Mark

Dave,

Go back to the link and open up your greek NT. You will find that your first example (Satan and Jesus) is a first conditonal clause. Then look at 1 Tim 2:15 and you will see it is a third conditional clause. They are different.

That’s why your example is not satisfactory to prove your case for 1 Tim 2…it’s not an example of the same grammatical construction. I think Luke 4:7 may be the same type of construction but i haven’t had a chance to look at it yet in detail.

Now you are arguing for a hypothetical conditional clause, is that correct? If this is so, then please explain to me what 1 Tim 2:15 is hypothetically saying?

In what way is it satisfactory to substitute “if they remain in faith, love, sanctification and self control” for…

“the husband is needed to bring the wife out of deception.”

I cannot concede that this is a satsifactory explanation for this verse, considering what Cheryl has argued in the earlier verses.

Why is the deception the responsibility of the husband not Timothy as per chapter 1?

Regarding the husband being the origin of the wife, beginning may be acceptable for Adam and Eve, but in what way are you the beginning of your wife? Obviously not the smae as Adam and Eve since your wife was not created out of you. This is where your understanding fails.

Also if you argue for a creational understanding for beginning with Adam and Eve, why do you feel you can simply change therefore what ‘beginning’ means in relation to God/Christ? I’m sure you don’t believe Jesus was created out of God stuff. THis is the problem…let’s just change the menaing all the time!

Anyway i’m away for the next week so we’ll speak soon.

Cheers