naked

[WAB]

A search through the Scriptures in both the Old and New Testaments, where this word occurs, brings up some interesting ideas and situations. There are too many references to address every one of them, but we will look at several… One of the most well known appears in Genesis 2:25 at the end of the passage describing the creation of mankind as a spiritual entity (Gen.1:27) and the formation of both the man and the woman in bodily form (2:7 and 21,22). There is much to comment upon re these accounts, but suffice for now to say that we should accept them as literally true.

There are “scholars” who claim that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible, and we will not go into their reasoning for one simple reason….

John 5: 46,47.… (Jesus speaking) “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” There is no maneuvering room here. Either Moses wrote the Pentateuch or Jesus was not telling the truth. So…we have a real reason for studying the whole of Scripture.

As noted, the first appearance of the word “naked” in Genesis 2:25 says…. “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

This state of innocence and absence of shame did not last long. By the time of the next appearance of the word “naked” (Gen.3:7), the woman had been seduced by the “serpent” and man had made the free will choice of following her example by doing the one thing they had been forbidden to do, eat of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden, and now they were ashamed. So the first thing they did in reaction to their eyes being opened, and the realization of their nakedness and resultant shame was to devise a cover-up. Sound familiar?

The next two occurrences of the word “naked” appear in verses 10 and 11 of chapter 3.
This was immediately after “…the LORD God called to the man…” to get his attention.

Adam’s reaction was first of all to confess… not his deliberate sin of disobedience, but his nakedness and his fear. Guilt often leads to fear when the guilty one is faced with the revelation of that guilt.
The next reaction was to place the blame for that guilt on someone else.

In response to God’s question as to how Adam had come to recognize his nakedness (in vs. 11), Adam responded as many do today… he blamed it on someone else. “…‘The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.’” (vs.12).

One might even come to the conclusion that Adam placed the primary blame on God Himself, via the woman. Actually, Adam would have been correct in blaming God according to Five Point Calvinism, which demands that every occurrence is predetermined by the sovereign decree of God.

It doesn’t end there! In reaction to God’s question “… ‘What is this you have done?’ the woman said, ‘the serpent deceived me, and I ate.’” (vs. 13).

Obviously, another shift of blame, which is such a common thing in our day that jokes are made about it. For example, awhile ago I came across the following non-attributed bit: “To err is human. To blame it on someone else, shows management potential!” Think politics.

In Hebrews 4:12,13 we find another aspect of the word “naked”…. “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.”

There is a true short story that appears in one of New Tribes Mission’s newsletters titled
“WHAT’S IN THE POT?” (caps added) It refers to missionary outreach to the people of Lele village in Papua New Guinea.
It continues……

“HOSKINS, Papua New Guinea: The shiny, clean saucepan, with its secret contents, was a curiosity to the Mengens who gathered last week for evangelistic Bible teaching.

“ ‘ What does he have in that pot?’ they kept asking.

“Missionary Tim Erieau made a good show of polishing the outside of the pot. He then took off the lid and walked around showing everyone what was inside -- an assortment of rotten, stinky, disgusting things. The various reactions were hilarious as people quickly looked away and made strange faces.

“ ‘When I looked at the inside of the pot I just wanted to throw up,’ Teli said. ‘The stench was so bad. That is just like our sin. When God looks at our sin He wants to throw up.
To Him our sin is very bad.’

"Teli got the point of the illustration. No matter how nice the outside looks, God sees the rotten, disgusting sin within.

​

“Next week, the Mengens will hear how only Christ can take away their sin and make them clean inside…..” (The story continues, but is not relevant here).

The NTM piece is a good addition to the scriptures already cited, in that it makes no difference how attractive or shiny the covering is, there is no way one can hide his/her sin from the One with whom we have to do; “…all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.” (again from Heb. Chap. 4)
And that is in spite of any amount of “polish”.

For those of the nation of Israel who put their trust in the promised coming Messiah, and who in anticipation of His coming were instructed to offer animal blood sacrifice, there was a covering.

As Psalm 32:1 puts it: “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose sin is covered.”

Now… it is too late. Upon the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD and the genealogical records along with it (which would be needed to designate those who qualified for the priesthood), it has been impossible for Israelites to make animal sacrifice. Not to mention their absence from the land as a national entity until 1948.

​

But… “Bless the LORD, O my soul; And all that is within me, bless His holy name!…As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us.” This is from the 103rd Psalm vs. 1 & 12 in anticipation of the coming of Messiah.
For those who put their trust in the finished work of Calvary’s Cross, there is no need for a covering.
Scriptures from the NKJV, article written by: W.A.B.

​

 

[FreezBee]

There are “scholars” who claim that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible, and we will not go into their reasoning for one simple reason….

John 5: 46,47.… (Jesus speaking) “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” There is no maneuvering room here. Either Moses wrote the Pentateuch or Jesus was not telling the truth. So…we have a real reason for studying the whole of Scripture.

The point is not whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch, but that it was the common assumption, although the Pentateuch itself doesn't make any such claim. The point is that the Pharisees were very keen on keeping the commandments of the Law, but apparently they were unable to recognize that the Law was speaking about Jesus, so Jesus is here accusing the Pharisees of being hypocritical. Assume that the Pentateuch had been written by several people, perhaps over a very long time, would that change anything in the Pentateuch?

- FreezBee

 

[BalaamsAss51]

Assume that the Pentateuch had been written by several people, perhaps over a very long time, would that change anything in the Pentateuch?

- FreezBee

Hello Freezbee.

Yes it would. We are talking about God's Word here, not some fictional story made up by some half-baked literary wanna-be.

It makes a difference because if the Bible tells us something we accept it as true. If we stop accepting the truth of the Bible in one spot what is to stop us from accepting it in another? This is the evil brought about by using the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation for instance.

You know this perfectly well. Either the Bible is inerrent or it is not.

Pax

 

[FreezBee]

It makes a difference because if the Bible tells us something we accept it as true. If we stop accepting the truth of the Bible in one spot what is to stop us from accepting it in another? This is the evil brought about by using the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation for instance.

I beg to disagree somewhat with you here


Was all Psalms written by David? Some of them claim otherwise, yet we call the entire colloection "The Psalms of David"! Jesus is turning the assumption of Mosaic authorship against those who have that assumption. Read e.g.:

John 7
21 Jesus said to them, "I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. 22 Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. 23 Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? 24 Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."

So you see, one think is to reject what the Bible says, another thing is to understand, what it says.


- FreezBee

 

[BalaamsAss51]

Hello Freezbee.

You posted - "Was all Psalms written by David? Some of them claim otherwise, yet we call the entire colloection "The Psalms of David"

Well, we've got to call them something. David wrote most of them. Those that read them know David didn't write them all.

You posted - "Jesus is turning the assumption of Mosaic authorship against those who have that assumption."

I don't see that in those verses. Saying that Moses wrote those books isn't the same thing as saying that Moses did everything that he wrote down.

You posted -"So you see, one think is to reject what the Bible says, another thing is to understand, what it says."

I agree that you could understand something but not believe it to be true. But that isn't the point. Lots of professors and intellectuals understand fully the Christian religion. I've had some like that. But they don't hold it to be true.

The point of an innerrent scripture is that it is true whether or not you believe it to be true or understand it. A person must change their thinking to agree with scripture, not change scripture to agree with their way of thinking.

Pax

 

[justified]

There are “scholars” who claim that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible, and we will not go into their reasoning for one simple reason….

It must have been had for Moses to write this part:

And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said. and the following verses.

Moreover, the Hebrew is not Hebrew from the time of Moses, it is Hebrew from the time of the Monarchy and later (circa 1000 B.C. and later).

Well, we've got to call them something. David wrote most of them.

Did he? For example, Psalms 103-104, ostensibly written by David. I can prove that a good part of Psalm 104 is derived from a Phonecian tradition, which derived its content directly from sun-worship during the Egyptian New Kingdom (Amarna age). We have these texts extant!

Yes it would. We are talking about God's Word here, not some fictional story made up by some half-baked literary wanna-be.

Please be careful what you say. I have never smoked even a bowl in my life. I am fully confident that scripture is the word of God, inspired by him as it claims. And we who devote our lives to full time study of the scriptures are not "literary wannabees" and we do not deserve that way of speaking. At the very least, you should respectfully disagree with us who have devoted so much time to the study of scripture, whether or not you like our conclusions.

It is the word of God, and I have the utmost respect for it. That is why I study it. That's why I pray that God would lead me to a better understanding of His word. Yet I still can mantain that Moses didn't write much of the Pentateuch, that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC, that Isaiah is an amalgamation of at least two authors.

You know this perfectly well. Either the Bible is inerrent or it is not.

You shouldn't impose these types of absolutes where they don't exist. For example, is I John 5:7-8 inerrant, even though it wasn't in the original manuscripts, though it was popularly read and understood as part of inspired scripture from about 1500-1900? Again, when scripture says that the sky is a dome, the earth opened her mouth, or a great sea dragon breathing fire once inhabited the cosmic underground waters -- are these inerrant?

Yet when the Bible talks about redemption, I am fully confident in its inerrancy. That's how I think about it now, at least. I refuse to bind myself into a box of ignorance because I am scared of the truth or unwilling to look for Truth.

 

[FreezBee]

You posted - "Was all Psalms written by David? Some of them claim otherwise, yet we call the entire colloection "The Psalms of David"

Well, we've got to call them something. David wrote most of them. Those that read them know David didn't write them all.

So you agree that there are human traditions about Scriptures, and that these human traditions are just convenient. Then what prevents the convention of naming the Pentateuch as the "5 Books of Moses" from being a human tradition?

You posted - "Jesus is turning the assumption of Mosaic authorship against those who have that assumption."

I don't see that in those verses. Saying that Moses wrote those books isn't the same thing as saying that Moses did everything that he wrote down.

Not sure, what you mean here. Do you imply that, assuming Moses to be the author of the Pentateuch, that Moses, well, sort of, shall we say, lied about himself?

You posted -"So you see, one think is to reject what the Bible says, another thing is to understand, what it says."

I agree that you could understand something but not believe it to be true. But that isn't the point. Lots of professors and intellectuals understand fully the Christian religion. I've had some like that. But they don't hold it to be true.

Well, I wish I could say that I fully understand the Christian religion - but I don't. It's a mystery to me.

The point of an innerrent scripture is that it is true whether or not you believe it to be true or understand it. A person must change their thinking to agree with scripture, not change scripture to agree with their way of thinking.

Being one strange Lutheran I beg to disagree with you here. During the Reformation Biblical literalism was liberating. The invention of printing made it possible to distribute Bibles quickly and to many people who earlier simply had to take the words of the priests for what the Bible said. This even encouraged people to learn to read in the first round. The problem though is, what does the Bible say? What is the literal meaning? Is it necessary the same to people of the 16th century as to people of the 21st? To find eternal truths in the Bible simply requires us to focus on exactly that which does not vary with time, not to regard the Bible as containing any final truths in matters of natural science e.g., if you see, what I mean.

Yet when the Bible talks about redemption, I am fully confident in its inerrancy. That's how I think about it now, at least. I refuse to bind myself into a box of ignorance because I am scared of the truth or unwilling to look for Truth.

Yes, this is exactly, where the Bible has authority - in matters of redemption.


- FreezBee

 

[BalaamsAss51]

Hello Freezbee.

Re "So you agree that there are human traditions about Scriptures, and that these human traditions are just convenient. Then what prevents the convention of naming the Pentateuch as the "5 Books of Moses" from being a human tradition? "

Jesus said someplace that Moses wrote them, so while I agree that there is nothing that would prevent naming them from human tradition, I think it would be safer to do so because Jesus did.

re - "Do you imply that, assuming Moses to be the author of the Pentateuch, that Moses, well, sort of, shall we say, lied about himself?"

No, but he didn't need to do everything he wrote about to write about it.

re - "Well, I wish I could say that I fully understand the Christian religion - but I don't. It's a mystery to me."

Me too. I agree with Anselm and Augustine that I believe in order to understand, not that I understand in order to believe. Of course they said it better than that.

re - "Being one strange Lutheran"

An inerrant scripture means that God is right even if we think he's wrong. We must give up our reasoning if it disagrees with what he has told us.

re - "Yes, this is exactly, where the Bible has authority - in matters of redemption."

The bible has authority in all areas.

Pax

 

[BalaamsAss51]

Hello justified.

re - "It must have been had for Moses to write this part:"

So some was added at the end. If you are saying that one should not say that Moses wrote these writings because he didn't write 100% but only 99.9% that's ok with me. I'll stick with saying Moses wrote them. I have heard the comment that by prophecy Moses indeed did write these sections, by being given leave to see into the future. That's ok with me too.

re - "Did he?"

David wrote most of them. He's the main personage associated with them. If other peoples wrote similiar things that just shows that knowledge is written on peoples hearts, even though it is corrupted, and comes out at various times and places.

re - "Please be careful what you say"

Believe what you want. I think your expertise is faulty, no matter how long or how much you have studied and researched. Perhaps not for you, but many come to the conclusion that any disagreement is not respectful. I'm too old to bother worrying about it.

re - "You shouldn't impose these types of absolutes where they don't exist."

I see, absolutes only come from one direction. If they don't come from that direction they are wrong. Also, you know perfectly well that inerrent doesn't mean that symbolism and other literary conventions are excluded.

Pax

 

[justified]

So some was added at the end. If you are saying that one should not say that Moses wrote these writings because he didn't write 100% but only 99.9% that's ok with me. I'll stick with saying Moses wrote them. I have heard the comment that by prophecy Moses indeed did write these sections, by being given leave to see into the future. That's ok with me too.

Then I guess you should take back this:

Either the Bible is inerrent or it is not.

Suddenly absolutes don't sound so good when the last few chapters of a book don't work.

Believe what you want. I think your expertise is faulty, no matter how long or how much you have studied and researched. Perhaps not for you, but many come to the conclusion that any disagreement is not respectful. I'm too old to bother worrying about it.

I have no issue with you disagreeing. But there is no need to refer to the effort and the good intentions as "half-baked literary wannabes." That's just stupid.

see, absolutes only come from one direction. If they don't come from that direction they are wrong. Also, you know perfectly well that inerrent doesn't mean that symbolism and other literary conventions are excluded.

I don't remember mentioning symbolism. The ancient world really believed in a three-tiered earth. Do you need proof of that, too?

 

[BalaamsAss51]

Hello justified.

You replied - "Then I guess you should take back this:

Quote

Either the Bible is inerrent or it is not.

Suddenly absolutes don't sound so good when the last few chapters of a book don't work."

No, I'll not take it back. If one abandons the teaching of inerancy (which includes things like God inspiring men to write ,verbal inspiration, adapting Himself to their manner of speech, vocabulary will never be able to accept/believe any part of scripture that disagrees with what a person thinks/feels by their own reason.

I hear you saying that if Moses didn't write every word of those books accredited to him it is false to say Moses wrote those books. I deny this.

You wrote - "But there is no need to refer to the effort and the good intentions as "half-baked literary wannabes." That's just stupid."

If the shoe fits. That shoe was in response to the imaginary premise that several authors wrote the books in question. Also, you object to my mentioning symbolism. Are the rules such that only you may use certain concepts and words? I don't know about a three-tiered earth, but some of that world wide flood water came from above the sky.

Look justified. My worry is that you are letting your expertise get in the way of things. If the Bible is not the divinely inspired, infallible Word of God, and you cannot accept every part as such, where will it end? You said someplace that you believe it when the Bible talks of redemption. Why? How can you trust those parts? Is the teachings of redemption limited to just one or two verses or is it spread out? If somebody doesn't believe in one section that talks of redemption then you must drop that section and that teaching. I have no doubt that every word of the scripture has been brought into doubt by somebody at some time. Who gets to choose? Professors? Sorry, I know too many of them to trust them with something this important. Scholars? Same thing. You? Me? No way.

I will not bore you with verses saying that the Bible is true, given by inspiration, useful - because if you question one part you question the whole, and I reject your thinking that you are able to pick and choose which parts are true and which parts are false. Nice talking with you.

Pax

 

[FreezBee]

Re "So you agree that there are human traditions about Scriptures, and that these human traditions are just convenient. Then what prevents the convention of naming the Pentateuch as the "5 Books of Moses" from being a human tradition? "

Jesus said someplace that Moses wrote them, so while I agree that there is nothing that would prevent naming them from human tradition, I think it would be safer to do so because Jesus did.

Umm, "someplace"? Where would that be?

re - "Do you imply that, assuming Moses to be the author of the Pentateuch, that Moses, well, sort of, shall we say, lied about himself?"

No, but he didn't need to do everything he wrote about to write about it.

You are still confusing me here Is it possible for you to give an example?

re - "Well, I wish I could say that I fully understand the Christian religion - but I don't. It's a mystery to me."

Me too. I agree with Anselm and Augustine that I believe in order to understand, not that I understand in order to believe.

Ok, here we agree

re - "Being one strange Lutheran"

An inerrant scripture means that God is right even if we think he's wrong. We must give up our reasoning if it disagrees with what he has told us.

But, alas, we are only humans! We need to interpret the Bible somehow, don't we? Isn't what you are suggesting actually to let other people reason for us? There are 30,000+ Christian denominations, which one, if any, should I choose? We may have to accept that God has different messages for different people - not in matters of redemption of course, but in other matters, and some questions we may even have to figure out for ourselves!

What exactly is Biblical inerrancy? Last autumn I participated in an "Old Testament Marathon" on a website for the Lutheran churches in Denmark - it's still running, but I have given up following it, because I found it being to much sales-talk. What we were presented for was mostly classical apologetics, which can be picked up anywhere, and which is of no real value in our everyday life. And that's where I find the Bible fails - so we should keep the 10 commandments, which is easy enough, but they don't really have much application for me!

re - "Yes, this is exactly, where the Bible has authority - in matters of redemption."

The bible has authority in all areas.

And what is your argument for that? Somehow, of course, but not necessarily detailed! How do you "love your neighbor like yourself"? We have to figure that out ourselves - unlike Jesus we can't perform miracles!

What I can see is that many Christians who study some kind of natural science are in problems, because some of their fellow Christians require them to believe in creationism. Why not then try to tell that accepting evolution is completely compatible with the Bible, because the Bible is not a natural science book? Do I have to believe in a flat earth? Do I have to believe that stars are angels?

BalaamsAss51, you are asking us to blindfold ourselves - a bit strange for someone naming himself after a donkey that exactly wasn't blindfolded


- FreezBee

 

[justified]

Look justified. My worry is that you are letting your expertise get in the way of things.

And I worry that you are not trusting the brain God gave you. Believe it or not, we were given them (brains) for a reason. Apply your intellect to scripture and you will see.

If the Bible is not the divinely inspired, infallible Word of God, and you cannot accept every part as such, where will it end?

You are saying it's infallible (Moses wrote the Pentateuch) and then you're saying it's not (Moses didn't write all the Pentateuch). What is to stop you from admitting that there are several sources of the first five books of the bible?

You said someplace that you believe it when the Bible talks of redemption. Why? How can you trust those parts?

Why not? If you are willing to hold that the bible is historically right about everything in it, then you are sadly mistaken. As I've said, the bible presupposes a three-tiered cosmos. The bible says camels were being used in the patriarchal age and that the Philistines were around long before they were; I can go on for quite a while. My current thoughts on the issue are the result of a lot of thought over a long time. I will not close my brain because a few weird people have decided that God gave us brains in order that we bury them in the ground and pray for forgiveness for thought.

Is the teachings of redemption limited to just one or two verses or is it spread out? If somebody doesn't believe in one section that talks of redemption then you must drop that section and that teaching. I have no doubt that every word of the scripture has been brought into doubt by somebody at some time. Who gets to choose? Professors? Sorry, I know too many of them to trust them with something this important. Scholars? Same thing. You? Me? No way.

Quite honestly, it's obvious you haven't given this much thought, and I highly don't you really care to understand.

If the shoe fits.

Would you like to know what your size is?

 

[BalaamsAss51]

And I worry that you are not trusting the brain God gave you. Believe it or not, we were given them (brains) for a reason. Apply your intellect to scripture and you will see.


You are saying it's infallible (Moses wrote the Pentateuch) and then you're saying it's not (Moses didn't write all the Pentateuch). What is to stop you from admitting that there are several sources of the first five books of the bible?


Why not? If you are willing to hold that the bible is historically right about everything in it, then you are sadly mistaken. As I've said, the bible presupposes a three-tiered cosmos. The bible says camels were being used in the patriarchal age and that the Philistines were around long before they were; I can go on for quite a while. My current thoughts on the issue are the result of a lot of thought over a long time. I will not close my brain because a few weird people have decided that God gave us brains in order that we bury them in the ground and pray for forgiveness for thought.


Quite honestly, it's obvious you haven't given this much thought, and I highly don't you really care to understand.

[/SIZE]
Would you like to know what your size is?

Hello justified.

Your right, I don't care to understand (that is agree with) your views. My shoe size? I expect you would rather tell me where you would like to put it. See you around.

Pax

 

[WAB]

Guess I should have known that this would devolve into personal attacks/responses rather than evaluating the writing.

Having said that, I agree in the main with B'sA.