Is Lilith in the Bible?
Tom Robertson
Several people in an E-mail list to which I subscribe are disputing about
whether or not Lilith is ever mentioned in the Bible. One person says he
has read the Bible several times, and has never seen it. Another person
says it is in the book of Isaiah, but I browsed through it, and did not see
it there. What is the source of the Lilith legend?
Eric and JD
B J Kuehl wrote:
>
> Try Isaiah 34:14. If using a direct Hebrew translation, it might
> mention Lilith by name. If using a Greek/Latin/Christian translation,
> the name 'lilith' will most likely be translated as the the 'night
> hag' or 'night owl'.
>
> So far as I know, Lilith is NOT mentioned in Genesis.
>
> The story of Lilith as Adam's first wife is a recent (i.e., medieval
> Talmudic) invention.
>
> For more info about Lilith (based on references, NOT on heresay),
> see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Lilith
>
> ^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
And here I thought it was just from Piers Anthony's Incarnations of
Immortality series. :)
JD
--
:::::We stand between the Shadow and the Light:::::
Tom Robertson
On 30 Dec 1996 21:46:49 GMT, B J Kuehl wrote:
>Try Isaiah 34:14. If using a direct Hebrew translation, it might
>mention Lilith by name. If using a Greek/Latin/Christian translation,
>the name 'lilith' will most likely be translated as the the 'night
>hag' or 'night owl'.
"The New American Standard Bible" has a footnote to the words "night
monster" in Isaiah 34:14, which says "Hebrew: Lilith."
Thanks for the information.
Brenda Webb
I have heard the Lilith is mentioned in the old Testament you may want to
check ot that part of the bible first.
Tom Robertson <mdm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<32c7d6e2...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
sahara
mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote:
>Several people in an E-mail list to which I subscribe are disputing about
>whether or not Lilith is ever mentioned in the Bible. One person says he
>has read the Bible several times, and has never seen it. Another person
>says it is in the book of Isaiah, but I browsed through it, and did not see
>it there. What is the source of the Lilith legend?
If you're still interested, I did an issue of my zine, The Redrum
Coffeehouse, devoted to the legend of Lilith. You can find it at:
http://www.gothitica.com/redrum/
It might help a bit. The factual (vs. creative) content about her
legend can be found in the "Vampires" section.
-- sahara
"I'm just a revved up youth on a thrill-kill rampage."
Iren
On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote:
> Several people in an E-mail list to which I subscribe are disputing about
> whether or not Lilith is ever mentioned in the Bible. One person says he
> has read the Bible several times, and has never seen it. Another person
> says it is in the book of Isaiah, but I browsed through it, and did not see
> it there. What is the source of the Lilith legend?
>
>
It was my understanding that she is mentioned in the Jewish Talmud
(Spelling?) but I'm not sure.
Iren
(Andrew Drobny)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I said, "Sir, teach me about the faculty of these authorities how did
they come into being, and by what kind of genesis, and of what material,
and who created them and their force?"
And the great Angel Eleleth, understanding, spoke to me: "Within
linitless realms dwells incorruptibility. Sophia, who is called Pistis,
wanted to create somthing alone without her consort; and her product was a
celestial thing."
"A veil exists between the world above and the realms that are
below; and shadow came into being beneath the veil; and that shadow became
matter; and that shadow was projected apart."
[The Hypostasis of the Archons 93, 34-94, 4]
Horvath
On 30 Dec 1996 17:22:26 GMT, "Veronica .A. Harwood" <harw...@nt.net>
scribbled:
>replaced by a less independent and less equal Eve, a woman not
>"made" from the Earth but from a rib of the man Adam. There's more, but,
>you didn't exactly ask to know about Lilith did you, I just have a
>really bad habbit of rambling on pointlessly. But, Lilith is mentioned
>somewhere in the Jewish Bible, and in the Book of Genesis.
>
Lilith is NOT mentioned anywhere in the book of Genesis.
Horvath
Don't be alarmed by the sudden splendor of my appearance,
and do not let the fear of the fury and chaos of darkness
trouble you any longer. My name is Horvath, a soldier of
the night. Henceforth I shall be your shield, and your
defender. Step closer, join me, and you shall live, forever.
victoria gwaed
In article <32d045e9....@news.alt.net>, quoth
Hor...@norden1.comn...
>
>On 30 Dec 1996 17:22:26 GMT, "Veronica .A. Harwood" <harw...@nt.net>
>scribbled:
>
>>replaced by a less independent and less equal Eve, a woman not
>>"made" from the Earth but from a rib of the man Adam. There's more,
but,
>>you didn't exactly ask to know about Lilith did you, I just have a
>>really bad habbit of rambling on pointlessly. But, Lilith is
mentioned
>>somewhere in the Jewish Bible, and in the Book of Genesis.
>>
>
>Lilith is NOT mentioned anywhere in the book of Genesis.
Not in the newer versions, no. But there is a Genesis before the one
that we are familiar with now. It was cut out when the Church cut out
most, if not nearly all of the strong women. A library with a
substantial "divinity" section should have an older, unabridged version
to prove my point.
--
victoria gwaed lilitua...@2die4.com
William Bittle
I am curious..Isn't Lilith mentioned in Hebrew religious texts???
Anonymous
From: lilitua...@2die4.com (victoria gwaed) wrote:
>In article <32d045e9....@news.alt.net>, quoth Hor...@norden1.comn...
>>Lilith is NOT mentioned anywhere in the book of Genesis.
>Not in the newer versions, no. But there is a Genesis before the one
>that we are familiar with now. It was cut out when the Church cut out
>most, if not nearly all of the strong women. A library with a
>substantial "divinity" section should have an older, unabridged version
> to prove my point.
>--
>victoria gwaed lilitua...@2die4.com
You are correct in saying that Lillith is mentioned in the unabriged Bible.
However, to my knowledge, she is only mentioned briefly in the Book of Ezekiel.
Correct me if I am wrong.
--
lilim ben Ashmodai
mol...@sprynet.com
> William Bittle <nosf...@sprynet.com> writes:
> I am curious..Isn't Lilith mentioned in Hebrew religious texts???
>
>>>>
Omnedon
Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>You are correct in saying that Lillith is mentioned in the unabriged Bible.
>However, to my knowledge, she is only mentioned briefly in the Book of Ezekiel.
>Correct me if I am wrong.
>--
>lilim ben Ashmodai
There IS no unabridged Bible. Blame the Council of Nicea.
<Omnedon, The Phoenix>
ANDE...@uni-trier.de
> >scribbled:
> >
> >>replaced by a less independent and less equal Eve, a woman not
> >>"made" from the Earth but from a rib of the man Adam. There's more,
> but,
> >>you didn't exactly ask to know about Lilith did you, I just have a
> >>really bad habbit of rambling on pointlessly. But, Lilith is
> mentioned
> >>somewhere in the Jewish Bible, and in the Book of Genesis.
> >>
> >
>
> Not in the newer versions, no. But there is a Genesis before the one
> that we are familiar with now. It was cut out when the Church cut out
> most, if not nearly all of the strong women. A library with a
> substantial "divinity" section should have an older, unabridged version
> to prove my point.
> --
This is not totally correct.I know what you mean as Lilith appeared in
the ancient scripts as first wife of Adam.Nevertheless she still appears
in the modern version as well,though only with her name and the
explanation she was sth. like the "ghost of the night".I think this is
in Leviticus or Deuteromium,anyway in one of the books of Moses.
I can check this an tell you the exact line whether you like.
Thus far,from the shadow-kingdom,CHRIS!!!
Horvath
On 9 Jan 1997 03:06:56 +0100, nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) scribbled:
>From: lilitua...@2die4.com (victoria gwaed) wrote:
>
>>In article <32d045e9....@news.alt.net>, quoth Hor...@norden1.comn...
>
>>>Lilith is NOT mentioned anywhere in the book of Genesis.
>
>>Not in the newer versions, no. But there is a Genesis before the one
>>that we are familiar with now. It was cut out when the Church cut out
>>most, if not nearly all of the strong women. A library with a
>>substantial "divinity" section should have an older, unabridged version
>> to prove my point.
>>--
>>victoria gwaed lilitua...@2die4.com
>
>You are correct in saying that Lillith is mentioned in the unabriged Bible.
>However, to my knowledge, she is only mentioned briefly in the Book of Ezekiel.
>Correct me if I am wrong.
>
You're wrong. Lilith is NOT mentioned in the bible.
Horvath
Twin Dragon Scorpion Beings whose look is death
are the guardians of the entrance into the mountain.
The aura of the demon guardian Beings
shimmers across the surface of the mountain.
The shimmering of the light is death to look at.
Eric and JD
Horvath wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Jan 1997 15:58:52 -0800, ANDE...@uni-trier.de scribbled:
>
> >victoria gwaed wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <32d045e9....@news.alt.net>, quoth
> >> Hor...@norden1.comn...
> >> >
> >> >scribbled:
> >> >
> >> >>replaced by a less independent and less equal Eve, a woman not
> >> >>"made" from the Earth but from a rib of the man Adam. There's more,
> >> but,
> >> >>you didn't exactly ask to know about Lilith did you, I just have a
> >> >>really bad habbit of rambling on pointlessly. But, Lilith is
> >> mentioned
> >> >>somewhere in the Jewish Bible, and in the Book of Genesis.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> Not in the newer versions, no. But there is a Genesis before the one
> >> that we are familiar with now. It was cut out when the Church cut out
> >> most, if not nearly all of the strong women. A library with a
> >> substantial "divinity" section should have an older, unabridged version
> >> to prove my point.
> >> --
> >This is not totally correct.I know what you mean as Lilith appeared in
> >the ancient scripts as first wife of Adam.Nevertheless she still appears
> >in the modern version as well,though only with her name and the
> >explanation she was sth. like the "ghost of the night".I think this is
> >in Leviticus or Deuteromium,anyway in one of the books of Moses.
> >I can check this an tell you the exact line whether you like.
> >Thus far,from the shadow-kingdom,CHRIS!!!
> >
>
> Stop passing off this garbage as the truth.
>
> I have two versions of the bible on CD. When you type in a word and
> select search, it will show you all the passages where the word
> appears.
>
> If you type in "David" you get about 2400 hits. When you type in
> "Lilith" or any variation, it says, "No Match Found."
>
> Lilith is not in the bible.
>
> Horvath
>
> This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.
Horvath you old fool! The very mention of having two CD's of a Bible is
where you are screwed up! Go to a Real Library sometime and look up
older versions of the Bible, what you have is obviously too perverted by
time, and editing by the Church, to be any real good. Especially since
the damned things were probably not created prior to this decade.
Gwion
little blast from the past. For those who are still interested, check
out the rest of the thread on http://www.dejanews.com/
--
.~_~_~_~_~ ~_~_~_~_~ ~__~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __~ ~ ~ ~ ~_~_~_~_~ ~_~_~_~_~.
:/_X X X_\ /_X X X_\ / ( ) | ( ) |\ | /_X X X_\ /_X X X_\:
: _ X X _ _ X X _ { __ { } | { } | \ | _ X X _ _ X X _ :
:\_X_X_X_/ \_X_X_X_/ \__| \^/ | (__) | \| \_X_X_X_/ \_X_X_X_/:
'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
)O( DRINK DEEP OF LIFE'S MYSTERIES )O(
Horvath
Horvath
On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:31:23 -0500, Gwion <gw...@erols.com> scribbled:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>--------------296C70294D79
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>There was actually a huge thread on this topic back in June. Here is a
>little blast from the past. For those who are still interested, check
>out the rest of the thread on http://www.dejanews.com/
>--
>
>--------------296C70294D79
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="Lillith1.html"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Lillith1.html"
>Content-Base: "file:///C|/123stuff/Lillith1.html"
>
><BASE HREF="file:///C|/123stuff/Lillith1.html">
>
><HTML>
><HEAD><TITLE>Deja News Retrieved Document</TITLE></HEAD>
><BODY bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#52188C">
><A
>> Two things. Firstly isnt the <B>Lillith</B> thing in the apocrypha? And
>>secondly doesn't it translate litterally as 'serpent'. I'm not a
>>theologician but that is what I thought. Gives the whole serpent thing
>>in genesis a nice new twist anyhow.
>
NO Lilith is NOT mentioned in the Apocrypha.
Lilith is NOT mentioned in the Bible.
Gwion
Thank you, Horvath, for repeating what was said by Moiner (quoted in the
post to which you responded). I think that you have made your position
quite clear. May we now discontiue this rehash of a six month old
thread. You may want to check http://www.dejanews.com/ for articles
previously posted to this ng on this topic and that of the bloodline and
legends of the Draculs (Vlad + sons). They were very indepth.
P.S. Sorry if I am being snippy. My current feeder is trying to cut back
on the caffine, and I am getting these _splitting_ headaches...
Eric and JD
Horvath wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 1997 22:14:04 -0500, Eric and JD
> <ehug...@ix.netcom.com> scribbled:
>
> >>
> >> Lilith is NOT in Leviticus, NOT in Deuteronimy, NOT in Moses.
> >> Stop passing off this garbage as the truth.
> >>
> >> I have two versions of the bible on CD. When you type in a word and
> >> select search, it will show you all the passages where the word
> >> appears.
> >>
> >> If you type in "David" you get about 2400 hits. When you type in
> >> "Lilith" or any variation, it says, "No Match Found."
> >>
> >> Lilith is not in the bible.
> >>
> >
> >where you are screwed up! Go to a Real Library sometime and look up
> >older versions of the Bible, what you have is obviously too perverted by
> >time, and editing by the Church, to be any real good. Especially since
> >the damned things were probably not created prior to this decade.
> >JD
> >--
>
>
> I have the Compton's New Media King James version, and The Catholic
> Press Bible, Douay-Challoner text.
>
> The latter contains books missing in the Protestant Bible, including
> the following books: Tobias, Judith, Ester, Wisdom, Ecclesiastics,
> Baruch, and both books of the Maccabees.
>
> There are NO older versions. Now shut up before I make you look even
> stupider.
>
I'm sorry, did you say something Horvath?
Horvath
Chris Fieldhouse
Horvath wrote:
> I have the Compton's New Media King James version, and The Catholic
> Press Bible, Douay-Challoner text.
>
> The latter contains books missing in the Protestant Bible, including
> the following books: Tobias, Judith, Ester, Wisdom, Ecclesiastics,
> Baruch, and both books of the Maccabees.
>
> There are NO older versions. Now shut up before I make you look even
> stupider.
>
> Horvath
>
> This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.
Horvath,
w w w while I agree that Lillith has been *edited* from the recent bible
(and I I I I include the King James version here), it is known that the
bible has been heavily edited and sections that were considered
"Politically Incorrect" (for that time) were simply chopped.
Several old testament books were chopped in the process and I guess that
is when all references of L L L Lillith were removed
(The idea of a woman standing up for herself would not have gone down to
well with old king jimmy).
B B B But, looking at the Hebrew texts (this is where Tobias, Judith and
Ester come from), there are references to her I believe in the Talmut,
certainly a more detailed description of the creation of Eve i.e.
(I'm doing this from memory s s s so it may not be acurate)
"He (god) made eve from adam, but took not from his brain lest she
think for herself, not from his jaw lest she speak for herself, but
from that which was within, his rib."
Sorry t t t to any scholars for any misquote.
Chriss.
Yes I'm back.....
Horvath
On 17 Jan 1997 18:14:47 GMT, vlko...@aol.com scribbled:
>In article <32dd90a6....@news.alt.net>, Hor...@norden1.com
>(Horvath) writes:
>
>>Are you stupid or something?
>>
>>I have the Compton's New Media King James version, and The Catholic
>>Press Bible, Douay-Challoner text.
>>
>>The latter contains books missing in the Protestant Bible, including
>>the following books: Tobias, Judith, Ester, Wisdom, Ecclesiastics,
>>Baruch, and both books of the Maccabees.
>>
>>There are NO older versions. Now shut up before I make you look even
>>stupider.
>>
>
>Okay, I've left this thread out of my thoughts until now, but I must add a
>penny's worth on this one.
>
>The Catholic Press Bible was not printed until the twentieth century, and
>the King James Version is from the early 16th century.
>
WHERE did you get this ridiculous misinformation?
The Catholic Bible, Douay text, was first translated in 1568, by
Catholic Scholars that were driven out of England by Queen Elizabeth,
and first published in 1582.
>The king James Version was translated from Latin, which was translated
>from Aramaic and Greek. The Catholic Press Bible was translated from the
>same Latin texts that were used to create the King James version.
You have been reading too many comic books.
Esdras, Daniel and Jeremias were translated from Aramaic. Wisdom and
both Machabees were translated from Greek. All other books were
translated from the original Hebrew.
>Neither the Latin Bible, nor the old Aramaic and classical Greek texts are
>available on CD-Rom. The name Lilith was originally an Aramaic word that
>is pronounced, roughly, "lilit" or "lilu" depending on the dialect you are
>speaking. These terms both translate to Latin as "night hag" which the
>church fathers in the late 13th century decided was intended to mean
>"screech owl."
>When old men who hate women translated the Latin version to medieval
>English, many errors ocurred, but they did not even notice this one.
>No, the name "Lilith" does not appear in the semi-modern English Bibles,
>but it does appear in the older Aramaic versions.
Prove it. Produce some Aramiac texts.
>The story of Adam's first wife appears in the Jewish non-Bible books, as
>an explanation for a line in Genesis that scholars from that era had
>trouble with. She is named Lilith in those books, and many traditions and
>legends stem from that reference.
>
>Put "screech owl" into your search engine.
>
Since you want me to make you look like a fool, I will grant your
request.
The only match for "screech owl" is Isiah 34:14
Since I don't want anyone to say that Lilith is mentioned in Isiah, I
will post the verse:
The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the
wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his
fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find
herself a place of rest.
This, of course, has nothing to do with Lilith, Adam, vampires, or
even anything at all.
"No match found" for "hag"
"No match found" for "lilu"
"No match found" for "lilit"
vlko...@aol.com
In article <32e03455...@news.alt.net>, Hor...@norden1.com (Horvath)
writes:
>>The Catholic Press Bible was not printed until the twentieth century,
and
>>the King James Version is from the early 16th century.
>>
>
>WHERE did you get this ridiculous misinformation?
>
>The Catholic Bible, Douay text, was first translated in 1568, by
>Catholic Scholars that were driven out of England by Queen Elizabeth,
>and first published in 1582.
Okay, Horvath, I will grant that the Catholic Bible, Douay text is much
older than the Catholic Press Bible.
Go to the Smithsonian to look at the Aramaic texts, and duplictes of the
Dead Sea Scrolls, they are somewhat out of my budget.
And yes, the screech owl reference in Isaiah is theone most people refer
to when speaking of Lilith in the Bible. It is not the Lilith upon whom
the vampyre legends are based, it is merely the only actual mention of the
word in the Bible. The Lilith of legends was named only in the Jewish
teachings, as a name for the first wife of Adam.
As far as the King James Version being translated from Greek: I would
suggest that you recheck your historical references, while I recheck mine.
If I am mistaken in this statement, so be it. I *was* working from a
memory that was, unfortunately, affected by large scale drug research in
the late sixties. I will post my findings on the history of the King James
version shortly.
Theondra
<<
Horvath
Don't be alarmed by the sudden splendor of my appearance,
and do not let the fear of the fury and chaos of darkness
trouble you any longer. My name is Horvath, a soldier of
the night. Henceforth I shall be your shield, and your
defender. Step closer, join me, and you shall live, forever.
>>
Okay, I bite. My shield and my defender?! Oh Yes! But where were you
when I needed you??? Huh, Huh, HUH?
Theondra,
feeling at bit ?? this pm
(and sorry for "corrupting" such an interesting thread)
Horvath
On 19 Jan 1997 16:47:54 GMT, vlko...@aol.com scribbled:
>In article <32e03455...@news.alt.net>, Hor...@norden1.com (Horvath)
>writes:
>
>>>The Catholic Press Bible was not printed until the twentieth century,
>and
>>>the King James Version is from the early 16th century.
>>>
>>
>>WHERE did you get this ridiculous misinformation?
>>
>>The Catholic Bible, Douay text, was first translated in 1568, by
>>Catholic Scholars that were driven out of England by Queen Elizabeth,
>>and first published in 1582.
>
>Okay, Horvath, I will grant that the Catholic Bible, Douay text is much
>older than the Catholic Press Bible.
>
>Go to the Smithsonian to look at the Aramaic texts, and duplictes of the
>Dead Sea Scrolls, they are somewhat out of my budget.
>And yes, the screech owl reference in Isaiah is theone most people refer
>to when speaking of Lilith in the Bible. It is not the Lilith upon whom
>the vampyre legends are based, it is merely the only actual mention of the
>word in the Bible. The Lilith of legends was named only in the Jewish
>teachings, as a name for the first wife of Adam.
>
Which part of the Smithsonian? Last time I was there it was pretty
big. I have some friends in Washington, I'll have them check.
>As far as the King James Version being translated from Greek: I would
>suggest that you recheck your historical references, while I recheck mine.
>If I am mistaken in this statement, so be it. I *was* working from a
>memory that was, unfortunately, affected by large scale drug research in
>the late sixties. I will post my findings on the history of the King James
>version shortly.
The King James Version was mostly translated from Hebrew. Only some
of the books were translated from Greek.
BTW, I have copies of some of the dead sea scrolls. Where should I
check your information? How about scroll 4Q385-389, fragment 3 column
3, lines 15 an 16, "the priests of Jerusalem to serve other gods,
three kings who will rule." Perhaps a reference to the Trinity?
Perhaps whatever you want to make of it?
Horvath
On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:32:44 -0600, Chris Fieldhouse
<cfie...@dev.tivoli.com> scribbled:
>Horvath wrote:
>
>> I have the Compton's New Media King James version, and The Catholic
>> Press Bible, Douay-Challoner text.
>>
>> The latter contains books missing in the Protestant Bible, including
>> the following books: Tobias, Judith, Ester, Wisdom, Ecclesiastics,
>> Baruch, and both books of the Maccabees.
>>
>> There are NO older versions. Now shut up before I make you look even
>> stupider.
>>
>
>w w w while I agree that Lillith has been *edited* from the recent bible
>(and I I I I include the King James version here), it is known that the
>bible has been heavily edited and sections that were considered
>"Politically Incorrect" (for that time) were simply chopped.
Lilith was NOT edited from the bible. Lilith was NEVER in the bible.
>Several old testament books were chopped in the process and I guess that
>is when all references of L L L Lillith were removed
>(The idea of a woman standing up for herself would not have gone down to
>well with old king jimmy).
>
>B B B But, looking at the Hebrew texts (this is where Tobias, Judith and
>Ester come from), there are references to her I believe in the Talmut,
>certainly a more detailed description of the creation of Eve i.e.
>
Nonsense. I've seen the old texts. There is no mention of Lilith.
Lilith is not a real character, not even a fictional character.
>(I'm doing this from memory s s s so it may not be acurate)
>"He (god) made eve from adam, but took not from his brain lest she
> think for herself, not from his jaw lest she speak for herself, but
> from that which was within, his rib."
>Sorry t t t to any scholars for any misquote.
>
What does that mean? That isn't a reference to anything remotely like
Lilith.
The only mention of Lilith is in an old television show. Lilith was
Herman Munster's wife. Grandpa was the vampire.
Horvath
On 19 Jan 1997 20:40:11 GMT, theo...@aol.com (Theondra) scribbled:
><<
> Horvath
>
> Don't be alarmed by the sudden splendor of my appearance,
> and do not let the fear of the fury and chaos of darkness
> trouble you any longer. My name is Horvath, a soldier of
> the night. Henceforth I shall be your shield, and your
> defender. Step closer, join me, and you shall live, forever.
>
>>>
>
>Okay, I bite. My shield and my defender?! Oh Yes! But where were you
>when I needed you??? Huh, Huh, HUH?
>
Perhaps I was with someone who really needed me?
loa
On 19 Jan 1997, Theondra wrote:
> Okay, I bite. My shield and my defender?! Oh Yes! But where were you
> when I needed you??? Huh, Huh, HUH?
sucking his thumb in a dark corner. a'course.
--loa--
Tease11041
theres also the fact that the bible was written by greeks, not christians,
who put together the old journals and edited and paraphased them, then
this book was in the hands of the roman catholic church, who manipulated
it for more than a thousand years, and then the people of this century got
the bright idea of paraphasing it to make it more understandable (probably
big brother programming us), so who knows what was originally in the
bible???
Horvath
On 21 Jan 1997 22:37:31 GMT, tease...@aol.com (Tease11041)
scribbled:
Anybody who could read the original Hebrew texts.
Shusoran
Speaking of the wonderful distortion of the Bible since times before
even Horvath trod the earth:
A few years I came across a magazine article--Time or Newsweek,
something like that--about recent research of ancient Biblical texts. I
wish I could remember the verses they cited, but apparently someone went
back and did a translation of some of the text, and stuff we've got in
the What's Happening Now Feelgood Bible written down as "we shall feast
with our brothers amidst great rejoicing" turned out to be written down
as "we shall feast on the blood of our enemies", or something very close
to it.
Very interesting, the effect of successive translations of a book.
-Shusoran
"Where do you want to go today? Well, it doesn't really matter, because
you're going where *I* want you to go."
-Bill Gates
Shusoran
Horvath wrote:
>
<snip snip>
>
> That's just plain silly. When you translate from another language,
> the vocabulary is very different and such mistakes are very
> improbable. Mistranslations are often done on the meaning of phrases,
> but not on similiar sounding words.
Well, sorry--I was recalling this from some rather fuzzy memories from a
few years back. But, would you agree that after successive translations
distorted by many years of propaganda, that the Bible most people read
today is probably a good bit different from the way the texts were
originally written?
> Let me give you an example:
>
> When Caesar crossed the Rubicon he stated, "Alia jacta est."
> Which is often mistranslated, "The die is cast."
> It could never be mistranslated to, "The tie is broken."
>
> The proper translation should be, "The dice are cast."
> The Romans gambled with a single 14 sided die, while we prefer two
> six-sided dice.
It's times like this I wish I'd taken Latin.
-Shusoran
>
> Horvath
>
> Don't be alarmed by the sudden splendor of my appearance,
> and do not let the fear of the fury and chaos of darkness
> trouble you any longer. My name is Horvath, a soldier of
> the night. Henceforth I shall be your shield, and your
> defender. Step closer, join me, and you shall live, forever.
Isn't forever an awfully long time to live?
Raewyn
Greetings!
I just stumbled over your discussion and thought I could send in the
little information about Lilith I have.
The original tale of Lilith is told in an jewish Midrash-text called
Alpha-Beta diBen Sira. Unfortunately I don't know if there are trans-
lations into English available. The book was translated into Latin
around 1500.
Another book which gives useful information is:
Ashkenasy: Eve's Journey
Lilith was worshipped as a goddess of Love and Death in Sumer. Her ori-
gins reach back to the Ashera/Ishtar/Astarte myths. She also shares
common traits with the old celtic goddes of war and fertility, Morrigu/
Morrigan (Although I think they are not related)
As far as I know Lilith is not mentioned in the Bible.
I hope this brings you a little bit further with your discussion.
Carpe Noctem!
Raewyn
grendel
Horvath wrote:
> The only mention of Lilith is in an old television show. Lilith was
> Herman Munster's wife. Grandpa was the vampire.
>
> Horvath
> *psssssst* her name was lily not lilith
numindan
*who knew that someday all the useless information garnered from
watching saturday morning tv on cbc would come in useful someday*
Horvath
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 01:01:43 -0400, grendel <gre...@nbnet.nb.ca>
scribbled:
"Lily" is short for "Lilith."
I always thought Eddie Munster was cool. If I had a son, I would want
him to be just like Eddie Munster.
BTW, I always thought Lily was a babe. I don't know what anyone ever
saw in Marilyn.
Horvath
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 01:46:17 +0000, Shusoran <jlip...@ups.edu>
scribbled:
>A few years I came across a magazine article--Time or Newsweek,
>something like that--about recent research of ancient Biblical texts. I
>wish I could remember the verses they cited, but apparently someone went
>back and did a translation of some of the text, and stuff we've got in
>the What's Happening Now Feelgood Bible written down as "we shall feast
>with our brothers amidst great rejoicing" turned out to be written down
>as "we shall feast on the blood of our enemies", or something very close
>to it.
>
That's just plain silly. When you translate from another language,
the vocabulary is very different and such mistakes are very
improbable. Mistranslations are often done on the meaning of phrases,
but not on similiar sounding words.
Let me give you an example:
When Caesar crossed the Rubicon he stated, "Alia jacta est."
Which is often mistranslated, "The die is cast."
It could never be mistranslated to, "The tie is broken."
The proper translation should be, "The dice are cast."
The Romans gambled with a single 14 sided die, while we prefer two
six-sided dice.
johntmc
In reference to the question "Is Lilith in the bible?";
Lilith is NOT mentioned in the bible, as such. She is defintiely
referred to in other hebreaic (spelling error?) texts, refering to the
time period between the 6th day of creation and the production of Eve.
To what extent these (holy ?) texts are considered scripture in various
modern jewish teachings is a thing I don't know.
Either way, if I remember right, Lilith was said to have been
Adam's first wife, who turned to evil without taking Adam with her. She
subsequently became the mother of a race of "giants", the first vampire,
and ultimately was elevated (lowered?) to the level of a prince of
darkness, along with big-time demons like Ashtoreth, Leviathan, Moloch,
Belial, etc.
As far as I know , this is basicly right, although the details are
possibly wrong. Anybody knowing more about it, or knowing what kind of
"vampire" (if any) existed in early hebrew belief, I will be looking for
your post.
--
MZ
Whitethn
Hands you a nice can of "JOLT" cola....poor dear....withdrawl sucks...<G>
Sian Leslie
"Insanity, it's just not for breakfast anymore."
grendel
Horvath wrote:
> "Lily" is short for "Lilith."and sadie is a familiar version of sarah but that doesnt mean that ever
mother who names her child sarah wants her to be called sadie
*ooh i feel a tangent coming on*
> I always thought Eddie Munster was cool. If I had a son, I would want
> him to be just like Eddie Munster.son *ugh* my better half has a 300 year old family history of breeding
nothing but sons takes all the surprise out of it guess well just
have to remain non-breeders and the like
> BTW, I always thought Lily was a babe. I don't know what anyone ever
> saw in Marilyn.*licking her delicate lil paws* must have been all that clear ait she
breathed when she grew up in canada you know the country with nothing
but snowshoes and polar bears *evil grin*
numindan
*sleeping forever in the mind*
Whitethn
She's not in the aramadic (sp) version either.
Just my two and a half cents worth....
Chiller
grendel <gre...@nbnet.nb.ca> said;-
>Horvath wrote:
>
>
>> The only mention of Lilith is in an old television show. Lilith was
>> Herman Munster's wife. Grandpa was the vampire.
>>
>> Horvath
>> *psssssst* her name was lily not lilith
>
>numindan
>*who knew that someday all the useless information garnered from
>watching saturday morning tv on cbc would come in useful someday*
Yeah ... Lilith was in "Cheers".
__
Chiller
Sourceress
johntmc wrote:
> =
> In reference to the question "Is Lilith in the bible?";
> =
> Lilith is NOT mentioned in the bible, as such. She is defintiely
> referred to in other hebreaic (spelling error?) texts, refering to the
> time period between the 6th day of creation and the production of Eve.
> To what extent these (holy ?) texts are considered scripture in various=
> modern jewish teachings is a thing I don't know.
> Either way, if I remember right, Lilith was said to have been
> Adam's first wife, who turned to evil without taking Adam with her. She=
> subsequently became the mother of a race of "giants", the first vampire=
,
> and ultimately was elevated (lowered?) to the level of a prince of
> darkness, along with big-time demons like Ashtoreth, Leviathan, Moloch,=
> Belial, etc.
I had always heard she got kicked out of the Garden for the sin of
daring to have her own mind, think for herself, and not be a total
doormat for Adam. What really clinched it was that she wanted to be on
top during sex. Since Adam was such a manly man, obviously having a
wife who was equal to him was totally unacceptable, so she got kicked
out, and God made Eve, who made a much better doormat. Lilith, having
just been dispossesed by the good guys, did the logical thing, and got
in cozy with the bad guys, had a lot more fun, and became the mother of
the succubi.
> As far as I know , this is basicly right, although the details are=
> possibly wrong. Anybody knowing more about it, or knowing what kind of
> "vampire" (if any) existed in early hebrew belief, I will be looking fo=
r
> your post.
> =
> --
> MZ=90
*the Sourceress*
daughter of Lilith
Horvath
On Fri, 24 Jan 1997 18:08:29 +0000, Chiller
<r.a.col...@cold.demon.co.uk> scribbled:
She was a babe there, too.
Horvath
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:52:36 +0000, Shusoran <jlip...@ups.edu>
scribbled:
>Horvath wrote:
>>
><snip snip>
>>
>> That's just plain silly. When you translate from another language,
>> the vocabulary is very different and such mistakes are very
>> improbable. Mistranslations are often done on the meaning of phrases,
>> but not on similiar sounding words.
>
>Well, sorry--I was recalling this from some rather fuzzy memories from a
>few years back. But, would you agree that after successive translations
>distorted by many years of propaganda, that the Bible most people read
>today is probably a good bit different from the way the texts were
>originally written?
>
Not at all. The texts used today were translated from the original
Hebrew.
Horvath
I was surfing the net when Yahoo was only a hillbilly cheer.
Chiller
Horvath <Hor...@norden1.com> said;-
>>
>>Yeah ... Lilith was in "Cheers".
>>__
>
>She was a babe there, too.
>
>
>
> Horvath
>
Yes, I thought so too.
__
Chiller
Chiller
Sourceress <srce...@fred.net> said;-
>I had always heard she got kicked out of the Garden for the sin of
>daring to have her own mind, think for herself, and not be a total
>doormat for Adam. What really clinched it was that she wanted to be on
>top during sex.
*That* can't be right. Most chaps like being underneath, because they
don't have to do anything except lie there and smile ... the smiling's
optional.
>Since Adam was such a manly man, obviously having a
>wife who was equal to him was totally unacceptable, so she got kicked
>out, and God made Eve, who made a much better doormat. Lilith, having
>just been dispossesed by the good guys, did the logical thing, and got
>in cozy with the bad guys, had a lot more fun, and became the mother of
>the succubi.
>
> *the Sourceress*
> daughter of Lilith
__
Chiller
DBergst997
Lilith does not, repeat does not, appear in the Bible.
She did however play a major role in both Hebrew and Islamic folk tales,
and was greatly feared by both.
Remember, exclusion from the Bible does not in any way, shape or form her
influence over the ancient peoples of the mi east region
archangel
vlko...@aol.com wrote:
> =
> In article <32e03455...@news.alt.net>, Hor...@norden1.com (Horvat=
h)
> writes:
> =
> >>The Catholic Press Bible was not printed until the twentieth century,=
> and
> >>the King James Version is from the early 16th century.
> >>
> >
> >WHERE did you get this ridiculous misinformation?
> >
> >The Catholic Bible, Douay text, was first translated in 1568, by
> >Catholic Scholars that were driven out of England by Queen Elizabeth,
> >and first published in 1582.
> =
> Okay, Horvath, I will grant that the Catholic Bible, Douay text is much=
> older than the Catholic Press Bible.
> =
> Go to the Smithsonian to look at the Aramaic texts, and duplictes of th=
e
> Dead Sea Scrolls, they are somewhat out of my budget.
> And yes, the screech owl reference in Isaiah is theone most people refe=
r
> to when speaking of Lilith in the Bible. It is not the Lilith upon whom=
> the vampyre legends are based, it is merely the only actual mention of =
the
> word in the Bible. The Lilith of legends was named only in the Jewish
> teachings, as a name for the first wife of Adam.
> =
> As far as the King James Version being translated from Greek: I would
> suggest that you recheck your historical references, while I recheck mi=
ne.
> If I am mistaken in this statement, so be it. I *was* working from a
> memory that was, unfortunately, affected by large scale drug research i=
n
> the late sixties. I will post my findings on the history of the King Ja=
mes
> version shortly.
The King Jame's Version was trqanslated from the Latin... and had
considerable help from the whole gang at the mermaid tavern...
Shakespeare, Marvel, Jonson, that lot.
-- =
=FFWPC=81=04
archangel
Horvath wrote:
> =
> On 19 Jan 1997 16:47:54 GMT, vlko...@aol.com scribbled:
> =
> >In article <32e03455...@news.alt.net>, Hor...@norden1.com (Horva=
th)
> >writes:
> >
> >>>The Catholic Press Bible was not printed until the twentieth century=
,
> >and
> >>>the King James Version is from the early 16th century.
> >>>
> >>
> >>WHERE did you get this ridiculous misinformation?
> >>
> >>The Catholic Bible, Douay text, was first translated in 1568, by
> >>Catholic Scholars that were driven out of England by Queen Elizabeth,=
> >>and first published in 1582.
> >
> >Okay, Horvath, I will grant that the Catholic Bible, Douay text is muc=
h
> >older than the Catholic Press Bible.
> >
> >Go to the Smithsonian to look at the Aramaic texts, and duplictes of t=
he
> >Dead Sea Scrolls, they are somewhat out of my budget.
> >And yes, the screech owl reference in Isaiah is theone most people ref=
er
> >to when speaking of Lilith in the Bible. It is not the Lilith upon who=
m
> >the vampyre legends are based, it is merely the only actual mention of=
the
> >word in the Bible. The Lilith of legends was named only in the Jewish
> >teachings, as a name for the first wife of Adam.
> >
> =
> Which part of the Smithsonian? Last time I was there it was pretty
> big. I have some friends in Washington, I'll have them check.
> =
> >As far as the King James Version being translated from Greek: I would
> >suggest that you recheck your historical references, while I recheck m=
ine.
> >If I am mistaken in this statement, so be it. I *was* working from a
> >memory that was, unfortunately, affected by large scale drug research =
in
> >the late sixties. I will post my findings on the history of the King J=
ames
> >version shortly.
> =
> The King James Version was mostly translated from Hebrew. Only some
> of the books were translated from Greek.
> =
> BTW, I have copies of some of the dead sea scrolls. Where should I
> check your information? How about scroll 4Q385-389, fragment 3 column
> 3, lines 15 an 16, "the priests of Jerusalem to serve other gods,
> three kings who will rule." Perhaps a reference to the Trinity?
> =
> Perhaps whatever you want to make of it?
> =
> Horvath
> =
> Twin Dragon Scorpion Beings whose look is death
> are the guardians of the entrance into the mountain.
> The aura of the demon guardian Beings
> shimmers across the surface of the mountain.
> The shimmering of the light is death to look at.
Dear Horvath,
I am sure there is a great need for a lot of people to believe that the
King James Version was translated directly from the hebrew but this just
isn't so... it was translated from the Latin, most of which came from
the Greek... To my knowledge, NONE of the New Testament (so called) was
ever written in Hebrew much less the Aramaic.
As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, I'm waiting for the side=3Dby-side edition
to come out. So far, all it has done is show that the Hebrew text are
remarkably faithful down through the millenia.
It is a common mistake for people to think that the New Testament is
related to the 'Old Testament'. =
archangel
-- =
=FFWPC=81=04
archangel
Horvath wrote:
> =
> On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:32:44 -0600, Chris Fieldhouse
> <cfie...@dev.tivoli.com> scribbled:
> =
> >Horvath wrote:
> >
> >> I have the Compton's New Media King James version, and The Catholic
> >> Press Bible, Douay-Challoner text.
> >>
> >> The latter contains books missing in the Protestant Bible, including=
> >> the following books: Tobias, Judith, Ester, Wisdom, Ecclesiastics,
> >> Baruch, and both books of the Maccabees.
> >>
> >> There are NO older versions. Now shut up before I make you look eve=
n
> >> stupider.
> >>
> >
> >w w w while I agree that Lillith has been *edited* from the recent bib=
le
> >(and I I I I include the King James version here), it is known that th=
e
> >bible has been heavily edited and sections that were considered
> >"Politically Incorrect" (for that time) were simply chopped.
> =
> Lilith was NOT edited from the bible. Lilith was NEVER in the bible.
> =
> >Several old testament books were chopped in the process and I guess th=
at
> >is when all references of L L L Lillith were removed
> >(The idea of a woman standing up for herself would not have gone down =
to
> >well with old king jimmy).
> >
> >B B B But, looking at the Hebrew texts (this is where Tobias, Judith a=
nd
> >Ester come from), there are references to her I believe in the Talmut,=
> >certainly a more detailed description of the creation of Eve i.e.
> >
> =
> Nonsense. I've seen the old texts. There is no mention of Lilith.
> Lilith is not a real character, not even a fictional character.
> =
> >(I'm doing this from memory s s s so it may not be acurate)
> >"He (god) made eve from adam, but took not from his brain lest she
> > think for herself, not from his jaw lest she speak for herself, but
> > from that which was within, his rib."
> >Sorry t t t to any scholars for any misquote.
> >
> =
> What does that mean? That isn't a reference to anything remotely like
> Lilith.
> =
> The only mention of Lilith is in an old television show. Lilith was
> Herman Munster's wife. Grandpa was the vampire.
> =
> Horvath
> =
> Twin Dragon Scorpion Beings whose look is death
> are the guardians of the entrance into the mountain.
> The aura of the demon guardian Beings
> shimmers across the surface of the mountain.
> The shimmering of the light is death to look at.
Dear Horvath,
I agree, so far, about Lillityh not being mentioned in the Torah... but
not real? Lilith is as 'real' as Adam, Cain, Noah, and so on. Her lack
of mention proves nothing. That which ios not mentioned, or has been
cropped, from what is general regarded as the 'Old testamnet' is Legion.
archangel
-- =
=FFWPC=81=04
archangel
Chiller wrote:
> =
> Sourceress <srce...@fred.net> said;-
> =
> >I had always heard she got kicked out of the Garden for the sin of
> >daring to have her own mind, think for herself, and not be a total
> >doormat for Adam. What really clinched it was that she wanted to be o=
n
> >top during sex.
> =
> *That* can't be right. Most chaps like being underneath, because they
> don't have to do anything except lie there and smile ... the smiling's
> optional.
> =
> >Since Adam was such a manly man, obviously having a
> >wife who was equal to him was totally unacceptable, so she got kicked
> >out, and God made Eve, who made a much better doormat. Lilith, having=
> >just been dispossesed by the good guys, did the logical thing, and got=
> >in cozy with the bad guys, had a lot more fun, and became the mother o=
f
> >the succubi.
> >
> > *the Sourceress*
> > daughter of Lilith
> =
> __
> =
> Chiller
Dear Chiller,
I shall ignore that unkind cut about 'smiles optional' in order to get
to the low-down on Lillith.
In the FIRST creation story (Gen. ch. 1. & ch.2:1-4) humankind, meaning
Adam, and his wife, the unamed Lillith were created in 'our image', G-d
speaks in the royal 'WE' here. What is not told is that Lillith, for
what ever reason, ate of the Tree of Life, which was sitting right there
smack dab in the middle of things. G-d had a hissy fit, not uncommon
throughout Genesis, and Lilith had to leave. Since she had eaten of the
Tree of Life, she was cursed, not unlike Cain, to never be able to eat
of the fruits of the soil (or labors); she would have to take her
nourishment from humankind... the meaning of this is vague and left to
your own fevered imaginations. Later, in the second telling, God made
humankind (adam) again, this time out of dust. He then got Eve from
Adams side. She then traipsed off and ate of the Tree opf Knowledge,
specifically, sexual knowledge. This tree also sat smack dab in the
middle of things. Makes ya wonder abouit G-ds horticultural expertise. =
Anyway, Lil was the first wife... Eve was the Trophy wife.
archangel
smiling all the way
-- =
=FFWPC=81=04
johntmc
archangel wrote:
>
> Horvath wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:32:44 -0600, Chris Fieldhouse
> > <cfie...@dev.tivoli.com> scribbled:
> >
> > >
> > >> I have the Compton's New Media King James version, and The Catholic
> > >> Press Bible, Douay-Challoner text.
> > >>
> > >> The latter contains books missing in the Protestant Bible, including
> > >> Baruch, and both books of the Maccabees.
> > >>
> > >> stupider.
> > >>
> > >
> > >w w w while I agree that Lillith has been *edited* from the recent bible
> > >(and I I I I include the King James version here), it is known that the
> > >bible has been heavily edited and sections that were considered
> > >"Politically Incorrect" (for that time) were simply chopped.
> >
> >
> > >is when all references of L L L Lillith were removed
> > >well with old king jimmy).
> > >
Somebody tell me if this is wrong ....
Lilith was never in the bible AS SUCH. As far as I know, she WAS
referred to in various hebrew texts that were never considered when the
early church determined what was and was not to be considered scripture,
back when the bible was first put together at the council of Nicea. The
idea of her being in genesis originally, and removed in subscquent
"editings" is nonsense.
(Incidently, considering how modern biblical scholars go for the oldest
available manuscripts, I would be astonished if any deletions, other
than the well-known OT books removed by Luther and his boys, have been
made and leave gaps in MODERN translations)
Either way, there were, (and ARE, as far as I know) hebrew texts
with the story of Lillith in them. What I DON'T have any idea of , is
whether these texts are considered holy books or just interesting
ledgends by modern jewish theologians. Anybody out there got an answer?
Thank you in advance for any informed answers...
John Mc in Alabama
> > >B B B But, looking at the Hebrew texts (this is where Tobias, Judith and
> > >Ester come from), there are references to her I believe in the Talmut,
> > >certainly a more detailed description of the creation of Eve i.e.
> > >
> >
> > Nonsense. I've seen the old texts. There is no mention of Lilith.
> > Lilith is not a real character, not even a fictional character.
> >
> > >(I'm doing this from memory s s s so it may not be acurate)
> > >"He (god) made eve from adam, but took not from his brain lest she
> > > think for herself, not from his jaw lest she speak for herself, but
> > > from that which was within, his rib."
> > >Sorry t t t to any scholars for any misquote.
> > >
> >
> > What does that mean? That isn't a reference to anything remotely like
> > Lilith.
> >
> > The only mention of Lilith is in an old television show. Lilith was
> > Herman Munster's wife. Grandpa was the vampire.
> >
> > Horvath
> >
> > Twin Dragon Scorpion Beings whose look is death
> > are the guardians of the entrance into the mountain.
> > The aura of the demon guardian Beings
> > shimmers across the surface of the mountain.
> > The shimmering of the light is death to look at.
>
> Dear Horvath,
>
> I agree, so far, about Lillityh not being mentioned in the Torah... but
> not real? Lilith is as 'real' as Adam, Cain, Noah, and so on. Her lack
> of mention proves nothing. That which ios not mentioned, or has been
> cropped, from what is general regarded as the 'Old testamnet' is Legion.
>
> archangel
> --
> ÿWPC
--
MZ
Gwion
Horvath wrote:
> Lilith is not mentioned in the Bible because Lilith was only a story,<snip>
Hmmmm, yes, I suppose that there are those who think that the Bible is
something more.
--
.~_~_~_~_~ ~_~_~_~_~ ~__~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __~ ~ ~ ~ ~_~_~_~_~ ~_~_~_~_~.
:/_X X X_\ /_X X X_\ / ( ) | ( ) |\ | /_X X X_\ /_X X X_\:
: _ X X _ _ X X _ { __ { } | { } | \ | _ X X _ _ X X _ :
:\_X_X_X_/ \_X_X_X_/ \__| \^/ | (__) | \| \_X_X_X_/ \_X_X_X_/:
'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
)O( DRINK DEEP OF LIFE'S MYSTERIES )O(
archangel
Horvath wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:58:10 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
> scribbled:
> >> The King James Version was mostly translated from Hebrew. Only some
> >> of the books were translated from Greek.
> >> =
> >
> >
> > I am sure there is a great need for a lot of people to believe that the
> >King James Version was translated directly from the hebrew but this just
> >isn't so... it was translated from the Latin, most of which came from
> >the Greek... To my knowledge, NONE of the New Testament (so called) was
> >ever written in Hebrew much less the Aramaic.
> >
> written in Hebrew, with a few books in Aramaic and Greek.
> The New Testament was written, obviously, after the death of Christ,
> and was written in Greek.
>
> > As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, I'm waiting for the side=3Dby-side edition
> >to come out. So far, all it has done is show that the Hebrew text are
> >remarkably faithful down through the millenia.
> >
>
>
> 1992 published by Barnes and Noble.
>
> > It is a common mistake for people to think that the New Testament is
> >related to the 'Old Testament'. =
> >
>
>
> Horvath
>
> Don't be alarmed by the sudden splendor of my appearance,
> and do not let the fear of the fury and chaos of darkness
> trouble you any longer. My name is Horvath, a soldier of
> the night. Henceforth I shall be your shield, and your
> defender. Step closer, join me, and you shall live, forever.
Dear Horvath,
Apparently you ARE as stupid as you THINK I am. The translators at the
court of King James made their translations from the Latin, not the
Hebrew. The Latin translations of the 'Old Testament', so called, came
from the Septaugint, a Greek translation made around 270 BCE by as many
as 70+ Hebrew scribes. The Torah (five books of Moses) is written
entirely in Hebrew. It is the Talmud that is written in both Hebrew and
Aramaic. NONE of the 'Old Testament', what we call Tenakh
(Torah-Nevi'im-Kethuvim) was written in anything other than Hebrew.
archangel
--
"I don't do last rites. I have always found that crying
a lot as one digs the appropriate hole in the garden
seems to say it all."
Chiller
Horvath
On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 17:14:02 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
scribbled:
>
>> The only mention of Lilith is in an old television show. Lilith was
>> Herman Munster's wife. Grandpa was the vampire.
>> =
>
>
>Dear Horvath,
>
> I agree, so far, about Lillityh not being mentioned in the Torah... but
>not real? Lilith is as 'real' as Adam, Cain, Noah, and so on. Her lack
>of mention proves nothing. That which ios not mentioned, or has been
>cropped, from what is general regarded as the 'Old testamnet' is Legion.
>
Lilith is not mentioned in the Bible because Lilith was only a story,
made up to scare little girls. Lilith never existed, except in the
minds of young Jewish girls.
Horvath
On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:50:52 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
scribbled:
>
>The King Jame's Version was trqanslated from the Latin... and had
>considerable help from the whole gang at the mermaid tavern...
>Shakespeare, Marvel, Jonson, that lot.
>-- =
Nonsense. The King James Version was translated from Hebrew.
Horvath
This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.
Horvath
On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:58:10 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
scribbled:
>> The King James Version was mostly translated from Hebrew. Only some
>> of the books were translated from Greek.
>> =
>
>Dear Horvath,
>
> I am sure there is a great need for a lot of people to believe that the
>King James Version was translated directly from the hebrew but this just
>isn't so... it was translated from the Latin, most of which came from
>the Greek... To my knowledge, NONE of the New Testament (so called) was
>ever written in Hebrew much less the Aramaic.
>
Apparently you think I'm as stupid as you. The Old Testament was
written in Hebrew, with a few books in Aramaic and Greek.
The New Testament was written, obviously, after the death of Christ,
and was written in Greek.
> As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, I'm waiting for the side=3Dby-side edition
>to come out. So far, all it has done is show that the Hebrew text are
>remarkably faithful down through the millenia.
>
Check out "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered," by R. Eisenman and M. Wise
1992 published by Barnes and Noble.
> It is a common mistake for people to think that the New Testament is
>related to the 'Old Testament'. =
>
I have not made that mistake.
loa
On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, archangel wrote:
> court of King James made their translations from the Latin, not the
> Hebrew.
didn't they use the Vulgate? translated as i recall
from the Hebrew by (saint) jerome. other influences
were Tyndale and Wycliffe.
> The Latin translations of the 'Old Testament', so called, came
> from the Septaugint, a Greek translation made around 270 BCE by as many
> as 70+ Hebrew scribes. The Torah (five books of Moses) is written
> entirely in Hebrew.
FYI, the pentateuch was also translated from the vulgate
in appx. 1000 ad by Aelfric. from latin into English.
the vulgate was probably directly influenced by the
septuagint and the original hebrew of the OT.
ps archangel -- horvath doesn't know as much as he thinks you think he
does. don't give him *any* credit if you can help it.
*grin*
--loa--
glad to see some postings besides "why does god," etc.
loa
On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Gwion wrote:
> Hmmmm, yes, I suppose that there are those who think that the Bible is
> something more.
then you suppose right.
--loa--
good job.
Horvath
On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 17:08:17 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
scribbled:
> In the FIRST creation story (Gen. ch. 1. & ch.2:1-4) humankind, meaning
>Adam, and his wife, the unamed Lillith were created in 'our image', G-d
>speaks in the royal 'WE' here. What is not told is that Lillith, for
>what ever reason, ate of the Tree of Life, which was sitting right there
>smack dab in the middle of things. G-d had a hissy fit, not uncommon
>throughout Genesis, and Lilith had to leave. Since she had eaten of the
>Tree of Life, she was cursed, not unlike Cain, to never be able to eat
>of the fruits of the soil (or labors); she would have to take her
>nourishment from humankind... the meaning of this is vague and left to
>your own fevered imaginations. Later, in the second telling, God made
>humankind (adam) again, this time out of dust. He then got Eve from
>Adams side. She then traipsed off and ate of the Tree opf Knowledge,
>specifically, sexual knowledge. This tree also sat smack dab in the
>middle of things. Makes ya wonder abouit G-ds horticultural expertise. =
>
>Anyway, Lil was the first wife... Eve was the Trophy wife.
>
Are you blonde or something? Lilith is NOT in the Bible.
There is NO first wife for Adam in the Bible.
If you ever learn how to read, check out Genesis chapter two, and you
will see that there is no references to a first wife for Adam.
Horvath
On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 00:41:23 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
scribbled:
>Horvath wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:58:10 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
>> scribbled:
>Dear Horvath,
>
> Apparently you ARE as stupid as you THINK I am. The translators at the
>court of King James made their translations from the Latin, not the
>Hebrew. The Latin translations of the 'Old Testament', so called, came
>from the Septaugint, a Greek translation made around 270 BCE by as many
>as 70+ Hebrew scribes. The Torah (five books of Moses) is written
>entirely in Hebrew. It is the Talmud that is written in both Hebrew and
>Aramaic. NONE of the 'Old Testament', what we call Tenakh
>(Torah-Nevi'im-Kethuvim) was written in anything other than Hebrew.
>
>
I'm not going to argue with a handicapped person. The King James
version was translated from Hebrew, with some books translated from
Greek and Aramiac.
Horvath
On Thu, 30 Jan 1997 22:16:41 -0600, johntmc <joh...@hiwaay.net>
scribbled:
>Somebody tell me if this is wrong ....
>Lilith was never in the bible AS SUCH. As far as I know, she WAS
>referred to in various hebrew texts that were never considered when the
>early church determined what was and was not to be considered scripture,
>back when the bible was first put together at the council of Nicea. The
>idea of her being in genesis originally, and removed in subscquent
>"editings" is nonsense.
>(Incidently, considering how modern biblical scholars go for the oldest
>available manuscripts, I would be astonished if any deletions, other
>than the well-known OT books removed by Luther and his boys, have been
>made and leave gaps in MODERN translations)
> Either way, there were, (and ARE, as far as I know) hebrew texts
>with the story of Lillith in them. What I DON'T have any idea of , is
>whether these texts are considered holy books or just interesting
>ledgends by modern jewish theologians. Anybody out there got an answer?
>Thank you in advance for any informed answers...
>John Mc in Alabama
>
>
You are correct. The King James version was translated from Hebrew.
Lilith is NOT in the Bible. There is no mention of Adam having a wife
before Eve.
As for the Torah, or any Hebrew texts with the story of Lilith, I
don't have a copy of those ancient books. The Torah is about thirty
volumes in length, and would take even me, weeks to read. When I get
a copy on CD, I will use a search to check for references to Lilith.
archangel
Horvath,
Blonde is as blonde does. Go ask Dagwood if you can borrow the family
bible. The Read Gen: 1 through Gem. 2:4. That's the FIRST creation
story. Gen 2: 4 + is the SECOND creation story.
Next, check out Isaiah 34:14... but your better off looking in the
Tanahk.... it may have got lost in the "direct translation from the
ancient Hebrew" your always on about in the King James version.
Anyway, you'll find more detail in a later post.
by by blondie, give Dagwood my best
archangel
Horvath wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
Dear Horvath, Abbott to my Costello, Martin to my Lewis, Tom to my
Jerry,
>
> You are correct. The King James version was translated from Hebrew.
> Lilith is NOT in the Bible.
From the Tanakh, Isaiah 34:14
Wildcats shall meet hyenas,
Goat-demons shall greet each other;
There too the lilith shall repose
And find herself a resting place.
There is no mention of Adam having a wife
> before Eve.
From Genesis as translated directly from the original Hebrew:
Gen. 1: 26
G-d said:
Let us make humankind, in our image, according to our likeness!
Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the
heavens, animals, all the earth, and all crawling things that
crawl about upon the earth!
Gen. 1:27
G-d created humankind in his image, in the image of G-d did he create
it, male and female did he create them.
Humankind, in Hebrew, is Adam.
The Second Creation story starts up with a different story teller
interuppting the first story teller. In this Second account, humankind
are no longer created in 'Our Image' but from dust. In fact, in the
Hebrew, it becomes a play on words... Gen. 2:5... and there was no
human/adam to till the soil/adama...
So much of Jewish tales, folklore, legends, etc. goes toward explaing
these to desparate creation stories. The Lilith legend, in particular,
is one of the oldest, and was around for centuries before the
complpetion of the Tanakh in the 3rd-2nd centuries BCE.
>
> As for the Torah, or any Hebrew texts with the story of Lilith, I
> don't have a copy of those ancient books.
The Torah is about thirty volumes in length, and would take even me,
weeks to read.
The Torah consists of the five books of Moses; Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The entire work can be read in
less than a day, even less than that if you skip all the begetting.
When I get
> a copy on CD, I will use a search to check for references to Lilith.
Unless your CD is from a reputable and scholarly source, I suspect you
will get not much more then cud you have already been chewing. If you
like, I would recommend, for a start, The new Standard jewish
Encyclopedia, 7th edition, one volume, about $50 bucks. I'd loan you
the money, interest free, if I thought I would ever see it back.
Excerpetd from this most worthy volume:
"LILITH (popular etymology, 'the demon of the night')
Feminine demon, of Babylonian origin. She is mentioned in Isaiah
34:14. In the Talmud she is described as having a human face, long
hair, and wings (Niddah 24b) but the term Lilith also occurs as a noun
denoting (female) demons generally. In mystical literature, she became
the queen of demons and the consort of Satan-samael. According to one
legend, Lilith was Adam's first wife, and Eve was created after lilith
had left Adam and refused to return.
According to another version of the legend, she forced Adam to cohabit
with her after the Fall and the offspring of this union were demons and
eveil spirits. In kabbalistic literature, Lilith is the symbol of
sensual lust and sexual temptation."
>
> Horvath
>
> Twin Dragon Scorpion Beings whose look is death
> are the guardians of the entrance into the mountain.
> The aura of the demon guardian Beings
> shimmers across the surface of the mountain.
> The shimmering of the light is death to look at.
And so Horvath, even though I agree with you that Lilith is not
mentioned to any important extent in the Torah, she WAS mentioned. As
for her being the first wife of Adam, I guess it depends on whether you
believe there really was and Adam, an Eve, a Garden, and a G-d who
didn't know the first thing about human nature.
archangel
Horvath wrote:
>
> On Sun, 02 Feb 1997 00:44:06 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
> scribbled:
>
> > From the Tanakh, Isaiah 34:14
> >
> > Wildcats shall meet hyenas,
> > Goat-demons shall greet each other;
> > There too the lilith shall repose
> > And find herself a resting place.
> >
>
>
> This is the way it really reads:
>
> And the demons and monsters shall meet,
> and the hairy ones shall cry out to one another,
> there hath the lamia lain down, and found
> rest for herself.
>
> There is no mention of Lilith there. There is no mention of a first
> wife for Adam.
>
> >> before Eve.
> >
> > From Genesis as translated directly from the original Hebrew:
> >
> > Gen. 1: 26
> > G-d said:
> > Let us make humankind, in our image, according to our likeness!
> > Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the
> >heavens, animals, all the earth, and all crawling things that
> > crawl about upon the earth!
> > Gen. 1:27
> > G-d created humankind in his image, in the image of G-d did he create
> >it, male and female did he create them.
> >
> > Humankind, in Hebrew, is Adam.
> >
> >
> > The Second Creation story starts up with a different story teller
> >interuppting the first story teller. In this Second account, humankind
> >are no longer created in 'Our Image' but from dust. In fact, in the
> >Hebrew, it becomes a play on words... Gen. 2:5... and there was no
> >human/adam to till the soil/adama...
> >
>
> was being told, it was repeated. If it was very important, it was
> repeated twice. (So it was mentioned three times.) If it was really
> really important, it was mentioned seven times. That was the style of
> writhing. There is no contradiction between Adam being made of dust,
> and Adam being in God's image.
>
> > So much of Jewish tales, folklore, legends, etc. goes toward explaing
> >these to desparate creation stories. The Lilith legend, in particular,
> >is one of the oldest, and was around for centuries before the
> >complpetion of the Tanakh in the 3rd-2nd centuries BCE.
> >>
> >> As for the Torah, or any Hebrew texts with the story of Lilith, I
> >> don't have a copy of those ancient books.
> >
> >The Torah is about thirty volumes in length, and would take even me,
> >weeks to read.
> >
> > The Torah consists of the five books of Moses; Genesis, Exodus,
> >Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The entire work can be read in
> >less than a day, even less than that if you skip all the begetting.
> >
>
>
> >When I get
> >> a copy on CD, I will use a search to check for references to Lilith.
> >
> > Unless your CD is from a reputable and scholarly source, I suspect you
> >will get not much more then cud you have already been chewing. If you
> >like, I would recommend, for a start, The new Standard jewish
> >Encyclopedia, 7th edition, one volume, about $50 bucks. I'd loan you
> >the money, interest free, if I thought I would ever see it back.
> >
> > Excerpetd from this most worthy volume:
> >
> > "LILITH (popular etymology, 'the demon of the night')
> > Feminine demon, of Babylonian origin. She is mentioned in Isaiah
> >34:14. In the Talmud she is described as having a human face, long
> >hair, and wings (Niddah 24b) but the term Lilith also occurs as a noun
> >denoting (female) demons generally. In mystical literature, she became
> >the queen of demons and the consort of Satan-samael. According to one
> >legend, Lilith was Adam's first wife, and Eve was created after lilith
> >had left Adam and refused to return.
> >
> > According to another version of the legend, she forced Adam to cohabit
> >with her after the Fall and the offspring of this union were demons and
> >eveil spirits. In kabbalistic literature, Lilith is the symbol of
> >sensual lust and sexual temptation."
> >>
> >
> >mentioned to any important extent in the Torah, she WAS mentioned. As
> >for her being the first wife of Adam, I guess it depends on whether you
> >believe there really was and Adam, an Eve, a Garden, and a G-d who
> >didn't know the first thing about human nature.
> >
>
> a poor translation.
> Horvath
>
> This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.
Dear Horvath,
The Isaiah 34:14 I quoted is from "The Five Books Of Moses", Everett
Fox, The Shocken Bible, Volume I.
It is a DIRECT translation from the ORIGINAL ANCIENT HEBREW. It did
not pass thru the intestines of the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, or
the King James Version.
Only two stories are repeated in the Torah; the creation story and the
flood story. If what you say were true, their would be seven Abraham
stories and seven Moses stories.
As for 'poor translations', these are left exclusively to people too
lazy to research beyond thier own religious walls. I have cited my
sources. If you wish to argue with 4000 years of rabbinical and
talmudic thought, then it is you who are handicapped.
And while I'm at it, you might want to check out the politics involved
in the writing of the King James version... very interesting, especially
since English pogroms had run virtually every educated Jew out of
England years before. No matter the source of the translation, anyone
admitting to using ANY Church document would have lost his head. Again,
scholarly research must always go hand in hand with what some 'historys'
would want us to believe.
And, by the way, the Masoretic text had been translated into German by
the middle of the 15th century. Plenty of English scholars could have
gotten hold of it and maybe they did. But by the beginning of the 17th
century, Rome had pretty much abrogated that text for its own uses,
usually fomenting more pogroms.
Horvath
archangel
Horvath wrote:
>
> On Sun, 02 Feb 1997 23:12:34 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
> scribbled:
>
> >> Nonsense. Such was the style of writing that if something important
> >> was being told, it was repeated. If it was very important, it was
> >> repeated twice. (So it was mentioned three times.) If it was really
> >> really important, it was mentioned seven times. That was the style of
> >> writhing. There is no contradiction between Adam being made of dust,
> >> and Adam being in God's image.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Fox, The Shocken Bible, Volume I.
> >
>
I restate the following:
>
> > It is a DIRECT translation from the ORIGINAL ANCIENT HEBREW. It did
> >not pass thru the intestines of the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, or
> >the King James Version.
>
> Then who translated it? And where did they get a copy of the
> original?
Are you serious in asking this question? Have you never heard of a
Torah scroll? This 'dubious translation' you so casually dismiss is the
product of many man-years of scholarly work plus 25 years of Mr. Fox's
work on finding the authentic rhythyms and nuances of the original
Hebrew text. It has been universally accepted by religious scholars of
all faiths.
>
> >
> > Only two stories are repeated in the Torah; the creation story and the
> >flood story. If what you say were true, their would be seven Abraham
> >stories and seven Moses stories.
>
> That's not what I mean. The stories are not necessarily repeated, but
> the sentances are often repeated. That is why Revalation reads so
> strangely.
Revelation is not a Hebrew text. It is the mad maunderings of an early
day National Enquirer reporter who ate one too many mushrooms. As for
repetition, some phrases were repeated for emphasis, i.e to die. To die,
in Genesis. But whole stories?
>
> >
> > As for 'poor translations', these are left exclusively to people too
> >lazy to research beyond thier own religious walls. I have cited my
> >sources. If you wish to argue with 4000 years of rabbinical and
> >talmudic thought, then it is you who are handicapped.
> >
>
> What? You claim rabbinical thought? You can't even spell "God"
> correctly.
All Jews have a right to claim rabinical thought. It is part of our
heritage and our treasure. G-d is spelled that way as a convention,
much the same as YHWH, sans vowels. G-d denotes YHWH, whereas 'goddamn'
merely denotes wishful thinking.
>
> > And while I'm at it, you might want to check out the politics involved
> >in the writing of the King James version... very interesting, especially
> >since English pogroms had run virtually every educated Jew out of
> >England years before. No matter the source of the translation, anyone
> >admitting to using ANY Church document would have lost his head. Again,
> >scholarly research must always go hand in hand with what some 'historys'
> >would want us to believe.
> >
>
> Boring! I've already checked this out, and stated my preference for
> the Douay-Challoner text.
And you are entitled to your 'preference'. You are entitled to try to
convincve anyone who will listen that your 'preference' is right. I am
entitled to refute that 'preference'. As for boring, I think that says
more about you than the scholarly persuit you have so obviously avoided.
>
> > And, by the way, the Masoretic text had been translated into German by
> >the middle of the 15th century. Plenty of English scholars could have
> >gotten hold of it and maybe they did. But by the beginning of the 17th
> >century, Rome had pretty much abrogated that text for its own uses,
> >usually fomenting more pogroms.
> >
>
> So what?
It means that the claim of direct translation from the original Hebrew
is most likely politically motivated, that's what.
>
> Horvath
>
> Twin Dragon Scorpion Beings whose look is death
> are the guardians of the entrance into the mountain.
> The aura of the demon guardian Beings
> shimmers across the surface of the mountain.
> The shimmering of the light is death to look at.
Dear Horvath,
People with 'golden locks' should not throw blonde jokes. And thanks
for the Gilgamesh info... tracking it down at Barnes & Ignoble now.
Horvath
>> Nonsense. Such was the style of writing that if something important
>> was being told, it was repeated. If it was very important, it was
>> repeated twice. (So it was mentioned three times.) If it was really
>> really important, it was mentioned seven times. That was the style of
>> writhing. There is no contradiction between Adam being made of dust,
>> and Adam being in God's image.
>>
>>
>
> The Isaiah 34:14 I quoted is from "The Five Books Of Moses", Everett
>Fox, The Shocken Bible, Volume I.
>
A dubious translation, at best.
> It is a DIRECT translation from the ORIGINAL ANCIENT HEBREW. It did
>not pass thru the intestines of the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, or
>the King James Version.
Then who translated it? And where did they get a copy of the
original?
>
> Only two stories are repeated in the Torah; the creation story and the
>flood story. If what you say were true, their would be seven Abraham
>stories and seven Moses stories.
That's not what I mean. The stories are not necessarily repeated, but
the sentances are often repeated. That is why Revalation reads so
strangely.
>
> As for 'poor translations', these are left exclusively to people too
>lazy to research beyond thier own religious walls. I have cited my
>sources. If you wish to argue with 4000 years of rabbinical and
>talmudic thought, then it is you who are handicapped.
>
What? You claim rabbinical thought? You can't even spell "God"
correctly.
> And while I'm at it, you might want to check out the politics involved
>in the writing of the King James version... very interesting, especially
>since English pogroms had run virtually every educated Jew out of
>England years before. No matter the source of the translation, anyone
>admitting to using ANY Church document would have lost his head. Again,
>scholarly research must always go hand in hand with what some 'historys'
>would want us to believe.
>
Boring! I've already checked this out, and stated my preference for
the Douay-Challoner text.
> And, by the way, the Masoretic text had been translated into German by
>the middle of the 15th century. Plenty of English scholars could have
>gotten hold of it and maybe they did. But by the beginning of the 17th
>century, Rome had pretty much abrogated that text for its own uses,
>usually fomenting more pogroms.
>
So what?
archangel
johntmc wrote:
> =
> archangel wrote:
> >
> > Horvath wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:32:44 -0600, Chris Fieldhouse
> > > <cfie...@dev.tivoli.com> scribbled:
> > >
> > > >Horvath wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I have the Compton's New Media King James version, and The Catho=
lic
> > > >> Press Bible, Douay-Challoner text.
> > > >>
> > > >> The latter contains books missing in the Protestant Bible, inclu=
ding
> > > >> the following books: Tobias, Judith, Ester, Wisdom, Ecclesiasti=
cs,
> > > >> Baruch, and both books of the Maccabees.
> > > >>
> > > >> There are NO older versions. Now shut up before I make you look=
even
> > > >> stupider.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >w w w while I agree that Lillith has been *edited* from the recent=
bible
> > > >(and I I I I include the King James version here), it is known tha=
t the
> > > >bible has been heavily edited and sections that were considered
> > > >"Politically Incorrect" (for that time) were simply chopped.
> > >
> > > Lilith was NOT edited from the bible. Lilith was NEVER in the bibl=
e.
> > >
> > > >Several old testament books were chopped in the process and I gues=
s that
> > > >is when all references of L L L Lillith were removed
> > > >(The idea of a woman standing up for herself would not have gone d=
own to
> > > >well with old king jimmy).
> > > >
> =
> Somebody tell me if this is wrong ....
> Lilith was never in the bible AS SUCH. As far as I know, she WAS
> referred to in various hebrew texts that were never considered when the=
> early church determined what was and was not to be considered scripture=
,
> back when the bible was first put together at the council of Nicea. The=
> idea of her being in genesis originally, and removed in subscquent
> "editings" is nonsense.
> (Incidently, considering how modern biblical scholars go for the oldest=
> available manuscripts, I would be astonished if any deletions, other
> than the well-known OT books removed by Luther and his boys, have been
> made and leave gaps in MODERN translations)
> Either way, there were, (and ARE, as far as I know) hebrew texts
> with the story of Lillith in them. What I DON'T have any idea of , is
> whether these texts are considered holy books or just interesting
> ledgends by modern jewish theologians. Anybody out there got an answer=
?
> Thank you in advance for any informed answers...
> John Mc in Alabama
> =
> > > >B B B But, looking at the Hebrew texts (this is where Tobias, Judi=
th and
> > > >Ester come from), there are references to her I believe in the Tal=
mut,
> > > >certainly a more detailed description of the creation of Eve i.e.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nonsense. I've seen the old texts. There is no mention of Lilith.=
> > > Lilith is not a real character, not even a fictional character.
> > >
> > > >(I'm doing this from memory s s s so it may not be acurate)
> > > >"He (god) made eve from adam, but took not from his brain lest she=
> > > > think for herself, not from his jaw lest she speak for herself, b=
ut
> > > > from that which was within, his rib."
> > > >Sorry t t t to any scholars for any misquote.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What does that mean? That isn't a reference to anything remotely l=
ike
> > > Lilith.
> > >
> > > The only mention of Lilith is in an old television show. Lilith wa=
s
> > > Herman Munster's wife. Grandpa was the vampire.
> > >
> > > Horvath
> > >
> > > Twin Dragon Scorpion Beings whose look is death
> > > are the guardians of the entrance into the mountain.
> > > The aura of the demon guardian Beings
> > > shimmers across the surface of the mountain.
> > > The shimmering of the light is death to look at.
> >
> > Dear Horvath,
> >
> > I agree, so far, about Lillityh not being mentioned in the To=
rah... but
> > not real? Lilith is as 'real' as Adam, Cain, Noah, and so on. Her l=
ack
> > of mention proves nothing. That which ios not mentioned, or has been=
> > cropped, from what is general regarded as the 'Old testamnet' is Legi=
on.
> >
> > archangel
> > --
> > =FFWPC=81=04
> =
> --
> MZ=90
Try to get a good copy of the Talmud, one that has a comprehensive
Aggada. The Aggada is a 'sequel' in that it is not Law itself but a
commentary on Law. Contains many, many stories, tales legends, poems,
satire, polemics, parables and allegorys. The Babylonia Talmud would
have better chance of having what your looking for, i.e.
Lilith/Adam/Eden stories.
Or find a good book shop that knows its way around folk tales and
legends, vi a vis Judaism. Lots of neat little books. Call a rabbi, it
couldn't hurt.
archangel
-- =
"I don't do last rites. I have always found that crying =
a lot as one digs the appropriate hole in the garden
seems to say it all." =
Chiller
archangel
Horvath wrote:
>
> On Mon, 03 Feb 1997 23:51:17 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
> scribbled:
> >> >
> >> > The Isaiah 34:14 I quoted is from "The Five Books Of Moses", Everett
> >> >Fox, The Shocken Bible, Volume I.
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > It is a DIRECT translation from the ORIGINAL ANCIENT HEBREW. It did
> >> >not pass thru the intestines of the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, or
> >> >the King James Version.
> >>
>
> from the original Hebrew.
Ah yes. Then it should have I Esdras and II Esdras, nez pas?
A truly 'dubious' translation, the politics of 1609 being what they
were.
>
> >> Then who translated it? And where did they get a copy of the
> >> original?
> >
> > Are you serious in asking this question? Have you never heard of a
> >Torah scroll? This 'dubious translation' you so casually dismiss is the
> >product of many man-years of scholarly work plus 25 years of Mr. Fox's
> >work on finding the authentic rhythyms and nuances of the original
> >Hebrew text. It has been universally accepted by religious scholars of
> >all faiths.
> >
>
> My translation is the accepted translation by all scholars.
Laugh? I thought my pants would never dry. THE accepted translation?
It's not even referred to any more except as a historical curiousity and
some Old Line Catholics. (Wipes tears out of his eyes from laughing so
hard)
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Only two stories are repeated in the Torah; the creation story and the
> >> >flood story. If what you say were true, their would be seven Abraham
> >> >stories and seven Moses stories.
> >>
> >> That's not what I mean. The stories are not necessarily repeated, but
> >> the sentances are often repeated. That is why Revalation reads so
> >> strangely.
> >
> > Revelation is not a Hebrew text. It is the mad maunderings of an early
> >day National Enquirer reporter who ate one too many mushrooms. As for
> >repetition, some phrases were repeated for emphasis, i.e to die. To die,
> >in Genesis. But whole stories?
> >>
>
> I won't argue with that. But even you should see that there are not
> two stories of the creation.
I leave it to anyone with a Gideon handy. Read for yourself. Two,
count em, two stories, one right after the other.
>
> >> >
> >> > As for 'poor translations', these are left exclusively to people too
> >> >lazy to research beyond thier own religious walls. I have cited my
> >> >sources. If you wish to argue with 4000 years of rabbinical and
> >> >talmudic thought, then it is you who are handicapped.
> >> >
> >>
> >> What? You claim rabbinical thought? You can't even spell "God"
> >> correctly.
> >
> > All Jews have a right to claim rabinical thought. It is part of our
> >heritage and our treasure. G-d is spelled that way as a convention,
> >much the same as YHWH, sans vowels. G-d denotes YHWH, whereas 'goddamn'
> >merely denotes wishful thinking.
> >>
>
> Your babbling never ceases.
C'mon, Horvath. You can do better than this. Make a case, don't just
drink it.
>
> >> > And while I'm at it, you might want to check out the politics involved
> >> >in the writing of the King James version... very interesting, especially
> >> >since English pogroms had run virtually every educated Jew out of
> >> >England years before. No matter the source of the translation, anyone
> >> >admitting to using ANY Church document would have lost his head. Again,
> >> >scholarly research must always go hand in hand with what some 'historys'
> >> >would want us to believe.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Boring! I've already checked this out, and stated my preference for
> >> the Douay-Challoner text.
> >
> > And you are entitled to your 'preference'. You are entitled to try to
> >convincve anyone who will listen that your 'preference' is right. I am
> >entitled to refute that 'preference'. As for boring, I think that says
> >more about you than the scholarly persuit you have so obviously avoided.
> >>
>
> What are you talking about? What scholarly "persuit"?
My point, exactly. Stop relying on mail-order CD-ROMs and do some
RESEARCH!
>
> >> > And, by the way, the Masoretic text had been translated into German by
> >> >the middle of the 15th century. Plenty of English scholars could have
> >> >gotten hold of it and maybe they did. But by the beginning of the 17th
> >> >century, Rome had pretty much abrogated that text for its own uses,
> >> >usually fomenting more pogroms.
> >> >
> >>
> >> So what?
> >
> > It means that the claim of direct translation from the original Hebrew
> >is most likely politically motivated, that's what.
> >>
>
> I said I used a Douay-Challoner text that predates the King James
> version.
By how many years did you say? And who was behind this one?
>
> >
> >Dear Horvath,
> >
> > People with 'golden locks' should not throw blonde jokes. And thanks
> >for the Gilgamesh info... tracking it down at Barnes & Ignoble now.
> >
>
> You're welcome. Knowledge should not be kept hidden.
I have kept nothing hidden from you.
By the way, I recommend "The New Oxford Annotated Bible" with
Apocrapha. Has it all, including I Esdra thru IV Esdra, which others
might recognize as Ezra and Nehemiah. It mentions, briefly, the Douay
English version.
>
> Horvath
>
> Don't be alarmed by the sudden splendor of my appearance,
> and do not let the fear of the fury and chaos of darkness
> trouble you any longer. My name is Horvath, a soldier of
> the night. Henceforth I shall be your shield, and your
> defender. Step closer, join me, and you shall live, forever.
archangel
Horvath wrote:
>
> On Mon, 03 Feb 1997 23:51:17 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
> scribbled:
> >> >
> >> >Fox, The Shocken Bible, Volume I.
> >> >
> >>
> >
> > I restate the following:
> >
> >>
> >> >not pass thru the intestines of the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, or
> >> >the King James Version.
> >>
>
> from the original Hebrew.
>
>
> My translation is the accepted translation by all scholars.
>
> >> Boring! I've already checked this out, and stated my preference for
> >> the Douay-Challoner text.
> >
>
>
> I said I used a Douay-Challoner text that predates the King James
> version.
>
> >
Dear Horvath, and all those in attendance.
For a good view of this 'Douay-Challoner text, go to
http://davinc.marc.gatech.edu:80/catholic/scriptures/douay.htm
There you will find that it is really the Douay-Rheims Text and that
Bishop Challoner revised and compared the books in 1749 CE.
It also states, in bold, unmistakable letters,
TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN VULGATE
archangel
Horvath
>> >Fox, The Shocken Bible, Volume I.
>> >
>>
>
> I restate the following:
>
>>
>> >not pass thru the intestines of the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, or
>> >the King James Version.
>>
My translation was from the Douay-Challoner text, which was translated
from the original Hebrew.
>> Then who translated it? And where did they get a copy of the
>> original?
>
> Are you serious in asking this question? Have you never heard of a
>Torah scroll? This 'dubious translation' you so casually dismiss is the
>product of many man-years of scholarly work plus 25 years of Mr. Fox's
>work on finding the authentic rhythyms and nuances of the original
>Hebrew text. It has been universally accepted by religious scholars of
>all faiths.
>
My translation is the accepted translation by all scholars.
>>
>> >
>> > Only two stories are repeated in the Torah; the creation story and the
>> >flood story. If what you say were true, their would be seven Abraham
>> >stories and seven Moses stories.
>>
>> That's not what I mean. The stories are not necessarily repeated, but
>> the sentances are often repeated. That is why Revalation reads so
>> strangely.
>
> Revelation is not a Hebrew text. It is the mad maunderings of an early
>day National Enquirer reporter who ate one too many mushrooms. As for
>repetition, some phrases were repeated for emphasis, i.e to die. To die,
>in Genesis. But whole stories?
>>
I won't argue with that. But even you should see that there are not
two stories of the creation.
>> >
>> > As for 'poor translations', these are left exclusively to people too
>> >lazy to research beyond thier own religious walls. I have cited my
>> >sources. If you wish to argue with 4000 years of rabbinical and
>> >talmudic thought, then it is you who are handicapped.
>> >
>>
>> What? You claim rabbinical thought? You can't even spell "God"
>> correctly.
>
> All Jews have a right to claim rabinical thought. It is part of our
>heritage and our treasure. G-d is spelled that way as a convention,
>much the same as YHWH, sans vowels. G-d denotes YHWH, whereas 'goddamn'
>merely denotes wishful thinking.
>>
Your babbling never ceases.
>> > And while I'm at it, you might want to check out the politics involved
>> >in the writing of the King James version... very interesting, especially
>> >since English pogroms had run virtually every educated Jew out of
>> >England years before. No matter the source of the translation, anyone
>> >admitting to using ANY Church document would have lost his head. Again,
>> >scholarly research must always go hand in hand with what some 'historys'
>> >would want us to believe.
>> >
>>
>> Boring! I've already checked this out, and stated my preference for
>> the Douay-Challoner text.
>
> And you are entitled to your 'preference'. You are entitled to try to
>convincve anyone who will listen that your 'preference' is right. I am
>entitled to refute that 'preference'. As for boring, I think that says
>more about you than the scholarly persuit you have so obviously avoided.
>>
What are you talking about? What scholarly "persuit"?
>> > And, by the way, the Masoretic text had been translated into German by
>> >the middle of the 15th century. Plenty of English scholars could have
>> >gotten hold of it and maybe they did. But by the beginning of the 17th
>> >century, Rome had pretty much abrogated that text for its own uses,
>> >usually fomenting more pogroms.
>> >
>>
>> So what?
>
> It means that the claim of direct translation from the original Hebrew
>is most likely politically motivated, that's what.
>>
I said I used a Douay-Challoner text that predates the King James
version.
>
>Dear Horvath,
>
> People with 'golden locks' should not throw blonde jokes. And thanks
>for the Gilgamesh info... tracking it down at Barnes & Ignoble now.
>
You're welcome. Knowledge should not be kept hidden.
archangel
archangel wrote:
>
> Horvath wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 03 Feb 1997 23:51:17 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
> > scribbled:
> > >> >
> > >> >Fox, The Shocken Bible, Volume I.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > > I restate the following:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> >not pass thru the intestines of the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, or
> > >> >the King James Version.
> > >>
> >
> > from the original Hebrew.
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> > >> the Douay-Challoner text.
> > >
> >
>
> >
> > version.
> >
> > >
>
>
> For a good view of this 'Douay-Challoner text, go to
>
>
> There you will find that it is really the Douay-Rheims Text and that
> Bishop Challoner revised and compared the books in 1749 CE.
>
> It also states, in bold, unmistakable letters,
>
> TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN VULGATE
>
> archangel
>
Horvath
On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 01:30:36 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
scribbled:
>>
>> My translation was from the Douay-Challoner text, which was translated
>> from the original Hebrew.
>
> Ah yes. Then it should have I Esdras and II Esdras, nez pas?
> A truly 'dubious' translation, the politics of 1609 being what they
>were.
>
Yes. It has those.
>> >>
>>
>> I said I used a Douay-Challoner text that predates the King James
>> version.
>
> By how many years did you say? And who was behind this one?
>>
Catholic scholars who were driven out of England by Queen Elizabeth,
in 1565.
>> You're welcome. Knowledge should not be kept hidden.
>
>
> I have kept nothing hidden from you.
>
> By the way, I recommend "The New Oxford Annotated Bible" with
>Apocrapha. Has it all, including I Esdra thru IV Esdra, which others
>might recognize as Ezra and Nehemiah. It mentions, briefly, the Douay
>English version.
>
Pleeez! I've seen better translations done by illiterates.
archangel
Horvath wrote:
>
> On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 01:30:36 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
> scribbled:
>
> >>
> >> from the original Hebrew.
> >
> > Ah yes. Then it should have I Esdras and II Esdras, nez pas?
> > A truly 'dubious' translation, the politics of 1609 being what they
> >were.
> >
>
>
> >> >>
> >>
> >> I said I used a Douay-Challoner text that predates the King James
> >> version.
> >
> > By how many years did you say? And who was behind this one?
> >>
>
> in 1565.
>
> >
> >
> > I have kept nothing hidden from you.
> >
> > By the way, I recommend "The New Oxford Annotated Bible" with
> >Apocrapha. Has it all, including I Esdra thru IV Esdra, which others
> >might recognize as Ezra and Nehemiah. It mentions, briefly, the Douay
> >English version.
> >
>
>
>
> This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.
Dear Horvath,
I'm sure you have. You refer to them often enough. By the way, have
you checked out:
http://davinci.marc.gatech.edu:80/catholic/scriptures/douay.htm
yet? Very interesting tale told there. Not the least of which that it
was translated from the LATIN VULGATE. After reading this, I can only
wonder that they weren't driven out sooner. Not that the KJV is much
better.
archangel
Sorry. Left out the 'i' in 'davinci' in the prior post. This will get
you there.
http://davinci.marc.gatech.edu:80/catholic/scriptures/douay.htm
> archangel
Robert Westbrook
Its my understanding that lillith is not in the bible. Lilith is an
important part of a jewish sect that needed an excuse to justify divorce.
Lilith has gained Great literary respect as her role as a succubas.The
great seducer of young men. a role she very much enjoys ;)
Whitethn
Please pardon the OT post, but some help here would be deeply appreciated.
Does anyone have the Frazier ep titled "Troubles in Paradise"? It dealt
with Lilith and her new husband.
Please let me know if you have a copy of this you would not mind selling.
Thank you....
sian Leslie
Whitethn
Archangel, (and everyone else of course)
IMNSHO....isn't the new testament related to the old by prophecies?
Just my two and three quarter cents worth....(inflation is such a bitch)
Pax,
Sian Leslie
loa
dear archangel,
by the way i am enjoying this discussion particularly in light
of the bible history lectures my history of the english
language class is having.
but . . .
is it really in your best interests to argue with horvath?
you'll notice he refutes everything with "but you're wrong
and i'm right. i don't have any proof, but you must be able
to see my innate rightness."
those sort of people have this chitinous shell of rightness
that is very hard to crack.
sort of like . . . well i won't malign my fellow christians,
but you'll notice the "why does god" threads have actually
MUTATED into other threads.
ferry, ferry sad.
--loa--
back to black
Peter Constantine
loa wrote:
>but . . .
>is it really in your best interests to argue with horvath?
>you'll notice he refutes everything with "but you're wrong
>and i'm right. i don't have any proof, but you must be able
>to see my innate rightness."
>
>those sort of people have this chitinous shell of rightness
>that is very hard to crack.
Ah... but there is always the prospect of a chink in the armour or a
glimpse of soft white underbelly...
>ferry, ferry sad.
Which (for no reason and of little relevance) reminds me that Roxy Music's
lead singer was known to some as Byron Ferrari - a nickname that always
makes me smile...
Constantine
x
Horvath
On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 15:46:12 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
scribbled:
>Horvath wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 01:30:36 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
>> scribbled:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.
>
>
>Dear Horvath,
>
> I'm sure you have. You refer to them often enough. By the way, have
>you checked out:
>
>http://davinci.marc.gatech.edu:80/catholic/scriptures/douay.htm
>
>yet? Very interesting tale told there. Not the least of which that it
>was translated from the LATIN VULGATE. After reading this, I can only
>wonder that they weren't driven out sooner. Not that the KJV is much
>better.
>
I haven't been able to verify this yet. But I can assure you that
the Doulay-Challoner text was translated from the Hebrew, NOT from the
Latin Vulgate. I have several versions of the Vulgate.
archangel
Horvath wrote:
>
> On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 15:46:12 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
> scribbled:
>
> >Horvath wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 01:30:36 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
> >> scribbled:
> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >Dear Horvath,
> >
> >you checked out:
> >
> >http://davinci.marc.gatech.edu:80/catholic/scriptures/douay.htm
> >
> >yet? Very interesting tale told there. Not the least of which that it
> >was translated from the LATIN VULGATE. After reading this, I can only
> >wonder that they weren't driven out sooner. Not that the KJV is much
> >better.
> >
>
> I haven't been able to verify this yet. But I can assure you that
> the Doulay-Challoner text was translated from the Hebrew, NOT from the
> Latin Vulgate. I have several versions of the Vulgate.
>
>
> This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.
Dear Horvath,
VERY easy to check out. Simply click on the link. And when you finish
reading perhaps you will drop this pretense that your bible, i.e. the
'Douay-Rheims' is a direct translation from the Hebrew. It is NOT. I
have offered my proofs. If you wish to refute, then offer yours.
I have no doubt you have several versions of the Vulgate, the
Douay-Rheims among them. What you do not have is a translation from the
original Hebrew.
archangel
Lilith? Off-topic? She's just about the only person we talk about here.
};)
archangel
loa wrote:
>
> dear archangel,
>
> by the way i am enjoying this discussion particularly in light
> of the bible history lectures my history of the english
> language class is having.
>
> is it really in your best interests to argue with horvath?
> you'll notice he refutes everything with "but you're wrong
> and i'm right. i don't have any proof, but you must be able
> to see my innate rightness."
>
> those sort of people have this chitinous shell of rightness
> that is very hard to crack.
> but you'll notice the "why does god" threads have actually
> MUTATED into other threads.
>
> ferry, ferry sad.
>
> --loa--
> back to black
Loa,
Horvath is a real hoot. You gotta remember that Horvath is getting a
little long in the tooth, if ya know what I mean. They say at that age,
the second thing to go is your memory. Besides, somebody's got to do
it.
archangel,
who doesn't mind changing a road sign when it points the wrong way
archangel
Your understanding needs a bit of fine tuning. No such Jewish sect
exists or ever existed, at least not one important enough to be
discussed.
As for Lilith being mentioned in the Bible, a good translation of
Isaiah 34:14 will show different. Other texts call her 'lamia'.
The Talmud is full of instruction and advice on divorce... no
'justification', at least by Lilith, has ever been needed.
In what literature has Lilith won this respect, either as a cuccubus or
anything else? And how do you know she enjoys seducing young men?
Maybe she enjoys seducing middle age men who know what they're doing.
Anyway, she's never come on to me, more's the pity.
archangel
Dear Sian,
It is related only in the minds of Christians. One just as easily
could say that the Holy Qur'an is related. Both make reference to Torah
and the old writings.
As for prophecies, from the Book of John on through Revelation, you
will find much exegesis of Hebrew scriptures, particularly Isaiah.
Biblical hermeneutics is a marvelous playpen, filled with as many
opinions as there are Names of G-d. Come on in! Lilith is just now
setting out the tea and biscuits.
Horvath
On Sat, 08 Feb 1997 00:43:47 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
scribbled:
>
> VERY easy to check out. Simply click on the link. And when you finish
>reading perhaps you will drop this pretense that your bible, i.e. the
>'Douay-Rheims' is a direct translation from the Hebrew. It is NOT. I
>have offered my proofs. If you wish to refute, then offer yours.
>
Why do you assume that I'm using the Netscape newsreader?
I can't simply click on the link. I have to make a printout of your
message, then open netscape, then type in the URL.
> I have no doubt you have several versions of the Vulgate, the
>Douay-Rheims among them. What you do not have is a translation from the
>original Hebrew.
>
Wrongo! I have an English translation of the original Hebrew. It is
the Douay-Challoner Text.
Horvath
I didn't come here for a Polka lesson, so stop dancing around!
Horvath
On Sat, 08 Feb 1997 01:19:38 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
scribbled:
> As for Lilith being mentioned in the Bible, a good translation of
>Isaiah 34:14 will show different. Other texts call her 'lamia'.
>
Wrong again! Lilith is NOT mentioned in Isiah 34:14. "Lamia" is NOT
a word for "Lilith." "Lamia" is the Latin word for "witch." This is
not a reference to Lilith.
archangel
Horvath, Treader on Thin Ice
You back?
Can I help it if Jerome had a lousy time with Hebre/Latin translation?
And, for the umpteenth time, Lilith IS mentioned, by name, in the Hebrew
text. Granted, it's only a cameo appearance, but she IS mentioned
there.
I believe I proved this to you once before. Ignoring such proves
reflects poorly on you, old fang. Really! We all had hoped for better
from you.
archangel,
who doesn't care what everybody else says, he thinks Horvath is
basically o.k.
archangel
>
> I didn't come here for a Polka lesson, so stop dancing around!
Horvath,
http://davinci.marc.gatech.edu:80/catholic/scriptures/douay.htm
click on it, type it in, or just browse for 'Douay English Version'.
Whatever method you use, you will find that the Douay-Rheims Text is
translated from the LATIN VULGATE.
Stop pretending to be an ignoranus on this issue.
bowyn carmichael
Horvath wrote:
>
> On Sat, 08 Feb 1997 01:19:38 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
> scribbled:
>
> > As for Lilith being mentioned in the Bible, a good translation of
> >Isaiah 34:14 will show different. Other texts call her 'lamia'.
> >
>
> Wrong again! Lilith is NOT mentioned in Isiah 34:14. "Lamia" is NOT
> a word for "Lilith." "Lamia" is the Latin word for "witch." This is
> not a reference to Lilith.
>
> Horvath
ugh... i find myself agreeing with horvass...
thats got to be one of the signs of the apocolypse...
vlko...@aol.com
In article <32FC43...@concentric.net>, archangel
<mtb...@concentric.net> writes:
>Loa,
>
> Horvath is a real hoot. You gotta remember that Horvath is
getting a
>little long in the tooth, if ya know what I mean. They say at that age,
>the second thing to go is your memory. Besides, somebody's got to do
>it.
>
> archangel,
>who doesn't mind changing a road sign when it points the wrong way
>--
I started out with it, but got bored with Horvath rather quickly.
I have no problem debating opinions, I actually enjoy it. But when one
makes up facts rather than discovering truth, I get bored quite quickly.
If you can maintain your interest, I'm glad to let you argue with the old,
er, guy.
Vlkodlak
No patience, no worries.
Horvath
On Sun, 09 Feb 1997 01:02:22 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
scribbled:
>Horvath wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 08 Feb 1997 01:19:38 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
>> scribbled:
>>
>> > As for Lilith being mentioned in the Bible, a good translation of
>> >Isaiah 34:14 will show different. Other texts call her 'lamia'.
>> >
>>
>> Wrong again! Lilith is NOT mentioned in Isiah 34:14. "Lamia" is NOT
>> a word for "Lilith." "Lamia" is the Latin word for "witch." This is
>> not a reference to Lilith.
>>
>> Horvath
>>
>> I didn't come here for a Polka lesson, so stop dancing around!
>
>
>Horvath, Treader on Thin Ice
>
> You back?
>
> Can I help it if Jerome had a lousy time with Hebre/Latin translation?
>And, for the umpteenth time, Lilith IS mentioned, by name, in the Hebrew
>text. Granted, it's only a cameo appearance, but she IS mentioned
>there.
>
You proved NOTHING. Lilith is not in the bible. Jerome did not
translate the Douay-Challoner text from Latin. Once again your head
is stuck up your ass. Face the facts.
Horvath
On Sun, 09 Feb 1997 14:00:55 -0800, bowyn carmichael
<bo...@mindspring.com> scribbled:
>Horvath wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 08 Feb 1997 01:19:38 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
>> scribbled:
>>
>> > As for Lilith being mentioned in the Bible, a good translation of
>> >Isaiah 34:14 will show different. Other texts call her 'lamia'.
>> >
>>
>> Wrong again! Lilith is NOT mentioned in Isiah 34:14. "Lamia" is NOT
>> a word for "Lilith." "Lamia" is the Latin word for "witch." This is
>> not a reference to Lilith.
>>
>> Horvath
>
>
>ugh... i find myself agreeing with horvass...
>thats got to be one of the signs of the apocolypse...
You're back? And you agree with me?
Is this a joke? Are you setting me up?
Why am I asking all these questions?
loa
On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, bowyn carmichael wrote:
> ugh... i find myself agreeing with horvass...
> thats got to be one of the signs of the apocolypse...
*snort*
bowyn am i going to have to slap you?
we don't *agree* with horvath. we *laugh at* horvath.
yes.
-loa-
that thing she do
archangel
>
> >Horvath wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 08 Feb 1997 01:19:38 -0800, archangel <mtb...@concentric.net>
> >> scribbled:
> >>
> >> > As for Lilith being mentioned in the Bible, a good translation of
> >> >Isaiah 34:14 will show different. Other texts call her 'lamia'.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Wrong again! Lilith is NOT mentioned in Isiah 34:14. "Lamia" is NOT
> >> a word for "Lilith." "Lamia" is the Latin word for "witch." This is
> >> not a reference to Lilith.
> >>
> >> Horvath
> >>
> >
> >
> >Horvath, Treader on Thin Ice
> >
> > You back?
> >
> > Can I help it if Jerome had a lousy time with Hebre/Latin translation?
> >And, for the umpteenth time, Lilith IS mentioned, by name, in the Hebrew
> >text. Granted, it's only a cameo appearance, but she IS mentioned
> >there.
> >
>
> You proved NOTHING. Lilith is not in the bible. Jerome did not
> translate the Douay-Challoner text from Latin. Once again your head
> is stuck up your ass. Face the facts.
>
>
> Don't be alarmed by the sudden splendor of my appearance,
> and do not let the fear of the fury and chaos of darkness
> trouble you any longer. My name is Horvath, a soldier of
> the night. Henceforth I shall be your shield, and your
> defender. Step closer, join me, and you shall live, forever.
Dear Horvath,
You have such a funny way of conceding an argument. Stooping to ad
hominum remarks. Your caseation is sad to behold.
You have been given proof. This proof is available for all to see.
Yet you persist in being an ignoranus, sulking around and insisting you
are right despite all proofs to the contrary. An intelligent man would
know who Jerome was, or at least be able to look him up. An honest man
would admit this knowledge. You obfuscate by stating the obvious;
Jerome did not translate the Douay-Rheims Text from the Latin. No one
ever said he did. You may or may not be intelligent but you are most
certainly not honest.
As with all your arguments when you inevitably start to lose, you
switch to the insult, trying to demean your opponent and dazzle the
crowd with your wit.
You claim that you were "surfing the net when Yahoo was a hillbilly
yell" yet you cannot seem to find your way to
http://davinci.marc.gatech.edu:80/catholic/scriptures/douay.htm
and there discover the truth about the text you claim is a direct
translation from the Hebrew.
You claim you did not come here to dance yet you two-step around every
solid fact, every supported argument. You ought to have taps on your
shoes.
You claim to be ancient, around before the Ceasars, and yet here I am,
a short lived mortal, kicking your ass all over this newsgroup.
You, Horvath, are a fraud. Yes, I call you a fraud in front of the
entire newsgroup. I doubt that you could suck the jelly out of a donut
much less hunt a human. Soldier of the night? You can't even stay
awake on guard duty. You are a du=isgrace to Magyars everywhere.
archangel
caseation n, The necrotic deterioration of a body into a cheese-like
substance.
ignoanus n, ignorant asshole
Theondra
If I see one more "Is Lilith in the Bible?" thread, I'm going to have to
hurt someone. This is almost as bad as the Bible, God and abortion
threads. Give it a rest or at least say something new. I found this
thread to be fairly intersting back in December.
*YAWN*
Theondra
Who's going to complain directly to Lilith herself and get some action if
people don't provide me with some variation soon!
B J Kuehl
theo...@aol.com (Theondra) sez:
> If I see one more "Is Lilith in the Bible?" thread, I'm going to have to
> hurt someone. This is almost as bad as the Bible, God and abortion
> threads. Give it a rest or at least say something new. I found this
> thread to be fairly intersting back in December.
I agree with Theondra on this one. When this question was initially
posed to the group, it was learned that the passage attributed to
Lilith (Isaiah 34:14) does indeed name 'lilith' in the Jewish
translation but that most of the other English translations have
changed the passage to read:
"...there shall the NIGHT HAG [sometimes NIGHT CREATURES] repose
What we haven't yet established is the word that was used in the
original Hebrew. Now THAT would be the most instructive addition
to this whole drawn-out argument.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^