# Nudity in Genesis



## GunnSmokeer

When Adam and Eve sinned by eating of the forbidden fruit, they did two things:
-- they hid from God.
-- they covered their loins with leaves.

The first thing, hiding their entire selves from God, I can understand. They felt shame and didn't want to face God's anger for disobeying Him.

The fig leaves over their private parts-- I don't understand.

Their sin was not sexual, nor did it involve nudity or exhibitionism.

They were made for each other, and their reproductive organs were given to them by God with the explicit commandment to be fruitful and multiply. They were commanded to have sex.
They could ONLY have sex with each other. There were no other people in the Garden to fornicate with. Adultery would be impossible at this point in human history. Child molestation or rape-- impossible! 

So what's with the shame over their sexual organs and appendages?

What motivated Adam and Eve to cover up their privates, rather than their faces? God had not told them to cover themselves up in any way.  

Yet, God didn't rebuke them for making coverings from plant leaves.  Instead, God made them better clothes out of animal skins (thus bringing actual physical death to this paradise for the first time).  Why?  For what reason?

Two children of God alone in the world-- what do they need clothes for?  To resist temptations related to sex and lust? They were at an all-you-can-sex buffet! There was no sexual sin at this time.  (Was there?)


----------



## GunnSmokeer

One theory that seems to be pretty popular is that before the Fall, before this knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve had sex in a natural way at times and circumstances that served God's purposes of procreation, while being just a part of a healthy lifestyle.  After they Fall, they saw sex as a powerful and dangerous or addicting thing that has to be controlled (not eliminated, but controlled).  Therefore, they covered up their junk to reduce lustful thoughts. 
Because they knew that they would no longer have sex when the Holy Spirit moved them, but now they would have sex for their own purposes for no reason other than short term pleasure, regardless of the role of sex in human reproduction.  Although the sex act itself may never have changed, the motivations behind it did.

(My problem with accepting that theory is that it presumes that Adam did not lust for Eve before the Fall. I think carnal lust for the opposite sex is natural and would have existed as soon as Adam and Eve were together and commanded to be fruitful and multiply.)


----------



## hobbs27

I think its more figuritive than literal. I read something on this recently but I'm so busy at work, it may take a couple of days to find it and get back. Just think of the Clothing in righteousness Jesus gives us....and sin exposes the flesh.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I don't have an answer to the question but isn't there a relation to God killing the animals for their clothing being the first blood sacrifice?
I'm not sure if that has anything to do with the future. Future being from Adam on forward.


----------



## NCHillbilly

I've never understood our culture's hangups about nudity to begin with. If anything, it makes the hidden parts more mysterious and alluring. In much of the world, people go around practically nekkid, and they don't seem to have the fascination/obsession with sex that western cultures have. Desensitization from seeing something every day makes it less exotic, and forbidden fruit is always the fruit that people most want to take a bite out of.


----------



## gordon 2

I've heard the story that God created man; That is man and women--- one man. And then they started blaming each other and pointing the finger... as in : See your the one, your different from me.... after the fall.... that is. One sin started the blame game and on with geometric progression regards shame and other sins.... perhaps.


----------



## centerpin fan

NCHillbilly said:


> ... they don't seem to have the fascination/obsession with sex that western cultures have.



I dunno.  The _Kama Sutra_ sure ain't western.


----------



## Lowjack

There is no scripture that says they had sex before the fall , they were in a Estate of Innocence and only recognized their estate after they sinned , so they stopped being a spiritual existence in the flesh and just became flesh.

6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

They had been born of the Spirit (Rhuach) now they had disobeyed The Spirit and become pure flesh.


----------



## Huntinfool

God told them to be fruitful and multiply before the seventh day of creation.  Unless you know of a different way to multiply than I do and unless the fall came before God rested on the seventh day....they were, at the very least, instructed to have sex by their creator before the fall.

"Hoo-Hoo's" and "Ha-Ha's" didn't magically grow on men and women after the fall.  They were built with that equipment from the very beginning for a reason.

Sex (whether for pleasure or procreation) is not a result or consequence of the fall.  There is no explicit scripture that refers to Adam and Eve doing the deed before the fall.  Neither is there an explicit scripture that refers to them eating.  But they were explicitly instructed to do both.


----------



## marketgunner

The word used is not nudity it is naked but it implies more  that not having clothes but a position of hopelessness and destitution.
When we have no clothes on we might be up to something, but to those who only have one set of clothing, it is a lot more desperate when it is gone.  It implies unable to help themselves.
The word is actually from the Hebrew root that includes "crafty or "subtle" so  "sneaking around" fits or trying to hid something.


----------



## Huntinfool

So, is the same word used when it says that they were naked and unashamed prior to that?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Lowjack said:


> There is no scripture that says they had sex before the fall , they were in a Estate of Innocence and only recognized their estate after they sinned , so they stopped being a spiritual existence in the flesh and just became flesh.
> 
> 6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
> 
> They had been born of the Spirit (Rhuach) now they had disobeyed The Spirit and become pure flesh.



Weren't they already in a body? Did they eat? I understand they had a spirit but they also already had a flesh. Fleshes have needs and wants too. Even if they have a spirit.


----------



## marketgunner

Huntinfool said:


> So, is the same word used when it says that they were naked and unashamed prior to that?



There we also destitute before they sinned, they just didn't know it


----------



## Huntinfool

marketgunner said:


> There we also destitute before they sinned, they just didn't know it



I'm gonna need you to expand on that thought.  They were lacking nothing and there was no sin.  

I hope you're not implying that they had a sin nature before they sinned.


----------



## marketgunner

No, I believe the "souls" of man are the condemned "fallen angels" . 

I believe mankind is the method God uses to redeem lost souls.

so , yes I believe Adam and Eve were sinners  , even before, they had physical bodies. 


Sin entered the physical world through Adam. It was already in the spiritual.

To include your term "sin nature" as you use it would be wrong. We are sinners.

I do not find a verse saying they had no sin.


----------



## rjcruiser

marketgunner said:


> No, I believe the "souls" of man are the condemned "fallen angels" .
> 
> I believe mankind is the method God uses to redeem lost souls.
> 
> so , yes I believe Adam and Eve were sinners  , even before, they had physical bodies.
> 
> 
> Sin entered the physical world through Adam. It was already in the spiritual.
> 
> To include your term "sin nature" as you use it would be wrong. We are sinners.
> 
> I do not find a verse saying they had no sin.



Do you have a verse that says they did have sin?

How did Adam and Eve have sin when everything God created was "good?"


----------



## marketgunner

the "good" is not morally good but" good" according to God's purpose, redemption .

The sin was there long before they brought sin into the physical world.  

I do not find verses that suggest they were Holy

But Adam became a  "living soul"   Why the would "living"?  Was he  a dead soul before?


----------



## Huntinfool

Okie Dokie...

Pretty much sums up why my time in here has diminished over the past couple of years.


----------



## dawg2

Huntinfool said:


> Okie Dokie...
> 
> Pretty much sums up why my time in here has diminished over the past couple of years.



LOL


----------



## centerpin fan

Huntinfool said:


> Okie Dokie...
> 
> Pretty much sums up why my time in here has diminished over the past couple of years.



Yep.  This forum boarded the crazy train quite awhile ago.


----------



## rjcruiser

marketgunner said:


> the "good" is not morally good but" good" according to God's purpose, redemption .
> 
> The sin was there long before they brought sin into the physical world.
> 
> I do not find verses that suggest they were Holy
> 
> But Adam became a  "living soul"   Why the would "living"?  Was he  a dead soul before?



So....there is no verse that implies or suggests they had sin.

There are terms that imply no sin, yet you decide to interpret them differently than most everyone else.

Interesting.




Huntinfool said:


> Okie Dokie...
> 
> Pretty much sums up why my time in here has diminished over the past couple of years.



LOL x2



dawg2 said:


> LOL



Lurker


----------



## NCHillbilly

If the Lord didn't intend for hootie-hoos to be used, he wouldn't have installed them.


----------



## rjcruiser

NCHillbilly said:


> If the Lord didn't intend for hootie-hoos to be used, he wouldn't have installed them.



He did intend for the hootie-hoos to be used...He actually encourages it.  Read Prov 5:18-19 

It's just that they're to be enjoyed and used in the confines of marriage.  A concept that many (christians included) can't grasp.


----------



## marketgunner

rjcruiser said:


> So....there is no verse that implies or suggests they had sin.
> 
> There are terms that imply no sin, yet you decide to interpret them differently than most everyone else.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL x2
> 
> 
> 
> Lurker



It is actually from applying other verses to all mankind, including Adam. 

The only implied verse that Adam was innocent is the God walked with Him in the Garden at evening. With God being Holy, He wouldn't , couldn't allow sin in His presence. Knowing good and evil suggest accountability not innocence.

I they were sinless why would an all knowing God put them anywhere near the arch enemy Satan, much less in the same Garden. They were sinners in spirit , and then they sinned in the physical , bring sin and the curse to the physical world.

The were already condemned, Humanity is the method of Redemption not condemnation.


----------



## Artfuldodger

marketgunner said:


> It is actually from applying other verses to all mankind, including Adam.
> 
> The only implied verse that Adam was innocent is the God walked with Him in the Garden at evening. With God being Holy, He wouldn't , couldn't allow sin in His presence. Knowing good and evil suggest accountability not innocence.
> 
> I they were sinless why would an all knowing God put them anywhere near the arch enemy Satan, much less in the same Garden. They were sinners in spirit , and then they sinned in the physical , bring sin and the curse to the physical world.
> 
> The were already condemned, Humanity is the method of Redemption not condemnation.



This could explain why the elect aren't already condemned when they are born.


----------



## GunnSmokeer

You know, I get the idea that Adam and Eve used fig leaves to ONLY  cover their privates.  That's what I remember seeing in works of art. Painting, statutes.

But maybe the leaves were more, so they were actually a substitute for clothing, meant for a good portion of the body, not just the taco, the frank & beans, and her headlights.

If the leaves were more like an APRON, then they're just clothes. Actually, one Hebrew-English translation of the Old Testament that I read uses the word "apron."

And one can wear clothes for a variety of reasons not related to shame over the sexual parts.
Protection from sun, thorns, bugs, whatever. 
Maybe Adam and Eve felt that they'd soon lose God's protection?

Either way, maybe the right answer is that they hid themselves with clothing, not specifically hiding their naughty bits.


----------



## Huntinfool

Y'all must have some extra long arms...because you're reaching WAAAAY out there to explain something. 

Scripture is not nearly as complicated or cryptic as you're making it out to be. Sometimes what it says really is just what it says and there isn't some mystical great hidden riddle.


----------



## EverGreen1231

They hid from God in the trees. They also hid themselves with fig leaves. They had no concept that being nekkid was a bad thing till Adam ate the fruit. Where's the question? It all looks pretty straight forward to me.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Huntinfool said:


> Y'all must have some extra long arms...because you're reaching WAAAAY out there to explain something.
> 
> Scripture is not nearly as complicated or cryptic as you're making it out to be. Sometimes what it says really is just what it says and there isn't some mystical great hidden riddle.



Because the Bible is full of shadows, symbols, and types.
Example the ark story was a shadow of Jesus and salvation.
When God killed an animal and gave their skins to Adam & Eve, wasn't this a shadow of the blood sacrifices that would be required from God?
Maybe this is how we can relate Adam & Eves sin causing vulnerability/loss of protection to blood sacrifices. 

Or it might be just as you said just a simple story with no deeper meaning.


----------



## Artfuldodger

EverGreen1231 said:


> They hid from God in the trees. They also hid themselves with fig leaves. They had no concept that being nekkid was a bad thing till Adam ate the fruit. Where's the question? It all looks pretty straight forward to me.



Why did their suddenly feeling vulnerable to God make them aware of their nakedness? I think it's a legitimate question. We might not have an answer but the question is legit.
Maybe it does have to do with them realizing they had no protection.
I don't think it has anything to do with sexuality or nudity as not being moral. In some countries depending on the climate, adults may or may not wear cloths. 

I would feel vulnerable sitting in an office meeting room if everyone was wearing cloths but me. If I had grown up in a nudist environment, and everyone at the meeting was nude, then I wouldn't feel vulnerable. I probable wouldn't even be aware of my nakedness.


----------



## Huntinfool

Artfuldodger said:


> Because the Bible is full of shadows, symbols, and types.
> Example the ark story was a shadow of Jesus and salvation.



If it was as complicated as it's made in here on a regular basis, 90% of humanity would be excluded from salvation simply because they couldn't grasp the mystery of the gospel.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Huntinfool said:


> If it was as complicated as it's made in here on a regular basis, 90% of humanity would be excluded from salvation simply because they couldn't grasp the mystery of the gospel.



This much is true, the gospel is simple.


----------



## EverGreen1231

Artfuldodger said:


> Why did their suddenly feeling vulnerable to God make them aware of their nakedness? I think it's a legitimate question. We might not have an answer but the question is legit.
> Maybe it does have to do with them realizing they had no protection.
> I don't think it has anything to do with sexuality or nudity as not being moral. In some countries depending on the climate, adults may or may not wear cloths.
> 
> I would feel vulnerable sitting in an office meeting room if everyone was wearing cloths but me. If I had grown up in a nudist environment, and everyone at the meeting was nude, then I wouldn't feel vulnerable. I probable wouldn't even be aware of my nakedness.



If there's no answer, why ask?

They were made aware of their nakedness from eating of the forbidden fruit, a fruit that allowed them to see that running around naked wasn't alright. The knowledge that this wasn't ok made them ashamed. See: age of accountability.

There're some subjects in the Bible that are cryptic and need a lot of study to gain some understanding... I don't see where this is one of them.


----------



## Huntinfool

Being naked and sinful wasn't alright.  Being naked before the fall was just fine according to Genesis.

Clearly God was pretty cool with it when he created them and was walking with them on a daily basis.  If he hadn't been he either A) would have created them with clothes on or B) would have told them to cover that junk up.


----------



## EverGreen1231

Huntinfool said:


> Being naked and sinful wasn't alright.  Being naked before the fall was just fine according to Genesis.
> 
> Clearly God was pretty cool with it when he created them and was walking with them on a daily basis.  If he hadn't been he either A) would have created them with clothes on or B) would have told them to cover that junk up.



This is very true, thank you for the correction.


----------



## Artfuldodger

EverGreen1231 said:


> If there's no answer, why ask?
> 
> They were made aware of their nakedness from eating of the forbidden fruit, a fruit that allowed them to see that running around naked wasn't alright. The knowledge that this wasn't ok made them ashamed. See: age of accountability.
> 
> There're some subjects in the Bible that are cryptic and need a lot of study to gain some understanding... I don't see where this is one of them.



I said "we might not have the answer."


----------



## EverGreen1231

Artfuldodger said:


> I said "we might not have the answer."



If it might not exist, I still see no point in asking.


----------



## Artfuldodger

EverGreen1231 said:


> If there's no answer, why ask?
> 
> They were made aware of their nakedness from eating of the forbidden fruit, a fruit that allowed them to see that running around naked wasn't alright. The knowledge that this wasn't ok made them ashamed. See: age of accountability.
> 
> There're some subjects in the Bible that are cryptic and need a lot of study to gain some understanding... I don't see where this is one of them.



When Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, God gave them skins to cover up with. To get those skins, animals had to die. In other words, God sacrificed an animal to cover their sin. From the beginning, God has declared the payment for sin is death, and so blood must be shed to cover sin.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Here is another question with no answer but I wonder how long those garments tailored by God lasted?


----------



## marketgunner

Artfuldodger said:


> When Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, God gave them skins to cover up with. To get those skins, animals had to die. In other words, God sacrificed an animal to cover their sin. From the beginning, God has declared the payment for sin is death, and so blood must be shed to cover sin.



The wages (consequences) of sin is death, the payment for sin is the blood, Jesus Christ


----------



## Artfuldodger

marketgunner said:


> The wages (consequences) of sin is death, the payment for sin is the blood, Jesus Christ



This shedding of blood is a substitutionary act. 

The "OLD" things are the "TYPES" of the Old Testament, and the NEW things are what they stand for in the New Testament.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> I said "we might not have the answer."



I think Heb.4:13 sheds light on the answer.They were "exposed" in every sense of the word(spiritually and physically) , and in their shame and desparation, tried unsuccesfully to cover it.


----------



## marketgunner

Artfuldodger said:


> This shedding of blood is a substitutionary act.
> 
> The "OLD" things are the "TYPES" of the Old Testament, and the NEW things are what they stand for in the New Testament.



Yes,  but Jesus was the substitute for man. All other blood sacrifices were pointing to Jesus.  The sacrifices soon stopped after His death and were not accepted by God after His crucifixion


----------



## Lowjack

Artfuldodger said:


> Weren't they already in a body? Did they eat? I understand they had a spirit but they also already had a flesh. Fleshes have needs and wants too. Even if they have a spirit.




According to The Midrash , they were made as spiritual Beings within a Body of flesh , they walked with G-d Himself , so their thoughts and actions were spiritual.
You don't think they had the same uncontrolled urges we have today ? It is obvious and written they had sex after they fell and then Eve conceived .
So their needs when they were in a estate of innocence were different , so it will be again after the resurrection as Yeshua Explained.


----------



## marketgunner

There is no sexes in the spiritual world, no need. They, (we) are unique and individual creation of God.

Procreation is for the purpose of redemption.

after all

 Luk 5:36
And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.
 Luk 5:37
And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
 Luk 5:38
But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
 Luk 5:39
No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.


----------

