Dave

Yeah, the Aussies have taken over the blog! I declare this blog to be the property of the Commonwealth of Australia…

I thought it might be good to sum up the discussion thus far. If Mark is still listening he might like to comment on how accurate it is.

*Cheryl has given her exegesis of the passage in question.

*Mark has claimed that the grammar means Cheryl’s exegesis provides a theological dilemma.

*Others have suggested that Mark’s claim regarding the grammar (the conditional clause) is incorrect. Evidence was given proving the claim was incorrect. evidence was rejected by Mark for reasons he appeared to make up. He never provided evidence for rejecting the examples given, except for his own example where he did not even swap the main and conditional clause but actually change the conditional clause to the main clause and the main to the conditional.

*Mark has taken us on a merry trip up the garden path (all the way to the kephale (which he no longer wants to talk about) and back) but has only been able to bring one piece of evidence to back up his claim – Romans 10:9.

*But Romans 10:9 fails to back up his statement because as a conditional clause it DOES NOT state that the only way to be saved is through belief in Jesus. Thankfully though Paul did not leave the Roman church in doubt as to the only way to be saved!

*Mark has huffed and puffed about how none of us agree with each other but has failed to provide evidence for this. He has claimed people are saying the salvation of the woman is the “responsibility” of the husband, whis is not what has been said.

*Mark has claimed CHeryl is arrogant about her exegesis being correct and yet has forgotton that her words were in response to his claim he had found holes in it – which he had/has not.

*After giving not one reasonable piece of legitimate evidence to back up any one of his claims Mark has bowed out.