This is the answer Dan's been whining about, I'm posting it here and now so it is out there with a time stamp.

““I am confident that scripture is both accurate and authoritative,” you DO recognize that what you are saying is “I am confident that MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS of these texts (and the many who agree with me) is accurate and authoritative…”?” No, I am most assuredly NOT saying that. I am saying that Scripture is accurate and authoritative no matter what my interpretation is. For example. If I interpreted scripture to say that no God exists, my interpretation is wrong for scripture clearly claims otherwise. Scripture is what it is and says what it says, no matter what interpretations people come up with. Now, if you want to argue against that authority of scripture, feel free, but you’ll need more that “It’s my opinion.” . “ If you recognize this, on what basis should anyone accept your claim to having an “accurate” and “authoritative” human opinion? “ No basis, as I’ve never once suggested that I have an “accurate and authoritative human opinion.”. Again, your problem is in assuming that I have said something I have not said, coupled with your presumption that scripture is neither accurate nor authoritative. Both of which remain to be proven with “hard data”.

I've tried

I know this might get old, but over at John's Dan continues to insist that I don't/won't answer his questions. I've repeatedly informed him that I have answered multitudes of his questions somewhere else. Now, why didn't I give him a link? Good question. I guess it boils down to a couple of things. 1. Dan knows I have a blog, knows where to find it, and should be able to assume that if I answered his questions somewhere else that it would be here. 2. I suspect that Dan is intentionally avoiding "finding" the answers to his questions because it allows him to avoid the reality that I am answering him and that his accusations of dodging are false.