The Parable of the Fig Tree

[Michael Joseph]

The confession of both the man and the woman when confronted by God was "I did eat" not "I did touch". So, if "touching" (having sex) is different than "eating" (???), then the confessions of both were not of the sexual nature; what precisely did they confess to doing? What precisely is "eating"? They apparantly were allowed to "eat" from every tree save one; I don't believe God told them to have sex with any and all trees. Therefore, what was the actual act which was permitted with every tree except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

I did "EAT" was the confessed sin.

To each his own, I suppose. Yet the report was given - I wish to present you as Chaste Virgins, not as Chavvah was beguiled by The Satan. That word beguiled meaning to "wholly seduce."

Plus, we got one heck of a problem, why isn't Cain in The Man's Geneology? And why isn't The Man in Cain's geneology?

As with anything in this life to each his own. I shall agree that we now disagree. I have presented for the Reader five studies with ample supporting documentation from the Word. I have not relied upon the traditions of man to make my argument. I strongly suggest to the Reader to do their OWN research and come to their own opinion.

The Woman then is a LIAR because she said she was told not "to touch" that certain Man. Yet, I suppose Paul, the scholar of scholars, being able to ORALLY recite Torah before he was 12 years old, came to the finding that The Woman was not a Chaste Virgin in regard to The Satan, the Devil. Shall we nullify the rest of scripture, too? God forbid.

I have made my case, the reader can discern for themselves. Those fig leaves were over their groins, yes?

Shalom,

mj


Yet the sin was they spoke to, they listened to The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I know they ate an apple. Yeah right. Maybe it was a mushroom?