
Another dodge.  Oh well.  I'm no match for your amazing repertoire
of red herrings and smoke screens.  

You asked for an apology.  I'm not going to apologize for pointing out
that your straw-man argument was a straw-man argument.  Nor for saying
that your list of "bible contradictions" shows such low standards of
scholarship that it should be an embarrassment to anti-inerrantists,
just as Josh McDowell should be an embarrassment to the fundies.  Nor
for objecting various times to your taking quotes out of context.  Nor
for pointing out that "they do it too" is not an excuse. Nor for calling
your red herrings and smoke screens what they are.

I'm still not sure why you think I'm a hypocrite.  It's true that I
haven't responded to any of Robert Weiss' articles, which may be due in
part to the fact that I almost never read his articles.  But I have
responded to both you and Frank DeCenso (a fundie/inerrantist.)  Both
you and Frank have taken quotes out of context, and I've objected to
both of you doing so.  I've criticized bad arguments both when they
were yours and I agreed with the conclusion (that the Bible is not
inerrant), and when they were Frank's and I disagreed with the
conclusion.  I've criticized both you and Frank for evading questions,
and for trying to "explain me away" without addressing the objections
I raise (you by accusing me of being hypocritical and irrational, Frank
by accusing me of being motivated by a desire to attack the Bible.) I
don't see that any of this is hypocritical, nor do I apologize for it.

I do apologize, however, for having offended you in any other way.

Happy now?