Adam and Eve, The True Adult Story

[Rocky Wiley]

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
Gen 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
The serpent had sex with Eve
naw-shaw'
A primitive root; to lead astray, that is, (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce: - beguile, deceive, X greatly, X utterly.

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. Eve admitted she had sex with a Spirit one who said he was of the Lord, who we know as Satin.
Gen 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
1Jn 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother.

Eve had twins, but they didn't have the same father.

Now, don't tell me that the above is a lie, because it is the word of God!

 

[101G]

WOW, WHEN WILL THE FALSE STATEMENT ENDS.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Base12]

It is worse than you think OP...

Ezekiel 28:14
"Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire."

You all know who the above verse is referring to.

So...

What does Satan cover?

Genesis 3:21
"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them."

More specifically...

Job 10:11
"Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews."

We are born clothed with the 'Covering' of the Seed of the Serpent. Sucks to be us.

 

[justbyfaith]

After only three posts in this thread, false doctrine abounds...

 

[Enoch111]

The serpent had sex with Eve

Seems like you are constantly promoting false doctrines. This is the false "Serpent Seed" teaching that is totally manufactured by a few cultists. And the Bible itself exposes this falsehood. See Genesis 4:1.

And Adam knew [had sexual intercourse with] Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
Gen 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
The serpent had sex with Eve
naw-shaw'
A primitive root; to lead astray, that is, (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce: - beguile, deceive, X greatly, X utterly.

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. Eve admitted she had sex with a Spirit one who said he was of the Lord, who we know as Satin.
Gen 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
1Jn 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother.

Eve had twins, but they didn't have the same father.

Now, don't tell me that the above is a lie, because it is the word of God!

Abel was a prophet, Cain was not. Abel's Heart had been Purified of the Sin Nature, and Cain's Heart was not. Therefore, Cain's [Spiritual] father was still the Devil.

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

It is worse than you think OP...

Ezekiel 28:14
"Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire."

You all know who the above verse is referring to.

So...

What does Satan cover?

Genesis 3:21
"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them."

More specifically...

Job 10:11
"Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews."

We are born clothed with the 'Covering' of the Seed of the Serpent. Sucks to be us.

Are you sure that clothing is not designed to cover our "shame?" This is a significant doctrine found throughout scripture . . . we have to remember Noah being uncovered in his drunken state by his son, Ham. Ham exposed the "shame" of his father. What is this shame? An uncircumcised phallus. throughout Scripture, the Israelite's were told to cover their shame, their nakedness. Remember the shock of Adam as he looked down and saw himself? He was shocked; ashamed, ran, and hid from the Lord. Without the Curse of Adam and Eve, there is no need for fear, shame, and guilt.

 

[Rocky Wiley]

WOW, WHEN WILL THE FALSE STATEMENT ENDS.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

You are, in respect, saying the bible lies.

 

[Rocky Wiley]

Seems like you are constantly promoting false doctrines. This is the false "Serpent Seed" teaching that is totally manufactured by a few cultists. And the Bible itself exposes this falsehood. See Genesis 4:1.And Adam knew [had sexual intercourse with] Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

How do you explain these scriptures?
Jesus says:
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

1Jn 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

 

[Rocky Wiley]

Esau took wives of Cain and these children went on to become Babylonians who went with the true Jews to rebuild the temple and called themselves Pharisees.

You Are of Your Father the Devil
Jesus to the Pharisees:
Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
True, they were of Abraham by way of Esau but that did not make them true Jews.

Jesus to these Pharisees:
Joh 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Joh 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
Joh 8:46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

 

[101G]

You are, in respect, saying the bible lies.

first thanks for the reply, second, the bible don't lie, and your statements is a lie.

How do you explain these scriptures?
Jesus says:
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

see, this is just what I said, false statements,. better know as a lie. if you don't mind I'll answer this. your father is determined by your "character", who you act like, meaning whom you obey. it has nothing to do with biology, but everything with characteristics.

let us break it down for you, listen, Matthew 3:7 "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"
Why did John the Baptist called these Pharisees and Sadducees "O generation of vipers?". well now, did they have scaly skin? or did they slither on the ground?, or did they have fork tongues in their mouths??? (they did lie)..... . no of course not. John the Baptist called them theses name to identify their "character", or their "characteristics".
see a son spiritually is about "character", or their "characteristics"., listen to the definition of son, spiritually speaking. 1. often used metaphorically of prominent moral characteristics. 2. descendants, without reference to sex, Rom 9:27. 3. those who act in a certain way, whether evil, Matt 23:31, or good, Gal 3:7. 4. those who manifest a certain character, whether evil, Acts 13:10; Eph 2:2, or good, Luke 6:35; Acts 4:36; Rom 8:14. DID YOU GET THAT?

see, you still walk after the flesh. Romans 8:5 "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit." Romans 8:6 "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace."

to be a son of GOD one "ACTS" like God. to be a son of the devil, one "ACTS" like Satan.

now as for Eve getting a man from the Lord. its God who allow a woman to concieve or not. it is the gift and blessing from him, GOD, for the woman to have children. example, 1 Samuel 1:2 "And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children."

1 Samuel 1:11 "And she vowed a vow, and said, O LORD of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head."

ok, who got Hannah pergnent? the LORD or her husband? lets see, 1 Samuel 1:19 "And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the LORD, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her."1 Samuel 1:20 "Wherefore it came to pass, when the time was come about after Hannah had conceived, that she bare a son, and called his name Samuel, saying, Because I have asked him of the LORD."

ok Rocky Wiley, who got Hannah pergnent? .... that's right her husband. the Lord only allowed her to have children. AND THERE ARE MANY, AND I MEAN MANY MORE EVENTS JUST LIKE THIS IN THE BIBLE.

you all need to get that false notions out of one's head as spirits having sexual relations with earth women. when is the nonsense going to end. just don't read your bible, but study it with "THE TEACHER, THE HOLY GHOST.

so no, son or an offspring here is not biological, but spiritual. understand, one may never biological bear a child biologically, but they can bare a child spiritually. just as with us we're BORN AGAIN, not biologically, but spiritually by the Holy Spirit.

now a revelation Note: there are only two generations on this planet. just as there are only two Adams on this planet..... YIKES! did you know that Rocky Wiley?.

so get out of the flesh and come into the Light.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Jim B]

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
Gen 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
The serpent had sex with Eve
naw-shaw'
A primitive root; to lead astray, that is, (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce: - beguile, deceive, X greatly, X utterly.

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. Eve admitted she had sex with a Spirit one who said he was of the Lord, who we know as Satin.
Gen 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
1Jn 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother.

Eve had twins, but they didn't have the same father.

Now, don't tell me that the above is a lie, because it is the word of God!

I strongly suggest that you use another translation than the King James! You are clearly misinterpreting the meaning of a form of English that is no longer in use. The meaning of words -- the language itself -- has clearly changed in more than 400 years. Don't base doctrine on something you clearly don't understand.

 

[justbyfaith]

I strongly suggest that you use another translation than the King James! You are clearly misinterpreting the meaning of a form of English that is no longer in use. The meaning of words -- the language itself -- has clearly changed in more than 400 years. Don't base doctrine on something you clearly don't understand.

While @Rocky Wiley is clearly wrong in his theology. he is not wrong because of quoting the kjv.

The kjv is a reliable translation of holy scripture; I hold it to be even inspired and inerrant (many do).

Many other translations of the Bible are watered down when you compare them to the kjv.

I like it because it keeps in many of the words that other translations remove. I don't want to be cheated out of something that the Holy Spirit might want to say to me through His word.

And there have been instances where I have become better off over the fact that I hold the kjv to be superior.

For example, in Luke 9:55-56, some other translations completely remove the words of Jesus there.

Whereas, I have been inclined to call down wrath on people who disagree with me; and there in that passage (in the kjv at least) is a sound rebuke for such an attitude. If I had been reading the NIV I would have never been rebuked as concerning that behaviour.

 

[Jim B]

While @Rocky Wiley is clearly wrong in his theology. he is not wrong because of quoting the kjv.

The kjv is a reliable translation of holy scripture; I hold it to be even inspired and inerrant (many do).

Many other translations of the Bible are watered down when you compare them to the kjv.

I like it because it keeps in many of the words that other translations remove. I don't want to be cheated out of something that the Holy Spirit might want to say to me through His word.

And there have been instances where I have become better off over the fact that I hold the kjv to be superior.

For example, in Luke 9:55-56, some other translations completely remove the words of Jesus there.

Whereas, I have been inclined to call down wrath on people who disagree with me; and there in that passage (in the kjv at least) is a sound rebuke for such an attitude. If I had been reading the NIV I would have never been rebuked as concerning that behaviour.

Luke 9:55-56, KJV:
55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

Luke 9:55-56, NIV: "But Jesus turned and rebuked them. Then he and his disciples went to another village."

Translator's note: Many mss ([D] K Γ Θ ƒ1,13 [579] 700 2542 pm it) have at the end of the verse (with slight variations) “and he said, ‘You do not know what sort of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy people’s lives, but to save [them].’” This variant is clearly secondary, as it gives some content to the rebuke. Further, it is difficult to explain how such rich material would have been omitted by the rest of the witnesses, including the earliest and best mss. sn The point of the rebuke is that now was not the time for judgment but patience; see 2 Pet 3:9.

Of course, the KJV translators (which is exactly what they were) had a limited number of source manuscripts to work with. They did the best that they could with what was available, but it's clear from the evidence collected for more than 400 years that they made some errors.

You wrote, "The kjv is a reliable translation of holy scripture; I hold it to be even inspired and inerrant (many do)." That, of course, is just an opinion that many of us disagree with. I could say that the NIV (for example) is inspired and inerrant, but that doesn't make it so.

Now, is it okay to return to the OP subject instead of debating the merits of a 410-year-old translation into a dead language that not a single person uses as any more?

 

[Renniks]

You are, in respect, saying the bible lies.

But it never says Eve had sex with the serpent.

 

[Rocky Wiley]

But it never says Eve had sex with the serpent.

Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled (seduced) me, and I did eat (had sex with him.)
A primitive root; to lead astray, that is, (mentally) to delude, or orally) to seduce: - beguile, deceive, X greatly, X utterly.

1Jn 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one
to tranlate - Cain's father was the wicked one, the devil.

 

[Renniks]

Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled (seduced) me, and I did eat (had sex with him.)
A primitive root; to lead astray, that is, (mentally) to delude, or orally) to seduce: - beguile, deceive, X greatly, X utterly.

1Jn 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one
to tranlate - Cain's father was the wicked one, the devil.

Eating isn't sex. Where are you getting that?

 

[Jim B]

While @Rocky Wiley is clearly wrong in his theology. he is not wrong because of quoting the kjv.

The kjv is a reliable translation of holy scripture; I hold it to be even inspired and inerrant (many do).

Many other translations of the Bible are watered down when you compare them to the kjv.

I like it because it keeps in many of the words that other translations remove. I don't want to be cheated out of something that the Holy Spirit might want to say to me through His word.

And there have been instances where I have become better off over the fact that I hold the kjv to be superior.

For example, in Luke 9:55-56, some other translations completely remove the words of Jesus there.

Whereas, I have been inclined to call down wrath on people who disagree with me; and there in that passage (in the kjv at least) is a sound rebuke for such an attitude. If I had been reading the NIV I would have never been rebuked as concerning that behaviour.

I say to you what I said to him...

I strongly suggest that you use another translation than the King James! You are clearly misinterpreting the meaning of a form of English that is no longer in use. The meaning of words -- the language itself -- has clearly changed in more than 400 years. Don't base doctrine on something you clearly don't understand.

Why do you say that other translations are "watered down"? Compared to what? If other translations use conventional English, they're not "watered down"; they're closer to the original languages that were in use when the Bible was written.

When you write "If I had been reading the NIV I would have never been rebuked as concerning that behaviour", that's true because the earliest and best sources don't have that addition to the text. As the translator's note says (above) if that was in the earliest source texts the later texts would have retained it, so it was undoubtedly an addition by a later scribe.

The KJV is just a translation, based on the sources available to them 400 years ago as well as the translations that just preceded them. We have more and better sources now as well as a far greater understanding of the ancient languages. Just because King James ordered a translation that emphasized his concept of Christianity doesn't make it the absolute truth. Believe it or not, he and the translators were just fallible people, just like everyone else.

Saying that one translation is THE Bible doesn't make it so.

Again, this diversion has nothing to do with the OP. I won't discuss this any more here. It should be in a different thread.

 

[justbyfaith]

The meaning of words -- the language itself -- has clearly changed in more than 400 years.

I can probably count on one hand the number of words in the kjv that have a different meaning in the English than how we perceive those same words today...and in those instances all one needs to do is be aware of what those words originally meant in the archaic English in which they are written.

Why do you say that other translations are "watered down"? Compared to what?

Compared to the kjv and the text that it was based on.

If other translations use conventional English, they're not "watered down"; they're closer to the original languages that were in use when the Bible was written.

Unfortunately, the texts that some of the modern translations are based on, do take away phrases, sentences, verses, and even entire passages out of the final edition of what you will read in that translation.

Personally, I don't want to be cheated out of something that the Holy Spirit might want to say to me; for that very thing might end up being the difference between everlasting life and eternal damnation.

So, I will stick with the kjv, thank you very much.

When you write "If I had been reading the NIV I would have never been rebuked as concerning that behaviour", that's true because the earliest and best sources don't have that addition to the text.

Those sources did take away from the text; for the result of taking away is invisible; while the result of the kjv translators adding to the text would have become very visible. For the plagues in the Book of Revelation would have been added to them (see Revelation 22:18-19).

Again, this diversion has nothing to do with the OP. I won't discuss this any more here. It should be in a different thread.

By all means, if you want to respond, start another thread.

 

[Base12]

Are you sure that clothing is not designed to cover our "shame?"

My Testicles contain the Seed of the Serpent. So does every other Man's. You think I don't know what covering my shame is about?

What do you think Circumcision is about? Some silly tradition?

Talk about 'bruising the head of the Serpent'.

God is teaching us where our Covering came from by itself being covered.

Jesus was being literal here...

John 8:44
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

We all come from the Serpent Seed. What a shame.