Thanks Cheryl,

49- “I am not saying that the use of the singular necessitates the meaning of a specific woman. I am saying that the change of the plural to the singular needs to be noted especially when the change is unnecessary. The context will define whether it is a specific woman or not. The context will also remove the generic application with specific language.”

I agree with most of this, the singular does not necessitate a specific singular woman. I agree the singular needs to be noted, yet your argument that it is unnecessary i’m not convinced of. It is only unnecessary if you adopt your contextual understanding. However, if we adopt the traditional approach regarding corporate worship then it is a non-issue. As you yourself note, a singular can simply have a generic meaning. I agree that the context decides whether it is a specific woman, so it appears therefore that it is here where the real disagreement lies.

Now since you explained yourself well, i therefore find it intriguing why you even offered this challenge,

“Those who are disagreeing with me, need to provide reason for the irregular and unusual grammar change if they believe that Paul continues to write about women in general. Also those who believe that Paul was stopping godly teaching need to provide proof that Paul ever stopped the teaching of the truth of the gospel.”

You answered yourself, did you not, by affirming that a singular can be generic. What it appears that you are asking is to show the reason for the “irregular and unusual grammar change” based on the acceptance of your contextual understanding. But surely you must realise that this type of language is based on your preconceived conclusion and understanding of the context. It is not irregular and unusual if we adopt the traditional hypothesis. On the contrary, it is only unusual if you believe a priori that it is referencing a new topic with a new specific woman.

I appreciate your understanding, but given what you have discussed, i find it much harder to accept your contextual understanding which has Paul shoot off in a rather different direction between v10-11 which can only be understood by reference back to earlier parts of chapter 1. This for me, seems like the irregular and unusual approach.

Take care