A great question was posed several years ago that deals with an underlying concept that is important to grasp: Is dispensationalism a theological framework or a hermeneutical approach?
I personally did not upvote the current top answer (but I did not downvote it, either), but I did upvote the next highest answer. That answer makes a key statement that I think is crucial to understand:
Theology affects hermeneutics, but is not itself a hermeneutic.
It is important not to confuse theology with hermeneutics, although they are certainly interrelated.
At times, it seems that answers use questions as opportunities to attempt to prove or defend religious theological dogma or doctrine, rather than merely answering from a perspective where hermeneutics informed from such beliefs are assumed (and stated). These are biases we all bring to texts when interpreting them, and in many ways the goal of hermeneutics is to become aware of and acknowledge such biases.
"Inerrancy" is a theological position that is a stated hermeneutic in some interpretive traditions. But this site is not about apologetics defending theological doctrines. Answers could certainly declare and use a hermeneutical approach that includes this presupposition (i.e., a belief in inerrancy) when answering the question, but an answer should not be solely about proving or defending a modern theological position that forms the basis for such a hermeneutic. That would be for Christianity, not for this site. It's important to understand this distinction.
At this site we start from the text and then work up from there. Apologetics starts from some shared idea and then seeks to defend beliefs using the text (depending on one's epistemological assumptions, but let's not get too crazy)—but this is not the same as starting from the text (particularly when such ideas are anachronistic to the original historical setting of the text).
So for instance, if a question asks about what appears to be a contradiction or other internal consistency in a specific text, then there could be a variety of answers:
An answer that has a hermeneutic that assumes inerrancy would demonstrate why this is not a contradiction and offer an explanation to harmonize or otherwise explain it. This hermeneutic likely does not even need to be stated in this case.
An answer that does not presuppose inerrancy and perhaps takes a historical-critical approach might explain that the question shows a discrepancy that was introduced by a later redactor and cite/demonstrate evidence for multiple authors or later scribal glosses, etc.
In both cases, the hermeneutic was an assumption brought to the answer (which is inevitable), and in both cases there really isn't even a need to state the hermeneutic because it is relatively obvious or irrelevant1 based on the answer (there are times when a hermeneutic should be explicitly stated (such as when additional texts are brought into play and the connection is theological rather than historical/linguistic/literary), but in this case it's fairly evident based on the answers themselves).
In a way, the OP for #1 has offered an apologetic, just not explicitly (since the focus remained on answering the question about the text, this is not an issue). However, there would be an issue if the OP made a statement as follows:
Because God's Word is inerrant, this is not a contradiction.
This is theology, not hermeneutics (and it fails the "show your work" requirement). The basis for this statement is a theological belief, not evidence from the text itself (through the lens of such a hermeneutic, including historical, literary, and linguistic evidence). But the same OP could simply state, "This is not a contradiction because [logic/reasoning that harmonizes the text]." There was no need to involve theology, even though it informs an underlying hermeneutic (i.e., inerrancy).
But this works both ways. The OP in #2 also cannot say:
Because the biblical texts are riddled with errors and inconsistencies, this must be a contradiction.
This is equally unacceptable. The basis for this statement is an a priori belief, not evidence from the text itself (and it also fails the "show your work" requirement). But this same OP could very well say, "These texts contradict one another because [logic/reasoning explaining contradiction]."
If you don't want the latter, don't do the former. They are equally problematic (but the former is more prevalent here).
By all means, answer questions and interpret texts in line with your hermeneutic presuppositions while showing your work.2 State those presuppositions when they are not apparent. But don't use answers as an explicit means of defending the underlying theological beliefs that form the basis for such hermeneutics. The point of your answer should be to answer the question that was asked (which is often to interpret the text)—not to use the text as a pretense for defending your a priori theological positions or other ideas. This is not necessary to answer questions and is off topic here (this also tends to gravitate towards prescriptive language rather than descriptive).
A hermeneutic is a lens through which one answers the question about a text. It is not the answer itself nor the justification of the answer.
I want to submit this thinking to the community. What say ye?
1 Concerning relevancy, it is not always true that those who harmonize the text believe in inerrancy. There are times when the text may appear contradictory but not be, and both inerrantists and historical-critical scholars would agree.
2 Although note that not all hermeneutic approaches are received equally on this site where it is difficult to adequately show work (e.g., sensus plenior).