gengwall

Just thinking more on my above post. So, if a person views “women are more easily deceived” as a godly position, they are violently out of line with Scripture. God clearly does not hold such an opinion.

Turning to Paul, who clearly was a godly man who wrote God inspired words. If your position is that Paul is alluding to a fundimental principal of humanity, then Paul has become your God because there is no such principal in Scripture and, in fact, Scripture clearly promotes the opposite. But what if Paul is simply commenting on a cultural bias as Webb suggests. If Paul is commenting on a cultural bias, then is there any other conclusion you can draw about that commentary other than it is somehow refuting that bias? After all, can Paul positively promote what God denies? The notion that Paul somehow might be speaking positively of the idea of female deceptiveness is tantamount to claiming Paul himself is in opposition to God in the debate.

Which brings us back to 1 Tim 2. How could Paul possibly be promoting female deceptiveness either as a fundimental biblical principal or a cultural bias? He simply can not. At least not if the bible is trustworthy. So Paul is either refuting that women are more easily deceived, an even more confusing and fantastical interpretation than any I have ever heard, or he isn’t talking about female deception at all. The latter is the only logical conclusion I can come to. It is then up to the individual to discover what Paul really IS talking about. A positive step forward in my view.