skynes
08-24-2006, 12:53 AM
Genesis 3:21 "Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. "

As far as I know, a lot of Christians think that God killed an animal here to clothe them, this also being the first blood sacrifice for sins.

My question is this:

Where does this come from? Nowhere in all of scripture does it say God killed an animal here, it's not even hinted at. So where does this come from?

disciple
08-24-2006, 10:59 AM
Strange, I never remember seeing that verse. *shrug* I dunno.

dawn of light
08-24-2006, 01:06 PM
I still think that it came from an animal. The Bible doesn't say a lot of stuff. Just because it doesn't say that He killed an animal doesn't mean that He didn't. Where else would the skin come from?

TheFireBreathes
08-24-2006, 05:59 PM
Maybe they were vegetarians...

lamb_servant72
08-25-2006, 01:44 PM
The Hebrew word for skin used in Genesis 3:21 is the same word used for goat's skin in Gen 27:16, ram's skin and porpoise's skin in Ex 25:5 and Ex 26:14, and bull's hide in Ex 29:14.

It is also the same word used when describing Moses' skin in Ex 34:29, 30, and 35. So the Hebrew word used in Gen 3:21 is also the word used for human skin.

I can't find anything that says God killed anything to create the skin that covered Adam and Eve. I read alot of commentaries that say that God killed something to make the skins and this represented the shedding of blood for forgiveness, but I can't find where the Word says that.

Adam could have killed something. Or, God could have created the skin without having to kill anything.

The commentaries may have something to do with Hebrews 9:22, "...without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

john316
08-25-2006, 05:31 PM
The Hebrew word for skin used in Genesis 3:21 is the same word used for goat's skin in Gen 27:16, ram's skin and porpoise's skin in Ex 25:5 and Ex 26:14, and bull's hide in Ex 29:14.

It is also the same word used when describing Moses' skin in Ex 34:29, 30, and 35. So the Hebrew word used in Gen 3:21 is also the word used for human skin.

I can't find anything that says God killed anything to create the skin that covered Adam and Eve. I read alot of commentaries that say that God killed something to make the skins and this represented the shedding of blood for forgiveness, but I can't find where the Word says that.

Adam could have killed something. Or, God could have created the skin without having to kill anything.

The commentaries may have something to do with Hebrews 9:22, "...without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

^^The Georgia peach saved me a lot of typing...she pretty well said all i would have. My personal opinion is that the skins came from animals but as to who killed them *shrugs*..dont know.

skynes
08-29-2006, 01:07 AM
I still think that it came from an animal. The Bible doesn't say a lot of stuff. Just because it doesn't say that He killed an animal doesn't mean that He didn't. Where else would the skin come from?

The Bible doesn't say Jesus DIDNT go to Thailand to learn Buddhism, or that He DIDNT go to the Native Americans and give the Gospel.

Does that mean He did do those things?

-------------------------

The Hebrew word for skin used in Genesis 3:21 is the same word used for goat's skin in Gen 27:16, ram's skin and porpoise's skin in Ex 25:5 and Ex 26:14, and bull's hide in Ex 29:14.

It is also the same word used when describing Moses' skin in Ex 34:29, 30, and 35. So the Hebrew word used in Gen 3:21 is also the word used for human skin.

I can't find anything that says God killed anything to create the skin that covered Adam and Eve. I read alot of commentaries that say that God killed something to make the skins and this represented the shedding of blood for forgiveness, but I can't find where the Word says that.

Adam could have killed something. Or, God could have created the skin without having to kill anything.

The commentaries may have something to do with Hebrews 9:22, "...without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."


Thank you for that Lisa, I essentially found the same. Nowhere in scripture at ALL does it say God killed an animal in Genesis 3.

The first recorded sacrifice of an animal (for whatever reason) is Cain and Abel, some commentaries say it was a sin sacrifice. The Bible doesn't.

I personally think that something as important as the first sacrfice for sins, the beginning of the story that leads to Christ would be serious enough to be included.


Based on scripture alone, I'd say God made the tunics from nothing. It doesn't say He kileld anything, so I'd go with He killed nothing.


I'm glad you mentioned it can also mean human skin, cause I have a little theory...

The epidermis does three things:
Waterproofing
prevent infection
protect from solar radiation

Tell me, pre-fall what purpose would the Epidermis have served? Infection and viruses didn't exist yet, neither did the rain. The sun wouldn't kill either.

So why even have the epidermis?
But after sin entered the world, viruses would start infecting. So the Epidermis would be very useful.

Is it possible that when God made them skin, that is when He created the epidermis?

It's a theory only remember (I think dozens of them up a week)

Spiffles
08-29-2006, 03:49 AM
i'm not sure about the skin being what God Clothed them in regards to that.
in chapter 2 vs 23 Adam goes: "this is now my bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; ..." which to me indicates from the "flesh" word they are already skinned. I also have a hard time comprehending humans walking around without skin.

I also see in chapter 3 vs 7. "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves" which to me means they went "holy crap, we need clothes to cover our skin and private parts". They way it is written to me assumes they have skin.

As for the actual verse itself brought up in intital post..
chapter 3 vs 21 "The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them".. I am looking at the word "clothed" which to me indicates a covering of the skin.

Personally.. I think Christians look into things way too much sometimes.. The bible talks about being childlike.. Children dont look deeply into things a lot.. if something makes sense they generally go "ok, thats cool"


The Bible doesn't say Jesus DIDNT go to Thailand to learn Buddhism, or that He DIDNT go to the Native Americans and give the Gospel.

Does that mean He did do those things?

The bible doesnt Say anywhere Jesus did a crap either.. But we can asusme from LOGIC thet he did..
Same with the Clothing of Adam and Eve by God. It doesnt say that God got the clothes from an animal, but it makes sense.. it is logical..

No before anyone starts quoting me and making up crap, i said "God GOT the clothes from the animal" not "God Killed the animal to get the clothes"
It is possible to make clothes from sheeps wool and the sheep dont need to be killed, just ahve the wool shaved off..

weebird20
08-29-2006, 05:25 AM
oooh your right about not having to kill an animal spiffles to get clothing...since God never mentions killing an animal maybe He did just make clothing from sheeps wool....thats another interesting idea...all these ideas could be right but i guess we wont no the true answer until we have the chance to ask God about it when we see Him ;)

skynes
08-29-2006, 05:32 AM
i'm not sure about the skin being what God Clothed them in regards to that.
in chapter 2 vs 23 Adam goes: "this is now my bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; ..." which to me indicates from the "flesh" word they are already skinned. I also have a hard time comprehending humans walking around without skin.

I also see in chapter 3 vs 7. "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves" which to me means they went "holy crap, we need clothes to cover our skin and private parts". They way it is written to me assumes they have skin.

As for the actual verse itself brought up in intital post..
chapter 3 vs 21 "The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them".. I am looking at the word "clothed" which to me indicates a covering of the skin.

Personally.. I think Christians look into things way too much sometimes.. The bible talks about being childlike.. Children dont look deeply into things a lot.. if something makes sense they generally go "ok, thats cool"


The bible doesnt Say anywhere Jesus did a crap either.. But we can asusme from LOGIC thet he did..
Same with the Clothing of Adam and Eve by God. It doesnt say that God got the clothes from an animal, but it makes sense.. it is logical..

No before anyone starts quoting me and making up crap, i said "God GOT the clothes from the animal" not "God Killed the animal to get the clothes"
It is possible to make clothes from sheeps wool and the sheep dont need to be killed, just ahve the wool shaved off..


When I said epidermis, I meant the top layer of your skin, not all the skin itself.

It doesnt say that God got the clothes from an animal, but it makes sense.. it is logical..

It's also logical that dead men do not come back to life.
It's also logical that leprousy doesn't vanish.
It's also logical that blind men don't see...

ok I'll quite being sarcastic LOL.

Point I was making is that when dealing with God, logic does not always work. God can create from nothing, this we know.
So God creating skin from nothing could happen also.


It's funny you mention sheeps wool! Cause I actually said on another board where I posted the same question that sheep get sheared without being killed.

I thought of it later and realised that since this is hide and skins here, wool doesn't quiiite cut it.

Spiffles
08-29-2006, 02:13 PM
When I said epidermis, I meant the top layer of your skin, not all the skin itself.

I know, but my point was to do with Adam and Eve already having skin so God making clothes for them had to be something else other then skin



It's also logical that dead men do not come back to life.
It's also logical that leprousy doesn't vanish.
It's also logical that blind men don't see...

ok I'll quite being sarcastic LOL.

Point I was making is that when dealing with God, logic does not always work. God can create from nothing, this we know.
So God creating skin from nothing could happen also.


sorry, but I hate the arguement that i responded to (in general not just you this time) of if it isnt in the bible it didnt happen.
The Bible does leave out a LOT of things that DID happen, because we dont realy need to know..
Sorry if that offends you, but i just really hate that argument because it is a perfectly valid point that Dawn of Light made.

The Bible doesn't say Jesus DIDNT go to Thailand to learn Buddhism, or that He DIDNT go to the Native Americans and give the Gospel.

Does that mean He did do those things?


Yes God can create anything from nothing.. He did, with Adam, and the earth and all the animals.. BUT, then he set a precedence of using what he already created to create other things when he made Eve from Adam. If we carry that preccednce over just a couple verses it is very easy to assume from logical normal reasons that God created clothing from an animal..
That I beleive is how as humans we have the skills and knowledge of clothing ourselves from animal products..

It just.. makes sense



It's funny you mention sheeps wool! Cause I actually said on another board where I posted the same question that sheep get sheared without being killed.

I thought of it later and realised that since this is hide and skins here, wool doesn't quiiite cut it.
your right there, since it says God made garments of SKINS to cloth them. Which would indicate maybe not wool..
I dunno, lol


I personally think that something as important as the first sacrfice for sins, the beginning of the story that leads to Christ would be serious enough to be included.

Not sure what you mean by this.

I would say Adam and eve's inital fall and first sin was the beginning of the story that leads to Christ.. He came to fix the problem that occured by Adam and Eve sinning and falling away from grace. (and of course everything all of us have done as well) But if Adam and eve kept obeying God and not eaten the fruit, there would have been no need for Christ coming down and doing what he did.

My point? The bible does include the beginning of my Christ was needed.

john316
08-29-2006, 04:53 PM
I would like to restate again that i think God could have made the skins and i have no problem with that line of thinking.

I just feel that the skins came from animals because of the fall all creatures were condemned to die. I think maybe that was the first physical deaths after the fall... it is just my theory...and like Scott i have alot of them:)

skynes
08-30-2006, 12:32 AM
I know, but my point was to do with Adam and Eve already having skin so God making clothes for them had to be something else other then skin

But the Bible doesn't SAY they already had skin... sorry couldn't resist *snicker*

It was just a random thought of mine once, that since germs and stuff weren't a problem pre-fall then no epidermal protection was needed.




sorry, but I hate the arguement that i responded to (in general not just you this time) of if it isnt in the bible it didnt happen.
The Bible does leave out a LOT of things that DID happen, because we dont realy need to know..
Sorry if that offends you, but i just really hate that argument because it is a perfectly valid point that Dawn of Light made.

I know the Bible doesn't say things that happened, but I also think that can only be stretched so far before it gets stupid and ridiculous... Namely the bad examples I gave.

On something unimportant, like Jesus taking a crap. I doubt that's needed... unless some Catholic somewhere found Jesus' remains and they had the ability to raise the dead or something.

I'll explain more further down.


Yes God can create anything from nothing.. He did, with Adam, and the earth and all the animals.. BUT, then he set a precedence of using what he already created to create other things when he made Eve from Adam. If we carry that preccednce over just a couple verses it is very easy to assume from logical normal reasons that God created clothing from an animal..
That I beleive is how as humans we have the skills and knowledge of clothing ourselves from animal products..

Where is this precedence? Is it in scripture? Or just assumed?

One of Adams more recent descendants was a worker of brass and iron (Tubal-Cain?). He was smart enough to do that stuff on his own, he didn't need God to teach him.



your right there, since it says God made garments of SKINS to cloth them. Which would indicate maybe not wool..
I dunno, lol

Was still a good thought though. If someone knows the Hebrew word for woollen clothing it'd be useful here!


Not sure what you mean by this.

I would say Adam and eve's inital fall and first sin was the beginning of the story that leads to Christ.. He came to fix the problem that occured by Adam and Eve sinning and falling away from grace. (and of course everything all of us have done as well) But if Adam and eve kept obeying God and not eaten the fruit, there would have been no need for Christ coming down and doing what he did.

My point? The bible does include the beginning of my Christ was needed.

Some deeper explanation:

Hebrews mentions the sacrifices of Abel and Cain.
Some people think that what they did was a sacrifice for sins, which is why Abels was accepted (blood sacrifice) and Cain's wasn't.
This is built upon the idea that God killed an animal as a sacrifice for sins in Genesis 3.

However the Bible never says this was for sins. To my memory NO pre-covenant sacrifice was stated as being for sins, except Job, which was specifically commanded by God.
The Bible says that by Faith Abel's sacrifice was better. NOT because it was blood, but simply because of Faith.

God did not ordain a regular sin sacrifice until Moses. When He did, Adam and Eve were not mentioned. In Hebrews, God clothing them is not mentioned.

If in fact Genesis 3 is the first recording of a sin sacrifice (or a sacrifice at all) it would have been mentioned as this was the very first type of sacrifice which is a mirror of Jesus' sacrifice.

Yet it is not mentioned.
Instead we find that the Passover lamb is mentioned instead.

Spiffles
08-30-2006, 01:11 AM
Where is this precedence? Is it in scripture? Or just assumed?

One of Adams more recent descendants was a worker of brass and iron (Tubal-Cain?). He was smart enough to do that stuff on his own, he didn't need God to teach him.

The precedence of God using what he already created is Eve. God created Adam.. Then he used Adam to create Eve rather then just creating Eve out of nothing like God did with Adam.
So the precedence of God using his creation to futher create is already there.. I personally beleive God continued like that using his creation to make stuff.. Like the clothing God made for Adam and Eve. I also beleive God continues to this day using that same precendence. He uses us, his creation, to spread the word.. He could do it any number of ways.
But I think God gets more pleasure and glory seeing what he has already created becoming useful to his works. Like an animal to cloth Adam and Eve, or us to spread his word.

dawn of light
08-30-2006, 05:58 AM
Genesis 2:7 Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath or spirit of life, and man became a living being.

Technically, God didn't make man out of nothing, He made him from the dust of the earth. Just thought I'd point that out.

Genesis 1:29-30 And God said, See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the land and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30And to all the animals on the earth and to every bird of the air and to everything that creeps on the ground--to everything in which there is the breath of life--I have given every green plant for food. And it was so.

Verse 29 - God says that every plant and seed is acceptable food for man.
Verse 30 - God says that every plant and seed is acceptable food for animals and birds (everything with the breath of life)

God did not say that animals were an acceptable food for man. There was no death in the garden before the fall so it makes sense that Adam and Eve wouldn't kill animals for food. It's possible that when God made tunics of skin for clothing, He killed an animal and showed Adam and Eve that it was good for food also.

I can't imagine that God would kill one of His creations (the animal) take the skin and waste the rest! If God did kill an animal rather than making the skins out of nothing, it makes sense that He'd either give it to them as food or show them how to make a blood sacrifice for sins.

I also tend to think that the first blood sacrifice would have been important enough to describe in a little more detail and would think that if that was the case it would say so in the Bible. But it also makes sense that God would want a sacrifice for their sins...

My theory about the animal for food just popped into my head about 10 minutes ago so by all means critique it all you like!

dawn of light
08-30-2006, 05:59 AM
Hebrews 9:22 In fact, under the Law almost everything is purified by means of blood, and without the shedding of blood there is neither release from sin and its guilt nor the remission of the due and merited punishment for sins.

I just found this verse and thought, "hey, God MUST have killed the animal for a sacrifice, otherwise Adam and Eve would still be under their sin." But then I realized that Adam and Even weren't under the Law, they were before the Law and the Law didn't apply to them.

Romans 5:12-14 12Therefore, as sin came into the world through one man, and death as the result of sin, so death spread to all men, [no one being able to stop it or to escape its power] because all men sinned. 13[To be sure] sin was in the world before ever the Law was given, but sin is not charged to men's account where there is no law [to transgress]. 14Yet death held sway from Adam to Moses [the Lawgiver], even over those who did not themselves transgress [a positive command] as Adam did. Adam was a type (prefigure) of the One Who was to come [in reverse, the former destructive, the Latter saving].

These verses seem to say that a blood sacrifice wasn't necessary for Adam and Eve because sin wasn't "charged to their account" before the Law. Death still reigned in their lives, but a blood sacrifice wouldn't have done anything for them, because God had not put the Law in place before they sinned.

skynes
08-30-2006, 06:55 AM
Technically, God didn't make man out of nothing, He made him from the dust of the earth. Just thought I'd point that out.

and Technically, God got that dust from nothing. So Technically man was also made from nothing. :)

You make a good point on God wasting the animal, God wastes nothing, however the Bible says that God did not authorize the killing of animals for food until after Noah came out of the Ark.
No eating of animals occured before then.

But it also makes sense that God would want a sacrifice for their sins...

God being outside of time looked to Christ as the sacrifice for sins.
It's off-topic but really the OT sacrifices accomplished nothing, they were simply a type of what Christ would do.
So it makes no different if Adam sacrificed an animal for his sins or not.

dawn of light
08-30-2006, 07:08 AM
You make a good point on God wasting the animal, God wastes nothing, however the Bible says that God did not authorize the killing of animals for food until after Noah came out of the Ark.
No eating of animals occured before then.

Oh I didn't know/remember that. Do you have the exact verses handy?

God being outside of time looked to Christ as the sacrifice for sins.
It's off-topic but really the OT sacrifices accomplished nothing, they were simply a type of what Christ would do.
So it makes no different if Adam sacrificed an animal for his sins or not.

I addressed that in the post above. (It looks like a double post but it's actually two posts!)

and Technically, God got that dust from nothing. So Technically man was also made from nothing.

So.... technically, Eve was made from nothing too. She was made from Adam who was made from the dust which was made from nothing! (sorry, couldn't resist! ;) )

skynes
08-30-2006, 07:16 AM
Ahhh I didn't see your second post, just the first.

Genesis 9: 2-3

And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand.

3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.


On the law thing. Adam and Eve still sinned, not according to the Law per se, but according to a command of God.

dawn of light
08-30-2006, 07:29 AM
Thanks for the verses. I know that they still sinned. I was trying to say what you just said. A sacrifice wouldn't have been necessary.

Back to our original question: we know that God didn't give the animal for food, it wouldn't make sense to make it a blood sacrifice, and it's unlikely that God would have wasted the rest of the animal, so where did the skin come from? I still find it unlikely that God would have made the skin from nothing.

skynes
08-31-2006, 12:16 AM
I find it more likely that God would have made it from nothing. It IS God after all. He doesn't have to abide by what makes sense to us and from what I've seen He intentionally doesn't.

unshakeable15
08-31-2006, 10:04 AM
But since death had entered the world through the sin Adam and Eve just committed, isn't it conceivable that an animal or two died in the time between the sinning and God walking through the Garden on his regular walk (Gen. 3:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:8;&version=31;)) and that instead of needing to create a skin or kill an animal for one, God simply took the skins off the animals that died on their own, due to Adam and Eve's sin?

dawn of light
08-31-2006, 11:16 AM
Hmmm, never thought of that. I think that could be a good possibility. As soon as they sinned I'm sure the "food chain" started to develop and perhaps animals had begun to kill one another already.

skynes
09-02-2006, 04:15 AM
But since death had entered the world through the sin Adam and Eve just committed, isn't it conceivable that an animal or two died in the time between the sinning and God walking through the Garden on his regular walk (Gen. 3:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:8;&version=31;)) and that instead of needing to create a skin or kill an animal for one, God simply took the skins off the animals that died on their own, due to Adam and Eve's sin?

It's possible. I doubt that would have been a very long period of time though, matter of hours maybe?

unshakeable15
09-03-2006, 07:07 PM
But if a lion sees a lamb in that time, he's not gonna wait. And if the Garden is like any other garden i've seen, it's teeming with life, so it's an accident waiting to happen once Adam and Eve do their deed.

skynes
09-03-2006, 10:34 PM
I checked up the word for 'skins' last night.

It's actually the same word for Sheepskins also!

theelectric3
09-06-2006, 03:01 PM
I find it more likely that God would have made it from nothing. It IS God after all. He doesn't have to abide by what makes sense to us and from what I've seen He intentionally doesn't.

my sisters and i were talking about this last night, actually. and i thought of this thread...

perhaps the skin provided for Adam and Eve was a sign... maybe they were clothed with lambskin - God showing how He will send His Son (the Perfect Lamb) to cover our sins.


sacrifice will be needed to cover the sin. Someone will suffer. our sins do not simply effect us... and they will cost everything.

it cost Jesus, the Perfect Lamb, everything.

perhaps this was God showing how even after our (self-inflicted) mistakes are seconds old, He already has the answer and healing that we need.

st1_Lord
09-07-2006, 12:59 PM
Genesis 9:1-5

"Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

"But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man."

I believe we can eliminate the idea that God provided the skin from an already dead animal based on this. The fact that at this point all living things become food and the fact that God will demand account from all living creatures seem to imply that no meat was eaten until this point.

Also the epidermis is necessary for human survival. It not only protects from pathogens, etc. but it also contains the body. The body is 90-95% water. For the most part your cells are floating in water (contained by phospholipids). There is no way that we could live without skin.

Therefore I think you are left 2 options:
1. God created the skin apart from the animal
2. God killed the animal and took the skin
-lambs wool does not apply- it is wool, not skin.

By earlier statements of set precedents, I believe we can eliminate option one. It is possible, but from what we've seen of God and his character it seems highly improbable. That leaves option two. God killed an animal.

At this point we are given arguments and questions of what happened to that animal.

Again options:

1. Food- eliminated- no meat eaten until post-flood.
2. Left to waste- possible, no directly opposing evidence- and the fact of things such as Israel's total annihilation of Jericho and all livestock suggest that God has a different view of what waste is then ours.

3. Sacrifice. This question requires us to pose this question: "What happened to Adam?" All that the Bible tells us is that Adam lived 930 years and he died. We do not know what happened to him other than that. Is he in heaven? I don't know. Is he in hell? I don't know. Lets examine more options:
"What happened to Adam?"
1. Adam died and went to hell.
2. God used that animal as a sacrifice for Adam and gave procedure for offering sacrifices and Adam is in heaven.
3. There was no law and therefore no necessity of sacrifice.


According to Romans 5 the law brought sin. Not in the sense that it created it but it defined it. Without the law there is no sin because one cannot break a commandment that doesn't exist.

However before the law God set down one rule for Adam. "Do not eat..." And Adam broke it. Paul calls this the Trespass.

Romans 5:20a
"The law was added so that the trespass might increase."

Now Paul is saying that the law INCREASED the trespass. The trespass is sin (disobedience to God). Adam sinned. Therefore atonement is required. That eliminates option 3.

So either Adam is in hell, or that animal was setting a procedure of sacrifice. Here it is difficult to say one or the other to be true. But there is one indicator that may be able to show the possibility of the sacrifice- Adam's sons.

Why would Cain and Abel give an offering to God? Obviously it was not something they did out of charity- man's selfish sin nature had kicked in. It seems the only place the idea of sacrifice could come from is God. And when did they get this idea? Possibly from the animals God killed to clothe Adam and Eve.

Therefore I would come to the conclusion that the most likely solution is that God killed the animals and used those animals to set a precedence of sacrifice.

Anyone who finds an error in my reasoning please show me, but this is the conclusion I come to after careful consideration.

skynes
09-07-2006, 02:16 PM
Also the epidermis is necessary for human survival. It not only protects from pathogens, etc. but it also contains the body. The body is 90-95% water. For the most part your cells are floating in water (contained by phospholipids). There is no way that we could live without skin.

not quite right.
Firstly pre-fall pathogens were not a problem.
secondly the epidermis as I already stated is the direct outer layer of skin, not ALL the skin, but a single layer whose purpose is to waterproof and protect from germs.
Neither would be needed pre-fall.
Hence my theory.

Why would Cain and Abel give an offering to God? Obviously it was not something they did out of charity- man's selfish sin nature had kicked in. It seems the only place the idea of sacrifice could come from is God. And when did they get this idea? Possibly from the animals God killed to clothe Adam and Eve.

Therefore I would come to the conclusion that the most likely solution is that God killed the animals and used those animals to set a precedence of sacrifice.

Anyone who finds an error in my reasoning please show me, but this is the conclusion I come to after careful consideration.

Firstly Scripture doesn't support your argument, from my point of view that's reason enough to discard something.

Secondly you underestimate Adam and Eve.
We can't place a figure on how intelligent early man was, but given that God made everything perfect and called everything very good, you can assume that Adam and Eve would be the same, with a perfect brain with which they used 100% of.
This would also explain how their more recent descendants could mine ore and use metalworks.

Therefore they could have gotten the idea from places other than God, like say... their own heads. It's a stretch I admit, but saying they could NOT have thought of it themselves is boxing them in.

Thirdly nowhere in scripture is an animal sacrifice used to cover sin before Moses, with the exception of Job sacrificing for his friends. God specifically commanded that one, so I'd call it an exception.
If sin-sacrifice were common before the Law, it would be more clear.

Fourthly So either Adam is in hell, or that animal was setting a procedure of sacrifice.

Or Adam had Faith in God and it was accounted to him as righteousness e.g. Abraham.
But as you said we don't know for certain, limiting it to two options only works if there are only two options. I just gave a viable third, so your reasoning is flawed there

Fifthly when Hebrews speaks of Cain and Abel, it does not say that Cain's sacrifice was bad because it was crops. It says that Abel's was better because it was made out of Faith.

Lastly the Hebrew word translated SKINS in Genesis 3 is the exact same word translated sheepskin elsewhere in the Old Testament. So wool is a possibility.


-----------------------------------------

Edit:

The epidermis is made up of DEAD cells.

Pre-fall = no death

Therefore the Epidermis would not exist. After the fall when death entered the world. The epidermis would be needed to form

st1_Lord
09-07-2006, 03:34 PM
Sorry, I mistakenly equated epidermis to the skin in general without thinking about the specifics...BUT the layer of living skin that you are referring to is made up mainly of phosphorus... let that hit oxygen and you got yourself "The Human Torch"

And as for perfect brains... we have perfect brains too. Everything God created was and is perfect. The problem is that we perverted and destroyed that. Upon sinning there came to be what we call a sin nature. That selfish nature would never think up something like a sacrifice. So WHY sacrifice? Why would they do that? You would never have made sacrifices naturally with no external influence would you?

dawn of light
09-07-2006, 05:51 PM
Therefore they could have gotten the idea from places other than God, like say... their own heads. It's a stretch I admit, but saying they could NOT have thought of it themselves is boxing them in.
That selfish nature would never think up something like a sacrifice. So WHY sacrifice? Why would they do that? You would never have made sacrifices naturally with no external influence would you?

Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's sons. Adam and Eve lived FULLY alive in the garden with God until they sinned and were separated from God. I find it very likely that Adam and Eve would have told their children what they had done and what life was like in the garden. It's also likely that Cain and Abel felt like something was missing from their lives (God) and thought that making a sacrifice would put them on God's "good side", so to speak. They would have wanted the life that Adam and Eve had in the garden.

unshakeable15
09-07-2006, 11:00 PM
Genesis 9:1-5

"Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

"But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man."

I believe we can eliminate the idea that God provided the skin from an already dead animal based on this. The fact that at this point all living things become food and the fact that God will demand account from all living creatures seem to imply that no meat was eaten until this point.
i don't see how those verses take away the option for God to take a skin from an animal that died a natural death (that death having just been introduced by Adam and Eve). It wouldn't be as if God killed the animal for the skin (which is what i see that passage taking up, that every animal's life would be taken to account so no needless killing, no wasteful death. But later you give that option? hmmm...)

And as for perfect brains... we have perfect brains too. Everything God created was and is perfect. The problem is that we perverted and destroyed that. Upon sinning there came to be what we call a sin nature.
Wait, you seem to contradict yourself here.

Point: We have perfect brains.
Counterpoint: We have perverted and destroyed our perfect brains.
Conclusion?: We do not have perfect brains.

skynes
09-08-2006, 03:02 AM
Sorry, I mistakenly equated epidermis to the skin in general without thinking about the specifics...BUT the layer of living skin that you are referring to is made up mainly of phosphorus... let that hit oxygen and you got yourself "The Human Torch"

And as for perfect brains... we have perfect brains too. Everything God created was and is perfect. The problem is that we perverted and destroyed that. Upon sinning there came to be what we call a sin nature. That selfish nature would never think up something like a sacrifice. So WHY sacrifice? Why would they do that? You would never have made sacrifices naturally with no external influence would you?

Incorrect again. there are FIVE layers of the Epidermis

Stratum corneum - Made of dead cells, absorbs water into body
Stratum lucidum - Made of dead cells, waterproof
Stratum granulosum - creates the waterproofing protein
Stratum spinosum - Create proteins to strengthen skin and help prevent damage
Stratum germinativum - Die very quickly in order to replace the upper layers of skin, produces melanin to affect skin colouration.

Under that is the Dermis, Dermis cushions blows to the body and also provides feelings of touch and heat. Dermis is not what I'm talking about.

If skin was made up mainly of phosporous, why do people not spontaneously combust when they get cut?

That selfish nature would never think up something like a sacrifice. So WHY sacrifice? Why would they do that? You would never have made sacrifices naturally with no external influence would you

Built inside every person, even Adam and Eve, is a conscience. If people are as selfish as you say, then noone can do a good deed (I use the term good relatively). This is obviously not true. As Jesus said, even sinners know how to love their friends and children.

Yet the way you say makes it sound like the entire human race is incapable of even that.

Why sacrifice? Why NOT sacrifice? why did noah sacrifice one of every clan animal when He got off the ark? A sin offering? Or a 'thank you for saving us' offering?
Abraham sacrifice a ram/lamb instead of his son. was this a sin offering? Or just a 'thank you for not taking my son' offering?

So why could Cain and Abel's sacrifice not be a 'thank you for providing us with crops and growth' offering?

After all, it does say that Cain gaves of the fruits of his crop, while Abel gave the FIRSTfruits of his animals.

There's much more to the sin sacrifice then you're saying. It had to be ritually prepared, it had to be a lamb without blemish, the first fruit of its flock etc.

That's an awful lot of detail to leave out don't you think?

st1_Lord
09-09-2006, 03:08 PM
Well, I could defend myself... but this is quickly becoming a conflict and debate (not just on others parts but mine as well), not a discussion so I shall meekly retreat.

breakthesilence
11-06-2006, 06:36 PM
epidermis: this is where your skin color, etc. comes in. i'm pretty sure God created adam and eve with it. take away that layer and um... ow (ever gotten rugburn? yeah when the air hits it... that's painful.) imagine how humans would look without it-we would look hideous. yet naturally we perceive ourselves--the human being--as beautiful (all things in nature which are perceived as beautiful almost instinctively, i am almost certain that God gave us our definition of beauty. thus if all God created was good, it would have beauty and be perceived by us as such. if skin is beautiful, as God has "told" us, then it is good and existed from the start. follow? otherwise i can explain better)
not to say i'm right and your wrong or anything, but for these reasons i'm pretty sure the epidermis existed and is not the covering given. besides, what shame is there in your dermis showing? it practically does anyhow. and it is still needed for waterproofing (osmosis) even if there aren't germs to block or even if pain was not in issue.

please explain to me why it would be unlikely that God would kill an animal only for the skin to clothe adam and eve?
something that was pointed out at the conference i attended over the weekend is that God loves us humans so much, as we are created in His own image & are His special creation, that He forsook part of His creation (the animals) for our sake, to cover our shame. i don't see how there could be any problem with God killing the animal solely for the purpose of covering their shame. in a sense, it was a glimpse of the sacrifices God would soon ordain--the animals are killed to cover their shame--and this is a glimpse of the final sacrifice of Christ.
on a similar note, Christ both lived and died solely for the purpose of covering our sins--so why then is it illogical for God to kill an animal for the sole purpose of covering our shame? and by sole purpose i mean that & His glory ;)

i don't mean to be blunt as this sounds, but wool is not the same as sheepskin.

skynes
11-06-2006, 10:34 PM
ow (ever gotten rugburn? yeah when the air hits it... that's painful.)

pre-fall = no pain, no damage, no burn.

please explain to me why it would be unlikely that God would kill an animal only for the skin to clothe adam and eve?

I'm the kind of person that stands by very strongly on what the Bible specifically does and does not say.

The Bible does not say anywhere that God killed an animal to clothe Adam and Eve.

to me that is 100% proof that God did not kill an animal there.

It could not have been a glimpse of future sacrifices as it's not mentioned anywhere in scripture. Why does the bible not say "You are to make sacrifices as it was with Adam and Eve"?

The Bible always justifies a decision by referencing an event in the past.

Why then do scriptures on sacrifices not reference Adam and Eve?

breakthesilence
11-07-2006, 03:38 PM
pre-fall = no pain, no damage, no burn.


i was thinking that, but the reason we have physical pain is that our body is telling us something is not right. so even if they didn't feel pain, there still would have been a problem.

and the moment they sinned, yeah it would have burned.

"i am fearfully and wonderfully made"
i don't know how to put it in words what i am trying to describe with this verse, but God just put it in my head. basically if the epidermis wasn't an original part of how God had wonderfully and perfectly created humans, this verse wouldn't work.
when God created the animals, he created them with the Fall in mind. for example, even though they wouldn't be eatin other animals, God made the animals which later became carnivorous to have sharp teeth so they could use them when the time came. so i don't see why He wouldn't have done the same for humans.
on a similar note, God created the animals with all genetic information present should they need to adapt to various conditions--post-Fall. so once again i don't see any reason to believe that the epidermis was not present pre-Fall.

I'm the kind of person that stands by very strongly on what the Bible specifically does and does not say.

The Bible does not say anywhere that God killed an animal to clothe Adam and Eve.

to me that is 100% proof that God did not kill an animal there.

It could not have been a glimpse of future sacrifices as it's not mentioned anywhere in scripture. Why does the bible not say "You are to make sacrifices as it was with Adam and Eve"?

The Bible always justifies a decision by referencing an event in the past.

Why then do scriptures on sacrifices not reference Adam and Eve?

good point. really good point actually.

but is it not unreasonable to suppose that when the scripture was given, it would be understood that that was what was meant? in other words, in saying that the Lord gave them skins, it would have been understood plainly by those whom it was given to that God killed the animal to give them skins. (cultural/linguistic barriers are a pain...)

dawn of light
11-08-2006, 07:30 AM
God made the animals which later became carnivorous to have sharp teeth so they could use them when the time came
Not necessarily...A lot of people believe that animals adapted to have those kind of features.

I get what you're saying about beauty though, we think other humans are beautiful and attractive. I personally think that God would have created us with the epidermis too.

And I also find your point interesting about God killing the animal only for the skins. Maybe He did...I don't know.

skynes
11-08-2006, 09:30 AM
but is it not unreasonable to suppose that when the scripture was given, it would be understood that that was what was meant? in other words, in saying that the Lord gave them skins, it would have been understood plainly by those whom it was given to that God killed the animal to give them skins. (cultural/linguistic barriers are a pain...)

Or maybe they would have taken it at face value, and simply said: Ok God made them skins. And pursued it no further, not forcing God into killing something but simply accepting that if He said "I made skins" then that simply means "I made skins"

Quadripedman
12-04-2006, 08:46 AM
I still think that it came from an animal. The Bible doesn't say a lot of stuff. Just because it doesn't say that He killed an animal doesn't mean that He didn't. Where else would the skin come from?

lets see here....allmighty God...created world...maybe He just made it? i dont know, im gunna go and check on that verse...

but, that could very well be the start of the animal sacrafice...