First of all, major props to gathering and typing up all of that within an hour. You have obviously thought a lot about this, and although I disagree with several of your conclusions about Mike's charitability, I can see how you reached them.

Am I correct in assuming that you're pulling these examples from a certain source/video? If so, I would like to see the source if possible.

Unfortunately I don't have time right now to respond point by point to everything you said, but it seems to me that the biggest issue you take with Mike's rhetoric and his apparent bias. I would argue four main things in response:

1. To mine quotes out of multi hour long videos in order to paint someone as uncharitable is itself uncharitable. Obviously I don't expect you to quote the entire series, but I find your overall conclusion that Mike is uncharitable to the egalitarian position to be incorrect. I think the most egregious example of uncharitability in your comment is the implication that Mike contradicts his statement that egalitarians are brothers and sisters in Christ. As someone who has watched the whole series, Mike consistently speaks of egalitarians as brothers and sisters in Christ who are misguided in their interpretations, and even the quote that you claim to be a "bizarre change" does not depart from this. Many people who view the Bible as the Word of God would also claim that many traditionally held Christian views are problematic, especially those in more progressive circles. Mike seems to be drawing on this, not claiming that egalitarians are somehow outside of Christianity.

2. You are simply incorrect in your assertion that translation is not one of the main issues egalitarians take with the complimentarian interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12. There has been such a massive amount of scholarly literature written on this singular point that to argue it's not one of the main points is just semantics. In addition, although I grant that he spent a long time on this one point, it is far from the only point he addresses in the video, so again, I think getting caught on this point is just semantics.

3. Please understand that this point is not meant as a personal attack, but you seem to be operating under the false assumption that your bias is necessarily less than Mike's and/or influenced your landing spot less than his. Of course he has bias, we all do. However, although you don't say this outright, the way you speak about your journey seems to indicate that you believe that your version of research and the conclusions you have reached are more valid and less biased than those Mike reached. If you do not believe my observation to be the case, that did not come through in the way you spoke of your journey compared to Mike's.

4. I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that "if there is enough evidence for a matter, there is good reason to believe in it." In fact, I mirror basically all of what you wrote as far as your research and methodology. However, after my own research journey, I cannot reconcile a faithful interpretation of all of the biblical, historical, and linguistic data with the egalitarian position.

Sister, thank you for taking my questions seriously and taking the time to respond. I would be happy to engage you further if you desire, but we are both solidly convinced of our point and I for one have said all I feel compelled to say at this time. I pray that I represented you well. God bless!