Lin

Syllogism of your premise

P1a – Adam’s sin nature is to be prone to rule over women
P2a – All who have a human father have Adam’s sin nature
Ca – All who have a human father are prone to rule over women

P1b – All who have a human father are prone to rule over women (Ca)
P2b – All women have a human father
Cb – All women are prone to rule over women

These are the inescapable conclusions of your arguments. They are valid syllogisms whose conclusions flow properly from the premises. The only way to change it, is to change the premise.

If you would then object that P2a is not what you argue (though it plainly is, if males do indeed pass the sin nature, as you have insisted repeatedly), you must present scriptural support for claiming that women do not inherit this, or that only their eggs are sinless. Neither is supportable by scripture, or biology.

The only option left is to to abandon P2a completely, and then explain away women’s sin by claiming that we only sin because we choose to, while men sin because they are inclined to by their maleness. You have redefined “sin nature” to mean a uniquely MALE quality, which females obviously cannot inherit, and that makes women devoid of a sin nature. That is the obvious conclusion of your premise.

(“r” means revised):

P1r – Adam’s sin nature is to be prone to rule over women
P2r – All males with a human father have Adam’s sin nature
Cr – All males with a human father are prone to rule over women

So with the premise, the conclusion follows: all men want to rule over women. All of them.

But another conclusion follows as well: If “sin nature” is “inherited” toward ruling over women, then NO OTHER SINS can be attributed to the fall of Adam. That is, he did NOT open the door to anything but male rule over female. Yet there was Cain murdering Abel.

We must take a deep look at ‘inherited sin’. The Fall was horrible. It changed everything. Even for Eve.