Lilith the first woman in the Bible?

[mathinspiration]

WAs she really the first woman that was created with Adam then came Eve? The Canaanite myths have her a moon goddess or monster that drank human blood?

 

[ewq1938]

Lilith comes from the Babylonian Talmud. There is nothing in the bible about such a person and I consider her to be a complete fabrication.

 

[jhwatts]

She is in (Genesis 2:3 - Genesis 4:26). Notice that this Eve is made from the dust of the earth. Lilith is made from the dust. The Eve in (Genesis 1:2 - Genesis 2:3) is different and came later. She was made in Gods likeness.

These are two different creation accounts. Notice in (Genesis 7:14) that the one in Gods likeness boards the ark with Noah and the creation from the dust boarded later in (Genesis 7:15). The creation made from the dust of the earth are the ones with the breath of life in them (Genesis 2:7).

They are two different creations and kept separate when boarding the ark.

 

[ewq1938]

She is in (Genesis 2:3 - Genesis 4:26). Notice that this Eve is made from the dust of the earth.

That name does not appear anywhere in the bible let alone the verses you cite.

Lilith is made from the dust.

No, she is made from imagination, not dust.

 

[mmksparbud]

She is in (Genesis 2:3 - Genesis 4:26). Notice that this Eve is made from the dust of the earth. Lilith is made from the dust. The Eve in (Genesis 1:2 - Genesis 2:3) is different and came later. She was made in Gods likeness.

These are two different creation accounts. Notice in (Genesis 7:14) that the one in Gods likeness boards the ark with Noah and the creation from the dust boarded later in (Genesis 7:15). The creation made from the dust of the earth are the ones with the breath of life in them (Genesis 2:7).

They are two different creations and kept separate when boarding the ark.

Genesis 2 is not an account of a different creation---it is a more detailed account of Genesis 1. I realize there are those that insist on making it a different account, but it is not. Gen 1 is in chronological order, Gen. 2 is not, it just details more of the things not covered in Gen 1. This form of story telling is used in other parts of the bible.

 

[jhwatts]

Genesis 2 is not an account of a different creation---it is a more detailed account of Genesis 1. I realize there are those that insist on making it a different account, but it is not. Gen 1 is in chronological order, Gen. 2 is not, it just details more of the things not covered in Gen 1. This form of story telling is used in other parts of the bible.

They are very different as it can be seen from Noah's flood account that God intends to remove the creation from the earth and preserve those after his kind. Read it through and keep in mind one creation is of his kind and the other is of the dust and has the breath of life in them. They are very different.

Below are a few classic differences.

GENESIS 1:2 - GENESIS 2:3 CREATION ORDER

1) Heavens and earth created.
2) Light shines on earth.
3) Light divided from darkness.
4) Firmament divided.
5) Land separated from water.
6) Plant life appears.
7) Sun, moon, and stars appear.
8) Animal life created.
9) Both male and female created.

GENESIS 2:4 - GENESIS 4:26 CREATION ORDER
1) Heavens and earth created.
2) Plant life appears.
3) Man created.
4) The Garden was made after man was made.
4) Animal life created after man.
5) Woman made from man’s rib.

NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCES IN THE ACCOUNTS

1) God commands the creation into existence in the first account, in the second account God is described as a creator, forming man, animals, and trees from the dust.
2) Creation takes place in stages accounted in days during the first account. In the second account no stages are recorded.
3) In the first account human beings are created to procreate but in the second one, they are created to live together in marriage.
4) There is no mention of Eden in the first account only the second.
5) In the first account, there are no limitation on what plants and trees are edible. The second has the restriction not to eat of the tree of life.

I am well aware that often we find further detail later in scripture. If we take a look just a few chapters over we see the content from Genesis 11: (1-9) contains detail Genesis 10:10. Likewise we see that the content Genesis 2:4 is clearly stated to occur in Genesis 1:1. Rather than placing it where most people place it, the above list of contradictions are left to be explained away.

There are no contradiction unless scripture is incorrectly interpreted and by placing it in its stated location (Genesis 2:4) of (Genesis 1:1), the contradictions vanish.

Would you place the content of Genesis 11: (1-9) starting at Genesis 10:21? No because it doesn't fit and you have a large collection of contradictions to deal with.

Think about John 1 and Ephesians 3:9. Realizing the all things are created through Jesus Christ from the very beginning. Look at the creator in Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:26. Notice that he is called Lord God. This is Christ Lord. This happened first. Notice in Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3 is not addressed as Lord God.

Notice Job 38:26 and Genesis 2:5. The creation narrative in Job 38 is talking about the creation in Genesis 2:4. This is the first creation.

The list goes on and on. It is the truth.

 

[Paidiske]

There is mention of Lilith in the Bible; Isaiah 34:14. But it gives us no information about her.

Edit: the translation CF links to calls her the "night monster." But the underlying name is Lilith.

 

[mmksparbud]

They are very different as it can be seen from Noah's flood account that God intends to remove the creation from the earth and preserve those after his kind. Read it through and keep in mind one creation is of his kind and the other is of the dust and has the breath of life in them. They are very different.

Below are a few classic differences.

GENESIS 1:2 - GENESIS 2:3 CREATION ORDER

1) Heavens and earth created.
2) Light shines on earth.
3) Light divided from darkness.
4) Firmament divided.
5) Land separated from water.
6) Plant life appears.
7) Sun, moon, and stars appear.
8) Animal life created.
9) Both male and female created.

GENESIS 2:4 - GENESIS 4:26 CREATION ORDER
1) Heavens and earth created.
2) Plant life appears.
3) Man created.
4) The Garden was made after man was made.
4) Animal life created after man.
5) Woman made from man’s rib.

NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCES IN THE ACCOUNTS

1) God commands the creation into existence in the first account, in the second account God is described as a creator, forming man, animals, and trees from the dust.
2) Creation takes place in stages accounted in days during the first account. In the second account no stages are recorded.
3) In the first account human beings are created to procreate but in the second one, they are created to live together in marriage.
4) There is no mention of Eden in the first account only the second.
5) In the first account, there are no limitation on what plants and trees are edible. The second has the restriction not to eat of the tree of life.

I am well aware that often we find further detail later in scripture. If we take a look just a few chapters over we see the content from Genesis 11: (1-9) contains detail Genesis 10:10. Likewise we see that the content Genesis 2:4 is clearly stated to occur in Genesis 1:1. Rather than placing it where most people place it, the above list of contradictions are left to be explained away.

There are no contradiction unless scripture is incorrectly interpreted and by placing it in its stated location (Genesis 2:4) of (Genesis 1:1), the contradictions vanish.

Would you place the content of Genesis 11: (1-9) starting at Genesis 10:21? No because it doesn't fit and you have a large collection of contradictions to deal with.

Think about John 1 and Ephesians 3:9. Realizing the all things are created through Jesus Christ from the very beginning. Look at the creator in Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:26. Notice that he is called Lord God. This is Christ Lord. This happened first. Notice in Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3 is not addressed as Lord God.

Notice Job 38:26 and Genesis 2:5. The creation narrative in Job 38 is talking about the creation in Genesis 2:4. This is the first creation.

The list goes on and on. It is the truth.

Totally and completely disagree. They are the same story, Gen 2 just has more details. There is only one creation. As there is only one Adam and Eve and One God though there is God the Father, God the Son and God the Hoy Spirit. You are entitlt4d to you opinion. I've had this same argument for years, none has been able to convince me and no one has anything new. It is not the truth.

 

[ewq1938]

There is mention of Lilith in the Bible; Isaiah 34:14. But it gives us no information about her.

Edit: the translation CF links to calls her the "night monster." But the underlying name is Lilith.

That's an owl not a woman Adam married though.

Isa 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.

 

[jhwatts]

Totally and completely disagree. They are the same story, Gen 2 just has more details. There is only one creation. As there is only one Adam and Eve and One God though there is God the Father, God the Son and God the Hoy Spirit. You are entitlt4d to you opinion. I've had this same argument for years, none has been able to convince me and no one has anything new. It is not the truth.

Can you provide me with a logical argument of why what I have proposed is not the case?

I have provided many reasons how it is true but I find none that says it is not.

 

[jhwatts]

Lilith - Wikipedia

Notice the surrounding locations of Eden,

Genesis 2:14 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

and location in the article.

 

[Paidiske]

That's an owl not a woman Adam married though.

Isa 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.

I did some reading on it a while back, and it was thought that Lilith was understood as some sort of unclean spirit; so some translations use an unclean animal (like an owl) and others go for a more exotic take (like the night monster above), but the point is the original just mentions the name and assumes you know who/what it means.

Given that I take Adam and Eve to be allegory, I don't particularly have a problem with expanding the allegory to explore other issues in human existence (like whether Adam encountered unclean spirits - other than the serpent?), but I don't particularly feel a need to, either.

 

[mmksparbud]

Can you provide me with a logical argument of why what I have proposed is not the case?

I have provided many reasons how it is true but I find none that says it is not.

You are reading into it what is not there. Gen 1 is in chronological order, Gen 2 is not, it fills in what was not stated in the merely chronological order of things, what was done on each of the days. There were no chapters and verses and very little punctuation in Hebrew. Gen 1 and 2 are not two different versions, it is one narrative. Nothing states that it is a 2nd creation at all. This type of narrative is in other parts of the bible, esp. in Exodus and in Sam and Kings and Chron. Different accounts of the same Exodus story is not 2 or more different Exoduses. It is Day one through 7 and creation ceases. In the trans literal it says:
Gen 2:3 and Elohiym respected the seventh day and he set him apart given that in him he ceased from all of his business which Elohiym fattened to make,
http://www.mechanical-translation.org/mtt/G2.html

If you can find something that says ---"In creation #2" or 2nd creation, or that says day 8, 9, etc---you might have a point. You don't set aside a day to celebrate that you have finished creating, then keep going. It was to mark the end of all that needed to be created.

 

[ewq1938]

I did some reading on it a while back, and it was thought that Lilith was understood as some sort of unclean spirit; so some translations use an unclean animal (like an owl) and others go for a more exotic take (like the night monster above), but the point is the original just mentions the name and assumes you know who/what it means.

The context is just talking about different kinds of animals so I don't believe an evil spirit is being mentioned in the middle among animals. People were always afraid of the dark and the animals that made scary sounds and they invented things but back to the OP, "Lilith the first woman in the Bible?"

My answer remains no and no one has presented any evidence to support there was a human woman named Lilith especially the first woman

 

[Paidiske]

The context is just talking about different kinds of animals

Like the satyrs in your quote? Seriously, it's not just talking about animals, but the passage has a spiritual dimension as well.

My answer remains no and no one has presented any evidence to support there was a human woman named Lilith especially the first woman

I'm not saying there was; I'm just pointing out that she is in fact mentioned in Scripture, however obscurely.

 

[ewq1938]

Like the satyrs in your quote? Seriously, it's not just talking about animals, but the passage has a spiritual dimension as well.

I don't think so. It's just talking about a goat.

YLT:

Isa 34:1 Come near, ye nations, to hear, And ye peoples, give attention, Hear doth the earth and its fulness, The world, and all its productions.
Isa 34:2 For wrath is to Jehovah against all the nations, And fury against all their host, He hath devoted them to destruction, He hath given them to slaughter.
Isa 34:3 And their wounded are cast out, And their carcases cause their stench to ascend, And melted have been mountains from their blood.
Isa 34:4 And consumed have been all the host of the heavens, And rolled together as a book have been the heavens, And all their hosts do fade, As the fading of a leaf of a vine, And as the fading one of a fig-tree.
Isa 34:5 For soaked in the heavens was My sword, Lo, on Edom it cometh down, On the people of My curse for judgment.
Isa 34:6 A sword is to Jehovah--it hath been full of blood, It hath been made fat with fatness, With blood of lambs and he-goats. With fat of kidneys of rams, For a sacrifice is to Jehovah in Bozrah, And a great slaughter in the land of Edom.
Isa 34:7 And come down have reems with them, And bullocks with bulls, And soaked hath been their land from blood, And their dust from fatness is made fat.
Isa 34:8 (For a day of vengeance is to Jehovah, A year of recompences for Zion's strife,)
Isa 34:9 And turned have been her streams to pitch, And her dust to brimstone, And her land hath become burning pitch.
Isa 34:10 By night and by day she is not quenched, To the age go up doth her smoke, From generation to generation she is waste, For ever and ever, none is passing into her.
Isa 34:11 And possess her do pelican and hedge-hog, And owl and raven dwell in her, And He hath stretched out over her A line of vacancy, and stones of emptiness.
Isa 34:12 To the kingdom her freemen they call, But there are none there, And all her princes are at an end.
Isa 34:13 And gone up her palaces have thorns, Nettle and bramble are in her fortresses, And it hath been a habitation of dragons, A court for daughters of an ostrich.

Dragon here is just a large sea creature.

Isa 34:14 And met have Ziim with Aiim, And the goat for its companion calleth, Only there rested hath the night-owl, And hath found for herself a place of rest.
Isa 34:15 There made her nest hath the bittern, Yea, she layeth, and hath hatched, And hath gathered under her shadow, Only there gathered have been vultures, Each with its companion.
Isa 34:16 Seek out of the book of Jehovah, and read, One of these hath not been lacking, None hath missed its companion, For My mouth--it hath commanded, And His spirit--He hath gathered them.
Isa 34:17 And He hath cast for them a lot, And His hand hath apportioned it to them by line, Unto the age they possess it, To all generations they dwell in it!

I'm not saying there was; I'm just pointing out that she is in fact mentioned in Scripture, however obscurely.

I disagree. Only an owl is mentioned and being a feminine noun doesn't make the owl female either. It's just an owl, we don't know the sex and it certainly isn't a woman named Lilith.

 

[Paidiske]

I think you're making a mistake to dismiss an aspect of the text that translators have consistently drawn out in their use of mythical or semi-mythical creatures to translate obscure terms (that is, the possibility that there's more than what's "natural" pointed to in these readings), but it's not something I need to argue about endlessly. People can weigh the evidence as they wish.

 

[mmksparbud]

The “Unicorn” of the Bible
The term “unicorn” is found nine times in the King James Version of the Bible (Num. 23:22; 24:8; Dt. 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psa. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isa. 34:7).

However, unicorn does not appear at all in the American Standard Version, nor in most other more modern versions. This should be a signal that the “problem” is one of translation, rather than a problem with the original, biblical text.

In ancient mythological literature, the unicorn was a horse-like animal with a prominent horn protruding from the center of its forehead. There is no evidence that this creature is alluded to in the scriptures.

In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word that is found in the texts referenced above is re’em, which is translated “wild ox” in the later versions. Most scholars believe the term refers to a large, fierce ox of the ancient world — a beast that now is extinct.

The translators of the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) rendered re’mes by the Greek term monokeros (“one horn”), on the basis of certain pictographs which were among the ruins of ancient Babylon. The carvings depicted the “wild ox” in profile form, thus seeming to suggest that the creature had but a single horn (Pfeiffer et al, 1999, p. 83). Out of this background derived the “one horn” perception.

Biblical evidence, however, indicates otherwise. Note that in Deuteronomy 33:17, the re’em is described as having “horns” (plural), not a single horn.

No mythology can be charged to the Bible in connection with the term unicorn.

The Satyr
In Greek and Roman mythology, the satyr was a half-man/half-beast god, a companion of Bacchus. There is absolutely no relationship between this pagan concept and any passage in the Bible.

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word sa’ir is found about fifty-two times. It is related to the term se’ar (“hair”), which means a “hairy one.” Mostly the word is used of the male goat that was employed as a sin-offering — especially that solemn sin-offering of the day of atonement (Lev. 16).

In two cases, sa’ir is translated “satyr” in the King James Version (Isa. 13:21; 34:14). In those passages it clearly alludes to wild goats of the sort that lived among the ruins of Babylon and Edom.

Twice the term is rendered “demon” (Lev. 17:7; 2 Chron. 11:15 — KJV), where it actually signifies a pagan god that takes the form of a goat (see ESV — 2 Chron. 11:15). Of this latter passage, noted scholar J. Barton Payne wrote:

“Far from being mythological ‘satyrs,’ as claimed by ‘liberal’ criticism, the sirim appear to have been simply goat idols, used in conjunction with the golden calves” (Pfeiffer et al, 1969, p. 400).

And so, once more, careful investigation demonstrates that the writers of the Bible have not lowered themselves to the superstitions of paganism. Critical charges ever destruct upon the shoals of truth.
What Are the Unicorns and Satyrs Mentioned in the Bible?

 

[Paidiske]

On unicorns, satyrs, centaurs and so on: Unicorns, satyrs and centaurs, oh my!

(It was while I was researching that that I came across the stuff on Lilith). Suffice it to say that there is more than one way to understand the translation choices made for the Septuagint.

 

[ewq1938]

I think you're making a mistake to dismiss an aspect of the text that translators have consistently drawn out in their use of mythical or semi-mythical creatures to translate obscure terms (that is, the possibility that there's more than what's "natural" pointed to in these readings), but it's not something I need to argue about endlessly. People can weigh the evidence as they wish.

Fair enough but I don't believe those various terms were considered mythical at the time. Like Dragon, it wasn't ever what we think of now but was a large serpent or similar shaped sea creature. Clarke breaks it down to the likely candidates.

Clarke:

Isaiah 34:14

The weld beasts of the desert - ציים tsiyim, the mountain cats. - Bochart.
Wild beasts of the island - איים aiyim, the jackals.
The satyr - שעיר seir, the hairy one, probably the he-goat.
The screech owl - לילית lilith, the night-bird, the night-raven, nyctycorax, from ליל layil, or לילה lailah, the night.

Anyways, I don't find the Hebrew word for a bird or owl "lilith" to be anything remotely related to the first woman of the Babylonian talmud. As you say no need to take it further, but thanks for the exchange.