naked...

[WAB]

NAKED…​

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.

Shalom... WAB

 

[graysparrow]

Those 'scholars' include people like De Wette, Welhousen, Gunkel, Von Rad, Martin Noth, Rendtford...

but if you don't show respect for any of them, what can my poor self expect?

 

[WAB]

Those 'scholars' include people like De Wette, Welhousen, Gunkel, Von Rad, Martin Noth, Rendtford...

but if you don't show respect for any of them, what can my poor self expect?

So... you prefer to believe the "scholars" you name rather than the Lord Jesus Christ!

 

[graysparrow]

No. I just prefer to treat the Bible issues seriously.

There are doubts as to the exclusive mosaic authorship of the Bible which include.

a) Moses relating his own death and burial as past events

b) Two creation stories Gen 1:1 - Gen 2:4 and Gen 2:5 onwards that, btw, start with a toledot, as all the patriachal sagas which structure the book of Genesis.

c) Diferent names for God. (Yahveh, Elohim, El Shadday...)

d) Inconsistencies in the Ishmaelite saga

etc...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

What I am trying to say is that the people who have studied that are real scholars who have spent the best of their lifes studying the subject. Maybe they are not popular in the US as most of them are or were German.

 

[WAB]

No. I just prefer to treat the Bible issues seriously.

There are doubts as to the exclusive mosaic authorship of the Bible which include.

a) Moses relating his own death and burial as past events

b) Two creation stories Gen 1:1 - Gen 2:4 and Gen 2:5 onwards that, btw, start with a toledot, as all the patriachal sagas which structure the book of Genesis.

c) Diferent names for God. (Yahveh, Elohim, El Shadday...)

d) Inconsistencies in the Ishmaelite saga

etc...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

What I am trying to say is that the people who have studied that are real scholars who have spent the best of their lifes studying the subject. Maybe they are not popular in the US as most of them are or were German.

So.. by intimation, you don't think I "treat the Bible issues seriously"? Beg to differ.

re issue a. This was probably an insertion, although since the LORD prophesied absolutely accurately many hundreds of times through the writers of Scripture, I personally cannot rule that out.

re issue b. To suggest that there are contradictions in the creation account in the Scriptures you cite shows that you are taking the word of liberal "theologians" in preference to Scripture. Won't take the time or space here to refute their mis-informed blatherings, but will post something later that shows the Genesis creation account to be right on.

re issue c. My, my, my... you only list three? He has several more. And we should expect nothing less for the One who is the Almighty.

re issue d. I cannot reply to this, as am not sure just which "saga" you are referring to. However, comparing what Scripture says about Ishmael being "...a wild donkey of a man..." and that he would be against everybody, and that everybody would be against him...with what is going on among his decendants at this very moment should give you a clue as to the accuracy of Genesis.

Shalom... WAB

 

[graysparrow]

I did not say you did not take the Bible seriously.

Beyond the main point in this issue , as far as I am concerned, was not how to interpret the Bible, an endeveour it is still being debated, but that people can disagree with you and still be legitimate Bible scholars. Just that.

 

[WAB]

I did not say you did not take the Bible seriously.

Beyond the main point in this issue , as far as I am concerned, was not how to interpret the Bible, an endeveour it is still being debated, but that people can disagree with you and still be legitimate Bible scholars. Just that.

Well then, no problem.

By the way... have found 21 Names of God; some specifically referring to our Lord Jesus Christ, such as: El Olam, "the beginning and the end" of Revelation 22:13.

 

[graysparrow]

 

[WAB]

Those 'scholars' include people like De Wette, Welhousen, Gunkel, Von Rad, Martin Noth, Rendtford...

but if you don't show respect for any of them, what can my poor self expect?

Much of the criticism of the Bible manifested today is directly traceable to the works of a number of German Scholars who introduced what is known as "Higher Criticism." That "higher" is a relative term can be
discerned from these remarks from a 1903 essay.

"THE LEGENDS OF GENESIS."

This is the title of a book which I was led to procure by seeing in the "Biblical World" for February last a highly commendatory notice of it. I wish our readers to see some of the things said in this notice, and then to see some of the things found in the book, that they may thus judge what kind of literature from Germany the Biblical World is helping to impose on American readers.

The book is from the pen of Hermann Gunkel, Professor of Old Testament Theology in the University of Berlin, and it is a reprint of the "Introduction to a Commentary on Genesis" by the same author. Of this commentary the reviewer, who is Prof. Nathaniel Schmidt, of Cornell University, says: "There is no commentary on Genesis superior to Gunkel's. .. . It was a good idea to present to English readers this introduction; and the title given to it is quite appropriate. . . . Never has the modern conception of Genesis been presented with more lucidity and attractiveness. Never has the critical work been done so searchingly and yet so reverently. If the book had been written originally for the general public, it could not have been more admirably suited to the needs of the intelligent layman. It is popular in the best sense, and should be widely read."

Now let us look at some of the contents of this "lucid, attractive and reverent work"; and, first, a specimen of the author's ignorance of the book on which he comments.

He says: "Many things are reported in Genesis which are directly against our better knowledge: we know that there are too many species of animals for all to have been assembled in any ark." We know no such thing.

"That Ararat is not the highest mountain on earth." Genesis says not a word about the height of Ararat.

"That the 'firmament of heaven' of which Gen. 1:6 ff. speaks, is not a reality, but an optical illusion." We
know that it is a reality; for it is the atmosphere, as Genesis clearly indicates.

"That the stars can not have come into existence after plants, as Gen. 1:10-14 reports." It does not so report. It says that God created "the heavens" in the beginning, and this expression includes the stars. He only
made them light-bearers to the surface of the earth after the creation of plants.

"That the rivers of the earth do not chiefly flow from four principal streams, as Genesis 2 thinks." Genesis 2 thinks no such thing. It says nothing like it.

"That the Dead Sea had been in existence long before human beings came to live in Palestine, instead of originating in historic times." And Genesis says not a word to the contrary. It has not a hint as to when the Dead Sea came into existence.

All these blunders are printed in one single paragraph on page 7 of this "most accurate and scholarly" book.

On a later page (43) is found another blunder which a ten-year-old Sunday-school pupil ought to be ashamed of. It is his report of procuring Rebekah as a wife for Isaac. He says: "Abraham wishes to sue for a wife for his son; being too old himself, he sends out his oldest servant -- thus the story opens. Then we are told how the old servant finds the right maiden and brings her home. Meantime, the aged master has died. The young master receives the bride, and he was comforted for the death of his father." This is about as near the truth as the [old scrambled account] of Jezebel's death: "She was settin' in a winder while Paul was preachin', and she went to sleep and fell down from the third story. They all run down to see what had become of her, and they picked up seven baskets full of fragments"

(J.W. McGarvey, "Short Essays in Biblical Criticism," 1910, pp. 432-434).

Well... that takes care of Gunkel at least.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[WAB]

Those 'scholars' include people like De Wette, Welhousen, Gunkel, Von Rad, Martin Noth, Rendtford...

but if you don't show respect for any of them, what can my poor self expect?

Here is a bit more research on your heroes...

Origins Of The Documentary Hypothesis
For almost two thousand years Christians accepted Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible. That's not to say that some didn't acknowledge problems with the text. Many had noted what seemed to be two separate creation stories in Genesis, as well as the problem of Moses recording his own death in Deuteronomy 34.

In 1753, a French physician named Jean Astruc began the modern study of source or literary analysis by writing a commentary on the book of Genesis.{2} He noted that the first chapter of Genesis refers to God as Elohim, while the second chapter uses mostly Jehovah or Yahweh.

Astruc believed that Moses must have used two different sources in writing Genesis, each having different names for God, and that the Elohim source was the older. This established the first principle of what would become known as the documentary hypothesis, the assumption that different divine names must mean different authors or sources.

In 1780 Johann Eichhorn took this theory and ran with it. He applied the idea of two sources to the rest of Genesis, Exodus, and finally to most of the Pentateuch. He eventually gave up on the view of Mosaic authorship as well.

Insert: Here is a statement, and then a question, from the Lord Jesus Christ: John 5:46..."For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. vs.47... "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

"Scholars" that go to great lengths to discredit the Scriptures seldom admit to the logical conclusion that if Moses did not write the Pentateuch, then Jesus is a liar. end of insert.

The next step came in 1805, when Wilhem [sic] De Wette argued that none of the Pentateuch was written before David. He established the "D" document standing for Deuteronomy, which he believed was written as propaganda to support political and religious unification in Jerusalem during the reign of king Josiah around 621 B.C.

We now have three source documents: J, E, and D. Although others in the late 1700's and early 1800's found as many as thirty-nine fragments in Genesis alone, the final, "P" or Priestly document of the current theory was added by Hermann Hupfeld in 1853. He believed that the E source should be split in two, the later becoming the new P document.

The name most associated with the documentary hypothesis is Julius Wellhausen. His publications in the late 1870's didn't add much new information to the theory, but rather argued for it from a Darwinistic perspective.

Wellhausen claimed that the J, E, D, P sequence followed the development from primitive animism towards the more sophisticated monotheism that would be expected as the Jewish culture and religion evolved. The impact of this connection was immediate and powerful.

Even though both liberal and conservative scholars removed much of the foundation of the documentary hypothesis in the twentieth century, the idea remains entrenched. As Gleason Archer states, "For want of a better theory . . . most non-conservative institutions continue to teach the Wellhausian theory, at least in its general outlines, as if nothing had happened in Old Testament scholarship since the year 1880."{3}

personal add-on... There is a wealth of info. available as to the beliefs/teachings of those "scholars", and, as may be seen, much of their critique is based on a "Darwinistic perspective".

 

[graysparrow]

Do you know the derasic interpretation?

 

[graysparrow]

Yes respect because it is what we owe to every human being. Yes respect because it is the only thing that allow humans to progress. Yes respect because it is nothing but a corollary of charity. Yes, respect because none of us is God to judge. Yes Respect should be the way.

Your original comment served no purpose as to substantiate the relevance of the O.T. That the Pentateuch was written by Moses, her mother in law or a cricket team is something we could care less for that matter. The only thing that matters is that God inspired it. Period.

To claim that the Torah was written by Moses because Jesus said it is not to understand neither the derasic interpretation, nor the way written texts evolved in ancient times, nor the pseudo-epygraphy. In short it was common and accepted, especially around the first century, to atribute works to prominent figures of the past as to indicate not so much real authorship but a common school of thought. Moses is not only a real man but it mostly mean what the ancients say in this context.

A witness of this are all the pseudo-epigraphy, the preliminary texts which would made the Talmud, not to mention most OT texts such as Isaiah.

How do we know that? As for the pseudo-epigraphy nobody challenges it. Surely because they did not make into the Bible. However things change when a book is canonical, then people loose their cool. The thing is that, however, we do not know for sure, it is indeed a matter of guessing. That said evindences in the text (duplicates, change of style) seem to indicate a plurality of authors.

The second row of critics you present seem to be based in "I don't like the consequences of that theory so it must be wrong" which is a fallacy. Testimony of it is 'the Darwinist' perspective which I do not see anywhere. What I do see is the Hegelian influence so pervasive in the Germany philosophy and science of the XIX which makes much more sense than to apply a biology theory.

Last but not least they are not my heroes. I do not agree 100% with any of them. I do not even agree with the core of the documentary hypothesis. Yet that I disagree with them is not a license to disrespect.

 

[WAB]

Yes respect because it is what we owe to every human being. Yes respect because it is the only thing that allow humans to progress. Yes respect because it is nothing but a corollary of charity. Yes, respect because none of us is God to judge. Yes Respect should be the way.

Your original comment served no purpose as to substantiate the relevance of the O.T. That the Pentateuch was written by Moses, her mother in law or a cricket team is something we could care less for that matter. The only thing that matters is that God inspired it. Period.

To claim that the Torah was written by Moses because Jesus said it is not to understand neither the derasic interpretation, nor the way written texts evolved in ancient times, nor the pseudo-epygraphy. In short it was common and accepted, especially around the first century, to atribute works to prominent figures of the past as to indicate not so much real authorship but a common school of thought. Moses is not only a real man but it mostly mean what the ancients say in this context.

A witness of this are all the pseudo-epigraphy, the preliminary texts which would made the Talmud, not to mention most OT texts such as Isaiah.

How do we know that? As for the pseudo-epigraphy nobody challenges it. Surely because they did not make into the Bible. However things change when a book is canonical, then people loose their cool. The thing is that, however, we do not know for sure, it is indeed a matter of guessing. That said evindences in the text (duplicates, change of style) seem to indicate a plurality of authors.

The second row of critics you present seem to be based in "I don't like the consequences of that theory so it must be wrong" which is a fallacy. Testimony of it is 'the Darwinist' perspective which I do not see anywhere. What I do see is the Hegelian influence so pervasive in the Germany philosophy and science of the XIX which makes much more sense than to apply a biology theory.

Last but not least they are not my heroes. I do not agree 100% with any of them. I do not even agree with the core of the documentary hypothesis. Yet that I disagree with them is not a license to disrespect.

Just in case you missed it, Moses was a male. So to say that it really doesn't matter whether "...her mother in law or a cricket team..." wrote the Pentateuch leaves something to be desired.

Nor does it invalidate the words of our Lord when He said that Moses wrote of/about Him.

Also, here is just a snippet...
PHILOSOPHERS..... The word “philosopher” is derived from two Greek words..... philos: fond....or dear friend, and sophos: wise, clever.

So, the philosopher is one who is fond of wise or clever things. This might at first glance seem a good thing; after all, do not universities around the world teach philosophy? And is not one of the most respected doctorates named for such? But listen to the definition of two words that are derived from the above...... “sophistry”....(the practice of those who are “sophisticated”), is: “subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation, sound in appearance only.”

To “sophisticate” is: “to alter deceptively, adulterate, to deprive of genuineness, naturalness, or simplicity; to make complicated or complex.” (Webster).

Sounds like those you claim are not your heroes, but defend staunchly.

 

[graysparrow]

Dear WAB

Again, they are not my heroes, in fact if I have studied them it's because they have made me to

Secondly, and more importantly, my devotion to the Bible lies not in whom penned it but in the inspiration by the Holy Spirit. Theories will come and go yet the Bible will remain.

As for philosophers and sophistry that distinction actually cames from Socrates who was indeed a philosopher. He criticised those who played word puns just to win an argument without any pretense of presenting truth.

Just for the record I do not agree with the hegelian philosophical system. If any I am more of a fan of Levinas and Buber. Even though the Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch is problematic for the reasons before mentioned.

With your last sentence, I do not really want to reply, because if you challenge my honesty then there is nothing I can do about it.

 

[WAB]

Dear WAB

Again, they are not my heroes, in fact if I have studied them it's because they have made me to

Secondly, and more importantly, my devotion to the Bible lies not in whom penned it but in the inspiration by the Holy Spirit. Theories will come and go yet the Bible will remain.

As for philosophers and sophistry that distinction actually cames from Socrates who was indeed a philosopher. He criticised those who played word puns just to win an argument without any pretense of presenting truth.

Just for the record I do not agree with the hegelian philosophical system. If any I am more of a fan of Levinas and Buber. Even though the Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch is problematic for the reasons before mentioned.

With your last sentence, I do not really want to reply, because if you challenge my honesty then there is nothing I can do about it.

"[T]he Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch is problematic..." only for those who will not accept Jesus' statement of it's human author/secretary.

Jesus did tell us that Moses wrote about Him.

And no, I am not challenging your honesty in the slightest. But one may come to erroneous conclusions by not considering all the evidence; especially such straightforward, unequivocal evidence as Jesus' statement that Moses wrote about Him. If He was not referring to the pentateuch, then what writing is referred to?

 

[graysparrow]

You are gonna kill me

Anyway this what I have been taught and you are not going to like, I'm afraid, but that's life.

One answer could be that the gospels need not to use the ipsisima verba, an exact quote of what Jesus - or whoever said -. That theory could explain the differences resulting between the gospels in the passion.

Another one, which I found more feasible is that Jesus was using simply the common consensus of his time.

 

[WAB]

You are gonna kill me

Anyway this what I have been taught and you are not going to like, I'm afraid, but that's life.

One answer could be that the gospels need not to use the ipsisima verba, an exact quote of what Jesus - or whoever said -. That theory could explain the differences resulting between the gospels in the passion.

Another one, which I found more feasible is that Jesus was using simply the common consensus of his time.

Regarding your first observation... no...but... am going to increase prayer for you.

#2... What one has been taught is not necessarily the truth. There are multiple contradictory teachings as to the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If all of the Gospels used identical verbiage, there would be a legitimate cry of fraud/copying that would arise immediately. Won't include any of them here, but there have been numerous studies/experiments where multiple persons heard the exact same dissertation, and when told to write what they heard without comparing notes, they came up with some very interesting and contradictory observations.

I say that, to say this... if God's Word cannot be trusted as the truth; and as having been inspired by the Holy Spirit to the writers in the original autographs, then there is no logical reason to trust any of it's pronouncements. And that is whether we happen to like those pronouncements or not.

In all of the multiple thousands of hand-copied manuscripts from which the legitimate translations (not paraphrases) have been taken, there are undeniably a number of errors. One famous one is "Easter" in the KJV rather than pascha/Passover. But none of those errors change any foundational doctrines of Scripture, and consist mostly of grammatical inconsistencies.

Last point... there was no "common consensus of [H]is time." That is, other than the vast majority demanding His death. So I don't think He would adopt their consensus into His declarations, nor that the Holy Spirit would dictate contradictory doctrines to the writers of Scripture.

Shalom... WAB