What kind of fruit was it?

[shorttribber]

What kind of fruit was it that Adam and Eve ate that was upon that tree?

All we can really do is speculate....but I think we do have a hint in scripture.

I think it was a Pomegranate.

[Loop]

OK , I'll bite...

Why do you think it was a Pomegranate.

[shorttribber]

OK , I'll bite...

Why do you think it was a Pomegranate.

that was a good one "Ok i'll bite"

1. SEEDS, many, many SEEDS.

2. Stains, incredibly Heavy Staining of Anything that the broken SEEDS Contact.

3. It takes More Effort or Determination to EAT IT, it is a fairly Stubborn pealing to break in to Access the FRUIT INSIDE as opposed to just simply "Taking a Bite" as is done with an apple.

4.Exodus 39:24-25: They made............. pomegranates.......... of.... blue, purple (Color of Bruising) and scarlet(The Color of Pomegranate Juice STAINS)................... finely twisted linen around the hem of the robe. 25 And they made bells of pure gold and attached them around......................the hem................... between the pomegranates.

Though our Sins be................................. as SCARLET...........................they shall be White as snow

I'm adding this link in below VIA edit.....very interesting too.....again, No Proof Positive, but it certainly supports my thoughts regarding the Pomegranate.
http://www.jilleileensmith.com/blog/mus ... hat-apple/

[mark s]

I think there was only one tree, and it was destroyed in the flood. I don't think we've been continuing to eat from the forbidden tree. Of course I have no evidence for this, it's just my opinion.

[Loop]

Very interesting...

[shorttribber]

I think there was only one tree, and it was destroyed in the flood. I don't think we've been continuing to eat from the forbidden tree. Of course I have no evidence for this, it's just my opinion.

Very interesting thought too mark....I've never really thought about it in that way.

But, ya know, why would we STILL BE, as Human Beings, Consuming, Spiritually Speaking, That Fruit? And the Fruit Itself be forever gone if the Fruit had any Part of a Type or Shadow in it?
God is very big in Types and Shadows.
To me, matters of Spirit are more Relevant than matters that are physical. What I mean is, why would that particular Reminder be utterly destroyed while the Consequences Remain?

I'm just thinking out loud........I may not be making much sense

[keithareilly]

Hebrews 5:14
14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.


Interestingly, we are to strive for the very knowledge that the tree of knowledge provided, yet was forbidden to Adam and Eve, so that we may digest the solid food associated with spiritual maturity. It was always the pre-destiny of those whom He foreknew to become spiritually mature adopted sons of God. (Romans 8:29).

There is physical and spiritual. Just as Christ said we must eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, I think the fruit was physical like Christ's body was physical but it was also spiritual just as Christ's sacrifice of his flesh and blood gives our spirits life.

Keith

[shorttribber]

Interestingly, we are to strive for the very knowledge that the tree of knowledge provided

the only knowledge they obtained in doing so was that they had disobeyed God. They Learned that there IS Obedience and there is Disobedience.

They learned that Disobedience separates from God, while Obedience is Communion with God.

I may well be wrong in how I understand these parts of the Knowledge of God and Evil, but taking this discussion in that direction is probably not where I hope this discussion to go.

I hope that's ok ,and that you're not offended by my saying so.

Bless ya keithareilly

[keithareilly]

No offense taken,

It was necessary to point out such to make my point about the combined physical and spiritual aspects of the fruit.
The tree of life and the tree of knowledge are the only two trees mentioned in the garden with both physical and spiritual characteristics in their fruit.

Keith

[shorttribber]

No offense taken,

It was necessary to point out such to make my point about the combined physical and spiritual aspects of the fruit.
The tree of life and the tree of knowledge are the only two trees mentioned in the garden with both physical and spiritual characteristics in their fruit.

Keith

I agree with that, and I looked at my earlier post and saw that you were most likely responding to that part of it.
and I'm glad there is no offense taken too thankyou

[Mark F]

What kind of fruit was it that Adam and Eve ate that was upon that tree?

All we can really do is speculate....but I think we do have a hint in scripture.

I think it was a Pomegranate.

Naw, I don't think it was Pomegranate, that thing must be post curse......'cause its such a devil to get those seeds out!

[mark s]

It's just occurred to me . . . Romans 5 says no one transgressed in the manner of Adam . . . meaning . . . no one else ate the fruit.

[shorttribber]

What kind of fruit was it that Adam and Eve ate that was upon that tree?

All we can really do is speculate....but I think we do have a hint in scripture.

I think it was a Pomegranate.

Naw, I don't think it was Pomegranate, that thing must be post curse......'cause its such a devil to get those seeds out!

[shorttribber]

It's just occurred to me . . . Romans 5 says no one transgressed in the manner of Adam . . . meaning . . . no one else ate the fruit.

what?

Guess I better re-read Romans 5 to see if that's correct

[shorttribber]

It's just occurred to me . . . Romans 5 says no one transgressed in the manner of Adam . . . meaning . . . no one else ate the fruit.

After reviewing that section of scripture mark, it just does not, imo, support what I think you're trying to say regarding the disappearance of that particular kind of fruit that was eaten by Adam and Eve.

[Abiding in His Word]

Adam's sin according to Romans 5 was disobedience which is contrasted with Jesus' obedience.

Paul is saying in Romans 5:14 that regardless of the type of sin, death still reigned as a result of Adam's sin. Adam ushered in death as a result of sin; Jesus ushered in the free gift of grace. Adam is a "type" inasmuch as he is a "first" as Jesus is a "first-born" of many brethren. Adam was the first man from the earth; Jesus was the first man from heaven. The first man (Adam) became a living soul; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Complete contrasts... but Adam's sin was disobedience.

[mark s]

It's just occurred to me . . . Romans 5 says no one transgressed in the manner of Adam . . . meaning . . . no one else ate the fruit.

After reviewing that section of scripture mark, it just does not, imo, support what I think you're trying to say regarding the disappearance of that particular kind of fruit that was eaten by Adam and Eve.

Hi ST,

Yes, I'd agree with you, this does not support that the fruit was not available, only, if I'm correct in this interpretation, that others did not eat it.

It would lead me to the question, if it was available, why would people not eat it? If it were pleasing to the eye, and good for food . . .

Love in Christ,
Mark

[mark s]

Adam's sin according to Romans 5 was disobedience which is contrasted with Jesus' obedience.

Paul is saying in Romans 5:14 that regardless of the type of sin, death still reigned as a result of Adam's sin. Adam ushered in death as a result of sin; Jesus ushered in the free gift of grace. Adam is a "type" inasmuch as he is a "first" as Jesus is a "first-born" of many brethren. Adam was the first man from the earth; Jesus was the first man from heaven. The first man (Adam) became a living soul; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Complete contrasts... but Adam's sin was disobedience.

Hi Abiding,

This is just something I've thought of, so I'm still considering the idea. I think I understand what you are saying, and you'd have a number of commentators agree with you. I think it comes down to how you understand the "similitude" of Adam's transgression. "In the same way", would be another way to put it.

One way to understand it would be in the general sense, that Adam disobeyed God. Another way would be in the specific sense, that Adam disobeyed this specific commandment.

If Paul is talking in the general sense, that that leaves babies as those who have not transgressed by disobeying God, by virtue of the fact that they have not done anything. But is it true that babies don't sin? This leads to the question of whether babies are born spiritually dead, corrupted by sin, or if they become corrupted by sin by sinning. If they are not born corrupted by sin, and instead spiritually die when they do sin, then they would be capable of not being in disobedience.

However, if babies are born spiritually dead, and corrupted by "original sin", that wouldn't that mean that their very actions are necessarily sin? If that which is not of faith is sin, if the one who is spiritually dead necessarily sins until they are born again, where does that leave the baby who is spiritually dead, and corrupted by sin?

I think the overall point of this passage is that Adam killed us with one act of disobedience, and Jesus brought life with one act of obedience. But not just any act of obedience, a specific act of obedience. So then would we not counterpart that with Adam's specific act?

The mentions of imputation of sin, and of Moses, lead me to thing this is speaking of the particular commandment.

The meaning I take from this passage is that even though God doesn't count sins against us when He hasn't given commandment concerning it, even so, sin kills, because sin is deadly. So even though you didn't break the commandment that Adam broke, and even though you lived before Moses gave the Covenant of the Law, you still died, because sin kills.

Anyway, more to think about . . .

Love in Christ,
Mark

[mark s]

What kind of fruit was it that Adam and Eve ate that was upon that tree?

All we can really do is speculate....but I think we do have a hint in scripture.

I think it was a Pomegranate.

Naw, I don't think it was Pomegranate, that thing must be post curse......'cause its such a devil to get those seeds out!

I don't know . . . think of the comparisons:

It looks like it would be good.

There is some pleasure to it, but it's not as much as you'd expect, and it takes a lot of work, and leaves a stain.

[Abiding in His Word]

One way to understand it would be in the general sense, that Adam disobeyed God. Another way would be in the specific sense, that Adam disobeyed this specific commandment.

Hi Mark,

Does general or specific really matter I wonder? Scripture calls Adam's sin disobedience and evidently he tried to hide the fact by blaming God for the woman He game him as well as blaming Eve.

Gen 3:12 The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.
"
Job 31:33 "Have I covered my transgressions like Adam, By hiding my iniquity in my bosom...

Hos 6:7 But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.

I personally think we're reading too much into the situation involving the type of fruit eaten from the tree. What we are told is that it was pleasing to the sight and good for food:

Gen 2:9 Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food...

However, if babies are born spiritually dead, and corrupted by "original sin", that wouldn't that mean that their very actions are necessarily sin? If that which is not of faith is sin, if the one who is spiritually dead necessarily sins until they are born again, where does that leave the baby who is spiritually dead, and corrupted by sin?

I know there's a lot of controversy and disagreement about the fate of babies. I find no problem with the equating man's freewill with a sin nature. For example, both Adam and Eve were obviously created with a free will because they chose to eat from a forbidden tree. In doing so, they exhibited a sinful nature, didn't they? Yes, they did. My understanding focuses more on the garden than most. It was designed specifically for them as a place of comfort, pleasure, beauty, and it was self-contained in that their needs there were met.

That is not true outside of the garden. So upon exiting the garden, they took with them those characteristics that were already inherent and had been manifested by their actions. It's what's in the heart that results in sin according to Jesus. So if God is just, and babies have no sin in their hearts, they will be saved. When we entertain evil/sin in our hearts, it leads to acting upon it and the act comes to fruition if we choose to do so. That is not true of babies. Though they have free will, they are not yet capable of "hiding iniquity" in their hearts as Adam did nor are they wise enough to formulate covetous thoughts or anger directed toward an individual. That changes at a certain age, of course, but again I doubt it's born out of anything other than human emotion. God confirms that it's the evil intent in one's heart that causes sin.

Gen 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

I once heard a preacher say it this way. A mother tells her 2 yr. old to sit down in his high chair. He doesn't. She tells him again and still he stands up. Finally, a third time she warns him of a spanking if he doesn't sit down. He complies, but is thinking..."I'm sitting down on the outside, but I'm standing up on the inside." The flesh is beginning to manifest itself as a sign of independence and free choice.

Again, to focus on the type of fruit is imo, a wrong focus. The focus of the Genesis passage is on the willful, intentional, knowledgeable disobedience of one and the deception on the part of the other in a specially designed environment that made it unnecessary. The inhabitants were still going to work to a degree; Adam was to guard (which he didn't evidently) and till the soil and Eve would toil in giving birth. But they would both do so in great sorrow outside the garden knowing the great cost of their sin.

[shorttribber]

Again, to focus on the type of fruit is imo, a wrong focus. The focus of the Genesis passage is on the willful, intentional, knowledgeable disobedience of one and the deception on the part of the other in a specially designed environment that made it unnecessary

[mark s]

Hi Abiding,

What kind of fruit it was is unimportant to me.

This simply provided an opportunity to think about certain passages in Scripture. When I contemplate Scripture, I like to examine the various possible interpretations, to see which fits best within its context, and what the overall message is that it brings. I like to do this on the, let's call it, macro and micro levels.

Personally, I think "general or specific" does matter. I think the Bible is intended to communicate a certain thing, and I want to know what it is. And the fact is, at least in my understanding, that one of these fits better than the other.

As far as the sin nature, I simply don't believe that God created them with the same propensity to commit sin in the same way that children born to them had. I believe the commission of original sin changed humanity. I believe that Adam had the potential to either sin or not sin. I do not believe his children had the same potential. After Adam's sin, humanity became corrupted by sin, and became slaves to sin. This is what I mean when I say "sin nature". Not just the potential to sin, but being born in slavery to sin. We may simply be using the words differently.

You state "it's the evil intent in one's heart that causes sin". Did God create man with evil intent?

We've discussed this before, I know we have a certain difference in our views of original sin, sin nature, whether Adam was supposed to keep the serpent out, could be an interesting thread again, but tempting as it is, I don't want to derail this one . . .

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Abiding in His Word]

Personally, I think "general or specific" does matter.

Mark, I agree and I didn't mean to sound flippant when I asked that. I was asking in reference to Adam specifically since his sin is clearly imo called disobedience and that to a clearly stated command/warning.

I think the Bible is intended to communicate a certain thing, and I want to know what it is.

I agree and I want to know as well. But I think we'll both agree that sometimes it's difficult, if not impossible, to determine the exact meaning and we are left with ambiguity and speculation which naturally lends itself to different perspectives. That's ok imo as well.

As far as the sin nature, I simply don't believe that God created them with the same propensity to commit sin in the same way that children born to them had.

I don't believe anyone was ever created with a propensity to sin per se. Each comes into the world with a body, mind/intellect, human emotion, and freedom to make choices. As the population increased outside of the garden, so did the temptations and therefore the number of continual choices.

I believe the commission of original sin changed humanity.

I agree to an extent, but I see it as the definite result of having to leave the garden which provided all the necessary provisions to live and work in relative comfort and share fellowship with God. Adam would still toil in the garden to "keep" or maintain it's condition as it was designed to do. And Eve would still toil in giving birth as is a natural process. But outside of the garden, we are told these things would be done with heavier toil and sorrow along with other adverse conditions and repercussions. In other words, the inside or outside made the difference along with increased population and circumstances that afforded sinful opportunities to indulge the flesh.

I believe that Adam had the potential to either sin or not sin. I do not believe his children had the same potential.

To me the word potential equates to ability so I'm not sure about how you're using it unless you are implying free will or free to choose.

After Adam's sin, humanity became corrupted by sin, and became slaves to sin. This is what I mean when I say "sin nature". Not just the potential to sin, but being born in slavery to sin. We may simply be using the words differently.

How do you think the corruption happened? How does one become a slave to sin? I wasn't a slave to sin. I obeyed all the rules; performed good deeds; loved my neighbor; didn't return evil for evil, etc. There are millions of wonderful, kind, generous people in the world who would be shocked to be called slaves to sin.

You state "it's the evil intent in one's heart that causes sin". Did God create man with evil intent?

Of course not. He created man with a free will and gave him everything he would need to exist in a comfortable, perfectly designed environment.

We've discussed this before, I know we have a certain difference in our views of original sin, sin nature, whether Adam was supposed to keep the serpent out, could be an interesting thread again, but tempting as it is, I don't want to derail this one . . .

ok....but it's shorttribbers fault...he had to bring up the fruit from the tree in the garden....

[shorttribber]

ok....but it's shorttribbers fault...he had to bring up the fruit from the tree in the garden....

be careful, I got a whole box of pomegranates behind this sofa! And I'm a not so bad pomegranate thrower!