The Skeptical Review Online - Land Ahoy! Part One - Author Robert Turkel aka J.P. Holding

Key:

Initial argument by opponent

Our first response

**Response by our opponent (double star at beginning of section)

**Our second response (in same section)

Our opponent uses my real name; I will substitute my writing name for the sake of continuity. Find the reading tedious? We also offer a "95% fluff-free" version of this article here which we will challenge our opponent to examine, and prove that our editing in any way affects the substance of his arguments.

Our focus is the article "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" (TSR 1991/1) in which it was argued that the Biblical "land promises" to Abraham and his descendants were not fulfilled by God in the Israelite conquest. As formulated the article addressed only the internal consistency of the Biblical record on this subject. Questions of the historicity of the Conquest, or the propriety of driving out and/or killing the inhabitants of Canaan, were not addressed at all, and will not be addressed here. Readers should bear in mind that in any replies to this essay, any resort by our opponent to any subject other than that addressed in "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" -- that is, the internal consistency of the Biblical record on this subject -- can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

**Response

Not surprisinly, our opponent immediately does as I have predicted and embarks upon a spate of diversions completely unrelated to the issue of "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" thereby offering at once evidence of his inability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

[Holding] need not worry that I will evade his attempts to rebut my arguments in the article he attempted to reply to.

No worry is present. What I have offered is a pertinent clinical observation concerning our opponent's usual methodology in the face of issues where his knowledge and argumentative capability are severely taxed, and we see already that our opponent has proceeded in his usual fashion: i.e., using the word "attempted" to describe our reply in a manipulative way to instill doubt. As before we stress that it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

He will see that there are very specific replies to every one of his points, so he will get more “replying” from me than he wanted.

This is a very nice statement of our opponent's intentions, but as what matters is whether he fulfills the promise or not, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I have read through his attempt to show that Yahweh's land promises to the descendants of Abraham failed miserably, so why would I want to miss an opportunity to expose him as a would-be apologist who just doesn't have what it takes to defend biblical inerrancy?

It should be patently obvious that our opponent has read through our material, for otherwise he presumably would not have issued a response. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than, as is clear, he needs the distracting commentary ("miserably", "would-be apologist", "doesn't have what it takes") to shore up his case, which otherwise apparently would not stand on its own without decoration.

That is really no personal insult to him, because the fact is that biblical inerrancy is completely indefensible, so it isn't his intellectual level that is the problem but the ridiculous position that he attempts to defend.

The backhanded compliment is appreciated, but we nevertheless maintain that it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I wish I knew why people who are perfectly intelligent in most matters take complete leave of their senses when religious beliefs are involved.

This is a very nice expression of our opponent's personal sentiments, but it adds nothing to the discussion other than a transparent attempt to score debate points, and as such, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Before I proceed to rebut his counterarguments, I must first take the time to point out that [Holding] has already reneged on his promise to provide a link to my article that he was replying to.

As we predicted, our opponent engages in an irrelevant distraction. The presence of links is of no relevance to the issue of Yahweh's Land Promise, and as it is a transparent attempt to influence skeptical sentiments, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. However, that said, I told our opponent clearly that a link was made on the core page of our debate record and that I felt that this was sufficient for any reasonable, intelligent person to be able to find his material. I also agreed in turn to provide a link inside my response if he got the Secular Web to provide one TO my response. He promised to look into it, though now I would suppose the condition applies to a copy of his original article once it is on the new TSR website, and we shall anticipate news of that in time. At any rate, it is clear that our opponent does not think that most readers are intelligent and reasonable enough to find his material via that link, and I would make the further point that our opponent shows a remarkable lack of ability in terms of locating Web material. I noted very clearly in my initial response that the original item was titled "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise". In personal email our opponent asked how I expected anyone to find his original item. Apparently it is beyond our opponent's grasp that all one simply has to do is go to any search engine (Google, Altavista, Yahoo) and type in the phrase "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise," and the entry will be found with ease. "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" is a unique phrase and unlikely to have duplications that are not our opponent's material (or else references to it). This is simple common sense; if one wishes to read Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears, one searches for the title, The Sum of All Fears -- one does not search the subject index under "military thrillers". At any rate, that our opponent offered no reply to us on this point in personal correspondence, and that he makes such a critical error, speaks volumes we think of his general analytical capability.

All that he did was to note above that the article appeared in the first issue of The Skeptical Review in 1991, but that is hardly a link that would enable his readers to click and read exactly what I had said.

In addition to our notes about diversion above: This is a plain error, I noted the title of the article in the very first sentence. This is more than sufficient for an intelligent, reasonable reader (or even one not that intelligent) to find the material.

I sent an e-mail message to [Holding] and asked where his link was, and he wrote back to say that he had put it in another article on his site, so we can already see the game [Holding] is playing.

In addition to our notes about diversion above: There is no "game" here; our opponent is either lacking in cognizance (as suggested by his inability to conduct a fundamental search) or else is trying to score points with a skeptical readership, or both. In any event, I would like to hear from any skeptic or reader who was unable to find the original "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" if such indeed exists. I consider this nothing but an obfuscation and an irrelevancy, and a transparent attempt to elicit sympathy from a skeptical readership.

By putting a link to my original article somewhere else besides in what is supposed to be his reply, he increases the changes that some of his readers will see only his article and never notice the link to mine.

Once again, our opponent is simply not, apparently, possessed of enough congnizant flexibility to understand how to conduct a simple search; note that this is not a "computer" issue but a very basic issue of understanding how to locate information via standard "handles" like title and author, of the sort which all of us were taught in elementary school. I did not think it beyond our opponent's abilities to recognize this, but regrettably, I continue to overestimate him. At any rate, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

I suppose, then, that [Holding] will also refuse to put a link to this reply, or else he will put it somewhere on his site where some readers will be likely not to see it.

In addition to notes re diversions above: Since the core debate page is linked from our "What's New" page, and has been included in our newsletter, it seems entirely impossible that readers will not see it. Our opponent gives you, the reader, very little credit for the sake of scoring points with a skeptical readership, and I once again request that anyone having trouble finding any portion of this debate write me at jphold@earthlink.net as I will be glad to give you fundamental instruction in data searching that will greatly benefit you in other endeavors as well.

Hence, we are already seeing indications that he is not going to debate in an open forum but will continue to hide on his personal website and selectively quote what he wants his readers to see.

As noted, this objection is the result of our opponent's own lack of cognizance. Even so it still has no relation to "Yahweh's Land Promise," it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

I have said for years now that [Holding] is too cowardly to debate biblical inerrancy in an open forum where he will have to confront informed opposition, and his latest antics are confirming that I was right.

This still is based on our opponent's lack of ability, has no relation to "Yahweh's Land Promise," it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

The link to my original article is here, and it will be posted at when my replies to [Holding] are posted there.

I have taken the liberty of making the URL into a link for convenience. And what now of the tasty crow our opponent must eat, since I have willingly provided this link? What also of our exchange, apparently something our opponent wishes to be uninformed of, to post a link to my first reply on the infidels.org site? This still is based on our opponent's lack of ability, has no relation to "Yahweh's Land Promise," it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

If [Holding] does not put this link into his article and then give his readers a link to my reply, he will be reneging on a promise he made during the failed debating negations that everyone can read about in another article that will soon be posted on the new TSR website.

Since the link is there, we will be delivering several boxes of raw crow to an address in the Midwest. This still is based on our opponent's lack of ability, has no relation to "Yahweh's Land Promise," it covers up the actual tenor of our exchange and my link offer, and finally, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

This article will contain all of the private e-mails that he and I exchanged while I was trying to get him to agree to negotiate a written agreement, and the correspondence will show that he (1) refused to post our debate on his website, but (2) agreed that he would provide links to my articles and rebuttals.

Once again, as predicted, our opponent engages in a pointless diversion for the sake of scoring points, thereby suggesting a lamentable lack of ability to address the matters at hand. Yet again, this objection only demonstrates our opponent lack of cognizance in terms of doing a proper search; and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

Right at the very beginning of the debate, he has already reneged on one promise, so what will we see from him next?

Once again, since the link is here, just a few lines above, and another one in our title slot, we will be delivering several boxes of very tasty, prime cut, filet of raw crow to an address in the Midwest. This still is based on our opponent's lack of ability, has no relation to "Yahweh's Land Promise," it covers up the actual tenor of our exchange and my link offer, and finally, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

In an article about [Holding] that I published in the July/August 2002 issue of The Skeptical Review, I said that some skeptics call him [J. P.] “No Link” [Holding], so he is already living up to this name.

Once again, since the link is here, just a few lines above, and another one in our title slot, we will be delivering several boxes of very tasty, prime cut, filet of raw crow, with mustard, ketchup, and onions, to an address in the Midwest. This still is based on our opponent's lack of ability, has no relation to "Yahweh's Land Promise," it covers up the actual tenor of our exchange and my link offer, and finally, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

In their desperate efforts to prove that the Bible was verbally inspired of God, inerrancy believers often point to prophecy fulfillment.

In previous encounters we would have ordinarily bypassed such comments as these as irrelevant to the topic at hand, which indeed they are. In light of our opponent's insistence that we are covering up something by failing to quote EVERYTHING said in his material, we will now use such irrelevant comments as exemplars of the profound depths of distraction that our opponent must resort to in order to "set the tone" for gullible readers. We would just as easily say, "In their desperate efforts to prove that the Bible was not verbally inspired of God, errancy believers often point to prophecy failures." Is this an argument? No. It is a theme and summary of what is to follow. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. From here on, substantive comment from our opponent will be highlighted in red in order to demonstrate just how little he offers of substance.

**Response

Admittedly, this was part of an introductory paragraph to my article, but why would he want to leave it out?

In making this admission, even once, our opponent completely emasculates his constant demands over the past several years that we quote EVERYTHING that he says. We would leave it out because it is not necessary to understand our opponent's position. Since it is apparent from our opponent's statement above that he admits it is not necessary to understand his position, he has answered his own question: We leave it out because it is unnecessary, superfluous, and adds nothing to keep, and our opponent loses nothing by its omission. Over the past several years our opponent has repeated a mantra to his skeptical readership charging us with leaving out, or quoting without context, pieces of his work. This charge is repeated time and time again, and never substantiated with examples. We offered a challenge here showing that we did no such selective quoting, which laid unanswered for years and is still unanswered. Reviews of literature are not required to quote EVERYTHING in their source. Nor is such a demand heard of in critiques elsewhere. Our opponent cannot have it both ways. He either admits that there are things that do not need to be quoted, things that can be left out without harming his argument, or else he makes the absurd demand that we quote EVERYTHING and then needs to justify it. The above contains no justification, merely a "why not" which is not a positive reason to quote the sentence.

Why not let the readers see it and determine for themselves whether it is deserving of consideration?

As above, this contains no justification, merely a "why not" which is not a positive reason to quote the sentence. Our opponent still has not explained why it is necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, and now he has two layers of such superfluous commentary to explain.

I suppose if we were engaged in an oral debate that was being recorded on audio tapes, [Holding] would think it appropriate to bleep out my comments that he thought were superfluous.

Yes, I would consider this appropriate. I do not care to hear about the drive our opponent had to the debate hall, or what he thought of the weather, and I would "bleep out" (is our opponent cursing?) readily, from my side or his, such superfluous commentary as we see here, and even in this sentence, of which, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

My point is that a debate is a debate, and audiences who read it should be entitled to see everything that both parties say.

We eagerly await some actual justification, not merely assertion, that explains to us what sort of "entitlement" exists -- is it found in civil rights legislation? -- that requires us to quote such superfluous commentary as we see here, and even in this sentence, of which, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. We do agree that the reader is entitled to read substantive commentary. We do not agree that an entitlement exists to see ALL commentary regardless of relevance.

The problem with [Holding]'s selective quoting on his private website is that he sets himself up as judge and jury of what his readers should and should not see.

If this is the case, our opponent needs to provide actual evidence that our judgment has been misleading to readers, not merely assert that it is. Until then, our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, as it is hard to see why what we have repeatedly identified as superfluous would, if omitted, represent an incompetent or errant judgment.

In my opinion, the “replies” that he has written to some of my articles have gutted arguments and counterarguments by cutting out material and justifying it on the grounds that it was “90% fluff.”

Again, if this is the case, our opponent needs to provide actual evidence that our judgment has been misleading to readers, not merely assert that it is. Until then, our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, as we do not see why what we have repeatedly identified as superfluous would, if omitted, represent an incompetent or errant judgment.

When a written debate is published in its entirety, however, neither participant can complain of unfair treatment, so I'll leave it to readers to decide which is the better policy.

This is a very touching appeal to the reader, but it is merely a manipulation based on an assumed premise (that our judgment in editing has been impaired) which remains unsubstantiated and unproven. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to illicitly appeal to the sympathy of the skeptical readership.

If I were replying to an article written by [Holding] that contained, in my opinion, superfluous material that I didn't agree with, I would let my readers see it and then issue a challenge for [Holding] to defend in another debate whatever superfluous claims he may have made if I thought they were worth debating.

It is of no interest to us that our oppponent does not have the necessary vision to accept that superfluous commentary (whether we "agree" with it or not is not at issue) is not something difficult to discern, and that he prefers burdening others with the need to quote EVERYTHING, without any exclusion or reservation. And as before, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, on the subject at hand ("Yahweh's Land Promise"), and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to illicitly appeal to the sympathy of the skeptical readership.

I wonder if he is willing to do the same.

I am not, and never have been, willing to burden the reader with quotations of superfluous commentary simply for the satisfaction of the original writer, and I begrudge no one the desire or wish to do the same, for in apparent contrast to my opponent, I am confident in my ability to determine when an opponent has misrepresented my position through selective quotation, and am willing to approach such matters as they arise, and not use them as a vague and non-specific bludgeons for the purpose of scoring debate points, or for avoiding debates altogether.

If he thinks that my introductory remarks in my article were just “set-up” statements, why doesn't he challenge me to defend those remarks in another debate?

In checking my uses of the words "set up" I find that in all four cases in the original text, they are used with reference to matters that both I and my opponent agree to (i.e., who the seven nations were), not to remarks by our opponent that we disagree with and that we would challenge to debate over. This would be a short debate:

TILL: On several occasions prophetic statements were made in the Pentateuch about the land that Yahweh, the tribal god of the Israelites, had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

HOLDING: I agree. On several occasions prophetic statements were indeed made in the Pentateuch about the land that Yahweh, the tribal god of the Israelites, had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

TILL: Well, that's a relief! Now we can all go home! Only 11 debates to go!

We are compelled to ask how carefully our opponent has actually read what we have written, since he clearly did not know or recall that the "set up" comment was never used in regards to issues of debate, which we addressed by other means (more on this as we proceed).

If he should say, “Well, Till, if you think that biblical prophecy fulfillment cannot be defended, why don't we debate that subject after we have finished with the land-promise issue?”

As this comment is based on a misappraisal of what we called "set up" commentary we designate it as such with no further comment, other than that our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

If he should issue such a challenge, he will get an acceptance so fast, he will think that lightning has struck him, and all I would demand is that he publish links on his website so that his readers could see both sides of the issues.

As this comment is also based on a misappraisal of what we called "set up" commentary we designate it as such with no further comment, other than that our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. However, we note that we have agreed to a series of 12 debates, and have laid out two subjects already beyond this one which our opponent has previously dealt with in his newsletter and we assume he would be willing to defend his view on, and we shall add more as time progresses.

However, he isn't going to make any such challenge for reasons that I will soon explain.

Since, as noted, we have already advanced two such additional challenges, we will include this statement in print on the side of that tasty box of filet of crow, along with the point that this is still a diversion from the subject of "Yahweh's Land Promise," and that our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with a skeptical readership.

My attempt to negotiate a written agreement with him for this debate revealed that he is very skittish about trying to defend biblical prophecy claims.

As before our opponent resorts to reading of emotion into our work, for no other purpose than to score debate points with a skeptical readership. I could just as easily apply adjectives to our opponent, based on no more data than personal emails, such as frightened, peevish, and pokey. This is merely a distraction still, a diversion from the subject of "Yahweh's Land Promise," and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with a skeptical readership.

In my debate with Bill Jackson, he referred to "multiplied dozens of Old Testament prophetic utterances, fulfilled in minute detail in the New Testament, and in such a manner that there could be no contrivance at all," (Jackson-Till Debate, p. 3).

This is a very interesting accounting of something Bill Jackson said, but it is still nothing but space filler. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response

If any believers in biblical prophecy fulfillment want to see the Jackson-Till written debate, I will send them a copy and let them decide for themselves if what I said immediately below was not an accurate summary of Jackson's performance in that debate.

At issue here is not whether or not the statement made by Jackson is accurate or not, but whether it is necessary, and why it is necessary, for this to be quoted in a response. As it is, our opponent merely uses this to "sell" the debate, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand in this context ("Yahweh's Land Promise"), and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to use others as his personal "sales force" for other items.

I did exactly what I said above.

At issue here is not whether or not our opponent did what he said above, but whether it is necessary, and why it is necessary, for this to be quoted in a response. As it is, our opponent merely uses this to "sell" the debate, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand in this context ("Yahweh's Land Promise"), and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to use others as his personal "sales force" for other items.

When Jackson made his claim that “multiplied dozens of Old Testament prophetic utterances” were fulfilled “in minute detail in the New Testament,” I called his hand and defied him to prove it, and he evaded the challenge.

At issue here is not whether or not our opponent did what he says he did, but whether it is necessary, and why it is necessary, for this to be quoted in a response. As it is, our opponent merely uses this to "sell" the debate, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand in this context ("Yahweh's Land Promise"), and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to perhaps "twist the knife" against Bill Jackson, or to serve as a reminder (as if such reminder were necessary as a distraction from this failing effort by our opponent) to skeptical readers that our opponent believes he scored a victory in another context.

The article [Holding] is replying to was written shortly after that debate had been published.

We appreciate our opponent's desire to inform us of the most initimate chronological details of his life, but he still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I had distributed hundreds of copies of it to subscribers of The Skeptical Review, so I considered this an appropriate example to use in reference to the absurd claims that Bible believers make about prophecy fulfillment.

While we find no surprise or dispute in our opponent using this quote as a blurb, at issue here is whether it is necessary, and why it is necessary, for this to be quoted in a response by us. As it is, our opponent merely uses this to "sell" his newsletter, and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to use others as his personal "sales force" for other items.

[Holding] has an opportunity here to call my bluff.

That I do have, and have had, such opportunities, is manifest, and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Let him challenge me to defend what I said about prophecy claims in the introductory remarks of my article, and I will accept the challenge if he will agree to publish on his website links to my part of the exchanges.

As noted above, two such challenges are already in place, and we will see about further issues below. Depending on our opponent's response to what we cited as actual diversions, we will if appropriate add these points to our list here.

As is true of all who use the prophecy-fulfillment argument, Jackson could only claim "multiplied dozens" of prophecy fulfillments; he could not cite a single verifiable example of a fulfilled OT prophecy.

This is also a very interesting accounting of something Bill Jackson said, and also could not say, but it is still nothing but space filler, and at best serves again the purpose of a distraction to set the tone for gullible readers. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. We cannot guess what "dozens" of prophecies Jackson had in mind, so comment can hardly be made. It is not explained how any of the "dozens" are not shown to be "verifiable" or "fulfilled" so no more detailed comment can be made either. What does need explaining, from our opponent, is why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response

I will soon show why [Holding] thinks that references to prophecy fulfillment are just “space filler” and “distraction to set the tone for gullible readers.” He is afraid to defend prophecy fulfillment in an open-forum debate.

This is merely more setting of tone for gullible and skeptical readers, and does not answer the question of why it is necessary to quote it in a response. One may ask how it can be anything but a distraction (in the context of requiring it to be quoted) without engaging any specifics. Only specifics engaged or not engaged can clearly and arguably demonstrate "fear" -- as it is, this is merely our opponent yet again cheaply imputing emotion for the sake of scoring debate points with a skeptical readership.

Now I have a simple question for [Holding].

This obviously states our opponent's intentions, but we can simply quote the question if need be, and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent,

Why didn't he just quote this entire introductory paragraph to my article and then say after it that there was nothing in the paragraph the needed a reply, because it did not pertain to the issue of whether the land promise prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled as predicted.

Clearly, our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, as all he can offer is a suggestion that we simply quote the material and say nothing needed reply, because it did not pertain to the issue of whether the land promise prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled as predicted. If it did not pertain to the issue of whether the land promise prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled as predicted, and if it needed no reply, then it needed no quotation either, and our opponent has continued to prove that his demand that we quote EVERYTHING is a) absurd; b) merely an attempt to score debate points with a skeptical readership.

That way, his readers would have seen what I said, and I could not have complained that he had quoted me selectively.

As it stands, our opponent has yet to prove that any of his "complaints" (using his word) that he was quoted selectively, a challenge he was asked to meet over several years, and has never done, and it is apparent why he has not done. It is our contention that this has been a smokescreen to avoid reply to us from the very beginning, and we continue to maintain that our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

The obvious intention of the paragraph was to introduce the subject of biblical prophecy and to indicate the degree that some inerrantists will go to in order to claim that biblical prophecies have been fulfilled.

At issue here is not what the purpose of the paragraph is, but whether it is necessary, and why it is necessary, for this to be quoted in a response. As it is, our opponent essentially admits what we have charged all along in certain cases, that he demands quotation for no other purpose than to score debate points with his skeptical readership. This is not engaging in issues, but in distraction, as we have said all along and which our opponent finally admits.

To put me on the spot, [Holding] could then have challenged me to defend in another debate what I had said about biblical prophecy in my introductory paragraph, but, as I said above, [Holding] is obviously not willing to get too involved in defending biblical prophecy fulfillments, at least not in an open forum where his readers will see what his opponent says, because prophecy fulfillment was one of the sticking points in my attempt to negotiate an agreement with him.

We will see this more engaged in the comments below, however, as noted, we have already issued two other challenges and have room for nine more as of this juncture. Beyond that, we recommend our opponent try the dijon with the crow, as we are now in the very sort of "open forum" he demands, letting readers see EVERYTHING he says, no matter how irrelevant, pointless, or ridiculous it may be in context.

I proposed that we agree to debate 12 different propositions related to biblical inerrancy, and several of the propositions I proposed pertained to prophecy fulfillment.

This is a true accounting of something our opponent did, but it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I submitted these propositions to him.

This is also a true accounting of something our opponent did, but it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Resolved: Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt was fulfilled in all of its details.

I replied to our opponent that I did not have sufficient data to debate this issue, and I do not. At any rate, we should note that this and the list that follows has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise" and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

Resolved: Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre was fulfilled in all of its details.

By my recollection I acknowledged this as a possible topic in corespondence, since it is one I have sufficient data to discuss. However, this has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise" and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

Resolved: Isaiah's prophecy against Tyre was fulfilled in all of its details.

I would regard this as one that I also possess insufficient data to debate, and would add that it has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise" and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

Resolved: Isaiah's prophecy against Babylon was fulfilled in all of its details.

[Holding] rejected all of these proposals except the one about Ezekiel’s Tyre prophecy.

Our opponent apparently has the same recollection we do, which is nice to know, but this still has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise" and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

When I asked him why he would defend Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre but not his prophecy against Egypt, [Holding] wrote back and said that there were “insufficient data.”

Again, our opponent apparently has the same recollection we do, which is nice to know, but this still has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise" and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

What he meant by that is anyone's guess, but I will serve notice to him here and now that if he is willing to defend the above proposition about Tyre, he has an opponent.

One is constrained to ask how it is our opponent has no cognizance of the very simple phrase, "insufficient data." It is not a difficult term to comprehend and would not warrant explanation to even an elementary school student. That said, apparently our opponent wishes to add Tyre to the list of 12 on the core page, and I have done so.

I'll be ready to begin it as soon as we finish the land-promise issue.

We have noted that we already have two issues after the Land Promise issue; Tyre we have entered in slot 4. At any rate, we would add that this still has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise" and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article, as well as provide a "pep rally" for skeptical readers.

All that I will demand is that he agree to put links to my articles in whatever he writes on the subject and publishes on his website.

As this is what we are doing now, we shall obviously do the same in the future.

I urge those who frequent [Holding]’s website to write and tell him that they would be very interested in seeing Till “ground down to size” on prophecy-fulfillment issues.

As several readers have been, and are still doing this, and many have already been pleased to see our opponent "ground down to size" in such responses as we have posted, this is superfluous commentary, and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to use others as his personal "sales force" for other items.

As I said in the debate, the "prophecy fulfillments" that are invariably cited in support of this argument never actually "happened except in the fertile imaginations of a few religious mystics whose fanciful interpretations of certain events have been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by gullible people like our Mr. Jackson," (Jackson-Till Debate, p. 17).

This is very interesting and colorful accounting of something our opponent said in reply to Bill Jackson, but it is nothing but a sound bite without specifics, and at best serves again the purpose of a distraction to set the tone for gullible readers. As it is but a distraction, and as it contains no specifics, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response

If [Holding] thinks that what I said was just a “sound bite” that I was using for “the purpose of a distraction to set the tone for gullible readers,” then he should be eager to accept my proposal and agree to debate the prophecy-fulfillment propositions stated above.

Here our opponent has merely dodged the question, that is, why it necessary to quote this in a reply, and why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, and given a non-answer that distracts from the question, thus ensuring the his skeptical readership will be satisified in spite of the obvious dodge and non-reply.

I am ready to debate every one of them. Is he?

As this is a repeat of what has been said above, it is merely space filler, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

As for my claim in the Jackson-Till Debate that the prophecies that New Testament writers claimed were fulfilled were prophecies only in the fertile imaginations of the religious mystics who said that they were prophecies, I would like very much to debate this issue with [Holding].

As this is a repeat of what has been said above, and as we are already sufficiently aware of our opponent's desires, this is also merely space filler, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

I am fully prepared to show how numerous New Testament prophecy fulfillments were based on out-of-context interpretations and outright distortions of Old Testament statements that were never intended to refer to events in the New Testament.

As a whole, this is a repeat of what has been said above, and as we are already sufficiently aware of our opponent's desires, this is mainly space filler, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers. The one unique element is reference to "out-of-context interpretations and outright distortions." Our opponent is advised that should he wish to debate this issue we will present as our "positive" case the item written by Glenn Miller here, which with we agree in entirety.

Is [Holding] willing to accept this challenge?

As this is a repeat of what has been said above, this is also merely space filler, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

Well, I advise readers not to hold their breaths until these debates materialize, because I will insist that he agree to publish on his website links to all of my exchanges, and I don't think that he will be too eager to do that, especially not after he has read this rebuttal that I am now writing.

We once again move online to http://www.eatcrow.com to purchase a heaping helping of avian for our opponent. Our opponent is advised to not hold his own breath, because his eyes are bulging out of their sockets and it is becoming annoying.

When logical analysis is applied to these alleged instances of prophecy fulfillment, it quickly becomes obvious that there is no real evidence of fulfillment.

This certainly serves to lay out our opponent's thematic intent, but only those who have never heard his name would ever suppose that he would take any other general position than that there is no real evidence of prophecy fulfillment. As this remark is merely a statement of purpose common to our opponent's methodology, and it contains no specifics, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response

Many who are reading this know that I have posted several times on my Errancy list a standing challenge for anyone who believes in biblical prophecy fulfillment to prove a single verifiable case of prophecy fulfillment.

This new response certainly serves to lay out our opponent's mission, but only those who have never heard his name would not know that he has issued such challenges. As this remark is merely a statement of purpose, and it contains no specifics, much less has it anything to do with "Yahweh's land Promise," it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, and our opponent now has two layers of superfluous commentary to explain.

I now pass that challenge along to [Holding].

Time would fail me if I tried to analyze the many alleged prophecy fulfillments that inerrantists have pointed to, so instead I will concentrate on a failed prophecy that they never say much about.

This is another example of the profound depths of distraction that our opponent must resort to in order to "set the tone" for gullible readers. We would just as easily say, "Time would fail me if I tried to analyze the many genuine prophecy fulfillments that inerrantists can point to, so instead I will concentrate on a successful prophecy that errantists never say much about." Is this an argument? No. It is a manipulative, tactical way of giving the false impression that our opponent has carefully looked into every possible example of alleged prophecy fulfillment and critically determined that they have all failed, and that only the nebulous barrier of "time" makes it impossible to elucidate every example. It is also an attempt to claim that alleged silence on this issue somehow adds credibility to our opponent's case, when it has yet to be proven that there is a problem worth responding to at all. At any rate, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response

I have explained above to the satisfaction of any reasonable person why a written debate should include everything that both sides say on the issue, and I have also explained what an apologist confident of his position would do when confronted with statements like those contained in the introductory paragraph of my article.

Our opponent has explained no such thing; beyond a few instances of admitting he only wished to be quoted for the purpose of scoring points, or giving a non-answer that amounts to, "Why not?", he has thus far evaded or given no worthwhile answer to the question of why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, giving no reason why it should be quoted if it does not require any response or would be sufficiently addressed with a mere token.

He would challenge the person who made the remarks to defend them in a separate debate.

We would not challenge any person to defend remarks about such things as what Bill Jackson said on a given date, or remarks about setup to which both parties agree, so as yet our opponent has given no worthwhile answer to the question of why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, giving no reason why it should be quoted if it does not require any response or would be sufficiently addressed with a mere token.

Why doesn't [Holding] challenge me to defend my position on biblical prophecy fulfillment?

Since we are in the process of this right now, this is also merely space filler, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

Now I will explain the difference in [Holding] and me.

This is merely a statement of our opponent's intent, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

If he should make such a statement in an article I was rebutting, I would say, “Okay, Bud, you're on.

That our opponent is reactionary enough to reply so quickly and so readily to such a non-specific "challenge" says volumes about his level of personal overconfidence, and suggests that he fits very well in the category of persons described here. However, it is nothing but a boast that demonstrates our opponent's own rashness, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

After we have debated the ‘successful prophecy’ that errantists never say much about, we will then go to the other ‘many genuine prophecy fulfillments that inerrantists can point to’ and debate them.”

That our opponent is reactionary enough to reply so quickly and so readily to such a non-specific "challenge," and that he supposes everyone else should be as reactionary as he is in such vases, says volumes about his level of personal overconfidence, and suggests that he fits very well in the category of persons described here. However, it is nothing but a boast that demonstrates our opponent's own rashness, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

[Holding] can consider this a formal challenge.

Unlike our opponent, we are not reactionary enough to reply so quickly and so readily to such a non-specific "challenge," and will issue and take our challenges with care and discretion that our opponent lacks as one who fits the profile outlined here. Beyond that, this is nothing but a boast that demonstrates our opponent's own rashness, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

All I will demand is that when we debate those many other genuine prophecy fulfillments, he will publish links to my articles on his website.

As this is what we are doing now, and as we have explained why our opponent's demands otherwise are rooted in a lack of cognizance of fundamental search principles, we have nothing to add to the above other than noting that this is yet more repetitive space-filler.

I will let him hide partially by refusing to put my articles on his site, but I will insist on links.

As we explained repeatedly to our opponent in email, and to which he had no reply in the end, having his material sitting on our site adds nothing to any person's ability to locate articles. Our opponent's demands are rooted in a lack of cognizance of fundamental search principles, we have nothing to add to the above other than noting that this is yet more repetitive space-filler.

If he will agree to provide them, he will have another opportunity to “grind me down to size.”

As this offers nothing that is not said by our opponent above, it is merely repetitious, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary, now offered twice, requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

For those who may not understand my references to this expression, I’ll point out that [Holding] boasted on his website that he was busy grinding me down to size.

No specific quote of me is offered, but I have stated on various occassions to various persons that I have been taking our opponent "down to size" (not necessarily those exact words). Even so, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary, now offered twice, requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

He has a challenge before him, so now it is time for [Holding] to put up or shut up. I predict he will do neither.

As this is what I am now doing, we once again move online to http://www.eatcrow.com to purchase a heaping helping of avian for our opponent. Beyond that, this is nothing but boasting, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to gain points with a skeptical readership. On the point of this not being an argument it is said:

No, it isn't, but it is an assertion that was made for introductory purposes.

If this is indeed all that it is, as our opponent admits, then it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

If [Holding] made an assertion that I didn’t agree with, I would challenge him to defend it, and I have just challenged him to defend some of his beliefs about biblical prophecies.

The issue is not whether an assertion was made, but whether it is not necessary to quote this in a reply. As our opponent merely dodges the question, he has yet to explain why it is necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

In such a debate, I would assume the burden of proof on some of the prophecies, and by the time we had finished, our readers would be able to make their own decisions about whose position had prevailed.

The issue is not what our opponent would or would not do in a debate, but whether it is not necessary to quote this in a reply. As our opponent merely dodges the question, he has yet to explain why it is necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I'm willing to do this, but I doubt that [Holding] is.

The issue is not what our opponent would or would not be willing to do in a debate, but whether it is not necessary to quote this in a reply. As our opponent merely dodges the question, he has yet to explain why it is necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

[Holding] may be surprised how much time I have put into researching biblical prophecies.

Amount of time spent is not equal to quality and understanding. At any rate, the issue is not what time our opponent spends, but whether it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, or whether it is indeed just inserted for manipulative and polemical purposes to score points, and whether this is the only reason, as opposed to contextual fidelity concerning the primary argument ("Yahweh's Land Promise"), our opponent demands that we quote EVERYTHING he writes. As our opponent merely dodges the question, he has yet to explain why it is necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I'm confident enough of my position to present to him the challenges that I made above. Is he confident enough in his position to accept the challenges?

As this does no more than repeat what is said above, and further emphasizes our opponent as being one who fits the profile outlined here, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

As for the “nebulous barrier of time,” surely [Holding] isn't so naive that he thinks I could have discussed all biblical prophecy claims in just a five-page article.

The issue is not whether our opponent has managed all these issues in a five page article, which has never been argued or said, but whether it is not necessary to quote his claim to have discussed all such claims, in a reply on one particular claim. As our opponent merely dodges the question, he has yet to explain why it is necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, beyond a desire to score debate points with skeptical readers.

If [Holding] thinks there is no problem worth responding to in my introductory paragraph, then he should jump at the opportunity to debate several aspects of biblical prophecy fulfillment so that he can demonstrate to our readers just how wrong I am about biblical prophecies.

As this is what I am now doing, we once again move online to http://www.eatcrow.com to purchase a heaping helping of avian for our opponent. Beyond that, this is nothing but a repeat of what has been offered above, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to gain points with a skeptical readership.

Will he jump at this chance? Will he even crawl toward it? I predict that we won't even be able to drag him into a debate on the subject.

As this is still what I am now doing, we once again move online to http://www.eatcrow.com to purchase a heaping helping of avian for our opponent, whose house will now be overflowing with black feathers and noisy birdcalls. Beyond that, this is nothing but a repeat of what has been offered above, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to gain points with a skeptical readership.

What I have said above is sufficient to show that in a written debate, readers are entitled to see everything that both parties say.

As yet our opponent has provided no proof of any such "entitlement" as we have noted above.

My comments above will also show that [Holding] is skittish about debating the subject of prophecy fulfillment.

As this is still what I am now doing, our opponent had best build a new barn to store all of that incoming crow. Beyond that, this is nothing but a repeat of what has been offered above, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to gain points with a skeptical readership.

His performance in trying to rebut the rest of my article should tell readers why he isn't too enthusiastic about trying to defend biblical prophecies.

This is nought but pep-rallying. It is just as easy for me to say, "Our opponent's performance in trying to rebut the rest of my article should tell readers why he isn't too enthusiastic about trying to defend biblical prophecies." Is this an argument? No, it is a bald attempt to score points. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to gain points with a skeptical readership.

So that readers will not be confronted with the discouragement of a novel-length website article, I am going to divide my replies to [Holding] into parts. At this point, my arguments for the failure of Yahweh's land promise began, so I will stop here and begin Part Two.

As it is our opponent who laid out the stricture that EVERYTHING be quoted, he has none to blame but himself for the length of his reply and mine. In any event, these are nothing but transitional statements, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

On several occasions prophetic statements were made in the Pentateuch about the land that Yahweh, the tribal god of the Israelites, had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

This is merely setup of a matter that all parties would agree to. No one in this debate doubts that on several occasions, prophetic statements were made in the Pentateuch about the land that Yahweh, the tribal god of the Israelites, had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response

It seems that just about everything I say is “setup” to [Holding].

Our opponent is merely exaggerating for polemical effect; I designated but four items as "setup" in the entirety of his essay. At the same time, this and what follows is an irrelevant diversion, and we will see, merely dodges the question of why a quotation is necessary.

If [Holding] had been in my college writing classes, I think he could have benefited. I would have taught him that good writing should have what he calls “setup.”

The issue here is not whether "good writing" requires such "setup"; the issue, which our opponent completely dodges, is why it is necessary to quote such setup in a reply. Since the question is dodged, we are left with no explanation as to why it is necessary to quote such setup in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Without proper introductory comments and transitional devices, writing will be truncated, incoherent, jerky, and uninteresting to read.

We do not deny that a written work without proper introductory comments and transitional devices, could indeed offer writing that is truncated, incoherent, jerky, and uninteresting to read. The issue here is not whether proper introductory comments and transitional devices and needed in such writing, but rather, the issue, which our opponent completely dodges, is why it is necessary to quote such introductory comments and transitional devices in a reply. Since the question is dodged, we are left with no explanation as to why it is necessary to quote such introductory comments and transitional devices in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

The proper thing to do in a written debate is to quote the “setups” and transitional devices to provide readers continuity and flow, and then go to the heart of the opposition's argument and rebut it.

We do not have any interest in what our opponent thinks, or what anyone else thinks, is the "proper" thing to do in terms of such quoting; what want to know why it is required, why it is "proper," and why we should be compelled to follow these strictures. As it is, this is merely an argument by authority, giving no logical or reasonable justification for such extraneous quotation, and we are left with no logical or reasonable explanation as to why it is necessary to quote introductory comments, transitional devices, or other contextually superfluous material in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

The “set-ups” and transitions need not be mentioned in the opponent’s rebuttal of key points.

If these need not be mentioned in a rebuttal, then logically, they also do not need to be quoted, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary can be ignored in a reply, while it also requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I think that after the first round of this debate has been posted, I will go through my article, cut out everything that [Holding] identified as “setup,” “fluff,” and “irrelevant distractions” so that everyone could see what a disconnected, incomprehensible mess would be left.

Whether a mess would be left is not at issue; the issue, stressed from the very beginning by our opponent in his continued insistence that we quote EVERYTHING he writes, is whether in so editing we remove material that affects his argument. As this is never proven, we are left with no explanation as to why such superfluous commentary needs to be quoted, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary can be ignored in a reply, while it also requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

[Holding] apparently has yet to learn that in a written debate, neither opponent has the right to decide what should and should not be left in the published text for readers to see.

As we are presented with no legal or other document showing that such "rights" exist, we are left only with the moral obligation to provide a fair and honest representation of an opponent's case, which we have always done, and which our opponent has never shown that we have failed to do. As these "rights" are not shown to exist, much less are they justified in their putative existence, we are left with no explanation as to why such superfluous commentary needs to be quoted, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary can be ignored in a reply, while it also requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

If a participant sees no argument of relevance to a statement made by his opponent, he can simply cut to the chase and respond to what he thinks is relevant.

If this is true, than a participant can cut to the chase even more efficiently by not quoting non-relevant material at all.

Readers who see everything that both participants wrote can then judge whether a participant who skips over something is evading it, and the opponent can point out what argument or relevance is in the part that was skipped over and then ask that it be answered.

Readers who suspect such evasion are quite capable of returning to the original document, and participants are quite capable of listing specific examples of evasion and of pointing out what argument or relevance is in the part that was skipped over and then asking that it be answered, without the necessity of quoting the superfluous portions. As our opponent has never proven such evasion on our part, nor explained why omission of any material so far noted as superfluous here would amount to such an evasion, we are left with no explanation as to why such superfluous commentary needs to be quoted, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary can be ignored in a reply, while it also requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

A debating manual or textbook would be a useful addition to [Holding]'s library.

We do not have any interest in what any debate handbook says or does not say; what want to know why superfluous quotation is required, and why we should be compelled to follow these strictures. As it is, this is merely an argument by authority, giving no logical or reasonable justification for such extraneous quotation, and we are left with no logical or reasonable explanation as to why it is necessary to quote introductory comments, transitional devices, or other contextually superfluous material in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

These were clearly stated promises that Yahweh would give the land of the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites to the seed of Abraham.

This is also merely setup on a matter that all parties would agree to. No one doubts that there were clearly stated promises that Yahweh would give the land of the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites to the seed of Abraham. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response

This is just a boring repetition of a complaint that [Holding] has already made about a dozen times in the short space of “replying” to my introductory paragraph.

If our opponent finds this process "boring" then he needs to relinquish his obssesion with the desire to have EVERYTHING quoted and simply admit that doing so, as I have stated, is superfluous and unnecessary. As it is, he has only inflicted this boredom upon himself, and has offered no reason why it is necessary to quote such material in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

When he says that “all parties would agree to” what I said, he shows a colossal ignorance of just how uninformed some people are in biblical matters.

This comment might have some worth if our opponent could give us a single example of a person who denies that there were clearly stated promises that Yahweh would give the land of the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites to the seed of Abraham. As he offers no names of such persons, we are left asking who these "some people" are, why they deserve mention, and why it is necessary to quote this in a reply.

If he doesn't know that there are some people who know very little about biblical matters, then he needs more help than I can give him.

We are well aware that there are "some people who know very little about biblical matters," and that is not the issue. The issue is whether indeed there are there exists a single example of a person who denies that there were clearly stated promises that Yahweh would give the land of the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites to the seed of Abraham. As we are still offered no names of such persons, we are left asking who these "some people" are, why they deserve mention, and why it is necessary to quote this in a reply.

I think he would profit from securing a writing textbook and studying what it says about “exposition” and “explication.”

Whether exposition and explication is needed within a well-constructed essay is not at issue; the issue, stressed from the very beginning by our opponent in his continued insistence that we quote EVERYTHING he writes, is whether in so editing we remove material that affects his argument. As this is never proven, we are left with no explanation as to why such superfluous commentary needs to be quoted, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary can be ignored in a reply, while it also requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I would also suggest that in reviewing the textbook, he take notice of what it says about the writer's duty never to assume that what he knows about a subject being explicated will also be known by the readers.

Since such information is aleady contained in our own quotation of the relevant Scriptural cites, the reader is already informed of this specific information and there is no need to repeat it, nor any reason to quote our opponent's repetitious summary of the matter.

That is a major flaw in technical writing today, especially in computer and software manuals.

This may or may not be true from our opponent's perspective, but it is an irrelevancy in context, since the information given is already related in Scriptural citations, and repetition is not necessary. We need not quote such material in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent when the same information has already been provided.

The writers, who obviously are knowledgeable in the subjects they are writing about, assume that readers will also have such knowledge, and the result has been confusing manuals that require hotlines so that users can call and ask for explanations of what should have been explained more clearly in the instruction manuals.

Our opponent perhaps speaks from personal experience; for our part we have never found the need to dial such hotlines, and we also find no reason to quote this observation in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. One would ask whether the problem lies not in the manuals, but in the readers who do not take the time to learn and rather assume their own expertise, as described in the profile outlined here.

As for whether introductory and transitional statements should require a reply from a “respondent,” I have never said that they should.

Whether such statements require a reply is not at issue, and we have never said our opponent said that they do. The issue, stressed from the very beginning by our opponent in his continued insistence that we quote EVERYTHING he writes, is whether in so editing we remove material that affects his argument. As this is never proven, and as it is admitted here that no reply is required to such things, we are left with no explanation as to why such superfluous commentary needs to be quoted, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary can be ignored in a reply, while it also requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

However, in a written debate, both parties should have the right to have everything they wrote be seen by the audience.

This merely repeats what our opponent said earlier, which still does not explain why such superfluous commentary needs to be quoted, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

When one of the participants presumes the right to decide what is information that deserves to be seen and what is “set up” and “fluff,” he assumes a right that he isn't entitled to.

This merely repeats what our opponent said earlier, which still does not explain where such "entitlement" exists, nor why such superfluous commentary needs to be quoted, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

[Holding] could indeed profit from reading some debating textbooks.

Again, we do not have any interest in what any debate textbook says or does not say; what want to know why superfluous quotation is required, and why we should be compelled to follow these strictures. As it is, this is merely an argument by authority, giving no logical or reasonable justification for such extraneous quotation, and we are left with no logical or reasonable explanation as to why it is necessary to quote introductory comments, transitional devices, or other contextually superfluous material in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

In Deuteronomy 7:17-24, for example, Yahweh presumably made this emphatic promise:

For the first time, after several sentences of superfluous commentary, our opponent at last delves into a reading of the text. We see a snide "presumably" added in order to subtly instill doubt and take a swipe at the authors of the OT by suggesting that they simply made this word of Yahweh up out of thin air -- a pertinent example of the sort of non-subject distraction we refer to (i.e., the subject is no longer consistency of the Biblical record as has already been stated, but now, historical authenticity of the contents). Being that this is the case, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to insert the wedge of doubt on another issue which is of no relevance to the topic at hand, thereby attempting to gain debate points illicitly.

**Response

“Our opponent?” Who else is assisting [Holding] in replying to me? Oh, I get it. He is just using the pretentious first-person plural. And he has the audacity to talk about “distractions” and “fluff” in my writing style!

Our opponent correctly understands that we use the "pretentious" first-person plural. Why this is a worthwhile to issue to note, rather than being a distraction intended to score debate points with a skeptical readership, is something our opponent needs to explain, as well as explain how this amounts to a "distraction" (i.e., establish that it is more distracting than not using it) or "fluff" (since it adds no words to the text whatsoever). As it is, this is merely a diversion of the sort we have predicted, which can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by putting forth snide remarks of no relevance.

There was no snideness in the comment.

Our opponent merely denies his effort at manipulation.

It was a simple statement about what biblicists assume.

If this is merely a "simple statement" then it requires no addition of the word "presumably" which (since it is recorded in the text, and no issue of textual doubt is brought out) is clearly intended to provide a diversionary swipe questioning the historicity of the promises. Our opponent is merely trying to evade our identification of his manipulative debate tactics.

When they read the Bible and see tales about the chats that the Hebrew god Yahweh routinely had with different biblical characters, they naively think that these communications actually happened.

Our opponent now offers yet another manipulation of the same nature by use of the word "naively" to score debate points.

Of course, if they were reading, say, the transcription on the Moabite Stone, they would probably chuckle at king Mesha's apparent belief that he had a hotline connection to his god Chemosh.

What such persons might think of Mesha's sentiments is of no relevance, and this is a useless appeal in context, in light of Chemosh's apparent disappearance from the scene thousands of years ago, showing that Chemosh, if he indeed existed, has been either rendered impotent or left. In any event, our opponent has still not shown that this comment referenced above was merely added in order to subtly instill doubt and take a swipe at the authors of the OT by suggesting that they simply made this word of Yahweh up out of thin air, this being a pertinent example of the sort of non-subject distraction we refer to -- i.e., the subject is no longer consistency of the Biblical record as has already been stated, but now, historical authenticity of the contents. Being that this is the case, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to insert the wedge of doubt on another issue which is of no relevance to the topic at hand, thereby attempting to gain debate points illicitly.

The article that [Holding] “replied to” was written when he was a 22-year-old kid.

This is an interesting chronological note, which is entirely true, but it is of no relevance in context, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I didn't write it with him in mind or with any other gullible believer in biblical inerrancy in mind.

Who was in mind when our opponent wrote this is not at issue; what is at issue is that our opponent has still not shown that this comment referenced above was not merely added in order to subtly instill doubt and take a swipe at the authors of the OT by suggesting that they simply made this word of Yahweh up out of thin air, this being a pertinent example of the sort of non-subject distraction we refer to -- i.e., the subject is no longer consistency of the Biblical record as has already been stated, but now, historical authenticity of the contents.

I discovered long ago that gullible Bible believers are beyond hope.

This is merely an ad hominem evaluation of "gullible Bible believers," and it is of no relevance in context, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership.

My article was written for the benefit of people whose minds have not yet rusted shut on the issue of biblical inerrancy, and such people would be open to the possibility that just because the Bible says, “Thus saith Yahweh of hosts,” that would not constitute any proof that a primitive war-god had actually said it or had even existed to say it.

This is also merely an ad hominem evaluation, and while we do not doubt that people in many religions, as well as in many political parties or social institutions, believe things merely upon such face value as described, it is of no relevance here since we have not stated that such constitutes proof in the way described, this is a distraction in context, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership.

I find it rather curious that [Holding] would bring up this issue, because right at the beginning of his reply, he said that the “historicity” of the conquest would be off limits.

I did not "bring up" this issue; our opponent "brought up" the issue by means of a snide remark which was clearly added, not because it was of relevance to the issue at hand, but merely in order to subtly instill doubt and take a swipe at the authors of the OT by suggesting that they simply made this word of Yahweh up out of thin air, this being a pertinent example of the sort of non-subject distraction we refer to -- i.e., the subject is no longer consistency of the Biblical record as has already been stated, but now, historical authenticity of the contents.

Here are his own words.

Our opponent quotes my initial paragraph above, which we trust the intelligent reader can find on their own, but in light of our opponent's insistence on quoting EVERYTHING, we reproduce anyway:

As formulated the article addressed only the internal consistency of the Biblical record on this subject. Questions of the historicity of the Conquest, or the propriety of driving out and/or killing the inhabitants of Canaan, were not addressed at all, and will not be addressed here. Readers should bear in mind that in any replies to this essay, any resort by our opponent to any subject other than that addressed in “Yahweh's Failed Land Promise”--that is, the internal consistency of the Biblical record on this subject--can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

So after declaring “historicity” off limits, right away [Holding] brings up an issue that would require a discussion of the historicity of the statement attributed to the Hebrew god in Deuteronomy 7, so is historicity off limits or not?

Again, I did not "bring up" this issue; our opponent "brought up" the issue by means of a snide remark which was clearly added, not because it was of relevance to the issue at hand, but merely in order to subtly instill doubt and take a swipe at the authors of the OT by suggesting that they simply made this word of Yahweh up out of thin air, this being a pertinent example of the sort of non-subject distraction we refer to -- i.e., the subject is no longer consistency of the Biblical record as has already been stated, but now, historical authenticity of the contents. Our purpose was to expose our opponent's manipulative debate methods, and he has provided no response other than a bald, transparent, and unconvincing denial of intent.

I'd be very glad to present reasons why sensible people would seriously question the biblical claim that a god named Yahweh “chose” one nation from all nations on earth to be his “special people” and then routinely chatted for several centuries with their leaders.

Here again we merely have more ad hominem ("sensible people", implying that those holding the opposite position are not "sensible", even before any argument has been offered) and yet another distraction in context; i.e., the issue still is not "Yahweh's Land Promise" but now the choice of Israel and the veracity of divine communications. We do not doubt that our opponent would be "glad" to do these things, but at present they are nought but a manipulative distraction of the sort we have described.

I would be happy to quote ancient records where similar claims were made for other tribal gods.

One is sure our opponent would be "happy" to do this, but this is again a distraction in context; i.e., the issue still is not "Yahweh's Land Promise" but now the implicit parallels of other such gods making such promises. As such, it does not need to be brought up, this does not need to be quoted, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership.

In those cases, I don't think [Holding] would find fault with anyone who said that those texts contained records of incidents when ancient gods “presumably” spoke to whomever.

I have no opinion at this time as to whether any particular being or other describing itself as a "god" did or did not speak to "whomever." Unlike our opponent, I remain "agnostic" on such issues without sufficient data and do not presumptuously assume that any person who has indicated such communications are a sign of delusion and can be safely described in terms of something snidely and "presumably" done (beyond what I have noted above with regards to Chemosh).

Our opponent quotes the ASV thusly:

**Response

I hope everyone will take a good look at [Holding]'s inconsistency. After repeatedly wasting space to chant his mantra about my use of “irrelevant setup” statements, he then turned and said, “Our opponent quotes the ASV thusly,” so he recognizes that writing that communicates clear ideas will necessarily use expressions and statements at times that serve no purpose except transition and introduction of topic changes.

There is no "inconsistency" here for I maintain that one reason why it is irrelevant and superfluous to quote an opponent's transitional statements is that I am quite capable of providing the needed "transitions" in my own way, in my own writing, without engaging the absurd excess-demand that I also quote my opponent's transitional statements, which become superfluous in context.

He has made this issue into a straw man, I suppose, to make his readers think that he is really scoring points when he is actually doing nothing but trying to distract attention from the force of my arguments.

We remind the reader that it is, again, our opponent who originated the principle of distraction with the insistence that we quote EVERYTHING that he said, and that he has still failed to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, beyond scoring debate points with a skeptical readership.

By attacking my sentence that introduced the text in Deuteronomy 7, he apparently hoped that he would make his readers think that the quoted passage following it was no more important than my “superfluous commentary” that had introduced it, so once again, I'll say that he is a fine one to talk about “distractions” in someone else's writing.

Our opponent is merely trying to escape the net we have thrown capturing him on the grounds of offering superfluous and manipulative commentary for the purpose of scoring debate points. In so identifying the phrase, we emasculate our opponent's own effort to distract, and now expose his transparent attempt to escape the charge by attempting to throw it back in our direction.

If thou shalt say in thy heart, These nations are more than I; how can I dispossess them? Thou shalt not be afraid of them: thou shalt well remember what Yahweh thy God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt; the great trials which thine eyes saw, and the signs, and the wonders, and the mighty hand, and the outstretched arm, whereby Yahweh thy God brought thee out: so shall Yahweh thy God do unto all the peoples of whom thou art afraid. Moreover Yahweh thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves, perish from before thee. Thou shalt not be affrighted at them; for Yahweh thy God is in the midst of thee, a great God and a terrible. And Yahweh thy God will cast out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee. But Yahweh thy God will deliver them up before thee, and will discomfit them with a great discomfiture, until they be destroyed. And he will deliver their kings unto thy hand, and thou shalt make their name to perish from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them," (ASV with Yahweh substituted for Jehovah).

It is then said:

**Response:

“It is then said”? Such superfluous commentary doesn't require quotation or reference from a respondent.

We agree, and unlike our opponent, we do not and never have demanded that he quote such statements, and unlike our opponent, recognize that if no reply is needed, no quote is needed.

Why did [Holding] insert it into his reply?

It is inserted as a "bare bones" transition of the sort our opponent asserts is proper for good writing; however, this has nothing to do with the issue of whether it is necessary to quote such statements in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Why didn't he just go from my quotation of the text in Deuteronomy to my comments about it that immediately followed in my article? He cannot, and never will be able to, explain why he didn’t just quote my own article with the transitional introductory statements and the biblical quotations all together

As we are not the ones demanding that EVERYTHING be quoted, we have no explaining whatsoever to do. We have never demanded that our opponent quote our transitional statements; we have never demanded that he quote introductory statements; we have never demanded the he repeat every word as though it were nectar of the gods, and we never will demand such things. We ask for no more than a fair representation of our case, and that is what we have always given our opponent, despite repeated denials for which he has given no tangible support.

The substance of this prophecy was repeated in such places as Exodus 23:20-33; Deut. 4:33-39, Deut. 7:1-2, and Deut. 31:1-8.

This is also merely setup on a matter that all parties would agree to. No one doubts that the substance of this prophecy was repeated in such places as Exodus 23:20-33; Deut. 4:33-39, Deut. 7:1-2, and Deut. 31:1-8. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response:

Was it any worse of a “setup” than the ones that I have identified in [Holding]'s writing above, which he used throughout his “rebuttal”?

The "setup" was neither better nor worse, but the issue is that we have never demanded that our opponent quote such "setup" as he has demanded that we do.

My point has been made on this, so I will save time from now on and simply reply to this kind of quibbling with the term that it deserves--straw man.

Our opponent has little choice but to resort to this empty response, since he has utterly failed to show why it necessary to quote such statements in a reply, and cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

As for whether my statement was “a matter that all parties would agree to,” I will remind him of the general biblical ignorance of the American population.

As above, this comment might have some worth if our opponent could give us a single example of a person who denies, or does not figure out from Scriptual quotations cited, that the substance of this prophecy was repeated in such places as Exodus 23:20-33; Deut. 4:33-39, Deut. 7:1-2, and Deut. 31:1-8. As he offers no names of such persons, we are left asking who these people are, why they deserve mention, and why it is necessary to quote this in a reply.

To say that all parties would agree to what I said is ridiculous, because there are many parties who wouldn't know whether to agree with it or not, because they just don't know much about the Bible.

Again, we wish for an example of a person who disagrees that the substance of this prophecy was repeated in such places as Exodus 23:20-33; Deut. 4:33-39, Deut. 7:1-2, and Deut. 31:1-8, or for a person who would not be sufficiently informed by the cites themselves as I note them in my own words, and if I use my own words, why I need to quote or opponent's words.

From now on, I'll respond to such comments as this in the way they should be answered. Straw man!

This is merely a pointless and polemical repetition of what is offered above. Our opponent has little choice but to resort to this empty response, since he has utterly failed to show why it necessary to quote such statements in a reply, and cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

In some of these passages, the names of the "seven nations greater and mightier than thou" to be driven out of the land were also specified as they were above: the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Jebusites, and the Perizzites.

This is a repetition of information already provided above. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response:

Straw man!

When Joshua assumed the leadership of Israel after the death of Moses, the land promise was renewed in very specific terms:

This is merely transitional information. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. Joshua 1:1-6 is quoted from the ASV:

**Response

Straw man!

Such superfluous commentary doesn't require quotation or reference from a respondent.

Unlike our opponent, we have never demanded quotation of such transitional statements.

Why did [Holding] insert it into his reply? Why didn't he just quote my transitional sentence and the quotation from Joshua 1:1-6 all together?

Again, we do not deny at all the need for such transitional statements in coherent writing; we do deny that it is necessary to quote such statements when offered by our opponent, and unlike our opponent, have never demanded that our statements of this sort be quoted.

As readers will see below, my quotation of the text included a parenthetical identification of the chapter and verses in Joshua and the version I was quoting from.

This is very nice, but within the context of my reply, it was determined that my trasitional statement was smoother than leaving our opponent's parenthetical identification. Even so, we have never demanded that our opponent quote such transitional statements, and he cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Hence, a composite quotation of both my transitional sentence and the biblical quotation that followed would have looked like this.

Such a composite quotation of both my opponent's transitional sentence and the biblical quotation that followed would have been unnecessary, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why we are required to repeat his transitional sentence and the biblical quotation that followed in the way he prefers, as opposed to the way we prefer; furthermore he cannot explain why it would make any difference in terms of giving his actual arguments a fair and honest treatment.

Our opponent then offers his composite quotation, which is not necessary to quote, but we will do so in light of the stricture to quote EVERYTHING:

When Joshua assumed the leadership of Israel after the death of Moses, the land promise was renewed in very specific terms:

Now it came to pass after the death of Moses the servant of Yahweh that Yahweh spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying, Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel. Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, to you have I given it, as I spake unto Moses. From the wilderness, and this Lebanon, even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your border. There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life; as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee; I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. Be strong and of good courage; for thou shalt cause this people to inherit the land which I sware unto their fathers to give them (Joshua 1:1-6, ASV, Yahweh substituted).

So what game is [Holding] playing? He is fighting desperately to justify his flagrant snipping and skipping of my arguments in past articles where he gutted my materials down to nothing and called these “replies.”

What we are doing is, among other things, exposing our opponent's transparent excuse for not engaging in debate over the past few years, namely, that he would refuse to debate us unless we quoted EVERYTHING he wrote, with the added charge that in not doing so we misrepresented or distorted his arguments. As we have repeatedly shown, our editing never has, and never will, result in such misrepresentation or distortion.

Anyone who can see through a ladder should be able to recognize his flagrant quibbling.

This is a very charming descriptor, but it is not an argument, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with his skeptical readership.

Now it came to pass after the death of Moses the servant of Yahweh that Yahweh spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying, Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel. Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, to you have I given it, as I spake unto Moses. From the wilderness, and this Lebanon, even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your border. There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life; as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee; I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. Be strong and of good courage; for thou shalt cause this people to inherit the land which I sware unto their fathers to give them, (Joshua 1:1-6, ASV, Yahweh substituted).

And then:

**Response

Why did [Holding] waste our time with this transitional expression? My original article will show that my transitional sentence below was adequate to let readers know that I was going from one biblical text to another.

The issue is not whether we used such an expression, but why, if we do use one, our opponent insists that it is necessary that we quote EVERYTHING that he writes, something he has not, and never will be able to, explain. Unlike our opponent we do not demand that he quote our own transitional statements (under the rubric of EVERYTHING) in his replies.

Just before crossing the Jordan, Joshua repeated the promise:

**Response

Here is the same straw man again, coming from someone whose writing demonstrates that he too recognizes the need to use transitional devices in clear writing.

The issue again is not whether our opponent, or we, should use such transitional statements in our writing, but whether we should be compelled to quote such transitional statements from our opponents when we are writing.

He cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such transitional devices could not have been quoted along with the text below.

As I have never demanded (unlike our opponent, under the rubric of EVERYTHING) that such transitional devices need to be quoted, I have nothing that needs to be explained here.

He is trying to give his readers some justification for having snipped and skipped materials from other articles of mine that he supposedly “replied to,” but I will be glad, in a separate debate, to show his readers some of my arguments that he evaded and then tried to justify the evasion by labeling it “fluff” or “distractions” or “irrelevant repetition.”

In that case, we eagerly await our opponent's examples of evaded arguments which we labeled fluff, distraction, or repetition, for this is a challenge we have extended for the past several years unanswered here. Shall this be debate #5?

If he accepts this challenge, he will have the opportunity to show his readers that what he snipped and skipped was comparable to the transitional sentences that he has made such an issue in this article.

We accept this challenge and eagerly await our opponent's examples of evaded arguments which we labeled fluff, distraction, or repetition, for this is a challenge we have extended for the past several years unanswered here, in which we clearly and indisputably showed that what was skipped and snipped was comparable (in the way described) to the transitional sentences, or was fluff, or repetition.

Of course, I would expect a guarantee that [Holding] would allow his readers to see my articles that expose his past snipping and skipping, but I suspect I have a better chance of winning the Mega Millions jackpot than ever getting an agreement from him to post my exposures on his website.

We have already allowed readers to see an example of a full article we "snipped and skipped" from at the link just above, with all words restored and words we quoted highlighted, so our opponent already has an example to work with. Our opponent may use those millions to buy several barns to store his supply of crow in.

My transitional sentence above contained only nine words: “Just before crossing the Jordan, Joshua repeated the promise.”

Since no one would argue that this sentence contains only nine words, there is no reason to bring the matter up, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

[Holding] made a straw-man issue over it and then saw the need to introduce my quoted passage with his own transitional sentence of eight words. Why didn't he just put my transitional sentence and the quotation from Joshua all together?

The issue is not whether our opponent, or we, should use such transitional statements in our writing, but whether we should be compelled to quote such transitional statements from our opponents ("EVERYTHING") when we are writing, if we provide our own.

Well, he's too busy quibbling to do the sensible thing.

We remind the reader the the "quibble" that has been repeated in our ears year after year for the past several years has been that WE have not quoted EVERYTHING and have thereby somehow misrepresented our opponent's arguments. Several years have seen no reply or specific examples of this alleged misrepresentation, so once again, we eagerly await our opponent's examples of evaded arguments which we labeled fluff, distraction, or repetition, for this is a challenge we have extended for the past several years unanswered here.

There is an old adage that says there is a difference in having something to say and in having to say something.

This is indeed an old adage, but it still has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise," and has been, as have been these past several sentences from our opponent, yet another example of an unrelated diversion posited to distract from our opponent's inability to address the issue at hand.

I think everyone has seen by now that [Holding] knows that he has to say something but doesn't really have anything to say.

By contrast, we have waited several years for our opponent to have "anything to say" to the challenge we have extended for the past several years unanswered here.

And Joshua said unto the children of Israel, Come hither, and hear the words of Yahweh your God. And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Hivite, and the Perizzite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Jebusite. Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into the Jordan," (Joshua 3:9-11).

Then it is said:

**Response:

Such superfluous commentary doesn't require quotation or reference from a respondent. Why did [Holding] insert it into his reply?

Why didn't he just quote my transitional sentence and the quotation from Joshua 1:1-6 all together?

The issue is, again, whether we should be compelled to quote such transitional statements from our opponent when we are writing, if we provide our own, and as yet our opponent provides no reasonable, logical answer for this indefensible requirement that we quote EVERYTHING.

Has everyone noticed that we have gone this far, and [Holding] has not yet tried to answer anything.

Under this rubric, our opponent has essentially admitted that all of his commentary so far does not qualify as "anything," and by implication, is "nothing," and that it is not necessary to quote any of it in a reply, and that he cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary required quotation and/or reference from us, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics. Yet it is he who has insisted that we quote EVERYTHING, in spite of this admission now that in so doing, and replying, we are not answering "anything".

He has spent his time quibbling about my use of transitional and introductory sentences, and has then turned around and repeatedly used them himself.

We have spent no time at all quibbling about our opponent's use of transitional and introductory sentences. We have spent time highlighting the absurdity of our opponent's insistence that we quote EVERYTHING including transitional and introductory sentences and other things that do not need to be quoted.

I'm going to hammer away on this point so that his readers, who may think that he is a cracker-jack apologist, may finally realize that he spends more time in distractive quibbling than actually trying to answer his opponents’ arguments.

Intelligent readers have already recognized that our opponent's proclivities are towards the overwhelming use of fluff, blather, and repetition to make his case seem more substantive than it is, and that these tactic may be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject.

To stress the emphatic nature of parts of the land promises that Yahweh made to Israel, I have underlined certain statements.

This is merely transitional information, and we have likewise underlined the same statements our opponent has underlined. However, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. The emphatic nature of the text does not need underlining for the stress to be apparent. Simple rules of composition and reading comprehension, and the premise of the main idea, tell us easily enough what the most relevant parts of the prophecies should be within the quoted material.

**Responses

To sentence 1:

The same old straw man!

Also to sentence 1:

"We"? "Our opponent"? Oh, I forgot; [Holding] likes to use the pretentious first-person plural. And he has the brass to criticize my writing style.

We have not criticized our opponent's writing style, which overall is satisfactory if somewhat wooden and dull. Rather, we have criticized his obsessive insistence that we quote EVERYTHING that he writes, including introductory or transitional statements and irrelevant narrative of past events of no relation to the topic at hand, "Yahweh's Land Promise." We find it difficult to believe that our opponent has so soon forgotten, after just highlighting it recently, that we use the "pretentious" first-person plural. We suggest that vitamins may be of some use, or that this is merely a polemical comment intended to score points with a sympathetic skeptical readership. In any event, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

To sentence 2:

Straw man!

Maybe I should tell readers to be patient.

What our opponent chooses to tell his readers, upon whom he has himself inflicted whatever need for patience may exist by way of his obsessive requirement that we quote EVERYTHING he says, is his own matter of concern, and an irrelevancy in this context. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

Eventually [Holding] does get around to trying to reply to my arguments.

This is a true statement, and should be patently obvious to anyone who has read my response, so it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I can't wait till I get there. I enjoy shooting fish in a barrel.

While this is a fine expression of our opponent's self-inflicted bout with impatience, and also a charming expression of confidence for the sake of his loyalists, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

To sentence 3:

Hmm, I wonder why [Holding] uses special devices to emphasize expressions in his own writing. Even in his reply to my land-promise article, he used such emphasis.

I use such special devices when indeed they are necessary:

Here is just one example, which appears later in his article.

Lev. 25:23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.

The phrase "is mine," in my view, does not have the expressive, emphatic nature in context of the portions our opponent underlined in his own cite. At the same time, the broader issue is that I do not require my opponents to quote my own pompous proclamations that I am using special devices to emphasize expressions, for unlike my opponent, I realize that it is not necessary to quote such proclamations in a reply, and so I have no burden to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Consistency is not one of [Holding]’s virtues. I will call attention to other devices of emphasis in his writing as I go along.

That out opponent sees a neeed to employ such a diversion can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject.

As for whether emphasis was necessary in the biblical passages I quoted, I considered them necessary to make sure that readers noticed what the promises were and then the statements in the quotations that clearly contradicted the claim that Yahweh had done for Israel everything that he had promised.

Our opponent apparently gives his readers very little credence, which would perhaps be acceptable, except that it is apparently a practice based in his own inability to read carefully, as he now admits:

Even today, after over 50 years of serious biblical studies, I will sometimes notice significant statements in passages I am reading that had escaped my notice on prior readings.

That our opponent still has such a comprehension problem after 50 years is an interesting insight into his personal life, and also gives us now, good reason, to use our own special devices (for no other reason that to insure that one reader, that is, our opponent, does not have significant statements escape his notice), but it is of no relevance in this context, and does not require him to impose such lack of comprehension upon others.

[Holding]'s criticism above is just another one of his straw men intended to make his readers think he is really kicking butt, and it is a criticism that even he ignores in his own writing.

Consensus from readers not loyal to our opponent, and who would consider him in the right and worthy of quotation even if he sang, "Hey, Diddle, Diddle" in a response, indicates that our opponent's "butt" has already been soundly kicked, hung out to dry, stuffed, and mounted, and that all that remains is merely formality. We have already addressed the allegation of inconsistency above; this is merely repetition, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

So when all of the passages I have quoted and listed are considered, we see that the prophecies included all of the following:

This is also merely transitional information. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response:

Straw man!

Without fail, God would drive out of the land beyond the Jordan ALL of the people then possessing it.

Here for the first time our opponent finally brings some substance to the fore. This is his first claim of content with reference to the prophecies. Several others follow.

**Response:

To first two sentences:

So now readers should watch very carefully to see how [Holding] ignores the “substance” to take us into a tangent that does nothing to explain why the biblical text clearly said that the Israelites had been given all the land that Yahweh had promised them but then later began backpedaling to admit that all the land they were promised had not yet been conquered.

This is nothing more than transitional, combined snide points of rallying ("ignores," "does nothing to explain", "backpedaling") intended to pre-empt the argument and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

To third sentence:

Why did [Holding] put this transitional fluff into his “reply”? It says nothing that readers would not have noticed without it, because obviously my article had listed several other points about what had been promised in the land prophecies. Readers would have noticed them without [Holding]’s saying, “Several others follow.” Why can’t [Holding] follow his own standard and cut out such “fluff” and “distractions” as this?

Our opponent here merely repeats four different ways the same objection he has already brought up before. We note again that the issue is not our opponent's use of such transitional statements, but his obsessive insistence that we quote EVERYTHING, and we may add, the necessarily implied corollary that we adjust our methods of writing to incorporate his transitional statements into our text, rather than simply using our own without using his, for no other reason that this obsessive insistence that we quote EVERYTHING. At any rate this is merely repetition, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

No man among these people would be able to stand before the Israelites all the days of their lives.

Aspect 2. Comment will be reserved until all aspects are listed.

**Response:

Yes, that way readers won’t be so likely to remember what he couldn’t explain away. Keep an eye out for his evasion of this “aspect.”

Our opponent continues to insult the intelligence of readers, assuming that their ability to remember such things is limited, without having any knowledge of their individual memorial capabilities, or failing that, to scroll back to referred text, or to read material a second or third time. As it is, this is merely intended to pre-empt the argument ("evasion") and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

The Israelites would drive out the nations possessing the land and utterly destroy them and the memory of their name under heaven.

Aspect 3.

**Response

Why did [Holding] put this fluff into his reply? Readers could have gone through my list of points without having him tell them which was number 2 and 3 and 4, etc.

It seems odd that our opponent thinks that readers are too mentally maladjusted to remember things that we could allegedly not explain, yet does think that they could have gone through his list of points without being told which was which. At any rate, the issue is not that we use such statements, but that we, unlike our opponent, do not irrationally demand that such statements be quoted in a reply.

Watch to see how he never comes back to “aspect 3.”

Since we repeatedly come back to "aspect 3" (and even if we did not) this is merely a snide comment intended to pre-empt the argument and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

They were to make no covenants with the nations in this land or show mercy to them (Deut. 7:2).

Aspect 4.

**Response:

Why did [Holding] put this fluff into his reply? Readers could have gone through my list of points without having him tell them which was numbers 2 and 3 and 4, etc.

Every place that the sole of their feet would tread upon, God would give to them.

Aspect 5.

**Response:

Why did [Holding] put this fluff into his reply? Readers could have gone through my list of points without having him tell them which was number 2 and 3 and 4, etc.

Be alert to see how he later creeps around “aspect 5” too.

Since we do come back to "aspect 5" (and even if we did not) this is merely a snide comment intended to pre-empt the argument ("creeps around") and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

Their empire would stretch from the Red Sea unto the river Euphrates and from the great sea (Mediterranean) toward the going down of the sun.

Aspect 6 and last. Now our opponent offers a summary of what he contends is the typical response to the problem of "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise":

**Response:

Why did [Holding] put this fluff into his reply? Did he think that his audience wouldn’t be able to see for themselves that I was summarizing a “solution” that inerrantists often resort to in order to circumvent the obvious contradiction that I was explicating in my article?

The issue is not that we use such transitional statements, but that we, unlike our opponent, do not irrationally demand that such statements be quoted in a reply. Beyond that, this is merely a snide comment intended to pre-empt the argument ("inerrantists often resort to", "circumvent the obvious contradiction") and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

Notice that he didn’t reply here to any of the “aspects.” Watch to see what he does later about these.

This is merely a snide commentary intended to pre-empt the argument, implying negligence on our part, and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

To circumvent obvious contradictions that result when Yahweh's promises are compared to biblical history recorded later, inerrantists contend that the land promises made to the Israelites were conditional on their good behavior, but there is no support for that dodge in the Bible.

Here we find our opponent's first substantive attempt at argument (though padded with unnecessary words), and where we deem it first necessary to make any substantive reply. We shall return to our opponent's words after an extended explanation.

**Response:

“We” shall return after an extended explanation? Uh, oh, I smelled irrelevant fluff and distraction coming up, and I was right.

This is merely a snide commentary intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

As will be seen, “we” returned to “our opponent’s words” after a long tangent that did nothing to explain why the biblical text first said that Yahweh had given the Israelites all the land he had promised but then backpedaled and said that they had not been given all the land they were promised.

As the tangent does indeed explain relevant background data, this is merely snide commentary ("backpedaled", "nothing to explain") intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

[Holding] hopes that by the end of his tangent some readers will have forgotten the exactness of what had been promised.

Once again, our opponent insults the intelligence of some readers, and also, since each of these points is conceptually addressed, this is merely snide commentary intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

Readers will see that when “we” returned to “our opponent’s words,” he evaded almost all of these “aspects.”

Not one aspect was evaded; every aspect was answered; all of them come under the same rubric of contractual obligation we describe below. All aspects were promises made conditionally (as we show below) and receive the same answer. They do not need separate answers. At any rate, this is merely snide commentary; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

We begin with consideration of the original land promise, given in Genesis 12:7 and 13:15 (cf. 28:13):

**Response

This is just transitional fluff and distraction. [Holding] cannot, and will never be able to, explain why it was necessary to include it in his reply, but let us see where we begin our consideration of the land promise

The issue is not including such trasitional fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own transitional fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply. There is therefore nothing for us to explain, but our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

**Response:

And the conditions? I don’t see any.

That "conditions" exist is demonstrated quite clearly in the tangential material on the subject of the ancient relationship between lands, gods, and their peoples, material which our opponent has not yet addressed, and therefore, this is merely snide commentary intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game.

For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

Abraham and his descendants are "given" the land, but what does that mean? It does not connote any modern sense of property ownership. What it does mean for Abraham to have been "given" the land is made most clear within the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity.

**Response:

Without even beginning to address this very important paradigm of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, our opponent attempts to pre-empt the argument by inserting his own discussion:

What did it mean for Abraham to have been “given” the land? Well, perhaps it meant that his descendants [seed] were to be given the land in the sense that they would possess it, as the following texts indicate.

We will quote these texts, but in what follows we explain in vivid detail the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, which defines every one of the verses that our opponent quotes following. We note again that this is done by our opponent prior to and exclusive of any dealing on his part with the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, and as such, it is merely an attempt to pre-empt the argument and distract the reader.

Leviticus 20:24 But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the Yahweh your God, which have separated you from other people.

In this verse "inherit" and "possess" are the same word (yarash) which we discuss below. We also note that this verse comes after a spate of representative rules and regulations in Lev. 20, and is immediately preceded by this warning in verses 22-3: "Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them."

Deuteronomy 1:8 Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the Yahweh sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them.

The word "possess" is also yarash, and we explain below the error of extracting any passage from Deuteronomy -- by genre, a contractual agreement -- from the whole of the book. As our opponent has yet to deal with this information, this cite and all the others are merely attempts to pre-empt the argument and declare victory ahead of schedule.

Deuteronomy 1:21 Behold, Yahweh thy God hath set the land before thee: go up and possess it, as Yahweh God of thy fathers hath said unto thee; fear not, neither be discouraged.

Deuteronomy 3:18-20 And I commanded you at that time, saying, Yahweh your God hath given you this land to possess it: ye shall pass over armed before your brethren the children of Israel, all that are meet for the war. But your wives, and your little ones, and your cattle, (for I know that ye have much cattle,) shall abide in your cities which I have given you; Until Yahweh have given rest unto your brethren, as well as unto you, and until they also possess the land which Yahweh your God hath given them beyond Jordan: and then shall ye return every man unto his possession, which I have given you.

A comment is in order here.

This is merely transitional. We do not begrudge the use of it in the least, but add that it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

The last verse above stated that wives and “little ones” would remain in the conquered cities until Yahweh had given “rest” to their brethren, which would come when they possessed the land that Yahweh their god was giving them beyond the Jordan.

We do not disagree with this assessment.

My article noted that Joshua had taken “the whole land,” and then “the land had rest” (Josh. 11:23), so did the Israelites “possess” all the land Yahweh had promised them or not?

As we explain Josh. 11:23 below, and as our opponent neither acknowledges nor deals with that explanation here, this is merely a manipulative attempt to pre-empt the argument. It is also, in the first of many instances to follow, either a case our opponent lacking common sense, or being blatantly dishonest: He knows that we are responding to his article in order of its presentation; he also knows that he does not present Josh. 11:23, and other passages he will cite in the same fashion hereafter, like Deut. 9, until later in his presentation. It is therefore common sense that, if we are following his order we will not address Josh. 11:23, Deut. 9, and other passages so cited until we reach the point in our opponent's article where HE addresses them. Our opponent is therefore manipulatively trying to implant bias by raising the implication that we left such cites completely unaddressed; or else he lacks the common sense to know in what order we will be addressing these cites. It is not necessary to quote this sort of manipulative diatribe in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

The promised “rest” was to come when the Israelites had possessed the land that Yahweh was giving them, and a text in Joshua said that “the land had rest.” Does [Holding] know what necessary inferences are in literary interpretation?

In addition to what we say just above: This is not argument, but snide commentary; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics. Until and unless our opponent replies to our points on Josh. 11:23, there is no grounds at all for snidely commenting upon "inferences" and "interpretation" in a way that assumes our opponent's "inferences" and "interpretation" are right and ours is not, before we have even reached the stage where those cites are addressed.

We’ll see that [Holding] was unable to resolve this inconsistency, but first I’ll quote more scriptures that indicate that “giving” the land to the Israelites meant that they were to “possess” it.

This is merely yet another attempt to pre-empt the argument ("unable to resolve") and declare victory ahead of time. The scriptures quoted add nothing to our opponent's case for reasons we will state.

There are at least 40 other passages in Deuteronomy that used the word “possess” to denote what the Israelites’ relationship to the promised land would be after they had crossed the Jordan, so I’ll resume the quotations with the book of Joshua.

I will quote these passages as well, noting that, as stated later in my work, but as our opponent has yet to deal with in order, the contractural genre of Deuteronomy makes it illicit to extract any of those 40 passages from their context.

Notice that the first quotation indicates that what it meant to be “given” land was that the ones to whom the land was given would “possess” it.

The first quotation uses yarash, which we explain below, in the context of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, which our opponent has still not addressed, making these quotes still nothing but an attempt to pre-empt the argument and declare victory ahead of time.

Joshua 1:11 Pass through the host, and command the people, saying, Prepare you victuals; for within three days ye shall pass over this Jordan, to go in to possess the land, which Yahweh your God giveth you to possess it.

We would only add that "give" is the same Hebrew word used in the promise to Abraham to be "given" the land.

Joshua 23:5 And Yahweh your God, he shall expel them from before you, and drive them from out of your sight; and ye shall possess their land, as Yahweh your God hath promised unto you.

Our opponent interrupts with:

This should be clear enough even for [Holding] to understand.

This is merely snide commentary. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

The promise was that Yahweh would drive out or expel the nations in the land of Canaan so that the Israelites could then “possess” it.

The promise we have explained below in the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, and our opponent has still not addressed, much less refuted, our arguments on that subject.

What it meant for “God” to give land to the Israelites, then, was that he would drive out or expel the people living in the land, and then the Israelites would occupy it.

One wonders what our opponent is on about here, since we have cleraly stated it did mean that the Israelites would occupy the land. The issue is not whether they would occupy the land at all, but whether or not that occupation was conditional or unconditional.

We will see that although the Bible says in places that Yahweh gave to the Israelites all the land he promised them, other texts say that he didn’t.

This is a non-specific referent, and while we might guess what cites our opponent has in mind, we will not do so, and simply note that this is merely fluff in context, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

According to ancient conceptions, deities were associated with certain spheres, usually of a geographic nature, but also of a social nature. In Greek thought, this worked out with the assigning of the realm of earth to Zeus, that of the sea to Poseidon, and that of the underworld to Hades. In an Old Babylonian text the same spheres were divided among Anu, Enlil, and Enki. In both the OT and in extrabiblical sources the nature of this relationship is expressed in such phrases as "the god of Moab", "the gods of Byblos" or "the God of Israel." Other phrases identify the people as being of a particular deity: "the god of the sons of Ammon"; "God of the Hebrews." The division was not always clear-cut, and nations with multiple deities would assign various places within their land to certain deities, and gods may have been associated with specific tribal groups or households. Nevertheless it is beyond dispute that land belonged to the gods.

**Response:

Well, not exactly. What is beyond dispute is that these ancient people believed that the land belonged to the gods, but ancient people believed a lot of things that were ridiculous.

This is merely a diverson in context, and and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject (the validity of such gods) never addressed in the original article.

Anyway, does [Holding] think that this is information that I didn’t know?

While our opponent may or may not know this information, it is clear from his arguments that he does not understand the applicability of the information.

I’ll later show that the concept of land “belonging” to gods did not preclude the concept of personal ownership.

While this is a good statement of intent by our opponent, it is fluff in context,not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership.

For now, I’ll just ask how anything he said here explains why the biblical text says in one place that every place that the soles of Israelite feet would tread upon would be given to them, that they would drive out all of the nations in the land and leave nothing alive to breathe, that they would be given the land from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great (Mediterranean) Sea, etc., but texts later said that it didn’t happen.

We explain this fully below, and our opponent's pretense at being ignorant is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no explanation. As we noted clearly, and explain in more detail below, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

The issue here is consistency, and even [Holding] himself said that “the internal consistency of the Biblical text” is the issue, so I’ll keep looking to see if I can find where he reconciled the different texts on this subject to make them consistent.

Again our opponent does not here refute any argument, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted our arguments, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

So far he hasn’t, and having read all of his “reply,” I know that he didn‘t.”

Yet again our opponent does not here refute any argument, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted our arguments, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won. Moreover, if he has indeed read all of our reply as he indicates, then he is indeed being blatantly dishonest in bringing up cites like Deut. 9 and Josh. 11:23 and waving them around as though we have not addressed them later in the text, in line with the order he addressed them in his original essay.

The Israelites understood matters somewhat differently in light of Yahwism, for they understood Yahweh to be the owner of all of the land, rather than other deities being in charge of it. In Deut. 32:8-9 we read:

**Response to first sentence:

And so if Yahweh owned all the land, he shouldn’t have, given his omnipotence, had any problem making sure that the Israelites received all the land he had promised them (from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great Sea), so why didn’t he?

We explain this fully below, and our opponent's pretense at being ignorant, and his attempt to drag "omnipotence" into the issue and place it against the issue of human free will, is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no explanation. As we noted clearly, and explain in more detail below, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. Omnipotence does not countermand the free choices of human subjects. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

All of [Holding]’s talk about “ancient conceptions” of gods and what lands they owned hasn’t done anything to explain the inconsistencies that I identified in my article.

Regardless of what “ancient concepts” of deity-land-possession may have been, Yahweh said that in some sense he was going to “give” the Israelites all the land within clearly defined borders.

We explain fully below "in what sense" the land was "given," and our opponent's pretense at being ignorant is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no explanation. As we noted clearly, and explain in more detail below, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. It is in this sense that the land had been given to the Israelites, as we clearly and indisputably show. Our opponent does not here refute this point, or as yet make any attempt, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

In what sense did the book of Joshua mean that he had “given” them all of this land, and in what sense did the book later mean that he didn’t give them all of the land?

We explain fully below in what sense the land has been "given," and also explain the cites our opponent likely has in mind here from Joshua. But our opponent's pretense at being ignorant is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no explanation. As we noted clearly, and explain in more detail below, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. We also explained the apparently alluded-to cites in Joshua, and our opponent knows we are following his order and address those cites later. Our opponent does not here refute these points, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted them, and/or as though we never address them, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

This is the problem confronting [Holding], and his time would have been better spent trying to explain the inconsistency rather than taking us into long tangents like the one I am now replying to.

As this tangent explains, explicates, and makes clear the context of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, and as we show the application of this paradigm below, our opponent's pretense at being ignorant is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking that the explanation has no application.

On second sentence, re Deut. 32:8-9:

Hmm, [Holding] has wasted more of our time on a transitional sentence.

The issue is not including such trasitional fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own transitional fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

**Response:

And the “Most High,” who owned all the land in the world, promised that he would give the Israelites every bit of land that the soles of their feet would tread upon from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great Sea, so why didn’t he keep this promise?

We explain this fully below, and our opponent's pretense at being ignorant is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no explanation. As we noted clearly, and explain in more detail below, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land, and this context establishes the nature of the promises. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

That’s the problem, and nothing that [Holding] has said yet in this tangent he has led us into has even begun to explain away the inconsistency.

The Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity fully explains this non-inconsistency, for it is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land, and this context establishes the nature of the promises. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

Certain manuscript traditions read "sons of God" (angels) in place of "children of Israel" but the result the same. It is the Most High who has allotted the inheritance for each nation. Yahweh declares the bounds of territory for the various peoples:

Deut. 2:5 Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession.

**Response:

And this does what to explain why Yahweh promised that he would give the Israelites all the land their feet would tread upon from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great Sea, and then didn’t do it?

The Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity fully explains this issue, for it is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land, and this context establishes the nature of the promises. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

If the Israelites were not to take so much as “a foot breadth” of Mt. Seir, because Yahweh had given it to Esau for a possession, then why couldn’t he have made good on his word to give to the Israelites all of the land within the boundaries described in Joshua 1:4? I’m still waiting to see [Holding] resolve this inconsistency.

The cite of Deut. 2:5 demonstrates and explicates the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, for it shows that Yahweh owned the land and that the people were "rentors." Such rentors were under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land (and in this respect, later oracles of judgment against Edom have relevance), and this context establishes the nature of the promises to Israel as well. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

Deut. 2:9 And the LORD said unto me, Distress not the Moabites, neither contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their land for a possession; because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession.

**Response:

And this does what to explain why Yahweh defined the boundaries of all the land he would give the Israelites and then didn’t make good on his word? It seems that Yahweh could “give” land to Esau [the Edomites] and to the Moabites, but he couldn’t seem to make good on his promise to give to the Israelites all the land he had promised within defined boundaries.

The cite of Deut. 2:9 demonstrates and explicates the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, for it shows that Yahweh owned the land and that the people were "rentors." Such rentors were under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land (and in this respect, later oracles of judgment against Moab have relevance), and this context establishes the nature of the promises to Israel as well. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

Deut. 2:19 And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession.

**Response:

Ditto.

The cite of Deut. 2:19 demonstrates and explicates the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, for it shows that Yahweh owned the land and that the people were "rentors." Such rentors were under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land (and in this respect, later oracles of judgment against Ammon have relevance), and this context establishes the nature of the promises to Israel as well. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

It should be noted in all three cases that the words for "give" is the same Hebrew word as used in Gen. 12:7, 13;15 (nathan), and that the word for "possession" is a form of the word yarash (see below). We can clarify the nature of the land-people-deity relationship with some illustrative Bible passages. Moving from one land to another, or becoming part of another people, meant a change of gods for a person:

**Response

To first sentence:

Well, let’s just look at some passages where nathan was used.

Exodus 2:9 And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages. And the woman took the child, and nursed it.

"Give" is indeed nathan, and any concordance will show that this word has a great variety of applications: add, apply, appoint, ascribe, assign, avenge, bestow, bring forth, bring hither, cast, cause, charge, come, commit consider, count, cry, deliver up, direct, distribute do, without fail, fasten, frame, get, give forth, giveover, give up, grant, hang up, have, lay unto charge, lay up, give leave, lend, let out, lie, lift up, make, occupy, offer, ordain, pay, perform, place, pour, print, pull, put forth, recompense, render, requite, restore, send out, set forth, shew, shoot forth up, strike, submit, suffer, surely, take, thrust, trade, turn, utter, weep, willingly, withdraw, would to God, yield. These and cites that follow are apparently intended by our opponent to instill some meaning of nathan congenial to a modern concept of property ownership. However, the great variety of applications, as well as the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, must be considered together; to merely focus on nathan and what meaning it may or may not have in other verses is not enough. In terms of nathan itself, like our modern word "give" it clearly denotes transfer, with no specification in terms of the method or permanence or nature of the "giving". One may "give" someone a back rub, a hard time, a house, or an apartment; the things "given" are different in terms of tangible possession and the idea of ownership, and so "give" only connotes transfer without making any statement in terms of the nature or permanence of the transfer. So likewise nathan.

Ex. 2:9 does not concern land, and especially not land "given" from a deity to a people, so it is not a parallel for any passages relevant to "Yahweh's Land Promise." But we would note that it does concern earned wages. What if the nurse later bungled or fuddled on her job? Would she still be "given" wages? If it was later discovered she was a slacker, and rather than nursing, was out playing stick hockey, would not the wages be demanded back? Rather than countering our case that the land promises were conditional, Ex. 2:9 only supports our contention that they were conditional, and shows that nathan does not offer any sense, by itself, of permanent transference that our opponent's argument requires.

Numbers 3:47 Thou shalt even take five shekels apiece by the poll, after the shekel of the sanctuary shalt thou take them: (the shekel is twenty gerahs:) And thou shalt give the money, wherewith the odd number of them is to be redeemed, unto Aaron and to his sons.

Our opponent apparently means Numbers 3:47-8 and not merely 3:47. Once again nathan does clearly connote transfer, but Aaron and his sons were not the owners of the money; they were stewards of the money. This does not contradict our point, and does not have any relevance, as it does not concern transfer of land from deity to people, nor does it show that nathan indicates permanent, unconditional transference as our opponent requires.

Judges 14:12 And Samson said unto them, I will now put forth a riddle unto you: if ye can certainly declare it me within the seven days of the feast, and find it out, then I will give you thirty sheets and thirty change of garments: But if ye cannot declare it me, then shall ye give me thirty sheets and thirty change of garments. And they said unto him, Put forth thy riddle, that we may hear it.

Here nathan is used in what is arguably a transfer of property rights, but again, that is only established because of the context (a wager -- we may note, with conditions!), not because of nathan itself. This does not contradict our point, and does not have any relevance, as it does not concern transfer of land from deity to people, nor does it show that nathan indicates permanent, unconditional transference as our opponent requires.

Judges 17:10 And Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give thee ten shekels of silver by the year, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals. So the Levite went in. And the Levite was content to dwell with the man; and the young man was unto him as one of his sons.

Like Ex. 2:9, Judges 17:10 does not concern land, and especially not land "given" from a deity to a people, so it is not a parallel for any passages relevant to "Yahweh's Land Promise." But we would note that it also does concern earned wages. What if the Levite later bungled or fuddled on his job? Would he still be "given" wages? If it was later discovered he was a slacker, and rather than doing his job, was out playing basketball, would not the wages be demanded back? Rather than countering our case that the land promises were conditional, Judges 17:10 only supports our contention that they were conditional and contingent, and does not show that nathan indicates permanent, unconditional transference as our opponent requires.

There are, of course, hundreds of other Old Testament passages that used the word nathan.

There are actually 1833 verses that offer a total of 2027 examples of nathan. Our opponent has not shown that any one of these contradicts our case or uses in nathan in a way that indicates unconditional, permanent transference.

A study of those other passages will show that the word was used much in the same way that we use the word give in English.

We agree that nathan was indeed used much the same way as "give" in English. Since we agree, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

If someone gives an object, a piece of land, or an animal to someone else, the other person “possesses” it.

The issue is not whether one who is "given" thereby "possesses"; the issue is whether in being given -- with specific reference to the land promise issue -- it connotes by itself a sense of unconditional permanence. This issue our opponent has still not addressed.

[Holding] needs to explain why, if Yahweh promised to give [nathan] the Israelites a land, with southern, northern, eastern, and western boundaries defined, with the assurance that they would “possess” [yarash] every bit of ground within that area that their feet would tread upon, this promise was only partially kept.

We have already done this by demonstrating and explicating, above and below, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, for it shows that Yahweh owned the land and that the people were "rentors." Such rentors were under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land, and this context establishes the nature of the promises to Israel as well. We have shown that nathan offers no connotation of permanent, unconditional transfer. Our opponent does not here refute these points, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

On moving from one land to another:

But, of course, [Holding] doesn’t believe that there were any other real gods besides Yahweh, so since he thinks that Yahweh was real, he needs to explain why the land promise wasn’t kept.

I have no opinion at this time as to whether any particular being or other describing itself as a "god" did or did not exist. Unlike our opponent, I remain "agnostic" on such issues without sufficient data and do not presumptuously assume that any person who has indicated belief in such beings are a sign of delusion. I have also already explained the context of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, which our opponent has neither refuted nor addressed, so that this is merely another snide comment intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game in order to impress skeptical readers.

Ruth 1:16 And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.

**Response:

Why should this text be understood to mean any more than that Ruth, in choosing to go with her mother-in-law Naomi, had decided that she would also accept Naomi’s god?

Our opponent, apparently realizing that this data befuddles his case, does no more here than throw a smokescreen. The verse demonstrates the intimate connection between land ("whither thou lodgest"), people ("my people") and deity ("my God") that we have shown to be an essential context for understanding the land promises. The three are intimately, inextricably linked. We agree that in agreeing to go with Naomi, Ruth was saying that she accepted Naomi's god. This is precisely because of the land-people-deity relationship we have described. Our opponent has not refuted this connection; he has merely waved it off as if to suggest that Ruth's travel with Naomi is entirely coincidental to the acceptance of Naomi's god. Given the relationship clearly expressed in Ruth 1:16, the corresponding data from the Ancient Near Eastern parallels, and a complete lack of evidence from our opponent that such relations were merely coincidental, and not the result of an intimate link, he has utterly failed to relieve himself of the burden placed on him by Ruth 1:16.

In fact, if [Holding] had quoted more than just this one verse, he should have seen a definite implication that Ruth had already accepted Yahweh as her god, even though she was still living in Moab at the time. “Yahweh do so to me, and more also,” she said to Naomi, “if ought but death part thee and me.”

This is utterly beside the point, as it does not address the intimate link expressed between land, deity, and people in Ruth 1:16. It is also irrelevant because it is from Ruth 1:17, and is said in light of the certain knowledge that the ultimate destination is Israel, and that that Yahweh was indeed God there. Far from contadicting our point about the he context of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, Ruth 1:17 only confirms it, for it shows further that Ruth recognized that the move to Israel would mean, for her, a change in deity to whom she owed primary loyalty as the "owner" of the land in which she would now be a tenant.

Balaam, the prophet who got a bum rap in the New Testament, lived in Pethor in Mesopotamia, but as the yarn about him was spun in Numbers 22-24, he was a believer in the Hebrew god Yahweh.

Whether one was a "believer" in a given god was not at issue. The nations readily recognized the existence of the gods of the other nations, or even worshipped the gods of other nations (although often as a local manifestation) even within their own nations, and we have never argued that they did not do so. What is at issue is the god to whom the person owed supreme loyalty, as the god who was "owner" and landlord of the land, and it is in that context that the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity comes into play. Balaam certainly believed in Yahweh and recognized his power. However, there is no evidence that he gave supreme loyalty to Yahweh over any other deity. The Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity would suggest that Balaam gave supreme loyalty to whatever deity was associated with Pethor in Mesopotamia, if indeed that was his normative place of residence. However, there is no evidence at all in terms of which deity Balaam gave most allegiance to, and thus also no evidence at all that contradicts (or supports) our premise concerning the association of land, people, and deity in the Ancient Near East.

When Jacob went to Paddan-aram, he worked for his uncle Laban, who worshiped idols and accused Jacob of stealing his “gods” when Jacob left with his families to return to Canaan (Gen. 31:30), but Jacob didn’t change his god while he was living in Paddan-aram.

Jacob certainly did not change his gods, and that is because, as we have clearly stressed, but as our opponent has missed in terms of application, the Israelites understood matters somewhat differently in light of Yahwism, for they understood Yahweh to be the owner of all of the land, even foreign lands, rather than other deities being in charge of it. So likewise we would expect Jacob to recognize that the usual paradigm of changing gods with lands would not apply where Yahweh was concerned. Our opponent clearly misses this application.

Solomon married foreign wives who worshiped other gods and enticed Solomon to worship them, but Solomon and his wives lived on Yahweh’s turf.

This does not in any sense refute our point about the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, for it does not specify whether Solomon or his wives gave any of these other gods supreme loyalty over Yahweh or any of the other gods, and if they did, why they did (i.e., did they think Yahweh was not supreme in Israel and owner of the land?). It does not give any specific information about how they ranked the deities in a hierarchy; it does not explain their relationship with Yahweh, or whether there was any to speak of. Thus this point neither contradicts nor supports our premise concerning the association of land, people, and deity in the Ancient Near East. We have nowhere stated that recognition of a god as supreme in a new land, and as the owner and "landlord" in that land, meant that other gods could not be recognized or worshipped.

I’ve seen quibbles before, but this one ranks close to the top.

This is merely a polemical distraction. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

All of this aside, I wonder what the relevance of this tangent is.

The relevance of this tangent is that it establishes the context of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, within which the promises of land must be understood, and our opponent has not refuted this connection with his "thrown in the air" non-examples.

Yahweh clearly promised to “give” a land with clearly defined boundaries to the Israelites so that they could “possess” it, and it didn’t happen.

We clearly show below that within the context of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, and by proper understanding of the genre of Deuteronomy, to say nothing of competent reading of the text, the promises of land were conditional. As it is, this is merely pep-rallying intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game.

[Holding] can’t explain that away by talking irrelevantly about “ancient concepts” of “land-people-deity” relationships.

The context of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is not irrelevant at all, and our opponent's lame effort to merely wave it away is a non-rebuttal and a distraction, as his efforts to refute it have miserably failed.

Does he believe that the Hebrew god Yahweh exists and that he is the only true god? Does he believe that this Yahweh’s word is as good as gold? If so, how does he explain the problem I identified in my article?

We have already explained the "problem" by demonstrating and explicating, above and below, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, and of the contractual/conditional nature of Deuteronomy and the promises, for it shows that Yahweh owned the land and that the people were "rentors." Such rentors were under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land, and this context establishes the nature of the promises to Israel as well. Our opponent does not refute, and has not refuted, this point.

This concept also makes sense of a passage some people find strange:

2 Kings 5:17 And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules' burden of earth? for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the LORD.

By Naaman's thinking, the only way one could worship a deity properly was to have a piece of the dirt that deity owned. That the land of Israel was not owned by the people, but by Yahweh, is made most clear in this verse:

**Response:

I think that [Holding]’s spin on this verse is exactly right, but what does this do to explain the inconsistencies identified in my article?

Our opponent's inability to think inferentially aside, since he agrees with our "spin," he refutes his own contentions, for this verse clearly demonstrates the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity which understands the deity as the owner of the land and the people as merely tenants who have contractual obligations.

He said above that the Israelites “understood Yahweh to be the owner of all of the land,” so does [Holding] think this “ancient conception” of the Israelites was right and that Yahweh did own all the land.

This is a correct assessment of my position. I do think that Yahweh actually owned all the land.

If so, then what is his explanation for Yahweh’s failure to give the Israelites all of the land he promised for them to “possess”?

We have already explained the "failure" by demonstrating and explicating, above and below, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, and of the contractual/conditional nature of Deuteronomy and the promises, for it shows that Yahweh owned the land and that the people were "rentors." Such rentors were under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land, and this context establishes the nature of the promises to Israel as well. Our opponent does not refute, and has not refuted, this point.

So far [Holding] has said exactly nothing to explain this problem.

Our opponent's inability to grasp how the "problem" has been refuted is of little interest to us, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Lev. 25:23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.

On the other hand, we may see easily that the role of the people was that of a tenant in the land. This relationship of people to land and deity is clearly expressed here:

**Response to first half:

Why did [Holding] emphasis “is mine” in bold print? The text was written clearly enough that readers could understand that Yahweh was saying [presumably] that the land was his?

This is merely a repeat of previous misguided objections, a previous snide comment ("presumably") which we have addressed. It does not address the relevant point that Yahweh owned the land. As it is merely a distraction and a repetition, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

**Response to second half:

My, my, here is [Holding] emphasizing a word in bold print after criticizing me for using devices of emphasis. Attentive readers should notice that more and more, as he goes along, he uses this writing device that he thought was unnecessary in my article. As I said, consistency isn’t one of his virtues.

This is merely a repeat of previous misguided objections, a previous snide comment ("consistency") which we have addressed and noted to be rooted in our opponent's misguided misapprehension between use of such devices and the obsessive need to have such devices we use quoted by our opponents. It does not address the relevant point that Yahweh owned the land. As it is merely a distraction and a repetition, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Now after emphasizing that “the role of people was that of a tenant,” he needs to go a step further and show us how this “ancient concept” explains why Yahweh promised the Israelites that he would “give” [nathan] every scrap of land that their feet would tread upon from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great Sea to “possess“ [yarash], and then didn’t do it?

We fully explain above and below how the people's role as a tenant affects the land promises, and our opponent has provided no answer above that refutes this point, and has yet to address material below, so that this is substantially bluster that is intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game. Beyond that we would suggest that the very word "tenant" itself implies a contractual relationship of some level of formality which involves rules, regulations, and agreements, even if the agreement is that there are no rules and regulations to worry about. We clearly show below that the Scriptures in general, and Deuteronomy in particular, indisputably lay out the equivalent of rules, regulations, and agreements necessary for the Israelites to receive Yahweh's promises.

All of [Holding]’s talk about “ancient concepts” of deity-land-possession does what to explain why the book of Joshua first said that Yahweh “gave unto Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers” (Josh. 11:23) but then later said that there remained “very much land” for the Israelites to possess (13:1)?

We have answered the matters of Josh. 11:23 and 13:1 below, and if our opponent has any sense, or has indeed read our material hrough, he is aware of this and is here being blatantly dishonest. As it stands this is merely irrelevant pep-talk intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Does [Holding] even understand what the issue is?

We have seen that our opponent has not even an elementary grasp of the issue of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, and cannot refute it.

Response to "The relationship...":

Hmm, another piece of transitional “fluff” and “distraction.”

Judges 11:24 Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess.

Judges 11:24 expresses in a microcosm the concpetual relationship between deity, land, and persons. The god is the one that gives and owns the land; the people possess it. The word "possess" here is the Hebew yarash, which we may now explain in more detail. It is used about 230 times in the OT; here is a Strong's definition, and some samples:

**Response:

Yes, I have already said that the ignorant, uneducated people of ancient times had a belief that different gods reigned in different realms, but what does this do to resolve the inconsistencies identified in my article?

What this "has to do" with the "inconsistencies, contraty to our opponent's pretense at being ignorant (which is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no explanation) is that it places the passages in the context of the Ancient Near Eastern relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, in which the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, also adding gratuitous insults to ancient persons for the cheer of his skeptical readership, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

[Holding] doesn’t believe that Chemosh was real any more than he believes that Zeus was real, so how does any of this explain why a god, who [Holding] believes was real, promised to give a land with clearly defined borders to the Israelites to “possess,” but then didn’t make good on that promise?

Once again, we remain agnostic in terms of such beings who may or may not have claimed to be "gods" to some person or other, or may have existed or not have existed in some fashion, and add that this has nothing to do with the Ancient Near Eastern relationship between a land, its people, and their deity in which the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

Was this Yahweh that [Holding] believes in unable to “inspire” biblical writers to record accurately what he had said and to do so in language that would be understandable?

The language of the text is perfectly understandable to anyone who takes the small amount of time needed to study the Ancient Near Eastern relationship between a land, its people, and their deity in which the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. As yet our opponent has to refute this point, and the above is mere distraction for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject.

Perhaps [Holding] should explain to us what his position is on biblical “inspiration.” Does he believe in it or not?

I do believe in it, but shall let my opponent remain mystified about the nature of my belief so that we may continue to nail him for presumptuous errors concerning what inspiration means, how it works, and how I recognize it, errors in which he gratuitously imposes his own definitions and conceptions upon others.

423. yarash, yaw-rash'; or yaresh, yaw-raysh'; a prim. root; to occupy (by driving out previous tenants, and possessing in their place); by impl. to seize, to rob, to inherit; also to expel, to impoverish, to ruin:--cast out, consume, destroy, disinherit, dispossess, drive (-ing) out, enjoy, expel, X without fail, (give to, leave for) inherit (-ance, -or), + magistrate, be (make) poor, come to poverty, (give to, make to) possess, get (have) in (take) possession, seize upon, succeed, X utterly.

**Response:

For readers who may not be familiar with [Holding]’s “apologetic” style, I should explain something.

This is an interesting statement of intent by our opponent, but it is not an argument, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

When he is in a bind, he apparently thinks that he can wiggle his way out of it by conning his readers into thinking that he is able to see subtleties in the Hebrew text that eluded the hundreds of Hebrew scholars who have partipated in translating the various English versions of the Old Testament.

This comment is meaningless prattle intended to sway a gullible, skeptical readership, as our opponent fails to show here or later that I have offered this entry in the interest of demonstrating any "subtlety" in the Hebrew text not recognized by Hebrew scholars, nor has it been shown that I offer anything here contrary to the majority understanding in this case. The allusion here is undoubtedly to discussion held many years ago over the Hebrew word paqad in which I cited the recent work of a Hebrew scholar and specialist, whom our opponent countered by citing various English versions, said by him to be done by "hundreds" of translators, that agreed with his view. As I replied, and to which our opponent never responded, there is no "hundreds" to deal with: If each version employed a team of 50 translators on average for their OT translation work, that adds up to hundreds, actually 1250. But not all 1250 worked on the verse of concern (Hosea 1:4); translations of the Bible are done by teams, and each book is assigned a certain number of translators. A small-to-medium book like Hosea would not need many translators (as opposed to Isaiah, for example), if 4 translators from each version worked on Hosea, that means we're only dealing with a hundred people. I addded that the linguistic detail work on Hosea 1:4 had only been done in the last decade. Unless they had the gift of prophecy, the overwhelming number of the versions our opponent cited were translated before this research was performed. Allowing generously that one-third were done by the time prescribed, we are down to 33 translators. Now of these 33, we must presume that a) they were aware of the linguistic research in question; b) that they were able and willing to acquire and evaluate it; c) that they considered the data carefully and fairly, and finally d) critically evaluated the data and made a decision based on sound principles. Thus we exposed our opponent's appeal as simply hot air - just the fallacy of argument by authority. This sort of dearth of critical thinking is the sort we also showed above with respect to our opponent's inability to do a competent data search.

The fact that [Holding]’s “scholarship” in Hebrew is almost always limited to quoting Strong’s concordance speaks volumes about his skills in Hebrew.

This is merely ad hominem which does nothing to address the data, and also delivers the implicit accusation that I profess expertise in Hebrew beyond use of concordances and scholarly sources, which I have not, at any time, done. As such, it is merely fluff, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

I’d be very interested in seeing his “scholarly” reasons why we should reject how translations like the KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, etc. have rendered the word yarash in the different texts that spoke of the Israelites’ “possessing” the land.

Since I give no reason, here or later, to reject the understanding of yarash presented in these versions, this is merely presumptive and misguided fluff for the purpose of gulling skeptical readers. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

As for his expertise in scholarship, I noticed that he even got Strong’s number for the word yarash wrong. It is 3423 and not 423, an understandable typographical error, I suppose, but he should give more attention to details if he is going to try to base an argument on what he knows about Hebrew.

As our opponent earlier neglected to give the full and proper cite from the book of Numbers, we reply that he too should give more attention to details if he is going to try to base an argument on what he knows about the Bible. However, the omission of the 3 was actually due to the cut and paste function from my CD-ROM missing the 3, not because of poor typography in this instance.

Gen. 15:3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

**Response:

The emphasis on “heir” was [Holding]’s, but why he felt the need to emphasize it is beyond me.

The emphasis on "heir" and on words below is intended to identify for the reader the place where yarash appears in the Hebrew, as is made clear by my explanatory comment, and as our opponent does grasp in the next paragraph.

After all, he is the one who thinks the use of emphatic devices in writing is unnecessary, because “(s)imple rules of composition and reading comprehension, and the premise of the main idea, tell us easily enough what the most relevant parts” of the scripture he quoted meant, but he apparently emphasized “heir” intending to signal that the word used in Hebrew was yarash.

That is correct, and therefore our opponent's commentary about emphatic devices is misguided, as it also has been, since the issue is not whether one may use such devices, but why it is always necessary to quote such devices when used by our opponent, even in the context of something that is irrelevant fluff, blather, or repetition.

If so, all he has shown us is that Hebrew, like probably all other languages, had homographs, i.e., words spelled alike and pronounced alike that had different meanings.

This is a nice lecture on homographs, but since I am not arguing any point relative to yarash having different meanings -- I agree that it does have different applicability according to context -- this is a distraction in context.

Bear and bear in English are homographs, but when we see one of them in context, we are able to determine what it means. For example, if one whose native language is English encountered the sentence, “I can’t bear the boredom any longer,” he would never think that bear was referring to a carnivorous mammal of the Ursus family.

Again, this is a nice lecture on homographs, but since I am not arguing any point relative to yarash having different meanings -- I agree that it does have different shades of meaning, albeit not as radical as the "bear" example -- this is a distraction in context.

So it is with yarash in Genesis 15:3. Contextual evidence indicates that it conveyed the sense of “heir” here, so how does this in any way show that when Yahweh spoke in various places of giving the Israelites all the land their feet would tread upon in Canaan to possess, he didn’t mean that he intended to give them all the land to possess?

I agree that in Gen. 15:3 yarash connoted the sense of "heir," but this is inapplicable to the land promise issue, since Yahweh is not a person who is dying and leaving the land to anyone, and is not relevant to the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, in which the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. We may add that by any token an "heir" would also never be a permanent, unconditional possessor of the land, since any human heir would eventually die and thereby the land would be "possessed" by someone else, or else some other condition (invasion, taxation) could strip the person of possession of the land. Yarash therefore still does not connote any unconditional, permanent sense of transference as our opponent requires for his case.

Gen. 24:60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.

**Response:

And this helps [Holding]’s case how? To me, it merely confirms what I have been arguing, i.e., Yahweh promised to give the Israelites [descendants of Rebekah] vast holdings of land to possess. So why didn’t he give them all that he promised?

I did not cite Gen. 24:60 for the purpose of "helping" my case; I cited it for the purpose of demonstrating, as our opponent apparently agrees, that yarash is a word that can have different shades of meaning in context. However, Gen. 24:60 along with other land promises is germane in the context of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, in which the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. We have already explained, above and below, how this is relevant to the land promises, and as yet our opponent has not refuted any of our points.

Lev. 20:24 But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people.

**Response:

Well, why don’t we just take a look at the context in which this statement appeared?

Leviticus 20:22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.

23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

24 But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am Yahweh your God, which have separated you from other people.

Our opponent has unerringly refuted his own case, as he has quoted a passage (20:22) that verifies our points concerning the context of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, in which the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations ("keep all my statutes...") which allowed them to continue to live in the land. Our opponent does not refute us here, but merely verifies what we have been saying all along.

I really appreciate [Holding]’s taking the time to quote this text, because it is consistent with the texts that I quoted to show that Yahweh had promised the Israelites that he would drive out of Canaan seven nations mightier than they so that they could possess the land and dwell in it. So why didn’t Yahweh keep this promise?

We can be little but amazed that our opponent has quoted a passage (20:22) that verifies our points concenring the context of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, in which the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations ("keep all my statutes...") which allowed them to continue to live in the land, and does not apparently even notice that he has shot himself in the foot for our benefit.

Judges 18:9 And they said, Arise, that we may go up against them: for we have seen the land, and, behold, it is very good: and are ye still? be not slothful to go, and to enter to possess the land.

The last cite is most relevant. Yarash represents the human activity of transfer of property or territory, including in war. But it is quite clear that this transfer did not involve legal ownership as we understand it, but possession. Evidence from ANE documents and the OT further clarify the nature of the relationship between a deity and its people as that of a feudal landlord and his tenants. Under such an arrangement the land was owned by a deity and granted for the use of the people; the "landlord" had certain obligations, and the people had certain responsibilities:

**Response:

And this explains away the problem how?

For the sake of argument, let’s just assume everything [Holding] said. There are examples in the Bible that dispute what [Holding] is saying, and I will get to them later, but for now, let’s just assume that he is right.

This merely pre-emptive rallying intended to declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

The “ancient concept” was that Yahweh owned the land, and the people were “tenants” in a feudallike system.

This is indeed the point we are making.

If a feudal lord told a family that they would be given permanent tenancy on property from sea A to river B and from mountain C to valley D, but later the feudal lord gave them tenancy on just a fraction of that land, the feudal lord would have reneged on his promise, wouldn’t he? If not, why not?

The point which continues to escape our opponent, in spite of quoting verses that refute his very position, is that the tenancy was not, and never is, expressed as permanent or unconditional, but is expressed in terms of adherence to the contractual obligations laid out throughout the OT and especially in the contractual form of Deuteronomy. The issue moreover, as we explain later, is that the Israelites violated these obligations even before they could physically move into the entirety of the land grant. By analogy, a rentor who steps into his apartment and immediately, at the front door, rips wallpaper off the wall and starts a fire, has already technically violated his lease (if it prohibits such acts, which may not be prohibited in certain collegiate rentals) and could readily be evicted by the landlord. It does not matter that he never got to the bedroom, or the bathroom, which the lease gave him implicit leave to occupy. Once the contract is violated, the "jig is up" and he is eligible for expulsion.

I think my point is clear enough that [Holding] should understand it? All his talk about “ancient concepts” is merely a smoke screen to try to hide the obvious fact that he has no solution to the biblical inconsistencies on this matter.

Our opponent has little choice but to resort to this empty response, since he has utterly failed to respond to these points and demonstrate their error.

This is the guy who complained about “fluff,” “set-up,” and “irrelevant distractions” in my article. Go figure.

The issue was not the presence of such fluff, set up, or distractions, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote EVERYTHING including fluff, set up, or distractions. As it remains, it is not necessary to quote such things in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Keep the passage that [Holding] quoted above (Judges 18:9) in mind, because I will return to it when I reply to [Holding]’s claim that the sin “of just one of the people” was sufficient for Yahweh to withhold his promise.

What I actually said was, with reference to Achan and the loss at Ai, "The sin of even one of the people is enough to guarantee military non-success." This is not the same as saying that the sin of even one of the people is sufficient to withhold the promises as a whole. Technically it may be sufficient, but most landlords (and we say that Yahweh was no exception) do not take advantage of the first offense to evict a tenant, and the contractual document (Deuteronomy) does lay out a progression of offenses and punishments beyond this, with total eviction from the land as a final resort. At any rate, it seems that our opponent will be misapplying this quote if he uses it at all, since he has not grasped out intent in stating it.

**Re "Under such an arrangement..."

Very well, let’s just accept this ancient “concept.” As I noted above, all this would prove is that Yahweh owned the land and had granted its “use” to the Israelites.

This accurately represents our position.

So now let [Holding] explain why he promised that every bit of ground the Israelites would tread on from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great Sea would be given to the Israelites for their “use,” but then later he reneged on the promise.

As we have explained above and below, this is "explained" in that the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity was such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

And don’t forget that the book of Joshua first said that all the land Yahweh had promised had been given to them and that “there failed not aught of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel” and that “all came to pass” (Josh. 21:45), but then later, this same book said, “Ooops, the Israelites didn’t get all the land after all, and there still remained much for them to possess” (13:1-2).

As we address Josh. 13:1-2 and 21:45 below, in our opponent's order, this is either lack of common sense or blantant dishonesty; our opponent is merely pep-rallying intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game, thereby prejudicing readers in advance. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

2 Kings 18:33-35 Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered at all his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah? have they delivered Samaria out of mine hand? Who are they among all the gods of the countries, that have delivered their country out of mine hand, that the LORD should deliver Jerusalem out of mine hand?

The comments of this Assyrian official reflect an expectation that at such time as a nation is attacked, it is expected that their god will come to their defense. Otherwise, as the territory of the land extends, so does the territory of the deity whose side wins, as indicated in this boast of the Assyrian king Sargon:

**Response re first portion:

So ancient people, living in superstitious times, had such beliefs as this? They also believed a lot of other irrational things too.

That our opponent personally considers such beliefs "irrational" is beside the point, and his attempt to establish guilt by association ("other irrational things") is merely a gratutitous insult. The comment as a whole is, will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand (the internal consistency of the record, a point neither addressed nor refuted here), and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject (whether such beliefs were rational) never addressed in the original article.

How does this explain why the omni-everything Yahweh said that he would give to the Israelites to possess [use] ALL the land within the boundaries I have repeatedly noted, but it never happened? Why?

As we have explained above and below, this is "explained" in that the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity was such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land, and which no amount of "ommi-everythingicity" would affect. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

Why would the omniscient Yahweh, who cannot lie, have told the people something that he knew wasn’t going to happen?

In context, this is another distraction, and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand (consistency of the Biblical record), and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject (God's foreknowledge and interaction with humans) never addressed in the original article. Moreover we challenge our opponent to show a single verse where Yahweh said that the people would undoubtedly be successful in meeting their contractual obligations under the tenets of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity. The very fact that punishments for failure are laid out suggests that he will find no such passage.

And why did he “inspire” the writer of Joshua to say that the Israelites had received all the land they had been promised and then later say that there remained much land for them to possess?

As we address these Joshua passages below, this is merely either lack of common sense or blatant dishonesty as stated above; it is pep-rallying intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game, thereby prejudicing readers in advance. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

All this flapdoodle about “ancient concepts” of deity-land-people ownership doesn’t explain away these gross inconsistencies in a book that is supposed to be inerrant.

Our opponent has little choice but to resort to this empty response, since he has utterly failed to refute the points showing how the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity dissolves his allegations of inconsistency.

Over [Ashur's] entire broad land and his numerous population I installed my nobles as officials, and thus extended the territory of Ashur, king of the gods.

**Response:

[Holding] doesn’t have to convince me that people in biblical times had superstitious beliefs, but the fact that king Sargon of Assyria believed that Ashur had a territory over which he was “god” and the fact that Naaman believed that Yahweh was god of the land where the Israelites lived does absolutely nothing to explain the problem.

This is nothing but a gratutious insult against people in biblical times, intended to raise cheers from a gullible skeptical readership. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics. Our opponent's pretense at being ignorant is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no viable explanation. As we noted clearly, and explain throughout this essay, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, never actually addressing the point being made, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

I’ll try to draw [Holding] a picture so that he can see the problem.

This is merely a snide comment. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

1. Yahweh, a presumably [there’s that cuss word again] omniscient god, told the Israelites [presumably] that he would give them all the land to possess [use] that their feet would tread upon from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea.

2. This didn’t happen.

Our opponent's pretense at being ignorant is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no viable explanation. As we noted clearly, and explain throughout this essay, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land, obligations which were not met, and resulted in the Israelites not even completing their conquest of the land grant. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

Since [Holding] believes that Yahweh, unlike Chemosh, Ashur, and other gods, was the real thing, i.e., a genuine, rootin’ tootin’ god, why would the superstitious belief that gods had certain territories or lands that they ruled over explain why Yahweh’s land promise to the Israelites didn’t happen?

Our opponent's pretense at being ignorant is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no viable explanation. As we noted clearly, and explain throughout this essay, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land, obligations which were not met, and resulted in the Israelites not even completing their conquest of the land grant. The ability of Yahweh to root and toot has no bearing upon the freewill decision of His people to violate the obligations of their contract and therefore suffer the consequences clearly laid out for such violations in the OT and especially in the contractual document, Deuteronomy. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

Furthermore, since the Israelites believed that Yahweh owned all the land in the whole world, and since [Holding] believes that this was the correct view of deity-land-possession, why didn’t Yahweh’s promise to the Israelites pan out as he had promised?

Likewise, the ownership of all land by Yahweh has no bearing upon the freewill decision of His people to violate the obligations of their contract and therefore suffer the consequences clearly laid out for such violations in the OT and especially in the contractual document, Deuteronomy.

That is problem number one. Here is the second problem.

This is merely transitional. We do not begrudge its use in a response, but do maintain that it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

1. The book of Joshua claims that Yahweh gave the Israelites all the land he had promised to them and that nothing failed in all that he had promised.

2. The books of Joshua and Judges later say that this didn’t happen, that Yahweh did not give all the land he had promised to the Israelites.

As we address these Joshua and Judges passages below, this is a lack of sense of us following our opponent's order (or else blatant dishonesty in pretending we are not) and merely pep-rallying intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game, thereby prejudicing readers in advance. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

I suggest that [Holding] keep in mind that, in his own words, the issue in this debate is “the internal consistency of the Biblical record” in the land-promise matter, so he needs to show consistency in the two problems outlined above rather than waste our time talking about ancient superstitious beliefs.

That our opponent is apparently oblivious to how the data given resolves his allegations of inconsistency in the land promise matter, and that he pompously pre-empts argumentation thereby prejudicing readers in advance, is of little concern to us and does absolutely nothing to refute any point we have made.

It was usually believed by the ancients that a god's power only extended as far as national borders, as here:

**Response:

So how does this explain the two inconsistencies shown in my article and outlined above?

By itself it does not, and is not intended to, explain such a broad issue. It is an illustrative piece in our material describing the Ancient Near Eastern context of the contractual relationship between a land, its people, and their deity. Our opponent is wasting verbiage offering more material that is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and which our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why it requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

1 Kings 20:23 And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him, Their gods are gods of the hills; therefore they were stronger than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they.

**Response:

But the omniscient, omnipotent Yahweh was, pardon the expression, presumably god of the hills, the plains, the valleys, the deserts, the rivers, the seas, etc. He was presumably god of everything in the whole world, so if he made the promises that I presented in my article and outlined above, why couldn’t he make good on them?

The ability of Yahweh to know and do all that is logically possible, and His ownership of all the land, has no bearing upon the freewill decision of His people to violate the obligations of their contract and therefore suffer the consequences clearly laid out for such violations in the OT and especially in the contractual document, Deuteronomy. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

The passage [Holding] quoted above reminded me of another text that may explain why Yahweh couldn’t come through with what he promised the Israelites: “And Yahweh was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron” (Judges 1:19).

This is merely a distraction, and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue (internal consistency of the record), for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject (Judges 1:19 with reference to God's omnipotence) never addressed in the original article.

Maybe Yahweh was just another god like Chemosh and Ashur, who was therefore no more able to make good on his promises than the other imaginary gods.

This is merely a snide comment, of no evidential worth or value in this context. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

The patron deity also had the prerogative of selecting the leader of the people. The Sumerians believed that the office of the kingship was lowered from the heavens. The Assyrians appealed to the divine election of their kings. Cyrus' conquest of Babylon was legitimized by the pronouncement of the Babylonian god Marduk. And of course, when the time came for Israel to select a king, Yahweh was called upon to make the choice, and at various times thereafter the OT states that Yahweh took some part in selecting a king for the nation (cf. 1 Kings 11:14) and even foreign kings (1 Kings 11:23).

**Response

To first sentence:

And this does what to explain why an omniscient, omnipotent deity made a land promise that he couldn’t keep?

Our opponent's pretense at being ignorant is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no explanation. As we noted clearly, and explain in more detail throughout this essay, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land, and under which the patron deity had obligations as well. Yahweh's omniscience and omnipotence have no bearing upon the freewill decision of His people to violate the obligations of their contract and therefore suffer the consequences clearly laid out for such violations in the OT and especially in the contractual document, Deuteronomy. Our opponent does not here refute this point, to which he has now repeated this response over half a dozen times, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

In response to Sumerians:

And this does what to explain why an omniscient, omnipotent deity made a land promise that he couldn’t keep?

Our opponent's pretense at being ignorant is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no explanation. As we noted clearly, and explain in more detail throughout this essay, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land, and under which the patron deity had obligations as well. Yahweh's omniscience and omnipotence have no bearing upon the freewill decision of His people to violate the obligations of their contract and therefore suffer the consequences clearly laid out for such violations in the OT and especially in the contractual document, Deuteronomy. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

Isn’t [Holding] the one who has made such a big issue over “fluff” and “irrelevant distractions”?

The issue is not use of such fluff and distractions, but the obsessive requirement of our opponent that we quote EVERYTHING he writes including such fluff and distractions. I have never made such outraegous demands of my opponents, asking only for a fair and honest representation of my argument. Our opponent did not need to quote the above to be fair and honest; he need only have noted generally that I laid out the obligations of deities to their peoples.

Re the Assyrians:

And this does what to explain why an omniscient, omnipotent deity made a land promise that he couldn’t keep?

Our opponent's pretense at being ignorant is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no explanation. As we noted clearly, and explain in more detail throughout this essay, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. Yahweh's omniscience and omnipotence have no bearing upon the freewill decision of His people to violate the obligations of their contract and therefore suffer the consequences clearly laid out for such violations in the OT and especially in the contractual document, Deuteronomy. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won. He has also repeated this point now well over half a dozen times, and even if this were the subject at hand, it is not necessary to quote this over half a dozen times in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous and repetitive commentary requires multiple quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Re the Babylonians:

And this does what to explain why an omniscient, omnipotent deity [who [Holding] believes was real] made a land promise that he couldn’t keep?

[Holding] seems to think that if he leads us far enough into a tangent, quotes enough biblical passages along the way, and rambles on and on about “ancient concepts,” some readers may believe that he is on to something.

Our opponent's inability to grasp the relevance of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is of little concern to us, and he has provided no refutation to any point we have given on this subject; and his repetition, nearly a dozen times, of the same irrelevant argument concering omniscience and human freedom leads us to suggest that our opponent seems to think that if he repeats an argument enough times, and rambles on and on about “omniscience,” some readers may believe that he is actually answering the subject at hand and not realize that he has ignored the question of the consistency of the Biblical record with respect to Yahweh's land promises.

Is this the guy who had the gall to talk about “fluff” and “irrelevant distractions” in my articles?

The issue is not use of such fluff and distractions, but the obsessive requirement of our opponent that we quote EVERYTHING he writes including such fluff and distractions, and irrelevant arguments repeated a dozen or more times. I have never made such outraegous demands of my opponents, asking only for a fair and honest representation of my argument. Our opponent did not need to quote the above to be fair and honest; he need only have noted generally that I laid out the obligations of deities to their peoples.

Re Israel and selecting kings:

Yes, the omni-one seemed to have a knack for choosing bad eggs to be king over “his people,” but that is another debate for another time if [Holding] would care to pursue it. What does it have to do with the inconsistencies in Joshua about fulfillments of the land promise?

Our opponent's inability to grasp the relevance of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is of little concern to us, and he has provided no refutation to any point we have given on this subject. In terms of choosing "bad eggs" we would challenge our opponent to provide a full and complete list of candidates for the kingship in Israel who would have been a better choice, in the longer term, than those who did get the nod. If he can produce such a list, his debate challenge is accepted.

What was that that [Holding] said about “fluff” and “irrelevant distractions”?

In terms of the obligations of the "tenants," it is obvious that within any feudal structure, the occupants of a land were subject to the lord of the land, and that lack of fulfillment of obligations brought about penalties. The Moabite inscription speaks of the Moabite deity Chemosh being angry with "his land" and delivering judgment, though the cause of the anger is not specified. The Assyrian king Esarhaddon authorized a record noting that ethical and cultic offenses by the Babylonian people provoked the wrath of the Baylonian god Marduk, resulting in the cursing and desolation of Babylon. In the OT we read of Yahweh's complaint that the Israelites have "defiled my land" (Jer. 2:7, 16:18) with their iniquity and of impending judgment for sins.

**Response:

Yes, this was another superstitious belief of the times.

This is nothing but a gratuitous insult to ancient peoples for the purpose of engending sympathetic skeptical cheer. Whether it was a "superstitious belief" is of no relevance; what is of relevance in this context is the consistency of the Biblical record. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Good fortune meant that one was pleasing his god, but misfortune meant that one had “done that which was evil” in the sight of his god, so how does this explain that Yahweh made a clear, no-strings-attached land promise to the Israelites that he didn’t keep?

What did [Holding] say about “fluff” and “irrelevant distractions”?

In regards to the final sentence, our opponent, apparently sensing that he is lost in the world of the Ancient Near East, issues this extended diatribe:

Yes, and we also read in the OT that Yahweh made an unconditional land promise to the Israelites.

I quoted it in my article, but it is apparently time to look at it again.

What follows is an extended list of quotations from Deuteronomy 9. We noted in our response that Deuteronomy is in the genre of an ancient legal contract spelling out obligations of landlord and tenant. We also noted that to extract any passage from Deuteronomy without respect to this fact is illicit. Nevertheless our opponent sees fit to do so without any justification or reasoning. We also addressed Deut. 9, in the same order as our opponent, but our opponent either lacks the sense to realize this or is being dishonest in not admitting it here.

I have been quoting the ASV and KJV, but I’m going to use the NRSV here, with Yahweh substituted for “the LORD,” so that the modern language might make the reading clearer to [Holding].

Regardless of what language it is said in, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, which rules the paradigm of the land promises, was such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. Our opponent's words are nothing but a snide comment; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

I will also emphasize in bold print certain expressions to show that the promise made here was independent of the conduct of the Israelites and therefore had to be an unconditional promise.

We will follow in the bolding, but the contextual reality of Deuteronomy as an ancient legal contract spelling out obligations of landlord and tenant means that to extract any passage from Deuteronomy without respect to this fact is illicit.

Deuteronomy 9:1 Hear, O Israel! You are about to cross the Jordan today, to go in and dispossess nations larger and mightier than you, great cities, fortified to the heavens,

What were these nations “mightier” than the Israelites? That was explained in Deuteronomy 7:1, “When Yahweh your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy, and he clears away many nations before you--the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations mightier and more numerous than you....”

No one doubts, and it is of no relevance to the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, who the nations were to be driven out or how mighty they were. It remains that Deuteronomy as an ancient legal contract spelling out obligations of landlord and tenant means that to extract any passage from Deuteronomy without respect to this fact is illicit, and that it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

So the nations larger and mightier than the Israelites were the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Keep an eye on these names.

This is needless repetition. The list of nations has now been offered no less than four times. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Deuteronomy 9:2 a strong and tall people, the offspring of the Anakim, whom you know. You have heard it said of them, "Who can stand up to the Anakim?"

3 Know then today that Yahweh your God is the one who crosses over before you as a devouring fire; he will defeat them and subdue them before you, so that you may dispossess and destroy them quickly, as Yahweh has promised you.

Notice the emphatic language of this verse. “Moses” didn’t say that Yahweh might defeat these nations or that he would defeat them if the Israelites were good little children of God.

The emphatic language of this single verse does not affect in any way the fact that Deuteronomy is an ancient legal contract spelling out obligations of landlord and tenant, and that to extract any passage from Deuteronomy as a whole, or in this case Deut. 9 alone, without respect to this fact is illicit. The "if" is found throughout Deuteronomy. They are alluded to in Deut. 8:18-20, which is immediately before the passages our opponent quotes:

But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day. And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God.

Before, and after, these passages quoted by our opponent, Deuteonomy is shot through with "ifs" and conditions that cannot simply and arbitrarily be rudely jerked from the larger context of Deuteronomy as a contractual document.

He emphatically said that Yahweh will defeat them, just as Yahweh has promised you. Notice also that Yahweh said that he would dispossess and destroy these nations quickly. I’ll return to this verse when we come to [Holding]’s “wild-beastie” quibble later on.

The emphatic language of this single verse does not affect in any way the fact that Deuteronomy is an ancient legal contract spelling out obligations of landlord and tenant, and that to extract any passage from Deuteronomy without respect to this fact is illicit. The latter is a nice statement of our opponent's intent, but it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Deuteronomy 9:4 When Yahweh your God thrusts them out before you, do not say to yourself, "It is because of my righteousness that Yahweh has brought me in to occupy this land"; it is rather because of the wickedness of these nations that Yahweh is dispossessing them before you.

As we deal with Deut. 9:4 later in our essay, citing it is merely pep-rallying intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game, thereby prejudicing readers in advance. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

[Holding] criticized my use of emphatic devices like underlining, but sometimes it is necessary to draw a picture for those who have deluded themselves into believing that the Bible is inerrant.

This is a gratutiotous insult against Christian readers for no other purpose than to arouse skeptical cheer. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Notice that the verse above did not say if Yahweh thrusts out these nations; it said when Yahweh thrusts them out.

The use of "when" as opposed to "if" does not affect in any way the fact that Deuteronomy is an ancient legal contract spelling out obligations of landlord and tenant, and that to extract any passage from Deuteronomy without respect to this fact is illicit. Our opponent also would need to explain why, in light of this overwhelming context surrounding 9:4, this is not best understood (even under the "when" implication) as a conditional based on assumption of success in adhering to the covenant, as is clearly spelled out throughout the OT and particularly Deuteronomy.

“Moses” told the people that when these nations had been thrust out before them, they should not think that Yahweh had done this for their own righteousness but rather because of the wickedness of the nations that Yahweh would drive out. Keep an eye on what “Moses” said about the righteousness of these people whom Yahweh was going to give the land to.

As we deal with Deut. 9:4, and this very idea, later in our essay, we will see what more is said later on about it.

Deuteronomy 9:5 It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to occupy their land; but because of the wickedness of these nations Yahweh your God is dispossessing them before you, in order to fulfill the promise that Yahweh made on oath to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

As we deal with Deut. 9:5 later in our essay, citing it is merely pep-rallying intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game, thereby prejudicing readers in advance. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics. We note however that it is specifically stated that it is not for righteousness that the Israelites are going in to occupy the land, which is not the same thing as saying that it is not for righteousness (rather, lack thereof) that the Israelites will be able to keep occupying the land.

There are not enough tangents for [Holding] to lead us into that will ever distract me from bearing down on what this verse says.

That our opponent is obsessive even in error is something well known to all parties, however, we deal with Deut. 9:5 later in our essay, and our opponent has yet to answer what we say about it later in our essay, and either lacks sense to know we are following his order, or his being blatantly dishonest in not acknowledging that we are.

It repeated what “Moses” had said in the verse before, i.e., it wasn’t because of the righteousness of the Israelites but because of the wickedness of the nations in Canaan that Yahweh was driving them out.

We deal with Deut. 9:5 later in our essay, and our opponent has yet to answer what we say about it later in our essay.

Then “Moses” gave a second reason why Yahweh was dispossessing the other nations so that the Israelites could have the land despite their unrighteousness: Yahweh had to fulfill the promise he had made with an oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

We deal with Deut. 9:5 later in our essay, and our opponent has yet to answer what we say about it later in our essay. This is therefore merely presumptuous and an attempt to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game.

Now if Yahweh had sworn with an oath to give this land to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he could not renege on that promise, because Yahweh cannot lie, can he?

[Holding] will try later to argue that the land promise was conditional on the good behavior of the Israelites, but the rest of Deuteronomy 9 shoots that “explanation” so full of holes that it will never float.

Our opponent has little choice but to resort to this empty promise, since he has utterly failed, and will continue to fail, to show why this explanation is "full of holes." Moreover he can not explain wh it is necessary to quote such statements in a reply, and cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Deuteronomy 9:6 Know, then, that Yahweh your God is not giving you this good land to occupy because of your righteousness; for you are a stubborn people.

Now why would Yahweh have said this at this particular time but then later say, “Well, you people have been too unrighteous for me to keep my land promise”? Could the unrighteousness of the people later exceed their unrighteousness that “Moses” went on to catalog in this chapter?

We deal with Deut. 9:6 later in our essay, and our opponent has yet to answer what we say about it later in our essay. This is therefore merely presumptuous and an attempt to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game. Otherwise let us stress again that Deuteronomy is an ancient legal contract spelling out obligations of landlord and tenant, and that to extract any passage from Deuteronomy without respect to this fact is illicit. Even without that, though, to say that the land is being given to occupy initially with no reference to righteousness in no way suggests that there are no strictures with reference to continued occupation of the land.

Deuteronomy 9:7 Remember and do not forget how you provoked Yahweh your God to wrath in the wilderness; you have been rebellious against Yahweh from the day you came out of the land of Egypt until you came to this place.

We deal with Deut. 9:7 later in our essay, but would add now that this only confirms our thesis that the promises were conditional, for otherwise, what is the point of reminding the Israelites of their rebellious behavior in the past? If there were no conditions, what difference did behavior make and why is this a relevant example?

If the Israelites had been rebellious against Yahweh from the day they came out of Egypt until the day “Moses” made this speech to them but Yahweh was still going to give them the land anyway, what could they have possibly done later that would have been bad enough to provoke Yahweh to withdraw the land promise?

Our opponent still apparently fails to see, as we explain below, a key difference in that Deut. 9:3-7 has nothing to do with whether the Israelites would continue to be able to possess the land; that will depend on their fulfillment of their obligations as tenants, as stated in the Deuteronomic contract. The stress here is that the ability to enter the land is the result of an act of unmerited grace with respect to those present. They are riding in, as it were, on Abraham's coattails; but this has nothing to do with whether they will be able to stay in the land as tenants. In short, our opponent's objection is oblivious to the point that the behavior is stressed precisely in order to make it clear that entry into the land at all is an act of unmerited grace -- and to stress that as of entry, the "grace period" was up and the Deuteronomic contract was in force.

This is a problem [Holding] must explain in addition to the problem of an omni-max deity’s making a promise without apparently knowing that the subjects of his promise would later prove so wicked that he would have to withhold the promise.

This is nothing but a diversion, the same one made above -- it will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue (the land promises), for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject (the relation of omniscience to free will) never addressed in the original article. We are under no obligation at all to offer any explanation on this subject.

Just look at the sins of these people that “Moses” went on to catalog.

We are well aware of the sins listed in Deut. 9. This has nothing to do with whether the Israelites would continue to be able to possess the land; that will depend on their fulfillment of their obligations as tenants, as stated in the Deuteronomic contract. The stress here is that the ability to enter the land is the result of an act of unmerited grace with respect to those present -- an act of grace they need, precisely because if it were rated on behavior, they would fail before ever opening the door to the Promised Land. They are riding in, as it were, on Abraham's coattails; but this has nothing to do with whether they will be able to stay in the land as tenants. In short, our opponent's objection is oblivious to the point that the behavior is stressed precisely in order to make it clear that entry into the land at all is an act of unmerited grace -- and to stress that as of entry, the "grace period" was up and the Deuteronomic contract was in force.

This is our answer to the cites from Deut. 9, but to satisfy our opponent's obsession to be quoted in EVERYTHING we provide them nevertheless:

Deuteronomy 9:8 Even at Horeb you provoked Yahweh to wrath, and Yahweh was so angry with you that he was ready to destroy you.

9 When I went up the mountain to receive the stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant that Yahweh made with you, I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water.

10 And Yahweh gave me the two stone tablets written with the finger of God; on them were all the words that Yahweh had spoken to you at the mountain out of the fire on the day of the assembly.

11 At the end of forty days and forty nights Yahweh gave me the two stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant.

12 Then Yahweh said to me, “Get up, go down quickly from here, for your people whom you have brought from Egypt have acted corruptly. They have been quick to turn from the way that I commanded them; they have cast an image for themselves.”

13 Furthermore Yahweh said to me, “I have seen that this people is indeed a stubborn people.

14 Let me alone that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make of you a nation mightier and more numerous than they.”

15 So I turned and went down from the mountain, while the mountain was ablaze; the two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands.

16 Then I saw that you had indeed sinned against Yahweh your God, by casting for yourselves an image of a calf; you had been quick to turn from the way that Yahweh had commanded you.

17 So I took hold of the two tablets and flung them from my two hands, smashing them before your eyes.

18 Then I lay prostrate before Yahweh as before, forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water, because of all the sin you had committed, provoking Yahweh by doing what was evil in his sight.

19 For I was afraid that the anger that Yahweh bore against you was so fierce that he would destroy you. But Yahweh listened to me that time also.

20 Yahweh was so angry with Aaron that he was ready to destroy him, but I interceded also on behalf of Aaron at that same time.

21 Then I took the sinful thing you had made, the calf, and burned it with fire and crushed it, grinding it thoroughly, until it was reduced to dust; and I threw the dust of it into the stream that runs down the mountain.

22 At Taberah also, and at Massah, and at Kibroth-hattaavah, you provoked Yahweh to wrath.

23 And when Yahweh sent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying, “Go up and occupy the land that I have given you,” you rebelled against the command of Yahweh your God, neither trusting him nor obeying him.

24 You have been rebellious against Yahweh as long as he has known you.

25 Throughout the forty days and forty nights that I lay prostrate before Yahweh when Yahweh intended to destroy you,

26 I prayed to Yahweh and said, “Lord GOD, do not destroy the people who are your very own possession, whom you redeemed in your greatness, whom you brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand.

27 Remember your servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; pay no attention to the stubbornness of this people, their wickedness and their sin,

28 otherwise the land from which you have brought us might say, ‘Because Yahweh was not able to bring them into the land that he promised them, and because he hated them, he has brought them out to let them die in the wilderness.’

29 For they are the people of your very own possession, whom you brought out by your great power and by your outstretched arm.”

Again, our answer to this, which was given later in our essay: We are well aware of the sins listed in Deut. 9. This has nothing to do with whether the Israelites would continue to be able to possess the land; that will depend on their fulfillment of their obligations as tenants, as stated in the Deuteronomic contract. The stress here is that the ability to enter the land is the result of an act of unmerited grace with respect to those present. They are riding in, as it were, on Abraham's coattails; but this has nothing to do with whether they will be able to stay in the land as tenants.

Even after all of this, Yahweh told the Israelites that he was going to give them the land promised to the patriarchs despite their own unrighteousness, so if the disobedience, rebellion, and unrighteousness of the Israelites weren’t sufficient cause for Yahweh to withhold renewing the land promise at this time, why did their unrighteousness later become a reason why Yahweh withheld some of the land he promised?

Because this has nothing to do with whether the Israelites would continue to be able to possess the land; that will depend on their fulfillment of their obligations as tenants, as stated in the Deuteronomic contract. The stress here is that the ability to enter the land is the result of an act of unmerited grace with respect to those present. They are riding in, as it were, on Abraham's coattails; but this has nothing to do with whether they will be able to stay in the land as tenants.

After all, Yahweh is supposed to be unchanging, the same yesterday, today, and forever, isn’t he, so why was extreme unrighteousness not a reason to withhold the land from the Israelites as they were about to enter Canaan but later it was?

Yahweh's immutability has nothing to do with whether the Israelites would, because of their own freewill decisions, continue to be able to possess the land; that would depend on their fulfillment of their obligations as tenants, as stated in the Deuteronomic contract. The stress here is that the ability to enter the land is the result of an act of unmerited grace with respect to those present. They are riding in, as it were, on Abraham's coattails; but this has nothing to do with whether they will be able to stay in the land as tenants. Our opponent still has not grasped the there is a promise to enter the land, to have a "chance" to possess it as it were, and then there are boucoups of conditions, laid out within Deuteronomy, and ancient contract, from which it is illicit to take verses or passages in isolation.

This is a problem that [Holding] must explain, and, needless to say, he hasn’t done it yet.

Despite our opponent's comprehension difficulties, we have explained this issue and thoroughly refuted our opponent's contention, and he has not provided any answer.

In terms of our topic at hand, the relevance of this data is that even the original promise of Genesis, by the thinking of the ancients, was not a matter of "here it is with no strings attached." Abraham would have expected the grant of land to be accompanied by conditions; one did not merely occupy land without some sort of nod to the landlord, and with no expectation that one could do as one pleased.

**Response:

So [Holding] is even able to read Abraham’s mind?

This snide comment is merely a distraction from the point that the overwhelming evidence of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, places the burden of proof upon any respondent claiming that such was not, or would not have been, known to Abraham when Yahweh appraoched him with the land promise. We anticipated that our opponent would simply, desperately, and without any contrary evidence, deny the applicability of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity to the particular case of Abraham, and our anticipation has been 100% accurate. Our opponent is clearly lost and unable to respond effectively, for he has no evidence with which to respond and can only make snide comments begging peculiar exceptions to known, widespread, established data-paradigms of the Ancient Near East.

Anyway, as I have shown above, the renewal of the land promise was made without conditions, despite the rebellion, disobedience, and unrighteousness of the Israelites from the day they left Egypt, so if Yahweh wanted to look for conditions, he had plenty that he could have found at this time if his intention was to make the promise conditional.

Our opponent has shown no such thing from Deut. 9, which has nothing to do with whether the Israelites would continue to be able to possess the land; that would depend on their fulfillment of their obligations as tenants, as stated in the Deuteronomic contract. The stress here is that the ability to enter the land is the result of an act of unmerited grace with respect to those present. They are riding in, as it were, on Abraham's coattails; but this has nothing to do with whether they will be able to stay in the land as tenants. Our opponent still has not grasped the there is a promise to enter the land, to have a "chance" to possess it as it were, and then there are boucoups of conditions, laid out within Deuteronomy, and ancient contract, from which it is illicit to take verses or passages in isolation.

Deuteronomy 9, however, is very clear in saying that Yahweh was going to drive out the nations and give the land to the Israelites despite their unrighteousness and that he was going to do this because of the promise he had made with an oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

As we have shown, and to which our opponent has yet to respond, Deut. 9 which has nothing to do with whether the Israelites would continue to be able to possess the land; that would depend on their fulfillment of their obligations as tenants, as stated in the Deuteronomic contract. The stress here is that the ability to enter the land is the result of an act of unmerited grace with respect to those present. They are riding in, as it were, on Abraham's coattails; but this has nothing to do with whether they will be able to stay in the land as tenants. Our opponent still has not grasped the there is a promise to enter the land, to have a "chance" to possess it as it were, and then there are boucoups of conditions, laid out within Deuteronomy, and ancient contract, from which it is illicit to take verses or passages in isolation.

[Holding] at this point has failed to explain away the inconsistency, and as we continue on, we will see that he finished his rebuttal without ever finding a solution to this problem.

This is merely commentary intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

We would consider now in this context numerous cites which speak of the land in terms of a yarash:

**Response:

Well, we are off to the races again, to see [Holding], whose skills in Hebrew go little beyond being able to cut and paste from an electronic version of Strong’s concordance, show us subtleties in the Hebrew text that all of the scholars who worked on the various English versions overlooked.

As above, this is superfluous, snide commentary; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics. Even so I have again never claimed more expertise in Hebrew than using a concordance, and consulting the works of those who know Hebrew; and I do not make this cite in any effort to reveal a subtlety of the sort described.

Gen. 15:7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give (nathan) thee this land to inherit it.

Gen. 17:7-11 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give (nathan) unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Two words here deserve special attention. The word "everlasting" is the Hebrew 'olam, a word that is often taken to mean "forever" but actually means "in perpetuity". It is used to indicate a state intended to be permanent within the context offered, as in 1 Samuel 1:22:

**Response:

Hmm, [Holding] likes to quote Strong, so I’ll go to my electronic version of it and quote what it says about ‘olam.

Our opponent does this, but should be advised that my source for this data about 'olam is not Strong's, but James Barr's work Biblical Words for Time. Barr is a Semitic scholar who has also written a premier work highly critical of the sort of fundamentalist thinking our opponent once adhered to (and still does), and if our opponent wishes to refute Barr's arguments he will need to pick up Biblical Words for Time and do so.

5769. 'owlam, o-lawm'; or 'olam, o-lawm'; from H5956; prop. concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; gen. time out of mind (past or fut.), i.e. (practically) eternity; freq. adv. (espec. with prep. pref.) always:--always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Comp. H5331, H5703.

We would note that Strong's is superseded by Barr's more detailed work on this subject, though in the end we still agree that "everlasting" is an appropriate meaning.

[Holding] wants to argue that the word meant “perpetual” in the text he quoted, but has he checked the meaning of this word in a dictionary?

I did not say "perpetual," I said "in perpetuity." I also provided an example of 'olam used in a way that indicated that 'olam is used to indicate a state intended to be permanent within the context offered. As yet there has been no response to this.

If so, he should have noticed that it means “eternal, everlasting, continual,” and his own source gave “eternity,” “always,” and “eternal” as meanings of ‘olam.

I did notice this, but being rather more familiar with the relevant scholarship in this field I also noted that James Barr's work Biblical Words for Time, written by a highly respected Semitic scholar who has also written a premier work highly critical of the sort of fundamentalist thinking our opponent once adhered to (and still does), has superseded Strong's on these points. If our opponent wishes to refute Barr's arguments he will need to pick up Biblical Words for Time and do so.

I noticed that he didn’t emphasize “everlasting possession” in bold print as he emphasized other expressions.

To emphasize "everlasting possession" is not in the least necessary, for as has been clearly explained, both the meaning of 'olam and the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, are controlling elements in Gen. 15 that define what it means for the land to be an "everlasting possession."

That, of course, is because he apparently wants to argue that the promise meant that Abraham’s descendants would be given the land only temporarily or “in perpetuity” or, jumping ahead to find another of his quibbles, “as long as there are Jews to take part in the covenant.”

This is hardly a quibble, since it is manifest that the covenant is with the Jews, and if somehow Jews cease to exist (just as in my cited example below, a slave dies) the covenant effectively ends. At the same time, our opponent seems to be under the impression that this point was made in order to express the giving of the land temporarily. It was not cited for that purpose; it was cited to show that 'olam by itself does not effect any sort of unconditional "eternality" upon the occupational possession of the land.

What does [Holding] think he is gaining with such a strained argument as this? Is he going to claim that there were no Jews “to take part in the covenant” in the time of Joshua when it was first said that all the land and all that Yahweh had swore to the Israelites through Moses had been given to them but then later said that all the land had not been given and that there was still “much land” to be possessed?

As I do not, and will not, make such an argument, this is merely snide commentary offered for no other purpose than to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics. It is wasted commentary, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

I’ll say more later about [Holding]’s apparent attempt to make the land promise short-lived, but first I want to take a look at how Jews translated their own sacred literature. Here is the JPS version of the text in Genesis 17.

Abram threw himself on his face; and God spoke to him further, “As for Me, this is My covenant with you: You shall be the father of a multitude of nations. And you shall no longer be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I make you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fertile, and make nations of you; and kings shall come forth from you. I will maintain My covenant between Me and you, and your offspring to come, as an everlasting covenant throughout the ages, to be God to you and to your offspring to come. I assign the land you sojourn in to you and your offspring to come, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting holding. I will be your God (vs:3-8).

The introduction to the JPS names the principal Hebrew scholars who worked on this translation. Harry M. Orlinsky, professor of Bible at Hebrew Union College--Jewish Institute of Religion, was the editor-in-chief, and his panel of assistant editors included H. L. Ginsberg, professor of Bible at the Jewish Theological Seminary, and Ephraim A. Speiser, professor of Semitic and Oriental Languages at the University of Pennsylvania.

Since we do not disagree with anything in the JPS translation of this passage, which does not say anything that contradicts what we have said about the meaning of 'olam and the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, this is merely irrelevant fluff. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics. The citation of Speiser is especially ironic, since our opponent thought so little of him in an earlier debate that he mistyped his name as "Spiser".

The names of associates on the translation panel were also given. It’s a pity that [J. P.] [Holding] wasn’t present during the translation work to tell them that ‘olam didn’t mean everlasting but only “in perpetuity” for “as long as there are Jews to take part in the covenant.”

The assumption here is that in using the word "everlasting" the JPS translators were in fundamental disagreement and would not acknowledge what we have written with reference to the meaning of 'olam and the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people. Since our opponent is not in possession of a poll of these translators, he has no grounds for assuming that we would disagree with what we have written, or with what Barr has written, and this is merely distracting fluff and a crude game of quoting versions without doing the necessary depth research.

Anyway, I wonder if [Holding] will argue that there are no longer any Jews to take part in the covenant or perhaps that there were no Jews in the time of Joshua to take part in the covenant.Who knows what a desperate biblical inerrantist will resort to when he is looking for an explanation to a discrepancy?

As I do not, and will not, make such an argument, and as the "wonder" over whether I would is based upon our opponent's gross misapprehension of what I wrote and why, this is merely snide commentary offered for no other purpose than to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics. It is wasted commentary, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

After I read through this section of [Holding]’s “rebuttal,” I wondered what he thought he was proving.

This is a very interesting accounting of how our opponent spent his personal time, but it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such verbiage.

How does anything in this entire section explain why Yahweh, on the eve of the Israelite crossing of the Jordan into Canaan, renewed the promise to the Israelites that I quoted and explicated in Part Three of my reply.

That the promise was renewed is not at issue. At issue in this context is whether indeed the promises were "unconditional" as our opponent insists, contrary to significant and relevant social and Biblical data which he has offered no reply for other than snide charges of "mind reading" and attempts to circumvent the clear meanings of words that he can find no contrary data for.

Throughout that text, Yahweh, presumably speaking through Moses, told the Israelites that he wasn’t going to give them the land because of their righteousness, because in reality they had been an unrighteous, rebellious, stubborn people from the day they left Egypt, but that he was giving them the land because of (1) the wickedness of the nations living there and (2) to fulfill the promise he had made with an oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

As we have already explained the referenced passages (Deut. 9) below, and now above as well, this is nothing but fluff intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game.

How does [Holding] expect to explain this problem by arguing that the promise was only temporary?

We have not argued that the promise was "temporary" in any sense; we have agrued that it is "conditional" and that 'olam does not refute any contention that the promises were conditional.

If the promise never was fulfilled, then it wasn’t even temporary, because a promise would have to be fulfilled at least for a time before it could be correctly called even a temporary fulfillment.

We have shown that the promises were fulfilled, with respect to their clearly conditional nature, and our opponent has still not provided any refuting response. This is merely repetitive fluff; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

The problem for [Holding] is that (1) the Israelites never did, even temporarily, possess all the land the soles of their feet had trod upon from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea, and (2) the books of Joshua and Judges are on-again, off-again about the fulfillment.

We have shown that there is no "problem" for in the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. Like our rentor who ripped the wallpaper upon entry and set it aflame, the Israelites did not even make it to the point of full occupation of the grant before the contractual penalties kicked in, and thus the Biblical record is fully consistent with respect to our primary subject, that is, whether Yahweh fulfilled His promises of land to the Israelites. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

First, the Israelites were given all the land and everything Yahweh had promised them, and then they were not given all of the land. X and not X cannot both be true.

We have shown that the formula is not "X" versus "not X", but "X plus Y" (giving land plus fulfilling conditions) versus "X plus Z" (giving land plus not fulfilling conditions).

Where has [Holding] said anything that explains away these inconsistencies?

Our opponent's pretense is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no explanation. As we noted clearly, and explain in more detail throughout this essay, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. Our opponent does not ever refute this point, and here he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

The longer I go in replying to his tangent, the more I think about his gall in saying that my articles are about 90% “fluff” and “irrelevant distractions.”

We would comment upon the irony of our opponent complaining of our "gall" as he continues to produce even more fluff and irrelevant distractions (such as repeating the same argument a dozen times), which by our reckoning has now approached the level of 95% of his material here.

Re reference to 1 Sam. quote following:

Hmm, more transitional fluff followed by bold-print emphasis, as if readers could not see the term “for ever“ and know what it meant.

The issue is not whether our opponent, or we, should use such transitional statements or emphasis in our writing, but whether we should be compelled to quote such transitional statements or make light of such emphasis from our opponents ("EVERYTHING") when we are writing, even if we provide our own.

But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the LORD, and there abide for ever.

Verse 28 says, "Therefore also I have lent him to the LORD; as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the LORD. And he worshipped the LORD there." Therefore "everlasting" does not connote a "forever" state without any conditions. (However, as we will see later, "forever" is nevertheless the term under which Israel does "possess" the land, so that the meaning is, "as long as there are Jews to take part in the covenant".)

**Response:

As I said earlier, all written languages have homographs, so we wouldn’t expect Hebrew to be any different.

Now our opponent shoots his own argument about 'olam in the foot. If he wants to argue that 'olam had a "homographic" nature then of what purpose was it to highlight the JPS commentary with the intent of proving that 'olam meant "everlasting" in a way that our opponent perceives to be favorable to his case? Thus:

Just as we determine from context whether bear means the carnivorous mammal or the verb that means “to carry” or “sustain,” so the context in 1 Samuel 1:22 shows that Hannah was not using ‘olam in the sense of “eternal” or “everlasting,” because, as she herself noted, her son wasn’t going to live forever.

If this is so, then we would argue that the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity provides all the necessary "context" to show that Genesis 17 was not using 'olam in the sense of "everlasting" (in the way our opponent desires) because, as is plainly obvious, there are conditional statements shot all through the OT concerning Israel's possession of the land. Our opponent cannot have it the way he wants it just when he wants it that way.

For those who may be unfamiliar with inerrantist tactics, I should point out that [Holding] is playing a familiar game.

This is merely snide commentary; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

They will try to explain away the obvious contextual meaning of a clearly stated text by focusing on a homograph that was used with a different meaning somewhere else in the Bible.

If this is so, then we argue that the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, along with the plethora of conditional statements, especially in the contractual genre of Deuteronomy, provide a contextual meaning of the same sort that allows our opponent to "explain away" the "obvious" meaning of 'olam with reference to 1 Samuel.

Everette Hatcher used this ploy in our debates on the dating of Daniel.

This is a very nice bit of data on what Everette Hatcher did, according to our opponent, but as with Bill Jackson's life story, it is worthless fluff, not necessary to quote in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

The 5th chapter of Daniel repeatedly referred to Nebuchadnezzar as the “father” of Belshazzar and once referred to Belshazzar as the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue ("Yahweh's land promises"), for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject (the meaning and use of "father" and "son" in Daniel) never addressed in the original article. If our opponent's arguments are worth the words, why does he see a need to draw out what he thinks are analogous practices by others? Is he not able to refute the arguments as we have presented them without applying for "help" from other situations?

The contextual usages of these words clearly indicated that whoever wrote this chapter thought that Nebuchadnezzar was the father of Belshazzar in the strictest sense of the word, but Hatcher cited biblical texts where “father” and “son” were obviously used in secondary senses to mean “ancestor” and “descendant” respectively and then tried to argue that because these words were used in secondary senses elsewhere, they therefore meant ancestor and descendant in Daniel 5.

He ignored the principle of literary interpretation that says the meanings of words must be determined from the context in which they are used, and he cited no contextual evidence from Daniel 5 to support his case. He just arbitrarily declared that the words were used in their secondary senses in this chapter.

[Holding] is trying to play the same game.

As noted, our opponent apparently endorses the very game he accuses us of playing, only adding his own rule about "context" which can just as easily (and we do not necessarily say disagreeably) applied to Gen. 17. He cannot have one and not the other.

He cited no contextual evidence in Genesis 17 to show that ‘olam was being used to mean only “in perpetuity” for as “long as there were Jews to take part in the covenant,” and then proceeded to cite other passages where the word had some secondary meaning.

We have cited overwhelming contextual evidence -- the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, and the conditional nature of agreements between the people and a deity -- not in the service of proving anything with respect to the existence of Jews, but in the service of showing that 'olam in Gen. 17 by itself did not erase the conditional nature of any covenant offered to Abraham. Our opponent has not refuted this contextual evidence, other than offering snide comments about "mind reading" which does not negate the data, even as it does score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Hence, his argument is that because ‘olam didn’t mean “everlasting” in 1 Samuel 1:22 and other passages, it didn’t mean “everlasting” in Genesis 17:8.

My argument is not that because ‘olam didn’t mean “everlasting” in 1 Samuel 1:22 and other passages, it didn’t mean “everlasting” in Genesis 17:8; it is that the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, and the conditional nature of agreements between the people and a deity, provide a contextual grounding which deflects any idea that 'olam indicates an unconditional possession of the land by Abraham and his descendants.

His argument is so fallacious that it hardly needs additional comment, but sometimes overkill is necessary when dealing with biblical fundamentalists.

This is merely polemical fluff. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

I have already quoted the JPS version of Genesis 17:8 to point out that this translation by Jewish scholars used “everlasting” both times that the word ‘olam was used in the verses I quoted, but this word was used two other times (vs:13, 19) in chapter 17, and the JPS used “everlasting” to translate it in these verses too.

We do not disagree with anything in the JPS translation of this passage, which does not say anything that contradicts what we have said about he meaning of 'olam and the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and provides no support for our opponent unless he can provide a poll of these translators showing that that we would disagree with what we have written.

I have checked other versions and found that the ASV used “everlasting” all four times; the NKJV used “everlasting” all four times; the RSV used “everlasting” all four times; the NASV used “everlasting” all four times; and the NAB used “throughout the ages” in verse 7, “permanent possession” in verse 8, and “everlasting” in verses 13 and 19. I have checked various other translations and found that they used such terms as “permanent,” “age-during,” “everlasting,” and “forever,” but along comes [Holding] to tell all of the scholars who worked on these translations, “Hey, ‘olam didn’t mean ‘everlasting’ or ‘forever’; it just meant for as long as there were Jews to take part in the covenant, and I know this, because I have Strong’s concordance.”

We do not disagree with anything in the ASV, NKJV, RSV, NASV and NAB translations of this passage, which do not say anything that contradicts what we (and James Barr, a Semitic scholar) have said about he meaning of 'olam and the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and these provide no support for our opponent unless he can provide a poll of these translators showing that that we would disagree with what we have written.

**On the final sentence:

Is [Holding] implying that in the time of Joshua and the Judges, there were no Jews “to take part in the covenant,” and so that was why Yahweh didn’t give them all of the land?

I am not implying that in the time of Joshua and the Judges, there were no Jews “to take part in the covenant,” and so that was why Yahweh didn’t give them all of the land. I am indicating that 'olam does not in an of itself exclude conditions which would would affect the "everlasting" possession of the land.

If so, let him explain why just before the Hebrews crossed the Jordan into Canaan, Yahweh told them he would drive out seven nations greater and mightier than they and give them the land, not because of their own righteousness, because they were an unrighteous rebellious people and had been ever since they left Egypt, but (1) because of the wickedness of the nations then living in the land, and (2) because of the promise he had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Did the omni-one not know at this time that the Israelites would become even more unrighteous--or whatever [Holding] thinks caused Yahweh--to renege on his promise, or did the omni-one not know that there would be no Jews “to take part in the covenant”--if this is what [Holding] is trying to argue?

As this is not what I am trying to argue, this is useless fluff and of no relevance. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, especially as it an absurd misapprehension of my views. Beyond that, the matter of Yahweh knowing later Israelite behavior can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue (the consistency of the Biblical record with respect to the land promises), for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject (the interrelation of human free will and divine foreknowledge) never addressed in the original article.

The word "possession" is not yarash but 'achuzzah, something seized. It is essentially synonymous with yarash and is used in Lev. 25:24:

So if ‘achuzzah is “essentially synonymous” with yarash, why bring such “fluff“ and “irrelevant distraction” into the debate?

The issue is not whether such "fluff" is brought into the debate, but why it is necessary to satisfy our opponent's obsessive nature by quoting EVERYTHING including such "fluff" and "distraction". We would have found it fully satisfactory for our opponent to summarize this section by saying that we offered examples of words that means "possession" and then explain why he did or did not agree or think it had any use for our arguments. We are not the ones who have produced irrational demands that EVERYTHING we say be quoted in a reply.

I suspect it is [Holding]’s way of saying, “Hey, look at me; I know Hebrew.” Those who don’t know that he is just getting his information from Strong’s may be impressed but not those who are a bit more informed in biblical matters.

This is worthless ad hominem with no other purpose than to erect a straw man of imputing to me a claim to have expertise which I have not, and never have, claimed. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land.

Once again, "possession" does not equate with property ownership in the modern sense.

**Response:

Hmm, I wonder why [Holding] quoted only this one verse. Why didn’t he quote more of the context and let his readers see that this passage wasn’t saying that land couldn’t be sold, period?

That the land could not be sold, period, does not in the least contradict or address our point that the land was owned by Yahweh, as clearly stated in Lev. 25:23. This makes our opponent's further cites of Leviticus merely fluff, but we are in line with his demand that we quote EVERYTHING:

Leviticus 25:23 'The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants.

It is odd that our opponent still fails to see that he has quoted something that fundamentally contradicts his position.

24 Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land.

25 If one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest relative is to come and redeem what his countryman has sold.

26 If, however, a man has no one to redeem it for him but he himself prospers and acquires sufficient means to redeem it,

27 he is to determine the value for the years since he sold it and refund the balance to the man to whom he sold it; he can then go back to his own property.

28 But if he does not acquire the means to repay him, what he sold will remain in the possession of the buyer until the Year of Jubilee. It will be returned in the Jubilee, and he can then go back to his property.

Everyone should keep an eye on [Holding], because I have learned that he is not above distorting the meaning of a statement by quoting it out of context.

There is nothing in the remaining context that contradicts our point that the land was ultimately owned by Yahweh, as clearly stated in Lev. 25:23, and that the Israelites were tenants in a "conditional" landlord-tenant relationship in which we do not doubt they would be permitted to perform exchanges of property rights on a human level.

The full context quoted above shows that land was personal property that could be sold but could not be sold permanently.

That land could be temporally sold within the context of human transactions does not contradict our point that the land was ultimately owned by Yahweh, as clearly stated in Lev. 25:23, and that the Israelites were tenants in a "conditional" landlord-tenant relationship which permitted them to conduct such transactions, just as they were permitted to grow crops or build houses.

The original owner retained a right of redemption, and if he lacked the money to redeem it, the property would revert to him in the year of Jubilee, and he could then go back to, or repossess, his property.

That the original owner retained a right of redemption within the context of human transactions does not contradict our point that the land was ultimately owned by Yahweh, as clearly stated in Lev. 25:23, and that the Israelites were tenants in a "conditional" landlord-tenant relationship.

It looks as if it is time to put to rest [Holding]’s claim that possession in biblical times didn’t equate with property ownership, because there are clear indications to the contrary besides the passage just quoted above.

We have stated, and proven, that it does not equate with any modern sense of property ownership, and this is still clearly true, since we moderns regard ultimate ownership of the land as resting with ourselves, not with a deity, whereas Leviticus clearly states that the land was ultimately owned by Yahweh, and remaining evidence we have cited, notably the conditional terms and the Deuteronomic contract, show that the Israelites were tenants in a "conditional" landlord-tenant relationship. We have never argued that Yahweh's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business with the land; we have rather argued that Yahweh holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to Israelite occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense refuted.

There was a superstition at this time that gods had different territorial domains and that Yahweh, to the Hebrews, was god of everything, but that doesn’t mean that the Hebrews didn’t have concepts of personal property.

We have never argued that Yahweh's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business in terms of regarding the land as personal property; we have rather argued that Yahweh holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to Israelite occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense refuted.

The book of Joshua discusses the division of the conquered land among the different tribes, and I assume that [Holding] is familiar enough with this that it will be unnecessary to cite passages that described the territorial divisions.

It is indeed not necessary, and that it is not necessary should indicate to our opponent that there are other things that are not necessary to quote in a reply.

Territory was divided first according to tribes with the tribal boundaries defined (Josh. 13-18), but within those tribal boundaries land was alloted to families and individuals, and it became theirs.

This is background data that no one disputes. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Numbers 27:1-4 tells the plight of the daughters of Zelophehad, who had died in the wilderness.

Numbers 27:1 Then the daughters of Zelophehad came forward. Zelophehad was son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh son of Joseph, a member of the Manassite clans. The names of his daughters were: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.

2 They stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the leaders, and all the congregation, at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and they said,

3 “Our father died in the wilderness; he was not among the company of those who gathered themselves together against Yahweh in the company of Korah, but died for his own sin; and he had no sons.

4 Why should the name of our father be taken away from his clan because he had no son? Give to us a possession among our father's brothers.”

Verse 5 says that Moses took the matter to Yahweh, as Hebrew leaders routinely did in those days, and he got the following response.

27:6 And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying:

7 The daughters of Zelophehad are right in what they are saying; you shall indeed let them possess an inheritance among their father's brothers and pass the inheritance of their father on to them.

8 You shall also say to the Israelites, “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance on to his daughter.

9 If he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers.

10 If he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father's brothers.

11 And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to the nearest kinsman of his clan, and he shall possess it. It shall be for the Israelites a statute and ordinance, as Yahweh commanded Moses.”

All of this is apparently quoted in the service of proving that the Israelites had conceptions of personal property with relation to land, but we have never argued that Yahweh's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business in terms of regarding the land as personal property; we have rather argued that Yahweh holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to Israelite occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense refuted.

Numbers 36 claims that when territory was allotted to the tribe of Manasseh, the daughters of Zelophehad were given their part of it. The only restriction was that the land had to remain in the tribe, and so the daughters of Zelophehad were required to marry within their tribe so that the land would not pass through inheritance to someone in another tribe (36:6ff).

This again is apparently referenced in the service of proving that the Israelites had conceptions of personal property with relation to land, but we have never argued that Yahweh's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business in terms of regarding the land as personal property; we have rather argued that Yahweh holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to Israelite occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense refuted.

Verse 8 said that the purpose of this law was to assure that every man will possess the inheritance of his fathers and that no inheritance would pass from one tribe to another. Unless the Israelites had a concept of individual possession of property, such transfers from one tribe to another could not have happened.

That the Israelites had conceptions of personal property with relation to land, neither refutes nor contradicts, nor has anything to do with, our argument that Yahweh holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to Israelite occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense refuted.

This text clearly indicates that within their tribal territories, individuals possessed their own land, which was passed from them to their heirs.

This is merely summary of what has already been said. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

A story in Ruth shows that land individually owned could be sold, and the only restriction was that it had to be sold within the family, as directed in the passage just quoted.

Ruth 4:1 No sooner had Boaz gone up to the gate and sat down there than the next-of-kin, of whom Boaz had spoken, came passing by. So Boaz said, “Come over, friend; sit down here.” And he went over and sat down.

2 Then Boaz took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, “Sit down here”; so they sat down.

3 He then said to the next-of-kin, “Naomi, who has come back from the country of Moab, is selling the parcel of land that belonged to our kinsman Elimelech.

4 So I thought I would tell you of it, and say: Buy it in the presence of those sitting here, and in the presence of the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, redeem it; but if you will not, tell me, so that I may know; for there is no one prior to you to redeem it, and I come after you.” So he said, “I will redeem it.”

5 Then Boaz said, “The day you acquire the field from the hand of Naomi, you are also acquiring Ruth the Moabite, the widow of the dead man, to maintain the dead man's name on his inheritance.”

6 At this, the next-of-kin said, “I cannot redeem it for myself without damaging my own inheritance. Take my right of redemption yourself, for I cannot redeem it.”

7 Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging: to confirm a transaction, the one took off a sandal and gave it to the other; this was the manner of attesting in Israel.

8 So when the next-of-kin said to Boaz, “Acquire it for yourself,” he took off his sandal.

9 Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, “Today you are witnesses that I have acquired from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and Mahlon.

10 I have also acquired Ruth the Moabite, the wife of Mahlon, to be my wife, to maintain the dead man's name on his inheritance, in order that the name of the dead may not be cut off from his kindred and from the gate of his native place; today you are witnesses.”

When Naomi’s husband Elimelech had died, Naomi acquired his “parcel of land” by inheritance, and she was entitled to sell it as long as the nearest of kin was given first dibs. This story shows that [Holding]’s claim that private ownership of property was not known in Israel is contrary to biblical evidence.

Another story that confirms the existence of private ownership of property is in 1 Kings 21. A man named Naboth owned a vineyard that was adjacent to king Ahab’s palace, and Ahab wanted it. He offered to buy it or trade for it, but Naboth refused.

1 Kings 21:2 And Ahab said to Naboth, “Give me your vineyard, so that I may have it for a vegetable garden, because it is near my house; I will give you a better vineyard for it; or, if it seems good to you, I will give you its value in money.”

3 But Naboth said to Ahab, “Yahweh forbid that I should give you my ancestral inheritance.”

4 Ahab went home resentful and sullen because of what Naboth the Jezreelite had said to him; for he had said, “I will not give you my ancestral inheritance.” He lay down on his bed, turned away his face, and would not eat.

Naboth’s refusal to sell his vineyard to Ahab resulted in the conspiracy to murder Naboth instigated by Ahab’s wife Jezebeel, but this story shows that there was a concept of private ownership of property, which could be transferred by sale or barter.

Another interesting aspect of this story is that the word “give” [highlighted] appeared five times, and each time it was translated from the Hebrew word nathan; hence, nathan [give] was used in the Old Testament to convey the sense of transferring ownership.

As we have never argued that Yahweh's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business in terms of regarding the land as personal property, that nathan is used in this sense does not in the least contradict our primary argument that Yahweh holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to Israelite occupation and use of the land, and with respect to the land promises, therefore did not renege upon any promises offered. Our opponent is offering "answers" that do not even address the question. We have noted that the great variety of applications, as well as the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, must be considered together; to merely focus on nathan and what meaning it may or may not have in other verses is not enough. In terms of nathan itself, like our modern word "give" it clearly denotes transfer, with no specification in terms of the method or permanence or nature of the "giving". One may "give" someone a back rub, a hard time, a house, or an apartment; the things "given" are different in terms of tangible possession and the idea of ownership, and so "give" only connotes transfer. So likewise nathan, and our opponent's citations do nothing to contradict our larger points.

There were OT condemnations of removing ancient boundaries or landmarks that the “fathers had set” (Prov. 22:28; 23:10).

This is apparently referenced in the service of proving that the Israelites had conceptions of personal property with relation to land, but we have never argued that Yahweh's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business in terms of regarding the land as personal property, such as moving boundary markers; we have rather argued that Yahweh holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to Israelite occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense refuted.

The last of these references condemned entering “the fields of the fatherless,” an offense that could not have been possible unless the fatherless had fields to enter, and in Deuteronomy 19:14 there was a direct law against tampering with property landmarks.

Deuteronomy 19:14 You must not move your neighbor's boundary marker, set up by former generations, on the property that will be allotted to you in the land that Yahweh your God is giving you to possess.

Again, we have never argued that Yahweh's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business in terms of regarding the land as personal property, such as moving boundary markers; we have rather argued that Yahweh holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to Israelite occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense refuted.

The existence of such a law as this shows that private ownership of property was indeed a concept in ancient Israel, so when Yahweh gave the land to the people to possess, it was divided along tribal boundaries as outlined in Joshua, and then the property within that tribal territory was divided among the individual tribal members.

We have never argued that Yahweh's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business in terms of regarding the land as personal property, such as division of tribal boundaries; we have rather argued that Yahweh holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to Israelite occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense refuted.

The property became theirs, and they could sell it. Unless this is so, the law above and the stories of Boaz’s transaction and Ahab’s attempt to buy Naboth’s vineyard make no sense.

When Joshua died, he was buried “on the border of his inheritance in Timnath-sera” (Josh. 24:30). The transferral of this property to Joshua was recorded earlier in this book.

Joshua 19:49 When they had finished distributing the several territories of the land as inheritances, the Israelites gave an inheritance among them to Joshua son of Nun.

50 By command of Yahweh they gave him the town that he asked for, Timnath-serah in the hill country of Ephraim; he rebuilt the town, and settled in it.

So the text says that Joshua was not only given his own land, on which he rebuilt a town, but that Yahweh had commanded that it be given to him.

This would agree with our point, if anything, that Yahweh was the ultimate owner of the land who determined who got property and when.

All of [Holding]’s attempts to prove that private ownership didn’t exist in ancient Israel has gone down the tube.

Note further that we see the first full expression of the future landlord-tenant relationship in which it is indicated that having the land as a "possession" requires following certain rules. Here, that covenant is symbolized by circumcision, the entry ritual into the covenant relationship.

**Response:

Yes, indeed, the text in Genesis 17 did say that all male children had to be circumcised on the eighth day, or else they would be “cut off” from his people (v:14). I assume that [Holding] recognizes that “cut off” was an expression that meant “to kill,” but if he doesn’t know this and wants to argue it, I’m here ready to go.

Why we would want to, or be interested in, arguing such a point, which is irrelevant in context, is a matter best left to speculation. As it is a distraction and an irrelevancy, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

All I’ll want are links on his site so that his readers will know where to go to see him unable to defend another of his positions.

We have already read these requests several times, and are engaging them, and so this is merely repetitive fluff; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I find it ironic that “cut off” was used to denote the killing of a male infant who hadn’t been circumcised. (Who says that Yahweh didn’t have a sense of humor?)

That our opponent personally finds irony here is interesting, but it is an irrelevancy as we are not here to discuss our opponent's personal proclivities in the humor category. This is the sort of fluff that our opponent insists ("EVERYTHING") must be quoted in order to ensure that his arguments are not emasculated or misrepresented.

If [Holding] wants to defend such a barbaric god as this, well, that would be just like him, wouldn’t it?

I’m sure that [Holding] will find some subtleties in the Hebrew text that will make killing an infant not so barbaric as it seems to us today. Why, the Hebrews probably had some “ancient concept” about killing uncircumcised babies that would make it seem downright logical.

This is merely a distraction, and can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue (consistency of the Biblical record re Yahweh's land promises), for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject (a "barbaric" god, killing babies) never addressed in the original article. Our opponent apparently wishes to goad us into debate on these subjects. If so, he is advised that our point of view will be taken verbatim from these essays on Glenn Miller's Christian ThinkTank, and from essays which we will use in entirety:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

Anyway, I have to ask [Holding] what this has to do with the problems I discussed in my article and outlined in this reply: (1) Yahweh promised the Israelites that, despite their own unrighteousness, he was going to give them all the land in Canaan in order to fulfill his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but it never happened.

The reason our opponent has to "ask" such a thing is because he cannot grasp, or else is pretending not to grasp, that the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. Our opponent does not ever refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

(2) The book of Joshua first said that Yahweh had given them all the land and everything Yahweh had promised through Moses, and then this book and Judges backpedaled and said that all the land had not been given and that there remained “much land” to possess. X and not X cannot both be true.

As we address Joshua and Judges passages below, this is merely pep-rallying intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game, thereby prejudicing readers in advance. It is also either a lack of sense by our opponent that we are following his order of presenation, so that we will address these verses, as he did, later; or else it is a blatant dishonesty in not acknowledging that this is what we do. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

(As a side note, let it not be argued as a distraction by our opponent that this passage may be taken to indicate that circumcision was the sole element of human obedience within the covenant! Circumcision as the entry ritual is the part representing the whole, and would have been understood as such. If our opponent wishes to address the nature of symbols and actions within a Semitic thought-context, he will have to do so in another debate rather than attempt a distraction here from the main issue.)

**Response:

Well, I’m sure [Holding] would be very offended if I attempted a “distraction” on this issue, because he has stuck right to the subject and has said nothing that could even remotely be considered “fluff” or “irrelevant distraction.”

Given the plethora of distractions engaged by our opponent thus far, we find it telling that he now rejects using such a distraction when it comes to the difficult question of Semitic thought for which he is entirely unprepared.

Exod. 19:5-6 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Though no word for possession is used here, the clear implication is that if the people keep the covenant, then Yahweh will execute His privilege and right as owner of all the earth to provide the people with the means to be a nation.

**Response:

Yes, I’m aware of this passage and all of the others that [Holding] quoted below to try to establish that the land promise was conditional, but as I said in my article, the land promise could not have been simultaneously both conditional and unconditional.

If our opponent was aware of these passages as he claims, then we are constrained to ask why he did not deal with them at all in his original article. Beyond that, our opponent has yet to provide any evidence or argument, other than a snide remark about mind-reading, proving that the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, with reference to that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land, should not apply in the background of the promises and also has yet to find the word "unconditional," or anything like it, in any of the promises.

I also developed that point more at length in Part Three, where I thoroughly explicated Deuteronomy 9 to show that although the Israelites had been disobedient, rebellious, and generally unrighteous from the day they left Egypt until they reached the plains of Moab to cross the Jordan River, Yahweh, nevertheless, said to them that he was going to give them the land anyway, because of (1) the wickedness of the nations in Canaan, and (2) the promise he had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So if all the sins that “Moses” had cataloged in Deuteronomy 9 were not sufficient to cause Yahweh to withhold his land promise, then how could anything else they later did have been bad enough to make Yahweh renege?

As we have shown both above and below, Deuteronomy 9 does not in the least contradict the application of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, with reference to that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land.

This is the crux of the matter, and [Holding] has tap danced all around it in his “rebuttal.”

As we do address Deut. 9 later in our essay, this charge of "tap dancing" is mere showboating, and either lack of sense or else dishonesty; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

All of the texts that he quoted below say, “If you obey my laws and keep my covenant, I will give you the land that I promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” but Deuteronomy 9 said that Yahweh was giving the land to the Israelites to possess regardless of their unrighteousness. Let’s see [Holding] reconcile these two. I am going to juxtapose them below to simplify his task.

As we do address Deut. 9 later in our essay, this repetition of previous points is mere showboating; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

1. Yahweh said to the Israelites that if they would obey his voice and keep his covenant, he would give them the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

2. Yahweh said that despite the disobedience, rebellion, and unrighteousness of the Israelites from the day they left Egypt until they reached the Jordan River, he, nevertheless, was going to give them the land that had been promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

So let’s see [Holding] reconcile the two statements.

He need not quote any more passages where conditions were attached to the land promise, because I acknowledged in my article that passages like Exodus 23:2-33 did attach conditions but that “the land promise could not have been both conditional and unconditional at the same time.”

As yet our opponent has not found the word "unconditional," or anything like it, in any of the promises.

The existence of both unconditional and conditional land promises in the OT is simply another of many examples of inconsistency in the biblical text, so what else is new?

Despite the repetitively blared overconfidence, our opponent has yet to provide any evidence or argument, other than a snide remark about mind-reading, proving that the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, with reference to that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land, should not apply in the background of the promises and also has yet to find the word "unconditional," or anything like it, in any of the promises.

[Holding]’s task is to explain to us how Deuteronomy 9 allowed for any conditions to the promise.

If this text allowed for no conditions, based on disobedience and rebellion of the Israelites, then the texts that did stipulate conditions become examples of inconsistency in the biblical text.

Despite the repetitively blared overconfidence, our opponent has yet to provide any evidence or argument, other than a snide remark about mind-reading, proving that the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, with reference to that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land, should not apply in the background of the promises and also has yet to find the words "no conditions," or anything like it, in any of the promises.

Didn’t [Holding] say that the issue in this debate was “the internal consistency of the Biblical record”?

This is exactly what was said, and this is exactly what we have been addressing, our opponent's inability to process applications notwithstanding.

I believe he did, right in his opening paragraph, so it is way past time for him to get down to the real issue in this debate and explain to us how Deuteronomy 9 is consistent with the passages he quoted above and below.

We have shown below why Deut. 9 does not have the application our opponent desires, and to this point he has neither addressed nor refuted our reply on Deut. 9, which makes this nothing but repetitive fluff intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game. We would add the point that since we are following the order of our oppponent's original article, it seems he lacks the sense to realize that we would address Deut. 9 in the same order, and at the same time, that he addressed it.

Oh, by the way, [Holding] said above that “if the people keep the covenant, then Yahweh will execute His privilege and right as owner of all the earth to provide the people with the means to be a nation“ and prior to that, he said that the rite of circumcision was “the entry ritual“ into a covenant relationship with God.

This is a correct quotation, though the order in which we said these is reversed.

Now let’s look at those two statements.

This is nought but instruction to the reader. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

[Holding] is arguing that breaking the covenant relationship with Yahweh would have caused him to withhold the land promised to the patriarchs and that this was made clear in passages like Exodus 19:5-6 that attached an “if” to the promise.

This is a correct, if rather broad, assessment of our position, as it stands.

If the Israelites obeyed Yahweh’s voice and kept Yahweh’s covenant, he would, by implication, give them the land he had promised to the patriarchs, but if circumcision was the “entry rite” into the covenant, the Israelites to whom Yahweh promised the land in Deuteronomy 9 had not kept the covenant at all, because they had not kept the rite of circumcision while they were in the wilderness.

That is correct, and that is why we have the need for the event described in Joshua 5, which our opponent now refers to:

We know this from the following text in Joshua, which recorded an incident that happened after the Israelites had crossed the Jordan into Canaan.

Joshua 5:2 At that time the LORD said to Joshua, "Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelites a second time."

3 So Joshua made flint knives, and circumcised the Israelites at Gibeath-haaraloth.

4 This is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: all the males of the people who came out of Egypt, all the warriors, had died during the journey through the wilderness after they had come out of Egypt.

5 Although all the people who came out had been circumcised, yet all the people born on the journey through the wilderness after they had come out of Egypt had not been circumcised.

6 For the Israelites traveled forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, the warriors who came out of Egypt, perished, not having listened to the voice of Yahweh. To them Yahweh swore that he would not let them see the land that he had sworn to their ancestors to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey.

7 So it was their children, whom he raised up in their place, that Joshua circumcised; for they were uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised on the way.

8 When the circumcising of all the nation was done, they remained in their places in the camp until they were healed.

So, according to [Holding], (1) circumcision was the entry ritual into a covenant relationship with Yahweh, and (2) if the Israelites would hear the voice of Yahweh and keep his covenant, Yahweh would give them the land promised to the patriarchs, but Yahweh promised in Deuteronomy 9 that he was going to give them the land despite their continual disobedience from the day they came out of Egypt, but the Israelites to whom he made this promise hadn’t even kept the covenant entry ritual of circumcision.

What is the point here? We have already noted that we address Deut. 9, and asked why our opponent has not had the clear sense recognize that we would address it in the order he did; we might suggest he does know this, but is trying to score debate points with his gullible skeptical readership by implanting the repeated implication that we never do address Deut. 9. Moreover, why is the lack of circumcision a problem at all? The ritual was done. The Israelites who underwent the ritual obeyed the command to have it done. How could they have it done before they were told to have it done? For this to be a problem, our opponent must show that in the time prior to Josh. 5, the people were told to undergo ritual circumcision and disobeyed the command to do so. As this is not shown, and as the text records no such command and refusal by the addressed generation of Israelites, this is a non-answer in context.

What kind of wiggling and squirming will [Holding] resort to in trying to get himself out of this mess?

Deut. 1:8 Behold, I have set (nathan) the land before you: go in and possess (yarash) the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give (nathan) unto them and to their seed after them.

**Response:

And this text does what to explain the inconsistencies that I have explained and explained and explained above?

This text is not offered to explain anything, but to provide an example of the dual usage of nathan and yarash, as clearly stated in the lead-in for the section.

I trust readers noticed that the passage [Holding] just quoted did not stipulate any conditions. It simply said that the Israelites were to go in and possess the land that Yahweh had sworn to give to the patriarchs.

As it was not our intent to provide a passage here that stipulated such conditions (per the lead-in for the section, "We would consider now in this context numerous cites which speak of the land in terms of a yarash..."), our opponent is either guilty of loss of reading comprehension (perhaps attributable to his tendency to concentrate on constructing fluff) and/or once again wasting time answering arguments not made, for no other purpose than to impress gullible skeptical readers.

Deut. 1:21 Behold, the LORD thy God hath set the land before thee: go up and possess (yarash) it, as the LORD God of thy fathers hath said unto thee; fear not, neither be discouraged. (cf. Deut. 1:39, 2:31,

**Response:

Ditto.

As it was not our intenet to provide a passage here that stipulated such conditions (per the lead-in for the section, "We would consider now in this context numerous cites which speak of the land in terms of a yarash..."), our opponent is either guilty of loss of reading comprehension (perhaps attributable to his tendency to concentrate on constructing fluff) and/or once again wasting time answering arguments not made, for no other purpose than to impress gullible skeptical readers.

Deut. 3:18-20 And I commanded you at that time, saying, The LORD your God hath given you this land to possess (yarash) it: ye shall pass over armed before your brethren the children of Israel, all that are meet for the war. But your wives, and your little ones, and your cattle, (for I know that ye have much cattle,) shall abide in your cities which I have given you; Until the LORD have given rest unto your brethren, as well as unto you, and until they also possess (yarash) the land which the LORD your God hath given them beyond Jordan: and then shall ye return every man unto his possession (yerushshah), which I have given you.

**Response:

This is not a text that [Holding] wants readers to become familiar with. I have already quoted it to show that Yahweh would give rest to the brethren of those who remained in the cities after that they had possessed the land that Yahweh was giving them, and Joshua 21:43 says that Yahweh had given to Israel all the land that he had sworn to their fathers, and then they “had rest,” according to all that Yahweh had swore to their fathers.

As I have quoted this text, one wonders how our opponent can blatantly and absurdly assert that it is one I do not want readers to become familiar with. In any event we have answered and refuted our opponent's attempts to wrest this passage into something that supports his case, and we deal with Joshua 21:43 below, which, given that we are following our opponent's order, he should have the sense to figure out.

Then later, the books of Joshua and Judges backpedaled and said that all the land had not been given to Israel and that there remained “much land” to possess.

As we address these Joshua and Judges passages below, this is merely pep-rallying intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game, thereby prejudicing readers in advance. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

How does [Holding] explain this inconsistency? He has yet to address it.

As we are following the order of our opponent's material, and at this stage he did not yet address the Joshua and Judges passages, this is either a case of complete lack of sense or else a dishonest attempt to score cheap debate points by pretending that the passages were not addressed.

All he has done is lead us into a long tangent of biblical quotations that do nothing at all to explain the inconsistencies identified in my article and further explicated in this reply.

This is merely fluff repeating exactly the same charge. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

I hope that readers noticed above that the last text [Holding] quoted spoke of every man returning to his possession that Yahweh had given him. It sounds very much like personal ownership of property.

Deut. 4:1-6 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess (yarash) the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth (nathan) you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you. But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day. Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

Here a direct link is made between obeying the laws and keeping possession of the land Yahweh has given.

**Response:

This proves nothing more than my replies to the texts where I pointed out that my article acknowledged that some biblical passages did state conditions.

That our opponent "acknowledged" such passages is insufficient. He needed to address them, not merely acknowledge that they existed.

If [Holding] had been more attentive to my article, perhaps he could have saved himself and us a lot of time by not stringing together all of these passages that stipulated nothing more than what I had acknowledged in my article.

We attended to the article in fine detail, and realized that our opponent failed to deal with, beyond mere "acknowledgement" of no sufficiency, any of these passages.

My argument is that Deuteronomy 9 clearly stated that despite the disobedience and unrighteousness of the Israelites, Yahweh was going to give them the land anyway in order to fulfill his promise to the patriarchs.

As we show below, and as our opponent has yet to address, and as he has manipulatively suggested, regardless of the obvious fact that we are addressing his material in the same order, Deut. 9, though it does say that despite the disobedience and unrighteousness of the Israelites, Yahweh was going to give them the land anyway in order to fulfill his promise to the patriarchs, does not in any way indicate that the Israelites would thereafter and in spite of disobedience and unrighteousness be able to remain in the land, or more pertinently, that the process of claiming the entirety of the land could not be stopped in midstream in spite of disobedience and unrighteousness. Deut. 9 does not indicate either of these things, and our opponent has not shown that it does.

If, as he presumably said in Deuteronomy 9, Yahweh had to give the land to the unrighteous Israelites in order to keep his promise to the patriarchs, he could not have later withheld that promise because of Israelite disobedience. That is the problem, and [Holding] hasn’t even tried to touch it.

As we are following the order of our opponent's material, and at this stage he did not yet address the Deut. 9 passage in his original article, we of course have yet, chronologically, to "touch" Deut. 9, and this is either a case of complete lack of sense or else an attempt to score cheap debate points by pretending that the passage was not addressed.

This is a simply matter of text A saying X, whereas texts B, C, and D say not X. I could write an article ten times as long as these replies to [Holding] in which I analyzed this kind of textual inconsistency in the Bible.

This is nothing but fluff containing no argumentation at all. We are well aware that our opponent could produce enough fluff to write an article ten or even fifty times longer. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

[Holding] is trying to argue that the texts he is quoting in this string said that Yahweh would give the land to the Israelites if they heard his voice and kept his covenant.

I have argued this, for this is what the texts say.

At the same time, [Holding] has argued that circumcision was the “entry ritual” into Yahweh’s covenant, so if [Holding] is right in both cases, why did Yahweh tell the unrighteous rebellious Israelites in Deuteronomy 9 that he was going to give them the land, even though they had been rebellious from the day they left Egypt and had not kept the “entry ritual” of circumcision while they were in the wilderness?

We have already answered the point of circumcision above, and Deut. 9 below.

These are problems in [Holding]’s position that he must explain.

These are "problems" we have explained, our opponent's lack of sense that we are following his own order notwithstanding.

Even more concise, and describing the "everlasting" nature of the covenant, is Deut. 4:25-31:

When thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger: I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed. And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you. And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

**Response:

Needless to say, there was a bit of after-the-fact predicting here, but even if [Holding] could prove--and he can’t--that this statement was made by Moses just before crossing into Canaan, he would have shown nothing except what I said above.

The added snide comment about "after the fact" can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue (consistency of the Biblical record), for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject (charges of false representation of prophecy) never addressed in the original article.

Sometimes text A in the Bible says X, and then texts B, C, and D say not X. Deuteronomy 9 says X (the promise is unconditional, and the land must be given to the Israelites despite their unrighteousness), and the passages that [Holding] has strung together in this tangent are saying not X (the land promise was conditional on hearing the voice of Yahweh and keeping his covenant).

As I said in my article, both cannot be right, because the land promise could not have been both conditional and unconditional. To argue otherwise would be to argue against the logical law of contradiction and say that it is possible for X and not X to be both true.

We have already addressed Deut. 9, showing that it does not evidence anything about the promises being "unconditional", and our opponent has yet to reach our discussion of it, so this is merely a prejudicial attempt to sway reader sentiments by implying that Deut. 9 is never addressed by us. It is also needless, repetitive fluff; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

This is the problem. [Holding] needs to address it, but he would apparently rather waste our time on tangents like this string of scriptures.

As we do address Deut. 9, in our opponent's order of address which we are clearly following, this is either a lack of common sense by our opponent or else a blatantly dishonest attempt to imply that we have not, and never will, address Deut. 9.

Didn’t he say something about my “fluff” and “irrelevant distractions”? I believe he did.

The issue is not including such trasitional fluff or distractions (the latter of which we deny) in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own transitional fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Deut. 6:17-18 Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee. And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the LORD: that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess (yarash) the good land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers,

**Response:

Ditto.

Ditto to what? There are at least ten possible "ditto" sources. Whichever ditto is it, we ditto our responses above as needed.

Deut. 7:1-4 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

**Response:

Ditto here too, with one additional observation. Yahweh did not keep his promise here, because he did not cast out these nations and “deliver them“ to the Israelites.

Quotes from several places in Joshua and Judges follow. As we do address these cites from Joshua and Judges, in our opponent's original order of address which we are clearly following, this is either a lack of common sense by our opponent or else a blatantly dishonest attempt tp imply that we have not, and never will, address these cites from Joshua and Judges.

Joshua 16:8 From Tappuah the boundary goes westward to the Wadi Kanah, and ends at the sea. Such is the inheritance of the tribe of the Ephraimites by their families,

9 together with the towns that were set apart for the Ephraimites within the inheritance of the Manassites, all those towns with their villages.

10 They did not, however, drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer: so the Canaanites have lived within Ephraim to this day but have been made to do forced labor.

Notice that the Canaanites were in the list of nations that Yahweh said he would drive out in the passage that [Holding] just quoted. Notice also that verse 10 above said that the “Canaanites have lived with Ephraim to this day.” The expression in bold print indicates that the Canaanites had lived in Ephraim for an extended period of time, because “to this day” would make no sense if the person writing this had lived within just a few years of the conquest.

Joshua 17:11 Within Issachar and Asher, Manasseh had Beth-shean and its villages, Ibleam and its villages, the inhabitants of Dor and its villages, the inhabitants of En-dor and its villages, the inhabitants of Taanach and its villages, and the inhabitants of Megiddo and its villages (the third is Naphath).

12 Yet the Manassites could not take possession of those towns; but the Canaanites continued to live in that land.

13 But when the Israelites grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not utterly drive them out.

So here is another text that said that the Israelites could not drive out the Canaanites or take possession of some of their towns, even though the text [Holding] quoted has Yahweh saying that he would drive out and “utterly destroy” the Canaanites, along with all of the six other nations. The consistency of the Biblical record is the issue in this debate--as [Holding] noted at the very beginning of his “reply”--so when is he going to address such inconsistencies as this related to the land promise?

As we do address these cites from Joshua, in our opponent's original order of address which we are clearly following, this is either a lack of common sense by our opponent or else a blatantly dishonest attempt tp imply that we have not, and never will, address these cites from Joshua. This is a blatant attempt to manipulatively pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game. Such dishonest tactics do not deserve quotation in a a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Judges 1:19 Yahweh was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron.

20 Hebron was given to Caleb, as Moses had said; and he drove out from it the three sons of Anak.

21 But the Benjaminites did not drive out the Jebusites who lived in Jerusalem; so the Jebusites have lived in Jerusalem among the Benjaminites to this day.

The context of the verses preceding #19 shows that Judah was fighting against the Canaanites at this time. With Yahweh fighting with Judah, they took possession of the hill country, but they could not drive out the inhabitants [Canaanites] of the plain, because they had chariots of iron. (Does [Holding] ever get embarrassed trying to defend this kind of nonsense?) The Benjaminites could not drive out the Jebusites from Jerusalem, and so the Jebusites had lived in Jerusalem to this day, but the Jebusites were one of the nations that Yahweh said (in the passage [Holding] quoted above) he would drive out and “utterly destroy.”

As we do address these cites from Judges, in our opponent's original order of address which we are clearly following, this is either a lack of common sense by our opponent or else a blatantly dishonest attempt tp imply that we have not, and never will, address these cites from Judges. It is our opponent who should be embarrassed at being caught making us of this transparent tactic of intending to pre-empt the argument, bias the reader, and declare victory ahead of the game.

Judges 1:27 Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and its villages, or Taanach and its villages, or the inhabitants of Dor and its villages, or the inhabitants of Ibleam and its villages, or the inhabitants of Megiddo and its villages; but the Canaanites continued to live in that land.

28 When Israel grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not in fact drive them out.

29 And Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer; but the Canaanites lived among them in Gezer.

30 Zebulun did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, or the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites lived among them, and became subject to forced labor.

31 Asher did not drive out the inhabitants of Acco, or the inhabitants of Sidon, or of Ahlab, or of Achzib, or of Helbah, or of Aphik, or of Rehob;

32 but the Asherites lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; for they did not drive them out.

33 Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh, or the inhabitants of Beth-anath, but lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; nevertheless the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became subject to forced labor for them.

34 The Amorites pressed the Danites back into the hill country; they did not allow them to come down to the plain.

35 The Amorites continued to live in Har-heres, in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim, but the hand of the house of Joseph rested heavily on them, and they became subject to forced labor.

36 The border of the Amorites ran from the ascent of Akrabbim, from Sela and upward.

Notice how many times this passage mentioned that the different tribes could not drive out the Canaanites, whom in [Holding]’s proof text Yahweh said that he would drive out and “utterly destroy.” Then the text shifted to the “Amorites,” which was another of the nations that [Holding]’s passage--along with many others--said that Yahweh would drive out and “utterly destroy,” and all of this was said after Joshua 11:23 and 21:43-45 said that all of the land Yahweh had promised the Israelites had been given to them and that “there failed not aught of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel.”

As we do address these cites from Judges and Joshua, in our opponent's original order of address which we are clearly following, this is either a lack of common sense by our opponent or else a blatantly dishonest attempt tp imply that we have not, and never will, address these cites from Judges and Joshua.

As [Holding] said, the consistency of the Biblical record is the issue, so [Holding] needs to show the consistency in all of these conflicting statements.

As we do address these statements from Judges and Joshua, in our opponent's original order of address which we are clearly following, this is either a lack of common sense by our opponent or else a blatantly dishonest attempt tp imply that we have not, and never will, address these cites from Judges and Joshua.

Furthermore, verse 36 above said that the border of the Amorites “ran from the ascent of Akrabbim, from Sela and upward.” Akrabbim was on the border of southern Canaan, and Sela was located south of the Dead Sea. All of this was within the borders that Yahweh defined in Joshua 1:1-6, i.e., from the wilderness [of Sinai] to Lebanon and from the river Euphrates to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea.

As we do address these statements from Judges, in our opponent's original order of address which we are clearly following, this is either a lack of common sense by our opponent or else a blatantly dishonest attempt tp imply that we have not, and never will, address these cites from Judges.

The promise was that “every place” on which the soles of Israelite feet would tread, Yahweh would give to them as he had spoken through Moses, but the text in Judges 1, quoted above, says that the best the Israelites could do was press the Amorites into forced labor.

The issue in this debate is the consistency of the Biblical record, so [Holding] needs to show us where the consistency is in these matters.

Deut. 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:

Deut. 8:1 All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess (yarash) the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers.

Deut. 10:11-13 And the LORD said unto me, Arise, take thy journey before the people, that they may go in and possess the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give unto them. And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

Deut. 11:8-9 Therefore shall ye keep all the commandments which I command you this day, that ye may be strong, and go in and possess the land, whither ye go to possess (yarash) it; And that ye may prolong your days in the land, which the LORD sware unto your fathers to give (nathan) unto them and to their seed, a land that floweth with milk and honey.

Deut. 11:22-25 For if ye shall diligently keep all these commandments which I command you, to do them, to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, and to cleave unto him; Then will the LORD drive out all these nations from before you, and ye shall possess (yarash) greater nations and mightier than yourselves. Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphrates, even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be. There shall no man be able to stand before you: for the LORD your God shall lay the fear of you and the dread of you upon all the land that ye shall tread upon, as he hath said unto you.

**Response:

Here I need say only what I have said several times above. The promise in Deuteronomy 9 was obviously unconditional.

As we do address Deut. 9, and show it is not at all suuportive of the "unconditional" interpretation, and address it in our opponent's order of address which we are clearly following, this is either a lack of common sense by our opponent or else a blatantly dishonest attempt tp imply that we have not, and never will, address Deut. 9.

Even though the Israelites had been disobedient and rebellious from the day they left Egypt and had not even kept what [Holding] says is the “entry ritual” of Yahweh’s covenant, Yahweh told the Israelites that he was giving the land to them anyway in order to keep his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How could the promise have been both conditional and unconditional? Is it possible for X and not X to be both true?

This is merely repetition of what has been said above and of objections made above. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

That’s the problem facing [Holding].

Time and again, possession of the land is linked with keeping of the covenant rules -- in exact correspondence with the ancient deity-nation, landlord-tenant relationship.

**Response:

And I will point out to [Holding] again that the Israelites, in addition to their continual disobedience and rebellion from the day they left Egypt, had not even kept what he claims was the “entry ritual” of Yahweh’s covenant, yet Yahweh said to them that he was giving them the land anyway in order to keep his promise to the patriarchs.

This is merely needless repetition of an argument we have answered above. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily hypnotized by such inane repetition.

How can X and not X be both true?

This is needless fluff; we begrudge not its use, but it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

If, however, [Holding] wants to talk about what was said time and again about the possession of the land, I can quote some other unconditional promises. The one made to Abraham, in fact, had no conditions attached to it.

Genesis 12:6 Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land.

7 Then Yahweh appeared to Abram, and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." So he built there an altar to Yahweh, who had appeared to him.

8 From there he moved on to the hill country on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; and there he built an altar to the LORD and invoked the name of Yahweh.

Genesis 15:12 As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a deep and terrifying darkness descended upon him.

13 Then Yahweh said to Abram, "Know this for certain, that your offspring shall be aliens in a land that is not theirs, and shall be slaves there, and they shall be oppressed for four hundred years;

14 but I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions.

15 As for yourself, you shall go to your ancestors in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age.

16 And they shall come back here in the fourth generation; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."

17 When the sun had gone down and it was dark, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces.

18 On that day 18 On that day Yahweh made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,

19 the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites,

20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim,

21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites."

Genesis 17:7 I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.

8 And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding; and I will be their God."

In none of these accounts of the promise did Yahweh say to Abraham, “I will give all this land to your offspring if they are good guys, do what I command them, and keep my covenant.”

As we clearly showed, and to which our opponent offered no reply other than a snide comment about "mind reading," the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land, and this is a paradigm that Abraham would have immediately associated with Yahweh's offer of land, without any need for a specific comment, “I will give all this land to your offspring if they are good guys, do what I command them, and keep my covenant.” In the Ancient Near East the gift or grant of land from a deity was immediately and intimately connected with serving the deity, and serving a deity meant following whatever conditions or strictures it laid down for use and occupation of the land. Our opponent does not here refute this point, and his snide "mind reading" comment does not constitute a refutation.

He made an outright promise, with no conditions attached, that he would give the land to Abraham’s descendants.

As we clearly showed, and to which our opponent offered no reply other than a snide comment about "mind reading," the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land, and this is a paradigm that Abraham would have immediately associated with Yahweh's offer of land, without any need for a specific comment, and no implication that no conditions wee attached. In the Ancient Near East the gift or grant of land from a deity was immediately and intimately connected with serving the deity, and serving a deity meant following whatever conditions or strictures it laid down for continued use and occupation of the land. Our opponent does not here refute this point, and his snide "mind reading" comment does not constitute a refutation.

Hence, the account of Yahweh’s renewal of the promise in Deuteronomy 9 said that Yahweh was giving the land to the Israelites despite their unrighteousness because he had to do so in order to keep his promise to the patriarchs.

As we do address Deut. 9, in our opponent's order of address which we are clearly following, this is either a lack of common sense by our opponent or else a blatantly dishonest attempt tp imply that we have not, and never will, address Deut. 9.

At the close of the Deuteronomic treaty, the terms are most explicitly spelled out:

28:15, 25, 63-4 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee...The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth...And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone...

Such are the promises for disobedience. And yet it is also clear in the blessings portion of the treaty that the land remains as something given to Israel to have as a possession when they return to right behavior:

Deut. 30:1-5 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess (yarash) it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.

The covenant is indeed forever, in spite of any interruptions by human error. This, and the paradigm of the landlord-tenant relationship, renders our opponent's primary arguments null and void.

**Response:

I’m sorry, but nothing that [Holding] has quoted renders “our” opponent’s arguments null and void, because the law of contradiction will not allow X and not X to be simultaneously true.

Our opponent may indeed be regarded as "sorry" for his arguments have been rendered completely null and void, and he has not revived or resurrected them by means of his snide comments about "mind reading," his bald dismissals of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, his attempts to claim that conceptions of personal property and associated practices refutes the relationship, or any one of the other dozens of diversionary or pre-emptive arguments he has needlessly repeated.

I have already repeated several times my analysis of Deuteronomy 9, which had Yahweh saying that he would give the land to the Israelites despite their continual unrighteous from the day they left Egypt, because he had made a promise to the patriarchs that he had to fulfill, so I am just restating it briefly at this point.

As we do address Deut. 9, in our opponent's order of address which we are clearly following, this is either a lack of common sense by our opponent or else a blatantly dishonest attempt to sway skeptical readership by implying that we have not, and never will, address Deut. 9.

At the time of Yahweh’s renewal of this promise, the Israelites were on the plains of Moab ready to cross the Jordan into Canaan, yet they had not at that time even kept the rite of circumcision, which [Holding] claims was the “entry ritual” into the covenant. Yahweh’s renewal of the promise at this time, under the circumstances of the Israelites’ continual rebellion and disobedience, is impossible to reconcile with other passages that did affix conditions to the promise.

As we do address Deut. 9, in our opponent's order of address which we are clearly following, this is either a lack of common sense by our opponent or else a blatantly dishonest attempt to sway skeptical readership by implying that we have not, and never will, address Deut. 9.

[Holding] cannot explain this problem while at the same time clinging to his belief that the biblical record is consistent on this subject.

As we do address Deut. 9, in our opponent's order of address which we are clearly following, this is either a lack of common sense by our opponent or else a blatantly dishonest attempt to sway skeptical readership by implying that we have not, and never will, address Deut. 9.

On the other hand, I can easily explain the inconsistency. Almost all of [Holding]’s biblical quotations that affixed conditions to the promise are in the book of Deuteronomy.

This is merely transitional. It it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Only diehard biblical fundamentalists would claim that this book was written by Moses prior to his death, which would have been prior to the Israelite crossing into Canaan.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy) never addressed in the original article. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

A critical reader doesn’t even have to have an eagle’s eye to spot passages in Deuteronomy that betray its late authorship, at a time well after the alleged conquest of Israel.

In other words, when Deuteronomy was written, the author was aware of the history of Israel and Judah up to the time of the postexilic era, so the passages that [Holding] quoted were presenting a retrospective view of the land promise.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy, and our opponent's own explanation for the "inconsistencies" he has failed to prove) never addressed in the original article. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Although the original land promise made to Abraham had no conditions, as can be seen in the quotations above, the author of Deuteronomy knew that the promise had not been fulfilled as originally given.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (our opponent's own explanation for the "inconsistencies" he has failed to prove) never addressed in the original article. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Hence, this author wrote the promise so that it would contain “ifs” and other conditions so that there would be an explanation for why Israel had never possessed all of the land within the boundaries previously defined and why Israel had not been able to drive out all of the other nations in the land of Canaan.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (our opponent's own explanation for the "inconsistencies" he has failed to prove) never addressed in the original article. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

The D writer’s explanation was simple: the Israelites had not obeyed the voice of Yahweh and had not kept the covenant; hence, the promise had not been fulfilled in its entirety.

This rushed appeal to a broad and complex topic (the JEDP theory) can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (our opponent's own explanation for the "inconsistencies" he has failed to prove) never addressed in the original article. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

I will support this position with other examples of rationalization, but first I want to point out some passages in Deuteronomy that should convince all but diehard fundamentalists that Deuteronomy was written from a retrospective view.

This, and the snide commentary about "diehard fundamentalists," and the attempt to address the complex topic of the JEDP thesis is such a breezy fashion, can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (our opponent's own explanation for the "inconsistencies" he has failed to prove) never addressed in the original article. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

The D writer knew, for example, that Israel would be taken into captivity. This is evident from one of the very passages that [Holding] quoted above, but evidently the clues went right over his head.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (alleged false indications of prophecy) never addressed in the original article. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Deuteronomy 28:47 Because you did not serve Yahweh your God joyfully and with gladness of heart for the abundance of everything,

48 therefore you shall serve your enemies whom Yahweh will send against you, in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and lack of everything. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you.

49 Yahweh will bring a nation from far away, from the end of the earth, to swoop down on you like an eagle, a nation whose language you do not understand,

50 a grim-faced nation showing no respect to the old or favor to the young.

51 It shall consume the fruit of your livestock and the fruit of your ground until you are destroyed, leaving you neither grain, wine, and oil, nor the increase of your cattle and the issue of your flock, until it has made you perish.

52 It shall besiege you in all your towns until your high and fortified walls, in which you trusted, come down throughout your land; it shall besiege you in all ssyour towns throughout the land that Yahweh your God has given you.

Some scholars see the prophet Jeremiah as the Deuteronomic author, and some expressions in this passage, emphasized in bold print, do echo his style of writing.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (alleged Jeremiac authorship of Deuteronomy) never addressed in the original article. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Jeremiah 28:14 For thus says Yahweh of hosts, the God of Israel: I have put an iron yoke on the neck of all these nations so that they may serve King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and they shall indeed serve him; I have even given him the wild animals.

Jeremiah 5:15 I am going to bring upon you a nation from far away, O house of Israel, says Yahweh. It is an enduring nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language you do not know, nor can you understand what they say.

Whether Jeremiah was the D author is not a crucial point, because a fair, critical examination of Deuteronomy will show that it was written from a retrospective view regardless of who the author was. The author, for example, knew about not only the captivity but a return from the captivity. [Holding] quoted this passage but evidently missed the clues again.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (alleged Jeremiac authorship of Deuteronomy) never addressed in the original article. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Deuteronomy 30:1 When all these things have happened to you, the blessings and the curses that I have set before you, if you call them to mind among all the nations where Yahweh your God has driven you,

2 and return to Yahweh your God, and you and your children obey him with all your heart and with all your soul, just as I am commanding you today,

3 then Yahweh your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, gathering you again from all the peoples among whom Yahweh your God has scattered you.

4 Even if you are exiled to the ends of the world, from there Yahweh your God will gather you, and from there he will bring you back.

5 Yahweh your God will bring you into the land that your ancestors possessed, and you will possess it; he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors.

The D writer also knew that Israel would have kings, who would be extravagant and excessive in their affluence, and so he retrospectively wrote into the D law restrictions on this kind of ostentation.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (alleged later authorship of Deuteronomy) never addressed in the original article. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Deuteronomy 17:14 When you have come into the land that Yahweh your God is giving you, and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,"

15 you may indeed set over you a king whom Yahweh your God will choose. One of your own community you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not of your own community.

16 Even so, he must not acquire many horses for himself, or return the people to Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since Yahweh has said to you, "You must never return that way again."

17 And he must not acquire many wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; also silver and gold he must not acquire in great quantity for himself.

The D writer apparently didn’t like the flagrant displays of wealth and affluence that were attributed to kings like Solomon, and so he retrospectively wrote into the D law a condemnation of that sort of conduct.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (alleged later authorship of Deuteronomy) never addressed in the original article. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

I could cite other examples of passages in Deuteronomy that show that the author was writing from a retrospective advantage, but these are sufficient to support my point.

I, likewise, could insert pages and pages of commentary from any one of my articles (including one addressing these very points our opponents throws into the ring, or from any article on any subject), make up some validation for inserting it, and then pretend that it is some relevant and viable challenge for our opponent to refute. However, I see no need to do this, because I am not incapabale of addressing the subject at hand and do not need to insert paragraph upon paragraph of irrelevant material and fluff in order to distract the reader from the main issue.

The land promise to Abraham was unconditional, but Israelite history proved that the promise was not fulfilled in its entirety, so “explanations” were retrospectively written into the biblical text.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (our opponent's own explanation for the "inconsistencies" he has failed to prove) never addressed in the original article. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

The “explanation” became that the land promise wasn’t entirely fulfilled, because the Israelites didn’t meet the conditions.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (our opponent's own explanation for the "inconsistencies" he has failed to prove) never addressed in the original article. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

The D writer, however, was careless in chapter 9 and wrote a renewal of the promise in such a way that it became irreconcilable with any claims that conditions had been attached to the promise.

Such revisionism wasn’t unusual. For the sake of brevity, I will cite only one example among many that are available.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (allegeations of revisionism) never addressed in the original article. It is also an ironic that our opponent cedes here to "brevity" after wasting 95% of his reply with fluff, repetition, and irrelevant distractions, as well as demanding that we quote EVERYTHING including his fluff, repetition, and irrelevant distractions. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

When the northern kingdom split away from Judah after Solomon’s reign, Yahweh promised that he would always keep Judah intact for the sake of David.

1 Kings 11:31 He [the prophet Ahijah] then said to Jeroboam: Take for yourself ten pieces; for thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, "See, I am about to tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon, and will give you ten tribes.

32 One tribe will remain his, for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city that I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel.

33 This is because he has forsaken me, worshiped Astarte the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the Ammonites, and has not walked in my ways, doing what is right in my sight and keeping my statutes and my ordinances, as his father David did.

34 Nevertheless I will not take the whole kingdom away from him but will make him ruler all the days of his life, for the sake of my servant David whom I chose and who did keep my commandments and my statutes;

35 but I will take the kingdom away from his son and give it to you--that is, the ten tribes.

36 Yet to his son I will give one tribe, so that my servant David may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I have chosen to put my name.

Thereafter, references were made to kings of Judah “who did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh,” but Yahweh refused to destroy Judah because of “David’s sake,” to whom Yahweh had promised to “give a lamp to his descendants forever.”

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (allegeations of revisionism) never addressed in the original article. I, likewise, could insert pages and pages of commentary from any one of my articles , make up some validation for inserting it ("It's another example of..."), and then pretend that it is some relevant and viable challenge for our opponent to refute. However, I see no need to do this, because I am not incapabale of addressing the subject at hand and do not need to insert paragraph upon paragraph of irrelevant material and fluff in order to distract the reader from the main issue.

2 Kings 8:18 He [Jehoram] walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab had done, for the daughter of Ahab was his wife. He did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh.

19 Yet Yahweh would not destroy Judah, for the sake of his servant David, since he had promised to give a lamp to him and to his descendants forever.

2 Kings 19:32 "Therefore thus says Yahweh concerning the king of Assyria: He shall not come into this city, shoot an arrow there, come before it with a shield, or cast up a siege ramp against it.

33 By the way that he came, by the same he shall return; he shall not come into this city, says Yahweh.

34 For I will defend this city to save it, for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David.”

2 Kings 20:4 Before Isaiah had gone out of the middle court, the word of Yahweh came to him:

5 “Turn back, and say to Hezekiah prince of my people, Thus says Yahweh, the God of your ancestor David: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; indeed, I will heal you; on the third day you shall go up to the house of Yawheh.

6 I will add fifteen years to your life. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; I will defend this city for my own sake and for my servant David's sake.”

The time came, however, when Judah fell to Babylon, so not even the most radical Yahwist could deny the failure of the promise that Yahweh would preserve Judah and Jerusalem forever “for the sake of David.” Revisionists had to go to work to try to explain the failure, and so they put the blame on a scapegoat. The fault was Manasseh’s. He was so wicked that Yahweh had to renege on his promise to David, despite even the unparalleled righteousness of Josiah.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (allegeations of revisionism) never addressed in the original article. I, likewise, could insert pages and pages of commentary from any one of my articles , make up some validation for inserting it ("It's another example of..."), and then pretend that it is some relevant and viable challenge for our opponent to refute. However, I see no need to do this, because I am not incapabale of addressing the subject at hand and do not need to insert paragraph upon paragraph of irrelevant material and fluff in order to distract the reader from the main issue.

2 Kings 23:24 Moreover Josiah put away the mediums, wizards, teraphim, idols, and all the abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, so that he established the words of the law that were written in the book that the priest Hilkiah had found in the house of Yahweh

25 Before him there was no king like him, who turned to Yahweh with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him.

26 Still Yahweh did not turn from the fierceness of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him.

27 Yahweh said, “I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel; and I will reject this city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there.”

When the writer recorded Jerusalem’s fall to Nebuchadnezzar, he repeated this excuse so that everyone would know why the promise of a Davidic dynasty that would last forever had to be scrapped.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (allegeations of revisionism) never addressed in the original article. I, likewise, could insert pages and pages of commentary from any one of my articles , make up some validation for inserting it ("It's another example of..."), and then pretend that it is some relevant and viable challenge for our opponent to refute. However, I see no need to do this, because I am not incapabale of addressing the subject at hand and do not need to insert paragraph upon paragraph of irrelevant material and fluff in order to distract the reader from the main issue.

2 Kings 24:3 Surely this [the Chaldean siege] came upon Judah at the command of Yahweh, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, for all that he had committed,

4 and also for the innocent blood that he had shed; for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and Yahweh was not willing to pardon.

One has to wonder why when the omni-max Yahweh promised that he would preserve the kingdom of Judah forever for David’s sake, he didn’t know that the super-wicked Manasseh would come along to upset all of his plans for an everlasting Davidic dynasty, but who are we to question the omni-one? Maybe [Holding] knows of some “ancient concept” that will explain away this problem.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (allegeations of revisionism, and now again the matters of omniscience and free will) never addressed in the original article. I, likewise, could insert pages and pages of commentary from any one of my articles , make up some validation for inserting it ("It's another example of..."), and then pretend that it is some relevant and viable challenge for our opponent to refute. However, I see no need to do this, because I am not incapabale of addressing the subject at hand and do not need to insert paragraph upon paragraph of irrelevant material and fluff in order to distract the reader from the main issue.

Revisionism will also explain why the books of Joshua first said that the Israelites had received all the land and everything else Yahweh had promised but then later said that they didn’t receive everything, but I’ll get to that later in Part (5).

This is merely transitional. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

To our opponent we now address these questions:

1.Do you wish to deny that when Yahweh said he would give Abraham and his descendants the land in Gen. 12:7, 13:15, etc. it was meant in an entirely different way than it would have been understood by other persons living in the Ancient Near East?

**Response:

I deny that [Holding] has a proper grasp of the ancient concept of land ownership.

Our opponent has failed, with his non-relevant arguments referncing mind-reading and concepts of personal property not at all incompatible with Yahweh's ultimate ownership of the land, to show that we do not have a proper grasp of the ancient concept of land ownership.

He has taken it to an extreme not justified by the ancient concept that gods had territorial domains. Belief in Bacchus, for example, did not preclude the recognition that vineyards could be privately owned.

We have never argued that Yahweh's (or Bacchus', or whomever's) ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business with the land; we have rather argued that Yahweh holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to Israelite occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense refuted.

I showed that [Holding]’s feudal-landlord concept is contrary to some rather clear biblical references to buying and selling land.

We have never argued that Yahweh's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business, such as buying and selling the right to land among humans, with the land; we have rather argued that Yahweh holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to Israelite occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense shown to be contrary to the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity.

This feudal-landlord concept would have made the Israelites serfs, who simply tended the land, but serfs could not buy and sell land, whereas the Israelites could and did buy and sell land.

Our opponent has here, without any justification at all, imposed a concept (serfdom) and one of its attendant features (inability to buy and sell land) upon the text. However, he is nevertheless shooting himself in the foot, since indeed the Israelites were forbidden to sell the land permanently, as a cite our opponent used above showed, and as he admitted it showed. He is also, nevertheless, assuming that Yahweh's feudal landlord-tenant relationship included every single aspect of what he has perceived to be essential elements of a human feudal landlord-tenant relationship, which may or may not even apply in the Ancient Near East.

As in the case of Naboth, private ownership of land entitled him to refuse to sell it even to a king.

This is a non-relevant example, since Ahab was not a deity and Naboth was not his subject as a deity. Moreover, we have never argued that Yahweh's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business, such as buying and selling the right to land among humans, with the land; we have rather argued that Yahweh holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to Israelite occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense shown to be contrary to the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity.

I certainly don’t deny that an ancient text that referred to a god “giving” land to an individual and his descendants would have meant what people living in that time understood the “giving” and receiving of land meant, but I just don’t think that [Holding] has it quite right.

This is a fudge by our opponent, who admits that the texts do speak of a god "giving" land to persons, but merely denies our argument without presenting any alternative as to what the texts do mean when they speak of a god "giving" the land to persons.

This, however, is really beside the point.

Our opponent merely throws a smokescreen and evades presenting any alternative as to what the texts do mean when they speak of a god "giving" the land to persons, which he needs to do in order to give his own explanations credence and consistency.

If [Holding] has paid attention to my replies, he should have noticed by now that I have acknowledged that ancient people superstitiously believed that gods ruled over different territories and domains, but this concept obviously didn‘t preclude the notion of personal property.

We have never argued that any deity's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business in terms of personal property; we have rather argued that the deity holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense shown to be contrary to the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity.

I have shown in my replies that Yahweh told Abraham that he would “give” all the land he could see from north to south, from east to west, to him and his seed forever (Gen. 15:14-17). This is just one of many biblical passages where the promise was made without conditions attached.

We have shown, contrary to our opponent, that the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity means that conditions were attached, and he has offered no response other than a snide comment about "mind reading" and an irrelevant diversion into conceptions of personal property among human tenants that does not preclude or negate ultimate ownership and right of discretion of use and occupation by the deity. When the Israelites were exiled, does our opponent think Yahweh could not kick out anyone who privately owned property, on that basis?

Obviously, whoever wrote this yarn thought that “give” meant something, and many of the other land-promise texts said that the land would be given to Abraham and his seed “to possess,” so “giving” someone land “to possess” had intended meaning.

The "yarn" comment is nothing but a snide remark. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics, and our opponent would spend his time better actually explain what exactly the texts did mean, in concept, when they spoke of a "giving" and "possessing".

I think that [Holding]’s deity-land-possession is close to being correct, but I doubt that even “ancient people” were as extremist in their “concept” as [Holding] has argued, because various texts that I explicated earlier showed that the ancient Hebrews had concepts of private property that could be sold or bartered, whereas [Holding]‘s extremist view would exclude the idea of land being privately owned by individuals.

We have never argued for, and our opponent cannot show that we have ever argued for, any "extremist view" that any deity's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business in terms of personal property; we have rather argued that the deity holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense shown to be contrary to the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity. Moroever, even granting (as we do) such conceptions of personal property, how does this disprove or detract from that Yahweh set conditions upon continuing to live in the land?

I think the ancient view of land ownership would be somewhat like referring to United States territory. The territory referred to “belongs” to the United States, but within that territory are parcels owned by Jones, Brown, Williams, Smith, etc., etc., etc.

The analogy, adjusted for our status as a republic, is in one sense not far off, and in fact to that extent only supports what we have been saying all along. The United States has laws that we must follow to keep our freedoms. If we break the laws, there are penalties, though expulsion from land is seldom used as such a penalty, if at all. The parallel breaks down ultimately because the US does not own the land, and our opponent cannot show any example (other than parklands) where it is said that the land is the USA's land in any possessive sense, or in the same sense, that Yahweh declares that the entire land "is mine" in Leviticus (and in spite of permission thereafter to conduct land transactions of the "personal property" sort), nor can he find a place where it is said that the USA is the Creator of the land of the United States (cf. Gen. 14:19), or of US citizens thinking they need to take dirt from the USA with them to be patriotic in a foreign country and loyal to the US government, or any example of anyone thinking that US troops become powerless when they step on foreign soil. The USA is a nation, with a long history of individualism and Western property rights and a view of God as more remote; it is not a Deity like Yahweh, Chemosh, or the gods of Babylon and Assyria, and the history is one of Eastern collectivism and a view of gods as deeply involved in judgment and the ownership of the land and its occupants. The parklands themselves provide a slightly closer analogy that only proves our point. The parklands have rules that occupants must follow, or they will be expelled from the parklands; though the analogy breaks down because no one in parklands occupies the land: they do sometimes temporarily occupy it (campgrounds) but cannot sell it amongst themselves (though they could conceivably barter "off the record" for the rights to certain plots). Our opponent has only furthered our own case with his analogy; but as a whole, his analogy is contrary to the data of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, does not rest on any positive evidence from Ancient Near Eastern contracts, documents, or inscriptions, and is little more than the fantastic product of a non-specialist desperately trying to maintain an argument.

So all the land in the world belonged to Yahweh, but there were parcels of this land owned by Naboth, Naomi, Joshua, Zelophehad’s daughters, etc., and these people could sell or barter their individual parcels.

We agree, for have never argued for, and our opponent cannot show that we have ever argued for, any "extremist view" that any deity's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business in terms of personal property; we have rather argued that the deity holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense shown to be contrary to the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity. Moroever, even granting (as we do) such conceptions of personal property, how does this disprove or detract from that Yahweh set conditions upon continuing to live in the land?

For the sake of argument, I earlier took [Holding]’s “feudal landlord” concept and showed that even if we accept this as what the land promise meant, it will not explain away the inconsistency.

We showed that no such inconsistenices existed, for the texts show thay Yahweh maintained ultimate ownership of and discretion over the land, to the point of setting rules concerning personal transactions with the land.

To illustrate the problem, let’s substitute terms that denote [Holding]’s “feudal landlord” concept for key words in the land-promise texts. Here first is Genesis 15:18 rewritten to reflect [Holding]’s feudal-landlord concept.

We enter this section with the proviso that our opponent has previously assumed that Yahweh's feudal landlord-tenant relationship included every single aspect of what he has perceived to be essential elements of a human feudal landlord-tenant relationship, and that we have never argued for, and our opponent cannot show that we have ever argued for, any "extremist view" that any deity's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business in terms of personal property; we have rather argued that the deity holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land.

On that day Yahweh made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give tenancy to this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates--the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”

Now when exactly did the Israelites ever exercise even a feudallike tenancy over all of the land within the boundaries named here? Unless they occupied the land and tended it as farmers or shepherds, then the land was never “given” to them to have “tenancy” over.

The descendants of Abraham did indeed exercise tenancy over the land as described; our opponent perhaps wishes to imply a problem in that the Israelites never got to do this with every square inch of the land indicated. This is absurd, as we explained earlier. The Israelites violated these obligations even before they could physically move into the entirety of the land grant. By analogy, a rentor who steps into his apartment and immediately, at the front door, rips wallpaper off the wall and starts a fire, has already technically violated his lease (if it prohibits such acts, which may not be prohibited in certain collegiate rentals) and could readily be evicted by the landlord. It does not matter that he never got to the bedroom, or the bathroom, which the lease gave him implicit leave to occupy. Once the contract is violated, the "jig is up" and he is eligible for expulsion. Moreover, would our opponent suggest that Yahweh or any landlord would allow a loophole in which the Israelites could leave even one square inch of land "unpossessed" and do as they please, violating laws willy-nilly, having orgies, food fests, and idolatry as they pleased, always leaving that one square inch or yard or mile of land untouched and technicially unconqured, and Yahweh (or any landlord) would just say, "No problem, they still have that bitty parcel left; I can't touch 'em until then." Is there any such agreement in real life?

This feudal-landlord concept would have made the Israelites serfs, who simply tended the land, but serfs could not buy and sell land, whereas the Israelites could, and unless the serfs lived on land and tended it, they didn‘t have tenancy over it.

Again, we have never argued for, and our opponent cannot show that we have ever argued for, any "extremist view" that any deity's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business in terms of personal property; we have rather argued that the deity holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense shown to be contrary to the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity. Moroever, even granting (as we do) such conceptions of personal property, how does this disprove or detract from that Yahweh set conditions upon continuing to live in the land?

At any rate, for the sake of argument, I’ll continue to apply this feudal-landlord concept to the rewriting of some other texts that stated the land promise. Here is Genesis 17:8 so rewritten.

Over the whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give a perpetual tenancy to you and your descendants after you.

Even if this is what the writer--I won’t say Yahweh--meant, when did it happen?

This is merely repetition of the same argument, using a different passage, made for no other purpose than to render the reader senseless and nodding with the droning. We have answered this in full above.

Why was the book of Joshua on-again, off-again about this? Unless [Holding] can show that Yahweh gave a “perpetual tenancy” to all the land of Canaan, from the river of Egypt to Lebanon and from the great river [the Euphrates] to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea, he has not resolved the inconsistency in the biblical texts.

Again our opponent implies a problem in that the Israelites never got to do this with every square inch of the land indicated. This is absurd, as we explained earlier. The Israelites violated these obligations even before they could physically move into the entirety of the land grant. By analogy, a rentor who steps into his apartment and immediately, at the front door, rips wallpaper off the wall and starts a fire, has already technically violated his lease (if it prohibits such acts, which may not be prohibited in certain collegiate rentals) and could readily be evicted by the landlord. It does not matter that he never got to the bedroom, or the bathroom, which the lease gave him implicit leave to occupy. Once the contract is violated, the "jig is up" and he is eligible for expulsion. Moreover, would our opponent suggest that Yahweh or any landlord would allow a loophole in which the Israelites could leave even one square inch of land "unpossessed" and do as they please, violating laws willy-nilly, having orgies, food fests, and idolatry as they pleased, always leaving that one square inch or yard or mile of land untouched and technicially unconqured, and Yahweh (or any landlord) would just say, "No problem, they still have that bitty parcel left; I can't touch 'em until then." Is there any such agreement in real life?

So the Israelites didn’t have “deeds” to their individual property, which they registered at tribal courthouses, but what does that prove? They had land that was defined with landmarks that the Deuteronomic code said should not be tampered with.

Just when did the Israelites have this feudallike tenancy over all the land within the boundaries that were laid out in Genesis 15:18-19; Joshua 1:4; Exodus 23:31; and Deuteronomy 1:8? We have come this far, and [Holding] has not shown any evidence that the land promise was fulfilled within those borders.

We have shown conclusive evidence of such fulfillment, with respect to the conditions of the contract, above and below, and our opponent has yet to answer with anything other than a charge of "mind reading," irrelevant arguments about personal property conceptions that do not refute the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, and enough distractions to sink the entire continent.

2. If so, what grounds do you have for arguing this? Do you have any examples of an ancient deity allowing people to live in a land with "no strings attached" that use parallel language to that of the Genesis account?

**Response:

Those grounds were just explained.

Our opponent's arguments were, and still are, refuted.

Well, since deities didn’t exist, I can’t give any such examples. I can, however, give an example of ancient literature that told of a deity who made a no-strings-attached promise that a man and his descendants would be “given” to possess forever a well defined territory.

Our opponent again plays diversionary games, as if our question was even related to the issue of whether or not such deities actually existed.

That deity, of course, was Yahweh, who made the promises to Abraham in texts that I have already quoted above. As I explained in Part Four the “strings” to the promise were added retrospectively.

We have refuted our opponent's arguments that the promises were indeed unconditional, our opponent's extended and unnecessary diversion into why he thinks the texts read as they do notwithstanding.

Anyway, I wonder if [Holding]’s position is going to be that truth and consistency in the Bible must be determined by comparing what is written therein to what was written in the religious texts of other ancient people. If so, he will be leaving himself open to a peck of trouble.

We do indeed maintain that truth and consistency in the Bible can and must be determined, and can be proven, as applicable, by comparing and understanding what was written in the texts of other ancient people, and our opponent's continued adherenence to a fundamentalist hermeneutic which merely dismisses such contexts as irrelevant, while of interest to the social psychologist, does not at all refute the need to make such connections, nor does his implied "peck of trouble" threat, lacking as it is entirely in proven relevance, dissuade us in the least.

3. Do you wish to deny that the promises of Genesis were made within the context of an ancient deity-subject, feudal landlord-tenant relationship? If so, why?

**Response:

I wish to deny that the promises of Genesis were made within the context of the feudal landlord-tenant relationship as [Holding] has presented it.

We have refuted our opponent's arguments on this subject and he has provided no worthwhile answer to them.

I have already explained why twice.

Each of the two times, the explanation has been ineffectual.

Now that I have answered [Holding]’s questions, I’ll ask him some questions. He asked only three, so I’ll limit myself to three.

We are more than happy to answer these questions, which our opponent should have asked from the very beginning, for he would have saved himself a great deal of wasted argument.

1. Do you deny that within territory thought to belong to Yahweh, there were individual, personal ownerships of property, which could be sold or bartered?

No. Again, we have never argued for, and our opponent cannot show that we have ever argued for, any "extremist view" that any deity's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business in terms of personal property; we have rather argued that the deity holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense shown to be contrary to the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity. Moroever, even granting (as we do) such conceptions of personal property, how does this disprove or detract from that Yahweh set conditions upon continuing to live in the land?

2. Can you explain how the land promise could have been conditional on the good behavior and covenant obedience of the Israelites when Yahweh clearly told the Israelites in Deuteronomy 9:3ff that he was going to give them the land of Canaan despite their unrighteousness and rebellion from the day they came out of Egypt and despite the fact that they had not observed the “entry ritual” of circumcision while they were in the wilderness?

Yes. We do address Deut. 9, in our opponent's order of address which we are clearly following. This is either a lack of common sense by our opponent or else a blatantly dishonest attempt to imply that we have not, and never will, address Deut. 9. We also address the circumcision issue above.

3. Could Yahweh have withheld the land from the Israelites and still kept his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

No. Yahweh would only have broken his promise had He never given the Israelites the chance to occupy the land at all.

Now note some of the passages cited earlier by our opponent. The notice in Ex. 23:20-33 briefly spells out obligations upon the tenants and the provision of the landlord; note especially 24-25: Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images. And ye shall serve the LORD your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee. This section of Exodus is itself a covenant made with the initial generation coming out of Egypt.

**Response:

I have acknowledged, and even did so in my original article, that some versions of the land promise contained conditions. However, I have pointed out that the original promises contained no conditions, and I have given a perfectly rational explanation for why some versions, especially those in Deuteronomy, contained conditions. It was a matter of retrospective editing in order to cover the butts of those who had transmitted the original traditions either in oral or written form.

We repeat our replies to these repeated arguments: Our opponent may have acknowledged, but never dealt with, thse conditional cites; his "explanation" puts the cart ahead of the horse and assumes he has actually proven that there is a problem. The remainder, and such comments re "butts" is a snide remark; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Joshua 1:1-6, another such promise, is followed by a reminder of obligation in Joshua 1:7 hearkening back to the entire law. ("Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.") Joshua 3:9-11 emphasizes the presence of the Ark of the Covenant, a symbol of the contractual agreement between Israel and Yahweh which holds the tables of the covenant.

**Response:

One can possess property without necessarily prospering, so this admonition would not prove anything.

If the "prospering" is not in relation to what has just been spoken of -- going in and taking the land -- then what on earth is it referring to? The mutual funds Joshua bought from Baal Brothers?

Anyway, I have acknowledged--even in my original article--that some versions of the land promise attached conditions. However, I do not consider this to be one of them. If [Holding] wants to make it one, let him do so. He still has to explain why Yahweh, wanting his land promise to be conditional upon obeying his voice and keeping his covenant, would have renewed the promise in Deuteronomy 9 to Israelites who were described in terms that made them little better than the scum of the earth and who had not even yet performed the “entry ritual“ into the covenant. He must also explain why, if the promise was conditional, Yahweh said that he had to give the land to this sordid bunch of rebels in order to keep his promise to the patriarchs.

We repeat our replies to these repeated arguments: Our opponent may have acknowledged, but never dealt with, thse conditional cites; we explain Deut. 9 above and below, and the circumcision issue above, and the entire promise issue throughout this essay. The remainder, and such comments re "scum" and "sordid" are gratutious insults; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

The ark symbolized a contractual agreement between Israel and Yahweh, but as I just reminded readers above, according to [Holding], circumcision was the “entry ritual” into the covenant, but the Israelites who crossed the Jordan with the ark had not yet been circumcised. They were circumcised two chapters later in 5:2ff.

We repeat our reply to this repeated argument: we explain the circumcision issue above.

The book of Deuteronomy, where most of the relevant promises are found (4:33-39; 7:1-2, 17-24; 9:3-7; 31:1-8), is in the form of an ancient suzerainty treaty between a king and his vassals. It is, if you will, a lease. It spells out the obligations of the tenants (the various laws and codes of conduct) and the duties of the landlord, as well as outlining the penalties for disobedience.

**Response:

Tenants cannot sell property, but the Israelites had land, set off with landmarks that were not to be removed, and they could sell their property. A better analogy, in my opinion, is that of US national territory, which “belongs” to the United States, but is individually owned by Smith, Brown, Jones, Williams, etc., etc., etc., who can sell their property.

We have already addressed this attempt at an analogy above and shown that it only supports our case.

Anyway, for the sake of argument, I will say again that if I concede this ancient view of land ownership to [Holding], he will still have to explain why the Israelites never exercised “tenancy” over all the land within the borders defined in the passages I have cited above. So in what sense did Yahweh “give” land to the Israelites “to possess”?

We have already addressed this repeated argument above.

It is illicit to take verses or passages from Deuteronomy in isolation;

**Response:

Illicit? Does this mean I may go to prison?

Yes. This is merely fluff and is exactly the sort of precious and charming commentary we do not begrudge the use of, but which our opponent obsessively insists we MUST quote ("EVERYTHING") in order not to misrepresent or emasculate his arguments.

...the text must be considered, as a whole, just like one cannot simply pick out or ignore the parts of a lease or contract one desires.

**Response:

I couldn’t agree more. That’s why I have taken the time to point out when [Holding] quoted a verse out of context. Remember when he quoted this, with emphasis as indicated?

Leviticus 25:23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.

I then put the verse into its context to show that it actually taught that property was personally owned and could be sold.

Again, we have never argued for, and our opponent cannot show that we have ever argued for, any view that any deity's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business in terms of personal property; we have rather argued that the deity holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense shown to be contrary to the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity. Moroever, even granting (as we do) such conceptions of personal property, how does this disprove or detract from that Yahweh set conditions upon continuing to live in the land?

25:23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.

24 And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land.

25 If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold.

26 And if the man have none to redeem it, and himself be able to redeem it;

27 Then let him count the years of the sale thereof, and restore the overplus unto the man to whom he sold it; that he may return unto his possession.

28 But if he be not able to restore it to him, then that which is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the year of jubilee: and in the jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return unto his possession.

In Part Three, I had to put [Holding]’s quotations of Leviticus 20:24 and Ruth 1:16 into their contexts, because he had quoted them in isolation to leave a different impression from what the contexts were saying. So I do agree that passages should not be isolated out of context. [Holding] should take his own advice.

Ruth 1:16 and Lev. 20:24 are of no effect for our opponent here, for we have never argued for, and our opponent cannot show that we have ever argued for, any view that any deity's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business in terms of personal property; we have rather argued that the deity holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense shown to be contrary to the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity. Moroever, even granting (as we do) such conceptions of personal property, how does this disprove or detract from that Yahweh set conditions upon continuing to live in the land? The remainder is snide commentary; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

In that light we now add these questions:

1. Do you wish to deny that Deuteronomy is in the genre of an ancient suzerainty treaty, a contract between a suzerain and his vassals? If so, why?

**Response:

No, I won’t deny that there are some characteristics of a Hittite suzerainty treaty in Deuteronomy, but the parallel isn’t perfect. For example, a suzerain was a feudallike overlord, but I have shown that the Israelites didn’t have this exact relationship in the land of Canaan, because the tribes owned the land after it was subdivided, and individuals within these tribal territories were given land that they owned, which they could sell or barter. Territory owned by a feudal overlord could not be sold by those who lived on it.

Once again our opponent has assumed that Yahweh's feudal landlord-tenant relationship included every single aspect of what he has perceived to be essential elements of a human feudal landlord-tenant relationship (though no comparison has been made to, or data offered from, such a human institution in that time or place, even so), and that we have never argued for, and our opponent cannot show that we have ever argued for, any "extremist view" that any deity's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business in terms of personal property; we have rather argued that the deity holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to occupation and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land.

As for the imitation of Hittite suzerainty treaties in some parts of Deuteronomy, I find it rather ironic that an omni-everything deity had to plagiarize a heathen pattern of organization when he “inspired” the writing of this book.

This is merely a snide remark, and we would ask in reply why "omni-everythingism" requires that Yahweh invent entirely new genres and forms simply to impress our opponent. Would God have to invent entirely new legal forms for our criminal justice system to prove His omniscience? New tax forms, or birth and death certficates? How does a new format particularly prove "omniscience" or anything else of concern in this context? This is typical skeptical fluff, thrown in the air without any purpose, context, or semblance of logic.

2. Deuteronomy is a treaty or contract, then isn't it illicit to pull the "promise" passages out of it as though they could be taken in isolation from the "obligation" passages?

**Response:

Illicit? Well, if one wants to derive the meaning of a written text, whether it be a treaty or a contract, or any other written document, statements should always be interpreted within their contexts. I taught college literature for 30 years and obtained 90+ postgraduate hours in this field and the related field of writing, so I think I understand principles of interpretation as well as, if not better than, [Holding]. I have had to point out places where he was quoting out of context, so he is hardly qualified to lecture me on this subject.

Our opponent merely evades and dodges the question with irrelevant details of hs life story, which has nothing to do with Deuteronomy as a treaty or contract, and does nothing to defend his practice of illicitly pulling the "promise" passages out of it as though they could be taken in isolation from the "obligation" passages.

We now return to the words of our opponent, who offers this as evidence of "no support" for the "dodge" of requisite behavior:

**Response:

It doesn’t become “no support” or a “dodge,” just because [Holding] says so. My analysis of the text below has become a nail in [Holding]’s coffin that he can’t extract.

We have not made anything a "no support" or "dodge" on our own say-so; we have quoted these very words from our opponent's original article. The "nail" comment is fluff intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

In Deuteronomy 9:3-7, another prophetic passage relating to the land promise, specific notice was taken of the fact that the Israelites of the then present generation were themselves undeserving of the land but that it would be given to them for the sake of the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:

And the quote:

**Response:

Now why did [Holding] put such “fluff” as this into his reply? He cannot, and never will be able to, explain why the distractions of his transitional sentences are necessary in this context.

Know therefore this day, that Yahweh thy God is he who goeth over before thee as a devouring fire; he will destroy them, and he will bring them down before thee: so shalt thou drive them out, and make them to perish quickly, as Yahweh hath spoken unto thee. Speak not thou in thy heart, after that Yahweh thy God hath thrust them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness Yahweh hath brought me in to possess this land; whereas for the wickedness of these nations Yahweh doth drive them out from before thee. Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thy heart, dost thou go in to possess their land; but for the wickedness of these nations Yahweh thy God doth drive them out from before thee, AND THAT HE MAY ESTABLISH THE WORD WHICH YAHWEH SWARE UNTO THY FATHERS, TO ABRAHAM, TO ISAAC, AND TO JACOB. Know therefore, that Yahweh thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiff-necked people.

It is said:

**Response:

Why such fluff as this? Is this the guy who has complained about “fluff” and “irrelevant distractions” in my articles?

[Holding]’s rebuttal of my article contained 13,502 words, but my article contained only 3,457. That means that he used 10,045 words, or almost three times as many as my article contained, to reply to me.

The issue is not including such things in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote "EVERYTHING" of his in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, and we have not, and never would, demand that he quote such transitional statements ("EVERYTHING") from our quarter. There would not be a need for so many words if our opponent would abandon his obsessive insistence that we quote EVERYTHING in a reply.

So who is the one whose writing contains “fluff,” “set-up,” and “irrelevant distractions”? He could probably have cut a thousand words from his “reply” if he had cut out all of his unnecessary transitions, which simply repeated transitions that were in my article.

We in turn could have cut at least 3,200 words from our opponent's original article if we had cut out all of his unnecessary transitions, fluff, and repetition.

By the way, I can’t resist commenting on his pretentious style, which constantly uses indirectness and awkward plurals to refer to himself. So I’ll ask why he couldn’t have said, “Till said,” instead of, “It is said”? He must enjoy sounding like a pompous stuffed shirt.

Rather, we enjoy the annoyance the use of such pretentious language gives our opponent, and that he finds a need to repeatedly comment upon it.

So here is another clear statement.

This is a fine example of a descriptor, by our opponent, of the previously quoted passage, but it adds nothing to his analysis in terms of substance. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response:

Well, it added my assessment of the statement, and then the comments immediately below explained why I considered it a clear statement.

This does not answer the point that it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

At any rate, someone who took 10,000 words to reply to 3,000 hardly has room to talk about unnecessary “descriptors.” Anyway, a “descriptor” is “a significant word or symbol used to identity and classify data to facilitate retrieval,” so I appreciate [Holding]’s recognition that this six-word sentence was “significant.”

This still does not answer the point that it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Now here is a question for him. Why didn’t he just include my transitional sentence with the rest of my paragraph quoted immediately below and let it go without comment if he considered it an unnecessary “significant” statement?

We ask in turn why, if it were possible to "let it go without comment" it is therefore necessary to quote it, and EVERYTHING else, at all. Any reason given for saying it can pass without comment is also a reason for not needing to quote it at all. We continue to aver that this obsessive EVERYTHING demand over the years has been no more than a smokescreen our opponent has blown to avoid direct confrontation with us.

God was not giving the land to the Israelites because of their righteousness; in fact, he considered them a stiff-necked, undeserving people. (See also Exodus 33:1-6.)

This summary represents actual argument and deserves to be addressed. Our opponent elucidates further:

**Response:

I urge readers to notice carefully what “our opponent elucidate[d] further.”

As we are now about to address Deut. 9, in our opponent's order of address which we are clearly following, we urge readers to remember that our opponent has repeatedly waved around Deut. 9 as though we have never addressed it.

He was giving the land to them because of the unconditional promise that he had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

And:

**Response:

It was just one word, but why this unnecessary “fluff”? My sentence quoted immediately below followed the one quoted above, so readers would have been able to go from one sentence into the next without [Holding]’s interruption.

Everyone should keep in mind that [Holding] has complained almost incessantly about “fluff,” “set-ups,” and “irrelevant distractions” in my writing. I am taking the time to comment on his distractions just to keep readers reminded of his inconsistencies.

Our opponent still fails to grasp that the issue is not including such things in our reply, but his obsessive insistence that we quote "EVERYTHING" of his in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, and we have not, and never would, demand that he quote such transitional statements ("EVERYTHING") from our quarter.

Unless he did this, he would have reneged on a promise made to the patriarchs with no strings attached, (Gen. 12:7; 13:14-16).

There is substantive argument here, but one hardly sees why it was necessary to belabor the point via repetition. It is only necessary to quote one of these two sentences above in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such repetitive commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response:

Re "substantive comment":

There certainly is, so everyone should try to notice how [Holding] tries to tap dance around it.

We have not danced around, but rather over, through, and beyond our opponent's attempts to use Gen. cites in his favor, and he has offered no reply other than a snide remark about "mind reading" and non-relevant points about conceptions of personal property which do not contradict our paradigm concerning the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity.

Re the remainder:

I simply repeated the crucial points in the quotation in order to drive the points home. As a retired professional educator, I know that repetition is an important method of teaching that will assist learning, so I merely used a recognized teaching method.

It is doubtful that any teaching method insists upon repetition of six to a dozen times the same point within a written presentation in such a short space. Regardless of such methods, this still does not explain why it is necessary to quote such repetitions in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

At any rate, [Holding] has little room to talk about unnecessary comments and repetitions in my writing. Look at how much space he has wasted cutting and pasting complaints about what he considers unnecessary comments in my article.

The issue is not including such things in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote "EVERYTHING" of his in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, and we have not, and never would, demand that he quote "EVERYTHING" from our quarter. There would not be a need for so many words if our opponent would abandon his obsessive insistence that we quote EVERYTHING in a reply.

I don’t need to explain why “a respondent” needs to quote it or make reference to it.

Our opponent does need to explain this, for it is his obsessive insistence that we quote "EVERYTHING" of his in our reply for which he has yet to give any specific justification, only vague and unsupported allegations of quotations out of context in previous encounters.

Both sentences were part of an article that [Holding] is purportedly “replying to,” so both should be a part of any written debate published on the issues addressed in the article.

If [Holding] didn’t think that comment was necessary, he could have withheld it, and then, if I thought the comment deserved a response, it would have been my responsibility to point out his failure to rebut it.

We ask in turn why, if it were possible to "withhold" comment, it is therefore necessary to quote it, and EVERYTHING else, at all. Any reason given for saying it can pass without comment is also a reason for not needing to quote it at all. We continue to aver that this obsessive EVERYTHING demand over the years has been no more than a smokescreen our opponent has blown to avoid direct confrontation with us.

My argument in the sentences he complained about was that Yahweh told the Israelites about to enter Canaan that he was giving the land to them despite their unrighteousness and that unless he did this he would be reneging on an unconditional promise that he had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Follow the bouncing ball and see what kind of “rebuttal” [Holding] gave to this.

This is merely a transitional statement. We begrudge not its use, but it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

With reference to Deut. 9:3-7: this has nothing to do with whether the Israelites would continue to be able to possess the land...

**Response:

Oh, yes, it does, because the promise made to Abraham was that Yahweh would give all the land of Canaan, as far as his eyes could see (Gen. 13:14-17; Gen. 17:18), whose boundaries would be from the “river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates” (Gen. 15:18), and that this land would be given to his “seed” as an “everlasting possession” (Gen. 17:18).

We note that our opponent sees fit to interrupt us in mid-sentence and repeat earlier arguments having nothing to do with Deut. 9. These arguments have been refuted above, and we note that the interruption is clearly a manipulative device intended to dull our reply on Deut. 9, and distract the reader from our answer to this passage which our opponent has repeatedly bandied about as an ultimate telling cite indicating the inconsistency he argues is present in the text.

So how could Yahweh have fulfilled this promise unless he made the possession of the land permanent?

Let [Holding] quibble about “feudal-overlord” concepts all he wants to and let him have his “ancient concept” of “tenancy” of land owned by a god.

We shall, and have, because this "quibble" (a snide description intended to manipulatively degrade the explanation and pretend that it has been rendered of no effect) completely refutes our opponent's contention that any promises made beyond initial opportunity of occupation of the land were ever unconditional.

The Israelites obviously were not given even permanent “tenancy” of all the land promised to the Israelites. Well, for that matter, they weren’t even given permanent “tenancy” of any of the land within those borders.

We have already answered this above. The Israelites violated these obligations even before they could physically move into the entirety of the land grant. By analogy, a rentor who steps into his apartment and immediately, at the front door, rips wallpaper off the wall and starts a fire, has already technically violated his lease (if it prohibits such acts, which may not be prohibited in certain collegiate rentals) and could readily be evicted by the landlord. It does not matter that he never got to the bedroom, or the bathroom, which the lease gave him implicit leave to occupy. Once the contract is violated, the "jig is up" and he is eligible for expulsion.

His task, then, is to explain to us why, if Yahweh understood a need to fulfill a promise made to Abraham, fulfillment of that promise would not have entailed fulfillment of everything in the promise.

We have already done this, and our opponent has provided no refutation of what we have written.

Let’s go on now and watch him try to tap dance around this problem.

...that will depend on their fulfillment of their obligations as tenants, as stated in the Deuteronomic contract.

**Response:

As I just explained, an unconditional promise was made to Abraham and that promise was repeated unconditionally to the Israelites, most forcefully in Deuteronomy 9, so if Yahweh said in Deuteronomy 9 that he had to give the land to the Israelites of that time, even though they were rebellious and unrighteous, in order to fulfill a promise made to the patriarchs, then fulfillment of the promise would have required fulfillment of everything said in the promise. Permanent possession of the land was one of the elements of the promise.

As we do address Deut. 9, in our opponent's order of address which we are clearly following, and especially as this response is in the very next paragraph, this a blatantly dishonest attempt to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game; we also show below that there was no unconditional promise for permanent occupation of the land, though we would and do say that the land remains reserved for the occupation of the Israelites to return to the land once they have served their "sentence" of exile from the land.

1. Yahweh said that he had to give the land of Canaan to an undeserving, unrighteous generation of Israelites in order to fulfill a promise made to Abraham.

2. The promise made to Abraham entailed giving his descendants land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates river to have as an everlasting possession.

We have already addressed the issue of "everlasting" above and our opponent has provided no refutation.

3. Therefore, Yahweh could not have given them just part of the land temporarily and fulfilled his promise to Abraham.

We have shown that indeed such could be done: The Israelites violated these obligations even before they could physically move into the entirety of the land grant. By analogy, a rentor who steps into his apartment and immediately, at the front door, rips wallpaper off the wall and starts a fire, has already technically violated his lease (if it prohibits such acts, which may not be prohibited in certain collegiate rentals) and could readily be evicted by the landlord. It does not matter that he never got to the bedroom, or the bathroom, which the lease gave him implicit leave to occupy. Once the contract is violated, the "jig is up" and he is eligible for expulsion. Would our opponent suggest that Yahweh or any landlord would allow a loophole in which the Israelites could leave even one square inch of land "unpossessed" and do as they please, violating laws willy-nilly, having orgies, food fests, and idolatry as they pleased, always leaving that one square inch or yard or mile of land untouched and technicially unconqured, and Yahweh (or any landlord) would just say, "No problem, they still have that bitty parcel left; I can't touch 'em until then." Is there any such agreement in real life?

I’d like to see [Holding] tap dance his way around this argument.

We have not only danced, but steamrolled and flattened our opponent's arguments.

As for conditions stated in the “Deuteronomic contract,” I have already addressed that point to show that this “contract” contained revisionist views of someone writing long after the fact, who knew the failure of the promise and revised the originally unconditional promise to give it conditions that could be used as an excuse for why the promise as originally made had failed.

We have already noted that our opponent's "revisionist" explanation is a non-response that begs the question of inconsistency in the text, and it is of no relevance to, and provides no refutation of, any argument we have offered.

The stress here is that the ability to enter the land is the result of an act of unmerited grace with respect to those present. They are riding in, as it were, on Abraham's coattails; but this has nothing to do with whether they will be able to stay in the land as tenants.

**Response:

Riding in on Abraham’s coattails would have entailed getting everything that had been promised to Abraham. If part of the land that had been promised could have been withheld, then why couldn’t all of it have been withheld? If only part of the duration of the promise could have been withheld, then why couldn’t all of the duration have been withheld?

We answer these repeated arguments with repeats of our own replies: Nothing in the promise to Abraham suggests unconditional and uninterrupted, permanent occupation of the land, and everything in the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity refutes such an understanding. The land could not be withheld, in space or in terms of duration, until the chance was given for Abraham's descendants to even occupy the land, and enter a contractual agreement, which was the sum and total of the promise to Abraham. We have given detailed replies to these effects, and our opponent has only chased his own arguments in a circle and propped up one false interpretation of a passage with false interpretations of other passages.

Oh, it doesn’t? Then “everlasting possession”--or [Holding]’s “perpetual tenancy”--didn’t really mean everlasting possession or perpetual tenancy?

We have already shown above that "everlasting" does not in any sense by itself does not effect any sort of unconditional "eternality" upon the occupational possession of the land.

The unconditional nature of Yahweh's land promise was restated in Leviticus 26:42-45:

**Response:

Here is that straw man again.

There is no "straw man" for the issue, as yet unresponded to, is not including such transitional fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own transitional fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Here is more transitional fluff from [Holding]. He cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary as his complaint above should be put into a written debate and then followed with a transitional statement that would have been unnecessary had he simply included my transitional [introductory] sentence with the quotation immediately below.

In saying that [Holding] could have cut 1,000 words from his 10,000 word “reply” if he had refrained from such petty, superfluous complaints as this, maybe I underestimated. The saving in unnecessary fluff would probably have exceeded a thousand words.

We in turn could have cut at least 3,200 words from our opponent's original article if we had cut out all of his unnecessary transitions, fluff, and repetition which we are forced to include because of his obsessive insistence that we quote EVERYTHING in our reply.

Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob; and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. The land also shall be left by them, and shall enjoy its sabbaths, while it lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity; because, even because they rejected mine ordinances, and their soul abhorred my statutes. And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them; for I am Yahweh their God; but I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am Yahweh.

Commentary by our opponent:

**Response:

Why put unnecessary fluff like this into a “reply”? My article went directly from the biblical quotation above into my comments below. Readers could have easily followed the flow of my argument without [Holding] interjecting himself to tell intelligent readers that a comment from me was following the biblical quotation.

The issue is not including such transitional fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own transitional fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. We would not, and have not, placed such absurd demands upon our opponent, and note again that if no comment is needed, then neither was quotation needed. Apparenly our opponent will take readers as "intelligent" when it suits his purposes, but feels free to regard them as dense as well when it suits his purposes.

So time and time again, it was specifically said that the Israelites would be given the land of Canaan, REGARDLESS OF THEIR OWN CONDUCT, so that Yahweh could fulfill the promise that he made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

This reading is incorrect.

**Response:

Oh, it is?

Yes, it is, and we note that our opponent again sees fit to interrupt us in mid-sentence, and that the interruption is clearly a manipulative device intended to dull our reply on Deut. 9, and distract the reader from our answer to this passage which our opponent has repeatedly bandied about as an ultimate telling cite indicating the inconsistency he argues is present in the text.

I have already quoted several times the various unconditional promises made to Abraham in the book of Genesis, and in addition to Deuteronomy 9, there are these land-promise statements that contained no conditions.

We have already demonstrated that there are no grounds, either in the text or from the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, for understanding that the promises were unconditional in terms of continued, uninterrupted, occupation of the designated land. We do address Deut. 9, in our opponent's order of address which we are clearly following, and so this is a blatantly dishonest attempt to imply that we have not, and never will, address Deut. 9; or else a comment intended to pre-empt the argument, bias the readers, and declare victory ahead of the game.

Exodus 3:7 And Yahweh [speaking to Moses from a burning bush] said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;

8 And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

9 Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me: and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them.

10 Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt.

Exodus 3:16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, Yahweh God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:

17 And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey.

Exodus 6:6 “Therefore, say to the Israelites: ‘I am Yahweh, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment.

7 I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians.

8 And I will bring you to the land I swore with uplifted hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. I am Yahweh.’”

There were no conditions attached to the promise in these passages or the ones in Genesis, so if there were seven or eight places where the promise was made unconditionally, I think that would qualify to be called “time and time again.”

Not one of these passages from Exodus gives any grounds, either in the text or from the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, for understanding that the promises were unconditional in terms of continued, uninterrupted, occupation of the designated land. These promise of Exodus, by the thinking of the ancients, were not a matter of "here it is with no strings attached," and Moses, no less than Abraham, would have expected the grant of land to be accompanied by conditions; one did not merely occupy land without some sort of nod to the landlord, and with no expectation that one could do as one pleased. They promise "bringing" but do not say a word about "staying," and this correlates precisely with what we have said about the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity. This point, our opponent has not responded to with anything but a snide remark about "mind reading," irrelevant responses about personal property conceptions that have no bearing on our thesis, and distractions.

I am, however, willing to admit to a little careless wording in my statement, because it implies that Yahweh had said time and time again that even though the Israelites were unworthy, he was giving the land to them to keep a promise to Abraham.

We now send to our opponent, to supplement the barns full of crow he has, a gold frame upon which to place this admission of carelessness. We do not require that he quotes this remark ("EVERYTHING") in a response.

All of those elements actually were included only in Deuteronomy 9. Here would be a better wording of my statement:

Time and time again, it was said that the Israelites would be given the land of Canaan with no conditions stated, and in the passage just quoted Yahweh said that he was going to give the land to that generation of Israelites, regardless of their own conduct, and that he had to do this in order to fulfill a promise that he had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

We maintain that the statement of Deut. 9 is essentially that Yahweh said that he was going to give the land to that generation of Israelites, regardless of their own past conduct, and that he had to do this in order to fulfill a promise that he had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that the remainder of Deuteronomy, as well as the warnings in the latter section of Deut. 9 referencing previous indiscretion, show that future conduct should be of concern with respect to continued occupation of the land.

With that acknowledgement, I will stick by my position that the promise to give the land unconditionally to the Israelites had been made time and time again.

Our opponent may "stick" his "position" by whatever he finds most congenial, but we now offer this more detailed exegesis of Deut. 9 in order to validate our position.

9:1-3 Hear, O Israel: Thou art to pass over Jordan this day, to go in to possess nations greater and mightier than thyself, cities great and fenced up to heaven, A people great and tall, the children of the Anakims, whom thou knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say, Who can stand before the children of Anak! Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee.

If no other "land promise" appeared in the Bible, and if Deut. 9:1-3 were all we had, the most we could conclude is that there is no evidence, pro or con, of any conditions attached to the promise. But there is more, much more:

9:4 Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness the LORD hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee.

Yahweh is speaking to these people of a time after they cast the others out, warning them of what not to say after they have cast them out:

9:5 Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

It is not for righteouness that they go to possess the land. GO to. They GO. They are not there yet. They will GO. Not STAY, or CONTINUE, but GO. Our opponent fails to recognize this distinction, so we (but not all readers) need to ses it in capitals, and our opponent does not need to quote our comment that it needs to be seen in capitals.

9:6-7 Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people. Remember, and forget not, how thou provokedst the LORD thy God to wrath in the wilderness: from the day that thou didst depart out of the land of Egypt, until ye came unto this place, ye have been rebellious against the LORD.

From here through verse 26 we are given a catalog if Israel's past sins in the wilderness. Now if there were no conditions attached to keeping occupation of the land, then what on earth is the purpose of cataloging all these sins? One obvious purpose is to show that the Israelites indeed had no righteousness and that they needed this act of grace merely to enter the land. But more than that, and in light of the fact that it is clearly said that the other nations are being driven out because of their wickedness, how on earth can it be denied that they serve as reminders that any future wickedness by the Israelites would result in the same penalty of expulsion??? Note that this is so even if every part of the OT were to vanish other than Deut. 9, and we did not have boucoups of conditional statements, to say nothing of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, offering is support. It does not take an inference the size of a trash pile of Skeptical Review copies to suppose that if the other nations got thrown out for bad behavior, and if it is specifically said that it is not because of righteousness that they GO (not STAY or CONTINUE) into the land, then the Israelites will be just as subject to the conditions of continued occupation, beyond the act of entry grace, as anyone else.

The passage indicates that the punishment for Israelite misbehavior is not loss of what was "given" to them (for they did not own the land, but were tenants) but loss of possession.

**Response:

I won’t bore [Holding] with needless repetition here, so I will just remind him that I earlier gave ample textual evidence to show that he is wrong in saying that Israelites did not “own” land, because the examples that I gave show that he is wrong. Even one of his own proof texts (Lev. 25:24) when examined in context clearly shows that Israelites could sell their land.

We have noted that we have never argued that Yahweh's ultimate ownership precluded the ability of humans to transact business with the land; we have rather argued that Yahweh holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to Israelite occupation (what I mainly mean here by "possession") and use of the land, including the ability to transact business associated with the land. This point our opponent has not in any sense refuted.

As for this “feudal-overlord” theory of his, I have also relegated that to the trash bin where it belongs, so I will just remind [Holding] that I have conceded, for the sake of argument, his “perpetual tenancy” theory and have shown that no stretch of imagination can show biblical evidence that the promise to give the descendants of Abraham “perpetual tenancy” of all of the land within the defined borders of Canaan was fulfilled.

Our opponent has not in any sense refuted our points about the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, nor shown any relevance of Israel not managing to "get" every speck of dirt in the land grant before violating the conditions, as we have repeatedly shown in response to his repetitons.

The covenant will be remembered, and the land was reserved for them once their punishment (for the sort of offenses described earlier in Lev. 26, but not quoted by our opponent) was complete.

**Response:

If I had quoted Leviticus 26, which has 46 verses, I’m sure [Holding] would have complained about unnecessary “fluff” and “irrelevant distractions.”

We would rather have had something else to complain about, as we do now, our opponent's inability to come to grips with the data of Lev. 26.

The chapter shows a promise from Yahweh [presumably the speaker in this chapter] that he would remember the covenant of the Israelite ancestors, whom he brought out of Egypt, and not reject them even when they were “in the land of their enemies” (another retrospective statement, by the way). Leviticus 26:44-45, like Deuteronomy 9, says that despite their disobedience, Yahweh would not break his covenant with the ancestors of the Israelites.

26:44 Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies [for having been disobedient], I will not spurn them, or abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them; for I am Yahweh their God;

45 but I will remember in their favor the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, to be their God: I am Yahweh.

This is correct, and verifies our argument that the covenant will be remembered, and the land was reserved for them once their punishment (for the sort of offenses described earlier in Lev. 26, but not quoted by our opponent) was complete, for the use and possession of Abraham's descendants -- even in their absence due to punishment.

That is what was promised to Abraham: land reserved and given for the use and possession of his descendants -- even in their absence due to punishment.

**Response:

Well, let’s cut to the chase.

Chases would be cut much more effieicntly without our opponent's dozens of distractions, fluff, and repetitions, as well as his obsessive insistence that we quote every one of his distractions, fluff, and repetitions.

The boundaries of the land promised to the Israelites included the coastal plains of the Levant [Palestine], so if Yahweh “reserved” this land “for the use and possession of [Abraham’s] descendants,” why did they never possess it?

Our opponent still chases himself in a circle supporting his fallacious arguments with his other fallacious arguments. We explain again: A rentor who steps into his apartment and immediately, at the front door, rips wallpaper off the wall and starts a fire, has already technically violated his lease (if it prohibits such acts) and could readily be evicted by the landlord. It does not matter that he never got to the bedroom, or the bathroom, which the lease gave him implicit leave to occupy. Once the contract is violated, the "jig is up" and he is eligible for expulsion. Moreover, would our opponent suggest that Yahweh or any landlord would allow a loophole in which the Israelites could leave even one square inch of land "unpossessed" and do as they please, violating laws willy-nilly, having orgies, food fests, and idolatry as they pleased, always leaving that one square inch or yard or mile of land untouched and technicially unconqured, and Yahweh (or any landlord) would just say, "No problem, they still have that bitty parcel left; I can't touch 'em until then." Is there any such agreement in real life?

This territory was occupied by the Philistines, who were a thorn in the side of the Israelites all through their “history.” This is just one example of land within the defined boundaries of the land promise that the Israelites never possessed, so this brings us back to square one. [Holding] must explain why a promise to give the descendants of Abraham all the land from the river Egypt to Lebanon and from the river Euphrates to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea was never fulfilled.

This is merely expansion on the above, which we have refuted, and repetition of the geographic data which has already been offered at least half a dozen times. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Thus we see that Deut. 9, which our opponent has repeatedly beaten into the ground, and used as a bludgeon to bias readers, offers no solace for his position.

Inerrantists who deny this are denying biblical statements worded just as plainly as anything ever said on the subject of creation, the resurrection, baptism, final judgment, and other important Christian doctrines.

This statement is of no substance or relation to the issue at hand, and is merely an example of the depths of distraction that our opponent must resort to in order to "set the tone" for gullible readers. We would just as easily say, "Errantists who deny this are denying a solution as plainly in front of them as others, and thereby risking damnation." Is this an argument? No. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response:

My article was written in the fall of 1990 and published in the first issue of The Skeptical Review in 1991. At that time, TSR was in its infancy, having begun publication just the year before. I began this paper with no subscribers, so I began mailing it to Bible believers I knew, who were primarily members of the Church of Christ, so at that time I was directing arguments to people whom I knew to have this mind persuasion. This church fervently believes in creationism, the resurrection, final judgment, and the necessity of baptism in the “plan of salvation,” so I cited these doctrines only because of what I knew to be central beliefs taught by this church.

These are very nice details of our opponent's personal life, but they have nothing to do with the issue of Yahweh's Land Promises, and do not explain at all why it is necessary to quote the above (or all of these life-details) in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

If [Holding] will acquire a textbook in writing on the college level, he will see that a primary principle of writing is that the writer should keep in mind his reading audience at all times. I did that, so [Holding]’s complaint is just another version of the straw man he has been beating on from the beginning of his “rebuttal” until now.

Since our opponent has just declared above that our readers are "intelligent," this still does not explain t all why it is necessary to quote the above (or all of these life-details) in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. Nor does it explain why such superfluous commentary needs to be quoted back for the sake of non-"intelligent" readers; it merely gratutiously insults such readers by implying that such comments are needed at all, much less needed for quotation in a response.

Anyway, [Holding]’s statement left me wondering if he had no beliefs in creationism, resurrection, and the final judgment. I left out baptism, because I don’t know his church affiliation. I think it is Baptist, but I’m not sure.

It is Southern Baptist, but these life details are of no relevance to Yahweh's Land Promises; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, still has not with all these personal reminisces, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

As proof that the land promise was dependent on the good behavior of the Israelites, inerrantists like to cite Exodus 23:20-33 where a conditional suggestion was attached to the promise: "But if thou shalt indeed hearken unto his voice (the angel that was to go before them, FT) and do all that he speak, then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies and an adversary unto thine adversaries."

This is indeed one verse expressing the conditional nature of the land-possession covenant, but as shown it is far from the only one.

**Response:

And as I showed, at length, the original promises of Yahweh (made to Abraham) had no conditions attached, and the conditional versions of the promise (mainly in Deuteronomy) are in contexts that show very clear signs of retrospective excuse-making. Except for “scholars” with “inspired-word-of-God” beliefs to protect, scholars recognize that the book of Exodus is also a patchwork job that wasn’t written by Moses but by writers and editors who came after him. Retrospective excuse-making would be expected in this kind of work too.

Our opponent has shown nothing with his alternative explanation, he has merely begged the question of why there is what he calls an inconsistency and shoved the explanation into our faces in spite of it having no relevance to the internal consistency of the Biblical record. The remainder is snide commentary for the cheer of skeptical readers; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics. It also can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue (the land promises and internal consistency), for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject (authorship of Bible books) never addressed in the original article.

In emphasizing the if in this verse, they overlook an important point.

This sentence is merely transitional. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response:

Here is [Holding]’s straw man again. He cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary was necessary. He could have quoted my transitional sentence with my quotation immediately below, and readers would have easily recognized for themselves the transition. Doing so would have spared us his distracting “fluff.”

If Yahweh said that he would fulfill the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob regardless of the wickedness of the generation that went in to possess the land, he could not turn around later and say that he would make good his promise only if the people were obedient.

This apparently refers back to our opponent's misguided exegesis of Deut. 9:3-7 above. No further reply is required.

**Response:

So we have been subjected to another tap-dancing routine by [Holding]. Since he has not rebutted my argument that Deuteronomy 9:3-7 would necessarily remove all conditions from Yahweh’s promise to give Abraham’s descendants all land within clearly defined borders, further reply is very much required. Here is my argument again.

We have thoroughly rebutted this argument, which our opponent merely repeats in full in order to attempt to hyponotize and bias the reader:

1. Yahweh said that he had to give the land of Canaan to an undeserving, unrighteous generation of Israelites in order to fulfill a promise made to Abraham.

2. The promise made to Abraham entailed giving his descendants land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates river to have as an everlasting possession.

3. Therefore, Yahweh could not have given them just part of the land temporarily and fulfilled his promise to Abraham.

Will he tap dance around it this time?

We have danced, steamrolled, and flattened this argument repeatedly, as often as our opponent has quoted and requoted it. It is repetitous fluff, not necessary to quote in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

That would put a contradiction into the scriptures that the inerrantists would have to explain, because the land promise could not have been both conditional and unconditional at the same time.

This states our opponent's case yet again, and since we already know well enough that it is his contention that there is a contradiction in the Scriptures on this subject, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to pad his case with superfluous pep-commentary.

**Response:

But if [Holding] is going to debate this issue, he needs to reply to my argument, which I have copied for his benefit directly above. When has he refuted this?

Our opponent's pretense at being ignorant is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no explanation. Our opponent does not refute our point on Deut. 9, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been won.

So [Holding] put his straw man in the form of a flagrant dodge this time. Just to bug him, I am going to copy it again.

It does not bug me at all, but we know by now that it very much bugs our opponent to be told that it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics, and to also be reminded that he, in line with his own demands, must quote EVERYTHING that we write.

1. Yahweh said that he had to give the land of Canaan to an undeserving, unrighteous generation of Israelites in order to fulfill a promise made to Abraham.

This is merely repetitious fluff. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

2. The promise made to Abraham entailed giving his descendants land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates river to have as an everlasting possession.

3. Therefore, Yahweh could not have given them just part of the land temporarily and fulfilled his promise to Abraham.

Now let’s see him refute it. Gullible readers of his own website may be fooled into believing that [Holding] has refuted this argument, but this is going to be posted on sites where readers are a bit more critical. Is he actually naive enough to think that he can fool them too?

We have already refuted every one of our opponent's arguments. The appeals to gullibility and naivete are merely props for a desperate individual who fits the profile outlined here and is too insensate to know that the argument is lost.

And clearly the passages cited earlier were unconditional in promising the land to the Israelites.

This merely restates an earlier argument unnecessarily. Since we know well enough already that it is our opponent's contention (albeit misguided) that earlier passages were unconditional, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to pad his case with superfluous pep-commentary.

**Response:

I’m sure readers who don’t hang onto every word [Holding] puts onto his website will have no difficulty seeing [Holding]’s flagrant evasion. I’ll bug him again by copying below the argument that he has not yet refuted.

1. Yahweh said that he had to give the land of Canaan to an undeserving, unrighteous generation of Israelites in order to fulfill a promise made to Abraham.

2. The promise made to Abraham entailed giving his descendants land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates river to have as an everlasting possession.

3. Therefore, Yahweh could not have given them just part of the land temporarily and fulfilled his promise to Abraham.

Out of consideration to readers, I won’t quote this again in this part of my reply. If [Holding] dodges it again, I’ll just refer everyone to where I have copied the argument.

There is no need to dodge a dead horse, but word is that if you leave it alone, it will sometimes get up and claim to have crossed the finish line ahead of you. If our opponent thinks it safe to merely "refer" to his own arguments without quotation, why is it not possible for us to merely "refer" to his own arguments without quotation, and why are we required to quote EVERYTHING that is said?

So after Yahweh had unconditionally promised to the Israelites that they would be given the land beyond the Jordan, under Joshua's leadership they went in to possess it, and initially the Bible claims that they succeeded.

This is transitional; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response:

Straw man! If it is transitional, then why didn’t [Holding] just quote it along with my statement below? Readers would have had no problem at all following the flow of this section of my article. Such fluff as this is nothing but irrelevant distraction on [Holding]’s part to deceive his flunkies into believing that he is actually answering something.

The claim, in fact, was that Joshua thoroughly and completely subdued the land:

This statement of interpretation does deserve attention. The quote given:

**Response:

I hope everyone notices the kind of “attention” that [Holding] gave it. It is about “90% fluff” and just as much “irrelevant distraction,“ which adds up to 90% evasion.

This is merely fluff intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

So Joshua smote ALL the land, the hill-country, and the South, and the lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but he utterly destroyed all that breathed, AS YAHWEH, THE GOD OF ISRAEL, COMMANDED. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon. And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because Yahweh, the God of Israel, fought for Israel. And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal, (Joshua 10:40-43, ASV, Yahweh for Jehovah).

It is said:

**Response:

Why such transitional fluff as this. [Holding] cannot, and never will be able to, explain why he couldn’t have put the biblical quotation and my subsequent comment all together. Readers would have had no problem following the flow of this section of the article.

“It is said”? Oh, he meant, “Till said,” didn’t he?

No, we mean, "it is said," and that is perfectly comprehensible English.

In places, the Bible is almost boringly repetitious, but this writing characteristic of the "inspired" spokesmen of God often works to the advantage of those who seek to debunk the myth that God verbally inspired the writing of the Bible.

The snide remarks, "boringly repetitious", putting "inspired" in sarcastic quotes, and the insertion of the "myth" commentary, serve no concrete argumentative purpose in this context and are added for no other purpose than to be insulting to believers and provide a cheering point for gullible skeptical readers. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to gain debate points illicitly.

**Response:

Well, I have no doubt that snide remarks and sarcastic quo[tations] are very offensive to [Holding], who has never made a snide or sarcastic remark in his life.

The issue is not including such remarks in a reply (which we do not at all begrudge) but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own remarks ("EVERYTHING") in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I wonder if he recognizes the quotation below:

Yes.

We have also stated, however, that we do not expect Till to offer better arguments in any event. Farrell Till carries no academic credentials beyond a Masters’ degree in English; he knows no Hebrew, is blithely and manifestly ignorant of ANE culture and social settings, and offers little more than his own authority as Farrell Till, Plain Reader of the Text and Shouter Down of the Unwashed, as backing for his arguments. We would certainly not EXPECT someone of such minimal and unrelated qualifications to provide adequate answers to scholars who have made the OT, its language, and its culture their lifeblood. Yes, it is POSSIBLE -- but in the same sense that it is possible that Big Bird may have some unforeseen insight into the principles of nuclear fusion. Let it be stated again: Unless Till can provide answers that are substantiated and informed with appropriate linguistic, sociological, historical, and other relevant subject data, then he is doing no more than blowing smoke and flashing mirrors for the appeal of his circle of sycophants.

As of today, and as we have repeatedly shown even now, this remains a valid assessment of our opponent's capabilities. Our opponent still carries no academic credentials beyond a Masters’ degree in English; knows no Hebrew, is blithely and manifestly ignorant of ANE culture and social settings, and offers little more than his own authority as Farrell Till, Plain Reader of the Text and Shouter Down of the Unwashed, as backing for his arguments. He still does not provide adequate answers to scholars who have made the OT, its language, and its culture their lifeblood, and that he would do so is still possible only in the same sense that it is possible that Big Bird may have some unforeseen insight into the principles of nuclear fusion; he still is doing no more than blowing smoke and flashing mirrors for the appeal of his circle of sycophants.

Does [Holding] recognize this? He should. It’s from an article entitled “Till We Meet Again, Trey,” or “Bubbles from the Mouth of a Fish out of Water.” It can be found at .

Yes, it can be found there, and still contains as well a challenge to our opponent, ignored now for several years, to show that even ONE WORD which I did not quote from one of his articles had even the SLIGHTEST effect towards improving what I did quote from his article. Statements were neither taken out of context nor altered; all that was "ignored" was polemic, setup phrases, irrelevancies, and points repeated elsewhere in different words, just as we find in our opponent's materials here.

Hey, that’s [Holding]’s website, isn’t it? No, excuse me; it’s from “James Patrick Holding’s” website. [Holding] is too chicken to publish under his real name.

This is merely ad hominem, and we have repeatedly explained, both to our opponent and on this site, the necessity of use of a writing name for one currently and/or previously employed in the correctional system, to which our opponent has had no response other than claiming that his personal experience grading inmate papers (NOT behind the fence) is somehow comparable, when in fact it is of no comparison to one who worked day in and out with murderers, child rapists, thieves, and other violent offenders who carry with them knives made out of any material they can get their hands on, including toilet paper that was repeatedly wetted and dried to form a stiff and deadly point (does our opponent have that kind of ingenuity?), who also had to write disciplinary reports extending these persons' sentences, or revoke their priviliges, or apply other disciplinary measures that do not even approach the significance of writing a grade on a paper from the safety of one's own home or classroom. As it is merely gratuitious carping, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

What I quoted is just one of many, many snide, sarcastic comments that I could cut and paste from [Holding]’s website. His site reeks with sarcasm, which is his stock and trade. I wonder if [Holding] has ever heard of the old adage about the pot calling the kettle black.

The issue is not including or using such remarks in a reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own such remarks ("EVERYTHING") in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

By the way, [Holding] spoke, sarcastically, of course, of my “credentials,” which do go well beyond just a Master’s degree, but I believe that his “credentials” are just a Master’s degree in library science. Yes, indeed, we have a case here of the pot calling the kettle black.

The comparison was not a matter of our opponent to me, but of our opponent to scholars who have made the OT, its language, and its culture their lifeblood. This is therefore an answer to the wrong remark.

For the record, [Holding] is incorrect in saying that I “know no Hebrew.” I’m far from an expert in Hebrew, but I did study it at one of the Bible colleges I attended, and I suspect that this is more training than [Holding] has in it.

By level of absorption, I suspect that we have already surpassed our opponent's meagre exposure to Hebrew at the Bamm Bamm Bible College some 30+ years ago, and add that it is far surpassed by that of scholars who have made the OT, its language, and its culture their lifeblood, whom we use as sources, and whom our opponent has no qualms about declaring superior expertise to, on whatever subject, when it suits his purposes.

As for [Holding]’s reference to scholars who have made the Old Testament, its language, and its culture their “lifeblood,” if I can quote such scholars who have recognized that the claimed fulfillments of the land promise in Joshua and elsewhere never happened, will he then concede that these are discrepancies in the OT?

If our opponent can quote such scholars who deal with exactly the same data we offer, and nevertheless conclude that the land promise in Joshua and elsewhere never was fulfilled in terms of the internal consistency of the text, we will give them consideration. But for what it is worth, since our opponent seems to appreciate the JPS series of commenataries (in spite of comments made elsewhere about using such sources as a "crutch") we would have him know that the Deuteronomy commentary by Jeffrey Tigay completely agrees with our assessment, and disagrees with his assessment, of Deut. 9. Now that I have referred to a scholar who has recognized that Deut. 9 does not make the land promise unconditional, will he then concede that Deut. 9 offers no discrepancy?

Don’t look for him to say yes to this question.

This calls for another delivery of crow to a location in the Midwest, not to be denied by reason of our single, quite reasonable, qualification.

Re the final sentence:

Why such fluff and irrelevant distraction as this? Well, it’s [Holding]’s straw man again.

Our opponent misses his man, for the issue is not including such transitional fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own transitional fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

He hasn’t been able to “explain” much of anything, and what he has “explained” has been based on unsupported assumptions (which I have soundly refuted), but he wants to make his readers think he is kicking butt, so he has to spend most of his 10,000 words beating on a straw man.

This is merely pep-rallying for the purpose of cheering skeptical readers who see that our opponent has not refuted anything. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

In this case, it makes it easy to establish that a complete, unqualified fulfillment of the land promises was claimed by the "inspired" men who wrote the Old Testament.

As this remark is merely a statement of purpose common to our opponent's methodology, and it contains no specifics, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response:

The “specifics” were scattered all through the article.

To whatever extent this is so, it remains that the specifics are not found at all in this paragraph, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I’m sure everyone has noticed that [Holding] has done a lot of tap dancing but has made very little effort to reply. He would rather waste time on comments like the one directly below.

We have replied in full and with terminal effect upon our opponent's arguments. This is merely pep-rallying; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

I made a claim, i. e., “(A) complete, unqualified fulfillment of the land promises was claimed by the ‘inspired’ men who wrote the Old Testament,” so why doesn’t it need a reply, especially since I have piled textual evidence upon textual evidence that the OT made unqualified claims that the land promises were fulfilled and then backpedaled and said that they hadn’t been fulfilled?

It does not need a reply because it offers no specifics. If our opponent likes, we could insert pages and pages of commentary from any one of my articles, make up some validation for inserting it ("It's another example of..."), and then pretend that it is some relevant and viable challenge for our opponent to refute. However, I see no need to do this, because I am not incapabale of addressing the subject at hand and do not need to insert paragraph upon paragraph of irrelevant material and fluff in order to distract the reader from the main issue.

I would never agree to play dodge ball with [Holding], because he would beat me hands down.

We would also beat our opponent at ice hockey, swimming, Parchesi, Chinese checkers, apologetics, cooking, and ring around the rosey. We do not require our opponent to quote this in a response, but we still ask why it is necessary to quote this about dodge ball in a reply, for we know well enough that our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Consider, for example, the clearly stated claim of the following passages:

As this remark is merely transitional, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response:

Here is [Holding]’s straw man again. He cannot, and never will be able to, explain why he could not have put my transitional sentence with the biblical passage below and quote the two all together. Readers would have had no problem at all following the flow of my ideas in this section of the article.

Others may not know what [Holding] has been doing throughout his “reply.” He knows that in past attempts to reply to me, he snipped and skipped very relevant parts of my articles and that I have pointed this out in my replies to him, so he is trying to convince his readers that all he had snipped before were just transitional sentences and expressions.

That this is what we are doing is quite true, and it remains that our opponent has not once proven that we snipped and skipped very relevant parts of his articles, which he has never proven in spite of the challenge made several years ago and referred to above.

I know better, and if he will agree to publish it on his website, I’ll very accommodatingly write an article that shows just what kind of snipping and skipping he did in his other “replies.”

We will as we have agreed in other cases link to, not place on our server, any such article written.

Don’t hold your breath till [Holding] agrees to this proposal.

The reader who is allergic to crow may wish to hold their breath, barring any unreasonable response to our slight modification to the offer above.

But then an extended quote is offered:

**Response:

Why this unnecessary fluff? If [Holding] had simply quoted my transitional sentence and the quotation [below] that came after it, readers could have easily followed the flow of my ideas, and we would have been spared another of his irrelevant distractions.

And Yahweh said unto Joshua, Be not afraid because of them (the armies of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Hivites poised for battle against the Israelites, FT); for tomorrow at this time will I deliver them up ALL slain before Israel: thou shalt hock their horses, and burn their chariots with fire. So Joshua came, and all the people of war with him, against them by the waters of Merom suddenly, and fell upon them. And Yahweh delivered them into the hand of Israel, and they smote them, and chased them unto great Sidon, and unto Misrephothmaim, and unto the valley of Mizpeh eastward; and they smote them, until they left them none remaining. And Joshua did unto them as Yahweh bade him: he hocked their horses, and burnt their chariots with fire. And Joshua turned back at that time, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor before time was the head of all those kingdoms. And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them; THERE WERE NONE LEFT THAT BREATHED: and he burnt Hazor with fire. And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and he smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed them; as Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded. But as for the cities that stood on their mounds, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn. And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any that breathed. As Yahweh commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua: and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that Yahweh commanded Moses, (Joshua 11:6-15, Yahweh substituted).

**Response:

Everybody stay alert and watch [Holding] try to tap dance around this clearly stated passage.

This is merely pep-commentary; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

And:

**Response:

Why this unnecessary fluff? In my article, the passage below immediately followed the one above, and this section had been introduced by my transitional sentence (“Consider, for example, the clearly stated claim of the following passages”), which [Holding] dismissed as unnecessary transition and then had to put into his “reply” two transitional statements of his own to tie the quotations together.

Had he simply included my transitional sentence and the quotations all together, as I presented them in my article, readers could have easily followed the flow of my ideas, but [Holding] is desperately trying to justify flagrant snipping, skipping, and evasion in his past attempts to reply to my articles. In so doing, he has made a fool of himself.

As our opponent has yet to prove any single example of such flagrant snipping and skipping and evasion, in spite of a challenge that has been posted for several years to do so, we regard this as mere ad hominem; we do not begrudge its use, but it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that Yahweh spake unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land had rest from war, (Joshua 11:23, Yahweh substituted).

And:

**Response:

More unnecessary fluff from [Holding].

So Yahweh gave unto Israel ALL the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And Yahweh gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand. THERE FAILED NOT AUGHT OF ANY GOOD THING WHICH YAHWEH HAD SPOKEN UNTO THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL. ALL CAME TO PASS,(Joshua 21:43-45, Yahweh substituted).

Thus it is said:

**Response:

Why this unnecessary fluff?

Why didn’t he explicate the passages to show that they didn’t mean that the Israelites had received all the land promised to them.

This was done in the paragraphs following. As we do address these passages, in our opponent's order of address which we are clearly following, this is either a lack of common sense by our opponent or else a blatantly dishonest attempt to imply that we have not, and never will, address these passages.

Readers, should watch [Holding]’s tap-dancing routine.

This is merely superfluous pep-commentary; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

These statements are fully as clear as Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38.

These are two more pertinent examples of the sort of non-subject distraction we refer to (i.e., the subject is no longer consistency of the Biblical record on the subject of Yahweh's Land Promise, as has already been stated, but now, the interpretation of Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38). Being that this is the case, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to insert the wedge of doubt on another issue which is of no relevance to the topic at hand, thereby attempting to gain debate points illicitly.

**Response:

As explained above, this article was written in 1990 and was aimed at a predominantly Church-of-Christ audience. The necessity of baptism is a very primary doctrine of this church, so my comment was in order in view of what audience it was directed to.

Hmm, “non-subject [sic] distractions” are “pertinent”? I think [Holding] would profit from a little research in English diction.

Our opponent could use a little research in word order; it is the examples, not the distractions, that are said to be pertinent.

The subject was still the consistency of the biblical record on the subject of Yahweh’s land promise. The “non-subject [sic]” but “pertinent” examples were intended to provoke a predominantly Church-of-Christ audience into doing a mental comparison between the clarity of these passages about the land promise and their primary proof texts for their doctrine on baptism. Since, as noted before, a skilled writer will always keep his audience in mind, the statement was entirely appropriate. If [Holding] has no beliefs in the necessity of baptism, he could have simply noted this and passed on without wasting our time on unnecessary fluff.

Since our article in not aimed at a predominantly Church-of-Christ audience, and since it is not even necessary to give an example to say that something is clear, this excuse only verfies our contention that it is not necessary to quote it in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with allusion to an irrelevant issue. If there is no need for commentary, then there is also no need for quotation. On the other hand, if our opponent wants commentary on Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, I, , could insert pages and pages of commentary from any one of my pertinent articles , make up some validation for inserting it ("Because he brought it up..."), and then pretend that it is some relevant and viable challenge for our opponent to refute. However, I see no need to do this, because I am not incapabale of addressing the subject at hand and do not need to insert paragraph upon paragraph of irrelevant material and fluff in order to distract the reader from the main issue.

[Holding]’s straw man again. I decided to do a check to see how many of [Holding]’s 10,045 words were wasted on this irrelevant distraction. The findings were interesting, to say the least. The expression “it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent” contains 33 words, and [Holding] cut and pasted it into his 10,045-word reply 41 different times, so 1,353 words, or 13.5% of his reply was wasted on a repetition of this statement, which was obviously intended to rationalize his obvious snipping and skipping of very relevant arguments and questions that were in articles of mine that he had previously replied to.

That our opponent spent personal time in this pursuit is interesting, but it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, and if we have emphasized this point it is because we have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why we must quote EVERYTHING simply because of our opponent's obssesive and yet to be justified suspicions and charges that we have snipped and skipped material in a way that compromises his arguments.

I’ll repeat my proposal. If he will agree to post it on his website, I’ll gladly go through an article of mine that he has “replied to” and quote the material that he snipped and skipped and then tried to justify its omission by calling it “fluff” and “irrelevant distractions.”

As we have had a challenge for our opponent to do this up for several years, it is a shocking pretense that he now offers as a "proposal" that he will do the very thing he has refused to do for those years. Nevertheless our answer to this needlessly repeated question is above.

Yahweh gave unto Israel ALL the land that he swore to give to their fathers, and the dimensions of that land were clearly laid out in such passages as Exodus 23:20-33 and Joshua 1:1-6.

A reply is warranted here, of two types.

**Response:

So at last [Holding] is going to reply to something.

For several paragraphs, there has been nothing to reply to, which means in turn, nothing that needed quoting.

Re Josh. 10:40-43, 11:6-15, and 11:23 versus Joshua 13:1, which says there was "yet very much land to be possessed": In context these refer to the "whole land" of the particular nations being attacked in each section. Josh. 10:40-43 refers only to the land of the specific kings and cities being battled in Josh. 10, whose territory comprised a specific swath of land west of the northern half of the Dead Sea.

**Response:

This is the usual quibble that inerrantists resort to in trying to get around the inconsistency in the texts, but it cannot explain the inconsistencies in Joshua about how much land was conquered and when.

This is merely introductory commentary; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Furthermore, as I will show later, an analysis of the “specific kings and cities” encompassed in the descriptions of Joshua’s victories will show that they were inclusive of all the land promised to the Israelites.

This is a fine statement of intent, but it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

First, let’s notice that Joshua 10:43 says that Joshua struck “all the land, the hill-country, and the South, and the lowland, and the slopes.” That sounds pretty inclusive, but statements made later in this text claim that “Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even to Gaza and all the country of Goshen, even to Gibeon” (v:41). Now this gives us some specific locations to use as geographical references.

We agree that it gives specific geographical references, and we have a map before us showing these references.

Goshen, of course, could hardly have been the land of Goshen in Egypt, where the Israelites had lived when they were in bondage. The geographical reference points would put this “land of Goshen” somewhere in the hill country of Judah.

We agree. The Goshen referenced is shown on our map as located at 31 degrees 23'46 north and 34 degrees 50'54 east, approximately 30 miles west lower third of the Dead Sea.

Kadesh-barnea was one of the stopping points for the Israelites during their 40-year wanderings (Num. 20:14-16; 33:36-37). This was an oasis on the northern edge of the Sinai wilderness, so the passage in Joshua 10 located the southern edge of the Israelite strike against the kings of this area at the northern edge of the Sinai wilderness.

We agree. This is located at 30 degrees 39'5 north and 34 degrees 29'21 east.

The division of the land in Joshua 15 referred to towns in the region of Gaza along “the brook of Egypt” (v:47). The “brook of Egypt” was either a tributary of the Nile or, more likely, the wadi el-‘Arish, a stream that begins in the central Sinai and flows into the Mediterranean Sea south of Gaza. With this information, we can pretty well fix the southern extent of Joshua’s attack claimed in Joshua 10 at the extreme southern end of Judah or probably even into the northern regions of the Sinai wilderness.

With this we do not disagree.

Joshua 10:41 says that the strike went from Kadesh-barnea “even to Gaza and all the country of Goshen,” so this would take the extent of the claimed attack to the Mediterranean Sea.

This is false. If the attack was to Gaza it does not include Gaza, on the sea, which was Philistine territory.

The same verse says that the strike extended “unto Gibeon,” which was a town located about 5 miles north of Jerusalem, so if Joshua had routed all the kings of this region and utterly destroyed all that breathed (v:40), he would have driven out and destroyed the Jebusites, who lived in and around Jerusalem, and this would have happened early in Joshua’s invasion of Canaan, yet texts describing events after this time specifically noted that the Israelites were unable to drive out the Jebusites.

This is false. Gibeon is actually approximately five miles northwest of Jerusalem, at 35 degrees, 14'30 east, while Jerusalem itself is at 35 degrees, 19'56 east. The map also shows it separated from Jerusalem by a river, a natural barrier. Our opponent desperately wishes to erase these five miles in a different direction, as well as disregard any issue of delineating geographical features, which would clearly exclude Jerusalem from the range between Kadesh-Barnea and Gibeon, but that geographical equivocation will not float in this ocean.

I have already quoted these, but sometimes overkill is necessary, so I will put them right here where [Holding] can’t claim that he didn’t notice them.

Joshua 15:63 Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the people of Judah.

Since Jerusalem is not in the geographic range our opponent requires, this is misplaced whether we notice this passage or not.

Judges 1:21 The Benjamites, however, failed to dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites.

Since Jerusalem is not in the geographic range our opponent requires, this is misplaced whether we notice this passage or not.

Now if Joshua had swept through all the region from the northern area of the Sinai (Kadesh-barnea) all the way to the Mediterranean Sea (Gaza) and up to Gibeon (five miles north of Jerusalem) and had utterly destroyed all that breathed, why was it that later it was said that the Israelites couldn’t drive out the Jebusites?

Since Jerusalem is not in the geographic range our opponent requires, and Gibeon is actually five miles northwest of Jerusalem, this is an answer with no grounding in fact. To this we would add that our opponent has also naively assumed, even if he were correct, that the delineation in Joshua 10 would be a straight line, when it would more likely be drawn, in this era before maps, along natural barriers like rivers, mountains, and wilderness. This needs to be taken into account before our opponent can even begin an argument.

Joshua 10 indicates this with respct to Jerusalem: It's king came out to fight with others, and he was captured (10:23, 12:10) and executed. But the city by itself remains conspicuously uncaptured and unattacked, and unaddressed, until Ch. 15.

We close with a pertinent observation. Our opponent here has argued that Joshua 10 offers an inconsistency with reference to Jerusalem only. In his original article, he clearly indicated that he believed that Joshua 10 offered an inconsistency with reference to all the land in the grant, including the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13. So what happened? Is it just Jerusualem? If so, why did our opponent in his original article indicate that it was ALL the land in the grant that was at issue with reference to Joshua 10? He cannot backpedal and say that he only would have intended to reference Jerusalem intentionally. He never specifies this and he juxtaposes the Joshua 10 quotes, along with the others and with no differentiation specified, in a section ending with the words, "Yahweh gave unto Israel ALL the land that he swore to give to their fathers, and the dimensions of that land were clearly laid out in such passages as Exodus 23:20-33 and Joshua 1:1-6." Why is our opponent not being honest about his backpedalling?

No inconsistencies in the biblical text? In [Holding]’s dreams.

This is merely superfluous pep-commentary. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Unless, he can explain how Joshua could have swept through all of the territory from Kadesh-barnea, to Gaza, and up to Gibeon and utterly destroyed all that breathed and yet did not drive out the Jebusites, we can only conclude that there is an inconsistency in the biblical text.

Since Jerusalem is not in the geographic range our opponent requires, and Gibeon is actually five miles northeast of Jerusalem, this is an answer with no grounding in fact. It also does not address the masses of land said left to be uncaptured in Josh. 13. Our opponent has been chasing one city and has failed, and still has acres upon acres to go.

Josh. 11:23 also refers to a specific parcel of land, much larger, but not the entirety of the land in the grant.

**Response:

Our opponent here offers his longest response yet without interruption. Let it be borne in mind that his main task will be to show that the uncaptured land in Joshua 13 somehow overlaps with the land specified in Joshua 11 as captured.

Unfortunately for [Holding], there are inconsistencies in Joshua about the area of this “parcel of land,” which [Holding] says did not encompass “the entirety of the land in the grant.” I’ll begin dismantling this quibble by quoting and analyzing Joshua 11:23 so that what it says will be fresh in everyone’s memory.

11:23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that Yahweh said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.

The full context of this verse will show that [Holding]’s “explanation” won’t work.

This is merely pep-commentary. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Joshua 11:1 When Jabin king of Hazor heard of this, he sent word to Jobab king of Madon, to the kings of Shimron and Achsaph,

2 and to the northern kings who were in the mountains, in the Arabah south of Kinnereth, in the western foothills and in Naphoth Dor on the west;

3 to the Canaanites in the east and west; to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites and Jebusites in the hill country; and to the Hivites below Hermon in the region of Mizpah.

The place names will again give us geographical references to determine what regions were involved in this conflict. Hazor was located about 8 miles north of the Sea of Galilee.

This is in line with our map. Hazor is located at 32 degrees 59'55 north and 35 degrees 35'34 east.

The location of Madon hasn’t been determined with certitude, but it is generally thought to be what is now called Qarn Hattin, which is about five miles northwest of Tiberias, which was located on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee.

Our map agrees. It places Madon at 32 degrees 49'16 north, 35 degrees 28'37 east -- southwest of Hazor, and still not touching any of the uncaptured Josh. 13 land.

Shimron’s location has also not been determined for sure, but when the land was divided among the tribes, Shimron was given to Zebulun, whose tribal land was in the northern region, west of the Sea of Galilee [Chinnereth], between the territory of Asher and Naphtali (Josh. 19:10-16).

Our map places Shimron at 32 degrees 42'38 north, 35 degrees 16'27 east. This is southwest of Madon, and still not touching any of the uncaptured Josh. 13 land.

Achsaph was assigned to Asher (Josh. 19:25), so it too was located in the northern part of the land.

Our map places Achspah at 32 degrees 50'21 north, 35 degrees 11'47 east. This is northwest of Shimron, closely paralleled to Madon, and still not touching any of the uncaptured Josh. 13 land.

The fact that king Jabin sent word “to the northern kings” (v:2) would indicate that all of these places were located in the northern part of the land, so “the Arabah south of Kinnereth [Chinnereth]” was also a northern location adjacent to the Sea of Galilee [Chinnereth].

We do not disagree.

Naphoth Dor Hermon, and Mizpah were also located in this region, so keep these northern locations in mind as I go on through the rest of the passage.

Our map places Napoth on the coast at 32 degrees 36'35 north, 34 degrees 56'14 east, southwest of Shimron and still not touching any of the uncaptured Josh. 13 land. Hermon and Mizpah are regional names. Hermon is a range of some 18 miles; Mizpah is a region to the southwest of the Hermon range. Here we finally get close. This borders on, but does not include, the uncaptured territory in Josh. 13.

11:4 They came out with all their troops and a large number of horses and chariots--a huge army, as numerous as the sand on the seashore.

5 All these kings joined forces and made camp together at the Waters of Merom, to fight against Israel.

6 Yahweh said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid of them, because by this time tomorrow I will hand all of them over to Israel, slain. You are to hamstring their horses and burn their chariots."

7 So Joshua and his whole army came against them suddenly at the Waters of Merom and attacked them,

8 and Yahweh gave them into the hand of Israel. They defeated them and pursued them all the way to Greater Sidon, to Misrephoth Maim, and to the Valley of Mizpah on the east, until no survivors were left.

9 And Joshua did unto them as Yahweh bade him: he hocked their horses, and burnt their chariots with fire.

The “Waters of Merom” has been identified with Lake Huleh, which was located 10 miles north of the Sea of Galilee [Chinnereth], although some think that it referred to a stream that ran into the Sea of Galilee. Regardless of what the location was, the battle took place in the northern region of the land after Joshua had allegedly driven out all the kings from Kadesh-Barnea to Gaza and up to Gibeon, at which time he utterly destroyed all that breathed (Josh. 10:40-43).

This is description which we agree with.

The kings of the north, under the leadership of Jabin, gathered their forces against Joshua to try to defeat him, but after they were defeated at the “Waters of Merom,” the Israelites pursued them all the way to Greater Sidon, to Misrephoth Maim, and to the Valley of Mizpah. Sidon was located in Lebanon, north of Tyre, on the coast of “the Great [Mediterranean} Sea, and Misrephoth Main was located on the Phoenician coast. These locations mean that Joshua 11 claimed that the Israelites had routed their enemies to both the Mediterranean Sea and the northern borders of the land that Yahweh had promised to give them, so this is perhaps why Joshua 11:23 claimed that the Israelites had taken “all the land that [Yahweh] swore to give to their fathers.”

Our opponent's verbiage is nothing but a cover for the fact that none of the indicated territory overlaps with that specified as "not yet taken" in Joshua 13. The description does not bring the conquests to the northern borders of the land grant. The grant went as far as the Euphrates River (Gen. 15:18), and Josh. 13:5 specifies as yet untaken, "And the land of the Giblites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baalgad under mount Hermon unto the entering into Hamath." From Baalgad unto the entering of Hamath, and all Lebanon, up to the Euphrates, is a portion of land that is farther north than what our opponent claims is the "northern borders" of the land grant. The Joshua 11 excursion does not finish the job, and Josh. 11:23 does not say anything about the fathers and what was sworn to them; it says, "So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war." Our opponent has failed completely to demonstrate overlap with the Joshua 13 lands.

But there were fourteen verses between where I left off quoting above to 11:23. Let’s look at what they say.

11:10 And Joshua at that time turned back, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms.

11 And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor with fire.

12 And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and smote them with the edge of the sword, and he utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded.

13 But as for the cities that stood still in their strength, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn.

14 And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe.

15 As Yahweh commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that Yahweh commanded Moses.

16 So Joshua took all that land, the hills, and all the south country, and all the land of Goshen, and the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same;

17 Even from the mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir, even unto Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon under mount Hermon: and all their kings he took, and smote them, and slew them.

18 Joshua made war a long time with all those kings.

19 There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle.

20 For it was of Yahweh to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as Yahweh commanded Moses.

21 And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities.

22 There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained.

Just look at the catalog of all the place names that this passage says that Joshua conquered and in so doing utterly destroyed their inhabitants and left none to breathe.

We have looked at the catalog of place names, and there is no overlap whatsoever with the northern portion of the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13.

After routing the northern kings to Lebanon and the Mediterrnean cost, he turned back and took Hazor, burned it, and utterly destroyed the people there, leaving none alive to breathe. As noted above, Hazor was eight miles north of the Sea of Galilee [Chinnereth]. All--not some but all--the cities of all the northern kings he had routed were taken by Joshua (v:12), and the inhabitants of the cities were “utterly destroyed.”

What does the Mediterranean "cost", we wonder? Whatever it costs, nothing here demonstrates any overlap whatsoever with the northern portion of the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13. Hazor is south-southeast of Sidon, in the wrong direction for our opponent's case.

Verse 3 in this context had earlier identified these kings as kings of the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Hivites--six of the seven nations that Yahweh had said the Israelites would utterly destroy (Deut. 7:1-2). Only the Girgashites were missing in this alliance of kings.

This is very interesting, but nothing here demonstrates any overlap whatsoever with the northern portion of the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13.

Verse 15 says that Joshua “left nothing undone of all that Yahweh commanded Moses,” so quoting again what Yahweh commanded Moses is not necessary, because we have already seen Yahweh’s orders to utterly destroy the seven nations in Canaan. Notice that verse 16 said that Joshua took “all of that land,” of the northern kings, and then said that he also took “the hills, and all the south country, and all the land of Goshen.” Remember the land of Goshen? It was the area that Joshua had captured in the south by Gaza before his excursion into the north. The text is now claiming that Joshua routed the kings of six nations in the north, utterly destroyed all the people there, and left none alive to breathe, so now the narrator of this text has taken his readers south again to the land of Goshen and in his summation of conquered territory has thrown in “the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same.” So what else was left to conquer?

What is left to conquer is what is specified in Joshua 13, and our opponent still fails to demonstrate any overlap whatsoever with any portion of the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13, which includes non-members of the listed nations such as Philistines, Giblites, and Sidonians.

Is [Holding] still not convinced?

Not yet, because and our opponent still fails to demonstrate any overlap whatsoever with any portion of the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13.

Then he should notice that this description of the routing of kings and the utter destruction of their people extended from the south of Canaan (even Kadesh-barnea in the northern edge of the wilderness of Sinai) to Sidon in Lebanon, including the costal regions of the Levant [Palestine].

We have read this description, and it still demonstrates no overlap whatsoever with any portion of the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13.

To emphasize how thorough the destruction of the nations within these boundaries was, the writer continued to catalog the places that were captured and destroyed. “From mount Halak that goes up to Seir, even to Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon, which was under mount Hermon” was used to describe the scope of the destruction. [Holding] should get a Bible atlas and check the location of the places I have emphasized in bold print.

We have a Bible atlas on CD-ROM, with nice bold print and lots of colors and entries, and it shows no overlap whatsoever with the described territories and any portion of the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13.

Mount Halak was located in the Negev, in the southernmost region of the territory that later became Judah. Seir was located in Edomite territory (Gen. 14:6; Deut. 2:4-5), so in saying that Joshua took all of the land--and utterly destroyed the people living there--from mount Halak that goes up to Seir, the writer was obviously saying that Joshua took all of the area between those two points, but the conquest and destruction then extended from Seir “even to Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon, which was under mount Hermon. Mount Hermon was in Lebanon, and the melt-off of its snow is the source of the Jordan River, so if Joshua pursued the kings and destroyed their people as far north as Baalgad, which was below mount Hermon, then Joshua had conquered territory as far north as the land promise had stipulated.

Joshua did not conquer territory as far north as the land promise had permitted, as we have shown above and as Joshua 13 with Genesis 15 indicates.

Verse 21 claims that Joshua drove the “Anakim” [legendary giants] from “all the hill-country of Judah and all the hill-country of Israel,” so when all the geographical locations mentioned in Joshua 11 are analyzed, no other conclusion can be reached except that the narrator was claiming here that Joshua had conquered all the land from the far south of Canaan [Kadesh-barnea and the Negev] to the costal regions of the Mediterranean to the land of Edom on the eastern side of the Jordan to Sidon and the valley of Lebanon in the extreme north.

The description is accurate, but as we have shown does not demonstrate any overlap with the land specified as "not yet taken" in Joshua 13.

No wonder the writer summed up this chapter by saying...

11:23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that Yahweh said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.

Three points should be noted about this text: (1) Joshua took the whole land, according to ALL that Yahweh had said to Moses. (2) Joshua gave all the land that had been taken according to what Yahweh had said to Moses to the Israelites for an inheritance. (3) The land rested from war. I’ll discuss these point in a 1, 3, 2 order.

As we do address Joshua 11:23, in our opponent's order of address which we are clearly following, this is either a lack of common sense by our opponent or else a blatantly dishonest attempt to imply that we have not, and never will, address Joshua 11:23, or else intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game. We showed that Joshua 11:23 refers to a specific parcel of land, but not the entirety of the land in the grant; what remained to be taken is specified in 13:2-6. The word "land" ('erets) is a common word used over 2500 times in the OT to refer to large parcels of land of varying size with delineations that are specific ("land of Egypt"). In Josh. 10 it is "these kings and their land", i.e., just the land of these kings mentioned previously, which does not encompass all of the grant, as our opponent has no longer seen fit to argue. In Josh. 11 it is the land of a specifically named set of kings and peoples with their territories, which also does not encompass all of the grant, and is never said to encompass all of the grant. We made this point further on, and readily acknowledge that our opponent does offer a response, for unlike our opponent, we do not see a need to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game, or engage a blatantly dishonest attempt to imply that he has not, and never will, address our argument.

One: What was all the land according to what Yahweh had said to Moses? Exodus 23:31 has Yahweh speaking through Moses [as he often did in those days], and the boundaries of the land he gave here were “from the Red Sea, to the Sea of the Philistines [Mediterranean], and from the wilderness [of Sinai] to ‘the River’ [Euphrates].”

With incredible irony, our opponent now quotes one of the very passages that shows that he has errouneously identified the location of the northern border, actually at the Euphrates, thereby proving that indeed there is no overlap in the land taken in Josh. 11 and the land yet to be taken in Josh. 13.

In Deuteronomy 1:7, Moses said that Yahweh had spoken to him in Horeb and said that the Israelites would take the land from Arabah [in the south] to Lebanon and to the “great river, the river Euphrates.”

With incredible irony, our opponent now quotes yet another of the very passages that shows that he has errouneously identified the location of the northern border, thereby proving that indeed there is no overlap in the land taken in Josh. 11 and the land yet to be taken in Josh. 13.

In Joshua 1:4, Yahweh speaking to Joshua said that as he had spoken to Moses, he was giving to the Israelites every place that the soles of their feet would tread upon “From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea [Mediterranean] toward the going down of the sun.”

So if Joshua 11:23 claimed that Joshua had taken all the land according to all that Yahweh had said to Moses, how could he have failed to take some of the land within these clearly defined borders?

The answer, as we have shown, is that our opponent has missed therse "clearly defined borders" with specific reference here to the northern border.

Three: Joshua 11:23 said that “the land rested from war.” I have previously referred to this verse in explicating Deuteronomy 3:20, which says that the women and children would remain in conquered cities until Yahweh gave “rest” after the men had taken the land.

It is patently obvious that the land specified as conquered did rest from war allowing for the fulfillment of Deut. 3:20.

Deuteronomy 25:18 also spoke of Yahweh’s giving the Israelites “rest” in an obvious sense of having driven out their enemies from the land. So if Joshua 11:23 said that the land had “rest” in a context where it was also said that the Israelites had taken all of the land Yahweh had promised through Moses, how could it have been later that there remained “much land” to possess?

We have shown that Joshua 11:23 does not indicate any overlap with the land in Joshua 13 which was yet to be possessed and does not indicate the whole of the land grant.

Two: Joshua 11 ended with verse 23, and chapter 12 began with a listing of the land that Joshua had conquered and began dividing among the Israelites.

This will be repetitious, but I am going to analyze chapter 12, which repetitiously reviewed all of the territories of the kings that Joshua had conquered.

It is repetitous, and therefore it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to distract the reader from seeing that he still has not shown, nor will show by quoting the entirety of Joshua 12, that there is any overlap between the land in Josh. 11 that is taken and the land in Josh. 13 that is yet to be taken.

Joshua 12:1 Now these are the kings of the land, which the children of Israel smote, and possessed their land on the other side Jordan toward the rising of the sun, from the river Arnon unto mount Hermon, and all the plain on the east:

The river Arnon flowed into the Dead Sea from territory east of the Jordan, and it formed the boundary between Amorite territory to the north and Moab to the south. So if the Israelites possessed the land from the valley of this river to mount Hermon, in Lebanon, they had conquered land between two boundary points in Yahweh’s promise.

They had indeed conquered land unto an eastern boundary, but this still does not show any overlap between the land in Josh. 10 or 11 that is taken and the land in Josh. 13 that is yet to be taken.

12:2 Sihon king of the Amorites, who dwelt in Heshbon, and ruled from Aroer, which is upon the bank of the river Arnon, and from the middle of the river, and from half Gilead, even unto the river Jabbok, which is the border of the children of Ammon;

So if Sihon ruled land from Aroer on the bank of the river Arnon [located above] to the river Jabbok [the border between Amorite and Ammonite territories], and if Joshua took all of this land and possessed it, this would have extended Israelite land holdings even farther north.

Farther north it indeed goes, but this still does not show it going far north enough to have any overlap between the land in Josh. 10 or 11 that is taken and the land in Josh. 13 that is yet to be taken.

12:3 And from the plain to the sea of Chinneroth on the east, and unto the sea of the plain, even the salt sea on the east, the way to Bethjeshimoth; and from the south, under Ashdothpisgah:

This would have extended the conquest holdings to include the plains or valley areas from the Sea of Galilee [Chinneroth] to the Dead [Salt] Sea.

It would indeed, but this still does not show any overlap between the land in Josh. 10 or 11 that is taken and the land in Josh. 13 that is yet to be taken.

12:4 And the coast of Og king of Bashan, which was of the remnant of the giants, that dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei,

5 And reigned in mount Hermon, and in Salcah, and in all Bashan, unto the border of the Geshurites and the Maachathites, and half Gilead, the border of Sihon king of Heshbon.

6 Them did Moses the servant of Yahweh and the children of Israel smite: and Moses the servant of Yahweh gave it for a possession unto the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh.

Conquest of this territory would have extended the Israelite land holdings to Lebanon, where mount Hermon was located, but as noted, this was territory conquered under the leadership of Moses. This land was given to the tribes of Reuben and Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh before the Israelites entered Canaan (Num. 32).

Indeed it does and was, but this still does not show it going far north enough to conquer the total of the land grant in that direction, and does not show any overlap between the land in Josh. 10 or 11 that is taken and the land in Josh. 13 that is yet to be taken.

7 And these are the kings of the country which Joshua and the children of Israel smote on this side Jordan on the west, from Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon even unto the mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir; which Joshua gave unto the tribes of Israel for a possession according to their divisions;

8 In the mountains, and in the valleys, and in the plains, and in the springs, and in the wilderness, and in the south country; the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites:

As noted earlier, Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon was located in what was the fringe of the northern boundary that Yahweh had promised the Israelites, and mount Halak, which went up to Seir, was located in the fringe area of the southern boundary.

Indeed it was, but this still does not show it going far north enough to conquer the total of the land grant in that direction, and does not show any overlap between the land in Josh. 10 or 11 that is taken and the land in Josh. 13 that is yet to be taken. Again: The grant went as far as the Euphrates River (Gen. 15:18), and Josh. 13:5 specifies as yet untaken, "And the land of the Giblites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baalgad under mount Hermon unto the entering into Hamath." From Baalgad unto the entering of Hamath, and all Lebanon, up to the Euphrates, is a portion of land that is farther north than what our opponent claims is the "northern borders" of the land grant.

12:9 The king of Jericho, one; the king of Ai, which is beside Bethel, one;

10 The king of Jerusalem, one; the king of Hebron, one;

Recall our note above that the king of Jerusalem was captured; but the city itself is not reported as captured.

11 The king of Jarmuth, one; the king of Lachish, one;

12 The king of Eglon, one; the king of Gezer, one;

13 The king of Debir, one; the king of Geder, one;

14 The king of Hormah, one; the king of Arad, one;

15 The king of Libnah, one; the king of Adullam, one;

16 The king of Makkedah, one; the king of Bethel, one;

17 The king of Tappuah, one; the king of Hepher, one;

18 The king of Aphek, one; the king of Lasharon, one;

19 The king of Madon, one; the king of Hazor, one;

20 The king of Shimronmeron, one; the king of Achshaph, one;

21 The king of Taanach, one; the king of Megiddo, one;

22 The king of Kedesh, one; the king of Jokneam of Carmel, one;

23 The king of Dor in the coast of Dor, one; the king of the nations of Gilgal, one;

24 The king of Tirzah, one: all the kings thirty and one.

Thirty-one defeated kings were listed here.

That is correct, but none of this affects that there has still been no overlap shown between land taken in Josh. 10-11 and land yet to be taken in Josh. 13.

I have highlighted only a few of the place names, because their locations were earlier identified, but if [Holding] will get a Bible atlas and check the others, he will find that they were located from the extreme south to the extreme north and from the extreme east to the extreme west of the boundaries that Yahweh promised.

These locations, according to a Bible atlas in my possession, do not reach to the extreme north of the grant, and reach to the extreme west everywhere except Philistine territories, where indeed Josh. 13 specifies that there was land yet to be taken.

[Holding]’s attempt to explain away the discrepancy in Joshua 11 by claiming that “the whole land” that Joshua conquered referred only to land within specific regions and not to all of the land promised has been soundly refuted.

It has not been refuted at all, for there still has been no overlap shown between land taken in Josh. 10-11 and land yet to be taken in Josh. 13.

As I said, the Bible in places is boringly repetitious. [Holding] may consider this a “snide” and “insulting comment,” but it is an accurate literary criticism of some parts of the Bible.

It is indeed snide and insulting, and represents only our opponent's ingratitude and lack of appreciation, and is mere subjective value judgment verging on bigotry. Would he say the same of the Analects of Confucius, or the annals of the courts of the Persian kings? If so he is at least consistent, but this reflects his own ingratitude and lack of appreciation, not an objective value judgment. At any rate, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

The writer(s) of Joshua were too specific and repetitious in cataloging all of the places that Joshua conquered, whose inhabitants he “utterly destroyed,” leaving none alive to breathe, to give any room to try to wiggle out of admitting that the book of Joshua did at first claim that the Israelites had taken all the land Yahweh had promised them but then later backpedaled and said that some of the land--well, to be exact, “much land”--remained to be taken.

The writer(s) of Joshua were indeed very specific and repetitious in cataloging all of the places that Joshua conquered, whose inhabitants he “utterly destroyed,” leaving none alive to breathe, and it shows, as we have shown, no overlap shown between land taken in Josh. 10-11 and land yet to be taken in Josh. 13.

I’ve killed [Holding] ten times over on this point, so I will make only one observation and then go on.

In other words, our opponent has repeated the same, erroneous argument some ten or twelve times, and it has gained no credence by repetition, which it is not necessary to quote in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous, repetitive commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

I noted earlier that Joshua 10:40-43 claimed that Joshua utterly destroyed the inhabitants of Canaan from Kadesh-barnea to Gibeon, and if he had done this the Jebusites in Jerusalem, just south of Gibeon, would have been utterly destroyed, but Joshua 15:63 and Judges 1:21 both said that the Israelites were unable to drive out the Jebusites.

This is indeed what was earlier noted, and what we earlier addressed and refuted, and so this is merely repetition; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Notice above that Joshua 12:10 listed “the king of Jerusalem” as one of the kings that Joshua “smote” in his conquest of the land. If, however, Joshua had defeated the king of Jerusalem and “utterly destroyed” its inhabitants, that would have been the end of the Jebusites. How then could biblical texts later say that the Israelites were unable to drive out the Jebusites?

We have addressed this above, and it is asburd to suggest that the mere capture of a king spelled the end of his city. This is like arguing that if someone captures the President, that is the end of the USA. We are a republic of course with a succession of power, but the analogy holds unless our opponent can show that the capture of a king, separate from a specific military conquest of his city, automatically resulted in the capture of his city be default. By this reckoning Nebuchadnezzar wasted time trying to capture any city in Judah other than Jerusalem, since all he had to do to win the war is get the king, and immediately all of Judah would have capitulated. Our opponent is playing games to cover the fact that he has yet to prove that there is any overlap between the lands captured in Josh. 10-11 and the lands yet to be captured in Josh. 13, or that Josh. 10-11 claim that the entirety of the land grant was taken. The king of Jerusalem took part in battle against Iarael, and he along with other kings was captured and slain at Makkedah (Josh. 10:23), a location some 20 miles southwest of Jerusalem. Despite the capture, Jerusalem remained an eminently defensible city; the mere capture of a king who had gone on a sortie would not have resulted in the Jebusites throwing up their hands and surrendering to the Israelites.

That question is easy to answer. The OT is a patchwork of materials by different authors at different times, so the piecing together of these works resulted in many inconsistencies.

The answer is superfluous, for the question does not exist. This is also merely repetition, so it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

What remains to be taken is specified in 13:2-6. The word "land" ('erets) is a common word used over 2500 times in the OT to refer to large parcels of land of varying size with delineations that are specific ("land of Egypt"). In Josh. 10 it is "these kings and their land", i.e., just the land of these kings mentioned previously, which does not encompass all of the grant. In Josh. 11 it is the land of a specifically named set of kings and peoples with their territories, which also does not encompass all of the grant, and is never said to encompass all of the grant.

**Response:

Ah, more insights into Hebrew nuances! Whatever nuances [Holding] may think he sees in the Hebrew word ‘erets cannot make this bird fly, because my detailed analysis of Joshua 11 showed that the catalog of conquered places and cities went from the extreme south to the extreme north and from the extreme east to the Mediterranean coast.

As we have expressed no such nuances here, this is merely a distraction intended to sway readers and to pre-empt the argument.

In listing the “much land” that remained to be conquered, Joshua 13:2 listed “all the regions of the Philistines,” but Gaza was on the Mediterranean coast, right smack in the middle of Philistine territory, and Joshua 10:40-41 claimed that Joshua “smote” all the land of the southern hill-country and lowlands and all of their kings, from Kadesh-barnea and all the country of Goshen, where Gaza was located. Gaza was listed as one of the towns allotted to Judah (Josh. 15:47).

So now our opponent thinks that overlap can be found in the specific city of Gaza. But he needs to piece things together a little more carefully. Josh. 10:41 first mentions Gaza: "And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon." This says only that Joshua smote the kings referenced in Josh. 10 unto Gaza. This does include Gaza itself, and Gaza itself was neither attacked nor captured here. This verse speaks of a geographic range within which Joshua smote the forces in retreat. Gaza is next mentioned in 11:22: "There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained." This specifically lays out three cities, including Gaza, where the Anakim remained, and as yet there is no mention of attack or conquest of the city. Finally indeed there is 15:47 where Gaza is allotted to Judah. To which we say: And this means? It means nothing that helps our opponent. The allotting of Gaza was pre-emptive, but it does not require that the city be conquered before it can be decided which tribe should get it. Does our opponent expect the Israelites to simply wait, for his personal satisfaction, until Gaza was captured before they decided which tribe would get it or that a tribe would get it? That is not required, and Josh. 15:47, because it says nothing about a conquest of Gaza, does not thereby stand against Josh. 13:3, which says it had yet to be taken.

Joshua 13:3 listed “five lords of the Philistines” who had not yet been conquered, and the lord of Ashdod was one of these, but Joshua 15:47 also allotted Ashdod, with all of its villages, to Judah.

Our answer is the same; Ashdod is another of the three cities referenced as still having Anakim. It is not mentioned otherwise except in 13:3 and 15:47.

[Holding] will have to take his “explanation” back to the drawing board and try again.

There is no need to return to any drawing board, since the explanation remains unrefuted by our opponent.

Re Joshua 21:43-45:

Critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete.

**Response:

Hmm, I’ve never known a “critic” with a fundamentalist past who believed this.

Our opponent would best acquiant himself with Socrates' proverb "Know thyself."

Critics with a fundamentalist past do know, however, that biblical fundamentalists almost invariably espouse the doctrine of verbal inspiration, which requires a belief that the very words of the Bible were inspired of God in the original manuscripts and were the words that God wanted them to use.

This is a far too generalized definition of inspiration and what it means, but we shall not inform our opponent further as we wish for him to continue to make mistakes based on false assumptions.

This belief is patently ridiculous, but I firmly believe that it is a belief justified by what the Bible says about divine guidance that was given to prophets, writers, and apostles.

This is non-specific comment on inspiration and what it means, but we shall not inform our opponent further as we wish for him to continue to make mistakes based on false assumptions.

If [Holding] would care to argue otherwise, this would be another potential debate topic after we have finished the land-promise issue. All I would insist upon would be that he agree to post all of my exchanges with him on his website.

We reject such a debate, for it is far too generalized a topic, and at any rate we wish for our opponent to continue to make mistakes based on false assumptions.

That is a naive view held over only by the most primitive of inerrantists.

**Response:

Yes, it would be a naive view to think that the Bible “dropped out of heaven complete,“ but belief in verbal inspiration is a view fully justified by what the Bible teaches about divine guidance of God’s “chosen vessels.” It is an absurd belief, but if one is naive enough to believe that the Bible is “the inspired word of God,” verbal inspiration is a necessary consequence of believing in divine inspiration.

This is a far too generalized definition of inspiration and what it means, as well as an incorrect assessment of what the Bible and its contemporaries taught about inspiration, but we shall not inform our opponent further as we wish for him to continue to make mistakes based on false assumptions. The remainder is merely a snide comment; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Others recognize that certain blocks of the text had their origins as oral units of tradition, formulated and designed for a specific purpose. Josh. 21:43-45 comes at the end of an extended accounting of the assigning of territories to the Israelite tribes, and before several other independent units. 21:43-45 sits by itself, and for a specific purpose. It is a formulaic summary of previous events, with the emphasis on God's faithfulness to His promises.

**Response:

In case some have forgotten what Joshua 21:43-45 says. I will quote it again.

43 Thus Yahweh gave to Israel all the land that he swore to their ancestors that he would give them; and having taken possession of it, they settled there.

44 And Yahweh gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their ancestors; not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for Yahweh had given all their enemies into their hands.

45 Not one of all the good promises that Yahweh had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.

[Holding] is right about this passage coming at the end of an extended accounting of the territories that been assigned to the Israelite tribes. That accounting began at Chapter 13:8 and ran through nine chapters. The section is too long for me to analyze as I did the passages describing the cities and regions that had been conquered, but anyone who takes the time to look at the tribal allotments, all of which gave clearly defined boundaries for each of the tribe, should see, with the aid of a Bible atlas, that the allotments covered every speck of territory within the boundaries that Yahweh had promised to the Israelites, so after detailing all of these allotments to the tribes, whoever wrote 21:43-45 [quoted above] flatly said that this land encompass all the land that Yahweh had sworn to give to the Israelites to possess and that he then “gave rest on every side” [also as he had sworn he would do when all the land was conquered] and that Yahweh had “given all their enemies into their hands.” He further said that not one of all the good promises that Yahweh had made to Israel had failed, because all came to pass.

As we have already refuted these arguments, and regardless of that in any case, this is merely needless repetition; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to sway the mind of the gullible reader through a gross form of hypnotism and propaganda.

The division of the land described in chapters 13-23 would confirm what was said in verses 43-45 if it were true, but other biblical and extrabiblical records do not confirm that the Israelites ever possessed territory this extensive.

We agree, and we agree that this is for the same reason: Because in the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. The Israelites violated these obligations even before they could physically move into the entirety of the land grant. By analogy, a rentor who steps into his apartment and immediately, at the front door, rips wallpaper off the wall and starts a fire, has already technically violated his lease (if it prohibits such acts) and could readily be evicted by the landlord. It does not matter that he never got to the bedroom, or the bathroom, which the lease gave him implicit leave to occupy. Once the contract is violated, the "jig is up" and he is eligible for expulsion.

Furthermore, later references in Joshua and Judges flatly say that some of the “enemies” of Israel, such as the Jebusites and Canaanites could not be driven from the land.

As we do address these cites in Joshua and Judges, in our opponent's order of address which we are clearly following, this is either a lack of common sense by our opponent or else a blatantly dishonest attempt to imply that we have not, and never will, address these cites in Joshua and Judges.

According to 1 Kings 9:20, as late as the reign of Solomon, over 400 years after the events in Joshua, some of those seven nations “greater and mightier” than Israel, which Yahweh had promised to drive out and utterly destroy, were still living in the land.

1 Kings 9:20 All the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the people of Israel--

21 their descendants who were still left in the land, whom the Israelites were unable to destroy completely--these Solomon conscripted for slave labor, and so they are to this day.

We do not disagree, and attribute this to the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. The Israelites violated these obligations even before they could physically move into the entirety of the land grant, and as we show below, were punished with military failure, from which they never covered.

If [Holding] is going to find consistency in the biblical text, he will have to beat what he has done so far.

There is no need to beat anything, as our opponent has still failed to refute our arguments, and has only "beaten" around the bush with material that is 95% fluff, distractions, manipulations, and non-relevant material.

As a formulaic composition, 21:43-45 contains several elements designed for easy oral memory: the repetitive "and" which is typical of Semitic literature; the forceful central chiasm using the phrase "all their enemies" as a core (not apparent in the English translation: the Hebrew order is, "And not stood ['amad] a man before them all of their enemies; all their enemies gave Yahweh into their hand [yad]");

Whoa! Isn’t everybody impressed with the way [Holding] slings references to Hebrew words as if he knows the language like the back of his hand? He knows no more about Hebrew than I do, and he wouldn’t recognize a “forceful central chiasm” if it slapped him in the face. In fact, I suspect that he meant “chiasmus” but wasn’t paying careful attention to what he was copying from some source to leave the impression with gullible readers that he is able to see insightful nuances in the biblical text that escape the notice of others.

This is merely ad hominem meant to distract the reader from the point being made, which is that Joshua 21:43-5 contains several elements designed for easy oral memory. As our opponent is not able to respond appropriately ("No, there are no such elements; they are actually..."), he instead delivers a gratutious insult, a non-answer, designed to distract gullible skeptical readers from the fact that he is not competent to address the subject and has no answer. He cannot deny that there is a chiasm (the word as used is perfectly acceptable, our opponent's gratuitous, snide comment notwithstanding) and if there is not one, he needs to explain why there is not one, but he cannot. Our opponent has little choice but to resort to this empty response, since he has no answers, and also has utterly failed to show why it necessary to quote such statements in a reply, and cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

.... the reuse of the phrase "sware to their fathers"; the use of exclusive language (all, any, not -- notably, not applied to the word possessed). In short, it is designed to be memorized and repeated, and as such is not concerned with reporting the niggling "exception" details about which critics complain. These details are assumed to be known by the hearers, who are to use this summary formula to encourage themselves to continue on the same path, as Yahweh has proven to be faithful in all of his promises up to the time that this formula is inserted in the text.

**Response:

This all sounds like excuse-making for what [Holding] realizes are obvious inconsistencies in the biblical record. What is he trying to say?

Our opponent's pretense at being ignorant is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no explanation being offered. We explain the point of the oral composition further on; this is merely snide commentary intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game.

At this point we will insert a new conception so that we may expose further arguments by our opponent as absurd. To begin, compare these two passages:

Exodus 14:21 And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.

Exodus 15:8 And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea.

Our opponent has produced some absurd charges of contradiction and inconsistency in the Bible over the years, but we are quite sure that not even he would find inconsistency between these two verses. Why not? Because everyone (other than perhaps a few Mormons) will recognize that Ex. 15:8 is an anthropomorphism relating the same information as Ex. 14:21. No one thinks that Ex. 15:8 envisions God literally exhaling through physical nostrils, blowing away the water of the Red Sea, with nose hairs and other unmentionables flying everywhere. Our opponent almost certainly does not read Ex. 15:8 this way either. He recognizes 15:8 within a "genre envelope" (the metaphor itself, plus the genre of Ex. 15 as a song) in which he recognizes, "This does not mean that Yahweh had physical nostrils be blew through. This is not read as literal or as giving the whole story as it happened." By the same token, it is our point that Joshua 21:43-45, as shown by the elements described above (chaism, repetition), is in a "genre envelope" that tells us, "This does not mean that the land is fully taken to the extent of the land grant." We will say more of this below and send back our opponent's objections to this thesis, using Exodus 14:21 and 15:8 as a basis and playing the role of a hyper-critic asking our opponent to defend his view that these two verses do not present us with an inconsistency. Thus:

TILL: Exodus 15:8 is an anthropomorphic metaphor designed to illustrate the historical event related in the narrative at 14:21.

HYPER: This all sounds like excuse-making for what Till realizes are obvious inconsistencies in the biblical record. What is he trying to say?

And how would our opponent answer?

Is he arguing that the omni-one, when “inspiring” whoever wrote this text, allowed him to inject error into his historical report because it would be easier to repeat from memory?

We are arguing that indeed the idea was to make memorization easier, and by the same token, because this was the purpose of the passage, there is no "error" at all, escept by the preconceived standards of an entirely different culture (ours) which has not signed on to the same semantic contract, and upon whom we cannot merely impose our own ideas as though they are "better" or more "correct." The oral structure offers a semantic contract in which it is known and expected that not all details have been reported. This is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category.

HYPER: Is Till arguing that the omni-one, when “inspiring” whoever wrote this text, allowed him to inject error into his historical report because he wanted to insert a metaphor?

And how would our opponent answer?

As a means of exploring this further, we offer our opponent a test. Let us say he visits the home of an ancient Near Easterner. The host says: "You have extremely honored me by coming into my abode. I am not worthy of it. This house is yours; you may burn it if you wish. My children are also at your disposal; I would sacrifice them all for your pleasure." What would our opponent do?

Run screaming from the house.

Contact police, fire, and child protection services.

Reply, "I am but as dung before you. Treat me as you would one of your servants. I am deeply honored to be welcomed into your home."

We await our opponent's answer.

If so, is he arguing that “inspiration” by an omni-everything deity couldn’t direct the writer to give an accurate account of what had happened up to this point in Israelite history?

We say nothing about "couldn't" -- we say "did". There is no issue of "inaccuracy" at all, except by the modern, imperialistic standards of Western precision-mindedness. An Israelite or ancient reading this text would not have looked back and said, "But wait -- we still don't have all the land!" They would recognize and accept the formulaic nature of the text and realize it was not telling the whole story, and was not intended to, and would not expect it to. This is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category.

HYPER: If so, is he arguing that “inspiration” by an omni-everything deity couldn’t direct the writer to give an accurate account of what had happened in Israelite history? If he could do it in Exodus 14:21, why not in 15:8?

And how would our opponent answer?

Is he saying that an omni-max deity sacrificed historical accuracy in order to make a text easier to memorize?

We say nothing about "sacrificed" because there is nothing to sacrifice, and it is not in the least necessary for there is no issue of "inaccuracy" at all, except by the modern, imperialistic standards of Western precision-mindedness. An Israelite or ancient reading this text would not have looked back and said, "But wait -- we still don't have all the land!" They would recognize and accept the formulaic nature of the text and realize it was not telling the whole story, and was not intended to, and would not expect it to. This is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category.

HYPER: Is Till saying that an omni-max deity sacrificed historical accuracy in order to use a metaphor?

And how would our opponent answer?

[Holding] was the one who said in the first paragraph of his “reply” that the issue in this debate would be “the consistency of the biblical text,” so is he now backpedaling too?

There is no pedalling here in any direction but forwards, as we are demonstrating that "consistency" of the sort demanded in Western, precision-mindedness is an illusory demand to make upon on a formulaic oral passage like Josh. 21:43-45.

Does he think that the biblical text on this issue was inconsistent so that a passage like this could be memorized more easily by those who wanted to pass it along orally?

This comment has now been repeated four different ways, and the answer is the same: we are demonstrating that "consistency" of the sort demanded in Western, precision-mindedness is an illusory demand to make upon on a formulaic oral passage like Josh. 21:43-45. The issue is also more than "wanted to" but "had to" -- this reflects the very graphocentric prejudices we allude to later. With the overwhelming number of people illiterate, every step had to be taken to make the text easy to memorize. This is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category. He is also needlessly repeating himself; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

HYPER: Does Till think that the biblical text on this issue was inconsistent so that a passage like this could make the passage more colorful and interesting and easier to remember?

And how would our opponent answer?

Does inconsistency in a biblical text magically go away because the intention of the writer was to word the statement so that it would be easier to memorize?

This comment has now been repeated five different ways, and the answer is the same: we are demonstrating that "consistency" of the sort demanded in Western, precision-mindedness is an illusory demand to make upon on a formulaic oral passage like Josh. 21:43-45. This reflects the very graphocentric prejudices we allude to later. An Israelite or ancient reading this text would not have looked back and said, "But wait -- we still don't have all the land!" They would recognize and accept the formulaic nature of the text and realize it was not telling the whole story, and was not intended to, and would not expect it to. With the overwhelming number of people illiterate, every step had to be taken to make the text easy to memorize. This is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category. He is also needlessly repeating himself; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

HYPER: Does inconsistency in a biblical text magically go away because the intention of the writer was to use a figure of speech?

And how would our opponent answer?

He needs to explain himself.

We have explained ourselves, and our opponent needs to abandon his modern, graphocentric prejudices (to say nothing of a vast number of other prejudices he has evidenced in various forums) if he is going to comment upon the OT or upon any ancient text.

Apparently such critics expect the ancients to kowtow to their own modernist expectations and have the passage read as follows:

And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed all except the parts they had yet to conquer (see previous passage) and a few areas where they could or did not drive the people out, and dwelt therein. And the LORD gave them rest round about, though there were still some battles to come in the future, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them, other than those few holdouts like the Jebusites; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand, with the exception of those yet to be conquered and those few he left to help keep the wild animals under control (see previous passage). There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass, at least so far, wasn't that nice?

**Response:

Why didn’t the writer just give an accurate statement of what had happened and say something like, “At this time, most of the land that Yahweh promised to Israel and their fathers had been given to them except...” and then list the land that remained to be conquered? Is there something wrong with factual reporting?

This comment has now been repeated six different ways, and the answer is the same: we are demonstrating that "consistency" of the sort demanded in Western, precision-mindedness is an illusory demand to make upon on a formulaic oral passage like Josh. 21:43-45. This reflects the very graphocentric prejudices we allude to later. An Israelite or ancient reading this text would not have looked back and said, "But wait -- we still don't have all the land!" They would recognize and accept the formulaic nature of the text and realize it was not telling the whole story, and was not intended to, and would not expect it to, and that the fact of the remaining land was implicit in the formulation, for that fact has already been laid out earlier in the narrative portion of the text. With the overwhelming number of people illiterate, every step had to be taken to make the text easy to memorize. This is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category. He is also needlessly repeating himself; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

HYPER: Why didn’t the writer just give an accurate statement of what had happened and say something like he did in Ex. 14:21? Is there something wrong with factual reporting?

And how would our opponent answer?

Is it asking too much of an omni-max deity to expect accuracy in written materials that he “inspired”?

This comment has now been repeated seven different ways, and the answer is the same: we are demonstrating that "consistency" of the sort demanded in Western, precision-mindedness (which in turn demands that "inspiration" conform to these same strictures) is an illusory demand to make upon on a formulaic oral passage like Josh. 21:43-45. This reflects the very graphocentric prejudices we allude to later. An Israelite or ancient reading this text would not have looked back and said, "But wait -- we still don't have all the land!" They would recognize and accept the formulaic nature of the text and realize it was not telling the whole story, and was not intended to, and would not expect it to, and that the fact of the remaining land was implicit in the formulation, for that fact has already been laid out earlier in the narrative portion of the text. With the overwhelming number of people illiterate, every step had to be taken to make the text easy to memorize. This is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category. He is also needlessly repeating himself; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

If a statement like what I suggested had ended chapter 11, then it could have been prefixed to the beginning of chapter 13 so that the composite would have read like this:

Our opponent, infected with graphocentrism and not seeking a cure, now presumes to rewrite a text in English in a way he sees fit:

11:23 and 13:1 At this time, most of the land that Yahweh promised to Israel and their fathers was given to them except the much land that remains to be possessed.

2 This is the land that still remains: all the regions of the Philistines, and all those of the Geshurites

3 (from the Shihor, which is east of Egypt, northward to the boundary of Ekron, it is reckoned as Canaanite; there are five rulers of the Philistines, those of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron), and those of the Avvim,

4 in the south, all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that belongs to the Sidonians, to Aphek, to the boundary of the Amorites,

5 and the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon, toward the east, from Baal-gad below Mount Hermon to Lebo-hamath,

6 all the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon to Misrephoth-maim, even all the Sidonians.

Now of course this does not address anything, since what is needed is a rewrite of Josh. 21:43-45; we have shown that there is no issue with 11:23. But even then, by adding the phrases he did, our opponent has indeed made the passage less easy to memorize, and therefore is obnoxiously insisting upon adding an additional burden to those who do not need the extra verbiage cluttering their memories. This reflects the very graphocentric prejudices we allude to later.

Instead of doing it this way, the omni-one inspired his chosen vessel to write the texts with a claim that Joshua had taken the whole land according to what Yahweh had promised through Moses, insert a listing of all the land that had been conquered, and then say, “Now Joshua was old and advanced in years; and Yahweh said to him, “You are old and advanced in years, and very much of the land still remains to be possessed” (13:10).

This comment has now been repeated eight different ways, and the answer is the same: we are demonstrating that "consistency" of the sort demanded in Western, precision-mindedness (which in turn demands that "inspiration" and "omni-oneness" conform to these same strictures, for their own benefit, and at the expense of millions of others in the past who lived in an oral society) is an illusory demand to make upon on a formulaic oral passage like Josh. 21:43-45. This reflects the very graphocentric prejudices we allude to later. An Israelite or ancient reading this text would not have looked back and said, "But wait -- we still don't have all the land!" They would recognize and accept the formulaic nature of the text and realize it was not telling the whole story, and was not intended to, and would not expect it to, and that the fact of the remaining land was implicit in the formulation, for that fact has already been laid out earlier in the narrative portion of the text. With the overwhelming number of people illiterate, every step had to be taken to make the text easy to memorize. This is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category. He is also needlessly repeating himself; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

HYPER: Instead of doing it this way, the omni-one inspired his chosen vessel to write the texts with a claim that with the blast of God's nostrils the waters were gathered together.

And how would our opponent answer?

No flapdoodle about “forceful central chiasms” designed to make the statement easier to memorize can explain away an obvious inconsistency.

The snide reference to "flapdoodle" is comparable to a backwoods native who sees a picture of an airplane on the ground, and told it is a flying machine, insists there is no way something so heavy could fly. As a result he merely dismisses flight instruction manuals, and technical texts on flight with such concepts as wind shear, lift, and velocity, as "flapdoodle". Our opponent reacts thusly to this data on oral composition because he is, as we have noted, one of those critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tends to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments.

HYPER: No flapdoodle about “figures of speech” designed to make the statement easier to memorize and more colorful can explain away an obvious inconsistency.

And how would our opponent answer?

Furthermore, [Holding]’s rewriting above with all of the “excepts” is a tacit admission that the texts as written are inconsistency.

This comment has now been repeated nine different ways, and the answer is the same: we are demonstrating that "consistency" of the sort demanded in Western, precision-mindedness (which in turn demands that "inspiration" and "omni-oneness" conform to these same strictures, for their own benefit, and at the expense of millions of others in the past who lived in an oral society) is an illusory demand to make upon on a formulaic oral passage like Josh. 21:43-45. This reflects the very graphocentric prejudices we allude to later. An Israelite or ancient reading this text would not have looked back and said, "But wait -- we still don't have all the land!" They would recognize and accept the formulaic nature of the text and realize it was not telling the whole story, and was not intended to, and would not expect it to, and that the fact of the remaining land was implicit in the formulation, for that fact has already been laid out earlier in the narrative portion of the text. With the overwhelming number of people illiterate, every step had to be taken to make the text easy to memorize. This is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category. He is also needlessly repeating himself; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

HYPER: Furthermore, the acknowledgment of Ex. 14:21 is a tacit admission that the texts as written are inconsistency.

And how would our opponent answer?

Didn’t he say that the issue in this debate would be “the internal consistency of the Biblical record”? I believe he did, so it is time for him to show us that the Biblical record is consistent in the matter of how much land the Israelites possessed.

This comment has now been repeated ten different ways, and the answer is the same: we are demonstrating that "consistency" of the sort demanded in Western, precision-mindedness (which in turn demands that "inspiration" and "omni-oneness" conform to these same strictures, for their own benefit, and at the expense of millions of others in the past who lived in an oral society) is an illusory demand to make upon on a formulaic oral passage like Josh. 21:43-45. This reflects the very graphocentric prejudices we allude to later. An Israelite or ancient reading this text would not have looked back and said, "But wait -- we still don't have all the land!" They would recognize and accept the formulaic nature of the text and realize it was not telling the whole story, and was not intended to, and would not expect it to, and that the fact of the remaining land was implicit in the formulation, for that fact has already been laid out earlier in the narrative portion of the text. With the overwhelming number of people illiterate, every step had to be taken to make the text easy to memorize. This is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category. He is also needlessly repeating himself; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

In light of this we ask our opponent these questions:

1. Do you deny that the Ancient Near East was a predominantly oral culture?

**Response:

Well, “our opponent” will be more than happy to answer the questions. No, I don’t deny that the Ancient Near East was a predominantly oral culture. At the time that all of these conquests were presumably happening, the Israelites were probably an entirely oral culture, because alphabetic writing was in its infancy at this time.

While we might dispute the "entirely oral" bit, we will bypass comment and accept our opponent's concession that the Ancient Near East was a predominantly oral culture. However, he adds:

Oral traditions, when later written down in different regions, became inconsistent accounts that were patched together to form the hodgepodge of inconsistencies that characterize much of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel and Kings.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject (oral tradition as a whole; the "hodgepodge of inconsistencies) never addressed in the original article. It is merely distraction; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Instead of just recognizing this, biblicists like [Holding] tie themselves into verbal knots to try to “explain” the inconsistencies, as if it would have been beyond the ability of an omni-max deity to “inspire“ correctness in written materials in a society that was “predominantly oral."

This comment has now been repeated eleven different ways, and the answer is the same: we are demonstrating that "consistency" of the sort demanded in Western, precision-mindedness (which in turn demands that "inspiration" and "omni-oneness" conform to these same strictures, for their own benefit, and at the expense of millions of others in the past who lived in an oral society) is an illusory demand to make upon on a formulaic oral passage like Josh. 21:43-45. This reflects the very graphocentric prejudices we allude to later. An Israelite or ancient reading this text would not have looked back and said, "But wait -- we still don't have all the land!" They would recognize and accept the formulaic nature of the text and realize it was not telling the whole story, and was not intended to, and would not expect it to, and that the fact of the remaining land was implicit in the formulation, for that fact has already been laid out earlier in the narrative portion of the text. With the overwhelming number of people illiterate, every step had to be taken to make the text easy to memorize. This is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category. He is also needlessly repeating himself; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

HYPER: Instead of just recognizing this, people like Till tie themselves into verbal knots to try to “explain” the inconsistencies, as if it would have been beyond the ability of an omni-max deity to “inspire“ correctness in written materials.

And how would our opponent answer?

If not, do you deny that such formulaic expressions as these existed in oral cultures, and were intended to serve a particular purpose?

**Response:

Accuracy is accuracy and inaccuracy is inaccuracy whether oral or written. No “formulaic expressions” can make oral inaccuracies accurate. An inconsistent statement, whether written or oral, is an inconsistent statement.

This comment has now been repeated eleven different ways, and the answer is the same: we are demonstrating that "consistency" of the sort demanded in Western, precision-mindedness, for its own benefit, and at the expense of millions of others in the past who lived in an oral society, is an illusory demand to make upon on a formulaic oral passage like Josh. 21:43-45. This reflects the very graphocentric prejudices we allude to later, and merely reasserting these graphocentric prejudices is not an answer. This is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category. He is also needlessly repeating himself; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

HYPER: Accuracy is accuracy and inaccuracy is inaccuracy whether oral or written. No “figures of speech” can make inaccuracies accurate. An inconsistent statement, whether figurative or not, is an inconsistent statement.

And how would our opponent answer?

Do you insist that Yahweh should have inspired the OT writers to neglect their oral background and readership, and include details of niggling exception so as to make the matter more "clear" to you?

**Response:

I insist that an omni-everything deity, who cannot lie, should have inspired OT writers to report events accurately. A really omni-max deity could have easily guided the inspired ones to use their oral background to report accurately what had happened in the events that they wrote about. If not, why not? Of what use was “inspiration” anyway if it didn’t guide the writers to record facts accurately as they were writing? If an inspired writer was reporting something that he knew of through oral tradition, why wouldn’t guidance from the omni-one have directed him to correct whatever inaccuracies may have been in the oral tradition?

In other words, our opponent does remain tied to his graphocentric prejudices, and does insist that Yahweh should have inspired the OT writers to neglect their oral background and readership, and include details of niggling exception so as to make the matter more "clear" to him and to satisfy his perceptions of how to report things "accurately". The text IS accurate -- an Israelite or ancient reading this text would not have looked back and said, "But wait -- we still don't have all the land!" They would recognize and accept the formulaic nature of the text and realize it was not telling the whole story, and was not intended to, and would not expect it to, and that the fact of the remaining land was implicit in the formulation, for that fact has already been laid out earlier in the narrative portion of the text.

HYPER: I insist that an omni-everything deity, who cannot lie, should have inspired OT writers to report events accurately. A really omni-max deity could have easily guided the inspired ones to use their background to report accurately what had happened in the events that they wrote about. If not, why not? Of what use was “inspiration” anyway if it didn’t guide the writers to record facts accurately as they were writing? If an inspired writer was reporting something that he knew of through a figure of speech, why wouldn’t guidance from the omni-one have directed him to correct whatever inaccuracies may have been in the figure of speech?

And how would our opponent answer?

If so, why? On what grounds do you insist that Yahweh should have accommodated the graphocentric prejudices of you, and those of just a few like you in modern times, as opposed to inspiring a formulaic description for millions in the past, for whom making such passages easy to remember was so important, and for whom the material was the most relevant?

**Response:

This is a multi-faceted question, so I will take it a facet at a time.

This is merely a statement of intent. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

First, my grounds for insisting that Yahweh should have inspired his “chosen” writers to record accurately what had happened is that truth is better than falsity and that a deity who cannot lie should be expected to report the truth.

In other words, our opponent does remain tied to his graphocentric prejudices, and does insist that Yahweh should have inspired the OT writers to neglect their oral background and readership, and include details of niggling exception so as to make the matter more "clear" to him and to satisfy his perceptions of how to report "truth". The text IS true -- an Israelite or ancient reading this text would not have looked back and said, "But wait -- we still don't have all the land! This statement is false!" They would recognize and accept the formulaic nature of the text and realize it was not telling the whole story, and was not intended to, and would not expect it to, and that the fact of the remaining land was implicit in the formulation, for that fact has already been laid out earlier in the narrative portion of the text.

HYPER: First, my grounds for insisting that Yahweh should have inspired his “chosen” writers to record accurately what had happened is that truth is better than falsity and that a deity who cannot lie should be expected to report the truth between Ex. 14:21 and 15:8.

And how would our opponent answer?

As for “graphocentric prejudices” of me and “just a few like [me],” if expecting truth in reporting is a graphocentric prejudice, I plead guilty, and if there are only a few like me in the world, I am glad to be in the minority on this issue.

We find it of no surprise that our opponent heartily reaffirms his graphocentric prejudices with no defense or justification beyond the very same prejudices.

HYPER: As for “literalistic prejudices” of me and “just a few like [me],” against figures of speech, if expecting truth in reporting is a literalistic prejudice, I plead guilty, and if there are only a few like me in the world, I am glad to be in the minority on this issue.

And how would our opponent answer?

Second, the OT history of Yahweh’s “chosen people” was presumably an inspired record for all mankind throughout history or--excuse the expression--forever. The omni-one should have realized that (1) reporting exactly what had happened could have been understood by Hebrew readers, (2) inspiring written records without inconsistencies in them would have commanded much more respect from future generations whose concepts of logic and truth would be more advanced than the “millions in the past,” and (3) inspiring accuracy in the written records of a predominantly oral culture would have prevented discussions like this one.

This is merely an absurd demand, reinforcing our opponent's graphocentric prejudices. (1) could have indeed been understood by Hebrew readers, but as we stated time and again, readers represented only the tiniest portion of people in the ancient world; the remainder had to commit the words to memory. The words could have been understood, but not as easily memorized, if not placed in a formulaic setting. (2) is merely a further prejudice, an egocentric modernism, since it insists that Yahweh should have inspired the OT writers to neglect their oral background and readership, and include details of niggling exception so as to make the matter more "clear" to modern readers, who, unlike the ancients, have the benefit of hindsight to be able to study and recognize such oral formulations and adjust their thinking. These are the words of one deeply prejudiced who thinks himself too fine to soil his hands with understanding the text as those who read and heard it first understood it. (3) is an even more prejudiced statement in the same way, from one who thinks himself too fine to soil his hands with understanding the text as those who read and heard it first understood it, and would rather have compromised the remembrance and lives of millions of oral consumers of the text for the purpose of relieving him of the inconvenience of such discussions as this one.

HYPER: Second, the OT history of Yahweh’s “chosen people” was presumably an inspired record for all mankind throughout history or--excuse the expression--forever. The omni-one should have realized that (1) reporting exactly what had happened could have been understood by Hebrew readers, (2) inspiring written records without inconsistencies in them would have commanded much more respect from future generations whose concepts of logic and truth would be more advanced than the “millions in the past,” and (3) inspiring accuracy in the written records of a culture that used so many figures of speech would have prevented discussions like this one.

And how would our opponent answer?

Now I will return the favor and ask [Holding] four questions.

We submit, as we are gratified that our opponent has shown his hand by reinforcing and reiterating his prejudices.

1. Is it your position that inconsistencies are not inconsistencies if they were recorded in a time when the culture was predominantly oral?

It is my position that no inconsistency exists, for "inconsistency" implies error, and there is no error unless the intent was to tell the whole story, no more so than Ex. 15:21 was intended to tell the story. Oral cultures compose formulations such as these that are not intended to tell the whole story. They work under a diferent semantic contract than our own, and we have no justification for imposing our own semantic contract upon them.

2. If so, is it your position that inconsistency and contradiction were impossible in oral communications?

It is obviously not impossible for oral communications to be actually inconsistent, even by the standards of ancient oral production, but the mere possibility of such inconsistency does not prove that any particular oral formulation (especially one that has as many orality-based features as Josh. 21:43-45) offers an inconsistency. Guilt by vague association is not a valid argument.

3. Or is it your position that consistency was not possible in oral accounts?

It is my position that consistency is possible, but that no inconsistency exists in this text, for "inconsistency" implies error, and there is no error unless the intent was to tell the whole story. Oral cultures compose formulations such as these that are not intended to tell the whole story. They work under a diferent semantic contract than our own, and we have no justification for imposing our own semantic contract upon them.

4. If inconsistency was possible in oral communications, why wouldn’t the “inspiration” of an omni-max deity have enabled writers so inspired to remove inconsistencies from oral traditions as they were writing down that which had previously been transmitted orally?

This question is a non-question in context, for it is my position that no inconsistency exists, for "inconsistency" implies error, and there is no error unless the intent was to tell the whole story. Oral cultures compose formulations such as these that are not intended to tell the whole story. They work under a diferent semantic contract than our own, and we have no justification for imposing our own semantic contract upon them. The comment behind this question has now been repeated as many different ways as the cows come home, and the answer is the same: we are demonstrating that "consistency" of the sort demanded in Western, precision-mindedness (which in turn demands that "inspiration" and "omni-oneness" conform to these same strictures, for their own benefit, and at the expense of millions of others in the past who lived in an oral society) is an illusory demand to make upon on a formulaic oral passage like Josh. 21:43-45. This reflects the very graphocentric prejudices we allude to later and is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category. He is also needlessly repeating himself; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Those critics who insist upon the inclusion of such niggling details are guilty of what certain authorities on communication issues call graphocentrism -- an inherent bias in which writing is privileged over speech. Speech and writing are different forms of media with highly differing functions, and we should not demand that those people whose primary "media outlet" was speech conform to our demands as those who primary "media outlet" is writing.

**Response:

So is [Holding] arguing that saying something would remove inconsistencies that would be in the same statement if it were written down? Words are words, so if an inconsistency exists in words that are written down, why would the inconsistency vanish if the same words were spoken.

Yet again our opponent proudly and pompously declares and reinforces his graphocentric prejudices. Again: No inconsistency exists, for "inconsistency" implies error, and there is no error unless the intent was to tell the whole story. Oral cultures compose formulations such as these that are not intended to tell the whole story. They work under a diferent semantic contract than our own, and we have no justification for imposing our own semantic contract upon them. The comment behind this question has now been repeated as many different ways as the cows and the goats come home, and the answer is the same: we are demonstrating that "consistency" of the sort demanded in Western, precision-mindedness (which in turn demands that "inspiration" and "omni-oneness" conform to these same strictures, for their own benefit, and at the expense of millions of others in the past who lived in an oral society) is an illusory demand to make upon on a formulaic oral passage like Josh. 21:43-45. This reflects the very graphocentric prejudices we allude to above and is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown, and when known remains unaccepted, by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category. He is also needlessly repeating himself; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

HYPER: So is Till arguing that making something figurative would remove inconsistencies that would be in the same statement if it were literal? Words are words, so if an inconsistency exists in words that are written literally, why would the inconsistency vanish if the same words were written figuratively.

And how would our opponent answer?

Nor should we expect God to have inspired persons in an oral culture (and it is in that type of culture in which the overwhelming majority of people even today are immersed) to write things down in a way that would have been far less effective for them. We have hindsight to help us make the interpretive analysis. The ancients did not have such hindsight. Should he take this view, we defy our opponent to explain his self-centeredness on this point.

**Response:

Well, my comments above fully explain my “self-centeredness on this point.”

Yet again our opponent proudly and pompously declares and reinforces his graphocentric prejudices.

Inconsistency is inconsistency whether it is oral or written. If [Holding] thinks that inconsistency is not inconsistency in orally transmitted accounts, he needs to explain why it isn’t.

Yet again our opponent proudly and pompously declares and reinforces his graphocentric prejudices. Again: No inconsistency exists, for "inconsistency" implies error, and there is no error unless the intent was to tell the whole story. Oral cultures compose formulations such as these that are not intended to tell the whole story. They work under a diferent semantic contract than our own, and we have no justification for imposing our own semantic contract upon them. The comment behind this question has now been repeated as many different ways as the cows and the goats and the sheep come home, and the answer is the same: we are demonstrating that "consistency" of the sort demanded in Western, precision-mindedness (which in turn demands that "inspiration" and "omni-oneness" conform to these same strictures, for their own benefit, and at the expense of millions of others in the past who lived in an oral society) is an illusory demand to make upon on a formulaic oral passage like Josh. 21:43-45. This reflects the very graphocentric prejudices we allude to above and is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown, and when known remains unaccepted, by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category. He is also needlessly repeating himself; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

HYPER: Inconsistency is inconsistency whether it is literal or figurative. If Till thinks that inconsistency is not inconsistency in figuratively transmitted accounts, he needs to explain why it isn’t.

And how would our opponent answer?

Furthermore, once an oral tradition was written down, it became a written account, so [Holding] cannot find an excuse for inconsistency in the book of Joshua on the grounds that these were just accounts of what had once been transmitted orally.

Our opponent forgets that in spite of Joshua being written down, anywhere from 95-99 percent of the population remained illterate; the text would be read to such people, and it is absurd and prejudiced to demand that Yahweh produce an anachronistic relic for the sake of our opponent's graphocentric prejudices, especially when he has the hindsight and the ability to grasp the differences, and does not do so only because he thinks himself too fine to soil his hands with in-depth study of, and respect for, oral ("primitive") cultures.

I hope everyone is noticing that [Holding] is now tacitly admitting that there are inconsistencies in the biblical records of the conquest. I thank him for the admission.

No admission has been made, for we manintain that no inconsistency exists, for "inconsistency" implies error, and there is no error unless the intent was to tell the whole story. Oral cultures compose formulations such as these that are not intended to tell the whole story. They work under a diferent semantic contract than our own, and we have no justification for imposing our own semantic contract upon them. The comment behind this question has now been repeated as many different ways as the cows and the goats and the sheep and giraffes come home, and the answer is the same: we are demonstrating that "consistency" of the sort demanded in Western, precision-mindedness (which in turn demands that "inspiration" and "omni-oneness" conform to these same strictures, for their own benefit, and at the expense of millions of others in the past who lived in an oral society) is an illusory demand to make upon on a formulaic oral passage like Josh. 21:43-45. This reflects the very graphocentric prejudices we allude to above and is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown, and when known remains unaccepted, by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category. He is also needlessly repeating himself; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

HYPER: I hope everyone is noticing that Till is now tacitly admitting that there are inconsistencies in the biblical records of the Red Sea crossing. I thank him for the admission.

Thank you, Hyper, for your participation. Now take a powder.

Continuing:

**Response:

What? Another transition!

Its borders extended from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, from the wilderness, to Lebanon, and to the great river Euphrates.

This is merely setup on a matter that all parties would agree to. No one doubts that these were the geographic boundaries of the land Yahweh had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response:

Well, if everyone agrees that these were the promised boundaries, then [Holding] needs to explain how nothing failed of all that Yahweh had promised the Israelites, yet they never possessed all of the land within those boundaries.

We have already explained, and our opponent has yet again committed the irony of quoting a passage that disproves his contentions re: the nothern borders.

Oh, I forgot. This was a time when the culture was predominantly oral. Never mind.

As I have made no application here with reference to orality, this is merely a snide comment intended to dismiss, with prejudice, the entire complex of ideas associated with oral cultures and their different approach to communication. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

This is part of the 1,353 words of “irrelevant distractions” in [Holding]’s “reply.”

The issue is not including such transitional fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own transitional fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply, which, if abandoned, would have eliminated the 1,353 words in question. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Furthermore, the fulfillment claims state that the Israelites left none alive to breathe and that not a man of all their enemies stood before them.

**Response:

There is the same “irrelevant distraction” again.

The issue is not including such items in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own such comments ("EVERYTHING") in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I assume everyone noticed that [Holding] sidestepped this problem once again. He must explain how the Israelites could have left none alive to breathe and how not a man of all their enemies stood before them, and yet they couldn’t take all of the land promised to them and some of the Canaanites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Hivites, Hittites, and Amorites remained in the land until the time of Solomon over 400 years later.

We have fully explained this above, and our opponent has not refuted our arguments. This is merely pep-commentary intended to sway the reader; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Oh, I know, I know! This was a time when the culture was predominantly oral. I forgot.

Who were those enemies?

As this question is merely transitional, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response:

This is still more of [Holding]’s 1,353 words of “irrelevant distraction.”

Time and time again, they were named in the land prophecies: the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Jebusites, and the Perizzites.

This is merely a repeat of earlier information. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

This is still more of [Holding]’s 1,353 words of “irrelevant distraction,” which wasn’t distractive enough to keep intelligent readers from seeing how he evaded this issue.

The issue is not including such transitional fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own transitional fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply, which, if abandoned, would have eliminated the 1,353 words in question. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary, and such snide remarks, require quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

If Yahweh had promised that he would drive out and utterly destroy the Amorites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, and the Perizzites, and if the Israelites left none alive to breathe and if not a man of all their enemies stood before them, then why didn’t the Israelites take all of the land within the borders defined in the promise and why were Canaanites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Hivites, Hittites, and Amorites still in the land until the time of Solomon over 400 years later?

If [Holding] replies to my rebuttal articles, watch him dance around this problem again.

The arguments of our opponent, who apparently has Fred Astaire on the mind, we have not only danced, but steamrolled and flattened.

Yet after audaciously claiming in the passages noted above that every aspect of Yahweh's land promise had been fulfilled, the writer(s) turned around and brazenly admitted that some parts of the land were not conquered and some of the peoples in these lands were not driven out:

And this quote is made:

**Response:

Another unnecessary transition. If [Holding] had simply quoted the passage that followed my statement above, readers could have followed the flow of my ideas.

The issue is not including such transitional fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own transitional fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply, when our own will do the job just as well as we choose. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Now Joshua was old and well stricken in years; and Yahweh said unto him, Thou art old and well stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed. This is the land that yet remaineth: all the regions of the Philistines, and all the Geshurites; from the Shihor, which is before Egypt, even unto the border of Ekron northward, which is reckoned to the Canaanites; the five lords of the Philistines; the Gazites, and the Ashdodites, the Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avvim, on the south; all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that belongeth to the Sidonians, unto Aphek, to the border of the Amorites; and the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baalgad under mount Hermon unto the entrance of Hamath; all the inhabitants of the hill-country from Lebanon unto Misrephothmaim, even all the Sidonians; them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only allot thou it unto Israel for an inheritance, as I have commanded thee, (Joshua 13:1-6, Yahweh substituted).

And:

**Response:

Sigh! Another needless transition.

The issue is not including such transitional fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own transitional fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply, when our own will do the job just as well as we choose. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

This statement flatly contradicts the claim in Joshua 11:23 that Joshua "took the whole land, according to all that Yahweh spake unto Moses" so that the land had rest from war.

This is already answered above.

**Response:

And I hammered that answer “above” flatter than a cow patty. My analyses of all of the accounts of Joshua’s attacks and listings of land conquered, possessed, and divided among the Israelites show that these passages were claiming conquest and possession from the northern fringe of the Sinai wilderness to the southern regions of Lebanon and from the territory of the Amorites and Moabites east of the Jordan to the Mediterranean coastal regions.

Apparently our opponnet was too busy shaping cow patties to notice, as shown above, that his analyses of all of the accounts of Joshua’s attacks and listings of land conquered, possessed, and divided among the Israelites failed to show that there was any overlap between the lands recorded as taken in Josh. 10-11 and those not yet taken in Josh. 13.

All of the territorial regions singled out in this passage as land that remained to be possessed lay within the boundaries that were laid out in Joshua 1:1-6 to specify the scope of the land that Yahweh would give to the Israelites.

This is merely a repeat of earlier argumentation. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent; such arguments as are implied are answered above.

**Response:

And this is argumentation that [Holding] was unable to answer. Hence, my argument remains unimpeached.

Our opponent's arguments were impeached, imappled, imbananaed, and otherwise fruited out of existence.

This is still more of [Holding]’s 1,353 words of “irrelevant distractions” obviously intended to divert attention from his inability to answer arguments.

And the answers “above” were dismantled by analyzing the relevant texts to show that some passages in Joshua clearly claimed that all the land promised had been given to the Israelites and that nothing had failed in anything that Yahweh had spoken through Moses.

Our answers “above” were ratified by our opponent's failure to analyze the relevant texts to show that in Joshua 10 and 11 clearly claimed to overlap with land that was said not to be taken in Joshua 13, and that references to "all the land" in Joshua 10 and 11 referred only to the referenced land taken within those chapters, in which endeavors specifically, nothing had failed in anything that Yahweh had spoken through Moses.

So if Joshua had indeed taken "the WHOLE land, according to all that Yahweh spake unto Moses," as claimed In Joshua 11:23, how could it be said later that "very much land" remained to be possessed?

**Response:

It is an earlier argument that [Holding] tried to refute and couldn’t.

This is an earlier argument soundly refuted, and this is merely pep-commentary; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics; and unlike our opponent, we do not irrationally demand that he quote this paragraph or anything else beyond what is needed to give a fair, accurate representation of our argument, which, contrary to our opponent's as yet unjustified smokescreens, we have always done.

This is yet more of [Holding]’s 1,353-word straw man that he repeated 41 times to distract attention from his failure to rebut my arguments.

The issue is not including such fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply, which, if abandoned, would have eliminated the 1,353 words in question. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary, and such snide remarks, require quotation and/or reference from a respondent, but it is clear that he wishes for us to preserve every one of his words for no other reason than to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics. Indeed he admits as much that these are his tactics, for he has also repeated several arguments a dozen or more times. If my repeating such a phrase 41 times (to 41 items that deserved no more response than that) is ploy to distract attention from my failure to rebut arguments, how much more is our opponent's repetition of his arguments a ploy to distract attention from his own failure to rebut arguments?

Perhaps some of our inerrantist readers can answer this question.

This is merely a snide remark intended to provoke the psychological effect that no inerrantist reader can answer the question. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

**Response:

Ah, the pot calls the kettle black again.

No pot exists, for we have never begrudged inclusion of such language in any work; the issue is not including such fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I previously quoted an example of “snide remarks” from [Holding]’s website, so let’s look at some more. This is from an article entitled “Caught with Your Pants Down” or “What Happens When You Take Off Your Bible Belt” at .

Being that we're running out of skeptics to refute, we at Tekton have resorted to scraping barrel bottoms. This includes challenging Farrell Till to debate and now, writing pieces about minor skeptics such as this one.

The example serves no purpose, for we have never begrudged inclusion of such language in any work; the issue is not including such fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own transitional fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

When he reads the thoroughness of my reply, I suspect that [Holding] won’t be too eager to debate me again. Only time will tell. If he wants a return engagement, I am ready and eager to lock verbal swords with him on the issue of prophecy fulfillment.

Our opponent, after he has finished his collection of crow, may display his eagerness at such time as he is ready.

Oh, I forgot. He won’t debate this issue, because there are “insufficient data.”

What is "this issue"?

Here’s another comment from the pot’s website.

Yes, even now our critic is still at it, and still floundering around in the paste trying to make a respectful collage, even after five months of sticky fingers. As the level of response has become a bit ungainly, we're now putting it in a separate article, and this includes the latest, latest, latest responses.

We have never begrudged inclusion of such language in any work; the issue is not including such fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

This one is from an article entitled “Scratching the Cat Post” or “Our Critic Continues on the Trilemma” at . “Our critic” in this article was [the Trilemma critic], who published a thorough rebuttal of [Holding] on his, er, McDowell’s, er, C. S. Lewis’s “liar, lord, or lunatic trilemma.”

This "thorough rebuttal" has been thoroughly refuted within the article referenced.

In keeping with his nickname [J. P.] “No Link” [Holding], he has provided his readers with no link to [the Trilemma critic]’s rebuttal article. He hasn’t even used [the Trilemma critic]’s name on his website. Instead, [Holding] refers to him as “our critic,” as he selectively quotes from [the Trilemma critic]’s rebuttal articles so that readers will see only what [Holding] wants them to see from [the Trilemma critic]’s rebuttals and never know what name they could use to search the web for [the Trilemma critic]‘s replies. The replies can be accessed at [].

Our opponent will not be permitted to do favors for friends of his who cannot defend their own territory adequately on their own, and continually haul up the standard "selective quotes" argument without effective justification. If our opponent finds our editing objectionable, it can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability on his part to address the subject at hand, and of a need to wiggle his way out of a debate with us, using any excuse that is at hand. We also remind him (as he clearly needs reminding, as shown above), that any person wishing to find the Trilemma critic's material has only to insert in any search engine any unique or extended string of words or phrases from the critic's material which we have quoted. Any person otherwise desiring to know the name and location specified may write us at jphold@earthlink.net and should cc our opponent at jftill@theramp.net so that we may give them the information and so that our opponent has no excuse for saying we edited the above because we do not want readers to see the Trilemma critic's material. We rather wish to prove that any person with an ounce of sense has more than enough ability to find that material, and that the complaints about lack of link inclusion are a smokescreen.

Incidentally we do not begrudge in the least if our opponent edits website addresses from Glenn Miller's ThinkTank above, or edits out any other commentary of ours beyond what is needed for an accurate and fair representation, for unlike our opponent, we do not absurdly demand that he quote EVERYTHING, but rest assured in the knowledge that we are intelligent and capable enough to discern, and highlight to reader, any place where an omission affects our case. But as we have noted far above, that is not really the issue, for the EVERYTHING demand over the years has been nothing but a smokescreen erected to avoid debate with us.

For [Holding] to fault me for “snide remarks” has to be the height of hypocrisy.

No hypocrisy exists, for we have never begrudged inclusion of such language in any work; the issue is not including such fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Here is [Holding]’s straw man again. If he had devoted these 1,353 words to relevant points, he may have actually answered an argument or two. As it is, he has answered nothing.

We have answered everything, thoroughly, and the issue is not including such fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply, which, if abandoned, would have eliminated the 1,353 words in question. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary, and such snide remarks, require quotation and/or reference from a respondent, but it is clear that he wishes for us to preserve every one of his words for no other reason than to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics. Indeed he admits as much that these are his tactics, for he has also repeated several arguments a dozen or more times. If my repeating such a phrase 41 times (to 41 items that deserved no more response than that) is ploy to distract attention from my failure to rebut arguments, how much more is our opponent's repetition of his arguments a ploy to distract attention from his own failure to rebut arguments?

They are good at coming up with far-fetched, how-it- could-have-been scenarios to "explain" obvious contradictions in the Bible.

This snide remark serves no concrete argumentative purpose in this context and is added for no other purpose than to be insulting to believers and provide a cheering point for gullible skeptical readers, and is a manipulative, tactical way of giving the false impression that there are indeed obvious contradictions; that our opponent has carefully looked into every "obvious contradiction," and critically determined that all solutions to them have failed. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to gain debate points illicitly.

**Response:

The “pot” complains again.

If claiming there are “obvious contradictions” in the Bible is a “manipulative, tactical way of giving [a] false impression,” then why didn’t [Holding] show us that the biblical text is consistent in what it says about the amount of land that was conquered and possessed and when it was conquered and possessed?

Indeed, the snide remark served no concrete argumentative purpose in the context and was added for no other purpose than to be insulting to believers and provide a cheering point for gullible skeptical readers, and is a manipulative, tactical way of giving the false impression that there are indeed obvious contradictions; that our opponent has carefully looked into every "obvious contradiction," and critically determined that all solutions to them have failed; and this has nothing to do logically with the particular matter of the amount of land that was conquered and possessed and when it was conquered and possessed, so that this last phrase by our opponent is yet another manipulation intended to evade the point that the snide remark served no concrete argumentative purpose in the context and was added for no other purpose than to be insulting to believers and provide a cheering point for gullible skeptical readers, and was a manipulative, tactical way of giving the false impression that there are indeed obvious contradictions; that our opponent has carefully looked into every "obvious contradiction," and critically determined that all solutions to them have failed.

What better way to show that I am “giving a false impression”?

We have shown this, and our opponent still evades the point that the snide remark served no concrete argumentative purpose in the context and was added for no other purpose than to be insulting to believers and provide a cheering point for gullible skeptical readers, and was a manipulative, tactical way of giving the false impression that there are indeed obvious contradictions; that our opponent has carefully looked into every "obvious contradiction," and critically determined that all solutions to them have failed.

He obviously has a great deal of interest in trying to discredit me, as anyone can immediately see by accessing his site, so why didn’t he really embarrass me by showing that the book of Joshua is consistent in what it says about the land promise and its fulfillment?

As we have done so, our opponent, by his own reckoning, has been embarrassed; and our opponent still evades the point that the snide remark served no concrete argumentative purpose in the context and was added for no other purpose than to be insulting to believers and provide a cheering point for gullible skeptical readers, and was a manipulative, tactical way of giving the false impression that there are indeed obvious contradictions; that our opponent has carefully looked into every "obvious contradiction," and critically determined that all solutions to them have failed.

No, I haven’t looked into every “obvious contradiction,” because in my reading of the Bible I continue to notice inconsistencies that are rather obvious that I hadn’t noticed before. I doubt that I am yet aware of every obvious contradiction in the Bible. If [Holding] is referring to the whole body of materials published by so-called biblical skeptics, then I don’t claim that all solutions have failed, because I don’t believe that some of these so-called discrepancies are real discrepancies. Unfortunately, some skeptics specialize in the nitpicking kind of discrepancies, and I have openly opposed this and will continue to do so.

The admission is gratefully accepted, and thus we expect our opponent to be consistent with this remark and discontinue using snide remarks serving no concrete argumentative purpose in their context, added for no other purpose than to be insulting to believers and provide a cheering point for gullible skeptical readers.

I do know, however, that biblicists, in general, have been unable to give successful solutions to real inconsistencies like the land-promise failure. [Holding] is now testimony to the fact that someone who obviously considers himself one of the best in apologetics cannot find a satisfactory solution to this problem.

We have found an eminently and undeniable solution to every "problem" herein presented, and this is merely fluff and pep-rallying; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Most of the rest of the book of Joshua and the better part of Judges contradict all of the fulfillment claims that I have noted above.

As this comment is merely transitional, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. But then some quotes are offered:

**Response:

To all but last sentence, first portion:

Here is [Holding]’s straw man again.

There is no straw man, for the issue is not including such transitional fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own transitional fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

To the same sentence, second portion:

And, of course, [Holding] finds transitional comments appalling. That’s why he avoids them like the plague in his own writing.

Also to the same sentence, third portion:

There’s the straw man again. To how much better use would [Holding]’s 1,353 words have been put if he had devoted them to trying to answer my arguments that he has tap danced around?

To the last sentence:

What? Another transitional distraction!

Joshua 15:63 says, "And as for the JEBUSITES, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day."

And:

**Response:

Hmm, another unnecessary transition. [Holding] cannot, and never will be able to, explain.... Oh, well....

There is nothing to explain, for the issue is not including such transitional fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own transitional fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply when we can use our own to no ill effect to his case. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Yet the Jebusites were specifically named as one of the seven nations "greater and mightier than thou" that would be utterly destroyed.

This is Example 1.

**Response:

Which [Holding] didn’t reply to. I guess he intends to come back to this, as he said he would do when he skipped over Aspect 1, Aspect 2, Aspect 3, etc. with a promise to reserve comment on them until all aspects had been listed.

As we do address this below in our opponent's order of address which we are clearly following, this is either a lack of common sense by our opponent or else a blatantly dishonest attempt to imply that we have not, and never will, address it.

Somehow I failed to see any refutation of those “aspects” after they had all been listed.

One suspects that someone who also did not see the clearly defined northern border of the land grant, or who prejudicially imposes his graphocentrism upon oral cultures, would also be inclined to not see any refutation of any of these aspects of his arguments.

Joshua 16:10 says, "And they drove not out the CANAANITES that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwell in the midst of Ephraim unto this day, and are become servants to do taskwork."

This is example 2.

**Response:

Yes, it is example 2, so why didn’t [Holding] answer it? I ask readers to watch attentively to notice that [Holding] never came back to these to explain specifically how Jebusites and Canaanites could have remained in the land after it was said that no man of the enemies of the Israelites were able to stand before them and that nothing failed in all of the promises that Yahweh had made to Israel through Moses. You will see that he lumped them all together and swept them under a rug with general comments that didn’t specifically answer anything.

We do answer this matter thoroughly below, and this is merely prejudicial commentary intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

But the Canaanites were specifically listed as one of the seven nations that would be utterly destroyed.

Since the point here is the same as that above, this sentence offers an unnecessary repetition. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. But then some quotes are offered:

**Response:

To first sentence:

But it is repetition that [Holding] needs to answer. How could there have been Canaanites in the land after the text had said that no man was able to stand before the Israelites and that nothing had failed in all of the promises that Yahweh had made to Israel through Moses?

To second sentence:

Here is [Holding]’s straw man again. If he had devoted the 33 words in this expression--all 41 times that he repeated it--maybe he could have explained to us how Jebusites and Canaanites could have been in the land after it had been said that no man of the Israelite enemies were able to stand before them and after it was claimed that nothing had failed in all that Yahweh had promised to Israel.

To the third sentence:

Sigh! Another transitional distraction, but let’s watch to see if [Holding] replies to the “quotes that [were] offered.”

Joshua 17:12-13 says, "Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. And it came to pass, when the children of Israel were waxed strong, that they put the Canaanites to taskwork, and did not utterly drive them out."

Example 3.

**Response:

Yes, it is example 3, so why didn’t [Holding] reply to it? Keep an eye on him and watch how he tries to lump these examples all together and dance around them.

Yet the promise had clearly been that the Canaanites would be utterly driven out, that NO MAN would be able to stand before the Israelites all the days of their lives.

**Response:

To first sentence:

Since it repeats an argument that [Holding] hasn’t yet replied to, why is it unnecessary, and why didn’t [Holding] try to answer it?

We do answer this matter thoroughly in our response, and this is merely prejudicial commentary intended to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

[Holding] makes Steppin’ Fetchin’ look like a rank amateur.

While this is a charming phrase from our opponent's stock of memories, it is merely fluff; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to invoke a laugh or two.

To last sentence:

The straw man again.

Making servants of them can hardly be considered fulfillment of a prophecy declaring that they would be "utterly driven out."

This point deserves reply. It is correctly observed by our opponent:

In fact, it contradicts a restriction noted on page three that expressly prohibited the Israelites from making covenants with the inhabitants of their promised land.

Yes, indeed, the restriction was violated. We will return to this shortly, but first our opponent repeats all of his arguments in summary form:

In Joshua 16:10; 17:12-13; Judges 1:1-5; 1:9; 1:21; 1:27-36; 3:1-6 and many other places, references are made to the people that the Israelites could not drive out of the land, and many of these were specific references to people from the "seven nations greater and mightier than thou" that Yahweh promised that he would drive out WITHOUT FAIL.

**Response:

To first sentence, last paragraph:

So when is [Holding] going to answer it?

As we do address it, to whatever quality our opponent cares to argue, this impatient questioning is merely fluff; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Be alert to notice how he later lumps everything together and sweeps it under a rug.

To last sentence:

The straw man again!

But he didn't, and so the inerrancy champions have some serious explaining to do.

This snide remark serves no concrete argumentative purpose in this context and is added for no other purpose than to provide a cheering point for gullible skeptical readers, and is a manipulative, tactical way of giving the false impression that our opponent has carefully looked into the issue and critically determined that no solution is possible, and that a grave burden lies upon inerrantists. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to gain debate, sound bite points illicitly.

**Response:

The pot calls the kettle black. I just received an e-mail message in which [Holding] made the following comments.

No pot exists, for we have never begrudged inclusion of such language in any work or e-mail; the issue is not including such fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Hiya porkchop! I thought I heard the wind blowing, and what do you know, you wrote me a note! Ha ha! :-D

I'm very sorry. I'll be sure and include some pictures next time, but it is up to you to buy the crayons to color them with.

The last comment was made about the 13,502 words in his “reply” to my article, but there were even more such comments in his message.

This is true. We perceived that our opponent needed some humor in his life, and he apparently does, as is evidenced by his numerous, colorless writing efforts that have all the exotic interest of watching paint dry. :-D

I had told him that I was patiently working away to reply point-by-point to his rebuttal, and he said this.

Well, your patience is quite admirable, Mr. Job, and it shall be rewarded. I'm sending Bildad right over to tell you what a miserable fellow you are.

This is true also. We perceived, because of the self-reference made by our opponent earlier in his letter, comparing himself to Job and having his patience, that he needed some humor in his life, and he apparently does, as is evidenced by his numerous, colorless writing efforts that have all the exotic interest of watching paint dry. :-D

And it continued in that vein. Those who know me understand that snide comments, barbs, and insults don’t bother me, because I think they can liven up debates that would otherwise get tedious, but for [Holding] to complain about “snide remarks” in my article, which were tame compared to the invective that is a primary feature of his website, has to be audacity gone to seed.

We have not complained in the least about our opponent making use of snide comments, barbs, and insults in material, for we agree that they liven up debates (as they also lived up e-mail) that would otherwise get tedious either writing poor reading, but rather, we have complained about our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own snide comments, insults, and barbs ("EVERYTHING") in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

To last sentence:

Straw man! [Holding] may think it isn’t necessary to “quote this” in a reply, but why doesn’t he at least reply to it?

We do reply to it below, and there is no straw man, for the issue is not including such fluff in our reply, but our opponent's obsessive insistence that we quote his own fluff ("EVERYTHING") in our reply. Our opponent has yet to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, instead preferring to pre-empt the argument with manipulative questions.

IF "Yahweh gave unto Israel ALL the land which he sware to give unto their fathers" (Joshua 21:43-45) and IF "they possessed it (the land) and dwelt therein" (same passage) and IF Yahweh "gave them rest round about, according to ALL that he sware unto their fathers" (same passage) and IF "there stood not a man of ALL their enemies before them" (same passage) and IF "Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand" (same passage) and IF "there failed not AUGHT of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken unto the house of Israel" (same passage) and IF "all came to pass" (same passage), how could it have been that some of the enemies of Israel were still in the land during the time of the book of Judges and how could it have been that some of the people of the "seven nations greater and mightier than thou" were still dwelling with the children of Israel "unto this day"?

This horrendously verbose sentence is merely a repeat of earlier argumentation. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. But now that these superfluous words are beyond us, we go to an answer. The cites indicated may categorized in two ways:

**Response:

To first sentence:

It’s a repeat of earlier argumentation that [Holding] hasn’t answered yet.

It is earlier argumentation that we have thoroughly answered.

Gullible readers of his website who are naive enough to pledge $70 to $80 per year to him so that he can become a full-time “apologist” to churn out evasion such as this may think that he is kicking butt, but readers with any critical skills at all will have no difficulty seeing that he isn’t answering much of anything and is kicking straw men around by repeatedly saying, “This is merely a repeat of earlier argumentation,” and so “it is not necessary to quote this in a reply.”

Readers of whatever sort are not expected to think that we are with such paragraphs particularly "kicking butt" or any particular anatomical feature, but rather are exposing an anti-apologist who tries to circumvent any critical analysis of his material and cover his lack of solid argumentation by means of distractions, fluff, repetition, and the constant insistence that we quote EVERYTHING he writes in order to prevent a non-proven and non-executed crime of quoting material out of context. Beyond that, this is merely a gratuitous insult to Christian readers for the benefit of skeptical cheers, and also an attempt to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

To second sentence:

This is straw man number what? Who knows? It isn’t worth my time to count them.

However, our opponent does consider it worth his time to fill his material with distractions, fluff, and repetition, including this very sentence of his? :-)

To third sentence:

Ah, yes, here is a familiar tactic. The inerrantist skips over the arguments as his opponent presents them and then pretends to “categorize” them and answer them all together.

There is nothing objectionable to answering material by category, and if an issue is answered by the same answer to another issue, then there is no reason to answer them separately. At any rate, this is merely ad hominem intended to bias the reader; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

When we have gone through his dance routine, I’ll just restate the questions above that [Holding] didn’t answer.

As we answered all questions, this is merely a smokescreen, and ad hominem intended to bias the reader; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

1. Places where it is said that the Israelites did not drive out the inhabitants, but reduced them to forced labor. (Josh. 16:10, 17:12-15; Judges 1:21; 1:27-35) Our opponent notes these as a violation and is right to do so. Yet because of the landlord-tenant relationship described above, such instances as these can hardly be taken to account against Yahweh's promise to drive out the nations, since it reflects the choice of the Israelities to not drive them out. By that accounting it was a specific violation of the covenant terms by the Israelites, and there was indeed a punishment for this:

**Response:

Yahweh promised that he would drive out all of the nations and that not a man would be able to stand against them, so if the Israelites put some of the people into forced labor, how could it have correctly been said that “there failed not aught of any good thing that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel” (Josh. 21:45)?

We have already shown, and our opponent has not answered except via reinforcement of his graphocentric prejudices, that Josh. 21:45 is part of an oral formula that an Israelite or ancient reading this text would not have looked at, and then back at other text, and said, "But wait -- we still don't have all the land!" They would recognize and accept the formulaic nature of the text and realize it was not telling the whole story, and was not intended to, and would not expect it to. This is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category.

Let’s take a look at the examples that were mentioned above.

Joshua 16:10 They did not, however, drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer: so the Canaanites have lived within Ephraim to this day but have been made to do forced labor.

Joshua 17:12 Yet the Manassites could not take possession of those towns; but the Canaanites continued to live in that land.

13 But when the Israelites grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not utterly drive them out.

As we respond to these examples above and below, in spite of our opponent trying to trick readers by stopping our point in midstream, this is merely useless repetition; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

The promise in Joshua 1:5 was that “no man will be able to stand against you [the Israelites],” and Johua 23:44 said that “there stood not a man of ALL their enemies before them,” but in between these two statements, it was said that the Israelites could not drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer and that the Manassites could not take possession of some towns that the Canaanites continued to live in. They did not utterly drive them out.

As we respond to these examples above and below, in spite of our opponent trying to trick readers by stopping our point in midstream, this is merely useless repetition, indeed merely repeating of what is plainly recorded in the texts; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to hypnotize the reader into forgettting that his arguments have been refuted.

Now I want [Holding] to explain how Joshua 1:5 and 23:44 could be true but Joshua 16:10 and 17:12-13 were also true.

As we respond to these examples above and below, in spite of our opponent trying to trick readers by stopping our point in midstream and repeating his argument time and time again, this is merely useless repetition; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to hypnotize the reader into forgettting that his arguments have been refuted.

Here’s my question again, slightly modified, which [Holding] is trying to dance around by “categorizing” it, so why don’t we just look at the question in isolation?

There is nothing objectionable to answering material by category, and if an issue is answered by the same answer as another issue, then there is no reason to answer them separately. At any rate, this is merely ad hominem intended to bias the reader; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

If “there stood not a man of ALL their enemies before them” and if “Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand” and if “there failed not aught of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken unto the house of Israel” and if “all came to pass” and IF all four of these “if” statements are inerrantly true, how could it have possibly been that the Israelites did not drive out and did not utterly destroy the Canaanites mentioned in Joshua 16:10 and Joshua 17:12-13?

This is merely needless repetition; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to hypnotize the reader into forgettting that his arguments have been refuted.

If [Holding] answers my replies to his 13,045 word masterpiece in evasion, watch him dance around these questions again.

We have danced over, steamrolled, and flattened every one of these arguments below; as it stands, this is merely fluff intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

As for putting the Canaanites into “forced labor,” if the Israelites were able to enslave them, then why were they not able to drive them out or utterly destroy them? I don’t suppose that [Holding] has ever paused to think about that.

We do not argue anywhere below that the Israelites put the people to forced labor because of an inability to drive them out. If our opponent has indeed read all our material first,this is either a lack of common sense by our opponent or else a blatantly dishonest attempt to imply that we have made an argument we have not. If he has not read ahead, then it is a blatantly maniuplative attempt to stack the deck by ascribing a false argument to us.

Judges 2:1-3 And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you. And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this? Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.

Once Israel broke the terms of the lease, all bets were off and Yahweh was "out" of His obligation as landlord to do His part in driving out the peoples.

**Response:

Sorry, but all bets were still on, because the claim was made that (1) not a man of Israel’s enemies had been able to stand before them, (2) the Israelites had taken all the land that Yahweh had sworn to give to their fathers, and (3) there failed not aught of any good thing that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel [Joshua 21:43-45], so if these are inerrantly true statements, there would have been no non-Hebrews in the land for the Israelites to make covenants with, because part of Yahweh’s promise was that all the nations would be driven out and utterly destroyed. If “there failed not aught of any good thing that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel,” and if “all came to pass,” how could Canaanites have still been in the land?

We have aleady responded to and refuted the contentions made here, and our opponent has not been effectual in responding, for he has not answered, except via reinforcement of his graphocentric prejudices, the fact that Josh. 21:43-45 is an oral formula that an Israelite or ancient reading this text would not have looked at, and then back at other text, and said, "But wait -- we still don't have all the land!" They would recognize and accept the formulaic nature of the text and realize it was not telling the whole story, and was not intended to, and would not expect it to. This is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category.

Furthermore, the passage that [Holding] quoted can at best explain only why Hivites were still in the land after Joshua’s conquests were apparently over; it cannot explain why Canaanites, Perizzites, Hittites, Amorites, and Jebusites were still in the land. Unless there is another inconsistency in the biblical text, what the “angel of the Lord” had to have been referring to in Judges 2:1-3 was the “covenant” that the Israelites had made with the Hivites in Gibeon, who in Joshua 9:3-27 fooled the Israelites into thinking that they were men from a “far country” who had come to make a covenant with them. According to the story, the Israelites fell for the ruse and made the covenant, but according to Joshua 11:19, these Hivites were the only people in the land that the Israelites “made peace with.”

Our opponent is clearly unaware that a "covenant" refers to any contract, league, or agreement between parties and is not a term exclusive to what was done between Israel and the Gibeonites. The word for "covenant" is used 286 times in the OT and refers as well to God's dealings with Noah (Gen. 6:18), between Jonathan and David (1 Sam. 23:18), between kings (1 Kings 15:19), and between God and Israel (all through Deuteronomy). In context of Judges 2 it refers to the agreements that obviously had to be established when they Israelites put the people noted in Judges 1 under forced labor or tribute, for of course the Israelites did not simply walk up to the people, say, "Hey, wanna be forced laborers?" and then sit back after the people said, "OK, that's a good deal." A "forced labor" or tribute situation among peoples implies (or should imply, to any person of sense) previous encounters, engagement (negotiation and/or battles), stalemate, more negotiation if needed, surrender, and agreement to terms -- i.e., a "covenant." Our opponent has simply thrown this argument in the air without any critical evaluation, hoping to score a point with skeptical readers who do not know any better than to check behind him.

11:19 There was not a town that made peace with the Israelites, except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all were taken in battle.

Notice that this text clearly says that the town of Gibeon, inhabited by Hivites, was the only one that made peace with the Israelites. Except for this one, all were taken in battle. This verse is in a context I have already analyzed, which claims that Joshua took “all the land, the hill-country, and all the south, and all the land of Goshen, and the lowland, and the Arabah, and the hill-country of Israel, and the lowland of the same, from mount Halak [in the south], which goes up to Seir, even to Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon [in the north], etc., etc., etc.” (vs:16-17), and verse 18 claims that Joshua took all their kings and put them to death. So if the Israelites made peace only with the Hivites of Gibeon, [Holding]’s “explanation” doesn’t explain why nations besides the Hivites were still in the land. It’s back to the drawing board for [Holding]. He shouldn’t feel bad about that, because inerrantists almost invariably have to return to the drawing board after they see their first “solutions” shot down.

As this is merely further commentary based on our opponent's misapprehension, it requires no more to say than that our opponent is clearly unaware that a "covenant" refers to any contract, league, or agreement between parties and is not a term exclusive to what was done between Israel and the Gibeonites. The word for "covenant" is used 286 times in the OT and refers as well to God's dealings with Noah (Gen. 6:18), between Jonathan and David (1 Sam. 23:18), between kings (1 Kings 15:19), and between God and Israel (all through Deuteronomy). In context of Judges 2 it refers to the agreements that obviously had to be established when they Israelites put the people noted in Judges 1 under forced labor or tribute, for of course the Israelites did not simply walk up to the people, say, "Hey, wanna be forced laborers?" and then sit back after the people said, "OK, that's a good deal." A "forced labor" or tribute situation among peoples implies (or should imply, to any person of sense) previous encounters, engagement (negotiation and/or battles), stalemate, more negotiation if needed, surrender, and agreement to terms -- i.e., a "covenant." Our opponent has simply thrown this argument in the air without any critical evaluation, hoping to score a point with skeptical readers who do not know any better than to check behind him. No return to the drawing board is required.

Finally, I will point out that we have here another example of [Holding]’s quoting out of context, so why don’t we take a look at his passage in its full context? I will highlight statements damaging to [Holding]’s attempt to make this some kind of proof text for his claim that “all bets were off“ because the Israelites broke the covenant.

This is merely setup and snide accusation. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics. But we will rather enjoy the iromy anyway.

Judges 2:1 Now the angel of Yahweh went up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, “I brought you up from Egypt, and brought you into the land that I had promised to your ancestors. I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you.

2 For your part, do not make a covenant with the inhabitants of this land; tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed my command. See what you have done!

3 So now I say, I will not drive them out before you; but they shall become adversaries to you, and their gods shall be a snare to you.”

4 When the angel of Yahweh spoke these words to all the Israelites, the people lifted up their voices and wept.

5 So they named that place Bochim, and there they sacrificed to Yahweh.

6 When Joshua dismissed the people, the Israelites all went to their own inheritances to take possession of the land.

7 The people worshiped Yahweh all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great work that Yahweh had done for Israel.

8 Joshua son of Nun, the servant of Yahweh, died at the age of one hundred ten years.

When we come to [Holding]’s claim that “the sin of even one of the people” would have kept Yahweh from keeping his land promise, everyone should keep in mind that the text I just quoted claims that “the people worshiped Yahweh all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua,” so that shoots a big hole in his theory, coming up, that the sin of just one person could have caused failure of the land promise.

This is the same error of reading our opponent made before. What I actually said was, with reference to Achan and the loss at Ai, "The sin of even one of the people is enough to guarantee military non-success." This is not the same as saying that the sin of even one of the people is sufficient to withhold the land promises as a whole. Technically it may be sufficient, but most landlords (and we say that Yahweh was no exception) do not take advantage of the first offense to evict a tenant, and the contractual document (Deuteronomy) does lay out a progression of offenses and punishments beyond this, with total eviction from the land as a final resort. At any rate, it seems that as expected, our opponent did misapply this quote, since he did not grasped out intent in stating it.

Furthermore, verse six in the text said that “all went to their own inheritances to take possession of the land.” Hence, going to their own inheritances constituted taking possession of the land.

Our opponent does not explain the reason for making this point, but it apparently does not occur to him (and would not, since he has prejudicially declared himself to have no respect for an oral culture) that Judges 2:6 begins a new storytelling unit. Judges 1:1 begins after the death of Joshua and until 2:5 we have a summary of conquests (or lack thereof) by the Israelites, and the consequences of their choice to not drive out some of the people. 2:6 begins a new unit of tradition that overlaps a period from late in the book of Joshua (at the time when the territories were designated for the tribes, when they went to possess the land, with no comment about success or lack thereof, or why), through Joshua's death (Judges 2:8) and on into further generations. Of course our opponent may want to argue that this is actually another inconsistency in the text, reporting that Joshua died twice, and may go on to invent snide remarks about how inerrantists have a lot of explaining to do, and how they come up with "flapdoodle" about "oral units" to "explain away obvious inconsistencies in the Bible."

Places where it is said that the Israelites could not drive out the inhabitants, but that they remained in place. These may be divided into two types: Places where a reason is given why the Israelites could not drive the people out, and places where no reason is given why the Israelites could not drive the people out.

**Response:

Reasons why the Israelites could not drive [some] people out? If the omni-one fought for Israel, as claimed in Joshua 10:14, 42, then what possible “reason” could there have been for the Israelites’ inability to drive out some of the people?

This is merely snide commentary intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Well, let’s see what excuse [Holding] offers below.

Here at least it is, for once, acknowledged that we deal with the matter below; but the added snide commentary ("excuse") is intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Places where a reason is given why the Israelites could not drive the people out -- as it happens there is but one example of this, in Judges 1:19, where the cause is said to be iron chariots owned by the enemy.

**Response:

Uh, excuse me, but if an omni-max deity fought for Israel, it shouldn’t have mattered if the enemy had had A-bombs, tanks, and guided missiles.

This is merely snide commentary intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game, and manipulatively interrupt our presentation. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Is this a case of God's promise failing?

**Response:

Yes, I believe it is, for “God’s promise” was that “there shall not be any man able to stand before you all the days of your life” (Josh. 1:5), and later after long passages that described battle after battle and victory after victory from the Sinai wilderness to Lebanon and the Mediterranean coast, Joshua 21:44 claimed that “there [had] stood not a man of all their enemies before them,” but “Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand.”

It seems, however, that men who had iron chariots could and did stand before the Israelites and Yahweh did not deliver them into the hands of the Israelites.

This is merely repetitive fluff. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Is this [Holding]’s idea of internal biblical consistency? Is it his idea of God’s promise being fulfilled? Well, let’s go on to see what kind of quibble he has to “explain” this.

Here at least it is, for only the second time, acknowledged that we deal with the matter below; but the added snide commentary ("excuse") is intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

There are two reasons to say it is not. First, there is a certain proviso within the Deuteronomic contract:

Deut. 7:22 And the LORD thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.

Given this proviso, it is manifest that there would be a certain point at which the Israelites would no longer achieve victory in battle, until such time as Yahweh determined that they were secure enough to gain control of more land. This is sound military and social principle -- don't overextend yourself. In this case the enemy is the "beasts of the field"; but should anyone doubt the threat of being overwhelmed by such creatures, let them take up an agricultural/pastoral form of living surrounded by unmanaged wilderness and find out for themselves where the danger lies.

**Response:

All [Holding] has done is point out another inconsistency, because the promise was that Yahweh would drive the nations out quickly.

We fully anticipated the use of the following statement verse by our opponent, and have saved making reference to it so that we can have a little fun:

Deuteronomy 9:3 Know then today that Yahweh your God is the one who crosses over before you as a devouring fire; he will defeat them and subdue them before you, so that you may dispossess and destroy them quickly, as Yahweh has promised you.

Darn it, there is that passage in Deuteronomy 9 again. It seems to backfire in [Holding]’s face each time he thinks he has found some viable “explanation” for the land-promise failure.

What has "backfired" as shown above is our opponent's attempt to wrestle Deut. 9 into something that refers to continued occupation of the land, as opposed to opportunity to enter the land. But now for what he calls the big gun:

Notice that it said that Yahweh would drive out the nations quickly, as he had promised the Israelites, so this text is not just saying that the nations would be driven out quickly but that the quickness with which the nations would be driven out was part of the promise.

Now we ask our opponent this question. If Llerraf the Gorilla is swinging on a tree in the jungle and has a bunch of bananas, and he says, "I will eat these bananas quickly," what does he mean? Does he mean, he will eat them all at once and do so quickly; i.e., will he inhale them in one session in less than ten seconds flat? Or does he mean, he will eat each one quickly, i.e., as he eats them, over an extended period of time, each banana going down in a few microseconds flat, with the total sum of bananas in the bunch eaten over a period of several days? Give up? We don't know either, and we will not know until we ask for some clarification, or else see him start eating the bananas. Now we tell the reader, look at the Biblical text. Did the Israelites eat their bananas all at once quickly? No. Did they eat each individual banana quickly? Yes, barring failures to obey such as the ones we record above, and items we say (below) reveal such instances implicitly. So unless our opponent can prove that the text of 9:3 was intended to apply to eating the whole bunch of bananas en masse -- and the context offers no help for that, whereas the historical record of Joshua provides contextual evidence that the "one at a time" meaning is in view -- he's just swinging in the cage again and hooting at the customers throwing ten-ton peanuts.

So what about [Holding]’s text that said Yahweh would drive the nations out little by little?

So what about eating those bananas one at a time?

It’s nothing more than another example of textual inconsistency, but let’s take a look at another account of this wild-beast “proviso” that he thinks he has found.

Exodus 23:27 I will send my terror in front of you, and will throw into confusion all the people against whom you shall come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you.

28 And I will send the pestilence in front of you, which shall drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites from before you.

29 I will not drive them out from before you in one year, or the land would become desolate and the wild animals would multiply against you.

30 Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and possess the land.

This is not the correct quote. Our quote was from Deut. 7:22, not Exodus 23:27-30, and this is not "another account" of the wild-beast proviso. It is an earlier proviso. But this makes no difference, because our opponent is trying to wrestle a text into saying things it does not yet again:

This version of the promise said that an expulsion of the other nations in the land would not be done in one year so that the wild beasts wouldn’t take over the land, so delay in driving out all the nations would have had to go beyond one year. Ten or 20 years, of course, would be more than one year, but the fact that “not in one year” was stated as the minimal duration of the expulsion certainly suggests that Yahweh didn’t have in mind taking 20 or 30 years to get the job done. For one thing, 20 or 30 years would have hardly been “quickly.”

None of this is disagreeable; of course the one year would not suggest 20 or 30, but why would it not suggest three, four, or five, or even ten? Our opponent is positing extremes while ignoring a reasonable middle. At the same time, the "one year" comment hardly means anything more than that Yahweh is informing the Israelites that they are not to expect instant success. None of this contradicts anything we have written. The "one year" comment does not mean that there will not be a maximum number of years -- even 20 or 30, though we would not suspect that would be the plan either. More in a moment.

Besides this, there are good reasons to think that these wild-beast versions of the promise are also examples of retrospective excuse-making to explain why all the land was not taken and all the inhabitants weren’t driven out as promised.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue (consistency of the Biblical record re: the land promises), for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject (textual fidelity of the record) never addressed in the original article.

From the Negev, which was the southern extreme of the area that the book of Joshua mentioned as places that the Israelites captured, to Mount Hermon in Lebanon, which was the northern extreme of the conquest areas described, was a distance of about 150 miles. From the Jordan River, where Joshua crossed and launched the attack against Jericho, to the Mediterranean coast was a distance of about 50 miles. If the Israelites had advanced just five miles per day, they could have reached the sea in 10 days. Traveling at the same rate from the Negev to Lebanon would have taken just 30 days. Five miles per day is only about one fourth of the biblical day’s journey, but I want to give [Holding] ever advantage conceivable, so I‘ll suggest an advancement of only five miles per day. Heck, let’s just make the rate of advancement one mile per day. At that rate the Israelites could have gone from the Jordan to the Sea in 50 days or less than two months. From the Negev to Lebanon would have taken just five months at an advancement rate of one mile per day.

This is setup for an argument, but it is entirely misguided, since the "one year" comment hardly means anything more than that Yahweh is informing the Israelites that they are not to expect instant success. None of this contradicts anything we have written. In fact, we would not care if our opponent gave us travel of one inch per year. It is irrelevant. Apparently our opponent thinks that the "one year" comment means that Yahweh is also saying, "But I would drive out these people for you in one year and one day; then you'd have no problem with the beasts at all." In order to make a decent argument out of this, our opponent needs to figure out just how much time would actually be needed for the Israelites to take all the land and not endure the threat of beasts; but as he does not and cannot produce wildlife population figures, nor produce any such statistics correlated with geography, climate, and Israelites livestock holdings, this is nothing more than a misguided and manipulative attempt to wrestle a text into a light favorable to his case.

Let’s cut the advancement rate to just half a mile per day. This would have enabled the Israelites to reach the coast 100 days or a little more than three months, and they could have gone from the Negev in the south to Lebanon in the north in 10 months, which would have been less than a year.

This is also setup for an argument, but it is still entirely misguided, since the "one year" comment hardly means anything more than that Yahweh is informing the Israelites that they are not to expect instant success. None of this contradicts anything we have written. In fact, we would not care if our opponent gave us travel of one inch per year. It is irrelevant. Apparently our opponent thinks that the "one year" comment means that Yahweh is also saying, "But I would drive out these people for you in one year and one day; then you'd have no problem with the beasts at all." In order to make a decent argument out of this, our opponent needs to figure out just how much time would actually be needed for the Israelites to take all the land and not endure the threat of beasts; but as he does not and cannot produce wildlife population figures, nor produce any such statistics correlated with geography, climate, and Israelites livestock holdings, this is nothing more than a misguided and manipulative attempt to wrestle a text into a light favorable to his case. He is also breezing by the fact that settling a land is more than just walking into it, and not asking whether the delay might not have something to do with the Israelites dragging their feet of their own accord. Until he thinks out of the box, and gets a little more deeply into the nature of agricultural/pastoral life in the Ancient Near East, this is nothing more than a vague, misguided, and manipulative attempt to wrestle a text into a light favorable to his case.

Just how fast could populations of wild animals have exploded? After all, animals have gestation periods, and I doubt that the gestation periods of dangerous beasts like lions and bears would have been much shorter than the time it would have taken the Israelites to go through the land at the snail’s pace suggested above and occupy it. Where, then, would have been the danger of “wild beasts” taking over the land?

Our opponent is blowing a vague veil of smoke and living time out of mind. Animals certainly do have gestation periods, but the danger can only be calculated based upon original animal populations, and as he does not and cannot produce wildlife population figures, nor produce any such statistics correlated with geography, climate, and Israelites livestock holdings, this is nothing more than a misguided and manipulative attempt to wrestle a text into a light favorable to his case. As the ancients were in a far better position to estimate the dangers of wildlife in their own time and place, why should we accept the word of our opponent, a modern living in a comfortable, air-conditioned and heated home in a modern, industrial nation, with shotguns, tranquilizer darts, and animal control agencies, and fresh meat and animal products available at every Wal-Mart. The ancients possessed few weapons (usually reserved for the wealthy or for royalty and their associates, and the military) and depended upon their livestock for basic survival needs. The loss of a single sheep or goat to a bear, or a lion, or faster-gestating predators like wolves (and our opponent also needs to consider these things in light of a full catalog of predatory animals in the Near East, including any now extinct and/or no longer in the area, and any that prey on livestock animals, not necessarily humans) could be disastrous to a poor family (which constituted the vast majority of persons living in the ancient world) possessing only a few livestock, or even just the one, and depending upon that animal for milk, wool, or other support. And then we haven't even started to consider the effect of really fast "gestators" like rabbits, mice, and rats (who carry disease; also bats) and agri-pests like crows and insects, all of which, though perhaps not "wild beasts" as the term is used, would come under the same general principle of critters that could easily get out of control without enough resources.

Note as well: The threat is not worded, in either account, as wild beasts "taking over the land." The threat is, "and the beast of the field multiply against thee." It does not even need to be a takeover. We have offered an extended commentary here on life for the poor and/or rural person in the Ancient Near East, because we have been presented time and time again over the years by our opponent with prejudicial opinions about things like oral cultures, Semitic mindsets, etc. only to have them waved away with a snuffle as "flapdoodle" or "distraction". Our opponent has not lived in their lands or walked in their shoes. He is, again, blowing smoke for a skeptical audience with similar comforts who likewise could not imagine, in their wildest imaginations, living in a time and place when the support of a single livestock animal could spell the difference between subsistence and starvation.

Keep in mind too that the army driving out the Jebusites, Hittites, Canaanites, etc., etc., etc., had 601,730 soldiers (Num. 26:51), so as the Canaanite nations were being driven out and “utterly destroyed,” several hundred thousand soldiers would be moving into the vacated land. If there were 601,730 soldiers (who were 20 years old and up), then surely the total population of Israel would have exceeded two million. Two million people in a land area of about 7500 square miles, which would have been about 266 people per square mile, could surely have kept the “wild beasts” under control.

This is yet more temporal provincialism. We would like to see about sending our opponent into the wilderness, far from any urban center, with no population checks on wild animals, armed with no modern weapons, and assigning him to guard a set number of livestock from predators. We are reminded here of a personal experience on Pensacola Beach, viewing the Blue Angels flight team doing their masterful work, and of an inebriated gentleman belching to his female companion, "I could do that!" Two million? I suppose the children could fight off the cockroaches who were trying to eat the sheep, or stick their tongues out at the bears. The women did not bother with such things; that was not their accepted societal role. But it is not clear our opponent expects women and children to take such a role anyway. So let's run with that major number. 601,730 soldiers? Indeed, 601,730 soldiers, in a time when health was precarious, when teeth were rotted away by age 30, when internal parasites wracked the body, when finding or producing food, shelter, and fresh water were paramount to survival and not a matter of just visiting the 7-11, and the average lifespan (despite odd exceptions like Moses, Aaron and Joshua, who as leaders of the people had and were given advantages of food, water, protection, and shelter 99.9% of the people didn't get) was about 35! These 601,730 men "could surely have kept the 'wild beasts' under control"? Said like a true modern, who needs to get real and has likely faced no wilder beast in his life than a French poodle!

Another factor to consider is the likely time period covered by the book of Joshua, who was described as a “young man” in Exodus 33:11, while the Israelites were in the wilderness. How young is young? Well, he had to be of military age, which meant that he was at least 20 years old (Num. 1:3), when the Amalekites attacked the Israelites in Exodus 17, because Joshua led the Israelite forces in that battle (v:8). He was one of the 12 spies that Moses sent into the land of Canaan (Num. 13:8-16), the report of whom on their return sparked the rebellion that Joshua and Caleb refused to participate in (14:6, 30). I think that estimating the age of this young man at 30 would be reasonable, but let’s make him the same age that Caleb was at this time.

Our opponent could give every man 250 years to live, and it would not make a whit of difference. Our opponent continues to write as though all these nice, healthy, happy, and otherwise unoccupied people had to do was go down to the Siloam Shell 'n' Shot, pick up an elephant gun or two, get out in the field and BOOM that was the end of their wildlife problem, and the rest of the world, too, happily ever after AMEN!

In Joshua 14:7, Caleb said that he was 40 when Moses sent him “to spy out the land,” so surely no one could seriously object if I fixed the age of the “young man Joshua” also at 40 at this time. The Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years because of this rebellion (Num. 14:33-34), so when Joshua led the Israelites into Canaan, he would have been 80. (Old guys could do things a lot better than 80 year olds today.) Joshua was 110 when he died (Josh, 24:29), so estimating his age at a more than reasonable 80 at the time of Israel’s entry into Canaan would make the events in Joshua span 30 years. I know that Yahweh said that he wouldn’t drive out the nations of Canaan in less than a year, but 30 years? What danger would wild beasts have posed to a population of over two million moving in to occupy the land? Two million people could have easily spread out over a region of 7500 square miles within a matter of weeks and settled in to keep the wild beasties from taking over the land.

Our opponent could give them 350 years to live and it would still not make a whit of difference.

As I said, the wild-beast versions of the land promise were very likely retrospective examples of excuse-making intended to explain why the land promise wasn’t fulfilled as Yahweh had said, because when they are analyzed critically, they don’t make much sense.

As we have seen, the explanation is not necessary, because the promises were fulfilled, and the "don't make much sense" assessment is that of the backwoods native reading a technical aviation manual.

However, even if they weren’t retrospective examples of rationalization, I have explained how this could not have been a reasonable explanation for why the Israelites didn‘t take all the land. Certainly, it isn’t a reasonable explanation for why the book of Joshua said that all the land had been taken and then later said that all the land had not been taken.

As we have seen, the explanation is not necessary, because the promises were fulfilled, and the "could not have been a reasonable explanation" assessment is that of the Ranger Rick subscriber asking how bears could possibly be dangerous because they look so cuddly.

(Keep in mind that X and not X cannot both be true.) Nothing--absolutely nothing--in this excuse that [Holding] has suggested would explain why the book of Joshua clearly said that all the land Yahweh had promised had been taken, that not a man of their enemies were able to stand before the Israelites, and that there failed not aught of anything that Yahweh had promised.

As we have seen, the explanation is not necessary, because the promises were fulfilled, and the "nothing--absolutely nothing" assessment is that of a man living in relative luxury with easily available health care, food, clean water, soap, and leisure time. This objection was repeated four different ways; it is needless repetition, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

This proviso does well enough to answer a place like Judges 1:19 where the enemy possessed superior technology and could not be beaten. It may be noted that although Judah was out to get the Canaanites (1:10), the locales they conquered were Philistine territory (1:18)! This has all the bearings of an overextension of viable influence, and it is therefore likely that the proviso of 7:22 was kicking into effect.

**Response:

An over extension? An army of 601,730 soldiers had overextended themselves in a land area that was only about 50 miles wide and 130 miles long? On D-Day, allied forces used only 150,000 troops in the invasion of France, 130,00 on the beach assaults and 20,000 in parachute and glider drops.

Given the comparison, we would ask our opponent where he supposes the ancient Israelites got the advanced weapons (including parachutes and gliders), excellent health care, supplies (food, water, clothing), professional training, and loss of fear from living in a comfortable world, that the soliders on D-Day had.

[Holding] really is desperate for quibbles.

Places where no reason is given why the Israelites could not drive the people out -- Here there are actually only two cites: Josh. 15:63 and 17:12...

**Response:

The example that I quoted from 1 Kings 9:20--and, of course, [Holding] must believe that this verse is inerrant--claimed that there were Amorites, Hittites, etc. still living in the land 400 years later in the time of Solomon.

1 Kings 9:20 All the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the people of Israel--

21 their descendants who were still left in the land, whom the Israelites were unable to destroy completely--these Solomon conscripted for slave labor, and so they are to this day.

We would regard this as another example of "did not" out of disobedience in section 1 above, and our opponent has not refuted our arguments.

(though Judges 1:27 may also be an example).

**Response:

Judges 1:27ff was an example, but so was Judges 3:1ff.

Judges 3:1 Now these are the nations that Yahweh left to test all those in Israel who had no experience of any war in Canaan

2 (it was only that successive generations of Israelites might know war, to teach those who had no experience of it before):

3 the five lords of the Philistines, and all the Canaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hivites who lived on Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal-hermon as far as Lebo-hamath.

4 They were for the testing of Israel, to know whether Israel would obey the commandments of Yahweh, which he commanded their ancestors by Moses.

5 So the Israelites lived among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

Judges 3:1ff is not exactly such an example; it refers to the results of the Bochim revelation in Judges 2, which we have discussed above.

Joshua 11:10-18 claimed that Joshua routed the northern kings [Canaanites, Hivites, Amorites, Hittites, Perrizites, and Jebusites, 11:3] from Hazor to Sidon and the valley of Lebanon below mount Hermon, but apparently in all of this routing 601,730 Israelite soldiers could not “utterly destroy” all of these nations, and so 400 years later their descendants were still in the land for Solomon to use as slave laborers.

We have answered this above, and it is a needless repetition; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

But there is still more. Second Samuel 24:7 referred to “all the cities of the Hivites and Canaanites” during the census that David ordered.

We would regard this as another example of "did not" out of disobedience in section 1 above, and our opponent has not refuted our arguments.

Internal consistency in the biblical records? Why, I think we can all see that there is.

Strictly speaking this provides no contradiction to the promises unless it is specifically said that the Israelites could not drive out the people in spite of being loyal to the covenant.

**Response:

Well, I beg to differ. First of all, [Holding] is begging a question that he needs to prove.

If no data is offered that supports my case or my opponent's here -- and none at all supports his case -- then both sides are begging the question. However, as I go on to give evidence supporting my view, which my opponent has yet to address, this is merely intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

He assumes that not being “loyal to the covenant” would have kept Yahweh from fulfilling the land promise, but I have shown repeatedly that Yahweh told the Israelites on the plains of Moab that they were an unrighteous, stubborn people who had been rebellious against him from the day they came out of Egypt, yet despite their depravity, he said that he would give them the land anyway.

Our opponent has repeatedly repeated this argument (about Deut. 9), but has in not one of those repetitions succeeded in proving that Deut. 9 does not apply to the entry into the land as opposed to continued occupation of the land.

Furthermore, I have noted repeatedly that these Israelite had not even kept what [Holding] said was the “entry ritual” into the covenant, i. e., circumcision, yet this violation of the “entry ritual” of the covenant and their other unrighteousness did not keep Yahweh from promising to give them the land.

We have already noted that the lack of circumcision is not a problem at all. The ritual was done. The Israelites who underwent the ritual obeyed the command to have it done. How could they have it done before they were told to have it done? For this to be a problem, our opponent must show that in the time prior to Josh. 5, the people were told to undergo ritual circumcision and disobeyed the command to do so. As this is not shown, and as the text records no such command and refusal by the addressed generation of Israelites, this is a non-answer in context.

I’ll say more about this in commenting on [Holding]’s concluding remarks below.

This is merely informational; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Second, If the text in Joshua said--and it did--that Yahweh (1) gave to Israel all the land he swore to give to their fathers, that (2) there stood not a man of all their enemies before them, that (3) Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand, that (4) there failed not aught of any good thing that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel, and that (5) all came to pass (21:43-45), then there is a contradiction if some of the nations were not driven out and utterly destroyed.

We have already shown, and our opponent has not answered with anything other than reinforced graphocentric prejudices, that Joshua 21:43-45 as an oral formula is in a "genre envelope" in which there is no issue of "inaccuracy" at all, except by the modern, imperialistic standards of Western precision-mindedness. An Israelite or ancient reading this text would not have looked back and said, "But wait -- we still don't have all the land!" They would recognize and accept the formulaic nature of the text and realize it was not telling the whole story, and was not intended to, and would not expect it to. This is the sort of concept that I refer to as being unknown by critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past who tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete, and in a way that was designed to be read according to their own preconceptions and judgments. Our opponent merely demonstrates yet again that we have correctly placed him in this category.

[Holding] has evaded this argument and will continue to do so.

The best he could do was argue that Israel at that time was a predominantly “oral culture,” and so this somehow made inconsistencies not inconsistencies.

Hyper is knocking at the door and says, "The best Till could do was argue that Israel at that time was a culture that used figurative language, and so this somehow made inconsistencies not inconsistencies!" Why deny Hyper his rights? He is a full literalist. Yahweh should have anticipated that he would reject figurative language and made a version of Exodus 15:8 that did not use it, so that Hyper could be completely satisfied.

At worst this is a matter with no resolution.

**Response:

No, at worst it is an outright contradiction, and [Holding] cannot sweep that aside by claiming that it is just “a matter with no resolution.”

At worst it remains a matter with no resolution, in spite of our opponent's imperialistic assumptions that he can fill silence with his own meaning.

Anyway, I thought that he was the man who had the resolutions to the land-promise inconsistencies. He has been a huge disappointment.

However, viable inferences allow us resolution enough for satisfaction.

**Response:

Maybe for those who are determined to believe in biblical inerrancy no matter how compelling the evidence to the contrary may be, “viable infereces [sic]” may be “resolution enough,” but people not so gullible will certainly not be satisfied with [Holding]’s tap dancing.

This is merely snide commentary intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

The sin of even one of the people is enough to guarantee military non-success. The sin of one man, Achan (Josh. 7), nearly ruined the campaign against Ai.

**Response:

Our opponent again manipulatively interrupts, with the obvious attempt of distracting readers and hoping they will lost track of our argument:

[Holding] is now taking a familiar track and trying to prove biblical inerrancy by assuming inerrancy. He is arguing that because Joshua 7 records a story of one man who sinned and brought defeat to Israel during its first attack on Ai, this story must be true.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands), for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject (accuracy of the record) never addressed in the original article.

Furthermore, he is assuming that this story, which he assumes to be historically true, proves that Yahweh would see the sin of just one person in an entire nation as sufficient reason to punish the whole nation by denying them victory in battle.

I would actually say that Yahweh could, if He so desired, see the sin of just one person in an entire nation as sufficient reason to punish the whole nation by denying them victory in battle. He could also choose to be merciful and longsuffering as circumstances deem it the best option in the long-term. By no means would I say that this is always the case, and I never do, but our opponent now goes on to put this argument in my mouth anyway.

I would never deny that people of that era superstitiously believed that the gods engaged in vicarious punishment, but ancient superstitions were almost always erroneous.

This is merely snide commentary, and gratuitous, unjustified (except by the implied begged question!) insults against ancient persons; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

This brings us back to the text in Deuteronomy 9, which I said above that I would return to later.

2 Peter 2:22. ;-)

I have pointed out several times that despite the unrighteousness and disobedience of an entire nation, Yahweh promised to give them the land anyway in order to fulfill a promise made to Abraham, so what [Holding] is now asking us to believe is that just before the entry into Canaan, Yahweh wouldn’t allow the general depravity and rebelliousness of an entire nation to keep him from giving the land to the Israelites, but after the crossing into Canaan if just one person sinned that was sufficient for Yahweh to begin withholding his land promise.

We have pointed out several times in reply that with reference to Achan and the loss at Ai, "The sin of even one of the people is enough to guarantee military non-success." This is not the same as saying that the sin of even one of the people is sufficient to withhold the promises as a whole. Technically it may be sufficient, but most landlords (and we say that Yahweh was no exception) do not take advantage of the first offense to evict a tenant, and the contractual document (Deuteronomy) does lay out a progression of offenses and punishments beyond this, with total eviction from the land as a final resort. Again our opponent misapplies this quote.

That’s the kind of silliness that inerrantists must resort to in order to defend their irrational belief in the “internal consistency of biblical records.”

If Yahweh practiced such a principle as this, he was inconsistent. In Judges 18, there is a fanciful little yarn that shoots down [Holding]’s theory that just the sin of one person would have caused Yahweh to keep victory from the Israelites.

Other than noting Judges 18, this is merely snide commentary; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Judges 17 told the story of a man named Micah living in Ephraim who stole 1100 pieces of silver from his mother but then returned them to her. Out of gratitude, the mother then had a graven image made with 200 pieces of the silver and gave it to her son. Later when a Levite came by, Micah hired him to be a priest for him. This tale and chapter 18 are obviously way out of chronological order, because the latter tells of the capture of the Canaanite city Laish by the Danites, who then changed the name to Dan in honor of their eponymous father Dan. That this tale is out of chronological sequence is evident from Joshua 19:47, which reported the Danite capture of this city. At any rate, as the story was related in Judges 18, when the Danites came by Micah’s house on the way to take Laish, they stole the molten image and persuaded the Levite to go with them and be a priest for them (vs:18-26). Verses 27-29 related the success of the Danites in taking Laish, killing the people there, and burning it.

They had success in battle despite their theft and idolatry, which continued after their victory.

Judges 18:27 The Danites, having taken what Micah had made, and the priest who belonged to him, came to Laish, to a people quiet and unsuspecting, put them to the sword, and burned down the city.

28 There was no deliverer, because it was far from Sidon and they had no dealings with Aram. It was in the valley that belongs to Beth-rehob. They rebuilt the city, and lived in it.

29 They named the city Dan, after their ancestor Dan, who was born to Israel; but the name of the city was formerly Laish.

30 Then the Danites set up the idol for themselves. Jonathan son of Gershom, son of Moses, and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the time the land went into captivity.

31 So they maintained as their own Micah's idol that he had made, as long as the house of God was at Shiloh.

So stealing by not just one Danite but several and then the practice of idolatry didn’t cause Yahweh to keep them from victory at Laish. Yahweh wasn’t very consistent, was he?

Since we would actually say that Yahweh could, if He so desired, see the sin of just one person in an entire nation as sufficient reason to punish the whole nation by denying them victory in battle, Judges 18 is not a disproving example, for we maintain that He could also choose to be merciful and longsuffering as circumstances deem it the best option in the long-term. By no means would I say that this is always the case, and I never do, but our opponent now goes on to put this argument in my mouth anyway. We would also add this: The sin of Achan came at a very early stage in Israel's history in the land when it would be fair warning to be obedient to the covenant. After many repetitions of such failures, however, Yahweh gave the people the freedom they evidently desired -- and no longer provided quick and decisive acts of judgment. By the times of Judges 18, the people no longer cared for Yahweh -- not until they were up to their necks in problems. God is perfectly consistent in His approach to men -- who when happy, or wishing to do as they please, say that God means nothing to them; but let their toe get stubbed, and watch them cry out and ask why God does not do something to stop it! Skeptics regularly ask questions of this sort, and there is a very simple answer: God does not take the high hand in these things, beyond what is needed to introduce Himself as an option and accomplish His will, because, first, it is coercive, and true love does not rely on coercion; second, and most importantly, we have shown every time we sin that we do not want God's personal guidance in such high-handed fashion. Skeptics and critics who believe that the God of the Bible, rather than punishing sin justly, ought to simply say, "Well, golly," pick us up, dust us off, and pat us on the head like a senile grandpa, show thereby exactly the God they want.

Another problem in [Holding]’s the-sin-of-even-one-of-the people scenario is that if this had really been a principle that Yahweh practiced, then he would have given the Israelites absolutely nothing, because in a population of more than two million people, there never would have been a time when no one was doing anything wrong. Their advancement into Canaan would have stopped right at the Jordan River if everyone at every moment had to have been doing only the things that pleased their god.

This is a misdirected argument; though I did not say so specifically here, but I do say so specifically later, it remains that we are not talking just ANY sin (and neither did I say "any sin," though our opponent takes advantage of my lack of specificity to insert that argument into my mouth), but a sin related to direct orders in terms of the battles. Achan's sin was a violation of the specific command of Josh. 6:19, "But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD." This was a special command with relation to Jericho, but there were other commands with broader application: destroy their altars, break down their images, cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire; do not make marriages with them; do not make covenants with them. Judges 2:2 specifies not destroying the altars and not making covenants as sins for which Yahweh's support was being withdrawn. Given the poor record of the Isrealites in terms of idolatry and signing covenants, is it that hard to argue that this was the unspecified reason lying behind the lack of success in the three key texts?

Apparently, the possibility that the story of Achan was just another of many tales of vicarious punishment written in a time when people generally believed that misconduct by just one person who “did evil in the sight” of his god could bring punishment upon the whole nation has never even crossed [Holding]‘s mind.

This can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands), for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject (accuracy of the record) never addressed in the original article.

Likewise, I suppose the appalling immorality of such a tale as this has never even occurred to [Holding].

This can and will be taken as, and tr