Who was the First woman?

[rosends]

Thank you.

One of the realities on this, and other forums, is that the same topics wind up as the subjects of multiple threads. For myself, I have no interest in constantly revisiting the same issue again and again and repeating myself over and over. Back in September, on another thread, I wrote in response to a post that stated that Lilith as the first wife of Adam was Talmudic - "No, it is not from the Talmud. Although Lilith as a demon was known in Talmudic times, the story of Lilith as the first wife of Adam can only be traced back to the beginning of the 9th century CE and a work known as the Alef Bet of Ben Sira."

If the OP might simply have said "and there is a story which says that..." but to make an actual claim that it is from the talmud becomes so annoying. It means that the OP copied it from somewhere else and didn't do any investigation.

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
Since I wasn't there and neither was any who are alive today---Eve is satisfactory and I'll take the Creator GOD speaking over an explosion of nothing.

I think there may be some confusion here. They are both Eve. Genesis did not come into being on one fateful day; it's been a very long process of compiling and editing. Despite my own lack of belief, I have a great preoccupation with Biblical exegesis. I simply answered the initial question concerning the two creation myths. And yes, there are two.

Yes, Genesis was along time in writing. from the time the Creation happened and the recording took place.
But you and I will not agree upon any of it. Moses was the first of those from those GOD considered HIS people from Abraham to record the happenings. Prior to that it was orally passed from one to another.
However, the task wasn't insurmountable.

Yes, the Eve of Gen.1 is the Eve of Gen.2. The Creating took Six literal days for GOD to complete all things that were made. Then GOD set aside the Seventh Day of creation week as a perpetual sanctified and blessed day of rest.
Moses wasn't given the five books he was to write until the exodus about1490 B.C.--some 2500 years after the Creation.
You keep in mind Deut.12:32, "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."
The Scribes were not allowed to "rework" "adding their own contributions".

This was determined by their literary compositions and source criticism. For example, there are two different styles present, their content is contradictory, the name of God varies from passage to passage, and the text is needlessly repetitive. It all makes perfect sense when the documentary hypothesis is introduced. In Genesis alone 3 different literary strands have been found, which were written over several centuries, and edited together. Keep in mind that ancient literature, such as the Bible, is often the work of many authors over a period of time. Rarely is a text written by one author and then never altered. Later authors rework earlier texts because they recognize the value of the texts, yet they also had their own contributions to make to the literature and they leave behind clues in style and content.

What you are claiming is the machinations of sinful man.

I said absolutely nothing regarding how this world came to be. If it is the term myth that you are reacting to then you should know that I use the word in its literary sense, and not its more common use to mean that it's false.

"literary sense"=symbolic narrative which is still something not true--per the "scholars". "fiction section" vs truth section

 

[lockyfan]

Chapters one and two are not chronological as such.
Genesis 1 it shows the process of creation, Genesis 2 then shows in more detail how things happened etc. So no they are not contradictory and they are not in a mess.

Eve was the first woman to be created. She was created out of Adam. The bible tells us so in Genesis 2

 

[outhouse]

Eve was the first woman to be created

Unsubstantiated. Humans evolved. To date no human has ever been created.

She was created out of Adam.

Unsubstantiated.

The bible tells us so in Genesis 2

The bible says many things.

 

[Trimijopulos]

Humans evolved. To date no human has ever been created.

Dogs also evolved; yet humans created new breeds of dogs and therefore the creator of these breeds may still be nature but humans can also be regarded as their creators.

Can you reject the possibility that some humans were created in human breeding grounds by some lords who came to be known as gods?

If you read how the creation of humans is described in texts older than the Tanakh, you’ll surely begin to wonder. ;-)

 

[outhouse]

Can you reject the possibility that some humans were created in human breeding grounds by some lords who came to be known as gods?

Yes I can with certainty.


Alien conspiracy nutters, like those on TV are laughable at how the uneducated can produce garbage.


We have a clear track record of natural progression through evolution, with no magical leaps that require imagination to posit.

 

[Trimijopulos]

Yes I can with certainty.

And your certainty is backed by what? Have you done some research or you go by belief as the believers do?

Anyway, let me inform you of a few things that one cannot learn unless he digs deep into the past and the ancient texts.

Up to the 3rd millennium BCE the ancient Egyptians were producing so much new citizens as slaves in human breeding grounds. Abducted and imprisoned women of the neighboring countries were kept into “pens” where the Egyptian noblemen were raping them. The offspring they judged at a certain age and those regarded unsuitable were eliminated. These things we know from instructions issued by the kings for their sons and successors as well as from royal decrees.

Now, as long as the production of “humans” and judgment of the produced “humans” was going on in real life, the ancient Egyptian theologians presented in their religious texts the life that the people were living after judgment (that means the life of those who survived) as a life after death. Thus the concepts of soul, immortality and Otherworld were created and passed to philosophers and theologians of the West (by means of the idiotic idealist ancient Greek philosophers).

We have to do at the same time with a simple story (the story of the gods, or rather the origins of theology) and a huge hoax, an unbelievable deceit committed by both the church and the state (the academy). The Egyptologists know of the human breeding grounds operating in Egypt (and the entire Near East) and manage to mistranslate the hieroglyphic texts so that the other scholars won’t find out about the breeding grounds, the real judgment, and the nonsense of the concepts produced by the priest in order not to harm religion (since we still believe the same nonsense)..

If you are interested in this theory and you would like to verify it, I can provide relevant links but you will have to read letters addressed to Egyptologists, although no special training is required in order to be understood.

 

[outhouse]

Not one thing you stated has to do with human evolution.

Egyptians today, are basically the same Egyptians in ancient times.


Thanks for playing.

one cannot learn unless he digs deep into the past and the ancient texts.

No, sir.

That is not deep in the past biologically speaking. That's is very recent times biologically speaking.

If you are interested in this theory

Its not really a theory, its not even a credible hypothesis.

If you stated, would I like to learn more about your guesses, I would say I don't have time for pseudo history OR pseudo science.

 

[Trimijopulos]

Its not really a theory, its not even a credible hypothesis.

If you stated, would I like to learn more about your guesses, I would say I don't have time for pseudo history OR pseudo science.

I see!! You are obviously an omniscient person who reads sealed letters and can tell preudo-science from the real thing by reading about none.

As regards your dependence on evolution…

An African is a pure product of evolution while a non-African is not, as the latter is a hybrid Homo sapiens sapiens (Hss) – Neanderthal. Either the admixture came naturally (which I very much doubt) or by force, the Hss ceased being natural products of evolution in the Middle East, during their stop over there in their way to Europe.

The ancient Egyptians, with their human breeding grounds, forcibly altered their natural genome and therefore today’s Egyptians are the descendants of some hybrids too (as all non Africans are, since their birth place is the Middle East).

When man plays God evolution loses the battle.

 

[outhouse]

An African is a pure product of evolution while a non-African is not

LOl

Provide credible sources.

You look so much like POE

 

[Trimijopulos]

LOl

Provide credible sources.

You look so much like POE

What credible sources? It is common knowledge that Eurasians are hybrids: Homo sapiens sapiens – Neanderthal.

And what POE means? You are not communicating with some telex machine here.

 

[rosends]

What credible sources? It is common knowledge that Eurasians are hybrids: Homo sapiens sapiens – Neanderthal.

And what POE means? You are not communicating with some telex machine here.

my guess about the use of poe is a reference to Poe's law and the appearance of someone as so extreme that he can't be sincerely that extreme and must be playing at it, often to undermine that position by appearing to be radically in favor of it.

 

[Trimijopulos]

my guess about the use of poe is a reference to Poe's law and the appearance of someone as so extreme that he can't be sincerely that extreme and must be playing at it, often to undermine that position by appearing to be radically in favor of it.

Oh, I see! Most probably you are right, but I am not pretending.

I am a hard core atheist but with a great respect for some of the authors of the Tanakh and thus I regard the information about the sons of the gods who married the daughters of men and created new people, half-breeds or demigods, as genuine.

That is the sort of creation all the ancient legends, myths and texts report. The seed of the gods entered the genome of the primitive men and resulted in a civilized humanity. The gods were not the original creators of humanity

In other words, if we take the Tanakh literally we will arrive at the conclusion that some of its authors were advocates of the original religion of the Israelites (El the principal God, Yahweh one of his sons) and some were outright atheists, i.e. they agreed with the creation “theory” but knew who the creators and who the created ones were. ;-)

In order not to be misunderstood I have to state that one may read the Tanakh literally but only if one possesses the information that its authors passed to those entrusted with the Oral Torah. Unfortunately, I have not read the Talmud but my knowledge of the other ancient Near Eastern Texts helps me to understand some of the seemingly incomprehensible stories in the Tanakh.

 

[outhouse]

I am a hard core atheist

half-breeds or demigods, as genuine

Which are contradictory.

Sounds like your half atheist, if you believe in half gods

 

[outhouse]

the original religion of the Israelites (El the principal God, Yahweh one of his sons)

This is correct. Baal was also Yahweh's brother. El's wife Asherah after 800 BC we also see being attributed to Yahweh. So Yahweh had a wife for a while as well.

 

[outhouse]

The seed of the gods entered the genome of the primitive men and resulted in a civilized humanity.

The problem here is that we see the genome in modern Egyptians and it is identical to ancient Egyptians. It is not far from those that lived 13000 year ago when civilization started at Gobeki Tepe


Another note, the mythology surrounding El goes back a very long way in Mesopotamian cultures, before the divine council existed. They had similar mythology which also has the same homo sapiens genome as today.

 

[Trimijopulos]

Sounds like your half atheist, if you believe in half gods

To me “gods” means “lords”, i.e. the ruling elite then and the ruling elite now. The American officials who decided or permitted that Washington be depicted as a god, were of the same opinion with me.

Surely, you do not expect Oxford University to admit that at all times “gods” actually meant “lords”.

The problem here is that we see the genome in modern Egyptians and it is identical to ancient Egyptians. It is not far from those that lived 13000 year ago when civilization started at Gobeki Tepe

Correct! Yet, you know that the interbreeding of Hss and Neanderthals took place 50,000 years ago (that is the time the Near Eastern Neanderthals went extinct). The ancient Egyptians, as all the inhabitants of the ancient Near East, were already hybrids when the more recent interbreeding was going on and therefore that was an admixture inside a race not an admixture between two races as it happened with the original one between Hss and Neanderthals.

The stories about gods have the same age (50k to 40k years) because those who wrote down the story of the “Cow” mother who was inseminated by the “Bull” father were fashioning the same figurines of the mother as those made 40,000 years ago by people who had no writing system yet.

Another note, the mythology surrounding El goes back a very long way in Mesopotamian cultures, before the divine council existed. They had similar mythology which also has the same homo sapiens genome as today.

The “divine council” is a theological idea. In Egypt, however, a real council of magistrates was judging (and killing) people just 4,000 (4k) years ago. The mythology of every group of people on earth is similar because it is the story of the events that took place in the Near East. Do not forget that the non-Afticans dispersed in Asia, Europe, Oceania and the Americas after they left the Near East area.

To believe that the origins of religion are spiritual,makes no harm to religion. To know that the origins of religion are based on real events which prove all spirituality nonsense, is no good at all for religion. :-D

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Just want to throw my Mistress in.

(No, my take on it is not literal.)

 

[bird]

iblically in Genesis 1:27

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

It seems that god had created man and woman. But Adam later in Genesis 2...

22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

So was Eve the first woman or was she simply another woman? Is there validity to the tale of Lilith from a biblical standpoint? I know that she was omitted from the cannon. The story of lilith was from one of the earliest stories in the Babylonian Talmud.

Thoughts?

Adam is a picture of Christ and Eve is a picture of the bride of Christ (which is all the true believers). She is called 'the mother of all living' in scripture because she is alive in Christ (as are all true believers). Those who are not in Christ would be referred to in another way besides 'alive'. The deep sleep that fell upon Adam was a picture of the cross, as 'deep' signifies judgement in the Bible and 'sleep' signifies death. The judgement death which Christ endured on the cross was necessary to create the bride of Christ, because it allowed persons to be forgiven and God could then give a bride to Jesus. The fact that the bride is made from Adam's side alludes to the cross as well as Jesus was pierced in his side. Were there people around before Jesus went to the cross. Apparently so. However, some persons from before that time of the cross appear to have been saved (created in God's image) as are true believers after the cross as well. I do not think unsaved persons are created in God's image. Remember the Bible says about true believers that he is conforming them to the image of his son. Such a statement is not made about the unsaved. Chapter 1 in Genesis might just be stating what is stated again in Chapter 2 but in a different way perhaps. Even the early parts of Chapter 1 could be parable language referring to something other than the moment of the creation of the physical universe. Consider that Jesus is the light (not a physical sun or stars). Heaven is God's throne (not the upper stratosphere). The beginning is a time mentioned in 1 Chron 17:9 that is more like the great tribulation than the beginning of a universe, when people were void of understanding. The earth is said to be dry land, not planet earth. And the word land is a parable word in the Bible. So, anyway, Genesis 1 may not be a timeline of the beginning of the universe in chronological order.