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 addr