Chris

Cheryl, I’m not sure why you can’t read my IP, but I do run NoScript (its an anti-malware tool) on my computer so your sitemeter is being blocked. Why are you so determined to believe that I am Matt Slick or Diane?

Cheryl: “If you are not MS or DS why do you need to hide? My guess – you are the real thing – MS in person.”

Um, why would MS or DS need to hide?

Paula: “I am making a claim on a finite topic: the words contained in the Bible. I have examined it all and found it devoid of proof for your position.”

Thanks for confessing your ignorance but, given your wacky interpretation of my posts, I don’t trust your reading comprehension.

Paula: “That is, you claim proof exists so you must show it. ”

No. I don’t have to show it. It is sufficient for my argument to show *that* it is exists, not to show what it is or how Paul derives it. I’m taking it on Paul’s authority that it is there, implicitly at least, in the creation account.

You seem to be shifting the burden of proof:

Here is an example of this kind of bad logic from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html:

“Bill: ‘I think that some people have psychic powers.’
Jill: ‘What is your proof?’
Bill: ‘No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers.'”

In this case:

Egal: There is no OT proscription against women teaching men.
Patriarch: What is your proof?
Egal: No one has been able to prove that there is such an OT proscription.

PS I’ve posted a response to Cheryl’s 1 Tim 2:11-15 position here:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/12/02/what-does-1-timothy-211-15-mean/