When Adam and Eve discovered they were Naked the big guy ordered "coats of skins" made to cover them.

Where did they get the skins?

With no death - were there a few bald animals walking around after their skin was taken?

The skins, like the dinosaurs, were left over from other planets that were used to create the Earth. Brigham Young’s Boner.

Snake and or reptile skins.

From a scholarly Jewish perspective:

http://www.jtsa.edu/the-garments-of-adam-and-eve

In English, confusion regarding this passage is easy.

In Hebrew, not so much.

Foreskin. Adam had a lot to go around.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Foreskin. Adam had a lot to go around.

?????

I do not understand, especially since the biblical "Adam" was not circumcised.

(According to the Bible, the first male circumcised was Abraham--who, by any proposed dating scheme, "existed" a very long time--hundreds or thousands of years--after the biblical Adam.)

It wouldn’t have been a complete circumcision. With enough stretching, he could have cut off half and wrapped the rest around like a sarong.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2020 03:37PM by bradley.

Let's just hope they wore synthetics.

Ahhhh...

just what was so 'wrong' with being nude? Really?

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ahhhh...
>
> just what was so 'wrong' with being nude? Really?

The generally accepted date for the writing of Genesis is about 3,400 years ago (circa 1450 BCE to circa 1400 BCE), and if you mentally go back to that time, in that general area of the Mediterranean, the anti-nudism elements of the Bible were (in my opinion) probably a reaction to the pro-nudism elements of the cultures around them. ("THAT is for THEM, while THIS is for US.")

Probably (again: in my opinion), in large part, the Minoans: a far-ranging, mercantile people from what is now considered culturally ancient "Greece," who were at that time actively engaged in overseas trade (and therefore, would have been well known to the Hebrews--or, at least, to those Hebrews who were sufficiently literate and informed to be capable of writing the earliest books of the Bible).

While the early Hebrews may have had no hesitation about trading with the Minoans (and with the Minoans' closely-related Greek cousins who were also engaged in Mediterranean trade at that time), the Hebrew authorities (such as they were) were probably also eager to set specific cultural limits and boundaries to keep the Hebrews Hebrew--and the Minoans Minoan.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2020 02:09AM by Tevai.

Tevai, I don't think that dating is correct. 1450-1400 BCE is when Moses is supposed to have lived, so your hypothesis means that Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch. I am unaware of any scholar who believes that.

There was a theory decades ago that put the composition in the monarchical period, so 1000-700 BCE. That hypothesis, however, is no longer considered likely.

Based on the language in which the documents are written, the geography they describe (the cities and states of the first millennium BCE and not the second), and the Mesopotamian structure of the narrative, the consensus now is that Genesis was composed at roughly 600 BCE--a bit before or during the Captivity. It is not coincidental that this was when the high priest, Hilkiah, "discovered" Deuteronomy lying around forgotten in the Holy of Holies. Genesis was thus part of King Josiah's reforms, which gave birth to the YHWH cult and hence to Judaism.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tevai, I don't think that dating is correct.
> 1450-1400 BCE is when Moses is supposed to have
> lived, so your hypothesis means that Moses
> actually wrote the Pentateuch. I am unaware of
> any scholar who believes that.

What I did was Google: "When was the book of Genesis written?" The top returns is where I got the dates I used. [One of the entries which does come up (as additional source material, down the list) does say that a later date is now considered more probable.]

I then checked the Mediterranean area histories to see if what I assumed was [probably] true--that the anti-nudism provisions were likely meant to exclude the prevailing viewpoints of the area neighbors--actually comported with the dates I got from Google, and they did.


> There was a theory decades ago that put the
> composition in the monarchical period, so 1000-700
> BCE. That hypothesis, however, is no longer
> considered likely.
>
> Based on the language in which the documents are
> written, the geography they describe (the cities
> and states of the first millennium BCE and not the
> second), and the Mesopotamian structure of the
> narrative, the consensus now is that Genesis was
> composed at roughly 600 BCE--a bit before or
> during the Captivity. It is not coincidental that
> this was when the high priest, Hilkiah,
> "discovered" Deuteronomy lying around forgotten in
> the Holy of Holies. Genesis was thus part of King
> Josiah's reforms, which gave birth to the YHWH
> cult and hence to Judaism.

I can accept what you are saying here, but in addition, I do think that there was, very probably, an oral tradition component which was later included in what became Genesis. Part of this is from what I know about the trend of tribal histories throughout the world generally, and I think this is especially likely given what I know about Jewish culture (which has "always," to my knowledge, had an important "oral history" component).

And I also do think that the clothing citations in Genesis were very likely put there to draw sharp cultural/religious lines between "us" and "them" (regardless of who, exactly, the "them" referred to at the time of writing).

To the best of my imperfect knowledge ;) , an important sub-set of Jews have pretty much always spent the last few thousand years railing against the insufficient and scandalous clothing standards and practices of the neighbors (whoever the neighbors might have been at any given moment in time), in sharp contrast to their own devout (and obviously far more "civilized" and "religious") standards of "proper dress."

:)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2020 03:24AM by Tevai.

The 1400 BCE dates are literal readings of the Pentateuch, so any conservative Christian or Jewish source will default to that. But there is no historical or archaeological evidence of Israel existing before about 800-1000 BCE let alone evidence of Moses or an Isrealite presence in Egypt.

You are right about the oral traditions. Just as Homer and Hesiod compiled and edited oral traditions in the Greek world, so too did King Josiah's priests and scribes. What is also interesting is that a number of those motifs--the high shall be made low, the statue of various metals that the rolling stone destroys, etc--appear in both the OT and in Hesiod. Why? Because the Philistines were part of the Greek world and interacted very closely with the Hebrews and then the Jews. Some of those passages and stories had by 600 BCE become the cultural heritage of both peoples.

The composite nature of Genesis is also evident in the stories it tells. The Garden of Eden--male, female, snake, tree--is part of the Canaanite creation story. But the editors actually combined three other mythical origin stories as well: Israel coming from the Canaanite mountains (Jacob and Esau), from Egypt (Moses), and from the desert (Abraham). The editors evidently felt they had to string all sorts of distinct mythical threads into a definitive overarching creation story. So yes, the oral stories definitely go back centuries before Josiah.

As for the proposition that the Bible establishes sartorial distinctions from surrounding peoples, that strikes me as spot on. Who were those peoples? Most obviously the Canaanite stratum from which the Hebrews genetically, linguistically, and culturally emerged and who were literally their neighbors and friends; and the Philistines along the coast. Just like the Mormon undergarments; the Sikh turban, knife and comb; and traditional Amish clothing, the YHWH advocates wanted to establish the most conspicuous possible division between "us" and "them."

If you are going to differentiate yourself from those philistine neighbors, you have to differentiate yourself from those philistine neighbors.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2020 03:57AM by Lot's Wife.

I have the hat: "Make Minoa Minoan Again" :-) :-) :-)

If dog meant for us to be nude, we would have been born that way...