pinklight

Craig,

The difficulty with this view is that “she” in v15 then naturally refers to Eve, which can’t be because Eve is dead. So we then have to think who else could Paul be referring to? We then go back to v12 to find the answer. So in this view, “a woman” is mentioned in v12, then kinda in parenthesis v13,14 gives some background reasons and example for the prohibition, then the “she” in v15 picks up again from “a woman” in v12. It is only confusing, because Paul happens to use Eve, a woman, in his example. If he had of given another reason, it would not be confusing because “she” would then clearly have referred back to v12.

Yeah, it’s that v15 again. Assuming Paul had in mind “Eve” when he wrote “the woman” of v14 then we could reiterate v15 to say this -“But Eve will be saved if they…” and stop there cause things start to get confusing again and all over the place. Eve will be saved in the future, what? She’s dead. But we can’t make her the represenative of women just because all the sudden the passage seems confusing once “she” is connected back to v14 which is thought to be Eve for the reasons you gave and then to end up with an interpretation something like “women will be saved if women…” cause then we’re not sticking with the inspired grammar in v15 of a singular “she” and a plural “they” which results in gooblygooke – women must bare children to be saved, grammar is ignored, women’s salvation is dependant upon what other woman (plus men?) do, blah, confusion.
She refers back to v14, the woman is not Eve, (cannot be proven, should be added) everything fits nicely, and nothings forced, added or taken away, and there’s no confusion from this hard pasage. 🙂 Something like that? ;P