What was the forbidden fruit

[Kenny]

yet failed to offer anything approaching objective evidence for this claim. It seems you don't even understand it is a bare claim?

I gave you 4 differing Jewish supporting evidence. For you say that I have "failed to offer anything approaching objective evidence" is a strawman fallacy as well as a slothful induction fallacy.

Come back when you don't give me irrelevant fluff, stuff and funny statements

 

[Etritonakin]

Maybe that's it "Disobeying God was forbidden." The rest is just a metaphor

"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."
I think the idea is that the actual fruit of the actual tree was just fruit -the important part was obeying God (first commandment). The trickery of the serpent is that wisdom would come by way of knowing what disobedience would bring. Otherwise they would be ignorant, but ignorant of things that are unpleasant. Though God's response to disobedience seems harsh, it actually started a process of proactively minimizing the adverse effects of disobedience -bringing us to a point of knowing -but no longer doing -evil -as quickly as possible (imagine if evil were allowed to go unchecked as long as possible). It also began a process of knowing that God is God.
Satan, Adam and Eve were all new beings at one point. They had no reference to trust God to the necessary degree. All will after experience ( "then they shall know that I am the Lord" [underline mine] is repeated about 70 times in Ezekiel alone).

 

[Kenny]

"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."
I think the idea is that the actual fruit of the actual tree was just fruit -the important part was obeying God (first commandment). The trickery of the serpent is that wisdom would come by way of knowing what disobedience would bring. Otherwise they would be ignorant, but ignorant of things that are unpleasant. Though God's response to disobedience seems harsh, it actually started a process of proactively minimizing the adverse effects of disobedience -bringing us to a point of knowing -but no longer doing -evil -as quickly as possible (imagine if evil were allowed to go unchecked as long as possible). It also began a process of knowing that God is God.
Satan, Adam and Eve were all new beings at one point. They had no reference to trust God to the necessary degree. All will after experience ( "then they shall know that I am the Lord" [underline mine] is repeated about 70 times in Ezekiel alone).

Nicely said.

As I read it and view it, I am not so sure the response to disobedience was so much from God as it was the simple response to laws.

In other words, or as an example, if you run faster than your feet can carry you the consequence of scraped knees is just the simple consequences of gravitational laws.

So, when the law was set, "Adam, please don't eat of this fruit. There is a spiritual law of sin and death that is in existence and I want you to avoid it because it you don't, you will die". (Paraphrased as will all the other statements will be)

Where I find God intervening is in the following:

God, "Ok, Adam and Eve... I know you have messed up so let me see how I can minimize the consequences. Rather that you suffering the full consequences, I will transfer the curse to the ground. You are still affected in as much as you are composed of the ground but by transferring the full impact to the ground, I can redeem you.

I noticed that you tried to hide all the effects even to the point of working it out to the best of your ability by covering with man-made efforts of the works typified in the fig leaves. That isn't necessary nor is it profitable. Let's talk covenant, a more sure and eternal remedy. I will provide a gift through a Messiah, the gift of returning to full righteousness.

Here, let me, the I AM, kill an animal to make a surety of a blood covenant. Did you see that it is I that clothed you and not you? Let it be a sign of my mercy and love as I give you a coat of righteousness as a gift made by my hands.

There! Problem solved. Looking forward to an everlasting restored relationship."

Of course, I have given myself some liberty in license of the communication of this viewpoint, but it is as I see it (not necessarily how others may see it).

 

[Sheldon]

I gave you 4 differing Jewish supporting evidence. For you say that I have "failed to offer anything approaching objective evidence" is a strawman fallacy as well as a slothful induction fallacy.

Come back when you don't give me irrelevant fluff, stuff and funny statements

In the original post I commented on you offered a bare claim, why you think you can ignore that context dishonestly only you can know. It's clear you don't even understand the nature of the claim, the biblical text wasn't evidence, in any language, it is the claim.

It's clear you don't know what a straw man fallacy is either, if you think I offered one, so I suggest you go learn what it means.

I'm going nowhere, so I suggest you get over it. I will however bow to your expertise on "irrelevant fluff, and funny statements".

Your puerile ad hominem speaks for itself.

 

[Kenny]

In the original post I commented on you offered a bare claim, why you think you can ignore that context dishonestly only you can know. It's clear you don't even understand the nature of the claim, the biblical text wasn't evidence, in any language, it is the claim.

It's clear you don't know what a straw man fallacy is either, if you think I offered one, so I suggest you go learn what it means.

I'm going nowhere, so I suggest you get over it. I will however bow to your expertise on "irrelevant fluff, and funny statements".

Your puerile ad hominem speaks for itself.

I knew that this would be your type of answer.... Never on topic,.

Never-the-less

 

[Sheldon]

I knew that this would be your type of answer.... Never on topic,.

I'm guessing you are missing the irony of you waving away a substantive response that was precisely on topic, with a vapid one liner claiming it wasn't?

Here's the part of your original post, with my response...

In chapter 3, He presented the coming of the Messiah that would remedy the problem.

No he didn't - "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur".

It would help you understand if you knew how many claims were in the part of your post I quoted, I count 3, though 1 is implied rather than implicitly stated. Of course as we can see the claims were offered without the pretence of any evidence, and thus I responded in the fashion I did.

"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur"

 

[Kenny]

I'm guessing you are missing the irony of you waving away a substantive response that was precisely on topic, with a vapid one liner claiming it wasn't?

Here's the part of your original post, with my response...





It would help you understand if you knew how many claims were in the part of your post I quoted, I count 3, though 1 is implied rather than implicitly stated. Of course as we can see the claims were offered without the pretence of any evidence, and thus I responded in the fashion I did.

"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur"

Dear Sheldon,

I have had many constructive conversations and debates with those on this forum. Even with atheist Evangelhumanist, to which we basically don't agree in anything, I have had great interaction.

Never have I had the problems that I encounter with you which makes me wonder where you are really coming from.

So.... if you ever see this to and for you:



it simply means "Shalom - but I know we are not going to get anywhere in our interaction"

 

[Sheldon]

Dear Sheldon,

I have had many constructive conversations and debates with those on this forum. Even with atheist Evangelhumanist, to which we basically don't agree in anything, I have had great interaction.

Never have I had the problems that I encounter with you which makes me wonder where you are really coming from.

So.... if you ever see this to and for you:



it simply means "Shalom - but I know we are not going to get anywhere in our interaction"

Well obviously if you ignore or misrepresent what was said, but since this is a debate forum I will point out that bare claims can be treated in the same manner they are offered, when I am minded to. Why you think this is personal I don't know.

 

[Kenny]

Well obviously if you ignore or misrepresent what was said, but since this is a debate forum I will point out that bare claims can be treated in the same manner they are offered, when I am minded to. Why you think this is personal I don't know.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

According to the Israelites flood story, God already tried to solve the disobedience problem by drowning the entire earth! But he kept the Satan creature alive??? to mislead the whole world all over again???
Also, if "sin" were a matter of eating fruit then any number of the billions of people since Adam would likely eat the fruit!....................

No, it was Not the 'fruit' per say, but God's first command or law was one of obedience.
Adam and Eve simply failed to obey the ' do not...' law because they considered the law as a matter of choice.
God's purpose for Earth was for Earth to be populated (Genesis 1:28)
By Noah's day Earth was Not fully populated. Righteous Noah and family were the only righteous people left on Earth, and Earth full of violence, that is the reason for the Flood. - Genesis chapter 6.
Those violent people would have killed off righteous Noah and family that is why there was divine involvement.
So, Genesis 3:15 (seed/ Messiah) was Not about ' again ' but that Messiah would come later in the future.
In Messiah's return Messiah/Jesus will destroy Satan according to Hebrews 2:14 B.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is just that -- the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was a one of a kind tree. Asking which known fruits it has misses the whole point.

I find No Scripture that says the tree of knowledge of good and bad/evil was one of a kind tree.
Meaning one tree that was different from all other trees.
It could have been one singled-out tree among many of the same kind.
I agree it misses the point to try to figure out exactly what was the particular fruit.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I find No Scripture that says the tree of knowledge of good and bad/evil was one of a kind tree.
Meaning one tree that was different from all other trees.
It could have been one singled-out tree among many of the same kind.
I agree it misses the point to try to figure out exactly what was the particular fruit.

It was not a one of a kind tree? you mean there was a second and third Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Can you tell me where these other Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil were discussed?

 

[Muffled]

Prehistoric wildings 8,000 BC -
Human beings have been munching apples since prehistoric times. They spar out apple pips in neolithic Britain. And 10,000 years ago they left apple remains to carbonize around their Swiss and Italian lakeside homes. In Switzerland and in the regions adjoining the Caucasus mountains, ancient humans even appear to have dry-stored apple-halves for winter. But these were wild crab apples, tiny wizened fruit which, in Ancient Britain, came to be known as 'wildings'. They had little in common with the apples we know today. - Simply... A History Of The Apple

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It was not a one of a kind tree? you mean there was a second and third Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Can you tell me where these other Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil were discussed?

Thanks for your reply, No, Not saying that other trees could have been of the same type or variety were called the Tree of Knowledge of good and Evil/Bad, but that God singled out only one tree on Earth as His tree.
It could have been a unique (one-of-a-kind) tree, or just one tree out of the same kind of trees.
God's tree was in the middle of the Garden, not anywhere else.
Sorry I was not clear. Just wanted to emphasize we don't know it there were other fruit trees just like God's singled-out tree.
Hope this is of some help as to what I was trying to get across.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thanks for your reply, No, Not saying that other trees could have been of the same type or variety were called the Tree of Knowledge of good and Evil/Bad, but that God singled out only one tree on Earth as His tree.
It could have been a unique (one-of-a-kind) tree, or just one tree out of the same kind of trees.
God's tree was in the middle of the Garden, not anywhere else.
Sorry I was not clear. Just wanted to emphasize we don't know it there were other fruit trees just like God's singled-out tree.
Hope this is of some help as to what I was trying to get across.

But it doesn't say an apple tree or peach tree or orange tree. the type of tree it was was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But it doesn't say an apple tree or peach tree or orange tree. the type of tree it was was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I like that you brought out that is was "A" tree ( One particular single tree was God's tree out of all the trees on Earth ).
God could have chosen one tree out of all the apple trees, God could have chosen one tree out of all the peach trees on Earth, God could have chosen one tree out of all the orange trees on Earth, etc.
Or, God could have chosen one unique fruit tree different from all other fruit trees.
Either way, God singled out only one fruit tree as His one-and-only tree to be a forbidden don't touch His tree.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I like that you brought out that is was "A" tree ( One particular single tree was God's tree out of all the trees on Earth ).
God could have chosen one tree out of all the apple trees, God could have chosen one tree out of all the peach trees on Earth, God could have chosen one tree out of all the orange trees on Earth, etc.
Or, God could have chosen one unique fruit tree different from all other fruit trees.
Either way, God singled out only one fruit tree as His one-and-only tree to be a forbidden don't touch His tree.

sorry, I don't buy it that it could have been some other kind of tree than the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[Colt]

No, it was Not the 'fruit' per say, but God's first command or law was one of obedience.
Adam and Eve simply failed to obey the ' do not...' law because they considered the law as a matter of choice.
God's purpose for Earth was for Earth to be populated (Genesis 1:28)
By Noah's day Earth was Not fully populated. Righteous Noah and family were the only righteous people left on Earth, and Earth full of violence, that is the reason for the Flood. - Genesis chapter 6.
Those violent people would have killed off righteous Noah and family that is why there was divine involvement.
So, Genesis 3:15 (seed/ Messiah) was Not about ' again ' but that Messiah would come later in the future.
In Messiah's return Messiah/Jesus will destroy Satan according to Hebrews 2:14 B.

The claim that Noah was the only righteous man on earth was a myth concocted by the people who invented the story. None of the other cultures on earth who supposedly came from Noahs mixed race in-laws seem to remember a great, great, great.....great grandpa Noah! Only the people who established themselves as "Gods chosen people" seem to remember Noah. Jesus called them "blind guides".

Noah would end up passed out drunk and naked in his tent.

Failing to live up to the false expectations of a Jewish Messiah followers of Jesus had to invent new false expectations.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

sorry, I don't buy it that it could have been some other kind of tree than the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

It was 'a' fruit tree. I could have been a unique fruit tree, or one fruit tree out of several fruit trees having the same fruit.
God's 'one particular tree choice' was God's singular tree He named as the tree of knowledge of good and bad/evil.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The claim that Noah was the only righteous man on earth was a myth concocted by the people who invented the story. None of the other cultures on earth who supposedly came from Noahs mixed race in-laws seem to remember a great, great, great.....great grandpa Noah! .........

How about a great, great, great..... 'grandpa' Nimrod__________
I'm Not meaning a literal grandpa Nimrod, but those nations that developed after the people migrated away from Nimrod in ancient Babylon and spread themselves throughout the Earth.
There would be No reason for non-Hebrews to have an historical Noah, but they do have an historical Babylonian Nimrod.