I wrote to you
""Why do you think Christians and Jews and Muslims believe that Adam covered his male organ with a fig leaf?"
You did respond (answer?) to this question, my mistake, you wrote "" They believe it for the same reasons as you do. They do not see understandings of today within context of history'
Wrong again, I do not believe that such a thing ever happened, but I am still unsure about your "answer", so let me ask you again, Why do you think Christians Jews and Muslims believe that Adam covered his male organ with "fig leaves"?
The earliest gospels were in Greek, there are a fair amount of early Greek gospel MS that combine the several versions into one standard version. To find the child sex slave in Greek go to Biblos.com or Nestle Isle.
Why do I think Christians and Jews and Muslims believe that Adam covered his male organ with a fig leaf?
I think the believe so because they do not see religion and interpretation of it in context with history. Views of today are created without taking historical views and understandings into consideration.
When people think of Adam and Eve they often, even I, visualize the cultural impression of today. Two naked people, with a fig leaf
as only clothing.
I acknowledge the possibility of this common view being a result of a shift in what to emphasize on from religious texts, and that historical periods and cultural influences shapes the understanding of today differently from understandings of the past.
Let me elaborate. A novel like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was at the time when released regarded as controversial and political. Today this book is commonly regarded and distributed as a "child-entertainment" book. Both views are correct, but only in context with the cultural situations existing at those different periods.
Now let us take a look of the evolution of the understanding of "fig leafs" in same context.
Old texts refer to loincloth being the clothing and fig leafs being material. Loincloth is if not the earliest, one of the earliest, clothing used by man. Loincloth being a natural choice taking the time this myth was created into consideration. Looking at the possible birth of Judaism, later Christianity and Islam, in connection with ancient Egypt validate the claim of loincloth being historical common perception of clothing.
When does focus shift from "Loincloth of fig leafs" to "fig leaf"? With the creation of the concept Original sin
, the idea of Adam and Eve`s sin being transferred from generation to generation. Sexual intercourse and sexuality in general then becoming the reason for sin to exist. Libido actualis and libido habitualis defining perspective on nudity and sexuality. Clothing being a separation from God because of sin, to fig leaf covering genitals because sexuality was sin.
Nudity was in early Judaism regarded as purity. The tradition of Mikveh, later evolving to Christian baptism, involves full nudity and immersion in water to cleanse and purify. Traditionally, the Mikveh was used by both men and women to regain ritual purity after various events, according to regulations laid down in the Torah and in classical rabbinical literature. One of these events are sexual activity. Traditions and historical references therefore show a connection that can validate a claim that nudity and clothing once was perceived as connection/disconnection from God, and later evolved into the view of connection/disconnection from God was based on sexuality - Original sin -.
This late 12-century depiction shows how different cultural aspects changes interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 26_Eve.jpg
Dominating cultures and civilization have throughout history shaped peoples views and understanding of nudity. From the ancient Greeks who saw nudity as something pure and beautiful, to the Victorian Era on the other tip of the scale. At certain times like the Victorian Era, male nipples were regarded as obscene and seen in connection with sexuality. Good example explaining difference in views today between what is regarded as similar cultures could be the difference between USA and Scandinavia. While American culture promotes extreme violence and accept it, a tiny innocent nipple can almost create civil unrest ( Source: Janet Jackson ). Scandinavia having totally different cultural views and understanding of nudity and sex being the opposite. Here is a picture from the biggest music festival in Norway, where two people fucked like crazy on stage while the band kept playing. Pictures and story was distributed uncensored in every major newspaper, with story and "performance" got more support than criticism. In general people just shrugged and smile about such issues.
Picture and article from the newspaper Dagbladet. Adult material and warning to American readers of this post.http://fredag.dagbladet.no/fredag/2004/ ... 02498.html
I am not sure how to explain the basis of difference in interpretation and understanding in context with cultural and historical perspectives, and our understanding of past and present. One good example to show this evolving understanding and disconnection from past views is perhaps better explained in the Zeitgeist movie, part 1
Regarding the subject of texts and versions you say the earliest gospels were in Greek. Since this discussion comes from recent exposures of the catholic church, I find it more relevant to focus on texts as the 5th century Latin Vulgate. This because it is the version that is the origin of the Bible in the Roman Catholic Church.
"To find the child sex slave in Greek go to Biblos.com or Nestle Isle.".................. When I asked for explanation of text or manuscript with child sex slave used as word I expected and hoped you could source it. Naming a internet search engine site and telling me to go look for it is not sourcing. I would appreciate it if you could source by name of manuscript or text were you say this is written. In fact, I hope and expect you to source the claims that you feel validates claims presented in a proper answer.