Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2018 9:52 AM
249 online now:
Coragyps, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx (5 members, 244 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,431 Year: 10,254/29,783 Month: 918/1,583 Week: 387/291 Day: 36/59 Hour: 6/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456Next
Author Topic:   Why did they cover their nakedness?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1476 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 1 of 81 (467525)
05-22-2008 4:56 AM


Rrhain has just made a comment that made me realise there's something I've never questioned before. Why did Adam and Eve feel the need to cover their sexual organs upon realising that they were naked? From where did this specific sense of shame come? Why did they not cover their noses? This obviously makes complete sense when Genesis is regarded as the just-so story of the Jewish oral tradition. But if it is regarded as literal truth??? Anyone? Anyone?

Faith and Belief?

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by iano, posted 05-22-2008 10:24 AM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 4 by AZPaul3, posted 05-22-2008 10:29 AM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 05-23-2008 7:31 AM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 05-23-2008 11:47 AM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2008 6:43 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Libmr2bs, posted 06-19-2008 11:14 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 01-01-2009 8:50 AM cavediver has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12555
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 81 (467544)
05-22-2008 8:55 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
iano
Member (Idle past 1015 days)
Posts: 6164
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 3 of 81 (467549)
05-22-2008 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
05-22-2008 4:56 AM


Why did Adam and Eve feel the need to cover their sexual organs upon realising that they were naked?

As far as I can see, the text isn't specific about what they covered. Only that they were naked. And hid because of it. And had their nakedness covered by God


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 05-22-2008 4:56 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Straggler, posted 05-22-2008 11:28 AM iano has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3456
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 4 of 81 (467550)
05-22-2008 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
05-22-2008 4:56 AM


A number of years ago in the troughs of a pharmaceutically enhanced religious epiphany I actually divined the answer to this.

That was one powerful apple Eve presented. With the first bite Adam’s eyes grew wide with awareness as he gazed upon the naked Eve. He tried to swallow but the bite of apple got stuck in his throat. He was only saved when he realized the utility of this beautiful naked creature and gasped in anticipation lodging the piece of apple firmly in his neck away from his esophagus.

As she stood before him seeing his obvious state of erection Eve pointed and giggled, “Oh! A little dinky!”

Not just embarrassed but mortified Adam grabbed the nearest thing to cover himself. A fig leaf is really not much of a garment but it did the trick which means, of course, that Eve’s observation was pretty much correct. Still, with Eve standing there with those voluptuous curves, pert nipples and little golden patch of hair barely covering her parting labia majora Adam was in a bad way and had Eve cover herself as well.

The rest is history.

Edited by AZPaul3, : Stupid syntax clarification.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 05-22-2008 4:56 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 5 of 81 (467556)
05-22-2008 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by iano
05-22-2008 10:24 AM


Aprons?
The version I read used the term 'aprons'. To me this suggests an armless and legless garment covering the torso and sexual organs(both primary and secondary in the case of women) of both Adam and Eve.

Are you suggesting that they were ashamed of their bellies? (Which incidentally would logically not have had belly buttons - what a weird thought!)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by iano, posted 05-22-2008 10:24 AM iano has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17413
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 6 of 81 (467665)
05-23-2008 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
05-22-2008 4:56 AM


In my own interpretation, the text presents a small, additional puzzle. After God creates Adam but before he creates Eve, God gives Adam the key instructions:

Genesis 2:15-17 writes:

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

So Eve never hears the instruction about the forbidden fruit. So how is Eve able to answer the serpent in this way:

Genesis 2:2-3 writes:

The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"

How did Eve not only know what God said, but is able to quote him? Adam could have told her, but she quoted God as if you had heard the words herself.

That little quibble aside, my own interpretation of why Adam and Eve covered themselves after eating of the fruit is that at least part of the knowledge they gained was that either nakedness or sexual organs or both are evil.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 05-22-2008 4:56 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 05-23-2008 11:41 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1124 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 7 of 81 (467693)
05-23-2008 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
05-23-2008 7:31 AM


I'm going to use Star Trek Voyager to respond to this bit.

Percy writes:

So how is Eve able to answer the serpent in this way:


In one episode, Voyager encounters a Klingon ship carrying a couple hundred religious zealots. They had been traveling for a hundred years in deep space looking for the "promised land". They are the followers of a Klingon prophet a hundred years ago.

When talking in private, the high priest told Janeway that most of the religious texts were very confusing and that it was more likely to have been written by a mad man in a cave somewhere and that because he's been studying those texts all his life he's come to the realization that you could interpret them anyway you want.

The bible was written by a bunch of savages that thought killing every man, woman, and child in a city was just. I've taken enough English lit classes in college to know that you could write hundred page papers on complete bullshit if you're creative enough.

This is one reason why I am against teaching literature in school. English is pretty much the first step toward allowing people to interpret bullshit and delude themselves into thinking there's something to the bullshit when all it is is bullshit. If you don't believe me, just look at how iano, buzsaw, iamjoe, and the various other crackpots whose lives rely entirely on interpreting bullshit.


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 05-23-2008 7:31 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1124 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 8 of 81 (467694)
05-23-2008 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
05-22-2008 4:56 AM


cavediver writes:

Why did Adam and Eve feel the need to cover their sexual organs upon realising that they were naked?


Same reason why you would feel like covering up your penis if you suddenly found yourself naked in front of somebody.

My 4 year old nephew likes to run around nude. That's because he's a little child.

Before "the fall", A&E had the mentality of little children. Probably why they ate the forbidden fruit in the first place. I know that in my nephew's case when he is told not to do something the next thing he does is do just that something.

All the evidence pretty much points to god as an unfit parent. Child services should have taken A&E away from god to prevent permanent psychological harm.


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 05-22-2008 4:56 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by autumnman, posted 05-23-2008 1:48 PM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 10 by jaywill, posted 05-24-2008 12:06 PM Taz has responded

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 2845 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 9 of 81 (467711)
05-23-2008 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taz
05-23-2008 11:47 AM


Fear Not Shame
Why did Adam and Eve feel the need to cover their sexual organs upon realising that they were naked?

To become aware that one is “exposed” {a.k.a. naked} does not necessarily indicate “shame.” The Orthodox translation and interpretation of the “Adam & Eve Myth” is now such an integral part of our psyche that “shame” and the “human genitalia” have become synonymous. However, that is not necessarily what the Hebrew Eden Narrative is conveying.

Attaining the knowledge of what is beneficial and what is harmful {a.k.a. the knowledge of good and evil} would open one’s mind to the “beneficial/good” as well as the “harmful/bad” aspects of one’s reality. That which would pose a threat to one’s existence – what would be regarded as “harmful/bad” – would naturally be most intensely recognized.

In Hebrew lore the “fig-tree” is regarded as a symbol of “security & protection; prosperity & peace.” The Hebrew term for “girdle, belt” is not just used to describe “loin-covering”, it also denotes “a warrior’s belt.” Therefore, “Adam & Eve” can be seen as “girding” themselves with “security & protection” as they become aware of the potentially hostile environment in which they find themselves.

After hearing “thunder” {a.k.a. the voice of God} amidst the “wind” violently rustling through the garden (Gen. 3:8) “Adam & Eve” hide themselves amidst the trees of the garden. God then calls unto “Adam”, “Where are you?” (Gen. 3:9) – as if God does not know where one of His creations is hiding – but this prompts “Adam’s” reply, “I was afraid because I was naked.” This reply defines the context in which the Hebrew term for “naked” is applied; it pertains to “fear”, not “shame”.

The Hebrew term used in Gen. 2:25 {traditionally rendered “naked”} is a completely different word and actually means, “sensible, prudent.”

What do you think?
Ger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 05-23-2008 11:47 AM Taz has not yet responded

    
jaywill
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 10 of 81 (467792)
05-24-2008 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taz
05-23-2008 11:47 AM


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 05-23-2008 11:47 AM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 05-25-2008 2:23 AM jaywill has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1124 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 11 of 81 (467862)
05-25-2008 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by jaywill
05-24-2008 12:06 PM


jaywill writes:

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?


But you're assuming that at the time they even knew what "negative things" were. Remember that we're talking about mere children here.

I have a few nephews and nieces and I can definitely tell you that threatening to do something to them doesn't convince them one bit about the negative impacts of the threat. You actually have to do it to them in order for them to understand the negative things you are speaking of.

A&E didn't know good or evil. They didn't know right from wrong. They were literally little children. And anyone with little kids can tell you that if you tell them to not touch an object and then go away leaving them with the object, they will almost certainly touch the object. That's why we treat them like children.

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?

Remember that they didn't know right from wrong and good from evil. They had no grasp of the concept of negative things. Like I said, any parent can attest to this that if you tell a little child to not touch something and then leave him with the object he will almost certainly touch the object. That's why we treat them like children. They are children.

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?

Let me ask you something. When a little child misbehaves in a public place, do we blame the child or do we blame the parents? Don't even try to play dumb on this one.

God made A&E the way they were. They were incapable of telling the difference between right and wrong. They were incapable of telling the difference between good and evil. They had no concept of "negative things". They literally had the mentality of 4 year olds. That's why we treat 4 year olds the way we treat them. We treat them like children. That's because they are children and incapable of the most basic human reason.

You should read the entire Rama series by Sir Arthur C. Clark. I think I'm the only person in the world to have noticed the parallel Sir Clark tried to draw between A&E and certain characters in the novels. If you are familiar with the series, try to guess who I'm talking about.


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jaywill, posted 05-24-2008 12:06 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jaywill, posted 05-26-2008 8:09 AM Taz has responded
 Message 13 by autumnman, posted 05-26-2008 12:11 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 12 of 81 (467996)
05-26-2008 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Taz
05-25-2008 2:23 AM


God made A&E the way they were. They were incapable of telling the difference between right and wrong. They were incapable of telling the difference between good and evil. They had no concept of "negative things". They literally had the mentality of 4 year olds. That's why we treat 4 year olds the way we treat them. We treat them like children. That's because they are children and incapable of the most basic human reason.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 05-25-2008 2:23 AM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 06-05-2008 1:56 AM jaywill has responded

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 2845 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 13 of 81 (468018)
05-26-2008 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Taz
05-25-2008 2:23 AM


Taz:

But you're assuming that at the time they even knew what "negative things" were. Remember that we're talking about mere children here.

I have a few nephews and nieces and I can definitely tell you that threatening to do something to them doesn't convince them one bit about the negative impacts of the threat. You actually have to do it to them in order for them to understand the negative things you are speaking of.

A&E didn't know good or evil. They didn't know right from wrong. They were literally little children. And anyone with little kids can tell you that if you tell them to not touch an object and then go away leaving them with the object, they will almost certainly touch the object. That's why we treat them like children.

I am in complete agreement with your assessment. Deuteronomy 1:39 – the only place in the entire Heb. Old Testament where the phrase “knowing good and bad” is applied and defined in context – describes those who do not know good and bad as being “toddlers and children.” Since, in the Hebrew Eden Text, it is the “tree in midst the garden” that possesses “the knowledge of good and bad” at the time the two-fold command is issued {Gen. 2:16 & 17} the context of the narrative itself conveys the fact that the human archetype was not in possession of this knowledge at that time.

This, however, poses a considerable contextual dilemma for the Orthodox Bible Believers; they wonder why God would issue a command to an individual who could not comprehend it? If the Hebrew two-fold command of Gen. 2:16 & 17 are translated word for word and studied, this perceived conundrum explains itself.

If you are interested, I would be quite interested in translating the text with you on this thread and together we can explore the Hebrew text and see what we come up with.

The following is the Hebrew from the Torah, Gen. 2:16 & 17:

quote:
ויצו יהוה אלהים על־האדם לאמר מכל עץ־הגן אכל תאכל׃
ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות׃

I look forward to your reply.
Ger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 05-25-2008 2:23 AM Taz has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1124 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 14 of 81 (469305)
06-05-2008 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by jaywill
05-26-2008 8:09 AM


Look, just because I didn't agree with you didn't mean you had to pray to your god to strike my house with lightning. He answered your prayer and fried everything electronic in my place.

Jaywill writes:

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.


What does this have to do with being able to tell the difference between right and wrong? The nazis had some pretty intelligent minds on their side. Didn't stop them from killing millions of innocent people.

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.

Ok, let's look at the book of genesis.

Gen 3:22 says...

quote:

22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

Just so you want to play dumb again, I increased the size of the text that I want you to pay attention to.

In a sense God was his conscience. The commands of God was the good that he had to perform.

I'm sorry, but I really can't see this anywhere in the book of genesis... and I am unable to put my head that far up my own arse.

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.

Then explain what god said in gen 3:22.

Look, I define myself as a literalist, meaning I don't just pull stuff out of my ass like english majors do all the time. I read and understand what's there. The rest of your post looks more like a combination of wishful thinking and bearing false witness against your own bible.


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jaywill, posted 05-26-2008 8:09 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jaywill, posted 06-05-2008 2:36 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 4272
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 15 of 81 (469422)
06-05-2008 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Taz
06-05-2008 1:56 AM


Look, just because I didn't agree with you didn't mean you had to pray to your god to strike my house with lightning. He answered your prayer and fried everything electronic in my place.

Calm down. You just need to pick up a good Surge Protector from Radio Shack.

Jaywill writes:

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.

What does this have to do with being able to tell the difference between right and wrong? The nazis had some pretty intelligent minds on their side. Didn't stop them from killing millions of innocent people.

I guess something you said about "four year old" triggered that response. Maybe my answer was misaimed a bit.

Me:

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.

You:

Ok, let's look at the book of genesis.
Gen 3:22 says...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just so you want to play dumb again, I increased the size of the text that I want you to pay attention to.

Thanks.

Me:

In a sense God was his conscience. The commands of God was the good that he had to perform.

Thee:

I'm sorry, but I really can't see this anywhere in the book of genesis... and I am unable to put my head that far up my own arse.

Me:

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.

You:

Then explain what god said in gen 3:22.
Look, I define myself as a literalist, meaning I don't just pull stuff out of my ass like english majors do all the time. I read and understand what's there. The rest of your post looks more like a combination of wishful thinking and bearing false witness against your own bible.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 06-05-2008 1:56 AM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jaywill, posted 06-05-2008 6:28 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
1
23456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018