Till(1):
My attempt to negotiate a written agreement with him for this debate revealed that he is very skittish about trying to defend biblical prophecy claims.

Till(B):
I will add here a reminder that in my second-round replies I am giving more details about my attempt to negotiate an agreement with Turkel prior to this debate. I have quoted guidelines in my proposal that would have structured the debate and prevented the situation that Turkel constantly complains about in his repeated references to "fluff," "superfluous commentary," and "irrelevant distractions."

Turkel(2):
As before our opponent resorts to reading of emotion into our work, for no other purpose than to score debate points with a skeptical readership. I could just as easily apply adjectives to our opponent, based on no more data than personal emails, such as frightened, peevish, and pokey.

Till(2):
Well, actually, Turkel does apply such adjectives to "our opponent." I have already quoted extensively from Turkel's site and personal e-mails to show that he has to be the king of invective. At times, the guy seems incapable of writing a statement about an opponent that isn't drenched in sarcasm. I'll bet those who know him find him to be a real darling to associate with. I clicked an article at random on his site and found the following statements in an article entitled "Doo-Doo and Deuteronomy," or "Poop! Goes the Weasel." Besides the obvious sarcasm of the title, I found the following:

I've looked at my calendar of late, and noted that it is time to don the camouflage, load up the Sherman tank, and take another shot at that ultimate prize of this hunting season, often known as Farrell Till, but seldom called by that name because he doesn't answer to it unless he has recently seen his drivers' license as a reminder.

The topics are certain laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, whose content our chauvinistic skeptical friend has declared illogical, unfair, and so on, never mind the social context. And naturally there will be the usual errors of his to step in, such as poor reading and all of that. The method never changes.

Compared to the sarcasm that permeates Turkel's website, to say that he is "skittish" about debating biblical prophecies sounds almost complimentary.

Turkel(2):
This is merely a distraction still, a diversion from the subject of "Yahweh's Land Promise," and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with a skeptical readership.

Till(2):
Straw man! As I wind down my reply to this section, I'll have another count of the words that Turkel wasted on this "irrelevant distraction."

Keep in mind that guidelines agreed upon prior to the debate would have structured it and prevented the situation that Turkel keeps complaining about, but he wouldn‘t cooperate.

Till(YFLP):
In my debate with Bill Jackson, he referred to "multiplied dozens of Old Testament prophetic utterances, fulfilled in minute detail in the New Testament, and in such a manner that there could be no contrivance at all" (Jackson-Till Debate, p. 3).

Turkel(1):
This is a very interesting accounting of something Bill Jackson said, but it is still nothing but space filler. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(1):
If any believers in biblical prophecy fulfillment want to see the Jackson-Till written debate, I will send them a copy and let them decide for themselves if what I said immediately below was not an accurate summary of Jackson's performance in that debate.

Turkel(2):
At issue here is not whether or not the statement made by Jackson is accurate or not, but whether it is necessary, and why it is necessary, for this to be quoted in a response. As it is, our opponent merely uses this to "sell" the debate, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand in this context ("Yahweh's Land Promise"),

Till(2):
What Turkel originally called "space filler" was merely preliminary material in my original article to introduce an issue that pertained to biblical prophecy. As I said repeatedly in round one, if Turkel thought that it didn't pertain to the land promise issue, he could have simply quoted it and then cut to the chase by replying to what he considered the first relevant point in the article, or since his links would have enabled his readers to see everything I had said in the article, he could have left it out entirely. Instead, he has wasted our time by padding his "replies" with literally thousands of words that have accomplished nothing but divert our attention to a straw man that he beats on to draw attention from his inability to resolve the problem of Yahweh's failed land promise. To move the debate along as much as possible, I will from this point on simply note that his cut-and-pasted comments like the one above are just more of his irrelevant distractions.

I'll make just one additional comment here to show readers just how badly Turkel is at judging my motives. In the past, I have distributed hundreds of copies of the Jackson-Till Debate, but I stopped the distribution three or four years ago when my workload became unmanageable. At that time, I stopped advertising back issues of The Skeptical Review, written debates, and video tapes of debates--all of which I was distributing at production cost--so that I could free more of my time for writing. Hence, I wasn't trying to "sell" the Jackson-Till Debate. When I said that I would send it to Bible believers and let them judge if I had correctly assessed Jackson's performance, I meant that I would send them a copy free at my expense (as long as remaining copies last, of course), so I wasn't trying to "sell" this debate. That someone would actually give away a written debate and mail it at his own expense is probably as incomprehensible to Turkel as a foreign language he is hearing for the first time, because a look at his website will show that he has money on his mind. When one clicks here, he will find a variety of ways that he can send his money to Turkel. He can volunteer to become a contributor of $70 to $80 per year. (As I write this, Turkel's webpage says that he needs 81 such volunteers to keep his "ministry" full time, a number he has been stuck on for several days.) This page solicits money by check or by credit card, which can be used by clicking a "PayPal" icon. One can sign up for a telephone service that will give Turkel 10% of the company's billings to those who sign up through the Turk, or one can buy books from Amazon.com through Turkel's "Bookshop," for which he will receive 10% to 30% commissions. That money is Turkel's primary objective is evident from some of the books that he is hawking. On the lines where he puts his own evaluation of the books available are such comments as these.

The author is out of touch as well as out of his mind, but you can buy this book from Amazon.com....

A gumball machine offers better scholarship, but you can buy this book from Amazon.com....

Its scholarship isn't worth the paper it's printed on, but you can still buy this book from Amazon.com....

If you happen to be in need of a heavy paperweight, you can buy this book from Amazon.com...

And the list of sarcastic criticisms goes on and on, so the message is clear: "I'll sell anything if I can get some money from it." Is it any surprise, then, that he saw my offer to "send" a copy of the Jackson-Till Debate to any Bible believer who requested it as an attempt to "sell" a debate? If I were trying to "sell" it, wouldn't I have mentioned the price?

Turkel(2):
and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to use others as his personal "sales force" for other items.

Till(2):
Straw man!

Keep in mind too that guidelines agreed upon prior to the debate would have structured it and prevented the situation that Turkel keeps complaining about.

Till(1):
I did exactly what I said above.

Turkel(2):
At issue here is not whether or not our opponent did what he said above, but whether it is necessary, and why it is necessary, for this to be quoted in a response. As it is, our opponent merely uses this to "sell" the debate, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand in this context ("Yahweh's Land Promise"),

Till(2):
Another irrelevant distraction. My comments above show how far off target Turkel is if he thinks that I was trying to "sell" a debate.

Turkel(2):
and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to use others as his personal "sales force" for other items.

Till(2):
Straw man! I'm not trying to sell anything, but I realize how hard that is to understand for someone who seems to stand every day with his hat in his hand.

Keep in mind too that guidelines agreed upon prior to the debate would have structured it and prevented the situation that Turkel keeps complaining about.

Till(1):
When Jackson made his claim that "multiplied dozens of Old Testament prophetic utterances" were fulfilled "in minute detail in the New Testament," I called his hand and defied him to prove it, and he evaded the challenge.

Turkel (2):
At issue here is not whether or not our opponent did what he says he did, but whether it is necessary, and why it is necessary, for this to be quoted in a response. As it is, our opponent merely uses this to "sell" the debate,

Till(2):
Another "irrelevant distraction." My comments above show how wrong Turkel is in accusing me of trying to "sell" a debate. Someone with dollar signs for eye pupils would find it hard to understand why a person would actually offer to give away a debate and mail it at his own expense.

Turkel(2):
Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand in this context ("Yahweh's Land Promise"), and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent,

Till(2):
Straw man! Watch for the count of wasted words that will come at the end of this section.

Keep in mind too that Turkel's refusal to cooperate in negotiating guidelines to structure the debate created the situation that he keeps complaining about.

Turkel(2):
other than to perhaps "twist the knife" against Bill Jackson, or to serve as a reminder (as if such reminder were necessary as a distraction from this failing effort by our opponent) to skeptical readers that our opponent believes he scored a victory in another context.

Till(2):
Bill Jackson died of a heart attack shortly after this debate was finished (about 12 years ago). I have no desire to "twist the knife" against him. Since his position on the issues debated were typical of biblical fundamentalism, I offered the debate so that those who are interested could see how one who was supposed to be among the best apologists in his church would not attempt to defend biblical inerrancy.

Till(1):
The article Turkel is replying to was written shortly after that debate had been published.

Turkel(2):
We appreciate our opponent's desire to inform us of the most initimate [sic] chronological details of his life, but he still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
Straw man! A count of Turkel's words wasted on cut-and-paste jobs will appear at the end of this section.

Keep in mind too that Turkel's refusal to cooperate in negotiating guidelines to structure the debate created the situation that he keeps complaining about.

Till(1):
I had distributed hundreds of copies of it to subscribers of The Skeptical Review, so I considered this an appropriate example to use in reference to the absurd claims that Bible believers make about prophecy fulfillment.

Turkel(2):
While we find no surprise or dispute in our opponent using this quote as a blurb,

Till(2):
A "blurb" is a sales pitch for a published work, so since I am not selling this debate but giving away (postage at my own expense) the remaining copies of it, my statements could not be considered a "blurb." One who hawks and begs shamelessly on his website will undoubtedly find this hard to understand.

Turkel(2):
at issue here is whether it is necessary, and why it is necessary, for this to be quoted in a response by us. As it is, our opponent merely uses this to "sell" his newsletter,

Till(2):
Maybe I'll go back and do a count to see how many times Robert "Send Me Your Money" Turkel falsely accused me of trying to sell a debate.

Turkel(2):
and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to use others as his personal "sales force" for other items.

Till(2):
Straw man!

Turkel's refusal to cooperate in negotiating guidelines to structure the debate created the situation that he keeps complaining about.

Till(1):
Turkel has an opportunity here to call my bluff.

Turkel(2):
That I do have, and have had, such opportunities, is manifest,

Till(2):
What a surprise! Turkel dodged the challenge.

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

I will add here that in round one, I certainly did explain why commentary that an opponent may consider superfluous should be quoted in a written debate. Whether it warrants a response is another thing. If a party in a debate considers commentary superfluous, he has the right to decline commenting on it. Then it becomes his opponent's responsibility to explain the relevance of the commentary and request a reply from his opponent. If Turkel had cooperated in negotiating guidelines prior to the debate, such matters as these would have been spelled out.

A major problem in this debate is that Turkel doesn't have a clue to standards and guidelines that should be adhered to in a formal debate. I still have on file many formal debating agreements that I negotiated, and they all contained a provision that Turkel seems completely oblivious to. Here is item #13 in the agreement that I signed with H. A. "Buster" Dobbs.

The debate may be published by either Skepticism, Inc., or H. A. (Buster) Dobbs, or Assigns, or the Portland Church of Christ. The following restrictions and conditions apply to publication of the debate: (a) The debate must be printed in full....

So Turkel has yet to understand that agreeing to participate in a written debate does not cede to him the right to decide what parts of his opponent's material the audience will be allowed to see. What he demands for himself is that everything he writes in a debate be made available to the audience, whereas only what he wants the audience to see from his opponent's presentation will be made available. The man shows a total ignorance of standard debating procedures, and has used his ignorance to cut and paste asinine repetitions that have already turned this debate into a farce.

An agreement on guidelines prior to the debate could have prevented the situation that has bogged this debate down. Why do I suspect that this is what Turkel wanted anyway?

Till(1):
Let him challenge me to defend what I said about prophecy claims in the introductory remarks of my article, and I will accept the challenge if he will agree to publish on his website links to my part of the exchanges.

Turkel(2):
As noted above, two such challenges are already in place, and we will see about further issues below.

Till(2):
Those two "such challenges" have been addressed and shown to be attempts to divert attention away from the propositions that Turkel refused to discuss during my attempt to negotiate a debating agreement with him. At any rate, I have accepted his "challenge" on the preterist issue and am now awaiting his agreement to negotiate.

Turkel(2):
Depending on our opponent's response to what we cited as actual diversions, we will if appropriate add these points to our list here.

Till(2):
I predict that this will be a no, and, needless to say, Turkel has no room to talk about "diversions."

Till(YFLP):
As is true of all who use the prophecy-fulfillment argument, Jackson could only claim "multiplied dozens" of prophecy fulfillments; he could not cite a single verifiable example of a fulfilled OT prophecy.

Turkel(1):
This is also a very interesting accounting of something Bill Jackson said, and also could not say, but it is still nothing but space filler, and at best serves again the purpose of a distraction to set the tone for gullible readers. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
Straw man! Watch for the count of words that Turkel wasted in this section on cutting and pasting such repetitions as this.

Turkel's refusal to cooperate in negotiating guidelines to structure the debate created the situation that he keeps complaining about.

Turkel(1):
We cannot guess what "dozens" of prophecies Jackson had in mind, so comment can hardly be made.

Till(2):
Well, as we will see below, in unsuccessfully trying to negotiate 12 debate propositions with Turkel, I presented several suggested propositions, but Turkel ran from all but one of them. I have some other standard prophecy-fulfillment claims that I can propose to him if he ever finds the courage to agree that he will defend biblical prophecy.

Turkel(1):
It is not explained how any of the "dozens" are not shown to be "verifiable" or "fulfilled" so no more detailed comment can be made either.

Till(2):
No, I didn‘t explain it, and that was because Jackson, after claiming "multiplied dozens of prophecy fulfillments," refused to attempt a defense of a single one, so my comment above, which Turkel has made such an issue of, was just a simple statement of fact that I made in the opening paragraph of an article intended to introduce a prophecy failure in the Old Testament. It was entirely appropriate for the article in which it appeared, and if Turkel found it irrelevant to the failure of Yahweh's land promise, he could have shown his readers my introductory paragraphs and then cut to the chase by beginning his rebuttal with my first argument, or he could have given his readers access to my article with a link and then focused on the arguments in the article without even quoting what he considered "fluff." Instead, he has chosen to turn the debate into a farce by repeatedly cutting and pasting "irrelevant distractions."

Turkel(2):
What does need explaining, from our opponent, is why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
What! Explain it again? I've already explained it. I wrote an article long before I ever had heard of Robert Turkel, and in that article, I referred to a debate with Bill Jackson only for purposes of introducing the subject of prophecy failure. Anyone with (1) a basic grasp of elementary writing principles, and (2) an understanding of debating fundamentals should have known that if this article was going to be used as a basis for a debate on whether Yahweh's land promise to the Israelites was fulfilled, it would have been entirely satisfactory just to quote the introduction and then go immediately to the first of my arguments on the debate proposition and try to rebut it. Instead, Turkel wasted thousands of words, by quoting each sentence in this introduction and then pasting his straw-man statement after each sentence. The waste was 1353 words in the first round. In this round, the waste will total thousands of words.

However, we shouldn't be too harsh on Turkel, because he knows what he is doing. In the past, he has gutted my articles down to nothing and "replied" only to what he selectively quoted as he left my principal arguments unaddressed, so he is now grandstanding to try to make his gullible readers believe that what he had cut from my other articles was no more than the kind of introductory and transitional materials in my land-promise article. All anyone has to do to see through Turkel's tactics is go here and here and take a look at the hatchet job he did on my article "What Men with David?"

By the way, I am writing this on July 10th, but Turkel still has not put at the top of his article "Trick or Treat, Got Some Bread" any link to my rebuttals just cited. He promised on July 1st that he was going to put a link there. First, he said that I would get no link.

Since I didn't agree to debate these issues, you get no link and no EVERYTHING guarantee. I'll respond in my usual fashion, and ignore your complaints.

Then when he received the cc of my cross-posting to alt.bible.errancy and the Errancy list, which I had sent so that others would see his refusal to provide a link, he immediately sent back the message below.

Take a chill pill! You don't get the instant link like I gave you with the land promise issue is what I'm sayin'. You'll get a link at the top of my reply -- I just ain't puttin' one on the debate page. GET IT?

So nine days have now passed, and there is still no link "at the top" of his reply. At any rate, I have to wonder why he would not put a link on his "debate page." If his reply to my article about David was as brilliant as he seemed to think, why wouldn't he want his readers to have an immediate link to my rebuttal so that they could see how dismally I had failed in my reply to him? I think Turkel's admirers should go read his "Chicken Challenge", so that they can see who the real chicken is.

Today (7/10/02), my article "Yes, Why Didn't They Know?" or "The Bop That Flopped" was posted and can be accessed here . This was written in reply to Turkel's attempt to rebut "Why Didn't They Know?" Turkel's "reply" to this is here. Whether he will link his readers to my rebuttal remains to be seen.

Yes, I know, Turkel, I'm being repetitious about this, but before you pull the plug entirely on your agreement to provide links, I want your readers to see that when you confront an informed opposition in even a halfway open forum, you aren't nearly as bold as you sound when tossing bait to the fish in your little pond.

Till(1):
I will soon show why Turkel thinks that references to prophecy fulfillment are just "space filler" and "distraction to set the tone for gullible readers." He is afraid to defend prophecy fulfillment in an open-forum debate.

Turkel(2):
This is merely more setting of tone for gullible and skeptical readers, and does not answer the question of why it is necessary to quote it in a response.

Till(2):
Common sense should tell readers that what I said above is true or else Turkel's pride would not have allowed him to let it pass without calling my bluff. As we will soon see, he is afraid to try to defend specific propositions on some of the most commonly claimed examples of biblical prophecy fulfillment.

Turkel(2):
One may ask how it can be anything but a distraction (in the context of requiring it to be quoted) without engaging any specifics.

Till(2):
Turkel well knows that in my efforts to negotiate a debating agreement with him, I proposed specific propositions on alleged prophecy fulfillments. As we will soon see below, I "engag[ed]" some very specific aspects of typical prophecy-fulfillment claims. When I get there, everyone will see that Turkel ran from them.

Turkel(2):
Only specifics engaged or not engaged can clearly and arguably demonstrate "fear" -- as it is, this is merely our opponent yet again cheaply imputing emotion for the sake of scoring debate points with a skeptical readership.

Till(2):
No, as we will soon see, it is simply "our opponent" stating a fact. Very specific propositions on the subject of prophecy fulfillment were proposed to Turkel, and he ran from all of them but one.

Till(1):
Now I have a simple question for Turkel.

Turkel(2)
This obviously states our opponent's intentions, but we can simply quote the question if need be, and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent,

Till(2):
Straw man! At the end of this section, I will give another count of how many words Turkel has wasted on this irrelevant distraction.

Turkel's refusal to cooperate in negotiating guidelines to structure the debate created the situation that he keeps complaining about.

Till(1):
Why didn't he just quote this entire introductory paragraph to my article and then say after it that there was nothing in the paragraph that needed a reply, because it did not pertain to the issue of whether the land promise prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled as predicted.

Turkel(2):
Clearly, our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, as all he can offer is a suggestion that we simply quote the material and say nothing needed reply, because it did not pertain to the issue of whether the land promise prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled as predicted.

Till(2):
Turkel obviously has no reasonable explanation for why he has wasted so much space on cutting and pasting repetitious comments that do nothing but distract attention from the failed land promise that he cannot resolve. His refusal to cooperate in negotiating guidelines to structure the debate created the very situation that he keeps complaining about.

Turkel(2):
If it did not pertain to the issue of whether the land promise prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled as predicted, and if it needed no reply, then it needed no quotation either, and our opponent has continued to prove that his demand that we quote EVERYTHING is a) absurd; b) merely an attempt to score debate points with a skeptical readership.

Till(2)
"Our opponent" has demonstrated that Turkel knows nothing about formal written debates. I tried my best to get him to negotiate an agreement that would spell out the guidelines and standards that both of us would sign prior to the beginning of the debate. Had he done that, perhaps he would have known what is expected of those who sign on to conduct a written debate, but he withdrew from the negotiations and launched out on his own with no agreement having been reached. Since then, he has shown his utter ignorance of formal debating procedures by claiming the right to be judge and jury of what parts of his opponent's materials are "relevant." As I have repeatedly shown now, if he had seen the negotiations through to the end, we could have reached an agreement that would have given guidelines that both of us could have used to determine what were points that needed to be answered.

I doubt that he would ever admit it, but perhaps he has learned a lesson and now understands that no one should enter into a formal debate without having first reached an agreement in writing that will set forth guidelines to give structure to the debate.

Till(1):
That way, his readers would have seen what I said, and I could not have complained that he had quoted me selectively.

Turkel(2):
As it stands, our opponent has yet to prove that any of his "complaints" (using his word) that he was quoted selectively, a challenge he was asked to meet over several years, and has never done, and it is apparent why he has not done. It is our contention that this has been a smokescreen to avoid reply to us from the very beginning,

Till(2):
Anyone who goes here and here (Give Us This Day, Our Daily Dodge, Parts One and Two) will see plenty of evidence that Turkel has done to my articles exactly what I have accused him of doing. He has quoted them not just selectively but very selectively. Can anyone deny that cutting over 5,000 words from "What Men with David?" was selective quoting? My response to Turkel's "answer" to "Why Didn't They Know?" was posted today (7/10/02) on the TSR website, and a link to it can be found above. Turkel also snipped this article down to practically nothing and then "replied" to what he thought he could answer, but my rebuttal will show that he has an incredible ignorance of what the New Testament claims that the apostles of Jesus should have known about his promise to rise from the dead.

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

Till(2):
Straw man! Look for the count of wasted words, which I will post at the end of this section.

Turkel's refusal to cooperate in negotiating guidelines to structure the debate created the situation that he keeps complaining about.

Till(1):
The obvious intention of the paragraph was to introduce the subject of biblical prophecy and to indicate the degree that some inerrantists will go to in order to claim that biblical prophecies have been fulfilled.

Turkel(2):
At issue here is not what the purpose of the paragraph is, but whether it is necessary, and why it is necessary, for this to be quoted in a response. As it is, our opponent essentially admits what we have charged all along in certain cases, that he demands quotation for no other purpose than to score debate points with his skeptical readership. This is not engaging in issues, but in distraction, as we have said all along and which our opponent finally admits.

Till(2):
"Our opponent" admits no such thing. "Our opponent's" claim is that in the past Turkel has "replied" to articles written by skeptics by snipping and skipping major arguments in the article and then not even giving his readers links that they could click to go see what Turkel's opponents had said in their articles. I have established this tactic of Turkel by writing replies to his "replies" in which I reinserted major arguments that he had snipped. My replies to him can be accessed here, here and here . Those who go there will see (1) that Turkel did indeed snip major points and arguments and (2) that he has a colossal ignorance of the subjects that he was trying to respond to. In the matter of snipping major points, my original article about David contained 5,463 words, and Turkel's "reply" to it cut out over 5,000 of them. This is clear evidence that my charges against Turkel are correct and that he does selectively quote his opponents. He is now trying to withhold this evidence from his readers by not linking them to my articles cited above.

As for Turkel's continual bellyaching about "distractions," he is the one creating the distractions by constantly complaining about a situation of his own doing. Had he cooperated in negotiating an agreement prior to the debate, we would have had guidelines that spelled out what each participant was obligated to answer.

Till(1):
To put me on the spot, Turkel could then have challenged me to defend in another debate what I had said about biblical prophecy in my introductory paragraph, but, as I said above, Turkel is obviously not willing to get too involved in defending biblical prophecy fulfillments, at least not in an open forum where his readers will see what his opponent says, because prophecy fulfillment was one of the sticking points in my attempt to negotiate an agreement with him.

Turkel(2):
We will see this more engaged in the comments below,

Till(2):
We certainly will.

Turkel(2):
however, as noted, we have already issued two other challenges and have room for nine more as of this juncture.

Till(2):
He says that he has issued "two other challenges," but while complaining about lack of specifics in my references to prophecy, he has not specifically stated what those "two other challenges" are. I surmise from references in his personal e-mails to me that one of them is the preterist issue involving his "Olivet Discourse," which is a cut-and-paste job from preterist books published at small religious presses. He even copied the title from other preterists. I have, in fact, accepted this challenge by offering to reprint Turkel's article in the September/October issue of The Skeptical Review, along with my reply to it. I am presently waiting for his acceptance of this offer. After this initial exchange, I will gladly debate the issue in more detail if Turkel will (1) negotiate a set of guidelines to structure the debate and keep him from turning it into another farce, and (2) agree to affirm the foundation doctrine of preterism, which is that New Tesament references to an imminent return of Jesus were fulfilled in AD 70. As for the other one, what is it specifically? Is it the Tyre prophecy, which was the only proposition relating to prophecy fulfillment that he indicated during our failed negotiations that he would agree to debate?

As for the other nine that he has "room" for, I'm going to predict that he will never agree to nine other debate propositions and also agree to post my presentations on his site or else provide conspicuous links to my articles. He wants to attract contributors who will donate $70 to $80 per year to his internet "ministry," so he has enough sense to know that letting readers see him ripped apart in debates on biblical inerrancy is not likely to get him the money he wants.

Turkel(2):
Beyond that, we recommend our opponent try the dijon with the crow, as we are now in the very sort of "open forum" he demands,

Till(2):
No, this is not the kind of open forum I wanted, and Turkel knows it. I wanted to debate him in a forum where everything would be posted on both sites. That would have made everything said by both sides readily visible and accessible to all people interested in the debate, but it would have required only that each participant answer all of his opponent‘s arguments or rebuttals. Making everything said by both participants readily accessible would have thwarted Turkel's desire to make his links to my articles inconspicuous by putting them at the end of tedious, 13,000-word articles.

Turkel(2)
letting readers see EVERYTHING he says,

Till(2):
"Everything" I say? Almost a week has passed since my replies to his article "Trick or Treat" were posted on the TSR site, so how can Turkel's readers see everything I say if he does not link them to a significant reply to him that I posted nine days ago (as of this writing)?

Turkel(2):
no matter how irrelevant, pointless, or ridiculous it may be in context.

Till(2):
Turkel is complaining about a situation that he created. I tried to negotiate with him an agreement that contained the following guidelines.

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.

These two rules would have structured the debate and given guidelines on what would and would not have been necessary to quote. We could now be engaged in a debate that focused on arguments and rebuttals rather than the endless distractions that Turkel has wagged into it. He is an amateur whose cockiness caused him to launch out on his own, unilaterally, and create the mess that he is now complaining about.

But that is probably what he wanted, isn't it?

Till(1):
I proposed that we agree to debate 12 different propositions related to biblical inerrancy, and several of the propositions I proposed pertained to prophecy fulfillment.

Turkel(2):
This is a true accounting of something our opponent did,

Till(2):
I appreciate Turkel's honesty. It's too bad that he is not willing to engage in honest debating.

Turkel(2):
but it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
Had Turkel cooperated in negotiating a written agreement prior to the debate, he could have appealed to guideline #5 (quoted above) to support his claim that he didn't have to reply to this statement; then, if I disagreed, I would have had the responsibility to prove the relevance of the statement. If we had had such an agreement, I wouldn't have disputed any appeal that he might make to guidelines #5 on this particular point. This is why agreements should be negotiated before a debate begins. Let's hope he has learned something.

Anyway, comments like the one he just complained about are simply tactics that a smart debater will use to get information into the record, much in the same way that lawyers or prosecutors will make statements during trials that they know judges will order the juries to disregard, but what jury members will be able to disregard important information once they have heard it? Those who have followed this debate have now heard me charge Turkel with fear to defend biblical prophecy in a public debate, so this information is now in their minds. Turkel can remove it only by accepting my challenge to debate prophecy, but if he does that, he will have fallen into another trap I have set for him.

Till(1):
I submitted these propositions to him.

Turkel(2):
This is also a true accounting of something our opponent did, but it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
I'll bet that Turkel wishes now that he had been a little more patient and had cooperated in negotiating an agreement. The situation he complains about is his own fault.

At the end of this section, I will give a count of the number of words that Turkel wasted cutting and pasting his mantra above.

Till(1):
Resolved: Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt was fulfilled in all of its details.

Turkel(2):
I replied to our opponent that I did not have sufficient data to debate this issue, and I do not.

Till(2):
Hmm, Turkel is a defender of biblical inerrancy, but he doesn't have "sufficient data" to know if one of Ezekiel's major prophecies was fulfilled? Strange.

It sounds very much like a dodge to me. Readers should take another look at Turkel's "Chicken Challenge" and then ask themselves who the real chicken is.

Turkel(2):
At any rate, we should note that this and the list that follows has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise" and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

Till(2):
Straw man! Turkel's refusal to negotiate guidelines prior to the beginning of the debate has created the situation he has wasted several thousand words complaining about.

Till(1):
Resolved: Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre was fulfilled in all of its details.

Turkel(2):
By my recollection I acknowledged this as a possible topic in corespondence [sic] since it is one I have sufficient data to discuss.

Till(1):
Yes, Turkel did say that he had "sufficient data" to debate the Tyre prophecy, but he didn't seem too interested in trying to explain why he didn't have sufficient data to defend a prophecy that.... Well, I'll just quote from our personal correspondence to show how Turkel ducked and dodged and bobbed and weaved on this issue. Since we don't have any guidelines for this debate, anything goes.

On 5/20/02, I sent the following reply to Turkel's refusal to debate Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt on the grounds that he didn't have "sufficient data."

You accepted the one about Tyre (#4) and sent a variation of #7 (the land promise), which is acceptable to me, but you have been strangely silent on the others. I asked you why you would defend the accuracy of the Tyre prophecy in all of its details but wouldn't defend Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. You replied: "Insufficient data to warrant a conclusion."

That was a perplexing answer, because you claim to be a biblical inerrantist. If, however, there is "insufficient data to warrant a conclusion," then you can't know if this prophecy was fulfilled. If you can't know that, then how can you be a biblical inerrantist? Have you formed a belief on insufficient data? My, my, Turkel, there seems to be something wrong with your "thinking processes."

If the data are insufficient to warrant a conclusion about Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt, then we could make the proposition more specific. How about this?

RESOLVED: Ezekiel's prophecy that Egypt would become "an utter waste and desolation" for 40 years, during which it would not be inhabited and no foot of man or beast would pass through it, was fulfilled.

If such as this actually happened, then there would surely be "data" to support it. However, if you are too chicken to affirm this part of Ezekiel's prophecy, we can negotiate a proposition that would focus on another part of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. What about this?

RESOLVED: Ezekiel's prophecy that at the end of the 40 years of desolation, Egypt would become the "basest of kingdoms" and would never again "lift itself up against the nations" or "have rule over the nations" was fulfilled.

If that isn't satisfactory, there are other specific details in the prophecy that we can focus on.

Turkel replied to this message. He said, "You obviously don't know me very well," in reply to my question about how he could be a biblical inerrantist without having "sufficient data" to know if Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt had been fulfilled, but in accordance with his name Robert "Snip-and-Skip" Turkel, he cut out all the rest of the section and said nothing about the alternative propositions I had proposed.

So I will suggest again that Turkel's fans need to read "The Chicken Challenge" and then ask themselves who the real chicken is.

Turkel(2):
However, this has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise"

Till(2):
No, it doesn't, but it has everything to do with exposing Turkel's cowardice, and since he refused to negotiate guidelines before unilaterally beginning this debate, I'm not bound to anything. He will eventually stop giving his readers even inconspicuous links to my articles, so I am making hay while the sun shines to expose his cowardice and ignorance to his readers.

Turkel(2):
and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

Till(2):
Straw man! Who refused to cooperate in negotiating an agreement that would have contained guidelines to structure the debate?

Till(1):
Resolved: Isaiah's prophecy against Tyre was fulfilled in all of its details.

Turkel(2):
I would regard this as one that I also possess insufficient data to debate,

Till(2):
I find it more than just a little strange that Turkel has enough data to know that Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre was fulfilled but doesn't have enough data to know that Isaiah's prophecy against the same city was fulfilled. Isn't "Tektonics Apologetic Ministry" supposed to be a "research organization"? To have so much "insufficient data" on so many important prophecy issues isn't much of a commentary on the efficiency of Turkel's "research" organization.

I think I hear chickens clucking.

Turkel(2):
and would add that it has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise" and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

Till(2):
My capability to "address the subject at hand" was very ably demonstrated when I cut to pieces in the last four parts of my first-round replies all of Turkel's "solutions" to the land-promise problem, and more evidence of my capability to address the subject at hand is coming up as soon as this section ends my tolerance of Turkel‘s evasive distractions.

The situation Turkel has constantly bellyached about could have been avoided if he had only cooperated in negotiating a set of guidelines and rules before the debate began.

Till(1):
Resolved: Isaiah's prophecy against Babylon was fulfilled in all of its details.

Turkel(2):
I would regard this as one that I also possess insufficient data to debate,

Till(2):
Hmm, some "research organization" this Tektonics Apologetic Ministry is!

Turkel(2):
and would add that it has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise" and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

Till(2):
I have to give him credit. Turkel is heroically trying to save as much face as possible. I have only two statements to make here: (1) The fact that I am plenty capable of defending my position on the land-promise issue was very much in evidence in Parts 3 through 6 of my first-round replies. (2) Whose fault is it that Turkel and I are now engaged in an unstructured debate that has no guidelines?

Till(1):
Turkel rejected all of these proposals except the one about Ezekiel's Tyre prophecy.

Turkel(2):
Our opponent apparently has the same recollection we do, which is nice to know,

Till(2):
Then Turkel must also recollect that he was afraid to discuss propositions pertaining to prophecy fulfillment when I unsuccessfully tried to negotiate a debating agreement with him.

Turkel(2):
but this still has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise" and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

Till(2):
I have already replied several times to this cut-and-pasted evasion. Whose fault was it that the debate began, unilaterally, without an agreement on guidelines having been reached? The record will show that I have thoroughly and completely sustained my position that Yahweh's land promise to the Israelites failed to be fulfilled as promised.

Till(1):
When I asked him why he would defend Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre but not his prophecy against Egypt, Turkel wrote back and said that there were "insufficient data."

Turkel(2):
Again, our opponent apparently has the same recollection we do, which is nice to know, but this still has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise" and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

Till(2):
This has been answered above. I'll give a count of the words that Turkel wasted cutting and pasting evasive comments like this.

Till(1):
What he meant by that is anyone's guess, but I will serve notice to him here and now that if he is willing to defend the above proposition about Tyre, he has an opponent.

Turkel(2):
One is constrained to ask how it is our opponent has no cognizance of the very simple phrase, "insufficient data." It is not a difficult term to comprehend and would not warrant explanation to even an elementary school student.

Till(2):
One is also constrained to ask (again) how it is that Turkel can be a biblical inerrantist and yet claim to have insufficient data to know that whether several biblical prophecies were fulfilled.

Does Turkel know how to say, "Evasion"?

Turkel(2):
That said, apparently our opponent wishes to add Tyre to the list of 12 on the core page, and I have done so.

Till(1):
You bet "our opponent" does wish to add the Tyre prophecy to the list on the core page. "Our opponent" will make only two demands: (1) Turkel will negotiate a written agreement prior to the debate that will contain guidelines to prevent the kind of farce that he has turned this debate into. (2) Turkel will post all exchanges on his website or else give his readers conspicuous links to all of my parts of the debate.

Till(1):
I'll be ready to begin it as soon as we finish the land-promise issue.

Turkel(2):
We have noted that we already have two issues after the Land Promise issue; Tyre we have entered in slot 4.

Till(2):
Is unilateralism to be the standard by which debate propositions are determined? If so, then I will unilaterally list the following propositions in slots 5 through 10.

5. RESOLVED: The Bible in its original autographs was absolutely inerrant in theology and all details pertaining to science, history, geography, and all other nontheological matters.

6. RESOLVED: The biblical accounts of the wilderness wanderings of the Israelites are historically accurate in all of their details.

7. RESOLVED: The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is a verifiable historical event.

8. RESOLVED: The virgin birth of Jesus of Nazareth is a verifiable historical event.

9. RESOLVED: The character and nature of God as presented in the Bible are logically consistent.

10: RESOLVED: Isaiah's prophecy against Egypt was fulfilled in all of its details.

I have excluded the prophecies for which Turkel lacks "sufficient data" to debate. Isaiah's prophecy against Egypt is the only proposition that pertains to prophecy, so I will be interested to see if he thinks he has sufficient data to defend this prophecy. If not, maybe he can put the "research" facilities of Tektonics Apologetic Ministry to work and get the data he needs.

Now it is time to give Turkel a lesson in the giving-and-taking aspect of debate negotiations. The list above contains six propositions, so if Turkel will accept them, I will accept the ones he has put into "slots" on his debate page. The list of 12 would then consist of six that he chose and six that I chose. If, however, he comes back with his evasive claim that he lacks "sufficient data" to debate any of the above, I will counter by saying that I lack sufficient data to debate the propositions he proposed. If it is necessary to show him that two can play the same game, I'll do it.

When Turkel posts his acceptance of the list above, we can then begin negotiating guidelines and rules to structure the debate.

How many think that Turkel will accept the propositions above?

How many think that pigs will fly someday?

Turkel(2):
At any rate, we would add that this still has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise" and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article, as well as provide a "pep rally" for skeptical readers.

Till(2):
I have already replied to this cut-and-pasted statement umpteen times. At the end of this section I will post a count of the words that Turkel wasted on cutting and pasting.

Till(1):
All that I will demand is that he agree to put links to my articles in whatever he writes on the subject and publishes on his website.

Turkel(2):
As this is what we are doing now, we shall obviously do the same in the future.

Till(2):
Good! So when can we expect to see you put links to this and this at the top of your hatchet job on "What Men with David?" I posted these nine days ago, and you still haven't put the links you promised.

Till(1):
I urge those who frequent Turkel's website to write and tell him that they would be very interested in seeing Till "ground down to size" on prophecy-fulfillment issues.

Turkel(2):
As several readers have been, and are still doing this, and many have already been pleased to see our opponent "ground down to size" in such responses as we have posted,

Till(1):
Hmm, that's strange! I have been receiving comments from several people who have read my replies to Turkel, and they have expressed pleasure at seeing Turkel hung out to dry, so such testimonies don‘t really prove anything, do they?

Turkel(2):
this is superfluous commentary, and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to use others as his personal "sales force" for other items.

Till(2):
Turkel is so careless in his cutting and pasting that he didn't even notice that the reference above to my "personal ‘sales force'" isn't at all applicable to my statement urging his readers to write to tell him they would be interested in seeing him defend prophecy fulfillment in a debate. This shows how little attention Turkel pays to what he is writing. His goal is to hack out something and get it posted. Screw the content of what he says.

Till(YFLP):
As I said in the debate, the "prophecy fulfillments" that are invariably cited in support of this argument never actually "happened except in the fertile imaginations of a few religious mystics whose fanciful interpretations of certain events have been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by gullible people like our Mr. Jackson" (Jackson-Till Debate, p. 17).

Turkel(1):
This is very interesting and colorful accounting of something our opponent said in reply to Bill Jackson, but it is nothing but a sound bite without specifics, and at best serves again the purpose of a distraction to set the tone for gullible readers. As it is but a distraction, and as it contains no specifics, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
I'll simply note again that this is just another of Turkel's cut-and-pasted "irrelevant distractions."

Till(1):
If Turkel thinks that what I said was just a "sound bite" that I was using for "the purpose of a distraction to set the tone for gullible readers," then he should be eager to accept my proposal and agree to debate the prophecy-fulfillment propositions stated above.

Turkel(2):
Here our opponent has merely dodged the question, that is, why it necessary to quote this in a reply, and why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, and given a non-answer [sic] that distracts from the question, thus ensuring the his skeptical readership will be satisified [sic] in spite of the obvious dodge and non-reply.

Till(2):
Ho, hum, I guess I‘ll have to rehash everything again. (1) A formal debate should be preceded by the negotiation of an agreement to decide on guidelines and rules to structure the debate. (2) Turkel wouldn't cooperate in negotiating such an agreement. (3) Turkel unilaterally launched out on his own and turned my article "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" into a debate proposition. (4) His unilateral action entitled the reading audience to see everything I had said in this article. (5) Linking his readers to my article would have satisfied this entitlement. (6) A negotiated agreement prior to the debate would have contained guidelines requiring only that each participant answer all arguments and rebuttals of his opponent. (7) This guideline would have entitled Turkel to skip anything that he considered "transitional" or "introductory" in my article. (8) If he skipped anything I considered vital to the debate, I could then have reminded him of it and asked him to reply to it.

The result of such guidelines would have been a structured debate, but by unilaterally launching out on his own without first negotiating guidelines, Turkel chose to quote sentence by sentence comments in my introductory paragraph that didn't pertain directly to Yahweh's failed land promise. However--and read this very carefully, Turkel--once he quoted something, it became a part of the debate, which he had unilaterally instigated, so his entry of my introductory material into the debate, entitled me to reply to it.

This is somewhat like procedure in a trial. If one side introduces a subject into the trial record, the other side is then entitled to comment on it or question witnesses about it.

This brings us right back to square one. This matter that Turkel keeps complaining about is a situation that he created by his refusal to cooperate in negotiating an agreement.

Till(1):
I am ready to debate every one of them. Is he?

Turkel(2):
As this is a repeat of what has been said above, it is merely space filler,

Till(2):
Space filler? Turkel has the audacity to talk about space filler? Watch at the end of this section for a count of the words that Turkel wasted on filling space.

Turkel(2):
and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
This sounds very much like a dodge to me. What do you think, folks?

Watch for the word count.

Till(1):
As for my claim in the Jackson-Till Debate that the prophecies that New Testament writers claimed were fulfilled were prophecies only in the fertile imaginations of the religious mystics who said that they were prophecies, I would like very much to debate this issue with Turkel.

Turkel(2):
As this is a repeat of what has been said above, and as we are already sufficiently aware of our opponent's desires, this is also merely space filler, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

Till(2):
Sounds like another dodge, doesn't it? Watch for the count of cut-and-pasted words in this section.

Till(1):
I am fully prepared to show how numerous New Testament prophecy fulfillments were based on out-of-context interpretations and outright distortions of Old Testament statements that were never intended to refer to events in the New Testament.

Turkel(2):
As a whole, this is a repeat of what has been said above, and as we are already sufficiently aware of our opponent's desires, this is mainly space filler, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

Till(2):
I will remind readers again that the comments that Turkel objects to were made in reference to material that he himself introduced into the debate. If he thought that the introductory remarks in my article were not relevant, he should have skipped them or at least quoted them without comment and then gone directly to what he considered my first relevant argument. A written agreement prior to the debate could have prevented this situation, but Turkel wouldn't cooperate.

Anyway, his statement above is just another chunk of thousands of words he has wasted in this debate by cutting and pasting complaints about a situation that he himself created.

Turkel(2):
The one unique element is reference to "out-of-context interpretations and outright distortions." Our opponent is advised that should he wish to debate this issue we will present as our "positive" case the item written by Glenn Miller here, which with we agree in entirety.

Till(2):
This sounds like another dodge to me. What do you think, folks? Will Turkel ever find enough starch in his spine to defend some of the absurd prophecy-fulfillment claims in the New Testament?

Oh, I know, I know! He doesn't have "sufficient data" to debate these. How stupid of me not to remember!

Till(1):
Is Turkel willing to accept this challenge?

Turkel(2):
As this is a repeat of what has been said above, this is also merely space filler, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

Till(2):
In case anyone missed the answer in Turkel's maze of cut-and-pasted words, he was saying, "No, I'm not willing to accept the challenge."

Till(1):
Well, I advise readers not to hold their breaths until these debates materialize, because I will insist that he agree to publish on his website links to all of my exchanges, and I don't think that he will be too eager to do that, especially not after he has read this rebuttal that I am now writing.

Turkel(2):
We once again move online to http://www.eatcrow.com to purchase a heaping helping of avian for our opponent.

Till(2):
Since Turkel is dodging all of the debate challenges, why should I move on to http://www.eatcrow.com? Everything is turning out exactly as I predicted. Turkel is refusing to debate the fabricated prophecy-fulfillment claims in the New Testament. Instead of the site he recommended, I suggest that we go to http://www.chickendoodoo.com.

Anyway, does http://www.eatcrow.com contain links to here, here, and here? If so, I'd like to go there and see them.

The record still stands. In reply to comments that Turkel himself introduced into this debate, I issued a challenge to debate New Testament prophecy-fulfillment claims based on Old Testament statements quoted entirely out of context, and Turkel has so far refused to accept the challenge.

Turkel(2):
Our opponent is advised to not hold his own breath, because his eyes are bulging out of their sockets and it is becoming annoying.

Till(2):
Turkel need not worry. I would never hold my breath for him to agree to debate the proposal mentioned above.

Till(1):
When logical analysis is applied to these alleged instances of prophecy fulfillment, it quickly becomes obvious that there is no real evidence of fulfillment.

Turkel(2):
This certainly serves to lay out our opponent's thematic intent, but only those who have never heard his name would ever suppose that he would take any other general position than that there is no real evidence of prophecy fulfillment.

Till(2):
Well, why doesn't Turkel use the "research" talents of his apologetic ministry, find "sufficient data" to support prophecy-fulfillment claims, accept my challenge, and then give me a really humiliating defeat in a debate on the subject?

Don't hold your breaths, folks.

Turkel(2):
As this remark is merely a statement of purpose common to our opponent's methodology, and it contains no specifics, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
Watch for the count on cut-and-pasted distractions and evasions. It is coming up at the end of this section.

Till(1):
Many who are reading this know that I have posted several times on my Errancy list a standing challenge for anyone who believes in biblical prophecy fulfillment to prove a single verifiable case of prophecy fulfillment.

Turkel(2):
This new response certainly serves to lay out our opponent's mission, but only those who have never heard his name would not know that he has issued such challenges.

Till(2):
What I don't understand is why those who consider themselves "pillars" in the apologetic community--and this would certainly include Turkel--have allowed this challenge to go unaccepted for so long.

Oh, I know, I know. They probably don't have "sufficient data."

Turkel(2):
As this remark is merely a statement of purpose, and it contains no specifics, much less has it anything to do with "Yahweh's land Promise," it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, and our opponent now has two layers of superfluous commentary to explain.

Till(2):
So Turkel dodges again, doesn't he. Watch for the count of cut-and-pasted words coming up soon.

Till(1)
I now pass that challenge along to Turkel.

Turkel(2):
As this is a repeat of what has been said above, this is also merely space filler, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

Till(2):
And so Turkel dodges it too. Watch for the count of cut-and-pasted evasions and distractions coming at the end of this section.

Till(YFLP):
Time would fail me if I tried to analyze the many alleged prophecy fulfillments that inerrantists have pointed to, so instead I will concentrate on a failed prophecy that they never say much about.

Turkel(1):
This is another example of the profound depths of distraction that our opponent must resort to in order to "set the tone" for gullible readers. We would just as easily say, "Time would fail me if I tried to analyze the many genuine prophecy fulfillments that inerrantists can point to, so instead I will concentrate on a successful prophecy that errantists never say much about." Is this an argument? No. It is a manipulative, tactical way of giving the false impression that our opponent has carefully looked into every possible example of alleged prophecy fulfillment and critically determined that they have all failed, and that only the nebulous barrier of "time" makes it impossible to elucidate every example. It is also an attempt to claim that alleged silence on this issue somehow adds credibility to our opponent's case, when it has yet to be proven that there is a problem worth responding to at all. At any rate, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(1):
I have explained above to the satisfaction of any reasonable person why a written debate should include everything that both sides say on the issue, and I have also explained what an apologist confident of his position would do when confronted with statements like those contained in the introductory paragraph of my article.

Till(2):
And in round two, I have explained that (1) Turkel refused to negotiate an agreement that would have contained guidelines to give structure to the debate, (2) Turkel‘s quoting of introductory remarks in my article entered them into the debating record and entitled me to reply to them. Hence, he has wasted thousands of words cutting and pasting complaints about a situation that he created because of his ignorance of formal debating procedures.

Turkel(2):
Our opponent has explained no such thing;

Till(2):
I respect the intelligence of the debating audience enough to know that they will be able to see that I have indeed explained why a written debate should give readers access to everything that both sides say on the issue in question. This time around I have also explained--with overkill--why a matter mentioned in a debater's written presentation entitles his opponent to comment on it. If he denies this, he will be arguing that I don't have the right to comment on statements that he himself enters into the debate record. Knowing him, I don't doubt that he is ignorant enough to believe that he should have the right to make statements in a debate that are off limits to his opponent, but I'd like to see him find a debating authority who would agree with him on this.

Turkel(2):
beyond a few instances of admitting he only wished to be quoted for the purpose of scoring points, or giving a non-answer[sic] that amounts to, "Why not?", he has thus far evaded or given no worthwhile answer to the question of why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, giving no reason why it should be quoted if it does not require any response or would be sufficiently addressed with a mere token.

Till(2):
I have explained that a written agreement prior to the debate would have contained guidelines to help the participants determine what should be quoted and responded to, but Turkel wouldn't cooperate in negotiating an agreement. Ever since, he has bellyached about a situation of his own creation.

I have also explained that if a debater enters statements into the debating record, his opponent is then entitled to comment on them. If he didn't want me commenting on what he considers "superfluous commentary," he should never have entered it into the debating record. It would help a lot if Turkel understood diddly about formal debating procedures.

Till(1):
He would challenge the person who made the remarks to defend them in a separate debate.

Turkel(2):
We would not challenge any person to defend remarks about such things as what Bill Jackson said on a given date,

Till(2):
I wouldn't expect Turkel to do this, but once he entered my remarks into the record of the debate, I was entitled to comment on them, so I would expect him to react to any challenge that grew out of his introduction of this subject into the debate.

Oh, I forgot; he did react, didn't he? He declined the challenge.

Turkel(2):
or remarks about setup to which both parties agree, so as yet our opponent has given no worthwhile answer to the question of why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, giving no reason why it should be quoted if it does not require any response or would be sufficiently addressed with a mere token.

Till(2):
My replies to Turkel have been filled with "worthwhile" answers to the "superfluous commentary," which he himself introduced into the debate. Turkel introduced the material, so whatever I said in response to what he himself introduced should be responded to with something other than cut-and-pasted evasions and distractions.

Watch for the word count that is coming up soon.

Till(1):
Why doesn't Turkel challenge me to defend my position on biblical prophecy fulfillment?

Turkel(2):
Since we are in the process of this right now,

Till(1):
Turkel is in the process of what right now? The context of my statement above shows that I was referring to my position on biblical prophecy fulfillment that was stated in the introduction of my article "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise." To show this, I am going to quote below the entire context of the statement.

I have explained above to the satisfaction of any reasonable person why a written debate should include everything that both sides say on the issue, and I have also explained what an apologist confident of his position would do when confronted with statements like those contained in the introductory paragraph of my article. He would challenge the person who made the remarks to defend them in a separate debate. Why doesn't Turkel challenge me to defend my position on biblical prophecy fulfillment?

The introduction to my article clearly shows that I was talking about Jackson's reference to "multiplied dozens of Old Testament prophetic utterances, fulfilled in minute detail in the New Testament" (a statement that Turkel introduced into this debate). I went on to say that these so-called New Testament prophecy-fulfillment claims never actually happened "except in the fertile imaginations of a few religious mystics whose fanciful interpretations of certain events have been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by gullible people like [Jackson]," so when I asked Turkel why he didn't challenge me to "defend my position on biblical prophecy fulfillment," I was referring to my position that New Testament claims of prophecy fulfillments were fulfillments only in the fertile imaginations of a few religious mystics.

So just how is Turkel in the process of challenging me on this "right now"? It would help a lot if Turkel would take the time to read my rebuttals carefully enough to understand what I am saying.

If he did that, though, he wouldn't be able to cut and paste his way to overwhelming his readers with hackwork, would he?

Turkel(2):
this is also merely space filler, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

Till(2):
If this is "space-filler," it is space-filler that resulted from something that Turkel had introduced into the debate. Once he introduced it, I was entitled to comment on it. His complaint is nothing more than the same old straw man he has been kicking since this "debate" began. Watch for the word count coming up.

Till(1):
Now I will explain the difference in Turkel and me.

Turkel(2):
This is merely a statement of our opponent's intent,

Till(2):
I smell another dodge coming up.

Turkel(2):
and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

Till(2):
I was right. Watch for the word count coming up.

Till(1):
If he should make such a statement in an article I was rebutting, I would say, "Okay, Bud, you're on.

Turkel(2):
That our opponent is reactionary enough to reply so quickly and so readily to such a non-specific "challenge" says volumes about his level of personal overconfidence,

Till(2):
I wonder why Turkel doesn't accept the challenge and punch a hole in my "personal overconfidence." This really isn't a matter of overconfidence. It is a matter of having researched a subject longer than Turkel has been alive and having seen from that research that claims of biblical prophecy fulfillment are indefensible. I think readers, who have the patience to wade through Turkel's maze of cut-and-pasted distractions, will be able to see through Turkel's excuse-making. He avoids the subject of prophecy fulfillment because....

Oh, I forgot, I forgot! He doesn't have sufficient data.

Turkel(2):
and suggests that he fits very well in the category of persons described here. However, it is nothing but a boast that demonstrates our opponent's own rashness,

Till(2):
If it is "rashness," then why doesn't Turkel really humiliate me and accept the challenge? He can't say that he has no interest in humiliating me, because anyone who goes to his website and browses around will quickly see that I have been a frequent target for him. Now that circumstances have changed to give me the time and the means to go after Turkel, all of a sudden he doesn't seem to be too interested in me.

Turkel(2):
and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

Till(2):
The comments were made in reference to material that Turkel himself entered into the debate, so we see his tactic. He will introduce material but then refuse to comment on whatever I might say in response to it.

Anyway, this is just another of his cut-and-pasted distractions. Look for the count coming up soon.

Till(1):
[If he should make such a statement in an article I was rebutting, I would say, "Okay, Bud, you're on.] After we have debated the ‘successful prophecy' that errantists never say much about, we will then go to the other ‘many genuine prophecy fulfillments that inerrantists can point to' and debate them."

Turkel(2):
That our opponent is reactionary enough to reply so quickly and so readily to such a non-specific "challenge,"

Till(2):
My position is that no one can prove a single verifiable case of biblical prophecy fulfillment. The very nature of the claim that biblical prophecies were fulfilled is such that it cannot be defended. If Turkel thinks that this is a "reactionary" position, why doesn't he call my hand and present a fulfillment claim that he thinks is defensible? Obviously, he has failed to show that Yahweh's land promise was fulfilled. Perhaps he would have better luck with another fulfillment claim. How about the virgin-birth prophecy? How about the prophecy that the Messiah would rise from the dead on the third day? How about the prophecy that whoever rebuilt Jericho would do so at the cost of two of his sons?

I have lots of suggestions.

Turkel(2):
and that he supposes everyone else should be as reactionary as he is in such vases [sic], says volumes about his level of personal overconfidence,

Till(2):
Why doesn't Turkel want to deal that "personal overconfidence" a death blow by accepting my challenge to debate biblical prophecy fulfillments?

Turkel(2):
and suggests that he fits very well in the category of persons described here.

Till(2):

The word here was a link to an article on psychological personalities, which in places seemed to describe Turkel quite well. At any rate, Turkel can hardly write a civil sentence on his website without resorting to sarcasm and insults, so someone with a personality disorder as obvious as his has little room to psychoanalyze others.

Since there is nothing at all specific in the statement Turkel just made, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and he cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible readers.

Hey, cutting and pasting can be fun.

Turkel(2)
However, it is nothing but a boast that demonstrates our opponent's own rashness,

Till(2):
Why doesn't Turkel accept the challenge to debate prophecy fulfillment so that he can expose my rashness and really humiliate me?

Turkel(2):
and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

Till(2):
Straw man! Since my statements were made in response to material that Turkel himself entered into the debate, I was entitled to comment on it.

Watch for the word count in Turkel's cut-and-pasted distractions.

Till(1):
Turkel can consider this a formal challenge.

Turkel(2):
Unlike our opponent, we are not reactionary enough to reply so quickly and so readily to such a non-specific "challenge,"

Till(2):
Well, what about the specific challenges that I listed above, i.e., the virgin-birth prophecy, the third-day resurrection prophecy, etc. Are these specific enough to his liking? If not, I can post several other suggestions.

I hope Turkel's fans are seeing that when he is in a forum where his opponent can reply to him, he isn't quite as bold as he is on his website.

Turkel(2):
and will issue and take our challenges with care and discretion that our opponent lacks as one who fits the profile outlined here.

Till(2):
He will take his challenges with such "care and discretion" that he winds up taking none of the challenges. As for the profiles outlined here, Mr. Congeniality would spend his time better trying to improve his own profile.

Turkel(2):
Beyond that, this is nothing but a boast that demonstrates our opponent's own rashness,

Till(2):
So why won't Turkel, who couldn't seem to get enough of "replying" to me in the hatchet jobs that he posted on his closed website, take advantage of an opportunity to expose my "rashness" before an audience where I would be forced to sit and take it.

Turkel(2):
and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

Till(2):
My comments were made in response to material that he himself entered into the debate. Anyway, watch for the count of words that Turkel has wasted in his cut-and-pasted distractions.

Till(1):
All I will demand is that when we debate those many other genuine prophecy fulfillments, he will (1) agree to negotiate guidelines, and (2) agree to publish links to my articles on his website.

Turkel(2):
As this is what we are doing now, and as we have explained why our opponent's demands otherwise are rooted in a lack of cognizance of fundamental search principles,

Till(2):
So when is Turkel going to give his readers links to my replies to articles about me that he posted on his closed website? Those articles have been posted here, here, and here for a over a week now.

Turkel(2):
we have nothing to add to the above other than noting that this is yet more repetitive space-filler.

Till(2):
Turkel has the gall to talk about "space-filler"?

Till(1):
I will let him hide partially by refusing to put my articles on his site, but I will insist on links.

Turkel(2):
As we explained repeatedly to our opponent in email, and to which he had no reply in the end, having his material sitting on our site adds nothing to any person's ability to locate articles.

Till(1):
It does if Turkel is going to make his links as inconspicuous as possible by putting them at the end of a 1300-word posting or by not putting links at all as in the case of the two articles referenced immediately above.

Turkel(2):
Our opponent's demands are rooted in a lack of cognizance of fundamental search principles,

Till(2):
Just as articles posted on 100 websites are likely to be seen by more readers than if the article were posted on just one, so articles posted on two sites will be seen by more readers than if they were posted on just one. This is especially true if one website owner makes his links as inconspicuous as possible.

Turkel(2):
we have nothing to add to the above other than noting that this is yet more repetitive space-filler.

Till(2):
Turkel has the gall to talk about "repetitive space-filler"? Watch for the count of the words he has wasted so far on cut-and-pasted comments.

Till(1):
If he will agree to provide them, he will have another opportunity to "grind me down to size."

Turkel(2):
As this offers nothing that is not said by our opponent above, it is merely repetitious, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary, now offered twice, requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
Watch for the word count.

Till(2):
For those who may not understand my references to this expression, I'll point out that Turkel boasted on his website that he was busy grinding me down to size.

Turkel(2):
No specific quote of me is offered, but I have stated on various occassions [sic] to various persons that I have been taking our opponent "down to size" (not necessarily those exact words).

Till(2):
Turkel once boasted on his site that he was busy grinding Farrell Till down to size, but his search program is too inefficient to locate the statement now. Anyway, he admitted that he has made such statements on his site, so I dare him to take advantage of the opportunity to grind me down to size. I think he is seeing that there is a big difference to boasting to a closed audience and in making good on the boast in a forum where his readers will see what his opponents say.

Turkel(2):
Even so, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary, now offered twice, requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
Watch for the word count.

Till(1):
He has a challenge before him, so now it is time for Turkel to put up or shut up. I predict he will do neither.

Turkel(2):
As this is what I am now doing, we once again move online to http://www.eatcrow.com to purchase a heaping helping of avian for our opponent.

Till(2):
If Turkel really wanted me to eat crow, he would accept a challenge to debate biblical prophecy fulfillment and give me a good shellacking in front of our audience. As it is, he evades the challenges with cut-and-pasted distractions. Watch for the word count.

Turkel(2):
Beyond that, this is nothing but boasting,

Till(2):
When a biblicists joins an internet site that I contribute to and then boasts about en error-free Bible or amazing prophecy fulfillments or scientific evidence of the Bible's divine origin or such like, I delight in calling this person's bluff, because I know that I can... well, I know that I can make him eat crow.

If readers will go to Turkel's website and type my name into his search window [such as it is], they will find dozens of references to me, so he obviously has had an intense interest in trying to discredit me in his closed forum, so why does he show no such interest now that he is in a forum where his readers will see what I say?

Turkel(2):
and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to gain points with a skeptical readership.

Till(2):
Watch for the word count.

Turkel(2):
On the point of this not being an argument it is said:

Till[quoted by Turkel]:
No, it isn't, but it is an assertion that was made for introductory purposes.

Turkel(2):
If this is indeed all that it is, as our opponent admits, then it is not necessary to quote this in a reply,

Till(1):
Yes, it is, because this was a comment that I made in response to material that Turkel himself introduced into this debate. Once he had introduced it, I was entitled to comment on it. Essentially, what he is saying is that he is entitled to introduce material into the debate but that if I comment on what he introduces, it isn't necessary for him to respond to it. If he had cooperated in negotiating a set of guidelines before the debate began, perhaps he would have had a better understanding of how a written debate should be conducted.

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.

Till(2):
Watch for the word count.

Till(1):
If Turkel made an assertion that I didn't agree with, I would challenge him to defend it, and I have just challenged him to defend some of his beliefs about biblical prophecies.

Turkel(2):
The issue is not whether an assertion was made, but whether it is not necessary to quote this in a reply.

Till(2):
When Turkel entered into the record what he considered to be irrelevant material, I then had the right [as his opponent] to comment on what he had said about the material. Let's hope that Turkel now understands the importance of working out guidelines before a debate begins.

Turkel(2):
As our opponent merely dodges the question,

Till(2):
I really didn't see a question that I had dodged. If Turkel thinks I have dodged one, then I will answer it if he will point out the question.

Turkel(2):
he has yet to explain why it is necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
I have explained it probably no more than 50 times. Turkel is too ignorant of formal debating procedures to understand it. Anyway, watch for the word count.

Till(1):
In such a debate, I would assume the burden of proof on some of the prophecies, and by the time we had finished, our readers would be able to make their own decisions about whose position had prevailed.

Turkel(2):
The issue is not what our opponent would or would not do in a debate,

Till(2):
Did everyone see the dodge?

Turkel(2):
but whether it is not necessary to quote this in a reply. As our opponent merely dodges the question,

Till(2):
Here Turkel is talking again about a "dodged question." There was no question involved here. He cuts-and-pastes so perfunctorily that he doesn't even know half the time that what he is cutting and pasting doesn't apply to the situation.

Anyway, watch for the word count.

Turkel(2):
he has yet to explain why it is necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
Yes, watch for the count.

Till(1):
I'm willing to do this, but I doubt that Turkel is.

Turkel(2):
The issue is not what our opponent would or would not be willing to do in a debate,

Till(2):
Did everyone see Turkel take another dive? When he isn't preaching to his choir on his closed website, he isn't quite so arrogant, is he?

Turkel(2):
but whether it is not necessary to quote this in a reply. As our opponent merely dodges the question, he has yet to explain why it is necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
Watch for the count.

Till(1):
Turkel may be surprised how much time I have put into researching biblical prophecies.

Turkel(2):
Amount of time spent is not equal to quality and understanding.

Till(2):
I would think that Turkel would be eager to show everyone just how much I lack in understanding the subject of prophecy fulfillment, but apparently he isn't. Once he runs back to his closed website, I expect his chest pounding will resume.

Turkel(2):
At any rate, the issue is not what time our opponent spends, but whether it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, or whether it is indeed just inserted for manipulative and polemical purposes to score points, and whether this is the only reason, as opposed to contextual fidelity concerning the primary argument ("Yahweh's Land Promise"), our opponent demands that we quote EVERYTHING he writes. As our opponent merely dodges the question, he has yet to explain why it is necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
It's getting harder and harder for me to continue typing, because I keep hearing chickens clucking. Watch for the word count.

Till(1):
I'm confident enough of my position to present to him the challenges that I made above. Is he confident enough in his position to accept the challenges?

Turkel(2):
As this does no more than repeat what is said above, and further emphasizes our opponent as being one who fits the profile outlined here,

Till(2):
Talk about "dodged questions." Did everyone see the one that Turkel just dodged? He thinks that linking to an article in psychology will cover the obvious fact that he is... well, too chicken to defend biblical prophecy.

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.

Till(2):
Watch for the word count.

Till(1):
As for the "nebulous barrier of time," surely Turkel isn't so naive that he thinks I could have discussed all biblical prophecy claims in just a five-page article.

Turkel(2):
The issue is not whether our opponent has managed all these issues in a five page article, which has never been argued or said,

Till(2):
Yes, the issue is whether "our opponent" could have managed all these prophetic issues in a five-page article, because Turkel, who unilaterally began this debate without an agreement on guidelines, chose to inject into the debate my comments made in the introduction of my article, so that made this an issue. Furthermore, he did make a comment about the lack of specific references in my comment about prophecies. As proof, I will quote what he said.

As it [my reference to New Testament prophecy claims] is but a distraction, and as it contains no specifics, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Right after this, he said...

It is a manipulative, tactical way of giving the false impression that our opponent has carefully looked into every possible example of alleged prophecy fulfillment and critically determined that they have all failed, and that only the nebulous barrier of "time" makes it impossible to elucidate every example.

Therefore, my statement that I could not be expect to discuss all New Testament prophecy fulfillment claims in a five-page article is indeed an issue now, because I said it in response to material that he himself had introduced into the debate. I will now appeal to recognized standards of formal debate and ask Turkel to reply to a point that I made in direct reference to an issue that he injected into the debate.

Turkel(2):
but whether it is not necessary to quote his claim to have discussed all such claims, in a reply on one particular claim. As our opponent merely dodges the question, he has yet to explain why it is necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, beyond a desire to score debate points with skeptical readers.

Till(2):
Watch for the count of words that Turkel has wasted in cutting and pasting this dodge.

Till(1):
If Turkel thinks there is no problem worth responding to in my introductory paragraph, then he should jump at the opportunity to debate several aspects of biblical prophecy fulfillment so that he can demonstrate to our readers just how wrong I am about biblical prophecies.

Turkel(2):
As this is what I am now doing,

Till(2):
This is what Turkel is now doing? Would someone help me out and identify the "several aspects of biblical prophecy fulfillment" that Turkel is now debating? This guy doesn't even pay attention to what he is saying. I have proposed several aspects of biblical prophecy fulfillment, but the only one Turkel has indicated he is willing to debate is the Tyre issue. Well, let me modify that statement. He has indicated only a willingness to debate Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre. He declined to debate Isaiah's prophecy against Tyre on the grounds that he has "insufficient data."

So just what are these "several aspects of biblical prophecy fulfillment" that Turkel is now debating.

Turkel(2):
we once again move online to http://www.eatcrow.com to purchase a heaping helping of avian for our opponent.

Till(2):
When Turkel identifies the "several aspects of biblical prophecy fulfillment that he is now debating," I'll eat all of the crow in just one sitting.

Turkel(2):
Beyond that, this is nothing but a repeat of what has been offered above, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to gain points with a skeptical readership.

Till(2):
Here's another dodge, of course. Watch for the word count.

Till(1):
Will he jump at this chance? Will he even crawl toward it? I predict that we won't even be able to drag him into a debate on the subject.

Turkel(2):
As this is still what I am now doing, we once again move online to http://www.eatcrow.com to purchase a heaping helping of avian for our opponent, whose house will now be overflowing with black feathers and noisy birdcalls.

Till(2):
Since my statement clearly stated that Turkel should jump at the opportunity to debate several aspects of biblical prophecy, he should delay plans to ship the crow. Now that he is fleecing the sheep to make his living, contributors to his full-time "apologetic ministry" probably wouldn't like for him to waste money shipping crow that won't have to be eaten.

Perhaps he would like to list the several aspects of biblical prophecy that he is now debating. He isn't even debating the land-promise prophecy but is doing everything he can to sabotage the debate.

Turkel(2):
Beyond that, this is nothing but a repeat of what has been offered above, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to gain points with a skeptical readership.

Till(2):
Watch for the word count.

Till(1):
What I have said above is sufficient to show that in a written debate, readers are entitled to see everything that both parties say.

Turkel(2):
As yet our opponent has provided no proof of any such "entitlement" as we have noted above.

Till(2):
But I suppose that Turkel thinks that he is entitled to decide what readers should and should not see in the materials submitted by his opponents.

Turkel is complaining about a situation that he himself created. If he had cooperated in negotiating a written agreement before the debate, we would have had guidelines to structure it. As it is, Turkel has cut and pasted the debate into a farce that few people will bother to read.

I suspect that this is what he wanted.

Till(1):
My comments above will also show that Turkel is skittish about debating the subject of prophecy fulfillment.

Turkel(2):
As this is still what I am now doing, our opponent had best build a new barn to store all of that incoming crow.

Till(2):
A list of propositions on prophecy fulfillment was presented to Turkel. He rejected all of them except the land-promise matter and Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre. He pled that he lacked "sufficient data" to debate the others. I have been unable to get him to indicate any New Testament prophecy-fulfillment claim that he is willing to defend.

I call that "skittish" about debating prophecy fulfillment, so he should hold up on shipping the crow.

Turkel(2):
Beyond that, this is nothing but a repeat of what has been offered above, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to gain points with a skeptical readership.

Till(2):
Watch for the word count.

Till(1):
His performance in trying to rebut the rest of my article should tell readers why he isn't too enthusiastic about trying to defend biblical prophecies.

Turkel(2):
This is nought but pep-rallying. It is just as easy for me to say, "Our opponent's performance in trying to rebut the rest of my article should tell readers why he isn't too enthusiastic about trying to defend biblical prophecies." Is this an argument? No, it is a bald attempt to score points.

Till(2):
If it isn't an argument, then guidelines agreed upon prior to the debate would have eliminated any need to mention it, but Turkel wouldn't cooperate with me to negotiate an agreement. Thus, he continues to complain about a situation of his own creation.

As for the bald attempt to score points, the best way for Turkel to silence me on this would be to call my bluff. Why doesn't he?

Turkel(2):
It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, an