Technically, they were naked before trying the fruit and wore leaves upon receiving the carnal knowledge and realizing that they were naked. Before that, they had no concept of covering themselves.
You could just make their head hair cover their nipples and have them walk behind waist high sight barriers like grass or shrubbery. Just spitt-balling here.
Isn't it strange that the first chronological story of Christianity end with, "Women are the reason everything sucks." and yet some women are devout religious. Smh indoctrinated and brainwashed.
Isn’t that the story that ends in a brutal execution of the sisters? Because the author couldn’t think of nothing but the prostitutes that wouldn’t lay with him?
It's retconned that way. There's nothing that directly connects the serpent of Genesis, the one "roaming throughout the earth" in Job, and the character of Satan later on. Satan wasn't developed as a character until after the Babylonian Exile. You can make it all fit, but the text alone doesn't say that and the writers didn't think of it that way.
This is not biblically accurate. She should be naked, since she doesn’t yet have knowledge of good and evil, and god considers nudity evil, because he is a prude. But also he didn’t clothe Adam and Eve, cause he’s a perv.
My quip with the artistic choice is that they made Eve have very very long hair which could have served as breast cover. But they chose to add the inaccurate leaves...
Pomegranates are one of the oldest cultivated fruits, so they're somewhat plausible, but I'm fairly certain humans made oranges (and most other citruses, through selection and grafting... though I guess it could have been a mandarin, pomelo, or citron, which seem to be the three we started with) and bananas (through selection and cloning), so it couldn't have been those.
Apples, on the other hand, seem to have existed long before humans, so they're definitely a possibility.