Hey, now, Praus, you're starting to get into the facts of the documentary history and dating of the work. Now give the lad a chance. He's reading his Strong's Concordance and wants to share the mysteries of the owl lady with us in some kind of, you know, Lilith Code and all that junk. Give the lad a chance. Let him work it out. Get it out of his system.
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
J
Yes the "Alphabet of Ben Sir Sira" is said to date from the 8th to 10th centuries A.D. -- BUT the amulets used against Lilith that are thought to derive from that tradition ARE IN FACT MUCH OLDER, so maybe there was once a much older version of the story of Lilith that no longer exists which the "Alphabet of Ben Sira" was derived from. In any case, the meaning of the Hebrew words that Lilith is derived from, support the "Alphabet of Ben Sira". As for the "Encyclopedia Brittanica", yes the story of Lilith appeared in it too.
As for the "King Jimmy" there are other reasons to avoid it, which I attempted to post here, but the posting mechanism at this site is rather weak, and if you attempt to make a post using two different fonts, and several different colours, to hilite key items the posting mechanism freezes and fails.
As for the "King Jimmy" there are other reasons to avoid it, which I attempted to post here, but the posting mechanism at this site is rather weak, and if you attempt to make a post using two different fonts, and several different colours, to hilite key items the posting mechanism freezes and fails.
Religious Christian's are ignorant, rude and disgusting, and this thread proves it.
One thing for sure in reality, is that one reaps what one sows, and the discord around the world that exists, is for the same reason, over and over again, being disobedient to The Father.
By the obvious ignorance and rudeness displayed here, it is obvious that people still chose men and their doctrines over The Word.
Heartless, judgemental, zero compassion, egotistical educated moron's. (Most of them, Not All of course.)
One thing for sure in reality, is that one reaps what one sows, and the discord around the world that exists, is for the same reason, over and over again, being disobedient to The Father.
By the obvious ignorance and rudeness displayed here, it is obvious that people still chose men and their doctrines over The Word.
Heartless, judgemental, zero compassion, egotistical educated moron's. (Most of them, Not All of course.)
Titus 1:13-15 ... rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
P
you obviously didn't read the whole thing haha it's ok though 
What I'm wondering is how many people were populating more of 'them'selves into the world while God was resting a day later ?
And, HOW could there be people all populating the land when there was NO ONE to WORK THE GROUND, quote unquote
Gen. 2:5
Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[SUP]a[/SUP] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground,
So, where's the beef, I mean, where the FLESH ?
Oh, that's right, TWO verses later, verse 7, to be exact, God CREATES THE FIRST MAN
Then the Lord God formed a man[SUP]c[/SUP] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
And, HOW could there be people all populating the land when there was NO ONE to WORK THE GROUND, quote unquote
Gen. 2:5
Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[SUP]a[/SUP] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground,
So, where's the beef, I mean, where the FLESH ?
Oh, that's right, TWO verses later, verse 7, to be exact, God CREATES THE FIRST MAN
Then the Lord God formed a man[SUP]c[/SUP] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
He (or she?) clearly cited this well, even including highlights of the sections in question. It's pedantic to make fun of the source for not being your preferred source... although, before making this observation, perhaps you should've made sure that Encyclopedia Britannica didn't back up his (or her?) claim.
It clearly has to do with the topic at hand, because it's pertinent to "whether Eve was one of the first two people created", as even the title of the thread demonstrates. Just because you don't want to discuss Lilith doesn't make it unimportant.
Not that I wish to discuss a mythical character that I just learned about, either. But still...
It clearly has to do with the topic at hand, because it's pertinent to "whether Eve was one of the first two people created", as even the title of the thread demonstrates. Just because you don't want to discuss Lilith doesn't make it unimportant.
Not that I wish to discuss a mythical character that I just learned about, either.
But still...
I believe that the mark that God had place on Cain is that He has made Cain to be dark complected,and which it symbolizes that Cain was a man of darkness, but later on Cain's descendants has mingle with the descendants of Seth and made all different shades of people and which that is why Noah's children has came out different skin tone. And now God want us to identify a soul that has a dark spirit in them by their fruits instead of their outward appearance. If God would of had made different races, then that mean that the tree that they'd fell off isn't responsible for Adam's sins, because they wouldn't be consider apart of his tree, and which the other bloodline would of had to sin also in order to face judgment. We all has branched from one and that was Adam, and now we need to branch from the second Adam which is Christ.
Lilith was a demon that the Jews has pick up these stories from neighboring tribes like they had pick up also the stories of Mammon (And which Biblical scholars referred to money) which is a demon, and Beelzebub was another. The testament of Solomon speaks about demons that the Jews believed in. Lilith was told so that women will stay submissive to their husband and which Lilith is one of many demons to destroy God's ordinance between a man and a woman.
He (or she?) clearly cited this well, even including highlights of the sections in question. It's pedantic to make fun of the source for not being your preferred source... although, before making this observation, perhaps you should've made sure that Encyclopedia Britannica didn't back up his (or her?) claim.
It clearly has to do with the topic at hand, because it's pertinent to "whether Eve was one of the first two people created", as even the title of the thread demonstrates. Just because you don't want to discuss Lilith doesn't make it unimportant
Not that I wish to discuss a mythical character that I just learned about, either. But still...
It clearly has to do with the topic at hand, because it's pertinent to "whether Eve was one of the first two people created", as even the title of the thread demonstrates. Just because you don't want to discuss Lilith doesn't make it unimportant
Not that I wish to discuss a mythical character that I just learned about, either.
But still...
I think you missed this page when you joined Christian Chat.
I think you missed this page when you joined Christian Chat.
Are you arguing against free speech here? The reason that most atheists welcome debate is because we truly feel that we are right, and the facts demonstrate this. Why do you oppose such debate if you think you're right? Do you feel that your position is too weak to defend, so much so that you attempt to avoid debate altogether? Do the owners of this forum fear debate? Interesting...
If "factual information" was the topic I have no complaint. This is about a screed that some anonymous person cooked up in their mind in the middle ages--Alphabet of Ben Sir Sira--whose author clearly wasn't a Christian.
We can use Jewish works if they're serious, like the JPS 1917 OT. It's an excellent Bible, we know who translated it, we know their statement of faith, etc. It's not limited to Christian sources.
Using the Alphabet of Ben Sir Sira to interpret the Bible is like using Paradise Lost or Dante's Inferno--and then saying that all the other Bibles are wrong, based on one Catholic translation--the Jerusalem Bible--and some medieval screed.
Do you see where I'm going with this? If not look for all trolling in the earlier posts of this thread.
If someone really wants to do that with a straight face then the thread should have gone into conspiracy forum--no one would know any better.
We can use Jewish works if they're serious, like the JPS 1917 OT. It's an excellent Bible, we know who translated it, we know their statement of faith, etc. It's not limited to Christian sources.
Using the Alphabet of Ben Sir Sira to interpret the Bible is like using Paradise Lost or Dante's Inferno--and then saying that all the other Bibles are wrong, based on one Catholic translation--the Jerusalem Bible--and some medieval screed.
Do you see where I'm going with this? If not look for all trolling in the earlier posts of this thread.
If someone really wants to do that with a straight face then the thread should have gone into conspiracy forum--no one would know any better.
Last edited:
J
"One Catholic translation--the Jerusalem" ? What about the "New Revised Standard Version" ? What about the "Darby Translation" ? They both say "Lilith", NOT "Screech Owl". Further the Revised Standard Version says "Night Hag". Fact is of the seven translations I have, ONLY the "King Jimmy" has Lilith as a bird.
Further, I would point out that the Darby Translation is an unusually accurate one, in the sense that it is a literal translation rather than being modified to suppress odd statements, such as one finds in the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Further, I would point out that the Darby Translation is an unusually accurate one, in the sense that it is a literal translation rather than being modified to suppress odd statements, such as one finds in the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Last edited by a moderator:
My mistake, the NRSV as well.
Either way the Geneva Bible agrees with the KJV which is a very good reason to suspect that screech owl or a related species of owl is correct ("Satyres" are real of course)
Isa 34:14 There shall meete also Ziim and Iim, and the Satyre shall cry to his fellow, and the shricheowle shall rest there, and shall finde for her selfe a quiet dwelling. (1560 Geneva)
There are several literal translations of scripture, I suspect the Darby is "unusually accurate" because it supports your conclusion--which is known as circular reasoning by means of petitio principii. I used petitio principii to reach that conclusion...
Isa 34:14 And there shall the beasts of the desert meet with the jackals, and the wild goat shall cry to his fellow; the lilith also shall settle there, and find for herself a place of rest. (1890 Darby)
Ok, let's get down too it, here's the ancient all-important secret. See, it's even got Hebrew letters so it has more gravitas!
the NRSV as well. Either way the Geneva Bible agrees with the KJV which is a very good reason to suspect that screech owl or a related species of owl is correct ("Satyres" are real of course
)Isa 34:14 There shall meete also Ziim and Iim, and the Satyre shall cry to his fellow, and the shricheowle shall rest there, and shall finde for her selfe a quiet dwelling. (1560 Geneva)
There are several literal translations of scripture, I suspect the Darby is "unusually accurate" because it supports your conclusion--which is known as circular reasoning by means of petitio principii. I used petitio principii to reach that conclusion...
Isa 34:14 And there shall the beasts of the desert meet with the jackals, and the wild goat shall cry to his fellow; the lilith also shall settle there, and find for herself a place of rest. (1890 Darby)
Ok, let's get down too it, here's the ancient all-important secret. See, it's even got Hebrew letters so it has more gravitas!
J
Believe what you will. Though I would point out that "Lilith", (who is regarded by modern day feminists as a "Liberated Woman"), finds her rest in the remnants of "Edom", (which was part of the "Babylonian Empire"), after "Babylon" gets destroyed. Question : Where in the world does one find the highest percentage of "Liberated Women" ?