Yeah, the word “touch” also means having sex. It is used accordingly in 1 Cor. 7: Even in my own languagae it carries the same connotation. But again, one has to see the clear context. “Who touched me,” was what Jesus asked, but there it is used in a literal sense. But when God gave the command to Adam, there was no reference to touching the fruit. Even the Satan did not tell that in initiating the conversation.

Well, I have read something about the stone of scone etc. But something else comes to my mind. It was in answer to a Macedonian call Paul got in vision that the Gospel entered in Europe. God had a plan. Britishers ruled the world. Although the British colonial administration had its poitical and economic interests. They did not always support the missionaries from Europe, but many missionaries like Adoniram Judson, William carrey, David Livingstone, Hudson etc were instrumental in taking gospel to different parts of the world. The British administration also did a lot in education and also teaching English. This one langauge did help in spreading the Gospel with translation in local langauge. So God did use the Eurpean missionaries to spread the Good news of Jesus Christ. The Gospel they took to the world says:

It is by the disobediance of one man that sin spread to ALL. ( )

ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. (Roman 3:23)

There is no righteous, not one, they have ALL gone astray, they are ALL filled with the venom of vipers ( )

ALL includes JEWS and non- JEWS!

But Jesus is the ransom or us ALL!

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 2/1/2010 21:42 pm

Jayant,check out Genesis 3:3 the word the word touch which adam and eve were instructed not to do. The word is nah-gah in the hebrew which means to lie with someone sexually. Sex has always produced so called fruit. Cain is the fruit of satan. do you think that true Israel is there today? No. the tribes are scatarred as God’s word has said. The kenites, or sons of Cain are the ones in Isreal today. Remember jacobs pillar from Genesis? Well today it is called the stone of scone and sits underneath the coranation chair in britain. In Isaiah, the tender twigs,or daughters of hezikiah brought it there. True isreal today is american, and britian. The house of David God said shall always have a light. Where is it? certainly not in Isreal. But it is in Great britain. Do a little history. This is fact.

Commentary by shawn
Posted on: 1/31/2010 08:05 am

The defination of sin in the Bible: “The trasgression of law is sin.” Adam and Eve had disobeyed the command of God. If it is only the sin of the blood (here perhaps you mean sin of sex)that is to be atoned for by blood, then there is no propitaition for sins that are not sins of blood.The fact is that a soul that sin will die. The propitiation of sins needs death and hence there is a need for sacrifice, that is death by shedding of blood, and not a natural death.

I am learning many things from this site and many good people like you. But I think I must give expression to what little I know. Perhaps the responses to what I write will make me wise.

Yes we can read many things from the text, but it should be in the given context. We can clearly know when a word is used figuratively or otherwise. For example, when Jesus said, “you will know them by thier fruit” we know that it is used figuratively. I don’t think the word fruit is used figuratively. Moreover, it is the friut that was in the midst of the garden. All the trees in the garden was the creative work of God, not of Satan. Satan was in the form of serpent, of animal world, not of trees.

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 1/31/2010 06:15 am

to jayant. Tree means many things in scripture. If this is a fruit tree as i believe you think it is, then why does the word mean firmness? Eve had sex with satan that is why her genitals are cursed! That is why the sacrifice must be blood, because the sin was of the blood. cain was the child of satan period! The true children of cain still to this day are in the holy land. The true israel is britian and the united states. Do a little research before opening your mouth. If fruit was the sin then fruit would be the sacrifice,not blood. It was a blood sin. Get it!

Commentary by shawn
Posted on: 1/30/2010 08:42 am

The tree giving knowledge of good and evil was already there in Eden and the Lord had forbidden to eat the fruit of it, even before the Satan went to tempt Adam and Eve. It has therefore nothing to do with the Satan genitalia of sorts and therefore it does not indicate Eve having sex with Satan.

Genesis 4:1 says that Eve concieved by Adam and gave birth to Cain How can then Cain thus not born of Satan and Abel was good.

The observation that Eve is stated to have concieved once and therfore Cain and Abel were twins has no ground either. Eve is stated to have given birth to Cain and Abel separately. It is not necessary to say every time that Eve concieved and gave birth. In fact, Adam had other sons and daughters too, and every time we don’t find the same phrase repeated. Such repetition is absurd and uncalled for. Why to interpret out of silence?

Commentary by Jayant Christian
Posted on: 1/29/2010 10:45 am

Eating a mere apple brought the curse of death upon ALL. Eve did have sex with satan. The reson this was so bad was because satan was trying to pollute the bloodline in which Christ was to come through. Look at hte meaning of the words and it is clear in hebrew we are not talking about an apple. for instance the word plesant means, a longing. People don’t have a longing for fruit. a tree to be desired. The word desire in the hebrew means, delight in. we don’t delight in fruit. the word desire can also mean lust. It is clear for those who have eyes to see

Commentary by shawn
Posted on: 1/29/2010 05:38 am

Thanks Bear. the way murray’s teachings catch on, kind of reminds me of Peter Ruckman, another man who mixes a lot of truth with a little bit of error. People say we should “Eat the meat and spit out the bones.” but a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. And we all should be reminded that even rat poison is 99% good food.

jaysun1980@hotmail.com

Commentary by Jason W. Elder
Posted on: 1/5/2010 02:20 am

Hi, I was studying the Bible with a friend of mine that had many of Murray’s tapes and we ran across this same thing that you mentioned about Cain and Abel being twins. It is possible but the scripture does not tell us for sure. Mr. Murray calls people STUPID on his tapes and I never liked that, but my friend continued on with the doctrine. Watch out for this man! Alot of what he says makes sense and alot does not make sense. I did learn under this man about the Bible. Do your background on him because he is NOT who he says he is. He is really good at mixing false doctrine with true doctrine. I am not here to defend any one. I do not think this man is a college graduate, but this should not matter if God has called him. My Bible does NOT say that Eve had sex with the devil. Thats HIS interpretation! I had to quit studying with my friend and she had spent alot of money getting his tapes. Test the waters! Bear

Commentary by Bear
Posted on: 1/4/2010 05:36 am

DID EVE HAVE SEX WITH SATAN?

In Genesis 3:6 as I understand it Arnold Murray (TV preacher) teaches that the fruit which Eve ate of did not come from a tree but in reality, it was the product of satanic genitalia of sorts. In other words, Eve had sex with the serpent .I don’t know for sure that this is what Murray teaches – but I do know that some people believe along those lines.

I have heard that prostitution is the oldest profession on earth but if this doctrine is correct, prostitution takes a backseat (no pun intended) to homosexuality. I say that because whatever this fruit was, the Bible says Eve “…gave also unto her husband with her; and HE DID EAT.” (Gen 3:6)

That doesn’t sit too well with me. I know there have been homosexuals down through the ages but I find it hard to believe that Adam was the first fag and that Eve engaged in bestiality (Satan appeared as a serpent in the Garden of Eden).

As the “story” goes, after having sex with her husband and Satan, Eve conceived and bore twins whom she named Cain and Abel. That’s neither here nor there. They could have been twins because the Bible mentions Eve bearing twice but it only mentions her conceiving once. So it is “possible” but the Bible does not even hint at Cain and Abel being twins.

But this cult goes further and says that Cain was Eve’s child by Satan and Abel was hers by Adam.
…Christ wants us to understand there are plantings of God and plantings of the devil. The plantings of that wicked one began in the garden of Eden with the conception of Cain and follow down through his progeny, the Kenites. (Newsletter #195, Jan 1995. See also, #202, August 1995).

If this were true it (and it’s not) would make the possibility of them being twins even more unlikely. Not only would it violate the laws of nature, I’m fairly certain it’s a statistical/genetic improbability.

Furthermore, Eve named her firstborn son “Cain” which means “Gotten.” For she said, “I have gotten a man from the Lord.” (Gen 4:1) Now, why would Eve name him “Cain” knowing that the little bastard was the offspring of Satan? I know Eve gets picked on a lot, but do you really think she would’ve said that? I don’t think so.

Genesis 4:3 “And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.”
Now, let’s use the same logic Murray uses in previous chapter and apply it to this verse. In so doing, we have no choice but to believe that Cain brought some kind of demonic genitalia as an offering unto the Lord. (Well, no wonder God rejected his offering! I say that with a smirk on my face.)

I mean I’ve always taught and believed that if something makes literal sense not to seek any other sense. After all there’s plenty in the Bible we don’t understand. Why complicate the simple things?

But I suppose in the sex crazed culture we live in it shouldn’t surprise us that a “minister” somewhere had his mind in the gutter when he read Genesis. 2Peter 2:14 talks about these ministers “Having eyes full of adultery…” (they see sex in everything) and since we’re talking about preachers is it any wonder that the same person accuses them of “…beguiling unstable souls?”

Commentary by Jason W. Elder
Posted on: 7/28/2009 12:14 pm

Just Say No:
Some scholars provide three basic categories for temptation. The categories help to understand not only the temptation of Eve, but that of Jesus. (And we can read how He resisted by relying on Scripture.) The three categories are lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. These might correspond to the three evils of the flesh, the world, and the devil, and also to the trinity of man which are body, soul, and spirit. The lust of flesh was evidenced when Eve “saw that the tree was good for food”. It looked like something that would fill her belly. The lust of eyes was when Eve saw “it was pleasant to the eyes”. What is the difference between seeing fruit as good for food versus seeing it as pleasant? This particular temptation seems to relate to anticipation. It seems it will meet a need that is currently not being met. Or, it seems life will not be good until this thing is obtained. (“After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.” Spock, Star Trek - Amok Time.) The pride of life was when Eve believed the tree was “desired to make one wise”. She wanted to be like God. Wanting to be like God is not bad itself; humans just go about it the wrong way. As with the tower at Babel, we try to lift ourselves up and make a name for ourselves. But what did God do? He came down – He humbled Himself.
Then the focus shifts to Adam. Where was he while Eve was at the tree? Did she take the fruit to him? Was he at the tree beside her the whole time? Did he know it was forbidden fruit? No clues are provided — I believe he was not at the tree, but then went through the same temptation once the fruit was presented (we just don’t have the details). (It is tradition that the fruit looked like an apple; no physical description is provided.)
One final note: Paul used this episode in his writing (1 Timothy, chapter 2). So he believed this to be an actual historical account and not myth. I think it would be foolish to support an argument with a known mythical story. That would be like me trying to argue that robots should deserve respect because Luke Skywalker was kind to C-3PO and Captain Picard gave command responsibility to Data.

Commentary by Terik Q
Posted on: 3/6/2009 14:51 pm