I don’t know how to do the blue quotation marks so you will have to bear with my version of importing quotes:
As I read through all these comments, I believe it is the belief in sin nature that is causing problems for some of your statements and conclusions.

My comment per Cheryl’s quote (that follows): Cheryl, you state that one of the reasons or ‘witnesses’ you see that establishes that Adam had a sin nature is #2.” He was considered by God to be a threat to the tree of life.” This would seem to indicate that he had a sin nature before he even participated in the whole incident of taking from the tree of life. In other words, why would God have considered Adam a threat if he didn’t possess-prior to this incident (the Fall)-a sin nature? You don’t state that you believe God also saw Eve as a threat. Therefore, you believe Eve had no sin nature leading up to the Fall. This would imply that God created Adam, alone, with a sin nature (otherwise, where and when did Adam come to possess this sin nature?). So why wouldn’t God have created Eve with a sin nature, especially since she was formed out of Adam? What would be the purpose of creating only Adam with a sin nature unless God had a plan FOR Adam to sin? Yet elsewhere, in other discussions, you stated that the sin nature came as a result of the Fall, not prior to it. That would contradict the basis for your second ‘witness’ here:
Quote from #227 Cheryl: “I believe that there are three reasons why we can understand that Adam has a sin nature:
1. He hid his sin.
2. He was considered by God to be a threat to the tree of life
3. He was prophesied to be the one who would practice sin through ruling his wife.
I consider all of these a valid witness to Adam’s sin nature.” End of Cheryl’s qoute.

Quote from #280 Pinklight: “Three witnesses of Adam’s sin nature:
Sin of rebellion
Rule
Reaching forth his hand also for the other tree” End of quote.
My comment: Pinklight, it appears that you also are saying that Adam was created with a sin nature and that it is BECAUSE OF this sin nature that he reached forth his hand for the other tree, rather than the sin nature being a result of reaching.

283 Gengwall says: “Cheryl’s response is basically two fold:1. That Adam’s sin nature, exemplified by the apparent inevitability of him eating from the Tree of Life, is a second witness that Adam sinned outside the garden…” End of quote.

My comment: This statement or summary also attributes to Adam a sin nature PRIOR to eating from the Tree of Life. (It does not imply Gengwall’s agreement of this summary necessarily.)

I see both a view that Adam somehow had his sin nature before the Fall, where in earlier blog discussions on this site that wasn’t the case, and also simply a problem with the sin nature theory itself. There is nothing to say that Adam needed a sin nature to do what he did. Otherwise, if that is the case, then Eve needed a sin nature to sin, also, which I imagine she did after the Fall, during the rest of her life. She likely sinned at least once. Speculation, yes, but nowhere in the bible does it say that Eve lived a sinless life. So, if she can sin without a sin nature, what is to say we need a sin nature to sin? Human nature is plenty capable it appears of making sinful choices. I see the following claims-direct or indirect-as being very problematic both here and in other arenas:
Troublesome claims or inferences:
1. Adam had a sin nature pre-Fall
2. God made Adam with a sin nature? I thought God created male and female equally spiritually at the starting gate?
3. Yet Eve sinned without having a sin nature? What was the purpose, then, (NOT the consequence) of making Eve able to sin without a sin nature but giving Adam a sin nature? Why would God do that? It makes it really hard-if one takes that view- to not believe God helped Adam to sin by giving him a nature over which he had no choice-almost like God had an active, not passive, hand in Adam’s sinning. We know that can’t be true.
4. All subsequent humans are born with a sin nature (not Jesus, of course.)