66 TL,

You said:

But I’m not really saying that you are wrong. I’m just seeing another possibility that could apply as well. IMO both “work” as good admonitions for improving Christian character and behavior. I cannot see a clear – only one approach to it.

I can understand that you see other options. I guess this is where we differ because I see too many holes in the other way to be an option. Here are the holes that I see that I cannot see a resolution to:

1. It would be inconsistent and thus illogical to make “a woman” particular and “a man” as the church.
2. It would not make sense to disallow a deceived woman to teach the men in the congregation but say nothing about the women. If her teaching was public, then the prohibition needs to be generic. It would make far more sense if Paul would have left out “a man” and just state that he forbids “a woman” from teaching (implication in the passage is that the teaching is that of deception). For what purpose does singling out men in the congregation rather than the entire congregation?
3. If the woman was deceived just as all the false teachers in 1 Timothy 1:7, and teaching publicly like all of the false teachers, then why single her out from the others?

These are the things that bother me about having a consistent view and another option.