Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

[Esquilax]

How hard is it to write what you mean, seriously? Do you honestly expect us to believe that this stuff is just written super vague, and that only you, a guy who doesn't know the author and can tell us nothing about his intent, somehow knows what's up?

No one living today has met men like william shakespeare yet we can understand what he is saying.

The difference being that nobody today is attempting to convince me that Shakespeare had written something definitively not present in the text. Nobody is asking me to accept that when Shakespeare wrote the play "Romeo and Juliet" that the title is actually "Romeo and Juliet and Bill."

Contrast that with what you're asking me to accept in the bible, which is that the true meaning of the text is actually the precise opposite of the words in the text, that when the book says "women are to be silent and not teach," what it really means is "women can teach, just so long as they're qualified." The latter is not what's in the book, and you offer no reason why I should accept your interpretation. Frankly, a literal reading of the passage has the upper hand because at least I know that the literal reading comes officially from the text, despite everything else.

And since we know the bible is loaded with contradictions (it is. Even if you're willing to presuppose that it's all true and twist until you can reconcile it all, there's no doubt that the contradictions are at least present) then pointing to a completely different book in the canon, where both authors are completely anonymous, roughly means that you're asking me to accept that it's more likely that an adult human being writing a religious manual was so inept at communication that he figured the precise opposite of what he meant was the thing to write, rather than that it was simply two authors that weren't cooperating in their writing.

I don't know why you'd expect me to do that.