1. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    07 Jan '10 13:04
    OK so the bible doesnt say it was an apple.

    What's most likely?

    A banana would be fitting but none around.

    The fig seems likely as it has various links through other religions with sexuaity and reproduction.

    So maybe the cause of the Fall of Mankind was Eve's constipation and a remedy suggested by a friendly serpent?!?
  2. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    07 Jan '10 13:051 edit
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    OK so the bible doesnt say it was an apple.

    What's most likely?

    A banana would be fitting but none around.

    The fig seems likely as it has various links through other religions with sexuaity and reproduction.

    So maybe the cause of the Fall of Mankind was Eve's constipation and a remedy suggested by a friendly serpent?!?
    it was a fruit, all else is speculation.
  3. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    07 Jan '10 13:16
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    it was a fruit, all else is speculation.
    It wasn't an apple, it was a fruit?
  4. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    07 Jan '10 13:21
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    it was a fruit, all else is speculation.
    There is a God.
  5. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    07 Jan '10 13:321 edit
    The fruit was probably a vehicle used by God so that generations of humans could grasp rather profound truths in simple terms.

    He would want the largest portion of people to comprehend the matters. In His forethought He arranged that fruit would be involved.

    The central truth which we need to see is that food is taken in an assimilated. It becomes a person's constitution. What we eat becomes the constituent of our bodies.

    The tree of life represented man taking God into himself to be "organically" one with God.

    The tree of the knowledge of good and evil signified man becoming united with the enemy Satan.

    Man was created to assimilate God into his being.
  6. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    07 Jan '10 13:501 edit
    Man was created a living vessel to assimilate the Divine Person into him. We may call this assimilation "eating".

    God's plan then is that we eat, digest, and assimilate the Uncreated Divine Person that we would be constituted with God - mingled with God.

    Today that means we are to "eat" Jesus Christ Who is God incarnate - Right here:

    "As the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me shall live because of Me." (John 6:57)

    The standard model of the man mingled with God is the Son of God Jesus Christ. Now Jesus says if we eat Him we also will live because of Him. This means that as in the beginning, the Divine God is embodied in Christ to be our "food" to digest and assimilate.

    In other words God's eternal plan is to dispense Himself into us so that He becomes every "fiber" of our inward being; God wants to be "eaten", "digested", and assimilated by us so that He can become our constituent.

    First Christ demonstrated the nature of the man totally mingled with God - "As the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father ..." Then God continues this process by dispensing Christ into His followers to be "eaten" - " ... so he who eats Me shall live because of Me,"

    As with Him so also with man. As nutritionistss say "You are what you eat" if we take into us the Son of God we will become the expression of God living in and blended with man.

    God wants to dispense His life and nature into the "fibers" of our spiritual being.
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    07 Jan '10 14:06
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    There is a God.
    there is a God, all else is speculation 😉
  8. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    07 Jan '10 14:081 edit
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    It wasn't an apple, it was a fruit?
    ok Fabs, we cannot ascertain for certain what it was, the scriptures are silent, therefore, not going beyond what is written, it is futile to speculate!
  9. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    07 Jan '10 14:10
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    there is a God, all else is speculation 😉
    I'm glad you see the humour.

    I thought stating my original post was speculation below standard for you!

    I wonder why the fruit isnt specified though? Was it lost in translation? Is it a reference to agriculture?
  10. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    07 Jan '10 14:10
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    ok Fabs, we cannot ascertain for certain what it was, the scriptures are silent, therefore, not going beyond what is written, it is futile to speculate!
    No speculations anymore, robbie? Are you reborn?
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    07 Jan '10 14:29
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    I'm glad you see the humour.

    I thought stating my original post was speculation below standard for you!

    I wonder why the fruit isnt specified though? Was it lost in translation? Is it a reference to agriculture?
    are you kidding, at my level, everything is above me! why it is not specified, i do not know, please consider this,

    There is much conjecture as to the identification of the tree and fruit denoted by the Hebrew word tappuach. The word itself indicates that which is distinguished by its fragrance, or scent. It comes from the root naphach, meaning “blow; pant; struggle for breath.” (Ge 2:7; Job 31:39; Jer 15:9) Regarding this, M. C. Fisher wrote: “Relationship [to naphach] seems at first semantically strained, but the ideas of ‘breathe’ and ‘exhale an odor are related. The by-form puah means both ‘blow’ (of wind) and ‘exhale a pleasant odor, be fragrant.’”—Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, edited by R. L. Harris, 1980, Vol. 2, p. 586.

    Several fruits have been suggested in place of the apple, including the orange, the citron, the quince, and the apricot. The main objection raised to the apple is that the hot, dry climate of most of Palestine is unfavourable to apple culture. However, the related Arabic word tuffah primarily means “apple,” and it is notable that the Hebrew place-names Tappuah and Beth-tappuah (probably so named because of the prevalence of this fruit in their vicinity) have been preserved in their Arabic equivalents by the use of this word. (Jos 12:17; 15:34, 53; 16:8; 17:8) These places were not in the lowlands but in the hill country, where the climate is generally somewhat moderated. Additionally, the possibility of some climatic variations in the past cannot be completely ruled out. Apple trees do grow in Israel today and thus seem to fit the Bible description satisfactorily. William Thomson, who spent many years in Syria and Palestine in the past century, even reported finding apple orchards in the area of Ashkelon on the Plains of Philistia.—The Land and the Book, revised by J. Grande, 1910, pp. 545, 546.

    The apple tree (Pyrus malus) is mentioned mainly in The Song of Solomon, where the expressions of love by the Shulammite’s shepherd companion are likened to the pleasant shade of the apple tree and the sweetness of its fruit. (Ca 2:3, 5) In turn, he compares her breath to the fragrance of apples. (Ca 7:8; see also 8:5.) In the Proverbs (25:11) appropriate, opportune speech is likened to “apples of gold in silver carvings.” The only other reference to the apple is at Joel 1:12.

    The common tradition as to the apples being the forbidden fruit of Eden is without any Scriptural basis whatsoever. Similarly, the expression “apple of the eye” is found in the King James Version (Ps 17:8; Pr 7:2; and others) but is not a Hebrew expression, the literal translation being “the pupil of [one’s] eyeball.”

    source; insight on the scriptures
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    07 Jan '10 14:29
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    No speculations anymore, robbie? Are you reborn?
    you should know me by now Fabs, only good sound science 😉
  13. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    07 Jan '10 14:32
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    you should know me by now Fabs, only good sound science 😉
    No, just a fundamentalist, a JW culter.
  14. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    07 Jan '10 14:36
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    No, just a fundamentalist, a JW culter.
    and after i was being real nice to you as well, and look, ya killed it!
  15. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    07 Jan '10 14:44
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    and after i was being real nice to you as well, and look, ya killed it!
    I haven't offended you have I? Not more than you offend people in general anyway. Are you more sensitive than those you debate with?

    You are a fundamentalist, you've said it yourself, and are proud of it.
    You are a Jehovas Witness, you've said it yourself, and are proud of it.
    So what did I say?
Back to Top