Thank you for your answer but it still doesn’t make sense to me and seems disingenuous.
Do you not think he should take actual scripture that shows differing ideas on the same subject if, in fact, they are there? To not do that might dissuade another from attempting to learn. If they take the writer’s statement as fact, which it isn’t, they may believe the Bible is full of inconcistencies and discount it.
I don't think this will be a problem for most readers, provided they read the entire article.
Do you not think he should take actual scripture that shows differing ideas on the same subject if, in fact, they are there? To not do that might dissuade another from attempting to learn.
No, I don't think he should; that isn't the point of the article. In fact, doing that would detract from the purpose of his article, specifically that interpretation of Scripture without the use of Sacred Tradition opens us up to interpretations that are bizarre in the face of Scripture or that seem to fit a literal interpretation but in fact are novel in compared to what the Apostles and their successors taught from the earliest days of the Church.
Mark's interpretation (#14) fleshes this out pretty well (sorry for not pinging you initially)