The Forbidden Fruit

[Major1]

Thanks Major. I do read and check the bible. I don't actually subscribe to the 'forbidden fruit giving carnal knowledge' doctrine myself. The point of the thread was to try to discover where that doctrine originated and why it persists today since the Bible clearly states they were to 'be fruitful and multiply."

Again, that is fairly easy. From post #16................

"The sin of Adam and Eve was disobeying God and doing what they wanted...instead of listening to God. They listened to Satan and their own reasoning, thinking God was keeping something wonderful from them, which He was not. And that's just like all of us. We think we know better than God. We think God is restricting us, keeping something from us, and we have a better way. Just like Adam and Eve, we are tempted to choose to believe Satan rather than believe God. "

 

[Major1]

That makes no sense for when God gave to Adam Eve he knew they were going to have sex and children.

I believe that God considered them married as soon as he put them together?

M-Bob

Correct! Then it was God who told them to have sex!

 

[Major1]

In actual fact Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

The two creation stories were actually written several centuries apart.

I have to tell you that your thesis is not correct. There is in fact only ONE creation.

First, careful analysis reveals that there is deliberate purpose in the individuality of these two sections of Scripture. In Genesis 1 there is a broad outline of the events of the creation week, which reaches its climax with the origin of mankind in the very image of God. In Genesis 2 there is the special emphasis upon man, the divine preparation of his home, the formation of a suitable mate, etc. Edward J. Young has a good statement of this matter:

"There are different emphases in the two chapters...but the reason for these is obvious. Chapter 1 continues the narrative of creation until the climax, namely, man made in the image and likeness of God. To prepare the way for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about man’s original condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1 (1960, p. 53).

This type of procedure was well known in the literary methodology of antiquity.

Gleason Archer observed that the “technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance” (1964, p. 118).

These respective sections have a different literary motif. Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special concern for man and his environment. This procedure is not unknown elsewhere in biblical literature. Matthew’s account of the ministry of Christ is more topical, while Mark’s record is more chronological.
Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?

 

[Anguspure]

Growing up I was taught that the 'forbidden fruit' in the Garden of Eden was allegorical and really stood for sexual intercourse and that 'original sin' was connected with intercourse.

This idea seems to persist. A company called Pom Wonderful sells pomegranate juice and suggests thru advertising that the pomegranate is an aphrodisiac and may have enticed Adam and Eve to sin.

Is there any known historical doctrine that supports this forbidden fruit interpretation or is this just something concerned mothers tell their children to give them hang- ups

The teaching that the fruit is about sex is just another perversion to hide the truth about the nature of the fall.
It is often forgotten that the fruit was of the knowledge of good and evil i.e. moralism or religious observance.
We are created to live by the Spirit (the tree of life) and when we concern ourselves with the knowledge of good and evil we choose to walk by our own knowledge rather than by His leading.
Eating of the fruit (could have been any old fruit) in disobedience taught Adam the difference between good and evil and the breaking of his relationship with the Spirit awoke the fear response that leads us even further away from Him.
When we return back to Jesus and live by the Spirit we are able to put this sinful nature to death and live according to the way that we are created to live in loving and obedient relationship with Him through His Spirit.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Correct! Then it was God who told them to have sex!

Most guys don't have to be told.
M-Bob

 

[ViaCrucis]

Growing up I was taught that the 'forbidden fruit' in the Garden of Eden was allegorical and really stood for sexual intercourse and that 'original sin' was connected with intercourse.

This idea seems to persist. A company called Pom Wonderful sells pomegranate juice and suggests thru advertising that the pomegranate is an aphrodisiac and may have enticed Adam and Eve to sin.

Is there any known historical doctrine that supports this forbidden fruit interpretation or is this just something concerned mothers tell their children to give them hang- ups

The forbidden fruit was often depicted, in antiquity, as a pomegranate, because pomegranates were a ubiquitous fruit of the ancient world. In the middle ages, in the West, depictions of the forbidden fruit was often that of an apple, apples were a somewhat ubiquitous fruit of the West and additionally the Latin words for "apple" and "evil" are homonyms (malum).

There's no reason to believe that the fruit here was a pomegranate or an apple; these just happen to be common fruits which have been used in artistic representations at different times and places.

Most claims that this or that food is an aphrodisiac is generally not true. Oysters have been claimed to be an aphrodisiac for centuries, but to be perfectly honest, I don't look at a plate of oysters and think "oh, sexy" does anyone?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Growing up I was taught that the 'forbidden fruit' in the Garden of Eden was allegorical and really stood for sexual intercourse and that 'original sin' was connected with intercourse.

That sounds like a distortion of the Augustinian concept of original sin. St. Augustine of Hippo was of the position that Adam's fallen nature was passed down to his offspring, and thus since sex brings offspring into the world, we inherit Adam's original guilt and sin. Sex isn't the problem here, there's nothing wrong with sex since God commanded "Be fruitful and multiply", it's that we inherit a fallen, broken humanity from Adam. Of course Augustine didn't think that sexual intercourse was the original sin, the original sin was human disobedience and hubris.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Major1]

Most guys don't have to be told.
M-Bob

I agree, but Adam being the 1st caught on real quick didn't he!

 

[Abraxos]

Growing up I was taught that the 'forbidden fruit' in the Garden of Eden was allegorical and really stood for sexual intercourse and that 'original sin' was connected with intercourse.

This idea seems to persist. A company called Pom Wonderful sells pomegranate juice and suggests thru advertising that the pomegranate is an aphrodisiac and may have enticed Adam and Eve to sin.

Is there any known historical doctrine that supports this forbidden fruit interpretation or is this just something concerned mothers tell their children to give them hang- ups

You are right, but it was a corruption of what was made pure that caused the fall.

Students of biblical hermeneutics know that even a literal rendering of a passage allows for figurative language considerations when that possibility is plausible. As an example, consider that Jesus declared we must "eat His flesh" and "drink His blood" in order to follow Him (John 6:53). Is that assertion meant to be taken literally? The answer should be obvious. The Bible sometimes does not mean what it says but it always means what it means. The challenge regarding a passage is whether there is an intended meaning, and the way I see it, is that the account of Genesis 3 is both literal with strong metaphorical language. To focus on the forbidden fruit that was eaten, the Bible is quite clear that it is not an apple. And whatever this forbidden fruit was, it ended up eternally damning mankind, Satan, and the entire world. It is also implied elsewhere in the Bible that the original sin was a defilement, a profane action.

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Corruption means decay, and decay has to have started upon which was originally pure or clean. We all agree that this world is decayed and corrupt and becoming more so everyday? So the question is, when did it die? When did it start to stink? Biblically, it started in the Garden. The NT tells us over and over again that this is where is started, this is the fall. Now how did the corruption come into this world? Through the original sin. What was the original sin? Lust. And we understand that the serpent "beguiled" Eve, that leaves potential connotations of sexual seduction. That is not to say that sexual intercourse was forbidden. "Nakedness" in a context is an idiom for having sexual intimacy and Adam and Eve were known to be "naked and felt no shame," which I tend to take it as metaphorical language.

Metaphorical expressions:
- Fruit
- Eating of the fruit
- Nakedness (both literal and metaphorical?)
- Without shame (both literal and metaphorical?)
- Serpent
- Tree of life
- Tree of knowledge of good and evil
- Tree (both literal and metaphorical?)

 

[bbbbbbb]

You are right, but it was a corruption of what was made pure that caused the fall.

Students of biblical hermeneutics know that even a literal rendering of a passage allows for figurative language considerations when that possibility is plausible. As an example, consider that Jesus declared we must "eat His flesh" and "drink His blood" in order to follow Him (John 6:53). Is that assertion meant to be taken literally? The answer should be obvious. The Bible sometimes does not mean what it says but it always means what it means. The challenge regarding a passage is whether there is an intended meaning, and the way I see it, is that the account of Genesis 3 is both literal with strong metaphorical language. To focus on the forbidden fruit that was eaten, the Bible is quite clear that it is not an apple. And whatever this forbidden fruit was, it ended up eternally damning mankind, Satan, and the entire world. It is also implied elsewhere in the Bible that the original sin was a defilement, a profane action.

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Corruption means decay, and decay has to have started upon which was originally pure or clean. We all agree that this world is decayed and corrupt and becoming more so everyday? So the question is, when did it die? When did it start to stink? Biblically, it started in the Garden. The NT tells us over and over again that this is where is started, this is the fall. Now how did the corruption come into this world? Through the original sin. What was the original sin? Lust. And we understand that the serpent "beguiled" Eve, that leaves potential connotations of sexual seduction. That is not to say that sexual intercourse was forbidden. "Nakedness" in a context is an idiom for having sexual intimacy and Adam and Eve were known to be "naked and felt no shame," which I tend to take it as metaphorical language.

Metaphorical expressions:
- Fruit
- Eating of the fruit
- Nakedness (both literal and metaphorical?)
- Without shame (both literal and metaphorical?)
- Serpent
- Tree of life
- Tree of knowledge of good and evil
- Tree (both literal and metaphorical?)

To your list you might also add death. God clearly stated to Adam that "in the day you eat of it (the fruit) you shall surely die". Nobody believes that Adam and Even dropped dead by the end of the day after eating the fruit. Thus, their death, although quite real, was spiritual in nature, followed, in time, by natural death.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You are right, but it was a corruption of what was made pure that caused the fall.

Students of biblical hermeneutics know that even a literal rendering of a passage allows for figurative language considerations when that possibility is plausible. As an example, consider that Jesus declared we must "eat His flesh" and "drink His blood" in order to follow Him (John 6:53). Is that assertion meant to be taken literally? The answer should be obvious. The Bible sometimes does not mean what it says but it always means what it means. The challenge regarding a passage is whether there is an intended meaning, and the way I see it, is that the account of Genesis 3 is both literal with strong metaphorical language. To focus on the forbidden fruit that was eaten, the Bible is quite clear that it is not an apple. And whatever this forbidden fruit was, it ended up eternally damning mankind, Satan, and the entire world. It is also implied elsewhere in the Bible that the original sin was a defilement, a profane action.

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Corruption means decay, and decay has to have started upon which was originally pure or clean. We all agree that this world is decayed and corrupt and becoming more so everyday? So the question is, when did it die? When did it start to stink? Biblically, it started in the Garden. The NT tells us over and over again that this is where is started, this is the fall. Now how did the corruption come into this world? Through the original sin. What was the original sin? Lust. And we understand that the serpent "beguiled" Eve, that leaves potential connotations of sexual seduction. That is not to say that sexual intercourse was forbidden. "Nakedness" in a context is an idiom for having sexual intimacy and Adam and Eve were known to be "naked and felt no shame," which I tend to take it as metaphorical language.

Metaphorical expressions:
- Fruit
- Eating of the fruit
- Nakedness (both literal and metaphorical?)
- Without shame (both literal and metaphorical?)
- Serpent
- Tree of life
- Tree of knowledge of good and evil
- Tree (both literal and metaphorical?)

To your list you might also add death. God clearly stated to Adam that "in the day you eat of it (the fruit) you shall surely die". Nobody believes that Adam and Even dropped dead by the end of the day after eating the fruit. Thus, their death, although quite real, was spiritual in nature, followed, in time, by natural death.

 

[mmksparbud]

double post

 

[mmksparbud]

To your list you might also add death. God clearly stated to Adam that "in the day you eat of it (the fruit) you shall surely die". Nobody believes that Adam and Even dropped dead by the end of the day after eating the fruit. Thus, their death, although quite real, was spiritual in nature, followed, in time, by natural death.

Actually, in the original Hebrew--the word for day is spelled differently --when referring to the evening and mourning and when referring to the day you eat of it. Evening and morning is a 24 hour day---in the day is "in the age"--it can be a much longer unit of time.

DAY {יוֹם / yom} \
and Elohiym called out to the light,day, and to the darkness he called out, night, and evening existed and morning existed, a day unit,

DAY {בְּיוֹם / bê'yom}
but from the tree of discernment of function and dysfunction you will not eat from him, given that in the day you eat from him you will surely die,

 

[Major1]

double post

I liked both of them and agree to both of them!