Questions in Genesis

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by webdog, Jan 3, 2007.

  1. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"
    Gen 3:2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,


    Was is a normal occurance for animals to talk prior to the "fall"? The text does not make it out that Eve found the simple fact the serpent could talk as unusual. I would have expected verse 2 to begin "What! You're a talking serpent!! AHHH..."

    Gen 3:6
    Then the woman saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to look at, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
    Gen 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

    Reading this...why were Adam and Eve ashamed they were naked if they were married? Why would a husband and wife feel ashamed and afraid of being nude in front of each other?
     
  2. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,835
    Likes Received:
    115
    No, I don't believe that animals could ever talk...except for Balaam's ass.

    The Revelation, in two separate places, calls satan, that old "serpent".

    I believe that Eve was talking to the devil posing as a serpent or possessing a serpent. Her lack of astonishment doesn't necessarily mean that this was a common occurence.


    They weren't ashamed to be in front of each other. They were ashamed before God.

    This is my thinking based on essays that I have read and my own crazy brain. One of the temptations was that they would "be as gods". That's what the devil told Eve and apparently Eve told Adam.

    They found out after eating from the tree of knowledge just how far removed from gods they really were. They saw that they were exactly the same as the dogs and cats and lions and bulls. Created beings with genitalia that God has no need of Himself. This obvious link with animals took away their special place in a perfect relationship with God that animals could never have. They always knew that they were naked, but until they sinned, they weren't aware of what separated them as created beings from the Creator in terms of their being mortal, fragile, exposed, and prone to disobedience.

    They were trying to fix things. They were trying to cover their exposed areas that made the obviously animalistic. They were accustomed to being in a perfect relationship with God.

    Adam named the animals. He and Eve had dominion over them and dominion over all the earth. They were closer to God, being in a state of perfection like Him before eating from the tree. After eating, that state of perfection was no more. They definitely did not become gods....they became depraved. And their nudity, the genitalia that was so now making them aware of their depravity and being forever linked with the rest of creation and not with God made them ashamed of themselves.

    Their naked bodies weren't evil. Their actions were.

    They were aware of their nakedness before the fall, but they were oblivious to it making them ashamed....making them apart from the Creator who had no need of such. They had nothing to be ashamed of in the exposure of the bodies before the fall.

    God didn't cover them up as a punishment. God wasn't saying that nudity all by itself is evil and nudity all by itself is what separates you from Him.

    God covered them up because He loved them and didn't want the feelings of shame to overwhelm them and embarrass them in front of Him. He covered them to remove their shame of their sin. That's why blood was shed and why fig leaves couldn't cover the shame.

    Fig leaves can cover genitalia. But without the shedding of blood, shame cannot be covered.
     
    #2 Scarlett O., Jan 3, 2007
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2007
  3. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll leave that one alone... :tongue3:
    This poses another question alltogether. Christ existed during this time, IMO, with the glorified body He ascended into Heaven with...the same body seen during the OT ("The Angel of the Lord"). Are we to assume He had no genitalia then...and during His ministry on earth? It seems your whole point and view hinges on this...
     
  4. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,835
    Likes Received:
    115
    Their genitalia was present before the fall, but not an issue.

    Genitalia did not make the unworthy to be in God's presence.

    Their understanding that they were mere, mortal, beings, made from dirt and made to behave just like animals and were, as created beings, not worthy to be in God's presence was the issue.

    Nudity was not filthy. Their sexual relations were not filthy. But their new understanding of their mortal bodies and their likeness more unto animals, the creation than God, the Creator was the catalyst for recognizing that their natures were filthy.

    Jesus was fully human and fully God. His humanity really doesn't bear into this explanation. I'm sorry if I made it seem so.
     
  5. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Christ was not incarnated before the Fall. He may have appeared as the Angel of the Lord with some kind of body, but not a human body. Otherwise, the incarnation is reincarnation, which is against the Bible.

    I think the shame felt by Adam and Eve at being naked was a picture of their sin being exposed before God. Also, the innocence they had had before was now gone and perhaps, since they had sinned, they now had impure thoughts they had not had before when seeing their nakedness. Now, being naked was not innocent and normal but became a cause for shame before God simply because of sin.
     
  6. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    About Adam and Eve's shame. Consider another possibility. Remember when Moses spent time with the Lord on the mountain, when he returned, he had to veil his face because of the light shining from it?

    What if Adam and Eve were 'clothed' with the glory of God, as they walked with Him daily in the Garden of Eden? That glory would have departed at the moment of disobedience -- the light was gone. Was this the nakedness they realized?
     
  7. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93



    We know little about what life was like in those days of a perfect paradise. Eve may have spent much of her time playing Lady Godiva riding around on Mr. Ed, who often talked to her; "Eee-eee-eeve!..."

    Seriously, I do wonder sometimes if everything in Genesis was meant to be taken literally. I'm sure I would have said it was 20, 10, maybe as recently as 6 or 7 years ago. But taking every lesson literally can lead to misunderstanding, as the scripture itself shows; for example, when Jesus told his disciples to "beware the yeast of the Pharisees," they thought he was talking about bread, and he set them straight. But like this example, the message comes through if one takes the teaching seriously, whether literally or not; and this is that if we want to be our own god, we will irrevocably put ourselves to shame because we're of the stuff animals are made of.
     
  8. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Alcott, Genesis presents itself as eyewitness history. You really do need to accept it or reject it on its own terms and not on terms you choose to thrust upon it.
     
  9. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    Yeah? This thing you wrote about Adam and Eve being "clothed with the glory of God"-- is that the terms you accept it on? And are they your terms or Genesis' own?
     
  10. bapmom

    bapmom
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,091
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ive thought of this as being a possibility as well.
     
  11. bapmom

    bapmom
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,091
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alcott, Helen presented an interesting possibility, but she wasn't claiming it as Biblical truth. Give her a break.
     
  12. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    :applause:

    Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    Does this mean there was sorrow before the fall? If not, how can it be multiplied?

    Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

    Did they physically begin to die in that day? It doesn't say so. Perhaps physical death was not part of the curse.

    Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

    Live for ever? Is this speaking of physical life or immortality? If it means physical life then was Eden suppose to be our eternal existing place? Was Eden better than Heaven? If Heaven is better than Eden, aren't we glad Adam fell?

    Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

    Why is there no "evening" of the seventh day? Is it still going perhaps?


    Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
    Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
    Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
    Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

    Are we to take "morning" and "evening" as literal? If so, doesn't there need to be a sun in order to have a literal "morning" and "evening"? Yet the sun wasn't created till the third day, so what are the "mornings" and "evenings" of the previous days based on?

    Genesis raises just as many possibilities as it answers.





     
  13. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,144
    Likes Received:
    321
    ashamed of their nakedness...

    It was all about focus, their focus went from God to self.

    HankD
     

Share This Page

Loading...