138 Mark,

You said:

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

God didn’t create one person as two genders in one. That has been tried by some egals in their comments on this blog and I don’t accept that egal position. God create a male and he called him human. In creating them male and female He called them both human. God didn’t take the female out of Adam. He took a rib out of Adam and from the rib God created the woman.

My sentence was regarding Gen 2&3 where the grammar is definatley ‘the man’ not ‘man’ or ‘human’

I agree that the grammar is “the man”. This refers to none other than the male man. (Now no jokes, guys, about this being the “mail man”!)

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).

You forgot a third option.
3. read into a passage something that is not in the passage at all.

I believe that you are doing #3.

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 this was so, Mark, then we would find somewhere where it says that Adam was created to be the authority over the woman. Or we would find that the man was to have authority over all women. Both the man and the woman are said to be the ruler over the home but the man is never said by God to be the legitimate ruler over the woman.

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.

I appreciate that you are trying to do this but in adding to Genesis an authority of the man over the woman, it is contradicting the passage. Contradictions are not acceptable.

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.

Actually the grammar does not contradict my view at all.

The grammar of Gen. 3:22 is obscured but is clear in the actual Hebrew. Man “was” like God.
Hebrew: “was”, “come to pass”, “came”, “has been”,

The literal is that the man “was” like God in the original creation but now he has intimately experienced good and evil (implying that he is no longer “like” God as he was created to be). The rebellion of the man brought him into a new dimension and he took on a sin nature that would take the male away from his first created roots. Only the male took on the sin nature of rebellion. The female indeed sinned but she did not do so in direct rebellion so no sin nature was passed on from her to her descendants.

The grammar is of utmost importance. I will see if I can get a copy of the Hebrew phrase marker analysis into a comment field so you can see it.