Xstian Logic

[screwtape]

You assume, just as nearly everyone else, that it is physical nakedness that ashamed them. 

Not an assumption, son.  Scriptural:

Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Why would that be mentioned except to point out that it was assumed to be something to be ashamed of?

7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

They gain moral knoweldge and their eyes are opened.  They first thing they notice is their nudity.  Together with gen2:25 it shows that
1. nudity is shameful
2. they were unaware they should be ashamed
3. the fruit gave them that awareness

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

Adam says he hid because he was naked.  yhwh knew what happened as soon as he heard they knew they were naked. So why do you not take this in a plain and straighforward reading?

[darkdragon46]

You assume, just as nearly everyone else, that it is physical nakedness that ashamed them. 

Not an assumption, son.  Scriptural:

Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Why would that be mentioned except to point out that it was assumed to be something to be ashamed of?

Um....but it doesn't say they were ashamed.

7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

And they felt shame because they had no clothes...  I'm not seeing it here. 

They gain moral knoweldge and their eyes are opened.  They first thing they notice is their nudity.  Together with gen2:25 it shows that
1. nudity is shameful
2. they were unaware they should be ashamed
3. the fruit gave them that awareness

You think being without clothes is shameful?  Impolite, yes.  Shameful, hardly.  Again, in 3:7 it doesn't say anything about them being shameful that they were naked.  They just made some clothes.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

Adam says he hid because he was naked.  yhwh knew what happened as soon as he heard they knew they were naked. So why do you not take this in a plain and straighforward reading?

Plain and straight forward?  What are we, literal fundamentalists now?
Still, Adam was afraid because he was naked...but he wasn't naked because they put the fig leaves on.  If he was afraid of being naked, he would just run to the fig leaves, put some on, then come back out again, no?  He'd say "Sorry God, I forgot to get dressed this morning.  That's why I didn't come when you called."  He doesn't say that.  He says that he was still afraid, even when he had his fig leaves on.  So logically, he wasn't afraid of being physically naked.  Spiritually and emotionally, yes.  He knew God could see what he had done and he knew that God didn't want him to do it.  Its like doing something you know you shouldn't have done and you have to go tell grandma or whoever that you're sorry.  That's the kind of shame Adam was feeling.  Clothes had nothing to do with it.

[pianodwarf]

You assume, just as nearly everyone else, that it is physical nakedness that ashamed them. 

Not an assumption, son.  Scriptural:

Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Why would that be mentioned except to point out that it was assumed to be something to be ashamed of?

Um....but it doesn't say they were ashamed.

You're missing the point.  Try any of these other sentences on, by way of comparison:

"Screwtape sneezed, and he felt no shame."
"DarkDragon46 drank a glass of water, and he felt no shame."
"Pianodwarf had a birthmark on his ankle, and he felt no shame."

The only way any of those statements make sense is if one presupposes that sneezing, drinking water, or having a birthmark is inherently shameful, but since no one assumes that any of those things is shameful, it would be kind of silly to point out that none of us was ashamed of what we did or had.  However, whoever wrote Genesis did make a point of saying that Adam and Eve felt no shame about being naked, which means, as screwtape said, that the author assumed that being naked was something to be ashamed of.

[Aspie]

If he couldn't understand the consequence, would it matter if I told him what it was?  And as I said, I am not of the opinion that God punished for eating the apple.  There was a consequence to that, but it wasn't a punishment.

You're welcome to hold whatever opinion you like, but I hope you don't expect such window dressing to impress others. Is God just a poor, hapless fellow powerless in the face of uncontrollable circumstances?  Or is he God, the guy who set all the circumstances, made all the rules, and decided the consequences with full knowledge of how things would transpire? Moreover, is God just some dispassionate observer who tells it how he sees it, shrugs, and says "whatever happens, happens"? Or is he God, the guy who created man with a specific ideal in mind, had his constant complaining about how his creations turned out etched into the Bible, and even got so upset that he regretted having made them and lashed out with a worldwide flood?

The whole concept of salvation is that we owe him for what his son did because of that incident in Eden. And he designed everything - the talking snake, the tree, the ignorant man and woman, Hell - knowing where it would lead. To imply that he had no intention of punishing anyone flies in the face of the entire theme of the Bible, throughout which he emphasizes obedience above all else and flaunts "consequences" for disobedience.

Death is an end.  Eating the apple caused the end of Adam and Eve's stay in Eden.  Doesn't sound like a lie to me.

An apple is a fruit. Apples and oranges are both fruit. Saying that an apple is an orange doesn't sound like a lie to me.

Plain and straight forward?  What are we, literal fundamentalists now?
Still, Adam was afraid because he was naked...but he wasn't naked because they put the fig leaves on.  If he was afraid of being naked, he would just run to the fig leaves, put some on, then come back out again, no?  He'd say "Sorry God, I forgot to get dressed this morning.  That's why I didn't come when you called."  He doesn't say that.  He says that he was still afraid, even when he had his fig leaves on.  So logically, he wasn't afraid of being physically naked.  Spiritually and emotionally, yes.  He knew God could see what he had done and he knew that God didn't want him to do it.  Its like doing something you know you shouldn't have done and you have to go tell grandma or whoever that you're sorry.  That's the kind of shame Adam was feeling.  Clothes had nothing to do with it.

I would imagine that leaves aren't a proper substitute for clothes. This is as silly as stating that someone who is wearing just a towel isn't really naked.

And we're to run with your interpretation based solely on the fact that the text doesn't explicitly spell out that nudity is shameful?  So if there's nothing inherently wrong with it then why did they react the way they did to the realization? Given your interpretation it would make no sense for them to even stop to cover themselves.

[jaimehlers]

Um....but it doesn't say they were ashamed.

I'd say the implication is clear enough.  Adam had no problems with going naked until he ate the fruit.  Immediately after eating the fruit, he decided to use fig leaves to cover his nakedness.  Why would he do that if it wasn't somehow 'wrong' to be naked, and he gained that knowledge from eating the fruit?  And given that he felt no shame earlier, before he gained that knowledge, it's reasonable to presume that he probably did feel shame at being naked after the fact.

And they felt shame because they had no clothes...  I'm not seeing it here.

Obviously not.

You think being without clothes is shameful?  Impolite, yes.  Shameful, hardly.  Again, in 3:7 it doesn't say anything about them being shameful that they were naked.  They just made some clothes.

Why are you asking him whether he thinks it's shameful?  What he thinks is shameful, or what you think is shameful, is not relevant to this discussion.  Furthermore, you're being obtuse.  They didn't "just" make clothes; they invented clothes.  Why?  Because they realized that being naked was wrong, a situation to be corrected.  And yes, probably shameful.  You can't take Genesis 3:7 in isolation.

Plain and straight forward?  What are we, literal fundamentalists now?

It's clear he meant that the reading should be plain and straightforward.

Still, Adam was afraid because he was naked...but he wasn't naked because they put the fig leaves on.  If he was afraid of being naked, he would just run to the fig leaves, put some on, then come back out again, no?  He'd say "Sorry God, I forgot to get dressed this morning.  That's why I didn't come when you called."  He doesn't say that.

Did you even read the verses in question?  Adam and Eve suddenly realized that they were naked (after eating the fruit) and that this was a bad thing, so they went and found some suitable materials to make coverings for themselves.  Then along came God for a stroll, and Adam and Eve hid.  Because they were still naked.  The sequence of events suggests that YHWH came along after they finished making the fig leaf coverings, but before they put them on.  In other words, they hid because they were still naked, and they knew this was a bad thing, bad enough that they went and hid from YHWH.  The fact that they knew it was bad to be naked, and that they hid to try to avoid being found naked, suggests that they thought it was shameful to be naked.

He says that he was still afraid, even when he had his fig leaves on.  So logically, he wasn't afraid of being physically naked.  Spiritually and emotionally, yes.  He knew God could see what he had done and he knew that God didn't want him to do it.  Its like doing something you know you shouldn't have done and you have to go tell grandma or whoever that you're sorry.  That's the kind of shame Adam was feeling.  Clothes had nothing to do with it.

That assumes that they were actually wearing the fig leaf coverings, which is frankly not a very good assumption to make, since it requires you to read more into the story than it actually says.  Furthermore, you're imposing your own attitudes onto the story - you don't consider it shameful to be naked, so Adam must not either.  Except that he made clothes specifically to stop being naked, even though he'd been perfectly fine without them up until this point.

[Aspie]

Oops, I read too much into that as well. 

[darkdragon46]

You're missing the point.  Try any of these other sentences on, by way of comparison:

"Screwtape sneezed, and he felt no shame."
"DarkDragon46 drank a glass of water, and he felt no shame."
"Pianodwarf had a birthmark on his ankle, and he felt no shame."

The only way any of those statements make sense is if one presupposes that sneezing, drinking water, or having a birthmark is inherently shameful, but since no one assumes that any of those things is shameful, it would be kind of silly to point out that none of us was ashamed of what we did or had.  However, whoever wrote Genesis did make a point of saying that Adam and Eve felt no shame about being naked, which means, as screwtape said, that the author assumed that being naked was something to be ashamed of.

Okay, that's fine.  But God called Adam multiple times, and he did not come.  When he does come, he said he was afraid of his nakedness.  Yet he was not naked.  He had his fig leaves.  Now, granted, not much in the way of clothes, but my point stands.  Its not like Adam say "hold up and let me get dressed first".  And if someone calls for you and you're naked do you run and hide because you are ashamed?  You say "let me get dressed first", no?  No shame in that...yet Adam was ashamed.  Ashamed of what?  His realization that he had disobeyed is my vote.  Just think about what you feel when you disobey someone that you care about.  Something big, not like forgetting the eggs.  That is what Adam was feeling.

[darkdragon46]

You think being without clothes is shameful?  Impolite, yes.  Shameful, hardly.  Again, in 3:7 it doesn't say anything about them being shameful that they were naked.  They just made some clothes.

Why are you asking him whether he thinks it's shameful?  What he thinks is shameful, or what you think is shameful, is not relevant to this discussion.  Furthermore, you're being obtuse.  They didn't "just" make clothes; they invented clothes.  Why?  Because they realized that being naked was wrong, a situation to be corrected.  And yes, probably shameful.  You can't take Genesis 3:7 in isolation.

That it was wrong to be naked?  Or that it was wrong that they did what God told them not to and they try to hide it by hiding the most private physical parts of themselves?  It's not too far of a leap.   

It's clear he meant that the reading should be plain and straightforward.

And yet when we discuss this we must take everything literally, leaving no room for leeway.  Why is this?

Did you even read the verses in question?  Adam and Eve suddenly realized that they were naked (after eating the fruit) and that this was a bad thing, so they went and found some suitable materials to make coverings for themselves.  Then along came God for a stroll, and Adam and Eve hid.  Because they were still naked.  The sequence of events suggests that YHWH came along after they finished making the fig leaf coverings, but before they put them on.  In other words, they hid because they were still naked, and they knew this was a bad thing, bad enough that they went and hid from YHWH.  The fact that they knew it was bad to be naked, and that they hid to try to avoid being found naked, suggests that they thought it was shameful to be naked.

Again, I submit that it is not the physical part that they were feeling bad about, nor did they feel bad at all.  They were afraid, as the bible clearly states.  Afraid that God would see what they had done and be angry.  Just like any child who knows they have done wrong feels.  This is emotionally and spiritually naked, much harder to bear than physical nudity.  But Adam and Eve, being as emotionally underdeveloped as they were, couldn't understand this yet.  And before you say 'God should have given them this beforehand', I'll tell you that's what he's doing here.

That assumes that they were actually wearing the fig leaf coverings, which is frankly not a very good assumption to make, since it requires you to read more into the story than it actually says.  Furthermore, you're imposing your own attitudes onto the story - you don't consider it shameful to be naked, so Adam must not either.  Except that he made clothes specifically to stop being naked, even though he'd been perfectly fine without them up until this point.

Oh, now we're reading too far into the story.  Even though it says they made clothes out of fig leaves, that's reading too far into the story.  But it really doesn't say that...

And yes, I am imposing my own attitudes on the story, just as the author did, and you are doing.  So I think we're all on even ground on that subject.

[carstensenscott]

Funny we are talking about something that is as relevant as ..... THE DARK NIGHT...THE SUPERMAN.....

Just goes to show how demented the whole thing is to us. As hard as we try to rid ourselves of the SUPER STIGMA's...(you hear it echo)...

SUPER STIGMA'S...
how godamn silly is religion. I try and picture the guys sittin around and coming up with this shit....it just looks like hillbillies...chew spittin on each others shoes, covetting each others 10 yr old daughters...etc.

[Aspie]

Again, I submit that it is not the physical part that they were feeling bad about, nor did they feel bad at all.

So then why was the physical part their number one priority? The text couldn't be any clearer. As soon as the realization hits them:

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

How is covering your dangly-bits with leaves going to help with "spiritual nakedness"?

Oh, now we're reading too far into the story.  Even though it says they made clothes out of fig leaves, that's reading too far into the story.  But it really doesn't say that...

He makes a very good point. As soon as they "sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves" God immediately entered the scene. It doesn't say they had a chance to put them on. Indeed, it was something I overlooked myself, but wouldn't you say that God's arrival was quite... timely?

And yes, I am imposing my own attitudes on the story, just as the author did, and you are doing.  So I think we're all on even ground on that subject.

The difference is that your interpretation leaves two glaring inconsistencies. First of all, what is the significance of Adam and Eve physically covering themselves with leaves after eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?  Why did the author think that this was important for us to know? Second, how does your scenario do anything to illustrate the effects of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? How does Adam and Eve hiding to avoid being punished show the reader that they now understand good and evil? It would only tell us that they are trying to avoid consequences, not that they understand why what they did wrong. Under your interpretation how they became "like God, knowing good and evil" would just be left as a huge unsolved mystery, although the author apparently thought that the reader would enjoy a random, irrelevant detail.

Meanwhile the interpretation that actual nakedness was the problem leaves no such inconsistencies. It explains the whole story perfectly - Adam and Eve taking issue with not having their bodies covered perfectly illustrates their new-found understanding from eating the fruit. It not only informs the reader why they were expelled from the garden but just how they have become "like God". Even God demonstrates surprise over their concern by asking, "Who told you that you were naked?" God already told them that there would be consequences, so Adam and Eve being aware of this fact isn't in any way incredible. What is incredible is that they now know something that nobody else made them aware of.

[darkdragon46]

Again, I submit that it is not the physical part that they were feeling bad about, nor did they feel bad at all.  They were afraid, as the bible clearly states.  Afraid that God would see what they had done and be angry.  Just like any child who knows they have done wrong feels.  This is emotionally and spiritually naked, much harder to bear than physical nudity.  But Adam and Eve, being as emotionally underdeveloped as they were, couldn't understand this yet.  And before you say 'God should have given them this beforehand', I'll tell you that's what he's doing here.

Read this, because it answers this:

So then why was the physical part their number one priority? The text couldn't be any clearer. As soon as the realization hits them:

This

How is covering your dangly-bits with leaves going to help with "spiritual nakedness"?

And this:

The difference is that your interpretation leaves two glaring inconsistencies. First of all, what is the significance of Adam and Eve physically covering themselves with leaves after eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?  Why did the author think that this was important for us to know? Second, how does your scenario do anything to illustrate the effects of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? How does Adam and Eve hiding to avoid being punished show the reader that they now understand good and evil? It would only tell us that they are trying to avoid consequences, not that they understand why what they did wrong.

Under your interpretation how they became "like God, knowing good and evil" would just be left as a huge unsolved mystery, although the author apparently thought that the reader would enjoy a random, irrelevant detail.

It answers this too, but I'll address it separately. So in your version, you use magic.  You eat the fruit, you magically know good and evil, yes?  So how come kids don't know good and evil when they are born?  This magic is not passed down?  It just stayed in Adam and Eve?  So we should all be in Eden right now because no one knows what is good and what is evil?
Now, this is ridiculous because we do know what good and evil is.  We were taught it by our experiences.  Adam and Eve learned the same way.  The tree of knowledge of good and evil could have been the rock or knowledge of good and evil that God told them not to turn over or something.  The fruit doesn't teach anything.  The second they did something wrong, that is when they learned it was wrong.  Ever do something that you think is a really good idea and it blows up in your face?  Do you have to do a certain thing to make yourself realize that that wasn't a good idea?  Is it really that precise action that teaches you what is right and what is wrong?  Are you really going to try and contest that?

Its like saying a baby has to use its right hand to push up, then shift its left leg five centimeters to the right, and at the same time move its right leg three millimeters to the left and then use its left hand underneath its center of gravity, and ONLY then will it learn how to stand up.

Really?

If you take that away, then the fruit doesn't even have to be there.  The disobedience is the key.

Meanwhile the interpretation that actual nakedness was the problem leaves no such inconsistencies. It explains the whole story perfectly - Adam and Eve taking issue with not having their bodies covered perfectly illustrates their new-found understanding from eating the fruit. It not only informs the reader why they were expelled from the garden but just how they have become "like God". Even God demonstrates surprise over their concern by asking, "Who told you that you were naked?" God already told them that there would be consequences, so Adam and Eve being aware of this fact isn't in any way incredible. What is incredible is that they now know something that nobody else made them aware of.

Of course it doesn't.  It just means you don't have to think at all or develop your emotional IQ in the least.  See in my version, the expulsion from Eden had to happen.  Not only that, it was MEANT to happen.  There was no mistake, there was no error.  God did not say "im going to put this tree here and tell them not to eat from it just to see if they will and if they do, ill punish them, haha."  No.  God put that tree there knowing that Adam and Eve needed it.  And that looks far more sadistic and malevolent than any scenario I've read about here.

There are two ways for a human being to change.  Great love and great suffering.   And all of the time, you experience both as a set.  Heartbreak is a very prominent example.  The banishment from Eden is another.   Having kids, losing family....all these have great love and great suffering attached to them.  God put that tree there to unlock this in Adam and Eve.  That is the moral of the story.  Not some grand punishment from God because we disobeyed him.

[Aspie]

Again, I submit that it is not the physical part that they were feeling bad about, nor did they feel bad at all.  They were afraid, as the bible clearly states.  Afraid that God would see what they had done and be angry.  Just like any child who knows they have done wrong feels.  This is emotionally and spiritually naked, much harder to bear than physical nudity.  But Adam and Eve, being as emotionally underdeveloped as they were, couldn't understand this yet.  And before you say 'God should have given them this beforehand', I'll tell you that's what he's doing here.

In regards to understanding good and evil, again, this would only suggest that they understood having done something wrong, not why what they did was wrong. Perhaps an example would help. Your dog pees on your carpet, so you wag your finger at him and shout in a stern voice, "Bad dog!" The dog skulks away looking guilty. Does your dog now understand why it's wrong to pee on the carpet? Or does he simply realize he's done something wrong based on your reaction, something that ultimately has nothing to do with deciding whether something is right or wrong based on its own merit?

And again, this does nothing to explain why the author found it significant to write of Adam and Eve's first reaction to cover themselves in leaves upon eating the fruit. Why would this even be mentioned if it had no bearing on anything? Remember, this was the first thing they did with the knowledge of good and evil - to simply use this to continue to reemphasize their ignorance doesn't tell the reader anything about what eating of the tree actually did for them. We're not talking about emotional development, we're talking about actual knowledge! Of good and evil!

So in your version, you use magic.

*blinks*. I would just like to point out my amusement at being accused of "using magic" when discussing the implications of a story involving abracadra'ing a whole universe into existence, curses, and a talking animal.

But yes, the implication in the story is that the effects of the fruit would be immediate. After all, it's only during the brief conversation in the garden after having cursed them that God says “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." But given your scenario of emotional immaturity that could not be the case because they don't demonstrate any knowledge of good nor evil.

You eat the fruit, you magically know good and evil, yes?  So how come kids don't know good and evil when they are born?  This magic is not passed down?  It just stayed in Adam and Eve?  So we should all be in Eden right now because no one knows what is good and what is evil?
Now, this is ridiculous because we do know what good and evil is.  We were taught it by our experiences.  Adam and Eve learned the same way.  The tree of knowledge of good and evil could have been the rock or knowledge of good and evil that God told them not to turn over or something.  The fruit doesn't teach anything.  The second they did something wrong, that is when they learned it was wrong.  Ever do something that you think is a really good idea and it blows up in your face?  Do you have to do a certain thing to make yourself realize that that wasn't a good idea?  Is it really that precise action that teaches you what is right and what is wrong?  Are you really going to try and contest that?

Its like saying a baby has to use its right hand to push up, then shift its left leg five centimeters to the right, and at the same time move its right leg three millimeters to the left and then use its left hand underneath its center of gravity, and ONLY then will it learn how to stand up.

Really?

If you take that away, then the fruit doesn't even have to be there.  The disobedience is the key.

I don't believe the story was intended to be a historical account grounded in absolute fact, I believe it was written as a literary work using vivid imagery and allegory to demonstrate concepts, a theme, a moral. The symbolism is as blatant as in any work of mythology - Adam and Eve represent humanity, the tree of knowledge of good and evil represents moral authority, and the garden represents the fact that God gave humanity everything. I will agree with you on one point - disobedience is the key. Obedience is a constant theme throughout the stories of the Bible. Stories such as Genesis and Jonah are meant to illustrate the nature of disobedience, while others such as Jesus and Noah's flood, by contrast, emphasize the value of obedience. Moreover, it is especially important towards understanding Genesis because God clearly doesn't want humans to judge good and evil on their own, but to instead accept his absolute authority on the matter. But, despite being given everything, humans have taken it upon themselves to reject his moral authority, to insist that they don't have any need of God's teachings because they can make their own decisions. This goes towards the theme of submission to God as obedience and rebellion against God as disobedience.

I would agree that such a situation as an actual event in history would be quite silly, but then I'm not a literal fundamentalist.

[Add Homonym]

The story is whatever you want it to be. Christians want the serpent species to be Satan, but it doesn't say that. It says that the serpent was the most crafty species; presumably it had already eaten from the tree of G&E, along with all the other animals. If God had wanted us to eat from the tree, he would have said, "Congratulations, you are now on a big trip... but just remember, you were the ones who chose it." One gets the impression that God wanted to stroll around in the Garden with his buddies, Adam and Eve, and Mr Snake for eternity. He had to put the tree of G&E there, to feed animals, and make the garden work properly.

BTW: God also put the Tree of Life in the Garden. It has equal status, but the serpent doesn't mention it, and God doesn't forbid eating it. You would have to conclude that Eve only ate the G&E fruit because God forbid it, since it would be far more profitable to eat the Tree of Life. Did God intend man to eat from the Tree of Life, since it was also put in the Garden, with no prohibition? Strangely, (if you believe God intended us to eat from G&E) he only intended us to eat from the tree that he prohibited, and for some reason it never occurred to him that humans would eat the Tree of Life first, (which was far more dangerous), and they never did, for some reason.

[oogabooga]

If he couldn't understand the consequence, would it matter if I told him what it was?  And as I said, I am not of the opinion that God punished for eating the apple.  There was a consequence to that, but it wasn't a punishment. 

1) Why bother warning them if they couldn't understand it? An omniscient god should know that, shouldn't he? So if there was no use in telling them not to eat the apples, why even try? Why didn't he simply remove the tree (which also begs the question why he put it there in the first place if he knew it could be dangerous)?
2) God cursed the snake, multiplied Eve's sorrow and cursed the ground Adam walked on. He drove man out of Eden. How exactly is that not punishment?

Playing with words and calling the whole thing a consequence doesn't work, sorry. Punishment is a consequence for doing something wrong, just as praise is a consequence for doing something right. Both are consequences for certain acts. Cursing someone and multiplying their sorrow is anything but neutral and since all that was clearly caused, it's not just an unfortunate set of events either.

Death is an end.  Eating the apple caused the end of Adam and Eve's stay in Eden.  Doesn't sound like a lie to me.

That could be interpreted in such a way, but, see, biting into the apple didn't kill either of them. God did that. If your interpretation is right, they didn't die, they were murdered - as a consequence (punishment) of their actions. Their death was therefore clearly caused.

And not just that - god specifically said that they must be prevented from eating the fruits of the tree of life, so they couldn't live forever. So it wasn't in god's (or gods', if we ask ourselves who god was talking to during his tirade on humans becoming like 'one of us') interest for Adam and Eve to live forever - he made damn sure they wouldn't, didn't he?

You assume, just as nearly everyone else, that it is physical nakedness that ashamed them.  They knew God knew what they had done.  They knew they had disobeyed him.  Which is more shameful, knowing that you've been found out, or being found naked?  Think about that seriously.  If your answer is being physically naked, then...I don't know what to tell you.

This has been addressed already, so I won't go into it. I've re-read Genesis 3 and I still don't see how exactly those passages could be interpreted any other way. Before they ate the fruit they were not ashamed of their nakedness, after that they were. That in turn implies that there's something inherently wrong with being naked.

[Add Homonym]

Being naked is taboo in Hebrew culture.

They actually didn't know that God knew what they had done. Had they been smarter, they would have known to stay naked, then God would not have figured it out.

[none]

Being naked is taboo in Hebrew culture.

They actually didn't know that God knew what they had done. Had they been smarter, they would have known to stay naked, then God would not have figured it out.

^nice twist... the fig leaf (clothing) caused man's fall...

[screwtape]

And yet when we discuss this we must take everything literally, leaving no room for leeway.  Why is this?

wtf are you talking about?  In order to understand the plot and whether any interpretation makes sense, we have to use a plain and straight forward reading of the story.  Nobody has said we are literalists or fundamentalists and leaving no room for interpretations. 

But when words says things, we have to assume that is what they mean.  When we try to apply other meanings without good reason, then we end up in the weeds.  When people read genesis and say a 6 day creation could mean "millions of years", I have to reject their interpretation.  Not because I think the bible is right.  It is because I have no good reason to think the writer intended "millions of years" when he wrote "6 days".  "Day" never means "millions of years" in any context, ever.  In order for the word "day" to mean anything, it has to have a consistent meaning.  And if day can mean "24 hours" or "millions of years", then it is useless for communication. 

So when I refer back to the words of the story to see if your interpretation makes sense, it is not because I am a literalist or a fundamentalist.  It is because that is how it is done. 

edit: writed --> writer

[screwtape]

Being naked is taboo in Hebrew culture.

True, even amongst modern day orthodox jews.

[jaimehlers]

That it was wrong to be naked?  Or that it was wrong that they did what God told them not to and they try to hide it by hiding the most private physical parts of themselves?  It's not too far of a leap.

Doesn't matter how far of a leap it is.  The fact that you have to make a leap at all means that you're putting your own interpretation on the story.  If you go based on what the story itself says, Adam realized that being naked was wrong, which is why he made clothes.  When YHWH went for a walk in the garden, Adam hid, and when YHWH asked him why he was hiding, he said that he was afraid because he was naked.  Until now, 'naked' has only been used to describe someone not wearing clothes.

Furthermore, your interpretation doesn't make sense.  Adam eats the fruit, and realizes that it was wrong to disobey YHWH, so...he uses fig leaves to cover his physical nakedness?  In other words, he tries to hide the fact that he disobeyed YHWH's command...by inventing clothes to cover himself with?  I just don't see it.

And yet when we discuss this we must take everything literally, leaving no room for leeway.  Why is this?

Because we're discussing Christian logic.  When you discuss logic of any sort, you don't want to leave "leeway", because that invites someone else to take off running with their own interpretation of things.

Again, I submit that it is not the physical part that they were feeling bad about, nor did they feel bad at all.  They were afraid, as the bible clearly states.  Afraid that God would see what they had done and be angry.  Just like any child who knows they have done wrong feels.  This is emotionally and spiritually naked, much harder to bear than physical nudity.  But Adam and Eve, being as emotionally underdeveloped as they were, couldn't understand this yet.

I don't agree with you.  First off, the Bible states that their eyes were opened, and they realized their nakedness, so they made coverings out of fig leaves.  If they didn't feel bad about being physically naked, why waste time trying to cover their physical nakedness?  I don't buy that it was simply because they felt "emotionally and spiritually naked" instead and were too immature to realize the difference between that and physical nakedness.  That requires you to interpret the story, to write things in as it were.  The problem is that your interpretation differs from the interpretation of others, and so the only way to get to the bottom of things is to strip out all the interpretations and focus on what the story itself actually says.

And before you say 'God should have given them this beforehand', I'll tell you that's what he's doing here.

If that's the case, YHWH has no sense of moderation at all.  Because subsequently, he punished Eve by making her suffer great pains when giving birth, punished Adam by forcing him to painfully toil in the fields in order to eat, until the day he died, and then further punished them both by kicking them out of the garden so that they would not also live forever.  Oh, and this applied to all of their descendants too.  I can think of far more effective ways to make sure the lesson is learned than to throw what amounts to a temper tantrum and punish them far out of proportion to what they did.

Oh, now we're reading too far into the story.  Even though it says they made clothes out of fig leaves, that's reading too far into the story.  But it really doesn't say that...

I'm going based on what the story itself says - that Adam and Eve had their eyes opened, realized their nakedness, made clothes for themselves, then heard YHWH walking through the garden and hid.  Nowhere does it say that they actually put the clothes on - you assume they did, but it is not stated.  I'll admit that it doesn't say that these events happened one after the other with no space in between, but it's not unreasonable to assume that they immediately followed each other.

And yes, I am imposing my own attitudes on the story, just as the author did, and you are doing.  So I think we're all on even ground on that subject.

The difference is that I'm accounting for that and working to keep my own attitudes from influencing my reading of the story.  You, clearly, are not.  So no, I would not say we're on "even ground".

[Add Homonym]

"Day" never means "millions of years" in any context, ever.

It does in Daniel prophecies. 1 day is a prophetic million years. Hence the 70 weeks of Daniel is 490 million years.

[12 Monkeys]

we often forget about the snake.....it sure had a lot of knowledge for a snake. Did the animals in the garden eat from the  tree to gain the knowledge? Did the snake eat and wish to share the knowledge with these dumb-ass two legged creatures?  God did it for shits and giggles? OR it is just a FUCKING fairy tale story written by ignorant goat herders........?

[screwtape]

1 day is a prophetic million years. Hence the 70 weeks of Daniel is 490 million years.

Where does that conversion come from?  I did not find it in Daniel.  I did find the word "day" used as a standard 24 hour day in Daniel many times, however.

[Add Homonym]

Where does that conversion come from?  I did not find it in Daniel.  I did find the word "day" used as a standard 24 hour day in Daniel many times, however.

http://conservapedia.com/2300_Day_Prophecy_of_Daniel_8

The Seventh Day Adventists popularised the idea that all the days in Daniel were years, to compensate for the fact that the prophecies didn't come true in days, months, or any other shorter time unit. However, years have also pretty much failed, due to the sheer amount of time since Daniel and Jesus. I'm going out on a limb, and suggesting that 1 prophetic day is, in fact, 1 million years, and that we may have the technology to manufacture an AntiChrist in the ballpark 490million year area, if we find that we need one.

[screwtape]

http://conservapedia.com/2300_Day_Prophecy_of_Daniel_8

It is pure fantasy.  The only references to days or years in Dan 8 is thus:

In the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign,...

He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated

I lay exhausted for several days.

In 8:27 it obviously means a day is a day, as it does in every other part of Daniel. 

So 1 day = 1 million years is even more far fetched than darkdragon's interpretation.

[darkdragon46]

BTW: God also put the Tree of Life in the Garden. It has equal status, but the serpent doesn't mention it, and God doesn't forbid eating it. You would have to conclude that Eve only ate the G&E fruit because God forbid it, since it would be far more profitable to eat the Tree of Life. Did God intend man to eat from the Tree of Life, since it was also put in the Garden, with no prohibition? Strangely, (if you believe God intended us to eat from G&E) he only intended us to eat from the tree that he prohibited, and for some reason it never occurred to him that humans would eat the Tree of Life first, (which was far more dangerous), and they never did, for some reason.

You bring up an excellent point.  Let us consider if God had not forbidden Adam and Eve to eat from the G&E tree, and they still did.  Would they have hid themselves?  Would they have hid from God?  You say the animals ate from the tree.  Did they run and hide once they did?  I think not, so why would Adam and Eve?  Therefore, it was because they were forbidden to eat that they hid themselves, not because they at of the fruit.

[darkdragon46]

1) Why bother warning them if they couldn't understand it? An omniscient god should know that, shouldn't he? So if there was no use in telling them not to eat the apples, why even try? Why didn't he simply remove the tree (which also begs the question why he put it there in the first place if he knew it could be dangerous)?

Again, I've answered this.  In order to learn grow and develop, you must experience.  You don't just magically have experience the day you are born.  God knew this.  He also knew that some experiences hurt, yet still they must be experienced.

2) God cursed the snake, multiplied Eve's sorrow and cursed the ground Adam walked on. He drove man out of Eden. How exactly is that not punishment?

The second Adam and Eve hid from God, they were out of Eden.  A consequence of their actions.  As for the snake, well, I've never heard of a snake complaining about being a snake.  As for giving Eve the pain of childbirth, in that he also gave the gift of creation.  Ask any mother if what they went through to birth their child(ren) was worth it, I'll pretty much guarantee they'll say it was.  And Adam, having to toil in the fields to provide and then dying in the end, well that is a part of life isn't it?  After a hard day's work, isn't there a sense of accomplishment?

Playing with words and calling the whole thing a consequence doesn't work, sorry. Punishment is a consequence for doing something wrong, just as praise is a consequence for doing something right. Both are consequences for certain acts. Cursing someone and multiplying their sorrow is anything but neutral and since all that was clearly caused, it's not just an unfortunate set of events either.

Look at both sides of the coin before you act.

That could be interpreted in such a way, but, see, biting into the apple didn't kill either of them. God did that. If your interpretation is right, they didn't die, they were murdered - as a consequence (punishment) of their actions. Their death was therefore clearly caused.

And not just that - god specifically said that they must be prevented from eating the fruits of the tree of life, so they couldn't live forever. So it wasn't in god's (or gods', if we ask ourselves who god was talking to during his tirade on humans becoming like 'one of us') interest for Adam and Eve to live forever - he made damn sure they wouldn't, didn't he?

Without death, you can't have life.  Living forever is not living.  Life for the sake of life means nothing.  All these say the same thing.  God knew this.  Adam and Eve didn't.  When they ate the apple, they gained an insight of it.  Once they did, they didn't need Eden anymore.  Nor did they need to live forever. 

[darkdragon46]

Furthermore, your interpretation doesn't make sense.  Adam eats the fruit, and realizes that it was wrong to disobey YHWH, so...he uses fig leaves to cover his physical nakedness?  In other words, he tries to hide the fact that he disobeyed YHWH's command...by inventing clothes to cover himself with?  I just don't see it.

Yes, I can see that.  When we feel vulnerable, what is our first reaction?  Hiding is a good answer.  Some people get very angry, but that is usually conditioned, not natural.  Adam and Eve, being physically naked were bearing all of what they were to God.  It makes sense because in Hebrew culture, as mentioned, it is taboo to be naked.  And yet Adam and Eve were, showing that they were willing to be vulnerable and open to God.  Once they disobeyed him, they were not so willing.  They hid, they covered themselves because they were afraid.  It very clearly illustrates what you should be in the presence of God and what you shouldn't be.  Or they could have gotten new leaves to make new clothes, even if they left the originals behind.

Because we're discussing Christian logic.  When you discuss logic of any sort, you don't want to leave "leeway", because that invites someone else to take off running with their own interpretation of things.

Lol, okay. 

The difference is that I'm accounting for that and working to keep my own attitudes from influencing my reading of the story.  You, clearly, are not.  So no, I would not say we're on "even ground".

That you are trying to keep your own attitudes away from the story is your attitude towards the story.  You said it yourself, if it is not stated, they you don't assume it.  That's like saying that we can't really say that a car traveling at 60 miles per hour, going two hours, doesn't travel 120 miles unless someone tells us that.  We can reasonably make the assumption that the car travels for they entire two hours at a constant rate, so it travels about 120 miles.  Even if the car only goes 113 miles, our assumptions are still reasonable.

Yet you, when reading the bible, say that it says they made clothes for themselves, but it doesn't say they put them on, therefore they didn't.  Because people make clothes and leave them around as a hobby or something.  Really?  They're fig leaves.  It probably takes less than two seconds to put them on.  If someone can put a suit on while driving to work (and yes, I know people who do this), Adam and Eve could put their fig leaves on while running and hiding.  They could have ran with them, and put them on from their hiding spot. 

[Graybeard]

This is by a poster you know as Invisible Pink Unicorn:

Genesis Story
One has to be careful. Like most stories in Genesis there are two mutually exclusive ones. In some places that expands to three. In the first story the sons (Elohim) of the god El did the creating. In the other a specific son of El, Yahweh did the creating. And of course the word ‘create’ is wrong too. The Hebrew word bara actually means to fill up (and sometimes to fatten), not create. You might notice that earth already existed contemporaneously with the Elohim. Also "in the beginning" is a very poor rendering of the actual Hebrew words. A better start to story one would be "While beginning the filling up of the heavens and the earth, the sons of El....." Think of it as while beginning the cleaning of the kitchen, your wife.... She is not creating the kitchen. She is only acting upon what already exists.

Then of course the first story talks about filling the earth with a man or better with a humankind in the image of the Elohim. That image consist of both an unnamed man and an unnamed woman.

Starting with Genesis 2:4 another and different story is told. In this one the sequence of creation is completely different. Yahweh is the one who fills up the earth. He puts a single man on earth. Now here is where the story becomes more interesting. Yahweh, after telling the man to screw all the animals in order to find a mate and the man not being satisfied, supposedly takes a rib from the man to create a woman. Except the Hebrew word translated as rib, tsela, does not mean rib, it means side or more correctly facet. In other words in the second story the man was a hermaphrodite, who had been split in two separate entities. This follows rather closely with the idea that Yahweh (the male component) was one and the same as Wisdom (the female component) who in Christian theology was called the Holy Spirit and was changed along the way to male. Most of the hints of Wisdom (hagia sophia, or holy wisdom) and even a Mrs. God are still left in our modern bible though the translations hide them. In Psalms we see the Queen of Heaven, god’s consort. She is Ashera or Astarte and the same personality as Isis. Amazingly it still remains in the bible, except scholars do not want the common people to know and take great strides to explain them away if people perchance happen upon them.

Of the Serpent:
Not a snake but rather a serpent with feet. Because it sheds its skin it is an ancient symbol of immortality and as such was originally a god.

This site may be interesting: http://www.religioustolerance.org/jepd_gen.htm

As it is Genesis is several similar myths and, as such, myths do not require logic, and so no logic has been applied.

[screwtape]

good find Graybeard.  In my original draft to darkdragon[1] I mentioned the Documentary Hypothesis^Wiki, which IPU touched on. It is really important in understanding the incongruence of all of the OT, the pentateuch in particular.

Darkdragon, check out that wiki link.  Good info in it.

Genesis Story
 She is Ashera or Astarte and the same personality as Isis. .

That yhwh had a wife was a frequent point brought up by the knowledgable and temperamental Doctor X.

1.	which I scrapped because so many other people covered most of the points