Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8852 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-15-2018 2:50 AM
184 online now:
GDR, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 181 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 836,903 Year: 11,726/29,783 Month: 748/1,642 Week: 162/460 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   Why did they cover their nakedness?
rueh
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 31 of 81 (472998)
06-26-2008 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by jaywill
06-26-2008 9:09 AM


Re: Naughty God
quote:
I deal with it by laughing and shaking my head at your twisting of the Bible.

Jaywill I know you are going to disagree with me on this, but you are twisting the bible just as much. You interpret the text literally when it suits the purpose. Then interpret it figuratively in another area. ex:

quote:
we interpret the phrase "in the day". Should we take that to mean within 24 hours.
(figurative)
quote:
They surely DID die. The serpent lied by saying "You shall not surely die!" Now you deal with it.
(figurative)
quote:
"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 knowledge of good and evil." (Gen. 2:9)
(Literal) actual trees?
Which one is it? If it is combination of both than everyone's interpretation is just as valid as yours.
Personally I don't believe there actually were two trees in a garden. I read the entire story metaphorically as a reason to explain human intelligence and humanities need for spiritual connection. But than again you can use the same argument against me as well. I believe that humans developed a need for clothing as community involvement and intellect evolved and the clothing part of the story is an add on to enforce decorum. Just my opinion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jaywill, posted 06-26-2008 9:09 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jaywill, posted 06-26-2008 1:47 PM rueh has responded

  
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4294
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 32 of 81 (473009)
06-26-2008 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by rueh
06-26-2008 11:56 AM


Re: Naughty God

Jaywill I know you are going to disagree with me on this, but you are twisting the bible just as much. You interpret the text literally when it suits the purpose. Then interpret it figuratively in another area. ex:

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:

" Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" (Isaiah 5:20,21)

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.

"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 knowledge of good and evil." (Gen. 2:9)

(Literal) actual trees?

Which one is it?

Where did I ever write that I did not believe that the trees mentioned were not actual trees?


If it is combination of both than everyone's interpretation is just as valid as yours.

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.


Personally I don't believe there actually were two trees in a garden. I read the entire story metaphorically as a reason to explain human intelligence and humanities need for spiritual connection. But than again you can use the same argument against me as well. I believe that humans developed a need for clothing as community involvement and intellect evolved and the clothing part of the story is an add on to enforce decorum. Just my opinion.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by rueh, posted 06-26-2008 11:56 AM rueh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by rueh, posted 06-26-2008 3:26 PM jaywill has responded
 Message 39 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-27-2008 1:22 AM jaywill has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 622 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 33 of 81 (473014)
06-26-2008 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jaywill
06-26-2008 9:09 AM


Re: Naughty God
Hello again Jay.

Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply.

jaywill writes:

I was very careful to specify that this was only my speculative imagination. Do you recall me writing that?

I must confess that I sometimes miss your point. I am sure that a part of the difficulty for me is that you write so many arguments in a single post, coming at it from many different directions at once. Most of what you say is familiar to me given the years I spent in Bible College and the time I spent conducting worship services. Even so, you come up with a few thoughts which I haven't heard and these, I think, sometimes get lost in the landslide of standard (i.e. 'pat') answers which you put forth. By standard answers I mean those common to most, if not all, Christian apologists. These I have heard way too many times to want to read them all over again and so I tend to skip them while scanning for something unfamiliar; like your personally reasoned gems. Which, apparently, I sometimes overlook. :)

I personally do not expect ever to fully appreciate the impressions this story left on the minds of those ancient Jews who heard it read aloud in the original language, in their native tongue, during its first ever public presentation by the author.

However ...

I am equally convinced that I cannot entirely trust another man's opinion over my own prayerful meditation on what is being said and what it means. I'm sure you understand that I can no longer trust the opinionated pablum I was force-fed as a Seventh Day Adventist ministerial student. Yes? :D

You can be sure that I have re-examined and attempted to falsify all of the indoctrination I received as a member of The One True Church. Believe me when I tell you that I do not automatically trust any new idea, no matter the source. I may be considered a skeptic now but there was a time, and still is, when I was, and am, skeptical of skepticism.

But I digress.

Now then ...

  • If I warn you against eating a plant which will kill you inside a day ...

  • If another guy tells you the plant isn't deadly but will make you wise ...

  • If you eat the plant, get wise, and die of old age nine hundred years later ...

I think you get the point.

Plus:

If Adam was created with the intent that he should live forever, then why is there that other tree in the garden? The Tree of Life. Eat from it and you will live forever. Why is it even in the Garden? Who is supposed to benefit from it? Why doesn't the serpent tempt them to eat that fruit first? God takes them out of the garden so they can't get to the Tree of Life. Why not simply take the Tree of Life out of the garden?

Too many questions. Not enough answers. All my life I have heard silly speculations, none of them satisfying many of them mutually exclusive. What's a thinking man to do? Ask God? Do you imagine I haven't done so? Do you imagine I gave up easily? Seriously, I think it doesn't matter. My God isn't trapped inside an old Jewish legend. He's out and about and working on better books than this one. No offense. I simply don't believe what they told me in Sabbath School, or what they tell you in Sunday School, or what some cockamamie preacher imagines in his wildest dreams.

I have the book. I have my brain. I have your attention.

What more do I need?

In Closing ...

As to the last bit you wrote, regarding "spiritual death" I have one question.

Does this apply to "The Resurrection?"


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jaywill, posted 06-26-2008 9:09 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 34 of 81 (473031)
06-26-2008 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jaywill
06-26-2008 1:47 PM


Re: Naughty God
quote:
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.

Ok, real or metephorical beside the point. I understand. What I don't get is that Adam and Eve were naked and were sexual creatures already. They were already told by God that doing so was good and within his wishes.

quote:
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it
quote:
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

Now why does it all of a sudden become shamefull to Adam and Eve. It is not God who became ashamed of their nakedness,it is Adam and Eve.
Before knowledge
quote:
Genesis 2:25 the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

After knowledge
quote:
Genesis 3:7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.

What gets me is that,even though they knew now they were naked. They had to have known that they were made naked by God. Why does a knowledge of good and evil make being naked evil? Or even shamefull?
Of course this comes from the mind of a nudist :laugh:
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jaywill, posted 06-26-2008 1:47 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jaywill, posted 06-26-2008 4:07 PM rueh has responded
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 06-27-2008 2:14 AM rueh has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4294
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 35 of 81 (473037)
06-26-2008 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by rueh
06-26-2008 3:26 PM


Re: Naughty God

Ok, real or metephorical beside the point. I understand. What I don't get is that Adam and Eve were naked and were sexual creatures already. They were already told by God that doing so was good and within his wishes.

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.


Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it

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.


And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

Yes, yes. We agree that marriage, sex, reproduction were all a part of God's good creation.


Now why does it all of a sudden become shamefull to Adam and Eve. It is not God who became ashamed of their nakedness,it is Adam and Eve.
Before knowledge

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.


Genesis 2:25 the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

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.


After knowledge

Genesis 3:7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.

What gets me is that,even though they knew now they were naked. They had to have known that they were made naked by God. Why does a knowledge of good and evil make being naked evil? Or even shamefull?
Of course this comes from the mind of a nudist

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by rueh, posted 06-26-2008 3:26 PM rueh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by rueh, posted 06-26-2008 6:38 PM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 37 by platypus, posted 06-26-2008 7:42 PM jaywill has responded

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 36 of 81 (473066)
06-26-2008 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by jaywill
06-26-2008 4:07 PM


Re: Naughty God
I don't know. It seems like there is a lot that you have to interject in order for it to make sense. Examples include -
quote:
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.
It doesn't say that their actions were any different than before ie. lust and lack of self control may have been there before they were awakened.
quote:
light emanating from within which served as a cover.
Where is this in the bible? Seems to me just an imaginary add in to try to make sense of things.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by jaywill, posted 06-26-2008 4:07 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 3611 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 37 of 81 (473069)
06-26-2008 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by jaywill
06-26-2008 4:07 PM


Re: Naughty God
Of course sexual activity was expected. Sex was made enjoyable and beautiful in its God ordained proper context - marriage.

Wait- are you implying that before Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge, they only performed sex after being married? Please explain what marriage was back then, before man had knowledge. Who sanctioned the ceremony, God? Where exactly does God say "Only have sex after you go through this long and complicated ceremony" ?

I'm actually curious, is there a passage like this anywhere in the Bible?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by jaywill, posted 06-26-2008 4:07 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jaywill, posted 06-27-2008 12:41 AM platypus has not yet responded

    
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4294
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 38 of 81 (473098)
06-27-2008 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by platypus
06-26-2008 7:42 PM


Re: Naughty God
Wait- are you implying that before Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge, they only performed sex after being married?

Yes.


Please explain what marriage was back then, before man had knowledge.

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.

"And Jehovah God built the rib, which He had taken from the man, into a woman and brought her to the man.

And the man said,

This time this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called Woman because out of Man this one was taken.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

And the man and his wife were naked and were not ashamed before each other. (Gen. 2:22-25)


Who sanctioned the ceremony, God?

God joined them in marriage.


Where exactly does God say "Only have sex after you go through this long and complicated ceremony" ?

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'm actually curious, is there a passage like this anywhere in the Bible?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by platypus, posted 06-26-2008 7:42 PM platypus has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 130 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 39 of 81 (473104)
06-27-2008 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by jaywill
06-26-2008 1:47 PM


Re: Naughty God
Jaywill writes
Taking no position is always the easy postion to defend. When you take no stand you can valiantly fight off anyone's interpretation forever.

Jaywill you are as thorough as ever and the above statment is very true, bravo. Not trying to be a yes man here, just thought the statment was very insightful.

D Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jaywill, posted 06-26-2008 1:47 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jaywill, posted 06-27-2008 10:48 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 40 of 81 (473116)
06-27-2008 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by rueh
06-26-2008 3:26 PM


Re: Naughty God
rueh writes:

Ok, real or metephorical beside the point. I understand. What I don't get is that Adam and Eve were naked and were sexual creatures already. They were already told by God that doing so was good and within his wishes.

quote:
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it
quote:
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

Now why does it all of a sudden become shamefull to Adam and Eve. It is not God who became ashamed of their nakedness,it is Adam and Eve.
Before knowledge
quote:
Genesis 2:25 the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

Maybe it is because the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 and the woman that was made from a rib from that man some time later after all animals and fowls had been named. The garden planted and man put in charge of it. The woman does not appear until Genesis 2:22.

This couple did not know they were naked until after they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The man and woman created not formed or made in Genesis 1:27 was told to replenish the earth. They were both created at the same time male and female. They were never placed in a garden.

This couple could have been created fully clothed, nowhere does it say they were are were not.

That is two different stories about two different couples.

I hope this doesn't muddy the water too much.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by rueh, posted 06-26-2008 3:26 PM rueh has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-27-2008 3:09 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 130 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 41 of 81 (473121)
06-27-2008 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by ICANT
06-27-2008 2:14 AM


Re: Naughty God
Hello, ICANT, Just wanted to let you know Autunman and myself have just opened a thread, where your knowledge of the Hebrew would be welcomed. That is if you have time, thanks

D Bertot

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 06-27-2008 2:14 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4294
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 42 of 81 (473147)
06-27-2008 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dawn Bertot
06-27-2008 1:22 AM


Re: Naughty God
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-27-2008 1:22 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
dunrich
Junior Member (Idle past 3432 days)
Posts: 1
From: Brantford , Ontario, Canada
Joined: 10-13-2008


Message 43 of 81 (491858)
12-22-2008 10:55 PM


Why did the cover their nakedness? Adam and Eve had no reason to, as Eve was made from part of Adam, nakedness would be as natural as any one having a shower. If the sin, was having sex though, with some one else, say a fallen angel, then they would be now aware of their nakedness.

Edited by dunrich, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by jaywill, posted 12-23-2008 8:08 AM dunrich has not yet responded

    
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4294
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 44 of 81 (491870)
12-23-2008 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by dunrich
12-22-2008 10:55 PM


Why did the cover their nakedness?

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.


Adam and Eve had no reason to, as Eve was made from part of Adam, nakedness would be as natural as any one having a shower.

It is a good point.

Sin ruined nearly everything.


If the sin, was having sex though, with some one else, say a fallen angel, then they would be now aware of their nakedness.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by dunrich, posted 12-22-2008 10:55 PM dunrich has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 2787 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 45 of 81 (492541)
01-01-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
05-22-2008 4:56 AM


before the event of eating the forbidden fruit, both Adam & Eve lived as dependents on God... he was their teacher and his standards of good and bad were all they knew... nakedness being a normal and good part of their lives

But upon disobedience, they had stepped out from dependence and became independent
The immediate effect was Adam and Eve could no longer look upon each other’s unclothed bodies in a pure way. Their guilty conscience made them feel unclean, and so the first thing they did was cover themselves in fig leaves

it really comes down to guilt. they knew they had done a bad thing in disobeying Gods command not to eat from the tree, and so they felt shame.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 05-22-2008 4:56 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by cavediver, posted 01-01-2009 8:57 AM Peg has responded

    
Prev12
3
456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018