Craig

Thanks for your reply Gengwall @106. Your approach could well be the best way forward and is a very good summary of how we might argue with the method:
“This is what I believe, that is what you believe. I am right and you are wrong for these reasons.”
I am just thinking about the other method of argument for a moment (using the sort of arguments Elaine used @41 and Kristen @100):
“This is what you believe (about 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 11). It is not consistent with itself. Therefore you have to consider the possibility that you may be wrong.”
Comp: 1 Tim 2 is a universal command not a command to a specific cultural situation.
Egal: Why?
Comp: Because Paul argues from Adam and Eve.
Egal: Paul argues from Adam and Eve in 1 Cor 11 and applies it to a specific cultural situation.
Comp: Ah, but 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim 2 are different. The principle of male authority flows directly from Adam being first created, and that is a timeless principle in both passages. The application to head coverings is a specific cultural practice that may change. Merkle wrote a good article answering this supposed inconsistency.
Egal:???
At this point do I abandon this line of reasoning, saying “ok I can see how in your mind, this could explain the inconsistency and enable you to be settled in your own mind with regards to these two passages”. I would then embark on a different approach – possibly like the one you have put forward.
Or can someone see a hole in Merkle’s explanation of the apparent inconsistency? Thanks.