What was the forbidden fruit?

a watermelon!!

Just don't be ignorant. Eve ate an apple? Well when the earlier English translations were made 'apple' meant only 'fruit' but fools get more foolish and quote that to their own shame

In Middle English and as late as 17c., it was a generic term for all fruit other than berries but including nuts (such as Old English fingeræppla "dates," literally "finger-apples;" Middle English appel of paradis "banana," c. 1400). Hence its grafting onto the unnamed "fruit of the forbidden tree" in Genesis.

I would contest that you grew up at all.

St John Chrysostom on sex -- and he is known as the Pillar of the Church:

“How do they become one flesh? As if she were gold receiving purest gold, the woman receives the man’s seed with rich pleasure, and within her it is nourished, cherished, and refined. It is mingled with her own substance and she then returns it as a child!”

Why are you blushing? Leave that to the heretics and pagans, with their impure and immodest customs. For this reason I want marriage to be thoroughly purified, to bring it back again to its proper nobility. You should not be ashamed of these things. If you are ashamed, then you condemn God who made marriage.
St John Chrysostom

A rather hateful view of God you have

You are still condemning sex. What does the Bible say about the Antichrist ? Really only one definite thing that I've found: He will speak impurely about marriage.

First of all, the serpent in the Garden of Eden story was not Satan. The text makes it very clear that it was one of the created animals.

Second of all, the fact that Adam and Eve ate the fruit made them human. At that point they stopped being robots and started being humans with free will... able to disobey, or to obey. Love must be a choice. Love means nothing if you don't have the capacity for hate.

The serpent (who was not Satan) gave Adam and Eve everything.

In view of the Bible's love of Wisdom and "love God with your whole mind"-- no, that is not a good interpretation

If it was allegorical for sin then there is still sin and the need to talk about its origin. so at best; historical used as allegorical

You can't give a made-up explanation of something with no historical basis as the explanation of a historical fact.

I don't think it was allegory for sin, I think the 'forbidden fruit ' was allegory for just what the book said, Knowledge of good and evil.

And you may still be right about its literal existence as a fruit. Perhaps it was a psychoactive substance that opened their 'eyes' to the possibility of good and evil and started the biological death clock in every cell of their bodies.

But again, I think the term 'forbidden' is a misnomer because it implies an absolute prohibition. . God did not do that. He said 'Thou shall not partake of it unless you are willing to face the consequences of death.' (Paraphrased) They chose, and the rest is history.

No, the evil was that God who they never denied had done all the good things in their life was made out to be dealing evilly with them by someone (Serpent/Devil/whoever) who had done literally nothing for them.

The disobedience follows on that but is secondary. Clearly the question is, Was the forbidding done by an Evil Being for an evil end? Whatever you say, the story does not have Adam and Eve agreeing with you. Eve says she was tricked into thinking wrongly of God and THEREFORE did what she did.