Dave

Mark, with your example from Romans I really have to say it is not a legitimate example as the construct is not identical to 1 Tim 2:15. Just joking! (but I hope you get the not very hidden message in my joke)

If we go by the words Paul has written in both passages then we can only come to the conclusion we can through other knowledge we bring to the text. Thankfully Paul’s letter to the Romans is an explanation of the Gospel and you can look up for your self the many references and reasons Paul give for how Jesus is the only way to the Father. More to the point as Romans is about salvation through faith, not works of the law I think in chapter 10 the readers know what this belief in Jesus us about and how it works.

Of course in our Timothy passage things are more difficult, but your Romans example is great as it emphasises the point that in 1 Timothy we DO NOT KNOW as much about the context of what Paul is writing. Timothy does. That said, we still have to put things together from the surrounding verses and chapters.

Your example from Romans does NOTHING to support your interpretation of the conditional clause, if that was indeed why you brought it up. You gave two options, Craig gave a third. One option relies on your interpretation of the conditional clause…so can we scrub that option off the ist or are you still going to persist with something you cannot back up?