What was the forbidden fruit?

They were only allowed to eat the fruit on the first Thursday of the month. Eve ate the fruit on the first Tuesday. Also, they ate it without napkins thus making a mess. God got pissed, told them to put some clothes on and get out. That's my interpretation.

The forbidden fruit was agriculture. Those who ate the fruit(became agriculturists) began to conquer and kill, spreading outward from the near east. (I know agriculture started independantly in other places as well, but the writing is from the view of the ancient semite herders).

http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Writings/southwestern.shtml

Read!

That's an interesting point Etruscia, and one I've always believed. It was the first time humans got a concept of "ownership", and abandoned the biblical command of "stewardship" over the living things of the earth. Now, on a more obscure point, some food researchers have suggested that the "forbidden fruit" could not have been an apple at all, and it is speculated that it was more likely a sycamore fig.

Etruscia, that was engrossing reading. Ever since I was a child, I have wondered about the fruit and the tree. I had always suspected that this was an allegory, but I wasn't exactly certain. The fact that there are two accounts of "creation" in the Bible is another mystery.

Provocative thread, Ray.

Actually cav, from my view, and i think the authors "stewardship of the earth" is just the result of the agriculture. We were not made to steward the earth, or put it into order. Our putting a lock on food, puts the otherwise orderly earth into chaos.

I suppose I define stewardship differently. To me, it's closer to the Native tradition of only taking what you need, and giving thanks for it, recognizing both our power to upset the balance, and also our responsibility to maintain it. Semantics, maybe, but that's how I've always viewed the concept.

I thought the forbidden fruit was sex. But, I grew up in a Catholic neighborhood.

How could sex be the forbidden fruit, considering that all mammals, and technichally all animals up to us have had it, in order to continue their species. Since we were the first animals, as described by the bible, to taste the forbidden fruit, it has to be something other than sex, and i think the author from the link i provided has the right explanation.

Good points re: agriculture. Note also that Cain, who killed Abel, was an agriculturalist, while his brother Cain was a herder. Do you see a pattern here? Growing stuf = bad. Taking care of animals = good.

Well to be blunt, we werent taking care of the animals, we were in a sense "exploitng" them for our own use. The animals didnt need us to take care of them, they were doing fine with out us.

The message is growing stuff isnt bad, but growing stuff and thinking this is the only way anybody should live is bad.

The "fruit of the Tree of Knowledge" is ARROGANCE.

Re: "Agriculture" and the Creation Story: Cain ( the tiller of the earth), slew his brother Abel ( the nomad herdsman).

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had no respect. And Cain was very wroth and his countenance fell.

Genesis, Chapter 4, verses 3-5 (King James Version)

OK. Lust.

Leave it to the A2K intelligentsia to snatch a dilemma from the jaws of a truism.

It clearly states in scripture that the forbidden fruit was the knowledge of good and evil. they ate it, they lost their innocence. What's so confusing?

Are you suggesting that the bible is beyond examination beyond the written words?

Yes, snood. That logic is what literalists use, every word means what it says. You cant even think it was the knowledge of good and evil from the semites perspective. They saw that the farmers believed they had the knowledge of how to live, and as an ancient form of propoganda, they write that their way of life (Abel's) was the one god supported.

Can you state where if possible?
What's so confusing: How can the knowledge of good and evil be the end of innocence? Is it not pretty futile to not know the difference between them?

The reason I'm asking this, is that there's this author, Pullman (you probably know who he is) who argued that taking the forbidden fruit was a "fortunate fall"", because the way he sees it, the fruit containts knowledge itself. I can't say I blame him for taking the position he has taken but I'm trying to find out what the fruit actually is suppose to represent. Lewis, Narnia author, believed that it was taking the fruit in the wrong way at the wrong time was why it was so deadly to humanity. His view perhaps can be seen in "The Magician's Nephew" where the witch took the fruit by climbing over a wall not to be climbed over, taking the fruit for herself, and thus ate it when she's "not supposed to". I think he believed that God would eventually gave them knowledge and wisdom, if that was what the fruit is supposed to be.

Genesis 2:15-17

15Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

From my religious studies course (10 years ago or so):

Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

God kicked them out for fear they would eat the fruit from the tree of eternal life and thus become his equal.