{"id":170,"date":"2017-11-11T22:18:56","date_gmt":"2017-11-11T22:18:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress_bw2\/3-10-adam-declares-eve-was-a-second-creation\/"},"modified":"2017-12-12T04:48:35","modified_gmt":"2017-12-12T04:48:35","slug":"3-10-adam-declares-eve-was-a-second-creation","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/the-case-for-lilith\/the-biblical-case-for-lilith\/3-10-adam-declares-eve-was-a-second-creation\/","title":{"rendered":"3.10) Adam Declares Eve was a Second Creation"},"content":{"rendered":"

One of the more astounding evidences for Lilith comes from Adam\u2019s own lips in Ge 2:23.\u00a0 Although it is not clear from the KJV below, it is in the original Hebrew.\u00a0 When Adam first awakes from his slumber to discover the newly created Eve, he compares Eve\u2019s creation to a previous one.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n
Ge 2:23-24 (KJV)<\/strong><\/div>\n
23 And Adam said, This is now (hapa\u2019am)<\/u>\u00a0bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.<\/div>\n
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The key word in verse 23 that implies a previous creation is hapa\u2019am<\/em> (Mep:h<\/span>).\u00a0 The KJV translates this word as \u201cnow\u201d, but this is not accurate.\u00a0 Hapa\u2019am<\/em> stems from the root pa\u2019am<\/em> (Mep<\/span> – Strongs 6471), plus an indefinite heh<\/em> (h<\/span>) article.\u00a0 The KJV often just translates hapa\u2019am<\/em> and pa\u2019am as simply as \u201ctime\u201d or \u201cnow\u201d (as in Ge 2:23), but the words more properly mean \u201coccurrence.\u201d\u00a0 Hapa\u2019am<\/em> especially refers to the case of something that happened before repeating again at \u201cthis time.\u201d\u00a0 Perhaps the fullest English translation is \u201cat this repetition.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

The meaning of \u201cat this repetition\u201d is clearly supported by the word\u2019s repeated use throughout the Bible. \u00a0The hapa\u2019am variant is used twelve times in the Bible, and in each instance, it used to denote the subsequent repeat of an event after its first occurrence.\u00a0 For example, the first use of hapa\u2019am elsewhere in the Bible comes in Ge 18:32 below.\u00a0 The passage follows a long series of questions that Abraham has asked of God.\u00a0 God has patiently responded to these questions.\u00a0 In verse 32 Abraham asks God to tolerate his final speaking hapa\u2019am<\/em> (\u201cat this repetition\u201d, which is rendered \u201cthis once\u201d in the KJV).\u00a0 In the verse hapa\u2019am<\/em> clearly refers to the latest occurrence of a repeating event, namely Abraham\u2019s continuing series of questions to God.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n
Ge 18:32\u00a0 (KJV)<\/strong><\/div>\n
And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once<\/u> [hapa\u2019am]: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it<\/em> for ten\u2019s sake.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The meaning of hapa\u2019am<\/em> is also demonstrated in its next three uses in Ge 29:34, 29:35, and 30:20. \u00a0In these passages Leah is explaining how after the birth of each of her sons, hapa\u2019am<\/em> (\u201cthis time\u201d or \u201cnow\u201d in the KJV) something would change.\u00a0 So once again, we see that hapa\u2019am<\/em> refers to the latest occurrence of a repeating event.\u00a0 Note that the birth of Leah\u2019s first son does not use hapa\u2019am<\/em>.\u00a0 This is because by the word\u2019s definition it would not be appropriate to use it for the initial event of a sequence, for it has not yet repeated.\u00a0 The further solidifies hapa\u2019am<\/em> as meaning \u201cat this repetition.\u201d\u00a0 The remaining instances of hapa\u2019am<\/em> in the Bible (Ge 46:30; Ex 9:27, 10:17; Jud 6:39, 15:3, 16:18, and 16:28) demonstrate the same usage.\u00a0 A study of the pa\u2019am parent word shows it has essentially the same meaning also.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n
Ge 29:34\u00a0 (KJV)<\/strong><\/div>\n

And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Now this time<\/u> (hapa\u2019am<\/em>) will my husband be joined unto me, because I have born him three sons: therefore was his name called Levi.<\/p>\n

Ge 29:35\u00a0 (KJV)<\/strong><\/div>\n

And she conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, Now<\/u> (hapa\u2019am<\/em>) will I praise the LORD: therefore she called his name Judah; and left bearing.<\/p>\n

Ge 30:20\u00a0 (KJV)<\/strong><\/div>\n

And Leah said, God hath endued me with<\/em> a good dowry; now<\/u>\u00a0(hapa\u2019am) will my husband dwell with me, because I have born him six sons: and she called his name Zebulun.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Given the above understanding of hapa\u2019am<\/em>, it is clear in Ge 2:23 that Adam\u2019s remark about Eve\u2019s creation being hapa\u2019am<\/em> is in reference to a previous creation \u2013 namely Lilith\u2019s.\u00a0 My literal translation of the passage is below.\u00a0 Table 3\u201110 gives a word-by-word breakdown of the translation.\u00a0 Note that Eve is repeatedly referenced by the odd pronoun \u201cthis\u201d in the passage, apparently because the origins of her title as woman are being discussed.\u00a0 The Hebrew word for woman, Ishshah<\/em>, is thus Eve\u2019s original name, before being renamed Chavah<\/em> (i.e. Eve) later by Adam.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n
Ge 2:23 (My Literal)<\/strong><\/div>\n

And the man said, \u201cThis [i.e. Eve] is as this repetition bone from my bone and flesh from my flesh.\u00a0 For this [i.e. Eve] shall be called Ishshah, because from man this [Eve] was taken.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
rvb:w<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
y:mue:m<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Mue<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Mep:h<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
taz<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Mda:h<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
rmay:w<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
and flesh<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
from my bone<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
bone<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
is this repetition<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
This<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
the man<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
And said<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
taz<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
hxql<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
sya:m<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
yk<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
hsa<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
arqy<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
taz:l<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
y:rvb:m<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
this<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
she was taken<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
from man<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
because<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Ishshah<\/div>\n
(woman)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
shall be called<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
for this<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
from my flesh<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 3\u201110: A Literal Translation of Ge 2:23 (View Pic<\/a>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Given the literal Hebrew, the passage must be understood as saying that the man awakes and exclaims, \u201cAt this repetition is this [i.e. Eve], bone from my bone and flesh from my flesh.\u201d\u00a0 From this, it appears that Adam was expecting his replacement mate to be created from the dust of the earth, like Lilith, but instead his new mate was created from his own flesh.\u00a0 She was not a creation from the dust.\u00a0<\/p>\n

I find that there is only one semi plausible refutation to the implication of hapa\u2019am<\/em> referring to Lilith\u2019s creation. \u00a0One might argue that Adam may have been referring to his own previous creation with hapa\u2019am<\/em>.\u00a0 Adam may have been expecting Eve to be created like him from the dust, but hapa\u2019am<\/em> (at this iteration) God created her from Adam\u2019s flesh and bone.\u00a0 However, this counter argument suffers because the grammatical appropriateness of Adam using the term hapa\u2019am is diminished.\u00a0 The parallelism of a repeating event required by hapa\u2019am is simply weaker in comparing Adam\u2019s creation to Eve\u2019s than it is in comparing Lilith\u2019s creation to that of her replacement, Eve.\u00a0<\/p>\n

There is one final amusing note to make on the passage.\u00a0 Verse 23 relates that Adam\u2019s initial name for Eve was Ishshah<\/em> (hva<\/span> – Strongs 802), meaning \u201cwoman.\u201d\u00a0 He gave her this name is because she was taken out of iysh<\/em> (vya<\/span> – Strongs 376), meaning \u201cman.\u201d\u00a0 Ishshah<\/em> is merely a feminine form of Iysh<\/em>.\u00a0 Iysh<\/em> is a very common word to denote a man in the Bible.\u00a0 It is used 1432 times.\u00a0 However, verse 23 is the first time it is used in the Bible.\u00a0 Before that time only the name Adam and the term ha\u2019adam<\/em> (the man) are used to denote the man.\u00a0 At this point, would not it have been more appropriate for Adam to say, \u201cI shall call you Adamah, because out of Adam you were taken\u201d (or perhaps \u201cI shall call you ha\u2019adamah<\/em>, because out of ha\u2019adam<\/em> you were taken\u201d)?\u00a0 I assert that maybe he would have, if these more logical names for Eve had not already been taken by Lilith.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

One of the more astounding evidences for Lilith comes from Adam\u2019s own lips in Ge 2:23.\u00a0 Although it is not clear from the KJV below, it is in the original Hebrew.\u00a0 When Adam first awakes from his slumber to discover the newly created Eve, he compares Eve\u2019s creation to a previous one.\u00a0 Ge 2:23-24 (KJV) … Continue reading “3.10) Adam Declares Eve was a Second Creation”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":8,"menu_order":9,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-170","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/170","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=170"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/170\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":854,"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/170\/revisions\/854"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}