was it an apple?

[sojournerI]

Mccar 1969,

Glad that you see it's symbolic.
John 8:38,41,42,44 talks about Jesus telling his critics
that their father is the devil.
Is it literal or figurative or could it be both?
Also, Matthew 1: 3,
Now people here say it's symbolic, but are they 100% sure?
It could be both.
One can believe that Christ is Savior and Lord, one can
beleive that all races are good in God's sight, and still
beleive that Cain was not a child of Adam.
And I should add one can believe in three persons in one God and every basic belief you believe and still think that Cain was not Adam's child.
Moses, I believe wrote the first chapters of Genesis, it seems that if God wanted it perfectly clear, it would have been perfectly clear what the fruit is or was.
Perhaps we are to pray about it and eventually learn what it was?
Whatever it was we can trust God enough to know he was fair.

 

[japhy]

out of interest if god knew that they was going to fall, as he knows everything before it happens... wouldnt he make it so they had all their bits....

Well, I think you're agreeing with me -- I'm saying I believe that Adam and Eve did have "all their bits", that they were capable of sexual intercourse and reproduction even before the Fall. I do not believe that sexuality only existed after the Fall, though. The decision to sin was entirely up to Adam and Eve -- God didn't make them sin. So, if they had never sinned, they had the "equipment", and God would not have given them reproductive organs if they were never to be used, so I conclude sexuality was not a result of sin.

I have acquired this line of reasoning from C. S. Lewis.

 

[sojournerI]

Mccar 1969,

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between you and the woman.
And between your SEED and her SEED...."
Who was God talking to? the serpent.
Who is the (talking) serpent ? the devil.

 

[sojournerI]

The idea that the fruit was sex and that Cain was born because Eve had sexual relations with Satan is plain heresy. The Bible clearly states in Gen.4:1 " And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD."

Nowhere does the Bible refer to Cain as the seed of Satan. None from Adam's stock (and we are all from Adam's stock) is ever called the seed of Satan. We become children of Satan, not by birth but by our wrong choices. Cain made the wrong choice and offered what God did not want and refused the counsel of God and slew his brother. He became a follower of Satan.

Yours in Christ,
strongmeat

You breeze into this column, say I'm a heretic, leave half
a Genesis quote and then breeze out never to be
heard from again.
I call you a coward, what do you say about that?
Is the air thin from your lofty perch up there?
We have a saying around here, better not hold your
nose too high, or when it rains you'll drown.

 

[relspace]

Well, I think you're agreeing with me -- I'm saying I believe that Adam and Eve did have "all their bits", that they were capable of sexual intercourse and reproduction even before the Fall. I do not believe that sexuality only existed after the Fall, though. The decision to sin was entirely up to Adam and Eve -- God didn't make them sin. So, if they had never sinned, they had the "equipment", and God would not have given them reproductive organs if they were never to be used, so I conclude sexuality was not a result of sin.

I have acquired this line of reasoning from C. S. Lewis.

Well most of the people who think that the fruit symbolizes sex, think this because they do not believe that God would put something deadly in the Garden just to test Adam and Eve. Therefore, they believe that the fruit represents something that is a part of us and which we are intended to do but only when we reach a certain level of maturity. To put it another way, the two tree represented things which God wished us to accomplish and the order was important. First was the tree of life representing spiritual maturity and eternal life and second was knowledge of good and evil representing parenthood. The first representing the commandment to love God and the second representing the commandment to love each other. When we reach for the second without the first everything is messed up because without a standard of goodness, love can be twisted towards what is wrong and evil.

 

[japhy]

Well most of the people who think that the fruit symbolizes sex, think this because they do not believe that God would put something deadly in the Garden just to test Adam and Eve. Therefore, they believe that the fruit represents something that is a part of us and which we are intended to do but only when we reach a certain level of maturity. To put it another way, the two tree represented things which God wished us to accomplish and the order was important. First was the tree of life representing spiritual maturity and eternal life and second was knowledge of good and evil representing parenthood. The first representing the commandment to love God and the second representing the commandment to love each other. When we reach for the second without the first everything is messed up because without a standard of goodness, love can be twisted towards what is wrong and evil.

That's a very interesting symbological analysis, which, as symbolism goes, I'm not bothered agreeing with. It doesn't speak to obedience, though, which is the primary problem with humanity's relationship to God. The ritual of sacrifice handed down to the Israelites was the precursor to Christ's sacrifice. What God really wanted from the Israelites was obedience, love, and mercy, not their empty sacrifices. They fell into the habit of disobeying and sacrificing, rather than obeying (and thus not having to sacrifice).

Lewis's interpretation in Perelandra, the second of his space trilogy, is that it sounds absurd for God to have placed a tree whose fruit gives one knowledge of good and evil, and then denied us the right to eat of it. Why would God command us not to gain knowledge of good and evil? Who would obey such a silly rule? Lewis explains that it was this rule that needed to be obeyed for obedience's sake: to obey a rule because obeying it is advantageous is just common sense, but obeying a rule simply because you are told... that is obedience.

Weston (Satan) tells the Green Lady (Eve) that God really wants us to break this absurd commandment, to show that we are "grown up" and ready to "stand on our own". Only then, he says, will God see us as adults. Only by breaking God's command can we truly fulfill God's wishes, he tells her. God wouldn't tell us to break the command, because then it wouldn't be us breaking it. He wants us to figure it out on our own, to break the rule on our own. (The book explains it far better than I do here.) This is cunning, this is the deceit of the serpent, telling Eve that she won't die, that she will become wise, become like a god.

Layer whatever symbolism you wish on top of it, but don't obscure the origin of sin: selfishness via disobedience, the desire to achieve one's own will instead of God's.

 

[relspace]

That's a very interesting symbological analysis, which, as symbolism goes, I'm not bothered agreeing with. It doesn't speak to obedience, though, which is the primary problem with humanity's relationship to God. The ritual of sacrifice handed down to the Israelites was the precursor to Christ's sacrifice. What God really wanted from the Israelites was obedience, love, and mercy, not their empty sacrifices. They fell into the habit of disobeying and sacrificing, rather than obeying (and thus not having to sacrifice).

You are absolutely right, but the question of obedience doesn't enter into the question of whether the fruit is literal because the role of obedience is really unaffected by it. Frankly I do not think that God wants obedience per say, at least He has no need of it for His own sake. What God really want's is our own good, for which obedience is the most direct means of achieving it. We were not created to exist without God as our shepherd and teacher and that is why without Him we are doomed.

We were created to make our own choices and to determine our own destiny. We are not automatons. But we were also created finite and that is why we cannot make it on our own forever. As finite beings our own knowledge and ability can only carry us so far and no farther. Sure we can learn new things ourselves, so we do partake of a potential for the infinite. But there are pitfalls and mistakes that lead to the destruction this potential and so unless we make all the right choices we will fail, and since the path is infinite, without God that failure is inevitable. Furthermore, learning does not occur in a vacuum, so from what shall we learn on an infinite path except the one thing or person, rather, who is infinite.

Lewis's interpretation in Perelandra, the second of his space trilogy, is that it sounds absurd for God to have placed a tree whose fruit gives one knowledge of good and evil, and then denied us the right to eat of it. Why would God command us not to gain knowledge of good and evil? Who would obey such a silly rule? Lewis explains that it was this rule that needed to be obeyed for obedience's sake: to obey a rule because obeying it is advantageous is just common sense, but obeying a rule simply because you are told... that is obedience.

God's commandment does not have to be meaningless in it own right in order for all the same issues of obedience to be in play. In fact, parents have their hands full with all the important neccessary commandments they have to give their children without having to make up new ones that have no inherent purpose, just to test them. A parent gives commandments to protect his/her children from things that will hurt them, that is why disobedience is so terrible.

The most effective teachers and parents don't waste time with obedience, they simply expect it and they certainly do not test it. By testing obedience you prove that your commandments are sometimes meaningless and it suggests that your commands may not worth obeying because it shows that you are more concerned with the obedience itself than with the reason why obedience is required.

Weston (Satan) tells the Green Lady (Eve) that God really wants us to break this absurd commandment, to show that we are "grown up" and ready to "stand on our own". Only then, he says, will God see us as adults. Only by breaking God's command can we truly fulfill God's wishes, he tells her. God wouldn't tell us to break the command, because then it wouldn't be us breaking it. He wants us to figure it out on our own, to break the rule on our own. (The book explains it far better than I do here.) This is cunning, this is the deceit of the serpent, telling Eve that she won't die, that she will become wise, become like a god.

Yes, Weston is using double talk to twist things around, but the idea that the commandment is just a test is also double talk to some degree. If we really clear away the nonsense and double talk, then God would not give a commandment that had no real importance (and obedience itself does not count) and we would not question whether to take it seriously.

Layer whatever symbolism you wish on top of it, but don't obscure the origin of sin: selfishness via disobedience, the desire to achieve one's own will instead of God's.

Well I disagree. Sin has no fixed pattern such that it must begin with selfishness or disobedience. Everybody finds sin in their own unique way. Sins are just habit forming behaviors that destroy our free will. But the lack of God's guidance does makes it inevitable that we will choose such behaviors of our own free will simply because we do not have the forsight to see the consequences of our actions. As I said before, we were not made to live happily (eternally) without the guidance of God.

P.S. I have a copy of those books by C. S. Lewis on my shelf. I am a fan.

 

[japhy]

You are absolutely right, but the question of obedience doesn't enter into the question of whether the fruit is literal because the role of obedience is really unaffected by it. Frankly I do not think that God wants obedience per se, at least He has no need of it for His own sake.

I disagree with you. The Mosaic covenant was comprised of many commandments that God expected the Jews to follow. Because they failed to follow them, sacrifice rituals were instituted. As Lev. 17:11 states: Since the life of a living body is in its blood, I have made you put it on the altar, so that atonement may thereby be made for your own lives, because it is the blood, as the seat of life, that makes atonement. Atonement requires a blood sacrifice. The Jews got hung up on this, they thought God sought sacrifice. But through the prophets, God told them differently. God seeks obedience, love, and mercy:

• 1 Samuel 15:15-23; 21:2-7
• Jeremiah 7:1-23
• Psalm 40:7-9
• Proverbs 21:3
• Eccl. 4:17
• Hosea 3:1; 6:6
• Micah 6:8

Sin has no fixed pattern such that it must begin with selfishness or disobedience.

Jesus was without sin because he was completely obedient to God's will. In obedience to God's will we won't commit sin. When we sin, it is because we are disobeying God's will. Sin is breaking God's commandments. By disobeying God's will, we are obeying some other will, usually our own, which is what I meant by selfishness. We are withholding from God that which we owe Him.

But I do not think this is an issue of contention or something we should argue about. Apple or not, our ancestors opened the door to sin, and we are sinners.

 

[relspace]

I disagree with you.

I cannot respond because you did not really respond to all of what I was saying. It would be pointless just to repeat myself.

Jesus was without sin because he was completely obedient to God's will. In obedience to God's will we won't commit sin.

Absolutely. I said as much myself.

When we sin, it is because we are disobeying God's will. Sin is breaking God's commandments.

And yet Jesus revealed that these commandments are not arbitrary. There is not only a reason behind them but we have to see and understand those reasons so that we obey the spirit of the law and not just obey legalistically as the Pharisees did.

And so I was speaking to the reason behind what makes these things such that God would forbid them and not simply the superficial definition of the word sin.

By disobeying God's will, we are obeying some other will, usually our own, which is what I meant by selfishness.

For Adam and Eve sin began with disobedience because God was a part of their life and gave them a commandment. But since they refused God and followed Lucifer, this relationship with God was severed. It is only through Christ that the personal relationship with God is restored.

So after the fall sin need not begin with disobedience for every person, for many have received no law from God which they might disobey. Besides, there are many pitfalls which are not among the 10 commandments. Drug abuse is a particularly devastating example, that will destroy a person's potential for goodness as surely and completely as any of those forbidden in the 10 commandments.

We are withholding from God that which we owe Him.

It is not a matter of debt. It is a matter of love and trust. What do you think of a parent that brow beats his/her children with how much they owe him/her? When a child obeys his/her parent is it really a matter of debt? NO, it is a matter of love and trust. We should trust that God knows best and that is why we should obey Him, not because of any debt.

But I do not think this is an issue of contention or something we should argue about. Apple or not, our ancestors opened the door to sin, and we are sinners.

I agree. It is a matter for speculation only. It is not an essential and so answers to this question are not something we need (or should) put any faith in. If we have need to know about this, God will make it clear to us.

 

[markyg]

It clearly says TREE and FRUIT an EAT

Anyone (well almost...) can put together A Tree in a garden, fruit of the tree, eating of the fruit on the tree as being..... well... a tree...... with fruit!!!!

God called it THE tree of knowledge. THE imlipes ONE, one tree, therefore when adam and eve were cast out there would not have been this tree out of the garden.

In Noah's days when God flooded the earth, the tree would have been destroyed. I doubt very much that God would have brought forth the tree again.

So my opinion is that the fruit does not exist anymore.

p.s
As Christians we should be setting an example for others who may be browsing these forums, who maybe searching for Christ, do your posts show God's love that we should give to one another? Just remember,
Ephesians 4: 32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

 

[strongmeat]

You breeze into this column, say I'm a heretic, leave half
a Genesis quote and then breeze out never to be
heard from again.
I call you a coward, what do you say about that?
Is the air thin from your lofty perch up there?
We have a saying around here, better not hold your
nose too high, or when it rains you'll drown.

I believe that this thread is coming to a conclusion but I felt it necessary to respond to these unkind remarks. sojourner1, I was not responding nor thinking of you when I made my post. I happen to be very familiar with the doctrines of the William Branham cult because I have close friends who are in it (indeed one of my fellow employees is in this cult). I know what sister mccar1969 was referring to when she asked her question and I responded accordingly. Whether Branham originated this heresy that Cain was born because Eve had sexual relations with Satan (and I maintain it is heresy) or someone else I do not know.But I had Branham in mind. If you look back at the post I said the idea was heresy. I never called you a heretic. I couldn't do that; I hardly know you or what you believe.

Sister mccar1969 agreed with what I said and others said the same thing in different words. You responded to my post by stating that nowhere in the Bible does it say that Cain is Adam's offspring, and that Cain was not in Adam's lineage. Post 38 ( by mccar1969) and post 39 (by japhy) dealt with both issues quite well. In fact japhy's post was so excellent that I felt no need to respond further or to use your language no need to breeze back in. That does not mean that I was not following the thread.

I would advise you to think before you speak or write and do not give place to anger so easily. This is not the first time you had such an outburst. You said quite uncharitable things about everyone in post 26.Let me refresh your memory by quoting your words:

Okay so it's obvious that no one here knows or studies
the Bible.
You don't back up your beliefs with actual documentation. How pathetic is that?
So for you I'll say, Oh, okay it was an apple. Yeah,
an apple or maybe a fig. This requires no thought
at all just blabber any ole thing and don't crack open
a Bible where you have to actually dig into the word.
Just spew out " heresy " or say " science fiction".
Wow, this forum is soooo informative.
I get more out of watching paint dry.

We all make mistakes. So sister I forgive you. We come here hopefully to learn from each other. No one can force their views upon anyone else. Ultimately it is the indwelling Holy Spirit (the resident boss) who has to impart His truth to us. God bless.

Yours in Christ,
strongmeat

 

[sojournerI]

I believe that this thread is coming to a conclusion but I felt it necessary to respond to these unkind remarks. sojourner1, I was not responding nor thinking of you when I made my post. I happen to be very familiar with the doctrines of the William Branham cult because I have close friends who are in it (indeed one of my fellow employees is in this cult). I know what sister mccar1969 was referring to when she asked her question and I responded accordingly. Whether Branham originated this heresy that Cain was born because Eve had sexual relations with Satan (and I maintain it is heresy) or someone else I do not know.But I had Branham in mind. If you look back at the post I said the idea was heresy. I never called you a heretic. I couldn't do that; I hardly know you or what you believe.

Sister mccar1969 agreed with what I said and others said the same thing in different words. You responded to my post by stating that nowhere in the Bible does it say that Cain is Adam's offspring, and that Cain was not in Adam's lineage. Post 38 ( by mccar1969) and post 39 (by japhy) dealt with both issues quite well. In fact japhy's post was so excellent that I felt no need to respond further or to use your language no need to breeze back in. That does not mean that I was not following the thread.

I would advise you to think before you speak or write and do not give place to anger so easily. This is not the first time you had such an outburst. You said quite uncharitable things about everyone in post 26.Let me refresh your memory by quoting your words:




We all make mistakes. So sister I forgive you. We come here hopefully to learn from each other. No one can force their views upon anyone else. Ultimately it is the indwelling Holy Spirit (the resident boss) who has to impart His truth to us. God bless.

Yours in Christ,
strongmeat

1. a person that speaks heresy is called a heretic.
You called what I said heresy.
So yes, you called me a heretic.

2. I don't know who this person is that you spoke of
and I clearly said so in one of my earlier posts.
Not only am I not a follower of this person but I don't
know or have never heard of him aside from this forum.

3. Just because some posters say something contrary to what I say doesn't mean they are right and I am wrong. I provided proof, chapter and verse but they're not interested, so, so be it.

4. Yes, this topic is comming to an end. You all have decided the fruit is literal so that's the end of it.

5. I will be gracious about your forgiveness and I do like wise forgive you your harsh words.

 

[stratt]

I think it may have been marajuana.... it says it is the fruit of a tree... not that it is fruit... meaning it is what the tree produces... also it says that the tree of life was guarded against but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was never said to be taken away... it probably is still around. Plus "tree" is a broad term.

 

[CavFan]

The Bible doesn't say what type of fruit it was. All we know is that it looked good.