Who was the First woman?

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by roger1440 View Post
Can you explain please?

Scholars theorized a long time ago that genesis 1 was written in one style at one time, and Genesis 2 in another style, at an earlier time. For academia, the matter of whether the two chapters are two separate accounts isn't up for debate. Only folks who don't take under consideration the methods of modern literary criticism continue the argument.

Sojourner, the "scholars"(==learners/teaching) "theorized"(==supposed/alleged/etc.) a conclusion that fit their understanding of the subject.
"Academia" are human beings and have set themselves above the "god-myth" which they concocted---because an acknowledgement of the Creator GOD would cause their "straw-man" conclusions to collapse.

"Modern literary criticism" uses the very same "flash back" methods to keep the "hearers" in tune with the various details of activity as is seen in Genesis 1+2.

 

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by roger1440 View Post
Can you explain please?



Sojourner, the "scholars"(==learners/teaching) "theorized"(==supposed/alleged/etc.) a conclusion that fit their understanding of the subject.
"Academia" are human beings and have set themselves above the "god-myth" which they concocted---because an acknowledgement of the Creator GOD would cause their "straw-man" conclusions to collapse.

"Modern literary criticism" uses the very same "flash back" methods to keep the "hearers" in tune with the various details of activity as is seen in Genesis 1+2.

...and do you have some great swamp land you can sell me while you're at it? :roll eyes:

Scholars reach the best conclusions that can be reached through critical analysis. What you describe is eisegesis -- reading into the text what we want to see or what we understand. Scholars, however, use the exegetical approach -- reading out of the texts what is there to be read -- and it is the reading that informs understanding, not the other way round.

I have no idea what you're on about with "god-myth" and "straw-man."

Modern literary criticism uses the exegetical process.



We mock what we don't understand.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post

Originally Posted by roger1440 View Post
Can you explain please?

Sojourner, the "scholars"(==learners/teaching) "theorized"(==supposed/alleged/etc.) a conclusion that fit their understanding of the subject.
"Academia" are human beings and have set themselves above the "god-myth" which they concocted---because an acknowledgement of the Creator GOD would cause their "straw-man" conclusions to collapse.

"Modern literary criticism" uses the very same "flash back" methods to keep the "hearers" in tune with the various details of activity as is seen in Genesis 1+2.

...and do you have some great swamp land you can sell me while you're at it? :roll eyes:

Sojourner, I have nothing to "sell". The truths/principles given in the Scriptures are free. There are backed by the Creator GOD who gave them.
However, if you are interested in "swampland"/other worthless ventures then continue with those "critical analysis" conclusions by those humans engaged in the "Modern literary criticism".

Scholars reach the best conclusions that can be reached through critical analysis. What you describe is eisegesis -- reading into the text what we want to see or what we understand. Scholars, however, use the exegetical approach -- reading out of the texts what is there to be read -- and it is the reading that informs understanding, not the other way round.

As I wrote above, it is "eisegesis" that those "Scholars" are "concluding" their reports upon and for the reason given.
"Eisegesis" works just as well in deception whether "reading into" or "out of" a given context. Therefore, the context gives the correct meaning to the issue.

I have no idea what you're on about with "god-myth" and "straw-man."

Modern literary criticism uses the exegetical process.

We mock what we don't understand.

That is evident! Should one really "understand" the Creator GOD---there would be no "mocking" by that one.
The Scriptures are true in that the Creator GOD is real.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, I have nothing to "sell".

...other than a worthless load of unsupportable B.S.

However, if you are interested in "swampland"/other worthless ventures then continue with those "critical analysis" conclusions by those humans engaged in the "Modern literary criticism".

as opposed to... what, exactly? Reading the text uncritically and grossly misunderstanding them?

As I wrote above, it is "eisegesis" that those "Scholars" are "concluding" their reports upon and for the reason given.
"Eisegesis" works just as well in deception whether "reading into" or "out of" a given context. Therefore, the context gives the correct meaning to the issue.

This like reading an article by a blind art critic.

The Scriptures are true in that the Creator GOD is real.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[sincerly]

Sojourner, I have nothing to "sell".

...other than a worthless load of unsupportable B.S.

Sojourner, the Scriptures support that which I have posted very well. It is those extra-Biblical sources which are in error.

As I wrote above, it is "eisegesis" that those "Scholars" are "concluding" their reports upon and for the reason given.
"Eisegesis" works just as well in deception whether "reading into" or "out of" a given context. Therefore, the context gives the correct meaning to the issue.

This like reading an article by a blind art critic.

The blindness of the "scholars" who are biased against the truths of the Scriptures are the "critics" you are presenting. They speculate on the things they can not prove and call it "fact".

as opposed to... what, exactly? Reading the text uncritically and grossly misunderstanding them?

The context as written. Those "scholars" do the "grossly misunderstanding them" in favor of "critical" bias they have for the Scriptures.

The Scriptures are true in that the Creator GOD is real.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Sojourner, it is the topic---it was the Creator GOD who, scripturally, made that first woman.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Biblically 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?

The first feminine was the separation within the consciousness of God. All scripture speaks of these things but is reflected down, sometimes not exactly as it might be said. But there is always error in the lower realms, so that is to be expected.

The first mention of man in Genesis is about the logos the divine consciousness. The second mention is about the creation that happened within a day, (a day is light or a luminary and is seen reflected in this physical consciousness as the big bang).

The rib is also the 'curved side' which is again the feminine, the other side of the man. There was separation within Source, which is first aspect of God. The second is Image and that is the feminine. Thus the first feminine... Chavvah (Eve).

The rib is also a euphemism for other things, which all told, would be somewhat bazaar to us I think. As is always the case in scripture, there are many things being told in one sentence. That may be the intention of the writer (more likely found in the NT) or it might be that it is many additions of thoughts from many different people. The end result is that we get something that is coherent, even if it perhaps does not look it to some. Such do we find in that the ability to fool many and yet still allow others to see. Genesis cannot be read like a normal book, and, even though it is historical, I think it would be misleading to most to use it in such a way. It is scripture.

So in short, the first is from divine consciousness, and after that we see fractal replications of the first One. She is the Mother of the All, and all after that reflect that.

 

[Harikrish]

Lilith was the first woman created. Eve was the second. The early prophets went along with Adam and also married several wives. Solomon had 300 wives.

 

[Unification]

Biblically 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: Spirit. Eve: human body. Serpent: mind.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Biblically 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?

I looked at your moniker "Monk of Reason" and the word "ignorant" is underneath. May I suggest "Ignorant Monk of Reason" is probably more reasonable.

 

[outhouse]

I looked at your moniker "Monk of Reason" and the word "ignorant" is underneath. May I suggest "Ignorant Monk of Reason" is probably more reasonable.

I will take his absolute honesty over anything you have brought forward.

 

[outhouse]

So I don't believe an Adam and Eve.

I believe they are part of the mythology that reflects this theology, exactly as you stated. The Lilith mythology was quite popular as well.

First off I don't actually believe the bible to begin with

Which really Is the educated position to hold in many places. It was never meant to be a history book, or even represent many of the stories as real history.

Only later groups have tried to ruin the original beauty with a literal interpretation.


I agree, with all your points.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I looked at your moniker "Monk of Reason" and the word "ignorant" is underneath. May I suggest "Ignorant Monk of Reason" is probably more reasonable.

I wanted something ironic for my nickname and priest of reason or whatever seemed to roll off the tounge wrong. Back when I made the account I think I was far more anti-theistic than I am now. Or at least in a less educated sense with a broad paint brush in hand.

The title "ignorant" is about my agnosticism. Not really about my ignorance of topics. Though I think we are all woefully ignorant of the topics in many cases.

But back on point did you actually have a point?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Adam: Spirit. Eve: human body. Serpent: mind.

And your justification is?

 

[029b10]

I heard on the dew in the wind from above,
the Spirit and the Word were born of the Light,
that shines in the heavens yet no eye can see
that made the Woman, male and female of flesh
that Man could give a soul to the Woman's seed
Born not of blood nor the will of the flesh, but
born of the Father's only begotten Son.

 

[Unification]

And your justification is?

Light revealed.

 

[Moni_Gail]

Despite the age of this thread, here it goes. The first creation myth was written by the Priestly (P) writers and the second by the Yahwist (J) writers. The second creation myth is older, P was written during the post Babylonian exile. When placed before the J myth, it alters how we read/interpret the tale. Due to its sacred nature, they did not toss out the J version.

 

[sincerly]

Despite the age of this thread, here it goes. The first creation myth was written by the Priestly (P) writers and the second by the Yahwist (J) writers. The second creation myth is older, P was written during the post Babylonian exile. When placed before the J myth, it alters how we read/interpret the tale. Due to its sacred nature, they did not toss out the J version.

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.

 

[Moni_Gail]

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.

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.

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.

 

[rosends]

Biblically in Genesis 1:27


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?

1. Lilith biblically was an owl literally and (maybe) a demon, fancifully.
2. Lilith talmudically was a demon
3. Medrashically, Adam had a "first wife."

The writer of the Alphabet of Ben Sira combined #4 with the idea behind #3 and mixed in the ideas behind a Sumerian myth (among others), but this was relatively recently, and in a piece of fiction.

 

[RabbiO]

1. Lilith biblically was an owl literally and (maybe) a demon, fancifully.
2. Lilith talmudically was a demon
3. Medrashically, Adam had a "first wife."

The writer of the Alphabet of Ben Sira combined #4 with the idea behind #3 and mixed in the ideas behind a Sumerian myth (among others), but this was relatively recently, and in a piece of fiction.

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."