When construing the written word, especially when the words and the language is carefully considered, as in the Bible, statutes, and constitutions, one of the basic rules of construction is that one must not read words into or out of the 'writing' when the words and language are unambiguous.
Another way to put it is that the words mean what they say.
The burden is not on me when the words are unambiguous; the burden is on you, because you propose a construction and interpretation that simply cannot be read into this verse by a reasonable man.
Marlowe is an attorney, and I am quite confident he would agree with me on this point.
The problem is that you proceed from the assumption that you are correctly understanding what the words say. You are very selectively applying your hermeneutical principles. There are several verses which both Reformed and non-Reformed point to as "clear and unambiguous" and yet the conclusions they are cited in support of are contradictory.
The simple example would be the "clear and unabmiguous" statements that "God so loved the world" and "Esau I have hated." Given the implicit premise that Esau is part of "the world" these statements are ostensibly contradictory. Now we all have explanations for how they are not contradictory (which we must necessarily have given our unanimous agreement on the trustworthiness of Scripture), but the fact is that the words do not necessarily mean what they appear to say.
Marlowe is an attorney, and I am quite confident he would agree with me on this point.
I'm sure he would. The fact remains though that the limited fashion in which you are applying hermeneutic principles is not sufficient to carry your argument.