Till:
Because of other debating obligations and various problems,
including a death in
the family, I have had to delay my replies to Turkel’s evasions of my
first-round
replies to his attempt to find "harmony" in the biblical accounts of
Yahweh’s land
promise to Abraham and his descendants. Several debating obligations
resulted from
a stint on the Theology Web, which included even some exchanges with
Turkel, who in
typical fashion continued to ignore arguments/rebuttals and to dismiss
others by
claiming that he had "already answered" those. During those exchanges,
Turkel
asked when I would be posting Part Seventeen of my second-round
land-promise
replies.
I explained that I was indeed working on Part
Seventeen as time permitted
but that I
would give top priority to it if he would (1) agree to reply to it
point by point,
and (2) put a link to my Part Seventeen
at the beginning of any reply to it
that he
posted on his website.
Needless to say, he ignored this challenge, so apparently he wasn’t too eager for me to continue my rebuttals, but as I said then, I fully intend to reply to all of his second-round evasions and will eventually get them on line, barring any health problems or other complications resulting from age. Here now is Part Seventeen, which Turkel can selectively quote in his unlinked "reply," while I am working on Part Eighteen.
If anyone follows Turkel’s reply to this, please take notice of what I have said before and, "See Robert hop; see Robert skip; see Robert hop, skip, and jump."
Till:
So the Israelites didn’t have "deeds" to their individual property,
which they registered
at tribal courthouses, but what does that prove? They had land that was
defined with
landmarks that the Deuteronomic code said should not be tampered with.
Turkel:
Again, we have never argued for, and our opponent cannot show that we
have ever argued
for, any "extremist view" that any deity's ultimate ownership precluded
the ability
of humans to transact business in terms of personal property; we have
rather argued
that the deity holds ultimate jurisdiction with respect to occupation
and use of the
land, including the ability to transact business associated with the
land.
Till:
Well, I guess I will have to run it by the Turk again, because he can
never seem
to remember what he has said before.
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.
He said this in his original article, which I quoted and replied to in Part Three of my first-round rebuttals. I will quote that reply so that readers won’t have to interrupt their reading to find it.
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.
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 Yahweh your God, which have separated you from other people.
Deuteronomy 1:8 Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which Yahweh sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them.
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. The last verse above stated that wives and "little ones" would remain in the conquered cities east of the Jordan 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. 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? 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 Turkel know what necessary inferences are in literary interpretation?
Furthermore, Joshua 21:43 flat out said that Yahweh gave to the Israelites all the land that Yahweh had promised their fathers and that they possessed it and dwelt in it.
Joshua 21:43 So Yahweh gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers; and they possessed it and dwelt in it.
If Turkel wants to claim that the Israelites didn’t receive all of the land because of a condition of obedience that was inherent in some ancient Near Eastern "context" of land, people, and their deity, I will let him argue with his inspired, inerrant word of God.
Are the statements in Joshua 21:43 true, inerrant statements? Did the Israelites indeed possess and dwell in all the land that Yahweh had promised their fathers? If so, then I would like for Turkel to show when the Israelites ever possessed and dwelled in the Mediterranean coastal regions and Northern Lebanon up to the Euphrates River.
We’ll see that Turkel 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. 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. 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.
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.
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.
This should be clear enough even for Turkel to understand. 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. 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. 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.
A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since this debate started, so I can’t recall everything that Turkel has said along the way, but if he has ever replied to my rebuttal above, I don’t recall it. Perhaps he will refresh our memory. At any rate, his statement that I quoted above clearly shows that, contrary to later attempts to deny it, he did say that Yahweh’s "giving" of the promised land to the Israelites did not "connote any modern sense of ownership." I have shown throughout my rebuttals that this is a patently false statement, because the Israelites bought and sold land. This right of property ownership was discussed in detail in Part Four of the series cited above, where I quoted examples of private land ownership by Naomi, Naboth, and Zelophehad’s daughters. These examples clearly showed that Israelites could buy and sell land. After I pointed out that examples of land transactions were in the Bible, Turkel suddenly wanted to deny his original claim, made early in the debate, that the giving of land in biblical times did not "connote any modern sense of property ownership."
Turkel:
This point [the Near-Eastern-context argument] our opponent has not in
any sense
shown to be contrary to the Ancient Near Eastern context of the
relationship between a land, its people, and their
deity.
Till:
This statement was a cutting and pasting of an evasive comment that
Turkel has made
umpteen times in the debate. He has been challenged time and time again
to show how
this "Ancient Near Eastern context" would negate the unconditional
promise that
Yahweh made to Abraham, but he has evaded this challenge like the
plague. He just
said that Yahweh set conditions upon continuing to live in the land,
but when he
wrote this, he knew that I had blasted this quibble to smithereens.
Just to bug
him, I am going to quote again my replies to this, which I have made
throughout my
rebuttals but particularly in Part
Eight of my second-round replies.
As I have repeatedly shown, Turkel’s "feudal-landlord" analogy is false, because he is comparing an unconditional structure to a conditional structure. If a feudal landlord had granted land to serfs unconditionally, that would have been parallel to Yahweh’s unconditional grant of land to Abraham’s descendants because of the "fidelity" of Abraham (as Frank Moore Cross noted in previously quoted material).
Genesis 26:2 Yahweh appeared to Isaac and said, "Do not go down to Egypt; settle in the land that I shall show you. 3 Reside in this land as an alien, and I will be with you, and will bless you; for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will fulfill the oath that I swore to your father Abraham. 4 I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven, and will give to your offspring all these lands; and all the nations of the earth shall gain blessing for themselves through your offspring, 5 because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."
The promise was not that "I may give all these lands to your descendants" but that "I will give all these lands to your descendants," and the reason given for the promise was that Abraham had kept the commandments, statutes, and laws of Yahweh. Hence, because of the fidelity of Abraham, the land promise was made unconditionally to his descendants. If Turkel is going to equate this to "feudal-landlord" relationships, he would have to hypothesize a feudal landlord who was so impressed with the faithfulness and loyalty of a particular servant that the feudal landlord granted permanent tenancy to his descendants because of the fidelity of the one servant.
Seeing the predicament he was in, Turkel tried to switch horses in midstream, so he said that the "giving" of the land was unconditional but the "keeping" of the land was conditional. Later on in Part Eight, cited above, I showed that this dog wouldn’t hunt either.
This "ancient legal contract" that "spell[ed] out obligations of landlord and tenant" has been fully addressed and shown to be of no help to Turkel for four reasons: (1) The original land promise was unconditional because of Abraham’s fidelity [Gen. 26:5]. (2) The situation in Deuteronomy 9 was such that the renewal of the promise to a nation of Israelites, who at that time were described as having been completely reprobate from the day they had left Egypt, necessarily precluded conditions of behavior, because if their behavior at that time was not reason enough to deny the land to them, how could their subsequent behavior, which couldn’t possibly have been any worse, have been a reason to deny them the land? (3) Yahweh’s land promise included the factor of permanence when he said that he would give the land to Abraham’s seed as an everlasting possession. (4) The passages in Deuteronomy that attached conditions to the promise were the result of retrospective editing, which were primarily after-the-fact references to dispersions and captivities that the Israelites had experienced long after the time of "Moses." If Turkel entered into a contractual rental agreement after which he altered the wording of the contract, his landlord would not be under any obligation to honor anything stipulated in the altered sections of the contract.
The specific reference to the "everlasting" aspect of the land promise is in Genesis 17:7-8, which has been quoted many times in this debate.
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. 8 Also 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."
The problem for Turkel is that Genesis 26:5 and Genesis 17:7-8, when juxtaposed, clearly show that there were two aspects to the promise: (1) It was an unconditional promise made on the basis of Abraham’s fidelity. (2) It was a promise that the land would be given unconditionally to Abraham’s seed as an everlasting possession. Turkel has tried to dance around this problem throughout the debate, but I intend to keep throwing it back to him until he answers questions he has been evading.
If the land was to be given to Abraham’s descendants unconditionally [because of Abraham’s fidelity] as an everlasting possession, then how could there have been conditions to the keeping of an everlasting possession?
How could the land promise have been both conditional and unconditional?
I have clearly shown that the land promise was unconditional, which Turkel eventually agreed with but then quibbled that although the "giving" of the land was unconditional, "keeping" the land was dependent on the obedience of the Israelites. This quibble is so absurd that it hardly deserves comment, because once an everlasting possession has been given, how can it be taken away? If the possession is taken away after it has been given, then it wasn't an everlasting possession. That is so obvious that even Turkel should be able to see it, but despite the obvious, he tries to use this quibble to explain why the Israelites never received all of the land within the defined borders. Howver, I showed (above) that Turkel’s inspired, inerrant word of God clearly states that Yahweh gave to the Israelites all the land that he promised to their fathers and that they possessed it and dwelt in it. The writer of that text [Joshua 21:43] obviously understood the full scope of the promise and wrote accordingly, but what the writer said here has proven to be embarrassing for Turkel, because he can’t seem to show us when the Israelites ever possessed and dwelled in the Mediterranean coastal region or Northern Lebanon to the Euphrates River. Furthermore, I have shown that the land promise was threefold: (1) land would be given to Abraham’s and Isaac’s descendants because of Abraham’s fidelity. (2) the promised land would encompass "all the land of Canaan" from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River and to the Great Sea (Mediterranean) at the going down of the sun. (3) this land would be given to the Israelites as an everlasting possession. In order for the land promise to have been fulfilled, all three of these would have had to have been fulfilled; otherwise, the land promise failed.
Turkel, of course, isn’t going to answer this. He will have his usual insults and invectives to hurl, but he won’t answer this, so I will quote from Part Fourteen, where I last developed this rebuttal argument in detail.
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. 8 Also 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, 16 and said: "By Myself I have sworn, says Yahweh, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son—17 blessing 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. 18 In 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. 4 And 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; 5 because 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. 3 Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given you, as I said to Moses. 4 From 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 actually 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 despite their continual unrighteousness, but numbers 2 and 3 were conditional to the behavior of the Israelites after they had gotten their free ride into Canaan.
Now watch Turkel evade this argument and try to hide it under a tirade of insults and sarcasm.
Turkel:
Moroever [sic], even granting (as we do) such conceptions of
personal
property, how does this disprove or detract from that Yahweh set
conditions
upon continuing to live in the land?
Till(2):
Turkel continues to cut and paste blindly, and so the same spelling and
grammatical
mistakes are being replicated in his cut-and-pasted jobs.
Turkel(2):
how does this disprove or detract from that Yahweh set conditions upon
continuing to
live in the land?
Till(2):
I just quoted (above) for the umpteenth time my rebuttal argument that
shows that
there were three parts to the land promise, one of which was a promise
of everlasting
possession, and that all three parts had to be unconditional,
because they were
repeated to Isaac after Abraham was dead. If the threefold promise was
made because Abraham had obeyed the voice and kept the charge,
commandments, statutes,
and laws of Yahweh, and IF the threefold promise was repeated to
Isaac after
Abraham was dead, then all three parts of the promise could not have
been
conditional to the behavior of Abraham‘s and Isaac‘s descendants
centuries
later. If not, why not?
Why won’t Turkel answer this argument?
Furthermore, Joshua 21:43 clearly states that "Yahweh gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and dwelt in it, so I will ask the same questions that Turkel has evaded time and time again.
I have no expectations at all that Turkel will answer these questions. He hasn’t answered them so far, so why should I expect him to answer them now? Reasonable readers will understand that he can’t answer them because he is caught on the horns of a dilemma. If he says that Yahweh did not give to the Israelites all the land that he had promised their fathers, he will be denying that which was plainly stated in his inspired, inerrant word of God. If he says that Yahweh did give the Israelites all the land that he had promised their fathers and that they possessed it and dwelt in it, he will then have to show us when the Israelites ever possessed and dwelt in the Mediterranean coastal regions, which the "historical" books of the Old Testament clearly and unequivocally state were occupied by the Philistines and Phoenicians.
Because the Israelites in the time of Joshua obviously didn't possess and dwell in all the land that Yahweh had promised their fathers, biblical inerrantists have made all sorts of attempts to make Joshua 21:43 not mean what it plainly says. Since Turkel has taken the position that the disobedience of the Israelites in the time of Joshua kept them from receiving, possessing, and dwelling in all of the promised land, a biblical passage that necessarily requires an understanding that the writer of Joshua was claiming in 21:43 that the Israelites of that time did indeed receive all of the land that Yahweh had promised their ancestors would prove rather embarrassing to Turkel. There is such a passage, but before I quote it, I will show that several other biblical passages necessarily require this passage to mean that Joshua 21:43 was claiming that the Israelites at that time had possessed and dwelt in all of the promised land.
Joshua 21:43-45 made three important claims: (1) The Israelites of that time had possessed and dwelt in all the land that Yahweh had promised their fathers. (2) Not a man of all their enemies had been able to stand before them. (3) Yahweh had given to the Israelites the "rest" or peace that he had sworn to give their fathers.
This "rest" referred to here is the key to understanding that verse 43 was claiming that the Israelites of that time had received, possessed, and dwelt in all the land that Yahweh had promised the Hebrew patriarchs, because several references had earlier been made to a "rest" or peace that Yahweh would give to the Israelites after they had conquered all of the land and taken possession of it.
Deuteronomy 3:18 At that time, I [Moses] charged you as follows "Although Yahweh your God has given you this land to occupy, all your troops shall cross over armed as the vanguard of your Israelite kin. 19 Only your wives, your children, and your livestock--I know that you have much livestock--shall stay behind in the towns that I have given to you. 20 When Yahweh gives REST to your kindred, as to you, and they too have occupied the land that Yahweh your God is giving them beyond the Jordan, then each of you may return to the property that I have given to you."
Moses was speaking here to the Reubenites, Manassites, and Gadites, who had requested their "inheritance" in land that had been conquered before the Israelites crossed the Jordan. When these tribal members saw that pasture land east of the Jordan was desirable for their "very great multitude of cattle" (Num. 32:1), they asked Moses to let them have the land. Moses agreed but stipulated that the soldiers in these tribes could have the land but would have to cross the Jordan and fight with their kindred until the land of Canaan was conquered (Num. 32:28-32).
The tribes of Gad, Reuben, and the half-tribe of Manasseh agreed to these conditions, and the text quoted above (Deut. 3:18) was referring to this agreement and saying that when "they," i. e., the other tribes, had occupied the land that Yahweh was giving them on the other [west] side of the Jordan, the Reubenite, Manassite, and Gadite soldiers could then return to their land east of the Jordan. Keep that point in mind, because it is important.
So the tribes that were receiving land east of the Jordan had already received "a place of rest," but they were required to cross the Jordan and fight with the other tribes until Yahweh had given them "rest" like the Gadites, Reubenites, and Manassites already had and until they [the other tribes] took possession of their land TOO, so the D writer was claiming in Joshua 21:43-45 that the Israelites had received the "rest" that would come with conquering all of their enemies and occupying the land.
How can we know that this was the intended meaning of the reference to "rest" that Yahweh had given to the Israelites of that time? By just reading on to get the full context of the statement. Verses 43-45 closed chapter 21, and then the very next verses in chapter 22 definitively settles the question of what "all the land" in Joshua 21:43 meant. Please notice the emphasized expressions.
Joshua 22:1 Then Joshua summoned the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, 2 and said to them, "You have observed all that Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded you, and have obeyed me in all that I have commanded you; 3 you have not forsaken your kindred these many days, down to this day, but have been careful to keep the charge of Yahweh your God. 4 And now Yahweh your God has given REST to your kindred, as he promised them; therefore turn and go to your tents in the land where your possession lies, which Moses the servant of Yahweh gave you on the other side of the Jordan.
This passage is so clear that we will have to question Turkel's honesty if he doesn't now admit that Joshua 21:43 clearly intended readers to understand that the writer believed that the Israelites of that time had received, possessed, and dwelt in all the land that Yahweh had promised their fathers. We have noticed (above) where Moses told the Reubenite, Manassite, and Gadite soldiers that they would have to cross the Jordan into Canaan and fight with the other tribes until the land was conquered and Yahweh had given "rest" to their kindred, and Joshua 4:12-13 specifically mentioned that 40,000 Gadite, Reubenite, and Manassite soldiers crossed the Jordan with the other Israelites. Then in Joshua 21:44, the writer said that Yahweh had given Israel "rest" ROUND ABOUT. The verses that immediately follow, just quoted above, say that Joshua then summoned the Reubenites, Gadites, and Manassites and told them that they were free to return to their "tents" in the land they had been given, because Yahweh had given REST to their kindred as Yahweh had promised. The Reubenites, Gadites, and Manassites could not return to their land until Yahweh had given their kindred "rest," and after the writer said in 21:44 that Yahweh had given the Israelites "rest" ROUND ABOUT, Joshua told the Reubenites, Gadites, and Manassites that they were free to return to their tents in their land because... well, because Yahweh had given their kindred the rest he had promised.
Hence, the writer was claiming in 21:43-45 that the conquest of all the land promised by Yahweh had been completed at that time. Otherwise, the Israelites would not have received a period of "rest" and Joshua would not have told the Reubenite, Gadite, and Manassite soldiers that they were free to go to their homes.
If not, why not?
Is there a chance that Turkel may now admit that there are inconsistencies in the Old Testament pertaining to the land promise? Well, is there a chance that pigs will fly someday?
Till(1):
Just when did the Israelites have this feudallike tenancy over all the
land
within the boundaries that were laid out in Genesis 15:18-19; Joshua
1:4; Exodus
23:31; and Deuteronomy 1:8? We have come this far, and Turkel has not
shown any
evidence that the land promise was fulfilled within those borders.
Turkel(2):
We have shown conclusive evidence of such fulfillment, with respect to
the
conditions of the contract, above and below,
Till:
Above and below! Turkel continually claims that he has answered thus
and so "above and
below," but somehow I can't seem to find "above and below." This guy is
the king of cutters
and pasters. As readers of this debate have seen, he will cut and paste
over and over and
over an evasive quibble [misspelled words and grammatical mistakes
included], but for
some reason he never bothers to cut and paste any of those many answers
that he claims
he has given "above and below." A simple cutting and pasting would
settle the issue of
whether he has answered a rebuttal argument, but he never takes the
time to do it. I'll let
readers draw their own conclusions about why he repeatedly answers
rebuttals with claims
that he has answered them "above and below."
As I have shown, there could be no conditions attached to a threefold promise that was made to Abraham because of his fidelity and then repeated to Isaac after Abraham was dead. In other words, if Yahweh said, "Because Abraham was faithful in hearing my voice and keeping my commandments, statutes, and laws, I will give all he land of Canaan to your [Isaac’s] descendants," then these "conditions" that Turkel imagines could not have been inclusive in the promise. If not, why not?
Furthermore, Joshua 21:43 clearly stated that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land that he had promised their fathers and that they had possessed it and dwelt in it. As I have repeatedly shown, no conditions were attached to the promise, for it was made because of a fait accompli, i. e., Abraham’s fidelity, but if Joshua 21:43 is an inerrant statement, it really wouldn’t have mattered if a million conditions had been attached to the promise, for if it was a true statement, as the text just cited claimed, that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land that he had promised to their fathers, then the Israelites had to have possessed and dwelled it all the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River and from the desert to the Great (Mediterranean) Sea, or else Joshua 21:43 made an erroneous claim.
I will try to draw a picture that even Turkel should be able to understand. Let’s suppose that clearly stated conditions had been included in the original land promise and that Genesis 17:8 had had Yahweh saying, "I will give to you [Abraham] and to your descendants after you all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession only if your descendants obey my commandments, laws, and precepts as you have done." Even if the promise had been that explicitly conditional, if Joshua 21:43 said that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land that he had promised their fathers and that the Israelites had possessed it and dwelt in it, this statement would be clearly erroneous unless the Israelites had indeed possessed and dwelled in all the land that had been promised.
Now even Turkel should be able to see that, so let him show us evidence that the Israelites did possess and dwell in all the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River and from the desert to the Great (Mediterranean) Sea.
Don’t hold your breath until he does it.
Turkel(2):
and our opponent has yet to answer with anything other than a charge of
"mind
reading," irrelevant arguments about personal property conceptions that
do not refute the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship
between a land,
its people, and their deity, and enough distractions to sink the entire
continent.
Till:
The reference to "mind reading" eludes me, because I don't recall ever
saying or "charging" anything about "mind reading." If Turkel thinks
that I made such a reference, he should at least quote what I said.
Since I have no idea what statement of mine he is referring to,
there is nothing here for me to reply to.
I brought "personal property conceptions" into the discussion only because Turkel had asserted in the opening round that "giving" the land did not denote any "modern conceptions of personal property." I have shown that this was not so, that ancient Near Eastern cultures did have conceptions of personal property, but whether there were concepts of personal property in biblical times is irrelevant to this debate. Turkel has argued that the Israelites were given the land only in a "feudal-landlord" sense, but I have challenged him several times to tell us when the Israelites ever occupied even in a "feudal-landlord" sense all of the land within the borders defined in the promise. When, for example, did the Israelites ever occupy even in a feudal sense the Mediterranean coastal areas of the land that had been promised? When did they ever occupy even in a feudal-landlord" sense the land in Northern Lebanon that extended up to the Euphrates River?
He won’t answer these questions, because he knows as well as I that the Israelites never occupied (even in a feudal sense) these lands, yet (1) the promise clearly included these lands, and (2) Joshua 21:43 said that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all of the land that had been promised to their fathers and that they possessed it and dwelt in it.
When did they possess all of the land promised? That is what I want to know, but Turkel won’t dare touch these questions.
Am I being repetitious? You bet I am, but I am repeating that which Turkel refuses to answer. If I didn’t repeat it, the few brave souls that are bothering to read this "debate" would forget all of his evasions.
To understand Turkel’s second question below, readers need to be reminded of his first question, which I answered in Part Sixteen.
1.Do you wish to deny that when Yahweh said he would give Abraham and his descendants the land in Gen. 12:7, 13:15, etc. it was meant in an entirely different way than [sic] it would have been understood by other persons living in the Ancient Near East?
Turkel(1):
2. If so, what grounds do you have for arguing this? Do you have any
examples of
an ancient deity allowing people to live in a land with "no strings
attached"
that use parallel language to that of the Genesis account?
Till(1):
Those grounds were just explained.
Turkel(2):
Our opponent's arguments were, and still are, refuted.
Till(2):
Well, I invite readers to go to Part
Sixteen
and judge for themselves whether Turkel has "refuted" the
arguments
in my answer to his first question. One can also browse the Theology Web
to see
that Turkel’s
way of "answering" an argument is to say that he has already "refuted"
it. Although
he is skilled at cutting and pasting routine evasions over and over, he
doesn’t seem
able to show that he has "already answered" arguments by just cutting
and pasting
the answers. Regrettably, his sycophants fall for this ploy. Since his
goal is
to impress the already converted instead of presenting arguments that
might convince
the unconverted, he has made this type of evasion his stock in trade.
Till(1):
Well, since deities didn’t exist, I can’t give any such examples. I
can, however,
give an example of ancient literature that told of a deity who made a
no-strings-attached promise that a man and his descendants would be
"given" to
possess forever a well defined territory.
Turkel(2):
Our opponent again plays diversionary games, as if our question was
even related
to the issue of whether or not such deities actually existed.
Till:
It was a comment that I considered appropriate, since most of Turkel’s
position
is dependent on the existence of deities. After all, look at the
wording of
his question. He asked if I had any examples of ancient deities
allowing people
to live in a land "with no strings attached." The question seems to
assume
that ancient deities existed, and Turkel has even said that he is an
"agnostic"
on the question of whether other deities besides Yahweh exist. Has he
forgotten
that he said this? If so, I will refresh his memory. Readers will find
the
following exchange in Part Five of my
second-round replies to Turkel.
Till(1):
But, of course, Turkel 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.Turkel(2):
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 [sic] a sign of delusion.
That Turkel would claim to be an "agnostic" on the existence of other gods besides Yahweh is a good example of how far he is willing to go to defend his silly beliefs. To maintain consistency in his position, he has to say that he is uncertain about the existence of Baal, Chemosh, Dagon, and the various other gods mentioned in the OT. Didn’t he say something about my "diversionary games"?
The way that his question above was worded, considered in conjunction with his claim to be an "agnostic" on the existence of Baal, Chemosh, et al, I considered my reply above to be very appropriate, and if he wishes to talk about "diversionary games," I would be glad to point out others of his own besides his claim to agnosticism on the existence of pagan gods. At any rate, I answered his question from the assumption that his deity exists. That answer is immediately below.
Till(1):
That deity, of course, was Yahweh, who made the promises to Abraham in
texts
that I have already quoted above. As I explained in Part Four
of this round, the "strings" to the promise were added retrospectively.
Turkel(2):
We have refuted our opponent's arguments that the promises were indeed
unconditional,
our opponent's extended and unnecessary diversion into why he thinks
the texts read
as they do notwithstanding.
Till(2):
Turkel always claims that he has "refuted" my arguments, but as I noted
above, he never
quotes those refutations to show that he has indeed refuted them. He
can cut and paste
furiously when he wants to repeat an evasive quibble, but he seems to
lose that talent
when he needs to show that he has already answered such and such.
Well, I am not just going to claim that I have demolished his unquoted "refutation"; I am going to show that I have. I will quote below the section of Part Four where I dismantled Turkel's "refutation" and let readers decide for themselves if he refuted it?
I showed that (1) no conditions were attached to the original land promises in Genesis, (2) the promise as renewed in Deuteronomy 9:3ff left absolutely no room for conditions, because Yahweh said that he was [a] giving the land to the Israelites of that generation even though they had been rebellious and unrighteous from the day they had come out of Egypt, [b] giving the land to the Israelites in order to fulfill a promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and (3) retrospective editing in the Pentateuch would explain why some later versions of the promise offered obedience as a condition.
My argument in round one, which Turkel has yet to refute, was that if Yahweh felt that he had to give the land to such an undeserving generation of Israelites in order to fulfill the promise to Abraham, this would preclude the righteousness and obedience of the Israelites as a condition to keeping the land, because Yahweh’s promise wasn’t just that he would give the land to Abraham’s seed but that he would give it to them as an everlasting possession. How could Yahweh have kept his promise to "give" Abraham’s "seed" the land for an "everlasting possession" if the land were later taken away for whatever reason? I’ll look forward to seeing Turkel try to solve this problem.
I would really like to see Turkel answer my last question above: How could Yahweh have kept his promise to "give" Abraham’s "seed" the land for an "everlasting possession," if the land were later taken away for whatever reason? If a possession is taken away after it has been given, it could not have been an everlasting possession. Even Turkel should be able to see that. As for the "retrospective editing" mentioned in point 3 (above), I simply summarized what I had previously discussed in Part Four of round one, so I will quote the complete rebuttal below to spare readers the trouble of trying to locate it.
I’m sorry, but nothing that Turkel has quoted renders "our" opponent’s arguments [Till] null and void, because the law of contradiction will not allow X and not X to be simultaneously true. I have already repeated several times my analysis of Deuteronomy 9, which had Yahweh saying that he would give the land to the Israelites despite their continual unrighteous from the day they left Egypt, because he had made a promise to the patriarchs that he had to fulfill, so I am just restating it briefly at this point. At the time of Yahweh’s renewal of this promise, the Israelites were on the plains of Moab ready to cross the Jordan into Canaan, yet they had not at that time even kept the rite of circumcision, which Turkel claims was the "entry ritual" into the covenant. Yahweh’s renewal of the promise at this time, under the circumstances of the Israelites’ continual rebellion and disobedience, is impossible to reconcile with other passages that did affix conditions to the promise.
Turkel cannot explain this problem while at the same time clinging to his belief that the biblical record is consistent on this subject. 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. 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. A critical reader doesn’t even have to have an eagle’s eye to spot passages in Deuteronomy that betray its late authorship, at a time well after the alleged conquest of Israel. In other words, when Deuteronomy was written, the author was aware of the history of Israel and Judah up to the time of the postexilic era, so the passages that Turkel quoted were presenting a retrospective view of the land promise. 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. 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. 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.
I will support this position with other examples of [biblical] 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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. The "explanation" became that the land promise wasn’t entirely fulfilled, because the Israelites didn’t meet the conditions. The D writer, however, was careless in chapter 9 and wrote a renewal of the promise in such a way that it became irreconcilable with any claims that conditions had been attached to the promise.
Such revisionism wasn’t unusual. For the sake of brevity, I will cite only one example among many that are available. When the northern kingdom split away from Judah after Solomon’s reign, Yahweh promised that he would always keep Judah intact for the sake of David.
1 Kings 11:31 He [the prophet Ahijah] then said to Jeroboam: Take for yourself ten pieces; for thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, "See, I am about to tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon, and will give you ten tribes. 32 One tribe will remain his, for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city that I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel. 33 This is because he has forsaken me, worshiped Astarte the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the Ammonites, and has not walked in my ways, doing what is right in my sight and keeping my statutes and my ordinances, as his father David did. 34 Nevertheless I will not take the whole kingdom away from him but will make him ruler all the days of his life, for the sake of my servant David whom I chose and who did keep my commandments and my statutes; 35 but I will take the kingdom away from his son and give it to you--that is, the ten tribes. 36 Yet to his son I will give one tribe, so that my servant David may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I have chosen to put my name.
Thereafter, references were made to kings of Judah "who did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh," but Yahweh refused to destroy Judah because of "David’s sake," to whom Yahweh had promised to "give a lamp to his descendants forever."
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.
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,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.
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.
Revisionism will also explain why the books of Joshua first said that the Israelites had received all the land and everything else Yahweh had promised but then later said that they didn’t receive everything, but I’ll get to that later in Part Five.
Now just when did Turkel "refute" this? He didn’t even try, but he posts a "reply" on his website in which he says, "We have refuted our opponent's arguments that the promises were indeed unconditional," declares the arguments "extended and unnecessary diversion," and gets away with it because (1) he quotes me selectively, (2) he doesn’t link his replies to my rebuttals, and (3) his readers are too gullible and unconcerned to check to see whether he is really answering his opponents. He succeeds in fooling his gullible choir members, but he will make no headway with those who are careful enough to read both sides of the debate. They will have no problems seeing that he evades far more than he tries to answer and that, despite his complaints about "unnecessary diversions," he fills his "replies" with diversions and evasions and tries to hide them behind insults and sarcasm.
Oh, yes, if he replies to this, he will probably complain that the section above is repetitious and wordy. Is it repetitious? Indeed it is, but I am simply repeating that which he will not answer. As I have said before, if I let his evasions go by without comment, readers will forget them, but if I continually point them out, the few who are concerned enough to read both sides will through the reminders come to see that he is indeed evading that which he can’t answer.
Is the section above "wordy"? I prefer to think that it is detailed, and that is what irritates Turkel. He can’t stand pesky details, because the more details that are included in a rebuttal, the harder it is for him to put together an acceptable reply, and so he hops, skips, and jumps over the details and hopes that his readers will never know just how selective he has been in his "replies." Unfortunately, this tactic works on the gullible.
Till(1):
Anyway, I wonder if Turkel’s position is going to be that truth and
consistency
in the Bible must be determined by comparing what is written therein to
what was
written in the religious texts of other ancient people. If so, he will
be leaving
himself open to a peck of trouble.
Turkel(2):
We do indeed maintain that truth and consistency in the Bible can and
must be
determined, and can be proven, as applicable, by comparing and
understanding
what was written in the texts of other ancient people, and our
opponent's
continued adherenence [sic] to a fundamentalist hermeneutic
which
merely
dismisses such contexts as irrelevant, while of interest to the social
psychologist, does not at all refute the need to make such connections,
nor does his implied "peck of trouble" threat, lacking as it is
entirely
in proven relevance, dissuade us in the least.
Till(2):
A fundamentalist hermeneutic? Just who is the one claiming that ancient
documents written in highly superstitious, prescientific times are the
"inspired, inerrant word of God"? I make no such claim, but Turkel
does, so I will leave it to readers to decide just who adheres to a
"fundamentalist hermeneutic." Those who do not adhere to a
fundamentalist
hermeneutic know that biblical inerrancy is an illusion that cannot be
defended.
Turkel’s third question follows immediately, so this is a
good
point
to break Part Seventeen. I will continue my reply in Part Eighteen. Eventually,
barring health and vision problems, I will reply to all points in
Turkel’s
selectively quoted evasions. I hope readers will take the time to
notice
that in any "reply" that Turkel writes to this rebuttal article, he
will
not link his readers to it. Neither will he even mention my name.
I will be "Skeptic X."
