Why did they cover their nakedness?

I think the key would be to pull your head out altogether.Then instead of blaming the Creator of Adam and Eve for the problems they had after they went against His instructions you might reconsider.Was it like God didn't warn them that negative things would happen if they ate of the true of the knowlegdge of good and evil?It seems that you are just continuing the blame game that they embarked on to hold everybody ELSE at fault for their disobedience. Still passing the buck?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I don't think this is the case. Adam gave names to maybe thousands of animals. The names were significant and discrptive of the nature of each creature. This is hardly the feat of a four year old. His reasoning power was far superior to ours today. And his managerial power must have been tremendous to care for the vast garden of God.Neither do I think he was incampable of determining what was right and wrong. He got that directly from God's commands. His directions came from direct communion with God.In a sense God was his conscience. The commands of God was the good that he had to perform.Upon eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he broke away into independence from God -seemingly. Actually he came under the authroity of the enemy of God. Since God the Creator knew that this was a potentiality, He created a conscience in man which must have become activated at that time. The human conscience that God created in man was a kind of internal break system.The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a tree with a deceptive advertized purpose. It was actually a tree of DEATH. To eat of it was to DIE.It seemed tempting to promise independence from God. But in reality this independence led to slavery to Satan and to death. Once man broke away from the direct communication from God to obtain the good that he must do, the God created human conscience kicked in. A new era of human history commenced. Man was then to live by the human conscience.However, what man had was only the knowledge of good and evil in his conscience. He did not possess the power to always resist the evil. Nor did he longer possess the power to perform the good. He had only the knowledge but was weak in life and power to carry out the good that he knows or resist the evil that he knows.Under the deceptive advertizement of this contrary source to the will of God, man became a slave to sin and death. Man was Satanified - joined to Satan the enemy of God and brought under the authority of darkness.The rest of the Bible is the story of God's ongoin salvation to bring man back to God and the eternal purpose of God.So we may regard Adam as as innocent as a four year old at first but certainly not mentally immature. He and his wife Eve were perfect specimen - pristine and superlatively created human beings.Probably the degree to which we have fallen from this state is beyond our imaginations.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Calm down. You just need to pick up a good Surge Protector from Radio Shack. I guess something you said about "four year old" triggered that response. Maybe my answer was misaimed a bit. Thanks. That bad ?!I'll get back to you latter when I consider how best to respond.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Your question is not an easy one for me. But I will express some of my thoughts on the matter. Much of this is based on what I have also learned from other wise and experienced teachers of the Bible."And out of the ground Jehovah God caused to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, as well as the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowedge of good and evil." (Gen. 2:9)"And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of it you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:17)God's first commandment to man concerned eating rather than conduct. Man's outcome and destiny is a matter of eating. It is a matter of what man takes into himself. To eat is to take something not you and outside of you and bring it into you for digestion, assimilation, and dispersment of its essence into your being which has ingested it.Man's destiny here is dependent upon what he eats. In a strong sense man will become what he eats. What he eats will become a part of the constituent of his being.The two major trees mentioned in Genesis are opposed to one another. This putting of two opposing trees in the garden, one divinely forbidden, shows:God's greatness in giving man a free will that man may choose God willingly and not by coercion. There is a choice that man can make out of the freedom of his will to willingly choose God Himself as Divine Life.It is not easy to see that the tree of life represents God's own divine life just from reading Genesis. But by considering the entire Bible it is easier to see that this must be the meaning of the tree of life. It represents taking into man's created vessel the uncreated eternal and divine life and nature of God so that God and man become one. God would get into the fabric of man's whole being and constitute man a deified God-Man.Then what does the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represent?One difficulty in ascertaining this is that it seems to possess somthing of an attribute of God. As you well pointed out once man took of it God said "The man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever ..." (Gen 3:22)The result seems so good, so noble. Man will gain something of an attribute of God - to know good and evil. Why not?Logically I reason:1.) The tree was forbidden by God's command.How can they take an attribute of God and at the same time reject God's will? Can man "steal" an attribute of God's being and reject God in doing so?2.) The tree was actually good for the bringing of death.The fruit of the tree was not to the blessing of man. It was to the termination of man. It would bring death. It would bring the end of man's creation.To eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil man had to disobey God, reject God's authnority, ignore God's word, go against God's will, attempt to steal something that God alone has by nature of Who He is.Now this has to be a brief post. I do not pretend that it answers all questions. Neither do I assume that I either completely understand Genesis three or am able to completely explain it.It has to be taken in context of the whole rest of the Bible and especially the New Testament revelation of the gift of eternal life through the God/Man Jesus Christ.The tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents the Satanic being. To eat of it was for man to take into himself the Satanic being who has the authority of death. He is in a dynamic withdrawal from God and all that He is - migrating, callapsing into a realm of death, decay, vanity, chaos, independence from God as the Source of all well being and blessing and life.In light of the whole Bible:To take in the tree of life was to take God's life into man that man and God could be united, mingled, blended, interwoven, and incorporated within one another.To take in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was to take in Satan and to be infested with the Satanic nature of a cosmic parasite in rebellion against God, seeking to overthrow God, seeking to withdraw from God's authority and kingdom to oppose God and usurp God's ways to be in a condition of Anti God and anti - kingdom of God.I know that right here at this point many will object. The main objection is "This is the Hebrew Bible. Keep Satan out of it. That is a Christian concept."Be that as it may, this is what I think is the significance in the divine revelation of the Bible as to these two trees.Now to your specific question. Yes, Satan was like God being the highest of God's creatures. So to take Satan in was to take in an attribute of God which the rebel and revolter corrupted and used to oppose God."The man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil ..."If you would only think about it, I think you will see that this makes sense. The first fall of man away from God was not concerning murder, cheating, adultery, or stealing. It was not a tree of stealing. It was not a tree of gambling. It seemed so noble - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.This indicates a creature who has gone another way. There is God's way. And there came into existence at some point another way. This knowledge of good and evil is terrible and horrible because it represents the other way. That is the other way besides God's way.No matter how good it sounds, no matter how lofty it appears, no matter how nobly packaged or identified, the way not the way of God is a way of death, darkness, tragedy, chaos, and corruption.Now having said that I will give you my opinion on how this matter MAY have developed. Let me draw a line between these two sections
==================================================================
==========================================================MAYBE .... maybe this is how this backround of Genesis 3 came about. It is somewhat like the book of Job. In Job you have a man Job in the middle and God and Satan on either side having a kind of contest. Satan and God seem to have an agreement and a test to see what Job the man will do.It could be that God said, Okay enemy, I will put a new creature Man on the earth. I will put two trees in his garden. One will be a tree of life - My tree. The other will be a tree of death - your tree.Satan responds, (much like he also responded in the book of Job) " Oh no no. Do not call it a tree of Death. Call it something nice, something attractive, something like the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."Then perhaps God said "Okay, I will call it the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But I will warn man that to eat it WILL BRING DEATH."So a triangular situation was established with God on one side, Satan on the other side, and man in the middle with his free will. The future of the creation is enfluenced by which path the created man takes - either to obey God and partake of every blessing including the divine life of God embodied in the tree of life, or to disobey God and take the forbidden fruit of the tree of DEATH (aka the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).Now this explanation below the line, comparing the backround of Genesis three to that of the book of Job, is how I feel today. I could be wrong. It is speculation on my part. And it is given to show why I believe that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was advertized falsly towards man. God must have permitted this. But He also strictly warned man of the true consquences of taking it. He would surely DIE.One has to ask oneself , WHY was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil there at all? Who was it for? For WHOSE food was it? It wasn't there for Adam and Eve. They were forbidden to eat of it.Then for who was it? Did God need to eat of it? That makes little sense. God neither needs to obtain life from a tree of life or obtain knowledge of good and evil from a tree of knowledge.If the tree is there and for no one, it is probably Satan's tree. OF course all things are ultimately under God's providence so it says:And out of the ground of the ground Jehovah God caused to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil .... And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of it you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." The whole realm of creation was God's kingdom under God's authority. One place however was a gateway OUT of God's kingdom and into the Satanic kingdom. And the serpent was the gatekeeper. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

TAZ, Your tone is like you want to play hardball. So I'll play hardball with you then. I already told you something like, Adam had his vital knowledge directly from God's command. What good he had to do and what bad he had to avoid was known to him, directly from the command of God.If you want to develop a philosophy that Adam should have only understood the command not to eat the tree AFTER he ate from the tree, I'm not interested. I'm glad you got on the second "painful" reading what I already wrote in a previous post. This is repetition. I'll repeat it again. Though you said you read through more than once, I'm not sure you understand.Adam had his directions what good to do directly from God. He had his command what not to do directly from God. Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That is the knowledge that he had and needed. To eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would be the cause of his death.Do you have that?I find that your understanding of the Bible here is very superfiscial. First of all the warning was of DEATH. You are only focusing on punishment.Say you have a child and you tell that child not to drink a certain bottle because it is poison. If that child disregards your command and drinks, then the child has two problems.1.) Poison has gotten into the child2.) The child has trangressed your command.You ask: I am here for a in depth study of the Bible. If you're just here to bolster up an accusation against God, you probably need to talk with someone else.To drink in poison is punishment enough. It is stupid for you to blame God for punishing Adam when it is the DEATH that he has taken in against God's warning of love, which itself is "punishing" him.How dense can you get?On that point you should get it. The death itself that God warned him about is punishment enough. What's the matter with you?And while you're spending so much time to meditate on how superior you are to God, the same principle that God used to discipline Adam's descendents He also used to justify them.Through ONE man all men were constituted dying sinners. And also through ONE man Jesus Christ God is constituting all believers justified and restored to a right relationship with God and eternal life.There is not just one sinning Adam in the Bible. There is the second man, the last Adam whose act of righteousness justifies millions freely. You can read about that in Paul's Roman epistle chapter five.But no, I guess that's too many words for you to read about. How much more convenient to join in an pass blame of on God for the wrong choice of Adam's free will.Adam pass on the blame on his wife. The wife passed on the blame on to the serpent. And you Johnny Come Lately think you're real smart to pass on the blame to the "poor parent" God.How come your so dense that you can't see that taking DEATH into a man after being warned not to, is bringing punishment onto oneself?And how come you don't give equal time to study the plan of salvation unveiled in the whole rest of the Bible. The Bible didn't end with Genesis chapter three you know?Too many words for you. That's all. Not that there is not more to speak of. But that's all I'll write in this post since you want to make light of my labors and time spent.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I raised two children who are now adults in their twenties.
Plus we are foster parenting four children right now, two toddlers and two elementary age girls.Any more perceptive assumptions ? Was your nephew born before the fall of Adam or after?If your nephew was born after the fall of Adam as a descendent of fallen mankind, that would help explain his tendency to react to your law adversely, on general principle.Your nephew is a typical sinner who needs salvation in Christ. You very much want to change this into a discussion of child psychology don't you?Maybe you can take it up with someone else. I don't think that child psychology, either before the fall of man or after the fall of man, is the real key to understanding Genesis three. There is a line in the sand that Adam crossed when he ate of the fruit that was forbidden to him.All I know is that on the obedient side of the line, he was innocent. He could look at the tree, sing about the tree, dream about the tree, talk about the tree, he could do whatever he wished - and he was still innocent.Once he crossed the line and ATE of the tree, before God he was no longer innocent. That's the way the story goes.Your philospphy that Adam should not have had the knowledge to obey God until AFTER he disobeyed God and ate of the tree that would give him that knowledge is mildly interesting, being somewhat circular.But things didn't happen the way you imagine they logically should have happened. Whatever you want to say about Adam, as long as he was on the obedient side of the command to not eat of the fruit, he was innocent.At any rate God is the Creator who designed the human conscience and human intellect in babies, children, teenagers and adults. So I don't think God needs to sit at my feet and learn a thing or two about child psychology either from Charles Dobson or Dr. Spock. He's the Creator.This is how His word relates to us that first human parents went off. Do I understand exhaustively everything about the account? No I don't. I think I have the basics of it. You're really acting dumb to assume that I never raised children. On this side of the fall of man we are making assumptions about a state of the human personality which we have never known.I don't know HOW Much Adam understood. You're theory of God = not as good a parent as ME! I think is kind of dumb and an extension of the "pass the blame - take no responsibility" attitude of the world's first sinning human beings. "Kids" on which side of the fall of man?Any "kids" you claim to be expert in as to behavior are the fallen "kids" who are descendents of Adam.On the obedient side of the line Adam was innocent. Once he crossed the line and disobeyed and ate, he was no longer innocent.I see absolutely nothing wrong with God's plan for the creation of the first human being. He was not created guilty. He was not created a sinner. He was created as a pristinely designed human being who had only ONE clear instruction given to his free will. "Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you do you will surely die."Now he's dying and you come to blame God for not being as good a baby sitter as you. Give me a break. We have never known what it was like to be a perfectly created human being directly from God with a simple instruction from God concerning ONE matter.I don't think you can look through our perspective AFTER this damaging fall has happened to the human race and expect to be an expert on what an unfallen human should have behaved.You boasted about being a literalist. Do you mean you are a literalist as long as you can accumulate good arguments against God?Do you mean that you are a literalist as long as it serves your purpose to blame God, undermind God, accuse God, charge God with poor babysitting or parenting skills? You mean you're a literalist as long as it serves your purpose to accumulate debates against Christians?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Bye.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I prefaced my little talk about Satan desireing to call the tree of death something more positive, with saying I could be wrong and that this was my imagination of a possibility.Question is WHO warned man ACCURATELY of the results of eating the tree ?I mean it was God who called the tree whatever it was called. But He told them what WOULD happen if they ate - DEATH. Therefore there was on deception.Compare that now with how the serpent spoke of the tree - "You will not surely die ..." You're gleeful accusation falls flat on its face. Not clever.Yes, God DID speak of the tree by name. However, He warned them what would happen.Anyway you cut it the responsibiity is Adam's for eating the tree that brought him into death. Man is still trying to make excuses. Man is still trying to blame God for his own wrong choice.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Without me going back to read through many posts, yes I did say that. Then I gave a little talk about what I imagined may have been the case. I compared Genesis three with the book of Job. And I said perhaps the name "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" was euphamistic name suggested by God's enemy.I was very careful to specify that this was only my speculative imagination. Do you recall me writing that?So if you want to hold my feet to the fire then let's discard that excusion altogether.To be fair we are only told that God told man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We are not told where its name came from.Okay. It is first called that by God. I concede that. That is all the text says. To repeat: Okay. It is first called that by God. I concede that. That is all the text says. Are we in agreement at this point? Why not? This is really another argument that you are embarking on. This is the issue of how should we interperet the phrase "in the day". Should we take that to mean within 24 hours.It is also a matter of what is "die"? Does that mean that a process commences the climax of which is the failure of the heart to beat anymore?I think you are raising two objections:1.) Was God truthful to say "in the day".2.) Was God truthful to say "in the day you eat of it you shall surely die."Linking these objections into my previous statements, I think your position is that if these two statements were not true then God did not accurately warn them about the true nature of the tree.Is that a fair representation of your argument? This is a good point. After eating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God did actually say that they had become like one of Us.I have noticed that for a long time. So that particular part of the nature of the tree was true. If I said or implied that that portion of the nature of the tree was not true that would have been an error.You know the most dangerous kind of lie is the lie with an element of truth in it. It was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil regardless of Who named it. I deal with it by laughing and shaking my head at your twisting of the Bible.Now let's see what the text says: And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die!Did they surely die? Or did they NOT surely die?They surely DID die. The serpent lied by saying "You shall not surely die!" Now you deal with it.Notice the serpent did NOT say "You shall not surely die [TODAY]!" The serpent merely said "You shall not surely die!" PERIOD. Did they die or did they not die?Now we come to this advertizing bit. I conceded that we are only told that God called the tree what it was. However contrast the serpent's advertizing with God's truth in advertizing:Jehovah God:"And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of it you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:16)The Serpent:"You shall not surely die! For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will become like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen.3:4b,5)Eve:"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make [oneself] wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate."If you had been in the place of Eve, would you have reasoned as she did? Would you have said to yourself:"Well, God must be lying. This tree will not cause me to die. Rather it will bestow upon me the knowledge of good and evil and I will be like God.God's heart is not good towards me. God is trying to restrict me by scaring me that I will die. But this serpent here has said that I will not surely die."I think your attempt to make an issue of a technicality that they did not die on that particular afternoon is at best a flimsy tissue excuse to boast that the serpent told the truth.You probably do not do well with salespeople.Would you reason " Well, we won't die today. Maybe we'll die some other day. Big deal. Nobody lives forever. We have to die sometime. So why don't we just eat and get the benefit today and forget about the death part?"Is this how you would have reasoned?God spoke the truth. The serpent did what he has been doing ever since. Took part of the truth and hid within its a lie.Yes they did become as God knowing good and evil. God did not say that they would not gain the knowledge of good and evil. God said that they would surely die in the day they ate of it. So concerning gaining the knowledge there was no contradiction.Concerning dying there was. The serpent lied and God spoke the truth.Now to your little technicality: "But, THEY DIDN"T DIE ON THAT DAY! Gotcha!!"Two objections I have to this argument:1.) Look up all the possible meanings of the Hebrew word translated into our English "day" in that passage.In my Chaldee / Hebrew dictionary to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance that word translated "day" needs to be considered sometimes in the context of how it is used.When the Bible says. There was evening and there was morning - one day. The context and usage is pretty clear that a solar day as we know it is to be understood.Now you also have the same word used Genesis 5:2 speaking of the heavens and the earth "in the day when they were created". Now which day would that be? We were just told that in six days God made the heavens and the earth.According to the dictionary these words also may be indicated by that word YOME - season, age, space of time defined by an associated word, process of time, while, time, even full year.Check under Entry 3117 - YOWM inth Hebrew Chaldee Dictionary section of Strong's Exhuastive Concordance.So my first objection is that we might not be able to insist that the solar day is intended in Genesis 2:17.My second objection is that even if it DID mean a solar day, there is plenty of biblical confirmation that God regards the sinner as dead spiritually - "Let the dead bury their own dead" or "dead in offenses and sins"To you this may be no big deal. But to God it is a big deal. This is the beginning of the process of death which commences in spiritual separation and which culminates in physical expiration.The footnote of the Recovery Version on Gen. 2:17 reads: At any rate Adam did surely die. And the serpent had specifically said that they would not.The serpent lied. And I think you should be careful of some used car lots. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Concerning the use of the word YOWM in Genesis chapters 1 thru 3, did I contradict myself? In the seven places where it mentions the evening and the morning I said the context is pretty clear that a solar day is intended.Concerning "in the day" they eat of it they will surely die, to me it is less certain. My favorite English translation has a footenote which takes it to be the same solar day.That works fine with me. I just said that it is not as certain as the deliniaton of an evening and a morning expression.So I could take it either way. There is no twisting in that.The Bible says that kings came and brought three gifts to the baby Jesus (Matthew 2:1-11). It does not say it was three kings. Yet traditionally most nativity stories always depict three kings coming to the child with three gifts. Strictly speaking it could have been four kings with three gifts or eight kings with three gifts or even twenty kings with three gifts.The number of gifts is mentioned - "they offered gifts to Him, gold and frankincense and myrrh". The number of kings is not specifically mentioned but only three gifts. So I could take it as three kings or perhaps even only two kings. All I really know is the more than one king from the East brought [b]"gold and francinscense and myhrr"{/b.There is no twisting of the passage if two, three, or four or more kings actually came. It was more than one. To insist that only one king came would be twisting.I think the case is the same in Genesis 2:17 or 3:5. I am not twisting anything if either a solar day was meant to the writer or another acceptable usage of YOWN.My fovorite English translations does go with the same solar day. And whether you agree with my discussion of the meaning of to die is, the eyes of the couple do appear to be opened immediately." ... and she also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked .." (3:7)I always imagine that to be immediately. Perhaps that is the context that the RcV resorts to to hold that 2:17 meant solar day.From the moment that they ate of the fruit death in all its meanings - spirit, soul, body was their inescapable destiny. "Surely die" commenced from that moment. Their hearts did not stop beating on that solar day.Does this fact vindicate the serpent and render God the liar and villian of the account? Those who insist it does are the ones who are twisting.Paul says of all sinners "And you, though dead in your offenses and sins" (Eph.2:1)

​

"And you, though dead in your offenses ... He made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our offenses ..." (Col. 2:13)

​

"Truly, truly, I say to you, An hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live." (John 5:25)Did you understand that? The dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. Apparently some of the dead will hear and believe and others of the dead will hear and not believe. They effectively will not receive. Both the receiving and the rejecting are the dead.You may say that this kind of spiritual death is not important. But to God the Creator in Genesis it was very important. And to Adam and Eve it was very important. Their separation and loss of intimate fellowship with God from the moment of their disobedience was the beginning of their sorrows and calamity.And they not only spiritually were dead in offenses and sins, but eventually the death spread into their whole being and their lungs stopped breathing and their hearts stopped beating some years latter.Don't tell me that God did not warn them - "you shall surely die"Don't tell me that the good news that they should have listened to was from the serpent "You will not surely die"But to those who want to say "Naughty God" and make the Devil the hero for telling the truth against God's alledged lie, I have no further argument for. Only this: At best, the "Naughty God" theory is just an impudent display of someone's cleverness to vindicate the serpent and condemn God in Genesis. This is the typical kind of supposedly "clever" twist we usually hear from atheists. Where did I ever write that I did not believe that the trees mentioned were not actual trees? Then you read it and pray over it and see how the Holy Spirit impresses you with the proper interpretation and even more application.Taking no position is always the easy postion to defend. When you take no stand you can valiantly fight off anyone's interpretation forever.Big deal. Thanks for your opinion. I respect it as your thoughtful conclusion.I only would add that a number of times real phuysical things in the Bible also had symbolic meanings that were quite seriously associated with them.So the either / or, actual verses allegorical trees, I think is an unnecessary false dichotomy in some instances in the Bible. It reads to me as actual trees with serious spiritual symbolism associated with them.This could be compared to physical object like - the ark of the covenant or the brass serpent the Pascal Lamb or even Noah's ark.I have never said that the trees were not real physical trees. I said that the two real trees had also allegorical meanings assigned to them.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Of course sexual activity was expected. Sex was made enjoyable and beautiful in its God ordained proper context - marriage.I don't not have much of an answer for the "shame of nakedness" problem which I tend to interpret is a much broader way than you probably want to hear.However, it could be that upon eating the fruit they had a noticable shortage of self control. Imagine, if possible, a man and a woman with perfect self control. Then they find that passions and lust of all kinds are driving them.The intrance of the lack of self control may have been a factor to their sense of shame before each other. Agreed. I have acknolwedged this. And there is nothing else much in the whole Bible to suggest that sex in and of itself is bad. Some passage in Revelation 14 might be an arguable exception. Yes, yes. We agree that marriage, sex, reproduction were all a part of God's good creation. At this stage I don't have a lot to write. What I would like to write about this you might not find useful because it goes a little deeper than simply the obvious.But I thinnk that there is something we have to understand about this story. Man had two problems once he ate of the fruit.1.) He transgressed God's commmand and commited a rebellious act of sin.2.) He got into his body a foreign element. He was poisoned. He was polluted. He was infected. He was infested. Something alien entered into his body.I do not know the chemical make up of what that was. I don't know that much. And I tend to think that this "poisoning" went very very deep into man's being.Now for a long time as a Bible reader I did not beiieve this way. Eventually though, by examining Paul's exposition of Adam's fall and of mankind's struggle against the sin nature, I concluded that SOMETHING foriegn and alien must have entered into man when the fruit of that tree entered into man.The shame may have been due to the fact that they felt a loss of self control. Now they lusted. Now they were driven and under compulsion to do many things.The think which you must understand is that the knowledge of good and evil did not give them the POWER to DO the good or to RESIST the evil. It was an awakening of knowledge.Romans chapter 7 diagnosis the situation of the fallen humanity. We KNOW what is good. We often are not able to carry out the good that we know. We know what is the evil. We often are not ABLE to resist the evil that we know.Man gained a knowledge of good and evil. Man is very proud of the knowledge. But in most cases it is only knowledge. Man does not always have the power of life to perform the good that he knows. Man does not always possess the power of life to resist the evil he knows he should resist.I think their shame may have come about from an acute awareness of the lost of self control. It could be as G.H. Pember argues that they had a kind of light emanating from within which served as a cover. I do not know if this is correct. I see some ground for it. But it is an opinion that I am not sure of.Pember's point is that they had a covering of somekind. And when they sinned this light covering of some kind deemedd and extinguished and they noticed their nakedness.I do not know if you should believe this. But consider it as one view.I think that this kind of understanding requires spiritual experience of a deeper sort. This is often the way the Bible is as God's word. When you have a little light, you walk in that light. You let it effect the way you live. You draw closer to God.Then as a result of your obedience, more light is given. More insight is given when God sees us walking in the insight that He has allowed us.I am immature to the point that I do not have much insight into this aspect of the story. But I will do some studying and return to the discussion to try to help both of us.What I see at this point is that lusts, greedy unbridled passions, compulsion may have set in and caused them to lose self control. And this lack of self control over unbrideled greedy lust may have caused them to feel ashamed.I must stop here and continue latter. I want to think and study on it a bit more. I hope what I did submit is of some help.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Yes. As far as Adam and Eve are concerned it seems that they were married as soon as Eve came into existence and was brought to the man. God joined them in marriage. There is no demand that the ceremony be complicated or long.According to different cultures perhaps there is probably great latitude on what constitutes a marriage ceremony. This was in the age befofe human government. Man was ruled from his awakened conscience.Human government came in after the flood of Noah. Before was a kind of anarchy of the human conscience. And I do not use anarchy in a particularly negative way. However the situation became negative eventually just before the flood of Noah.Human government complicated the matter of marriages.If the thrust of your questions is "How married can we be?" I would not persue endlessly debates on that matter. In general as a Christian living not under the law of Moses but under the grace of Christ in sensitivity to the Holy Spirit I am exhorted -"For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; That each one of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and in honor, not in the passion of lust, like the Gentiles, who do not know God; ... For God has not called us to uncleaness but in sanctification. Consequently, he who rejects, rejects not man but God, who also gives His Holy Spirit to you." (1 Thess. 4:3-8) "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and the bed undefiled, for fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Heb.13:4)The moral degradation that began to overtake man after the fall is discribed in the following chapters. This passage concerning Lamech a descendent of Cain:" And Lamech took two wives for himself ..." (Gen. 4:19)This reveals unbridled greediness of men to have multiple wives began to corrupt the intention for a man to be joined to his wife, rather than to his wives as in plural. I think it is certain that marriage is understood by cultures all over the world, East and West. Differences is ceremonial practices make it a broad area of research.I will not be getting into the anthropological or socialogical aspects of marriage ceremonies around the world.Apparently with Adam and Eve they were married virtually as soon as Eve was built from his rib and brought to him. Virtually she became his wife and he her husband as soon as she was brought to Adam.The phrase "the man and his wife" I take to mean they were immediatly joined in marriage. Of course there was no one else around for them to be married to except each other.I only added a little comment about sex within marriage because I did not want to give the impression that God blesses fornication or adultery.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think I have to be fair to the poster, however, to add that the poster did seem to commmit to an opinion, if I understood him or her rightly.But thanks.

I do not fully understand this.Their conscience came into function. Though it was created in them it had not come into function the bear the responsibility to refuse evil and accept good. The human conscience activated at the time Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.The conscience being now activated they were ashamed of their nakedness. From that moment the human conscience began to bear the responsibility to refuse evil and choose good.We know that before this time they were not ashamed to be naked before each other:"And both the man and his wife were naked and were not ashamed before each other." (Gen.1:25)I do not understand everything about this. Perhaps they also suddenly lost self control and involuntary lusts were manifested within them.I don't think it had anything to do with having relations with any other creature. It is a good point.Sin ruined nearly everything. I never gave this or give it a moment's time of serious consideration. The Bible should have told us so if this complication was involved. It did not.Ephesians 2:1-3 may shed some light on this:"And you, though dead in your offenses and sins, (v.1)

​

In which you once walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, of the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience; (v.2)

​

Among whom we also all conducted ourselves once in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as the rest ... (v.3)Death is mentioned here in relation to sinning. This reminds me of God telling Adam and Eve that they would surely die if they ate of the forbidden tree.The evil Satanic spirit operating in man should correspond to the sinful nature being injected into man upon his eating. It began to operate in the fallen man. And the head of its operation is the Satanic authority in the air.The lusts of the flesh and the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts seem not to relate to legitimate human functions, but rather rampant loss of self control.Perhaps, the inslaught of lustful compulsions contributed to thier sense of shame. The loss of balance, mutuality, harmony perhaps made them ashamed. The sacredness of their association may have been damaged.Things like this I usually put on the "back burner," so to speak, until I have deeper spiritual experience. The Lord God will lead us into deeper understanding if we walk in the light of what He had already shown us.Deeper understanding of the revelation of God's word comes from obedience. Curiosity alone does not always help. We can learn from others who have deeper experience with God. But sometimes what they say is incongruous with us because we simply do not have the experience.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

When Adam and his wife were confronted by God about thier disobedience, these questions were asked by God."And He [God] said, Who told you that you are naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I told you not to eat?" (Gen.3:11)"Who told you ...?.I have been thinking about this question. God certainly did not tell them. So who told them?Did the tree tell them? Nothing is said about the tree being able to speak. The question was not WHAT told you? but WHO told you ...?If it was the case that Eve told Adam then we have to ask WHO told Eve? Did they tell each other? Who told them that they were naked then so that they could tell each other?Can anyone tell me WHO told them that they were naked?
Adam seem never to answer that specific question.Whose the WHO? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.