Here are Zen Garcia’s claims regarding the symbolism:
Now in regard to the Hebrew words for fruit, tree, eat of, touch, and seed, that all of these words have specific association with children, descendants, progeny or are in some way associated to a sexual act? The phrase fruit of the tree is Hebrew word # 6529 periy- fruit, which in a wide sense means: a) fruit, produce (of the ground), or b) fruit, offspring, children, progeny (of the womb), or figuratively c) fruit (of actions). The phrase eat of it is Hebrew word #398; ‘akal (aw-kal’); This word has many uses, but can mean to lay with a woman (a sexual act). Touch is Hebrew word # 5060; naga`(naw-gah’); Properly, to touch, ie: to lay the hand upon (for any purpose); euphemism for: to lie with a woman.
Seed is the Hebrew word #2233 zera` which means seed, sowing, offspring, a sowing, seed, semen virile, offspring, descendants, posterity, children.
I am empathetic to how this can sound very impressive and convincing: you have quotes, Strong numbers, definitions, etc. However, this is the utter folly of pop-research methods as I noted in my reply:
When it comes to “the Hebrew words for fruit, tree, eat of, touch, and seed” having “specific association with children, descendants, progeny or are in some way associated to a sexual act” you are not applying the very first rule of defining word which is not to look up the multiple definitions that any and all words have and then picking and choosing which in within that range of meanings are convenient to your preconceived notion.
Rather, the very first thing you must do is define a word according to the context in which it is found. Thus, within Genesis fruit, tree, eat of, touch, and seed are fruit, tree, eat of, touch, and seed.
The point is simple: just because one word has more than one meaning it does not mean that it is legitimate to pick and choose from those definitions that which you want the word to mean. Rather, context is king and Genesis’s context is that which it is: a literal tree, literal fruit, literal eating, etc.
Zen Garcia continued this line of argument by employing a tactic I noted in Zen Garcia on Satanic blood vs. the blood of the lamb. He invents mysterious questions that are supposedly only answerable via the Serpent Seed of Satan theory:
If you really believe that the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was somehow related to apple, fig or fruit of some kind, how do you explain their being enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent?
Why would Adam and Eve after the eating of this fruit cause them to cover their genitals and how in any way would it lead to Eve being pregnant?
Well, I do believe that it was “fruit of some kind” and have explained, in detail, what it means that there will be enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. You see, Zen takes this reference to “seed” to be seedlines / bloodlines: genetics. It is not, as the Bible’s consistent statement on this issue is that it is not a case of Satanic genetics vs. godly genetics but Satanic actions vs. godly actions, see:
Did Jesus teach the serpent seed of Satan theory in John 8?
Did Jesus teach the serpent seed of Satan theory in Matthew 23?
Did Jesus teach the serpent seed of Satan theory in the parable of the sower?
“Why would Adam and Eve after the eating of this fruit cause them to cover their genitals” is a great gotcha question indeed. The Bible tells us that having sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit of “the tree of knowledge of” both “good and evil” then “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons” yet, “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.” Thus, this appears to pertain to atonement and not sex.
I can see how Zen draws a correlation between his view of Sex with Adam and Eve realizing “they were naked” and making aprons but the fact is still that neither Genesis nor the rest of the Bible know anything of Eve having sex with Satan, nothing of Satanic genetics, nothing of Cain being Satan’s son, etc. This seems to be more about being sinfully exposed before God, since God rejects their works based self-covering and makes some of His own for them.
“how in any way would it lead to Eve being pregnant?” Indeed, just how does it in any lead to Eve being pregnant? It does not. Zen implies that the Bible states that Eve ate the fruit and the very next thing we know, “It’s a boy!” Rather, the Bible records Adam and Eve eating the fruit in Genesis 3:6, that chapter ends in 18 verses later and Genesis 4 begins with “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.” Thus, the answer is that what lead to Eve being pregnant is her husband knowing her.
Zen Garcia’s other gotcha question is more complex and yet, very simple to answer:
And why would Paul refer to Eve’s beguilement as corrupting her virginity in 2 Corinthians 11:2-3, the word there being the Greek word exapataō which means to seduce wholly:—beguile, deceive just like the Hebrew word nasha’ in Genesis 3:13 which means to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce:—beguile, deceive, × greatly, × utterly.
Your belief like your previous rebuttal in my opinion, in no way makes any literal or metaphorical sense when regarded in connection to all these things. Which is why I suggest that people investigate this topic thoroughly before making decision as to whether there is something more to it or not.
Note that Pastor Ben Heath played upon this notion as well in, “The Serpent Seed” (Christian Overcomers site, October 24, 2011 AD)
The apostle Paul confirmed the “Serpent seed” teaching when he said,
“I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled (sexually seduced) Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” –II Corinthians 11:3
Hopefully it is needless to state that merely inserting a parenthetical statement into the text does not result in Eve having been sexually seduced.
Here is my reply:
That Paul refers to Eve’s beguilement as “corrupting her virginity” is simply an invention of yours. Here is how I can prove that: the term exapataō appears five times in the Bible, as follows:
Romans 7:11, “For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, exapataō [according to you “corrupting…virginity”] me, and by it slew me.
Romans 16:18, “For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches exapataō [“corrupting…virginity”] the hearts of the simple.”
1 Corinthians 3:18, “Exapataō [“corrupting…virginity”] no man exapataō [“corrupting…virginity”] himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.”
2 Corinthians 11:3, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent exapataō [“corrupting…virginity”] Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”
2 Thessalonians 2:3, “Exapataō [“corrupting…virginity”] no man exapataō [“corrupting…virginity”] you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;”
Obviously, your claim that it has anything to do with virginity or sexuality in general is completed debunked.
Specifically, Romans 16:18 refers to words and speeches that are used to exapataō the hearts.1 Corinthians 3:18 has references to exapataō followed by a reference to wisdom and foolishness.
2 Thessalonians 2:3 has exapataō in reference to falling away and with v. 2 referring to being “shaken in mind” being “troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us.”
Lastly to your text: you can know that 2 Corinthians 11:3 as nothing to do with virginity since Eve knew that God had stated, “Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die” but the manner in which Satan exapataō her was to tell her “Ye shall not surely die” and if the greater context is not enough for you then consider the immediate context which is that “so your minds” minds and not bodies, “should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” It was obviously a reference to Satan’s deception both in Genesis and 2 Corinthians.
As to your other various supposedly gotcha questions—what about this and that—I already explained how Adam and Eve’s curses have a one-to-one correlation to that which we are previously told about them [see, Zen Garcia on Adam & Eve’s curses & bloodlines – seedlines]. Simply dreaming up more supposedly unanswerable questions will not rescue you from the fact that you are teaching something about which the Bible knows nothing.
The two “lines” are not genetic lineages but are those who perform Godly actions versus those who perform sinful actions.
For my whole Serpent Seed of Satan series including my discussions with Zen Garcia, see see here. In the next segment we will consider miscellaneous Serpent Seed of Satan related topics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.
Twitter: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia
Facebook: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia