My Journey into Naturism

Are you just curious about nudism / naturism? A new naturist? Been one a long time? You can tell us how & why you got started. Just a sentence or a paragraph is enough. You're not ready for naturism yet? That's OK, you can even say so here. New Comers please post here. ALL NUDIST COMMENTS WELCOME HERE!

Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, Senior Moderator, Moderators

Re: My Journey into Naturism

Postby Petros » Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:24 pm

jjsledge wrote:"exposed, without covering or protection"

When I read this I thought that maybe when God asked "Who told you that you were naked?" could mean "Who told you that you were no longer under My protection?" Yes I realize that it may be a stretch (eisegesis), but I'll need to give it a lot more thought.


Jerry



An interesting thought - deserving thought. The strangeness never hit me before.

"they knew that they were naked" and "Who told thee that thou wast naked?" - who drew your attention to the fact, not who said to you.

We should not conclude that they had been under the impression they were clothed. Rather they did not have a category naked, which requires the opposition with clothed. I am remembering the passage from Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme:

MONSIEUR JOURDAIN: There is nothing but prose or verse?

PHILOSOPHY MASTER: No, sir, everything that is not prose is verse, and everything that is not verse is prose.

MONSIEUR JOURDAIN: And when one speaks, what is that then?

PHILOSOPHY MASTER: Prose.

MONSIEUR JOURDAIN: What! When I say, "Nicole, bring me my slippers, and give me my nightcap," that's prose?

PHILOSOPHY MASTER: Yes, Sir.

MONSIEUR JOURDAIN: By my faith! For more than forty years I have been speaking prose without knowing anything about it, and I am much obliged to you for having taught me that.

Just as most fish are probably not aware of being wet, Adam and Eve could not be aware of the possibility of being other than what they were. We always figure - well, I always figured - knowledge of good and evil, eyes were opened, obviously we are to assume it was "really" bad they were naked, but they had not noticed it.

Which is rather silly once one gets past naivete.

Somehow - it is not clear the methodology - the fruit gives them categories and attaches values.

Which are not obviously God's values.

With which PREVIOUSLY they were in tune.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5090
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: My Journey into Naturism

Postby vycna » Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:40 pm

Gary wrote:I know that God covering man in animal skins, requiring the death of an animal, is a picture of Christ covering our sins by his own sacrifice - the Lamb of God - and that it was a PICTURE of mercy as well as a literal one in the situation.


I think this one thinking should be challenged, but nobody thinks of doing it. Since I first heard it, many years ago but I had been a Christian believer for a good number of years before that without hearing it, I have heard it many more times. It is spreading, and I think of it like a cancer spreading. After all, there is no biblical text for that position. Yet it is promoted and many I have heard accepting it as Bible truth. And without anyone questioning it. If it is the truth, there should be Bible text showing that. And there is other explanation possible for the primal couple being clothed with skins. The change to hostile environment, yet God still providing in that, for the first people who would have been very ignorant of what there would be and not at all prepared, for any preparation for warmth, makes sense for what provision there was in that. They didn't need protecting their modesty with it.. And I will even say that as he is creator of all, not just our own precious lives, all living are valuable to him. There was sacrifice of certain animals that was to be permitted from God so as people who were to be his would see the serious consequence of sin and how he could not just be approached as if it didn't matter that much, as a type for their faith to come to him. It was not just sacrifice to be a routine, and God has shown how that is repulsive to him. He didn't need animals killed for him. But we are to see death is appropriate to us, we humans who are the ones responsible and who have sinned. Abel did such sacrifice, as early as that, and it was many centuries before God gave any permission for animals to be killed for their meat, under the changed circumstances after the flood, while he talked about murder in the same sentence, and not meant to have it last as he gave revelation it will not continue and it it won't be a part of his restoration with what he shows of his holy mountain. But it is not said this was done for Adam and Eve, least of all by God himself, even ever for anyone. He would have capable of just creating the skins for them. We should be careful not to say something is known, especially about God, that there is no scripture for showing it.
vycna
Native Resident
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:51 pm

Re: My Journey into Naturism

Postby Bare_Truth » Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:58 pm

I also do not believe that the animals whose skins were used by God to make garments for Adam and Eve can be shown to be a religious sacrifice. Especially since animals that were sacrificed for sins usually involved the discarding or destroying of the hides[1].

I see nothing in the scripture that shows that the animals were religious sacrifices, And it was always a requirement that a sacrificed animal must be owned by the person or family which were to benefit by the sacrifice.

The animals from which the skins came cannot be shown to have been a sacrifice and there are inconsistencies with the later specified rules of sacrifice, but on the other side of the argument the Bible does not definitively say that the animals whose skin was used were not sacrifices for sin under some different set of rules. So the question is an interesting one to speculate on, but at the same time I think it is wrong to dogmatically assert that they were a sacrifice. Eisegesis is not generally a good practice.

In the final analysis, I see no demonstrable impact whether the animals were or were not a sacrifice for sin. If anyone wants to construct a scenario from assuming they were a sacrifice for sin and then impute some impact from that assertion, I think that it would be wise to reject any such conclusion based on an application of the principle to prove all things, and hold fast that which is good

[1]
At the first occurance of the term "sin offering" we find.
Ex 29:
11 And thou shalt kill the bullock before the LORD, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
12 And thou shalt take of the blood of the bullock, and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger, and pour all the blood beside the bottom of the altar.
13 And thou shalt take all the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul that is above the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, and burn them upon the altar.
14 But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering.

I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: My Journey into Naturism

Postby Petros » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:41 am

It might be worth noting here how often various animals aiming to make themselves appear impressive to their fellows or threatening to enemy aliens or attractive to potenbtial mates do do by inflating tissues or fluffing out hair or feathers or adjusting postureso as to seem larger. Humans, notoriously the "naked ape", do a certain Amout of standing tall and chest swelling, but we are handicazpped when it comes to fluffing out fur and feathers.

These functions of fur and feathers are precisely the function of our artificial plumage - with as well the function of insulation. In the idyllic Edenic condition, we would not require insulation, nor means of inflating our prestige in social interactions. In the fallen world, we step beyond hairless dogs and cats and mole rats and invent ways to keep warm and fluff our feathers,.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5090
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: My Journey into Naturism

Postby Bare_Truth » Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:28 am

Gary wrote:....... I know that God covering man in animal skins, requiring the death of an animal, is a picture of Christ covering our sins by his own sacrifice - the Lamb of God - and that it was a PICTURE of mercy as well as a literal one in the situation.


Gary, I have to ask how do you "KNOW" this. I can see various ways that people can reason this or see parallels within this account, But parallels do not constitute proof. Yes the sacrificial system was established as a picture of what is required for our sin to be taken away, that is clearly stated in the New Testament, but the death of an animal for pragmatic reasons need not have any symbolic meaning and there are ways in which the death of the animals in question do not match with the instructions for sin offerings. And as to what else was done with the Carcasses, the scripture is silent.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: My Journey into Naturism

Postby Ramblinman » Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:34 am

Bare_Truth wrote:
Gary wrote:....... I know that God covering man in animal skins, requiring the death of an animal, is a picture of Christ covering our sins by his own sacrifice - the Lamb of God - and that it was a PICTURE of mercy as well as a literal one in the situation.


Gary, I have to ask how do you "KNOW" this. I can see various ways that people can reason this or see parallels within this account, But parallels do not constitute proof. Yes the sacrificial system was established as a picture of what is required for our sin to be taken away, that is clearly stated in the New Testament, but the death of an animal for pragmatic reasons need not have any symbolic meaning and there are ways in which the death of the animals in question do not match with the instructions for sin offerings. And as to what else was done with the Carcasses, the scripture is silent.


Scripture is silent on the detail about those carcasses, but we need not walk away from the story.
Abel sacrificed from his flocks.
If humanity was vegetarian in the antediluvian world, then we can only consider the possibility that the meat was a burnt offering, consumed by flames.

Of course no covenant of clothing was established, no prescribed rituals.
This incident of using animals for the purpose of creating hide garments has no other scriptural analogue.
However, the Bible is replete with foreshadowing, called "types" in scripture.
Types need not be perfectly analogous to that which they foreshadow.
The course of human events is nonetheless foretold in micro.

Depending on your interpretation of Genesis, Eden may have been a bastion of warmth and comfort in a much colder world, or the entire antediluvian world may have been of tropic, even equatorial clime.
Were there thorns outside of Eden before the Fall of Man?

I see no direct evidence that head to toe leather garments were a physical necessity the instant that Adam and Eve were banished from Eden. The need, as I see it, was merely a perceived lack.

So if heavy leather full-body garments were NOT a necessity, why did God provide them?

Was our Lord accommodating this neurosis in some fashion?

The only way I can make sense of it is to see it as redirection.
Teaching an object lesson in the consequences of sin requiring the shedding of blood mandates only the slaughter of animals, not the construction of garments from the hides of the sacrifice.

The Bible is full of the metaphor of covering for sin.
However, if clothing had been a covenant-mandate, we would have had a prescribed ritual: animal hides only, covering specific parts of the body, using kosher animals for the garments.

So it would appear that while the sacrificial system was foreshadowed in this event, and God put in an extra twist about covering for that sin. I see no a shred of evidence that this exact methodology was ever repeated.
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am
Location: United States

Re: My Journey into Naturism

Postby jochanaan » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:01 pm

And that passage does not even say the skins were animal skins...
You can live your life in fear--or you can live your life.
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Re: My Journey into Naturism

Postby natman » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:44 pm

jochanaan wrote:And that passage does not even say the skins were animal skins...


According to Strongs, the Hebrew word ( עוֹר ) `owr, refers to the "hide of an animal" (Although it can also refer to human skin). However, I am pretty sure that Adam (and Eve) already had skin at that time, so that would have been redundant.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7141
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: My Journey into Naturism

Postby jjsledge » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:12 pm

Sin sacrifice called for repentance and the laying on of hands on the head of the sacrifice to impute the sins on to the animal. Neither of which are evident in scripture.
Those who judge the motives of othere are simply revealing what's in their own hearts. Frank Viola "Revise Us Again" p.89
User avatar
jjsledge
Native Resident
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 6:53 pm
Location: Rockwall, Texas

Re: My Journey into Naturism

Postby natman » Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:21 pm

jjsledge wrote:Sin sacrifice called for repentance and the laying on of hands on the head of the sacrifice to impute the sins on to the animal. Neither of which are evident in scripture.


That is why, as Ramblinman already mentioned, that the provision of "skins" (hides, presumably of animals and requiring the shedding of blood) "might" be viewed as a "type and shadow" of a future system, remembering that "types and shadows" are similar to but not exactly like the real thing.

There are several "types and shadows" of the Christ in the Old Testament, including the Ark, Melchizedek, Moses, Joshua, David, the fourth Man in the Fire with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, the lambs offered as sacrifice at the altar. None of these are "exactly" Christ, nor "exactly" like Christ, but bare some aspect of a Savior, Prophet, Priest or Propitiator.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7141
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: My Journey into Naturism

Postby vycna » Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:26 pm

Ramblinman wrote:Scripture is silent on the detail about those carcasses, but we need not walk away from the story.
Abel sacrificed from his flocks.
If humanity was vegetarian in the antediluvian world, then we can only consider the possibility that the meat was a burnt offering, consumed by flames.


Except for the case of skins for Adam and Eve, there is no basis for seeing it was a sacrifice for them from any scripture. Humanity was indeed vegetarian, from what God permitted, until after the great Flood. The permitted time for animal meat to be available for food is limited and not to last, that can be seen in visions of prophecy, showing God's ideal. There is nothing to show God would approve of what animals are now subject to for meat from them to be available, and so rapidly, for our society.

When sacrifices began, early on, as with Abel, meat was not made available for human consumption. Sacrifice was done with giving to deity. All the flesh would be burned. And there is something to what was mentioned, that with sacrifices the hides were destroyed. It does not have a correspondence shown with skins being provided to Adam and Eve.
vycna
Native Resident
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:51 pm

Re: My Journey into Naturism

Postby OzTech » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:51 am

It is consistent which Old and New Testaments that the the skins that God provided as clothing for Adam and Eve was the result of God 'sacrificing' an animal (probably a lamb). From the acceptance of Abel's offering, the provision of a sheep for Abraham's offering (instead of Isaac) and many others examples these all foreshadow the sacrifice of Jesus as the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. It's how the patriachs understood that God would make a way for their redemption and, by making such sacrifices themselves, they identified with the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. For there to be the death of an animal to cover their sin would have to have been a really graphic lesson to Adam and Eve of the serious of their sin. A study of the Old Testament offerings will highlight a lot more about this subject... been a while now since I've done that or since my Church has covered that subject.

As I've mentioned elsewhere the word 'naked' in the Hebrew is derived from the same root word as was used to describe the serpent so God's question to Adam and Eve could just as easily be "Who told you that you were subtle/cunning/crafty"? My feeling is that He was asking them how they knew they had become corrupted.

It is my suspicion that Abel 'came of age' and became aware that he was naked... a sinner... and so brought offering to atone for his sin... a lamb from his flock... and in doing so acquired a skin (as his parents had been provided) to cover himself. Cain also probably recognise his sin but chose to offer what seemed good to himself (i.e. that was not mandated/prompted by God) but this was rejected by God.

Oh... by the way... making aprons of fig leaves (unless they had a different variety of figs than what I've seen) is a pretty poor solution to being covered. It does not take long for them to dry out and... curl up... plus... they're rough on the skin... a bit like sandpaper. If you were to go dressed as Adam to a fancy dress party make sure that the other guests don't care if the see certain parts of you or else you are wearing something else underneath them. Oh... and if you would be Eve... well... they made aprons (round the waist)... not full length gowns.
OzTech
Resident
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:35 pm

Re: My Journey into Naturism

Postby natman » Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:40 pm

OzTech wrote:As I've mentioned elsewhere the word 'naked' in the Hebrew is derived from the same root word as was used to describe the serpent so God's question to Adam and Eve could just as easily be "Who told you that you were subtle/cunning/crafty"?


That is a part of one of the words that are translated "naked" in Genesis.

The first, in Genesis 2:25 is `arowm (עָרוֹם), which literally means "nude".

The second, in Genesis 3:1 is `aruwm (עָרוּם), which means "crafty", "cunning" or "subtle".

The third, in Genesis 3:7 is `eyrom (עֵירֹם), which means "exposed" as in "unsafe".

OzTech wrote:My feeling is that He was asking them how they knew they had become corrupted.


I think He was asking them why they no longer felt "safe" in His presence. Covering themselves, they tried, in vain, to hide from God, fearing He would pour out His wrath upon them as He had stated that they would die if they ate the forbidden fruit.

OzTech wrote:It is my suspicion that Abel 'came of age' and became aware that he was naked... a sinner... and so brought offering to atone for his sin... a lamb from his flock... and in doing so acquired a skin (as his parents had been provided) to cover himself. Cain also probably recognise his sin but chose to offer what seemed good to himself (i.e. that was not mandated/prompted by God) but this was rejected by God.

Oh... by the way... making aprons of fig leaves (unless they had a different variety of figs than what I've seen) is a pretty poor solution to being covered. It does not take long for them to dry out and... curl up... plus... they're rough on the skin... a bit like sandpaper. If you were to go dressed as Adam to a fancy dress party make sure that the other guests don't care if the see certain parts of you or else you are wearing something else underneath them. Oh... and if you would be Eve... well... they made aprons (round the waist)... not full length gowns.


Anyone who has ever harvested figs from a fig tree knows that fig leaves have some very fine, fiberglass-like hair on one side that can cause a horrible itch or rash when pressed or rubbed against one's skin (assuming that this is a similar variety of fig that Adam and Eve encountered).... not a good choice for "apron" material. :|
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7141
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: My Journey into Naturism

Postby Ramblinman » Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:45 pm

natman wrote:
OzTech wrote:As I've mentioned elsewhere the word 'naked' in the Hebrew is derived from the same root word as was used to describe the serpent so God's question to Adam and Eve could just as easily be "Who told you that you were subtle/cunning/crafty"?


That is a part of one of the words that are translated "naked" in Genesis.

The first, in Genesis 2:25 is `arowm (עָרוֹם), which literally means "nude".

The second, in Genesis 3:1 is `aruwm (עָרוּם), which means "crafty", "cunning" or "subtle".

The third, in Genesis 3:7 is `eyrom (עֵירֹם), which means "exposed" as in "unsafe".

|


Adam lived about 2,000 years before Moses, the editor-in-chief of the Torah, sometime after that. Perhaps Joshua?
Anyway, we cannot assume that Hebrew was unchanged from the time of Adam to Moses.
Did all these words for "naked" exist in Adam's vocabulary in the same form as they do today? In Moses' day?
I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant, but our understanding of Hebrew is NOT inerrant.
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am
Location: United States

Re: My Journey into Naturism

Postby Petros » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:52 am

Fo tru - even after millennia of diligent and sometimes insightful study.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5090
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Wisconsin

Previous

Return to Are you a naturist?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests