Mark

Cheryl,

Have you now changed your view from saying they couldn’t speak His name to now they could, but the full revelation of what that meant didn’t come until Exodus 3? If so, i am glad that you are now accepting one conservative approach to reconciling this problem.

Dave,

I do not deny that ‘kephale’ could be understood as source. The problem i have is with people who deny it couldn’t be understood as superiority over. From the research i have done, both are legitimate translations for ‘kephale’, and so ultimately the context is the deciding factor. That is why i am persistent that Cheryl agrees to post my paper before i give my opinion of the context. Until people accept the superiority over was an acceptable meaning in Paul’s day the discussion will never proceed. Do you deny Dave that kephale could mean superiority over?