Interesting Mandela effect with the apple of sin...many specifically remember reading an apple being eaten by Eve in the garden when in fact the Bible only states "fruit"
Where we get all the imagery of it being an apple is questionable.
I blame artists. They had to pick some sort of fruit tree to draw when depicting the scene and apples were popular both in antiquity and in medieval Europe. Centuries of normies looking at the pictures and not really studying the accompanying scripture later and here we are.
Maybe people fluent in a language don't read whole words, as research has shown, and no one knows anyone who's name ends in stain but everyone knows of people who's name ends in Stein. So maybe your parents weren't looking so closely at your literature when they read it to you.
Or we hopped dimensions and for some reason that changed the name of the Berenstain bears without changing anything else of consequence.
But I guess I must have a weak memory and be easily fooled to know the fruit in the Bible was never called an apple in the Bible and understand alternative explanations that don't jump to crazy scifi mysticism
It may not be scripturally correct, but the whole idea of an apple in the garden is planted pretty deeply in western culture anyway. Combine that with the price for the Apple 1 and their intent is pretty clear.
As for me when I think of a tree of fruit' cherry tree comes first to mind due living around them and growing up with them in my backyard...ask someone in Florida and they'll say orange tree. The fact that every artist worldwide specifically uses an apple when in fact it could have been any fruit strikes me as odd.
There are zero example of any other fruit depicted that scene. Always an apple.
Interesting Mandela effect with the apple of sin...many specifically remember reading an apple being eaten by Eve in the garden when in fact the Bible only states "fruit"
Where we get all the imagery of it being an apple is questionable.
I blame artists. They had to pick some sort of fruit tree to draw when depicting the scene and apples were popular both in antiquity and in medieval Europe. Centuries of normies looking at the pictures and not really studying the accompanying scripture later and here we are.
This is the real answer. Everyone calling things that they never actually knew about to begin with a Mandela Effect
You'll never convince me those )ew bears weren't called berenstein.
Maybe some people have weak memories and are easily fooled.
Maybe people fluent in a language don't read whole words, as research has shown, and no one knows anyone who's name ends in stain but everyone knows of people who's name ends in Stein. So maybe your parents weren't looking so closely at your literature when they read it to you.
Or we hopped dimensions and for some reason that changed the name of the Berenstain bears without changing anything else of consequence.
But I guess I must have a weak memory and be easily fooled to know the fruit in the Bible was never called an apple in the Bible and understand alternative explanations that don't jump to crazy scifi mysticism
So maybe the apple logo is just a bite from an apple...
It may not be scripturally correct, but the whole idea of an apple in the garden is planted pretty deeply in western culture anyway. Combine that with the price for the Apple 1 and their intent is pretty clear.
As for me when I think of a tree of fruit' cherry tree comes first to mind due living around them and growing up with them in my backyard...ask someone in Florida and they'll say orange tree. The fact that every artist worldwide specifically uses an apple when in fact it could have been any fruit strikes me as odd.
There are zero example of any other fruit depicted that scene. Always an apple.
In a Jeopardy episode long forgotten, the answer was a quince.
Give it some time and we'll see Ed McMahon being the host of those those earlier episodes..