| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Michael
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2003 1:31 am Post subject: Re: Adam and Eve |
 |
|
In article <9c0ijvcjcg3vulmnkf83afkcdb9spae772@4ax.com>, Don
<calldonREMOVE@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:38:40 -0400, mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael)
wrote:
In article <mrsgjvkgvi5b094sgvvr5ob4dqo8o1krh2@4ax.com>, Don
calldonREMOVE@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:43:18 -0400, mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael)
wrote:
In article <incfjv0l0sf8nmpk1dpe0q0vb0h8qetrei@4ax.com>, Don
calldonREMOVE@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:34:04 -0400, mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael)
wrote:
In article <ulv9jvglj600ihabojrdklhkack6rp6b39@4ax.com>, Don
calldonREMOVE@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 01:50:16 -0500, "Robert Gau" <robertgau@ev1.net
wrote:
I think the idea (and I might be acting quite idealistic here)
is that
sex is SO amazing and beautiful that it should only be shared
between
two people who share insurmountable love.
BUZZ! WRONG!
The BIBLICAL MARRIAGE was an arranged marriage and had nothing to do
with "insurmountable love." In fact, it had nothing to do with love
at all. It was a contract between two families. Women were treated
as chattel, as property.
BUZZ! WRONG! Sounds like the religiou feminist mythology of Gloria
Steinman. Women are one flesh and are not treated as chattel.
Women have
been reduced to chattel by the religion of feminism.
- - - - TIME-OUT! - - - -
You are not really reading this thread, are you?!?
Yes.
Have you heard the phrase "Cultural context?"
Yes, I even know what it means.
That is why marriage is
sacred and sex before or without it is inherently wrong.
You sure are reading your cultural ideas into the Bible, aren't you?
No, just the Biblical ideals.
The "Biblical ideals," according to the cultural context was that
marriages were arranged in NT times. Women were treated as property.
Love and little if anything to do with it. The bride was usually
14-years old or younger.
What does that have to do with being property? A man provided the dowery
to the woman to show that he was worthy of her acceptance.
BTW, based upon the divorce rate, love seems to have little to do with a
successful marriage either.
What passages in the NT document an arranged marriage? Women were treated
as a gift from God, in fact the greatest give a man could receive.
What Bible are you reading?!? You are way off the mark.
That
is not a property issue, it is a blessing issue. Neither has the age of
the bride nor the groom have anything to do with property issues.
You obviously do not know about the culture and practices of the
different cultures in different ages. Indeed women were treated like
chattel. They did not even have any rights until the 20th century.
It is not a feminist issue, it is historic fact. You need to do some
research.
Sounds like a 21st century pagan cultural bias attempting to re-image
Scripture.
Sounds like you don't know history.
Another radical feminist myhthology?
As I said, you are not really reading this thread, are you?
Yes, perhaps you are not really reading this thread. Repeating the same
assertion doesn't make the assertion any more valid.
Then why do you keep doing it?
Truth is hard to bury.
Perhaps you should study history.
|
I have.
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Michael
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2003 1:32 am Post subject: Re: Adam and Eve |
|
|
In article <3F390919.47209A78@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Michael wrote:
In article <3F381350.179D4464@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>, Libertarius
Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
Michael wrote:
In article <3F33B5D2.502FC084@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>, Libertarius
Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
Michael wrote:
In article <3F331947.71BFDB9D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>,
Libertarius
Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
Michael wrote:
In article <bgv3t0$rvbo9$1@ID-87237.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Scout Lady"
pjz2ofj02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Jessica L. Price" <jessicaprice@wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:bgklmj$h2p$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
In my encounters with Christians, both on some of these
newsgroups, and
elsewhere, I am constantly running into the assumption that
the sin of
Adam and Eve, or the knowledge that they gained from eating
the fruit of
the tree in the center of the garden, was somehow sexual
in nature.
I'm curious as to where this assumption comes from, as I
don't see
how it
is textually supported.
Can you explain it to me? Atheist opinions are welcome as
well, as I
suspect it may be as much cultural as religious.
Regards,
Jessica
My guess is that Adam and Eve covered themselves after
eating of the
fruit.
Many take that to mean that they did not know sexuality
prior to
the fall.
I would not agree, God told them to become one flesh, as
they were
before
the appearance of the woman taken from the man (Adam called her
woman, God
renames her Eve later)
===>So, they merged, with Woman becoming one of Man's ribs, so
YHWH had
to perform that surgery to separate them again?
No.
However God told them to be fruitful and multiply before they
ever ate the
fruit.
Which verse? I can't find that.
===>That is in the OTHER creation story (Chapter 1).
Thanks, not 'another' story however, Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 are two
different events.
===>WRONG!
They are two different creation stories, crediting different
deities for
the creation.
So say the higher critics, who are usually clueless.
===>Oh, YOU happen to be so CLUEFUL it is sickening!
There is only one
God, but He does have many attribues. It is the same God, it is the so
called higher critics who advocate polythesis, not Scripture.
===>What on earth is "polythesis".
The first time sex is mentioned is when Eve conceived Cain.
And Abel. they were twins, some say by the same father, others
say by two
different fathers.
===>Different FATHERS?
I have heard of Adam having two women (Lillith & Eve), but
never about
Eve having two MEN.
Of course none of it is in the Bible. -- L.
That is the opinion of some. Where is Lillith in Scripture?
===>Why don't you read before answering?
Why don't you tell us where Lillith is in the Hebrew Text so that we can
read it?
===>ISAIAH 34:14.
Isaiah 34: 14 The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild
beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech
owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.
So this is Lillith in Scripture? Which Hebrew word provides such an
alternate reading? Personally, I don't think so and believe it is a
fabrication in the midrash (which there are no claims to as being
Scripture) as Jessica stated: I looked this up, and apparently you are
correct. I had not seen this before, and the KJV does not give any hint as
to alternate readings that the Jews used from this verse in later legends.
===>In your dense ignorance you think the KJV is the correct Bible.
Well, most of the body of legend about Lillith comes from midrash. They
used the fact that in Genesis 1, humans are created male and female, then
later, woman is created after man. From this they interpreted that
Lillith and Adam were created together, then when that didn't work out,
God created Eve. Bit of a stretch, yes, but fun nevertheless.
end quote. Jessica believes it is a stretch, and I agree with her, she
can also spell Steinem, apparently and is quite proud of it as well.
The problem is that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are not two versions of the
same story.
===>Accidentally you had it right.
Not two versions of the SAME story, but two totally DIFFERENT
stories put in the same collection by some editor. -- L.
|
No, two totally Different stories put in the same collection by the same editor.
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tiger
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2003 1:33 am Post subject: Re: Adam and Eve |
|
|
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) wrote in news:mikeburt-
1208031631470001@192.168.1.100:
| Quote: | Perhaps you should study history.
I have.
|
Have you studied how to snip irrelevant parts of posts?
--
Tiger
"Zero is where the fun starts
There is too much counting everywhere else."
- Hafiz |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tiger
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2003 1:34 am Post subject: Re: Adam and Eve |
|
|
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) wrote in
news:mikeburt-1208031632470001@192.168.1.100:
| Quote: | ===>Accidentally you had it right.
Not two versions of the SAME story, but two totally DIFFERENT
stories put in the same collection by some editor. -- L.
No, two totally Different stories put in the same collection by
the same editor.
|
So dogma says. Scholarship says differently. I suppose the universe
is 6000 years old?
--
Tiger
"Zero is where the fun starts
There is too much counting everywhere else."
- Hafiz |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Michael
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2003 1:45 am Post subject: Re: Adam and Eve |
|
|
In article <3F390C24.588BD8AC@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Michael wrote:
In article <3F384ED8.F78A9D88@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>, Libertarius
Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
"Jessica L. Price" wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3F3813F8.8877329B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
|
|
| Michael wrote:
|
| > In article <ulv9jvglj600ihabojrdklhkack6rp6b39@4ax.com>, Don
| > <calldonREMOVE@earthlink.net> wrote:
|
| > > On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 01:50:16 -0500, "Robert Gau"
robertgau@ev1.net
| > > wrote:
|
| > > >I think the idea (and I might be acting quite idealistic here) is
that
| > > >sex is SO amazing and beautiful that it should only be shared
between
| > > >two people who share insurmountable love.
|
| > > BUZZ! WRONG!
|
| > > The BIBLICAL MARRIAGE was an arranged marriage and had
nothing to do
| > > with "insurmountable love." In fact, it had nothing to do
with love
| > > at all. It was a contract between two families. Women were
treated
| > > as chattel, as property.
|
| > BUZZ! WRONG! Sounds like the religiou feminist mythology of Gloria
| > Steinman.
|
| ===>Who on earth is "Gloria Steinman"???
I think, that since this man has proven he knows nothing about either
feminism or Israelite marriage practices, we shouldn't expect him to be
able to spell "Steinem" correctly.
===>You are so correct!
Thanks, coming from you, for the nice compliment. You can spell Steinem,
I can read Isaiah 34:14 without inventing Lillith out of thin air.
===>No, you cant.
It is your head that is full of "thin air".
Reading the KJV is NOT reading Isaiah.
|
Never said it was, that is why I asked what Hebrew word are you
translating as Lillith?
| Quote: | Not even reading the best translation.
E.g., here is a more accyrate translation of
Isaiah 34:14
"And there shall the beasts of the desert meet with the jackals,
and the wild goat shall cry to his fellow;
the lilith also shall settle there,
and find for herself a place of rest."
(Darby Version).
|
Good. BTW, reading Darby is NOT reading Isaiah. But good old Darby
doesn't say that lilith is another name for Eve. Adam called her woman,
God changed her name to Eve. No where is there an indication that the
lilith is a reference to Eve. the subject of Isaiah is the day of the
Lord's vengeance for the controversy of Zion, it is not the Garden of
Eden.
Lillith is regarded as a name of a female goddess known as a night demon
who haunts the desolate places of Edom or possibly a a nocturnal animal
that inhabits desolate places such as, butnot limited to, a screech owl.
The invention of a reference to Eve came about in Germany, many centuries
later than any previous rendering. Are you saying that Eve is a night
demon who haunts the desolate places of Edom? Edom and Eden are not the
same place, nor is there any reference to Eve in Edom.
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Libertarius
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2003 1:57 am Post subject: Re: Adam and Eve |
|
|
Tiger wrote:
| Quote: | mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) wrote in
news:mikeburt-1208031632470001@192.168.1.100:
===>Accidentally you had it right.
Not two versions of the SAME story, but two totally DIFFERENT
stories put in the same collection by some editor. -- L.
No, two totally Different stories put in the same collection by
the same editor.
So dogma says. Scholarship says differently. I suppose the universe
is 6000 years old?
|
===>Give or take a few billion.... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tom
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:12 am Post subject: Re: Adam and Eve |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-1208031631470001@192.168.1.100...
| Quote: | In article <9c0ijvcjcg3vulmnkf83afkcdb9spae772@4ax.com>, Don
calldonREMOVE@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:38:40 -0400, mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael)
wrote:
In article <mrsgjvkgvi5b094sgvvr5ob4dqo8o1krh2@4ax.com>, Don
calldonREMOVE@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:43:18 -0400, mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael)
wrote:
In article <incfjv0l0sf8nmpk1dpe0q0vb0h8qetrei@4ax.com>, Don
calldonREMOVE@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:34:04 -0400, mikeburt@ix.netcom.com
(Michael)
wrote:
In article <ulv9jvglj600ihabojrdklhkack6rp6b39@4ax.com>, Don
calldonREMOVE@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 01:50:16 -0500, "Robert Gau"
robertgau@ev1.net
wrote:
I think the idea (and I might be acting quite idealistic here)
is that
sex is SO amazing and beautiful that it should only be shared
between
two people who share insurmountable love.
BUZZ! WRONG!
The BIBLICAL MARRIAGE was an arranged marriage and had nothing
to do
with "insurmountable love." In fact, it had nothing to do with
love
at all. It was a contract between two families. Women were
treated
as chattel, as property.
BUZZ! WRONG! Sounds like the religiou feminist mythology of
Gloria
Steinman. Women are one flesh and are not treated as chattel.
Women have
been reduced to chattel by the religion of feminism.
- - - - TIME-OUT! - - - -
You are not really reading this thread, are you?!?
Yes.
Have you heard the phrase "Cultural context?"
Yes, I even know what it means.
That is why marriage is
sacred and sex before or without it is inherently wrong.
You sure are reading your cultural ideas into the Bible, aren't
you?
No, just the Biblical ideals.
The "Biblical ideals," according to the cultural context was that
marriages were arranged in NT times. Women were treated as
property.
Love and little if anything to do with it. The bride was usually
14-years old or younger.
What does that have to do with being property? A man provided the
dowery
to the woman to show that he was worthy of her acceptance.
BTW, based upon the divorce rate, love seems to have little to do
with a
successful marriage either.
What passages in the NT document an arranged marriage? Women were
treated
as a gift from God, in fact the greatest give a man could receive.
What Bible are you reading?!? You are way off the mark.
That
is not a property issue, it is a blessing issue. Neither has the
age of
the bride nor the groom have anything to do with property issues.
You obviously do not know about the culture and practices of the
different cultures in different ages. Indeed women were treated like
chattel. They did not even have any rights until the 20th century.
It is not a feminist issue, it is historic fact. You need to do some
research.
Sounds like a 21st century pagan cultural bias attempting to
re-image
Scripture.
Sounds like you don't know history.
Another radical feminist myhthology?
As I said, you are not really reading this thread, are you?
Yes, perhaps you are not really reading this thread. Repeating the
same
assertion doesn't make the assertion any more valid.
Then why do you keep doing it?
Truth is hard to bury.
Perhaps you should study history.
Burt: I have.
|
Tom: Well then, it is a shame that you didn't learn anything. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Michael
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2003 5:56 pm Post subject: Re: Adam and Eve |
|
|
In article <3F395650.ADBDABC8@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Michael wrote:
In article <3F390C24.588BD8AC@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>, Libertarius
Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
Michael wrote:
In article <3F384ED8.F78A9D88@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>, Libertarius
Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
"Jessica L. Price" wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in
message
news:3F3813F8.8877329B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
|
|
| Michael wrote:
|
| > In article <ulv9jvglj600ihabojrdklhkack6rp6b39@4ax.com>, Don
| > <calldonREMOVE@earthlink.net> wrote:
|
| > > On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 01:50:16 -0500, "Robert Gau"
robertgau@ev1.net
| > > wrote:
|
| > > >I think the idea (and I might be acting quite
idealistic here) is
that
| > > >sex is SO amazing and beautiful that it should only be shared
between
| > > >two people who share insurmountable love.
|
| > > BUZZ! WRONG!
|
| > > The BIBLICAL MARRIAGE was an arranged marriage and had
nothing to do
| > > with "insurmountable love." In fact, it had nothing to do
with love
| > > at all. It was a contract between two families. Women were
treated
| > > as chattel, as property.
|
| > BUZZ! WRONG! Sounds like the religiou feminist mythology
of Gloria
| > Steinman.
|
| ===>Who on earth is "Gloria Steinman"???
I think, that since this man has proven he knows nothing about
either
feminism or Israelite marriage practices, we shouldn't expect
him to be
able to spell "Steinem" correctly.
===>You are so correct!
Thanks, coming from you, for the nice compliment. You can spell
Steinem,
I can read Isaiah 34:14 without inventing Lillith out of thin air.
===>No, you cant.
It is your head that is full of "thin air".
Reading the KJV is NOT reading Isaiah.
Never said it was, that is why I asked what Hebrew word are you
translating as Lillith?
Not even reading the best translation.
E.g., here is a more accyrate translation of
Isaiah 34:14
"And there shall the beasts of the desert meet with the jackals,
and the wild goat shall cry to his fellow;
the lilith also shall settle there,
and find for herself a place of rest."
(Darby Version).
Good. BTW, reading Darby is NOT reading Isaiah. But good old Darby
doesn't say that lilith is another name for Eve.
===>NO ONE has ever said that.
Where do you come up with those doozies?
Adam called her woman,
God changed her name to Eve. No where is there an indication that the
lilith is a reference to Eve.
===>And no one ever said there was or it is.
|
You brought lillith up, not me. Jessica affirmed what you said about
Lillith as a reference to Eve, but not from Scripture.
| Quote: |
the subject of Isaiah is the day of the
Lord's vengeance for the controversy of Zion, it is not the Garden of
Eden.
===>Your mind is narrower than the famous camel gate of Jesus.
|
One always knows that he has found something when his adversary stops
discussing the issues and begins to make false witnesses against the
person.
| Quote: |
Lillith is regarded as a name of a female goddess known as a night demon
who haunts the desolate places of Edom or possibly a a nocturnal animal
that inhabits desolate places such as, butnot limited to, a screech owl.
The invention of a reference to Eve came about in Germany, many centuries
later than any previous rendering. Are you saying that Eve is a night
demon who haunts the desolate places of Edom?
===>NO ONE has ever said that.
|
Hmmmm, actually a lot of people have.
| Quote: |
Edom and Eden are not the
same place, nor is there any reference to Eve in Edom.
===>Irrelevant nonsense. -- L.
|
So is the subject of Lillith you raised.
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Michael
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2003 5:56 pm Post subject: Re: Adam and Eve |
|
|
In article <vjim1bqnl2o623@corp.supernews.com>, "Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | "Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-1208031631470001@192.168.1.100...
In article <9c0ijvcjcg3vulmnkf83afkcdb9spae772@4ax.com>, Don
calldonREMOVE@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:38:40 -0400, mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael)
wrote:
In article <mrsgjvkgvi5b094sgvvr5ob4dqo8o1krh2@4ax.com>, Don
calldonREMOVE@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:43:18 -0400, mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael)
wrote:
In article <incfjv0l0sf8nmpk1dpe0q0vb0h8qetrei@4ax.com>, Don
calldonREMOVE@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:34:04 -0400, mikeburt@ix.netcom.com
(Michael)
wrote:
In article <ulv9jvglj600ihabojrdklhkack6rp6b39@4ax.com>, Don
calldonREMOVE@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 01:50:16 -0500, "Robert Gau"
robertgau@ev1.net
wrote:
I think the idea (and I might be acting quite idealistic here)
is that
sex is SO amazing and beautiful that it should only be shared
between
two people who share insurmountable love.
BUZZ! WRONG!
The BIBLICAL MARRIAGE was an arranged marriage and had nothing
to do
with "insurmountable love." In fact, it had nothing to do with
love
at all. It was a contract between two families. Women were
treated
as chattel, as property.
BUZZ! WRONG! Sounds like the religiou feminist mythology of
Gloria
Steinman. Women are one flesh and are not treated as chattel.
Women have
been reduced to chattel by the religion of feminism.
- - - - TIME-OUT! - - - -
You are not really reading this thread, are you?!?
Yes.
Have you heard the phrase "Cultural context?"
Yes, I even know what it means.
That is why marriage is
sacred and sex before or without it is inherently wrong.
You sure are reading your cultural ideas into the Bible, aren't
you?
No, just the Biblical ideals.
The "Biblical ideals," according to the cultural context was that
marriages were arranged in NT times. Women were treated as
property.
Love and little if anything to do with it. The bride was usually
14-years old or younger.
What does that have to do with being property? A man provided the
dowery
to the woman to show that he was worthy of her acceptance.
BTW, based upon the divorce rate, love seems to have little to do
with a
successful marriage either.
What passages in the NT document an arranged marriage? Women were
treated
as a gift from God, in fact the greatest give a man could receive.
What Bible are you reading?!? You are way off the mark.
That
is not a property issue, it is a blessing issue. Neither has the
age of
the bride nor the groom have anything to do with property issues.
You obviously do not know about the culture and practices of the
different cultures in different ages. Indeed women were treated like
chattel. They did not even have any rights until the 20th century.
It is not a feminist issue, it is historic fact. You need to do some
research.
Sounds like a 21st century pagan cultural bias attempting to
re-image
Scripture.
Sounds like you don't know history.
Another radical feminist myhthology?
As I said, you are not really reading this thread, are you?
Yes, perhaps you are not really reading this thread. Repeating the
same
assertion doesn't make the assertion any more valid.
Then why do you keep doing it?
Truth is hard to bury.
Perhaps you should study history.
Burt: I have.
Tom: Well then, it is a shame that you didn't learn anything.
|
One always knows that he has found something when his adversary stops
discussing the issues and begins to make false witnesses against the
person.
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jessica L. Price
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2003 9:00 pm Post subject: Re: Adam and Eve |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-1308030856240001@192.168.1.100...
| In article <3F395650.ADBDABC8@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>, Libertarius
| <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
| >
| > > Adam called her woman,
| > > God changed her name to Eve. No where is there an indication that
the
| > > lilith is a reference to Eve.
| >
| > ===>And no one ever said there was or it is.
|
| You brought lillith up, not me. Jessica affirmed what you said about
| Lillith as a reference to Eve, but not from Scripture.
No, I didn't. Below, I paste my quote:
"Well, most of the body of legend about Lillith comes from midrash. They
used the fact that in Genesis 1, humans are created male and female, then
later, woman is created after man. From this they interpreted that
Lillith and Adam were created together, then when that didn't work out,
God created Eve. Bit of a stretch, yes, but fun nevertheless."
Note the "when that didn't work out, God created Eve." Eve, according to
the Lillith legends, was created as a *replacement* for Lillith. When
things didn't work out between Adam and Lillith, God created Eve. Lillith
and Eve are not the same. According to these legends, the "female" of the
"male and female he created them" in Genesis 1 was *not* Eve, but Lillith.
They're not the same. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Michael
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2003 11:04 pm Post subject: Re: Adam and Eve |
|
|
In article <bhdnaj$1uf$3@news.doit.wisc.edu>, "Jessica L. Price"
<jessicaprice@wisc.edu> wrote:
| Quote: | "Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-1308030856240001@192.168.1.100...
| In article <3F395650.ADBDABC8@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>, Libertarius
| <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
|
| > > Adam called her woman,
| > > God changed her name to Eve. No where is there an indication that
the
| > > lilith is a reference to Eve.
|
| > ===>And no one ever said there was or it is.
|
| You brought lillith up, not me. Jessica affirmed what you said about
| Lillith as a reference to Eve, but not from Scripture.
No, I didn't. Below, I paste my quote:
"Well, most of the body of legend about Lillith comes from midrash.
|
IOW, this tradition is not from Scripture.
They
| Quote: | used the fact that in Genesis 1, humans are created male and female, then
later, woman is created after man.
|
No, can't agree with what is stated as fact, adam, mankind, was indeed
created, bara, male and female in Chapter one, by Elohym, not YHVH
Elohym. In Chapter 2, no one was created, the specific man named Adam was
formed, yaster, not created, by YHVH Elohym. The work of creation was
ended before the Sabbath after Chapter 1, there is no creation work in
chapter 2.
| Quote: | From this they interpreted
|
IOW, not factual, a tradition of men, not necessarily of God.
that
| Quote: | Lillith and Adam were created together, then when that didn't work out,
|
IOW, God messed up.
| Quote: | God created Eve. Bit of a stretch, yes, but fun nevertheless."
Note the "when that didn't work out, God created Eve." Eve, according to
the Lillith legends,
|
legends are not fact, nor is there anything in Scripture that would
document the legend as a fact.
was created as a *replacement* for Lillith. When
| Quote: | things didn't work out between Adam and Lillith, God created Eve. Lillith
and Eve are not the same.
|
That's an understatement.
According to these legends, the "female" of the
| Quote: | "male and female he created them" in Genesis 1 was *not* Eve, but Lillith.
|
So what does that have to do with the Lillith in Isaiah in Edom?
| Quote: |
They're not the same.
|
Beyond a little bit of a stretch, yes, but fun nevertheless.
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Michael
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2003 2:33 am Post subject: Re: Adam and Eve |
|
|
In article <Xns93D69C7717640jefscrrcom@24.25.9.42>, Tiger <jef@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) wrote in news:mikeburt-
1308031404370001@192.168.1.100:
legends are not fact, nor is there anything in Scripture that would
document the legend as a fact.
Then why do you insist that they are?
|
Never do, many legends do contain truth, there is no evidence to ascribe
Scripture to legend; however. In fact, many legends have a basis of truth
in Scripture such as the Code of Hammaradi, for it is merely a corrupted
later version of the original truth.
Genesis was written by Moses, but the children of Israel weren't waiting
around for Moses to write it in the form that we know it today, they
already knew everything there from earlier manuscripts. They knew of Adam
and YHVH long before Egypt.
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zayton
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:35 am Post subject: Re: Adam and Eve |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-1308031733450001@192.168.1.100...
| Quote: | In article <Xns93D69C7717640jefscrrcom@24.25.9.42>, Tiger <jef@yahoo.com
wrote:
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) wrote in news:mikeburt-
1308031404370001@192.168.1.100:
legends are not fact, nor is there anything in Scripture that would
document the legend as a fact.
Then why do you insist that they are?
Never do, many legends do contain truth, there is no evidence to ascribe
Scripture to legend; however. In fact, many legends have a basis of truth
in Scripture such as the Code of Hammaradi, for it is merely a corrupted
later version of the original truth.
|
The code of Hammurabi is a description of a Babylonian social order,
including a whole complex system of courts and Judges; not a list or summary
of laws. It is a handy monument for debunking idiots who have gotten it in
their minds, somehow, that the 10 commandments were, "the forst laws among
human beings", but there is no particular similarity between any of the code
and either the 10 commandments or the whole set of "laws of Moses.
| Quote: |
Genesis was written by Moses,
|
No, It wasn't. In New Testament times the tradition of the Law given by God
through Moses is popularly interpreted by some groups as Mosew having
"written the Torah", But internal evidence is to the contrary.
but the children of Israel weren't waiting
| Quote: | around for Moses to write it in the form that we know it today, they
already knew everything there from earlier manuscripts.
|
They probably knew oral traditions before the materials were first written,
and long before they were redacted into their present form, but there is no
evidence of Earlier manuscripts than those incorporated into the present
writings. There may be quotations from things written by Moses in the
current forms or the writings, but Mosis didn't write them.
They knew of Adam
| Quote: | and YHVH long before Egypt.
|
If the legend preserved in the current form of the writings is to be
believed, they knew them from Ur of the Caldees, AKA Babylon.
Joe
| Quote: |
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rick
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:36 pm Post subject: Re: Adam and Eve |
|
|
Yes, Genisis was written penned by Moses' hand. Moses wrote, the Torah, and
Job. Those books wern't written in the order that they are placed in the
bible. Exodus, the second book in the bible documents events leading up to
Moses' death so that would be his sixth book. The ancient Israelites may
have known an Adam and Eve from Ur, but they would not have been the
original Adam and Eve.
"zayton" <zayton@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:VDA_a.7997$_3.5768@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
| Quote: |
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-1308031733450001@192.168.1.100...
In article <Xns93D69C7717640jefscrrcom@24.25.9.42>, Tiger
jef@yahoo.com
wrote:
Genesis was written by Moses,
No, It wasn't. In New Testament times the tradition of the Law given by
God
through Moses is popularly interpreted by some groups as Mosew having
"written the Torah", But internal evidence is to the contrary.
but the children of Israel weren't waiting
around for Moses to write it in the form that we know it today, they
already knew everything there from earlier manuscripts.
They probably knew oral traditions before the materials were first
written,
and long before they were redacted into their present form, but there is
no
evidence of Earlier manuscripts than those incorporated into the present
writings. There may be quotations from things written by Moses in the
current forms or the writings, but Mosis didn't write them.
They knew of Adam
and YHVH long before Egypt.
If the legend preserved in the current form of the writings is to be
believed, they knew them from Ur of the Caldees, AKA Babylon.
Joe
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Michael
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2003 6:30 pm Post subject: Re: Adam and Eve |
|
|
In article <VDA_a.7997$_3.5768@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>, "zayton"
<zayton@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-1308031733450001@192.168.1.100...
In article <Xns93D69C7717640jefscrrcom@24.25.9.42>, Tiger <jef@yahoo.com
wrote:
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) wrote in news:mikeburt-
1308031404370001@192.168.1.100:
legends are not fact, nor is there anything in Scripture that would
document the legend as a fact.
Then why do you insist that they are?
Never do, many legends do contain truth, there is no evidence to ascribe
Scripture to legend; however. In fact, many legends have a basis of truth
in Scripture such as the Code of Hammaradi, for it is merely a corrupted
later version of the original truth.
The code of Hammurabi is a description of a Babylonian social order,
including a whole complex system of courts and Judges; not a list or summary
of laws. It is a handy monument for debunking idiots who have gotten it in
their minds, somehow, that the 10 commandments were, "the forst laws among
human beings", but there is no particular similarity between any of the code
and either the 10 commandments or the whole set of "laws of Moses.
|
So some say, the state of Babel ended the dispensation of Human
Government. It was a failure.
| Quote: |
Genesis was written by Moses,
No, It wasn't. In New Testament times the tradition of the Law given by God
through Moses is popularly interpreted by some groups as Mosew having
"written the Torah", But internal evidence is to the contrary.
|
They would be right, it was written by God and given to Moses.
| Quote: |
but the children of Israel weren't waiting
around for Moses to write it in the form that we know it today, they
already knew everything there from earlier manuscripts.
They probably knew oral traditions before the materials were first written,
and long before they were redacted into their present form, but there is no
evidence of Earlier manuscripts than those incorporated into the present
writings. There may be quotations from things written by Moses in the
current forms or the writings, but Mosis didn't write them.
|
In that we agree.
| Quote: |
They knew of Adam
and YHVH long before Egypt.
If the legend preserved in the current form of the writings is to be
believed, they knew them from Ur of the Caldees, AKA Babylon.
|
You are correct although it is not a legend, and they knew Him even
previous to that.
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
