Andy, I understand where you are coming from when you asked the question, “So eating an apple was the infraction?”

In Genesis 3:5, the serpent said, “…your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God…” The way I see it, the sin wasn’t necessary the act of eating an “apple”, rather, the sin was that Adam and Eve wanted to be like God. It’s an issue of the heart.

There are sins that are easy to identify. For example, murder and adultery. The Bible clearly states that these two acts are sin.

Matthew 5:21 – “…You shall not commit murder and whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.”

Here the sin is a physical act. It’s interesting to see what the following verse has to say.

Matthew 5:22 – “…everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court…”

Here the sin isn’t a physical act, rather, it’s really an issue of the heart. It’s surprising how God considers murder equally as sinful as hating or being angry with another individual.

Here’s another example.

Matthew 5:27 – “You have heard that it was said, you shall not commit adultery; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Here, the Bible talks about a physical act (sleeping with another man’s wife) as sin, but the Bible also considers looking at another person lustfully as sin too – again, an issue of the heart.

In conclusion, Adam and Eve’s sin was that they wanted to be like God. In our hearts, only two things can exist and they are mutually exclusive: 1)God or 2)everything else but God. There is no God and ____. When the serpent tempted Adam and Eve, the allure of becoming like God over took their hearts. This effectively threw God out of the their hearts, and the thought of becoming like God became their idol.

Oh, by the way, it is Very Possible that a woman can have 2 children in two different wombs within her. I saw this thing happen with a woman on the news just a couple weeks ago.

In verse 2 of Gen. 3, Eve replied to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: (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 (Hebrew Naga, meaning “lay the hand upon”; euphem., To lie with a woman”) it, lest year ye die. Concerning the word Touch, see 1 Cor. 7:1. “…It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
This is all the same concept: some sort of sexual intercourse is happening in all three verses-Proverbs 30:20, Gen. 3:6, and 1 Cor. 7:1.
That is not a “skewed” interpretation of scripture. That is an unadulterated, pure, and clean interpretation. I would appreciate it if you would lay off on the derogatory comments concerning my views.
Let’s keep this productive.

Andy, I am afraid you are using very poor interpretative principles. You interpolate much of your thinking on Scripture rather than let Scripture speak for itself. This is what is called eisegesis, not exegesis. For a doctrine to be true, the Word of God must declare it.

The giants were very tall several generations down the line. Those tall genes had to come from somewhere. Nature, as it reflects God, would have it that because giants were produced, say by the angels and man, that genetics would be relevant in the angels. Thus the tall gene would be from them.

That is all IF the Angels did come down and marry the daughters of men.

There is no evidence whatsoever that angels are the same size of the Cherubim in the temple. They were merely symbols of holy angels that protect the Holy of Holies.

There is no scholar, credible interpreter of Scriptures that hold to your skewed interpretation of Scripture about Eve committing adultery with Satan, etc.