What is a biblical concept that you (as a christian) believe, but wish you understood better?

originally posted by: GolgothaBridge
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Nothing humans do can cover their shame, we need God's grace and sacrifice. The clothes they made were inadequate. That was the whole point.

I agree.

a reply to: NOTurTypical
Please learn to see and believe what you read. No where does it say they made clothes. It says Aprons. Anyone think an apron covers your whole body does not know what an Apron is. Adam and Eve actually failed to clothe themselves because they did not know what clothes were. If you just believe it where it says it instead of coming to the scriptures with the Idea that everything is an allegory and nothing is literal.

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

So see you change a meaning by interpreting aprons as clothes, that tells me you may think you are more wise than God who inspired these words to Moses. The Hebrew word chagowr, for aprons is never translated cloth, clothes, clothed, clothing, or garment.

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

So it was not Adam and eve who clothed themselves, their effort was a failure like their obedience. The circumstances did not make them naked, they were already before God naked on the sixth day and were not ashamed. But it is God who clothed them with skins.

Many scholars imply a evening sacrifice into Gen 3:21, in which God shed blood that would cover their Spiritual condition and the skins God used to make them coats that clothed them, to cover them physically. After this point in the Bible Nakedness is never talked about in positive light.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: NOTurTypical
Please learn to see and believe what you read. No where does it say they made clothes. It says Aprons.

The KJV says aprons and the MEV based on the same Textus Receptus MSS as the AV1611 KJV uses the word “coverings”. The Hebrew more or less implies their privates were covered up concealing their nudity. The Hebrew root is translated “girded” or “loin coverings” everywhere else in the Bible. The word means their private areas of their body were covered.

Anyone think an apron covers your whole body does not know what an Apron is. Adam and Eve actually failed to clothe themselves because they did not know what clothes were.

No, they covered their private parts, the areas of their body that brought them shame. 🤷‍♂️

If you just believe it where it says it instead of coming to the scriptures with the Idea that everything is an allegory and nothing is literal.

Where did I say “nothing is literal” and everything in the Bible is an allegory? You clearly just invented that, I never said that. In fact above I clearly said numerous times Adam and Eve were “literally naked” before the sewed fig leaves together.

So see you change a meaning by interpreting aprons as clothes

I merely said they weren’t naked, the covered themselves up with fig leaves they themselves made for themselves. When God showed up in the garden and asked Adam where he was both he and Eve weren’t naked any more. They covered their nakedness themselves with fig leaves.

that tells me you may think you are more wise than God who inspired these words to Moses.

You’re inventing quotes from me and trying to criticize them. Then you put yourself as a higher authority than Jesus and proclaim the Bible doesn’t use “nakedness” as a metaphor for a bankrupt spiritual condition when Jesus Himself applies this metaphor in Revelation. “White robes” is another metaphor for the righteousness of God. “Dirty clothes” is another metaphor in the kingdom parables for self-righteousness, the person at the wedding feast was wearing them and cast out.

The Holy Spirit throughout the Bible uses metaphors and figures of speech so consistently we have a hermeneutics term to deal with them called the “Law of Expositional Constancy”: meaning the Holy Spirit uses the same metaphors and idioms consistently throughout the Bible. “Rock” is Jesus, “Bread” is Jesus, “water”, “wine”, “oil” are consistent metaphors for the Holy Spirit, “Shepherd” is consistently uses for the Father as well as Jesus, “sheep” are uses for the elect, “goats” used for the unsaved. This is basic Biblical hermeneutics man.

The Hebrew word chagowr, for aprons..

I think you mean the Hebrew word “ḥăḡôr” (חֲגוֹר).

is never translated cloth, clothes, clothed, clothing, or garment.

And likewise nowhere else in the Bible is it translated as “aprons”, the usual translations are “girdle”, “loincloths”, “belt”, “loin coverings” and “armor”. - It is an article of clothing covering the private parts of people, I.E. their nudity.

So it was not Adam and eve who clothed themselves, their effort was a failure like their obedience.

They covered their nakedness by themselves with fig leaves, and did this before they hid from God. Which is what I said. You said they were naked, which they weren’t.

The circumstances did not make them naked, they were already before God naked on the sixth day and were not ashamed.

Yes.

But it is God who clothed them with skins.

I said that. And skins made how? Was God spinning yarn from sheep or did God kill animals and skin them?

Many scholars imply a evening sacrifice into Gen 3:21, in which God shed blood that would cover their Spiritual condition and the skins God used to make them coats that clothed them, to cover them physically.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. This is the first presentation of vicarious atonement in the Bible. That God is the Redeemer, that He makes sacrifice for sin by the shed blood of an innocent atoning sacrifice. This act of God points to the ultimate sin sacrifice for all mankind by the Lamb of God, the Son Jesus Christ at Calvary.

After this point in the Bible Nakedness is never talked about in positive light.

Agreed.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Anything but believe what it says where it says it.

Private interpretation is still private interpretation.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Anything but believe what it says where it says it.

Private interpretation is still private interpretation.

Is slander all you have left in your bag?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Reread it was not any form of slander.

You read my reply like you read the Bible. 1) Not considering the meaning of the words employed. 2) Making a generalized statement a personal private interpretation. And 3) you failed to take into consideration the context of my previous replies.

And that was not slander either.

Both remarks are called "Criticism" if you can't handle the heat stay out of the desert.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Reread it was not any form of slander.

Accusing someone of “private interpretation” is slander. Especially after I have said about three to four times in this thread that Adam and Eve were literally naked before they covered their nakedness with fig leaves they made for themselves. Then you lied about me and said that I claimed the Bible can’t be read literally and “everything is an allegory”. I said that nowhere, that’s bearing false witness and slander.

Again, is that all you have left in your bag, not replying to what I actually said in response to your last post, just more slander?

You read my reply like you read the Bible. 1) Not considering the meaning of the words employed.

No, I just got finished replying with what the word “hagor” means in Hebrew and posted every translation/use of it in the OT directly from Strong’s Concordance. 🤷‍♂️🙄

2) Making a generalized statement a personal private interpretation.

Now you are lying again, pretending that’s just some generalized and non-specific comment despite you using it previously against me more than once in this very thread? Nobody reading this thread will believe that.

And 3) you failed to take into consideration the context of my previous replies.

I replied to them point by point, actually. Your response to that was slander, not addressing what I posted but accused me, (the third time), of “private interpretation” of scripture. Then lied about it, claiming the third time you accused me it was just a general statement.

And that was not slander either.

Both remarks are called "Criticism" if you can't handle the heat stay out of the desert.

Against the person responses in a debate are just as hominem fallacies, that’s certainly not heat.