What is the Significance of Adams and Eves Nakedness?

[Ingledsva]

Ok....to all.....but....
the account I hold is King James 1960.
It reads fairly well, I do think so.

Chapter One ends with Man as male AND female....
go forth be fruitful and multiply....they did.
Dominate all things....of course.

No names, no garden, no law, nothing to be ashamed of......

Chapter Two (as I read it) is NOT a retelling of Chapter One.

Chapter One leans to evolution and Chapter Two is a story of selection and manipulation....body and spirit.

Eve...if you take the literal tone.....is a clone.
Not born of woman...she had no navel.
Made of a tissue sample, she would be Adam's twin sister....for a bride.

And yes they were naked.
The ideal living conditions would not induce the need for cover.

The need for cover came after the 'choice' they were given to make.
Leaving the garden and the easy living therein.....
this world would seem harsh, and flesh is soooooooo fragile.

Interesting what you have written here, except for the clone part.


However, Adam just means human being, and his clone would be male.


This Patriarchal religion seems to want to keep her as MADE from Adam.


I don't think most people realize "man," "humankind," in 26, is "Adam."


Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man (Adam) in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen 1:27 So God created man (Adam) in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


In Gen 2 we are told these two are one human being, separated.


Patriarchal readings say "created from" a "rib" of Adam - meaning made from a male.


However ancient Jewish Rabbis and others, noted that in Gen 1 "Adam is both male and female, and created at the same time, and the word being rendered "rib" is used elsewhere in Tanakh as meaning a "half."


So we can take this two ways.

1. Gen 1 means God created humankind - both male and female at the same time, - and Gen 2 is just later added junk.

OR

2. Gen 1 and Gen 2 are correct. Gen 2 giving more info about Gen 1.
Meaning - in Gen1:26, God creates a single Adam - meaning human being - which is half male and half female. Then Gen 2 tells us about them being separated so they can reproduce. Either way, in this story, woman is not made from a part of a male.

The male retains the name Adam, and the female is named Chav'vah, meaning Life-Giver, Mother of ALL living.


Look at 2:23 And the man said, This now at last is bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh; For this shall be called Woman, because out of man this has been taken.

This is not what it actually says. Several of the words mean "selfsame," and note the first "man" in the verse is "Adam" as that is now his name, but the second "man" is the word for a male.

That second part should be more like -

;thus therefore called female, because from the male was separated, likewise.

I think this section is saying something more like ...

Gen 2:21 And cast YHVH Elohiym a trance upon the Adam (human) and he slept. And he took from him one side, and he repaired the flesh in lieu/place of (it.)

Gen 2:22 And YHVH Elohiym also repaired the side that he had separated from the Adam (human,) the female, and he brought her beside Adam.


Gen 2:24 Because of this, in like manner, a male shall leave his father and mother, and be joined back to the female, and they shall become (again) a united one.


*

 

[Thief]

Interesting what you have written here, except for the clone part.


However, Adam just means human being, and his clone would be male.


This Patriarchal religion seems to want to keep her as MADE from Adam.


I don't think most people realize "man," "humankind," in 26, is "Adam."


*

A clone can be manipulated.
Eve would be his twin sister....no navel.

Let us make Man.....in our image.....
God is spirit....the sons of God are spirit.
Obviously the intent is to form spirit.

Doing so through flesh will form unique spirit, on each occasion.

That a name can be used in a general fashion does not take away the occasion when it was not.

Someone had to be first to walk with God.
That would be Adam.

 

[Skwim]

Nothing in the passage from Genesis states that nakedness was a sin for Adam and Eve, although a careful bible reader won't conclude from this that nakedness is never sinful in other circumstances. Genesis doesn't say why they covered themselves. It's natural and reasonable to assume it was because of shame. But we must be careful to note Genesis doesn't say that. If it's inferred, then the inference comes from modern understanding of Hebrew culture around 500 BC when this document was written, or from trying to connect this passage to other parts of the bible.

Genesis 3:7 (NLT)

"At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves."
​

Besides, in Genesis 2:25 the matter of shame is conspicuously put on the table.

"The man and his wife were naked, but they were not ashamed."
​

Which is obviously laying the groundwork for their later state of shamefulness.

 

[Stovepipe_Hat]

Genesis 3:7 (NLT) "At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness.

Which is interesting; this differs from the New International Version. Since the originals are in ancient Hebrew, to the extent the text tradition has been preserved, the meanings and usage of words in this language come into play, so that modern translators don't even agree on what the passage says exactly.

Does Hebrew have a single word that can mean "know" and "to be ashamed" in different usage contexts? This is possible. Also, Hebrew was written in consonants with no spaces between words, so some texts can have more than one way of dividing the words, leading to different readings of the same script.

However, a lot of translations include contextual paraphrase, where they read literally "know," but insert "shame" instead for this word because the scholars infer that to know about a bad thing implies one will be ashamed of it. So, I can't say how the different translations arise.

I'll accept your hypothesis that shame attached to nakedness, or at least that some situations caused a nude to be ashamed, in that culture, since such shame appears several other places as you indicated. I still think forbidden knowledge was involved - the fruit of the tree conferred knowledge of "good and evil," which Adam and Eve didn't possess before eating it.

 

[Thief]

Which is interesting; this differs from the New International Version. Since the originals are in ancient Hebrew, to the extent the text tradition has been preserved, the meanings and usage of words in this language come into play, so that modern translators don't even agree on what the passage says exactly.

Does Hebrew have a single word that can mean "know" and "to be ashamed" in different usage contexts? This is possible. Also, Hebrew was written in consonants with no spaces between words, so some texts can have more than one way of dividing the words, leading to different readings of the same script.

However, a lot of translations include contextual paraphrase, where they read literally "know," but insert "shame" instead for this word because the scholars infer that to know about a bad thing implies one will be ashamed of it. So, I can't say how the different translations arise.

I'll accept your hypothesis that shame attached to nakedness, or at least that some situations caused a nude to be ashamed, in that culture, since such shame appears several other places.

And there might have been a culture BEFORE Adam?

 

[savagewind]

Genesis 3:7 (NLT)

"At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves."
​

Besides, in Genesis 2:25 the matter of shame is conspicuously put on the table.

"The man and his wife were naked, but they were not ashamed."
​

Which is obviously laying the groundwork for their later state of shamefulness.

וַתִּפָּקַ֙חְנָה֙ עֵינֵ֣י שְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם וַיֵּ֣דְע֔וּ כִּ֥י עֵֽירֻמִּ֖ם הֵ֑ם וַֽיִּתְפְּרוּ֙ עֲלֵ֣ה תְאֵנָ֔ה וַיַּעֲשׂ֥וּ לָהֶ֖ם חֲגֹרֹֽת׃
and the eyes of them both are opened, and they know that they are naked, and they sew fig-leaves, and make to themselves girdles. Genesis 3:7

What is the word translated "shame" in your translation?

 

[Ingledsva]

A clone can be manipulated.
Eve would be his twin sister....no navel.

Let us make Man.....in our image.....
God is spirit....the sons of God are spirit.
Obviously the intent is to form spirit.

Doing so through flesh will form unique spirit, on each occasion.

That a name can be used in a general fashion does not take away the occasion when it was not.

Someone had to be first to walk with God.
That would be Adam.

Adam in Gen 1, just means a human being, - not a male.


And the clone of a male, will always be a male.


And in this story, neither of them would have bellybuttons.


Nowhere in Gen 2 does it actually say woman is created from a piece of a male.


It says they are One being, called Adam (first human,) and separated, into male and female.


*


*

 

[Thief]

For this to continue the assumption must be made first....
Adam and Eve were completely ignorant.

THEN their eyes were opened.

Awareness.....where there had been none before.

for this discussion to go further we must now address what they DID know.

 

[Thief]

Adam in Gen 1, just means a human being, - not a male.


And the clone of a male, will always be a male.


And in this story, neither of them would have bellybuttons.


Nowhere in Gen 2 does it actually say woman is created from a piece of a male.


It says they are One being, called Adam (first human,) and separated, into male and female.


*


*

Adam is a chosen son of God.....he may have know his mother and kinsmen.
(who was Cain afraid of)

 

[Ingledsva]

Adam is a chosen son of God.....he may have know his mother and kinsmen.
(who was Cain afraid of)

Says who?


Where in the Gen 1 and 2 texts does the story say that?


The story says first human creation.


I also believe it is just a story, symbolism, metaphor, etc.,


but we are discussing what the text actually says.



*

 

[s2a]

Is there any more or greater significance to Adams and Eves nakedness than that it represents their innocence?

For instance, in the Gilgamesh epic, one of the characters is introduced as a wild man who runs around naked. Later, his wildness is brought to an end by his having sex with a woman. So, it would seem that his nakedness might have had something to do with his sexual innocence. Or perhaps, it had more to do with his lack of being civilized. Different interpretations seem possible.

So, is there more than one interpretation for the nakedness of Adam and Eve? If so, what are the interpretations?

Noah was a poor spokesmodel for Calvin Klein and Donna Karen millennia before their birth?

I know I show well in my Hanes boxers, but all know that Adam was a tad "small" even before a dip in a cold stream. Evidently, Eve had no measures of comparison...sooo...

 

[Stovepipe_Hat]

And there might have been a culture BEFORE Adam?

וַתִּפָּקַ֙חְנָה֙ עֵינֵ֣י שְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם וַיֵּ֣דְע֔וּ כִּ֥י עֵֽירֻמִּ֖ם הֵ֑ם וַֽיִּתְפְּרוּ֙ עֲלֵ֣ה תְאֵנָ֔ה וַיַּעֲשׂ֥וּ לָהֶ֖ם חֲגֹרֹֽת׃
and the eyes of them both are opened, and they know that they are naked, and they sew fig-leaves, and make to themselves girdles. Genesis 3:7

What is the word translated "shame" in your translation?

The English "shame" in the same sentence comes from a particular bible edition, the New Living Translation, and may represent contextual paraphrase - I'm not sure. Most other translations use "know" or "realize". As for the word, Google it:

ידעתי which is usually rendered as "know" or "realize" in English.

Since Hebrew is a language of aspect, past tense isn't generally marked, but understood by the listener implicitly. I don't have a Hebrew typewriter and don't know much about the binyamin and stuff with the verbs; I studied some Egyptian which has similarities and borrowed Semitic words. So I used Google. It's not vowel-pointed. The spaces wouldn't even be there on papyri. Egyptian's word rx "know" really means "learn" or "be familiar with" and can refer to knowing a person or knowing a fact, but a different word, SsA, is used for knowing a skill. I'm aware a word in one language doesn't just map onto a single word in another language; languages use their words differently from each other. You should tell me more about Hebrew if you know it.

Genesis isn't very clear about details of creation. Although the garden story is near the book's beginning, there are two creation accounts. In chapter 1, God "created mankind in his own image...male and female he created them." The name "Adam" is in chapter 2 which tells the creation story over again in a different way, starting with "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created...Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth...", even though plants had already been created in chapter 1 - the thing that makes scholars think there are two stories. This second story never actually states that Adam was the first person in so many words, although reading it strongly suggests that he was, and most Christian theologians concur.

The creation/evolution debate is kind of silly to me; I think it's really political more than theological - who would get to control education and so on was more important than creation, a thing that was taken for granted and hardly argued over before Darwin. The bible is emphatic that God was the creator of the heavens, earth, and human beings.

 

[savagewind]

The English "shame" in the same sentence comes from a particular bible edition, the New Living Translation, and may represent contextual paraphrase - I'm not sure. Most other translations use "know" or "realize". As for the word, Google it:

ידעתי which is usually rendered as "know" or "realize" in English.

Since Hebrew is a language of aspect, past tense isn't generally marked, but understood by the listener implicitly. I don't have a Hebrew typewriter and don't know much about the benyamin and stuff with the verbs; I studied some Egyptian which has similarities and borrowed Semitic words. So I used Google. It's not vowel-pointed. The spaces wouldn't even be there on papyri. Egyptian's word rx "know" really means "learn" or "be familiar with" and can refer to knowing a person or knowing a fact, but a different word, SsA, is used for knowing a skill. I'm aware a word in one language doesn't just map onto a single word in another language; languages use their words differently from each other. You should tell me more about Hebrew if you know it.

I don't know Hebrew. I am building on other's work. To post the Hebrew I just use cut and paste. The Religious Education Forums' web design is amazing! It can switch the words into the correct order. I understand the Hebrew of the Bible is without spaces between words. I pasted it once like that but someone commented that it was wrong.

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 1Corinthians 3:10

I think it is not right to add to The Word one's own opinion which is what it seems someone did with the New Living Translation by adding ashamed there where it wasn't.

 

[Thief]

but we are discussing what the text actually says.*

That's the part we are debating.
Chapter One ends with Man as male and female.
Go forth be fruitful and multiply.
No names, no garden, no law...........................

THEN Chapter Two...a story of manipulation.
Adam is a chosen son of God.
Eve is made of his rib....cloned.....no navel.....and female.

I see this as testimony centuries before we humans could see it as reality.
Science now holds such things as possible.

 

[idav]

That's the part we are debating.
Chapter One ends with Man as male and female.
Go forth be fruitful and multiply.
No names, no garden, no law...........................

THEN Chapter Two...a story of manipulation.
Adam is a chosen son of God.
Eve is made of his rib....cloned.....no navel.....and female.

I see this as testimony centuries before we humans could see it as reality.
Science now holds such things as possible.

I guess if you want god to be ET. I would find it odd that the creator of the cosmos resorted to the tools of modern man.

 

[Stovepipe_Hat]

Says who? ...we are discussing what the text actually says.

That's the part we are debating. Chapter One ends with Man as male and female...No names, no garden, no law...

Then [in] Chapter Two...Adam is a chosen son of God.

Scholars do believe that Genesis has two creation story traditions, one after the other. For instance, Chap. 2 narrates creation of plants although Chap. 1 had already done so, plus (like Thief says) putting it in a garden and naming "Adam", which Chap. 1 doesn't do.

Chapter 2 also begins with a heading or title, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created" (RSV) or " This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created" (NIV). But notice how one English translation uses "generations" where the other translation uses "account".

Biblical Hebrew is difficult to translate into English. The Hebrew verb system doesn't have tense marking as English does, nor does it connect subordinate clauses with little adverbs like the English "when", but leaves it to the reader to decide how two clauses should relate to each other - words like "when," "before," "after," "because," "while," "now," and so on have usually been added in by the English translator. Otherwise, it would read very choppy and not make much sense to us. But the choice of that connecting word does affect meaning a bit - before is not after or while!

Does that mean Hebrews were stupid, because they don't know simple English distinctions? Hardly. It's just that their language didn't consider time as important as English does. And they have their own distinctions, some of which are not directly translatable into English. For instance, they had causative forms of verbs, as in לגדולה "cause to grow up..." where English just says "grow" and doesn't tell you if the act of growing was caused by someone, like Hebrew does.

Then there's the usual problems of writing with consonants only and no spaces between words. By inserting different vowels, LF could be LeaF, LoaF, LiFe, etc. so some Hebrew source passages have more than one reading. Root words in Hebrew, Arabic, or ancient Egyptian depend on the consonants, so it's not as bad as if English tried to do this, but the problem does crop up.

We can't even tell directly whether a passage is prose or poetry. Prose and poetry in Hebrew don't look much different from each other, and they never wrote it conveniently in lines for us.

That's why I feel all these nitpicking arguments over details of meaning in the Old Testament are silly - scholars are really uncertain about a lot of it, and English translation is imperfect. The stories in Genesis 1 and 2 are probably separate text traditions, but this cannot be known for certain.

The New Testament can be translated more precisely because its Greek koine is more similar to English than Hebrew, and more recent - we have lots more Greek text to sample, and about a lot more topics. But sometimes Greek stumps the scholars, too.

 

[Skwim]

Which is interesting; this differs from the New International Version. Since the originals are in ancient Hebrew, to the extent the text tradition has been preserved, the meanings and usage of words in this language come into play, so that modern translators don't even agree on what the passage says exactly.

Which isn't unusual at all. The various translations disagree on many, many passages.

Does Hebrew have a single word that can mean "know" and "to be ashamed" in different usage contexts?

I haven't the faintest idea.

I'll accept your hypothesis that shame attached to nakedness, or at least that some situations caused a nude to be ashamed, in that culture, since such shame appears several other places as you indicated.

I didn't offer any hypothesis, just a conclusion and a quote from one version of the Bible. That said, because Genesis 2:25 goes to the trouble of making the point that A&E felt no shame for their nakedness, I think it's reasonable to assume that after they ate the apple and their "eyes were opened" to their nakedness and covered themselves that they did feel shame.

What is the word translated "shame" in your translation?

That, you'd have to ask the NLT people.

 

[Ingledsva]

That's the part we are debating.
Chapter One ends with Man as male and female.
Go forth be fruitful and multiply.
No names, no garden, no law...........................

THEN Chapter Two...a story of manipulation.
Adam is a chosen son of God.
Eve is made of his rib....cloned.....no navel.....and female.

I see this as testimony centuries before we humans could see it as reality.
Science now holds such things as possible.

The Adam = first human - not a "man," as in male.


It specifically says male and female.




*

 

[Thief]

The Adam = first human - not a "man," as in male.


It specifically says male and female.




*

male and female.....on Day Six.....specifically.
Chapter Two is an isolated incident.

 

[Thief]

I guess if you want god to be ET. I would find it odd that the creator of the cosmos resorted to the tools of modern man.

And the will of God is a modern tool of Man?
(and God is not allowed to tweak His own creation?)

btw...any entity outside this terra.....is an et.