Two softened translations corrected to make one argument. 1 Timothy 2 asks how woman will be saved, and the answer is printed in English as 'woman will be saved by bearing children' while the footnote admits the literal Greek is 'by the bearing of the child' - one definite child, not offspring. Jeremiah 30:6 asks the matching question outright: can a man bear a child? The question is never answered, because God answers it by reporting what he sees - why then do I see every man with his hands delivering himself, pulling himself out of himself, just like a woman in labour? So there are two births, one from the womb of woman and one from the skull of man, and salvation is the second; the first produces garments, the second brings God's son out of generic man, male or female. Neville names the reason both verses get softened in the same direction: the translators cannot believe a man could bear a child - he can sire one, but not bear one - so wherever the text says it they render it as something else. The mechanics of the second birth belong to the squeezing-out motif; this one is the scriptural case that it must happen at all, and it is also his answer to the question of how women are saved, which is that they are saved exactly as men are.