I understand you don't think that is what you are saying, Hoops.
But the fact remains it is precisely what you are doing, whether you realize it or not.
For example, my proposed harmonization of the conflicting passages is just as valid as yours--i.e., that God is a liar who lies when he says he doesn't lie.
Why should your harmonization be preferred over mine?
In answering that question, you may begin to see the truth of what I am saying.
Snatch the pebble from my hand, Grasshopper . . .
All the Best!
--Master Polieri
I know exactly what you're saying, I've seen this criticism before. Why should my harmonization be preferred over yours? By the bulk of the Biblical and contextual evidence. I suppose when one begins with the presupposition that the Bible is the inerrant word of God (I know, you know what I mean by this) then due diligence is necessary. I.e. they must be reconciled in some way. This is, of course, assuming some things: 1) that the passage can be understood; 2) that the passage is intended to be understood; 3) that other passages can/will add to our understanding. There are other factors, as you know, but this suffices for my specific example. For one to claim that any and all interpretations should have equal standing is simply unwarranted.
Speaking of which, I certainly concede that my specific example may not be relevant to the point of our discussion. Right now, it is to me, but it may not work for you. That doesn't mean that there are none that can work for you. But that's another argument. The principle stands. We allow plain and clear passages to help explain those that are less so.