Teaching the Bible to Children....

I too think that blood must have been shed.

When I was writing for LifeWay -- I think it was still the BSSB at the time -- one of the preschool editors gave me some material to rewrite. It had been elaborated on sooooooo much that it was complete fiction. It's easy to do AND it's easy for an editor to miss small elaborations. We assume a lot in our reading and have to be VERY careful not to let our assumptions become part of our biblical reference.

 

Then why skins? If this were an act of creation for mere clothing, why not a new material?The point is that some things are implicit. God got the skins from animals.

Well, then Eve would have been lying. The fact of the matter is, "don't touch" is implicit in the command not to eat, just as "do not be angry" is implicit in the command not to murder, and "do not look upon a woman to lust after her" is implicit in the command "do not commit adultery.

This is just silly.

It can't be concluded that it was unusual.

But when one understands fear, it's a foregone conclusion.

This is your chief error, your assumption that the human experience after the Fall is anything like the experience prior to the Fall. You want to impose the thinking and feelings of a fallen race groping about in darkness upon the unfallen Adam and Eve, and of all the arbitrary presuppositions, that one tops the list.

 

The text still does not say God got the skins from animals.

The text still does not say God told them not to touch the fruit.

The test still does not say they had any conversation other than with God and with the serpent.

The text still does not say it was a daily occurence, or how often, that God came walking in the garden.

The text still does not say they had fear or animals, or animals had fear of them, or vice versa.

I have no such assumption; that is a false assumption on your part.

What tops the list is your nonsense conclusions as to what I think and your acceptance of your own presuppostions as biblical, when they are only conclusions from the text. Of course you think they are valid, but that's the major reason there are hundreds of denominations and churches-- 'our' assumptions from scripture and what individual scriptures take priority over others.

 

Does the text in Exodus 3:6 mention a Resurrection? Not explicitly, but it's eminently implicit, and Christ held the Sadducees accountable to know the Resurrection from this verse (Matt. 22:31-32).

All your points about the letter of the text are moot. A Scripture does not have to be explicit for a doctrine to be legitimately inferred from it. No one communicates solely on the basis of exact words.

Neither does this kind of criticism spring from a desire to be flawlessly accurate. It usually springs from one's desire to push the limits. It reminds me of the 6th grade. The teacher said, "No talking," but the kid next to me had the giggles and let out with a little snigger. "She didn't say anything about laughing," he whispered. But we all knew, that "no talking" meant to be quiet in every way. So, why would God be okay with touching the fruit if eating it were forbidden? He wouldn't be, and Eve understood that "do not eat" also meant do not even touch it.

 

Are you incapable of understanding that the basis of this thread was teaching implications from scripture as if they were scripture themselves, and I simply pointed out that the topic goes further and finer than presented?

 

More than capable. I also have my eyes open. Your point was that anything that is not explicit is mere guesswork. That's the premise I am correcting.

The implications of Scripture are Scripture, as Christ demonstrated to the Sadducees.

 

I am under the opinion that God did kill something to get the skins...
But I wanted to point out that it does not say so.

But thinking logically, we would get that.

Also... The Bible does not say Noah's son's helped Noah build the ark...
But it always taught that they did.

 

The Bible does not say that the stone killed Goliath, but we have been taught that and children are still being taught that.

 

I would say the sword had something to do with that....


Chop, chop!

 

Aren't there certain, logical assumptions we can make? yes? no?

It's when we branch off too far that we leap into fantasy that we have to be careful.

 

We all have been taught stories from the Bible that have had modern day spins on what happened.

That is what the Word tells us to "Study to shew thyself approved...'

 

Agreed!

. . .

 

Like the one where the little kid asked why Moses just didn't use his cell phone to call for directions!

 

Show me where I said that. Little wonder you think your conclusions drawn from scripture are scripture, if you try that with any exchange.

I Corinthians implies being baptized for the dead, and that 2 or 3 may speak prohphecy, or 2 or 3 a 'tongue' or a hymn. I Timothy implies to be an elder or deacon a man must be married to one and only one wife; no single men, no polygymists, no widowers. Titus goes even further than implication, and Paul overtly says Cretans are liar, gluttons, and beasts; he makes no exceptions (ch. 1:12,13). If you accept all implications as scripture, I must assume you accept all these, among others.

Now-- was it a lamb that God killed to cover Adam and Eve with its (or their) skin, or was it not? After all, it's implied in scripture that an unblemished lamb is the sacrifice for sin.

 

It could have been an angry beaver...

BTW, where is that little critter?
I hope he wasn't sacrificed!