Talk:1 Timothy 2:12

Propose move

I think this should be renamed as something like "Role of women in religion". RJFJR (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Why?--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it is patently absurd to have a (Wikipedia) article on a single verse of the Bible. What's next? A whole article on a single line of Homer's Iliad or Ginsberg's Howl? Antinoos69 (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Let me also draw your attention to WP:BKD. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Alleged secular sources

Deleted "secular sources" section in that sources cited to dismiss egalitarian views came in fact from a former Baptist minister and former Theological Professor, both advocates of the complementarian position. Even the egalitarian perspective was presented by a minister. None of these sources could rightly be called secular, even if they were quoted in secular media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcAngel3 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

B. Edwards

Edwards, B. (2013). Let My People Go: A Call to End the Oppression of Women in the Church, Revised and Expanded. Charleston, SC: Createspace. ... self published material removed. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Self-published content was restored, by different user. (cur | prev) 22:11, 4 June 2013‎ ArcAngel3 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (54,162 bytes) (+5,441)‎ . . (Without additional information from egalitarian sources, the section on syntax expresses the idea that Complementarians and Egalitarians agree with the conclusion (from 1995) that authentein refers to positive authority. This is grossly inaccurate.)

However the problem remains. Sources cannot be self-published. Find academically published source please. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

[it's more or less come back again. Okay, a short note that an "egalitarian" Leland E Wilshire. Professor Emeritus of History. Ph.D., University of Southern California is not self-published is fine. The selective listing of a word bank is a bit WP:OR, wikipedia isn't a dictionary, this same list with different biases occurs in sources from both camps and this content is already textually discussed in the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Change to NIV 2011

04:09, 19 June 2014‎ User:Jaminhubner . (Undid revision 564980137 by In ictu oculi (talk) - ictu oculi's edit reflects an outdated version of the NIV Bible. The NIV 2011/2013 and newer render "assume authority.")

I've put that back temporarily since doing it in text like that is problematic. However a revision in the NIV in this text is significant for the article and warrants expansion in the translations/versions section. I'm assuming it will be easy to source a footnote, and also the change should be noted at New_International_Version#2011_Revision. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Translations

• REV: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to proclaim that she is the originator of man, rather she is not to cause a disturbance."

What Bible version is "REV"? It doesn't appear either at the disambiguation page REV, or at Bible Gateway. Using Google search I have tracked this translation to a Quora answer, and so it appears to be the author's interpretation of the verse. (It doesn't cite any source for this interpretation, and the translation doesn't seem to appear anywhere else except for copies of the Wikipedia article.) I'm going to remove it from the article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)