That the fruit was an apple when in fact the Bible does not say what type of fruit it actually was but only that it looked desirable to the eyes of Eve.
(Genesis 3:6) . . .Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon. So she began taking of its fruit and eating it. . .
2007-09-17 06:59:35 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
maybe it is a contamination with the art..paintings etc...which was in comunication with the literature and philosophy...we know that the perfect statement is in the bible..
2007-09-17 07:07:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some cultures believe it to be a pomegranate instead of an apple. But the apple version started because of a 1470 painting called "The Fall of Man" by Hugo Van Der Goes. He painted an apple tree in the biblical Garden of Eden along with Adam and Eve and the Devil. After that artists everywhere started choosing apples for the Garden of Eden. The apple idea was actually borrowed from a similar creation story in Greek mythology.
"In Greek mythology, Gaia, or Mother Earth, presented a tree with golden apples to Zeus and his bride Hera on their wedding day. Guarded by Ladon, a serpent who never slept, the apple tree was in the garden of the Hesperides, daughters of the Evening Star."
2007-09-17 14:15:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably comes from a rule I once heard about writing..."say collie, not dog". "Fruit" is too generic to provide a picture in our minds...how could a great artist paint "fruit"...but we can all picture an apple and that's what some of the earlier artists whose image is somewhere in our head used in their rendition of the scene. Could have just as easily been an orange or a peach or a banana or any other "fruit" that grows on trees (probably not a strawberry, blueberry, grape or another fruit that grows on vines since the Bible does say "tree").
2007-09-17 14:10:20 · answer #3 · answered by KAL 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just an incorrect assumption that probably started with someone's interpretive depiction of the event. Just like the assumption that the serpent was in the form of a snake when he tempted Eve. God cursed him to slither on his belly but prior to that the creature may have stood upright. Just like the many interpretations of the bible in film that depict everyone, from the egyptians to the jews, disciples and Jesus as no darker than a paperbag in color. Just like the little images on people's lawns at Xmas that show (only) three wise men around a baby Jesus...when in fact there were more than three and Jesus would have been a toddler by the time they reached Him.
2007-09-17 14:11:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
that is not the only thing that was lost in translation. Fruit to apple ??? Wow if that one was messed up what else..the Christians have half of the bible wrongly understood. They should learn Hebrew and really learn it huh??
2007-09-17 14:20:46 · answer #5 · answered by 3rd Imam 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was a translation error into English. The original simply says "fruit" and scholars believe it may have been a fig but no one knows for sure.
2007-09-17 14:05:49 · answer #6 · answered by Feivel 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What cracks me up is the depictions of Adam and Eve.....they are always pure white with light hair and blue eyes surrounded by forests and trees. And poor Jesus - another white guy with blue eyes...and him being Ethiopian and all. Funny!
HA!!!!
2007-09-17 14:13:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who cares!
God loves you...God bless
2007-09-17 14:16:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋