Jaysun's Journal

Independent Baptist

Arnold Murray The False Teacher


As I understand it Arnold Murray teaches that the fruit which Eve ate of in Genesis 3:6 did not come from a tree but was the product of satanic genitalia of sorts. In other words, Eve had sex with the serpent.

I have heard that prostitution is the oldest profession on earth but if this doctrine is correct, prostitution takes a backseat (no pun intended) to homosexuality. I say that because whatever this fruit was, the Bible says Eve “. . . gave also unto her husband with her; and HE DID EAT.” (Gen 3:6)

That doesn’t sit too well with me. I know there have been homosexuals down through the ages but I find it hard to believe that Adam was the first fag and that Eve engaged in bestiality (Satan appeared as a serpent in the Garden of Eden).

As the “story” goes, after having sex with her husband and Satan, Eve conceived and bore twins whom she named Cain and Abel. That’s neither here nor there. They could have been twins because the Bible mentions Eve bearing twice but it only mentions her conceiving once. So it is “possible” but the Bible does not even hint at Cain and Abel being twins. But this cult goes further and says that Cain was Eve’s child by Satan and Abel was hers by Adam.

Christ wants us to understand there are plantings of God and plantings of the devil. The plantings of that wicked one began in the garden of Eden with the conception of Cain and follow down through his progeny, the Kenites. (Newsletter #195, Jan 1995. See also, #202, August 1995).

If this were true (and it’s not) it would make the possibility of them being twins even more unlikely. Not only would it violate the laws of nature, I’m fairly certain it’s a statistical/genetic improbability. Furthermore, Eve named her firstborn son “Cain” which means “Gotten.”  For she said, “I have gotten a man from the Lord.” (Gen 4:1)   Now, why would Eve name him “Cain” knowing that the little bastard was the offspring of Satan?  I know Eve gets picked on a lot, but do you really think she would’ve said that? I don’t think so.

Genesis 4:3 “And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.”

Now, let’s use the same logic Murray uses in previous chapter and apply it to this verse. In so doing, we have no choice but to believe that Cain brought some kind of demonic genitalia as an offering unto the Lord. (Well, no wonder God rejected his offering! I say that with a smirk on my face.)

I mean I’ve always taught and believed that if something makes literal sense not to seek any other sense. After all there’s plenty in the Bible we don’t understand. Why complicate the simple things?

But I suppose in the sex crazed culture we live in it shouldn’t surprise us that a “minister” somewhere had his mind in the gutter when he read Genesis. 2Peter 2:14 talks about these ministers “Having eyes full of adultery…” (they see sex in everything) and since we’re talking about preachers is it any wonder that the same person accuses them of “. . . beguiling unstable souls?”

August 9, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment