Talk:Lilith/Archive 1

message: The article states that the discrepency in Genesis may be "a careless weaving together of two discrete biblical creation myths, as the Bible describes man being created in both Genesis 1:26 and 2:27."
However, in the King James Version of the bible that they provide a link to, there is no 2:27. Chapter 2 stops at verse 25. Anyone know what these mysterious missing verses say, or was it just a typo?
:it's a typo. It should be Genesis 2:7. dab (ᛏ) 17:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: removed the 'careless' though. that word asks for trouble and helps nothing. dab (ᛏ) 20:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Except that there are contradictions (what do chapters/verses have to do with anything? they are just used to point to specific passages). e.g. Genesis 1:9, dry land has to be separated from water before life is possible, vs. 2:6, land is originally dry, and has to be watered before life is possible. dab (ᛏ) 16:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Couldn't it be that the original myth was similar to a Greek myth mentioned by Plato where there were human beings with both the male and female parts, until gods decided to split them in two? Seing from this point of view, god appears to have created man as both a male and female being, and then he took a piece of the man (the rib) and with that created the woman. I think this would explain all.193.205.213.166 15:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genesis 2:27??? 

message: Does any one know where in the Talmud or Zohar Lilith is mentioned?
Zohar passages are here on Alan's site & here Try here for talmud. Xuchilbara 21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talmud and Zohar 

message: the thing conspicuously absent is information as to actual attestation of the Lilitu name. All we have is "Babylonian". When is the name attested? What are these "storm demon" inscriptions? As it is, Isaiah may well be among the earliest testimonies. dab (ᛏ) 18:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: seeking Lilitu

message: Is it just me, or does this article jump right into the subject without taking even a bit of time to establish context? If I knew anything about the subject I'd fix that, but I don't. Tualha (Talk) 22:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: Here's my opinion: if the concept of Lilith is involved in the article, then it should be placed in the section.  However, an item does not belong in this list if it uses just the name or some minor myth concept (I.E. Eva, Capcom, etc.).  I can understand the frustation that a lot of editors over here feel.  Deckiller 01:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting out of hand. I'm going to put a notice in statng that "These four have been selected as direct usages of Lilith.  Any others MUST be placed on the disambig page. Thank you". Deckiller 13:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Since fictional video games, anime, and novels don't claim to be true, and they're not meant to be held as fact. The difference is that people actually believe in myths (at one time), while fictional, modern books are basically made-up. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lilith in pop culture 

message: this looks like IPA; it is not recommendable to transliterate in IPA, let's use ISO 259 or something; besides, why is the text so different from what I copied from blueletterbible?  (my bad) dab (ᛏ) 17:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Romanization of Hebrew]]

message: The end of this paragraph read "The myth of Lilith as the first wife of Adam arose in the Middle Ages".  I changed it to "She is often identified as the first wife of Adam, a myth that arose in the Middle Ages."  I cannot imagine this would be controversial, but I will explain.  As the sentence stood, there was an apparent reference to a specific myth ("The myth . . ."), but it had not yet been said that there was any such myth, so the referent of the phrase is unclear. (After all, theere could be multiple such myths.)  This is merely a point of style.  I changed it to specify the content of the myth (under the description "She is popularly identified as . . ."), and then noted that this legend--"this" now being well-defined-- arose in the Middle Ages.
To repeat: the sentence as it stood was not adequate.  If my correction introduces another problem, correct that, don't simply revert it.
--User: Captain Wacky
:It was obviously reverted in error. Don't be dense. --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 00:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence in intro paragraph

message: What is myth about Zeus doing in the section about the Christian Bible? Take that out.
The god of the bible is Zeus.  The one selected out of the many for monotheism.
The god of the bible is not Zeus as many popular representations of God in human form assert. The god of the bible is El. Xuchilbara 03:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section on the Christian Bible... 

message: Lilith is a female Mesopotamian night demon believed to harm male children.
Harm them how, exactly..? Physical harm, mental, or sexual assault...? This is quite ambiguous. This statement leaves too much to the imagination to be considered encyclopediac. -ZeroTalk 09:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening statement 

message: I can see that throughout the many articles displacing information regarding Lilith, that much confusion has come about as to her mate. According to the many sources that I have read, Lilith (after abandoning Adam, and yet whilst still married to him) mated with Samael (an angel of death, possible avatar of Satan) to produce over one hundred children (Lilin) per day.
However, some articles have stated that Lilith mated with Asmodai (opposed to Samael) when she flew to the Red Sea. Yet, it has been stated, in Jewish texts, that Asmodai was the child of Lilith's friend Naamah (an angel of prostitution) and Adam (conceived whilst Adam was still married to Lilith). Asmodai later went on to marry the LESSER LILITH (the daughter of Lilith and Samael); which is where the confusion is emerging from.
I have, thus, decided to edit the articles stating that Lilith (the original) mated with Asmodai.
If anyone has reason against this, please feel free to say so.
--Danny DeSio 12:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what "original" Lilith? You need to state which specific texts have which version. There is no problem with contradictory sources, you just need to say which source states which. Do not attempt to edit towards a 'correct' version of the myth. Myths aren't 'correct' and do not have 'originals'. dab (ᛏ) 09:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lilith and her Lovers 

message: The passage in Genesis 1:27 — "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female he created them" (before describing a mate being made of Adam's rib and being called Eve in Genesis 2:22) is sometimes believed to be an indication that Adam had a wife before Eve.
There must be someone else out there who caught this before I did.
"...created he him; male and female created he them."  The English translation of Genesis does not explicitly mention Eve OR Adam.  Is there a specific difference between the standard Hebrew "Adam" meaning "man (or earth)" and the Adam who appears to arrive somewhat later (to English readers)?
When is the name "Adam" even first mentioned in "Genesis"?  ...not until Chapter 2, verse 19 (KJV - English again):
"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."
If anyone reading this also understands the original Hebrew script of Genesis 2:19, it would help to know if it distinguishes between "man" and "Adam" in the same way that the English version does.
Only after Adam gave names to the animals and the Good Lord puts him to sleep do we read about the part with the rib surgery:
"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;" - Genesis 2:21
So what keeps a reader of any level of faith or intellect from applying the same logic to the proverbial "gander" as well as the "goose"?
Xodmoe 22:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lilith as Adam's first wife 

message: I removed the following.  It is unsourced and I have not read anything like it in regards to Lilith before.
She is also known as  today the one and only in the flesh and on films as Leevonnie A Thomas Carter. She came to live amonst all women to give power unto women in spirit,and none to herself(flesh or spirit nor for herself to exercise any levels of power whatsoever) their earthly court ordained husbands in order to help the order of the new world. To stamp out homelessness, drugs, sexual immorality, prostitution, the system of women losing their babies, abortion, women makng babies by any kind of man or in any kind of state of mind. (secret- in order to get pregnant a woman must wait 14 days after the first date of her menstrual cycle-called her ovulation date.. then within the next three days....well you know the rest)to teach abstinance until all of selfs priorities are fulfilled-mentally, financially, physically, emotionally.To bring all women to a level where they can see and admit there setbacks and begin to erectify a whole new foundation. For many centuries Lilith has raised her children up spiritually to a degree that they will become successful. But until this day their are women and men who constantly overpower themselves in the spirit but remain as destroyers to themselves in the flesh. And they do all of this in the name of Lilith and her king Lucifer. Just to control the masses. And pervert the way of mankind(and woman). Their are many false prophets(profits). mining false gains. Like the dealing of crack cocaine. That person selling the drug is a false profit. Lilith does not reside in the spiritual world. She is only in the physical. She is Miss independant. She is the mother of all earth. Not just of her own creation. What she does can benefit all. She knows chastity. She is the Holy Spirit. She walked not after idles, or ill gotten gain(false profits(prophets)).Her body is the inhabitant space for all mankind or woman seeking knowledge power and strenghth. Though man/women seek to destroy her they won't succed because all of spiritual kind are on her side to carry out a specific task. To create a new world order. To stamp out poverty and drugs and all other issues that plague our living societies. She is the queen of hell. But her mission is to recycle every demon or fowl spirit so they may become productive in societies man and woman also. All those that reside in lilith fleshly body, worketh for lilith to see that justice is prevailed. At whatever measure it takes.
Since her demons and demonesses are fallen angels they may take on any form that they want.Whatever it takes to win souls for the New World Order. The end of the world is here and now. a saying in the old world is that all men and women are created equal. In the New world a form of unity is being processed so that all men and women of official law abiding standard, not for power, not for money, or for prestige, issues that plagued or world of yesterday. Can live and create for themselves their own pathways, spiritually and physically. to form different levels of positive creations. Where men and women of standard can become successful on a strong and firm foundation, build for themselves heavenly kingdoms here on earth. Then come together al a family unit as well as a solar family unit to build up for ourseves in the physical and the spiritual and to carry our children to higher levels in the mind while constructing a better future for our world and for mother earth, Lilith who's job will be complete. Beware of those false demons or fallen angels who come to conjure up real demons in order to use their name in vain.
If it does need to be here, it needs some serious editing before it can be returned.  There is similar text on the Astarte page.
Web Warlock 21:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like the ramblings of some religious nut. I'd delete this at once. Asarelah 20:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: There's an obvious parallel to the Lilith portrayed in the Christian tradition and the Lilith in Evangelion, such that I felt a reference to the series was warrented. And what have "card games" got to do with it? >_>
Will the Great 04:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, you were clear. I was responding to "Random User". :) Danny Lilithborne 00:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NGE reference to Lilith 

message: Danny Lilithborne (02:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable deletion of Marvel Comics reference 

message: Someone proposed merging Lilith (Qliphoth) into Lilith.  I support the merger, as the former article is very short and contains no information either not already in this article or that could not be easily incorporated into it. Aleta 05:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger

message: Large portions of the sections on neopaganism, ceremonial magick, Luciferianism, and astrology have been copied from the PaganWiki article on Lilith  and appear here without citation. Is this permissible, and what form of attribution needs to be added for these materials?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.205.1 (talk) 
Yes it is, because I obtained permission and some of the info is written by myself, you can check the pagan wiki page and see my name and IP address. Also, check Paganwiki's discussion page. I can get citations if needed. Xuchilbara 19:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should always use citations where possible. Aleta 02:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure licensing isn't an issue but ideally you should include an external link to the pagan wiki rather than make this a mirror of the PW article. WP articles should be reliably sourced. Bendž|Ť 18:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections copied from PaganWiki

message: Samael is identified as Satan in a number of sources. This is were the top line of Lilith being a paramour of Satan comes in.
>Rabbinic Literature gives two accounts for the origin of Satan. The first is that Satan was created on the sixth day at the same time as Eve. This ties in with the tradition that Satan played some part in the fall of man. The second and more prevalent tradition is that Satan is one of the fallen angels. Satan is identified with Sammael and his deeds. 
Also Satan is charged with being te tempting serpent in the garden of Eden. As Samael is in other litature.
From the Jewish Encyclopedia on Satan: 
>As the lord of satans he not infrequently bears the special name Samael.
On Samael:
> In so far as he is identified with the serpent ("J. Q. R." vi. 12), with carnal desire (Yeẓer ha-Ra'), and with the angel of death, all legends associated with Satan refer equally to him, while as a miscreant he is compared to Belial ( = "worthless"; see collection of material in Bousset, "Antichrist," pp. 99-101).
If Cuchullain does not believe this, and no amount of citated sources are convincing enough, than the entire line should be taken out.
Xuchilbara 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously Samael and Satan are frequently considered the same being. I meant that no one has given a source, beyond neopagan websites and other Wikipedia articles, for WHERE it is said that Satan/Samael was Lilith's paramour. The Talmud? The Zohar? Rereading the Alphabet of Ben-Sira, I don't see it anywhere. I know the Zohar includes the story that Samael was the father of Cain, but this was by Eve, not Lilith. I think the line probably has to go, unless someone provides a source soon.--Cúchullain t/c 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it's been removed now (not by me). Probably for the best.--Cúchullain t/c 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Encyclopedia Mythica is extremely unreliable (I remember a while ago dozens of articles on Polynesian mythology based on the EM had to be deleted or entirely rewriten because they were fake). So no, do not add that if the only source is the pantheon.org/Encylopedia Mythica.--Cúchullain t/c 17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to echo the comments that Encyclopedia Mythica is a horrible resource. Any topic it covers in any depth that I ahve looked at is littered with errors. DreamGuy 04:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Samael & Satan

message: This article is not appropriately referenced. 90% of references are from just a small handful of websites, and one of them seems rather biased. Reference books would be nice. And also, reformatting of the reference and notes sections is needed. They should be combined, and the authorship and other details of the referenced websites should discovered and listed. Fuzzform 16:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true. The references here are very poor. Far too many are to websites of dubious reliability. Some of it might be all right if instead of linking to the sites, we instead ref to the primary source used by the site (if they don't give it, that's a serious strike against their credibility).--Cúchullain t/c 17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: For all the text you added recently you really need to be providing sources for more of it. And I'm afraid that you are presenting a lot of opinions you got from certain books as if they were 100% factual when they may not be. You need sources so people can though go check to see if they are reliable, and also to see if it's just the same source over and over or if there are multiple people saying the same thing or saying something different. Some of your recent edits also wiped out the claims that some figures may not be the same as Lilith and tried to slant it as all but proven as fact, which is nonsense. With the amount of edits you are making and the controversial nature of them, you especially need to cite sources, and also probabl to discuss things here ahead of time. DreamGuy 04:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As explained on my talk page and elsewhere, having sources alone does not justify writing the article so that you present what is mere opinion as if it were fact. If you want to say Patai and others believe it is the same figure, hey, that's fine, say so and provide sources... but you went beyond that and made the article take their side. That's not how WP:NPOV works, and if you think my version was "heavily biased" I'm afraid I don't understand how you could claim so, as it was merely saying some people believe one thing, some people believe another and that you can't say something or another clearly was linked to Lilith's traits when it isn't even Lilith we are talking about but another figure. DreamGuy 23:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, with all due respect, you don't get to label sources as biased just because you disagree with their conclusions. I disagree with your claim that "most scholarship" believes what you think it does, and even if it were true that wouldn't make it correct, or a conclusion that should be endorsed by Wikipedia to the exclusion of other scholars' views. You are very clearly trying to take a side here, and that's a major violation of WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy 18:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: The written material in this article seems quite spread out, ie the same thing is mentioned twice or thrice in the length of the article. We really need to check the grammar and spelling too. --WoodElf 08:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compressed article? 

message: In referring to the "Invocation of Lilith" (IoL), which I was the original co-author of, it's described as a "Thelemic ritual", but it was never meant to be that by the authors. There is no mention of Thelemic godforms or nomenclature, except for the passing reference to "true will". It was, in fact, intended by the authors as a ritual of post-modern Chaos Magick. So I think that designation should be changed by one of the editors. The IoL also seems to be referenced in this article to an organization called the "Order of Phosphorus", and I have no idea how such an association came about. It is certainly not an organization I have any connection to or had ever heard of before, so I would like to put a "citation needed" tag on that. (The ONA I have heard of.) I looked in on the website of Michael Ford, who seems to be the organizer of the Order of Phosphorus, and I find no connection on that website to the IoL.
Many people have wrote to me claiming to have worked the IoL over the years since it was posted to alt.magick.sex in 1994, and it was worked by the AutonomatirX Chaos Magick group (which I belonged to when it was written), but I am not aware of any organization using it as "official" canon.
"Lilith-Ritus", the German ritual from which certain parts of the text of IoL were derived, may have been considered a Thelemic rite, but I have been unable to track the original down so it's hard to confirm. I first discovered it in an BBS archive c. 1993, but have never found it again, and I lost the original print-out I had of it - I only have my translation notes, and I admittedly suck at translating German. If anyone has any information on the original I would love to know. JMax555 15:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ceremonial Magick section

message: I have quick-failed this article for not meeting the requirements of the GA criteria. The main reason for failing the article at this point is that there are ten "citation needed" tags found throughout the article. If there had only been a couple, I would have put it on hold as the article definitely meet the broad, stablity, and image requirements (although the images shouldn't sandwich the information in the "Lilith as Qliphah" section). Also, the inline citations should use the citation templates that are available at Wikipedia:Citation templates (all of the citations that only list the website should be more formatted to look like the current first citation in the Notes section). Citation numbers 6 and 62 do not have any citation at all, make sure that one is added for them as well. Address the citation issues and consider getting a third party editor who hasn't edited the page to look it over for a copyedit. Once you have done this, renominate the article again. The article has potential to reach GA and eventually FA, but just needs some more work. If you do not agree with this review, you can take it to GA review. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as  I can. Keep working on improving the article and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 18:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA quick-failed

message: Are quite male. Lilu's (AKA Lila, Lillu) eytomology indicates he is a male. Irdu lili is simply a male form of Ardat lili. This is attested by Patai and Kramer. (I mean how can Lilu by a father of Gilgamesh if he is a succubus?) Someone keeps changing the page to try and say they are all female. This is incorrect, out of the 4 lil demons; Lilu, Lilitu, Ardat lili & Irdu lili, 2 are male and 2 are female. I don't know who keeps changing this, but I find it hilarious that Lilu keeps being called a "succubus" in the begining paragraphs and towards Lilitu's appearence in Gilgamesh it is clear from Kramer and others that Lilu is male, and that part remains untouched on Lilu's incorrect gender change from the above paragraphs. Please, stop changing the entries, Wikipedia does not need such contradictions and inaccuracies.
Xuchilbara 23:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lilu & Irdu lili

message: Experts on Lilith and Mesopotamian myth think that there's nothing to the idea that the relief has anything to do with Lilith. The card with it at the British Museum even says so straight out. The article needs to reflect the opinion of the professionals and not that of random websites and so forth. DreamGuy 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's fair to say that depictions on Mesopotamian demons are rare, as just at the British Museum I saw something like eight Pazuzus and a few Humbabas on display in my whirlwind tour. I do think you have a point about the benevolence of the figure, though, and the stance seems far more in line with protective deities in other cultures. Regardless on my personal rationale for why I don't think it's Lilith, it seems to me that the info on the card next to the display at the museum that owns it obviously trumps other sources as far as reliability goes. 20:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Helped only in the sense that if you bribed him with enough offerings he'd maybe leave you alone, not because he was a helpful guy. Other demons would probably be similarly appeased. DreamGuy 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burney Relief 

message: it is nice to see the article has been expanded. But some of the additions are of appalling quality, and the general structure has suffered a lot. First of all, we should not accept weblinks to random sites as "references". Pages like  may be linked, but we have to repeat the sources cited there, and if possible verify they are used correctly. The hypothesis that the lil may be a Sumerian loan has become utterly garbled, apparently by copying and re-copying from internet pages by people who could not follow the argument. I am afraid we'll have to tag the "Mesopotamian" section as flawed until someone can take pity and clean it up. dab (�) 10:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: cleanup

message: In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (the book, not the movie), one of the creatures that the four children meet states that the White Witch is descended from "Adam's first wife, her they called Lilith."  This is echoed in The Magician's Nephew when the lineage of the house of Charn and Jadis (who would later become the White Witch) is explained (there has always been some giantish blood in the house of Charn).  Some reference to this might be appropriate. standonbibleTalk! 15:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lilith in [[Narnia]] 

message: No, I'm not a reliable source, so it's in y'all's best interests not to refer to anything I've written. --Thalia Took  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.24.182 (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnote 78 

message: This section is rather obtuse (as in it doesn't make any sense) and adds nothing to the article as a whole. I can't understand the how, why, or what of "Dark Moon Lilith" or how a certain phase of the moon became associated with the concept of Lilith to begin with.--71.60.131.108 (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrological Lilith 

message: For me the immediate association would be to George MacDonald's novel _Lilith_.  Is this pertinent? Pittsburgh Poet (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the novel? 

message: "Lilith in the bible" refers to a Schrader and a Levy. Who are these writers, and where are the refs for their works? zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: This entire section is absolutely false. The Church of Satan does not use Lilith in a mythological role, or any other. The image posted and claimed to be the Church of Satan's "Sigil of Baphomet" is no such thing. I am deleting this entire section, as Lilith has nothing to do with the Church of Satan as an organizational religious symbol or an organizational mythological role. I mean seriously people, you all know the difference between primary and secondary source material right? Jack Lantern (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lilith and the Church of Satan

message: Please restore image, which is clearly in public domain no matter what some throttler may claim. 24.44.137.5 (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the images. If they were removed for a reason, please tell me. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Where did Lilith go?

message: In relation to the Lilith myth I found a site expanded to include  a figure referred to as "The First Eve". 
"Undismayed by His failure to give Adam a suitable helpmeet, God tried again, and let him watch while he built up a woman's anatomy: using bones, tissues, muscles, blood and glandular secretions, then covering the whole with skin and adding tuft of hair in places. The sight caused Adam such disgust that even when this woman, the First Eve, stood there in her full beauty, he felt an invicible repugnance. God knew that He had failed once more and took the First Eve away. Where she went, nobody knows for certain." 
I was merely curious to know whether there are any other versions of the Lilith myth that include the First Eve. Most books and sites I've found merely rehash the same variations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panna Glupiutka (talk • contribs) 23:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The First Eve 

message: "The concept of Eve having a predecessor is not exclusive to Ben Sira, and is not a new concept, as it can be found in Genesis Rabbah. "
Where in the Genesis Rabbah is this mentioned?--64.79.177.254 (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Genesis Rabbah