If the premise is wrong, there is no point in addressing the following argument. Would you trust a house built on a shoddy foundation?
The premise is not wrong if the word innocence is interpreted the way I thought you were implying it; if I am wrong, please intervene with some Scriptural evidence to support your claim that my "premise is wrong." There's always a chance I was wrong (and will be wrong), but you must show me why.
As to what you said about the heart...we read that "the heart is deceitful above all things." However, this is a condition of the post-Fall heart, not of the pre-Fall heart. Anything Jesus had to say about the human heart is post-Fall and does not apply to Adam and Eve prior to the entering of sin into the world.
Post some Scripture to back all that up.
Specifically, you state, "Anything Jesus had to say about the human heart is post-Fall and does not apply to Adam and Eve
prior to the entering of sin into the world." Yes, sin (the missing of the mark) was not in the world before Adam and Eve; however, the evil that led to the sin was! If evil did not exist (which led to the sin) before Adam and Eve sinned then how do you explain the serpent existing? He was certainly evil: a murderer from the beginning, a waster created to destroy. God created light and darkness in the beginning, not just light; the fruits of GOOD and EVIL in one tree. Do you mean to suggest that evil did not exist before Adam and Eve ate from
the tree of good and evil? Well then what in the world was the fruit of
evil God CREATED? Certainly not good, as understood under the sun.
In the Creation narrative, the "nakedness" of man does not refer to his sinfulness. That is a grave misinterpretation.
Do you have any Scriptures to back that up? I have some Scriptures to show you that explain nakedness is indeed a symbol of sin (however, I’m currently in a rush, so if I misuse some of these Scriptures, point it out and let me know):
Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or
nakedness, or peril, or sword?
...
Rev 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
...
2Ch 28:19 For the LORD brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel; for he made Judah naked, and transgressed sore against the LORD.
...
Job 1:21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
...
Ecc 5:15 As he came forth of his mother's womb, naked shall he return to go as he came, and shall take nothing of his labour, which he may carry away in his hand.
...
Lam 4:21 Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the land of Uz; the cup also shall pass through unto thee: thou shalt be drunken, and shalt make thyself naked.
...
Eze 16:22 And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, when thou wast naked and bare, and wast polluted in thy blood.
Eze 16:23 And it came to pass after all thy wickedness, (woe, woe unto thee! saith the Lord GOD;)
...
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me [he was born naked, remember?]
Tell me, if being naked was a good thing, why did Adam and Eve have need to cover themselves, with their newfound knowledge of good and evil? (obviously, their nakedness was evil, because they realized it needed to be covered! THEY HAD KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL! THIS KNOWLEDGE GAVE THEM UNDERSTANDING THAT THEIR NAKEDNESS WAS WRONG!). If nakedness was not a symbol of sin, then what was the significance of the realization of their nakedness? Why did they cover it? They were always naked, but when they realized what evil was, they realized their nakedness had to be covered, because it was Earthy, and evil! CARNAL!
The point of shame entering following the partaking of the fruit is that sin perverts what is natural.
You make it sound like Adam and Eve being "natural", as in being born from dust, with a human heart, in the form of nakedness, in the image of "earthy," was a good thing. It's certainly not good! If it were good, there would be NO NEED for a resurrection; there would be no need for humans to be raised in spiritual bodies. In fact, if being born in the flesh were a good or perfect thing, then the spiritual messengers would have been created in the flesh. But they weren't, were they? Neither was Jesus, was he? Was Jesus created in a natural body in the beginning? No. I wonder why? Because FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD! (1Co 15:50) Do you mean to suggest Adam and Eve were an exception? That God, I don't know, decided, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, or understand spiritually discerned things, but I'll just make an exception with Adam and Eve, but I know they'll screw up, nevertheless, I gave them a 'gift' called free will, so they can make a fool of me and my purpose, because
they will it."
P.S. - Show me scripture that says they lusted after the fruit prior to the temptation by the serpent.
Unfortunately, there is no verse I know of that shows Adam and Eve lusted the fruit before temptation, but the point is they were naked before they ate the fruit, and they were created from dust. They were not finished, nor perfect. If God wanted them to be perfect from the beginning, he would have created them in spiritual bodies like the spiritual messengers, and he certainly would not have put good and evil in one tree, or have created Satan the tempter and allowed him to tempt them.
Nakedness is not a shameful thing. Lust for one's wife is not a shameful thing...indeed, one should be attracted to one's wife or husband and should desire sex with that person. However, the entrance of sin perverted Adam and Eve's perception of their nakedness. They realized after eating the fruit that they were not covered and became embarassed by that. Sin perverts what God intended.
You mean to suggest taking pleasure in sex is a good and holy thing? YOU MEAN TO SUGGEST “Lust for one’s wife is not …� CARNAL!? I hate to say it, but I think you are "yet carnal." Yes, God wants us to multiply, but the Scriptures also say:
"But he that is married
careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife" (1Co 7:33).
What do the Scriptures have to say about lusting and taking part in the things of this world? Does it say in the Scriptures that one can become one of God’s elect or disciples if he or she is pleased with the things of the world, and cares for the things of the world? You’ll have to show me! However, I do know of verses that say to reject the things of the world, and not to “careth for the things that are of the world [to become one of God’s elect]�, such as:
Mar 4:19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the
lusts of other things entering in,
choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.
...
Rom 12:2 And be not
conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and
perfect, will of God.
...
Jam 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of
the world is enmity with God?
whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. ...
1Jo 2:15
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the
Father is not in him.
Jesus also says:
Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and
his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Lusting a woman, married or not married, is no better than lusting the fruit of good and evil, eating it, or not eating it, because it is "yet carnal!"
PS. If I state any obvious heresies, please forgive me, it's very late, and I didn't have as much time as I wished for to complete this post.