1 Sam.19:24 And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night

The term "naked" does not mean absolutely without any clothing.

A person was called naked whose outer garments were thrown aside, leaving only the tunic and girdle (belt).

Thus Isaiah was naked by simply removing his sackcloth mantle: "At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off they shoe from they foot. And he did so, walking naked (stripped, NIV) and barefoot" - Isaiah 20:2, KJV

This is also the meaning of "flee away naked (KJV)" in Amos 2:16

The young man who followed Jesus during His arrest was undoubtedly "naked" in this sense (Mark 14:51-52)

Peter was also "naked" in the same way when he cast himself into the sea to meet the Lord (John 21:7)

Compare 2 Sam.6:14, 20

Here is the SDA Bible Commentary on I Sam. 19:24

"The word [naked] thus translated may mean completely naked (Job 1:21), ragged or poorly clothed (Job 22:6; 24:7, 10; Isa. 58:7), or possiblly clad in a tunic, the mantle itself laid aside (cf. Isa. 20:2). Here, it is probably used in the later sense; in other words, Saul laid aside his royal robe and was clothed only in his tunic, an inner garment commonly worn at home."


I do not argue with Gail's understanding of the term as used here. As it says above, she is possibly/probably correct. But, if you accept that, then she is subject to challenge, without there being a definative answer.

Sometimes in dealing with foreign words (or words from an ancient language that died out, and went out of existance), there is not 100% certainty in translation.

NOTE: Modern Hebrew is an artificial reconstruction of a language that died out.

Again, I am not suggesting that Gail is wrong.

Quote:

---

Saul laid aside his royal robe and was clothed only in his tunic, an inner garment commonly worn at home."

---

Just wanted to say how much I appreciate this statement. It conjures up something visual for me that I'd never even thought of before. Now, I have a visual understanding that people went home and took off their clothes like we do--and lounge around in our "house clothes" instead of what we wear when we go out.

I like that thought. I like thinking that they would go home and sit around comfortably with family.....

While that thought makes you comfortable, you also need to realize that it cares a social context with it.

There are societies today where people take off wear ALL their clothes and lounge around (or never wear any) and feel no different than you or I do in jeans and tee-shirts.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with complete nakedness, but if you have not been brought up that way, it has an emotional impact on you that it does not have on the participants.

There is a whole branch of the porn business that photographs people in such societies, and sells the results to Americans.

Ellen White falls into the same mistake. The Bible clearly and unambiguously states that Adam and Eve were naked. And it does NOT mean they wore teeshirts and shorts. Ellen, coming from a VERY prudish background, promptly has them don 'garments of light'. Or maybe God inserted them into the vision - we need to remember that the visions were NOT video views of reality, they were dream-like things designed to convey a message.

/Bevin

And I am not saying that there WEREN'T times when naked means completely nude... Take for example, Adam or Eve or I was thinking about Noah when he got drunk and was uncovered in his tent or Joseph when Potiphar's wife seduced him

I don't make these excerpts up, so I don't really take the credit or blame for the material there... I post the tidbits because they (for me, anyway) inspire thought and discussion

What this bit of knowledge does for me personally is to let me know that people weren't really running around bare naked as much as I thought they were- that people in Bible times also had a sense of modesty to them

IT may well be that the problem is not with Hebrew, but with English.

"Naked," the adjective, comes from "nake," a verb. To "nake" something is to peel it. So a "naked" person has had his clothing "peeled" away.

There are many situations today in which people wear multiple layers of clothing. So one could "nake" off one layer, say a man's suit jacket, and still be quite thoroughly clothed. Or in winter, in my climate, you might only "nake" off your winter coat, and otherwise be fully clothed. Yet in both cases, we could technically describe the person as "naked."

People in ancient times also wore multiple layers, thus the differing meanings of "naked."

It's a little easier if we prounce "naked" to rhyme with "raked," as in, "I raked the leaves." "I naked my coat off" would then be a quite rational statement. Or, my wife, wanting to know if I've divested myself of my winter coat, and wanting me to go outside and get something, might quite reasonably ask, "Honey, are you naked yet? I need you to get something for me." (Remember, rhymes with "raked")

What has happened is that, over the years, "naked" has acquired a special usage, connoting a specific type of "peeling." But the original denotation still lurks in the background.

Now I'm going to depart, before the party really gets out of hand.

Quote:

---

Now I'm going to depart, before the party really gets out of hand.

---

LOL

It just goes to show that we can always learn something.

I believe the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans were all societies that did not care a great deal about whether or not you were wearing any clothes.

/Bevin

Could you consider those societies debauched? And if so, was their attitude toward nakedness a symptom or a reason for that debauchery?

It reminds me of the Victorian era. It is known for its prudeness, but I have a suspicion that it was a very sexual time

Or, rather, were the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans healthy in their attitude toward the human body in its "au naturel" form

Quote:

---

Could you consider those societies debauched?

---

No more so than modern day USA.

I strongly recommend Desmond Morris's "Body Watching". It is great for teen-agers and parents there-of. It gives a valuable insight into the VERY wide range of things that normal people to do their bodies and wear as clothes. You will never regard that 'nose ring' as 'extreme' ever again.

/Bevin

Any serious examination of late Greek and Roman society would consider them quite corrupt.

As the late Alistair Cooke said in the late 1970's, concerning the writings of Marcus Aurelius, "The only difference between their society and ours today is that they realized they were corrupt, whereas we think we are enlightened."

One thing I noticed, as an American in Australia, is that Australians have a quite different attitude toward their bodies. I cannot precisely define it, but it shows up in clothing, carriage, and deportment.

In some ways I think it is healthier than the American attitude, in some ways not.

Europe in general is much more blase about nudity in advertising, for example, than we are here.

Quote:

---

debauched

---

So can one be bauched?

I found a few words:


gumniteuvw (gumneteuo)1.to be lightly or poorly clad
2.to be a light armed soldier

gumnovß (gumnos) 1.unclad, without clothing, the naked body 2.ill clad 3.clad in undergarments only (the outer garments or cloak being laid aside) 4.of the soul, whose garment is the body, stripped of the body, without a body 5. naked, i.e. open, lay bare 6. only, mere, bare, i.e. mere grain not the plant itself

Ma`arom 1.naked thing, nakedness

`uwr 1. (Niphal) to be exposed, be bared, be laid bare

`eyrom 1. naked n m

`arowm 1. naked, bare

hyr 1. nudity, nakedness

Quote:

---

Any serious examination of late Greek and Roman society would consider them quite corrupt.

As the late Alistair Cooke said in the late 1970's, concerning the writings of Marcus Aurelius, "The only difference between their society and ours today is that they realized they were corrupt, whereas we think we are enlightened."

---

I agree with Alistair Cooke. Any serious examination of large portions of American society would reach the same conclusion.

They killed a few times a year for entertainment. American's watch fake and real deaths every night for entertainment. Not much difference.

As a NZ'er, I find myself amazed with how Americans think Janet Jackson's breast with nipple shield is a major deal, and violence and murder every night is not.

But. connecting back to the topic, what you see all the time is not erotic/exotic. When nude is the norm, clothes are erotic.

I am reminded of the mid 1900's european christians in Tahiti, where breasts were non-erotic but knees were. Little did those lovely christian women realize it was they, not the locals, who were dressed immodestly!

/Bevin

As my wife says, she knows the difference between nudity and the erotic.

Folks, nudity may not be erotic, and often is not.