National Catholic Register has a slightly older article available through a link on their site, "Was Lilith Edited out of the Bible?", about at least one suggested case of a topic deliberately removed from the book or never allowed entrance. One of the staff writers, which, if you think about it, are essentially flaks being allowed to interpret the Bible and make money out of the deal, commented in a particularly questionable, if not illegitimate, manner. I tried to place a comment but, likely because I had the word "truth" in it, they labeled it "spam" and said it needed to be examined by moderators. Apparently to see if it knocked the scaffolding out from under the hack they pay to air his delusions as the Word of God and get paid for it! After three hours, the item was not placed. I am posting it here, now, so at least it will be seen.
Whatever the reason many may be looking more at stories such as Lilith, its being left out of the Bible as a legend is a subject of immense complication and significance. George Washington and the cherry tree and certain manifestations of the story of Babe Ruth and the kid are regularly touted, but not necessarily wholly true, if true at all. Bunker Hill was really Breed's Jill, San Juan Hill was actually Kettle Hill. And Paul Revere wasn't alone warning the Colonists of the approach of the English. It's very obvious that much of history has been edited, and the question can be put about the book that's supposed to be more honorable than any history, the Bible. Bunker Hill was taught for generations, not because it was true but because it was there! Lilith was not tuaght, because it wasn't there. In a novel, a protagonist can receive a letter and rush out to confront the letter writer. It's not necessarily the case whether the protagonist bandaged a paper cut before doing so. As it is often described, it "doesn't advance the action". Much is the same with sanitized or altered history, certain facts don't promote the propaganda the history is there to maintain. The Civil War was because the North wanted to artificially impede Southern states from cobbling their own trade pacts with other nations, and many of the complaints Germany had with their treatment after World War I, which led to the rise in popularity of the Nazis, were valid! The events not mentioned in a novel didn't necessarily exist, the real causes of the Crusades did! Certainly, there isn't anything in the story of Lilth that promotes the overall import of the Bible, but, by the same token, there isn't anything about the Apostle Mark tripping over a stone that would do that, either. It is asserted that Lilith didn't exist, but did the Apostle Mark never trip over a stone? Did something never exist simply because, for other reasons, it was never included in a book? Mark Shea's answer is more in line with Lilith not being included simply because what those who decided what the Bible should say decided not to include it. A family album might not contain a picture of someone's weight gain or bad haircut, but does that mean they didn't exist? Isn't truth more valuable in the Bible than providing a united front? After this statement, that the Bible is concocted only to reflect positive aspects and not note what may be negative characteristics of its tradition, how can anyone trust it every again?
My fried compatriot, I think we share the same ideas but you put yours in such an orderly line of logic that I'm unable to fathom how to alter anything to say anything about the subject that you haven't already covered.
I do want to mention that if the Bible had been written by yours truly I would have put something in it about the Americas and Australia, because those animals who lived there had to get on the Ark somehow. This issue, how the animals from the Americas and Australia got to the Middle East to get on the Ark has always worried me, because I feel these animals were treated unfairly, being forced to travel such long distances to board the vessel which would take them to salvation. Otherwise, they would have drowned.
I can't say much about the arguments regarding Lilith because I wasn't there when the Bible contents were picked by such wise and holy men, who evidently were inspired by God and the angels to make sure the holy book's contents were properly balanced and accounted for the main parts of the story they wanted to tell. It bothers me to see the book is missing the part about the clones and how the sun is powered by nuclear fusion, but I realize it's not possible to take some papyrus and then turn it into a Manual for the Universe, including the parts we don't even see like where the angels roam and Jesus sits next to the Father.
marx was wrong