The crux of the issue is what I said. So I'll use the same method you used on me in our last discussion.
1). Did I not acknowledge at the outset that I was going to defend a belief of mine? If I did acknowledge it, then there is nothing dishonest in giving an apologetic view on the matter.
2). If the answer to the preceding question is "yes," then when one argues his position, is it a standard or non-standard practice to put one's own position in the forefront, or does one tend to minimize one's intended argument for the sake of other views? If it is a standard, and honest, practice to do argue your own position in the forefront, then there is nothing about what I did that was "a bit disingenuous," much less "historically dishonest."
3). Did I not acknowledge the existence of other views, even "polytheistic" ones? If I did so, then I am not hiding rival views of the issue, including yours.
4). Since you quoted Wikipedia for an authority on the definition first, I ask you to abide by it, despite the fact that it is not the greatest of authorities. Did it not implicitly include my definition as one of the definitions it listed when it addressed henotheism and Christianity, and did it not do so for almost the exact same reasons? If it did, then your first-quoted authority on the definition of the word contradicts you, and I do believe that it had a section on "Christian" henotheism, which by definition must include a supreme "God who made all the other spiritual authorities," unless we are polytheists and do not know it. You, after all, were the one who imbued it with authority in the thread.
5). Can two people look at the same book, the same text, the same information, and honestly come to different conclusions? I do not share your convictions, and as such, you cannot expect me to read the same data the same way.
6). Lastly, for me to be dishonest, can you accuse me of deliberately misquoting or misrepresenting an author or fact? We aren't talking about disagreeing with you, but deliberate falsification of information. If you cannot, then you cannot accuse me of being dishonest. You cannot tell me that I am simply being self-serving.
In questining my integrity in this manner, though, you have been dishonest. The most obvious example is your misquote of the Wikipedia article. You made it seem as if it completely disallowed my position. This, however, was most likely a falsification of information. You are a thorough fellow, and I seriously doubt you didn't read the whole article, so you most likely knew that the article actually contained the definition of henotheism that I gave. If, however, you did not read it, then you proof-texted by reading far enough to find what you wanted, then quoted it in some "rank" and "self-serving" apologetics. Either way, your own standard and accusation returns to you.
Now, how do I approach Deut. 32:8? I assure you I am not lying, nor am I dishonest, nor am I trying to misrepresent facts. I can see the view I espoused in the text. God alloted the people. He set the boundries. He did this, and He reserved for Himself Jacob's people as His own special allotment. I do believe that it isn't too far-fetched to see God like a king or chieftan who is divying up his land and giving various portions to his underlings, but reserving his special allotment for himself. The lieutenants would then still be under his authority, but they would have their allotment.
Now we both know those types of social structures existed. We both know that with that text, I can read it that way just as easily as you can read it your way. What you cannot do is to tell me that I have come to that conclusion dishonestly.
You cannot simply dismiss what I said as revisionist history. Remember, we are looking at this through different metaphysical lenses. I believe in this God. I believe that He is a sovereign, much as I outlined. When I read it, then, I will inevitably see it through that lens. There is nothing dishonest about it.
Likewise, you have a naturalist metaphysical lens. When you look at the text, you don't allow for the possibility that such a God can exist. It must, therefore, be the result of a developmental process. The worldview will not allow for the possibility that such a divine sovereign could exist. You will, consequently, always read the history behind the text with those lenses.
In both our cases, we are basing what we see heavily on our presuppositions, and we can see things differently. That isn't dishonest. It is human. You can't even call my theological positions "revisionist history" without condemning yourself. You don't have any direct evidence of a blatantly polytheistic Judaism, it is all inference, but I can interpret the same data differently. Both of us are interpreting history. It doesn't just come up to us and say "here I am." If interpreting history this way is a revisionisst history, then we are both revising. I have, I repeat, not taken the facts out of context, just interpreted them differently from you. Neither have I outright lied. Not defining a word in exactly the same fashion you do does not constitute dishonesty.
I will not turn this thread into a flame, either. If you choose to respond and further question my honesty that's fine. After those two accusations and my two responses, I think our mutual positions on this matter are self-evident to others. The truth should be self-evident as well. If you wish to make another post, go ahead. I won't correct a misrepresentation in this thread again. I think most people are capable of reading back through the list to see I was not misrepresenting things for a self-serving purpose. I am content with that level of exoneration.
EDIT:
I started writing that before you posted the second part of that post. I will read the articles, but I will not defend my honesty and integrity further. As I said, after two posts on both sides, I have no need to defend my integrity any more. The board can see for itself.