Was peter naked while fishing?

[Radagast]

And I have provided evidence showing that was how fishing was done.

Well, no you haven't. It's extremely unlikely that they were using a form of fishing requiring free diving. Your own source indicates that other kinds of net-based fishing were much more likely.

 

[Archivist]

That was kind of my point. They were using nets instead of hooks, but things can get caught in nets. A powerful reason to wear at least a loincloth.

Except sources say that the person in the water working the nets was nude.

 

[Archivist]

Well, no you haven't. It's extremely unlikely that they were using a form of fishing requiring free diving. Your own source indicates that other kinds of net-based fishing were much more likely.

Still waiting for evidence to the contrary from you. You opinion doesn't count for much without evidence to back it up.

 

[listed]

And I have provided evidence showing that was how fishing was done. You have provided nothing. Your only argument is essentially “the word doesn’t necessarily mean totally nude therefore Peter wasn’t nude.” Proof please.

Interesting that his idea seems to be unsupportable opinion.

 

[listed]

Because sex is a bid deal now and we look at sex as a bad thing. If its for lust it Leeds to adultery.

This is associated with your ideas about nudity. It has no Scriptural support. It's an unsupportable and unquestioned social enforced norm.

 

[listed]

But the CSB, ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, and NKJV do not.

And, as I said, the Greek word gymnos doesn't necessarily mean total nakedness.

So get something that says what you want. Your versions can not be supported by the Greek.

 

[listed]

Im only interested in interpreting the scripture properly.

Oh

 

[listed]

When I point out, correctly, that the majority of modern translations don't say "naked"?

And here, FYI, is what the dictionary says about the Greek word gymnos: Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, γυμνός
Nonsense.

Yes it does indeed say: .naked, unclad,

 

[listed]

That's absolute rubbish. We actually have pictures of Roman slaves from about this time, and they are not nude:

Has anyone explained buggy's verse from Matthew 24?

 

[Radagast]

So get something that says what you want. Your versions can not be supported by the Greek.

Once again, I encourage people to look up the meaning of the word in the lexicon.

There's a reason modern translations don't say "naked."

 

[Radagast]

Yes it does indeed say: .naked, unclad,

And a little further down it says that one meaning of the word gymnos is:

5. lightly clad, i.e. in the undergarment only

 

[Radagast]

Except sources say that the person in the water working the nets was nude.

There's no evidence that anybody was "in the water working the nets." Quite the contrary, in fact.

In fact, John 21 tells us explicitly that they were casting nets from the boat, and then recovering the fish by dragging the nets to shore. They were clearly in the boat together, talking to each other.

This is what "working the nets" looked like on the Sea of Galilee 100 years ago, doing the final part of the hauling from land. Notice that nobody is naked:

 

[Archivist]

There's no evidence that anybody was "in the water working the nets." Quite the contrary, in fact.

In fact, John 21 tells us explicitly that they were casting nets from the boat, and then recovering the fish by dragging the nets to shore. They were clearly in the boat together, talking to each other.

This is what "working the nets" looked like on the Sea of Galilee 100 years ago, doing the final part of the hauling from land. Notice that nobody is naked:

They would have been working according to the norms of the day.

A photo from 100 years ago does nothing to support your position. Now if you had a photo from 2000 years ago that would help support what you are your claiming. Essentially all you are doing is trying to apply modern social mores to an ancient practice.

 

[Radagast]

They would have been working according to the norms of the day.

Yes, and the story tells us what those norms were. They were using a drag net (or possibly a trammel net), recovering the fish by dragging the nets to shore, as in the photograph I posted. No reason for anybody to be naked.

And indeed then, as now, the Jews did not approve of public nakedness.

And why this bizarre obsession of yours with nakedness, anyway?

 

[Archivist]

Yes, and the story tells us what those norms were. They were using a drag net (or possibly a trammel net), recovering the fish by dragging the nets to shore, as in the photograph I posted.

Except Scripture tells us otherwise. Here is what John 21:3-8 says:

Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.

But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No. And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes. Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea. And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes.

So, they were not using a drag net. They intended to pull the net into the boat and in fact tried to do so but could not because of the weight of all the fish. That was the reason why they were forced to drag the net to shore.

No reason for anybody to be naked.

Wrong. It wasn't a drag net; someone had to be in the water to work the net.

And indeed then, as now, the Jews did not approve of public nakedness.

We aren't talking about Peter walking naked down Main Street. We are talking about what was a common practice at the time.

And why this bizarre obsession of yours with nakedness, anyway?

You can always tell when someone has lost an argument--they start making personal attacks. No, I do not have a "bizarre obsession" with nakedness. I am simply going by the plain meaning of a word. You, on the other hand, are looking at a secondary definition because it is the only way you can impose your 21st century views on something that was common practice in ancient times.

 

[bugkiller]

And a little further down it says that one meaning of the word gymnos is:

5. lightly clad, i.e. in the undergarment only

The more used meaning is usually listed first. Why do you want to by pass it so badly? It agrees with the text of the KJV. What I want to know is how you know that is error. What do you have to discredit the KJV?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

There's no evidence that anybody was "in the water working the nets." Quite the contrary, in fact.

In fact, John 21 tells us explicitly that they were casting nets from the boat, and then recovering the fish by dragging the nets to shore. They were clearly in the boat together, talking to each other.

This is what "working the nets" looked like on the Sea of Galilee 100 years ago, doing the final part of the hauling from land. Notice that nobody is naked:

That is only one of the methods discussed using nets.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Once again, I encourage people to look up the meaning of the word in the lexicon.

There's a reason modern translations don't say "naked."

What is your guess about the reason?

bugkiller

 

[Radagast]

So, they were not using a drag net.

If not a drag net, then a trammel net, as I said. A net that would be dragged to shore.

someone had to be in the water to work the net.

False.

We are talking about what was a common practice at the time.

It was not a common practice at the time. Jews were not keen on being naked.

I am simply going by the plain meaning of a word.

Words have a range of meanings. You appear to think that you know Greek better than the translators of most Bible versions. You are wrong.

 

[Archivist]

If not a drag net, then a trammel net, as I said. A net that would be dragged to shore.

It was not a drag net. The disciples didn't intend on dragging the net to shore, they had to do so because of the large number of fish they caught. They had tried to pull the net into the boat, something they would have done with a drag net. Hence, one man had to be in the water to work the net.

It was not a common practice at the time. Jews were not keen on being naked.

As the evidence I have provided shows it was common among fisherman. All you have offered is opinion, and frankly your opinion doesn't count for much. If you have evidence please offer it.

Words have a range of meanings. You appear to think that you know Greek better than the translators of most Bible versions. You are wrong.

I have never made any such claims. Several versions of the Bible specifically say that Peter was naked. Some versions say that he was stripped for work, which does not say that he was not naked. You are relying on a secondary definition when you claim that he was wearing something.

Again, if you have evidence please supply it. I'm really tired of hearing nothing but opinion from you.