My first quote is in unbolded text.
Your response to that first quote is in bolded text.
My response to your response is in bolded purple text.
So to make this clear, you hold to a belief that "they knew that they were naked" based on the verse:
Gen 2:25
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Even though scripture doesn't record that "they knew that they were naked" until:
Gen 3:7
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves girdles.
?
Different themes. Genesis 1 gives us an account of the ordering of creation. Genesis 3 post Fall is about humanity's awareness of the consequences of their disobedience. One account is objective, what God has done, the other is personal, a new self awareness of consequence (and each other).
Yet Genesis 2 and Genesis 3, of which my example is limited to, is one linear chronological story, where before the fall they are not ashamed and then only after the fall they know they are naked. Clearly you are still inserting their knowledge of nakedness prior to the fall, which I point out that the text does not do.
How is it that you can insert what is said in Gen 3:7 into Gen 2:25? If they knew they were naked in 2:25, would it not have been more appropriate for the Torah to state in 2:25 the following:
Gen 2:25 (Johnnz Inspired Version)
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and they knew that they were naked, and were not ashamed.
and instead have simply said in
Gen 3:7
And the eyes of them both were opened; and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves girdles.
I am not going to second guess the author. My above explanation provides me with a credible understanding of the narrative.
You might well add in Gen 1 God created male and female on the 6th day. In Genesis 2 man was created first and only after naming the creatures. How long that took we are not told, but some time much longer than a day would be needed to do such a huge task. So, here we have different perspectives in the creation story, yet nothing more specific is stated about why that was so.
I am not sure I follow if you're saying there's a contradiction between Gen 1 and Gen 2, but that would be a discussion for another thread.
John, friend -
Gen 2:25 only states two facts, not a third:
1. And they were both naked, the man and his wife,
2. and were not ashamed.
The mere fact that "they were not ashamed" does not imply that they knew that they were naked. If so, it could as easily imply that their eyes were closed (since at least scripture later says they were opened, implying they were closed).
That is just betting a bit silly. Sorry but that's true. Firstly shame comes from knowing. There is no point is both statements unless the second clause refers to the first one.
You agree "shame comes from knowing." Precisely. Thus when they were "not ashamed" indicates that they did not "know" their nakedness.
Secondly shame for the biblical world was about dishonour before another, not the red faced embarrassment about our bodies we mean by that word. They had betrayed God and were now subject to His scrutiny. That is why they were afraid and ashamed, not because the God who had carefully sculpted each body was now upset at a man and woman with their genitals exposed.
Shame comes from doing wrong, that is correct. The nakedness that they had was able to be "known" after they sinned. Therefore nakedness that is exposed to others was a consequence of their sin, remaining so exposed would be a new wrong, which is why they were compelled to cover themselves up with fig leaves. Therefore to have one's nakedness exposed within view of another is derived to be wrong from their response. Everything in the Torah is instructive. Had they remained exposed when G-d confronted them, he would have addressed their exposed nakedness as yet another sin to be taken into consideration as part of his judgement. As such, during G-d's confrontation with them, since the Torah does not say they uncovered themselves or were dressed in something new, we can only conclude that they were still covered in their fig leaf garments and thus avoided having that issue being brought up by G-d. Only later does G-d dress them in skin garments he made for them. It is also interesting to note that a husband's duty to his wife in Lev is "food, clothing, and marital relations" and here in Gen 3 G-d makes provision for their clothing. Thus if G-d dresses you, does one not have the obligation to wear?
The reason for why they were not ashamed is not given.
See above
Your above comment doesn't posit a scriptural verse that explains why they were not ashamed.
You assume something that scripture does not state, but it's not just any assumption - it's an assumption of "and they knew that they were naked" as a statement of reality taking place before scripture even says it took place. You are assuming something that scripture does not say has yet taken place, but it does say it takes place later in Gen 3:7. Instead, to get around this anachronistic assumption, you are forced to impose a non-literal understanding of "and they knew that they were naked" when Gen 3:7 mentions this.
In other words, you hold an assumption that is unprovable from the literal text, as cause to remove the literal understanding of a text that comes later. That's called adding to scripture, and subtracting from scripture.
No more so than you are arguing from silence in that you assume that because we were not explicitly told they were naked they were unaware of that fact.
The fact that scripture tells us when they knew they were naked, is not an argument from silence. It's an argument that scripture is literally making, else it wouldn't state the phrase in Gen 3:7! To assume they knew they were naked before the text says so, is to go beyond the text, something that I am not doing.
The light theory does not hold with me either. There is no unequivocal biblical statement for that, or that such a light would conceal. I am sure that when Moses' face glowed the people could still recognise his facial features. They did not see a a faceless body with a glowing orb atop it.
Radiant bodies of the saints is found in other scriptural passages, but for purposes of understanding the logic of Torah, it's not immediately apparent that their bodies radiated light from the text itself (although I don't discount the possibility if one is able to examine the logic deep enough), however there is clear textual evidence that the nakedness they had before the fall was missing something after the fall. Aka there is clear textual evidence in the missing letter vav that what their physical bodies had before the fall, was missing something after the fall. Logically speaking, whatever it was that was lost, it was something that permitted their eyes to see and as a result know they were naked.
Instead I've laid out the assumption their eyes were closed, because scripture later says they were opened; and I've laid out the assumption they were literally unknowing of their nakedness since scripture later says they knew they were naked.
Which position is more scriptural? Yours or mine?
Get a concordance and look up 'opened eyes' to see how that phrase is used elsewhere in Scripture (Scripture interprets scripture were your words which I agree with completely)
I don't need a concordance to understand that this phrase alone in our discussion is not meant to be taken literally. The text is clear in the narrative itself: Eve was able to "see" the fruit and even determine it was "pleasing to the eye" thus when the Torah goes on to say "their eyes were opened" it can not logically imply that they were closed up to this point. Else how could Eve "see" as it is written she "saw the fruit?" Thus she saw with her physical eyes, as fruit being pleasing to those eyes, and later when her "eyes were opened" (also now including Adam in "they") the phrase can only refer to an end to blindness that she had previously (since one whose eyes are closed can not see and are thus blind), and specifically the text goes on to describe that particular blindness as directly related to her lack of knowledge of their nakedness. A knowledge made available because the blindness was no longer there.
Your position is totally built on assumptions not specifically stated anywhere in the text. At least my position derives from scripture, is proven by scripture, and is sustained by scripture.
No agreement here.
They literally did not know they were naked until Gen 3:7, and you have no scripture to prove otherwise. If you say Gen 2:25 then you must admit that in Gen 2:25, the reason for why they were not ashamed is not given. Do you at least agree with that fact?
Why would it be there such a reason given in 2:25? We know from ch 1 that the creation of humanity attracted a 'very good' appellation. If all was either 'good' and each other 'very good' there is no reason in the entire cosmos for any shame! So nothing said. But you have to argue there undeniably was no awareness of their nakedness with no clear biblical mandate for doing that.
Nothing is valid until proven true. When reading the bible you must approach it on its terms, not outside terms. Thus there is no light until there is "let there be light," thus there is no man until there is "let us make man," and thus there is no knowledge of nakedness until there is "they knew they were naked". Anything else is eisegesis, which your doctrine seems to heavily rely on.
If so, can you then agree that what is given as reason for their wanting to sew fig leaves in Gen 3:7 is because in Gen 3:7 "they knew that they were naked?"
That is what is written. My stance is about what that signified as the prologue for the entire biblical story which I have outlined in previous posts.
I am glad you acknowledge that chronology plays a big role in understanding the logic the Torah is teaching here concerning nakedness - namely that one who is naked should want to cover up, just like the man and his wife felt that they should too.
Regards
John
NZ
<><
Josephus
