₦airaland Forum

Saw after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit their eyes opened and they saw that they were naked.
My question is if they were naked all the while before eating the fruit,does it mean their eyes were not functioning?

Arda1000:
Saw after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit their eyes opened and they saw that they were naked.
My question is if they were naked all the while before eating the fruit,does it mean their eyes were not functioning?

Did you not see that they saw the fruit?

That means their eyes were working and therefore the words " their eyes were opened" means something beyond seeing trees and fruits.

There is a big difference between
To look and To see

To hear and To listen.

The proper understanding of these concept will shed more light on the tale of Adam and Eve..

Dtruthspeaker:
Did you not see that they saw the fruit?

That means their eyes were working and therefore the words " their eyes were opened" means something beyond seeing trees and fruits.

good so they saw the fruit but couldn’t see their unclothedness?
So they didn’t excrete or urinate?

sonmvayina:
There is a big difference between
To look and To see

To hear and To listen.

The proper understanding of these concept will shed more light on the tale of Adam and Eve..

maybe you should read the verse in your native tongue,good luck defending fairytales

Arda1000:
good so they saw the fruit but couldn’t see their unclothedness?
So they didn’t excrete or urinate?

You obviously never learnt figures of speech. Most verily, you can never read Shakespeare's books nor even understand poetry

Arda1000:
Saw after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit their eyes opened and they saw that they were naked.
My question is if they were naked all the while before eating the fruit,does it mean their eyes were not functioning?

eyes their means perception, insight, understanding. They had a different perception of themselves, you can see something several things and then one day you actually see it or see something in it, not because you were blind before but that day you saw it in a different way maybe based on how you felt or what was going on inside of you.

You know when you read something and your eyes open to the new information in your head.

The knowledge they had before they ate the fruit didn't make them feel ashamed but with this new knowledge they felt shame and looked for a way to deal with it by making leaves and covering their bodies. There eyes became carnal and they saw themselves not as living souls but as bodies made from dust

Dtruthspeaker:
You obviously never learnt figures of speech. Most verily, you can never read Shakespeare's books nor even understand poetry

ok genius so why did they cover themselves with figs leaves?
And why did god took the effort to make clothes for them

gohf:
eyes their means perception, insight, understanding. They had a different perception of themselves, you can see something several things and then one day you actually see it or see something in it, not because you were blind before but that day you saw it in a different way maybe based on how you felt or what was going on inside of you.

You know when you read something and your eyes open to the new information in your head.

The knowledge they had before they ate the fruit didn't make them feel ashamed but with this new knowledge they felt shame and looked for a way to deal with it by making leaves and covering their bodies. There eyes became carnal and they saw themselves not as living souls but as bodies made from dust

so they didn’t know they were stark naked until they ate the fruit?
And they saw their unclothedness every time and had no shame till they ate the fruit is that what you are saying?

The funniest is how everyone has different understanding about a particular bible verse,a whole lot of chaos in a piece of book 😂

Arda1000:
maybe you should read the verse in your native tongue,good luck defending fairytales

i have never denied it's not a fairy tale
Any story with talking animal is sure to be a fairy tale......

I am concerned with the message the writer is trying to pass....dont loose sight of it...

sonmvayina:
i have never denied it's not a fairy tale
Any story with talking animal is sure to be a fairy tale......

I am concerned with the message the writer is trying to pass....dont loose sight of it...

well I don’t see the moral of the story

Arda1000:
so they didn’t know they were stark naked until they ate the fruit?
And they saw their unclothedness every time and had no shame till they ate the fruit is that what you are saying?

The funniest is how everyone has different understanding about a particular bible verse,a whole lot of chaos in a piece of book 😂

same way many read comprehension and still fail they english exam

Please if someone is talking to you about a matter that's not clear and suddenly you grasp the sense of that matter then you say "i see! i see!"

Does that mean you are seeing something that's physically visible there?🤔

To me, the story of Adam nd Eve is only written as a provibe to depict how humanity distance themself from God.

Arda1000:
Saw after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit their eyes opened and they saw that they were naked.
My question is if they were naked all the while before eating the fruit,does it mean their eyes were not functioning?

The Genesis story is an allegory not meant to be interpreted literally.

The " eyes open" is a metaphor for gaining moral awareness and the knowledge of good and evil, not physical sight.

triplechoice:
The Genesis story is an allegory not meant to be interpreted literally.

The " eyes open" is a metaphor for gaining moral awareness and the knowledge of good and evil, not physical sight.

so it was moonlight tales ?

coolheaven:
To me, the story of Adam nd Eve is only written as a provibe to depict how humanity distance themself from God.

fairytales?

MaxInDHouse:
Please if someone is talking to you about a matter that's not clear and suddenly you grasp the sense of that matter then you say "i see! i see!"

Does that mean you are seeing something that's physically visible there?🤔

so Adam and Eve existed or not?

gohf:
same way many read comprehension and still fail they english exam

your point?

Arda1000:
Saw after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit their eyes opened and they saw that they were naked.
My question is if they were naked all the while before eating the fruit,does it mean their eyes were not functioning?

The book isn't about religion, by the way.🥱🥱

During the time of our ancestors, unclothedness among the various tribes was not considered a thing of shame until after the white man showed up. After that, people began ascribing such emotions as shame and humiliation to seeing their own unclothedness and that of others. 🥱🥱

Yes, Adam and Eve were naked before they ate the fruit. It was their norm until just after the incident. What they formally accepted became no longer acceptable; not because their unclothedness committed any crimes against anyone or was bad in any sense, but because man's ego became centered in man, hence the shame and embarrassment at his own unclothedness. From that point on, man began to fixate on that which concerned his ego, rather than on that which concerned his Maker.

Arda1000:
so Adam and Eve existed or not?

Surely Adam and Eve existed as the first human couple on this planet!

Arda1000:
so it was moonlight tales ?

However it's described, moonlight tale, fairytale or allegory, the literary category doesn't change. It's not a literal report even though some religious fundamentalist have interpreted it as that.

The purpose of the narrative is to convey truths about human consciousness, morality and relationship with what the ancient perceive as the divine or God.

"Eyes open" is a universal metaphor for gaining understanding, in this case, moral awareness and shame.

So to focus all your attention on the biological optics is to reject the story's own terms and purpose.

Arda1000:
well I don’t see the moral of the story

that's because you are looking with your physical eyes, not the eyes of the mind,

do you have any?

sonmvayina:
that's because you are looking with your physical eyes, not the eyes of the mind,

do you have any?

so u see with spiritual eyes

triplechoice:
However it's described, moonlight tale, fairytale or allegory, the literary category doesn't change. It's not a literal report even though some religious fundamentalist have interpreted it as that.

The purpose of the narrative is to convey truths about human consciousness, morality and relationship with what the ancient perceive as the divine or God.

"Eyes open" is a universal metaphor for gaining understanding, in this case, moral awareness and shame.

So to focus all your attention on the biological optics is to reject the story's own terms and purpose.

well the good thing is anyone can interpret your Bible to suit his or her own ideas,whenever you guys are caught with logics.

triplechoice:
"Eyes open" is a universal metaphor for gaining understanding, in this case, moral awareness and shame.

If they didn’t have understanding or moral awareness before eating the fruit, how can they be faulted for eating the fruit?

The god told them not to eat the fruit, they agreed but they did not have any understanding or moral awareness.

The serpent told them to eat the fruit, they agreed but they did not have any understanding or moral awareness.

So, what is their transgression?

Arda1000:
so u see with spiritual eyes

my minds eye....everybody has one ....I wonder why you don't?

sonmvayina:
my minds eye....everybody has one ....I wonder why you don't?

explain more biko

Arda1000:
so it was moonlight tales ?

Calling a foundational myth, an allegory, or a profound piece of anceint literature a " moonlight tale" is simply a refusal to engage with its meaning. It's like calling Homer's Odyssey a "fish story" or "Plato's Allegory of the Cave "shadow puppets" and thinking you have made a point.

You've substituted a dismissive label "moonlight tale" for understanding. I'm not arguing about the label, but how we read an ancient text literally or literarily. You've made your choice very clear.

KnownUnknown:
If they didn’t have understanding or moral awareness before eating the fruit, how can they be faulted for eating the fruit?

The god told them not to eat the fruit, they agreed but they did not have any understanding or moral awareness.

The serpent told them to eat the fruit, they agreed but they did not have any understanding or moral awareness.

So, what is their transgression?

I never mentioned "transgression" because I am not a Christian and do not subscribe to the doctrine of Original sin. The concept of "transgression against God" is a specific Christian theological interpretation .

The story originates in Judaism, where it is essentially understood as an allegory. In that tradition, "Adam" does not refer to a single historical man, but represents humankind from the Hebrew word, adamah , earth.

A key Jewish interpretation sees the "serpent" not as a devil, but as the yetzer hare, the human inclination towards selfishness or immediate desire. "God' in the context of the story represents our higher moral conscience or divine spark. The story, therefore, delineates the internal human condition, when we succumb to our lower impulses, " we "transgress" against our own higher nature and introduce suffering into our lives. It is an allegory for the birth of moral consciousness and its consequences.

In Islam, the story is similarly seen as a moral lesson about human weakness, error,and repentance, not as original sin that corrupts all future generations. That doctrine of inherited sin is uniquely Christian theological development, one that many, myself included, find logically problematic, as your question rightly highlights

I am not here to defend any specific doctrine. I am explaining the story's purpose as a foundational myth or allegory. It was never meant to be taken literally. The very elements of the story, a talking snake, a magical tree, signal its genre as a symbolic narrative meant to convey a moral and existential truths.

Unfortunately, debates about Genesis are often dominated by two groups who insist on a literal reading; religious fundamentalists and the militant atheist who argues against them. Both sides are trapped in the same literalist framework and completely miss the story's deeper literally meaning.

Everything I have explained here regarding the Jewish perspective is standard mainstream interpretation. You can confirm it by visiting any authentic educational resource on Judaism. You don't need to take my word for it and continue to question me about what is contained in the narrative.

Thank you

triplechoice:
I never mentioned "transgression" because I am not a Christian and do not subscribe to the doctrine of Original sin. The concept of "transgression against God" is a specific Christian theological interpretation .

The story originates in Judaism, where it is essentially understood as an allegory. In that tradition, "Adam" does not refer to a single historical man, but represents humankind from the Hebrew word, adamah , earth.

A key Jewish interpretation sees the "serpent" not as a devil, but as the yetzer hare, the human inclination towards selfishness or immediate desire. "God' in the context of the story represents our higher moral conscience or divine spark. The story, therefore, delineates the internal human condition, when we succumb to our lower impulses, " we "transgress" against our own higher nature and introduce suffering into our lives. It is an allegory for the birth of moral consciousness and its consequences.

In Islam, the story is similarly seen as a moral lesson about human weakness, error,and repentance, not as original sin that corrupts all future generations. That doctrine of inherited sin is uniquely Christian theological development, one that many, myself included, find logically problematic, as your question rightly highlights

I am not here to defend any specific doctrine. I am explaining the story's purpose as a foundational myth or allegory. It was never meant to be taken literally. The very elements of the story, a talking snake, a magical tree, signal its genre as a symbolic narrative meant to convey a moral and existential truths.

Unfortunately, debates about Genesis are often dominated by two groups who insist on a literal reading; religious fundamentalists and the militant atheist who argues against them. Both sides are trapped in the same literalist framework and completely miss the story's deeper literally meaning.

Everything I have explained here regarding the Jewish perspective is standard mainstream interpretation. You can confirm it by visiting any authentic educational resource on Judaism. You don't need to take my word for it and continue to question me about what is contained in the narrative.

Thank you

So, it’s “pick your own interpretation”. Fair enough.

KnownUnknown:
So, it’s “pick your own interpretation”. Fair enough.

No. it is not "pick your own interpretation" That's a serious or deliberate misunderstanding of what I said.

I explained the historical and textual context, not personal preference.

I said the story is a Jewish text that was composed and compiled within the Jewish tradition centuries before Christianity existed.

I further explained that within that originating tradition, for thousand of years, it has been essentially understood as theological allegory and myth, a story about human nature, not a historical report.

But thousand of years later , when Christianity emerged it developed a different theological framework (original sin) and reinterpreted the story to fit that new doctrine. This is secondary interpretation and it is what most people like yourself are familiar with .

So my point is not that all interpretations are equally valid. I never said so or even suggested it. My point is that to understand what the story is , its genre, its purpose and its original meaning. You must look to its source. The Christian literal and doctrinal reading is not an " alternative" to the Jewish allegorical reading. It is a later theological adaption of it.

Ignoring the originating context and judging the story by a later foreign interpretation is to guarantee misunderstanding. I am not asking anyone to pick an interpretation. . I am asking anyone reading this, apart from you, to research the source of the text so they know the primary lens through which the story was meant to be read by those who created it. That's all.