Is this brief exegesis correct?

[Stoppelmann]

This is wrong because you start with a misconception. The fruit has no identity. There was no "literal" fruit.
It's not "brief" either.
The story of Eden is just an old myth that has grown to absurd proportions, and those that originally brought it to the oral tradition had no idea that a person would be writing "brief exegesis" about it 3000 years later.
It's probably more likely to be the invention of some mean old guy who wanted to keep people out of his orchard, than some amazing cryptic message from Gawd.

I think that we all know that, however people understand the story today, it does have some underlying truth and meaning that perhaps eludes us today, and our difference of outlook, in particular our materialism, colours everything we see and understand. In the same way, people from the past would, if they were here, miss our ability to experience life as an immediate participation.

Myths thrive because of how they function in society. They rely on reproduction through the generations before they get written down and it is not until then that they stop growing and evolving.

Myths thrive, even today, because we are searching for meaning, even if we are not aware of it. Why do the fans of, for example, The Lord Of The Rings demand that the lore be honoured? Because they find meaning in it, they find beauty, and love the language. This can happen with any story with depth, and which transcends everyday experience – or even if it is imagined that it does. It often doesn’t matter what someone says or writes, but what is understood. This is of course different for all cultures, and even for individuals in our modern age.

What is the moral of this story?
1) Mind your own business and stay in your lane. Knowledge is for the elders and not for the young.
2) Keep your clothes on and leave our daughters alone. Girls stop temping men with your nakedness, so stay in the home.
So we can say at the time on writing a literate person was interested to record a traditional old story from the oral history of his (probably not a women) culture.
It does not deserve the time you spent writing this "brief" exegesis.

I think you know that you are stultifying the story by giving it this meaning, and that in reality it is the allegory of the awakening of awareness, which also occurs related to growing up in all of us. It is the story of realising our responsibility, and the consequences of our actions. It is the realisation of the paradox of physical life, the drives and urges of the body and at the same time the mind that tries to control those urges. Admittedly, it doesn’t speak to you, but millions of people throughout history have gleaned meaning from it, and it wasn’t all what evangelicals say today.

If literal fruit is not the fruit in the world's oldest and greatest mystery story, then what is the fruit? Why are the two super secret trees assigned the mystical names "tree of life" and "tree of knowledge of good and evil?" Is the talking snake Evil Angel speaking words, or does the talk represent something more subtle? Could two men have yielded to Adam and Eve's temptation? Why would a smart man and woman eat from a forbidden fruit tree, instead of from one that is NOT forbidden, especially when both "trees" are right next to each other in the center of the Garden? How is the couple's disobedience of the very first commandment to be fruitful and multiply while in the Garden linked to their decision to make only fig leaf aprons, instead of complete clothing, in this incomprehensible narrative, with its guesswork of interpretations and its hints of sexual behavior?

This was nearly all explained in my first answer to the OP, and I quoted other people who understood that the story has more to say than you make out. There is something destructive in jumping on someone in the way you have, and I think the best reaction to opinions you don’t share is to just say that you don’t share them, rather than trying to humiliate the person writing them.

[Sculptor1]

This is wrong because you start with a misconception. The fruit has no identity. There was no "literal" fruit.
It's not "brief" either.
The story of Eden is just an old myth that has grown to absurd proportions, and those that originally brought it to the oral tradition had no idea that a person would be writing "brief exegesis" about it 3000 years later.
It's probably more likely to be the invention of some mean old guy who wanted to keep people out of his orchard, than some amazing cryptic message from Gawd.

I think that we all know that, however people understand the story today, it does have some underlying truth and meaning that perhaps eludes us today, and our difference of outlook, in particular our materialism, colours everything we see and understand. In the same way, people from the past would, if they were here, miss our ability to experience life as an immediate participation.

Myths thrive because of how they function in society. They rely on reproduction through the generations before they get written down and it is not until then that they stop growing and evolving.

Myths thrive, even today, because we are searching for meaning, even if we are not aware of it. Why do the fans of, for example, The Lord Of The Rings demand that the lore be honoured? Because they find meaning in it, they find beauty, and love the language. This can happen with any story with depth, and which transcends everyday experience – or even if it is imagined that it does. It often doesn’t matter what someone says or writes, but what is understood. This is of course different for all cultures, and even for individuals in our modern age.

Myth evolved from oral histories, where they were in a constant state of reflection.
Once they are written down they become irrelevant.
Such is the case with this one.

What is the moral of this story?
1) Mind your own business and stay in your lane. Knowledge is for the elders and not for the young.
2) Keep your clothes on and leave our daughters alone. Girls stop temping men with your nakedness, so stay in the home.
So we can say at the time on writing a literate person was interested to record a traditional old story from the oral history of his (probably not a women) culture.
It does not deserve the time you spent writing this "brief" exegesis.

I think you know that you are stultifying the story by giving it this meaning, and that in reality it is the allegory of the awakening of awareness, which also occurs related to growing up in all of us. It is the story of realising our responsibility, and the consequences of our actions. It is the realisation of the paradox of physical life, the drives and urges of the body and at the same time the mind that tries to control those urges. Admittedly, it doesn’t speak to you, but millions of people throughout history have gleaned meaning from it, and it wasn’t all what evangelicals say today.

If literal fruit is not the fruit in the world's oldest and greatest mystery story, then what is the fruit? Why are the two super secret trees assigned the mystical names "tree of life" and "tree of knowledge of good and evil?" Is the talking snake Evil Angel speaking words, or does the talk represent something more subtle? Could two men have yielded to Adam and Eve's temptation? Why would a smart man and woman eat from a forbidden fruit tree, instead of from one that is NOT forbidden, especially when both "trees" are right next to each other in the center of the Garden? How is the couple's disobedience of the very first commandment to be fruitful and multiply while in the Garden linked to their decision to make only fig leaf aprons, instead of complete clothing, in this incomprehensible narrative, with its guesswork of interpretations and its hints of sexual behavior?

This was nearly all explained in my first answer to the OP, and I quoted other people who understood that the story has more to say than you make out. There is something destructive in jumping on someone in the way you have, and I think the best reaction to opinions you don’t share is to just say that you don’t share them, rather than trying to humiliate the person writing them.

There is nothing to understand.
The social and cultural condition which pertained at the time of this story no longer apply.

[Stoppelmann]

Myth evolved from oral histories, where they were in a constant state of reflection.
Once they are written down they become irrelevant.
Such is the case with this one.

Such is your belief, fine!

There is nothing to understand.
The social and cultural condition which pertained at the time of this story no longer apply.

Okay, is there anyone more ignorant than he who refuses to accept a different perspective?

[Sculptor1]

Myth evolved from oral histories, where they were in a constant state of reflection.
Once they are written down they become irrelevant.
Such is the case with this one.

Such is your belief, fine!

This is not belief.
I studied Classical History and this included the topic of Oral History.

There is nothing to understand.
The social and cultural condition which pertained at the time of this story no longer apply.

Okay, is there anyone more ignorant than he who refuses to accept a different perspective?

Is there anyone more deluded than he who clings to out-of-date myths as if they continued to have relevance to the modern day?