Cheryl Schatz

gengwall,
You said:

But it isn’t about any woman and that is so clear. It is about a particular kind of woman based on a real example from Timothy. The prohibition isn’t for any woman, it for only a woman who is teaching false doctrine and domineering her husband. You are confusing “generic” with “general”.

Is it really so clear?

I included what “generic” meant in my comment #259 above. How am I confusing this with general? If you read neopatriarch’s “refutation” he is consistently using the term “generic” and he means just what the dictionary gives for the term “generic”.

A generic woman is built on an archetype and the archetype here is plainly described.

The only plain described type that I see is the deceived woman who is compared to Eve. But if there is one woman who is compared to Eve, where are we to see an entire “class” compared to Eve to get an archetype for a special “class” that goes beyond the regular “woman” class if “a woman” is merely generic and not a specific person?

In addition, we have a specific example on top of all of that. There is nothing in the passage that would connect the prohibition to the women in vs. 10 but it is very clear that the prohibition is associated with the type of real woman brought forward in vs. 14.

Verse 14 is not set up as a “type” of woman. In fact the only “type” that is set up in the book of Timothy is not attached to a gender but is either those who are deceived or those who are deceivers. Why would Paul set up a “type” attached to a woman? Would that not be assuming that deceived people that teach their spouse their deception are only women?