The Skeptical Review Online - Are We There Yet? / Part Fifteen

Till(2):
As readers go through this section, I hope they will count the number of times that Turkel cut and pasted the same evasive comment. I will assist in the counting by numbering the evasions. They begin below after I pointed out that Turkel is trying to make the land promise conditional by quoting Deuteronomic passages that biblical scholarship widely agrees were exilic or postexilic additions to Deuteronomy, which itself is a book that scholarship generally dates to the late 8th century BC.

Till(1):
Turkel cannot explain this problem [P and ~P] while at the same time clinging to his belief that the biblical record is consistent on this subject [fulfillment of the land promise].

Turkel (2):
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****

Till(2):
Readers should also remember that the truncated statement above is another of Turkel's repeated, cut-and-pasted evasion. I will say again that if Turkel really believed that he had satisfactorily answered the problem that Deuteronomy 9 poses to his claim that fulfillment of the land promise was conditional to the behavior of the Israelites, he would surely have quoted that answer here instead of cutting and pasting an evasive comment that answers nothing.

Till(1):
On the other hand, I can easily explain the inconsistency. Almost all of Turkel's biblical quotations that affixed conditions to the promise are in the book of Deuteronomy.

Turkel(2):
This is merely transitional. It it [sic] is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able****

Till(2):
Readers have seen this evasive comment too, so to borrow an expression from Turkel, it is not necessary to quote it. Many readers could probably quote it from memory now.

Till(1):
Only diehard biblical fundamentalists would claim that this book was written by Moses prior to his death, which would have been prior to the Israelite crossing into Canaan.

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 from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject (consistency of the Biblical record, as it stands) by changing the discussion to another subject (Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy) never addressed in the original article. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily impressed by such tactics.

Till(2):
Here is Turkel's first posting of his evasion of my rebuttal argument concerning the exilic and postexilic dating of the Deuteronomic passages that he is quoting to try to prove that the land promise was conditional. From this point on in this section, I will truncate the statement each time he cuts and pastes it and number it TWO, THREE, FOUR, etc., so that readers will be reminded that Turkel's performance in this debate has been to evade rebuttal arguments by cutting and pasting comments like the above.

I recognized fairly early in this debate that Turkel is ignorant of formal debating principles and procedures, but the excuse that he gave above for ignoring this rebuttal argument shows surprising ignorance even for him. He is claiming that he doesn't have to reply to this rebuttal argument because it was "never addressed in [my] original article," but anyone with a lick of debating sense will know that a debater's first speech or article will never mention everything that will come up as the debate progresses. Furthermore, my original article was not written as an opening affirmative speech. It was simply an article written for a bimonthly publication with no intention of its being perceived as the opening round of a written debate. Once Turkel undertook to rebut it, I was entitled to introduce any kind of material that would be necessary to reply to his rebuttal. I have done that by pointing out that the passages in Deuteronomy that he is using to show that conditions were attached to the land promise are widely recognized as exilic and postexilic additions to a book that, in the first place, was written long after the time of "Moses." For Turkel to say that he doesn't have to reply to this because it wasn't mentioned in my original article has to be the height of debating stupidity.

The reason why Turkel is evading this is that he probably knows that if he undertakes to prove the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy, I will be able to inundate him with evidence of its late authorship. I don't challenge him; I dare him to try to defend the Mosaic authorship of the texts he is quoting to try to make the land promise conditional.

Watch Turkel evade this challenge. Watch Bob hop. Watch Bob skip. Watch Bob jump. Watch Bob hop, skip, and jump.

Is this the hero of those who wrote to ask me why I wasn't replying to articles he was posting about me on his closed website?

Till(1):
A critical reader doesn't even have to have an eagle's eye to spot passages in Deuteronomy that betray its late authorship, at a time well after the alleged conquest of Israel.

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):
TWO!

I'll add a reminder that I dare Turkel to try to prove the Mosaic authorship of his "proof texts" in the book of Deuteronomy.

Till(1):
In other words, when Deuteronomy was written, the author was aware of the history of Israel and Judah up to the time of the postexilic era, so the passages that Turkel quoted were presenting a retrospective view of the land promise.

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):
THREE!

I'll add a reminder that I dare Turkel to try to prove the Mosaic authorship of his "proof texts" in the book of Deuteronomy.

Till(1):
Although the original land promise made to Abraham had no conditions, as can be seen in the quotations above, the author of Deuteronomy knew that the promise had not been fulfilled as originally given.

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):
FOUR!

I'll add a reminder that I dare Turkel to try to prove the Mosaic authorship of his "proof texts" in the book of Deuteronomy.

Till(1):
Hence, this author wrote the promise so that it would contain "ifs" and other conditions so that there would be an explanation for why Israel had never possessed all of the land within the boundaries previously defined and why Israel had not been able to drive out all of the other nations in the land of Canaan.

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):
FIVE!

I'll add a reminder that I dare Turkel to try to prove the Mosaic authorship of his "proof texts" in the book of Deuteronomy.

Till(1):
The D writer's explanation was simple: the Israelites had not obeyed the voice of Yahweh and had not kept the covenant; hence, the promise had not been fulfilled in its entirety.

Turkel(2):
This rushed appeal to a broad and complex topic (the JEDP theory) can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject****

Till(2):
SIX!

As readers can see, Turkel began evasion SIX with a brief complaint about my appeal to the JEDP theory. Actually, I didn't appeal to this theory. I have simply said that biblical scholarship widely recognizes the late authorship of the book of Deuteronomy and subsequent exilic and postexilic editings of it. J and E, for example, have nothing to do with this claim, which is merely that Turkel is quoting "proof texts" that biblical scholarship in general--except for the kind that publishes at Grand Rapids, Michigan--recognizes that "Moses" didn't write. Otherwise, his evasion SIX above was a verbatim cutting and pasting of his original statement.

I contend that the authorship and dating of Turkel's "proof texts" are very relevant to this debate, because if those texts were not written by Moses but by someone who lived centuries later, they can't very well be used as proof that the original land promise was conditional. I will exercise my right as a participant in a formal debate to ask my opponent to reply to a rebuttal argument, and I will repeat my dare that he undertake to defend the Mosaic authorship of his "proof texts."

Till(1):
I will support this position with other examples of rationalization, but first I want to point out some passages in Deuteronomy that should convince all but diehard fundamentalists that Deuteronomy was written from a retrospective view.

Turkel(2):
This, and the snide commentary about "diehard fundamentalists," and the attempt to address the complex topic of the JEDP thesis is such a breezy fashion, can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue****

Till(2):
SEVEN!

Once again, Turkel introduced his evasion with an inaccurate complaint that I was introducing the "complex topic of the JEDP thesis," but otherwise his evasion SEVEN was cut and pasted verbatim from above.

I'll remind him again that if he is going to argue by appeals to exilic and postexilic additions to a book that itself was written long after the time that the entry into Canaan allegedly happened, as his opponent I am entitled to rebut those texts with information that shows why they don't prove what he is claiming.

I have done that. Now I defy him to try to defend the Mosaic authorship of those texts. I can assure his admirers that he will not dare do it.

Till(1):
The D writer knew, for example, that Israel would be taken into captivity. This is evident from one of the very passages that Turkel quoted above, but evidently the clues went right over his head.

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):
EIGHT!

I'll add a reminder that I dare Turkel to try to prove the Mosaic authorship of his "proof texts" in the book of Deuteronomy.

Till(1):

Deuteronomy 28:47 Because you did not serve Yahweh your God joyfully and with gladness of heart for the abundance of everything,
48 therefore you shall serve your enemies whom Yahweh will send against you, in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and lack of everything. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you.
49 Yahweh will bring a nation from far away, from the end of the earth, to swoop down on you like an eagle, a nation whose language you do not understand,
50 a grim-faced nation showing no respect to the old or favor to the young.
51 It shall consume the fruit of your livestock and the fruit of your ground until you are destroyed, leaving you neither grain, wine, and oil, nor the increase of your cattle and the issue of your flock, until it has made you perish.
52 It shall besiege you in all your towns until your high and fortified walls, in which you trusted, come down throughout your land; it shall besiege you in all your towns throughout the land that Yahweh your God has given you.

Some scholars see the prophet Jeremiah as the Deuteronomic author, and some expressions in this passage, emphasized in bold print, do echo his style of writing.

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):
NINE!

I will exercise my right as a participant in a formal debate to ask Turkel to reply to a rebuttal that I made in reply to "proof texts" that he posted. If he doesn't do it, I can only assume that he knows that the Mosaic authorship of his texts can't be defended.

Till(1):

Jeremiah 28:14 For thus says Yahweh of hosts, the God of Israel: I have put an iron yoke on the neck of all these nations so that they may serve King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and they shall indeed serve him; I have even given him the wild animals.

Jeremiah 5:15 I am going to bring upon you a nation from far away, O house of Israel, says Yahweh. It is an enduring nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language you do not know, nor can you understand what they say.

Whether Jeremiah was the D author is not a crucial point, because a fair, critical examination of Deuteronomy will show that it was written from a retrospective view regardless of who the author was. The author, for example, knew about not only the captivity but a return from the captivity. Turkel quoted this passage but evidently missed the clues again.

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):
TEN!

I am developing a rebuttal of Turkel's "proof texts," and he is doing nothing but evading it on the grounds that that Mosaic authorship was not a part of my original article. To keep readers reminded of the asininity of this approach to formal debating, I will quote what I said about this above.

I recognized fairly early in this debate that Turkel is ignorant of formal debating principles and procedures , but the excuse that he gave above for ignoring this rebuttal argument shows surprising ignorance even for him. He is claiming that he doesn't have to reply to this rebuttal argument because it was "never addressed in [my] original article," but anyone with a lick of debating sense will know that a debater's first speech or article will never mention everything that will come up as the debate progresses. Furthermore, my original article was not written as an opening affirmative speech. It was simply an article written for a bimonthly publication with no intention of its being perceived as the opening round of a written debate. Once Turkel undertook to rebut it, I was entitled to introduce any kind of material that would be necessary to reply to his rebuttal. I have done that by pointing out that the passages in Deuteronomy that he is using to show that conditions were attached to the land promise are widely recognized as exilic and postexilic additions to a book that, in the first place, was written long after the time of "Moses." For Turkel to say that he doesn't have to reply to this because it wasn't mentioned in my original article has to be the height of debating stupidity.

Turkel has made an attempt to prove that the land promise was conditional by quoting "proof texts" in Deuteronomy, and I am in the process of rebutting his argument. He has an obligation to respond to my rebuttal, and he cannot shun that obligation by saying that the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy was not mentioned in my original article. Well, the "proof texts" that he has quoted weren't mentioned in my original article either, so by his logic I would have been entitled to say that I don't have to reply to the passages he has quoted. If I did that, I can imagine the accusations of evasion that we would be hearing from him.

As it is, I am replying in detail to all of his arguments, and he is evading mine.

Till(1):

Deuteronomy 30:1 When all these things have happened to you, the blessings and the curses that I have set before you, if you call them to mind among all the nations where Yahweh your God has driven you,
2 and return to Yahweh your God, and you and your children obey him with all your heart and with all your soul, just as I am commanding you today,
3 then Yahweh your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, gathering you again from all the peoples among whom Yahweh your God has scattered you.
4 Even if you are exiled to the ends of the world, from there Yahweh your God will gather you, and from there he will bring you back.
5 Yahweh your God will bring you into the land that your ancestors possessed, and you will possess it; he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors.

The D writer also knew that Israel would have kings, who would be extravagant and excessive in their affluence, and so he retrospectively wrote into the D law restrictions on this kind of ostentation.

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):
ELEVEN!

If a document were found that purported to have been written during the American Civil War made references to airplanes, television, atomic weapons, tanks, and rockets, anyone with common sense would know that the author of the document had misrepresented the time it was supposedly written. Likewise, when a biblical document made obvious references to events and situations that didn't happen until long after the time when the document was allegedly written, people with common sense will realize that the document was a forgery. This would exclude biblical inerrantists like Turkel, however, because their allegiance to a ridiculous belief keeps them from seeing the obvious.

At any rate, I have presented a rebuttal of Turkel's attempt to prove that the land promise was conditional by referring to passages in Deuteronomy. He is therefore obligated to reply to my argument, but he won't dare attempt it.

Till(1):
[The D writer also knew that Israel would have kings, who would be extravagant and excessive in their affluence, and so he retrospectively wrote into the D law restrictions on this kind of ostentation.]

Deuteronomy 17:14 When you have come into the land that Yahweh your God is giving you, and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,"
15 you may indeed set over you a king whom Yahweh your God will choose. One of your own community you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not of your own community.
16 Even so, he must not acquire many horses for himself, or return the people to Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since Yahweh has said to you, "You must never return that way again."
17 And he must not acquire many wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; also silver and gold he must not acquire in great quantity for himself.

The D writer apparently didn't like the flagrant displays of wealth and affluence that were attributed to kings like Solomon, and so he retrospectively wrote into the D law a condemnation of that sort of conduct.

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):
TWELVE!

We don't have to take Turkel's twelve evasions as "evidence of a lack of capability to address the subject at hand." We take it as obvious proof that he can't answer the rebuttal.

As a participant in a formal debate, I will ask Turkel again to meet his responsibility and answer my rebuttal.

Here he isn't even claiming that he has "addressed" this "below."

Till(1):
I could cite other examples of passages in Deuteronomy that show that the author was writing from a retrospective advantage, but these are sufficient to support my point.

Turkel(2):
I, likewise, could insert pages and pages of commentary from any one of my articles (including one addressing these very points our opponents throws into the ring,

Till(2):
Well, I didn't insert "commentary" from any of my articles or from books published by writers who don't accept the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. I quoted passages from the book itself to show that whoever wrote these passages obviously had a retrospective view of Hebrew history. As I said above, when a document makes obvious references to events that were known to have happened after the time the document was allegedly written, that is common-sense evidence that it was written after the time of the events referred to.

Turkel(2):
or from any article on any subject), make up some validation for inserting it, and then pretend that it is some relevant and viable challenge for our opponent to refute.

Till(2):
I didn't "make up" any "validation" for quoting my rebuttal passages. I quoted them to rebut a claim that Turkel was making. Therefore, he has an obligation to try to rebut them, but, of course, he isn't going to do that, because if he has written anything at all on this subject, he surely knows that biblical scholarship is overwhelmingly in agreement on the late authorship of Deuteronomy. Turkel is just too fundamentally ignorant to recognize the impact of the evidence, because if he did recognize it, he would have to abandon his fundamentalist position of biblical inerrancy.

Turkel(2):
However, I see no need to do this, because I am not incapabale [sic] of addressing the subject at hand

Till(2):
I wonder if Turkel sees any need to spend a little of his time proofreading before he dashes off a "1 meg" reply that consists primarily of cut-and-pasted evasions.

Turkel(2):
and do not need to insert paragraph upon paragraph of irrelevant material and fluff in order to distract the reader from the main issue.

Till(2):
Turkel presented a claim that the land promise was conditional, which he based on passages in Deuteronomy. I replied to those passages with quotations from the same book that show clear signs of exilic and postexilic authorship. If he sees no need to reply to this, then his ignorance of debating procedures runs much deeper than I had suspected.

Till(1):
The land promise to Abraham was unconditional, but Israelite history proved that the promise was not fulfilled in its entirety, so "explanations" were retrospectively written into the biblical text.

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):
THIRTEEN!

I will remind Turkel that he made an argument based on quotations from Deuteronomy, and I have rebutted that argument. I will ask him to meet his responsibility as a participant in a formal debate and reply to my rebuttal.

Till(1):
The "explanation" became that the land promise wasn't entirely fulfilled, because the Israelites didn't meet the conditions.

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):
FOURTEEN!

Actually, I was summarizing what seems to be Turkel's position. The least Turkel could have done was state whether my summation accurately represented his position. Instead, he chose to cut and paste a flagrant evasion for the fourteenth time.

He made an argument, and at this point I was rebutting it. What I said was said not to distract attention from the "subject at hand" but to reply to a rebuttal argument that he had introduced into the debate. Is it Turkel's position that if I reply to one of his arguments, I am just "provid[ing] a distraction"?

I will ask him to discharge his responsibility as a participant in a formal debate and reply to his opponent's rebuttal. His refusal to do so will be seen as evidence that he is the one incapable of addressing the subject at hand.

Till(1):
The D writer, however, was careless in chapter 9 and wrote a renewal of the promise in such a way that it became irreconcilable with any claims that conditions had been attached to the promise.

Turkel(2):
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****

Till(2):
Where did Turkel "address Deuteronomy 9"? Has he "already" done this, or will he address it "below"?

Till(1):
Such revisionism wasn't unusual. For the sake of brevity, I will cite only one example among many that are available.

Till(2):
Poor Turkel! He is so ignorant of formal debating principles and rules that he doesn't know that the material that goes into a debate is not limited to what is said in an opening speech or article. When a reply is written to an article or speech, the respondent will very likely say something that will call for material not referred to in the opening article [speech], and so a debating opponent is entirely within his rights to use material not in the original article to reply to whatever his opponent said in his first rebuttal.

Turkel is trying to set up an arbitrary rule that even he hasn't followed. Where, for example, did I refer in my original article to any "Ancient Near Eastern" concept of land, people, and their deity? I made no such reference, but Turkel was entirely within his rights to use this in his rebuttal if he thought that it in any way rebutted my premise that the land promise was unconditional? Where in my original article did I say anything about the Hebrew words yarash and nathan? I made no references to these, but Turkel was in his rights to introduce this material if he thought that it would in any way weaken or rebut my premise that the land promise was unconditional.

Hey, Turkel, is any of this sinking in?

In the same way that Turkel has introduced material that wasn't referred to in my original article, I have introduced rebuttal material that he never mentioned in his article. He tried to prove that the land promise was conditional by quoting passages from Deuteronomy, and I have replied to this by quoting other passages from Deuteronomy that show a late date of authorship for this book and exilic and postexilic editings of it.

Turkel, were you born this ignorant, or did you have to work at getting to where you are now? We're supposed to be having a debate, so get with it and discharge your obligations.

Turkel(2):
It is also an ironic [sic] that our opponent cedes here to "brevity" after wasting 95% of his reply with fluff, repetition****

Till(2):
So this is an ironic, is it? If Turkel would spend a tenth as much time proofreading as he does cutting and pasting, maybe he would catch careless mistakes like this.

Turkel(2):
as well as demanding that we quote EVERYTHING including his fluff, repetition, and irrelevant distractions****

Till(2):
I have shown several times now that this is a lie that Turkel keeps repeating. I didn't make any such demand. He knows that I demanded only that the readers of his website be given ready access to any of my articles that he claimed to be "answering," and he knows that before the debate, I tried to negotiate with him a debating agreement that would contain 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 repeatedly pointed out, if I had been demanding that Turkel quote everything I write and then reply to it, I would not have proposed guideline #5, which would require only that Turkel reply to all my arguments and rebuttals. Numbers 3 and 4 would guarantee his readers ready access to everything I write, and that has always been my concern. Turkel has been distorting and misrepresenting me in this matter from the beginning of the debate and has made this "quote EVERYTHING" a straw man that he can beat on to draw attention away from his inability to reply to my rebuttal arguments.

We know now why Turkel didn't want to negotiate a debating agreement that would structure the debate. He obviously didn't want to sign an agreement that would obligate him to reply to all of his opponent's arguments and rebuttals.

This guy is a forensic joke. Those who have pledged $70 to $80 per year so that he can become a full-time "apologist" should demand their money back.

Till(1):
When the northern kingdom split away from Judah after Solomon's reign, Yahweh promised that he would always keep Judah intact for the sake of David.

1 Kings 11:31 He [the prophet Ahijah] then said to Jeroboam: Take for yourself ten pieces; for thus saysYahweh, the God of Israel, "See, I am about to tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon, and will give you ten tribes.
32 One tribe will remain his, for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city that I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel.
33 This is because he has forsaken me, worshiped Astarte the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the Ammonites, and has not walked in my ways, doing what is right in my sight and keeping my statutes and my ordinances, as his father David did.
34 Nevertheless I will not take the whole kingdom away from him but will make him ruler all the days of his life, for the sake of my servant David whom I chose and who did keep my commandments and my statutes;
35 but I will take the kingdom away from his son and give it to you--that is, the ten tribes.
36 Yet to his son I will give one tribe, so that my servant David may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I have chosen to put my name.

Thereafter, references were made to kings of Judah "who did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh," but Yahweh refused to destroy Judah because of "David's sake," to whom Yahweh had promised to "give a lamp to his descendants forever."

Till(2):
FIFTEEN!

Here is Turkel's fifteenth evasion of my rebuttal argument, complete with his misspelling of "allegations." The passage I quoted is as relevant as the ones Turkel has quoted to try to show that the land promise was conditional. He seems to think that he can quote anything, even though it wasn't in my "original article" but that if I quote anything that wasn't in my original article, I am showing "evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand."

Turkel's ignorance of debating principles is incredible. This guy thinks that he is worthy of support so that he can be a full-time "apologist"?

Till(1):

2 Kings 8:18 He [Jehoram] walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab had done, for the daughter of Ahab was his wife. He did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh.
19 Yet Yahweh would not destroy Judah, for the sake of his servant David, since he had promised to give a lamp to him and to his descendants forever.

2 Kings 19:32 "Therefore thus says Yahweh concerning the king of Assyria: He shall not come into this city, shoot an arrow there, come before it with a shield, or cast up a siege ramp against it.
33 By the way that he came, by the same he shall return; he shall not come into this city, says Yahweh.
34 For I will defend this city to save it, for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David."

2 Kings 20:4 Before Isaiah had gone out of the middle court, the word of Yahweh came to him:
5 "Turn back, and say to Hezekiah prince of my people, Thus says Yahweh, the God of your ancestor David: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; indeed, I will heal you; on the third day you shall go up to the house of Yawheh.
6 I will add fifteen years to your life. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; I will defend this city for my own sake and for my servant David's sake."

The time came, however, when Judah fell to Babylon, so not even the most radical Yahwist could deny the failure of the promise that Yahweh would preserve Judah and Jerusalem forever "for the sake of David." Revisionists had to go to work to try to explain the failure, and so they put the blame on a scapegoat. The fault was Manasseh's. He was so wicked that Yahweh had to renege on his promise to David, despite even the unparalleled righteousness of Josiah.

Till(2):
SIXTEEN!

So this is now Turkel's sixteenth evasion of a rebuttal argument that I developed in response to his introduction of Deuteronomic quotations that I had made no reference to in my original article. His argument seems to be that he can introduce as many quotations as he wants to that were not mentioned in my original article but that if I use any quotations in reply to them that were not referred to in my article, I am showing a "lack of capability to address the subject at hand."

Let me use a stronger word this time. Turkel's stupidity in debating matters is incredible.

Notice that his statement above contained the same misspelling of "allegations," so obviously he is just perfunctorily cutting and pasting evasive comments without bothering to check what he is saying.

Till(1):

2 Kings 23:24 Moreover Josiah put away the mediums, wizards, teraphim, idols, and all the abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, so that he established the words of the law that were written in the book that the priest Hilkiah had found in the house of Yahweh
25 Before him there was no king like him, who turned to Yahweh with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him.
26 Still Yahweh did not turn from the fierceness of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him.
27 Yahweh said, "I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel; and I will reject this city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there."

When the writer recorded Jerusalem's fall to Nebuchadnezzar, he repeated this excuse so that everyone would know why the promise of a Davidic dynasty that would last forever had to be scrapped.

Till(2):
SEVENTEEN!

I'm rebutting an argument that Turkel made by introducing material that was not in my original article. I will therefore ask Turkel to stop his evasion, meet his obligations as a participant in a formal debate, and answer my rebuttal. Exactly how do exilic and postexilic redactions to a book that was itself written after-the-fact prove that the original land promise was conditional?

No wonder this guy didn't want to negotiate an agreement prior to the debate that would have required him to reply to all of my points.

Till(1):

2 Kings 24:3 Surely this [the Chaldean siege] came upon Judah at the command of Yahweh, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, for all that he had committed,
4 and also for the innocent blood that he had shed; for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and Yahweh was not willing to pardon.

One has to wonder why when the omni-max Yahweh promised that he would preserve the kingdom of Judah forever for David's sake, he didn't know that the super-wicked Manasseh would come along to upset all of his plans for an everlasting Davidic dynasty, but who are we to question the omni-one? Maybe Turkel knows of some "ancient concept" that will explain away this problem.

Till(2):
EIGHTEEN!

Well, I guess Turkel doesn't know of any "Ancient Near Eastern concept" that would explain the problem. All he seems to know is how to cut and paste evasive comments. His debating skills are as deficient as his spelling skills.

Till(1):
Revisionism will also explain why the book of Joshua first said that the Israelites had received all the land and everything else Yahweh had promised but then later said that they didn't receive everything, but I'll get to that later in Part Sixteen.

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

Till(1):
There is no need to try to explain anything, because I never demanded or expected Turkel to reply to transitional comments. As I noted above, I tried to get Turkel to negotiate an agreement prior to the beginning of the debate that would have obligated both of us to reply to all of the other's points, but I never made any demand in my proposal that he "quote EVERYTHING." All of his allusions to my demand that he do this are distortions and misrepresentations intended to do the same thing as his eighteen evasions noted above, which are only eighteen of dozens of other cuttings and pastings that have filled his so-called "replies."

In Part Sixteen, we will see if "below" or "later" ever comes.