Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity

[BTK59]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Let's keep in mind that the whole episode of sinning and talking and getting leather clothing takes place within the confines of the Garden of Eden. Only when God had finished talking with them and provided them with adequate clothing did He drive them out of the Garden.

Lets, not.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

So the fact that they sinned within the confines of the Garden and were given leather clothing within the confines/boundaries of the Garden speaks for itself and disproves your remark to Many Miles.

To start, it's crucial to understand that God provided clothing for Adam and Eve as they left the garden, marking their expulsion. You're suggesting that Adam and Eve remained in the garden with clothing, but you'd need to provide evidence from Genesis 3 to support this.

Then you need to clarify the word "skin" to specifically refer to "animal skin." The commonly employed term in the lexicon is "tunic." This corresponds with another term, "linen."

Do you understand the definition of either word?
A tunic is a garment for the body, usually simple in style, reaching from the shoulders to a length somewhere between the hips and the knees. 
a: cloth made of flax and noted for its strength, coolness, and luster
b: thread or yarn spun from flax
2: clothing or household articles made of linen cloth or similar fabric
3: paper made from linen fibers or with a linen finish

Therefore, God would NOT have resorted to a savage deed to cover an otherwise flawless couple in the garden with your presumed animal skin. 

Friberg, Analytical Greek Lexicon

[Fri] χιτών, ῶνος, ὁ tunic, an undergarment worn next to the skin by both men and women, a sleeveless shirt reaching below the knees; more generally clothing, garment; plural clothes

כֻּתֳּנֹת & כָּתְנֹת Ex 3927, cs. כָּתְנוֹת, sf. כֻּתֳּנֹתָם: long shirt-like (under-)garment Gn 373 (« passîm); not nec. of linen; of skin Gn 321; for women 2S 1318f; for priests Ex 284. (pg 167)

Another concept to contemplate is "being covered in righteousness." This idea is reinforced when considering the notion of a paradise, a perfect garden. Did God clothe the pair within the garden or outside as they were exiting the garden?

No one here has presented a convincing argument for "animal skin" inside the garden.

Genesis 3 simply suggests that there was a covering over their "skin," but it really doesn't imply animal skin if we use the original language in present tense. People should learn to understand the bible. God had the option to create a covering from vegetation, tree bark, and other materials. They might have resorted to using animal skins after being expelled. With that understanding in mind, it becomes straightforward to interpret the message conveyed in Genesis 3:7.

NAS  Genesis 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. (Gen. 3:7 NAS)

That's why the interpretations of biblical definitions by "Strongs" can be misleading at times. The Strong's concordance relies on terminology that comes after the events, instead of using terminology from before.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The assumption you made that getting clothes is related to the act of sin is only partially acceptable.

I have witnessed individuals running in the nude in modern society. I fail to perceive the essence of your message.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Because nowhere is it explicitly said that people will remain naked forever or that they will dig in the garden with fingers instead of hoes.

What if humans had never learned the art of cultivating the land? Would we really be engaged in this argument?

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Climate change is also certain. So they would need clothes and a roof over their heads, and that again changes the way of life and has nothing to do with the status of perfection. Because both snow and ice is perfection that comes from God, too.

What if humanity had never learned to pollute or harm the earth without the influence of Satan? Where would humanity be now?

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Then you need to clarify the word "skin" to specifically refer to "animal skin." The commonly employed term in the lexicon is "tunic." This corresponds with another term, "linen."

Do you understand the definition of either word?
A tunic is a garment for the body, usually simple in style, reaching from the shoulders to a length somewhere between the hips and the knees. 
a: cloth made of flax and noted for its strength, coolness, and luster
b: thread or yarn spun from flax
2: clothing or household articles made of linen cloth or similar fabric
3: paper made from linen fibers or with a linen finish

Therefore, God would NOT have resorted to a savage deed to cover an otherwise flawless couple in the garden with your presumed animal skin. 

Friberg, Analytical Greek Lexicon

[Fri] χιτών, ῶνος, ὁ tunic, an undergarment worn next to the skin by both men and women, a sleeveless shirt reaching below the knees; more generally clothing, garment; plural clothes

כֻּתֳּנֹת & כָּתְנֹת Ex 3927, cs. כָּתְנוֹת, sf. כֻּתֳּנֹתָם: long shirt-like (under-)garment Gn 373 (« passîm); not nec. of linen; of skin Gn 321; for women 2S 1318f; for priests Ex 284. (pg 167)

Another concept to contemplate is "being covered in righteousness." This idea is reinforced when considering the notion of a paradise, a perfect garden. Did God clothe the pair within the garden or outside as they were exiting the garden?

No one here has presented a convincing argument for "animal skin" inside the garden.

Genesis 3 simply suggests that there was a covering over their "skin," but it really doesn't imply animal skin if we use the original language in present tense. People should learn to understand the bible. God had the option to create a covering from vegetation, tree bark, and other materials. They might have resorted to using animal skins after being expelled. With that understanding in mind, it becomes straightforward to interpret the message conveyed in Genesis 3:7.

NAS  Genesis 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. (Gen. 3:7 NAS)

That's why the interpretations of biblical definitions by "Strongs" can be misleading at times. The Strong's concordance relies on terminology that comes after the events, instead of using terminology from before.

This is completely wrong, Billy. Before I realized how you might have made the mistake, I thought you were attempting satire, @BTK59, but that would be quite a stretch from the @BillyTheKid-55  and previous B.T.K.s we've all come to know and love on this forum. 

First, you say:

Quote

Then you need to clarify the word "skin" to specifically refer to "animal skin." The commonly employed term in the lexicon is "tunic." This corresponds with another term, "linen."

I'm assuming this could have been an innocent mistake, probably because you saw: "(Genesis 3:21) . . .And Jehovah God made long garments from skins . . ." and you looked up the wrong word. You appear to have looked up the Bible lexicon word(s) for "garment[s]" instead of "skin[s]."

What seemed odd though is that in other forum topics you have praised the scholarly abilities and translation abilities of the GB and the WTS, yet here you simply reject the Watchtower's view:

*** w54 7/15 p. 427 May Christians Eat Meat? ***
Nor can Jesus’ words, “Happy are the merciful,” be used to advocate vegetarianism, for then Jesus himself would have been unmerciful, for he certainly ate flesh, as we have seen. Jehovah glories in the fact that he is merciful, kind and loving, and in view of all his commands, to eat the passover lamb and to offer animal sacrifices, and his own use of the skins of animals to clothe Adam and Eve, it must be apparent that being merciful does not require man to refrain from using lower animals for his benefit.—Matt. 5:7, NW.

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Therefore, God would NOT have resorted to a savage deed to cover an otherwise flawless couple in the garden with your presumed animal skin. 

As an aside, and in line with the Watchtower's comments just quoted, how "savage" do you think it would have been for God to clothe them with animal skins, and yet the same God, who does not change, demanded that if His priests were vegetarian, they would have to be disfellowshipped or perhaps even put to death. In fact, even for the average Hebrew, they MUST eat meat by God's command:

(Exodus 12:8-14) . . .“‘They must eat the meat on this night. . . . “‘This day will serve as a memorial for you, and you must celebrate it as a festival to Jehovah throughout your generations. 

(Leviticus 8:31-35) . . .: “Boil the flesh at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and you will eat it there . . . just as I was commanded, ‘Aaron and his sons will eat it.’ . . . Jehovah commanded that we do what we have done today in order to make atonement for you. . . . and carry out your obligation to Jehovah, so that you may not die; for so I have been commanded.”

However it happened, your argument as quoted above, ends up talking about the word "garment" and then takes a turn to tunics and linen, and argues that the word had a different meaning from the one it later came to be used for. And you have also diverted to fig leaves in Genesis 3:7 instead of the question about the "skins" in Genesis 3:21.

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Friberg, Analytical Greek Lexicon

χιτών, ῶνος, ὁ tunic, an undergarment worn next to the skin by both men and women,. . . not nec. of linen; of skin

Because Friberg said a "garment" could be made not necessarily of linen but also of skins, you are apparently concluding that these particular garments in Genesis 3 must not have been from skin but could have been from linen. By that fallacious reasoning, if Friberg had said that garments were not necessarily made from frilly lace but also from skin, you could have concluded that Jehovah made those garments from frilly lace. 

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

No one here has presented a convincing argument for "animal skin" inside the garden.

Actually, it's pretty simple when you look up the corerct word used in Genesis 3:21:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5785/kjv/wlc/0-1/

Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. skin, hide

   1. skin (of men)

   2. hide (of animals)

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)

עוֹר ʻôwr, ore; from H5783; skin (as naked); by implication, hide, leather:—hide, leather, skin.

Here's how it's used elsewhere in Genesis, Exodus and I stopped in the middle of Leviticus, but you can get the picture:

TOOLS

 Gen 27:16

And she put the skins ^H5785 of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the smooth of his neck:

TOOLS

 Exo 22:27

For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: ^H5785 wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious.

TOOLS

 Exo 25:5

And rams' skins ^H5785 dyed red, and badgers' skins, ^H5785 and shittim wood,

TOOLS

 Exo 26:14

And thou shalt make a covering for the tent of rams' skins ^H5785 dyed red, and a covering above of badgers' skins. ^H5785

TOOLS

 Exo 29:14

But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, ^H5785 and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering.

TOOLS

 Exo 34:29

And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin ^H5785 of his face shone while he talked with him.

TOOLS

 Exo 34:30

And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin ^H5785 of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.

TOOLS

 Exo 34:35

And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin ^H5785 of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.

TOOLS

 Exo 35:7

And rams' skins ^H5785 dyed red, and badgers' skins, ^H5785 and shittim wood,

TOOLS

 Exo 35:23

And every man, with whom was found blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats' hair, and red skins ^H5785 of rams, and badgers' skins, ^H5785 brought them.

TOOLS

 Exo 36:19

And he made a covering for the tent of rams' skins ^H5785 dyed red, and a covering of badgers' skins ^H5785 above that.

TOOLS

 Exo 39:34

And the covering of rams' skins ^H5785 dyed red, and the covering of badgers' skins, ^H5785 and the vail of the covering,

TOOLS

 Lev 4:11

And the skin ^H5785 of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung,

TOOLS

 Lev 7:8

And the priest that offereth any man's burnt offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin ^H5785 of the burnt offering which he hath offered.

TOOLS

 Lev 8:17

But the bullock, and his hide, ^H5785 his flesh, and his dung, he burnt with fire without the camp; as the LORD commanded Moses.

TOOLS

 Lev 9:11

And the flesh and the hide ^H5785 he burnt with fire without the camp.

TOOLS

 Lev 11:32

And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, ^H5785 or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed.

TOOLS

 Lev 13:2

When a man shall have in the skin ^H5785 of his flesh a rising, a scab, or bright spot, and it be in the skin ^H5785 of his flesh like the plague of leprosy; then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests:

TOOLS

 Lev 13:3

And the priest shall look on the plague in the skin ^H5785 of the flesh: and when the hair in the plague is turned white, and the plague in sight be deeper than the skin ^H5785 of his flesh, it is a plague of leprosy: and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean.

TOOLS

 Lev 13:4

If the bright spot be white in the skin ^H5785 of his flesh, and in sight be not deeper than the skin, ^H5785 and the hair thereof be not turned white; then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days:

TOOLS

 Lev 13:5

And the priest shall look on him the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague in his sight be at a stay, and the plague spread not in the skin; ^H5785 then the priest shall shut him up seven days more:

TOOLS

 Lev 13:6

And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague be somewhat dark, and the plague spread not in the skin, ^H5785 the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is but a scab: and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean.

TOOLS

 Lev 13:7

But if the scab spread much abroad in the skin, ^H5785 after that he hath been seen of the priest for his cleansing, he shall be seen of the priest again:

 

[JW Insider]

There is a word in Hebrew that's used in Genesis 1:28 that might have a bearing on the argument about whether Jehovah may have always had in mind that humans could eat meat, just as many animals had apparently been doing for thousands or years. 

(Genesis 1:28) . . .Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.”
 

The word for subdue in Hebrew is here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h3533/kjv/wlc/0-1/

כָּבַשׁ kâbash, kaw-bash'; a primitive root; to tread down; hence, negatively, to disregard; positively, to conquer, subjugate, violate:—bring into bondage, force, keep under, subdue, bring into subjection.

Other examples are here translating exactly the same word in the New World Translation:

It can even indicate "devour"

(Zechariah 9:15) Jehovah of armies will defend them, And they will devour and subdue the slingstones. They will drink and be boisterous, as if with wine; And they will be filled like the bowl . . ,

Or ravage, rape:

(Esther 7:8) 8 The king returned from the palace garden to the house of the wine banquet and saw that Haʹman had thrown himself on the couch where Esther was. The king exclaimed: “Is he also going to rape the queen in my own house?” . . .

Other ideas, are put into bondage, conquer, etc.

Therefore, a basic idea behind subduing the earth, could include "devouring" it. How would one go about conquering the fish, putting the flying creatures into bondage? For what purpose would one subjugate sheep and oxen, if not to also make use of them as resources? 
 

[Many Miles]

8 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Clean meat is equally suitable, unless you can provide evidence of the consumption of spoiled meat before the flood. I'm still waiting.

I've not spoken of eating "spoiled meat." That is a red herring you keep interjecting for your own reasons.

I've spoken of eating edible meat. A direct evidence of eating edible meat prior to the flood is God's express permission to Noah the he could gather, stow away and eat from every sort of food eaten. (Gen 6:21) If you reject that animals have always lived and died, and that the decomposition and metabolism of edible remains is something God created as part of earth's natural ecosystem then I'm afraid that you're rejecting the post-Eden written testimony that we can and should learn from God's testimony of creation. (Ps 19:1-4) Otherwise, we have the written creation account of Eden where God gave humans dominion over animals and all the earth. This dominion is what offered use of animals and earth's resources as needed, including as food.

Are you familiar with anhydrous aluminum silicate? How about sodium chloride? The former is better known as kaolin and the latter as table salt. Both are compounds of natural earth elements, and neither is vegetation. Because God gave humans dominion over the earth then humans have always been completely free to use these natural earth compounds, including eating them. One is useful for temporary symptomatic relief of mild, moderate and severe dysentery. The other is an essential nutrient that helps in the physiology maintaining balance of bodily fluids and our nervous system. The chemical composition of our bodies requires salt intake. Presumably you don't think eating compounds of the earth is prohibited because they are not vegetation.

8 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Are you suggesting that what you said about Dominion is not what you actually stated? Which is it?

I don't know what you mean with that statement. Insofar as I know, I've not said or intimated different things about dominion.

8 hours ago, BTK59 said:

However, it would be inaccurate to believe that God permitted killing within the Garden. In the unlikely event that an animal did pass away, it would undoubtedly have been respectfully buried, as was customary in later times.

Why is it inaccurate to believe God permitted killing within Eden? The Bible says of animals that they are naturally caught and destroyed. Presumably that which is natural is that which was created, and creation was a precursor to Eden.

In Eden animals outnumbered humans. When an animal died are we to think other animals "respectfully buried" the remains? A casual glance at the natural (created) world tells me it's more likely that other animals began the decomposition process by eating the edible flesh. Even if an animal is buried, animals living in the earth are still going to eat and metabolize the edible flesh of a dead carcass, whether biological or botanical.

8 hours ago, BTK59 said:

To be rational inside the garden, you must provide evidence to support your thoughts.

Creation was a precursor to Eden. Divinely inspired post-Eden written text (Ps. 19:1-4) instructs use to learn from the testimony of the natural world as God's creation. Hence the post-Eden natural world testifies to created conditions even in Eden. Nature testifies that since their creation animals have always lived and died. The only reason we have to think a human can live without dying is because the same inspired text tells us so. If we accept one biblical tenet as true then we should except the other tenet as true. Post-Eden nature still testifies to God's creation.

8 hours ago, BTK59 said:

We are currently tending to the garden that is exempt from the restrictions found in Genesis 6:21 and are continuing to follow the guidelines set in Genesis 1:29, which also applied to Noah and the Ark.

Who says the statement of Genesis 6:21 speaks to something that was not always true, including in Eden? You?

If we follow Genesis 1:29 as a strict guideline then, as created, Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat water, salt, or feed their offspring breast milk because none of those are vegetation yet all are essential to health. Such a prohibition is so absurd that it can only mean Genesis 1:29 is not and never has been a comprehensive statement of food humans were created to eat.

If you want a comprehensive statement of food humans were prohibited from eating as created, then the Genesis account tells you what the food was. The tree of knowledge. That was the sole food prohibition placed on perfect humans.

I'm not here to persuade or convince you, or anyone else. I'm just sharing.

[Srecko Sostar]

4 hours ago, BTK59 said:

To start, it's crucial to understand that God provided clothing for Adam and Eve as they left the garden, marking their expulsion. You're suggesting that Adam and Eve remained in the garden with clothing, but you'd need to provide evidence from Genesis 3 to support this.

Then you need to clarify the word "skin" to specifically refer to "animal skin." The commonly employed term in the lexicon is "tunic." This corresponds with another term, "linen."

You refer to Genesis chapter 3, and you don't read it. So are you a privileged person who needs to be shown every Bible verse. Usually, the participant can be expected to check the biblical account himself, so if he does not find a certain text, then he can complain to another that he did not find it.
But for you, we will make an exception for who knows how many times because you are the way you are, and I accept that as my burden in communicating with you.

So first of all, Genesis 3:7: "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked. So they sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings for themselves."
Here, Adam and Eve, not knowing or being able to do otherwise, tore the leaves from the fig tree and hid their body parts, which they considered to be shameful. Text says they were "loin".

What is "loin"?

1. the part of the body on both sides of the spine between the lowest (false) ribs and the hip bones.

   • LITERARY

     the region of the sexual organs regarded as the source of erotic or procreative power.

     "he felt a stirring in his loins at the thought"
   • a joint of meat that includes the vertebrae of the loins.

     "loin of pork"

     https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=a2fe021a8e3ee580&rlz=1C1EXJR_enHR875HR875&sxsrf=ACQVn0-4syb_novD93zFYXVrf5z1KjPwzg:1708607358052&q=Loin+meaning&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMhYy1gr-EAxUZ7LsIHdfkDx8Q1QJ6BAg4EAE&biw=1366&bih=607&dpr=1

      

     I will make a brief observation here. Why does WTJWorg show in its illustrations that God covered not only Eve's loins but also her breasts (with "animal skin") when the term used in the Bible refers only to the lower part of the body?

      

[Srecko Sostar]

Part 2.

Genesis 3;

And Jehovah God made long garments from skins for Adam and for his wife, to clothe them.+ 22  Jehovah God then said: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad.+ Now in order that he may not put his hand out and take fruit also from the tree of life+ and eat and live forever,*—” 23  With that Jehovah God expelled him from the garden of Eʹden+ to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken.+ 24  So he drove the man out, and he posted at the east of the garden of Eʹden the cherubs+ and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning continuously to guard the way to the tree of life.

 

If Moses was well inspired when he wrote down these things and if he wrote them down in the right order, then we have a clear picture that God first clothed Adam and Eve and only then expelled them from Paradise.

We have at least two, three possibilities, and maybe more.

A - God killed some animals and skinned them and processed them and then gave them to Adam and Eve.

B - Animals died naturally or were slaughtered by some predator, so then God processed the skin to make it suitable for clothing.

C - Adam and Eve had something to slaughter the animals with, so they processed them themselves, and it looked, symbolically, as if God had actually clothed them.

D - Or it was a miraculous event of teleportation of leather products from space, so they fell to Earth in front of Adam and Eve.

[BTK59]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is completely wrong, Billy. Before I realized how you might have made the mistake, I thought you were attempting satire, @BTK59, but that would be quite a stretch from the @BillyTheKid-55  and previous B.T.K.s we've all come to know and love on this forum. 

I see why you would perceive it that way, especially considering the numerous misconceptions you have. So, I won't accept your assessment. It's highly unlikely that you believe you know better than the lexicons. However, what does it matter if you think about @BillyTheKid-55, as if it should mean something to me.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm assuming this could have been an innocent mistake, probably because you saw: "(Genesis 3:21) . . .And Jehovah God made long garments from skins . . ." and you looked up the wrong word. You appear to have looked up the Bible lexicon word(s) for "garment[s]" instead of "skin[s]."

Wrong! I mean specifically inside the garden, not outside. The mistake you perceive in me is actually your own mistake in assuming a literal translation.

Adam and Eve were the ones who proactively decided to cover themselves with fig leaves, even before God intervened. The abstract on Genesis 3:21 would have been written after Adam and Eve were expelled. Make sure to read the Bible accurately and with care.

There are numerous non-conventional books that challenge the validity of your perspective. After the expulsion, I don't have any concerns about wearing animal skins, as Adam and Eve were the first to do so, and according to other sources, they were "sheep" skins obtained from animals killed by lions. Once again, it refers to a deceased animal, not for food but to use its skin as clothing.

Therefore, it would be incorrect to consider those passages as suitable for consumption, as there is no mention of animals being included in the sources for consumption. 

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

As an aside, and in line with the Watchtower's comments just quoted, how "savage" do you think it would have been for God to clothe them with animal skins, and yet the same God, who does not change, demanded that if His priests were vegetarian, they would have to be disfellowshipped or perhaps even put to death. In fact, even for the average Hebrew, they MUST eat meat by God's command:

How can we successfully implement this within an ideal setting? God was still in control, not man. Therefore, any thoughts we have about imperfection within the garden hold no significance.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Because Friberg said a "garment" could be made not necessarily of linen but also of skins, you are apparently concluding that these particular garments in Genesis 3 must not have been from skin but could have been from linen. By that fallacious reasoning, if Friberg had said that garments were not necessarily made from frilly lace but also from skin, you could have concluded that Jehovah made those garments from frilly lace. 

Visitors should refrain from endorsing your perspective. They need to use their own judgment and critical thinking to correctly interpret a lexicon. For the same reason, they should not rely on your use of Strongs Concordance or JPS, Greene, without understanding those lexicons. As I mentioned, they have a hindsight view, as you are demonstrating with all your posted examples that would not be applicable "inside" the garden or before the flood, until Noah's instruction. The Strongs concordance can only be applied after certain conditions are met.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Actually, it's pretty simple when you look up the corerct word used in Genesis 3:21:

You just need to learn where to put it into practice.

[BTK59]

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I've not spoken of eating "spoiled meat." That is a red herring you keep interjecting for your own reasons.

Are you retracting your previous position on "carrion"? It seems like playing games is a necessity for you.

I refuse to entertain any more foolishness from you. I am blocking your comments because it seems that you lack sincerity in your intentions.

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You refer to Genesis chapter 3, and you don't read it. So are you a privileged person who needs to be shown every Bible verse.

Srecko, I consider myself fortunate to be able to comprehend the teachings of the Bible without imposing my own viewpoints upon them. This is where discernment, reasoning, and wisdom play a crucial role. Without it, there's no point in even trying.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

So first of all, Genesis 3:7: "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked. So they sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings for themselves."
Here, Adam and Eve, not knowing or being able to do otherwise, tore the leaves from the fig tree and hid their body parts, which they considered to be shameful. Text says they were "loin".

Indeed, the leaves were carefully arranged to ensure they felt adequately concealed and protected. It's not hard to believe that's how they left the garden. After the expulsion, feel free to unleash your wildest imagination with an abundance of animal skins.

That being said, do not indulge in wild fantasies about Adam and Eve feasting on meat, particularly "carrion" as previously suggested in this thread or another one by the same person who now denies it. I cannot comprehend the distinction between "spoiled meat" and "carrion," both referring to the putrefied state of meat. Nevertheless, it is a perplexing matter.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

What is "loin"?

Perhaps it would be wise to reconsider this particular choice, haha!

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I will make a brief observation here. Why does WTJWorg show in its illustrations that God covered not only Eve's loins but also her breasts (with "animal skin") when the term used in the Bible refers only to the lower part of the body?

Adam and Eve frequently journeyed back to the entrance of the majestic garden. Assuming that they were in the garden with a Cherub wielding a fiery sword in the background would be unwise. Should the observer believe they are being escorted out by the angel in the distance or are they just being denied entry from afar? I believe fear would be a factor. Once again, outside the garden, go crazy with animals skins. Use accessories, bling, whatever makes you happy.

[Many Miles]

20 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Are you retracting your previous position on "carrion"?

No. When I've spoken of carrion I've used the term in reference to edible flesh of a dead animal.

[Many Miles]

47 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

I cannot comprehend the distinction between "spoiled meat" and "carrion," both referring to the putrefied state of meat.

Decay begins at death. Decay escalates to a point where flesh becomes inedible for humans yet still edible for other creatures. Some animals, like maggots, thrive on putrified flesh. Eating flesh is a sort of food from creation.

[BTK59]

Now on your other post Srecko, after reflecting on the consequences of disobedience being immediate for man, what is the more probable course to consider, once Adam and Eve had managed to clothe themselves? Should we believe God would clothe them again inside the garden, overlapping their outerwear?

Some older illustrations depict Adam and Eve clothed in linen, while very few, show them with fig leaves. One should consider this as a matter of common decency.