A theory about Adam and Eve

As we know, babies and small children have no sense of embarrassment or shame concerning nudity--theirs or anyone else's. Adam and Eve were in that state of innocence until they ate the fruit; the KJV doesn't say what the fruit was--it just says "fruit". Personally, I believe it was a fruit that no longer exists on earth--maybe in heaven.

Here's the theory: When they ate of the fruit, "the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." Gen. 3:7; KJV. Christian naturists have wondered why they all of a sudden were ashamed of their bodies when they never had been before they sinned and disobeyed God. I have an apron which I wear with nothing else since it says, "Nude Cookin' Adds Spice to Life", and it only covers the front of my body and leaves the back bare, but that's beside the point.

I believe that a possible explanation is that their purpose of the aprons of fig leaves was not to cover the nakedness of their bodies but to make them blend in with the background like a chameleon. Their thinking possibly was that if they could hide themselves sufficiently God wouldn't see them, and their sin would be hidden. I do not believe that they were trying to hide the nakedness of their bodies but the nakedness of their sin.

So my theory is that they covered their bodies and "hid themselves" as a small child will hide in an effort to escape the disapproval and chastisement of a Father.

Although God called out and asked, "Adam, where art thou", it was not because God didn't know where he and Eve were, but it was because He wanted his children to come to Him and confess what they had done. Of course, they didn't escape the consequenses of their actions, but I believe that the punishment could have been far worse. God could have rejected them and started over.

Be nude and have fun. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

As we know, babies and small children have no sense of embarrassment or shame concerning nudity--theirs or anyone else's. Adam and Eve were in that state of innocence until they ate the fruit; the KJV doesn't say what the fruit was--it just says "fruit". Personally, I believe it was a fruit that no longer exists on earth--maybe in heaven.

Here's the theory: When they ate of the fruit, "the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." Gen. 3:7; KJV. Christian naturists have wondered why they all of a sudden were ashamed of their bodies when they never had been before they sinned and disobeyed God. I have an apron which I wear with nothing else since it says, "Nude Cookin' Adds Spice to Life", and it only covers the front of my body and leaves the back bare, but that's beside the point.

I believe that a possible explanation is that their purpose of the aprons of fig leaves was not to cover the nakedness of their bodies but to make them blend in with the background like a chameleon. Their thinking possibly was that if they could hide themselves sufficiently God wouldn't see them, and their sin would be hidden. I do not believe that they were trying to hide the nakedness of their bodies but the nakedness of their sin.

So my theory is that they covered their bodies and "hid themselves" as a small child will hide in an effort to escape the disapproval and chastisement of a Father.

Although God called out and asked, "Adam, where art thou", it was not because God didn't know where he and Eve were, but it was because He wanted his children to come to Him and confess what they had done. Of course, they didn't escape the consequenses of their actions, but I believe that the punishment could have been far worse. God could have rejected them and started over.

Be nude and have fun. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[gamblefish]

Yeah, I believe that too Jon. We know that they knew they were naked before but now (vs. 7) they see things in a different way...their "eyes" were opened. Fear and shame entered in along with sin. But we know that perfect love casts out fear. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I've also read that some believe Adam and Eve were clothed in light (Ps. 104:2, Matt. 17:2) and that when they sinned the light went out, leaving them totally exposed. Jesus is referred to as our "covering" for sin (Rom. 4:7), clothing us in His righteousness. Could it be?

Psalm 104:2 is speaking of God covering HIMSELF with light as with a garment. It says nothing about mere mortals.

Matthew 17:2 speaks of JESUS Whose face shone as the sun, and His garment was as white as the light.

We have to careful about taking scripture that refers to the Father or the Son and applying them to us.

Of course, we are covered with the righteousness of Christ once we accept Him as our Saviour, and God doesn't see our sin when He looks at us; He sees the righteousness of His Son.

Although white robes are mentioned in Revelation, it is possible that we will wear nothing but the righteousness of Jesus Christ in heaven. Since we will once again be innocent and free from the presence of sin, and therefore free from sinful desires, perhaps physical clothing will no longer be necessary. Nudists for eternity! Hey! I could live with that!

Be nude and have fun. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Bob S.]

Interesting theory. Never thought about it before. Using the natural flora to hide themselves within the garden ala camouflage.

I also do not believe that they were hiding their nakedness. The way I see it, Adam and Eve hid from their Father because they disobeyed Him, just as childlen would hide from their parents after doing something wrong.

I'm glad we think alike on this. Any chance there will be a nudist-friendly translation of the Bible?

Bob S.

We are constantly getting new so-called translations and versions of the Bible because people don't like it the way it is. I've always prefered the King James myself. The only problem I have with it are the archaic words that we no longer use, and to which no one knows the meanings.

However, there are a lot of what I would call perversions where the meanings have been drastically changed by changing words and trying to make them more understandable to people who don't want to take the time to do a little studying and actually learn something.

I'm not sure what you mean by nudist friendly. There's nothing in the Bbile that teaches against social nudity. It is certainly more nudist friendly than society is.

Be nude and have fun. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[gamblefish]

Jon, I did not mean to apply those scriptures (Ps.104:2, Matt.17:2) to us, but to Adam and Eve. I meant them as an example of light being used as a garment.


Do you remember when Moses (a mere mortal) came down from Mt. Horeb in Exd. 34? Moses had been face to face with God, and when he returned his face shone with light so much so that the "children of Isreal" were afraid to come near him. I believe that Adam and Eve were "face to face" with God in the same way every day. They must have reflected the glory of God from every pore of their being.


While I think they were trying to hide their sin from God and not their nakedness, I still wrestle with this passage. God asks Adam, "Who told you that you are naked?". It seems to me that before the knowledge of good and evil, nakedness was ok. But now that they have the knowledge of what it is to be naked, that it is not ok. What are your thoughts?

Yes, Moses' face shown from being in the presence of God. He had seen God from the back since no one could see the face of God and live. I have no idea why. I'm sure that was the case with Adam and Eve.

As for God asking who had told them they were naked, I think this was the same as asking "Where art thou?" He wanted them to confess their sin. He was bringing them to that point. Eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil gave them knowledge they hadn't had before.

If God didn't see anything wrong with their nudity before they disobeyed Him, why should He see anything wrong with it after? I still believe that they covered themselves with leaves as camouflage in an effort to hide from God. Of course, it is possible that their attitude changed concerning nudity, and that mankind inherited that shame.

Be nude and have fun. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[gamblefish]

Yeah, I think you're right. Their attitude changed when they received knowledge of good and evil. Then it would follow that evil existed somewhere. Since everything God created was good then evil would have to be in the perception or usage of that creation. Something can be good but used for evil. For example, a kitchen knife is good to cut meat or whatever but can also be used to murder someone. Nudity can be good but the perversion of nudity is harmful.

Very true. While I'm in favor of public nudity being legal and accepted because I know nudity is natural, there are those strange men who walk around in a long coat with nothing under it exposing themselves to unsuspecting women and children. That sort of behavior only turns society against nudity--period! Also, I'm not in favor of nudists congregating in the nude in a public place to force their nudity on those who don't want to see it.

Well we seem to have gotten away from the topic, but it's my topic so I guess I can do it if I want. What more can be said about why Adam's and Eve's perspective concerning the nude body changed? It had to be because of their sin. The body didn't suddenly become obscene when it wasn't before.

Be nude and have fun. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

My take on the Adam and Eve and nakedness thing is that sex was the fruit (apple ) of the "Tree Of Knowledge"hence the covering of the offending parts with the fig leaves and the pain of childbirth etc. that resulted.

Are you saying that God has forbidden sex even between husband and wife? How do you know that they even had sex before the fall? Gen. 4:1 is the first place that says that Adam "knew" his wife. This refers to an intimate relationship, and it's AFTER the fall.

In Gen. 3:7 it says, "they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." It doesn't say they specifically wanted to cover their genitals. I still like the idea that they covered themselves with leaves as camouflage to blend in with the foliage in a feeble effort to hide from God.

Be nude and have fun. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Yes... I believe sex, as we know it, was the forbidden fruit.

So sex grew on a tree! Very interesting! It's too bad we don't have any of those trees still around. Whenever you wanted some you just go to the tree and pick it!

Anyway, be nude and have fun! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Symbolism.....If it actually grew on trees and we could pick it any time we wanted....Im afraid the trees would be bare along with us. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I am sure there was pleasurable intercourse from the moment of Eves creation as that is how are bodies are designed.It is only with the "Knowledge" of Sex as we know it that the problems of living arrived...One man for one woman..Homosexual unions rape etc.

[Trailscout]

Sex was not the forbidden fruit, otherwise God would not have (before the entrance of sin) commanded them to "be fruitful and multiply".

I also question the "garment of light" theory. The Bible seems to make it as plain as possible that Adam and Eve were nude and that nudity was the will of God. Even after they sinned, God still asked them, "Who told you that you were naked?".

Genitals are now and also were before the fall, the most "personal" part of our bodies. When sin entered their hearts, Adam and Eve tried to cover a spiritual problem by physically covering their most personal parts with fig leaves.

[gamblefish]

Speaking of genitals, here is another interesting thought. David Guzik says this:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"In virtually all cultures, adults cover their genital areas, even though other parts of the human body may be more or less exposed from culture to culture. This is not because there is something intrinsically 'dirty' in our sexuality, but because we have both received our fallenness and pass it on genetically - through sexual reproduction. Because of this, God has implanted it in the minds of man that more modesty is appropriate for these areas of our body." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



What do you think?

I cannot or will not accept that "God has implanted it in the minds of man that more modesty is appropriate for these areas of our body."

If that is so then that means that God finds genitals offensive, and therefore we should not be nudists and expose these offensive areas to others or see others' offensive body parts.

As trailscout said, Adam and Eve tried to solve a spiritual problem with a physical solution that had nothing whatsoever to do with what God wanted. God wasn't concerned with the nakedness of their bodies or He would have covered them when He created them. What He wanted after their sin was for them to confess it. However, Adam chose to blame Eve; Eve blamed the serpent, and the serpent had no one to blame.

Be nude and have fun. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[David77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
So sex grew on a tree! Very interesting! It's too bad we don't have any of those trees still around. Whenever you wanted some you just go to the tree and pick it! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This type tree would be even more interesting if it also grew Viagra on it's branches for some septuagenarians.

There you go, David! A sex tree wouldn't do me much good, but a Viagra tree sure would! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[gamblefish]

Hey, all...it's me again.


Seems like I'm playing devil's advocate rather alot here lately...but please remember guys, I'm still on your side!!


Jon, you said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I cannot or will not accept that "God has implanted it in the minds of man that more modesty is appropriate for these areas of our body."

If that is so then that means that God finds genitals offensive, and therefore we should not be nudists and expose these offensive areas to others or see others' offensive body parts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


OK, I quite agree with you that God is not offended by our nudity. (Wait for it...) BUT, practically all civilizations and cultures from ancient times to modern times have practiced the "custom" of covering the genital areas with clothing. Even in warm climates, people wore/wear loin cloths. There must be a reason for this. Does this reason go back to Adam and Eve and the "knowledge of good and evil" or does it come from somewhere else?


I guess I'm just curious...if I am wearing you all out with my questions please forgive me.

I believe that genital covering is a taught (learned) behavior probably passed down from Adam and Eves fall AND NOT A GENETIC FACTOR as evidenced by the fact that innocent babies enjoy being with out clothes with no guilt.

While I believe that modesty and body shame are taught, I can't help but wonder about people in primitive countries who live in the jungle and cover their genitals. Was that taught, or do we have an inherited sense of shame that kicks in when we reach a certain age?

Of course, shame and perhaps even body shame started with the fall I'm sure, but why are some so overly modest about their bodies while others don't care who sees them nude? I lean more toward the latter. Why are some people embarrassed and even offended at someone else's nudity while others aren't? I wish I had the answers, but I don't even pretend to have them.

You often get a married couple where one--usually the man--enjoys being nude even with other people, and the other wouldn't think of doing anything like that. That's why so many men go alone to resorts. They can't get their girlfriend or wife to go. In my case, I have no one to go with me.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Trailscout]

Granted they aren't many, but since there are some cultures where total body nudity is practiced, including genital nudity. That should disprove any claims to a preborn sense of genital shame.

To disprove this premise of instinctive shame, all you need is one society that lives a life of total nudity and we have more than one.

The Namba and Jale cultures wear penis sheaths, not to cover up their penises, but to accentuate them, to call attention to their reproductive parts. The scrotum remains visible in both cultures.

[dbickin]

I always asumed the loincloths had more to do with protection from minor scrapes and wind blown debris than from shame. It makes sense to want to protect your ability to reproduce. Those societies that don't have any coverings, probably have less about them that could harm.

David

[Trailscout]

There are societies that have no body shame, but do not practice perpetual nudity.

Henri C., author of the book "Papillon" described a tribe of Indians that wore front-coverage-only loincloths, leaving the rump fully exposed. Both sexes went bare-breasted. All garments were removed for bathing in the sea, which often took place in mixed company. Also all garments were removed the moment one entered his or her own house.

Traditional Inuit (Eskimos)would sleep nude in their one-room igloos and at least partially undress during waking hours.

William Bartram described nude Cherokee women out picking blackberries in the late 1700's. Although they usually wore clothing, on such summer outings they found nudity more comfortable. (Although a nude person would have to move carefully to avoid thorns in a berry patch).

Well, Trailscout, I hadn't thought about societies where total nudity is the norm and body shame is non-existent. I guess that disproves any theory about inherited body shame. That leaves only body shame that is taught, and therefore it is the body shame that is unnatural not nudity.

dbickin's idea that the loin cloth was only for the purpose of protection makes sense--particularly when the loin cloth is only in the front to protect a man's "jewels". Hey! I'm learning things I didn't know fron you folks! Keep up the good work and keep us uninformed ones informed. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[BrianM]

It was said that Adam And Eve had clothes when they left the Garden of Eden, but most likely to protect them from the surroundings, as the world was not as pleasant as the garden. I would think that primative cultures that use coverings do so for practical reasons. 1) they could trip on it, 2) have you ever jumped a briar bush nude?
I agree, that with all gods power, he could have built us bodies with clothes, like many animals, to protect us and "hide" us, but he chose not to, probably because he built us in his likeness for a reason.

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
We are constantly getting new so-called translations and versions of the Bible because people don't like it the way it is. I've always prefered the King James myself. The only problem I have with it are the archaic words that we no longer use, and to which no one knows the meanings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Many people prefer the KJV. I haven't met many who, like yourself, admit to not understanding the archaic words and useages. You have my respect.

Understanding (or lack thereof) is a big issue for me. I read the Bible for understanding, and I teach for understanding. I prefer not to use language that gets in the way of understanding. Anyone who can easily read and understand Shakespear's plays will also easily understand the KJV. Others will miss a lot.

You referred to new translations made by people who "don't like the way it is." The translators who did the KJV, a wonderful work of scholarship in its time, had only manuscripts that are considered late by today's standards. The texts they worked from were mostly copies of copies of copies, etc. that dated from the 800s and 900s.

All of the truly old texts, dating back to within a few generations of the orginals, were discovered in the 19th and 20th centuries.

This means that a translation may not have changed because someone didn't like the way it was in the KJV, but because much older texts don't support the KJV.

Having said that, there's no doubt that some translations are better than others. That's why it's a good idea to own several. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Frank R]

Another point to remember is that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible was translated from Latin text which had been translated from the original Greek. Any translation of a translation is going to contain errors as many words to not translate exactly into another language. A modern example is the German word "Reich." While we would translate it as government in English, it is really a lot more. If you goal is accuracy, the New International Version (NIV) is probably the most accurate.

[David77]

It is very interesting to lay out five different translations of the Bible on the table, all opened to the same passage, and compare translations. It does remind me of how our professor of ancient Greek language years ago in college would translate (or transliterate) the same passage several different ways for we students, in his attempt to choose the best English words and phrases for clear meaning. In general, the Bible can not be routinely translated word for word, that is, Greek word for English word, following in consecutive order, the Greek words of the text.

The English language has over 200,000 commonly used words (although the average educated person uses only about 2,000 of these words per week) and has many more words than other languages. This variety of words makes it possible to to make choices of many shades of meaning in translating the Bible. Highly educated choices must be made by each Bible scholar (and group of scholars) after completing the great task of deciding how the Greek word in that passage is used. Thus, not surprisingly, translations will differ somewhat, not only in word "coloration" or emphasis, but sometimes in greater meaning.

Since it has been over 52 years ago since I studied two years of ancient Greek language in college, I have forgotten the vocabulary, etc. but I have certainly not forgotten the problems and challenges mankind has in translation, as for instance, that suggested by Frank R. in his example with the German word "reich". In addition, in the case of ancient languages such as that of Hebrew and Greek of the Bible, new discoveries, insights in meaning, occur on an ongoing basis, such as from comparisons of ancient manuscripts, not only of text of the Bible but with the help of examining identical language usage by ancient comtemporary writers of non-biblical text.