Who Was Adam's First Wife?

Well, faith is a topic for another thread, so I won't go into that here.

As for whether or not the bible has contradictions, I don't know how much you've looked into them but it most certainly does.

For instance: The geneologies of Jesus though Joseph which are contained in the gospels of Matthew and Luke blatantly disagree. I don't know how that could be deciphered any differently. The date of Jesus birth is contradictory to historical records. All these and many more are contained on this site, and you can check them yourself in your own bible.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

This is a simple one to solve.

Matthew gives the acount of the genealogy through the line of Joseph, while Luke gives the account of the genealogy through Mary.

Then why are both Heli and Jacob credited as the father of Joseph? Let's take a look.

Mary had no brothers to inherit her father's posessions. But according to Jewish law she could only recieve the inheritance if she got married. When she got married her husband was considered the legal heir and son of that father.

So, the difference in the accounts was because of the Jewish law of that time.

And in refference to Jesus' birth, I dont claim to know when Jesus was born because the bible doesn't say. I am curious to know where you got your dates from though.

You are correct here. I had thought that the two geneologies were identical except for the father of Joseph, which would of course raise a red flag, but they are not.

Here's another one: How did Judas die? In Matthew 27:5 Judas hangs himself. In Acts 1:18 he bursts open and his insides spill out.

I would still encourage you to take a look at that site--it is very interesting.

It also takes a look at the many early pagan religions whose traditions (such as, the whole 'body and blood' thing at the last supper) were copied by biblical writers.

Judas' death is somewhat more of a mystery. It could be debated that both aaccounts are different halves of the same story: Judas went out and hanged himself and later, while he was still hanging but dead, the knot slipped (or broke, he was hanging during Jesus' crucifixion during which I believe an earthquake occurred) and he fell and burst open on the ground.

Also, I have read that the conflict is due to fourth century editors. They changed it because people had differing beliefs in the way Judas died already. So they changed one of the accounts to make everyone happy.

But, many believe that the description of Judas falling and bursting open was only a metaphor for his spiritual fall and susequent death. The metaphore was based on the wineskins that were used at the time that burst open when new wine was put in them.

I dont believe ayone is really sure, but I would tend to believe either of the first two.

As far as the Jesus' birth thing, here is the case:

"According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death."

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/cyrenius.html

"His full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinus. Recent historical investigation has proved that Quirinus was governor of Cilicia, which was annexed to Syria at the time of our Lord's birth. Cilicia, which he ruled, being a province of Syria, he is called the governor, which he was de jure, of Syria. Some ten years afterwards he was appointed governor of Syria for the second time. During his tenure of office, at the time of our Lord's birth (Luke 2:2), a 'taxing' (R.V., 'enrolment;' i.e., a registration) of the people was 'first made;' i.e., was made for the first time under his government. ...(Luke 2:2; R.V., 'enrolment'), 'when Cyrenius was governor of Syria,' is simply a census of the people, or an enrolment of them with a view to their taxation. The decree for the enrolment was the occasion of Joseph and Mary's going up to Bethlehem. It has been argued by some that Cyrenius (q.v.) was governor of Cilicia and Syria both at the time of our Lord's birth and some years afterwards. This decree for the taxing referred to the whole Roman world, and not to Judea alone.

I hope this helps.

This doesn't have so much to do with the governor as it does with the time of the census. Jesus was supposedly born during Herod's reign, as well as during the census, but the census took place 10 years after Herod's death. This is still a little unclear to me.

Yes. But only if you consider the Bible to be mythology. Mythology is man made right? I believe that the Bible (although physically recorded by men) was inspired by God. The ideas and teachings were and are His.

Click to expand...

Also, I have read that the conflict is due to fourth century editors. They changed it because people had differing beliefs in the way Judas died already. So they changed one of the accounts to make everyone happy.

Click to expand...

How can the ideas and teaching of the Bible be God's if you admit that fourth century writers may have changed parts of the Bible because of people's differing BELIEFS? If God really did inspire the Bible, shouldn't it be left alone, and if the original context is changed by human writers, shouldn't thost translations/interpretations be thrown out (or the entire Bible regarded as no more than mythology or legend because it contains parts that are admittedly neither God-inspired nor true to the original God-inspired version)?

And if parts have been changed while other parts remain unchanged, how can you sift through it to look ONLY at the God-inspired ("true") parts? How can you trust that the parts you believe to be "God-inspired" really ARE "God-inspired" when similar beliefs led other men to change the "God-inspired" parts of the Bible so that they refected their personal beliefs and were no longer "God-inspired"? Or do you just believe the whole thing is truth, even though you KNOW that parts have been changed by men from the "God-inspired" version to the "not God-inspired" version?

I understand what you mean about changing the Bible. Because if you say one thing has been changed, then you have to admit that other parts have probably been changed too. But all I said was that it was something that I heard. I never admitted to believing that. I know I said I might tend to believe it, but I meant to say that I would more likely admit the other two explanations were more likely.

Sorry for the confusion

And ceridwen, The point of that little article was that Quirinus was in office at the same time as Herod. He ruled Cilicia which was annexed to Syria in the year of the birth of Jesus. So he was the governor of that region at the same time that Herod ruled. During that reign he was commissioned to take a registering (census) of the citizens. Then about 10 years later he was re-elected to that region.

Does that clarify?

So you basically think that the Bible retains its "God-inspiration" and truth despite centuries of human translations?

How then do you account for the blatant inconsistencies not only withing the bible:

(Gen.1:25-27 says humans were created after animals and Gen. 2:18-19 says humans were created before animals. Gen.1:25-27 "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image"; Gen. 2:18-19 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.")

(Fowls are created from the water in one account and the ground in another. Gen.1:20-21 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Gen.2:19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.")

But also between different versions of the Bible; an issue which is actually being indirectly discussed in this forum (multiple versions of Isaiah 34:14, all saying different things, including stating the gender of the demon in question as being male in one set of accounts and female in another set of accounts....if they are all God-inspired, does this mean God was unsure of the demon's name, gender, and physical appearance(everything from owl to hag...)?

First of all yes I do believe that. When the dead sea scrolls were found the texts were shown to match, showing the consistency of the Bible.

see http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1995/r&r9504a.htm

Anyway, onto the issue at hand.

The text from Genesis chapter 1 gives the correct order in which God created everything. Chapter 2 is only the telling of the creation of Adam and the reason why Eve was created. Look at the text and compare it to that in chapter 1. After God creates one thing it always says "then God did this and then God did that." It indicates what God did in what order.

For example: Genesis 1-
1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light...
6Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters...
9Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered...
11Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass...
14Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament...

You see my point.

In chapter 2, the situation is a little different. Chapter 2 is mainly about the creation of mankind. The word "then" is not used because it isn't a list of when God created what. So in essence Gen. 2: 18-22 says this (and Im paraphrasing of course): God said "man should not be alone, so I will make a helper for him." But God created all these animals that weren't suitable for him, so he created woman.

I hope that made sense.

And as for the differences in the two passages, it seems to me that the two verses are too close to each other to say different things without there being a reason. I would think that any scribe would be a little more wary of a mistake like that. But as for the reason for that difference, I am not sure what the reason is.

Im too tired to keep typing. That was a long post.

Linus,

Do you belive the Dead Sea Scrolls were inspired by god?

A Jewish lady asked me about Lilith, I had never heard of any such being, I spent hours reading all my Bibles, Concordances, Chumash and TaNaCk! No Lilith! To the net, Lilith is everywhere. Goes to show when you are in the "Word of God" even with the fingerprints of man and HaSatan on it, it still is "Truth." How much time do the feds spend studying the counterfit bills? Zero! You can recognize a phony, when you know the real thing.
Lilith came into existance in the idle minds outside the Temple!

Ronald--

Maybe Lilith the first wife of Adam came into being in the "idle minds outside the Temple", but what about the lilith/Lilith in the Bible?

Runt, I spent many hours searching for her in all of the different Bibles, NO LILITH!
Since Moses didn't see fit to tell such a cockamammy horror story, you believe anything you wish, me, I stand with the idol/idle minds outside the Temple!!!!
Isaiah 34:14---- Context-context-context "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel."

You can't deny that Lilith is mentioned. That some translators have censored the name doesn't change the original Hebrew text. I think that the context, supported by what we know about older Middle East religions, makes it absolutely clear that she is a demon.

So without a doubt the Bible mentions a demon named Lilith (or, in other accounts, a kind of demon called "a lilith"). Just because this demon was not the first wife of Adam does not mean that this demon didn't exist. If you believe the Bible, then you have to recognize that there is definitely a demon being described in Isaiah 34:14, and that in some accounts (listed early in this thread) it is named, IN THE BIBLE, "Lilith" or "the lilith".

So ignore the "is it Adam's wife" question, and answer instead: "What is Lilith/a lilith"?

There are myths about that too, but I would like to hear what you have to say, and if you have nothing to say because you deny that this thing is mentioned in the Bible, then I would like to see your proof, because I've got some 3 or 4 versions of Isaiah 34:14 that say otherwise.

Ceridwen018 said:

Linus,

Do you belive the Dead Sea Scrolls were inspired by god?

Click to expand...

I believe that the dead sea scrolls are copies of copies of copies etc. of the original text. The Bible is the same thing. It is just a series of copied manuscripts that God inspired the original writers to record.