I agree. @Jeremy_Christian, I’d encourage you look at a well-versed explanations of inspiration. I would also like to know if you affirm the Lausanne Covenant: The Lausanne Covenant - Lausanne Movement. If not, what are your reservations?
@deuteroKJ and I are tapping into a long tradition of thought on this. The article just linked to you by @deuteroKJ is a great first start. You might also want to look at this article (linked here): Five Views on Inerrancy.
This appears to be an “idiosyncratic” view. I do not think this is supportable by the text. In your story of Adam, it is creating some serious (and avoidable) theological problems. It seems as if you are reading in from our current context into the text at that time. They did not have the same notions of individuality as do we.
Your claims that “it is clear” is a great warning cue to rethink your position. If it is clear, it should be taught by many people throughout history. It is possible to objectively demonstrate this with evidence. If you think it is clear, but it is not widely appreciate, the “clear” point is probably a personal bias. It is more likely to be how you clearly see something, that is not actually in the text. We have to let the text reshape our biases.
Of course, the text can be teaching something that a lot of people missed. You could be right, and everyone else might be wrong. In those cases, however, arguing “it is clear” undermines your case almost entirely. It would better to explain and expound why it hasn’t been clear. If we can understand why a large number of well meaning people missed it to till you made the connections, we will be able to better assess if you are right, knowing that you understand what you are critiquing.
In the case of “free will” being the dominant narrative of Genesis, this seems to be anachronistic to me. It does not appear to be a dominant part of the narrative. Rather, it seems to be the dominant narrative in certain contemporary strands of thoughts. I’m skeptical.