Traditional religion teaches that when man sinned, God killed an animal and made coats for mankind out of the hide of the animal that was killed. This teaching is offered to imply that there had to be a shedding of blood for man's sin to be covered. Personally, I reject this teaching for the following reasons:

1. This action, if done, was of tremendous significance. Why wouldn't the writer include this critical piece of information when giving the account of the fall of man in the narrative?

2. Mankind had no need of skin prior to the fall because the function of skin is for protection. The following is taken from Wikipedia online Encyclopedia:

In zootomy and dermatology, skin is the largest organ of the integumentary system made up of multiple layers of epithelial tissues that guard underlying muscles and organs. As the interface with the surroundings, it plays the most important role in protecting (the body) against pathogens. Its other main functions are insulation and temperature regulation, sensation and vitamin D and B synthesis. Skin is considered one of the most important parts of the body.

The Garden of Eden was a utopia or perfect environment. There was no need for the body to guard, protect, insulate, nor regulate body temperature in a utopian atmosphere. However, when sin entered the world, things that were in total harmony became elements of discord and dis-ease. This invasive and corrupted environment now made it essential for mankind to be "coated" with something to guard them from the rogue environment in which they now lived. Subsequetly, God made them a coating we call skin, and this became man's direct protection from the environment of calamity man had created.

3. Finally, I believe skin served the purpose of being what I term a "containment suit" because before man sinned, mankind had the responsibility of keeping the entire garden. This region or area was massive. Since man did not have transportation means as we do in our times, how did man travel the entire garden to dress it and keep it? I believe that Adam (mankind, anthropos) in the garden had a glorified body which was skinless as we know it, and had the ability to transport because it was not shackled by the containment suit of skin. Jesus had this glorified body when he returned from having ascended to the Father after his resurrection, and was on the road to Emmaus, and teleported to Jerusalem, entered into a shut room, and ate and talked with the disciples. This body had the ability to both transport and demolecularize inasmuch as the doors and windows were all shut, but he appeared and was NOT a ghost. Phillip with the Ethopian eunich teleported when he was caught up in the spirit and appeared in a town a distance away from the desert where he baptized the Ethopian. Enoch and Elijah would also have experienced being translated back to these "original" bodies. When God made the coats of skin for man, skin served two purposes: to protect and guard man from the environment, and to "contain" an otherwise boundless being who could be anywhere at anytime.

While this may only be theory to many and insanity to some, I truly believe it is completely plausible. I do not believe God killed an animal to attempt to cover and protect mankind. I believe God coated man with skin.

Views: 47

Replies to This Discussion

Traditional religion teaches that when man sinned, God killed an animal and made coats for mankind out of the hide of the animal that was killed. This teaching is offered to imply that there had to be a shedding of blood for man's sin to be covered. Personally, I reject this teaching for the following reasons:

isn't that the same as rejecting God?

RSS

© 2024   Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service