Who told you that you were naked???

[Matthitjah]

The issue is one of Shame. Yes, they were naked meaning that they had on no clothes. To cover their shame we see God slaughtering a beast of the field as their attempts at covering their sin were inadequate. Just like all Religion, it fell way short of the mark.

Ge 3:21

¶ Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

[2404]

We were not created with cloths, and they were perfect not needing any modification.

And we still do not become sexually aware by eating apples.

What makes think they werent aware of sex?

Genesis 2:23 "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

These verses are right after woman was made and Adam is saying a man shall cleave unto his wife. Cleaving is sex, coitus, copulation, joining, marrying, fusing, uniting, etc.

This takes place before the fruit is eaten so Adam is aware of sex and sexuality before the fall.

'aware of sex' - They were perfect there was nothing lacking.

We are born in sin and shaped in iniquity. We come by the permissive way, sexual desire.

Jesus Christ our redeemer came the perfect way as a Spoken Word.

The fall was permitted to allow for the expression of attributes such as saviour, healer... just as creation is an expression.

Edited April 13, 2013 by 2404

[xero]

Man was not immortal before the fall:

Genesis 3:2 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

We werent "unclothed" of immortality we were completely naked, neither mortal nor immortal, before being clothed in mortality and now we groan not to be naked of the mortal flesh but to be clothed with immortality like Jesus when He was raised.

Youre looking at the end and saying it was there to begin with and we were robbed of immortality somehow.

We "clothed" ourself in mortality when we ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil because we wouldnt be mortal without having eaten from it but without eating the fruit of the tree of life we werent immortal.

The lust of the eyes makes the image and likeness of God shameful to look upon and that is how wicked sin is.

We try to cover ourselves with our own works when only the blood of the Lamb can cover us. Thats what I see in the living allegory of the fig leaf and the animal skin covering of mans shame.

Clothing is a symbol of our shame and weve made it into fine art like a monument to sin.

Theres symbolism everywhere but what youre saying about Adam being divested of a spiritual covering is inaccurate.

God has always been our shelter.

[back2thebible]

Genesis Chapter 3:

⁶ So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. ⁷ Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

⁸ And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

⁹ Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”

¹⁰ So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

¹¹ And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”

¹² Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”

¹³ And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

So their eyes were opened. But this is the question: Who told you that you were naked? I believe that they were not naked beforehand, but that God's spiritual covering over them which was removed at the time of their disobedience, leaving them entirely exposed once they separated themselves from Him in partaking of the knowledge of good and evil when they ate of the tree's fruit; and they realised that this covering had been removed from them as soon as they ate, and now: butt naked and ashamed of the exposure.

I know this is different from the traditional take on this portion of scripture, that they had been naked all that time and the knowledge of good and evil was the thing that revealed this to them, but when compared to the rest of scripture, it's clear to me that the explanation above is the actual case and state of events.

All thoughts RESPECTFULLY welcome.

Blessings

I'm sorry but I have to disagree, its more like the innocence of a toddler child taking off his or her clothes having no clue of modesty or shame

Adam and Eve knew no shame they were pure and innocent, then as they ate the fruit they were aware of both good and evil, they lost their innocents, and became aware of their nakedness

[Guest]

Adam and Eve were immortal until they sinned. Once that happened, they lost their immortality, their bodies were changed from immortal (glorified) to mortal and began to die. That is why they were prevented from the Tree of Life.

[Sevenseas]

I think the biblical passage does not need embellishment....once they ate of the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they understood they were naked.

They were exposed...their sin was evident

If someone believes that there was a spiritual side to this that the Bible does not reveal, that would be a personal interpretation IMO.

I would actually find the question : "Did God really not know where Adam & Eve were" more logical and more in keeping with the text than believing a mystery

has been solved and further revelation has now been given. I believe it is a serious matter to believe things that are simply not in the Bible and believe that

in some fashion, one has understanding beyond the Bible or common and collective interpretation by those whose life work is to study and interpret.

There is no way to prove such a thing...my advice would be to avoid it altogether as we have enough to deal with that is already uncertain or not known.

I believe God has us know what He wants us to know and those who seek further knowledge than what is revealed, are basically going about having an

esoteric experience without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Best not to read into or add to what is revealed. People are getting themselves into a world of trouble these days by believing that they have special revelation knowledge...illumination

and revelation are not the same.

So, who told Adam and Eve they were naked? They told themselves after they ate the fruit that opened up a whole new way of thinking

That's my thoughts on the matter, which, I believe, are supported by the actual text. I understand that is not a popular opinion these days.

[Willa]

l nakedness is not in question.

Please these portions of scripture in light of this discussion:

2 Corinthians 5:2-4

² For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, ³ if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. ⁴ For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.

Matthew 22

22 And again Jesus spoke to them in parables (comparisons, stories used to illustrate and explain), saying,

² The kingdom of heaven is like a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son

³ And sent his servants to summon those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they refused to come.

⁴ Again he sent other servants, saying, Tell those who are invited, Behold, I have prepared my banquet; my bullocks and my fat calves are killed, and everything is prepared; come to the wedding feast.

⁵ But they were not concerned and paid no attention [they ignored and made light of the summons, treating it with contempt] and they went away—one to his farm, another to his business,

⁶ While the others seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and put them to death.

⁷ [Hearing this] the king was infuriated; and he sent his soldiers and put those murderers to death and burned their city.

⁸ Then he said to his servants, The wedding [feast] is prepared, but those invited were not worthy.

⁹ So go to the thoroughfares where they leave the city [where the main roads and those from the country end] and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.

¹⁰ And those servants went out on the crossroads and got together as many as they found, both bad and good, so [the room in which] the wedding feast [was held] was filled with guests.

¹¹ But when the king came in to view the guests, he looked intently at a man there who had on no wedding garment.

¹² And he said, Friend, how did you come in here without putting on the [appropriate] wedding garment? And he was speechless (^[a]muzzled, gagged).

¹³ Then the king said to the attendants, Tie him hand and foot, and throw him into the darkness outside; there will be weeping and grinding of teeth.

¹⁴ For many are called (invited and summoned), but few are chosen.

What is confusing people is that this interpretation is really NOT DIFFERENT than the traditional interpretation. Perhaps some people had not thought much about it, though. NAKED MEANS COMPLETELY PHYSICALLY NAKED AS BLOOMIN' JAYBIRD (whatever that means).

1. ADAM AND EVE WERE NAKED AND NOT ASHAMED. Gen 2:25

2. (Ate fruit)

3. THEN THE EYES OF BOTH WERE OPENED, AND THEY KNEW THAT THEY WERE NAKED;

Perhaps we who are reading realize our own, our sin, our nakedness and our shame at this point and fail to see the simplicity of it all.

re. Gen 2:25 We still equate innocence with being unaware of one's nakedness when we watch a toddler run around naked without shame.

Re Gen 3:7 We see that they are no longer innocent and need a spiritual covering: a sacrifice which would require the shedding of blood which prophecies the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and the shedding of His blood to cover our nakedness. God could not look upon our sin. So Adam and Eve used self SELF EFFORT to try to cover themselves and their newly discovered lack of innocence. THEY MADE FOR THEMSELVES LOIN COVERINGS of fig leaves.

4. Gen 3:21 The LORD God made garments of SKIN for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

The covering that God provided required the sacrefice of an animal and the shedding of blood.

It was just a temporary covering, as was the blood sacrifice system which the Jews would eventually use. They all pointed to the permanent solution to cover our sin, the Sacrefice of Jesus on the Cross. His sacrifice went farther than to cover our sins. His ratified a New Covenant of grace which would completely remove our sin as far as the east is from the west, making our sins though they be as scarlet, to be white as snow.

And I still enjoy wearing my leather jacket, even though 1John 1:7 says that if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. NASV

So I agree with everything you said. How can I disagree with Scripture? Our permanent spiritual clothing can only be made by God, and through the killing and shedding of the Blood of His Son. And the whole story points to the coming spiritual clothing: the Blood of Jesus and the New Covenant that it would ratify: the Covenant in His Blood. Luke 22:20. We can't even imagine what our future spiritual clothing will be like, only that we shall be like Jesus.

They were physically naked but it all had a lot of spiritual implications.

Cool subject. Thank you.

[Sevenseas]

What is confusing people is that this interpretation is really NOT DIFFERENT than the traditional interpretation. Perhaps some people had not thought much about it, though.

I actually thought about it since I read the op and it so happened I read it before anyone even responded and I have taken some time to consider the words before

I responded.

Why would you assume that those who disagree with the op are confused? I don't think that adds any credibility to your statement or the op...not meaning to sound disagreeable here,

but if we are posting opinions, then either give supporting scripture for them or just say you agree...or disagree.

Here's a quote from another site...found this after I posted...but it happens to agree with my POV...I have researched the question of the op some and I do not find any support for

the idea being presented...however, I do find support for what seems to be the general concensus.

Here's the site for the quote below

Adam and Eve knew that they were naked. A change in their thinking—in their perspective, in the way they looked at things—occurred. As long as they were united to God (before they sinned), as long as they were at one with Him, they looked at God, at things, and at the processes of life in a way that was not offensive to Him. Yet, as soon as they sinned, their minds changed. Their formerly innocent and pure perspective changed; they began to see evil in things. They felt shame in their nakedness. In addition, "Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden" (verse 8).

This encapsulates the effect of

sin. It separates from God. Adam and Eve wanted to hide themselves from Him. Their perspective on life had changed.

I am in agreement with some of what you say, such as: The covering that God provided them was just a temporary covering, as was the blood sacrefice system which the Jews would eventually used. They all pointed to the permanent solution to cover our sin, the Sacrefice of Jesus on the Cross. His sacrefice went farther than to cover our sins. His ratified a New Covenant of grace which would completely remove our sin as far as the east is from the west, making our sins though they be as scarlet, to be white as snow

At any rate, I just wondered why you would think that those who disagree are in confusion. The author of this thread is disagreeing with those who disagree with the op, so I do not believe

we are saying the same things different ways.

[*Zion*]

Thanks to everybody for your replies, and even to all those who respectfully disagreed. It was just interesting to see who would perhaps share the way I saw this portion of scripture, and how the discussion would develop. I would like to stress at this point that letter kills, but the Word of God is life - I believe that God's Word is and must be spiritual because it He is God made flesh. If we just take everything about it only from its physical aspect then have we not indeed missed the point?

By the way, can we all agree it's up to me to decide who I'm disagreeing with? I never said that I disagreed with anyone, I'm keen for everyone to share their views as they so wish. Do not put words in my mouth. If you want to say something specific yourself that's a whole other issue. None of us are mind readers, and nobody knows everything. No even what's in other people's brains. This is the whole point of discussion: to let others share what they want to so that we don't have to guess what everybody's thinking. Apart from that, thank you all for keeping this discussion respectful.

Blessings

[joi]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5903&t=KJV

Thought you might like to see this.

I have often thought that they might have lost something more than their innocence. People who have had

dreams/visions and or NDE's often say they see Jesus clothed in bright light, and it is thought that is perhaps

what the first couple lost when they sinned - their clothing of light which represents Holiness, but to my

knowledge we have no proof of this.

If the verses you added in post 10 pertain to this heavenly light as clothing, it is not spelled out clearly enough for most

of us. In time we will see for our self!