"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?
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
"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.
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.
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!"
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.