The Skeptical Review Online - Tilling Turkel’s “Land Ahoy” / Part Ten

Till(1):
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."

Turkel(2):
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.

Till(2):
I'm more than willing to let readers decide who is "spamming" this debate with "fluff" and "irrelevant distractions." Even a moron can see that Turkel's repeated cutting and pasting of the same evasive comments about "fluff," "irrelevant distractions," "superfluous commentary," etc., etc., etc. answers nothing and could therefore have no other purpose except to distract attention from his evasions

As for his claim that I repeat the same arguments a dozen times, I plead guilty to that, but I repeat them because he won't answer them. I'll offer him a deal. If he will answer my arguments, I won't repeat them. I'll confine my comments to replying to his rebuttals.

Turkel(1):
Re reference to 1 Sam. quote following:

Till(1) and Turkel (2):
****

Till(2):
Here I cut bantering about transitional fluff.

Turkel(1):

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".)

Till(1):
As I said earlier, all written languages have homographs, so we wouldn't expect Hebrew to be any different.

Turkel(2):
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?

Till(2):
The answer to that is simple. The issue is what ‘olam meant in Genesis 17:8 and not what it meant in 1 Samuel 1:22. The fact that ‘olam did not mean forever in the sense of "eternality" in 1 Samuel 1:22 does not mean that it didn't mean that in Genesis 17:8, because the contexts in which homographs are used are what determines their meanings. I quoted not the JPS "commentary" but the JPS translation of Genesis 17:8 in order to show that Jewish scholars recognize that 'olam in this passage conveyed the sense of "everlasting." I would think that Turkel, who talks so much about Hebrew "nuances," should be willing to accept the opinion of such a prestigious panel of Hebrew experts.

As I explained in Part Nine, Turkel is playing a familiar game, which Everette Hatcher resorted to in our Daniel debates to try to prove that when Nebuchadnezzar was called Belshazzar's father several times in Daniel 5, the word father didn't mean father in the strictest sense but only ancestor. What was his proof? He cited biblical passages where father did obviously convey the sense of ancestor and then asserted that because father meant ancestor in those other passages, it meant ancestor in Daniel 5, but that is ridiculous literary interpretation, because the context in which a homograph was used must determine what it meant there, in that specific context, and not by what the same homograph meant in another context.

Turkel proved nothing, therefore, by citing the case of 1 Samuel 1:22 where ‘olam was used in a sense other than "eternality"? Besides, why is Turkel making an issue of this, because he said earlier, as noted in Part Nine, that he did not disagree with the way ‘olam had been translated in the JPS version of Genesis 17:8? Here are his very words.

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.

If Turkel doesn't disagree with "anything in the JPS translation" of Genesis 17:8, then he must agree that ‘olam meant "everlasting" in this context, because the JPS translation of this verse says, "I assign the land you sojourn in to you [Abraham] and your offspring to come, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting holding. I will be your God."

Where, then, did I shoot myself in the foot? My position is--and has been from the beginning of this debate--that Yahweh's land promise to Abraham was twofold: (1) Yahweh would give all the land of Canaan to Abraham's descendants. (2) This land would be an everlasting possession or holding. As I have repeatedly pointed out, if the giving of the land was unconditional--and Turkel has recently admitted that it was--then the keeping of the land as an everlasting possession also had to be unconditional. Thus, Turkel did nothing but waste our time by quoting 1 Samuel 1:22, which used the homograph ‘olam in a different sense from the way it was used in the land promise.

Till(1):
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.

Turkel(2):
If this is so,

Till(2):
If this is so? Why isn't it so? Does Turkel deny that it is a principle of literary interpretation that the meanings of words must be determined from the contexts in which they are used?

Turkel(2):
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)

Till(2):
Look how Turkel will say one thing and then just a paragraph or two later will say something different. I just quoted above where he said that he did not disagree with anything in the JPS translation of Genesis 17:8, and this translation, as noted above, has Yahweh telling Abraham that he would assign to him and his offspring "all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting holding," but now he is saying that this "Ancient Near Eastern context" shows that Genesis 17 was not using ‘olam in the sense of "everlasting." If he really believes that, then he disagrees with the JPS translation of the verse in question.

Turkel(2):
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.

Till(2):
That's odd. I was thinking the same thing about Turkel. He can't have the land promise conditional when he wants it that way and unconditional when he wants it that way. We have seen him say that "getting" the land was an unconditional act of "unmerited grace," which enabled the Israelites to ride into Canaan on "Abraham's coattails" but that "keeping" the land was conditional to the behavior of the Israelites. In response to this, I have pointed out that Yahweh's land promise consisted of two parts: (1) Yahweh would give land within defined boundaries to Abraham's descendants because of his fidelity. (2) This land would be given to Abraham's descendants as an everlasting possession. In other words, both the giving and the keeping of the land were in the same context of the promise that Yahweh made to Abraham.

I have waited for Turkel to give us some kind of explanation for why part (1) of this promise had to be unconditional but part (2) had to be conditional, but he has yet to explain how this could be. All he has done is chant his mantra, i. e., the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between [sic] a land, its people, and their deity, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between [sic] a land, its people, and their deity, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between [sic] a land, its people, and their deity, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between [sic] a land, its people, and their deity, etc., etc, etc., but not once has he explicated this claim to show that it was indeed a concept that necessarily made the promise to Abraham conditional, and he has quoted no scholarship in his support or ancient treaties to show that he is correctly applying this so-called concept. All he has done is assert it over and over and over ad nauseam. He has apparently gotten away with bald assertions for so long on his closed website that he thinks that argumentation by assertion will work for him anywhere.

Till(1):
For those who may be unfamiliar with inerrantist tactics, I should point out that Turkel is playing a familiar game.

Turkel(2):
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****

Till(2):
I'm sure that "snide commentary" must be very offensive to Turkel.

Till(1):
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.

Turkel(2):
If his 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.

Till(2):
No, Turkel doesn't argue this. He has merely asserted it ad nauseam, but he has yet to present any kind of evidence to support the assertion. Obviously, people in ancient times believed, among many other superstitions, that gods reigned over certain territories, but how does that prove that when one of these deities allegedly said to Abraham that he would give him and his descendants all the land of Canaan because of Abraham's fidelity and that this land would be given to them as an everlasting possession, there were conditions attached to the promise? Turkel has admitted that the first part of the promise was unconditional, so now let him explain why the second part of the promise, uttered in the same breath as the first part, was conditional.

He also needs to support his assertion with either some kind of reputable scholarship--which would not be the kind that publishes in Grand Rapids, Michigan--or quotations of ancient suzerainty treaties that show that what he is claiming was indeed an "Ancient Near Eastern concept," or even better, he should do both. I hate to tell him that his mere word does carry the weight here that it does when he is preaching to the choir on his own website.

Finally, I will say again that I have cited reputable scholarship that disagrees with Turkel's assertion. Frank Moore Cross, whose "lifeblood" has been the study of ancient Near Eastern languages and cultures, said in From Epic to Canon, page 14, that the land promise to Abraham was unconditional. I will ask readers again what they think the chances would be that if Cross should retire or otherwise vacate his position, the trustees at Harvard University would offer the position to Turkel.

Till(1):
Everette Hatcher used this ploy in our debates on the dating of Daniel.

Turkel(2):
This is a very nice bit of data on what Everette Hatcher did, according to our opponent,

Till(2):
This nice bit of data on what Everette Hatcher did was included as a concrete example of the game that inerrantists play. Had I simply said that Turkel is playing "a familiar inerrantist game" and had said no more, readers would see only an abstraction that would not be understandable to them without a concrete example to clarify it. In citing the specific, concrete example of what Hatcher had done, I was doing exactly what writing experts--the ones who write the textbooks--say should be done. Turkel, of course, being ignorant of fundamental writing principles, could hardly be expected to understand this, so that is why we see in his article such unsound writing as the following cut-and-pasted job that I have truncated with ****.

Turkel(2):
but as with Bill Jackson's life story, it is worthless fluff, not necessary to quote****

Till(1):
The 5th chapter of Daniel repeatedly referred to Nebuchadnezzar as the "father" of Belshazzar and once referred to Belshazzar as the "son" of Nebuchadnezzar.

Turkel(2):
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****

Turkel(2):
why does he see a need to draw out what he thinks are analogous practices by others?

Till(2):
Well, I explained above what I was doing. I had made an abstract statement about Turkel's playing "a familiar inerrantist game." Without a specific, concrete statement to clarify the abstraction, readers would not have understood it, so the reference to what Hatcher had done provided that clarification. I don't expect someone who would make an abstract reference to Barr, as Turkel did earlier, without including any concrete material to explain the abstraction would understand this.

The longer Turkel rants, the more ignorance he displays. I usually go to Florida every year or so, and I almost always go through Orlando, so I would be glad to drop in on Turkel with some reputable writing textbooks to show him that there is universal agreement among the experts that good writing will clarify abstractions with concrete statements or examples.

Turkel(2):
Is he not able to refute the arguments as we have presented them without applying for "help" from other situations?

Till(2):
Just where was I "applying" for help? The reference to Hatcher was used merely to give a concrete example to clarify a previously mentioned abstraction.

As for whether I can refute Turkel's arguments, I will first ask what arguments? I have seen a lot of argumentation by assertion but very little argumentation by explication and eisegesis of biblical texts and certainly no support from reputable scholarship. Otherwise, the details in my responses show that I can not only refute his arguments but pulverize them. Turkel is done already. All that remains is to stick a fork in him.

Till(1):
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.

Turkel(2):
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****

Till(2):
I'm sure that those whose reading skills goes beyond the "See Dick Run" stage will recognize my statement for exactly what it was intended, i. e., a concrete example used to explain what I had meant by the abstract reference to the "familiar game that inerrantists play."

Turkel(2):
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.

Till(2):
I had no such intention in mind. If Turkel had attempted to argue that father in Daniel 5 was being used in its secondary sense of ancestor, I would not have attempted to reply to it. I would simply have reminded Turkel that this is another issue that I would be very glad to debate with him after the land-promise debate had run its course.

Till(1):
He [Hatcher] 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.

Turkel(2):
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****

Till(1):
Turkel is trying to play the same game.

Turkel(2):
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 [sic] to Gen. 17. He cannot have one and not the other.

Till(2):
Now here is an excellent example of thrown-together writing that is too vague and abstract to communicate specific information. When have I added my own rule about "context"? What does Turkel mean? We don't know because he didn't clarify the abstraction by citing a specific example of when I have done that.

Turkel gets an "F" in composition today.

Did he leave "be" out before "applied"? Who knows? If he would stop trying to see how much hackwork he can crank out, maybe he would notice problems like this.

Finally, I have to wonder why he bothered to say what he said (which, although abstractly written, was obviously not intended to be complimentary) if he wasn't "necessarily say[ing] it disagreeably." Turkel seems to be a very confused inerrantist, but this type of ambiguity is usually present in the writing of those who tie themselves into verbal knots trying to find unity and harmony in the Bible.

Till(1):
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.

Turkel(2):
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 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.

Till(1):
Correction! Turkel has not cited "overwhelming contextual evidence" of this. He has simply asserted over and over and over ad nauseam that this is the case, but he has yet to produce evidence that his assertion is true. He has quoted no ancient records or respected scholars that would confirm his assertion. On the other hand, I have quoted a highly respected authority in ancient Near Eastern languages and cultures who flatly disagrees with Turkel, and this respected scholar quoted examples of ancient suzerainty treaties to support his position.

The land promise to Abraham was unconditional because of his fidelity. Furthermore, I have forced Turkel to admit that the "giving" part of the promise was unconditional, and this enabled the Israelites to ride into Canaan on "Abraham's coattails." I have shown that the land promise was twofold: (1) Yahweh would give land within clearly defined borders to Abraham's descendants because of Abraham's fidelity. (2) This land would be given to Abraham's descendants as an "everlasting possession." If part (1) of the promise was unconditional, part (2) was also unconditional.

If not, why not?

Turkel has yet to address this issue.

Turkel(2):
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.

Till(2):
As I just showed above--and in numerous other places--I have indeed refuted not "this contextual evidence," because Turkel has given no evidence. I have, however, refuted Turkel's assertion.

Till(1):
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.

Turkel(2):
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;

Till(2):
Then why did Turkel bother to quote 1 Samuel 1:22 if his intention was not to argue that ‘olam didn't mean "everlasting" in Genesis 17:8? If that was not his intention, then he was just wasting our time, so he is a fine one to talk about my "fluff," "irrelevant distractions," and "superfluous commentary."

Am I the only one who sometimes wonder if Turkel even knows what the "bleck" he means?

Turkel(2):
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.

Till(2):
Correction! This has not been Turkel's "argument." It has been his assertion, and as I have repeatedly pointed out, he has given no supporting evidence at all of his assertion. Furthermore, this is an excellent example of how Turkel will say one thing one moment but something else later. He previously admitted that the "giving" part of the promise was unconditional and that this was why the Israelites were able to ride into Canaan on Abraham's coattails as an act of "unmerited grace." I have shown, however, that the promise had two parts: (1) Yahweh would give land within clearly defined borders to Abraham's descendants because of Abraham's fidelity. (2) This land would be given to Abraham's descendants as an "everlasting possession."

Will Turkel ever explain to us why part (1) of the promise was unconditional but part (2), stated not just in the same context but in the same sentence, was unconditional?

He won't be able to explain it, because both parts of the promise were made because of Abraham's fidelity, so if Abraham's fidelity required Yahweh to give the land, then Abraham's fidelity would have required him to give the land as an "everlasting possession." If, then, the land was to be given as an "everlasting possession," Abraham's descendants would have been able to keep the land unconditionally.

If not, why not?

Watch Bob hop. Watch Bob skip. Watch Bob jump. Watch Bob hop, skip, and jump.

Till(1):
His argument is so fallacious that it hardly needs additional comment, but sometimes overkill is necessary when dealing with biblical fundamentalists.

Turkel(2):
This is merely polemical fluff. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply****

Till(1):
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.

Turkel(2):
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

Till(2):
See how Turkel will say one thing one moment but something else later? He said before that he didn't disagree with anything in the JPS version of Genesis 17:8, and the JPS version renders the verse like this: "I assign the land you sojourn in to you [Abraham] and your offspring to come, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting holding. I will be your God." If Turkel doesn't disagree with this, then he accepts that ‘olam in this verse meant "everlasting," yet he turned around later and said this.

If he [Till] 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? If so, 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)

As I have noted too many times to estimate, this "ancient Near Eastern context" that Turkel has cut and pasted into the debate umpteen times is only an assertion. He has not yet even attempt to prove that this "context" would have necessarily made the land promise to Abraham conditional. He seems to think that if he repeats this often enough, some readers will think that it is a proven fact, but as long as he continues to cut and paste the assertion, I will continue to quote my rebuttal of it, which he has yet to reply to.

I have shown that the promise had two parts: (1) Yahweh would give land within clearly defined borders to Abraham's descendants because of Abraham's fidelity. (2) This land would be given to Abraham's descendants as an "everlasting possession." If part (1) of the promise was unconditional, as Turkel has now said that it was, then the second part would also be unconditional, because the promise was made because of Abraham's fidelity.

And, as I have asked before, if not, why not?

Turkel(2):
and the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and provides no support for our opponent

Till(2):
I just rebutted this assertion above, so there is no need to requote it now. As Turkel continues to recycle the assertion, I will periodically requote it so that there will be a record at several points in the debate that this has been replied to.

Turkel(2):
unless he can provide a poll of these translators showing that that [sic] we [sic] would disagree with what we have written.

Till(2):
Unless I can provide a poll of these [JPS] translator to show that "we" [Turkel?] would disagree with what we [Turkel] have written?

See what I mean about Turkel's haste to crank out hackwork in quantity? I'm sure he meant a poll that they [the JPS translators] would disagree with what "we" [Turkel] meant, but he doesn't pay attention to what he writes and obviously doesn't proofread and edit. Hence, he cut and pasted here the same mistake he made above.

Folks--you Bible believers who have asked me why I didn't reply to Turkel when he was preaching to the choir on his closed website--is this your hero?

Till(1):
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 Turkel 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."

Turkel(2):
We do not disagree with anything in the ASV, NKJV, RSV, NASV and NAB translations of this passage,

Till(2):
Okay, if Turkel doesn't disagree... oh, I'm sorry.... If we don't disagree with anything in the ASV, NKJV, RSV, NASV, and NAB translations of this passage [Gen. 17:8], then why did Turkel quote 1 Samuel 1:22 as an example of where ‘olam did not mean "everlasting" or "forever"? And why did he make the following comment after quoting 1 Samuel 1:22?

Does Turkel even know what he believes?

Turkel(2):
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

Till(2):
I have repeatedly shown that Turkel has only asserted that there was an "Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, [and] its people" that would have made the promise to Abraham conditional, but he certainly hasn't produce evidence to support it. He hasn't quoted any authorities on "Ancient Near Eastern" cultures and languages, and he hasn't quoted any ancient treaties that support his view. I, on the other hand, have quoted and cited authorities, whose "lifeblood" has been ancient Near Eastern languages, and they flatly disagree with Turkel's assertion that he has cut and pasted into the debate probably a hundred times.

As for what James Barr thinks, Turkel hasn't even explained Barr's view, and he has quoted exactly nothing from Barr's book. Turkel simply asserted that his view was in agreement with Barr's--whatever Barr's view is--and told me that I "needed" to get Barr's book and refute it, as if a debater has an obligation to read an entire book cited by his opponent to see if there is something in it that needs to be "refuted."

I have also replied (many times now) to Turkel's assertion about an "Ancient Near Eastern context" and have shown that the nature of the promise that Yahweh made to Abraham was such that no "Ancient Near Eastern context" or anything else could have made it conditional. I think it is time to quote that rebuttal in its entirety instead of just the summation paragraph at the end of it, which was quoted above.

This debate began with Turkel originally arguing that the land promise was conditional from the start, because it was just an "Ancient Near Eastern concept" of the relationship between land, people, and their deity that land given by deities was always conditional, but confronted with the problem presented by Deuteronomy 9, Turkel has revised his position to make entry into the land unconditional but retention of the land conditional. In typical inerrantist fashion, however, Turkel has modified his position without giving adequate consideration to a fact that I have repeatedly called to his attention: the original land promise consisted of two parts. The first part was an unconditional promise that the land would be given to Abraham's descendants because of Abraham‘s fidelity. The second part was that it would be given to them as an everlasting possession.

Genesis 17:8 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. ⁸Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

Genesis 22:15 Then the Angel of Yahweh called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, ¹⁶and said: "By Myself I have sworn, says Yahweh, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son—¹⁷blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. ¹⁸In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."

Genesis 26:3 Dwell in this land, and I will be with you [Isaac] and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. ⁴And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; ⁵because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws."

I'm certainly glad that Turkel finally realized that if Yahweh had sworn to give the land to Abraham's descendants because of Abraham‘s fidelity, he could not have kept the land from the Israelites without breaking his promise. However, in recognizing that the promise to give the land to Abraham's descendants was necessarily unconditional, Turkel did not go quite far enough, because there was a second part to Yahweh's unconditional promise: Yahweh would not only give the land to Abraham's descendants because of Abraham's fidelity, but he would give the land to them as an everlasting possession. Turkel therefore cannot argue that the Israelites rode into the promised land on Abraham's coattails as an "act of unmerited grace" but that keeping the land after this was conditional to their behavior, because just as the promise to give Abraham's descendants the land was unconditional so was the promise to give the land to them as an everlasting promise.

If not, why not?

Furthermore, if, as Turkel now seems to realize, the promise to give the land to Abraham's descendants was an unconditional promise by which the Israelites rode into Canaan on the coattails of Abraham, the extent of the land promise would also have been necessarily unconditional.

Genesis 15:18 On the same day Yahweh made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates...."

Exodus 23:31 And I will set your bounds from the Red Sea to the sea, Philistia, and from the desert to the River. For I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you.

Joshua 1:1 After the death of Moses the servant of Yahweh, it came to pass that Yahweh spoke to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' assistant, saying: ²"Moses My servant is dead. Now therefore, arise, go over this Jordan, you and all this people to the land which I am giving to them—the children of Israel. ³Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given you, as I said to Moses. ⁴From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the River Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your territory.

The sum of all this is that Yahweh's land promise was threefold: (1) Land would be given to Abraham's descendants because of Abraham‘s fidelity. (2) This land would be an everlasting possession for Abraham's descendants. (3) This land would be contained within defined borders from the River of Egypt to Lebanon and from the River Euphrates to the Great Sea [Mediterranean]. So Turkel needs to explain why number 1 was unconditional so that the Israelites could ride into Canaan on Abraham's coattails, but numbers 2 and 3 were conditional to the behavior of the Israelites after they had gotten their free ride into Canaan.

Turkel complains when I repeat, but when I repeat, I am at least repeating arguments as opposed to his repeated cutting and pasting of evasive comments like, "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." These cut-and-pasted jobs that we have seen from Turkel throughout the debate are obvious evasions. They answer no arguments and present no arguments. They are simply straw men that he sets up to distract attention for his inability to answer my arguments.

Now he has before him a full and complete rebuttal of his "Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship of land, people, and their deity," so if he doesn't reply to it in the next round, we will have to assume that he can't answer it. Furthermore, if in the next round he cuts and pastes repeated claims that I have not replied to this "argument," he will have removed all doubt that he is a liar. That's blunt talk, but it is time to call a spade a spade.

Turkel(2):
unless he can provide a poll of these translators showing that that we would disagree with what we have written.

Till(2):
I emphasized "we" in bold print to show everyone that he has done it again. He takes no time to think through what he is saying. He just cuts and pastes a previously stated evasion and in so doing repeats the same mistake over and over. How many times has he cut and pasted this mistake into the debate?

Till(1):
Is Turkel 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?

Turkel(2):
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.

Till(2):
Then why did Turkel bring this up as the probable meaning of ‘olam? I just quoted his statement above, but as long as he denies that this is the spin that he tried to put on ‘olam, I'll just keep quoting it.

As I have said before, when a debater has his opponent hanging onto the ropes, he should keep him there, and that is what I intend to do.

Turkel(2):
I am indicating that ‘olam does not in an of itself exclude conditions which would would [sic] affect the "everlasting" possession of the land.

Till(2):
I'm sorry, but in the relevant context that we are discussing [Genesis 17:3-8 and related texts], the word ‘olam did convey the sense of everlasting possession. Just because a homograph in and of itself, in isolation, doesn't convey a particular meaning, that in no way means that when it is used in context it doesn't convey a specific meaning. The word bear in and of itself does not convey the sense of a carnivorous mammal of the Ursus family, but when the word appears in a context like, "A brown bear came out of the woods and attacked the tourists," it then conveys the sense of a carnivorous mammal of the Ursus family.

The context of Genesis 17:3-8 presents the same problem for Turkel. He can talk about 1 Samuel 1:22 and other passages all that he wants to, but a primary rule of literary interpretation is that context determines the meaning of words, and ‘olam in the context of Genesis 17:3-8 conveys the sense of "everlasting" or "forever." That is why it has been so translated in all the major versions. If Turkel says, as he has now done several times, that he does not disagree with the JPS translation of Genesis 17:8, then why does he continue to argue that ‘olam as used here did not convey the sense of an "everlasting" possession of the land?

Till(1):
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 Turkel 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 Turkel is trying to argue?

Turkel(2): 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****

Till(2):
Turkel evades another relevant question, so I will ask him again to tell us why the omniscient, omnipotent Yahweh promised the Israelites at this time that he would drive out of Canaan seven nations greater and mightier than the Israelites. Turkel claims that it was the unrighteousness of the previously unrighteous Israelites that kept Yahweh from fulfilling this promise, so when he made the promise, did Yahweh not know that the unrighteous Israelites would become so much more unrighteous that he would have to keep them from retaining the land? If so, why did he tell them that he would do something that he knew at the time he would not do?

I have tried to explain to Turkel, who seems to have some rather serious comprehension problems, that an explanation of a biblical discrepancy must be coherent and consistent with everything else in the Bible; otherwise, the would-be apologist has "explained" a discrepancy at the expense of other biblical passages. The Bible teaches that Yahweh knows everything, so if Yahweh really possesses this characteristic, he would have known at the time he was telling the Israelites that he would drive out of Canaan seven greater and mightier nations that he wouldn't be able to do this because the unrighteousness of the unrighteous Israelites would become so bad that he would have to keep the land from them. That being the case, why would the omniscient Yahweh have said that he was going to do something that he knew he would not do?

This calls for an explanation, but watch Turkel evade it again.

Turkel(1):
The word "possession" is not yarash but ‘achuzzah, something seized. It is essentially synonymous with yarash and is used in Lev. 25:24:

Till(1):
So if ‘achuzzah is "essentially synonymous" with yarash, why bring such "fluff" and "irrelevant distraction" into the debate?

Till(2):
I will add an additional question to this. If ‘achuzzah was "essentially synonymous" with yarash, did ‘achuzzah also convey the sense of "permanent possession" as Vine said of yarash?

This root [yarash] can also represent the status of having something as one's permanent possession, as a possession which may be passed on to one's legal descendants.... Yaras can mean "to take over as a permanent possession": "And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it..." (Num. 27:11). The verb sometimes means to take something over (in the case of the promised Land) by conquest as a permanent possession (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary, p. 182, emphasis added).

Turkel(2):
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".

Till(2):
For the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with Turkel's writing style, I need to interpret his statement above. What he means is that anything that he can't reply to is "fluff" and "irrelevant distraction," so I will ask him again why he bothered to say that the Hebrew word for "possession" was ‘achuzzah rather than yarash if the two words are "essentially synonymous." What did that add to the discussion?

He won't give us a truthful answer, of course, but the reason for his constant references to Hebrew words in contexts where he merely says what the word is without commenting on any special meanings they may have had is to try to leave with his readers the impression that he is knowledgeable in Hebrew.

Turkel(2):
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.

Till(2):
And I would have found it satisfactory if Turkel had simply left out entirely his constant references to Hebrew when those references don't shed any additional light on the meanings of the texts that he quotes.

Turkel(2):
We are not the ones who have produced irrational demands that EVERYTHING we say be quoted in a reply.

Till(2):
I haven't made that demand either, and I have shown repeatedly that I tried unsuccessfully to negotiate before the debate began an agreement with Turkel that would have included the following guidelines.

3. Each participant agrees to publish all exchanges in their entireties on their internet sites.

4. Each participant agrees to include all links that the participants refer to in their exchanges.

5. Each participant agrees to reply to all arguments and rebuttals made by the other.

6. If a participant overlooks an opponent's argument or rebuttal, he will reply to it after receiving notification that the argument/rebuttal was not answered.

As I have already explained several times, these proposed guidelines clearly show that I made no demands for Turkel to quote everything I write but only that he agree to reply to all of my arguments and rebuttals. This quote-everything claim he has repeatedly made is simply another straw man that he has used as an excuse to fill his "replies" with cut-and-pasted evasive comments.

Till(1):
I suspect it is Turkel'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.

Turkel(2):
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.

Till(2):
If Turkel claims no expertise in Hebrew, then why does he fill his articles with constant references to what the Hebrew word was in such and such a text, and why does he so often claim to know "Hebrew nuances" and accuse his opponents of knowing nothing about the "Hebrew mind"? How could someone who has no expertise in Hebrew possibly know much of anything about "Hebrew nuances"? I doubt, for example, that Turkel would even know, without consulting a dictionary, the different nuances of the English words continual and continuous or enormity and enormousness, so how likely is it that he knows anything about "nuances" in a dead language that he has no expertise in?

Turkel may say what he wants, but as long as he keeps filling his articles with such references, I can only assume that he is attempting to mislead his readers into thinking that he has enough expertise in Hebrew to talk about "nuances" and the "Hebrew mind."

This guy is as phony as the name James Patrick Holding.

Turkel(2):
It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary****

Till(2):
At this point, the subject turned to whether the concept of personal ownership of land was known in the ancient Hebrew society, so this will be a good place to begin Part Eleven. Eventually, those who have had the patience to persevere through Turkel's wholesale cutting and pasting of evasive comments like the one that I just truncated above will see a detailed, point-by-point reply to all of his quibbles, but I don't engage in hackwork, so completion of the replies will take time.