Mark

TL also…

you obviously aren’t reading what i am saying. This is evident by your comments…

“…”What i am saying is that the hebrew grammar only talks about ‘the man’ not man(gender inclusive).”

This would be incorrect. When God created the human, God created the human as male and female. And God named them human. This is all gender inclusive.

”Therefore we can come to 2 conclusions. God addresses ‘the man’ because he is the leader,”

God does not say this. This is an assumption, a reading of intent into Scripture that is not in Scripture”

In your use of my first quote you have taken me out of context. My sentence was regarding Gen 2&3 where the grammar is definatley ‘the man’ not ‘man’ or ‘human’

The second quote of mine you used was again out of context, because i clearly said later in that post, that my conclusion was ‘read into’.
But i think it would be good to discuss what does ‘read into’ mean? 2 options in my opinion.
1. read into a passage something that is not consistent with scripture.
2. read into a passage something that IS consistent with scripture (my view).

Any time we deduct a meaning from a passage it is vitally important that we look at it inductively- that is, in the broad spectrum of the rest of scripture. My view does this.
If we only can ever deduct a meaning from that distinct verse, then the only means to understand the bible is by each individual verse. Hence this cause problems. For example, if we read the book of James just on its own it would appear we have a works based salvation. However if we try to understand it in relation to saved by grace alone, accompanied by obedience to God and His commands, then we are reading the passage inductively before drawing out our deduction. This is faithful to understanding scripture and what my position does in relation to Gen 1-3.
Likewise the egalitarian position sometimes attempts to look at passages inductively but only when it suits, otherwise the passage is to be understood in a deductive sense only, i.e Cheryl’s big emphasis on inspired words and grammar. But i have shown how this fails simply in Gen 3 with the grammar contradicting her understanding of the passage.

So i would like to state that both views ‘read into’ the passage. But which one is faithful to what scripture actually teaches? I dont think i need to say which one i believe is faithful.