Angels

ArchaeC said:

There is plenty of strong evidence suggesting that elements of the Old Testament and Hebrew Bible have come from  myths handed down, historical events, narratives of supernatural events, oral tradition etc,

We agree on this. The majority of the old testament is a hodgepodge of made up stories, often mangled through translation and cherry picked to suite the ends of the writer.

ArchaeC said:

Myths about Lilith may have been around before the Old Testament came into being, but there is no evidence that suggests they have.

There is no evidence for almost anything in the bible. Many stories were written decades after the events happened, there is no proof of the life story of Jesus as written in the bible (there is consensus that he existed as a person (his babtism and crucifiction are the only events with proof) but that is about it).

Since the bible was created from such poor quality source material and has been heavily edited through the millenia I find it has little value other than as a tool of an organised religion to promote themselves and (until recent decades) to keep the people in line.

I have no issue with faith or belief but organised religion is mostly not worth the time of day in my personal opinion.

I do not see evidence from what you have provided that:

Iain said:

Eve was his third according to the old testament - well the older versions before it was edited

Iain said:

The sources go back to the Hebrew Genesis Rabbah that pre-date the bible and are the source for the Old Testament

The Genesis Rabbah of c.400CE - 450CE is not the source of the Christian Old Testament because the Christian Bible was affirmed in it present form at the Council of Rome in 383CE, which was before the Genesis Rabbah was written. There are no earlier forms of the Old Testsment than that. The Christian Old Testament is a slightly edited version of the Hebrew Bible which is known as the Tanakh.

The Genesis Rabbah is a composite document which contains some writings from and about Genesis, as well as some earlier source material on the Jewish Torah. Its purpose was as a companion work to the Torah for Jewish theological study, so it is a commentary on Genesis rather than a holy book with the same status as the Torah. 

“Lilith” is a Hebrew transliteration of a proper name that may be a Mesopotamian night demon, but it is mentioned only once (with no theological meaning) in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. 

Your Wikipedia link states that the original Hebrew word from which Lilith is taken is in the Book of Isaiah, although Lilith herself is not mentioned in any Biblical text.

Your link states that the Jewish sources for Lilith, including the Babylonian Talmud, date from 500CE onwards, and folklore dates after c.700CE, and the oldest form of the “Lilith as Adam’s first wife dates between 8-10th century CE.

Iain said:

Howard Schwartz's Tree of Souls provides a nice synopsis and references primary sources

“Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism” by Howard Schwartz contains exactly what the title suggests, a collection of myths. It is a good collection of Jewish myths but they are literary representations from sources dated after the canonisation of the Christian Old Testament.

Wikipedia has a more accurate overview of Lilith in Mesopotamian mythology:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

The Spirit in the Tree in the Gilgamesh Cycle

That is based on mathematical progression, However, it does not take into account that pre-modern populations often were very static for many generations and that a lot of pedigree collapse happened, where a person has the same gt. or gt.gt. grandparent on both their paternal and maternal lines. Small static geographical populations tend to have relatively small inputs from outside. I have one line of ancestry that didn't move out of one village between 1589 and 1840 - with some second or third cousin marriages recorded.

Given the agnatic nature of Irish septs, I am more likely to be a descendant of 'Thorfinus filius Oter' than most.

Hi TheCatWoman  Yes, I believe in Angels. They were created before mankind. I’m a christian. I believe we each have a guardian angel, and the further we are from God the further the Angel will be from us

I am interested in religion/spirituality as well. I think you may be interested in this blog post that I wrote last month as it mentions angels/messengers of God. I might do a proper feature on them in the Bible itself. Your post helped me get that idea as I do like angels and love messengers of God. I love how they used to deliver personal messages to people in the past in person. Another age. I use blogger and it is free. It can be used for any subject history, art etc. It is a way of cultivating another interest if you decide. Spirituality itself can be a part of holistic health if you find the right one for you. https://www.racheltestimony.com/2025/06/the-day-god-sent-me-messenger-in-human.html

"Our spirit can be described in many ways across different cultures. It can be recognised as the deepest part of ourselves – the part that gives us direction and motivation. It enables us to survive difficult times, to be strong, and to be ourselves"

Iain said:

these have been cherry picked to create the old testament to suit the intentions of the Christian church.

Yeahhh that’s one of many reasons why my faith crumbled. The Bible isn’t particularly the most reliable book ever written.

ArchaeC said:

I don’t believe this is correct. What is the source and dating?

The sources go back to the Hebrew Genesis Rabbah that pre-date the bible and are the source for the Old Testament. They make for fascinating reading, especially when you see how these have been cherry picked to create the old testament to suit the intentions of the Christian church.

Howard Schwartz's Tree of Souls provides a nice synopsis and references primary sources.

copying and pasting the relevant parts on the second wife:

    177. THE FIRST EVE

    God wanted to create a helpmate for Adam. So God created the first Eve right in front of him. As Adam watched, the first Eve was created from the inside out—first her bones, then her flesh, and finally she was covered with skin. But when God offered her to Adam, he fled in disgust and hid in the Garden.

    So the first Eve was taken away, never to be heard from again. Nothing is known of her fate. Then God put Adam to sleep, and when he awoke there was another woman, and this time he found her to be beautiful.

So the Eve we know is really version 2.0 of the original design and Adam couldn't see past her "construction" stage.

Lilith came before this - also sourced from the original Jewish texts and is explained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

What we see in the bible is a sanitised version of the original story. Adam was a bit of a unit for rejecting the first Eve.

Iain said:

Eve was his third according to the old testament - well the older versions

I don’t believe this is correct. What is the source and dating?

profdanger said:

You’re thinking of Lilith!

Ah, Adams first wife, a demon from hell. God had a twisted sense of humour.

There is even less mention of his second wife - she was literally dusted out of existence.

Eve was his third according to the old testament - well the older versions before it was edited to stop all those awkward questions from the flock.

There is so much of the original bible missing that it really questions the value of what is left - it is more a corporate handbook for the church these days.

You’re thinking of Lilith!

I’m not familiar with Melusine, but it wouldn’t surprise me if she was a river goddess as many of the ancient sources link water with goddesses and sea nymphs. The Egyptian goddess Isis, under her adopted name Satis, had control of the River Nile’s water flow, and of women’s fertility. The Mesopotamian goddess Nammu was linked with the creation myth. Closer to home, Irish Celtic spirituality is centred around the life giving waters of rivers and holy wells. 

I haven’t heard any legends about a previous wife of Adam. 

Yes, most Christian’s would believe that God is omnipotent and created everything, but God created the angels as spirits with free will. Satan was originally a good angel, but pride and ambition got the better of him so he became a “fallen angel”, believing he could become greater than God. God continued to allow Satan free will, just as humans enjoy free will. This “free will” argument has been the sticking point for Christians and non Christians for hundreds of years, and there hasn’t been a satisfactory conclusion.

Defining “free will” is a complex philosophical task, and arguments over cause and effect with regards to God’s omnipotence are not satisfactory in human terms either. Christians might answer your question by saying “God’s ways are not our ways, so we don’t understand God’s plan for our future/God is fully revealed in the decision for the second person of The Trinity, Jesus Christ, to become fully human and fully divine, yet Jesus didn’t know everything when he was alive on earth. Many theologians would simply say, “it is a mystery”.

I've looked into legends of Melusine, she seems to have been a river or lake Goddess/Spirit. I got into reading a bit more about her after reading Phillipa Gregory's The White Queen, Elizabeth Woodville's mother Jaquetta was suposedly another decendent of Melusine.

If God's omnipotent, then how come he didn't see Lucifer's rebellion and if he did then why let it happen, the same with Adam and Eve?

I've heard other legends, very sketchy ones about Adams first wife, before Eve, any thougts on this anyone?

I didn’t notice anything missing. I am understanding Martin’s post to be about a legend of the daughters of Satan. Some Christians believe Satan is a fallen angel, so Satan’s daughters could be semi-angelic. 

I feel like I've missed a bit here? Did someone post something that was later removed?

I still don't know what a blog is, where I'd find one or why.

Martin said:

One of my supposed ancestors

INFODUMP ALERT! (You have been warned!)

If you go back about a thousand years, then anyone in Europe who had children is probably an ancestor of yours ... and mine ... and everyone else of European heritage.

If you pick any two people at random in Europe, you'll find that they have a common ancestor in the last 600 years or so. We're probably about 4th–6th cousins on average (more distantly related, obviously, if you have to go all the way back).

The same doesn't hold for Africa, though. The African population is much more genetically diverse (fewer "bottlenecks"). You have to go back further to find common ancestors there.

One of my supposed ancestors, Thorfin, son of Óttar, King of Dublin,was instrumental in bringing Dubhgall the son of Somerled to power in the Western Isles. Thorfin was acting out a blood-feud against someone involved in his father's death.

TheCatWoman, I must have got that wrong then. I thought I read last year that you did a course last year I thought I read. I thought it was on religion, but I seem to have got that wrong. Some blogs are free and not they are not always for the finished article.

TheCatWoman said:

whereas a man can do what any Tom cat can do and not worry about the consequenses.

I'm not going to pull it out and sprinkle over the neighbours bushes - there are consequences. 

Seriously though, in todays culture with paternity tests and child maintenance there are lots of consequences for fathers (or sometimes mothers) who are less than discriminate with their egg fertilisation.

The world has changed.

What course in spirituality have I done?

I wouldn't know where to begin writing a blog? I don't think I'm interesting enough for anyone to read it, if thats what you do with them .

***************************

Super Father's are a bit of a problem genetically speaking, when you think that pretty much every white male MacDonald, all over the world is a decendent of Somerled, Lord of The Isles and his son Donald, there are millions of them.

We dont' seem to have a problem with Super Mothers, or not that I'm aware, maybe because there a much bigger time investment for women, whereas a man can do what any Tom cat can do and not worry about the consequenses.