Mike's critique of Payne's chiasm: it's overly complex (A-B-C-D-E-F-E-D-C-B-A), doesn't feel natural, and even if valid, doesn't negate the authority implications.

Payne proposes an elaborate chiastic structure for Genesis 3 to explain why God approaches Adam first (it's just literary mirroring). Mike finds two problems: (1) The proposed chiasm is so complex it doesn't feel like a natural chiasm -- it feels forced. (2) Even if it IS a chiasm, God and the Genesis author could have constructed a chiasm that didn't involve Adam having apparent authority. Literary structure doesn't eliminate meaning.