Boyd: Naked Definitions

Boyd: Naked Definitions

Bill
Bill

January 31st, 2002, 12:09 pm #1

Hi Boyd!

I am pasting my post regarding naked definitions here again. I guess I don't want it to 'fade away' and am still seeking answers. I realize that you are probably working on it, but I want to keep it 'on top' for other forum participants to consider as well.

I have been searching the internet, Scriptures etc. for the past few days and can't come up with a plausable expanation. I'm not saying there is not one, it's just that my curiosity is aroused and I would like an answer. I am most certain this will come up when someone questions my position on social nudity etc.

Here's my previous post:

Well I guess I’m going to throw a question or two at you regarding your ‘naked definitions’ explanations on your web site. Actually, I have seen others explain these words in the same way you have. I also know a little Greek and a little Hebrew…the Greek runs the pastry shop and the Hebrew the deli. ☺ Actually, I am very limited in my knowledge having forgotten most of what I learned getting my degree in Missions/Theology (that can also be a good thing).

Anyway I do want to be absolutely clear in my own conscience as to what the Scriptures say regarding nakedness. A clear conscience is so refreshing and I do not want to assume anything. I just can’t take what everyone says as ‘fact’ without doing my own homework. I suppose that’s why I’m always in trouble with the “Church”. I just can’t seem to accept things the way they are and leave well enough alone. I’m more like the three year old that is always asking Why?

Now regarding your naked definitions. The word Arowm (06174)is used in Genesis 2:25 and Mr. Strong indicates this means 1) NAKED, BARE. You indicate that nothing more or less is implied. However, I also see that Mr. Strong indicates that this word is from the root word Awram (06191) which means
to be subtle, be shrewd, be crafty, beware, take crafty counsel, be prudent
1a) (Qal) to be crafty, be subtle
1b) (Hiphil) to be crafty, be or become shrewd

The second reference to naked is found in Genesis 3:7. The word Eyrom (05903) according to Mr. Strong means naked/nakedness. However, Mr. Strong also states that this word is from Awram (06191) just as the work Arowm is. So both these words, as I understand Strong’s references, come from the same root word
Meaning subtle, shrewd, crafty etc. I am struggling with the issue that although there are two different words used by the author of Genesis, the root word for both these means the same.

Boyd, can you, or any other forum participants, explain how these two seemingly different words both have the same root word indicating subtlety, craftiness, etc.?

Cheers!

Bill
Quote
Share

Boyd Allen
Boyd Allen

January 31st, 2002, 1:43 pm #2

>"I have been searching the internet, Scriptures etc. for the past few days and can't come up with a plausable expanation. I'm not saying there is not one, it's just that my curiosity is aroused and I would like an answer."

I think the answer to your question as a whole is that the bible really says nothing about nakedness per se. Naked is a fact of humanity. There is good nudity and bad nudity. There is abuse, and there is freedom. (There is a lot more negative comments about our clothing in the bible than about nudity.)

We can enjoy something, or we can lust after something. When something becomes obsesive, then we run into the probability of sin and lust. But who decides when enough is enough? We don't seem to be bothered by the fact that we lust after clothing, spend millions of dollars and obsesivly teach our children to live in fear of their bodies, yet we find that we question our own motives when we decide not to live this way.

There are things in the bible that we over scrutinize, and as a result, miss the meaning. From what I have read in the bible, nakedness or physical nudity was dealt with according to what was going on at that time. The use of the word "nakedness" was usually associated with sexual sins, whereas naked was usually associated with "without clothing"...but not exclusivly. Just how much different the first naked (awrom) and the second naked (eyrom)is, is not really the issue, but what was going on in their minds and hearts at the time.

Worrying over whether they actually wore something or not before the sin is a waste of time. The fact that they lived a life without shame and fear is what we need to look at. I automatically assume that if one can live naked without shame or fear, then I know they have freedom in Christ or God, assuming they are living naked for the right reasons (see: Exibitionists).

Now we go back to our motives, why are we living naked? I can ask the same question to those who wear clothes. Why do you wear clothes? And that is the real question. And one that demands a real answer that discovers our true motives.

Boyd Allen
Quote
Share

George
George

January 31st, 2002, 3:42 pm #3

Boyd - Good answer.

I can understand Bill's curiousity about a very technical question...language study can become as addictive as as a puzzle, and sometime our attention grabs onto something exactly like he has raised. I myself am not able to answer when the question is about Hebrew; in Greek I might.

Having said all that, I like where you came out.

The first Reformation (Luther and company) basically said, "We're going to stop doing those things that are prohibited by Scripture." There was a later wave of reformers who said, "We're only going to do those things that are commanded by Scripture."

That last group went too far, because their position assumes that every single thing that God might give us permission to do is spelled out in the Bible. This makes the Bible a book of rules that squeezes the joy out of life, rather than a book of principles for abundant living.

I wouldn't personally go the entire distance with Luther, but I'm with him on this point. Wherever God hasn't said "No," in Christ we have God's "Yes."
Quote
Share

Boyd Allen
Boyd Allen

January 31st, 2002, 3:58 pm #4

I agree, when we do ONLY that which is written in the bible, and ignore all other sources, what we end up doing is limiting God! God is not bound up in a book. Even his writers were not always reading a bible when they wrote most of what is in the bible. God gave them the spirit to understand His Will, and God also gives us the spirit to understand.

We do not need the bible for every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God because not every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God is written in the bible.

It was pointed out that not everything Jesus said or did was written, else the bible would be too much to read. (The world couldn't contain it all, was the claim).

The holy spirit guides us and gives us further explanation of what is in the bible, then we can add to it in our lives. True, we do not add to the words of God nor take it away, but the bible is not the only source of the word(s) of God.

Our lives should be an open book or bible for others to read.

Boyd Allen
Quote
Share

Bill
Bill

February 1st, 2002, 12:50 am #5

>"I have been searching the internet, Scriptures etc. for the past few days and can't come up with a plausable expanation. I'm not saying there is not one, it's just that my curiosity is aroused and I would like an answer."

I think the answer to your question as a whole is that the bible really says nothing about nakedness per se. Naked is a fact of humanity. There is good nudity and bad nudity. There is abuse, and there is freedom. (There is a lot more negative comments about our clothing in the bible than about nudity.)

We can enjoy something, or we can lust after something. When something becomes obsesive, then we run into the probability of sin and lust. But who decides when enough is enough? We don't seem to be bothered by the fact that we lust after clothing, spend millions of dollars and obsesivly teach our children to live in fear of their bodies, yet we find that we question our own motives when we decide not to live this way.

There are things in the bible that we over scrutinize, and as a result, miss the meaning. From what I have read in the bible, nakedness or physical nudity was dealt with according to what was going on at that time. The use of the word "nakedness" was usually associated with sexual sins, whereas naked was usually associated with "without clothing"...but not exclusivly. Just how much different the first naked (awrom) and the second naked (eyrom)is, is not really the issue, but what was going on in their minds and hearts at the time.

Worrying over whether they actually wore something or not before the sin is a waste of time. The fact that they lived a life without shame and fear is what we need to look at. I automatically assume that if one can live naked without shame or fear, then I know they have freedom in Christ or God, assuming they are living naked for the right reasons (see: Exibitionists).

Now we go back to our motives, why are we living naked? I can ask the same question to those who wear clothes. Why do you wear clothes? And that is the real question. And one that demands a real answer that discovers our true motives.

Boyd Allen
Boyd!

You're preaching to the choir. I agree with you. My interest lies in trying to come to a complete understanding as to the use of the word naked in 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis. Nothing more, nothing less. I just need to satisfy my own curiosity regarding the Hebrew root word used for naked. As you know 'first mentions' in the Scriptures of any issue is important.

The same root word is a basis for the word subtil used in describing the serpent in Gen: 3:1. The word is Aruwm. How is this word related to the other uses of the word as related to nakedness?

I realize that we need to take the context of the word into consideration as well as how that same word is used throughout scripture by the Hebrew authors.

I'm going to try and find Hebrew scholar to explain some of this for me.

Cheers!

Bill
Quote
Share

Boyd Allen
Boyd Allen

February 1st, 2002, 11:04 am #6

That's interesting, I didn't think to cross check any related words such as "cunning" or "subtle".

And BTW, I have been in many choirs, and believe me, they need preachin' to!

Boyd
Quote
Share

Jim
Jim

February 1st, 2002, 6:16 pm #7

Boyd!

You're preaching to the choir. I agree with you. My interest lies in trying to come to a complete understanding as to the use of the word naked in 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis. Nothing more, nothing less. I just need to satisfy my own curiosity regarding the Hebrew root word used for naked. As you know 'first mentions' in the Scriptures of any issue is important.

The same root word is a basis for the word subtil used in describing the serpent in Gen: 3:1. The word is Aruwm. How is this word related to the other uses of the word as related to nakedness?

I realize that we need to take the context of the word into consideration as well as how that same word is used throughout scripture by the Hebrew authors.

I'm going to try and find Hebrew scholar to explain some of this for me.

Cheers!

Bill
I'm not a linguist of any sort, but I sometimes speculate, usually incorrectly I must add. MAYBE the root word is very general and depends on the embellishments to the root and the placement in a sentnce and the context to know what it means in any specific usage.

For example, our English word "mean" can be understood as "average" but can also be used for "cruelty". In a more British usage, it connotes "common". It can also connote "duration", as in "in the mean time ...". The word can also connote "sense of it" as in "what does that mean?"

This example is just the simple word "mean" and we did not even have to add prefix or suffix embellishments or make similar words derived from the root to see many very different definitions that are not at all related to each other. The context and usage completely determine the "mean"ing.
Quote
Share