Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
You said:

4. Not only that, the reverse can be equally true, namely that when ‘adam’ is used without the definite article it can be used to refer to one man as opposed to the anarthrous use, when it generic..

What has that got to do with the grammar at hand? I absolutely agree that “man” can refer to one man and in fact you will recall my argument that “man” and “woman” is not generic but referring to one man and one woman. Perhaps you are now arguing my own viewpoint, eh? Well, okay. Keep up the good work. We may be in agreement sooner than later 😉

Cheryl’s attempt to prove that the definite article used in ‘the man’ of Gen 3:22ff, has to mean that only Adam is refereed to is wrong.

Well you will actually have to prove it wrong instead of just asserting it to be so. It takes real work to refute a position. I do appreciate that you took a long time to prepare this tome. This says to me that you are serious in your studies and you are not wanting to run away as so many others have. That persistence is a wonderful character trait in a Christian. But you will need more work so that you can avoid the tendency toward using logical fallacies as an argument.

Therefore both are excluded from the garden, and the use of the definite article further highlights the headship of Adam over Eve.

There has been no “headship” proven of one ruler over another. So now are you saying that every time the term “the man” is used, then that one is now the head of all other men? Great imagination. I am wondering if these are your own ideas or if you got them from another theologian. And if the term “the man” proves a headship of one man over another one is a unique argument we are supposed to take your suggestion and reject any argument that is unique? I am quite interested to know if your assertions are to be submitted under your own “rules”? Or are comp arguments exempt?