Talk:Lilith/Archive 4

References for English Translations
There are no references for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#English_versions. What is the source that the KJV mistranslates qippoz, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.155.81 (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Is Lilith Karina and is Karina a giantess?
I believe Karina is said in a story of Solomon to be a giantess; and should be categorized as such. Karina is stated by the article to be the Islamic version of Lilith. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not verified. Simply because one possible and unverified aspect of this article may fit into one category does not mean the whole article should be put in that category. Stop this CensoredScribe before you are blocked.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 01:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * CensoredScribe, simply because Karina is described as a "giantess" and is mentioned on this article, it does not mean that this page should be included in Category:Giantesses. Remove it at once because you have been edit warring.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 01:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And the category does not even exist.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 01:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I cite our article: "Another Islamic legend recounts an encounter between King Solomon and a giant female demon, Karina". There is nothing here to suggest that this Karina has anything to do with Lilith, let alone with giants: in fact, I'm going to remove it, since no connection is drawn between Karina and Lilith, and it seems to be thrown in pretty much randomly. CensoredScribe, this is what I meant on my talk page: do the research and do it carefully. Does our text even say "Lilith is associated with Karina who is a giant"? No, but even if it did, that association does not make "our" Lilith a giant which needs to be categorized accordingly. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Images of lilith(s) on 6th Century Jewish demon-protection bowls
Whether or not the Harvard etc incantation bowls will ever make it to WP:Commons as img, they should be in the article as text - surprising omission since after Talmud and Dead Sea Scrolls they are the third oldest undisputed text source, and the oldest undisputed image source. Added paragraph and links and quotation box of one of Montgomery's 2011 translations from Nippur. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Having spent more than enough time on this due to a user's squeamishness about nipples, etc., I suggest we leave the lede illustration-less until a genuine Jewish illustration of Lilith turns up in copyleft form. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And here we sit, more than two years later, and the article has no image-- painting, sculpture, or bowl-- in its lede. When I came to the article )today, and for the first time) I first suspected vandalism.  But it didn't take me long to guess that there was a dispute over what kind of image to use, and it looks like I guessed correctly.  I have these thoughts: 1.) It seems absurd to me as a reader of Wikipedia articles that I should come to an article on a personality such as Lilith and be greeted at the outset by a page of text with no associated visual. The misidentified sculptural relief still appears further down in the article, but up in the lede there is nothing. This is not as it should be!  While I am all for using the best possible image sources ("best" in terms of quality as well as some sense of accuracy or historicity) with a given article, are we really prepared to say, "Well, we couldn't agree on the excellence or aptness of the images we had at our disposal, so we cut off the nose and now our faces are very sorry indeed"? Wikipedia policy is to try to have an image-- SOME kind of image-- associated with every article, if at all possible and at all suitable.  The fact that there are two significant depictions of her in Western art should mean that we can come to an agreement on at least one of them to include with the article lede, no?  Personally, here more than two years later, I feel the image with the snake is the better one to use, and I can go on about why but my commentary is already getting too long and so I am cutting myself off but KEEPING my nose!  KDS 4444  Talk  04:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Another request to split Lilitu off from Lilith
It has been previously requested to separate Lilitu from Lilith, a few years back. At the time the article was different, as subsequent updates have moved the article to a more "Lilith as a Jewish character" article, than the previous "anything vaguely related to Lilith" article. This has resulted in a better Lilith article, but there is very little information on the Lilitu on this page. I came to this page looking for information on the Lilitu, not Lilith. After reading through the debates on this page I see the page has evolved since Lilitu was set to redirect to Lilith. I am no expert on Lilitu, so I ask that some of you that are please set up a Lilitu page. Clearly the Lilitu could be referenced on this page, however the consensus seems to be they are not the same thing. Entrepic (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

bad sources
Your midrashic citations to Rabbi Chiyya don't work out. I have a copy of Rabbah; he is not cited to in 18:4 and the citation to him in 18:5 is NOT about Lilith. He is also not cited in 22:7 but in 22:5, again, not with reference to Lilith. You need to email somebody at the site you used and tell  them to find their material  and fix it. Also you need to look again at everything you used from their site because it's not necessarily  reliable. Finally, the Talmudic citations you give have nothing to do with "Lilith" as wife of Adam. You need to change the wording to make sure people understand that -- or even delete it since it's not relevant to your claims. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Disregard This Topic
I have learned new-world-encyclopedia is considered biased/problematic, and it is run by a rather controversial sponsor. Though I cannot say for sure if some of their information about the difference between Lilitu, and Ardat Lilitu might have been accurate or not.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.51.217 (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Title Image
Lilith or Lilitu appears to be a Mesopotamian or Syriac tradition that was incorporated into Hebrew folk and mystical rabbinical thought over centuries of Jewish contact with foreigners. I don't know that Lilith has anything to do with a serpent in any tradition, especially because she would have become before the Fall if she were an actual character in Genesis, and might not have anything to do with the Serpent if she is just something incorporated later. Lilith is regarded as the first wife of Adam in some traditions and in others as an immortal demonic spirit that seduces men and murders children that exists beyond the garden of Eden, even until present times.

With this background, which picture do you think is more appropriate to depict Lilith? The first is a Rossetti image of Lilith looking into a hand mirror while combing her hair in what appears to be a sort of pre-Victorian setting. The second is another 19th Century Romanticized image of Lilith, this time a nude with a snake wrapped around her body. User:Ian.thomson claimed that the latter was more appropriate because it was in line with the myth than the Rossetti image because of its association of the character with a snake and nudity in the Garden of Eden. I personally think the latter is gratuitous and potentially offensive, although I can respect Wikipedia's policy on censorship. Beyond this, I don't think the Collier painting is necessarily better than the Rossetti one.

If Lilith is an immortal demon or is regarded as such in myths, then why is there a problem portraying her in whatever her setting is there? Speaking strictly about the tradition about her in the Garden of Eden, it may be more appropriate than not to have her nude. But she isn't necessarily restricted to that setting, and even if she was, why would she have a serpent from a later act? How does one even determine which is better through consensus?Nanib (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nanib (talk), I think the snake is supposed to symbolize Lilith's sinfulness and her status as a demon, connected to Satan.Kiko Gonzales (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)





Burney Relief


Also, what do you think of this one as a title image? A variant of it was removed from the title area of the article because it was regarded as not being accepted widely by experts as the character by the one who removed it. If the character is a non-Hebrew myth originally that was assimilated into certain mystical traditions in the first place, then would the depiction of a of a deity the concept of Lilith is believed to have descended from or may be at least related to be better or worse than any 19th Century Romantic image? Whatever happens with the title image, this should probably be added somewhere. (Nanib (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Discussion
Long story short - I like all of these - but would prefer an ancient (or at least pre-1500) illustration that closely connects to the Lilith myth. The Burney relief, especially the photo here, is great, but it seems to require too much explanation that it is, or is related to, Lilith. FWIW, I wrote most of the Lady Lilith article and am absolutely in love with that painting, especially the later version, but it is a Victorian expression of an ancient idea. Similarly I like the Collier version, but it's too slick and modern (not even Victorian in style!) to express the ancient idea. BTW, I am a dirty old man and have no objection to including it further down in the article. I seem to remember that the snake is associated at least indirectly with Lilith, but among these three, I guess the best is Burney. Let's look for something else though. Smallbones (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * per Relevance of content what ideally is needed is an illustration which relates to the article subject. For better or worse the article subject is a female demon which was credited in the Talmud with causing wet dreams, so does lend itself to semi-erotic depictions of dirty (probably young, manga-minded) men. Connection to the "night bird" in the list of egg-laying tree dwelling birds in Isaiah is in itself tendentious, the theories of the 1880s connecting the demoness of the Talmud to any earlier Mesopotamian goddess are highly speculative, connection to the Burney Relief is now rejected. The image by Rossetti despite the title has little more to do with the Talmudic legend than any of Rossetti's other paintings for Leyland. So at this point, until someone provides a Jewish-Talmudic picture, the Collier 1892 is probably as near to the subject as any. And, note, a lot of Hurwitz' content in this article is based on the speculations of 1890s scholarship, so nearer to Collier than to Rossetti. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Rossetti to Leyland: "The painting focuses on Lilith, but is meant to be a "Modern Lilith" rather than the mythological figure." In ictu oculi (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree - but that shouldn't mean it couldn't be included lower down in the article. Having done some very quick research - a google image search - there is some evidence that the snake in the garden was Lilith or at least part human female http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Schede/CSNs/CSNs_V_StCentr_04.html (from the Sistine Chapel) and a similar one on a capital at Notre Dame de Paris.  There's also a huge amount of stuff suggesting that some stuff here might be fan-cruft for the new pop idol of the hour - Lilith.  e.g. vampire Lilith, lots of Collier type Lilith with snakes.  No reason not to explore the various re-emergences of Lilith as long as they are documented in (very) reliable sources.  But lets not concentrate on that or push somebody's fave new fantasy.  Smallbones (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How about using this cropped image instead, at least temporarily?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanib (talk • contribs) 03:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we'd be best served by not swapping photos more than once a day. Everybody agreed? Smallbones (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

An article about so ancient a subject is ill-served by an image of an interpretation by either 19th century English painters (Rossetti or Collier). Lilith has influenced all sorts of literature and art (western and non-western) with supporting images. The article needed a section on Lilith in Western art to complement the Western literature section so I made one (diff). That is where relatively recent images from western art belong. Rossetti is more famous than Collier, so in a section on Lilith in Western Art, Rossetti's is the more relevant illustration, especially since more of the text is devoted to his work and his supported by Rossetti's poem. Therefore, I was Wp:BOLD and returned the Burney Relief to the top of the article, and used the Rossetti painting in the new 'Western Art' section (diff). I hope this gives a better historical balance to the topic (and a more appropriate place to display the painting than as the lead image). Whiteghost.ink 03:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whiteghost
 * See Smallbones comment. Bold is one thing. Unilaterally resolving a Talk topic is another. The article has been returned to status quo, see Reverting "If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established..." see also WP:NPOV in relation to Burney reflief, and WP:Undue in relation to Rossetti. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

NB, also please note the comment made to User_talk:Smallbones, but if there's going to be discussion of this article, it'd be helpful if it was here. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is not about a modern artwork, but rather about an ancient mythological entity. The lead image should reflect that. The Burney Relief has been the consensus lead image for some time, you do not get to come in an override a long-standing consensus. Yworo (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But the Burney relief doesn't depict Lilith at all. It depicts Ishtar.  If we couldn't find a public domain image for the Gilgamesh article, would it be acceptable to use a picture of Hercules? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to who? The article says it is under debate, and has a whole section about it being identified with Lilith. There is disagreement, but no disproof. Yworo (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article here points out the problems with the Lilith identification, namely that it was based on assumptions and bad translation (or reading translations in ways the translators, such Gadd, said were incorrect), that this would be the only depiction of Lilith ever. As the article here puts: That this initially misread single line of evidence was taken as virtual proof of the identification of the Burney relief with "Lilith" may have been motivated by the existence of a Hebrew demon "Lilith" which is given the epithet of a "screech owl" in the English Bible.
 * In other words, the entire argument for Lilith is based on connecting one misread line with one possible translation and interpretation of a single Bible verse.
 * Because of this, it would be WP:OR or even inaccurate to use the image.
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Read further, under the subsection Ereshkigal. Even the British Museum acknowledges that the image may depict Lilith. Just add clarification to the caption, that is has been identified by some sources as possibly representing Lilith. Yworo (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's hardly evidence in favor for identifying the relief with Lilith, or else they wouldn't prefer the identification with Ereshkigal. Again, the identification is based on a misreading of an outdated translation to identify it with a possible reading of a possible translation of the Bible. You have not addressed this. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have to address this, that would be original research. The article on the Burney Relief currently list several academic positions on the matter of identification with Lilith. The sources disagree, but no source has been provided which states that all modern scholars now reject the identification. Until that's provided, it is you using original research to try to exclude the image. One scholar's opinion that is was a misidentification does not disprove the identification, it is simply one of several opinions that have varying weights and followings. Yworo (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It turns out that the sentence you quoted (That this initially misread single line of evidence was taken as virtual proof of the identification of the Burney relief with "Lilith" may have been motivated by the existence of a Hebrew demon "Lilith" which is given the epithet of a "screech owl" in the English Bible.) was itself original research, cited only to a translation of Isaiah and not to any source that stated there had been a misreading. In other words, it was an editorial opinion of some Wikipedia editor and I've removed it from Burney Relief. Yworo (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The identification with Lilith is traced back to one misreading of an outdated translation. It is not some later naysayer's claim. The misreading is the entire basis for the original identification with Lilith, which the later sources repeat. That is not OR.
 * The identification with Lilith is inconclusive at best, an error otherwise. Nothing discredits the Ishtar or Ereshkigal interpretations, but plenty discredits the Lilith interpretation.
 * Re new post, there's still the issue that "Gadd, the original translator, writes: "ardat lili (kisikil-lil) is never associated with owls in Babylonian mythology" and "the Jewish traditions concerning Lilith in this form seem to be late and of no great authority." The translation they cited pointed out that their interpretation was faulty before they made it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's only got to do with the owl imagery, which is not the only basis for the identification. You yourself are engaging in original research here. If you want to say or imply that the identification was entirely based on a mistranslation, you will need a citation for that. That one of several reasons for an identification has been disproved does not invalidate the other reasons for the identification. Nowhere does the Burney Relief article say that the identification has been disproven or even that it has been rejected by most modern scholars. If you actually have some support for these more extreme claims, be sure to add them to Burney Relief, along with citations. Yworo (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yworo, it's not an extreme claim to say that it has been rejected by most modern ANE scholars. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This article seriously needs a title image. I would suggest the one with her and the snake as the best one (I think it was painted by Collier), since it is a little more obvious who she is, the ancient image proposals are generally too uncertain as to what they represent for it to be appropriate. The notion that it is offensive seems kind of silly to me, offensive to who? Prudish Victorians? Nudity is pretty standard on Garden of Eden depictions and the serpent ensures that it was acceptable to a Victorian audience, I don't really see how it can be particularly offensive to the general modern audience. I really think this issue ought to be resolved one way or another Threadnecromancer (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer
 * I'm leaning toward Collier as well. I mean, it's not like the Jesus article uses art contemporary with when Christianity was first getting started.  Indeed, it uses stained glass stained glass from a church that's not much older than the Collier painting.  Adam and Eve uses a painting by Lucas Cranach the Elder (15-16th century), Cain and Abel uses art from a 19th century Bible, Abraham uses a 17th c. Rembrandt painting.  There's really no argue over older depictions when we have a painting that everyone knows is supposed to be Lilith, and really doesn't go against the Lilith legend in any way.  (Except perhaps her rather Northern European features, but then again, all the white women I've dated were crazy). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Collier one is fine. Wasn't it here for years previously? The Burney Relief absolutely should not be the main image because modern scholarship rejects that it is Lilith. DreamGuy (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed an image (a dark scan of the Collier painting) that an editor had added to the lead section, in spite of the hidden text at the top of the article, “This article does not have a lead picture[,] as consensus of discussion. See the Talk Page.” From a perfunctory reading of the discussion here, I don’t actually see where a consensus was declared, but I nevertheless took the hidden text’s word for it, so to speak. The addition of the image was tagged as a “mobile edit”; I’ve read that hidden text can’t be seen when using Visual Editor (for technical reasons, I haven’t used Visual Editor yet), so maybe hidden text doesn’t show up when editing from a mobile device either.


 * Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The consensus actually seems to be the other way round. It is ridiculous for an article like this not to have a lead picture. Threadnecromancer (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Threadnecromancer
 * You'd need to notify all of those in the previous discussion - the whole point was to get an image which has something to do with the subject, rather than later romantic mythology. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would prefer an ancient image, but the consensus was to either remove or downplay the Burney Relief and that we needed somethiung at the top. There's a lot to this character, and this is just as valid as any other image lacking something better. It also has YEARS of consensus behind it. Coming back years later and removing it serves no purpose. DreamGuy (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Jewish image
In the absence of a correct ancient image, can we at least find a Kabbalah/Jewish image? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How is that more appropriate? Lilith is relevant to more than just the Kabbalah, and if you compare this with similar articles you will see similar lead pictures. The article on Abraham uses a Mediaeval Christian image, the article on King Saul uses a Renaissance Dutch Christian painting. Perhaps most decisively, the article on Eve uses a Renaissance painting as the lead image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyndane5 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

== what is the difference between a angelic spirit and a Lilith like creature woman (Lilen) and its lovely daughters (Lilien) or wildlife kind of spirit? and also known all together as a (Lilien) or seven Fruits or daughters from the Guardian Angels from god ==

Ok so the title of the section is basically this years installment or volume of the Mythology of the Lilitu which is distinct from Lilith which we are discussing which actional there are two kinds of definition of Lilitu there's even there's the seed other wise known as the crown made of a woman's ovaries is a Lilitu Ovary and the mother fruit its Lilith (Mythology) which is distinct from its other Seed which then becomes its daughter fruit or the nymph spirt of goddess types like pleades that were with Zeus and what not. Zeus was just a Innocent god man like any other of the angelic spirits which seem to be in a whole another classification on that hand as the angelic-like but not angelic Lilitu transformation types into sub types of her Lilitu self into manifestations or "parts" as it was known in colonial German American rather than "Lilitu things" in English which mean of a greater Liliet. disctinct from its actual human looking kinds of fruit. and the reason why i think this is becasue there clearly has to be some kind of transformation of reproduction spirit sub particles that are quantamly linked or Quantamly entangled with human DNA also known as Katra which is a small piece of a spirit or even a angelic being like the one god like us Catholic beilive in and the different kinds of heaven Angels some how over that ancient time period of pre Jan 1st 1500 CE. But the thing is Lifeforms particals from Plants and Animals come from DNA from particals comprised of Earth/Carbon, Wind/Air/Oxgen, Hydrogen/Water as well as Heart element/Iron(Blood) as well as the rest of the basic 5 elements that comprise the bigger element known as Life. but the 7th element is Space but space is empty but life needs space to grow. so basically from about Jan 1st 1500 CE and the start of the Modern Ages which are of course the more recent millennia like in the Jesus Era and early post Jesus era also known to christian as the since her first appearance around circa 4,000 BC by the Hebrews, the ancestors of the contemporary Jews. once these Hebrews discovered this strange dream monsters these Hebrews knew of the power of wisdom from noe where in matarial known as pre-cognitive dreaming also known as future dreaming. these Akashic records according to one of the worlds more recent victims known as Edgar Cayce circa 1930s and 1940s CE eras. all these good people fall prey to the Snake woman from the Jude-Cristians of the past 6,000 years but probably more like 3,000 years since Soloman who was a actual authenticated case of multiple reports of dream knowledge by the kings of Salomon and his Son David but Saul never met Lilith becasue he was of average intelligence only not nearly as wise as Solomon and his son and grand son King David was.

The basic entire religious argument or Urination match as it is known in Scotland. The basic argument is as follows Should the diferent transformation types that make up the entire Lilien be more distinct from the concept of Lilitu which currently as of the spring of 2016. 99.45.130.77 (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrong verse
The mention of Lillith is in Isaiah 34:10, not Isaiah 34:11. And it is translated as 'night'.

Ahh, correction. The author means Isaiah 34:10, where Liylith is translated as 'screech owl'.

The verse still needs amending. I shall do that.

Tatelyle (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

CS Lewis, Narnia, White Witch
This article claimed Jadis as a descendant of Adam. In the The Lion, the Witch, etc, Mrs. Beaver states, "She comes from Adam's...first wife, her they called Lilith...there isn't a a drop of real Human blood in the Witch." Tapered (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * While I could argue that that still leaves Adam as a possibility, it'd involve far more OR than what your work could arguably constitute (not that I think it does). Ian.thomson (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting pickup, made even more interesting by the mention in this article of the Arslan Tash amulets. Anyone who has read The Last Battle, the final book in C.S.Lewis's series of allegory for children (The Chronicles of Narnia) will recognise the name.  In that series, Aslan is the term used for the Christian God's counterpart, while Tash appears only in a couple of books, and in The Last Battle is clearly the equivalent of Satan/the false god.  Arslan/Aslan is pretty close; I would be surprised, given his profession, if Lewis had not come across references and subsequently used them - whether consciously or otherwise.


 * I see from the Wikipedia page for The Chronicles of Narnia the statement in the introduction (without reference, annoyingly), that:


 * Inspiration for the series was taken from multiple sources; in addition to adapting numerous traditional Christian themes, Lewis freely borrowed characters and ideas from Greek and Roman mythology as well as from traditional British and Irish fairy tales. The books have profoundly influenced adult and children's fantasy literature since World War II. Lewis's exploration of themes not usually present in children's literature, such as religion, as well as the books' perceived treatment of issues including race and gender, has caused some controversy.


 * The link between Narnia and the amulets mentioned in this page is thus unsurprising.Ambiguosity (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2017
PLEASE ADD a new section for "Current Literature - "THE L.O.G.I.C.A.L. LIGHT WORKERS OF G.O.D." - follow this story and Lilith appears all over in it !

The True Story of The Garden of Eden

In the beginning GoD put Couple Genetic #1 in the Garden of Eden/Heaven. John and Lilith were GoDs first Human creation here on Earth/Heaven. John and Lilith found “thee apple tree” and “the serpent” in the garden/nature. The serperts/snakes are one of the only true healing animals on Earth/Heaven. Serpents massages your body when you hold them. They cleanse the cracks of the Earth of all the weak and dying. GoD sent John and Lilith to scout before putting Adam and Eve (aka Couple Genetic #2) in the garden. John and Lilith lived happily in the garden for a full year before Adam and Eve where created.

Genetic Man #1	 John was more masculine; a hunter, warrior, and protector Genetic Female #1 	Lilith was super spiritual and a female warrior Genetic Man #2 	Adam was more emotional and feminine Genetic Female #2	Eve was motherly and passive

Eve and Adam had split up to find food. Eve ran into John Eve then asks John “What am I supposed to eat?” John gets her an apple and she eats it. John and Eve have sex John had already ate allot of apples. GoD doesn't forbid any matter to evolve on Earth/Heaven. John gives an apple to Eve to take back for her man Adam.

Eve returns to Adam. There she gives Adam the Apple. Adam then takes a bite of the Apple. Afterwards, Adam asks “Where did you find this apple?” Eve tells Adam of John and Lillith and how she ran into John alone. Adam gets mad and jealous tells Eve “That's the forbidden fruit! John is the Devil!” Adam spawns the devil in his mind out of jealousy and tells Eve, “The Devil gave it to you!” Adam the next day set out to find John and murders him with a rock to the back of the head. Lilith finds John dead. Lilith runs into Adam and Eve. Distraught from finding her lover dead, she asks to stay with them. Adam shuns her back into the forest because he was embarassed about what he had done to John. Adam could have had 2 wives at this point. Lillith then goes crazy, curses GoD, and drowns herself in the sea in the name of her lovers death. Adam and Eve, ashamed of their actions, lied to the world about what happened in the garden. Adam was not the first man. Eve was not the first woman. Adam and Eve have babies. Cane and Abel are two of their offspring. Cane (the demon son) killed Abel (the angelic son). This is proff/example from GoD of what had already gone down in the garden. This was GoDs Punishment to Adam for murdering John and proof to all humans that something dark occured in the garden. Adam and Eve lied to all of Human kind about there being an original couple in the garden. HolyJohn (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is an encyclopedic article on Lilith and not the place to add a "story". Neil N  talk to me 16:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Latter-day Saint View section
The statement is that "The Journal of Discourses claims that Joseph Smith believed Adam had two wives: Eve and Lilith." The reference in question (http://jod.mrm.org/26/114) reads as follows: "The Scriptures give an account simply of the woman Eve; declaring that this name was given her of Adam, because she was “the mother of all living;” but outside of biblical record there has been handed down from time immemorial the idea that Adam had two wives, the narrators go so far, or rather so near perfecting the tradition so as to give their names, Lilith being said to be the name of one as Eve was the name of the other, and while it may be difficult to harmonize all the Rabbinical and Talmudic versions of this matter, it is said that Joseph Smith the Prophet taught that Adam had two wives. Without however, assuming or basing anything upon this theory, or upon this tradition—which may be mythical in its character—it is nevertheless, very evident that marriage was ordained of God;" The statement was made by Henry W. Naisbitt on March 8, 1885. Naisbitt was a prominent Church member, but not a general authority. He would not have been in a position to pronounce doctrinal matters, nor did he pretend to do so. The above quote merely shows that he was familiar with the legends of Lilith. He also is familiar with an unsourced tradition that Joseph Smith claimed that Adam had two wives. He allows the reader to draw their own conclusion based on this admitted speculation, and only uses it as perhaps a side comment for his main point that "marriage was ordained of God." The legends surrounding Lilith do not form part of LDS Church doctrine, and suggesting that they do may be irresponsible. However, I don't want to remove this unilaterally in case someone has a contrary argument. It may be an interesting sidenote that there is a mention of her in LDS literature, but whether that is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia is debatable, and at the least the statement should be modified since it does not represent an accurate view of LDS teachings. Ryan Reeder (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2017
The last sentence on this article expresses a misleading idea and it's supported by an non-secure link. It states that it is the point of of view of a religious group when it is not. The source that they site reads as follows: "it is SAID that Joseph Smith the Prophet taught that Adam had two wives. Without however, assuming or basing anything upon this theory, or upon this tradition—which may be mythical in its character—it is nevertheless, very evident that marriage was ordained of God;". I consider that the sentence can be omitted since it doesn't give more information to enrich the topic, and it doesn't come from a reliable source. 173.10.192.214 (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —   IVORK  Discuss 02:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2017
The last sentence on this article expresses a misleading idea and it's supported by an non-secure link. It states that it is the point of of view of a religious group when it is not. The source that they site reads as follows: "it is SAID that Joseph Smith the Prophet taught that Adam had two wives. Without however, assuming or basing anything upon this theory, or upon this tradition—which may be mythical in its character—it is nevertheless, very evident that marriage was ordained of God;". I consider that the sentence can be omitted since it doesn't give more information to enrich the topic, and it doesn't come from a reliable source. 173.10.192.214 (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —   IVORK  Discuss 02:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lilith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100212053545/http://www.ritmanlibrary.nl/c/p/exh/kabb/kab_pheb_25.html to http://www.ritmanlibrary.nl/c/p/exh/kabb/kab_pheb_25.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121210090228/www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/scroll.htm to http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/scroll.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)