Love your meek spirit @Samuel_23
Shalom to you and family.
Johann.
1 Like
Gentlemen
The banter here has been entertaining, and honestly quite enlightening. As I am usually unaware of what entities of darkness do in the darkness, so I was unaware of how this “Hapax legomena” (or as I usually say, this single occurrence of this word in scripture) has become coopted by the world as fuel for unholy fire. My ignorance has been educated. Thank you.
I do have two requests, for those of you gifted in vernacular vivisection and endowed with exegetical expertise. With specific regard for the topic at hand “Lilith” (to keep @Fritz happy): How do we integrate this fascinating deep-dive into the origins, and various contemporary expressions, of ancient mythological characters, specifically those mentioned in scripture as representatives of evil (like Lilith), with the teacing from the following passage:
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light. Ephesians 5:11-13
My question is not any sort of innuendo nor is am I even suggesting anyone here has strained at gnats while swallowing camels. I sincerely appreciate the depth of your experience, your skillful erudite exegesis, and your diligent willingness to share your gift with the rest of us who have come into the fold from less sophisticated backgrounds. I very much enjoy reading your propositions. I am focusing on the spirit of this admonition (above); the apostles dire warning to these Ephesian believers to beware. There is a line of demarcation that should not be crossed, and advisedly should not even be approached. He speaks of being “imitators of God” and to not be “deceived by empty words”. The unsophisticated reader probably understands well enough what the apostle intends when he says: “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness”, but the line gets a little hazy when he says: “For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret”. There is a way in which we “imitate God” while “not even speaking of things that dwell in the darkness”. Before one of you say it, I am not suggesting we all, like the proverbial ostrich, “stick our heads in the sand” so we stay unaware of “the wiles of evil”, but we are to "walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise”. Circumspectly means eyes open, and head on a swivel, so I am not suggesting otherwise. But is it enough to ingest the poetic imagery, do we absorb the full intent of Isaiah 34:13-16 without a biologic understanding of nettles and brambles; do we get Isaiah’s (God’s) point when this “Lilith” is sandwiched within a dark and desolate zoo of carnivorous creatures and malevolent monsters? What Isaiah is penning is sanctified poetry, and poetry has a legal license for invoking imagery, evoking emotions, and mustering moods:
And thorns shall come up in its palaces,
Nettles and brambles in its fortresses;It shall be a habitation of jackals,
A courtyard for ostriches.The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the jackals,
And the wild goat shall bleat to its companion;Also, the night creature shall rest there,
and find for herself a place of rest.There the arrow snake shall make her nest and lay eggs
and hatch, and gather them under her shadow;There also shall the hawks be gathered,
Everyone with her mate."Search from the book of the LORD, and read:
Not one of these shall fail;Not one shall lack her mate.
For My mouth has commanded it, and His Spirit has gathered them.”
If you understand my question, I pose it for your specialized consideration and am eager to sit at your feet while I read your response.
The second question, (if I remain a welcome student, and have not been kicked out of class by now) is regarding an oft-quoted paraphrase of Proverbs 27:17; bandied about as some sort of Godly recipe for spiritual edification.
“As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.” Proverbs 27:17
The proverb does not read, to me, as an admonishment to practice, but as a warning. Show me the light, if I am missing something. I appreciate the metaphor of “iron sharpening iron” as a clever way of saying two equals make each other better. I regularly read your usage of the phrase in this way; no problem. However, the way this Holy proverb is used (possibly abused), especially in Christian men’s circles, seems to completely ignore what the proverbial writer was saying. The proverbial warning comes in a list of other warnings and cautions against life’s irritations; “egotistic blessings”, “continual dripping”, “grasping oil”, “waiting to serve”, etc. Here, a sharp face is a severe, austere, or stern face; squinted eye, downturned brow, hardened cheeks, clenched teeth. Having one’s face sharpened does not sound like a blessing, but an irritation. Iron sharpening iron sounds harsh, fierce, as each tears away at the other, so a stern face rasps at and hardens the face of his friend.
“A sword, a sword is sharpened and also polished! Sharpened to make a dreadful slaughter, Polished to flash like lightning! Should we then make mirth? It despises the scepter of My Son, As it does all wood. Ezekiel 21:9-10
I sure love the image of a friend strengthening and edifying another in Jesus, but does good exegesis allow us to use this proverb to say that? I am open to your correction.
Love and Peace in The One who embodies both
KP
I’m new here and only have a limited number of replies before I have to wait seven hours to post again.
I hope you’re finding what you’re looking for.
Grace and peace,
Johann.
The fruit of The Spirit is (among others) patience. As a man who has been given eternal life, seven hours of waiting is like a single breath. I can wait. No prob.
Blessing
KP
1 Like
Samuel, I see you brought the whole theological toolbox again—and I’m not mad at it. You’ve laid out the Genesis passages, unpacked the Hebrew, Greek, and even dropped a little patristic firepower. Respect.
Now let’s zero in on what you called “the million-dollar question,” the one fueling YouTube theories and midnight Reddit threads: Was Lilith Adam’s first wife?
Let’s not tiptoe—let’s take it head on.
First off, the whole “two creation accounts = two wives” thing? That’s not interpretation. That’s imagination dressed up in a Hebrew word study. Genesis 1 and 2 aren’t giving us different timelines—they’re giving us a wide-angle shot followed by a close-up. Genesis 1 shows the overview: male and female created in God’s image. Genesis 2 zooms in and gives the how—Eve, formed from Adam’s rib, presented as his counterpart.
Not a contradiction. Not a replacement wife. Just one creation, viewed from two angles. The text isn’t confused. The YouTube theologians are.
The term adam in Genesis 1:26–27 means humanity. Genesis 2 introduces ha’adam as the individual man. No contradiction, no missing woman, and certainly no “mud-made feminist icon” who got kicked out of Eden for not submitting.
As for Lilith? She shows up nowhere in Genesis. Not in the Hebrew. Not in the Greek. Not in the inspired Word. Her alleged backstory comes from the Alphabet of Ben Sira, a medieval parody text that has all the spiritual authority of a Babylonian bedtime story. The only reason Lilith is still kicking around is because modern culture—fueled by Kabbalah, Tumblr, and tarot decks—dragged her out of folklore and tried to hand her a microphone.
But let’s be clear: Genesis 2:18 says Adam was alone. That’s the Spirit’s mic drop against the Lilith theory. If he had a wife before Eve, Scripture forgot to mention it—and that silence is deafening.
So what do we do with the demonology, Samael, Blind Dragons, and the Kabbalistic entourage of chaos? Acknowledge it for what it is: mystical mythology, not divine revelation. The Church fathers rejected these myths. The Reformers stood on sola scriptura for a reason. And Paul already warned us in 2 Timothy 4:3–4—people will turn aside to myths when they get bored of sound doctrine.
Bottom line? Lilith isn’t Adam’s first wife. She isn’t anyone’s wife. She’s a literary ghost, dragged out of the shadows and wrapped in modern rebellion. The Bible gives us Eve—one woman, made from one rib, for one man. Everything else is smoke and mirrors from outside the canon.
Appreciate the depth, Samuel. Let’s keep the conversation in the text, keep the myths on the shelf, and keep the Word rightly divided.
Sincere Seeker
Hey @sincereseeker, should we discuss more about the The alphabet of Ben sira, Talmudic and post Talmudic traditions to understand the origin of Lilith, more about archangel Samael, blind dragon, and more on the treatise of left emancipation, some Jewish mysticism, Greco-Roman mythology and Akkadian traditions, this will help to get a better grasp on the Lilith, but as said these are not inspired by God, neither are they Word of God, but just a jump into another world to get a deeper grasp on the term Lilith and its usage in folklore. We can discuss more about the Mesopotamian mythology like the Gilgamesh cycle, bird footed woman in burney relief, relation with lamashtu and what are the interpretation of Jewish mysticism, midrash rabbah, Kabbalah mysticism, midrash and Zohar then comes mandaeism etc should we discuss about it @sincereseeker to get the root of Lilith. But I feel its better we keep it to scriptures and the inspired Word of God, and not go into it, but if u want @SincereSeeker , we can discuss in depth, but it would be useless as its just culture and traditions (I like to call it folklore) but if u want, we can, maybe tomorrow.
KP, you glorious wordsmith of wonder and watchfulness—
If ever there were a post that deserved to be read aloud in a candlelit library with leather-bound Bibles and coffee strong enough to raise the dead, this was it. You’ve wrapped two questions in velvet, dipped them in Scripture, and delivered them with both gravity and grace. So let me take off my sandals—because we’re standing on theological holy ground—and respond with the reverence and candor your questions deserve.
First: Lilith, darkness, and Ephesians 5.
You asked where the line is between “exposing the works of darkness” and “having fellowship with them,” and brother, that’s a sword-edge question if ever there was one.
You’re absolutely right—Isaiah isn’t giving us a field guide to desert demons. He’s composing apocalyptic poetry drenched in divine judgment. Jackals, satyrs, serpents, and yes, lilith—they’re not there for taxonomy. They’re there to terrify. The point isn’t to dissect the creatures but to declare the curse. The image is desolation so total that even the imaginary monsters have moved in.
So when Paul says in Ephesians 5:11, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them,” he isn’t telling us to give equal airtime to every name in the occult directory. He’s calling us to live in such a way that the light of Christ makes the darkness look repulsive. There’s a difference between exposing darkness and entertaining it. One empties the shadows. The other invites them in.
But here’s the tension: how do we expose without crossing into obsession?
Answer: by letting the Word be the spotlight, not the myths. We preach the curse of Edom, not the character of Lilith. We name her only in the context of her irrelevance. We don’t camp out with her—we name her as one of the beasts that show up only when the land is so judged, so desolate, that even the wild things say, “Looks cozy.”
So no, we don’t need a “biological understanding of nettles and brambles” to grasp Isaiah’s point. But a responsible teacher may glance at them long enough to say, “See? That’s how bad it gets when God removes His hand.” That’s not fellowship with darkness. That’s declaring the consequences of it.
Second: Iron sharpening iron. Blessing or bruising?
Oh, now this is where you poked a sacred cow, and I’m here for it.
You’re right—the way “iron sharpens iron” gets quoted today at men’s breakfasts makes it sound like a Hallmark card: “Hey bro, let’s grab coffee and improve each other.” But the Hebrew word for “sharpen” there doesn’t mean “polish” or “encourage.” It means to grind, strike, or make keen through friction. There’s nothing cozy about it.
Proverbs 27:17 is not a warm hug in steel—it’s a warning wrapped in wisdom. Just like you said. The image isn’t of two buddies getting along—it’s of two hard metals clashing, producing sparks, heat, resistance. It’s uncomfortable. It’s abrasive. But it’s necessary. Because dull blades don’t fight wolves.
So yes, the popular usage often misses the point. The verse isn’t primarily about “mutual uplift.” It’s about refinement through friction. The faces being “sharpened” aren’t softened—they’re steeled. The wounds of a friend? That’s Proverbs 27:6. The sharpening of a friend? That’s 27:17. And you better believe both leave a mark.
So no, your reading isn’t off—it’s deeply perceptive. We’ve taken a verse about the painful process of sanctifying confrontation and turned it into a t-shirt slogan for Christian networking. But thank God for friends who leave a holy scrape when they clash against our dull edges.
KP, your questions were gold. Your tone was pastoral. And your insight? Rare and needed.
Keep your head on that theological swivel. You’re not just walking circumspectly—you’re walking wisely, and making the rest of us stop and think.
In love and truth,
Sincere Seeker
P.S. The ostrich line? Brilliant. I’m stealing it. Consider this my official citation.
Samuel, you just offered me a ride through the back alleys of every mystical text and mythological side quest from Akkad to Alexandria—and I’ve got to say, it’s tempting. A theological tour of demon brides, blind dragons, and Babylonian bedtime stories? That’s the kind of rabbit hole that can turn a scholar into a conspiracy theorist with a whiteboard and red string.
But here’s where I stand, brother:
We could absolutely dig into the Alphabet of Ben Sira, the Talmudic cameos, Samael’s bizarre resume, the Treatise on the Left Emanation, and the Kabbalistic fever dream that gave Lilith her full-blown goth makeover. We could link her to Lamashtu, the Burney Relief, the lilu-demons of Mesopotamia, and toss in a dash of Mandaeism for spice. And it would be fascinating.
But fascination isn’t the same as edification.
None of it has the breath of God in it (2 Timothy 3:16). None of it bears the weight of divine authority. And none of it can stand against the lie-crushing sword of Scripture (Hebrews 4:12).
So while I’m not opposed to understanding folklore in order to dismantle its modern mutations, I’ve got zero interest in giving more oxygen to myths that have already done enough damage. I’d rather spend our time tightening the truth than touring the tombs of old lies.
You said it perfectly: it’s folklore. And folklore doesn’t deserve a pulpit. The only reason to mention Lilith at all is to strip her of the stolen robes she’s been wrapped in by neo-pagan rewrites and spiritual rebellion.
Let’s keep our feet planted in the Word of God. If we glance at the shadows, it’s only to remind folks that they’re not where the light is.
So tomorrow? Let’s crack open the canon, not the Kabbalah.
In truth, not tradition,
Sincere Seeker
1 Like
Thanks SS.
I’m glad I “communicated” what I was trying to say.
I especially like this affirmation:
"Letting The Word be the spotlight! Yes!
The True Light that dispels (dismisses) darkness, not one that emblazons evil on the marquee.
“Speaking of evil only as necessary to relegate its agents to irrelevance". That’s what I’m hearing too.
Rowing together
KP
1 Like
Lilith was NOT a biblical character. However, the “characters” in the Bible are all invented by the men who wrote the bible. The Bible was written to create an organization that affirms male “superiority” and female “inferiority.” And you will note, written, published, perpetuated, upheld and “sanctified” by male. The rationalization that females are lesser has no basis in actual fact. The females in the Bible work in the fields, work in the home, care for children as well as the elderly. They do not ask their spouses to pretend to be siblings so they won’t be slain by rivals. They are not actually inferior in any way other than, in some cases, physically. Lilith was demonized by biblical scholars simply because she was not submissive to the male. Eve, even though she is seen as subordinate and properly submissive to the male, is still demonized for original sin. Seen through these two characters, organized religion is simply misogynistic and self-serving.
@SPD
Interesting perspective. You seem to be strongly opposed to what you think is being taught throughout the pages and stories in the Bible; against what many believe is the very teaching of God. Many beleive The Bible is Holy (perfect), an invaluable gift from God to mankind; a gift from God who is the embodiement of Truth and Righteousness to mankind who is plagued with error resulting in eternal death. Many see The Bible as “Good News”, devine insight offering real hope and real solutions to the many devistating and debilitating problems of Mankind. Many see The Bible as a single story focused on God’s loving plan of redemption; God’s graceious provision for our most horrific problem, death. I see you clearly have a different opinion. If you have interest in why so many believe this way, I think you can find your answers here. If you firmly believe Christianity is a man-made misogynistic trope, I wonder why you are posting your diatribe here in a Christian forum? I (and others) are welcoming and ready to share the Good News, if you are interested.
KP
1 Like
SPD,
I hear the frustration in your voice, loud and clear. You’re not coming at this casually—you’re carrying wounds, weariness, and what sounds like a deep disillusionment with how Scripture has been handled by men with more power than holiness. That deserves to be answered, not dismissed.
So let me do this carefully, but clearly.
First: no, Lilith is not a biblical character. That much we agree on. She doesn’t appear in the Genesis narrative, she isn’t named as Adam’s wife, and no inspired writer ever gave her a seat at the theological table. She’s a later invention—a blend of Mesopotamian myth, Jewish folklore, and medieval mysticism. If she’s “demonized,” it’s because she was literally introduced as a demon centuries after Moses had already said, “The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” (Genesis 3:20)
Now on to the big stuff.
You say the Bible was invented by men to prop up patriarchy. That it was written to sanctify male dominance and female inferiority. But here’s what I’ll say in response: the Bible doesn’t hide male sin—it exposes it with surgical precision.
Abraham lies and pimps out his wife? That’s in there. David commits adultery and murder? That’s in there. The men of Israel fail, fall, oppress, rebel, and betray God over and over—and the Bible doesn’t flinch. It doesn’t sanitize them. It judges them. And God Himself often stands in opposition to their actions.
And yet, woven through all of that brokenness, the women of Scripture shine—not because they dominate men, but because they walk faithfully, courageously, sacrificially, and sometimes subversively.
• Tamar outsmarts a hypocrite and becomes part of Messiah’s line.
• Rahab defies her city to protect Israel’s spies—and gets named in Hebrews 11.
• Ruth chooses loyalty over comfort and becomes the great-grandmother of David.
• Esther risks death to save her people.
• Mary bears the Christ.
• Priscilla teaches doctrine.
• Phoebe carries Paul’s epistle.
• The first witnesses of the resurrection? Women.
The Bible doesn’t erase women—it elevates them. Not by pretending there’s no difference between men and women, but by declaring their equal worth, dignity, and spiritual standing before God (Galatians 3:28).
And Eve? She’s not demonized. She’s part of the tragedy with Adam. They fall together. And they’re redeemed together. The very first prophecy of salvation is spoken over Eve’s legacy, not Adam’s: “Her offspring will crush the serpent’s head.” (Genesis 3:15)
If some men have abused Scripture to prop up their egos and systems of control, I won’t defend that. It’s wicked, it’s real, and Jesus will judge it. But that’s not the Bible’s fault. That’s man twisting what was meant to set captives free.
So no, the Bible isn’t misogynistic. It’s brutally honest. It’s sometimes uncomfortable. And it calls both men and women to submit to God, not to each other’s broken egos. You want justice? God wrote the book on it. You want dignity for women? He authored that too—before feminism ever lit its first match.
And if you’re willing to read past what religion has done and listen to what God actually says, I think you’ll find a very different story.
Sincerely,
Sincere Seeker
3 Likes
Yep. That’s how Christian Women see it too. (those I know)
1 Like
The Woman Who Fears the Lord
Pro 31:10 A capable, intelligent, and virtuous woman–who is he who can find her? She is far more precious than jewels and her value is far above rubies or pearls. [Pro_12:4; Pro_18:22; Pro_19:14]
Pro 31:11 The heart of her husband trusts in her confidently and relies on and believes in her securely, so that he has no lack of [honest] gain or need of [dishonest] spoil.
Pro 31:12 She comforts, encourages, and does him only good as long as there is life within her.
Pro 31:13 She seeks out wool and flax and works with willing hands [to develop it].
Pro 31:14 She is like the merchant ships loaded with foodstuffs; she brings her household’s food from a far [country].
Pro 31:15 She rises while it is yet night and gets [spiritual] food for her household and assigns her maids their tasks. [Job_23:12]
Pro 31:16 She considers a [new] field before she buys or accepts it [expanding prudently and not courting neglect of her present duties by assuming other duties]; with her savings [of time and strength] she plants fruitful vines in her vineyard. [Sng_8:12]
Pro 31:17 She girds herself with strength [spiritual, mental, and physical fitness for her God-given task] and makes her arms strong and firm.
Pro 31:18 She tastes and sees that her gain from work [with and for God] is good; her lamp goes not out, but it burns on continually through the night [of trouble, privation, or sorrow, warning away fear, doubt, and distrust].
Pro 31:19 She lays her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
Pro 31:20 She opens her hand to the poor, yes, she reaches out her filled hands to the needy [whether in body, mind, or spirit].
Pro 31:21 She fears not the snow for her family, for all her household are doubly clothed in scarlet. [Jos_2:18-19; Heb_9:19-22]
Pro 31:22 She makes for herself coverlets, cushions, and rugs of tapestry. Her clothing is of linen, pure and fine, and of purple [such as that of which the clothing of the priests and the hallowed cloths of the temple were made]. [Isa_61:10; 1Ti_2:9; Rev_3:5; Rev_19:8, Rev_19:14]
Pro 31:23 Her husband is known in the [city’s] gates, when he sits among the elders of the land. [Pro_12:4]
Pro 31:24 She makes fine linen garments and leads others to buy them; she delivers to the merchants girdles [or sashes that free one up for service].
Pro 31:25 Strength and dignity are her clothing and her position is strong and secure; she rejoices over the future [the latter day or time to come, knowing that she and her family are in readiness for it]!
Pro 31:26 She opens her mouth in skillful and godly Wisdom, and on her tongue is the law of kindness [giving counsel and instruction].
Pro 31:27 She looks well to how things go in her household, and the bread of idleness (gossip, discontent, and self-pity) she will not eat. [1Ti_5:14; Tit_2:5]
Pro 31:28 Her children rise up and call her blessed (happy, fortunate, and to be envied); and her husband boasts of and praises her, [saying],
Pro 31:29 Many daughters have done virtuously, nobly, and well [with the strength of character that is steadfast in goodness], but you excel them all.
Pro 31:30 Charm and grace are deceptive, and beauty is vain [because it is not lasting], but a woman who reverently and worshipfully fears the Lord, she shall be praised!
Pro 31:31 Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her own works praise her in the gates [of the city]! [Php_4:8]
AMP.
Johann.
Traditionally she was considered the first wife of Adam, but was tossed out for insubordination and replaced with Eve.
This is more a later view among some rabbis about how to resolve the matter that in Genesis 1 we read that God created man “male and female” and then later on in Genesis 2 we see Adam created first then later Eve created from Adam’s rib. So it is a bit of rabbinic commentary/speculation mixed with Jewish folklore originating in ideas of desert-dwelling evil spirits that was a common idea in the ancient near east.
I would be comfortable saying that Lilith is not a biblical character. But the Bible does include common ancient near eastern ideas (whether we should view these always as an explicit endorsement of these ideas or simply as God working through the world-view of those ancient people through whom He is revealing Himself is always going to be matter of debate), such as the idea that there are dangerous spirits inhabiting desolate and remote places of the desert. The lilitu are an example of such desert-dwelling spirits of ancient near eastern world-views. That, I think, presents us with a lot more questions than answers; but I think we can sufficiently put to bed any idea of a specific figure called “Lilith” as a later speculatory figure, and not an actual figure in Scripture.
@SPD, you can’t have it both ways; if Lilith is not a biblical figure, then she can’t also be “demonized” as though she were one all along.
Your statement also ignores the multitude of ways in which women are heroic, brave, strong, and active in the myriad stories of the Bible–often in ways which put many men in the Bible to shame.
From Deborah the Judge of Israel, to the story of Esther, and also St. Mary Magdalene in the New Testament, remembered in Christian Tradition as the Apostle to the Apostles. It was St. Mary who first encountered the Risen Christ, it was St. Mary who was the first to preach the Gospel to the rest of Jesus’ disciples, and even when the men did not believe she was bold in her proclamation.
Outside of the New Testament, there are many stories about St. Mary Magdalene, Apostle to the Apostles and Equal-to-the-Apostles. Including her missionary journies across the Roman world. One ancient tradition (more legend than tradition in this case) holds that St. Mary was invited to the dining chamber of Caesar himself, where she was a dinner-guest of the emperor and preached the Gospel to the emperor himself at his own dinner table. The story is also an explanation for the old Christian practice of dying eggs red for Easter, based on the legend that Caesar tried to mock Mary Magdalene’s faith by claiming Jesus no more could have risen from the dead than a hardboiled egg could become red in his hand–and then it did. Go look at traditional icons of St. Mary Magdalene, notice she holds a red egg? That’s why.
We can also talk for hours about other great and heroic women of faith. The story of St. Perpetua, the daughter of a Roman politician who became a Christian and in response her own father had her thrown into prison, and even as she is threatened with torture and death, is disowned by her own family, she is courageous, and ultimately is crowned with martyrdom. And we even have her story in her own words (she wrote while in prison, her friends later taking her prison diary and circulating it and adding her fate to it, becoming one of the earliest works of Christian hagiography).
We have the story of St. Felicitas, a mother of seven boys, who got in trouble because she went around preaching her Christian faith in the city of Rome. She was arrested, her sons one by one killed to get her to renounce her faith, and she also would be crowned as a martyr.
There are plenty of ways to be critical of male chauvinism, both historic and contemporary. But the narrative you have provided is mere propaganda. A dumbed down attempt at subverting the Bible by presenting a palatable story of the patriarchy being the patriarchy that is easy to digest for modern ears–but which fails at capturing the depth, nuance, and complexities of the ancient world in general; and ignoring the many ways the Bible itself, and the multitude of stories of holy women who stood bravely in defiance of wicked men to hold their ground, are themselves a subversion of that very chauvinistic patriarchy. With stories that have continued to inspire, inform, and shape the faith and beliefs of both men and women of faith throughout the ages.
Hehe i would like to go into a bit more..i have made a document called history of lilith…in which i wander into the dark alleys of civilisation, thinking of myself as a person in the mesopotamian era…@sincereseeker
althought i take it as cultural concepts, i like learning abt it and i take it as a mere timepass but its intresting to talk abt the background.
Lilith’s earliest evidence of its usage goes to mespotamian demonology, where she emerges as a class of spirits, not a singular figure. The name likely stems from the Akkadian līlītu(female) or lilû (male) meaning “night spirit” or “wind demon”, tied to nocturnal fears in ancient Sumerian, Babylonian and Assyrian cultures. I like to think of myself as living in those times, how would it feel, how would i see the world.
4 notable concepts i would like to talk about is
The Spirit in the Tree in the Gilgamesh cycle
In the Sumerian Poem, Gilgamesh, Enkidy and the Netherworld (preserved in cuneiform tablets from Ur), a figure called ki-sikil-lil-la-ke (“maiden of the sacred place” or “spirit of the air”) inhabits a huluppu tree in the goddess Inanna’s garden alongside a serpent and a Zu bird. Gilgamesh expels these entities and the ki-sikil-lil-la-ke lees to a wilderness. Early Scholars like Samuel Noah Kramer in the Sumerian Mythology suggested a link to Lilith due to the lil (air/spirit) root interpreting her as a demonic precursor. However, the texts describes a generic spirit, not a named figure with Lilith’s later traits (like Adam’s wife). The connection is plausible but i feel its speculative, as the narrative focuses on Inanna’s sacred space, not a developed demonology.
The Bird-Footed Woman in the Burney Relief
The Burney Relief, is a babylonian terracotta plaque that depicts a winged bird-footed female figure standing on lions, holding symbols of power, flanked by owls. Initially the scholars like Henri Frankfort proposed this as Lilith citing her later association with night and owls in Jewish Folkore. The figure’s talons and nocturnal imagery align with līlītu but current research like Dominique Collon, The Queen of the Night (2005) fovours indentification as Inanna (goddess of love/war) or Ereshkigal (underworld goddess), based on the lions and mountain motifs common to divine iconography. The owls might suggest a night link but no cuneiform text explicitly ties the figure to Lilith.
The Arslan Tash Amulets (Man its intresting to learn abt it, i have seen th real medieval Hebrew amulet intended to protect mother and her child from Lilith, but the Arslan is different)
Unearthed in Arslan Tash, Syria these 7th century BCE limestone plaques bear Aramaic insciprtions invoking protection against night demons, including a term read as lili or lilitu. Found in a phenician-assyrian context, the amulets describe demons who “fly” and harm humans, resonating with later Jewish Lilith myths. Scholars like William F Albright (man hes legendary, i have read his Journal of Biblical Literature, 1948) saw this as evidence of pre-Jewish Lilith possibly linked to Akkadian lilitu. However debates presist about their authenticity with son like Hugo Gressmann, suggesting they may be later Jewish Artifiacts. The main point is that these inscriptions focus on warding off generic demons, not a specific lilith, but they reflect a shared Near Eastern fear of nocturnal spirit, influencing Jewish demonology.
Lamashtu
Lamashtu, a babylonian demoness is a malevolent deity distinct from lility but shares overlapping traits. Depicted as a lion headed, bird footed figure in amulets and texts like Lamashtu Incantations, she targeted pregnant women, infants, and young men, causing miscarriages or sickness. Protective rituals including bronze plques and incantations were used to repel her. Unlike the seductive lilitu, lamashtu’s focus was on physical destruction, but her role as a child killer parallels later with Jewish depictions of Lilith. FOr example a 6ht century AD Jewish incantation bowls from Nippur name Lilith as a threat to newborns, suggesting a blend with Lamashtu’s traits into Jewish folklore during the Babylonian exile. I saw the incantation bowl with an Aramaic inscription from Nippur in the Penn Museum.
Coming to Jewish side
@sincereseeker
i have 4 concepts to talk about
Midrash Rabbah and Numbers Rabbah 16:25
The Midrash Rabbah, a collection of rabbinic commentaries mentions Lilith sparingly. In Genesis Rabbah 18:4 and 22:7, Rabbu Yehuda beRabbi refers to a “first eve” created before the Eve of Genesis 2:22 who “returned to dust”. THis figure is not explicitly named Lilith, but later medieval traditions like 11th century Rashi commentaries, which i studied thoroughly, linked her to the demoness. In NUmbers Rabbah 16:25, commenting on Numbers 14, Lilith appears as a night demon, not Adam’s wife, threatening harm in a context of divine judgement. But they lack the narrative depth of later myths.
Alphabet of Ben Sira
The Alphabet of Ben Sira, a satirical or speculative Jewish text, makrs the first clear depiction of Lilith as Adam’s first wife. It claims God created Lilith from the same earth as Adam (Gen 1:27) but she refused to submit to him, asserting equality. After pronouncing God’s ineffable name, she fled Eden to becomone a demon. Three angels- Senoy, Sansenoy and Semangelof pursued her, threatening the deaht of her demonic offspring Lilin, to which she vowed to harm newborns unless protexted by amulets bearing the angels’ names. The story is satirical, as anyone who read the context of The Alphabet of Ben Sira, and who talks abt the foundation of society and human tendencies can say abt this as a funny story meant to be taken for fun.. its lacks biblical authority and David Stern in His Journal of Jewish Studies talks abt it as a satire story.
Most important part is Kabbalak, we gonna talk abt the Treatise on the Left Emanation and Zohar
Kabbalistic mysticism elevates Lilith to a cosmic demonic figure. The Treatise on the Left Emanation by Jacob and Issac Hacohen portrays Lilith and the archangel Samael as a dual-faced androgynous demonic couple, born from the dark emanations of the divine Sefirot (this is another topic to talk abt, tis a kabbalistic spheres of God’s attribute, but i dont agree with this). They mirror Adam and Eve’s unity but produce demonic Lilin. To Curb their power, God castrates Samael leading Lilith to seduce human men. THe Zohar, attributed to Moses de León further develops Lilith as a night wandering demon (Sitrei Torah), associating her with the edenic serpent and the temptation of men and infants. The Zohar introduces the “blind dragon”, a mythical enitiy mediating Lilith and Samael’s union to spawn demons reflecting a dualistic cosmology foreign to biblical monotheism. These texts are rooted in esoteric speculation, are FAR REMOVED from SCRIPTURAL CLARITY, thus are rejected on first sight.
Hebrew Magical Amulets
From the 6th-8th century CE, Jewish incantation bowls from babylonia (like Nippur excavation, studied by Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts, 1913, we discussed in last post), invoke protection against Lilith, naming her as a demon harming newborns or men during sleep. The bowls often list the angels from the Alphabet of Ben Sira to ward her off. By the 17th century, European Jewish Amulets like the Krasmesser (used during Childbirth) continued this tradition, inscribing charms against Lilith to protect mothers and infants. These artificats relfect a cultural fear of demonic forces, blending Mesopotamian and Jewish demonology, but they are practical, not theological and lack divine inspiration
As a Orthodox Christian, i condemn such things, these aint doctrinal or divine inspiration, but human imagination, i just wanted to feel the mind of a person who used to live in 6h-8th century CE. I believe only God can save us, He is the only Saviour, He is Almighty, Archangels and Angels praise Him whose on the Throne, and I’m protected by the Blood the Paschal Lamb, Jesus Christ.