If you read my first post you would know that my issue with DeMar was that he seemed to think he could somehow convince a skeptic of the truth of scripture using logic and persuasive argumentation.
a) you misconstrue DeMar's words, and b) Morris’ explanation of the text is indefensible.
DeMar never said that only by logic and persuasive argumentation will a person become convinced of the truth. Reading everything he’s written should convince you that is not his view. On the other hand, the apostle Paul used logic and persuasive argumentation in many instances to convince unbelievers on the truth of the gospel, all the time recognizing that it was the Holy Spirit working through his words to bring about God’s salvation.
What you seem to wish to ignore in this entire discussion is that when Christians say silly things in defense of the gospel, they cast the Word of God and their Savior in a rather poor light. If a skeptic/unbeliever can see through the exegetical gymnastics that folks like Morris need to construct in order to make the Bible fit their view of the future, then they ought to be taken to task, just as DeMar has done.
If you wish to defend the indefensible, then have at it. But don’t read more into Demar’s comments than are truly there.