Kay

“I’m some what in agreement with you about interpretation. Thus a good proper solid exegesis is required. It is not simply good enough to say…’well that doesn’t apply ot us anymore’, nor is it exceptable to say that ‘everything literally applies’.”

Mark,
I think I understand what you are trying to say here…only it seems perhaps you used the word “exceptable” when you meant “acceptable.” Was that your intention?
“Thus something else must help us. Consider that ALL Paul’s teaching on these issues are grounded in creation. Therefore, there is something significant about it.”

I agree. Yes, and just what that significance IS, is the crux of the matter. Adam was formed first —but there is nothing in Genesis to say why it would give him (and males) exclusive authority in doctrine but not in civil government. Comps give no explanation why one applies but the other does not; in actuality they base their belief on 1 Tim. 2:12 rather than Genesis, and it is erroneous to say that Gen. 2 gives males authority specifically in matters of worship. Worship is never mentioned in Gen.2. What is your explanation for this?

Egals/mutualists see Paul simply using it as an example to explain that ignorance leads to deception. Just as he did in 2Cor 11:3-4: “But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.”

Clearly, women can and do have authority over men (civil government, business, or public ed). Therefore, the significance cannot be understood as a “blanket” hierarchy. Since the rationale that comps use to support male authority based on Genesis 2 is not valid for civil authority, this inconsistency suggests that the entire rationale itself may not be valid. Coupled with Paul’s use of “ignorant, deceived Eve” elsewhere, that is not “slippery” hermeneutics.

The Comp claim that Paul’s restriction is permanently valid because he supports it from Genesis, also ignores the fact that women are in fact shown teaching scripture to men (Acts18:25), praying, prophesying and evangelizing. In all these ways we DO know that Paul is not making an absolute restriction on women teaching/authenteining. And as Dave pointed out if these were “postitive” things WHY would Paul be restricting them? As I’ve just stated above, women are clearly shown having authority and teaching positively. 🙂
*The onus is on you to show anyone ever “authenteining” anyone else is positive.* Where is a believer ever given the command “to authentein” another person?

You wrote: “Here is what he saids…“These example set forth the NT evidence that ‘oude’ joins terms that denote activities that are either both viewed positively or negetively by the writer or speaker. The implication of this observation for 1 Tim 2:12 is that there are only two acceptable ways of rendering that passage: (1) “i do not permit a woman to teach (error) or to domineer over a man,” or (2) “i do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man””
Thus the argument that Paul links the two terms to mean one idea is false. Thus, it cannot be translated, “i do not permit a woman to teach a man in a domineering way”. If one adopts this interpretation it goes against ALL the evidence.”
But, Mark, you already admit that it is positive and allowable for women to teach men at times and have authority at times. Therefore, by your own hermeneutics, then you, yourself, cannot choose number (2) which separates them.