Craig

Gengwall @212
“Even if the verbal aspect theory was correct ……the vs. 15 woman still can’t be Eve and also can’t be all women ”

Agreed

Gengwall@212

“I generally opt for the simple reading of a passage if it makes sense. Regardless of verbal aspect theories and comp wishful thinking, the passage makes the most sense if “the woman” of vs. 14 is not Eve. It fits the plain text (Adam is named twice but Eve is not named in the last part of the verse), it fits the plain understanding of the perfect tense (whereas the VAT leaves us hanging without a clear interpretation), it matches up “the woman” with “she” in vs. 15 and maintains the integrity of a contemporary woman interpretation, it holds up Eve as an individual example instead of making her some strange and otherwise unexplained representative of all women, and it shows how Adam and Eve both support Paul’s general commentary on deception, false teaching, and salvation. The only reason this passage is so “confusing” is that the English interpretations are all over the map. But the plain reading with focus on the Greek is very clear. Why would we reject the plain reading in favor of inconclusive, incoherent interpretations? Unless, of course, we had an agenda other than seekign the truth that we wanted to promote.”

A good summary of your view. Thanks.

“it holds up Eve as an individual example”
“it shows how Adam and Eve both support Paul’s general commentary on deception”

It only does these with some assumptions unfortunately. Technically, all Paul tells us about Eve is that she was formed after Adam – that’s all.