Need to ask

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
O
Bible_Locket said:
The fruit is not identified in Genesis.

So.e think the tree and forbidden fruit passage is a metaphor,idiom,allegory,as you wish, for a forbidden behavior or activity.
Namely that which would be known as the heretical Serpent Seed Doctrine.

Which in itself explains why innocence was lost in both Adam and Eve and shame in their own nakedness ensued.

Because the forbidden tree in some SSD discussions is a reference to the angelic origin and sexual organ of Lucifer, the most beautiful of Gods angels, who was in the garden. Not actually a snake in a tree. Though snake, serpentine energy, is also a reference to sensual arousal and orgasm.

In short,the Serpent Seed Doctrine,SSD, proposed that both Eve and then Adam partook of sexual relations with Lucifer.
Which later resulted in her becoming impregnated with twins. One , Abel, whose father was Adam. The other, Cain, was Lucifers.
This being a biological reproductive act known as heteropaternal superfecundation.
Click to expand...
Oh gosh that's hideous !
 
Yup said:
What was the "forbidden fruit" Adam and Eve actually ate in the Garden of Eden?


Genesis 3:6 (King James Version) just says "fruit" — it never names the type. Yet "apple" has become the default image almost everywhere. So the debate is: where did that assumption come from, and what does the text actually support?


Points people raise on different sides:


  • Apple — the popular tradition, likely tied to a Latin wordplay (malum can mean both "apple" and "evil"), not to anything in the Hebrew text.
  • Fig — right after eating, Adam and Eve cover themselves with fig leaves (Genesis 3:7), which some take as a clue the tree was nearby, or even the source.
  • Grape — some point to Noah and wine later in Genesis as a thematic link, though this is a stretch from the actual passage.
  • Pomegranate or citron — favored in some Jewish tradition, based on regional fruits in the ancient Near East.
  • Not a literal fruit at all — some argue "fruit" here is symbolic of the act of disobedience itself, not a specific food.
Click to expand...
We don't know. The text doesn't say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yup and DavidLamb
According to Rabbitical theory many believe it is the pomegranate. Supposedly several have gotten this idea mainly because on average pomegranate to pomegranate each one typically holds around 613 seeds. This matches the number of laws the ancient Hebrew peoples were abiding by.

Essentially, the Tree of Knowledge with its fruit holding 613 seeds were futuristic symbolism to the Law that humanity was about to be held to.

It definitely makes for a good story and when I learned about it learning to memorize the Torah it became something I believed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mem and Yup
lrs68 said:
According to Rabbitical theory many believe it is the pomegranate. Supposedly several have gotten this idea mainly because on average pomegranate to pomegranate each one typically holds around 613 seeds. This matches the number of laws the ancient Hebrew peoples were abiding by.

Essentially, the Tree of Knowledge with its fruit holding 613 seeds were futuristic symbolism to the Law that humanity was about to be held to.

It definitely makes for a good story and when I learned about it learning to memorize the Torah it became something I believed.
Click to expand...

Well, there you have an example of Rabbinical tradition going astray by refusing to see that Gen. 3:1-6 says
the fruit is "the knowledge of good and evil".
 
GWH said:
Well, there you have an example of Rabbinical tradition going astray by refusing to see that Gen. 3:1-6 says
the fruit is "the knowledge of good and evil".
Click to expand...
I don't see how that makes any difference because everything except for a few staples like tree, water, grass most all have name changes.

Mankind is called human or humanity.
Scrolls are now called books.
Leaven is now called yeast.
The fruit known as the Knowledge of Good and Evil could very well be now called Pomegranate.
 
lrs68 said:
I don't see how that makes any difference because everything except for a few staples like tree, water, grass most all have name changes.

Mankind is called human or humanity.
Scrolls are now called books.
Leaven is now called yeast.
The fruit known as the Knowledge of Good and Evil could very well be now called Pomegranate.
Click to expand...


I think the specific fruit is unimportant to God that He didn't even bother to tell us which fruit it was.


🕊️
 
  • Like
Reactions: lrs68 and Roger316
lrs68 said:
I don't see how that makes any difference because everything except for a few staples like tree, water, grass most all have name changes.

Mankind is called human or humanity.
Scrolls are now called books.
Leaven is now called yeast.
The fruit known as the Knowledge of Good and Evil could very well be now called Pomegranate.
Click to expand...

Being blind to the fruit being "knowledge of good and evil" makes the difference of missing the spiritual meaning due to focusing on the physical, which Jesus chided the disciples for doing with regard to leaven in Matt. 16:5-12.

Do you understand the point of the parable/story/allegory?
 
HealthAndHappiness said:
As to the fruit, I don't see any reason to believe that the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was an apple. That's a legend and artists renditions, but based on nothing Scriptural.
It's kind of like the Renaissance paintings depicting the imaginations of their painters.
Now people think He had long hair in spite of the fact that nature shows that it's a shame for a man to have long hair.

When I took Art History and visited museums art galeries, there were pictures depicting Adam and Eve in the garden with Eve holding fruit. I will guess that's where the idea began.

Genesis 2 is what we are given as details.

16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

So according to God, the fruit is from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This tree is extinct. The fruit no longer exists.
Click to expand...
It could have been any kind of fruit tree and there could have been any number of the same kind of fruit tree in the garden besides that one particular fruit tree. A type of fruit was not forbidden, but a particular tree and that particular tree’s fruit were forbidden. They were told they could eat from any tree except for that particular tree there.

Since that one tree was forbidden, eating from that particular tree would give them knowledge of sin, since they would be sinning to eat from it. It was not chosen by God to be the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because it bore a particular kind of physical fruit. It became the tree of the knowledge of good and evil when God forbade Adam from eating its fruit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roger316
PaulThomson said:
It could have been any kind of fruit tree and there could have been any number of the same kind of fruit tree in the garden besides that one particular fruit tree. A type of fruit was not forbidden, but a particular tree and that particular tree’s fruit were forbidden. They were told they could eat from any tree except for that particular tree there.

Since that one tree was forbidden, eating from that particular tree would give them knowledge of sin, since they would be sinning to eat from it. It was not chosen by God to be the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because it bore a particular kind of physical fruit. It became the tree of the knowledge of good and evil when God forbade Adam from eating its fruit.
Click to expand...

Neither the tree of life nor the tree of knowledge of good and evil were physical trees.
C'mon, folks, read Matt. 16:5-12 and learn what Gen. 3:1-6 teaches!
 
I refer to the "apple" for convenient quick reference, not that I do or do not believe that it was an apple, rather than write out, the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil," but that everybody knows the reference when I say "apple." It might've been a crabapple, considering that Adam was squatting behind a tree soon after eating it.
 
Mem said:
I refer to the "apple" for convenient quick reference, not that I do or do not believe that it was an apple, rather than write out, the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil," but that everybody knows the reference when I say "apple." It might've been a crabapple, considering that Adam was squatting behind a tree soon after eating it.
Click to expand...
"Forbidden fruit" is much quicker to write/type/say than "the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," And it saves the muddle that can follow when we say it was an apple. (I understand that mix-up came because in Latin, "evil" and "apple" are both "malum.")
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mem
DavidLamb said:
"Forbidden fruit" is much quicker to write/type/say than "the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," And it saves the muddle that can follow when we say it was an apple. (I understand that mix-up came because in Latin, "evil" and "apple" are both "malum.")
Click to expand...

Focusing on physical fruit muddles the meaning of the passage, which no one but me and Jesus seems to care about.
 
GWH said:
Y'all are blind bordering on nutso!
Gen. 3:1-6 (per Matt. 16:5-12) IS that view; it is y'all who are doing the eisegesis with figs and pomegranites.
Click to expand...
I don't know what "nutso" means (I don't think we use it here in the UK), but it doesn't sound very complimentary. Like you, I don't agree with ideas that the forbidden fruit was figs or pomegranates, but unlike you, I see no reason in Genesis for saying that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not a physical tree. God's command in Genesis 2 was:

(Gen 2:16-17 NKJV) And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

You seem to have God saying, "Of every physical tree in the garden you may freely eat, but there is a non-physical tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and you shall not eat of that."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Suze
GWH said:
Focusing on physical fruit muddles the meaning of the passage, which no one but me and Jesus seems to care about.
Click to expand...
How does it muddle the meaning? God had given a command not to eat the fruit of one particular tree. Adam and Eve disobeyed that command. God punished them for their disobedience.
 
Is there any way that we can 'not eat' of the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil now? It was "the" three of the knowledge of good and evil, that's what God called it. As opposed to using the indirect article, "a" tree, God used the direct article to direct Adam's attention to that specific tree, though no one speculates what the fruit of the tree of life might've been. But does it really even matter since we can't even touch it now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back