A friend called me this morning with a question. Where does the Bible state that God made "animal" skins for Adam and Eve?
It does not....
His follow up question was, Could it be that the "skins" that God made for Adam and Eve were actually a terrestrial body, meaning that they lost their celestial body?
The theory would be that in the original creation Adam and Eve were made celestial and clothed with the glory of God; as was Jesus' flesh after the resurrection. But when they fell the glory of God departed and they took on a terrestrial body.
What say ye? I know there is not a lot of scripture here to speculate upon, but does the Mishnah, Torah, or other writings address this?
A friend called me this morning with a question. Where does the Bible state that God made "animal" skins for Adam and Eve?
It does not....
His follow up question was, Could it be that the "skins" that God made for Adam and Eve were actually a terrestrial body, meaning that they lost their celestial body?
The theory would be that in the original creation Adam and Eve were made celestial and clothed with the glory of God; as was Jesus' flesh after the resurrection. But when they fell the glory of God departed and they took on a terrestrial body.
What say ye? I know there is not a lot of scripture here to speculate upon, but does the Mishnah, Torah, or other writings address this?
I asked my pastor this question and the answer he gave was Gen 6:3
__________________
DAVID A MAN AFTER GOD'S HEART.........
A friend called me this morning with a question. Where does the Bible state that God made "animal" skins for Adam and Eve?
It does not....
His follow up question was, Could it be that the "skins" that God made for Adam and Eve were actually a terrestrial body, meaning that they lost their celestial body?
The theory would be that in the original creation Adam and Eve were made celestial and clothed with the glory of God; as was Jesus' flesh after the resurrection. But when they fell the glory of God departed and they took on a terrestrial body.
What say ye? I know there is not a lot of scripture here to speculate upon, but does the Mishnah, Torah, or other writings address this?
Considering earlier in the chapter they tried to cover themselves with leaves, I think it is a logical assumption to think that the coats of skins came from an animal.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
Considering earlier in the chapter they tried to cover themselves with leaves, I think it is a logical assumption to think that the coats of skins came from an animal.
I thought of that...but why would not the "fig leaves" have been sufficent? Why did they need "skins" for covering?
I thought of that...but why would not the "fig leaves" have been sufficent? Why did they need "skins" for covering?
The word 'skin' in Gen 3:21 could be either a person's skin or the hide of an animal. You cannot say that the bible doesnt exclude the idea that the skin was that of an animal.
Further, the context of the previous chapter, shows that Adam was formed from the "dust of the ground" Then God formed woman from Adams rib.
Adam further suggests that both he and the woman are made of Flesh and bone.
Clearly the intent of Gen 2 is that man was not a spritual being but a physical being as well.
You cannot place the events of chapter 3 before the events of chapter 2 thus you cannot come to a conclusion that Adam and Eve were given their human/physical form when God made "skins" for them.
The implication of Gen 3:21 is that their sin required a blood sacrifice to cover their sin.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
The word 'skin' in Gen 3:21 could be either a person's skin or the hide of an animal. You cannot say that the bible doesnt exclude the idea that the skin was that of an animal.
Further, the context of the previous chapter, shows that Adam was formed from the "dust of the ground" Then God formed woman from Adams rib.
Adam further suggests that both he and the woman are made of Flesh and bone.
Clearly the intent of Gen 2 is that man was not a spritual being but a physical being as well.
You cannot place the events of chapter 3 before the events of chapter 2 thus you cannot come to a conclusion that Adam and Eve were given their human/physical form when God made "skins" for them.
The implication of Gen 3:21 is that their sin required a blood sacrifice to cover their sin.
I got it!
After the fall they looked like those exhibits that show all the muscles but don't have any skin! What they have really created with those exhibits are ADAM AND EVE!!!
I knew they looked familiar!
PS. That is why the man in the exhibit is missing a rib!
The word 'skin' in Gen 3:21 could be either a person's skin or the hide of an animal. You cannot say that the bible doesnt exclude the idea that the skin was that of an animal.
Further, the context of the previous chapter, shows that Adam was formed from the "dust of the ground" Then God formed woman from Adams rib.
Adam further suggests that both he and the woman are made of Flesh and bone.
Clearly the intent of Gen 2 is that man was not a spritual being but a physical being as well.
You cannot place the events of chapter 3 before the events of chapter 2 thus you cannot come to a conclusion that Adam and Eve were given their human/physical form when God made "skins" for them.
The implication of Gen 3:21 is that their sin required a blood sacrifice to cover their sin.
Hybrid Mode
