Fruit in the Garden of Eden

[humblemuslim]

From a Christian viewpoint, is the Forbidden Fruit mentioned in the story of Adam and Eve referring to:

1. A literal piece of fruit that contained some supernatural essence.

2. An ordinary piece of fruit.

3. A metaphor for something else

4. Something else I have not mentioned

Bare in mind as a muslim I believe in the same story (Essentially) and the same fruit. I sometimes wonder whether the story, in both Scriptures, is referring to something else than a simple piece of fruit through metaphor.

EDIT: For any new readers. I found a website that explained the Biblical story in a rather unique way. Find a link below to this article. I wonder what others think of this interpretation.

http://www.biblestudygames.com/bible...rdenofeden.htm

 

[ebia]

From a Christian viewpoint, is the Forbidden Fruit mentioned in the story of Adam and Eve referring to:

1. A literal piece of fruit that contained some supernatural essence.

2. An ordinary piece of fruit.

3. A metaphor for something else

4. Something else I have not mentioned

Bare in mind as a muslim I believe in the same story (Essentially) and the same fruit. I sometimes wonder whether the story, in both Scriptures, is referring to something else than a simple piece of fruit through metaphor.

Even if you believe the fruit to be literal it's clearly also symbol. But Genesis 1-11 (roughly) is myth. Theology, written as story.

 

[Proud Christian 2]

It is a fruit that gives the eater the knowlege of good and evil. That's why humans are so knowlegable. Sorry if I mispelled knowlege.

 

[70x7]

^ (edit. directed at post 2)

I am sure there are ways to make the fruit metaphorical which could apply, but I see the fruit as just that. The question isnt apple or orange, but the point that God had told them not to eat, and which we all know, they did. This was an issue of obidience to God.

 

[humblemuslim]

^ (edit. directed at post 2)

I am sure there are ways to make the fruit metaphorical which could apply, but I see the fruit as just that. The question isnt apple or orange, but the point that God had told them not to eat, and which we all know, they did. This was an issue of obidience to God.

That raises another very interesting question:

Why are apples so commonly referred to when the story only mentions a generic Fruit?

Where did this tradition come from?

Thanks everyone

 

[Jpark]

From a Christian viewpoint, is the Forbidden Fruit mentioned in the story of Adam and Eve referring to:

1. A literal piece of fruit that contained some supernatural essence.

2. An ordinary piece of fruit.

3. A metaphor for something else

4. Something else I have not mentioned

Bare in mind as a muslim I believe in the same story (Essentially) and the same fruit. I sometimes wonder whether the story, in both Scriptures, is referring to something else than a simple piece of fruit through metaphor.

Well, we have to read it in context. Clearly, the authors intended for this particular story to be interpreted in the way they saw it. I believe we are not to dismiss any aspects of creation. I believe either we accept that it happened the way it was written or it never happened.

002.035
YUSUFALI: We said: "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will; but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression."

002.036
YUSUFALI: Then did Satan make them slip from the (garden), and get them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been. We said: "Get ye down, all (ye people), with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling-place and your means of livelihood - for a time."

Genesis 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

Notice the difference. The Qur'an says approach the tree. The Bible says eating of the tree. Perhaps they are complementary, Genesis being a extensive description, placing emphasis on the event?

 

[humblemuslim]

Thought I would share this article I just read. It has a rather unique way of looking at the story as mentioned in the Bible.

Any thoughts about this person's views?

http://www.biblestudygames.com/biblestudies/gardenofeden.htm

 

[humblemuslim]

Notice the difference. The Qur'an says approach the tree. The Bible says eating of the tree. Perhaps they are complementary, Genesis being a extensive description, placing emphasis on the event?

Possibly. Interesting observation.

Thanks

 

[ebia]

That raises another very interesting question:

Why are apples so commonly referred to when the story only mentions a generic Fruit?

Where did this tradition come from?

Thanks everyone

Pure speculation, but is it an effect of English (and possibly other northern European languages) where apples the most basic fruit?

 

[Jpark]

Thought I would share this article I just read. It has a rather unique way of looking at the story as mentioned in the Bible.

Any thoughts about this person's views?

http://www.biblestudygames.com/biblestudies/gardenofeden.htm

Well, the idea of Eve having intercourse with Satan is possible, seeing that 200 angels in Enoch, sons of God in Genesis, following his lead and falling from heaven and having intercourse with women, giving birth to the Nephilim, who would turn on the human race and eliminate them, convincing God to send a flood.

And the tree being Satan is possible in the Qur'an since it refers to approaching the tree rather than eating of the tree. Also, Genesis says that the tree was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan would have known good and evil and would have understood the anointing of the Holy Spirit. (Ezekiel 28:14)

But Genesis clearly says they ate from the tree. What would this mean?

 

[humblemuslim]

Well, the idea of Eve having intercourse with Satan is possible, seeing that 200 angels in Enoch, sons of God in Genesis, following his lead and falling from heaven and having intercourse with women, giving birth to the Nephilim, who would turn on the human race and eliminate them, convincing God to send a flood.

And the tree being Satan is possible in the Qur'an since it refers to approaching the tree rather than eating of the tree. Also, Genesis says that the tree was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan would have known good and evil and would have understood the anointing of the Holy Spirit. (Ezekiel 28:14)

But Genesis clearly says they ate from the tree. What would this mean?

Admittedly when I first read this interpretation my first reaction was it was far fetched. But looking at the Scripture again, this interpretation seems plausible.

Maybe the Hebrew words have another meaning that would support this understanding? Using the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer LLOJ suggested in one of his posts (In another thread), I see the following:

Genesis 3:3
But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

The Hebrew word for "and from fruit of" means:

fruit (literally or figuratively):--bough, ((first-)) fruit((-ful)), reward.

The Hebrew word for "the tree" means:

a tree (from its firmness); hence, wood (plural sticks):--+ carpenter, gallows,
helve, + pine, plank, staff, stalk, stick, stock, timber, tree, wood.

The Hebrew word for "you shall eat means:

to eat (literally or figuratively):--X at all, burn up, consume, devour(-er, up),
dine, eat(-er, up), feed (with), food, X freely, X in...wise(-deed, plenty), (lay)
meat, X quite.

The Hebrew word for "you shall touch" means:

properly, to touch, i.e. lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphem., to lie
with a woman); by implication, to reach (figuratively, to arrive, acquire);
violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy, etc.):--beat, (X be able to) bring
(down), cast, come (nigh), draw near (nigh), get up, happen, join, near,
plague, reach (up), smite, strike, touch.

If we render the understanding to fit the understanding of intercourse:

Genesis 3:3
But of the reward of the stick which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye acquire it, lest ye die.

Is the "Eating" referring to penetration into an orifice, be it a mouth or otherwise. This would be of course a figurative "Eating", not literal.

Of course, I am not suggesting this interpretation or translation is correct, but it is extremely interesting.

Maybe God was saying : Do whatever you want, but do not have intercourse, period. That would mean intercourse with anything, including Adam or Satan.

Note the contextual punishment for Eve:

Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Not to mention the first thing they were aware of after having committed their sin was their nudity. Notice they did not wash their mouths out or anything like that, as one might expect if they ate something that they later regretted. They instead covered themselves.

Genesis 3:7
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Thoughts?

 

[AV1611VET]

From a Christian viewpoint, is the Forbidden Fruit mentioned in the story of Adam and Eve referring to:

1. A literal piece of fruit that contained some supernatural essence.

2. An ordinary piece of fruit.

3. A metaphor for something else

4. Something else I have not mentioned

#1 --- in my opinion.

The fruit on that tree was meant for the angels, not for man.

Again --- just my opinion.

 

[humblemuslim]

#1 --- in my opinion.

The fruit on that tree was meant for the angels, not for man.

Again --- just my opinion.

Interesting. Another view I have never heard before. Thanks for sharing

Do you have any thoughts about the intercourse interpretation of Adam and Eve's Fall from Eden?

I might be mistaken, but do Christians view intercourse as a sinful activity at all times? I know some Christians do at the very least. I am not sure if this is a mainstream view. Some even believe intercourse with one's spouse is sinful and should only be performed to procreate. Such a belief would certainly be in line with the intercourse interpretation of Genesis Chapter 3.

 

[Jpark]

Admittedly when I first read this interpretation my first reaction was it was far fetched. But looking at the Scripture again, this interpretation seems plausible.

Maybe the Hebrew words have another meaning that would support this understanding? Using the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer LLOJ suggested in one of his posts (In another thread), I see the following:



The Hebrew word for "and from fruit of" means:

The Hebrew word for "the tree" means:

The Hebrew word for "you shall eat means:

The Hebrew word for "you shall touch" means:

If we render the understanding to fit the understanding of intercourse:



Is the "Eating" referring to penetration into an orifice, be it a mouth or otherwise. This would be of course a figurative "Eating", not literal.

Of course, I am not suggesting this interpretation or translation is correct, but it is extremely interesting.

Maybe God was saying : Do whatever you want, but do not have intercourse, period. That would mean intercourse with anything, including Adam or Satan.

Note the contextual punishment for Eve:



Not to mention the first thing they were aware of after having committed their sin was their nudity. Notice they did not wash their mouths out or anything like that, as one might expect if they ate something that they later regretted. They instead covered themselves.



Thoughts?

Spectacular!

But what about the intercourse in Genesis 4:1?

 

[Apodictic]

This discussion is very interesting. Might I suggest the following website for quick and easy word by word translation:

http://scripturetext.com/genesis/4-1.htm

jpark43 asks a good question regarding the proposed new understanding. If we look at the website I supplied, we find the wording is not as clear as the some English translations make it out to be.

The KJV translates the verse as.

Genesis 4:1
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

The question is are we justified in saying Adam had intercourse by "knowing her". If we start with the understanding that they ate a piece of fruit, then we would logically come to the conclusion that "knowing her" must mean intercourse because she is now pregnant. But if we start with the understanding that Adam and Eve and Satan have already had intercourse, our understanding of this phrase can possibly shift. The understanding could maybe mean that Adam knew she was pregnant by looking at her.

Another understanding might be that Adam had intercourse with her again. Not all intercourse results in pregnancy. So maybe the prior event did not result in a pregnancy.