I had asked,

“Please show me a translation which does NOT indicate, in I Timothy 2:11-14, that the reason for Paul’s teaching regarding women in that passage (irrespective of what that teaching actually is) involves Adam and Eve, and in particular Adam not being deceived while Eve was. Any translation (of reasonable respectability) will do. Thanks.”

In apparent (I think) response (though not actually addressing my question directly), you said,

“….And it is possible that 1 Tim 2:13-14 is describing the truth that directly contradicts the false teaching, that is, proto-Gnostic ideas of Eve having extra knowledge and being created first, etc.”

You seem to have a great need for the Bible to allow women to teach or have authority over men. Do you not see how desperately weak the above possible explanation you provide is? Besides, if that was Paul’s point, then he needn’t have mentioned that it was Eve who was deceived, and not Adam, because he had already, immediately prior to mentioning their relative deceived/non-deceived state, stated that Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Plus, the CONTEXT has nothing to do with any sort of polemic against any “proto-Gnostic ideas” – the context is all about women being submissive, learning in silence, and not teaching or having authority over men. Paul’s references to Adam and Eve in that context is to give the REASON for those teachings of his. And as his teaching was for the Church, no “proto-Gnostic ideas” would have any bearing on that reason.

A Christian could have theoretically had the following conversation with Paul:

C: “Can women teach or have authority over men in the Church?”

P: “No, women are to learn in silence, with all submission. And they are not to teach or have authority over men, but to be in silence.”

C: “That seems rather harsh, Paul. Are you sure you’re not perhaps slightly misogynistic? Anyway, why is that your view?”

P: “Because Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression.”

C: “That’s a nice polemic against the proto-Gnostic idea that Eve was formed first and had extra knowledge, Paul, but I want to know why you don’t allow women to teach or have authority over men in the Church. And, come to think of it, just because Eve was formed second and was deceived while Adam wasn’t doesn’t mean that Eve couldn’t have had extra knowledge.”

P: “(Sigh.)”

“The point is that you are CHOOSING to interpret these verses that way, when there are other choices that are less self-serving.”

No, that’s NOT the point. The point, as I have shown, is that YOU are self-servingly choosing to NOT interpret those verses that way. I have shown that your argument that the order not following “standard” hierarchical form means it is not a describing a hierarchy is insubstantial, at best.

I have shown that that ordering can imply something completely different than what you assume. Thus, the order does not indicate that it is not a hierarchy; particularly, it is far more likely to be a hierarchy than it is to be a relating of a sort of chronological, “source”, ordering.

The point is that you are CHOOSING to interpret these verses that way, when there are other choices that are less self-serving.

B — C, A — B, C — D,

note that Christ (represented by “C”) is in both the beginning and ending relation. I see God using that particular form to reflect Christ’s being the “alpha and omega, the beginning and the end”. So the fact that it doesn’t follow the “standard” form for a hierarchy need only mean God “tweaked” it a bit in order to represent Christ’s deity, His “alpha-omega” character.

If it is written in the form,

B–C, A–B, C–D,

one can still logically infer the hierarchy,

A–B–C–D.

So it’s a hierarchy, but described in a different way than “normal”.

“Not in 1 Cor 11, there is no hierarchy as it is not in the form of a hierarchy unless you rearrange the text, which one is not to do.”

Does a hierarchy need to be “in the form of” a hierarchy in order to be a hierarchy? Are there any instances of a hierarchy not having the standard “form”?

“I do agree that as a human, Jesus was less than God.”

That’s not what the Bible says. Jesus, in His resurrected and ascended form, is fully God, yet the Bible indicates that even at this point Jesus will be in submission to God the Father.

By the way, are you a professor or theologian or pastor somewhere? (I don’t need to know where if you are.)

On 1 Tim 2 there is a mixture of singular and plural nouns. What the non-egals do is take ONE possible meaning and declare it to the THE meaning, when all it is is one possible meaning.

It is also possible that one Ephesian woman or a group of Ephesian women are being discussed. And it is possible that 1 Tim 2:13-14 is describing the truth that directly contradicts the false teaching, that is, proto-Gnostic ideas of Eve having extra knowledge and being created first, etc.

But even if so, that wouldn’t fit well with the rest of the descriptions. All of the other subjects and “objects” are singular (”Christ” – singular; “woman” – singular; “man” – singular; “God” – singular [in the Greek, of course]). Your theory requires an awkward “outlier” of sorts, or so it seems to me. (Perhaps Greek allows the singular “woman” to function as a “group”, especially when it has no modifiers or articles associated with it. Obviously, though, “Christ” and “God” are singular.)

Anyway, Paul explicitly described a hierarchical relationship between Jesus and God, with God being “above” or “greater than” Jesus. This fits quite well with Paul’s description that “the head of Christ is God”. And this strongly suggests that I Corinthians 11:3 contains descriptions of hierarchical relationship, as follows: woman — man — Christ — God.

However, we’re getting side-tracked. You seem to have overlooked my earlier challenge, which I here quote for convenience:

“Please show me a translation which does NOT indicate, in I Timothy 2:11-14, that the reason for Paul’s teaching regarding women in that passage (irrespective of what that teaching actually is) involves Adam and Eve, and in particular Adam not being deceived while Eve was. Any translation (of reasonable respectability) will do. Thanks.”

Did you not read where I pointed out that the Greek word translated as “man” in “every man” is masculine singular?

Christ = Messiah who was a man, incarnate God, yes but a man.
God thru the Holy Spirit was the source of Jesus the man, as was Mary.

One can refer to the preincarnate Christ as Christ also, context determines.