Yes... this is true.
But what is the "literal meaning" of a word?
One thing we cannot assume is that it means the exact same thing as our closest English equivalent.
That's why we do original language word studies. We study how it was used in the original language... in order to
discern the true meaning of the word... as used by the author and the people to whom the Scriptures were written.
That's why I did my word study.
And if you read it, you'll see that I
DID start with the presumption of the natural meaning of the word (
ervah = "nakedness"). Then I examined the scriptures to see if that meaning fit the usage of the word in the biblical text.
Sometimes it did. More often than not, however, that natural definition did
not fit the biblical usage. You've admitted as much yourself. So, I sought a single definition of the word that would work in all contexts.
Again, if you read my study, you'll see that I tried the "sinful/shameful" definition, too... but it too failed to work in all contexts, because there were definitely passages where
ervah was
not shameful or sinful.
So... I finally settled on the definition I gave in my study. This then became the "literal meaning" that I can use in my exegesis.
Now... back to your statement above... you're right...
"In proper exegesis of scripture you take what it says as literal meaning of the word first." In this case, the "literal meaning" of
ervah includes some sort of active sexual expression." That's how the word is consistently used throughout the OT. That's what my word study revealed. That is
the meaning of
ervah.
But what you seem to mean by what you said was this:
In proper exegesis of scripture you take what it says as literal ENGLISH meaning of the word first.
But that is not "proper exegesis."
@rjs330,
I have a simple challenge for you.
In a previous response to you, I made two assertions. I would like for you to address them and refute them if you can.
- Of all the words that speak of nakedness in the OT (and there are several) the ONLY one EVER associated with sin or shame is ervah.
- Whenever shame or sin is associated with ervah/nakedness, there is always a description of some other shameful attitude or behavior in the immediate context. Always.
Can you refute either of these assertions? Can you...
- Show me a passage where there is shame associated with nudity where ervah is not used in the passage.
- Show me a passage where ervah and sin/shame are in the passage, but no other description of a sinful attitude or behavior is found in the context (meaning the source for the shame must be the public nudity).
Why these questions?
- If all public nudity is shameful, then we should find shame associated with other terms for nudity besides ervah. The bible certainly uses more than the one term to describe the unclothed state.
- If public nudity in and of itself is shameful, then we should find some shameful expression of nudity where the only shameful thing is their nudity in public.
If your position is biblically sound, then you should be able to meet this challenge. But if you cannot meet this challenge, then it may mean...
- NOT all public nudity is shameful.
- The shame of "public nudity" is not a matter of the nudity, but of something else.