Need to ask

[Yup]

Yep, if you tell me the antecedent(s) for "that".
The first and foremost Scripture is Gen. 3:1-6.

A parable is a specific literary form in the Bible, and it's always marked as one. Jesus's parables are introduced that way — "And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying..." (Matthew 13:3, KJV). The text tells you when something is a parable.


Genesis 2-3 isn't presented that way. It's written as straight narrative — connected to genealogies, timelines, and generations that continue right through the rest of Genesis and into the historical books. Genesis 5 opens with "This is the book of the generations of Adam" (Genesis 5:1, KJV) and lists Adam as a real person with a lifespan: "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died" (Genesis 5:5, KJV).


The New Testament treats it the same way — as history, not metaphor. Paul writes in Romans 5:12 (KJV): "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." His whole argument about sin and salvation rests on Adam being a real man who did a real thing. Same in 1 Corinthians 15:22 (KJV): "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."


So calling it a "parable/story" to soften it isn't something the text supports — it's a label added from outside. The tree is real, the eating is real, the consequence is real. What's not given is the species of fruit, and that's the one detail scripture leaves out on purpose.

 

[Yup]

Yep, if you tell me the antecedent(s) for "that".
The first and foremost Scripture is Gen. 3:1-6.

This is actually something scripture speaks to directly, more than once.


Deuteronomy 4:2 (KJV): "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."


Proverbs 30:5-6 (KJV): "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."


That second one is strong language. Adding to God's word isn't called a harmless guess — it's called lying.


Revelation 22:18-19 (KJV) closes the whole Bible with the same warning: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life."


So the pattern through scripture is consistent — start to finish, Old Testament to New. God doesn't leave it open for people to fill in gaps with tradition and then treat that tradition as if it carries the same weight as His word.


The fruit is a small example, but it shows the bigger problem. Someone says "apple," it gets repeated, it ends up in art and sermons, and eventually people assume it's in the Bible when it never was. Multiply that pattern across bigger topics — the nature of God, salvation, judgment — and you can see why scripture guards against it so directly.
And I will tell you in all honesty I do not know the fruit they ate it is not mention and I don't know everything

 

[GWH]

A parable is a specific literary form in the Bible, and it's always marked as one. Jesus's parables are introduced that way — "And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying..." (Matthew 13:3, KJV). The text tells you when something is a parable.


Genesis 2-3 isn't presented that way. It's written as straight narrative — connected to genealogies, timelines, and generations that continue right through the rest of Genesis and into the historical books. Genesis 5 opens with "This is the book of the generations of Adam" (Genesis 5:1, KJV) and lists Adam as a real person with a lifespan: "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died" (Genesis 5:5, KJV).


The New Testament treats it the same way — as history, not metaphor. Paul writes in Romans 5:12 (KJV): "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." His whole argument about sin and salvation rests on Adam being a real man who did a real thing. Same in 1 Corinthians 15:22 (KJV): "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."


So calling it a "parable/story" to soften it isn't something the text supports — it's a label added from outside. The tree is real, the eating is real, the consequence is real. What's not given is the species of fruit, and that's the one detail scripture leaves out on purpose.

Parables are NOT always identified, those in Matt. 25 for three examples.
Gen. 3:1-6 has the characteristics of a parable/allegorical story, in which spiritual truth is conveyed
using figurative/metaphorical language.
Job has the characteristics of a morality play/extended parable that might be enacted.
The NT treats the truth conveyed via both literal and metaphorical language as true.
So, focusing on the physical aspects rather than on the spiritual message is not supported (cf. Matt. 16:5-12).

 

[Yup]

Parables are NOT always identified, those in Matt. 25 for three examples.
Gen. 3:1-6 has the characteristics of a parable/allegorical story, in which spiritual truth is conveyed
using figurative/metaphorical language.
Job has the characteristics of a morality play/extended parable that might be enacted.
The NT treats the truth conveyed via both literal and metaphorical language as true.
So, focusing on the physical aspects rather than on the spiritual message is not supported (cf. Matt. 16:5-12).

No where In that scripture does it call it a parable go get the verse your making it up show me I'm telling you to stop and you won't hear me it's not parable it happen it reason sin is in the world it was real fruit they ate it so I'm ending my convo with you your adding to scripture

 

[GWH]

No where In that scripture does it call it a parable go get the verse your making it up show me I'm telling you to stop and you won't hear me it's not parable it happen it reason sin is in the world it was real fruit they ate it so I'm ending my convo with you your adding to scripture

The astute observer will note that you got upset/became irrational because I showed you Scripture does not always identify parables/allegorical language.

I encourage you to pray for humility/teachability and become a truthseeker/learner (2Thes. 2:10).

 

[Yup]

Is that about tree of knowledge and I'm not upset I use it to see if people add to scripture I too did what your doing and your adding to scripture and it just false what you say it's not parable it's real fruit they ate so stop an go read your clearly your pride is in your way

 

[Yup]

The astute observer will note that you got upset/became irrational because I showed you Scripture does not always identify parables/allegorical language.

I encourage you to pray for humility/teachability and become a truthseeker/learner (2Thes. 2:10).

• The Bible tells you when something's a parable. We just went through this — every real parable either says "he spake a parable" or "the kingdom of heaven is like." Genesis 2-3 never says that. Not once. It just tells the story straight, like a history record.
• Real parables don't have genealogies attached to them. Genesis 5 gives Adam's family line, his age, his sons, his death — "and all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died" (Genesis 5:5). Parables don't have obituaries. Nobody writes a death record for a fictional illustration.
• The New Testament treats it as real, not as a story. Paul in Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 builds his whole explanation of sin and death on Adam being an actual person who did an actual thing — same with Jesus being an actual person who did an actual thing to fix it. If Adam's just a parable, Paul's whole argument falls apart, because you can't undo a fictional problem with a real Savior.

 

[LeeLoving]

It seems to be a unique fruit: of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, also unique. There's no indication that it was a common fruit or the tree it came from was a common tree.

 

[GWH]

• The Bible tells you when something's a parable. We just went through this — every real parable either says "he spake a parable" or "the kingdom of heaven is like." Genesis 2-3 never says that. Not once. It just tells the story straight, like a history record.
• Real parables don't have genealogies attached to them. Genesis 5 gives Adam's family line, his age, his sons, his death — "and all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died" (Genesis 5:5). Parables don't have obituaries. Nobody writes a death record for a fictional illustration.
• The New Testament treats it as real, not as a story. Paul in Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 builds his whole explanation of sin and death on Adam being an actual person who did an actual thing — same with Jesus being an actual person who did an actual thing to fix it. If Adam's just a parable, Paul's whole argument falls apart, because you can't undo a fictional problem with a real Savior.

Gen. 3:1-6 quacks like an allegory, but you can believe snakes talk and the fruit was a fig if you want to.
My point is that by focusing on the physical fruit you have not mentioned the spiritual meaning even once.
The NT verses you cited do NOT treat the talking snake and fig fruit as real, but rather that the first humans sinned.

The astute will notice that the first sin was ignoring GW and not questioning God about Satan's lie, and that
the sin of eating knowledge of good and evil was followed by blaming and failure to confess.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

No where In that scripture does it call it a parable go get the verse your making it up show me I'm telling you to stop and you won't hear me it's not parable it happen it reason sin is in the world it was real fruit they ate it so I'm ending my convo with you your adding to scripture

Other people including me put him on ignore. Despite his tendency to corrupt the meaning of certain scripture, he refuses to repent. And he likes to promote his way.

 

[Suze]

This is actually something scripture speaks to directly, more than once.


Deuteronomy 4:2 (KJV): "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."


Proverbs 30:5-6 (KJV): "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."


That second one is strong language. Adding to God's word isn't called a harmless guess — it's called lying.


Revelation 22:18-19 (KJV) closes the whole Bible with the same warning: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life."


So the pattern through scripture is consistent — start to finish, Old Testament to New. God doesn't leave it open for people to fill in gaps with tradition and then treat that tradition as if it carries the same weight as His word.


The fruit is a small example, but it shows the bigger problem. Someone says "apple," it gets repeated, it ends up in art and sermons, and eventually people assume it's in the Bible when it never was. Multiply that pattern across bigger topics — the nature of God, salvation, judgment — and you can see why scripture guards against it so directly.
And I will tell you in all honesty I do not know the fruit they ate it is not mention and I don't know everything

There is nothing wrong with speculating about these things , all long as that's all we do . I think the fruit was probably a fig because Adam and Eve then used fig leaves to cover themselves . This is just my opinion and I know that I could b totally wrong , I'm not being dogmatic about it or trying to make others believe the same as me . Speculation can provoke us to think about these things and study them more than we might have done , there's no harm as long as we r not presenting our ideas as doctrine or scripture .

 

[Yup]

There is nothing wrong with speculating about these things , all long as that's all we do . I think the fruit was probably a fig because Adam and Eve then used fig leaves to cover themselves . This is just my opinion and I know that I could b totally wrong , I'm not being dogmatic about it or trying to make others believe the same as me . Speculation can provoke us to think about these things and study them more than we might have done , there's no harm as long as we r not presenting our ideas as doctrine or scripture .

It's ok in the way you said it saying your speculating is different then knowing or saying it's a parable witch buts the thing into question it's different me personally I don't know it's not in scripture people say we don't know because God destroyed the tree but that's not in scripture I read and I look for truth in it there had to be reason for god not telling us what fruit it was and I'm good with it

 

[Yup]

Other people including me put him on ignore. Despite his tendency to corrupt the meaning of certain scripture, he refuses to repent. And he likes to promote his way.

Thank you I read only scripture I'm not perfect and by no means do I know everything and enjoy talking to my fellow Christians about the bible I don't know what the fruit is but I do know it's real and it happen for all my life I thought it was red apple just because I heared it that way but as I look into the bible I find many amazing facts most are explainable but I knew God wants us to ask and to question do I find it troubling no it was fruit it grew on a tree it was from tree I never heared of but scripture does t say anything but the fruit tasted good I'm not here to trick people or bait them or make them say things un true I'm still reading and seeking

 

[Suze]

Thank you I read only scripture I'm not perfect and by no means do I know everything and enjoy talking to my fellow Christians about the bible I don't know what the fruit is but I do know it's real and it happen for all my life I thought it was red apple just because I heared it that way but as I look into the bible I find many amazing facts most are explainable but I knew God wants us to ask and to question do I find it troubling no it was fruit it grew on a tree it was from tree I never heared of but scripture does t say anything but the fruit tasted good I'm not here to trick people or bait them or make them say things un true I'm still reading and seeking

I believe that God wants us to have an inquiring mind .

 

[Yup]

I believe that God wants us to have an inquiring mind .

Yep I'm going reply to his snake talking in garden it's going be good

 

[Yup]

Gen. 3:1-6 quacks like an allegory, but you can believe snakes talk and the fruit was a fig if you want to.
My point is that by focusing on the physical fruit you have not mentioned the spiritual meaning even once.
The NT verses you cited do NOT treat the talking snake and fig fruit as real, but rather that the first humans sinned.

The astute will notice that the first sin was ignoring GW and not questioning God about Satan's lie, and that
the sin of eating knowledge of good and evil was followed by blaming and failure to confess.

You're saying it's inconsistent for someone to accept the Bible as parable/symbolism in one spot, but reject other parts as unbelievable — when both are equally supernatural. A talking snake, Moses's rod turning into a snake (Exodus 4:3, 7:10), and Jesus being born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18-23, Luke 1:34-35) are all miracles. None of them are things that happen naturally. If someone says "the snake couldn't have really talked, that must be parable," but has no problem believing the virgin birth, that's picking and choosing based on personal comfort, not on what the text actually says.

 

[Suze]

You're saying it's inconsistent for someone to accept the Bible as parable/symbolism in one spot, but reject other parts as unbelievable — when both are equally supernatural. A talking snake, Moses's rod turning into a snake (Exodus 4:3, 7:10), and Jesus being born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18-23, Luke 1:34-35) are all miracles. None of them are things that happen naturally. If someone says "the snake couldn't have really talked, that must be parable," but has no problem believing the virgin birth, that's picking and choosing based on personal comfort, not on what the text actually says.

Yes , I think we have to believe it all or not at all . God has given us His Word , He wants us to read it , try to understand it as best we can ( and this can take years of individual study ) and believe it . He reveals Himself to us through His Word and His Word made flesh , in the person of His Son Jesus Christ . Jesus did indeed speak in parables but , it doesn't say anywhere that the Old Testament is a parable . The only book I'm aware of , that some scholars believe might b a parable , is the book of Job . David was a real king , Isaiah and most of the prophets , tell us when they lived and prophecied . The genealogies tell us how old people were when they died . These r facts , not parables , in my opinion .

 

[GWH]

You're saying it's inconsistent for someone to accept the Bible as parable/symbolism in one spot, but reject other parts as unbelievable — when both are equally supernatural. A talking snake, Moses's rod turning into a snake (Exodus 4:3, 7:10), and Jesus being born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18-23, Luke 1:34-35) are all miracles. None of them are things that happen naturally. If someone says "the snake couldn't have really talked, that must be parable," but has no problem believing the virgin birth, that's picking and choosing based on personal comfort, not on what the text actually says.

I said Gen. 3:1-6 looks like an allegory or parable using metaphors or figurative language in order to teach a spiritual truth.
Boy did I ever catch heck from haters for opining that!

 

[Bible_Locket]

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.

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.

 

[GWH]

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.

The fruit IS identified as "the knowledge of good and evil".
If it were a snake, it would bite y'all!