"Did the sin in the Garden of Eden really consist of Adam and Eve eating a big juicy “apple”?

They love to open with that red herring. What is a red herring?  A red herring is an informal logical fallacy it is something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.  Whether you want to call this a Red Herring, or a Strawman, it is basically a false argument.  The start out by painting the opposing view as ridiculous, unscriptural.  But the bible never mentions an apple, and there  are millions of believers who neither believe that the sin in the garden of Eden was sex not that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil was an "apple."

"Unfortunately this is what many people have been taught since Sunday school. But think about how silly this sounds. It sounds silly because throughout the Bible God teaches in parables using things in nature to teach us spiritual truths (Matthew 13:34-35). And the explanation of the sin in the Garden is no exception."

So, according to Heath, the story in Eden was a parable. I think he may be confused about what a parable is.  A parable is a purely fictional story.  What Heath is about to suggest is not that the Story of Eden is a parable,  but that it is an historical event, a literal story veiled in sexual innuendos and euphemisms. 

So let us examine a passage concerning this in Genesis Ch.3:
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, “Yea, hath God said, ‘Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden’? --vs.1
Do you know of any snakes that can talk?

I have always thought this was a mystifying approach.  Snakes do not talk.  Neither do burning bushes. This approach is unnecessary.  We know that that Satan is "that old Serpent"  according to the book of Revelation.  Whether or not the Devil spoke through an animal, or whether or not he appeared as an angel and is merely referred to by that name, he is talking to the woman about eating fruit from trees that grow from the ground in the garden that God planted.  He is not talking to the woman about himself,  and whether she would like to have sex with him.

Of course not. So we must be reading a parable then.

Is that how we identify a parable? That is news to me! Referring to the Devil as "the Serpent"  makes this parable?  This is the kind of reckless jumping to conclusions that you will commonly find among those who teach a carnal seed of the serpent.  Ben Heath is not a competent or responsible bible teacher.

And if you turn over to Revelation 12:9 you’ll find a major piece to this parable revealed to us. There it states that the serpent is just another name for Satan. I know, I know, God did cause a dumb “ass” to speak to someone once (Numbers 22:28). But this is different. God doesn’t use animals to tempt people to do evil. In fact God never tempts people to do evil period. Satan is the tempter, not God.

God does not use animals to tempt?  That would be another red herring, another irrelevant point.  The question ought to be this, "Can the devil use animals to tempt?"  That is the question.  Consider the swine.  When Christ cast out the devils, he permitted them to enter into the swine.  So the idea that Satan could have possessed an unclean animal, such as a snake, is not remarkable at all.

The snake does not even have to speak audible words.  Satan tempts men to this very day without using audible words.  He could speak to them in the spirit as he does to this day.

Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others

So Eve isn’t talking to a serpent, she is conversing with Satan.

If Satan can work in human beings, to tempt them, I fail to see how it is some great thing if he work through an animal.   Man was innocent at this point, so the Devil could have tempted them in the form of a snake.  That is not marvelous, or astonishing.  Even so, if we imagine that Satan was in an angelic form, we then have to wonder why he is referred to as the serpent, if he did not use a serpent in some fashion. 

He is likened to a cunning serpent because of his ability to be crafty, persuasive, and deceptive.

I don't have a problem with that aspect of things. That is a plausible explanation.  That is not what I object to so much as what follows.

And he has now come into the Garden of Eden to persuade Adam and Eve into doing something with him. We’ll find out what that is.

Do something "with him"? That is a misrepresentation of the text.  The serpent persuades them to eat the fruit from the tree.

But first, let us see how Eve responds:
And the woman said unto the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the tree 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.’”
Eve explains here to Satan that they could eat of all the fruit trees, but they were commanded not to eat of or “touch” the tree which is in the midst of the garden.

They always "touch" on the "touch" point.  The fact that the word "touch" can be a euphemism for sexual intercourse is overplayed here.  They are willing to read the sexual innuendo INTO the passage.  But there is no reason to do that.  I will respond more fully to that point after he makes his point more fully.

Remember this is a parable, and the tree in the midst of the garden is not a fruit tree like the other trees. This tree represents Satan; he is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So in other words they were supposed to have nothing to do with Satan. They were to stay away from him!

So, both the serpent and the tree represent Satan?  If this was a parable, it would be a very poorly constructed parable.  The serpent is actually talking about himself when he is talking about an external object, the tree.  I'm sorry, but that is utter nonsense.  Let us also remember that the rock in the wilderness "was" Christ,  that is a metaphor and it would be incorrect to assume that since the rock "was Christ"  the rock was not really a rock, but Christ in bodily form.  They corrupt the concept of "represents"  when it suits them.

Heath says that the tree in the midst of the Garden is not a fruit tree.  But that is a direct contradiction to what the bible actually declares, which is that the tree did bear fruit, and did grow from the ground.  In fact, Heath conveniently misquotes Eve from Genesis 3:3 "But of the fruit of the tree 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."

Heath conveniently leaves out the reference to "of the fruit" of the tree in the midst of the garden in order to support his unsupportable claim that the tree in the midst of the garden was not a fruit bearing tree.

And this word “touch” mentioned here in this verse is an interesting word in the Hebrew that helps us to understand the meaning of this parable. It is Hebrew word #5060 in your Strong’s Concordance:
naga – to touch, i.e. lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphem., to lie with a woman).
You see to “touch” is simply a nice way of saying to have “sexual intercourse with”. It’s a euphemism.

That is an extremely misleading abuse of a study tool.  Euphemisms are dependant on context.  Heath presents the information from Strong's as if "touch" was simply the "nice" Hebrew word for "sexual intercourse." It is not.  Here is another example of the exact same Hebrew word being used.

Genesis 32:25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.

The word touch (naga) is used many times in the bible without any reference to sexual intercourse.  You have to go based on CONTEXT.  Since we are talking about TOUCHING a TREE (or its fruit)  the idea that in this instance the word "naga" might be euphemistic for sex is totally out of line.  Heath's interpretation here is completely off the rails.

And the fruit of that tree is the seed or “sperm” that would develop in the womb of Eve if she were to partake.

This is incorrect. I have recently (February 2015) recorded a two hour study on "The Seed of the Serpent"  Satan truly has a seed, and so does God, but these are  not carnal seeds, they are both spiritual seeds, and that is the reality behind the story of Eden. 

Romans 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

The same is true of Satan's seed, they are not a carnal seed, but a spiritual seed, according to the spirit that works in them, as I quoted from Ephesians 2 above.

So one of the things Adam and Eve were commanded not to do was to have a sexual encounter with Satan. This was not to be done.

Complete fiction.  What Eve said is not even necessarily an accurate representation of what God said.  Even so, that is how the command seemed to her. The idea that by employing the euphemistic suggestion of the term "touch" to a fruit bearing tree, one could change the nature of the sin in the garden, is a bizarre example of garbage scholarship by fake scholars such as Ben Heath.

But they didn’t listen and two seeds were planted in the womb of Eve as a result. One from Adam and the other from Satan. Twins! One very good (Abel) and the other very bad (Cain).

One then must wonder why Abel brought a blood offering of the firstlings of his flock to God.  I have often asked, if the supposed children of the devil are such great sinners because their carnal father was the devil, then what is our excuse?  What is Ben Heath's excuse?

I consider the "twins issue" to bee moot.  Even if Cain and Able were twins, that does not make what happened in the garden of Eden a sexual sin.  They clearly ate fruit, that is what the word says.  If Ben Heath and the students of the carnal school of seeds are not mature enough to understand how that simple disobedience can be a worse sin than sex, then they should read up on King Saul and King David.

Some would immediately say, “That’s impossible, no one can have a two children at the same time by two different fathers. Well, to many people’s surprise this happens more often than you may think. I don't know how to pronounce it but the medical community calls it superfecundation :) It's just not usually noticed unless the children happen to be of two different races.

Just because something is possible, does not mean it is probably, nor yet certain.  The bible declares that Adam was the father of Cain and that Cain was the result of the union between Adam and Cain.

Genesis 4
1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

It is very odd the way people such as Ben Heath willingly struggle to retell the story of Genesis and undermine the clear intent of scripture.  They have their own story to tell and are willing to bend and reshape the bible, by any means, to make their fictional account believable.  Flee from such.

So yes, Satan was Cain’s paternal Father. (See article on "The Serpent seed")

If you like, you can go look up Ben Heath's article on the serpent seed.  Ben Heath subjects the bible to manipulation and  distortion. Or you can listen to someone teach it who has allowed the bible to shape him, The Seed of the Serpent My opinions are based on allowing the bible to teach me, and not vice versa.  Check out my study and decide for yourself.

And you’ll find in I John 3:12 that it says that “Cain was of that wicked one”. Meaning he was the progeny of Satan.

Another quantum leap.  That is an unacceptable opinion based on wishful thinking. All that from "of"?  So, "of" indicates carnal descent in 1 John 3?  I cover 1 John 3 extensively in my work on The Seed of the Serpent. We are "of" God, and John also states that we have God's "seed"  (yes, "sperma")  IN US!  How does that fit into the carnal view of seeds as formulated by Ben Heath and his allies?  I can assure you that the seed of the Devil is spiritual, just as the seed of God is spiritual, because Satan is a spirit that works in men, just as the spirit of God works in men.  This carnal seed is a deception and it takes your eyes of the true seed of the serpent which are his lies which lead you to sin!

Also II Corinthians 11:3 Paul explains that Eve was beguiled (wholly seduced) by Satan. Yes sexually seduced, just like Genesis Ch.3 revealed to us.

I have already done an extensive expose' on the issue of 2 Corinthians 11:3  The word Exapatao has absolutely no sexual implication.  That is a flat out lie, and I thoroughly document that on this page: Does "Expattio!" Really Mean Sexually Seduced?  Or Is Arnold Murray Deceiving Us?

If you want to read some fascinating historical documentation showing that Cain was Satan's son, along with many details of Cain's influence across the globe, you have to read Sargon the Magnificent. I've never read a more interesting book concerning the roots of Mystery Babylon and its connection to Cain.

I read that book too.  Very interesting, but I was never able to independently verify anything written in that book.  It is basically speculation based on existing myths about Sargon which cannot be verified as accurate.

So let us put the “apple theory” aside and mature as Christians.

Condescending garbage.

The sin in the Garden of Eden was a love affair between three people – Adam, Eve, and Satan.

That idea is a Jewish fable taken from the Kaballa.

It had nothing to do with eating a big red juicy apple.

That Red herring again.  I agree, this has nothing to do with apples, it makes one wonder why he keeps bringing apples up, doesn't it? They never seem to get tired of that one.  But this is what the bible says:

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 tree bare fruit that was edible and had the power to open eyes.  God made it so, God planted it so.

Besides most people I know didn’t get pregnant by eating apples (Genesis 3:15).

They love red herrings.  According to Genesis 4:1  Eve God pregnant through Adam having "known" her, and in that context there is no question that the Euphemism is being used..

And most people I know don’t eat apples while they are naked,

It is just red herring after red herring with Pastor Ben Heath.  Ben, at that point, they did EVERYTHING in the nude. It's like Ben can't imagine anything except sex when he thinks of people being nude.  Never Mind that God CREATED them nude.  They didn't know.

or be ashamed for eating an apple (Genesis 3:7).

The bible does not say they were ashamed for eating anything.  What it says is that they were ashamed for being naked, that is why most people Ben knows don't eat apples in the nude, because we see both good and evil in nudity and we choose to cover up (usually).  Yep, this is yet another red herring.  Their sin was disobedience.  They were ashamed simply because their new knowledge made their nakedness more meaningful than it had been previously.

So much for Ben Heath, another fake "Scholar" from Arnold Murray's school of fake scholarship.