This is a more appropriate thread for this discussion.
From
Message 305 in the "Prisoner of Sin" Thread.
If that were so, then why did A&E decide that their nakedness was bad?
God did not see it that way. That does not sound like they had the same knowledge as God.
My response in
Message 311:
Because then they knew right from wrong. This is what happens when we over analyze a story.
God is the author of right and wrong according to you, so you tell me why he allowed them to run around naked. You've been shown the scripture where God said they knew what he knew about good and evil. Stop changing the story!
Once Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, according to the story they had the knowledge of good and evil. The idea is that the fruit imparted that wisdom. (I know you don't agree with magic fruit). Since this story was probably written roughly 3,000 years ago the moral customs of the author's culture would have been reflected. For example, if it had been written in the equator region, nakedness probably wouldn't have been an issue. Of course we also have to look at what the Hebrews meant by nakedness. Sometimes that was a
euphemism for sexual organs.
No classic word for the male genital organ exists. Gid (sinew), shafkha (spout) and keshet (bow) appear in the Bible. Later Hebrew also uses ‘limb,’ ‘arm,’ and ‘nakedness.’ No biblical word for the female genitalia exists; kava (stomach) is used. Some later usage is ‘that place’ and ‘nakedness.’
These types of writings aren't meant to address everything. They have a certain lesson or point to make. IOW, why God allowed them to run around naked when he knew that being naked was unaccpetable is irrelevant to the story.
Overanalyzing might be a good exercise for imagination, but doesn't necessarily improve on the point of the story.
It's also not a wise way to build doctrine.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz