There is NO “Eve” in v14. “Eve” is in v13. There is no way to re-write or replace Paul‘s “the woman” of v14 with “Eve“. There is just no way to get her into the verse.
It's actually quite easy. "the woman" (with the article) refers to a specific woman in the context. There's only one specific woman in the context: Eve.
Eve is the specific woman in contrast to Adam in this exact sentence as well.
Let a woman…BUT I do not permit a woman to…FOR Adam was…then Eve AND Adam was not…BUT the woman…has become in transgression BUT she will be saved…if they continue…
Each “verse” is connected to the next by conjunctions therefore they are one whole thought which is why it is impossible for “the woman” of v14 to not be “woman” from the beginning of the passage.
Not the case.
"For" conjoins supporting examples. Eve is a supporting example for the general case.
perfect — The verb tense used by the writer to describe a completed verbal action that occurred in the past but which produced a state of being or a result that exists in the present (in relation to the writer). The emphasis of the perfect is not the past action so much as it is as such but the present “state of affairs” resulting from the past action. Heiser, M. S. (2005; 2005). Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology (perfect). Logos Bible Software.
As I pointed out before -- the present state of affairs is that Eve is a transgressor. She's considered such in Paul's view. The action is in the past. The status is in the present.
No inconsistency here.
But the woman being deceived has become in transgression but she will be saved…if they…
The perfect is a completed past action resulting in a present state, but Eve wasn’t considered presently deceived and in sin when Paul wrote the passage because when she admitted to God that the serpent deceived her, she could NOT have admitted it while still deceived and in sin.
Nope. The action "deceive" is in the past. It's not even perfect tense. Even if it were, as you yourself pointed out, "the one deceived" would have been the status brought into the present. Eve need not be continually deceived for this to apply, grammatically. But there's no need. It's not perfect tense.
"was deceived" is aorist. "came into transgression" (two words) is perfect tense. Eve is still considered a transgressor (present status), even after her transgression occurred (past action).
Let's get a handle on the situation here, Timothy2. You're talking to someone with a facility in Koine Greek. I'm more than willing to grant you what the Scripture will permit. But the Scripture doesn't permit what you're asserting at this point.
She was a transgressor (so was Adam) but not in transgression (present state) at the time of the letter because, she was DEAD.
Physical death absolves no one of transgression. "
It's appointed to people once to die; after that, the judgment."
To presume that “the woman” is Eve is to force interpretation into the text (rather than letting it speak for itself)
No. It's a simple connection of the grammar. There's no force being applied. There's only two principles here: the writer knew Koine Greek as a native speaker (that is, he could think in the language's syntax and grammar), and the writer connected thoughts with an intent to communicate meaning.
The rest is exegesis.
Chop this kind of connection apart and you'll rip verses of Scripture sentence from following sentence -- or even rip individual sentences apart. This isn't a valid interpretation.
... which can only be done outside the facts and proof which is a matter of going into the twilight zone by going outside of scriptural bounds - where one interprets away into never never land, until one applies self imposed boundaries. Outside the passage, in never never land, anything is possible because grammar can be confused with interpretation.
I would assert rather it's your position going into the twilight zone.
For instance, say we were to rip the pronouns apart from one another in Ep 1 & 2 like you've ripped 1 Tim 2:14 from :13 (or even from the contrast to "Adam" directly in :14). You could say anything with the words so gerrymandered.
It's not valid semantics. The writer wanted to communicate something. He used proper grammar to communicate it for Koine Greek. You don't want it to say what it says. But it says what it says.
Who today speaks the Koine Greek of the first century? No one.
Who speaks the English of the 18th Century? And yet, the understanding is pretty reasonable to establish. Linguistics doesn't skitter away like the human preference for denial.
Was Chrysostom a native speaker of Koine Greek of the first century?
Are you a native speaker of 18th Century English? So you can't understand a thing earlier than the late 20th Century?
This is a weak excuse for misunderstanding the text. There's quite a bit of information coming out of the First Century, and a large amount of it in Greek. Greek usage shifted by Chrysostom's time -- but nowhere near the distance you seem to want it to be.
No. In the context of his quote, is he talking about the facts and proofs or his interpretation without them? Did he re-write 1 Timothy 2? No. Did he claim interpretational inspiration for the text? No. He is a false authority then. (Interesting note: I’m still wondering why within the context of his quote, he considers/interprets the serpent as an inferior animal rather than the archenemy of God?) Chrysostom, simply is not the Greek text itself.
He's a valid witness to the information communicated in the Greek text. I place him as an authority on the language, and what the language communicates to Greek readers. Do you say Chrysostom intentionally lied about the text meaning what he took it to mean? He has no reason to.
Would you like someone even closer to the text time? How about around 200? Tertullian pointed out that the church didn't permit women to speak or teach in church ("On the Veiling of Virgins", 9). Were they making up rules as they went along?
It's just not tenable what you're doing to the Scripture. The meaning is intended to be communicated. The grammar is consistently pointing to the meaning. The result of this interchange is not your victory, but incredulity over your argument. It's not valid.
