gengwall

“From my view a generic person applies to all persons.”

Well, that is simply wrong. A generic example refers to individuals of which there may be none, one, or many. But each is addressed individually. The generic does not refer to the collective. If it did, it would be plural.

“He would have continued on saying let all women learn, and learn in quietness and submission without domineering men. ”

Well, first of all, that is a true statement. But the difference between vs. 10 and 11 is that in vs. 10, Paul was addressing a group problem or dynamic and in vs. 11, he was addressing an individual problem or dynamic. The change in number is mandatory because of the change in subjects. The women of the congregation in vs. 10 were being immodest. But a woman was involved in false teaching and domineering. So Paul changes the number appropriately. And he has a real life example who he deals with in the end. But he also wants to address other individuals who may be similarly deceived. So he deals with it generically.

It is exactly the same pattern as 1 Cor 5 as I note above. Do you think when Paul said “a man who has his fathers wife” he was referring to all men? And when he said “the one such as this” he meant all men are collectively “such as this”? I sure hope not. Paul used generics to address individual sinners, then dealt with the specific real life sinner from whom he drew the generic model, then went back to addressing all similar individual sinners. There is no group, no collective, no plural involved. It is all on an individual basis.