was it an apple?

[sojournerI]

If you read the Apocrypha it states that it was a fig.

I agree with the others though, what the fruit was is not of much signifigance when compared to what it represented.

Which book in the apocrypha are you talking about, so I can read it also?
Does it collaberate with a quote from the Bible?
Documentation, please.

 

[strongmeat]

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

 

[mccar1969]

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

That is my point exactly i agree with you , but they twist certain scriptures, and say you have to be have the holy ghost to see between the lines as to what the bible was actually saying ..... why wasnt cain named in the lineage ?

 

[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

Strongmeat,

Gensis 4:2: says, "Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel." It sounds like twins. It doesn't say Cain
was Adam's son.
No where in the Bible does it say that the tree of good
and evil was figs or apples .
No where in the Bible does it say that Cain is
Adam's offspring.
It says that Eve conceived and bore Cain and then bore again.
Cain isn't in Adam's lineage. Explain that, if you can.
Seth is in Adam's lineage and Able was murdered had
had no offspring; so where is Cain in Adam's lineage ?
In John 8;38 41,42,44, Why is their father the
devil? Literal or figurative ?
Since Moses wrote Genesis and it does not say plainly
what the fruit of the tree of good and evil was in the
Bible; my interpetation is at least just as good
as yours.
AND
I don't belong to some cult or religion that Mcar69 is refering to. I never heard of it before.
The basic principal is that the fruit of the
tree is disobedience.

 

[relspace]

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.

I don't know about heresy but it is clearly not Biblical. I don't even buy the case that is made that Genesis 6:2-4 is talking about angels having relationships with women, and I certainly don't believe that such a union could bear children. I think that this is the worst sort of nonsense that turns the Bible into some kind of science fiction.

The same Hebrew term "beney ha' elohim" translated "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2-4 is also used in Deuteronomy 14:1 and Deuternomy 32:8 to refer to the Israelites. It refers to those of mankind whom God has chosen and calls His children and in whom the hope refered to in Romans 8:19 resides and is finally realized in us who through Christ are restored to parent-child relationship with God. The passages in Job and the Psalms which are used to support the idea that this term refers to the angles are far from clear and the whole idea contradicts the statement of God in Hebrews 1:5 that God never called an angel His son, but in Hebrews 1:14 that the angles were never more than servants ("ministering spirits").

But this is a different issue entirely from whether the fruit symbolizes sex or is a literal fruit like an apple or a fig.

 

[sojournerI]

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 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.

 

[relspace]

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 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.

Well you obviously must have a well formed opinion to get so riled up. When I said the above I did not even know that you believe this stuff about Cain being the son of Lucifer so I didn't realize that dismissing it out of hand (like I thought any rational person would) would upset you so much.

You complain about ignoring the Bible and then you do the same yourself. I did back up my statements with references to the Bible which you ignored. So you lied.

It is an unbeleivable stretch to claim that Genesis 4 does not say that Cain was a result of the union of Adam and Eve. You are standing on quicksand. People do not talk like that. We do not say, "I went to the grocery store and bought a knife", if we actually bought the knife at a hardware store. So also it is utterly unnatural for the Bible to say that Eve conceived and bore Cain unless the conception was the conception of Cain. Eve said after bearing Cain, "I have aquired a man from the Lord". Nothing here is consistent with your idea that Cain came from a sexual union of Eve and Lucifer. At the very least you must admit that your belief is far fetched.

Was Cain a giant? Were Cain and Abel only half brothers? Nothing like this is indicated in the Bible. Cain killed his brother Abel because there was no love in that family. When God asked Adam what he had done, he said it was that woman you gave me; she did it.

What about Canaan, the son of Noah, who was also cursed? Was he a child of Lucifer (in the literal sense) too? Was Lucifer also playing around with Noah's wife? This is a terrible explanation of evil in the world, with no responsibility just genetics.

We are all children of the devil because Adam and Eve chose to obey Lucifer rather than God, and instead of taking responsibility for this they passed the buck to Lucifer. By doing this they made Lucifer their father and master - ruler of the world of men. So the Bible says that none are righteous not one. In Genesis 6 it says that all men were evil continuously. It does not say that only the descendents of Cain were evil. Seth had many descendents but God only found one that was worth saving.

Science fiction is when the things in this world are given fantastic explanations, like, "We are warlike not because we are sinful and foolish but because we have Klingon DNA." If evil is just about genetics then as far as I am concerned the whole question of good and evil is just a fairy tale and B grade entertainment, for it has no relevance to real life. Evil is about insensitivity. It is the pursuit of ones desires with a total disregard for the well being of others. It is a choice we have to make all the time, just as it was a choice that Adam and Eve made.

By contrast your explanation for evil is not the failure to obey God but genetic pollution. This belief sounds like an obvious justification for racism and hatred by demonizing certain human beings and that is utterly comtemptable. It is certainly not an explanation of evil that provides any useful discernment to help people avoid it.

 

[sojournerI]

Well you obviously must have a well formed opinion to get so riled up. When I said the above I did not even know that you believe this stuff about Cain being the son of Lucifer so I didn't realize that dismissing it out of hand (like I thought any rational person would) would upset you so much.

You complain about ignoring the Bible and then you do the same yourself. I did back up my statements with references to the Bible which you ignored. So you lied.

It is an unbeleivable stretch to claim that Genesis 4 does not say that Cain was a result of the union of Adam and Eve. You are standing on quicksand. People do not talk like that. We do not say, "I went to the grocery store and bought a knife", if we actually bought the knife at a hardware store. So also it is utterly unnatural for the Bible to say that Eve conceived and bore Cain unless the conception was the conception of Cain. Eve said after bearing Cain, "I have aquired a man from the Lord". Nothing here is consistent with your idea that Cain came from a sexual union of Eve and Lucifer. At the very least you must admit that your belief is far fetched.

Was Cain a giant? Were Cain and Abel only half brothers? Nothing like this is indicated in the Bible. Cain killed his brother Abel because there was no love in that family. When God asked Adam what he had done, he said it was that woman you gave me; she did it.

What about Canaan, the son of Noah, who was also cursed? Was he a child of Lucifer (in the literal sense) too? Was Lucifer also playing around with Noah's wife? This is a terrible explanation of evil in the world, with no responsibility just genetics.

We are all children of the devil because Adam and Eve chose to obey Lucifer rather than God, and instead of taking responsibility for this they passed the buck to Lucifer. By doing this they made Lucifer their father and master - ruler of the world of men. So the Bible says that none are righteous not one. In Genesis 6 it says that all men were evil continuously. It does not say that only the descendents of Cain were evil. Seth had many descendents but God only found one that was worth saving.

Science fiction is when the things in this world are given fantastic explanations, like, "We are warlike not because we are sinful and foolish but because we have Klingon DNA." If evil is just about genetics then as far as I am concerned the whole question of good and evil is just a fairy tale and B grade entertainment, for it has no relevance to real life. Evil is about insensitivity. It is the pursuit of ones desires with a total disregard for the well being of others. It is a choice we have to make all the time, just as it was a choice that Adam and Eve made.

By contrast your explanation for evil is not the failure to obey God but genetic pollution. This belief sounds like an obvious justification for racism and hatred by demonizing certain human beings and that is utterly comtemptable. It is certainly not an explanation of evil that provides
any useful discernment to help people avoid it.

One of the rules of this forum is to stay on topic. The topic is, was the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil an apple? I provided bibical verses to cast some doubt on
the apple theory.
You started about another part of Genesis regarding the sons of God and the daughters of men. I'm not going to get into that and I couldn't be paid enough to get into that.
So all those Bibical references you provided were off topic.
I'm sorry I apparently upset you ( I really am ). The fig theory works for a lot of people and they defend it
religiously.
Pardon me for calling it a theory, though, as there is no specfic fruit stated in the Bible as to what the fruit was.
I'd rather not get into this dicussion any longer, so unless I'm attacked again, I'm bowing out.

 

[relspace]

One of the rules of this forum is to stay on topic. The topic is, was the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil an apple? I provided bibical verses to cast some doubt on
the apple theory.

Why should I refute your argument that the fruit symbolizes sex when I agree with you on that point. I made that clear from my very first post. I entered this discussion to point out that this idea of the fruit representing sex has an older more legitimate source in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I wasn't the one who brought up this idea of Cain being a product of the union of Eve and Lucifer. I first responded to the post by strongmeat on this topic to point out that these were two completely different issues, and that I for example believe only the point about the fruit representing sex and not the idea that Cain was a product of the union of Eve and Lucifer.

You started about another part of Genesis regarding the sons of God and the daughters of men. I'm not going to get into that and I couldn't be paid enough to get into that.
So all those Bibical references you provided were off topic.

But you seem to be like a chicken with its head cutoff. First you get so upset at me for what? I had to presume it was concerning the lineage of Cain. And then you tell me that this is off topic and you are not interested in discussing it. Are you or aren't you? Make up your mind. But if you are, what in the world would make you think that angels and humans could have offspring?

I'm sorry I apparently upset you ( I really am ). The fig theory works for a lot of people and they defend it
religiously.

And here I thought it was you who were upset. But I suppose you throw around accustions like "Okay so it's obvious that no one here knows or studies the Bible", just as a joke. When you call people "pathetic", you were just kidding? So since you were not upset then saying that our words are "just blabber" was intended to offend everyone because you like stiring things up? Oh and of course the pompous accusation that we "don't crack open a Bible" was just a strategy of rhetoric? You compare the other participants in the discussion to "watching paint dry" just because you enjoy ridiculing people?

I tried to put a good spin on your behavior by assuming you were upset but if you wish to deny this that is your business.

I'd rather not get into this dicussion any longer, so unless I'm attacked again, I'm bowing out.

I am sorry if I frightened you off. You are certainly free to interpret the Bible however you choose no matter what Biblical evidence and rational arguments we raise to the contrary.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Very correct the Bible does not tell, though since this tree was in the garden and the garden was removed before the flood we can be reasonably sure that that fruit does not exist on earth and we will not know what it was until we get to heaven.

It is interesting to note they made a covering from a fig tree leaf and after the flood, a dove came back with an Olive Leaf/branch in its mouth. Wonder why those specific ones are mentioned a lot in the Bible? Thoughts?

Gene 3:7 And they are opening eyes of both of them, and they are knowing that they are naked ones/`eyrom, and they are sewing leaf of fig tree and they are making for themselves girdles.

Genesis 8:11 and the dove cometh in unto him at even-time, and lo, an olive leaf torn off in her mouth; and Noah knoweth that the waters have been lightened from off the earth.

Zechariah 4:3 and two olive-trees [are] by it, one on the right of the bowl, and one on its left.'

 

[relspace]

That is my point exactly i agree with you , but they twist certain scriptures, and say you have to be have the holy ghost to see between the lines as to what the bible was actually saying ..... why wasnt cain named in the lineage ?

Yes, I noticed that.

Well Abel was not mentioned either, so I think that Cain like Abel was lost to them. Furthermore, this geneology is tracing the lineage of one person, Noah, and Cain is not in the lineage of Noah. Noah is clearly not the only descendent of Seth, so there are a lot of people who are not mentioned in this geneology. So I think the fact that Cain is not mentioned in this geneology has nothing to do with whether Cain is a son of Adam.

 

[sojournerI]

Well you obviously must have a well formed opinion to get so riled up. When I said the above I did not even know that you believe this stuff about Cain being the son of Lucifer so I didn't realize that dismissing it out of hand (like I thought any rational person would) would upset you so much.

You complain about ignoring the Bible and then you do the same yourself. I did back up my statements with references to the Bible which you ignored. So you lied.

It is an unbeleivable stretch to claim that Genesis 4 does not say that Cain was a result of the union of Adam and Eve. You are standing on quicksand. People do not talk like that. We do not say, "I went to the grocery store and bought a knife", if we actually bought the knife at a hardware store. So also it is utterly unnatural for the Bible to say that Eve conceived and bore Cain unless the conception was the conception of Cain. Eve said after bearing Cain, "I have aquired a man from the Lord". Nothing here is consistent with your idea that Cain came from a sexual union of Eve and Lucifer. At the very least you must admit that your belief is far fetched.

Was Cain a giant? Were Cain and Abel only half brothers? Nothing like this is indicated in the Bible. Cain killed his brother Abel because there was no love in that family. When God asked Adam what he had done, he said it was that woman you gave me; she did it.

What about Canaan, the son of Noah, who was also cursed? Was he a child of Lucifer (in the literal sense) too? Was Lucifer also playing around with Noah's wife? This is a terrible explanation of evil in the world, with no responsibility just genetics.

We are all children of the devil because Adam and Eve chose to obey Lucifer rather than God, and instead of taking responsibility for this they passed the buck to Lucifer. By doing this they made Lucifer their father and master - ruler of the world of men. So the Bible says that none are righteous not one. In Genesis 6 it says that all men were evil continuously. It does not say that only the descendents of Cain were evil. Seth had many descendents but God only found one that was worth saving.

Science fiction is when the things in this world are given fantastic explanations, like, "We are warlike not because we are sinful and foolish but because we have Klingon DNA." If evil is just about genetics then as far as I am concerned the whole question of good and evil is just a fairy tale and B grade entertainment, for it has no relevance to real life. Evil is about insensitivity. It is the pursuit of ones desires with a total disregard for the well being of others. It is a choice we have to make all the time, just as it was a choice that Adam and Eve made.

By contrast your explanation for evil is not the failure to obey God but genetic pollution. This belief sounds like an obvious justification for racism and hatred by demonizing certain human beings and that is utterly comtemptable. It is certainly not an explanation of evil that provides any useful discernment to help people avoid it.

Relspace;
I quoted your former column to refresh my memory.
You agreed with me that the fruit of the tree of g & e
was sex???
I missed that; what I read that i was a nut job or an
antichrist for even bringing it up!
Okay, I don't agree with you that we are all children of the devil.
See how I said that? I didn't call anybody names or yell
heresy.
If you seriously want a Bible study on the fruit of the tree of g & e I can't provide that; I am not a pastor.
I will not discuss off topic, either.
What am I ? I'm a sheep of the pasture, traveling thru
very rocky ground and brambles in this forum.

 

[sojournerI]

Why should I refute your argument that the fruit symbolizes sex when I agree with you on that point. I made that clear from my very first post. I entered this discussion to point out that this idea of the fruit representing sex has an older more legitimate source in the Eastern Orthodox Church.


Just to be very clear, I think it was much more about blind ambition then sex as Gen. 3:6 says "....and a tree desirable to make one wise...."
And this is off topic but Abel was not mentioned in the
lineage because he was murdered. He had no offspring.
He was not in the seed line from which Christ came through.
Noah was mentioned in Christ's lineage. Cain wasn't
in Christ's lineage.
.

 

[sojournerI]

when eve ate the fruit was it really an apple ?
was it just a type?

Isn't that a picture of that movie star, Hannah whosit,
use to date JFK Jr ?

 

[relspace]

Relspace;
I quoted your former column to refresh my memory.
You agreed with me that the fruit of the tree of g & e
was sex???
I missed that;

Well since you have some trouble finding my first post, I will quote part of it for you here.

I certainly understand. I was a member of Moon's church for about fifteen years and my wife is still a member. Moon also had this same belief about the fruit representing sex, and that is a belief which I still think is true. I found out here in this forum, however, that this idea has much older and more respectable origins in the Eastern Orthodox church.

I certainly respect your choice to change your mind on this issue to the belief that it was a real fruit. But I thought that I should point out that this is not an essential of Christian doctrine so it is not an issue which decides whether one is a Christian or not.

As you see I had a similar experience to the OP but still retain the belief that the fruit is symbolic and wanted to point out that this belief was in the range of Christian belief.

what I read that i was a nut job or an
antichrist for even bringing it up!

Well if you are going to read words like that into other people's posts then no wonder you keep getting upset.

Okay, I don't agree with you that we are all children of the devil.

Well I don't believe that any of humankind are literally children of the devil. I was explaining why Jesus made that accusation during His ministry as you quoted him. I was explaining that it was not meant in any genetic sense of the word but as a consequence of the choice of Adam and Eve. When they chose to follow Lucifer rather than God they chose to be Lucifer's children rather than God's children. The Pharisees were doing the same thing again when they conspired against Jesus, choosing to follow the whispers of Satan rather than the word of God.

God chose members of the human race and claimed them for His children, as it specifically says in Deuteronomy 14:1 that He so chose the Israelites. Paul explains in Romans 8, however, that these are really only those in whom the hope lived, but that all creation waited in eager longing for the true revealing of the sons of God that is only found in us, who through Christ, have been adopted as sons (Gal 4:5).

See how I said that? I didn't call anybody names or yell
heresy.

Yes you are doing much better. And to quote the one time that I used the word heresy:

I don't know about heresy but it is clearly not Biblical.

You see that although I agreed with strongmeat's interpretation of Genesis 4, I was not agreeing with his use of the word heresy.

It is usually a mistake to lump people together and it helps to respond only to the post you quote. If you do it piece by piece as I am doing it helps you focus on what the other person is saying and not jump to unwaranted conclusions.

If you seriously want a Bible study on the fruit of the tree of g & e I can't provide that; I am not a pastor.

Well this is a place of discussion. You can participate or not but I think any discussion of the the Bible and its interpretation should be serious rather than careless don't you think? I may have a seminary degree but I am not called to be a pastor (not yet at least), and the education counts for nothing really, the only real authority comes from the Holy Spirit which resides in all of us don't you think? The pastor of my church has no formal education but I think He knows the scriptures better than I do.

What am I ? I'm a sheep of the pasture, traveling thru
very rocky ground and brambles in this forum.

Trust in the Lord rather than in yourself and you have nothing to fear. We are all stupid sheep, but we have a wise shepherd.

We are like dogs groveling at the master's table, waiting to see if He has some use for us. He may have no real need for us but out of love He will not only feed us but He will find something for us to do.

 

[mccar1969]

If it was a fig (apple, etc.) then why didn't the Bible say it was a fruit/fig/apple tree?
Genesis i:29 says " And God said, " See I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food".
And---
Genesis 2:9; And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

The tree of life and the tree of good and evil are written separately from the other trees .


Genesis 3:6; So when the woman saw that the tree was
good for food ......"

God had already established that all the fig and apple trees were good for food, " she saw that the tree was good for food"...seems like "good for food" was a secondary purpose.
" that it was pleasnat to the eyes, "
Question: why would God make anything ugly? Seems to be justifing on Eve's part.
here's the kicker: " and a tree desirable to make one wise..."
I wish just eating a regular fig or apple would make humans wise!
Okay, so if anyone disagrees ( or agrees ) with me, tell me where I've missed it.

i agree i dont think it could be actual fruit

 

[mccar1969]

Okay, I couldn't post this answer with your link; rules of the powers that be. ( I don't have enough posts )
I went to the link and I'll have to try later when I have more time; the website wouldn't click to the explaination of who the watchman group or person was.
If you say you were in some type of Jim Jones group, I beleive you. Glad you're out.
Beleive whatever you want, but you can't prove what the tree of good and evil is (or isn't) and apparently no one else that has written here can.
It is plausable that the tree of good and evil was about Eve being wholly seduced.
It is written that Jesus said of some that their father was the devil, not Abraham.
If you need me to look it up for you I will. I use to think that Jesus was speaking figuratively but since it wasn't
a parable then it is just as plausable that he meant it literally.
If someone can prove me wrong-go for it; I'm listening.
Also, you are right, Cain was not in Adam's genealogy.
Don't you find that odd?
I can understand your feeling though with the other stuff your ex-leader taught. Of course sons of Cain can be saved as Jesus said " whom so ever" and he came to save the lost.
Another thing I don't beleive in is the rapture and you are right not to beleive it. It says in the Bible that the evil one will come first not Jesus.
I'm going to that website when I have more time and look it over;( the link you provided) I'm afraid though, it's filled with hate so I won't linger too long.

you said 'It is written that Jesus said of some that their father was the devil, not Abraham'...................

can u look it up for me please? and who do u mean by their father?

 

[mccar1969]

Strongmeat,

Gensis 4:2: says, "Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel." It sounds like twins. It doesn't say Cain
was Adam's son.
No where in the Bible does it say that the tree of good
and evil was figs or apples .
No where in the Bible does it say that Cain is
Adam's offspring.
It says that Eve conceived and bore Cain and then bore again.
Cain isn't in Adam's lineage. Explain that, if you can.
Seth is in Adam's lineage and Able was murdered had
had no offspring; so where is Cain in Adam's lineage ?
In John 8;38 41,42,44, Why is their father the
devil? Literal or figurative ?
Since Moses wrote Genesis and it does not say plainly
what the fruit of the tree of good and evil was in the
Bible; my interpetation is at least just as good
as yours.
AND
I don't belong to some cult or religion that Mcar69 is refering to. I never heard of it before.
The basic principal is that the fruit of the
tree is disobedience.

you said' 'No where in the Bible does it say that Cain is Adam's offspring.''

Doesnt Genesis 4 :1 say ' Adam knew eve his wife and she conceived and bore Cain.... ( doesnt that make Cain Adams offspring )????

 

[japhy]

Was the fruit an apple?
The Bible as we know it does not define the type of fruit, so no one can know based on the Bible whether the fruit was an apple, or a fig, or a pear, or even what we would consider "fruit". Perhaps the best argument for the fruit being an apple is that, of the seven times I can see "apple" in the Bible, five times it is in the expression "apple of my/your/his eye".

• Deut. 32:10b: He shielded [Israel] and cared for them, guarding them as the apple of his eye. God guards His people like the apple of his eye.
• Psalm 17:8: Keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings. The apple of God's eye is hidden in the shadow of His wings.
• Proverbs 7:2: Keep my commands and live, my teaching as the apple of your eye. The apple of your eye should not be disobedience (as in breaking God's command and eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge) but obedience.
• Sirach 17:17 (apocrypha for some of you): A man's goodness God cherishes like a signet ring, a man's virtue, like the apple of his eye. God cherishes a man's virtue like the apple of His eye. Was not the tree of knowledge held in particular regard by God, that He would make such a decree for them not to partake of its fruit?
• Zech. 2:12: For thus said the LORD of hosts (after he had already sent me) concerning the nations that have plundered you: Whoever touches you touches the apple of my eye. Whatever nations plunder Zion touch the apple of God's eye, and God in turn hands those nations over to their slaves to be plundered (Zech 2:13). See how God reacts to those who touch the apple of His eye?

So those could be arguments for the fruit of the tree being an apple. The phrase "apple of my eye" appears to have originated in the Old Testament. But someone could do a study of "fig" or "olive" and find in the Bible reasons for one of them to be interpreted as the fruit. But it really doesn't matter for your salvation.

Was the result of the fruit sex?
I don't believe the "fruit" or "result" was sexuality, since God says to Eve "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing" (Gen. 3:16) which means he will make childbearing more painful. This gives me the impression that, had Adam and Eve not disobeyed, childbirth would have been a painless (or much less painful) experience. Also, we have no reason to believe that upon eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that Adam and Eve grew the organs of sexual reproduction. What I mean is, we have no reason to believe they weren't already equipped with the male and female sexual organs (testicles, sperm, ovaries, uterus, etc.) and that they would not have engaged in sex anyway.

Was Cain a son of Adam or not?
Please look harder at the geneology! The relevant portion of Gen. 5:1-4 reads thus:

This is the record of the descendants of Adam. [...] Adam was one hundred and thirty years old when he begot a son in his likeness, after his image; and he named him Seth. Adam lived eight hundred years after the birth of Seth, and he had other sons and daughters.
​

So why do you feel that, since Cain's name was left out, he wasn't Adam's son? The other ancestors of Noah (who is the target person of the genelogies in Gen. 5) are treated similarly. We are not told the sons named in this list are the first-born sons, so don't assume it. All we know is that this is the lineage from Noah back to Adam. We know who Noah's father, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc. are, but we don't know the names of his brothers, uncles, great-uncles, etc. That doesn't mean he didn't have them, or that they were "of the devil", it means their names weren't listed in these 32 verses of this one book of the Bible.

Whose father is the devil?
In John 8:31-47, which contains the oft-quoted "the truth will set you free", Jesus says to a group of Jews who do not believe him:

"You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44)
​

Compare this with the first letter of John:

Whoever sins belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinned from the beginning. Indeed, the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot sin because he is begotten by God. In this way, the children of God and the children of the devil are made plain; no one who fails to act in righteousness belongs to God, nor anyone who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:8-10)
​

What the letter means is that, when sinning, we are doing the work of Satan -- Satan is our "father". Clearly, I was not born of Satan, I was born of my human mother and father. But when we act, we are doing the will of either God or Satan; whoever we choose (for we cannot serve two masters) is our "father" in that sense. When we repent and do not sin, we are doing the will of our rightful father, God. So, in the gospel, Jesus is not denying that the Jews are Abraham's descendants -- he admits that explicitly in verse 37 ("I know that you are descendants of Abraham.") -- but he is saying that they are not acting like children of Abraham:

They answered and said to him, "Our father is Abraham." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works of Abraham. But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God; Abraham did not do this. You are doing the works of your father!" (John 8:39-41a)
​

They are not behaving like children of Abraham, let alone like children of God!

I'm here all evening...
Remember to tip your waiters. Who else wants an answer?

 

[mccar1969]

Was the fruit an apple?
The Bible as we know it does not define the type of fruit, so no one can know based on the Bible whether the fruit was an apple, or a fig, or a pear, or even what we would consider "fruit". Perhaps the best argument for the fruit being an apple is that, of the seven times I can see "apple" in the Bible, five times it is in the expression "apple of my/your/his eye".

• Deut. 32:10b: He shielded [Israel] and cared for them, guarding them as the apple of his eye. God guards His people like the apple of his eye.
• Psalm 17:8: Keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings. The apple of God's eye is hidden in the shadow of His wings.
• Proverbs 7:2: Keep my commands and live, my teaching as the apple of your eye. The apple of your eye should not be disobedience (as in breaking God's command and eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge) but obedience.
• Sirach 17:17 (apocrypha for some of you): A man's goodness God cherishes like a signet ring, a man's virtue, like the apple of his eye. God cherishes a man's virtue like the apple of His eye. Was not the tree of knowledge held in particular regard by God, that He would make such a decree for them not to partake of its fruit?
• Zech. 2:12: For thus said the LORD of hosts (after he had already sent me) concerning the nations that have plundered you: Whoever touches you touches the apple of my eye. Whatever nations plunder Zion touch the apple of God's eye, and God in turn hands those nations over to their slaves to be plundered (Zech 2:13). See how God reacts to those who touch the apple of His eye?

So those could be arguments for the fruit of the tree being an apple. The phrase "apple of my eye" appears to have originated in the Old Testament. But someone could do a study of "fig" or "olive" and find in the Bible reasons for one of them to be interpreted as the fruit. But it really doesn't matter for your salvation.

Was the result of the fruit sex?
I don't believe the "fruit" or "result" was sexuality, since God says to Eve "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing" (Gen. 3:16) which means he will make childbearing more painful. This gives me the impression that, had Adam and Eve not disobeyed, childbirth would have been a painless (or much less painful) experience. Also, we have no reason to believe that upon eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that Adam and Eve grew the organs of sexual reproduction. What I mean is, we have no reason to believe they weren't already equipped with the male and female sexual organs (testicles, sperm, ovaries, uterus, etc.) and that they would not have engaged in sex anyway.

Was Cain a son of Adam or not?
Please look harder at the geneology! The relevant portion of Gen. 5:1-4 reads thus:

This is the record of the descendants of Adam. [...] Adam was one hundred and thirty years old when he begot a son in his likeness, after his image; and he named him Seth. Adam lived eight hundred years after the birth of Seth, and he had other sons and daughters.
​

So why do you feel that, since Cain's name was left out, he wasn't Adam's son? The other ancestors of Noah (who is the target person of the genelogies in Gen. 5) are treated similarly. We are not told the sons named in this list are the first-born sons, so don't assume it. All we know is that this is the lineage from Noah back to Adam. We know who Noah's father, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc. are, but we don't know the names of his brothers, uncles, great-uncles, etc. That doesn't mean he didn't have them, or that they were "of the devil", it means their names weren't listed in these 32 verses of this one book of the Bible.

Whose father is the devil?
In John 8:31-47, which contains the oft-quoted "the truth will set you free", Jesus says to a group of Jews who do not believe him:

"You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44)
​

Compare this with the first letter of John:

Whoever sins belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinned from the beginning. Indeed, the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot sin because he is begotten by God. In this way, the children of God and the children of the devil are made plain; no one who fails to act in righteousness belongs to God, nor anyone who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:8-10)
​

What the letter means is that, when sinning, we are doing the work of Satan -- Satan is our "father". Clearly, I was not born of Satan, I was born of my human mother and father. But when we act, we are doing the will of either God or Satan; whoever we choose (for we cannot serve two masters) is our "father" in that sense. When we repent and do not sin, we are doing the will of our rightful father, God. So, in the gospel, Jesus is not denying that the Jews are Abraham's descendants -- he admits that explicitly in verse 37 ("I know that you are descendants of Abraham.") -- but he is saying that they are not acting like children of Abraham:

They answered and said to him, "Our father is Abraham." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works of Abraham. But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God; Abraham did not do this. You are doing the works of your father!" (John 8:39-41a)
​

They are not behaving like children of Abraham, let alone like children of God!

I'm here all evening...
Remember to tip your waiters. Who else wants an answer?

you quoted 'Was the result of the fruit sex?
I don't believe the "fruit" or "result" was sexuality, since God says to Eve "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing" (Gen. 3:16) which means he will make childbearing more painful. This gives me the impression that, had Adam and Eve not disobeyed, childbirth would have been a painless (or much less painful) experience. Also, we have no reason to believe that upon eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that Adam and Eve grew the organs of sexual reproduction. What I mean is, we have no reason to believe they weren't already equipped with the male and female sexual organs (testicles, sperm, ovaries, uterus, etc.) and that they would not have engaged in sex anyway.




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....