[__ Science __ ] What Was the “Forbidden Fruit” in Genesis?

[jaybo]

Where are you getting this information? Is/was this taught by the ancients(Hebrews)? Where is the documentation for this? The Torah?

I second the motion! Where is the documentation for your statement, Yokefellow?

 

[Barbarian]

Can you show me anywhere in God's Word that it says that mornings and evenings in the creation story are not literal ones?

The text itself tells you. It's logically absurd to have mornings and evenings without a sun. As even ancient Christians like St. Augustine pointed out. This is why most Christians recognize that the creation story is not a literal history.

 

[Yokefellow]

Here is just one issue. You wrote, "Boom. Now they are toast. Dead on the ground." The very next verse says, "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard." Dead people don't hear sounds or hide from others.

No. The very next verse says their 'eyes were opened'.

Gen 3:6 is when they died.
Gen 3:7 is when they experienced the Resurrection of Damnation.

Resurrected people are not dead.

By the way...

There were no 'breezes' before the Fall. That verse contains a very subtle, yet important clue that the Earth, as well as the Universe itself, had changed drastically.

 

[Yokefellow]

Where are you getting this information? Is/was this taught by the ancients(Hebrews)? Where is the documentation for this? The Torah?

I get it from the Bible, although there is bit of a 'Life Hack' that I use to help me interpret.

The Life Hack exists outside of the Good Book. In fact, Jesus taught it to me...

Luke 17:21
"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

There is a Profound Meaning in the above verse that is lost on newer translations. What is said Profound Meaning?

The Kingdom of God Within is *Human Anatomy*.

It is the Microcosm of Life...

Luke 11:40
"Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?"

God uses Human Anatomy to help us interpret difficult passages. It is a Second Witness that helps to 'error correct' the Code. It works brilliantly. God designed it that way so that no one could argue.

Example: Forbidden Fruit

The topic of this thread is a Great Mystery to many, yet it can easily be deciphered by using Human Anatomy as our guide. Observe...

Revelation 22:2
"In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."

Sometimes it helps to look at opposites for contrast. The above verse describes the opposite of the Forbidden Fruit.

What can we immediately learn?

• The Tree of Life is a 'Her' (Obviously, it is NOT Jesus)
• She bares 'Fruit' every month
• Each Fruit is different than the one previous

Now, compare that to the anatomy of a Woman. We know that New Jerusalem is Sarah...

Galatians 4:26
"But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

Personally, I believe that the New Earth is Sarah and that New Jerusalem represents Sarah's Womb. Hence, it is our 'Mother' in the sense that we are Born Again by entering her 'Gates' (Yoni) and partaking of her Fruit (Ovary).

Notice that she bares Fruit every month. Do you know what we call that?

Menstrual Cycle.

She has a monthly 'period' in which she produces the Tabernacle of Life by which the Spirits of the Saved clothe themselves with.

So who is fertilizing her Ovum? The Lamb!

Revelation 22:1
"And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb."

Thus, the Marriage Supper is all about the Seed (the Blood of the Lamb) of Abraham (the Father) combining with Sarah's Fruit to produce the Glorified Body Zygote. The Saved 'partake' and become clothed by it.

Sarah's Leaves are the new Covering, which is opposite of the Fig Leaves in Genesis.

 

[Who Me]

The Bible account speaks of mornings and evenings before there was a Sun to have them. So, as even ancient Christians knew, this tells us that the days of the creation story are not literal days.

Oh dear so modern weather forecasters who talk of sun rise and sun set are believers in a flat earth.

Has it never occurred to you that day and night do not depend on there being a sun?

Can God keep track of time without owning any form of clock?

 

[jaybo]

The text itself tells you. It's logically absurd to have mornings and evenings without a sun. As even ancient Christians like St. Augustine pointed out. This is why most Christians recognize that the creation story is not a literal history.

You're jumping all over the place with your logic. The Bible clearly and unmistakably says that "God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day." Genesis 1:5 Logically it's not absurd at all.

 

[Barbarian]

The Bible clearly and unmistakably says that "God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day."

Yes. That's how it tells us that it's not a literal history. It's logically absurd to suppose actual mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.

 

[Barbarian]

Oh dear so modern weather forecasters who talk of sun rise and sun set are believers in a flat earth.

[/QUOTE]
They don't actually think it's flat figure of speech. But a "figure of speech" argument can't save a literal interpretation of Genesis which speaks of mornings and evenings without the sun required to have them.

Has it never occurred to you that day and night do not depend on there being a sun?

[/QUOTE]

Always has. Morning is when the sun appears and evening is when it disappears. That's particularly true in Hebrew.

Can God keep track of time without owning any form of clock?

But since "morning" and "evening" are defined in terms of sun, we know that a sun is required to have them.

 

[jaybo]

Yes. That's how it tells us that it's not a literal history. It's logically absurd to suppose actual mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.

Should I believe you or the Bible? The Bible says that "There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day." Logically absurd" has nothing to do with it; there are many things that God does that defy logic. Raising His Son from the dead, for example.

 

[jaybo]

They don't actually think it's flat figure of speech. But a "figure of speech" argument can't save a literal interpretation of Genesis which speaks of mornings and evenings without the sun required to have them.


[/QUOTE]

Always has. Morning is when the sun appears and evening is when it disappears. That's particularly true in Hebrew.



But since "morning" and "evening" are defined in terms of sun, we know that a sun is required to have them.
[/QUOTE]

You define "morning" and "evening" in terms of sun; the Bible doesn't. The Bible defines the sun as a light (only).

 

[Shema]

I think the forbidden fruit is the common sense that lead human to grow to death. Before human didn't have common sense, he lives naked and lives like a spirit man who likely will not die but since man has common sense he became aware that he his hungry and he needs to work for money to feed himself. He feels ashame of nakedness. Woman was the first to eat this fruit and she saw the nakedness of man and told man to eat it and he also saw the nakedness of woman. We can see that woman maintained her submission to man until they both were conscious of their common senses and hid for God. That's why up till today you will find a woman with a man no matter how the man is.

Now the fruit itself is like an addictive stimulant fruit that works like narcotic substance which causes men and women to feel like sinning or Feeling like drinking alcohol or taking high substance or having sexual intercourse or making money or competition are all caused by the forbidden fruit. The man and woman realised they were naked as they grown in common sense. Forbidden fruit is a fruit with very high impact.

 

[Yokefellow]

Ezekiel 28:14
"Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire."

Does anyone know why Satan is the anointed Cherub that covereth?

Because Satan's DNA is what our Covering is currently made of.

The Church loves to make up little white lies about how God had to "kill an animal" to give Adam and Eve 'Skins'...

Genesis 3:21
"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them."

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that.

God clothed Adam and Eve with the Skins we have now...

Job 10:11
"Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews."

Again, those Skins (DNA) came from Satan and the Harlot.

 

[Barbarian]

You define "morning" and "evening" in terms of sun; the Bible doesn't.

Actually it does.

Strong's Hebrew: 1242. בֹּ֫קֶר (boqer) -- morn- ing

biblehub.com

 

[Barbarian]

Logically absurd" has nothing to do with it; there are many things that God does that defy logic. Raising His Son from the dead, for example.

That is not logically absurd. God (Who Jesus is) certainly is not bound by death. But it is logically absurd to assert mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

 

[jaybo]

That is not logically absurd. God (Who Jesus is) certainly is not bound by death. But it is logically absurd to assert mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

We can go on and on about this, but I have no interest in that. The Bible clearly says that "Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water God said, “Let there be light." And there was light! God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day."

Just because you think it's "logically absurd" doesn't make it untrue. There are many things in the Bible that are "logically absurd"; that doesn't make them untrue. How about circling a city until the walls fall down? How about a floating axe head? How about resurrection from the dead?

 

[Barbarian]

Just because you think it's "logically absurd" doesn't make it untrue.

Because "morning" is when the sun rises and "evening" is when the sun sets, that makes it logically absurd to claim literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

As you see, it's even more strongly dependent in Hebrew than it is in English.

No point in arguing otherwise.

 

[jaybo]

Because "morning" is when the sun rises and "evening" is when the sun sets, that makes it logically absurd to claim literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

As you see, it's even more strongly dependent in Hebrew than it is in English.

No point in arguing otherwise.

Why do you go on and on about "logically"? The first day was exactly what the Bible says: evening and morning. One more time... "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

If you want to continue to deny what Scripture clearly says that is between you and God. Saying that "morning" is when the sun rises and "evening" is when the sun sets doesn't make it so. That's simply your opinion, but it is contrary to the Bible.

 

[Who Me]

They don't actually think it's flat figure of speech. But a "figure of speech" argument can't save a literal interpretation of Genesis which speaks of mornings and evenings without the sun required to have them.


[/QUOTE]

Always has. Morning is when the sun appears and evening is when it disappears. That's particularly true in Hebrew.



But since "morning" and "evening" are defined in terms of sun, we know that a sun is required to have them.
[/QUOTE]

They are terms used to denote a day, so yes they indicate as you admire that the genesis account is of a six literal days.
What you fail to realise is that the source of this information isn't Moses or any patriarch, but comes from God.
It is his inability to calculate the passage of time without aids like a sun, moon or stars.

 

[jaybo]

There is only one way that the Bible defines a day: evening and morning. Why is an alternative even being discussed?

Genesis 1:5, "God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

 

[Barbarian]

They are terms used to denote a day, so yes they indicate as you admire that the genesis account is of a six literal days.

[/QUOTE]
No. They tell us that the "days" (actually "yom" which can a number of different things) are not literal, since it's absurd to suppose literal mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. What you fail to realise is that the source of this information isn't Moses or any patriarch, but comes from God. He would not have made such an error. This is how He tells us it's not literal.

It is his inability to calculate the passage of time without aids like a sun, moon or stars.

No, He can do just fine without any of that.