pinklight

Craig,

Hi pinklight. From your responses @200 to my questions 1 and 2, it seems to me that we are really thinking fairly similarly about a lot of things. It sounds like you can understand why I still see Cheryl’s 2006 view as a strong possibility if I am not sure yet about the implications of the perfect tense in v14.

Yes, I think so, and yes, I can understand why you still see Cheryl’s 2006 view as a possibility when not sure of the implications of v14. I’m ALL for wanting to be sure about things that interest me…

My experiences with comps who know a lot more Greek than me, has possibly made me a bit more hesitant to pursue that line of thinking than I need to be. I appreciate many of the points you, Cheryl and others have made that encourage me to learn more about the perfect tense, why Paul used it, how significant it is, and how it fits in with the rest of the passage.

I don’t know Greek, I didn’t understand the tense of v14 for a long time, and I couldn’t “get it” and in part it was because it had to do with Greek which made me feel uneasy.

@212
gengwall,

Even if the verbal aspect theory was correct and we couldn’t be sure about vs. 14, there is nothing in that theory that affects the grammar of vs. 15 where “she” is a singular woman whose salvation is in the future. So the vs. 15 woman still can’t be Eve and also can’t be all women of even a subgroup of women because singular is singular. So, punting on vs. 14 still doesn’t support a comp view of vs. 15.

Yep! *thumb up* 🙂