Till(1):
In their desperate efforts to prove that the Bible was verbally inspired of God, inerrancy believers often point to prophecy fulfillment.

Turkel(2):
In previous encounters we...

Till(2)
"We"?  I wonder who is helping Turkel.

Turkel(2):
In previous encounters we would have ordinarily bypassed such comments as these as irrelevant to the topic at hand, which indeed they are. In light of our opponent's insistence that we are covering up something by failing to quote EVERYTHING said in his material, we will now use such irrelevant comments as exemplars of the profound depths of distraction that our opponent must resort to in order to "set the tone" for gullible readers. We would just as easily say, "In their desperate efforts to prove that the Bible was not verbally inspired of God, errancy believers often point to prophecy failures." Is this an argument? No. It is a theme and summary of what is to follow. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. From here on, substantive comment from our opponent will be highlighted in red in order to demonstrate just how little he offers of substance.

Till(1):
Admittedly, this was part of an introductory paragraph to my article, but why would he want to leave it out?

Till(2):
At the beginning of Part Two of this round, I will remind readers that Turkel is stewing over a problem that he created.  If he had cooperated in negotiating a written agreement on guidelines that would have given structure to the debate, the so-called "fluff" and "superfluous commentary" would have been covered by the following guidelines in the proposal I submitted to him.

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.

Numbers 3 and 4 would have guaranteed that the debate audience would have had access to everything that both parties would say in the debate, and then numbers 5 and 6 would have permitted Turkel to skip over anything he considered "transition," "set up," "irrelevant distraction," or "superfluous commentary."  That would have eliminated all of these unless I, in accordance with number 6, insisted that what he had skipped were arguments or points that I wanted him to answer.

By unilaterally beginning the debate before such an agreement had been negotiated, he created the problem he is complaining about and thereby turned the debate into a farce that has generated thousands of unnecessary words.

Turkel(2):
In making this admission, even once, our opponent completely emasculates his constant demands over the past several years that we quote EVERYTHING that he says. We would leave it out because it is not necessary to understand our opponent's position. Since it is apparent from our opponent's statement above that he admits it is not necessary to understand his position, he has answered his own question:

Till(2):
How did I answer my own question?  Having taught college writing for 30 years, I know that introductory statements are an integral part of skilled writing, and I know that the experts who write the textbooks agree with me.  Even Turkel understands this, because he uses introductory statements in his own writing.  Furthermore, I find it tedious to have to keep explaining to Turkel that a written debate is exactly what the term implies.  One party in the debate does not have the right to determine what parts of his opponent's presentation readers will be able to see.  What Turkel was doing in the past was setting himself up as the sole judge of what parts of his opponent's presentations his readers should be allowed to see, because he selectively quoted articles he was replying to and would not give his readers links to what he was quoting, so he was saying that his readers should see everything that he writes but only what he decides they should see in his opponents' presentations. I doubt that he would ever be able to find a debating textbook that would say that this is a fair rule of engagement.

I'll put this issue to rest by issuing Turkel a challenge.  I challenge him to a written debate on a subject pertaining to biblical inerrancy that he would be comfortable defending.  We will not publish or post it until it is completed.  After it is completed, it will be posted only at my website, and I will (1) decide what parts of Turkel's presentations will be included in the posted version, and (2) post no links to anything that Turkel has ever written on the subject.

Will Turkel agree to accept such a debate?

The question is ridiculous, because he knows that he would never agree to such rules as this, yet he has been doing exactly this for years.  After he had posted an article about C. S. Lewis's "liar, lord, or lunatic trilemma,"  Brian Holtz wrote detailed replies to it, which Turkel gutted when he "replied" to them. Turkel's replies did not give his readers links to Holtz's articles.  He wouldn't even give his readers the name of his opponent so that they could do an internet search to try to find his articles.

Turkel wrote an article entitled "Trick or Treat, Got some Bread," which was purportedly a reply to my article "What Men with David?"  He put no link to my article in his "reply," and he cut out almost 5,000 of the 5,463 words in the article.  If readers will go to Part One and Part Two of my replies, they will see how extensive Turkel's gutting was when he "replied" to my article.  Reinsertions of gutted materials that I put back into my replies completely dismantled Turkel's attempt to harmonize Mark 2:26 with David's incident at Nob recorded in 1 Samuel 21.  At the site of my replies, readers will also find links to Turkel's article.  I have nothing to hide, and I actually want readers to see Turkel's so-called reply and compare it to the content of my original article.

This is the difference in Turkel and someone who has confidence in his position, and my complaint against Turkel has never been that he should quote absolutely every word that I wrote in any article that he replied to but that he should give his readers links so that they will have easy access to everything I wrote.  Such links would enable those who read his "replies" to access my articles with a click so that they could, through comparative reading, decide who presented the better case.

Turkel's comment below is simply a straw man that doesn't at all represent my complaints about his "apologetic" methods.

Turkel(2):
We leave it out because it is unnecessary, superfluous, and adds nothing to keep, and our opponent loses nothing by its omission. Over the past several years our opponent has repeated a mantra to his skeptical readership charging us with leaving out, or quoting without context, pieces of his work. This charge is repeated time and time gain, and never substantiated with examples.

Till(2):
Well, all any reader has to do is go to the links immediately above and read my replies to Turkel's "rebuttal" of "What Men with David?"  They will see clear, undeniable evidence that Turkel gutted my article and left out very specific material that I used to support my argument that Mark 2:26 is inconsistent with  the account of the incident at Nob recorded in 1 Samuel 21. His failure to link his "reply" to my original article can only be interpreted as an intentional effort to keep his readers from seeing what I had said on the subject.   Very shortly, another of my replies to Turkel will be posted, so look for "Yes, Why Didn't They Know?" or "The Bop That Flopped."  It is a reply to Turkel's effort to rebut an article that I published in TSR in 1991.  My response will contain a link to Turkel's snip-and-skip job that he called a reply to my original article.  Will he link his readers to my rebuttal article?

I hope readers will bear with me, but I am putting in as many links as possible at this time, because I honestly don't think that Turkel will continue much longer to provide his readers with links to rebuttal articles that are embarrassing to him.  I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.  Of course, I had an ulterior motive in saying this.  I want to put as much pressure as possible on him to continue debating me in a forum that will give his readers links to what his opposition says.  He will find it doubly hard to back down if I keep predicting that he will.

Turkel(2):
We offered a challenge here showing that we did no such selective quoting, which laid unanswered for years and is still unanswered.

Till(2):
No, Turkel, it lay unanswered for years, and the reason it did was that I knew it would be a waste of time to publish answers to the challenge that I knew you would never let your readers see. Your link above was to your article "Till We Meet Again, Trey" or "Bubbles from a Fish Out of Water."  This was your "reply" to my article "Reply to Robert Turkel", but you gave your readers no link to my article.  Thus, they saw only what you had selectively quoted in your response to my article. If you will put a link to my "Reply to Robert Turkel," I will write a response to "Till We Meet Again, Trey" on the condition that you will link your readers to it too. If you refuse to provide these links, then we will be right back to where we were before with you posting replies to articles that you only selectively quoted and then withholding from your readers information that would give them access to what your opponents had written.

In the past, Turkel has selectively quoted his opponents and refused to link his readers to their articles, and he knows it.  Any denial of this that he may now attempt will be tantamount to lying, because he knows that what I am saying is the truth.  On the very day that I wrote this section, I received the following message from a skeptic who has been a target of Turkel's selective quoting.

Good work on the Failed Land Promise debate! And I'm not just talking about successfully rebutting Turkel -- which is more tedious than challenging :-) -- but rather about successfully shaming Turkel into creating a link to your unedited arguments. This is the first time I've seen him do this.

Turkel cannot deny what everyone who has followed his antics knows is the truth.  His record has been to selectively quote articles written by skeptics and then to keep access to these articles from his readers by refusing to put links in his replies.  Now that he has made the mistake of committing himself to providing links on his site, at least to this "debate,"  I'm taking advantage of it.  I have posted replies to his website articles,  which clearly show that I was right in saying that he quoted his opposition very selectively, and as long as he keeps putting links on his site, more examples will be forthcoming. If he really doesn't mind his readers seeing what I write in reply to him, all he has to do is keep giving them links to my rebuttals of his articles.  As long as he does that, I will keep my replies coming.

By the way, a week has passed since Turkel sent me a message that said he would put a link to my reply at the top of his article "Trick or Treat, Got Some Bread," but this link has not yet been posted.  I wonder when he intends to put it "at the top" of his article?  We have our reasons for calling him Robert "No Link" Turkel.

Turkel(2):
Reviews of literature are not required to quote EVERYTHING in their source.

Till(2):
Reviews of literature are not written debates.  Turkel should find a debating textbook and try to learn what the difference is.

At any rate, I have now explained several times how a written agreement prior to the beginning of the debate could have established guidelines to give the debate structure.  Turkel's refusal to cooperate created the problem he has now wasted thousands of words complaining about.  If he had put links into his past replies to articles written by skeptics, no one would have accused him of selectively quoting, because everyone would have known that the links could have been used by any reader interested in seeing everything that had been said on the issues by his opponents.

Well, why don't we just put this matter to rest by asking Turkel a few direct questions?

1.  You have replied on your website to many articles written by Farrell Till.  Did any of your replies to Till contain links that would have enabled your readers to access his articles by just clicking the links?

2.  Brian Holtz has been the subject of some of your website articles.  Did any of your articles about him contain links that would have enabled your readers to access his articles by just clicking the links?

3.  Did you ever even identify Holtz by his name in any of your articles about him?

4.  Would you list for us the titles of all of your replies to skeptics in which you put links that enabled your readers to access their articles by clicking the links?

Now I will predict Turkel's answer to these questions.

As before, it is not necessary to quote these in a reply, on the subject at hand ("Yahweh's Land Promise"), so it is not necessary to quote them in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to illicitly appeal to the sympathy of the skeptical readership. 

Turkel(2):
Nor is such a demand heard of in critiques elsewhere.

Till(2):
A "critique" isn't a written debate either.  I would never have accused Turkel of selective quoting if he had just attempted to reply to all of my points, but as the rebuttals to his articles that I will be posting on this site will show, his stock in trade has been to snip and skip major arguments in his opponents' articles.

I have now explained several times how a written agreement prior to the beginning of the debate could have established guidelines to give the debate structure.  Turkel's refusal to cooperate created the problem he has now wasted thousands of words complaining about.

Turkel(2):
Our opponent cannot have it both ways. He either admits that there are things that do not need to be quoted, things that can be left out without harming his argument, or else he makes the absurd demand that we quote EVERYTHING and then needs to justify it.

Till(2):
No, "our opponent" said several times in the first round that there is no reason why Turkel could not have quoted what he considered to be "set up" or "transitional sentences" and then focused on the heart of my arguments.  Instead of doing this, he wasted time cutting and pasting after practically every one of my introductory sentences a 33-word complaint that filled no purpose but to divert attention from his evasion of my arguments.  I suspect also that he hoped to bore his readers with repetitions that would make them give up before he got to the heart of my arguments.

Besides, I just noted, above, that he would have heard no complaints from me if he had at least replied to all of the points in my articles.  The links I have given above will show that he obviously didn't even come close to addressing all of my points.

Turkel (2):
The above contains no justification, merely a "why not" which is not a positive reason to quote the sentence.

Till(2):
Well, a "why not" is a question, so why not answer it?  If Turkel asks me questions, I will answer them.  If I overlook any, all he has to do is call the oversights to my attention, and he will get his answers.

Till(1):
Why not let the readers see it and determine for themselves whether it is deserving of consideration?

Turkel(2):
As above, this contains no justification, merely a "why not" which is not a positive reason to quote the sentence.

Till(2):
So is Turkel now arguing that in a written debate he has no obligation to answer his opponent's questions?  What if I had taken that position on the questions he asked me in bold print during the first round?

So I'm just going to ask the question again.  Why not let readers see what he considers "fluff" or "irrelevant distractions" and let them determine for themselves whether it is deserving of consideration?  If he didn't want to quote "fluff" and "irrelevant distractions" in his past replies to my articles, why didn't he link his replies to my articles so that his readers could see for themselves what I had said?

Turkel(2):
Our opponent still has not explained why it is necessary to quote this in a reply,

Till(2):
"Our opponent" just explained why it should be quoted in a reply.

Turkel(2):
and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, and now he has two layers of such superfluous commentary to explain.

Till(2):
Straw man!  Turkel is whining about a problem of his own creation. I have now explained several times how a written agreement prior to the beginning of the debate could have established guidelines to give the debate structure.  Turkel's refusal to cooperate created the problem he has now wasted thousands of words complaining about.

Those of you who have gone to Turkel's website and then written me to ask why I didn't reply to him, what do you think of your hero now?  We're in the second round, and he is still wasting our time beating away on this same old straw man.

Till(1):
I suppose if we were engaged in an oral debate that was being recorded on audio tapes, Turkel would think it appropriate to bleep out my comments that he thought were superfluous.

Turkel (2):
Yes, I would consider this appropriate. I do not care to hear about the drive our opponent had to the debate hall, or what he thought of the weather, and I would "bleep out" (is our opponent cursing?) readily, from my side or his, such superfluous commentary as we see here, and even in this sentence, of which, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
Does everyone see how it works now?  Turkel considers himself the judge and jury of what a debating audience should be allowed to hear from his opponent.  I wonder if he would be willing to grant his opponent the same "editing" rights.  If so, I'd like very much to travel to Ocoee, Florida, at my own expense to engage him in an oral public debate.  I'll pay the rental on the site and will accept the responsibility for marketing and distributing the tapes after the debate.  However, I will have the sole right to determine what parts of Turkel's speeches will be kept on the tapes.

Will he accept this proposal?  He can consider it an official challenge.

A written agreement prior to the debate would have given the debate structure and prevented the situation that Turkel keeps whining about, but he wouldn't cooperate.  Furthermore, if he had linked the replies on his website to the articles he was answering, no one would ever have accused him of selective quoting, so he is trying to deny a reputation that he created for himself, which everyone who has examined his website knows is the truth about him. 

Till(1):
My point is that a debate is a debate, and audiences who read it should be entitled to see everything that both parties say.  A written agreement prior to the debate would have structured the debate and prevented the situation that Turkel keeps whining about, but he wouldn't cooperate.  If he had linked "replies" on his website to the articles he was answering, no one would ever have complained about his selective quoting.

Turkel(2):
We eagerly await some actual justification, not merely assertion, that explains to us what sort of "entitlement" exists -- is it found in civil rights legislation? -- that requires us to quote such superfluous commentary as we see here, and even in this sentence, of which, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
Ninety percent of the "superfluous commentary" has been necessitated by Turkel's absurd waste of time commenting on what he considers "set ups," "transitions," and "irrelevant distractions."  Had he negotiated an agreement with the following guidelines or acceptable alternatives, the problem he constantly complains about would have been prevented.

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. 

Numbers 3 and 4 would have guaranteed the debate audience access to everything that both of us said, so in his actual rebutting, he could have simply quoted my main arguments or rebuttals--with the "transitions," "fluff," and "superfluous commentary" left out, if my original article was made accessible to readers of his site--and then he could have cut to the chase and replied to what he considered the relevant material.  If he overlooked something that I considered relevant, I could have pointed it out to him and asked for a response.  That's the way it works in public debating, but Turkel obviously doesn't know the first thing about formal debating procedures and protocol.  The result is that he has gotten himself into an embarrassing predicament that he doesn't quite know how to get out of.

Turkel(2):
We do agree that the reader is entitled to read substantive commentary. We do not agree that an entitlement exists to see ALL commentary regardless of relevance.

Till(2):
But who is to be the one who decides what is "substantive commentary"?  Is Turkel the one who will make the decision?  Will his opponent have no voice in deciding what is "substantive commentary"?  I urge readers to go to the links that I provided above and read my two-part reply "Give Us This Day Our Daily Dodge," Part One and Part Two, in order to get an idea of what Turkel thinks is not "substantive commentary."  He cut almost 5,000 words from my 5,463-word article and gave his readers no link to my original article.  In fact, it is now nine days after Turkel's message that said he would put a link to "Give Us This Day Our Daily Dodge" at the top of his reply to "What Men with David?" but there is still no link.

Today (7/10/02), my reply to Turkel's attempt to rebut my article "Why Didn't They Know?" was posted at TSR Online.  This is recommended reading for all who think that I have misrepresented Turkel in saying that he has a history of selectively quoting his opponents without linking his readers to the articles he is "rebutting." 

Till(1):
The problem with Turkel's selective quoting on his private website is that he sets himself up as judge and jury of what his readers should and should not see.

Turkel(2):
If this is the case, our opponent needs to provide actual evidence that our judgment has been misleading to readers, not merely assert that it is.

Till(2):
That "actual evidence" has now been provided.  All readers need to do is read my reply ( Part One and Part Two ) to the hatchet job that he did on my article "What Men with David?"  By the way, this is now the ninth day after his promise to put a link to my replies at the top of his article, and the link still is not there.

Turkel(2):
Until then, our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, as it is hard to see why what we have repeatedly identified as superfluous would, if omitted, represent an incompetent or errant judgment.

Till(2):
Straw man!  As I did at the end of Part One, I will give readers a count of how many words Turkel wasted cutting and pasting this straw man into his "replies."

Meanwhile, everyone should keep in mind that Turkel is harping about a situation that could have been prevented by his cooperation in negotiating a debating agreement.

Till(1):
In my opinion, the "replies" that he has written to some of my articles have gutted arguments and counterarguments by cutting out material and justifying it on the grounds that it was "90% fluff."  Anyone who goes to the links I gave above will be able to see that this is indeed the case.

Turkel(2):
Again, if this is the case, our opponent needs to provide actual evidence that our judgment has been misleading to readers, not merely assert that it is.

Till(2):
Okay, all readers will have to do is click onto the links above and go see my replies to his hatchet job.  They'll find plenty of "actual evidence" that Turkel has done exactly what I have said.

Turkel(2):
Until then, our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, as we do not see why what we have repeatedly identified as superfluous would, if omitted, represent an incompetent or errant judgment.

Till(2):
Straw man!  Watch for the word count that I will put at the end of this part of my reply.

The situation he complains about is his own creation, which a written agreement prior to the debate would have prevented.

Till(1):
When a written debate is published in its entirety, however, neither participant can complain of unfair treatment, so I'll leave it to readers to decide which is the better policy.

Turkel(2):
This is a very touching appeal to the reader, but it is merely a manipulation based on an assumed premise (that our judgment in editing has been impaired) which remains unsubstantiated and unproven.

Till(2):
Readers who click onto the links above and read my replies to Turkel's article "Trick or Trick" will see plenty of evidence that Turkel guts his opponent's articles down to nothing and calls that "rebutting."  More examples will be posted on TSR's website as I continue to answer Turkel's "Chicken Challenge."

I threw that last comment in just to make it harder for him to back out of his promise to put links to my articles on his website.

Turkel(2):
It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to illicitly appeal to the sympathy of the skeptical readership.

Till(2):
Straw man!  Watch for the word count that will come later.

Keep in mind that a written agreement would have structured the debate and prevented the situation Turkel is complaining about, but he wouldn't cooperate.

Till(1):
If I were replying to an article written by Turkel that contained, in my opinion, superfluous material that I didn't agree with, I would let my readers see it and then issue a challenge for Turkel to defend in another debate whatever superfluous claims he may have made if I thought they were worth debating.

Turkel(2):
It is of no interest to us that our oppponent [sic] does not have the necessary vision to accept that superfluous commentary (whether we "agree" with it or not is not at issue) is not something difficult to discern, and that he prefers burdening others with the need to quote EVERYTHING, without any exclusion or reservation.

Till(2):
So, then, Turkel considers himself the judge and jury of what a debating audience should see from his opponent.  I'd like to know what reputable authorities in public debating would agree with the right that he claims exclusively for himself.

Turkel(2):
And as before, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, on the subject at hand ("Yahweh's Land Promise"), and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to illicitly appeal to the sympathy of the skeptical readership.

Till(2):
Straw man!  Watch for the word count.

Turkel was the one who would not cooperate in reaching an agreement prior to the debate that would have given it structure and prevented what he is complaining about.

Till(1):
I wonder if he is willing to do the same.

Turkel(2):
I am not,

Till(2):
I didn't think he would be.

Turkel(2):
and never have been, willing to burden the reader with quotations of superfluous commentary simply for the satisfaction of the original writer, and I begrudge no one the desire or wish to do the same,

Till(2):
Pardon my sarcasm, but I think we can all see that Turkel is not and never has been willing to burden readers with "quotations of superfluous commentary."  No doubt that is the reason why he has wasted the readers' time on literally thousands of cut-and-pasted words of superfluous griping about a situation that he created by not cooperating with me in trying to negotiate a written agreement.

Turkel(2):
for in apparent contrast to my opponent, I am confident in my ability to determine when an opponent has misrepresented my position through selective quotation, and am willing to approach such matters as they arise, and not use them as a vague and non-specific [sic] bludgeons for the purpose of scoring debate points, or for avoiding debates altogether.

Till(2):
Well, if readers want to see some very specific examples of how far Turkel will go to cut material from his opponents' articles, just go to the links that I gave above.

Till(1):
If he thinks that my introductory remarks in my article were just "set-up" statements, why doesn't he challenge me to defend those remarks in another debate?

Turkel(2):
In checking my uses of the words "set up" I find that in all four cases in the original text, they are used with reference to matters that both I and my opponent agree to (i.e., who the seven nations were), not to remarks by our opponent that we disagree with and that we would challenge to debate over. This would be a short debate:

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

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

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

Till(2):
I want to thank Turkel for demonstrating very nicely to our audience that he doesn't understand the first thing about formal debating.  A debate is not conducted for the purpose of convincing the opposition that he is wrong.  I never have entered into a debate with any illusions that my opponent would admit at the end that he was wrong, although it did happen once.  I debate always with the audience in mind, and I write my articles in TSR with the audience in mind.  This is nothing more than a very elementary principle of both oral and written communication that even amateurs should be aware of.  The person should speak or write with his audience in mind.  Now is Turkel really so naive that he thinks that every person who read my article or every person who reads this debate will know that prophetic statements were made several times in the Pentateuch about Yahweh's promise to give land to the Israelites?  The amount of biblical ignorance in this so-called "Christian nation" is appalling.  There are people all over the country who call themselves Christians who would give Turkel a blank look if he asked them what the Bible said about Yahweh's land promise to the Israelites.  Many of them wouldn't even know what Yahweh meant.

So this "set up" statement was made for the benefit of my audience so that they would know that the land promise wasn't something that was made just once or twice but several times.  Making the audience aware of this would drive home to them a significant point by the end of my article: if the promise was made several times, then why wasn't it fulfilled?

Turkel(2):
We are compelled to ask how carefully our opponent has actually read what we have written, since he clearly did not know or recall that the "set up" comment was never used in regards to issues of debate, which we addressed by other means (more on this as we proceed).

Till(2):
Well, I wonder if "we" are ever going to get a clue to very fundamental principles of debating.  Turkel seems to be laboring under the impression that he and I are writing to each other.  He may be debating with the belief that he is writing just to me, but I am not writing for his benefit at all.  It would certainly be nice if Turkel came to his senses and recognized that he espouses beliefs about the Bible that are being rejected more and more  by responsible scholars and even professors who teach in major seminaries, but as I said above, I have no illusions that this will happen.  I write not to Turkel but to the audience that will read our exchanges, and sometimes that necessitates including very elementary information about the Bible.

If Turkel thinks such information is nonessential, he doesn't have to quote it or comment on it, because his links to my articles (if he continues to supply them) will allow readers to see everything I say on the subject being debated.  If Robert "Know-It-All" Turkel had cooperated in negotiating an agreement prior to this debate, there would have been guidelines to let him know what should be done about "transitional" or "set-up" material.

Till(1):
If he should say, "Well, Till, if you think that biblical prophecy fulfillment cannot be defended, why don't we debate that subject after we have finished with the land-promise issue?"

Turkel(2):
As this comment is based on a misappraisal of what we called "set up" commentary we designate it as such with no further comment, other than that our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
The statement was intended for the benefit of the reading audience.  While Turkel is giving his readers links--which I predict he won't continue much longer--I want to make them aware of something they would never learn from browsing his website.  He talks big when he is preaching to his choir, but he is obviously reluctant to risk his reputation by going head to head with informed opposition.  The fact that Turkel has passed over every one of my dares without even hinting a willingness to accept pretty well confirms my opinion of him.

Otherwise, his comment above is just another repetition of his straw man.  It is a complaint about a situation that he created by refusing to cooperate in negotiating a written agreement prior to the debate.

Till(1):
If he should issue such a challenge, he will get an acceptance so fast, he will think that lightning has struck him, and all I would demand is that he publish links on his website so that his readers could see both sides of the issues.

Turkel(2):
As this comment is also based on a misappraisal of what we called "set up" commentary we designate it as such with no further comment,

Till(1):
Did everyone catch the dodge this time? 

I'll make the challenge more direct.  Turkel, will you or will you not defend the premise that biblical prophecies were fulfilled?  This is an issue very fundamental to belief that the Bible is "the inspired word of God," so why won't you defend it?

Turkel(2):
other than that our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
Well, this is just another version of Turkel's straw man, but this time I am going to explain why this particular "set-up commentary" should require quotation and a reference from him.  First, what I said was a comment that resulted from material that you yourself introduced into the debate.  Once you introduced it, I was entitled to comment on it, so if you didn't think it was relevant information, you should have left it out.  Second, what I said was a challenge, Turkel.  You talk a good game on your website, but when it is time to run onto the field and play, you aren't a bit eager to get into the game.  You should quote what I said and make "reference" to it in a way that will let your readers know that you have the courage of your convictions to go into an open forum and confront informed opposition.  Fulfillment of prophecy is one of the major claims made by those who believe that the Bible is "the inspired word of God."  If there is any truth to this claim, it should be publicly defended and not just preached to choirs that already believe it.

Why won't you do that?

Turkel(2):
However, we note that we have agreed to a series of 12 debates, and have laid out two subjects already beyond this one which our opponent has previously dealt with in his newsletter and we assume he would be willing to defend his view on, and we shall add more as time progresses.

Till(2):
Turkel was rather vague here, so I don't know what the "two subjects" beyond this one are, but if they are issues I have "dealt with" in The Skeptical Review, he can be assured that I will be willing to debate them as long as (1) he agrees to negotiate a set of guidelines prior to the debate, and (2) agrees to give his readers links to my articles.  As for the "12 debates" that we agreed to, no agreement was ever reached, because Turkel broke off the negotiations before an agreement was reached, and launched into his futile attempt to defend the fulfillment of Yahweh's land promise.  As time is available, I am compiling messages that he and I exchanged in my failed attempt to negotiate an agreement with him.  When the correspondence is posted on TRS's website, readers will see that getting Turkel to agree to debate propositions was like pulling teeth. 

This matter will be discussed in Part (3) of my second-round rebuttal, so watch for it.

Till(1):
However, he isn't going to make any such challenge for reasons that I will soon explain.

Turkel(2):
Since, as noted, we have already advanced two such additional challenges, we will include this statement in print on the side of that tasty box of filet of crow, along with the point that this is still a diversion from the subject of "Yahweh's Land Promise,"

Till(2):
I suppose one of the "debates" that Turkel is talking about pertains to his "Olivet Discourse," which is a smoke screen that he has laid down to hide his evasion of propositions that he ran from while I was trying to negotiate an agreement with him.  (Watch for specific examples of these in Part Three of my second-round rebuttals.)  Turkel is flat-out lying when he says that I challenged him to debate preterism.  I did no such thing.  In a message to me, he tooted his horn about projects he was working on and said that one of them was a preterist interpretation of Revelation.

Turkel:
On the slate for this round: Unitarians, Eastern Orthodox churches,  Sinuhe as an alleged Moses parallel, methods of baptism, military tactics in the Bible, preterist interpretation of Revelation, a piece on Q out of Luke, eternal security, two debate forums, and oh about 300 emails. And what will you be doing in the next two weeks? Don't forget to eat.

Just 300 e-mails?  I wish I had no more than 300 waiting my attention.  Anyway,  I actually wasn't too sure of what he meant by the comment above, whether he intended to say that he was making a preterist defense of Revelation or whether he meant to say that he was rebutting the preterist view of Revelation.  I really didn't think that even he would be dumb enough to espouse the preterist position.  At any rate, I responded to this announcement with  the following.

TILL:
I'd be interested in seeing your piece on the preterist interpretation of Revelation, because I think that preterism is simply an attempt to escape the embarrassment of the many NT passages that taught an imminent return of Jesus. Drop me the URL when you post it. 

I didn't present this as a challenge to debate preterism.  I had only made a simple request to receive the URL when the piece was done, but all of a sudden Turkel was claiming that I had challenged him to debate the subject. 

Members of my Errancy II list had no difficulty understanding what I had meant, because after I had cross-posted to Errancy the message quoted above, a member of Errancy quoted my comment above and sent the following:

Turkel is a Preterist, and he has written an article titled, "The Olivet Discourse and Prophetic Fulfillment" found here.  

So this person had no difficulty understanding what I meant, but Turkel immediately began to strut about preterism as if he believed that he had me on the run.  On 6/24/02, I sent him a message to inform him that I was writing a response to his reply to my article "What Men with David?" and that brought an attempt to shift the subject to preterism. 

Jumping the gun, are we? What's wrong? Too chicken to take on my debate proposal #2 (preterism)? Heh heh! Sure, I'll put "What Men with David" at the end of the list. But I'm not letting you out of your little comment about preterism being an excuse. Put your money where your mouth used to be, and put it where your mouth was the first time in our conversation.

That I had presumably challenged Turkel to debate preterism was news to me, but since I think the doctrine is asinine, I was certainly willing to debate it.  I sent the following reply to Turkel.

If you want to debate  preterism, I'll gladly accommodate you. I know you don't like to  negotiate, but here is a suggested proposition.

RESOLVED: The New Testament prophecies of an imminent return of Jesus Christ were fulfilled in AD 70.

And this was his reply.

Come on, Farrell, the whole NT in one debate? Isn't that a wee bit cumbersome? I already tendered the Olivet Discourse as one debate. If you want to make Revelation another on top of that, that's fine with me. Just get to Olivet ASAP, because if you don't, I'm going to make plenty of hash over how you are willing to make snide side comments about preterism but are too shroomy to actually debate it.

Anyone who understands preterism knows that the cornerstone of this doctrine is a belief that Jesus of Nazareth returned in AD 70 in accordance with various New Testament scriptures that had promised his imminent return within the lifetime of some of the people living then.  The proposition I proposed, then, cuts right to the chase.  To prove his preterist doctrine, all he has to do is produce evidence that Jesus came in AD 70. I'm not interested in the preterist spins that some have put on certain New Testament passages.  They are of no more concern to me than the dispensationalist spins that others have put on some of the same passages.  I want to see Turkel's evidence that Jesus returned in AD 70.  When he presents that, he will have won his case, but he can't present any such evidence any more than he can present any real evidence that Jesus rose from the dead or that he was even an actual historical person.

If Turkel will not agree to affirm the proposition above, then it is rather evident who the "shroomy" one is in this matter.  As for his plans to "make plenty of hash" over my snide side comments about preterism, will I be entitled to make plenty of hash over his direct, website comments about "What Men with David?" and "Why Didn't They Know?" now that I have replied to his "rebuttals" of these, and he won't even give his readers the links he promised?

 He made another interesting comment in the same message.  I had informed him that I was writing an answer to his response to "What Men with David?" and that brought a message from him that said replying to me on this subject was low on his list of priorities. I replied to this with the following. 

As for putting "What Men With David?" low on your list of priorities, I can understand why. 

This brought a rather curious reply from him. 

I'm sure you do. Because you know darned well I ain't letting you set the pace, control freak that you are (hee hee)! 

He doesn't want me to "set the pace," but all that I have done is reply to two of his website articles about me, which now he apparently wants to drop like hot potatoes.  Those who read Part One and Part Two will quickly see why Turkel is trying to shift the discussion to an entirely new subject. 

I will leave it to readers to decide who the control freak is.  Seeing that he was in trouble on the land-promise issue, he dashed off an article on preterism and has ever since tried to divert attention to it.  Well, he has my answer.  I will gladly debate preterism if he can put enough starch in his spine to affirm a proposition that cuts to the very heart of this doctrine.  As soon as the land-promise debate has been finished and he has answered my responses to him (identified above), I will be ready to negotiate guidelines for a debate on  his affirmation that Jesus of Nazareth returned in AD 70.

By the way, Robert "No Link" Turkel, who told me on 7/01/02 that he would put a link to my replies (mentioned above) at the top of his article "Trick or Treat, Got Some Bread" still has not added the link as of 7/10/02.  I wonder what is delaying this link.

I'm revising this section to announce the latest development in Turkel's challenge to debate his preterist position presented in his "Olivet Discourse."  In addition to what I do on the internet, I also have editorial duties in publishing The Skeptical Review.  In order to meet the next publishing deadline, I was going to have to put my debates with Turkel on hold for about three weeks until an idea occurred to me.  I proposed to him in an e-mail message today (7/10/02) that he permit me to reprint his "Olivet Discourse" in the September/October issue.  I would simultaneously publish a reply to it, so while getting this issue ready for press in the next three weeks, I would be killing two birds with one stone, i.e., getting the next issue out on time while simultaneously working on a reply to an article that Turkel seems to be quite proud of.  Any subsequent exchanges on this issue would be posted on our websites.  Well, let me modify that.  Subsequent exchanges would be posted on my website, because Turkel doesn't post my articles on his site.  He just selectively quotes them without links.

Turkel(2):
and that our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with a skeptical readership.

Till(2):
Straw man! He is complaining about a situation that would never have existed had he cooperated in negotiating guidelines to structure the debate.  Here's the second word count on the straw man he repeatedly beat on.  He used it 11 times in this section, so he wasted 363 words cutting and pasting this "irrelevant distraction."  In Part One, he wasted 770 words on the same irrelevant distraction, so that makes a total of 1133 wasted words already.  What will the count be at the end of Part Three?