Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
>
> vince garcia skrev:
> > Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
> > >
> > > vince garcia skrev:
> > > > Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
> > > > > it is a curse on the people of Edom, informing them that they
shall
> > > > > disappear and that these unclean and wild night creatures shall
> > > > > possess their home.
> > > > > the `LyLyt` animal is but one creature which shall move there
and set
> > > > > up residence
> > > > >
> > > > > evidence within the text that `LyLyt` refers to a succubus demon
?
> > > > > NONE.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong.
> > >
> > > Are you claiming that the passage being discussed does not describe
> > > the land of Edom becoming desolate, the people of Edom to disappear,
> > > and the land then occupied by wild creatures including many unclean
> > > night creatures ?
> > >
> > > > It means what it means, and it is not referring to an owl. The
> > > > word DOES NOT mean OWL. It means LILITH, not OWL. It is a name,
not an
> > > > animal.
> > > >
> > >
> > > a name ? where is the evidence that "Isaiah" is referring to a
> > > person's name ?
> > > There is no indication that he is using a personal name at all.
> > > do you imagine that `saiyir` [hairy goats] is also a personal name
?
> > > ignoring the instances in vayiqra 16 where such refers to the goats
on
> > > the Day of Atonement ?
> > >
> > > and can you explain why `LyLyt` would be the only name mentioned
there
> > > in a long list of animals ?
> > > and what is the significance of this alleged succubus moving to Edom
?
> > >
> > > Your reinterpretations are incoherent.
> >
> > I'm finished playing this game with you. Again you have misrepresented
> > what I have been saying as if _I_ am the author of the doctrine.
> >
> > After a public affirmation that I am affirming what hosts of Jewish
> > commentators have belived about both Lilith and the goat demons, we
can
> > continue.
> >
> > I won't say another word to you until you acknowledge I am not the
> > source for these understandings. The Jews themselves are.
> >
> >
>
> Vince it should be obvious that when i say "your" reinterpretations i
> am referring to your ADOPTED reinterpretations which you derive from
> Jewish sources.
> i am not implying that you are the author of these interpretations.
>
> Frankly , if you wish to adhere to the most ancient interpretations
> you will need to go beyond the Ta****h.
> i was under the impression that the SCOPE of the inquiry was the
> Ta****h.
> This must necessarily EXCLUDE Jewish reinterpretations invented AFTER
> the sepher was written.
>
> There is a body of doctrine in the Gemara and `midra****m` which is
> unsup****ted by the pshat reading of the Ta****h.
> using external reinterpretations alien to the authors gets us nowhere.
>
> the word "satyr" we have seen refers to hairy goats, and is even used
> to describe Esav and is the same word for the "Lord's" goat on the Day
> of Atonement.
> the passage tells us that Edom shall become desolate and the
> population disappear, replaced by these night creatures, wild animals,
> and unclean forbidden creatures.
> There is no indication in the source as presented that this word
> `LyLyt` refers to a succubus "demon".
This is why I get on you for being hypocritical. The owl thing comes
from modern sources, and that is right where you get your doctrine on,
while hypocritically claiming _I_ do so. If you really want to be
sincere and go by whatever is ancient, you would say either
1. No one knows what Lilith means because the text does not define it
2. It comes from a sumerian word for a demon.
>
> if you wish to examine the Burney Relief and discuss the possible
> association of the word with owls that is another subject.
> `LyLytu` is akkadian feminine and the association may exist.
> but there is no indication the author has anything in mind of a
> succubus demon taking residence in desolate Edom.
> That isn't the point of the passage.
> The point of the passage concerns the "Lord" taking revenge on the
> population of Edom and making the land desolate, leaving it only for
> these creatures to inhabit.
>
> if you have further evidence in the text to claim otherwise please
> present it.
> if all you have is `midra****m` or `agadot` i am not interested in
> those as they are irrelevant to the sepher.
|
