[rdp]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ahh yes, I knew it was coming. Here's what Dr. Daniel Wallace (leading Greek scholar & papyrologist of our day) told me in a personal email about this argument:

Gune and aner are words which mean 'adult female' and 'adult male' in their unmarked meanings. Only if there are sufficient contextual clues that husband and wife are in view do the words mean 'wife' and 'husband.' Generally speaking, the definite article or 'idios' (one's own) or a possessive pronoun is required to show that husband and wife are in the text. None of these things occur in 1 Tim 2. The article occurs in 1 Cor 11, but only because it is syntactically required by the construction. Both passages are clearly talking about the Christian community in worship, which would of course involve single adults and married couples. Take a look at other passages that are clearly speaking about husband and wife--e.g., Eph 5, 1 Peter 3--and you'll see that they use these signals to note that husband and wife are in view.


Sorry, this attempted dodge won't work neither syntactically, exegetically, nor grammatically.

Blessings....

Bumpety-Bump-Bump .


Many more where that came from (e.g., Dr. Douglas Moo; Dr. Wayne Grudem; etc.).