From the following quote, we can then assume that both Adam and Eve partook of the same forbidden fruit, which was sex:
"Is the Genesis chapter 3 account also about sexual seduction and awakening? Of course it is, and so “... the eyes of them both [Adam and Eve] were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons” (Gen. 3:7). At “aprons”, a footnote in The King James Study Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers, ©1988, says “girding coverings”. Adam and Eve, ashamed of themselves after their sexual awakening, attempted to conceal their nudity by covering their bodies, specifically their loins – as that type of garment alone is sufficient enough to inform us – thereby hiding the “scene of the crime”, and the source of their feelings of guilt!"
This then begs the question of whether Adam's sexual partner was male or female. The identity of the sexual partner is secondary to the question of gender (for the purposes of this thread).
"So it is evident that the serpent – and the phrase “that old serpent” surely must refer to the serpent of Genesis – is one with Satan, the Devil, and other epithets given to him and his kindred throughout Scripture."
"If the serpent was a man (though not an Adamic man), what is the “tree which is in the midst of the garden” (Gen. 3:3) which Adam and Eve ate from in the temptation?"
I've read your treatise before and reread it again today and the issue of who seduced Eve is fairly clarified, but not too much on Adam (if it was some kind of sexual encounter as well). Is it fair to assume then that Adam's sexual partner was a male i.e. "him" and "man"?
Yeah, I would much rather prefer listening to your research than interspersed with your former colleague. The Two Seedline doctrine does need some rehabilitation considering the catholic infusion of some things. In the last couple of years, you've helped me understand a number of things better than before you came on the scene. But, there still persists a number of perplexing and conflicting issues in my understanding of the Genesis narration.
Mark