Was Eve really Adam's first woman?

by Shimmer 39 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Shimmer

  badboy: You are such a bad boy, you didn't answer my question!

  Amazing: You've got to be kidding!! Are you saying that the story wasn't written? And that the only writings that were allowed were by the scribes? What about writings that predated the Bible?

  And as far as the female dominated society, I have to agree with Patio on that one.

  I won't argue the point that this story could be the figment of someone's imagination. I think the whole Bible is just that.

  And I think you took the easy way out with your answer. Of course men would want a mixture of both. But if all you had to choose from was either/or which one would it be?

  Moe: I believe it is based upon the medieval book Alphabet of Ben Sira, which I have not had a chance to investigate in depth myself.
• 

  spender

  well, we all knew there was only one place left for feminists to rear their feminist heads into. I don't see how incredibly important it is...just as I don't see much importance in applying a feminist literary criticism to works that don't lend themselves to that kind of criticism. It doesn't matter to me whether it's true or not...it doesn't change anything.
• 

  patio34

  Spender, you said:

  well, we all knew there was only one place left for feminists to rear their feminist heads into. I don't see how incredibly important it is...just as I don't see much importance in applying a feminist literary criticism to works that don't lend themselves to that kind of criticism. It doesn't matter to me whether it's true or not...it doesn't change anything.

  I hope that doesn't speak volumes about your overall personality. That has to be one of the most ignorant statements i've ever seen on this board--and that's saying a lot.

  I'm sure you just didn't think about what you were saying. And the fact that you were ignoring the whole point of the reason for bringing up the female side (rebutting Amazing's gloss of ill treatment of women). And additionally, you cavalierly dismiss any reasoning on the subject as being a "feminist literary criticism." I hope the women in your life, if there are any, can deal with such a chauvanistic, dismissive, ignorant point of world view.

  But now i know to avoid your posts for a while unless you are able to have a bit more intelligence to add to them. You were taking issue with Comf's "Agnostic Morals" thread also and it seemed you were deliberately obtuse and heavily judgmental.

  I'm sorry to be rude like this, but you really are difficult for me to understand. Maybe you ought to force yourself to really read the issues and don't post unless you do. And then possibly you could broaden your viewpoint. You should show more respect towards others' points of view. Of course, you may really feel the way you seem to in which case, there's no point in ever reading or responding to you.

  I can't even respond to your point of view as it hardly qualified. It was simply a dismissive, off-the-cuff insult. You didn't even offer reasons why except to insult my rationale. This is a discussion board. What have you to offer? That women weren't treated badly? That the Bible is off limits because of being of a different time? That any offense taken by women is inappropriate because that's a "feminist" issue? Do you have any thoughts other than dismissal?
• 

  patio34

  Hi Shimmer, This is an interesting topic. It seemed to me that I read the 1st reference to such a person was from Sumerian writings (which were older than Hebrew). Here's what I found in a quick search on the net:

  Kramer's Translation of a Gilgamesh Prologue

  This passage, as understood and translated by Samuel Kramer, would include the oldest known reference to Lilith.

  See the Sumerian Mythology FAQ (from which this is pirated) for a fuller discussion. I have included the larger context with the specific appearances fo Lilith in bold.

  The translation is from Kramer38:1f

  After heaven and earth had been separated
  and mankind had been created,
  after Anûum, Enlil and Ereskigal had taken posesssion
  of heaven, earth and the underworld;
  after Enki had set sail for the underworld
  and the sea ebbed and flowed in honor of its lord;
  on this day, a huluppu tree
  which had been planted on the banks of the Euphrates
  and nourished by its waters
  was uprooted by the south wind
  and carried away by the Euphrates.
  A goddess who was wandering among the banks
  siezed the swaying tree
  And -- at the behest of Anu and Enlil --
  brought it to Inanna's garden in Uruk.
  Inanna tended the tree carefully and lovingly
  she hoped to have a throne and a bed
  made for herself from its wood.
  After ten years, the tree had matured.
  But in the meantime, she found to her dismay
  that her hopes could not be fulfilled.
  because during that time
  a dragon had built its nest at the foot of the tree
  the Zu-bird was raising its young in the crown,
  and the demon Lilith had built her house in the middle.[1]
  But Gilgamesh, who had heard of Inanna's plight,
  came to her rescue.
  He took his heavy shield
  killed the dragon with his heavy bronze axe,
  which weighed seven talents and seven minas.
  Then the Zu-bird flew into the mountains
  with its young,
  while Lilith, petrified with fear,
  tore down her house and fled into the wilderness
  Here's the website: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Lilith/
• 

  spender

  You must have misunderstood me. My point was that my *opinion* is that to me, it really makes no difference. If there in fact existed this Lilith, it doesn't change my beliefs about the bible at all. Maybe for some people it does. You also took my quote out of context, since you can clearly see that i said "works that don't lend themselves to that kind of criticism." I've read several papers done on feminist criticism against certain works, and I've found them to be very good...HOWEVER, with every other literary criticism out there (historic, deconstructionism, allegorical) there's only so many things you can apply it to. For instance: a boy writes a story about a dog walking to McDonalds. Would it be appropriate to apply feminist, deconstructive, or allegorical criticism to this? No. I made no judgements in my post regarding whether i thought it was proper to apply this to the bible, since I don't know all the evidence. I think you're the one who is getting all worked up about it and not reading carefully..
• 

  patio34

  Hi Spender,
  Thanks for your reply. I'm on my lunch hour and gotta run. I DID re-read your 1st and 2nd posts, and am sorry, but i don't understand what's different. "We agree to disagree" (but you're dead wrong). The fact that it doesn't change anything for you is yet another telling tidbit about you[8>] . The Bible is of great significance for billions (?) of people and claims to be written by God. If it's seriously flawed, that matters.

  But I digress from the original topic of this post.
• 

  Valis

  Some additional material on Lilith...

  http://www.lilitu.com/lilith/

  http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Lilith/

  The second one is better.

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  spender

  hrmm...this would have some interesting other things it affects...such as problems in paradise before satan even came into the picture and the whole original sin idea...I'm not sure if I'd trust mythology as a basis for my beliefs though.
• 

  Valis

  So Spender, you take the bible litteraly, believeing all of it is true, and not mythology itself? What a joke!!!!

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  spender

  of course not all the bible can be taken literally...but the names and events can be proven by historical fact. Lilith is just taken out of a myth...she's most likely as real as Hercules and Jupiter.