Cheryl Schatz

This is what I was hoping that Mark could help us with. Where is the context explicit talking about the authority of one person over another or of the superiority of one person over another? Somehow Mark thinks that because he has assumed his conclusion, that this is proof. It isn’t. What we need to see that would qualify as evidence is words or grammar that show the intent of rulership of the man. Surely if this is what the passage means in context there will be actual words and grammar to support this.

What is interesting is that Mark ignores all real evidence that shows origins – the word order showing order of origin from verse 3, the exact wording in verse 8 that describes origins. How can this be dismissed for a position of no evidence?

Guys, you tell me, is it really in all or most men to want to have superiority over women so that it is easy to read this into the text?