Need to ask

[GWH]

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."

"Nutso" means "blind" meaning you STILL focus on physical fruit instead of the spiritual meaning of the story.

 

[John146]

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 only fruit forbidden in scripture is the grape, Numbers 6. It was forbidden to those taking the Nazarite vow unto the Lord, to be separated unto the Lord. I have a pretty extensive study on why the forbidden fruit in the garden was a grape. In short, when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, it corrupted them because of sin. That sin nature was passed on to every man thereafter through the blood. There is a reason why the juice from the grape is referred to the blood of the grape. The only acceptable sacrifice would have to come through blood, pure, sinless blood...blood not coming through Adam's corrupt line, see virgin birth and God's blood.

 

[DavidLamb]

"Nutso" means "blind" meaning you STILL focus on physical fruit instead of the spiritual meaning of the story.

Thanks for explaining "nutso." I don't think talking about physical fruit means I am not seeing the spiritual teaching of Genesis 2-3. Sin, obedience to God, God being just and punishing sin, as well as the teaching that God provides (in this case, the fruit from all the other trees) all are, or at least involve, spiritual truths.

 

[GWH]

Thanks for explaining "nutso." I don't think talking about physical fruit means I am not seeing the spiritual teaching of Genesis 2-3. Sin, obedience to God, God being just and punishing sin, as well as the teaching that God provides (in this case, the fruit from all the other trees) all are, or at least involve, spiritual truths.

Thanks for finally focusing on the spiritual teaching of Gen. 3:1-6.
It would behoove everyone else to do the same instead of perseverating about physical fruit.
Just to be clear, what was the sin(s) A&E committed?

If you say eating an apple Jesus will have a conniption fit!

 

[Roger316]

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.

You seem to be answering a different question than the one we are addressing. You are addressing the question, "What does the tree represent?" But other people are addressing the question, "What fruit was on the tree?"

We can speculate on what type of fruit it might have been based on the type of fruit that currently exists in the Middle East but our guess would be speculative and not a definitive answer.

The text of Genesis records that God gave the tree a name and the reader is invited to evaluate the name according to what happens to the married couple in the Garden of Eden.

It might be helpful if you would expound on your idea that Matthew 16 is somehow related to Genesis 3. It isn't obvious to me, but I am slow on the uptake sometimes.

From my perspective, the name of the tree hints at the fact that God intended the tree to be a test and that after eating of the tree the couple would learn an important fact about themselves. They want to decide for themselves what is good and what is evil.

 

[GWH]

You seem to be answering a different question than the one we are addressing. You are addressing the question, "What does the tree represent?" But other people are addressing the question, "What fruit was on the tree?"

We can speculate on what type of fruit it might have been based on the type of fruit that currently exists in the Middle East but our guess would be speculative and not a definitive answer.

The text of Genesis records that God gave the tree a name and the reader is invited to evaluate the name according to what happens to the married couple in the Garden of Eden.

It might be helpful if you would expound on your idea that Matthew 16 is somehow related to Genesis 3. It isn't obvious to me, but I am slow on the uptake sometimes.

From my perspective, the name of the tree hints at the fact that God intended the tree to be a test and that after eating of the tree the couple would learn an important fact about themselves. They want to decide for themselves what is good and what is evil.

My main question is what Jesus would ask per Matt. 16:5-12: What spiritual truth does the story/Gen. 3:1-6 teach?

In order to answer that question one must perceive the metaphor/figure of the fruit/tree, NOT focus on physical bread.

The meaning of Matt. 16:5-12 and that it applies also to OT allegory is obvious, but some folks are brain-washed by dogmatists to kick against the goad of GW/the Gospel instead of being taught to love truth (2Thes. 2:10, 1Tim. 2:3-4), even if it contradicts tradition, and to amend their beliefs accordingly.

Your perspective is in the ballpark of correct answers, but just for clarification, what was the chain of sins committed by A&E?

 

[Roger316]

My main question is what Jesus would ask per Matt. 16:5-12: What spiritual truth does the story/Gen. 3:1-6 teach?

In order to answer that question one must perceive the metaphor/figure of the fruit/tree, NOT focus on physical bread.

The meaning of Matt. 16:5-12 and that it applies also to OT allegory is obvious, but some folks are brain-washed by dogmatists to kick against the goad of GW/the Gospel instead of being taught to love truth (2Thes. 2:10, 1Tim. 2:3-4), even if it contradicts tradition, and to amend their beliefs accordingly.

Your perspective is in the ballpark of correct answers, but just for clarification, what was the chain of sins committed by A&E?

I agree with your premise that to focus on the fruit misses the point.

I wonder what you might think of Eve's behavior. One could argue that Eve didn't sin. After all, she thought she was doing what was wise and what God would want, given the way Satan framed the issue for her. Outside of the original context, we would agree with Eve that God would want us to seek wisdom and to obey the truth.

Not only this, but Paul claims that it was Adam who brought sin into the world, even when it was Eve who allegedly was the first to sin. Just thinking out loud. What do you think?

 

[GWH]

I agree with your premise that to focus on the fruit misses the point.

I wonder what you might think of Eve's behavior. One could argue that Eve didn't sin. After all, she thought she was doing what was wise and what God would want, given the way Satan framed the issue for her. Outside of the original context, we would agree with Eve that God would want us to seek wisdom and to obey the truth.

Not only this, but Paul claims that it was Adam who brought sin into the world, even when it was Eve who allegedly was the first to sin. Just thinking out loud. What do you think?

If you had answered my question thoughtfully, I think you would have answered your own question re Eve,
but I will assume you had no idea what my question about the chain meant and answer it myself.

First, the astute reader of Gen. 3:1-6 will realize that it portrays A&E as sinning together/partners in sin, so let's not play the blame game.

Understanding that, their sin included the following chain of sins:

1. Possible adding to what God had said.
2. Not asking God about what the serpent said.
3. Choosing to ignore GW and believe the lie.
4. The act of eating the forbidden fruit, which was knowledge of good and evil, meaning experiencing or actualizing evil.

 

[DavidLamb]

Thanks for finally focusing on the spiritual teaching of Gen. 3:1-6.
It would behoove everyone else to do the same instead of perseverating about physical fruit.
Just to be clear, what was the sin(s) A&E committed?

If you say eating an apple Jesus will have a conniption fit!

I suppose the point is that this thread was started by somebody asking: "What was the "forbidden fruit" Adam and Eve actually ate in the Garden of Eden?" They then gave various possibilities of actual fruits. So writing posts about physical trees and fruit is responding to the OP.

The sin that they committed was disobeying God's command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Nothing about apples. God didn't tell them not to eat apples.

 

[GWH]

I suppose the point is that this thread was started by somebody asking: "What was the "forbidden fruit" Adam and Eve actually ate in the Garden of Eden?" They then gave various possibilities of actual fruits. So writing posts about physical trees and fruit is responding to the OP.

The sin that they committed was disobeying God's command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Nothing about apples. God didn't tell them not to eat apples.

Yay! Although unfortunately, you did not read my reply in the previous post, so I will reiterate it here for your consideration.

The astute reader of Gen. 3:1-6 will realize that it portrays A&E as sinning together/partners in sin, so let's not play the blame game.

Understanding that truth, their sin included the following chain of sins:

1. Possible adding to what God had said.
2. Not asking God about what the serpent said.
3. Choosing to ignore GW and believe the lie.
4. The act of eating the forbidden fruit, which was knowledge of good and evil, meaning experiencing or actualizing evil.

 

[DavidLamb]

Yay! Although unfortunately, you did not read my reply in the previous post, so I will reiterate it here for your consideration.

The astute reader of Gen. 3:1-6 will realize that it portrays A&E as sinning together/partners in sin, so let's not play the blame game.

Understanding that truth, their sin included the following chain of sins:

1. Possible adding to what God had said.
2. Not asking God about what the serpent said.
3. Choosing to ignore GW and believe the lie.
4. The act of eating the forbidden fruit, which was knowledge of good and evil, meaning experiencing or actualizing evil.

I agree with that. (Sorry I missed the post concerned). They both sinned.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

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.

Since the text doesn't really say, I'm not going to speculate. I can see your point that it's plausibly a fruit variety familiar today.
One thing that makes me think that it's no longer in existence is that it was easily distinguishable from the others. There would be no mistaking the tree. Could that have been the size of the trunk, the color of leaves or another trait? Perhaps yes, but the only thing that God mentioned is the fruit and the consequences.

Whatever the case, we have the remedy.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6:23

 

[GWH]

I agree with that. (Sorry I missed the post concerned). They both sinned.

Yes, four times without ever repenting as far as we know.
The message is a warning for us not to repeat their mistakes,
but instead to confess our sins and get right with God ASAP.

Now I hope we hear no more about apricots and nuts.

 

[lrs68]

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?

The point is God said don't eat and that was the entire reason leading to the act of disobedience. It makes no difference what the fruit actually was because it was not the fruit that opened their eyes but the sin they committed.