God were female, there'd be no reason females couldn't be clergy, unless God is a freak.

But if God is male, then he has a penis, and reproduces with females. With female humans goes without saying, but also by necessity with female goddesses, who must also therefore exist, or used to.

And if not, is God a virgin? He's never stuck his wiener, which he must have, into any females, goddesses or mortals. Mary doesn't count since the Bible goes to great pains to maintain she was physically a virgin -- even after the birth.
Adam didn't have a penis before God created Eve. What do you think God did with the rib anyway?

[brodski]

And if not, is God a virgin? He's never stuck his wiener, which he must have, into any females, goddesses or mortals. Mary doesn't count since the Bible goes to great pains to maintain she was physically a virgin -- even after the birth.
the bible indicates that Mary did not die a virgin, however later church doctrine has given her her virginity back. However I don't think that the bible is hinting that God had his way with her for a second time.
Some medieval theologians held that the holy seed entered Mary through her ear, I'm not sure what that says about Gods sexuality.
Unless god where gay, that could answer several of your questions. :D

[Ryan O'Dine]

There was a woman before Eve. Her name was Lilith.

The passage in Genesis 1:27 — "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (before describing a mate being made of Adam's rib and being called Eve in Genesis 2:22) is sometimes believed to be an indication that Adam had a wife before Eve.

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.wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith)

[Lamuella]

According to the usually accurate on these things Neil Gaiman, Adam had three wives.

Lillith, who was created at the same time as him, who tried to take the dominant position in sex, was banished from Eden and was said to have children with demons (the offspring were known as the lillin)

a nameless wife formed out of nothingness and granted oblivion after Adam (who had seen her creation) couldn't bear to touch her.

and finally Eve, formed of his rib

[Almo]

If God created Adam, complete with penis, testicles, the ability to become erect, penetrate something, and thrust until ejaculation of his seed occured...what was this seed for since there were no women, yet?

Just ignore details in the Bible. They're useless.

[wastepanel]

If God created Adam, complete with penis, testicles, the ability to become erect, penetrate something, and thrust until ejaculation of his seed occured...what was this seed for since there were no women, yet?

Oh, sure, it was obviously modeled on animals, for whome males and females and their reproductive interaction was well-established. But God just made Adam as a singular being. So why make him with penis unless God had a plan to create women all along?

For that matter, "in the image of God" is interpreted as sentient, and capable of reasoning and judgement, but is also typically a male of same. After all, if God were female, there'd be no reason females couldn't be clergy, unless God is a freak.

But if God is male, then he has a penis, and reproduces with females. With female humans goes without saying, but also by necessity with female goddesses, who must also therefore exist, or used to.

And if not, is God a virgin? He's never stuck his wiener, which he must have, into any females, goddesses or mortals. Mary doesn't count since the Bible goes to great pains to maintain she was physically a virgin -- even after the birth.

Ummm...Evolution?

BTW...God is described as having traits of a man a woman.

[uncy]

"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.'"

It was obviously Adam’s first time. There are many positions to be taken during intercourse, not just top and bottom, though bottom is one of my personal favorites...>.>

[Beerina]

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.

Hot! I hereby offer myself up as her eternal sex slave.

[Cainkane1]

If God created Adam, complete with penis, testicles, the ability to become erect, penetrate something, and thrust until ejaculation of his seed occured...what was this seed for since there were no women, yet?

Oh, sure, it was obviously modeled on animals, for whome males and females and their reproductive interaction was well-established. But God just made Adam as a singular being. So why make him with penis unless God had a plan to create women all along?

For that matter, "in the image of God" is interpreted as sentient, and capable of reasoning and judgement, but is also typically a male of same. After all, if God were female, there'd be no reason females couldn't be clergy, unless God is a freak.

But if God is male, then he has a penis, and reproduces with females. With female humans goes without saying, but also by necessity with female goddesses, who must also therefore exist, or used to.

And if not, is God a virgin? He's never stuck his wiener, which he must have, into any females, goddesses or mortals. Mary doesn't count since the Bible goes to great pains to maintain she was physically a virgin -- even after the birth.
Jewish women used to have a cult surrounding Gods wife whose name I can't recall.

[CriticalSock]

Jewish women used to have a cult surrounding Gods wife whose name I can't recall.

Was it Britney?

[Professor Yaffle]

According to the usually accurate on these things Neil Gaiman, Adam had three wives.

Lillith, who was created at the same time as him, who tried to take the dominant position in sex, was banished from Eden and was said to have children with demons (the offspring were known as the lillin)

a nameless wife formed out of nothingness and granted oblivion after Adam (who had seen her creation) couldn't bear to touch her.

and finally Eve, formed of his rib

One can always rely on Gaiman in these matters.
http://ofepicproportions.blogspot.com/2008/06/adams-three-wives.html

[DC]

Who was Adam supposed to mate with before Eve?

lillith

[Pure Argent]

Jewish women used to have a cult surrounding Gods wife whose name I can't recall.

Asherah? I'll check.

...

Yep, Asherah. Neal Stephenson did his homework.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_heaven_(Antiquity)#Astarte

[P.J. Denyer]

If God created Adam, complete with penis, testicles, the ability to become erect, penetrate something, and thrust until ejaculation of his seed occured...what was this seed for since there were no women, yet?


"In days of old
When Knights were bold
And women were not invented

They drilled a hole
In a telegraph pole
And stood there, quite contented"

And they say I learned nothing at school :D

[Professor Yaffle]

Of greater concern to me is who did Adam and Eve's children mate with?

[Pure Argent]

But if God is male, then he has a penis, and reproduces with females. With female humans goes without saying, but also by necessity with female goddesses, who must also therefore exist, or used to.

And if not, is God a virgin? He's never stuck his wiener, which he must have, into any females, goddesses or mortals. Mary doesn't count since the Bible goes to great pains to maintain she was physically a virgin -- even after the birth.

Of course he is. That's why fornication is a sin. Most of the things he labels as sin are labeled as such because he's jealous.

[DC]

Of greater concern to me is who did Adam and Eve's children mate with?

well thats a question i dont want to hear the answer to.

[Marduk]

well thats a question i dont want to hear the answer to.

tough

when Lilith was banished from the garden she went to the red sea and mated with the devils of the deserts, as she was producing 100 children a day its not hard to see where Cain and Able got women, it would have been a target rich environment. now can you figure out why this didn't make it into the christian bible ?

[HansMustermann]

If God created Adam, complete with penis, testicles, the ability to become erect, penetrate something, and thrust until ejaculation of his seed occured...what was this seed for since there were no women, yet?

Oh, sure, it was obviously modeled on animals, for whome males and females and their reproductive interaction was well-established. But God just made Adam as a singular being. So why make him with penis unless God had a plan to create women all along?

For that matter, "in the image of God" is interpreted as sentient, and capable of reasoning and judgement, but is also typically a male of same. After all, if God were female, there'd be no reason females couldn't be clergy, unless God is a freak.

But if God is male, then he has a penis, and reproduces with females. With female humans goes without saying, but also by necessity with female goddesses, who must also therefore exist, or used to.

And if not, is God a virgin? He's never stuck his wiener, which he must have, into any females, goddesses or mortals. Mary doesn't count since the Bible goes to great pains to maintain she was physically a virgin -- even after the birth.

Well, look at it this way: All the animals were created in pairs. Adam was given a hand that can make a fist instead. Are you thinking what I'm thinking about the divine plan for Adam?

[marksman]

Asherah wasn't "God's wife" in Jewish myth. That was a goddess in a fertility cult that existed during the ostensible time of the Prophets who competed for the Israelites' worship. The "Shekhinah" is the word usually given to describe the feminine half of God (and sometimes called "God's wife" in a metaphorical sense).

According to some Midrash (stories Rabbis write about Biblical characters for various reasons -- but not generally considered "literal"), when the Jews were exiled from Israeli the Diaspora, the Shekhinah went with the Jews, leaving God without His mate. Some stories have God shacking up with Lilith while waiting for reunion with the Shekhinah during the Messianic Age. Since Midrash isn't canonical, rabbis were able to write all sorts of wacky stories about God and Lilith and Shekhinah.

Lilith, by the way, is almost entirely a creation of Midrash. She's part of medieval Hebrew folklore. A rabbi just came up with the idea to explain some parts of the two creation stories found in Genesis. But it was a popular story (and was used as a myth to explain crib death -- as Lilith, jealous of Eve's children, sought to magically kill children in their cribs), so it stuck. (The nameless 2d wife of Adam is also found only in noncanonical midrash.)

Another midrash is that Adam was created either sexless or hermaphroditic at first, and then split into Adam and Eve when Adam professed loneliness at being the only of his kind, while most of the animals of the Garden had mates.

That midrash also implies that God, too, feels loneliness at being the only of His kind, and perhaps created man to be his helpmate. In this midrash, Adam was not the first man to have been created. There was an earlier version -- Adam Kadmon -- sort of the Platonic ideal of humanity and the equal to God. But it didn't work out because Adam Kadmon, being young and inexperienced almost destroyed the universe, and so God did something (unclear what) and made plain old Adam as somebody who would slowly learn and who, eventually, would grow into a true equal of God (until Adam got lonely and impatient and demanded a mate and that threw the whole plan out of whack).

Note, by relating these stories, I am not saying they are true. They're obviously not true. They're just stories made up to fill in the gaps in the Genesis creation myths.

The "official" answer (to the extent one could have an official answer) is "Only God knows."

Of course, there is a difference between an unanswered question and an unanswerable question. This one is unanswered but not unanswerable. Contradictions in the Bible are unanswerable.

[DC]

tough

when Lilith was banished from the garden she went to the red sea and mated with the devils of the deserts, as she was producing 100 children a day its not hard to see where Cain and Able got women, it would have been a target rich environment. now can you figure out why this didn't make it into the christian bible ?

hey that would fit perfectly into the bible, or not?
that would explain why we are sinners :D

[marksman]

when Lilith was banished from the garden she went to the red sea and mated with the devils of the deserts, as she was producing 100 children a day its not hard to see where Cain and Able got women, it would have been a target rich environment. now can you figure out why this didn't make it into the christian bible ?

Actually, Lilith didn't create children. She left Adam and had sex with demons and gave birth to little demons. She gave birth to 100 per day, and God sent three angels to get her to come back to Adam. Lilith refused and the angels decided they weren't going to force her to stick with Adam. Lilith also threatened to kill 100 of Eve's progeny every night so that demons, not men would rule the world. But Lilith feared the angels power, so she wouldn't kill any children where the mother indicated the child was under the protection of the angels. Lots of superstitious Jewish families place amulets on the crib bearing the name of the three angels. Others use a rid ribbon tied to the crib to warn off Lilith. My mom used to catch my grandmother trying to tuck a red ribbon under my crib when I was a newborn.

At any rate, this made Cain's progeny half-demon. One midrash about the Flood story was that eventually, a mixing between Cain's line and Seth's line resulted in everyone in the world having some bit of demon blood except Noah, his wife, and their sons and their son's wives. So God used the Flood to wipe out all the demon-spawn (and lots of innocent animals) to start fresh with Noah and his family.

Again, I don't believe the stories. I just relate them.

[HansMustermann]

Well, it seems to me like what can't be emphasized enough is: all that stuff about Lilith and whatnot isn't canon. Yes, you say that already, but the point still seems lost of some people, so I think it needs hammering on: it's not canon. It's, if you'll excuse the term, fanfic.

Sorta like if we were to discuss about whether Sulu from Star Trek is gay, what matters are strictly the movies and official books. You don't get to mix fanboys' own stories and fantasy with the canon. If it's not in the movies or the official literature, it doesn't exist. Just because Joe Sixpack wrote his own yaoi fanfic about Sulu, doesn't mean anything.

I'll take the same position here: if it's not in the Torah or the OT, it doesn't exist. I don't care if the fanboy who wrote the Lilith fanfic was a rabbi. Unless he's an accepted prophet and his story part of the canon, he's still just a fanboy writing fanfic. Whether God is a virgin or not should be decided based on the canon, not on that kind of stuff.

Otherwise I'm digging out my White Wolf stuff, since it's about Caine and Lilith too :p

[SphereGuy]

Everything always comes down to sex.

[marksman]

I love the analogy of midrash to fanfic. That's exactly what it is. Now, some of it (the Lilith story) is wildly popular fanfic, but it's still fanfic.

Of course, if you don't accept the Torah as literal truth (I don't), the line between canon and fanfic is thin. Not nonexistent, but thin.

Anyway, I think the White Wolf version of Caine and Lilith is pretty decent midrash (I guess, technically, it's a midrash of the Lilith midrash). I mean, not the part where Caine and Lilith are vampires, but the whole Caine wandering the wilderness in the Land of Nod after killing Abel and learning ancient magical secrets from Lilith and creating progeny together. That's a pretty classic reading of the Lilith myth.

[Marduk]

Lilith, by the way, is almost entirely a creation of Midrash. She's part of medieval Hebrew folklore.

so producing something which dates Lilith to a lot earlier shouldn't be possible, say about 5th century in a persian bowl format
;)

[marksman]

Lilitu was a Babylonian demon. Lilith as the wife of Adam is a rabbi writing down an ancient legend as a Biblical commentary and didn't happen until the medieval era, but is probably based on oral folklore that could even predate the Bible, for all we know.

It's still midrash.

[HansMustermann]

Of course, if you don't accept the Torah as literal truth (I don't), the line between canon and fanfic is thin. Not nonexistent, but thin.

Well, I don't believe that Star Trek, Star Wars, Warhammer 40k, or Battletech are literally true either. But I can still draw a very clear line between canon and fanfic :p

E.g., the Sexy Loser comic strip where Luke bangs Leia is clearly not SW canon :p

[marksman]

Of greater concern to me is who did Adam and Eve's children mate with?

Who knows? There's lots of Midrash about that.

Some midrash claims that incest wasn't deleterious until several generations after Noah.
Some midrash claim God kept popping spouses into existence for people when they reached adulthood until mankind had sufficient diversity.
Some midrash claim Adam and Eve were the first people created by God, but after the Fall, God went ahead and created lots of other people.

Since the Bible doesn't bother to explain this stuff, you're pretty much free to fill in the hole (no pun intended) yourself.

[marksman]

Well, I don't believe that Star Trek, Star Wars, Warhammer 40k, or Battletech are literally true either. But I can still draw a very clear line between canon and fanfic :p

E.g., the Sexy Loser comic strip where Luke bangs Leia is clearly not SW canon :p

Hey, I'm inclined to believe Phantom Menace isn't canon. I don't care that it has Lucas' name on it!

[HansMustermann]

... and that's how heresies are born :p

[Marduk]

Lilitu was a Babylonian demon. Lilith as the wife of Adam is a rabbi writing down an ancient legend as a Biblical commentary and didn't happen until the medieval era, but is probably based on oral folklore that could even predate the Bible, for all we know.

It's still midrash.

she was an Assyrian Goddess, demons dont exist in mesopotamian mythology nor do angels, they weren't monotheists and had no need to demote deities to fill gaps in gods love. We might call them demons from our own cultural experience but they were to all intents deities. The Assyrians picked up Lilith from the Akkadians who in turn got her from the Sumerians, Lilith predates Judaism by more than 2000 years. Like the vast majority of Jewish religious beliefs they were far older than Judaism itself and attempting to date them by Jewish rules is always, always doomed to failure.
so she wasn't midrash, she just later appears in it, your claim that it was an oral history to explain why theres no earlier mention of her is incorrect, shes appeared in writing from 3000bce but just not in Hebrew
;)

[marksman]

she was an Assyrian Goddess, demons dont exist in mesopotamian mythology nor do angels
Correction noted.

so she wasn't midrash, she just later appears in it, your claim that it was an oral history to explain why theres no earlier mention of her is incorrect, shes appeared in writing from 3000bce but just not in Hebrew
I'm pretty sure the medieval rabbi who wrote down the midrash in Eastern Europe did not have access to the pots and clay tablets discussing Lilitu the Assyrian Goddess.

He was relying on oral history.

I wasn't trying to explain whether there's no earlier mention of her. I never claimed there was no earlier mention of her. I was explaining where the midrash came from. it comes from Jewish oral folklore about Lilith. That folklore is likely based on Assyrian mythology some of which was written down, but so what?

;)
I'm not certain what the emoticon is supposed to mean in this context.

[Beerina]

Holy thread resurrections, Batman!


I looked at the title and smirked. Imagine my surprise to see I had started it. :)

[Marduk]

Correction noted.


I'm pretty sure the medieval rabbi who wrote down the midrash in Eastern Europe did not have access to the pots and clay tablets discussing Lilitu the Assyrian Goddess.

I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't have got a lot of the details correct unless at some point some Rabbi somewhere had access to that information from a different source

He was relying on oral history.

why do you need to believe that, you are ignoring that Hebrews have been writing crap down for millenia, I would feel far happier stating that they knew who Lilith was from before the diaspora and wrote about her then, but that those documents being non canon didn't survive to the present

I wasn't trying to explain whether there's no earlier mention of her. I never claimed there was no earlier mention of her. I was explaining where the midrash came from. it comes from Jewish oral folklore about Lilith. That folklore is likely based on Assyrian mythology some of which was written down, but so what?

if some of it was written down then its not oral history, oral history is easy to detect when you have an original source as we do with Lilith, its easy to detect that its not oral because the descriptions of Liliths character is almost unchanged, there are no extra litte bits added to the story over centuries. The other way that mythology is transmitted orally also changes details, Take for instance the story of Tiamat who's description is very clear in the Enuma Elish as a sea Dragon, she gains wings when the story is transmitted to the Assyrians because they are not familiar with sea creatures, she gains fiery breath when her story is transmitted to christianity in line with their new beliefs in satans domain, she essentially changes from an aquatic monster to a flying dragon whos next seen getting chopped by St George in England, this route was via "Mesopotamia, Greece, Turkey, England", she grew wings and testicles and a load of oter details and yet one of the original details is retained, that she was described by the Babylonians as being red, so the idea of a great red dragon crossed millenia and all the time every culture that heard it failed to realise that the Mesopotamians used colour as a depiction of mood and not of skin tone. The lilith story is no way similar to that of Tiamat, she has been passed down virtually unchanged, so she crossed from only one culture to another and was not transmitted orally. Oral transmission requires something for the story not to change, it requires worship, I don't think the Hebrews ever worshipped Lilith did they, just used her as a scapegoat for cot death, hence my original point about the 5th century bowl

take a look at this page
http://www.lilithgallery.com/library/lilith/Lilith-Incantation-Bowls.html
now ask yourself as these were only produced between the 6th and 8th centuries and would have been discovered over and over again whenever anybody did some rebuilding work, do you think there is a possibility that the story of Lilith was not transmitted orally

or you could just read the text
You are bound and sealed,
all you demons and devils and liliths,
by that hard and strong,
mighty and powerful bond with which are tied Sison and Sisin....
The evil Lilith,
who causes the hearts of men to go astray
and appears in the dream of the night
and in the vision of hte day,
Who burns and casts down with nightmare,
attacks and kills children,
boys an girls.
She is conquered and sealed
away from the house
and from the threshold of Bahram-Gushnasp son of Ishtar-Nahid
by the talisman of Metatron,
the great prince
who is called the Great Healer of Mercy....
who vanquishes demons and devils,
black arts and mighty spells
and keeps them away from the house
and threshold of Bahram-Gushnasp, son of Ishtar-Nahid.
Amen, Amen, Selah.

Vanquished are the black arts and mighty spells.
Vanquished the bewitching women,
they, their witchery and their spells,
their curses and their invocations,
and kept away from the four walls
of the house of Bahram-Gushnasp, the son of Ishtar-Hahid.
Vanquished and trampled down are the bewitching women --
vanquished on earth and vanquished in heaven.
Vanquished are their constellations and stars.
Bound are the works of their hands.
Amen, Amen, Selah.

(Patai78:228f)

Lilith gets Divorced

This is the get for a demon and spirits and Satan
...and Lilith in order to banish them from... the entire house.
Yah ...cut off the king of the demons
...the great ruler of the liliths.
I adjure you ...whether you are male or female,
I adjure you....
Just as the demons write letters of divorce
and give them to their wives and do not again return to them,
so take your letter of divorce,
accept your stipend share [ketubba],
and go and leave and depart from the house....
Amen, Amen, Amen, Selah.

(Patai78:226f)




Lilith Divorced Again
(University Museum, University of Pennsylvania) '

In the name of the Lord of salvations.
Designated is this bowl
for the sealing of the house of this
Geyonai bar Mamai,
that there flee from him the evil Lilith,
in the name of "YHWH-El has scattered";
the Lilith,
the male lilin,
the female liliths,
the Hag [ghost?],
and the Snatcher,
the three of you,
the four of you
and the five of you.
Naked are you sent forth,
nor are you clad,
with your hair dishevelled
and let fly behind your backs.
It is made known to you,
whose father is named Palhas
and whose mother is Pelahdad:
Hear and obey
and come from from the house and dwelling of this
Geyonai bar Mamai,
and from Rashnoi his wife,
the daughter of Marath.

...Be informed herewith
that Rabbi Joshua bar Perahia
has sent the ban against you....
A divorce-writ [gita] has come down to us from Heaven,
and therein is found written
your advisement and your intimidation,
in the name of Palsa-Pelisa ["Divorcer-Divorced"],
who renders to thee thy divorce and thy separation,
your divorces and your separations.
Thou, Lilith, male lili and female lilith, Hag and Snatcher,
be under the ban...of Joshua bar Perahia,
who has thus spoken:
A divorce-writ has come for you
from across the sea....
Hear it and depart from
the house and dwelling of this
Geyonai bar Mamai,
and from Rashnoi his wife,
the daughter of Marath.
You shall not again appear to them,
either in a deram by night
or in slumber by day,
because you are sealed with the signet fo El-Shaddai,
and with the signet of the house of Joshua bar Perahia
and by the Seven who are before him.
Thou, Lilith, male lili and female lilith, Hag and Snatcher,
I adjuire you
by the Strong One of Abbraham,
by the Rock of Isaac,
by the Shaddai of Jacob,
by Yah [is] his name...,
by Yah his memorial...
I adjure you to turn away from this
Geyonai bar Mamai,
and from Rashnoi his wife,
the daughter of Marath.
Your divorce and writ and letter of separation...
sent through holy angels...
the Hosts of fire in the spheres,
the Chariots of El-Panim before him standing,
the beasts worshipping in the fire of his throne
and in the water... Amen, Amen, Selah, Halleluyah!

I think it'd be hard to discount that there were written sources on lilith going all the way back to her genesis in mesopotamia


I'm not certain what the emoticon is supposed to mean in this context.

oh it has two meanings
1. cheers
2. I know this stuff like I know my breakfast and can provide numerous supporting links if you need it
:D

[marksman]

I think we've got a semantical disagreement, nothing more.

if some of it was written down then its not oral history
This is where we disagree. If some of the transmission is oral, then, to me, it's oral history. It may also be written/pictorial history. But I'll happily amend my statement to reflect that the transmission of the Lilith story was written as well as oral, as it has no bearing on my point.

I think it'd be hard to discount that there were written sources on lilith going all the way back to her genesis in mesopotamia
Nobody's trying to discount that, certainly not me. I don't know why you think I've been denying the existence of Lilith myths prior to the rabbi's midrash. I never said the rabbi invented Lilith.

I know this stuff like I know my breakfast
Yes, and an apparent desire to imagine someone denying those facts so as to give you an opportunity to repeat them.

and can provide numerous supporting links if you need it
Why would I need links to something with which I never disagreed?!

[HansMustermann]

Sorry, Marduk, I think I have to take marksman's side here.

Lilitu as a Messopotamian goddess clearly existed long before Judaism.

Lilith as Adam's first wife, created by the Jewish God from the same dirt as Adam, and who rebelled against the Jewish God just because she only wanted sex in the cowgirl position... that's clearly a medieval rabbi's fanfic.

The difference is basically like between Pinocchio and Buratino.

Yes, obviously the latter is heavily inspired by the former, but it's still a different myth/story. We may debate whether the rabbi who came up with that story relied on purely oral tradition or had access to some historical documents, but in the end that's not particularly relevant for the main point IMHO.

And yes, I'm saying that the one you find on mesopotamian bowls is Lilitu the nasty goddess, not Lilith the rebellious creation of the Judeo-Christian God. Subtle, but important difference IMHO.

[Marduk]

Sorry, Marduk, I think I have to take marksman's side here.

Lilitu as a Messopotamian goddess clearly existed long before Judaism.

thats what I said

Lilith as Adam's first wife, created by the Jewish God from the same dirt as Adam, and who rebelled against the Jewish God just because she only wanted sex in the cowgirl position... that's clearly a medieval rabbi's fanfic.

right so youre telling me that you aren't aware of the Sumerian story of Lilith and the Huluppu tree, about the only detail in the Biblical story that isn't originally mesopotamian is YHWH
the tree story, see if you can spot what type of animal lives in the tree
http://www.piney.com/BabHulTree.html
some linguistical notes on other characters
Eden, Sumerian 3000bce,
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e1199.html
Adam, Sumerian 3000bce
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e135.html
so what part are you saying is made up, missionary position ?
lol

And yes, I'm saying that the one you find on mesopotamian bowls is Lilitu the nasty goddess, not Lilith the rebellious creation of the Judeo-Christian God. Subtle, but important difference IMHO.
Lilith was not a nasty Goddess, the Assyrians made her nasty, the Hebrews carried on that tradition, now, how much of this was transmitted orally ?
0%
;)

See I understand your positions on making unsupportable claims about Judaistic mythology, you aren't aware of all the facts but are attempting a hypothesis, thats not good policy
but you need to understand, that Jewish mythology has never been original, they ripped off most of it from Akkad, including large parts of the old testament which are mesopotamian stories with the names changed and you can't claim oral history when the sources were not only written down but still available to prove it

[Marduk]

If some of the transmission is oral, then, to me, it's oral history.
then you are unfamiliar with the concept of oral history and are using it in error
Oral tradition, oral culture and oral lore are messages or testimony transmitted orally from one generation to another.[1] [2] The messages or testimony are verbally transmitted in speech or song and may take the form, for example, of folktales, sayings, ballads, songs, or chants. In this way, it is possible for a society to transmit oral history, oral literature, oral law and other knowledges across generations without a writing system.
:rolleyes: (this one means I'm rolling my eyes at you)

[I Ratant]

Everything always comes down to sex.
.
That's always my fondest hope.
Actually, last night returning from my evening walk, a cute gal passing by asked me if I believed in god.
I had to be honest and said I couldn't devote the energy to imagining that guy.
This apparently put her off, and she looked and acted like I was now a threat!
I told her she was safe and kept on walking.

[Marduk]

snap

:D

[marksman]

then you are unfamiliar with the concept of oral history and are using it in error
No, it means my familiarity does not come from reading the first two lines on Wikipedia.

I've actually read one of the two sources that Wikipedia cites -- the one by Joseph Ki-Zerbo on Methodology and African Prehistory, and he certainly describes as oral history stories that have been transmitted orally, even though there are also writings about that story.

The other source cited by Wikipedia gives a quote from that source (Jan Vansina's "Oral Tradition as History"), in which Vansina defines oral history as "There must be transmission by word of mouth over at least a generation". Vansina does not appear to define "oral tradition" as something that has never been transmitted through writing. (Neither does Ki-Zerbo.)

So, no, you are wrong as to the definition of "oral history". I didn't much care earlier, which is why I offered to amend my statement, but you decided to ignore that and go ahead and rely on Wikipedia to prove your incorrect point without actually reading either of the sources that Wikipedia used to ensure that Wikipedia was not imprecise. So, fine. You want a big ol' dick-waving contest about the definition of "oral tradition" in a thread in which that definition is utterly irrelevant and only present because you insisted on ramming it into what had been heretofore a perfectly pleasant thread? Fine.

But even more importantly, you're point is irrelevant. Whether the Lilith myth is oral or written is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is Jewish (and presumably Christian and Muslim) mythology about Adam's pre-Eve mates and God's mating habits. The specific nature of Assyrian myths (and the myths upon which the Assyrian myths are based) is also irrelevant since that's not the topic, and never was except that you, who clearly are educated about Assyrian myths, wish to inject it into the conversation so you might have something to say, however irrelevant or smarmy the contribution might be.

:rolleyes: (this one means I'm rolling my eyes at you)
Yes, that might be a neurological defect. If the emoticons are accurate representations of your eyerolling, they seem to be rolling upwards, which might be why you seem incapable of reading footnotes at the bottom of Wikipedia pages (or whichever site you used, which mirrors the information on the Wikipedia site on "Oral tradition").

[Marduk]

The other source cited by Wikipedia gives a quote from that source (Jan Vansina's "Oral Tradition as History"), in which Vansina defines oral history as "There must be transmission by word of mouth over at least a generation". Vansina does not appear to define "oral tradition" as something that has never been transmitted through writing. (Neither does Ki-Zerbo.)
Vansina doesn't mention Jews, Hebrews, midrash or Bible is his one book on oral history but bangs on a lot about african tribal traditions, would you like me to furnish you with a map showing you how thats not relevant or do you have the balls to admit that you are just incapable of admitting you made a mistake

But even more importantly, you're point is irrelevant. Whether the Lilith myth is oral or written is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is Jewish (and presumably Christian and Muslim) mythology about Adam's pre-Eve mates and God's mating habits. The specific nature of Assyrian myths (and the myths upon which the Assyrian myths are based) is also irrelevant since that's not the topic, and never was except that you, who clearly are educated about Assyrian myths, wish to inject it into the conversation so you might have something to say, however irrelevant or smarmy the contribution might be.
the assyrians were the main method of transmission between Akkadian and Hebrew, youre claiming that the concepts invented by the Assyrians based on Akkadian themes are irrelevant baseless, clearly you are not familiar at all with ancient history. See what youre saying is that a lot of the stuff about Lilith was made up from an oral history which there is no evidence for and when the details you are claiming were made up date back to the Akkadians.
Epic Fail

heres your claim for the middle ages midrash being orally transmitted
In general the Midrash is focused on either halakha (legal) or Aggadic (non-legal and chiefly homiletical) subject matter. Both kinds of Midrashim were at first preserved only orally; but their writing down commenced in the 2nd century, and they now exist in the shape chiefly of exegetical or homiletical commentaries on Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible). Midrashic literature is worthwhile reading not only for its insights into Judaism and the history of Jewish thought, but also for the more incidental data it provides to historians, philologists, philosophers, and scholars of either historical-critical Bible study or comparative religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash#Forms_of_Midrashic_literature
so they stopped making things up by 200CE. so thats your claim dead in the water immediately right

how big is your penis anyway, its not looking too impressive from where I'm standing, and what is that awful smell
:D

[HansMustermann]

thats what I said

right so youre telling me that you aren't aware of the Sumerian story of Lilith and the Huluppu tree, about the only detail in the Biblical story that isn't originally mesopotamian is YHWH
the tree story, see if you can spot what type of animal lives in the tree
http://www.piney.com/BabHulTree.html
some linguistical notes on other characters
Eden, Sumerian 3000bce,
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e1199.html
Adam, Sumerian 3000bce
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e135.html
so what part are you saying is made up, missionary position ?
lol

Lilith was not a nasty Goddess, the Assyrians made her nasty, the Hebrews carried on that tradition, now, how much of this was transmitted orally ?
0%
;)

See I understand your positions on making unsupportable claims about Judaistic mythology, you aren't aware of all the facts but are attempting a hypothesis, thats not good policy
but you need to understand, that Jewish mythology has never been original, they ripped off most of it from Akkad, including large parts of the old testament which are mesopotamian stories with the names changed and you can't claim oral history when the sources were not only written down but still available to prove it

Marduk, sad to say, I see nothing above except some lame ad-hominems. Do you need to make assertions about the other posters to make your point? Then again, maybe you do.

[Marduk]

Marduk, sad to say, I see nothing above except some lame ad-hominems. Do you need to make assertions about the other posters to make your point? Then again, maybe you do.

there were no ad hominems in that at all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
claiming that you lack the ancient world knowledge to formulate a correct hypothesis is not an ad hominem, its a fact
;)

you claiming im attacking you when I'm not is an ad hominem, did you have anything to say at all about the facts I posted ?
nope

[HansMustermann]

I was going to be polite, but since you ask: That you miss the point entirely in your quest to polish your own statue. You don't even answer my claims there. You repeat some trivia to sound smart.

[Marduk]

I was going to be polite, but since you ask: That you miss the point entirely in your quest to polish your own statue. You don't even answer my claims there. You repeat some trivia to sound smart.

this post makes no sense, are we reading the same page ?
:D
I'm not polishing any statues, just posting the facts supported by credible links, if that doesn't fit with your world view then thats not my problem

the question of " Who was Adam supposed to mate with before Eve? " is precisely what I have been posting about, you don't see that Adam was around before he ended up in YHWH's garden which makes the question irrelevant then you need to do some studying.
;)

and still, not a single comment on anything I've posted, you clearly are suffering from transference

[HansMustermann]

Well, call it a hunch, but when you introduced that penis size reference in the answer before, it tells me that that's your contribution here. It's all about penis size. It's a complexed nobody trying to sound great and smart, and getting into bullying attempts if that isn't accepted. That's what I call polishing your own statue.

Enjoy your complex.

Anyway, yes, I've already addressed your contributions when I called them trivia. You parrot irrelevant trivia that nobody contested, just because they don't need to be addressed. Nobody contested that Lilith is heavily inspired by Lilitu, for example, so I'm at a loss what that derail is about. Just trolling for the centre of attention, or what?

Or the derail about whether it's _strictly_ oral or not. Who cares, really? The importance to everyone but you: zero. But nah, you have to get in "look at me how smart I am" mode, post more irrelevant trivia that just derail the actual conversation, and get abusive when we don't.

Sad.

But, again since you ask: sadly you don't seem to actually have much of an actual image of what goes in between that parrotted trivia. Like that the Lilith myth isn't canon at all, and until that rabbi's fanfic there really was no such thing as the "first wife of Adam."

Yes, you can find a link about Lilith in the tree, but miss the fact that until very late there there was no Lilith in the tree in Judaism. The snake in Genesis was for a while just that: a snake.

Yes, I see you memorized that the Jews borrowed heavily from Mesopotamian mythology, but seem to have not much clue as to how and when that happened. And, see, that's just what we actually were talking about before you derailed it with your "look, look, I know who she's based on" act.

Please keep the tone civil. Thank you.

[Marduk]

Well, call it a hunch, but when you introduced that penis size reference in the answer before, it tells me that that's your contribution here. It's all about penis size. It's a complexed nobody trying to sound great and smart, and getting into bullying attempts if that isn't accepted. That's what I call polishing your own statue.

Enjoy your complex.

Anyway, yes, I've already addressed your contributions when I called them trivia. You parrot irrelevant trivia that nobody contested, just because they don't need to be addressed. Nobody contested that Lilith is heavily inspired by Lilitu, for example, so I'm at a loss what that derail is about. Just trolling for the centre of attention, or what?

Or the derail about whether it's _strictly_ oral or not. Who cares, really? The importance to everyone but you: zero. But nah, you have to get in "look at me how smart I am" mode, post more irrelevant trivia that just derail the actual conversation, and get abusive when we don't.

Sad.

But, again since you ask: sadly you don't seem to actually have much of an actual image of what goes in between that parrotted trivia. Like that the Lilith myth isn't canon at all, and until that rabbi's fanfic there really was no such thing as the "first wife of Adam."

Yes, you can find a link about Lilith in the tree, but miss the fact that until very late there there was no Lilith in the tree in Judaism. The snake in Genesis was for a while just that: a snake.

Yes, I see you memorized that the Jews borrowed heavily from Mesopotamian mythology, but seem to have not much clue as to how and when that happened. And, see, that's just what we actually were talking about before you derailed it with your "look, look, I know who she's based on" act.
marksmen mentioned dick first
So, fine. You want a big ol' dick-waving contest about the definition of "oral tradition" in a thread in which that definition is utterly irrelevant and only present because you insisted on
the rest of your post being an entire ad hominem has been reported

[HansMustermann]

To quote your own earlier post:

there were no ad hominems in that at all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
claiming that you lack the ancient world knowledge to formulate a correct hypothesis is not an ad hominem, its a fact

Or is making claims about others only OK when _you_ do it? Hypocrite.

[marksman]

Vansina doesn't mention Jews, Hebrews, midrash or Bible
Okay, try to keep up. You quoted the Wikipedia page on the definition of "Oral history" to show that oral history cannot include any history that is passed orally if it is also passed through writing. That Wiki page cites two sources for the sentence you quoted. Those sources don't actually stand for the proposition for which you quoted the Wiki page.

Whether those sources mention Jews, Hebrews, midrash or Bible is irrelevant because that's not why they were referenced in this discussion.

youre claiming that the concepts invented by the Assyrians based on Akkadian themes are irrelevant
They are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The discussion at hand is not about the myths upon which the Jewish Lilith midrash is based. Certainly, that information would be relevant to a topic about Assyrian mythology. This, however, is not such a topic, but for your pathological insistence on talking about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash#Forms_of_Midrashic_literature
so they stopped making things up by 200CE.
Um, you may know Assyrian mythology, but you don't know Midrash. Midrashim was first recorded in 200CE, but new midrashim keeps getting written. And the Wiki page you cited doesn't say differently. If you were to look over at the right-hand side of the page, you'd see a nice little timeline that shows when different midrashim were written, and you'll also notice that the timeline goes from 200 CE all the way to the "Later" than 1200 CE.

The midrash about Lilith being Adam's wife, for example, was first written no earlier than the 8th century CE in "The Alephbet of Ben Sira", which is considered part of the Aggadic Midrash. So quite plainly, using the very wikipedia page you cited, Midrash were indeed being made up for centuries after 200 CE.

what is that awful smell
That smell would be your foot lodged firmly in your mouth.

I notice that you don't dispute that your point on Assyrian myths is utterly irrelevant to this thread. I note that you don't dispute that nobody had taken issue with that when you decided to expound at length on the subject.

[Marduk]

Correction noted.
I'm pretty sure the medieval rabbi who wrote down the midrash in Eastern Europe did not have access to the pots and clay tablets discussing Lilitu the Assyrian Goddess.
He was relying on oral history.
.

again heres the facts
In general the Midrash is focused on either halakha (legal) or Aggadic (non-legal and chiefly homiletical) subject matter. Both kinds of Midrashim were at first preserved only orally; but their writing down commenced in the 2nd century, and they now exist in the shape chiefly of exegetical or homiletical commentaries on Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible). Midrashic literature is worthwhile reading not only for its insights into Judaism and the history of Jewish thought, but also for the more incidental data it provides to historians, philologists, philosophers, and scholars of either historical-critical Bible study or comparative religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash#Forms_of_Midrashic_literature
so youre saying that he didn't have access to ancient texts but for that to be true he must have had a memory going back a millenia to the last time the Hebrews relied on an oral tradition around 200CE, I have shown how stories about Lilith were constant right through this period and passed to Hebrew through Assyria from Akkad and before that from Sumer. The piece of the jigsaw youre missing is that all the information on Lilith was available at the library of Nineveh. The librarians were semites and were employed in copying ancient texts into Assyrian (the language of their owners) and Akkadian (the lingua franca of the day), many of the translated texts recovered from that site are signed Rabbi.


heres the fact of the matter, the connection between lilith and most of the aspects of the eden story date back to 2300bce or thereabouts, you have it completely wrong, the most recent addition to the Eden story wasn't Lilith whos history we have determined goes back millenia before Hebrew even existed, the most recent addition was Eve. whos existence in Hebrew can be dated back pre bible and then to a hurrian Goddess. Shes the most recent character by about 700 years, to continue to claim that there was an oral history without any evidence, indeed when the evidence shows its erroneous is just bad history. You seem to have studied biblical theism from the direction of your culture as far back as the bible, thats really only a very small part of the story
;)



I notice that you don't dispute that your point on Assyrian myths is utterly irrelevant to this thread. I note that you don't dispute that nobody had taken issue with that when you decided to expound at length on the subject.
you thinking its irrelevant just shows your ignorance

but really I'm done here, youve managed to succesfully prove publically that most of your preconceptions are irrelevant, its just a matter of time before that sinks in and you invent new ones

[Marduk]

To quote your own earlier post:



Or is making claims about others only OK when _you_ do it? Hypocrite.

perhaps be a good idea for you to understand what an ad hominem argument is before you go embaressing yourself again with comments like that
;)

[marksman]

again heres the facts
Which you still don't seem to grasp. Midrash was started to be written at 200 CE, but Midrash continued to be written for centuries thereafter, and is still being written today. The Alephbet of Ben Sira, which is the first Midrash describing the Adam-Lilith marriage was written down no earlier than 700 CE, a half-millennium after rabbis began writing midrash. For 500 years there is no mention of an Adam Lilith mating in any written Jewish sources.

Earlier you stated quite correctly that "Hebrews have been writing crap down for millenia". That's why we know pretty clearly when they first wrote down the notion that Lilith was Adam's wife -- The Alephbet of Ben Sira around 700-1000 CE, and probably written in Arabia, Northern Africa, or Iberia. (It wasn't actually written by Ben Sira, who lived in the 2nd century -- it's just attributed to him; though it was pretty obviously satirizing him.)

So how did the author of the Aleph-Bet come up with the Lilith story? He was using legends passed down orally from generation to generation after the diaspora. Now, if you can show that the 8th-10th century residents of Arabia, Northern Africa or Iberia had writings of the Lilith story (as opposed to those from 2nd century CE), one could imagine he borrowed from them. I would recommend you write a scholarly paper on the subject, because that would be a discovery of note and would contradict the generally accepted notion that the author of that Midrash was writing down oral folk history of Lilith as Adam's first wife, even though such folk tales are undoubtedly based on Assyrian or Sumerian or similar myths.


you thinking its irrelevant just shows your ignorance
Really? You're pulling out the "You're so ign'ant" line? What's next? Unilaterally declaring victory and walking away?

but really I'm done here
Ah, yep.

[Marduk]

So how did the author of the Aleph-Bet come up with the Lilith story? He was using legends passed down orally from generation to generation after the diaspora. Now, if you can show that the 8th-10th century residents of Arabia, Northern Africa or Iberia had writings of the Lilith story (as opposed to those from 2nd century CE), one could imagine he borrowed from them. I would recommend you write a scholarly paper on the subject, because that would be a discovery of note and would contradict the generally accepted notion that the author of that Midrash was writing down oral folk history of Lilith as Adam's first wife,



actually I expect that he was using details from Jewish tradition including the bowls Ilinked to earlier and the amulets i'm linking to now
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/Garden/4240/amulets.html
(not a hugely credible address but the information is correct), I could post you numerous others that say the same thing but this says it best in answer to your question as the title is
Hebrew Amuletic Tradition (circa 900-1800 CE)
and as the content of the amulets was protection from lilith its fits your request perfectly
and no I don't think I will bother writing a scholarly paper on this as its so well known already and can only assume from your ignorance of it that you really don't know what youre talking about
:rolleyes:

now your turn, please link to any source apart from yourself that states as you do that the midrash of the middle ages was entirely composed of oral history and in effect made up by a rabbi

I won't hold my breath though as I know you invented it in the first place, also best you don't use the link that I already posted that stated very clearly that Jewish oral tradition ended around 200CE
;)

[Marduk]

Really? You're pulling out the "You're so ign'ant" line? What's next? Unilaterally declaring victory and walking away?
.

astounding psychic powers too, is there anything youre not good at
:D

[HansMustermann]

perhaps be a good idea for you to understand what an ad hominem argument is before you go embaressing yourself again with comments like that
;)

And you do? Nowhere did I say that your argument is false because some shortcoming of yours. What, you didn't actually read that Wikipedia page you linked to?

[HansMustermann]

heres the fact of the matter, the connection between lilith and most of the aspects of the eden story date back to 2300bce or thereabouts, you have it completely wrong, the most recent addition to the Eden story wasn't Lilith whos history we have determined goes back millenia before Hebrew even existed, the most recent addition was Eve. whos existence in Hebrew can be dated back pre bible and then to a hurrian Goddess. Shes the most recent character by about 700 years, to continue to claim that there was an oral history without any evidence, indeed when the evidence shows its erroneous is just bad history. You seem to have studied biblical theism from the direction of your culture as far back as the bible, thats really only a very small part of the story

Really? Exactly which bible or torah verse mentions Lilith? No, seriously, if you want to claim she was there from the start, I want to see some support for that claim.

[HansMustermann]

I won't hold my breath though as I know you invented it in the first place, also best you don't use the link that I already posted that stated very clearly that Jewish oral tradition ended around 200CE
;)

Did you actually read what you linked to? The actual quote, from your own wikipedia link, is this:

"Both kinds of Midrashim were at first preserved only orally; but their writing down commenced in the 2nd century, and they now exist in the shape chiefly of exegetical or homiletical commentaries on Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible)"

It doesn't say that the Jews stopped having oral legends, silly. It says that the Midrashim started being written. And blimey, we're talking about a written midrash.

Note that it doesn't even say that suddenly all midrash was written. It says that writing started in 200CE, not that suddenly continent-wide everyone switched from one mode to another. It was a gradual process that started in 200CE.

Do you understand the difference between started and ended? Because that's the difference between what you linked to and your claim. It's a process that started in 200CE, not one that ended then.

But again, it doesn't even say anything about all oral stuff.

Seriously, if you're going to accuse people of being ignorant... well, you're going to do better than that.

[Marduk]

And you do? Nowhere did I say that your argument is false because some shortcoming of yours. What, you didn't actually read that Wikipedia page you linked to?
an ad hominem is nothing to do with the quality of someones comments so saying something is false because someone doesn't have the data is not an ad hominem, making personal comments like It's a complexed nobody trying to sound great and smart, and getting into bullying attempts if that isn't accepted is an ad hominem and is banned from this site, perhaps you should read the link more s l o w l y
best you also read what the mods wrote on your earlier post, its a warning against you making any further ad hominem attacks,
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5030364&postcount=49
perhaps you should get some sleep and then come back and read your comments in the morning and see if youre still so proud of them.
;)

[Marduk]

Did you actually read what you linked to? The actual quote, from your own wikipedia link, is this:

"Both kinds of Midrashim were at first preserved only orally; but their writing down commenced in the 2nd century, and they now exist in the shape chiefly of exegetical or homiletical commentaries on Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible)"

It doesn't say that the Jews stopped having oral legends, silly. It says that the Midrashim started being written. And blimey, we're talking about a written midrash.

Note that it doesn't even say that suddenly all midrash was written. It says that writing started in 200CE, not that suddenly continent-wide everyone switched from one mode to another. It was a gradual process that started in 200CE.

Do you understand the difference between started and ended? Because that's the difference between what you linked to and your claim. It's a process that started in 200CE, not one that ended then.

But again, it doesn't even say anything about all oral stuff.

Seriously, if you're going to accuse people of being ignorant... well, you're going to do better than that.

I'm not going to bother even reading your posts when you are derailing the thread and still using ad hominems, I'll let the mods deal with it if thats kewl with you dude, but again you missed the point totally, Epic Fail
;)

[Olowkow]

lillith
Yeah, she was on Cheers...Fraser's wife.:)

[Marduk]

Yeah, she was on Cheers...Fraser's wife.:)

yup, but was she oral
:D

[HansMustermann]

I'm not going to bother even reading your posts when you are derailing the thread and still using ad hominems, I'll let the mods deal with it if thats kewl with you dude, but again you missed the point totally, Epic Fail
;)

Right. When it's about your claims being false even by the sources you quote, it's apparently an ad-hominem. Got it.

[HansMustermann]

an ad hominem is nothing to do with the quality of someones comments so saying something is false because someone doesn't have the data is not an ad hominem, making personal comments like is an ad hominem and is banned from this site, perhaps you should read the link more s l o w l y
best you also read what the mods wrote on your earlier post, its a warning against you making any further ad hominem attacks,
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5030364&postcount=49
perhaps you should get some sleep and then come back and read your comments in the morning and see if youre still so proud of them.
;)

You linked to a Wikipedia article defining Ad Hominem when it was you who's doing it. Now apparently a whole other definition applies when you accuse someone else of it.

[Marduk]

You linked to a Wikipedia article defining Ad Hominem when it was you who's doing it. Now apparently a whole other definition applies when you accuse someone else of it.

ok as youre obviously not getting it then just use the mods responses to any further posts you make to teach you what an ad hominem is, both this and your last post were ad hominems, you didn't address the facts being discussed at all just continued to attempt to slur me with your ignorance of a very common and well understood phrase

I will of course assist you in understanding by reporting any of your future posts to any poster at this forum which breaches the rules even in the slightest degree straight to the mods and I have started by reporting your last two posts.

ok ?

:D

it is very simple though sweety, if you make remarks aimed at an individual its an ad hominem, if you make remarks aimed at an individual based on an obvious lack of knowledge of he subject being discussed it is not an ad hominem

so this

"you seem ignorant of the facts we are discussing" is not an ad hominem

and this

"you are ignorant"

is an ad hominem

;)

[HansMustermann]

Again: do you understand what an Ad Hominem is? You linked to a Wikipedia article. What category of Ad Hominem argument was it?

ETA: And what category of Ad Hominem was it when I refuted your claim that the jewish oral tradition ended completely in 200 CE? Because you accused that message of being an Ad Hominem too.

ETA: You know, because you presumed to educate me about what an Ad Hominem is.

[Marduk]

Again: do you understand what an Ad Hominem is? You linked to a Wikipedia article. What category of Ad Hominem argument was it?

ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam
I have highlighted the ad hominems in the post

Did you actually read what you linked to? The actual quote, from your own wikipedia link, is this:

"Both kinds of Midrashim were at first preserved only orally; but their writing down commenced in the 2nd century, and they now exist in the shape chiefly of exegetical or homiletical commentaries on Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible)"

It doesn't say that the Jews stopped having oral legends, silly. It says that the Midrashim started being written. And blimey, we're talking about a written midrash.

Note that it doesn't even say that suddenly all midrash was written. It says that writing started in 200CE, not that suddenly continent-wide everyone switched from one mode to another. It was a gradual process that started in 200CE.

Do you understand the difference between started and ended? Because that's the difference between what you linked to and your claim. It's a process that started in 200CE, not one that ended then.

But again, it doesn't even say anything about all oral stuff.

Seriously, if you're going to accuse people of being ignorant... well, you're going to do better than that.

got it yet ?

the reason your post is irrelevant is that you don't understand that not just anyone can write midrash, its just a small set of highly respected rabbis who all follow the same tradition, so yes if they started writing it down in 200CE that means they all started writing it down at that point, Judaism is a religion based on tradition, theres even a song about it

[HansMustermann]

But ok, to get back on topic, I explicitly ask you to support the following claims you've made. Regardless of what I think or don't think of you, you've made some claims. I'm just asking you to support those claims:

- you claimed that Lilith was there in Judaism even before Eve. Chapter and verse, please.

- you claimed that that rabbi based his work on written not oral sources -- you know, what with claiming that oral traditions didn't even exist after 200CE. What jewish document contains the Lilith myth before the 8'th century?

[HansMustermann]

I have highlighted the ad hominems in the post



got it yet ?

Got it: you genuinely don't know what's in that that Wikipedia page about Ad Hominems :p

[Marduk]

Got it: you genuinely don't know what's in that that Wikipedia page about Ad Hominems :p

reported
:rolleyes:

[Marduk]

- you claimed that Lilith was there in Judaism even before Eve. Chapter and verse, please.

thats not what I said, I stated that as a character Lilith is older



According to the Bible, Eve (Hebrew: חַוָּה, chavvah; Arabic: حواء‎, Hawwa; Ge'ez: ሕይዋን Hiywan; "living one" or "source of life", from Hebrew ḥawwâ, "living", "life", from ḥāyâ, "to live"; ultimately from the Semitic root ḥyw[1]) is Adam's wife. Derived from the words chavah, meaning "to breathe" and chayah, meaning "to live", her name occurs only five times in the Bible. Historically the name appears to have been derived from that of the Hurrian Goddess "Kheba", who was shown in the Amarna Letters to be worshipped in Jerusalem during the Late Bronze Age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve#Name_and_origin
late bronze age 1550-1200bce
The figure of Lilith first appeared in a class of wind and storm demons or spirits as Lilitu, in Sumer, circa 4000 BC.
but as it happens
Genesis 1:27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
then later in the story God creates Eve
Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.
so who was the woman that God created in 1:27
its quite clear that in Hebrew lore there was an earlier woman but it wasn't until much later that they decided it was Lilith, but Lilith at this point had already existed for millenia and was already connected to trees with snakes in them, so its a logical choice, what Ben Sirah did was just to state that in a document that survives to this day. He didn't invent it as it was already part of the Judaic belief system and had been for a very very long time, this is attested by the bowls and amulets. Bowls and amulets are not oral history, for something to be categorized as an oral history it must by neccesity be only be passed by oral transmission, pretending that something is a result of an oral tradition when there are plenty of artifacts around proving otherwise is what marksman has been doing, and really thats the only real issue I've had with anything hes said, he seemed to be unaware of the existence of the bowls, and he may still be using the now debunked belief that the amulets are a result of Ben Sira's midrash, they aren't as they have been proven to be older
The Alphabet of ben Sira is the earliest form we know of the Lilith legend familiar to most people (that is, to most people who are familiar with Lilith at all). It is here that we find Lilith as Adam's first wife. Scholars tend to date the Alphabet between the 8th and 10th centuries, CE. Whether the story itself is older, or, if so, how much older is not possible to say. Amulets like the one described in the first paragraph are, of course, much older.
http://jewishchristianlit.com//Topics/Lilith/alphabet.html

see I am not most people, anyone linking Lilith solely to Ben sira is most people, I don't stand on books written decades ago and then claim to be the font of all knowledge......I do my own research

and really when the text of Ben Sira actually states that he sat down and created an amulet known to protect against lilith its quite clear that the amulets came first. You can't just start inventing things to ward off demons, you have to follow the age old tradition


you claimed that that rabbi based his work on written not oral sources -- you know, what with claiming that oral traditions didn't even exist after 200CE. What jewish document contains the Lilith myth before the 8'th century?
there are jewish incantation bowls and amulets with her name and "spells" to ward her off all over them, which describe her position in Jewish belief, the most common theme in incantation bowls that mention lilith is an abjuration for her to accept her divorce with dignity and depart,

who do you think she was married to at that point ?

;)

[marksman]

actually I expect that he was using details from Jewish tradition
Yes, and that Jewish tadition was an oral tradition. We know this because we know whatthe written Jewish tradition was when the Alephbet of Ben Sira was written and it did not include Lilith as Adam's wife.

including the bowls Ilinked to earlier and the amulets i'm linking to now
Thse are amulets showing that the midrash came from a Jewish tradition, not that it came from a written tradition, and certainly not that it came from an nbroken written tradition dating all the way back to the 3rd century, half a millennium prior.

So now that you finally appear to understand that the midrash wa not written in the 3rd century, can you evidence the unbroken written tradition?

can only assume from your ignorance of it that you really don't know what youre talking about
Yes, you have a habit of assuming your inability to document what you profess is a result of other people's ignorance.

please link to any source apart from yourself that states as you do that the midrash of the middle ages was entirely composed of oral history and in effect made up by a rabbi
I don't need to prove such a thing, since that wasn't my position. My position as that the Lilith story in the Alphabet Sira was based either on the author's invention or oral tradition, because there is not earlier Hebrew writing describing Lilith as Adam's wife. You can read any treatise on the Alephbet of Ben Sira for such a statement, and in fact you have already quoted scholars who say this.

What you need to do is demonstrate that the amulets pre-existing the Alephbet prove th existence of an unbroken written tradition of Lilith as Adam's wife.

the link that I already posted that stated very clearly that Jewish oral tradition ended around 200CE
;)
I assume the wink is a knowing indication that the quoted statement is incorrect, as anybody who actuall reads the link (a set of people that apparently does not include you) will see that the website never states that oral tradition did not end around 200 CE.

[Delvo]

If God created Adam, complete with penis, testicles, the ability to become erect, penetrate something, and thrust until ejaculation of his seed occured...what was this seed for since there were no women, yet?

Oh, sure, it was obviously modeled on animals, for whome males and females and their reproductive interaction was well-established.Actually, no. Genesis 1 doesn't say anything about men and women separately. In Genesis 2, which does, it says the animals were created before Eve but after Adam. They were God's failed attempts to come up with a companion for Adam. So nothing about Adam could have been based on or derived from anything about animals because he was first.

[MikeSun5]

Holy crap! Logical flaws in the Bible?? :eek: WTF is going on?

Holy thread resurrections, Batman!

This thread is like Jesus. "Holy thread," indeed. (Yay! Puns!) :rolleyes:

If God created Adam, complete with penis, testicles, the ability to become erect, penetrate something, and thrust until ejaculation of his seed occured...what was this seed for since there were no women, yet?

God's good at planning?

And if not, is God a virgin? He's never stuck his wiener, which he must have, into any females, goddesses or mortals. Mary doesn't count since the Bible goes to great pains to maintain she was physically a virgin -- even after the birth.

You'll get different answers depending on which version of the Bible you're referring to, and how many other writings you include.
Adam and Eve are considered the first humans, but apparently humans had sex and kids with angels, demons, and hybrids back then. The Nephilim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim) are mentioned in Hebrew Bibles as some sort of beings that liked to have sex with human women. Who's to say there weren't female demons and angels for Adam to have sex with.

[HansMustermann]

thats not what I said, I stated that as a character Lilith is older

... in another religion and civilization. Pretty important point, don't you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve#Name_and_origin
late bronze age 1550-1200bce

... so basically the whole fuss was about ethymology, separated from when they actually entered Jewish religion, or from what role did they play in it? I'm sorry, but that's exactly the kind of thing I call irrelevant trivia for the scope of the discussion at hand.

then later in the story God creates Eve

so who was the woman that God created in 1:27

You do know that Genesis 2 is a different retelling of the same creation as in Genesis 1, right? Or do you also think that the animals and birds created in Genesis 2 are different from those created in Genesis 1?

And, yes, there are significant differences between the two versions. It's one thing we've been bashing theists for.

its quite clear that in Hebrew lore there was an earlier woman but it wasn't until much later that they decided it was Lilith, but Lilith at this point had already existed for millenia and was already connected to trees with snakes in them, so its a logical choice,

So basically it's a later crossover addition after all, and a non-canon one at that. So what was the point of the earlier fuss then?

what Ben Sirah did was just to state that in a document that survives to this day. He didn't invent it as it was already part of the Judaic belief system and had been for a very very long time, this is attested by the bowls and amulets.

Nobody said that he invented it from scratch anyway. Marksman's point was just that it's based on an oral legend.

Bowls and amulets are not oral history, for something to be categorized as an oral history it must by neccesity be only be passed by oral transmission, pretending that something is a result of an oral tradition when there are plenty of artifacts around proving otherwise is what marksman has been doing, and really thats the only real issue I've had with anything hes said,

Unless those bowls, amulets or scrolls actually contain the actual story of Lilith's creation and rebellion, then that part was oral. All that stuff was _based_ on that belief, but it didn't constitute a written form of the belief itself.

he seemed to be unaware of the existence of the bowls,

Hmm? How do you get that idea? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but I don't see it anywhere in writing.

and he may still be using the now debunked belief that the amulets are a result of Ben Sira's midrash, they aren't as they have been proven to be older

So basically the fuss was about your own assumptions about someone else? Because I don't see anything written by him to that effect.

and really when the text of Ben Sira actually states that he sat down and created an amulet known to protect against lilith its quite clear that the amulets came first. You can't just start inventing things to ward off demons, you have to follow the age old tradition

Then it's just as well that what Marksman actually said is that it was based on earlier tradition, right?

But again: unless one of those amulets or scrolls actually contained the story of Lilith, then that story was an oral tradition at that point. The amulets are _based_ on that belief, but they don't actually write it down. Whoever made or bought those amulets was already knowing a good chunk of the why and what for, chunk which itself had never been written down. Or at least we have no evidence thereof.

there are jewish incantation bowls and amulets with her name and "spells" to ward her off all over them, which describe her position in Jewish belief, the most common theme in incantation bowls that mention lilith is an abjuration for her to accept her divorce with dignity and depart,

who do you think she was married to at that point ?

;)

When you say "who do you think" pretty much you illustrate my point: there is a significant gap that you need to fill with other knowledge than what was actually written. Yes, the belief must have been earlier, but it doesn't seem to have been put in writing itself. If you have to go "who do you think" instead of pointing out an actual document that says "she was married to Adam and buggered off", that's a chunk of oral tradition at that point.

[TimCallahan]

Though the story of Lilith as the first wife of Adam, who refused to take the inferior position in sexual intercourse, is of medieval origin, she is derived, as others have noted, from Lilitu. Lilitu is depicted in a Sumerian terra cotta relief (the Burney Plaque) as naked, standing on a lion, and having wings and owl's talons instead of human feet. Though her name in Hebrew means "screech owl," it came into Hebrew as a loan word. It is based on the Sumerian root lil, meaning "air" or "wind."

I heard the midrash of her being the first wife of Adam was called the Midrash Abkir, from the tenth century. I'd be interested in hearing about the other source.

Another midrash says that the reason Adam knew that the animals created by God as companions weren't suitable as "helpmeets" was that he attempted to have sex with each of them. This must have been particularly difficult in the case of the elephant.

[I Ratant]

...
Another midrash says that the reason Adam knew that the animals created by God as companions weren't suitable as "helpmeets" was that he attempted to have sex with each of them. This must have been particularly difficult in the case of the elephant.
.
Probably fatal for the mouse.
At least he knew what that pole was for. (thanks, Chrissie Hynde :) )

[Pure Argent]

.
Probably fatal for the mouse.

Not necessarily. That really depends on Adam.
You know, this opens up a whole new line of enquiry...

[TimCallahan]

I guess it's lucky for us he didn't fixate on knot-holes. I mean, the splinter thing would be a real drag. Of course, if he did get hung up on the knot-hole thing, we wouldn't be here anyway.

[JAStewart]

If god has a penis and can only put up with wanking for 14 billion years he's a stronger manchild than me.

[MikeSun5]

Another midrash says that the reason Adam knew that the animals created by God as companions weren't suitable as "helpmeets" was that he attempted to have sex with each of them.

Have you seen anything about him having sex with angels (or demons other than Lilith)? Apparently angels could have sex with human women and make hybrid babies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim).
I wonder if Adam was supposedly having kids with female angels too?

[qayak]

Adam didn't have a penis before God created Eve. What do you think God did with the rib anyway?

Exactly! Why else would they call it a "boner?"

[MikeSun5]

Why else would they call it a "boner?"

:clap:

[Delvo]

People seem to always forget that the fact that the Bible says God created Adam and Eve first doesn't mean that he didn't also create some other people later...

[MikeSun5]

People seem to always forget that the fact that the Bible says God created Adam and Eve first doesn't mean that he didn't also create some other people later...

Have you seen that Nicholas Cage movie Knowing? (this is on topic, but it might ruin the movie if you haven't seen it)

That scene at the very end (obviously an Eden reference) seems a better way to interpret Genesis: There must have been a bunch of gardens. Why else would Eden be named? If there was only the one, they could have just called it "The Garden."

[qayak]

People seem to always forget that the fact that the Bible says God created Adam and Eve first doesn't mean that he didn't also create some other people later...

Well, he must have, otherwise Cain and Seth wouldn't have been able to find wives like the bible says they did.

[MikeSun5]

Well, he must have, otherwise Cain and Seth wouldn't have been able to find wives like the bible says they did.

The Bible's missing all sorts of information that skeptics love to pounce on. I've long since quit that because it's WAY too easy to pick apart the Bible. (not that it's all that hard to pick apart any other religious texts)

If we're trying to have a discussion about what "really happened," we've got to go to other sources. I was reading The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan (http://books.google.com/books?id=pPJRBEOh2bcC&printsec=titlepage#v=twopage&q=&f=false) that says Abel had a twin sister named Aklemia (or Aklia), and Cain had a twin sister named Luluwa. They were supposed to marry each other's twin, but Cain got pissed because he liked Luluwa better, so he killed Abel and married her. Later on, Seth marries Aklemia. Then Cain and Seth have a bunch of kids.

If you feel like reading it, that stuff starts around page 92.

According to that book, there were all types of angels, demons, and hosts "in the form of man" running around while Adam and Eve weep all day. Satan even invites Seth to marry one. So who's to say that people weren't having kids with "angels" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim) as well as their siblings?

[Marduk]

Then Cain and Seth have a bunch of kids.


ewwwww
:D

[Pure Argent]

ewwwww
:D

Interesting, anyway.

[TimCallahan]

Have you seen anything about him having sex with angels (or demons other than Lilith)? Apparently angels could have sex with human women and make hybrid babies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim).
I wonder if Adam was supposedly having kids with female angels too?

To my knowledge, there are no midrashim refering to Adam having sex with angels. The Nephelim (or "giants in the earth" in the King James version) of Genesis 6 were indeed supposed to be angel / human hybrids (Gen. 6:1 - 4):

When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair, and they took to wife such of them as they chose. Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." The Nephelim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of men came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

Verse 3, which I've italicized, doesn't seem to fit the story and may be intrusive material. If we take it out we get:

When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair, and they took to wife such of them as they chose. . . . The Nephelim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of men came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

The idea of angels having bodies and genetalia, as well as heroes or giants being the product of divine / mortal unions smacked a bit too much of pagan myth for the Christian church in its early centuries, and the bene elohim, "sons of God" or "sons of the gods" of Genesis 6 were converted in the "Sethite doctrine" to descendants of Seth, while the "daughters of men" became descendants of Cain. So these Cainite hussies seduced the nice Sethite boys and produced out of them a race of tyrants.

[Marduk]

I've always had difficulty connecting the Nephilim with angels, I based most of my studies on the hebrew bible and its not so supportive of any angelic property for the nephilim, theyre just described as tall and compared to other tribes that are also tall, I think Genesis 6 1:4 is a little ambiguous on that score

;)

[I Ratant]

Sitchin explains all about the Nephilim and their mating with human females. :)

[Marduk]

Sitchin explains all about the Nephilim and their mating with human females. :)

ha yes I read it, but hes not convincing because he can't spell Neberu or Anuna

;)

[drzeus99]

I think Adam's *first conquest*, the sexy tramp Lillith, preferred to use sex toys.
Unfortunately, they weren't battry operated then, and electricity was a few millenia away from being discovered as a use to power things. ;)

[TimCallahan]

I've always had difficulty connecting the Nephilim with angels, I based most of my studies on the hebrew bible and its not so supportive of any angelic property for the nephilim, theyre just described as tall and compared to other tribes that are also tall, I think Genesis 6 1:4 is a little ambiguous on that score

Well, Gen. 6:4 seems to say that the Nephilim were the descendants of the sons of God and the daughters of men. How you interpret it depends on how you interpret bene elohim.

Other references to the Nephilim and their kin, the Rephaim, Anakim, Emim and Zamzumim, all depict them as giants, as in Deuteronomy 3:11:

For only Og the king of Bashan was left of the Rephaim; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron, is it not in Rabbah of the Ammonites? Nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its breadth, according to the common cubit.

Since a cubit is roughly 1 1/2 feet, a bed 9 cubits by 4 cubits would be 13 1/2 feet long by 6 feet wide; meaning its occupant was roughly 10 feet tall. The giantism of the Nephelim / Rephaim etc. would ndicate supernatural origin.

Josephus likewise compares the Nephilim to the Greek giants. He says in the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 1, Ch.3. item 1):

. . . for many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants.

So, it would seem that the opinion of the Jews in antiquity was that the Nephilim were the offspring of angels and mortal women. In fact, it would be highly unlikely that alone among all the peoples of ancient times the Jews did not have a tradition of heroes, or as Gen. 6:4 puts it "mighty men that were of old, men of renown," were the descendants of gods and mortal women.

[Marduk]

Well, Gen. 6:4 seems to say that the Nephilim were the descendants of the sons of God and the daughters of men. How you interpret it depends on how you interpret bene elohim.
I interpret it as it is actually written, it states
2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose.
I am interpreting the sons of God to be the descendants of cain, is that wrong ?
as opposed to the descendants of Seth
4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
see the Nephilim and the sons of god are two seperate entities, its quite common in ancient texts to use some common frame of reference as a date stamp. I think that the Nephilim are mentioned for that reason and that reason alone, as we can see from the earlier quote that they are not one and the same as the sons of God


Other references to the Nephilim and their kin, the Rephaim, Anakim, Emim and Zamzumim, all depict them as giants, as in Deuteronomy 3:11:
thats only true of the later versions especially the KJV, the Hebrew bible says nothing about giants at all, KJV quote first, hebrew original underneath

Genesis 6:4 KJV
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men.

4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
no giants, just Nephilim

Numbers 13:33 KJV
And there we saw the giants ... And we were in our own sight as grasshopper, and so we were in their sight.

33 And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.'
Nephilim again, no giants

Deuteronomy 2:10-11 KJV
The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; Which also were accounted giants.

10 The Emim dwelt therein aforetime, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakim; 11 these also are accounted Rephaim, as the Anakim; but the Moabites call them Emim.

Rephaim and Anakim, no giants

Deuteronomy 2:20-21 KJV
That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time.... A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them.

20 That also is accounted a land of Rephaim: Rephaim dwelt therein aforetime; but the Ammonites call them Zamzummim, 21 a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakim; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead

Rephaim again who the text merely describes as tall , not giants

Deuteronomy 3:11 KJV
For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was ... nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it.

11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbah of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.--

my bed is 7 feet long, however I am not, notice it doesn't say anywhere that Og was 9 feet tall, you'd think it would right ? no giants, just a big bed

Joshua 12:4 KJV
And the coast of Og king of Bashan, which was of the remnant of the giants.

4 and the border of Og king of Bashan, of the remnant of the Rephaim, who dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei,

thats those Rephaim again described as tall, not giants

Joshua 18:16 KJV
The valley of the son of Hinnom, and which is in the valley of the giants.

16 And the border went down to the uttermost part of the mountain that lieth before the Valley of the son of Hinnom, which is in the vale of Rephaim northward; and it went down to the Valley of Hinnom, to the side of the Jebusite southward, and went down to En-rogel.

no giants again, just those tall Rephaim

1 Samuel 17:4 KJV
Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

4 And there went out a champion from the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span
thats 6'7, thats not giant either


Josephus likewise compares the Nephilim to the Greek giants. He says in the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 1, Ch.3. item 1):

. . . for many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants.
Josephus is not a good source



So, it would seem that the opinion of the Jews in antiquity was that the Nephilim were the offspring of angels and mortal women. In fact, it would be highly unlikely that alone among all the peoples of ancient times the Jews did not have a tradition of heroes, or as Gen. 6:4 puts it "mighty men that were of old, men of renown," were the descendants of gods and mortal women.

it doesn't say that though does it, at no point does the bible say that the Nephilim were the offspring of angels, and it doesn't say that their conception of giants is the same as ours,

4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown
could be deemed to mean : -
the Nephilim were around in the days that the children of Adam had descendants who became heroes, the Nephilim were also around a bit afterwards but not for very long. This seems to imply to me that the Nephilim and the Sons of God were opposed to each other, perhaps the Nephilim were the children of Lilith or some other pairing that used to be Hebrew folklore but has since been lost, I can tell you that I've spoken about the Nephilim to variously biblical scholars both secular and religious and a couple of Rabbis and they all agreed on just one thing
they don't have a clue who they were

I would advocate you to use the original text in your studies
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
see because heres where I get all rational
:D
as angels don't exist they can hardly have descendants running around now can they, even textually they didn't exist before the diaspora and thats according to Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish of Tiberias (230–270 AD), "all the specific names for the angels were brought back by the Jews from Babylon."
Angels are only required when polytheism becomes monotheism and no one wants to annoy the gods who lost out

;)

[Ron_Tomkins]

If God created Adam, complete with penis, testicles, the ability to become erect, penetrate something, and thrust until ejaculation of his seed occured...what was this seed for since there were no women, yet?

Oh, sure, it was obviously modeled on animals, for whome males and females and their reproductive interaction was well-established. But God just made Adam as a singular being. So why make him with penis unless God had a plan to create women all along?

For that matter, "in the image of God" is interpreted as sentient, and capable of reasoning and judgement, but is also typically a male of same. After all, if God were female, there'd be no reason females couldn't be clergy, unless God is a freak.

But if God is male, then he has a penis, and reproduces with females. With female humans goes without saying, but also by necessity with female goddesses, who must also therefore exist, or used to.

And if not, is God a virgin? He's never stuck his wiener, which he must have, into any females, goddesses or mortals. Mary doesn't count since the Bible goes to great pains to maintain she was physically a virgin -- even after the birth.

Reports suggest that originally, God made Adam a Hermaphrodite and thus intended him to impregnate himself.

After a couple failed attempts and some complaints from Adam about who would bring him the coffee in the morning to his bed, God agreed to have him impregnate a second party. Thus God, uncomfortable with the idea of having Hermaphrodite sex without any bandwidth available for the enjoyment of others, he took Adam's vagina off and created a woman, to whom he gave such vagina.

The rest, as they say, is history.

[MikeSun5]

thats 6'7, thats not giant either

...just a quick note: 6 cubits and a span is way more than 6'7''. A cubit is a dude's forearm (around a foot and a half), making 2 cubits = approx. 3 feet. That would make Goliath closer to 9 or 10 feet tall. But even if 6'7'' was his actual height, the people back then were short. I've visited ruins and castles all throughout Europe and their doors are tiny. Over 6 ft. tall would probably seem enormous to most medieval and ancient people.

I've always had difficulty connecting the Nephilim with angels, I based most of my studies on the hebrew bible and its not so supportive of any angelic property for the nephilim, theyre just described as tall and compared to other tribes that are also tall, I think Genesis 6 1:4 is a little ambiguous on that score.

Depends on which version of Genesis you use. In Young's Literal Translation (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:1-4;&version=15;), the word Nephilim is replaced with "the fallen." If you use Darby's Literal Translation (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:1-4;&version=16;), Nephilim is replaced with "giants."

I have no knowledge of Hebrew, but depending on the interpretation, it looks like the Nephilim could be considered giants OR fallen angels.

[Marduk]

...just a quick note: 6 cubits and a span is way more than 6'7''. A cubit is a dude's forearm (around a foot and a half), making 2 cubits = approx. 3 feet. That would make Goliath closer to 9 or 10 feet tall. But even if 6'7'' was his actual height, the people back then were short. I've visited ruins and castles all throughout Europe and their doors are tiny. Over 6 ft. tall would probably seem enormous to most medieval and ancient people.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath#Goliath.27s_height
There are significant differences between the Masoretic (Hebrew), Septuagint (Greek), and Dead Sea Scrolls versions of 1 Samuel 17.[3] One of the most interesting of these relates to Goliath's height: 4QSam(a), the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel, gives the height of Goliath as "four cubits and a span," (approximately 200 centimeters or about six feet seven inches), and this is what the 4th century C.E. Septuagint manuscripts and the 1st century C.E. historian Josephus also record. Later Septuagint manuscripts and the oldest Masoretic texts (Aleppo Codex, 10th century C.E.) read "six cubits and a span," which would make him about 290 cm or nine feet six inches tall.[4]

The discrepancy of height may be due to confusion of two Hebrew letters, dalet and waw. The Hebrew language uses letters to denote numbers, and the numerical value of dalet is 4 and waw 6. It may be possible that the dalet and waw have become confused in some time during the copying process.
we know humans don't we, the tallest man ever officially recorded was Robert Pershing Wadlow, he was 8'11, his height was quite debilitating and he would have made a lousy champion. I would definitely agree with your diagnosis that he was 6'7 which made him comparitively a Giant but not a literal one
...
Depends on which version of Genesis you use.

I have no knowledge of Hebrew, but depending on the interpretation, it looks like the Nephilim could be considered giants OR fallen angels.

always use the source,
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
the two you referenced date to 1862 and 1890 respectively, so their interpretation has been subject to 2000 + years of deviation and forced religious political agenda
;)

[MikeSun5]

...the two you referenced date to 1862 and 1890 respectively, so their interpretation has been subject to 2000 + years of deviation and forced religious political agenda...

No doubt, but I was only trying to explain/translate the word Nephilim, which apparently can't be done. ;)

This article (http://www.claudemariottini.com/blog/2006/03/rereading-genesis-64-were-they-really.html) shows a lot of the things you pointed out earlier, but it also makes a very important statement:

Those who leave the word “Nephilim” untranslated recognize that the meaning of the word is unclear, that the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 were not the Anakim of Numbers 13:33, and that no translation is acceptable since the context is unclear.

The best way to solve this problem of translation is to leave the word “Nephilim” untranslated, as the ESV has done. This solution, however, creates a huge problem because it puts the burden of interpretation on the reader. And since the average reader of the Bible does not know Hebrew and has no idea who the Nephilim were, this solution creates another problem.

[TimCallahan]

Marduk, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree regarding giants etc. However, Josephus certainly is saying that the Nephilim were the offspring of angels and mortal women. I'm not sure why you don't see him as a good source. He certainly was a Pharasiac Jew ofthe first century. Thus, it's reasonable to assume that his opinion mirrors that of the other Jews of that day, and that is that the "sons of God" of Genesis 6 were indeed angels.

As to what constitues a giant, I'd say that someone nine or ten feet tall would qualify. The Masoretic Text (MT), the official Hebrew Scriptures gives Goliath's height as six cubits and a span. Since a cubit is roughly one-and-one-half feet, and a span is nine inches, this would make Goliath 9' 9" tall. The Septuagint (LXX), compiled much earlier than the MT does give Goliath's height as four cubits and a span, making him only 6' 9". While that wouldn't be a giant to our way of thinking, it wold be pretty terrifying if most people of the time were only 5' tall.

[Beerina]

Deuteronomy 3:11 KJV
For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was ... nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it.

11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbah of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.--

my bed is 7 feet long, however I am not, notice it doesn't say anywhere that Og was 9 feet tall, you'd think it would right ? no giants, just a big bed

A disingenuous claim. Saying some guy's bed was 13 feet long is poetic speak for "he's 12 feet tall".

You don't say his bed is 13 feet long because he's a whopping 6'7".

Whether you believe the Bible is true or not, in neither case would I think your observation (technically true) to be an acceptable conclusion.

Even with the smaller cubit definition, it's still a good foot and a half longer than him. Your argument from contemporary beds doesn't wash since they didn't have manufacturing back then, cranking out a standard length by the millions.

Nobody was gonna build a super-duper long bed for their impressive but merely large 6'7" body.




1 Samuel 17:4 KJV
Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

4 And there went out a champion from the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span
thats 6'7, thats not giant either

Wait, I thought a cubit was 1 1/2 feet? that's where the 10' stuff comes from.




Josephus likewise compares the Nephilim to the Greek giants. He says in the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 1, Ch.3. item 1):

. . . for many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants.

Josephus is not a good source

He's as good as any other, or the Bible itself. More importantly, he wouldn't use the word "giants" unless that was the common, contemporary belief of the situation.

[quarky]

Does anyone know anything about some non-Judeo-Christian accounts of how mankind came about? Is the Bible as weird as it gets? I'd like a bit more bestiality, if possible.
If i wrote the Bible, I'd go for a gorilla that mates with a dolphin, which pops out a human baby that is adopted by wolves...and god simply plays the right music.

[marksman]

You should try Egyptian mythos. If I remember it correctly, mankind sprouted from the spilled semen of Re.

[Marduk]

Does anyone know anything about some non-Judeo-Christian accounts of how mankind came about? Is the Bible as weird as it gets? I'd like a bit more bestiality, if possible.
If i wrote the Bible, I'd go for a gorilla that mates with a dolphin, which pops out a human baby that is adopted by wolves...and god simply plays the right music.

ok I heard one, two ape like bipeds had sex and had a kid, then their kids had sex and created more kids and then again and again and again until the kids became humans

I think it was Darwin
:)

[quarky]

ok I heard one, two ape like bipeds had sex and had a kid, then their kids had sex and created more kids and then again and again and again until the kids became humans

I think it was Darwin
:)



Too boring.


(even if it does have more sex)

[Marduk]

You should try Egyptian mythos. If I remember it correctly, mankind sprouted from the spilled semen of Re.

it was the spilled semen of Atum and it was the Ennead (9 or 7 creator Gods) who sprang from it, in another version of the Heliopolis Theology he auto fellates himself and then spits them out. All this while sitting on a mound (BnBn) which he raised up from a primordial sea.

Egypt has three other creation stories which originated in different cities, they are the Memphis, Hermopolis and Theban theology
Theyre all different
;)

[quarky]

auto-fellates himself?!

Now we're talking!

(Is it too late to join?)

[Marduk]

auto-fellates himself?!

Now we're talking!

(Is it too late to join?)

about 4500 years too late
yup
:D

the Sumerian creation story is the weirdest, it has a God creating men out of clay and mixed with a gods essence and then shortly after the same creator God tries to kill everyone with a global flood except for one guy who survives on a big boat, like who'd believe that, I think we're all lucky that this type of myth died out when the Babylonians rejected that flood god because he was a genocidal misogynist or the world would be in an awful state
;)

[Aurelian]

Joseph Campbell has written extensively on myth and archetypes. The Hebrews borrowed heavily from the Babylonians. That is not new-news. There are two creation stories in Genesis. The "and God saw it was good" is believed to be written as a song for the dedication of a temple. It was not written contemporaneously with the creation it celebrates. It doesn't claim to be factual or even scientific. Myth, in the classical sense, has power. It speaks to the human condition. It's great that people are still talking about the creation of the universe, the earth, and the evolution of humanity so many millenia after the Big Bang. I just read something interesting about apples - that originally they weren't sweet, and their use was more for hard cider, giving the western world loads of images of apples on the Tree of Knowledge. (Michael Pollen's The Botany of Desire) I really haven't pondered much about Adam and Eve's procreation. It's a myth, like the birth of Aphrodite, if you want to contemplate godly gonads. Lilith is intriguing, though I really don't know much more than what's posted.

[Marduk]

The Hebrews borrowed heavily from the Babylonians.
I appreciate Campbells work a great deal, however if he'd lived a little longer I'm sure he would have realised that the Hebrews borrowed the vast majority from the Akkadians and just a little bit from the Babylonians. A lot of texts translated since 1987 point far more in that direction

;)

[MikeSun5]

auto-fellates himself?!

Now we're talking!

(Is it too late to join?)

Well nowadays, you just have to take yoga class. (http://www.videosift.com/video/SNL-Will-Ferrel-Autofellates-in-Yoga-Class) :D

[MikeSun5]

Saying some guy's bed was 13 feet long is poetic speak for "he's 12 feet tall".

So by that logic, it's possible that 12 feet tall could just be "poetic speak" for a really tall dude, right? ;)

Wait, I thought a cubit was 1 1/2 feet? that's where the 10' stuff comes from.

I think you're missing a few posts here... Goliath's height is disputed.

He's as good as any other, or the Bible itself. More importantly, he wouldn't use the word "giants" unless that was the common, contemporary belief of the situation.

Yep, you're definitely missing posts. Read this (http://www.claudemariottini.com/blog/2006/03/rereading-genesis-64-were-they-really.html).

What the Nephlilim actually were is still up for debate. The easiest answer is giants because giants are mentioned all over the place. There was even a book in the Dead Sea Scrolls that was named The Book of Giants (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/otp/abstracts/bgiants/). In reading through some pieces of it (pun intended), I found a fragment of the scrolls that mention giants and Nephilim separately.

FRAGMENT: …they were defiled…the Giants and the Nephilim and…they shall sire…And if all…in his blood. And according to the power…the Giants which was not enough for them and for their sons…and they demanded much to eat…the Giants destroyed it…

(Source (http://books.google.com/books?id=r2C7f_GQpXMC&lpg=PA262&ots=8g_MqSY-_N&dq=dead%20sea%20scrolls%20book%20of%20giants%20%22 giants%20and%20the%20nephilim%22&pg=PA262#v=onepage&q=&f=false)) Why distinguish between the two if they're the same thing?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Records have it his real name wasn't in fact Adam but Arthur Doyle Arrington Myers. God used the name Adam (which he created from his initials) to hide his true identity.

He is currently being searched for mail fraud and illegal parachuting in Australia.