Critical Analysis of Ted Weiland's "EVE DID SHE or DIDN'T SHE?

The Seedline Hypothesis Under Scrutiny
Part 1"
Skipping over the introduction which I will get back to once he explains his reasons for making the statements he makes, I have pinpointed Weiland's arguments against two seedline as follows:
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 [child] from Yahweh. (Genesis 4:1)
That could hardly be stated more plainly. Genesis 4:1 alone refutes the seedline hypothesis. "
First, "iysh" translated as "man" means male not child so man is closer to the true meaning. Second the Hebrew and Greek can both be interpreted in gen 4:1 as saying "against God" instead of "from God". See Analysis of Genesis 4:1 So Gen 4:1 most certainly does NOT "alone refutes the seedline hypothesis."
"There is not to be found anywhere in the Old Testament a passage of Scripture that substantiates their [2 seedliner's] interpretation of Genesis 3."
hmmm we shall see about that!
Genesis 3:1-5
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which Yahweh God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree [of the knowledge of good and evil] which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die….
"If the Hebrew word translated "eat" in verse 17 is equivalent to sexual intercourse, then the same Hebrew word translated "eat" in verse 16 would have to represent the same thing. "  "The word "fruit," as used in Genesis 3:2-3 is also manipulated for the seedliners' purposes: "
If I were Weiland, I would be embarassed by this statement. There are a limited number of words in the Greek and Hebrew compared to the English language.  Therefore, the same word is used for various meanings. The Greek word Ioudaios for example translated as "Jew" can mean either a Judahite  or a resident of Judea that is a non Judahite .  According to Weiland there would be no distinction. The Greek word ethnos can mean nation, heathen, people or gentile and can pertain to Israelites or non Israelites. The Hebrew word "goyim" can mean nations, heathens, peoples or gentiles. It is translated as "gentiles" in Jer 4:7, 14:22, 16:19; 46:1; numerous times in Isaiah, and other prophets. Yet the term “goyim” is found in Ham’s nations (Gen 10:20); Shem’s nations (Gen 10:31); Noah’s nations (Gen 10:32); So according to Weiland, was Abram to become a great gentile (“goyim”??) (Gen 12:2; 18:18 26:4). It is a limited and extremely narrow view to think that a word can only have one meaning or that one meaning should be applied acorss the board even in the English language much less in the ancient languages. "Johnny was right to take a right right when he needed to right the wrong turn."  How much sense would this sentence make if right only had one meaning? The more scholarly approach is to consider the context of the words in the sentence.
"The word "touch" is another word from Genesis 3 that the seedliners provide a distorted, or at least an incomplete picture of." "
Both of those definitions, once again, leave the reader thinking that there is only one way to interpret the word "touch," that is, that it means exclusively "to have sexual intercourse with." However, following is the complete definition from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance for the Hebrew word "naga" that both seedliners conveniently failed to provide to their readers:
"5060. … naga', naw-gah'; a prim. Root; prop. to touch, i.e. lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphem., to lie with a woman); by impl. to reach (fig. to arrive, acquire); violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy, etc.)."20
Looks to me like Weiland is the one who needs to be consistent. With regard to the words fruit and eat he claims there can only be one defintion but that with regard the word touch he claims there are two.  Which is it?
Genesis 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.
"the seedliners declare that it never was God's idea for man to procreate through a sexual relationship,"
I'm a 2 seedliners and I don't claim this!  Weiland references a work by Gayman who claims that the knowledge of good and evil was that of pro-creation (as opposed to carnal knowledge). While Gayman's views are hardly representative of reputable 2 seedliners, eating a piece of fruit does not give one knowledge. A plant does not have intellect!
"First, as a result of such a position, the proponents of the seedline doctrine have to admit that what was initially sinful is still sinful and consequently must take a vow of celibacy themselves"
If Weiland's argument is true, then the counter-argument would have to be true --  that man would have to abstain from eating all fruit for fear of obtaining undesirable intellect since we don't actually know which fruit it was that A&E allegedly ate.
"...the seedliners must admit that the progenitors of the Adamic people were a homosexual and a whore."
Being deceived doesn't make one a whore.  While homosexuality did originate with Satan, this doesn't necessarily mean Adam had sexual relations with Satan since Satan angels were cast out of heaven with him. Adam could've had relations with one of them inasmuch as the tree of knowledge was those of another type of creation. Other cultures even claim that Adam had relations with Lillith.
" They must also admit that since Adam took Eve back after Satan had defiled her that (according to Deuteronomy 24:1-4) Adam and Eve were also an abomination in the sight of Yahweh, and should have both been put to death immediately for adultery."
Adam and Eve were told that they would die if they eat of the tree and were in fact cut off from the tree of life so that they would die. Gen 3:3, 22-24.  They were not mortal beings prior to the fall but became mortal afterwards so they did experience death. Furthermore, the law of Deut. wasn't given until after the fall.
Genesis 3:7-11
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. … And Yahweh God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he [Adam] said, … I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he [Yahweh] said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
"This is, once again, nothing but speculation since nowhere in the Bible are we told that Adam and Eve's consciousness of nakedness means that they had indulged in forbidden sexual pleasures."
It would've made more sense if A&E had made a covering for their mouth if they had eaten a piece of fruit and wanted to hide their sin.  But instead, they made aprons to hide their private parts.  Covering their private parts is a lot more than mere speculation since this directly points to the area that was related to the sin. Moreover, the punishment Eve received was directly related to the sin, i.e. pain in childbirthing, as she had conceived.  And because Adam listened to his wife, he was made to have authority over her.  Both of these actions were directly related to the sin.
Genesis 3:12-13
And the man [Adam] said, The woman [Eve] whom thou [Yahweh] gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And Yahweh God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
That statement leads one to believe that nawshaw means (sexually) seduced and only (sexually) seduced. Yet, consider James Strong's definition of the Hebrew word "nawshaw":
"5377... nasha, naw-shaw: a prim. root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce...."26
The word "nasha" nevertheless has a moral implication, which is to seduce, and can mean sexually seduce. So without evidence to the contrary, like the covering of the mouth instead of the private parts, or the realization that they had been disobedient instead of naked, or that they had gained food poisoning instead of carnal knowledge or race mixing, or that the punishment was related to gardening as far as what food they could or could not eat instead of having pain in childbirthing, one must conclude that the crime was of a sexual nature.
" 'In II Corinthians 11:2 and 3, Paul is writing to those converts that he had led ... to Jesus Christ. To them he writes, '...I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.' Paul is here speaking in terms of chastity. A woman could be a thief, shoplifter, liar, or any one of many things and still be a virgin; for there is but one way for a woman to lose her virginity.' "
"...the Apostle Paul was not discussing individual women, but the collective body of Christ comprised of both women and men."
 'But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtility [sic]...'. The word beguiled [expataho] means the same as does the word seduced and possibly should have been so translated here."29
"If exapataho means to sexually seduce as seedline proponents declare that it does then in Romans 7:11, the Apostle Paul was declaring that sin sexually seduced him!"
This line of reasoning is deficient since Weiland once again is trying to apply the same meaning for the same word in every single incident.  This is not good logic but shows a narrow and limited view of linguistics.
"Another problem that the seedliners must face is that if - in Genesis 3 and 2 Corinthians 11 - the serpent corresponds to Satan and the beguiling was sexual in nature, then it must be admitted that the Apostle Paul was concerned about and warning the Corinthian Christians against Satan's intention to come down and fornicate with them."
Actually Paul was concerned about this or at least about fallen angels coming down and seducing women.  That is why he wrote:
1Cr 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.
This concludes Part 1 of Weiland's exegesis against the two seedline doctrine.  So far I have not seen any persuasive arguments that show that the seduction of Eve was not sexual.  The evidence is still overwhelming that it was sexual and that Cain was the progeny of the wicked one as found in John 8:44 and 1 John 3:12.