The Forbidden Fruit- An "Apple" or "Sex"?

[Child_of_Yahweh]

Just wondering how many believe that the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden was a literal piece of fruit or a metaphor meaning that Satan and Eve had sexual relations? I am very interested to know. please tell me how you belive and why?

 

[chaoschristian]

Just wondering how many believe that the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden was a literal piece of fruit or a metaphor meaning that Satan and Eve had sexual relations? I am very interested to know. please tell me how you belive and why?

I look at the apple as representing man's desire to be his own god through pride - a sort of self-awareness that provides the foundation for "I don't need God, I can do this on my own"

 

[TexasSky]

I don't think it had anything to do with sex.

I think it was man's belief that they had more right than God to decide what was or wasn't right.

 

[Willtor]

I don't think it had anything to do with sex.

I think it was man's belief that they had more right than God to decide what was or wasn't right.

Yes, man became "like God," just as the devil promised. He became his own definer of good and evil, rather than acting exclusively within the will of God. In some sense, he became his own idol.

I have heard the "sex" interpretation, before, but I have no idea where it comes from. It's kind of silly, in my opinion, as if sex were sinful.

 

[gluadys]

Just wondering how many believe that the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden was a literal piece of fruit or a metaphor meaning that Satan and Eve had sexual relations? I am very interested to know. please tell me how you belive and why?

I've heard that interpretation before, usually tied up in some way with white supremacy. Not my cup of tea.

I think the full name of the tree "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" gives away that it is not about sex. It is about developing an autonomous understanding of good and evil.

 

[dad]

Just wondering how many believe that the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden was a literal piece of fruit or a metaphor meaning that Satan and Eve had sexual relations? I am very interested to know. please tell me how you belive and why?

No, as evidenced by the first commandment of God, which WAS to have sex, and plenty of it! They didn't even have clothes. I don't know where you heard that one. Another thing is that Adam also ate the fruit. I think it was a literal fruit.

 

[Emkay]

Just wondering how many believe that the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden was a literal piece of fruit or a metaphor meaning that Satan and Eve had sexual relations? I am very interested to know. please tell me how you belive and why?

That may work (however unbiblical) for Eve, but Adam sinned as well when he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Ewww, icky picture, icky picture!!

Also, the fruit is not an apple... I often feel sorry for the apple being tied with the Fall and so on.

The real problem, from my knowledge, with Adam eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was Adam in effect saying that he wanted life with God; that he wanted to decide truth for himself, independent of God. This is the first operational definition of sin that is found in the Bible.

 

[TexasSky]

That may work (however unbiblical) for Eve, but Adam sinned as well when he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Ewww, icky picture, icky picture!!

Also, the fruit is not an apple... I often feel sorry for the apple being tied with the Fall and so on.

The real problem, from my knowledge, with Adam eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was Adam in effect saying that he wanted life with God; that he wanted to decide truth for himself, independent of God. This is the first operational definition of sin that is found in the Bible.

I always wondered why people tie the apple to that, since most people seem to think that Eden was in regions of the earth where the apple doesn't naturally grow.

 

[HypnoToad]

I always wondered why people tie the apple to that, since most people seem to think that Eden was in regions of the earth where the apple doesn't naturally grow.

Well, the environmental conditions of the area where the garden was were probably not the same as they are today, allowing a lot more to grow there than what can today.

As to why it's associtated with an apple - word origins. "Apple" has German roots. Long ago, before it came to mean the specific fruit it does today, the word that "apple" came from simply meant "fruit" in general. Even though the meaning changed, they still kept using it to refer to the fruit from the garden.

 

[chaoschristian]

Well, the environmental conditions of the area where the garden was were probably not the same as they are today, allowing a lot more to grow there than what can today.

As to why it's associtated with an apple - word origins. "Apple" has German roots. Long ago, before it came to mean the specific fruit it does today, the word that "apple" came from simply meant "fruit" in general. Even though the meaning changed, they still kept using it to refer to the fruit from the garden.

"Corn" is a similar word, used to refer to grains in general, not the corn-on-cob corn that we know today.

 

[LoG]

The idea that there were actually two seed lines would explain a lot of things imo. Quite a few verses that are taken figuratively or spiritualy could be interpreted literally. ie:

1Jo 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

Joh 8:44 You are the children of your father the Evil One and it is your pleasure to do his desires. From the first he was a taker of life; and he did not go in the true way because there is no true thing in him. When he says what is false, it is natural to him, for he is false and the father of what is false.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Mat 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

The idea that the tree of knowledge was actually to "know" in the sexual sense seems interesting. Combine that with the idea that in the restored paradise (heaven) Jesus said:

Mar 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.


implies to my mind that before the Fall, sex was not to be indulged in. It was commanded only after the Fall.
Genesis 4:1 according to some sources was a misinterpretation from the Hebrew text and should have read:
"And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael, and she conceived and bare Cain, and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly beings, and she said, I have gotten a man from the angel of the Lord."
Source

Looking at a two seed line possibility, lends a lot of support to Calvinism.

 

[gluadys]

implies to my mind that before the Fall, sex was not to be indulged in. It was commanded only after the Fall.
Genesis 4:1 according to some sources was a misinterpretation from the Hebrew text and should have read:
"And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael, and she conceived and bare Cain, and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly beings, and she said, I have gotten a man from the angel of the Lord."
Source

Looking at a two seed line possibility, lends a lot of support to Calvinism.

I've seen this two-seed theory used by white supremacists before. The link is a good demonstration of its usefulness to justify anti-semitism as well.

Although historically Calvinists, like other Christians, have been anti-semites, racists and defenders of slavery, segregation and apartheid, I cannot see two-seed theory as lending any support to Reform doctrine.

The World Alliance of Reformed Churches has named the justification of apartheid and other forms of racism on the basis of so-called scriptural support heresy.

To say of anyone, as Jesus did of the Pharisees, that their father is the devil, is a moral not a biological statement.

 

[HypnoToad]

The idea that there were actually two seed lines would explain a lot of things imo. Quite a few verses that are taken figuratively or spiritualy could be interpreted literally. ie:

1Jo 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

Joh 8:44 You are the children of your father the Evil One and it is your pleasure to do his desires. From the first he was a taker of life; and he did not go in the true way because there is no true thing in him. When he says what is false, it is natural to him, for he is false and the father of what is false.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Mat 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

The idea that the tree of knowledge was actually to "know" in the sexual sense seems interesting. Combine that with the idea that in the restored paradise (heaven) Jesus said:

Mar 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.


implies to my mind that before the Fall, sex was not to be indulged in. It was commanded only after the Fall.
Genesis 4:1 according to some sources was a misinterpretation from the Hebrew text and should have read:
"And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael, and she conceived and bare Cain, and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly beings, and she said, I have gotten a man from the angel of the Lord."
Source

Looking at a two seed line possibility, lends a lot of support to Calvinism.

First, why is there any need in the first place to take those verses literally? Should we look for reasons to take "I am the vine" literally?

Second, the "no sex before the fall" theory is rather weak. Read Gen.1, where man is comanded to "be fruitful and multiply". If you read LATER in the same chapter, it says God saw everything He made, and it was "very good". Are we to assume that God's statement refers to AFTER the fall? Do you think God would refer to the fallen, sinful, corrupted world as "very good"?

 

[Mskedi]

I've never thought that the "fruit" was sex. I take very little of what Genesis says literally, since it seems to impart truths rather than facts, so I believe the apple is a symbol of something (disobedience; the desire to be on the same level of God, etc...), but sex isn't it. I'm rather annoyed by the bad rap sex gets in religion.

 

[LoG]

I've seen this two-seed theory used by white supremacists before. The link is a good demonstration of its usefulness to justify anti-semitism as well.

Although historically Calvinists, like other Christians, have been anti-semites, racists and defenders of slavery, segregation and apartheid, I cannot see two-seed theory as lending any support to Reform doctrine.

The World Alliance of Reformed Churches has named the justification of apartheid and other forms of racism on the basis of so-called scriptural support heresy.

To say of anyone, as Jesus did of the Pharisees, that their father is the devil, is a moral not a biological statement.

Those who are racists will always find justification for their bias whether scriptural or not. Should we intepret the Word in such a way that noone will have a cause to use it as proof for their unloving behaviour?

The assumption is that Jesus used it as a moral statement only because we have been taught that we are all sons of God and yet there are ample verses that state that isn't the case and neither did it appear that Calvin thought that was the case. I've always thought that Jesus was quite heavy-handed in his statement of the pharisees from a purely spiritual point of view but if it was grounded in a biological perspective it would be just.

I think we need to be careful in interpreting scriptures with preconceived ideas of what it means.

 

[gluadys]

The assumption is that Jesus used it as a moral statement only because we have been taught that we are all sons of God and yet there are ample verses that state that isn't the case and neither did it appear that Calvin thought that was the case.

I've read Calvin. I think you are probably misinterpreting him too.

I've always thought that Jesus was quite heavy-handed in his statement of the pharisees from a purely spiritual point of view but if it was grounded in a biological perspective it would be just.

Quite the contrary. That would make it unjust.

 

[relspace]

Just wondering how many believe that the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden was a literal piece of fruit or a metaphor meaning that Satan and Eve had sexual relations? I am very interested to know. please tell me how you belive and why?

I have heard the "sex" interpretation, before, but I have no idea where it comes from.

Gen 3:15-16 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain...


The idea that the tree of knowledge was actually to "know" in the sexual sense seems interesting.

Well I can name a cult which believes that the fruit was sex: the moonies (the church of Rev. Sun Myung Moon from Korea, once called the the Unification Church, but which seems to keep changing its name). And this belief is one of the things I still retain from my 10 years as a member of this group. So if anyone can give me a Christian source of this belief I will be greatly appreciative.


My reasoning shares some similarity with the moonies but since I no longer give them any credence or loyalty, I will give the explanation of why I believe this idea and not their explanation. For their version you are on your own. I will not promote their teachings and apologize for calling any attention to them at all.


The basic idea is that Adam and Eve were innocent of their sexuality and just children. God was their adoptive parent (speaking to them since they were born), teaching them to love all things in creation. Yet Adam and Eve were not yet mature enough in their love to be ready for parenthood as God envisioned (loving their children with sufficiently selfless parental love). The idea was that after they had sufficient spiritual maturity, when they would be ready, then God would teach them to have children. I thought their behavior after the event was particularly significant. When God asked them if they ate of the tree they successively pointed the finger at others blaming them and taking no responsibility for their actions. There was little enough love lost between them when the situation was even a little difficult.


Lucifer deduced that if he could influence Adam and Eve to become parents before they were ready then He could keep all of mankind immature and under his influence from then on. And so the history of mankind is the history of children having children without the proper love or integrity to be the kind of parent that God was to Adam and Eve. Thus it was because of this orignal sin that nudity and sex became something shameful instead of the holy gift that God had meant it to be, and so Adam and Eve covered themselves in shame. Likewise mankind lacks the proper control over themselves in this activity which God desired them to develop.


One of the consequences was that God greatly multiplied the woman's pain in childbirth and I believe that this was to help protect the sanctity of the parent child relationship by making it so that we could not treat with the act of having children as carefree and thoughtless. Without this I can imagine uncaring women disposing of unwanted children the same way they go to the toilet. The difficult life in general was for simillar reasons, so that through suffering, men and women could learn some character, maturity, and working together for mutual support.


As for Biblical Interpretation if you say that in the middle of the Garden were two trees called "The Tree of Life" and "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", two better candidates for a symbolic interpretation cannot be imagined. These sound exactly like symbols and not like actual trees or fruit. Also sex has been so often been shrouded in euphemisms that it is quite plausible that this would be represented in a story like this in terms of symbols. However what this means actually happened between Lucifer and Eve I venture no opinion, suffice it to say that however he did so, Lucifer acquainted Eve with sexuality and she shared what she learned with Adam.


Anyway I do find this idea that the original sin was to do with sex and not with merely breaking a meaningless rule, to be logical and convincing and I have given my reasons above, BUT I am not in anyway inclined to try to convince anyone to believe as I do. It is an idle speculative opinion only and I put no faith in it at all.

 

[Windmill]

Just wondering how many believe that the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden was a literal piece of fruit or a metaphor meaning that Satan and Eve had sexual relations? I am very interested to know. please tell me how you belive and why?

It would be odd that eve would ask and get her husband to partake in sexual relations with a snake, let alone herself.

Theres nothing which suggests that genesis is being anthing other than literal.

 

[jabechler]

I do not believe it was an apple but it was afriut of somesort. The issue was that God told Adam not to eat from the tree in the midst of the garden. Adam's job was to instruct Eve which we know he did by her discorse with the serpent. Many things happened here that can be discussed.
1- why did Adam leave Eves side to be tempted by the Devil which God had warned them of?
2- Why did Eve not question this talking serpent?
3- Why was Eve even around this tree she was commanded not to even touch or look upon?
4- why did Adam choose to follow Eve down this path instead going to God for advice?
I believe the first sin was not Eve eating the fruit but disobeying Gods counsel and allowing someone or something to doubt the words of God.