Yes, I read it and I understood it. I simply disagreed with it. The effect due to Adam was on the unborn or just born child. The "as - so" construction of the sentence demands then that the effect due to Jesus was also on the unborn or just born child. It is not about the effect due to Jesus on the sins they committed.
You do recall that Jesus was born of a virgin? Why would God have done it that way, besides to demonstrate that he was indeed the Son of God, but so that the Son of God was not inheriting of the sinful nature?
Do you have some special definition of the word "exegesis" so that when you explain a text, it is exegesis, but when I explain a text, it is not? Sorry, but as the saying goes, "That dog don't hunt"!
You insist that the word "all" mean "all". Ok, My use of the text agreed with your use and meaning of "all", and didn't minimize it, though you claimed it did. NOBODY (but Christ) can get around the fact that in the one man we all die, and in the (other) one man, we live. There is no other way to be made alive. THAT is the force of the argument made in the text. The point of the construction of the text is not by our common use of language, or what you might call, "plain reading". "Plain reading" at the time it was written, was most likely quite a bit different from how we --specially those of us who assume the necessity of self-determination-- nowadays read and process what is written. They MOST LIKELY did not think quite how we do now, and that, in several ways. For example, we are very individualistic --they, not so much.
Sentence structure, even in the last 400 years, even in one language, has changed dramatically, such that what looks to mean one thing often means something quite different. But to cross from one language's constructions 2000 years ago, into another 400 years ago, is necessarily going to put some obscurity into the use of a sentence or passage. For example, the word, "whatsoever", as the King James puts it, in the Greek means, simply "whatever". "Whosoever believes" in John 3:16, even for one (of my very close acquaintance) who was on the board translating the Greek into a Spanish Version, to her death still (because of her worldview) considered it to be a matter of "nobody knows --'just anybody'", when the Greek implies no such thing, but says simply, "everyone believing"; and the subjunctive "might have everlasting life", in the Old English was thought of as certain purpose, and not hypothetical unknowable wish-think chance events, the same as "that whosoever believeth...might not perish" meant "so that those believing will (would) not perish". The phrase, "God so loved" had no necessary grammatical meaning of degree --not, "God loved the world so much", as some paraphrases and supposed 'translations' put it, but simply, "God loved the world thus," or "In this way, God loved the world".
I showed, CONTEXTUALLY, how your use of the verse is mistaken --THAT was exegesis, though, granted, I didn't delve into all possible thinking on the matter, as there is not room here, nor would anyone have bothered to read the whole way through. I urged you to look into, at least the interlinear, to see a better rendering than what you produced. If you did so, you apparently did not like what you found, choosing instead to mock me for inconsistency.
Notice also, that I did not claim that my use of the text was the only logically consistent and Biblically accurate one. There are several others who think and speak more clearly than I, who are worth reading on the matter, and who you have rather obviously not read, or at least, have not read seriously, with intellectual honesty-- instead of dismissing them out-of-hand as you have what I said
