So, does anyone know how "nakedness" and the privates got into this about covering with skins? I've never been able to see what is the real connection between the first sin (eating a forbidden apple) and being ashamed of the genitals.

Restin,

I will only say that Adam and Eve being ashamed of their nakedness was a result of their sin of eating the forbidden fruit, however, since your question is geared to go off into a side-topic that isn't compatable to this topic, if you, or anybody else, wish to speak further about that, please create a separate topic on that, but do not continue with it here.

Everybody has been given the gift of salvation. Everyone lives physically because of that gift. The question is what each will do with the gift. Will it be spent selfishly, as the prodigal son did before he repented, or will the gift be appreciated and cherished?

Adam and Eve were actually saved in a sense by a unilateral gift on the part of God, irrespective of their own actions. Here's an explanation of this fact:

quote:

---

By rebellion and apostasy man forfeited the favor of God; not his rights, for he could have no value except as it was invested in God's dear Son. This point must be understood. He forfeited those privileges which God in His mercy presented him as a free gift, a treasure in trust to be used to advance His cause and His glory, to benefit the beings He had made. The moment the workmanship of God refused obedience to the laws of God's kingdom, that moment he became disloyal to the government of God and he made himself entirely unworthy of all the blessings wherewith God had favored him.

This was the position of the human race after man divorced himself from God by transgression. Then he was no longer entitled to a breath of air, a ray of sunshine, or a particle of food. And the reason why man was not annihilated was because God so loved him that He made the gift of His dear Son that He should suffer the penalty of his transgression. Christ proposed to become man's surety and substitute, that man, through matchless grace, should have another trial--a second probation--having the experience of Adam and Eve as a warning not to transgress God's law as they did. And inasmuch as man enjoys the blessings of God in the gift of the sunshine and the gift of food, there must be on the part of man a bowing before God in thankful acknowledgment that all things come of God. Whatever is rendered back to Him is only His
own who has given it.

Man broke God's law, and through the Redeemer new and fresh promises were made on a different basis. All blessings must come through a Mediator. Now every member of the human family is given wholly into the hands of Christ, and whatever we possess--whether it is the gift of money, of houses, of lands, of reasoning powers, of physical strength, of intellectual talents--in this present life, and the blessings of the future life, are placed in our possession as God's treasures to be faithfully expended for the benefit of man. Every gift is stamped with the cross and bears the image and superscription of Jesus Christ. All things come of God. From the smallest benefits up to the largest blessing, all flow through the one Channel--a superhuman mediation sprinkled with the blood that is of value beyond estimate because it was the life of God in His Son.

(FW 21, 22)

---

The following quote brings out that Christ saved the world:

quote:

---

The deceiver presented himself as an angel of light, but Christ withstood his temptations. He redeemed Adam's disgraceful fall, and saved the world. (God's Amazing Grace 42)

---

So there is a sense that the gift of salvation is not simply offered, but given to all. Thus Christ is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe (1 Tim. 4:10). He is the Savior of all in that all have physical life because of His salvific work, and especially the Savior of those who believe because for them that work is effective for eternal life. If anyone is lost, it will because they have despised that which was given to them.

Still, the point remains that no one has adequately explained why Scripture says her husband with her.

Also a little phobic about the genitals thing, eh? This discussion is about whether or not Adam was with Eve at the tree, not about embarassment or about salvation, either. Let's be fair all around.

========

Formatting correction only - Daryl

[ January 09, 2005, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Daryl Fawcett ]

Thanks, Daryl

Her husband with her when looked at in the light of the whole passage clearly implies her husband with her in the Garden of Eden.

If you were Adam standing there with Eve while the devil was in the act of deceiving Eve through the medium of the serpent, would you have stood still by like a frozen mute statue, and thus in so doing consented to her being deceived by the devil?

And then later on in the passage, would Eve have said that the serpent beguiled her, if Adam had been there with her?

Wouldn't she have said that the serpent beguiled them instead of just her?

Also, if Adam had been there with Eve, wouldn't he also have blamed the serpent as Eve had done instead of blaming Eve?

That is why it is important to look at the whole passage rather then at one verse, or even a few words in one verse.

The gift of salvation is [1] imputed to all.....[placed in thier account]. However, not all will believe/recieve/choose the gift and allow God to [2] impart the gift to them.

1] is Justification
2] is Santctifation, a fitness for Eternity.

I have been told that we have not adequately answered Cedric's question.

Have you ever heard the question as to whether or not so and so was still with so and so?

If some body asked me if my wife was still with me, and I answered yea, would that person be asking me where she was as he didn't see her there with me?

I think not.

The same is true of Genesis 3:6.....

quote:

---

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

---

EGW in the book, Patriach & Prophets, clearly testifies to this.

Can anybody answer Cedric's question more adequately than we have already done? If so, please jump in and do so.

Is it possible that before the fall male and female were created equal. (Gen. 2:24 "They will become one flesh") In fact, the woman was made from the man. Therefore, it would make no difference if the serpent addressed the woman or the man; they were equal. Nor would it make a difference who responded. Neither one had dominance over the other.

The concept of male domination was introduced after the fall (Gen. 3:16) and as a consequence. Therefore, Eve could interact with the serpent in her own right, as an equal. Adam had no need to respond; he was not being addressed.

In chapter 3, God calls "to the man" when He was walking in the garden in the cool of the day. This would seem at first glance to indicate pre-existing male dominance. But this may not necessarily be the case. Two other lines of reasoning are possible:

1. God, as Creator, addresses his first creation, the man.
2. More likely, however, is that the term "adam" refers to "humanity" and not "Adam", the man specifically. This is supported by:

a) Strong's Concordance (check the Strongs Number for "Adam" in Genesis; it may refer to an individual or the species)

b) Genesis 3:21-24. Although the text mentions only "the man" it is clear that both the man and the woman were expelled from the garden.

Interesting point, however, let's read the following Bible text:

quote:

---

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

---

What does an help meet for him mean?