Naturism (nudism)

[Johnnz]

Edit - double post

 

[Johnnz]

The logic of the first mention of nakedness is defined by their being not ashamed. The logic of the second mention of their nakedness, now with a defective spelling, is defined by their knowing their nakedness. Therefore their knowing of their nakedness is a direct effect of their defective nakedness which then leads to shame at being naked and their sewing of fig leaves to cover themselves.

You can allegorize and spiritualize nakedness any way you want, but any allegory any doctrine depends on breaks down the moment that the meaning of nakedness does not mean physical nakedness, or their clothing themselves did not happen to begin with. Else you have no real object to have the allegory depend on and attached to. This is why rabbis will say that no verse in the Torah loses its peshat - its plain literal meaning.

Therefore they were naked but before the fall they literally did not know they were naked. And their nakedness physically lost something when they fell. This is the literal logic, and the plain meaning. All you can do is allegorize from here. But from here you must admit you start.

What I gave was not allegorization, but biblical imagery used thematically. If you look at the first two chapters of Genesis thematically such interpretation can be consistent with biblical usage in general and its use in those chapters.

All these words have connotations beyond their literal meanings within the Canon.

God walking in the garden - elsewhere walking together is indicative of relationship.
Clothing - actual clothing, status, inheritance, royalty
Nakedness From an article by a Christian theologian and an Anglican priest Meaning of Nakedness K Gorham & D Neal

"Nakedness has many associations. The following list is not intended to be exhaustive, but to give some idea of the range of ways in which nakedness can serve as a potent image, conjuring up a variety of different ideas. Some of these are obvious and literal, others are not. But they indicate the capacity of the rich range of meanings of the concept of nakedness. It is worth presenting them here, if only to prevent us leaping too quickly and exclusively to an association of nakedness and the erotic.
Innocence: the nakedness of the newborn baby as a symbol of innocence. Clothes can be a mask, and their absence a symbol by way of contrast of our capacity (and perhaps our need or desire) to hide our true selves.
Vulnerability: again, the newborn baby may serve as a powerful image of a need for protection. Clothes can cover and protect against cold and wet, and can be armour against attack. There are biblical examples perhaps indicating dependency in Job 1.21 and Ecclesiastes 5.15, and helplessness in Hosea 2.3.
Poverty: the incapacity to afford clothing can mean the necessity of going naked. This may carry consequent implications of pity and shame, though here the pity and shame do not focus on the nakedness as much as they do upon the poverty which causes it. We see an association of poverty and nakedness in Job 24.4–10, though here the nakedness appears at least in part to be the result of specific acts of oppression. The association of nakedness and humiliation is emphasized in Amos 2.16.
Punishment: perhaps connected with humiliation, the stripping of those to be punished may emphasize their degradation and vulnerability in the face of the power of those who inflict punishment. Christians may particularly recall the stripping of Jesus for crucifixion.
Madness and possession: the story of the demoniac in the Gospel of Mark implies this connection (see Mark 5.15, where the restored demoniac is described as ‘clothed and in his right mind.’) Compare Calvin’s comment: ‘Though we are not tormented by the devil, yet he holds us as his slaves, till the Son of God delivers us from his tyranny. Naked, torn and disfigured, we wander about, till he restores us to soundness of mind.’
Transparency/openness: we may speak of being ‘laid bare’ before someone, perhaps involuntarily, and Christians may hold their lives to be lived in a special aspect of transparent nakedness of this sort towards God. Interestingly, a word used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) for making bare or uncovering, the Hebrew ’rh, is apokalypto —reveal, disclose—from which we get the word (now a very-long-dead metaphor) apocalypse!
Sexual connotations: nakedness is associated with sexual arousal or availability, though the teasing promise of nakedness (semi-nakedness) may serve this purpose rather better than actual nakedness! This same teasing nakedness reduced to an object may serve to provoke irrelevant erotic associations with market goods through advertising.

Actual nakedness as presented pictorially often functions in an importantly different way, presenting the naked person as an object. None of these need have any special claim to be thought of as the meaning of nakedness. In fact, it might be the case that none of them have any necessary part to play in an analysis of nakedness. Even if the sexual connotations of nakedness are most obvious in cultures such as our own, where sexual obsession and sexual display are most marked, there is no reason to imagine that all cultures must experience nakedness that way."
Opened eyes - often used to show understanding arising from a revelation.

Thus, I see your exegetical base as rather restricted. The biblical texts as used throughout the entire canon and centered around the person of Jesus in their major import for us today is my basis out of which I have made the above comments.

John
NZ

 

[Josephus]

Thus, I see your exegetical base as rather restricted. The biblical texts as used throughout the entire canon and centered around the person of Jesus in their major import for us today is my basis out of which I have made the above comments.

John
NZ

I am not limiting any allegorical application of the scripture as long as its conclusions don't contradict the plain meaning of scripture here or anywhere else.

The thing I'm trying to point out to you John, is that you are rejecting the plain meaning of the scripture concerning what it means to be naked in these passages, in favor of your allegorical application. It is not my exegetical base that is limited. When you refuse to accept the plain and simple meaning of the scripture in favor of an allegory, it is your exegetical base that is limiting. After all, and without logical reason from the text, nor with previous scriptural license to do so, you somehow seem justified to lay over your allegorical interpretation onto the text.

There is nothing in the text or previous scripture before the text to assume the text is not speaking literally to where one must try and guess its real meaning. That is the assumption this doctrine you are presenting holds to. Its an unjustified assumption. The text itself does not give you permission to do its understanding such an injustice as to allegorize it and so not mean they literally did know know they were physically naked. Sure you point to authorities outside the bible to justify anything you want about what you read in the bible, but those authorities aren't the bible. The bible itself is your guide to understanding it. If the bible itself does not give you logical warrant to allegorize the text to the exclusion of the plain meaning, then you shouldn't. In fact if the bible up to this point in the text doesn't justify an allegorical interpretation of any kind, then you should not be allegorizing it at all.

In other words:

You have no scriptural justification in the first three chapters in Genesis that warrants you or any other reader to assume any part of those three chapters should be read as an allegory alone. Especially the parts that refer to nakedness and covering up. You have yet to post scriptural justification from the passages themselves for this, but rather you only assume it. This assumption is the thread that when pulled by the sheer text of the first three chapters in Genesis alone, unravels your entire doctrine on nudism and this topic. Your assumption of allegory does not stand in its light.

 

[Johnnz]

Josephus

Again what I wrote was not allegorization. Period.

Job 26:6 Death is naked before God; Destruction lies uncovered. NIV
No imagery here? naked can only mean 'no clothes'?

Mark 14:51-52 Then they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. NIV
Was he completely naked?

Ps 98:8 Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy; NIV
That is absolutely literal?

John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. NIV
Literal?

Ps 124:1-5 If the Lord had not been on our side — let Israel say — if the Lord had not been on our side when men attacked us, when their anger flared against us, they would have swallowed us alive; the flood would have engulfed us, the torrent would have swept over us, 5 the raging waters would have swept us away. NIV
An image of a conquering army or literal water?

Ezek 1:15-18 As I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the ground beside each creature with its four faces. This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like chrysolite, and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel. As they moved, they would go in any one of the four directions the creatures faced; the wheels did not turn about as the creatures went. Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of eyes all around. NIV
God really looks like this?

Types and ante-types are another example where images prefigure Christ for example as in the sacrifices and temple, both of which were literal but having other meaning too.

John
NZ

 

[Josephus]

You miss the point.

Gen 1-3 does not give any indication that the verse "and they knew they were naked" is anything less than the simple fact they did not know they were physically naked before. There is nothing in the text that exclude the definitions for erum and yada as applying to their awareness of their physical nakedness. Nor does anything in the text indicate their covering with fig leaves is anything less than their covering their physical bodies with real fig leaves that they sewed together.

Scripture interprets scripture. But not in the way you are using it. You are attempting to rationalize your use of allegory-only of the passages above in order to exclude their simple meaning, by appealing to later unrelated scripture that in some cases is meant to be taken allegorically. Except you miss that previous scripture to those examples explain for themselves that they are not meant to be taken literally. Gen 1-3 however, gives no such permission. You can apply allegory to Gen 1-3, but you can't say Gen 1-3 is not to be taken literally since there is no permission to hold so from the text itself.

 

[Johnnz]

You miss the point.

Gen 1-3 does not give any indication that the verse "and they knew they were naked" is anything less than the simple fact they did not know they were physically naked before. There is nothing in the text that exclude the definitions for erum and yada as applying to their awareness of their physical nakedness. Nor does anything in the text indicate their covering with fig leaves is anything less than their covering their physical bodies with real fig leaves that they sewed together.

I have never excluded physical nakedness, especially as I am not opposed to it in appropriate circumstances. But I hold to that having a more significant meaning in the text that just being clothes free. You have never responded to my posts where I gave examples of the wider use in Scripture of several other words. For me that is scripture interpreting scripture.

Scripture interprets scripture. But not in the way you are using it. You are attempting to rationalize your use of allegory-only of the passages above in order to exclude their simple meaning, by appealing to later unrelated scripture that in some cases is meant to be taken allegorically. Except you miss that previous scripture to those examples explain for themselves that they are not meant to be taken literally. Gen 1-3 however, gives no such permission. You can apply allegory to Gen 1-3, but you can't say Gen 1-3 is not to be taken literally since there is no permission to hold so from the text itself.

Once again I was not adopting any allegorization. Allegory is a literary device quite distinct from imagery. And I reject the stance that the Genesis story is about physical nakedness per se and a subsequent divine mandate to wear clothes in company. That, as I stated, trivialises the themes presented in that story.

Our exegetical position differs. We have both stated what we see in those scriptures. Readers can come to their own conclusions now.

John
NZ

 

[BL2KTN]

I just want to know how they found out they were naked. Clothes hadn't been invented yet, so deciding "we're unclothed" is about as astute as "we're covered in oxygen." Neither were known to them.

 

[Josephus]

I reject the stance that the Genesis story is about physical nakedness per se and a subsequent divine mandate to wear clothes in company. That, as I stated, trivialises the themes presented in that story.

There is no qualifier in the text of Gen 1-3 on what kind of nakedness is being referred to, thus one is only forced to assume all kinds of nakedness is implied. The text therefore gives you no permission to limit its application. Hence your exegesis is flawed and the conclusion that erum is limited to something other than physical nakedness, is false.

So far you have not presented any objections from Gen 1-3 against the belief that "naked" in Gen 1-3 is referring to physical nakedness.

 

[Josephus]

I just want to know how they found out they were naked. Clothes hadn't been invented yet, so deciding "we're unclothed" is about as astute as "we're covered in oxygen." Neither were known to them.

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.

The passage says their eyes were opened. This opening of their eyes (were they closed before?) allowed them to know what previously was unknown. Yet we know that prior to this they could see, since Eve "saw the fruit" and it was "pleasing to the eye". Thus this opening of their eyes must be more than just physically being open.

Concerning that you believe clothing wasn't invented yet, I think this is an assumption on your part. As I discussed above, the difference in the Hebrew word for naked before the fall and after the fall, is a matter of one missing letter vav. Obviously what constituted their nakedness before the fall, is now missing after the fall. This missing object is then inferred as the reason they were able to know they were naked with their eyes being opened to see such.

I made the analogy, that if they were created as bright and shiny beings like we know Jesus was at the transfiguration, where their own flesh glowed a brilliant blinding light, then, just like turning off a light bulb, the features and print on the light bulb glass makes it possible to see the print and read it with understanding, whereas before when the light was on those features were drowned out in the light making it impossible to see the features.

So too I believe this is what Adam and Eve looked like before they fell, and after they fell they lost this glow, and they were able to finally know they were naked by simply looking at each other with eyes that weren't so blinded by their now extinguished light.

 

[Johnnz]

There is no qualifier in the text of Gen 1-3 on what kind of nakedness is being referred to, thus one is only forced to assume all kinds of nakedness is implied. The text therefore gives you no permission to limit its application. Hence your exegesis is flawed and the conclusion that erum is limited to something other than physical nakedness, is false.

So far you have not presented any objections from Gen 1-3 against the belief that "naked" in Gen 1-3 is referring to physical nakedness.

I haven't limited its application. I have extended it to something far grander in scope of which actual nakedness is representative. Plus within a bigger story of relationship with God, not just about clothes. In fact I have stated the opposite I have expanded erum beyond mere physical nakedness. You see it as nakedness, I see it as nakedness +

John
NZ

 

[faroukfarouk]

But again why must something good be destroyed for the sake of something which is comparatively not? Why must someone suffer for sins they didn't commit?

Therein lies the immense love of God that He should send His Son to be the Savior for sinners. John 3.16 expresses it so well.

 

[selfinflikted]

.

 

[Josephus]

I haven't limited its application. I have extended it to something far grander in scope of which actual nakedness is representative. Plus within a bigger story of relationship with God, not just about clothes. In fact I have stated the opposite I have expanded erum beyond mere physical nakedness. You see it as nakedness, I see it as nakedness +

John
NZ

Oh so you do believe they didn't know they were physically naked before the fall, and then after the fall they knew they were physically naked?

 

[Johnnz]

Oh so you do believe they didn't know they were physically naked before the fall, and then after the fall they knew they were physically naked?

Read my posts a bit more carefully please.

John
NZ

 

[Josephus]

Read my posts a bit more carefully please.

John
NZ

Perhaps I missed it, but can you state for the record that you believe they didn't know they were physically naked before the fall, and then after the fall they knew they were physically naked?

 

[Johnnz]

They knew they were physically naked pre Fall. They were fully aware of themselves, God and each other.

Post Fall the same.

Both are suggestive of more than physical nakedness though

John
NZ

 

[Josephus]

They knew they were physically naked pre Fall.

Where in Gen 1-2 is this statement justified? Its not until ch 3 that the Torah records "and they knew they were naked".

 

[Johnnz]

They were naked and not ashamed. To suggest they were unaware of that goes beyond the text and would make little sense.

John
NZ

 

[Josephus]

They were naked and not ashamed. To suggest they were unaware of that goes beyond the text and would make little sense.

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.

?

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.


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).

The reason for why they were not ashamed is not given.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?"

 

[Johnnz]

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).

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.

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.

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.

The reason for why they were not ashamed is not given.

See above

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 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.

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)

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.

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.

Regards

John
NZ