gengwall

The issue is that Adam was a sinner in the garden because of his rebellion. Someone can sin without having a continued nature of being a sinner. While a sinner (one who has the nature of continued rebellion) cannot change his stripes without being born again.

Your statement, while true, is not a scriptural second witness to Adam’s post garden sin.

Job 31:33 (NASB)
33 “Have I covered my transgressions like Adam,
By hiding my iniquity in my bosom,

Adam not only sinned but subsequent to his sin he covered over his transgression. This is a sin, is it not?

Is not Job referring to Adam’s actions in the garden still – his attempts to “cover up” for his rebellion, and to justify and blame shift? Gen 3:16 is predictive of events post fall, not mid fall. I still see no second witness in support of Gen 3:16 that points to Adam sinning outside of the garden.

I believe that it is no less than neutral

I think this is an argument of convenience. Seriously, is there anything “neutral” in God’s indictment from 3:14 on? Sin is the central topic here and 3:16b describes literal actions that Adam and Eve will actively engage in. Is God prone to add filler in this narrative? Can the actions of either Adam or Eve really be neutral in relation to each other in the context of the impacts of thier sin on their subsequent lives? As suspicious as I am of “desire” or “turning” as a virtue, I find the thought of it being relatively inconsequential blather on God’s part to be unfathomable.