Mark

Hi Dave,

Before i continue can i ask you to do something. Go back and read over all the comments thus far and see how this discussion has progressed.

Initially, Pinklight did not have an issue with saying the woman’s salvation is conditional on her husband’s behaviour.

TL said something similiar although not going as far as Pinklight simply changing salvation for behaviour since TL saw the theological dilemma suggested.

Craig gave a third suggestion to my former two not realising that point one was Cheryl’s argument not my own.

Then you began to preceed to say i was being too exclusive with the conditional clause.

If you follow the thread thus far, where are we at? There is actually no agreement between anybody, yet you all claim to hold to Cheryl’s view! Which is it? Pinklight’s, TL’s, Craig’s or Dave’s?

What that tells me, is that nobody actually understands Cheryl’s exegesis. Verse 15 is blurring since none of you have argued the same point. Your only common argument is that i am wrong, and you have aproached the discussion saying totally different things.

So we are back to square one. What is verse 15 saying? Which really highlights the main issue, this exegesis does not explain what verse 15 is saying except that the husband is needed to bring the wife out of deception and as i have stated, this actually ignores the grammar that is there.

Finally, re Colossians…

Dave you need to show proof that your translation of ‘kephale’ is an acceptable one before you try to argue for it in the context. You cannot just choose a translation that you like and attempt to fit it in while that translation is unsupported in all other literature. Also i’m not interested in discussing kephale any further…i don’t see the point, you’ve proved my case. Rather than giving us proof of source you just jump straight to the text arguing your case unsupported. People may accept Kroegers sloppy scholarship, but that is just an indication of personal agenda’s rather than looking at the evidence. Colossians can easily be understood by the traditional understanding of kephale as many exegetes have shown. So Colossians is not proof for the egal case any more than Eph 5 or 1 Cor 11. You need to provide actual proof for your case not just your own re-interpretation with your own chosen translation.