How could Adam and Eve have chosen to eat the apple?

[Sammy-San]

If there was no sin in the world before they tasted the apple, how could they have made a choice to do the wrong thing and disobey God and eat the apple?

 

[Sammy-San]

Thread bump.

 

[dabro]

The tree was a test.......He already knew that evil existed. The Bible is fuzzy about that part......All I know it seems the only way to capture satan and put him in the pit where he will burn up and be as if he never existed....

 

[dabro]

But honestly......God said they have become like Us knowing good and evil........We had the right to choose satan did not have the right to free will.

 

[dabro]

That's why we all have a Adam's apple. Because the apple got stuck in his throat lol.

 

[ALoveDivine]

First off, nowhere does Genesis say it was an apple.

Second, there is no compelling reason to think the text is dealing with literal trees. The image of trees and the fruit of trees is used figuratively in many places throughout scripture. They could have been literal, but I don't accept that as a given.

The message of Genesis 2-3 is that original humanity chose to seek their own wisdom and power through an act of insubordination, thereby defying the hierarchical order of creation which had them as authorities over the earth and all that dwelt upon it but subordinated to God.

They didn't want to be subordinated to God, they wanted to be the ultimate authority autonomous unto themselves. That was the original sin, not so much eating a piece of fruit.

 

[contango]

If there was no sin in the world before they tasted the apple, how could they have made a choice to do the wrong thing and disobey God and eat the apple?

Because they had freedom to choose. It's really no different to someone who has never stolen anything in their life deciding that they're going to take some cash from the pile they know hasn't been counted.

 

[dabro]

Who knows honestly. We need a time machine.

 

[Svt4Him]

If there was no sin in the world before they tasted the apple, how could they have made a choice to do the wrong thing and disobey God and eat the apple?

No sin in the world means nothing. There was always an opportunity to do wrong, so the fact that no one ever did wrong before that is not relevant. They didn't have a propensity to sin, but they still had an opportunity. You will also see the fruit on the tree was no better or no worse than any other tree there, so the fact they chose to disobey was an act of sin.

 

[Svt4Him]

Who knows honestly. We need a time machine.

It was a nice trip.

I was going to post I had one, then I saw the replies and came back and changed my post.

 

[Vanguard PCD]

What apple?

 

[Sammy-San]

What apple?

The apple in the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil.

 

[standingtall]

The apple in the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil.

Who told you it was an apple?

 

[Sammy-San]

Who told you it was an apple?

Genesis in the bible says it was an apple.

 

[ALoveDivine]

Genesis in the bible says it was an apple.

No it doesnt. It just says fruit.

 

[Sammy-San]

No it doesnt. It just says fruit.

Why does it matter if it was a literal apple or not?

 

[ALoveDivine]

Why does it matter if it was a literal apple or not?

It doesn't. You made the claim that Genesis states it was an apple. I just pointed out that you were wrong.

But yeah I dont take much of the story as literal history, see my first post in this thread.

 

[Vanguard PCD]

Why does it matter if it was a literal apple or not?

Do you take the Bible literally, or do you believe that it uses metaphors, allegory and symbolism?

Those that say "apple" are not quoting the Bible...they are repeating stories that they heard, which are more traditional instead of biblical.

Is it really that big of a deal? No. But this serves as an example of someone not knowing what the Bible really says, yet professes that what they speak is factual (Genesis in the Bible says it was an apple...) when in fact, they were wrong.

 

[contango]

Why does it matter if it was a literal apple or not?

It only matters whether it was a literal apple if a theology depends on it being a literal apple. The Bible refers to "the fruit" without saying any more than that. So assuming the tree was a literal tree the fruit could be just about anything.

It's always worth being careful that "artists' impressions" don't get elevated to have any theological standing. We see pictures feating a man and a woman with strategically placed fig leaves holding an apple while a non-threatening looking snake is draped over the branch of a tree but I wouldn't be assuming that's exactly how the scene looked.

 

[Sammy-San]

First off, nowhere does Genesis say it was an apple.

Second, there is no compelling reason to think the text is dealing with literal trees. The image of trees and the fruit of trees is used figuratively in many places throughout scripture. They could have been literal, but I don't accept that as a given.

The message of Genesis 2-3 is that original humanity chose to seek their own wisdom and power through an act of insubordination, thereby defying the hierarchical order of creation which had them as authorities over the earth and all that dwelt upon it but subordinated to God.

They didn't want to be subordinated to God, they wanted to be the ultimate authority autonomous unto themselves. That was the original sin, not so much eating a piece of fruit.

What are some examples of how the bible uses the imagery of trees and fruits in a non literal context, besides Adam and Eve?