• Bible References
• Bible Verses List
• OT verses
• NT verses
• Pro-Challenge 1
• Pro-Challenge 2

Pro-Nudity Challenge No.1

Isaiah 47:3 (New International Version) - "Your nakedness will be exposed and your shame uncovered.  I will take vengeance; I will spare no one."

Isaiah 47:3 - Response
The chapter refers not to Israel but to the "virgin daughter of Babylon."  Here (as per my Bible commentary) "virgin" means the previously unconquered status of Babylon.
Babylon is cursed with various things, of which nudity is only one:  "on the ground without a throne", "no more be called tender and delicate", forced to grind meal (my Bible commentary says this means the former royalty is now doing slave scut work).
As per the nudity:  Babylon is metaphorically stripped of its veil (uncovering its face), its [royal] robe (uncovering the legs), "pass through the rivers" (commentary doesn't say what, but this is evidently not a pleasurable skinny dip - probably more beast of burden scut work).
The straightforward meaning of Isaiah 47 is that the shame of Babylon is a loss of status from royal superpower to slave people - including wearing the slave uniform of nakedness as a vivid badge of their new subordinate status.
Shame is here being associated with the nudity of Babylon.  The problem is the challenger is wrong because s/he is reading his/her own culture and moral viewpoint into the verse. 
Simple nudity to the ancient Hebrews was a shame and a reproach only in the context being a part of the condition of economic and military failure.  Such failure was catastrophic because the price of failure was literal slavery and status at the far bottom of the social hierarchy (and the winners weren't at all nice about it). 
But this shame is the shame of being the dregs and underdogs of society.  This is not body shame or concern of decency as modern Westerners think of it.
Isaiah is not telling Babylon to put on clothes for decency's sake.  Isaiah is predicting the shame of slavery for the wicked (well dressed) empire.
If we read Isaiah in the a historical sense then apparently God is commanding all women to wear robes and veils, and don't go swimming.  This is an absurd meaning that is obviously not the message of the text.

Lamentations 1:8 - "Jerusalem has sinned greatly and so has become unclean.  All who honored her despise her, for they have seen her nakedness; she herself groans"

Lamentations 1:8 - Response
The Lamentations of Jeremiah concerned the now accomplished Babylonian conquest of the remaining southern kingdom of Israel (the northern portion being wiped by the Assyrians over a century earlier).
Here Jeremiah is using the time-honored symbol of a woman for Jerusalem as the conquered - and thus shamed - city.
Verse 8 speaks of Jerusalem's filthiness (my commentary says "or a mockery").  Again we have the clear message of humiliation in terms of status.  Those who honored her for success now despise her for failure.  Military failure and defeat is the context of the nudity of a conquered, impoverished and humiliated people. 
Note verse 9 specifically states that Jerusalem's filthiness is not due to her nudity, but "Her uncleanness was in her skirts." 
I.e. Jerusalem's sin is not nudity - that is not on God's mind - but rather her conduct in the days of her prosperity and power.  (Prosperity and power were symbolized in the ancient world by textiles - a luxury item for the privileged and powerful.)
Here nudity is indeed shame - but only in the context of defeat, humiliation, and want.  This is not a verse that is moralizing about personal modesty.

Micah 1:11 (New International Version) - "Pass on in nakedness and shame, you who live in Shaphir.  Those who live in Zaanan will not come out.  Beth Ezel is in mourning; its protection is taken from you and turns away."

Micah 1:11 - Response
Micah was a younger contemporary of Isaiah.  In the Book of Micah the "minor" prophet Micah prophesied the imminent fall of Jerusalem.
The context hasn't changed here - living in nakedness is the consequence of military defeat and serious poverty.
Prefacing Micah 1:11 is the verse (Micah 1:8) where Micah himself goes naked as part of a theatrical prophetic demonstration to graphically demonstrate Jerusalem's imminent fate.
Shame, yes - but status shame, not Western style body shame.  Else, why is the Prophet of God going naked in front of all of the people as a part of his mission and testimony?

Nahum 3:5 (New International Version) - "I am against you," declares the LORD Almighty.  "I will lift your skirts over your face.  I will show the nations your nakedness and the kingdoms your shame."

Nahum 3:5 - Response
The Book of Nahum is a "paean of joy" over the forthcoming destruction of Nineveh.  This book is the epitome of schadenfreude (delight in the downfall of your rivals/enemies).
Mostly the same deal - a woman symbolizing a nation, poverty-nakedness as part of the humiliations of military defeat.
Here the Assyrians apparently suffer an embarrassment by getting their metaphorical skirts lifted.  But this is again misreading the text by reading our own prejudices and preoccupations into it rather than reading it on its own terms.
Recall from Ezekiel 16 that the Hebrew custom was that children grew up naked into and including the age of sexual maturity.  But when married, females by tradition did wear a skirt (but, apparently still topfree, breasts were not an issue).
This passage is another "so there" to the Assyrians, but is not about the embarrassment of simple physical nudity.
The nudity of Nahum 3:5 is probably "Ervah" (sexual, licentious nudity) not "Erom."
This would make sense because the immediately preceding verse (Nahum 3:4) assails Assyria for "countless harlotries" and the betrayal of nations with harlotry.
Remember this is about a metaphorical vision about a defeated, sexually licentious nation.
Considering the severity of Ninevah's condition ("hosts of slain, dead bodies without end", etc) interpreting this verse as simple embarrassment would be rather ridiculously beside the point.
In this context the vision of getting your harlot skirt lifted is probably a prophecy of sexual rape of the married females of the Assyrian men - another great humiliation of the military defeat.
The prophecy also is a picture of the exposing of Assyrian licentiousness as the world will know what the Assyrians have done. 
It is not, however, about simple body shame.  Nahum has bigger fish to fry.

Revelation 3:18 (New International Version) - "I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see"

Revelation 3:18 - Response
Nice try, but no.  This is not about the Bible condemning physical Erom-style nakedness (of course we're into common Greek now).
John the Revelator is writing to slam the Christian church at Laodicea for spiritual poverty. 
As the prior verse 17 states, "For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing; not knowing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked."
St. John's prescriptive white "clothing" needed to "keep the shame of your [spiritual] nakedness from being seen" is the same "clothing" worn by the woman symbolizing the church of God - the righteous deeds of the saints (Rev. 19:8, 1 Timothy 2:9,10).
John is not talking about threads here.
If we read these verses literally - obviously not what is meant - then we have to conclude that St. John or God is condemning poor people and blind people.  Not likely.
In fact, don't ignore the rest of the prescription to "buy from me gold refined by fire, that you may be rich ..."  If we take this literally (thus entirely missing the point) then all Christians should be hoarding gold while wearing (specifically white) clothing.
But John isn't talking about gold here either.
This is a spiritual parable.  The shame here is a shame of spiritual poverty which is allegorically related to the long tradition of ancient shame over physical poverty.
None of this is a slam against naturist style nudity, such as the simple nudity praised by Jesus and John himself for that matter.
By the way, when Revelation is written here we near the end of the first century and Christians are commonly attending the Roman baths in the nude.  Where is the denunciation of this practice?  Nowhere.

Response Summary:

It is striking that all of the Old Testament supposed nudity = shame examples come from the same historical period and from the same prophetic genre of military defeat and subsequent humiliations.
In three of the four Old Testament challenges the nudity is probably Erom because it is notably non-sexual.  This is the nudity of want and social status humiliation.  The shame is in having low status.  The idea of indecency as a sexual offense or sin in itself is notably not present.
Two of the four challenges are written by the same prophets who went nude in front of the people to testify.  So much for nudity = indecency.
Only in the fourth and last Old Testament challenge is even the slightest hint of nudity as an embarrassment.  However this too is a misreading of the author's message.  The image is a picture of sexual violence and the exposure of Assyrian scandals to the world.  It is not about schoolyard nudity embarrassment.
Only one challenge was presented from the New Testament.  However this challenge like the others is taken out of context.  In context the passage is clearly talking about a shameful spiritual poverty which mirrors the classical shame over physical poverty.  The prescriptions deal with doing good deeds, not any need to wear physical clothing.  In fact this passage buttresses rather than refutes the idea that Christianity supports naturism, i.e. other scriptures which similarly make metaphors about the true clothing being righteous deeds.

Bottom Line:
None of these passages support the idea of simple nudity as such being shameful or sinful.