Your complaint here is desperate. Even before I made that remark, you ignored the hundreds of words of scholarly explication I addressed to you (and to Harshman, who took up your defense when you bolted). Apparently, when an off-the-cuff suggestion of yours is challenged by someone who can read the Bible in the original languages and is familiar with the scholarship on it, your instinct is to retreat from the discussion of the philological and literary details, while still declaring yourself correct. Whereas Harshman attempted to deal with particular philological and literary points, you simply kept reasserting your thesis, ignoring the scholarly issues. It doesn’t look good on you, but if that’s how you want to appear in response to scholarly information, so be it.