The Forbidden Fruit

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
34
0
-
Gen 2:16-17 . . The Lord God commanded the man, saying: Of every tree
of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of knowledge of good
and bad, you must not eat of it; for in the day you eat of it, you shall die.

Gen 3:4 . . And the serpent said to the woman: You are not going to die,

Here we have the beginnings of what's known as a half-truth; which
Webster's defines as a statement that is only partly true and that is intended
to deceive. In other words: half-truths contain a kernel of truth but not the
whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The Serpent somehow knew that the forbidden fruit itself wasn't lethal, i.e.
Eve wouldn't die from eating it like hemlock or a Night Cap mushroom. He
was 100% right about that. Her death, though related to eating the fruit,
would come upon her from a very different direction; one that Eve
apparently never suspected; though it was right under her nose the whole
time.

/
 
People are still promoting the lie of Satan at the heart of the fall of all creation :(
 
Eve saw how animals die (because everything biological was naturally dying all the time) so she knew what is death.

God said that humans will die on the very day they will eath. Also satan thought that and tried to kill humans this way.

But it did not happen. God killed animal sacrifices instead. Nobody expected that. It was not said before.

Adam and Eve consequently biologically died because they were pushed out of the garden with tree of life, not because of eating.

---

My thoughts.

tl;dr: Even satan does not know everything and can be very surprised.
 
Last edited:
9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came,
sin came alive and - I died. The very commandment that promised life
proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through
the commandment, deceived me and through it - killed me.


12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.”


I wonder if it killed Paul in the same way that Adam surely died, on that day?
 
Last edited:
Who took a bite out of this apple:

images


Stick with IBM...:p
 
-
Gen 2:16-17 . . as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must
not eat of it; for in the day you eat of it, you shall die.

The first thing to point out is that in order for the threat to resonate in
Adam's thinking; it had to be related to death as Adam understood death in
his own day rather than death as modern Sunday school classes construe it
in their day. In other words: Adam's concept of death was natural rather
spiritual.

As far as can be known from the Bible, the tree of life was located only in
the garden and nowhere else on Earth; plus the Hebrew word for "garden"
indicates that Adam's food source was fenced; i.e. walled, no doubt to
protect it from foraging critters.

Both those points suggest very strongly to me that only human life was
meant to continue indefinitely; i.e. humanity is the only species that God
created with the potential for immortality; as a result, death and
putrefaction were common sights in Adam's world by means of dying plants,
birds, bugs, and beasts so that "death" wasn't a strange new word in his
vocabulary.

Gen 3:6d . . she took of its fruit and ate.

You can just see Eve's eyes brighten from the sugar rush as she realized the
Serpent was right after all-- she didn't drop dead. So the woman brought it
home and convinced her man to try it too.

Gen 3:6e . . She also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

Eve didn't drop dead the instant she tasted the fruit, and neither did Adam.
In point of fact, he continued to live outside the garden of Eden for another
800 years after the birth of his son Seth. (Gen 5:4)

So; is there a reasonable explanation for this apparent discrepancy?

The trick is: Adam wasn't told he would die the instant he tasted the fruit.
God's exact words were "in the day"

According to Gen 2:4, the Hebrew word for "day" is a bit ambiguous. It can
easily indicate a period of time much, much longer than 24 hours; viz: the
day of Adam's death began the moment he ate the fruit; and to ensure that
his demise was inevitable, God blocked access to the tree of life; i.e. God
didn't have to smite Adam so he'd die; no, all God had to do was deny Adam
certain essential nutrients found only in the tree of life and let nature take
its course.

/
 
-


The first thing to point out is that in order for the threat to resonate in
Adam's thinking; it had to be related to death as Adam understood death in
his own day rather than death as modern Sunday school classes construe it
in their day. In other words: Adam's concept of death was natural rather
spiritual.

/
That's purely speculation on your part. They died immediately on the spiritual level.
Adam and Eve felt shame and tried to hide from God.

Why do you think God puts a new Spirit into us? Before that we are dead.
 
The first thing to point out is that in order for the threat to resonate in
Adam's thinking; it had to be related to death as Adam understood death in
his own day rather than death as modern Sunday school classes construe it
in their day. In other words: Adam's concept of death was natural rather
spiritual

If Adam's natural death was the result of sin then Christ's substitutionary death paid the price for all believers therefore no believer should die a natural death.

The consequence of your statement is that Christ's death was insufficient because all men have died a natural death since Christ's death.
 
Eve saw how animals die (because everything biological
was naturally dying all the time) so she knew what is death.
That is an assumption you make :)

In fact, since death entered the world through the sin of Adam, I wonder why you insist on saying that anything died before that. I do understand your reasoning is premised upon the fact that in this fallen world, things are understood to have a natural life span, with all things reaching an end at some point (some things living longer than others), and dying. However, I do not think that needs to have been true of any and all life before the fall of all creation, prior to Adam's disobedience, whereas you believe it is true because, as I believe you have said before, there would not be enough room in the world to hold all the plants and animals that were reproducing if death had not already prevailed.

God said that humans will die on the very day they will eat.
Also satan thought that and tried to kill humans this way.

But it did not happen. God killed animal sacrifices instead.
Nobody expected that. It was not said before.

Adam and Eve consequently biologically died because they were
pushed out of the garden with tree of life, not because of eating.

---

My thoughts.
People do not have to eat of the Tree of Life to be alive physically, or the whole world would be saved already, having attained to life ever after, which is the stated consequence of eating of the Tree of Life (a type of Christ). Within Him all things subsist on a physical level, yes. However, God explicitly stated that A&E were to be expelled from the garden of Eden specifically so they could not eat of the Tree of Life, because then they would live forever (in their fallen state).

I hope this message finds you well, dear Trofimus :)
 
-
Gen 2:16-17 . . The Lord God commanded the man, saying: Of every tree
of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of knowledge of good
and bad, you must not eat of it; for in the day you eat of it, you shall die.

Gen 3:4 . . And the serpent said to the woman: You are not going to die,

Here we have the beginnings of what's known as a half-truth; which
Webster's defines as a statement that is only partly true and that is intended
to deceive. In other words: half-truths contain a kernel of truth but not the
whole truth and nothing but the truth.[/
God said in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Gen 2:17).

satan said Ye shall not surely die (Gen 3:4).

It appears to me that Gen 3:4 is a full on 100% lie.


God said Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat (Gen 2:16).

satan said hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (Gen 3:1).

To me, that appears to be the half truth satan used to hook Eve.
 
God said in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Gen 2:17).

satan said Ye shall not surely die (Gen 3:4).

It appears to me that Gen 3:4 is a full on 100% lie.


God said Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat (Gen 2:16).

satan said hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (Gen 3:1).

To me, that appears to be the half truth satan used to hook Eve.

2 Peter.3:8 Be not ignorant of this one thing that one day with the Lord is a thousand year, they died defore the day was over, God does not lie. God bless
 
-
Gen 2:25 . .The two of them were naked, the man and his wife, yet they
felt no shame.

Webster's defines shame as: 1) guilt, or disgrace, 2) a feeling of inferiority
or inadequacy, and 3) inhibition.

In other words, there was absolutely nothing in early Man's psyche
restraining him from parading around in full frontal exposure; and actually,
neither was there anything in his psyche encouraging him to. They weren't
exhibitionists by any stretch of the imagination because in their innocence,
Adam and his wife simply were neither proud of, nor humiliated by, their
appearance in the buff.

Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by frontal exposure at
first, nor were they self conscious in the slightest respect because as yet
they knew no cultural boundaries, nor were they infected yet with a guilt
complex about sex and the human body; and concepts like vanity and
narcissism had no point of reference in their thinking whatsoever. They had
absolutely no natural sense of propriety, nor were they even aware of any
because their creator hadn't taught them any proprieties yet at this point.

That was an interesting time in early human development. They had neither
intuition nor conscience as yet to moderate their dress code. Some
expositors label this era in the human experience as the age of innocence;
which implies not just an ignorance of morality; but primarily a lack of self
consciousness-- which Webster's defines as uncomfortably aware of one's
self as an object of the observation of others. Had somebody criticized the
first couple's appearance, they would no doubt have stared at their critic like
a man taken leave of his senses.

/
 
I'm with Locutus and Magenta. Prior to man's fall there was no physical death. The death spoken of by eating the fruit is spiritual. Only when the spiritual died could the body die. And yes there was no shame either.

Imagine if Adam hadn't eaten the fruit. We might all still be walking around naked today!

(And I'd be down at the mall riding crowded elevators)

JUST KIDDING!
 
A guy here posited some time ago that 'eating the forbidden fruit' meant they had relations with satan. While I don't necessarily buy into that, it is an interesting thought:


The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is symbolic of satan, just as the tree of life is symbolic for Jesus Christ.
Adam and Eve were instructed not to have anything to do with Satan, not even to "touch" it. The word touch in that passage is the Hebrew word "Naga", which means to lay with a woman. Satan in his natural state, is incredible to behold and She saw that it was pleasant to the eye. With that and Satan being also the serpent as well, which is the Hebrew word "Nachash" which means to hiss, to mutter as in speaking in a whisper. Later, she bare Cain and declared that she had gotten a man from the lord. One of the words used for Baal (also Satan) is lord. Lord was used of Yahveh as well as Satan. Abel was from Adam, Cain was from Satan. Christ declares this also in Matt. 13, in the parable I mentioned above. This was Satan's first attack on the Adamic race to interrupt and try to stop the seedline, which Christ would come through. If you do not know what happened in the garden, you will not understand the Kingdom Parables. When Paul wrote about Eve's seduction, you will find the English word "beguiled", but the original word He used was "expatao" which means wholly seduced, meaning one cannot be anymore seduced than this. Look in any of the listed genealogy of Adam, and you will not find Cain in the list. Cain's decendants were responsible for the killing of Christ, and Christ Himself says so, in John. chapter 8.
 
I'm with Locutus and Magenta. Prior to man's fall there was no physical death. The death spoken of by eating the fruit is spiritual. Only when the spiritual died could the body die. And yes there was no shame either.

Imagine if Adam hadn't eaten the fruit. We might all still be walking around naked today!

(And I'd be down at the mall riding crowded elevators)

JUST KIDDING!
Why do you find it necessary to add the carnal to an otherwise good thought? It's really not as amusing as you think. It diminishes the message you want to present.

Prior to the fall Adam and Eve were innocent. As sin corrupted children of Adam we are not innocent so we must cover our nakedness.

I know you know better. I do not wish to be unkind but come on you are much better than a poor joke of such earthy insinuation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Why do you find it necessary to add the carnal to an otherwise good thought? It's really not as amusing as you think. It diminishes the message you want to present.

Prior to the fall Adam and Eve were innocent. As sin corrupted children of Adam we are not innocent so we must cover our nakedness.

I know you know better. I do not wish to be unkind but come on you are much better than a poor joke of such earthy insinuation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Point taken, thank you.
 
-
Gen 3:6-7 . . She took of its fruit and ate. She also gave some to her
husband, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened.

According to 1Tim 2:14, Eve was in violation of Gen 2:16-17 when she
tasted the fruit. But curiously, her eyes weren't opened right away. In other
words: up till Adam tasted the fruit, its effects upon Eve's health were nil;
and in point of fact, there's really no good reason to believe that Adam's
eyes were opened the very instant he tasted the fruit; it's effect upon him
may have been delayed too.

Gen 3:7b . . and they perceived that they were naked;

Shazaam! Their newly acquired knowledge of good and bad kicked in with an
intuitive sense of propriety; which Webster's defines as the quality or state
of being proper or suitable, i.e. conformity to what is socially acceptable in
conduct or speech.

In other words: Adam and his wife took it upon themselves to initiate a
dress code due to finding themselves slaves to a humanistic conscience so
powerful that even if Almighty God himself told them it was okay to remain
disrobed they would not have believed Him; and even had they believed
Him, they would still put something on because at this point, they were
embarrassed.

Gen 3:7c . . and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves
loincloths.

But why not bosom coverings? Why not derrière coverings too? Why only
loin coverings? Well it's not too hard to figure out is it? They developed a
guilt complex over sex and the human body that continues to this day; and I
sincerely believe that complex is the very reason why so many people feel
that the male libido is naughty and sinful. (Those same people rarely, if
ever, condemn the female libido.)

Some say there were no agents in the fruit to cause the changes in human
nature that occurred in the Adams. But I'm not so sure. According to an
article in the Oct 8, 2011 issue of the Oregonian; new research reveals that
some, if not all, the plants we eat actually change the behavior of human
genes in ways never before imagined.

A new study led by Chen-Yu Zhang, of Nanjing University, found that
fragments of plant genetic material survive digestion and wind up swimming
in the bloodstreams of humans and cows. Those tiny strands of RNA that
somehow make it through the toxic acids and enzymes in the gut come from
rice and the plant family that includes broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower
and cabbage. Zhang found that they can muffle or amplify human gene
expression in various ways. The discovery could lead to ways of designing
plants that act as medicine or even change our own genetic structure for the
better (or the worse).

And it's well known what happens to kids when they move into adolescence.
Hormonal chemicals kick in, and their childish innocence vanishes; right out
the window. They lose interest in kid's toys and begin to take an interest in
things more appropriate for their age; including a very noticeable interest in
themselves, and in the opposite sex; and most especially in what others
think about them. In other words: they become self-conscious; which
Webster's defines as: uncomfortably aware of oneself as an object of the
observation of others.

Those adolescent changes aren't miraculous changes-- they're totally
natural, hormonally induced, organic changes. So if kids undergo a natural
kind of change because of the chemicals generated by the glands in their
own bodies, then there is good reason to believe that the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil actually did contain something that caused Adam
and his wife to morph and develop an intuitive sense of propriety; and that
"sense" can't help but influence people's interpretation of Matt 5:28. In other
words they want male libido to be naughty because their forbidden-fruit
intuition compels them to "feel" it's naughty.

At any rate, the pending dialogue, between God and Man in the next few
verses, implies that God himself had no hand in making those two people
change. On the page of scripture, their altered human nature is directly
related to the fruit and to nothing else.

So instead of stretching our imaginations to construct a complex spiritual
explanation, I suggest it would be better to stick with the biological one and
let it go at that.

/
 
That's purely speculation on your part. They died immediately on the spiritual level.
Adam and Eve felt shame and tried to hide from God.

Why do you think God puts a new Spirit into us? Before that we are dead.

Nice to read someone who sees life as joined to the Spirit of God.
Knowledge of good and evil is in our understanding, we are told "Lean not on your own understanding but trust in the Lord."
Living for ourselves separates us from the Love of Christ: the tree of Life, so that we cant relate to spiritual things.
The fruit of the tree of knowledge is living for ourselves, some unbeliever gave the name ego to the sin nature. Seems to help understand that we become an empty shell. Jesus referred to the sin nature as chaff and the wheat as the children of the Kingdom. The chaff covers the wheat and represents living outwardly rather than in the kingdom of heaven within.
We found the enemy and need to be identified with Christ in His death, and carried by His Spirit: God caries us into His death to all that is not of God: to exchange live with Him.
Now that you know about the tree of knowledge and its fruit, if your still looking for the garden, your a part of the garden of God as well, that is if you are in the body of Christ: the tree of Life
Don't think that this knowledge is anything: Without Love I am nothing.
 
to understand about the garden of God, Jesus told us, "Go also into my vineyard and whatever is right I will give you." We know the vine represents Him as the tree of life.