Neopatriarch’s once again claims to refute the Greek grammar and Cheryl Schatz’s view of 1 Timothy 2:11-15
Feb 17th, 2010 by Cheryl Schatz
According to those who have been followed a trail left by our old friend Neopatriarch (who many of you may recall was the young complementarian who used to post challenges on this blog until he left in exasperation when his arguments didn’t make the grade), he has apparently been presently himself recently on several discussion boards as the one who has refuted my exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. How interesting that he has been refuted time and time again and is still claiming victory. Also how interesting that he has picked me as the one who has the exegesis that has to be refuted. Well, I am quite flattered by all of his attention, and even though he is undoubtedly a very intelligent young man, his attempts to refute my sound argument have only called attention to my argument. I guess I should say thanks.
Let’s have a look at Neopatriarch’s latest edition of his “refutation” of my exegesis. Neopatriarch’s latest revision says:
Since the presumptive evidence favors our initial conclusion that any man and any woman are meant in verse 12 and verses 13-14 function as reasons in Paul’s argument, the most natural reading takes Adam and Eve as representatives of any man and any woman.
Neopatriarch has made it “presumptive evidence” now, but in his previous edition he called it plain old “presumption”. Here is his wording from his fall 2009 edition:
Since presumption favors our initial conclusion that any man and any woman are meant in verse 12 and verses 13-14 function as reasons in Paul’s argument, the most natural reading takes Adam and Eve as representatives of any man and any woman.
So what used to be “presumption” has now taken on a new life and has been transformed into the “presumptive evidence” category yet he has nothing new to add. Sadly for Neopatriarch, he has no new evidence and his presumptions are still the same old presumptions. Also sadly for Neopatriarch, he has so far refused to address my answer to his “refutation” and so his imaginery presumptions have come no closer to refuting my exegesis then he attained during his first and second try during 2009. To see my refutation of Neopatriarch’s position and his second attempt to refute me see my post here.