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

Till(1):
Balaam, the prophet who got a bum rap in the New Testament, lived in Pethor in Mesopotamia, but as the yarn about him was spun in Numbers 22-24, he was a believer in the Hebrew god Yahweh.

Turkel(2):
Whether one was a "believer" in a given god was not at issue. The nations readily recognized the existence of the gods of the other nations, or even worshipped the gods of other nations (although often as a local manifestation) even within their own nations, and we have never argued that they did not do so.

Till(2):
Why would they have done this at a time when this "ancient concept" of land-deity-people was so deeply ingrained? The only reasonable conclusion is that it was not nearly so ingrained as Turkel is claiming. It was a concept that apparently took a back seat to other factors, such as social contacts, that I discussed in detail in Part Five.

Turkel(2):
What is at issue is the god to whom the person owed supreme loyalty, as the god who was "owner" and landlord of the land,

Till(2):
If the people of the time felt that they "owed supreme loyalty" to the gods who were the "owners and landlords" of the land, then why were there so many examples recorded of times when people worshiped the gods of other lands? At times, the Israelites worshiped the gods of Syria, Sidon, Moab, Ammon, etc., even though they were living on land that, according to Turkel, required them to give "supreme loyalty" to Yahweh. Obviously, social influence and contacts were huge factors in the religious choices of the people of biblical times just as they are today. People today adopt religious beliefs in order to please spouses, relatives, friends, and the general society they live in, so there is no reason to think that this wasn't done in the "ancient" times that Turkel keeps talking about.

Turkel is spinning his wheels on this quibble and getting nowhere.

Turkel(2):
and it is in that context that the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity comes into play.

Till(2):
I have shown that this "Ancient Near Eastern context" was not at all the factor that Turkel claims it was. If it were as deeply ingrained in the thinking of the times as Turkel claims, all of the examples of worshiping foreign gods (which was by no means exhaustive) that I have previously cited would not have happened. Such incidents would have been infrequent if this "concept" had been as deeply instilled in the thinking of the times as Turkel claims, but the "inspired, inerrant word of God," which Turkel believes in, presented idolatry as a constant problem throughout the history of the Israelites, who lived in a land that, according to Turkel's theory, should have required them to give their supreme loyalty to Yahweh.

Turkel(2):
Balaam certainly believed in Yahweh and recognized his power.

Till(2):
Even though he lived in Mesopotamia, a land that according to this "ancient concept" would have been "owned" by other deities to whom Balaam would have owed his loyalty.

Turkel(2):
However, there is no evidence that he gave supreme loyalty to Yahweh over any other deity.

Till(2):
When I saw this, I wondered if Turkel had ever bothered to read Balaam's story as recorded in Numbers 22-25. The chapters are too long to quote, but I urge everyone to take the time to read them. In all of his dealings with Balak and the emissaries of Balak, Balaam never referred to any deity but Yahweh, and he repeatedly told Balak and his emissaries that he would speak nothing against Israel but would say only what Yahweh would tell him. Balaam spoke of Yahweh only in terms of sincere acceptance and devotion, and the way this story was recorded, Balaam's devotion to Yahweh was about as "supreme" as possible.

Turkel(2):
The Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity would suggest that Balaam gave supreme loyalty to whatever deity was associated with Pethor in Mesopotamia, if indeed that was his normative place of residence.

Till(2):
Oh, is that so? Maybe Turkel would like to quote specific language in the biblical story of Balaam that would support his claim that "Balaam gave supreme loyalty to whatever deity was associated with Pethor in Mesopotamia."

By the way, I assume that those who understand basic principles of logic saw how Turkel begged the question above. He first assumed that this "Ancient Near Eastern" concept that he has been ranting about is true; then after making this assumption, he declared that since this ancient concept is true, Balaam would have given his "supreme loyalty to whatever deity was associated with Pethor in Mesopotamia."

I have shown, however, that Turkel's "ancient concept" was not as deeply ingrained as he wants everyone to believe.

Turkel(2):
However, there is no evidence at all in terms of which deity Balaam gave most allegiance to,

Till(2):
What evidence we have of Balaam's religious loyalties is found only in Numbers 22-24, and anyone who reads it will see that, as this yarn was written, Balaam appealed to no deity but Yahweh and didn't even hint at any time of any kind of allegiance to other deities. To claim that Balaam owed supreme loyalty to some deity other than Yahweh would be an argument from silence.

Turkel(2):
and thus also no evidence at all that contradicts (or supports) our premise concerning the association of land, people, and deity in the Ancient Near East.

Till(2):
I'm sure that readers realize by now that Turkel's "Ancient Near East" concept of land, people, and deity has been ripped to pieces and danced upon.

By the way, how many readers are noticing that Turkel makes no attempt at all to prove that this "ancient concept" he keeps appealing to was as deeply ingrained as he keeps claiming? He seems to think that if he keeps repeating it, this will substitute for real evidence.

Till(1):
When Jacob went to Paddan-aram, he worked for his uncle Laban, who worshiped idols and accused Jacob of stealing his "gods" when Jacob left with his families to return to Canaan (Gen. 31:30), but Jacob didn't change his god while he was living in Paddan-aram.

Turkel(2):
Jacob certainly did not change his gods, and that is because, as we have clearly stressed, but as our opponent has missed in terms of application, the Israelites understood matters somewhat differently in light of Yahwism, for they understood Yahweh to be the owner of all of the land, even foreign lands, rather than other deities being in charge of it.

Till(2):
I suppose this "understanding" of the Israelites would explain why they at times worshiped the Baalim and the Asheroth (Judges 3:7), Baal-berith (Judges 8:33), the gods of Syria, Sidon, Moab, Ammon, and Philistia (Judges 10:6), etc., etc., etc. They had this deeply ingrained "ancient concept" that Yahweh owned all the land, and so they worshiped the foreign gods of the nations around them. How much sense does that make?

Turkel(2):
So likewise we would expect Jacob to recognize that the usual paradigm of changing gods with lands would not apply where Yahweh was concerned. Our opponent clearly misses this application.

Till(2)
Did I clearly miss "this application" when I noted that the Israelites at various times worshiped the gods of Syria, Sidon, Moab, Ammon, Philistia, golden calves, etc., etc., etc."

Till(1):
Solomon married foreign wives who worshiped other gods and enticed Solomon to worship them, but Solomon and his wives lived on Yahweh's turf.

Turkel(2):
This does not in any sense refute our point about the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity,

Till(2):
Well, of course, it doesn't, because nothing, no matter how crystal clear it may be would ever refute any point that Turkel offers in explanation of glaring biblical consistencies. When Ruth 1:16 made reference to Ruth's telling Naomi that her god would be her god, this became conclusive proof that in those ancient times when a person went from one land to another he/she changed gods, although the text says nothing at all about the change being made because of the belief that Turkel is touting, but when example after example tells of Israelites who lived in Israel but worshiped the gods of foreign nations around them or of foreigners, like Solomon's wives, who moved into Israel but still worshiped their national gods, that doesn't prove a thing. Just ask Turkel. He'll tell you.

Turkel(2):
for it does not specify whether Solomon or his wives gave any of these other gods supreme loyalty over Yahweh or any of the other gods, and if they did, why they did (i.e., did they think Yahweh was not supreme in Israel and owner of the land?). It does not give any specific information about how they ranked the deities in a hierarchy; it does not explain their relationship with Yahweh, or whether there was any to speak of.

Till(2):
Turkel's premise is that (1) there was an "Ancient Near Eastern" concept that made people give "supreme loyalty to the god thought to own the land they lived in, (2) Israelites had a special understanding that Yahweh owned all of the land everywhere, and (3) the Israelites gave Yahweh their supreme loyalty because of this special understanding, so if this premise was as deeply ingrained as Turkel keeps claiming, Israelites with their "special understanding" would have given Yahweh their "supreme loyalty" no matter what land they were in. The only problem is that this special understanding that Turkel claims for the Israelite doesn't quite mesh with the biblical record, because there are various examples in the Bible of Israelites who worshiped gods other than Yahweh.

Now Turkel comes along to tell us that the example of Solomon and his wives "does not in any sense refute [his] point about the Ancient Near Eastern context between [sic] a land, its people, and their deity," because the Bible doesn't specify whether Solomon and his wives gave "supreme loyalty" to those other gods over Yahweh. I see. Why didn't I think of that? I guess maybe I was thinking of all the biblical texts that indicate that worshiping other gods was not giving supreme loyalty to Yahweh. Has Turkel never read these passages?

Exodus 20:2 I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
3 you shall have no other gods before me.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I Yahweh your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Exodus 34:12 Take care not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are going, or it will become a snare among you.
13 You shall tear down their altars, break their pillars, and cut down their sacred poles
14 (for you shall worship no other god, because Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God).
15 You shall not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to their gods, someone among them will invite you, and you will eat of the sacrifice.
16 And you will take wives from among their daughters for your sons, and their daughters who prostitute themselves to their gods will make your sons also prostitute themselves to their gods.
17 You shall not make cast idols.

Notice in particular verses 15 and 16, which say exactly what I have said in rebuttal of Turkel's claim that his "Ancient Near Eastern" concept was so deeply engrained that people instinctively worshiped the gods of whatever lands they were in. These verses recognized that social contacts, such as invitations to eat and marriage, would influence people's choices of gods.

Deuteronomy 4:23 So be careful not to forget the covenant that Yahweh your God made with you, and not to make for yourselves an idol in the form of anything that Yahweh your God has forbidden you.
24 For Yahweh your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God.

In view of crystal clear passages like these, Turkel is resorting to flagrant quibbling when he tries to explain away the problem that Solomon and his wives posed to this "Ancient Near Eastern" concept of land, people, and their deity by saying, "Well, these examples don't refute anything, because we don't know if Solomon and his wives were giving ‘supreme loyalty' to those other gods." Regardless of what kind of "loyalty" they were giving to the other gods, they were not giving their supreme loyalty to Yahweh, and that was what his "inspired, inerrant word" demanded. The following passage clearly shows that whoever wrote it thought that Solomon had turned away from following Yahweh.

1 Kings 11:11:1 King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women,
2 from the nations concerning which Yahweh had said to the Israelites, "You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you; for they will surely incline your heart to follow their gods"; Solomon clung to these in love.
3 Among his wives were seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart.
4 For when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not true to Yahweh his God, as was the heart of his father David.

I'll interrupt at this point to notice that the writer of this text attributed Solomon's worship of other gods to the very factors that I have said were more influential than this "Ancient Near Eastern concept" that Turkel has been touting. He turned to other gods because of the social influences of his marriages with foreign women. That obviously exercised more influence on him than this "Ancient Near Eastern concept" that Turkel keeps talking about.

5 For Solomon followed Astarte the goddess of the Sidonians, and Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
6 So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and did not completely follow Yahweh, as his father David had done.
7 Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountain east of Jerusalem.

Notice that the last verse quoted above called Chemosh and Molech "abominations." Turkel said earlier that he is an "agnostic" on the issue of whether gods like Chemosh existed, but his "inspired, inerrant word of God" called these gods abominations and said elsewhere that there is only one God. I point this out to underscore the type of quibbling that Turkel invariably resorts to when he confronts evidence in obvious conflict with his view of the Bible.

8 He did the same for all his foreign wives, who offered incense and sacrificed to their gods.
9 Then Yahweh was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from Yahweh, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice,
10 and had commanded him concerning this matter, that he should not follow other gods; but he did not observe what Yahweh commanded.

Consider the absurdity of this part of the passage, if you will. Solomon lived at a time and in a place where people had "special understanding" about this "Ancient Near Eastern concept" that Turkel constantly falls back on when confronted with serious problems in his "explanation" of the land-promise discrepancy, and in addition to having the advantage of this "special understanding," Yahweh had appeared to Solomon twice and given him commandments that he should not follow other gods. Nevertheless, despite all of these advantages, plus the incredible divine wisdom that had been given to him, Solomon turned to worshiping other gods besides Yahweh and did so right in the very land that Yahweh owned.

I'm sure Turkel can see the inconsistencies in this theory of his, but getting him to admit it will be another thing. He will come back, ignore all of my counterarguments, and still assert, without proof, that the "Ancient Near Eastern concept of land, people, and their deity" explains why Yahweh's land promise to the Israelites didn't fail.

11 Therefore Yahweh said to Solomon, "Since this has been your mind and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and give it to your servant."

That was rather unkind of Yahweh, wasn't it? After all, Solomon may not have given his "supreme loyalty" to those other gods.

Turkel(2):
Thus this point neither contradicts nor supports our premise concerning the association of land, people, and deity in the Ancient Near East. We have nowhere stated that recognition of a god as supreme in a new land, and as the owner and "landlord" in that land, meant that other gods could not be recognized or worshipped.

Till(2):
It does seem a bit strange, though, that the Israelites had all of this "special understanding" about Yahweh, yet they constantly turned to worshiping other deities right in the very land that he had "given" to them. These biblical tales about Israelite idolatry shoot a hole in Turkel's "Ancient Near Eastern concept" big enough to drive a Mack truck through.

Till(1):
I've seen quibbles before, but this one ranks close to the top.

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

Till(1):.
All of this aside, I wonder what the relevance of this tangent is.

Turkel(2):
The relevance of this tangent is that it establishes the context of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, within which the promises of land must be understood,

Till(2):
It establishes nothing of the sort. Those who have been attentive enough to Turkel's rantings to notice should be well aware that he has not at any time tried to give any evidence that this "Ancient Near Eastern context" was as deeply ingrained as he keeps claiming. He has merely asserted that this was a concept that explains away the failure of the land promise, but he has certainly presented no evidence to support the assertion. On the other hand, I have refuted the foundation stones of this claim with example after example that contradicts the basic claim.

I guess it is time again for me to cut and paste my detailed argument that was last quoted in Part Five. As I promised, whenever Turkel repeats his yakking about his "Ancient Near Eastern context," I will periodically quote my argument again to remind everyone that his assertion--not his argument, but his assertion--has been soundly rebutted.

1. Even if we accept, his "Ancient Near Eastern concept," he must explain why the land promise did not succeed even in the "context" of that ancient understanding. The words "give" and "possess" had meaning, so in the different versions of the promise in Genesis where Yahweh said that he would "give" the land to Abraham's descendants as an "everlasting possession," the terms "give" and "everlasting possession" were intended to convey some kind of meaning. Turkel says that they were used in a "feudal-landlord" sense in which the Israelites were to be "rentors [sic]," so I have asked him to explain to us when all the land within the defined borders of the promise was ever given to the Israelites even in this "feudal-landlord" sense of "tenancy." For all of his talk about having explained this "fully below," Turkel has done no such thing.

2. Turkel claims that the "Ancient Near Eastern" concept of land, people, and deity meant that conditions were attached to the promise and that the behavior of Abraham's descendants was a condition. In reply to this, I have noted that (1) no conditions were stated or implied anywhere in any of the versions of the promise recorded in Genesis, (2) the restatement of the promise in Deuteronomy 9:3ff declared that [a] Yahweh was giving the land to the Israelites even though they had been rebellious and unrighteous from the day they had come out of Egypt, and that [b] Yahweh was going to give them the land despite their unrighteousness so that he could keep a promise made to Abraham.

3. At the time that Yahweh renewed this promise to the Israelites, they had not even kept the rite of circumcision that Turkel said was the "entry ritual" into the covenant.

4. The renewal of the promise to these Israelites, despite their unrighteousness and failure at that time to be in covenant relationship with Yahweh, would necessarily show that Yahweh did not consider the promise made to Abraham to have been conditional to the behavior of his descendants. It is completely illogical to argue that the behavior of the Israelites was not a condition at the time that Yahweh renewed this promise but then immediately upon crossing the Jordan River, their obedience did become a condition that justified withholding from them the land that he had promised to Abraham.

5. Despite Turkel's claim that the book of Deuteronomy was a "suzerainty treaty," which made the land promise conditional, very reputable scholars like Frank Moore Cross, as I have previously noted, have cited examples from ancient treaties that show the suzerain aspect of the covenant meant only that the behavior of rulers was a factor but that the land promise was unconditional as far as the people in general were concerned.

6. Signs of retrospective editing in the book of Deuteronomy will explain why some version of the promise attached conditions, but regardless of what those conditional versions of the promise may have said, they are incompatible with Deuteronomy 9:3ff, which clearly excluded the righteousness of the Israelite people as a condition for receiving the land.

7. Even if I should concede to Turkel that he is absolutely right and that the land promise was conditional to the behavior of Israelites--which is a concession that would not be supported by the evidence--that concession would not explain the second major problem identified in my article "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise." That problem is that Deuteronomy and/or the book of Joshua said that [a] no man of the Canaanite nations would be able to stand against the Israelites, [b] the Israelites would drive out and utterly destroy all of the Amorites, Hittites, Hivites, etc., [c] the Israelites possessed all of the land that Yahweh had promised them, and [d] not one of the promises that Yahweh made to Israel through Moses had failed, but later Joshua and subsequent books said that [a] the Israelites had not been able to drive out and utterly destroy some of the Canaanites and Jebusites, [b] the Israelites had not possessed all of the land that Yahweh had promised them, and [c] Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Jebusites, Perizzites, and Amorites remained in the land as late as the reign of Solomon. These are clear inconsistencies that Turkel has not explained "fully below" and will not, and never will be able to, explain fully below.

8. Number 7 is a clear case of the Bible's saying P in some places but ~P in other places, and it is not possible for P and ~P both to be true.

As I said before, if Turkel keeps chanting his mantra about an "Ancient Near Eastern concept" that explains everything about the failure of Yahweh's land promise, I will simply cut and paste this rebuttal again with a request that he finally recognize his duties as a participant in a formal debate and try to answer the points this time.

Turkel(2):
and our opponent has not refuted this connection with his "thrown in the air" non-examples.

Till(2):
I ask readers to take notice of a primary difference in Turkel and me. As I just showed above, I reply with detailed rebuttals; Turkel "replies" with assertions that simply amount to saying, "It ain't so."

Till(1):
Yahweh clearly promised to "give" a land with clearly defined boundaries to the Israelites so that they could "possess" it, and it didn't happen.

Turkel(2):
We clearly show below that within the context of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, and by proper understanding of the genre of Deuteronomy, to say nothing of competent reading of the text, the promises of land were conditional****

Till(2):
See what I mean. Turkel's style is denial by assertion. Since I have delineated another rebuttal argument that supplements my rebuttal of his "conditional" claim, I will requote it below with a request that Turkel answer it this time.

I have read all of Turkel's reply, but nowhere in that reply did he explain how P and ~P can both be simultaneously true.

1. The Israelites possessed all of the land that Yahweh promised to give to Abraham's descendants.

2. The Israelites did not possess all of the land that Yahweh promised to give to Abraham's seed.

The Bible made both claims, so all I want Turkel to do is explain to us how statements 1 and 2 could both be true statements. It doesn't matter what "possessed" meant to the ancient Hebrew mind. Let it mean "tenancy," "occupation," "feudal possession," "renting," "squatting on," whatever. How could both 1 and 2 be true statements.

I'll eagerly wait to see if Turkel can finally explain to us how P and ~P can both be true.

Till(1):
Turkel can't explain that away by talking irrelevantly about "ancient concepts" of "land-people-deity" relationships.

Turkel(2):
The context of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is not irrelevant at all, and our opponent's lame effort to merely wave it away is a non-rebuttal and a distraction,

Till(2):
I urge everyone to notice what I have pointed out before. Turkel doesn't present supporting arguments. He simply makes unsupported assertions. When has he ever developed this "Ancient Near Eastern context" that he keeps chanting about to show us that it was unequivocally a concept so deeply ingrained in the culture of the time that it explains why the land-promise wasn't fulfilled? He has never done this, but that doesn't keep him from cutting and pasting his canned "response."

Turkel(2):
as his efforts to refute it have miserably failed.

Till(2):
I find this statement very interesting. Does everyone remember when Turkel said the following?

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, as is clear, he needs the distracting commentary ("miserably", "would-be apologist", "doesn't have what it takes") to shore up his case, which otherwise apparently would not stand on its own without decoration.

That statement sounds familiar, doesn't it? It should, because Turkel has cut and pasted the first half of it into his cranked-out replies probably no more than a hundred times. Notice the last part, which I emphasized in bold print. Are we now entitled to assume that Turkel's use of the word miserably to say that my efforts to refute [his "Ancient Near Eastern concept] "have miserably failed" is just "distracting commentary... to shore up his case, which otherwise apparently would not stand on its own without decoration"?

We probably can't assume this, because we have all noticed by now that Turkel uses a double standard in debating. What is proof for him is not proof for his opponent, and what refutes his opponent doesn't refute him. He sees all kinds of "implicit" details in scriptures he quotes, but unless his opponents' scripture quotations spell everything out in explicit detail, you will see him saying, "The text does not say...."

I just have to ask a question of Turkel's admirers who may have had the perseverance to last this long in trying to read his marathon cut-and-paste jobs. Is this the guy that so many of you wrote to me to ask, "Why don't you reply to ‘James Patrick Holding'"?

Till(1):
Does he believe that the Hebrew god Yahweh exists and that he is the only true god? Does he believe that this Yahweh's word is as good as gold? If so, how does he explain the problem I identified in my article?

Turkel(2):
We have already explained the "problem" by demonstrating and explicating, above and below, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, and of the contractual/conditional nature of Deuteronomy and the promises****

Till(2):
And blah, blah, blah, and so on and so forth. Turkel cut and pasted the same old "Ancient Near Eastern context" drivel, but he didn't answer my questions, which I will just ask again and exercise my right as a participant in a formal debate to ask him to reply to them.

1. Do you believe that the Hebrew god Yahweh exists?

2. Do you believe that this god Yahweh is the only true god?

3. Do you believe that Yahweh's word is as good as gold?

4. If so, how do you explain the P and ~P problems that I have identified in my article?

Turkel(1):
This concept also makes sense of a passage some people find strange:

2 Kings 5:17 And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules' burden of earth? for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the LORD.

By Naaman's thinking, the only way one could worship a deity properly was to have a piece of the dirt that deity owned. That the land of Israel was not owned by the people, but by Yahweh, is made most clear in this verse:

Till(1):
I think that Turkel's spin on this verse is exactly right, but what does this do to explain the inconsistencies identified in my article?

Turkel(2):
Our opponent's inability to think inferentially aside, since he agrees with our "spin," he refutes his own contentions,

Till(2):
Oh, so I'm the one who can't think "inferentially"? That is downright funny coming from someone who is completely unable to think inferentially and recognize all of the textual clues that dispute his, er, Casey's claim that Abiathar was "a renowned priest whose named invoke[d] honoring the law" (see "Dear Abiathar"). All of the necessary implications were in different texts that I quoted (see "Huffing and Puffing") to show that Abiathar, rather than being the "stickler for the law" that Turkel claimed, had actually never made any recorded decisions concerning the law and had, in fulfillment of a prophecy against the "house of Eli," died in disgrace as a banished opponent of Yahweh's choice to succeed David on the throne of Israel. The implications almost scream from the printed page, but Turkel just couldn't see them, yet he has the gall to accuse me of not being able to think "inferentially."

Turkel(2):
for this verse clearly demonstrates the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity which understands the deity as the owner of the land and the people as merely tenants who have contractual obligations.

Till(2):
I acknowledged that Naaman's act of taking dirt from Israelite land back with him indicates that people then did associate land with deities, but my rebuttal argument, which Turkel has yet to answer, has been that this belief was not as deeply ingrained as Turkel wants us to believe. Some people today believe in the efficacy of talismen, and so they pray with rosaries or crucifixes. The fact that some do this, however, doesn't mean that all people in our culture are mentally crippled with such superstitions. I'm going to dump a Turkel argument back into his lap. He says that Naaman's act "clearly demonstrates" the truth of the "Ancient Near Eastern concept" that he keeps touting, but the text doesn't specifically say that Naaman took the dirt back with him so that he would have in his possession land that Yahweh owned on which Naaman could then worship him. Has everyone noticed how many times Turkel will quibble that a text that works against him doesn't "specifically say" thus and so? Now I am applying this standard to him. I want him to show us where the text specifically says why Naaman took the dirt back with him. Naaman could have done this for no more reason than to have a talisman with him that he superstitiously believed would bring him good fortune. In other words, this dirt from Israel could have easily been Naaman's "rosary" to use in assisting him to worship Yahweh back in Syria.

Notice that Turkel said that to Naaman‘s thinking, the only way "one could worship a deity properly was to have a piece of the dirt that deity owned." Obviously, that thinking wasn't shared by everyone in biblical times, because I have cited examples of people who worshiped foreign gods while living somewhere besides on the land that the deities "owned." I doubt that they thought that they were not worshiping their gods "properly."

Till(1):
He said above that the Israelites "understood Yahweh to be the owner of all of the land," so does Turkel think this "ancient conception" of the Israelites was right and that Yahweh did own all the land?

Turkel(2):
This is a correct assessment of my position. I do think that Yahweh actually owned all the land.

Till(2):
Turkel thinks this, but at the same time, he claims that he is "agnostic" on the issue of whether Chemosh and other deities were real, but as I have pointed out before, consistency is not one of his virtues. When he needs to, he can be a dyed-in-the-wool believer in monotheism and proclaim that Yahweh is the only god, but if he needs to depend on a theory of "Ancient Near Eastern concepts" about deities to shore up his position, he can be "agnostic" on the existence of Chemosh or Molech. Whichever direction the wind is blowing will determine his belief.

Till(1):
If so, then what is his explanation for Yahweh's failure to give the Israelites all of the land he promised for them to "possess"?

Turkel(2):
We have already explained the "failure" by demonstrating and explicating, above and below,

Till(2):
"We" have? Well, will someone point out to me where this was done "above"? I seemed to have overlooked it. I read through his cut-and-pasted marathon quickly, so I may have overlooked it "below," but I read much more carefully above and just didn't see it. I saw where he made some unsupported assertions about "Ancient Near Eastern" concepts of land, people, and their deity, but I didn't see a bit of evidence that this "concept" was ingrained to the extent that he is claiming. Furthermore, I have cited considerable evidence that just isn't compatible with what Turkel is claiming. If I keep repeating the rebuttal evidence, perhaps it will sink into Turkel's inerrancy-numbed skull.

Perhaps pigs will fly someday too.

Three guesses what Turkel says next, and the first two don't count!

Turkel(2):
the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, and of the contractual/conditional nature of Deuteronomy and the promises, for it shows that Yahweh owned the land and that the people were "rentor." [sic]. Such rentors [sic] were under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land, and this context establishes the nature of the promises to Israel as well. Our opponent does not refute, and has not refuted, this point.

Till(2):
You guessed right, didn't you? Same song, 100th verse. When is Turkel ever going to support this claim with real evidence? When is he ever going to explain how the two statements below could possibly be compatible even in the "context" of this "Ancient Near Eastern concept" he keeps talking about?

1. No man among the seven nations in Canaan [Canaanites, Girgashites, Hittites, Hivites, Amorites, Perizzites, and Jebusites] would be able to stand before the Israelites all the days of their lives.

2. The Israelites were unable to drive out Canaanites, Jebusites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hittites, and Hivites, and so they were still dwelling in the promised land as late as the reign of Solomon.

The question is how could P and ~P both be true. Is Turkel ever going to tell us?

Till(1):
So far Turkel has said exactly nothing to explain this problem.

Turkel(2):
Our opponent's inability to grasp how the "problem" has been refuted is of little interest to us, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot****

Till(2):
Same song, 101st verse, so why bore readers with Turkel's evasions? As a participant in a formal debate, I am entitled to ask Turkel to reply to anything he "overlooks," so I am now asking him to tell us how P and ~P could both be true.

Turkel(1):

Lev. 25:23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.

On the other hand, we may see easily that the role of the people was that of a tenant in the land. This relationship of people to land and deity is clearly expressed here:

Till(2):
****

The asterisks replaced an exchange of barbs about "irrelevant distractions," after which I made the following comment about Turkel's scripture quotation above.

Now after emphasizing that "the role of people was that of a tenant," he needs to go a step further and show us how this "ancient concept" explains why Yahweh promised the Israelites that he would "give" [nathan] every scrap of land that their feet would tread upon from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great Sea to "possess" [yarash], and then didn't do it?

Turkel(2):
We fully explain above and below how the people's role as a tenant affects the land promises, and our opponent has provided no answer above that refutes this point, and has yet to address material below, so that this is substantially bluster that is intended to pre-empt the argument****

Till(2):
Same song, 102nd verse, so why bore readers with Turkel's cut-and-pasted evasions? I guess it is time to quote again my extended argument that clearly shows that Turkel has explained nothing, neither "above" nor "below."

3. At the time that Yahweh renewed this promise to the Israelites, they had not even kept the rite of circumcision that Turkel said was the "entry ritual" into the covenant.

8. Number 7 is a clear case of the Bible's saying P in some places but ~P in other places, and it is not possible for P and ~P both to be true.

I apologize to readers for repeating this argument, but I have learned through debating experience that hammering away at arguments an opponent is evading is the only way to get them to try to reply to them. Maybe the constant repetition of this argument will shame Turkel into trying to answer it.

Turkel(2):
Beyond that we would suggest that the very word "tenant" itself implies a contractual relationship of some level of formality which involves rules, regulations, and agreements, even if the agreement is that there are no rules and regulations to worry about.

Till(2):
My extended argument requoted immediately above shows that the land promise as originally made in Genesis several times and repeated to the Israelites, poised to cross into Canaan (Deut. 9:3ff), excluded any possibility that the land promise was conditional. Turkel has not answered this argument.

Turkel(2):
We clearly show below that the Scriptures in general, and Deuteronomy in particular, indisputably lay out the equivalent of rules, regulations, and agreements necessary for the Israelites to receive Yahweh's promises.

Till(2):
"Below," Turkel is always going to answer below. I have read "below," but I have not seen where he has shown what he claims here, because I have shown, as just noted, that the promise as renewed to the Israelites ready to cross into Canaan excluded any possibility that the promise was conditional to their behavior, because (1) the Israelites at that time were described as a completely rebellious and unrighteous people, who had been that way from the day they came out of Egypt, (2) the Israelites at that time had not even kept what Turkel claims was the "entry ritual" into the covenant, and (3) Yahweh said at this time that he had to give the land to the Israelites in order to keep his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I have repeatedly asked Turkel to explain how, under these circumstances, the promise could have been conditional to the behavior of the Israelites. If their total corruption before they crossed Canaan was not a reason to withhold the land, why would their behavior have become a condition after they crossed the Jordan? Turkel has not answered this question "below" or anywhere else.

Furthermore, I have quoted a respected biblical scholar, whose "lifeblood" has been biblical research, and he agreed that the land promise was unconditional, "thanks to the fidelity of Abraham." Turkel has not refuted this "below" or anywhere else.

Till(1):
All of Turkel's talk about "ancient concepts" of deity-land-possession does what to explain why the book of Joshua first said that Yahweh "gave unto Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers" (Josh. 11:23) but then later said that there remained "very much land" for the Israelites to possess (13:1)?

Turkel(2):
We have answered the matters of Josh. 11:23 and 13:1 below,

Till(2):
Common sense should tell readers that if Turkel had really answered this "below" or anywhere else, he would simply have quoted that "answer" here in order to have it on record at this point in the debate. After all, he continually cuts and pastes asinine comments like the one below, so why wouldn't he want to cut and paste a genuine rebuttal to put it into the debate record where I asked a question like the one above? He obviously hopes that if he keeps saying, "I have answered this below," gullible readers who won't take the time to study the debate will believe that he has answered it.

Turkel(2):
and if our opponent has any sense, or has indeed read our material hrough [sic], he is aware of this and is here being blatantly dishonest.

Till(2)
I have read Turkel's material "hrough [sic], so I know that he has not answered these questions, and he is being blatantly dishonest if he claims that he has. He has made a lot of unsupported assertions about the issue, but he has not made any real effort to sustain his assertions with evidence. I just quoted my extended rebuttal a few paragraphs above, so let's wait and see if he replies to it.

Turkel(2):
As it stands this is merely irrelevant pep-talk intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to****

Till(2):
I retained just enough of this cut-and-pasted evasion so that readers could consider again what I just said above. If Turkel had really given a satisfactory answer to the P and ~P problem that I have repeated several times, he would just quote that answer wherever I bring the issue up so that he would have it on record at that point. Instead, he cuts and pastes repeatedly evasive drivel like his comment above. He does so because he knows that he has not satisfactorily explain how P and ~P could both be true.

Till(1):
Does Turkel even understand what the issue is?

Turkel(2):
We have seen that our opponent has not even an elementary grasp of the issue of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, and cannot refute it.

Till(2):
All Turkel has done is to assert that this "Ancient Near Eastern context" satisfactorily explains why the land promise failed, but he has not produced any real evidence to sustain that assertion. On the other hand, I have soundly refuted it, and so Turkel's claim that I cannot refute it is a blatant lie. I won't requote my extended rebuttal of it at this point, because I have already entered it into the record three times in just this part of my reply. I will, however, ask Turkel to explain to us how a P statement in the book of Joshua [the Israelites possessed all the land Yahweh had promised them] and a ~P statement in Joshua [the Israelites did not possess all the land Yahweh had promised them] could both be true statements?

For his convenience, I will type a Turkel(3) below so that Turkel can conveniently cut and paste into the blank space after it his reply from "below" that satisfactorily explains how P and ~P can both be true statements.

Turkel(3):

Till(1):
*****

The **** was put where Turkel and I did some off-topic bantering on "transitional fluff."

Turkel(1):

Judges 11:24 Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess.

Judges 11:24 expresses in a microcosm the concpetual [sic] relationship between deity, land, and persons. The god is the one that gives and owns the land; the people possess it. The word "possess" here is the Hebew yarash, which we may now explain in more detail. It is used about 230 times in the OT; here is a Strong's definition, and some samples:

Till(1):
Yes, I have already said that the ignorant, uneducated people of ancient times had a belief that different gods reigned in different realms, but what does this do to resolve the inconsistencies identified in my article? Is Turkel actually arguing that ancient superstitious beliefs are the standard by which truth is to be determined?

Turkel(2):
What this "has to do" with the "inconsistencies, contraty [sic] to our opponent's pretense at being ignorant (which is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no explanation) is that it places the passages in the context of the Ancient Near Eastern relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, in which the people were "rentors"[sic] under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land.

Till(2):
Oh, I see. Then this seems to be Turkel's argument. In the Ancient Near East, the people believed that land was owned by deities and was given under contract to the people who lived in the land; therefore, when the book of Joshua said P [the Israelites had possessed all of the land Yahweh had promised them] but then later said ~P [the Israelites did not possess all of the land Yahweh had promised them], this was not a textual inconsistency because the people of that time believed that their deity owned the land and they were just "rentors [sic]."

I wonder if Turkel can say, "Non sequitur." This "Ancient Near Eastern concept" could perhaps be used as a claim that land "tenancy" in those days was understood to be conditional, but it certainly would not explain why a P statement in the book of Joshua [the Israelites possessed all the land Yahweh had promised them] and a later ~P statement [the Israelites had not possessed all the land Yahweh had promised] would not be contradictory statements. If he has explained all this "below," perhaps he wouldn't mind cutting and pasting the answer after Turkel(3) that I am typing below for his convenience.

Turkel(3):

Till(2):
Furthermore, his claim that his "ancient Near Eastern context" put conditions on the land promise has been thoroughly refuted above, but if he claims that it hasn't, I'll be glad to quote the refutation again.

Turkel(2):
Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it****

Till(2):
There is no need to reply to Turkel's cut-and-pasted evasions.

Till(1):
Turkel doesn't believe that Chemosh was real any more than he believes that Zeus was real, so how does any of this explain why a god, who Turkel believes was real, promised to give a land with clearly defined borders to the Israelites to "possess," but then didn't make good on that promise?

Turkel(2):
Once again, we remain agnostic in terms of such beings who may or may not have claimed to be "gods" to some person or other, or may have existed or not have existed in some fashion,

Till(2):
I didn't snip this cut-and-pasted comment, because I wanted to remind everyone of just how fast Turkel is willing to tap dance when he confronts a problem. He said above that he is "agnostic" in terms of whether gods like Chemosh really existed, but earlier in this same section of my reply, when I asked him if he believed the Israelites were right in their belief that Yahweh owned all the land, he said that this was "a correct assessment of [his] position." So one moment he is a Yahwist, but when he confronts a problem created by his "Ancient Near Eastern concept" of land, people, and their deity, he suddenly becomes agnostic to the existence of other gods like Chemosh.

If there is any doubt in anyone's mind about Turkel's dishonesty, this should settle it.

Turkel(2):
and add that this has nothing to do with the Ancient Near Eastern relationship between a land, its people, and their deity in which the people were "rentors"****

Till(2):
When Turkel cuts and pastes his evasive comments, he doesn't even bother to check whether his canned comment is relevant to the issue. The thread that we were discussing above began when Turkel quoted Judges 11:24 as support for his "Ancient Near Eastern concept of land, people, and their deity.

Judges 11:24 Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess.

The obvious purpose of his quotation was to give an indication that ancient people did believe that deities decided what people would possess what land. In response to this, I said that Turkel doesn't believe Chemosh was real any more than he believes that Zeus was real. This prompted his ridiculous claim that he is "agnostic" about the existence of those ancient deities, and then he went on to say that "this has nothing to do with the Ancient Near Eastern relationship between a land, its people, and their deity...."

My comment was made in direct response to his attempt to prove this "Ancient Near Eastern concept," so it was very much relevant to this issue. Obviously Turkel doesn't pay attention to what he is pasting where. He just wants to hack out something that he can post and call that a "response."

Till(1):
Was this Yahweh that Turkel believes in unable to "inspire" biblical writers to record accurately what he had said and to do so in language that would be understandable?

Turkel(2):
The language of the text is perfectly understandable to anyone who takes the small amount of time needed to study the Ancient Near Eastern relationship between a land, its people, and their deity in which the people were "rentors" [sic]****

Till(2):
Did everyone notice that Turkel skirted the issue again? He has been asked to explain how P [the Israelites possessed all the land Yahweh had promised them] and ~P [the Israelites did not possess all the land Yahweh had promised them] could both be true statements, and I can't get him to answer the question. He explains nothing when he says that "the language of the text is perfectly understandable to anyone who takes the small amount of time needed to study the Ancient Near Eastern relationship between a land, its people, and their deity." He is supposed to be defending a position, and if his opponent claims that the position is not clear, it is his responsibility to clarify it. Why won't he do that?

As for his claim that just a "small amount of time" is needed to study this "Ancient Near Eastern concept" to make it understandable, Frank Moore Cross is one of those scholars whose "lifeblood" has been the research of ancient Near Eastern cultures, so Cross has certainly spent a lot more than just a "small amount of time" studying this issue. I have shown that he doesn't understand this land, people, and their deity "concept" at all in the same way that Turkel does. How does Turkel explain that?

Oh, I know, he is right and Cross is wrong. Cross has studied biblical cultures, languages, and documents for probably more years than Turkel has been alive, but what does Cross know? Everybody should know by now that the Bible means whatever Turkel says it means.

Till(2):
Perhaps Turkel should explain to us what his position is on biblical "inspiration." Does he believe in it or not?

Turkel(2)
I do believe in it, but shall let my opponent remain mystified about the nature of my belief

Till(2):
So Turkel tap dances around another issue. He isn't much for answering questions, is he?

Turkel(2):
so that we may continue to nail him for presumptuous errors concerning what inspiration means, how it works, and how I recognize it, errors in which he gratuitously imposes his own definitions and conceptions upon others.

Till(2):
Before "we" can continue to nail me, "we" must nail me at least once, and Turkel hasn't done that yet. The way he keeps coming back for more humiliation, the guy must be masochistic.

Turkel(1) [quoting Strong]:

423. yarash, yaw-rash'; or yaresh, yaw-raysh'; a prim. root; to occupy (by driving out previous tenants, and possessing in their place); by impl. to seize, to rob, to inherit; also to expel, to impoverish, to ruin:--cast out, consume, destroy, disinherit, dispossess, drive (-ing) out, enjoy, expel, X without fail, (give to, leave for) inherit (-ance, -or), + magistrate, be (make) poor, come to poverty, (give to, make to) possess, get (have) in (take) possession, seize upon, succeed, X utterly.

Till(1):
For readers who may not be familiar with Turkel's "apologetic" style, I should explain something.

Turkel(2):
This is an interesting statement of intent by our opponent, but it is not an argument, and it is not necessary to quote this

Till(1):
When he is in a bind, he apparently thinks that he can wiggle his way out of it by conning his readers into thinking that he is able to see subtleties in the Hebrew text that eluded the hundreds of Hebrew scholars who have partipated in translating the various English versions of the Old Testament.

Turkel(2):
This comment is meaningless prattle intended to sway a gullible, skeptical readership, as our opponent fails to show here or later that I have offered this entry in the interest of demonstrating any "subtlety" in the Hebrew text not recognized by Hebrew scholars, nor has it been shown that I offer anything here contrary to the majority understanding in this case.

Till(2):
Then why did Turkel introduce the Hebrew word yarash if he wasn't intending to suggest that translators have missed something that he is going to point out about the word. If he is offering nothing new, which is not in agreement with the "majority understanding," then why waste our time quoting what Strong said about the word yarash?

He did so for no other reason but to impress readers into thinking that his opinion deserves serious consideration, because, after all, he knows what the Hebrew word for "possess" was. This is a routine tactic that Turkel will resort to in his "apologetics." I don't recall ever reading an article of his in which he didn't say something like, "The Greek word used here was..." or the Hebrew term used here was...."

He does this, although his knowledge of biblical languages is limited to what he can cull from lexicons (usually Strong's). Those who bother to read my reply to his article, written in response to "Why Didn't They Know?" will see that Turkel is no more knowledgeable than I am in Greek. I was able to catch him in errors as he attempted to show his readers that I was confused about the apostles' failure to understand that Jesus had said that he would rise on the third day because I just didn't understand what "rise" meant in Greek. I exposed his own confusion so thoroughly that even he had to admit that he had erred. In his reply to my rebuttal, he tried to blame his mistakes on flaws in the software program he uses when he cuts and pastes to give readers the benefit of his knowledge of biblical languages.

Second, Till undoubtedly whooped loud enough for the drycleaners in Hong Kong to hear when he discovered that there was a repeated "error" in my essay -- but it's one not attributable to my own error, but to that of my reference source. Here's an explanation.

I first wrote here that I wouldn't quote Turkel's explanations, because those who wanted to read it could click the link above, but on second thought his "explanation" so obviously confirms that he has no special talent in biblical languages that I have decided to quote his example.

I make use of a typical Bible software program from Quickverse that allows parallel versions to be posted on the screen simultaneously. One version is a Strong"s Concordance that shows the Hebrew/Greek version of passages. Now allow me a demonstration based on John 1:51 which will illustrate exactly what happened:

And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

Now here is how that verse appears in the Strong's version of Quickverse, in parallel:

lego:G3004 . . amen:G281 amen:G281 . lego:G3004 . . arti:G737 . . optanomai:G3700 ouranos:G3772 anoigo:G455 . . aggelos:G32 . theos:G2316 anabaino:G305 . katabaino:G2597 . . huios:G5207 . anthropos:G444

Note that only "main" words are shown; prepositions are left out. This is one of the shortcomings of thie [sic] software. Of primary concern, note that John 1:51 has two "verilies" -- and the Strong's version has two "amens". Now compare on Matthew 20:19:

And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

. . . paradidomi:G3860 . . . ethnos:G1484 . empaizo:G1702 . . mastigoo:G3146 . . stauroo:G4717 . . tritos:G5154 hemera:G2250 . . anistemi:G450 anistemi:G450

Now here's what Farrell will make a fuss about. In about half a dozen places I report that some Greek word translated "rise again" is repeated twice in the Greek -- and based on the above, you can see why I reported this: Quickverse's concordance reports it in a way consistent with that, within its own method of reporting actually duplicated words (as in John 1:51). In actuality, these words appear only once in the Greek, and Quickverse is therefore misleading on this point (emphasis added by Till), and I have now amended my original essay to reflect the actual content of the Greek text.

The results of this: Quickverse is now "fired" as my primary source for the Greek text, and I neither make bones nor take blame for the misunderstanding. This is a typical "indexing" error that is found in reference sources, both online and in print.

I commend Turkel for admitting his error, but his explanation is certainly no excuse for the way he parades himself on his website as an expert in biblical languages, who struts around presuming to tell his readers that the poor skeptics he is "rebutting" wouldn't be so confused if they just understood Greek or Hebrew as he does. I have only a very basic knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, but that knowledge was sufficient enough to recognize long ago that for all of his references in his articles to what the Greek or Hebrew meant, Turkel really doesn't know much at all about biblical languages. I use Quickverse too, but I think I exercise a bit more care in using it than Turkel does. I have printed copies of the Greek and Hebrew testaments, which I refer to when verifying what biblicists like Turkel presume to tell their readers about what the Greek or Hebrew really meant. I consulted my Greek New Testament right away when I saw Turkel's claim of double usage of anistemi in certain texts (because the claim didn't make any linguistic sense) and found that that his claim was erroneous. The word was used only once in the texts that he referred to.

I hope that this will be a lesson to Turkel's admirers, who should understand now that they shouldn't swoon in admiration when he undertakes to tell them what the biblical languages meant. They should always take with a grain of salt what a linguistic amateur says when he presumes to explain the meanings of words in a language that he doesn't know.

Turkel(2):
The allusion here is undoubtedly to discussion held many years ago over the Hebrew word paqad in which I cited the recent work of a Hebrew scholar and specialist,

Till(2):
No, the allusion was not to this any more than it was to the many times I have seen Turkel trying to pass himself off as an expert in biblical languages. Check him out, folks, and you will see that he has no ability in biblical languages beyond knowing how to cut and paste from a software lexicon, which he has now found to be flawed.

Turkel(2):
whom our opponent countered by citing various English versions, said by him to be done by "hundreds" of translators, that agreed with his view. As I replied, and to which our opponent never responded,

Till(2):
Actually, a reply to Turkel on this issue was interrupted in progress, while well on its way to completion, because of other responsibilities. I saw no need to give it priority over other responsibilities, because at that time Turkel was quoting me selectively without giving his readers links to what I had written on the issue. I saw no need to neglect other priorities in order to write a response to Turkel that his readers would never see. Now that he seems to have had a change of heart and is putting links on his site, I will be glad to finish this project when I have completed replying to all the other issues that he has raised about my articles.

If I complete this project, will you post it on your website, Turkel?

Turkel(2):
there is no "hundreds" to deal with: If each version employed a team of 50 translators on average for their OT translation work, that adds up to hundreds, actually 1250. But not all 1250 worked on the verse of concern (Hosea 1:4); translations of the Bible are done by teams, and each book is assigned a certain number of translators. A small-to-medium book like Hosea would not need many translators (as opposed to Isaiah, for example), if 4 translators from each version worked on Hosea, that means we're only dealing with a hundred people.

Till(2):
This may all be true, but the opinion of a hundred scholars who had worked on, say, the KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, etc., etc., etc., should certainly carry more weight than that of a would-be apologist whose knowledge of biblical languages is so limited that he can't even tell when he is cutting and pasting an error from a software program. My reply to Turkel's first article on this subject quoted 24 different translations of the OT to show that they all agreed on what the Hebrew word paqad meant in this passage. I suggest that readers read my detailed, point-by-point reply to Turkel's article and then check out his "reply" to me to see just how much of my reply he omitted and didn't answer. One section he left out was the quotations from the 24 different translations of Hosea 1:4. Since Turkel gave his readers no link to my reply, they had no way of knowing exactly what I had said in defense of my proposition.

Turkel(2):
I addded [sic] that the linguistic detail work on Hosea 1:4 had only been done in the last decade. Unless they had the gift of prophecy, the overwhelming number of the versions our opponent cited were translated before this research was performed.

Till(2):
What I like about Turkel is that whatever position he takes on "scholarship" depends on how the scholarship will help or hurt the issue he is trying to defend. In his statement above, which is an accurate summation of the position he took during our exchanges on the Jehu issue, Turkel argued that since there was recent research, within "the last decade," that had given new "insights" into the meaning of the Hebrew word paqad, that should take precedence over the opinions of scholars who had translated the Old Testament before these new insights were discovered. In other words, his premise here is that new is better.

In his "Olivet Discourse," however, he took the opposite position. One of his arguments in defense of his preterist position was that this was not a new view of prophecy fulfillment but an old one.

The charge [that the preterist view is and attempt to preserve the inerrancy of the Bible] implies that the interpretation is somehow "new," a construction invented by modern believers who are resisting the past. Actually, dispensationalism and it's [sic] own idea of a Rapture are the new kids on the block; preterism, and the idea that the Olivet Discourse and other passages refer to 70 AD events, has a much longer pedigree. Commentators such as Lightfoot (1859), Newton (1754), and Gill (1809) predated dispensationlism and agreed that 70 AD was in view in these passages [Dem.LDM, 59]. To be sure, some in the early church held a view that what was recounted in places like the Olivet Discourse was a reference to a far-flung future event (though their views didn't match exactly with dispensationlism [sic]); but others held views akin to preterism as well, so the preterist view is not a new view, but an old one revived.

This article will be reprinted in the September/October issue of The Skeptical Review, along with my reply, and also posted on the TSR website, where it can be located in the Articles Index when it is available. For now, I just want readers to see Turkel's inconsistency. In the Jehu/Hosea matter, he argued at new is better, but in defense of his preterist view of Matthew 24, he argued that the age of the preterism view somehow makes it more credible.

As for his claim of new "insights" into the meaning of paqad that "scholars" have discovered within the last decade, the very nature of the claim is ridiculous. Are we to believe that for more than 2,000 years scholars just didn't understand the meaning of paqad, and it took the research of the past decade to shed light on what the word really meant? Anyone who buys this line should check out this recent research that he mentioned and notice that it just happened to be the research of those who have fundamentalist views of the Bible. Turkel is proof that a biblical inerrantist doesn't have much trouble finding in the Bible the meanings that he wants to find there and then the "scholars" he can quote who agree with what he wants a biblical text to mean.

Turkel(2):
Allowing generously that one-third were done by the time prescribed, we are down to 33 translators.

Till(2):
For the sake of argument, I'll just accept the number 33, which Turkel seems to have grabbed out of thin air, and ask if the opinion of these 33 should count more than that of an amateur apologist who couldn't even tell when he was cutting and pasting incorrect information about Greek.

Turkel(2):
Now of these 33, we must presume that a) they were aware of the linguistic research in question; b) that they were able and willing to acquire and evaluate it; c) that they considered the data carefully and fairly, and finally d) critically evaluated the data and made a decision based on sound principles.

Till(2):
Well, of course, if this new "insightful" research had been done within the past decade, the translators in question would have already completed their work at that time. However, Turkel is begging a question and then arguing from an assumed premise that he needs to prove. Was this "new research" as insightful as Turkel claims, or was it simply an attempt by "scholars" with fundamentalist leanings to find a way to explain a problem in the biblical text? Was this "new research" subjected to peer review? If so, where can we go to find what the peers of these "researchers" thought about the new discoveries? Did the peers agree that for 2,000+ years, scholars had completed their translations of the Old Testament in ignorance of what paqad meant?

Turkel(2):
Thus we exposed our opponent's appeal as simply hot air - just the fallacy of argument by authority.

Till(2):
Excuse me, but is Robert "Cut-and-Paste" Turkel actually accusing me of the fallacy of appealing to authority? Out of curiosity, I took the time to go to Turkel's "Olivet Discourse," which is essentially a compilation of the preterist views of others that he has cut and pasted into an article, to check the number of appeals that he made to books and authors. I counted 51 different references, and I probably missed some by going through the article quickly. Turkel's knowledge of biblical matters is about as deep as a water puddle on the sidewalk after a light summer rain, and if he couldn't cut and paste what others have said about the subjects he writes on, he would find himself up that famous creek without a paddle.

I think it is time to remind him of the old adage about the pot calling the kettle black.

Turkel(2):
This sort of dearth of critical thinking is the sort we also showed above with respect to our opponent's inability to do a competent data search.

Till(2):
Let's see if I have this right. Someone who cut and pasted several times an error from a software package into an article of his actually has the gall to say that I am unable "to do a competent data search."

So the pot accuses the kettle again.

Till(1):
The fact that Turkel's "scholarship" in Hebrew is almost always limited to quoting Strong's concordance speaks volumes about his skills in Hebrew.

Turkel(2):
This is merely ad hominem which does nothing to address the data,

Till(2):
Since Turkel constantly refers in his article to what the Hebrew or Greek words were in whatever biblical passages are under discussion, my comment was not an ad hominem that did "nothing to address the data." In view of Turkel's habit of frequently presuming to tell readers what the Hebrew or Greek in such and such a text actually meant, it is entirely appropriate for his opponents to remind readers that he has no special credentials to qualify him to speak with any authority on what Hebrew and Greek words meant.

Hey, folks, this guy is a phony, and his readers need to be told that they have allowed him to pull the wool over their eyes.

Turkel(2):
and also delivers the implicit accusation that I profess expertise in Hebrew beyond use of concordances and scholarly sources, which I have not, at any time, done.

Till(2):
Until I called Turkel's bluff in our Jehu/Hosea exchanges about the extent of his knowledge of Hebrew, I had never seen him tell his readers that when he tells them that the Hebrew or Greek word in such and such a text was whatever, he was telling them no more than they could find themselves by flipping through Strong's concordance. He didn't have to say directly, "I am an expert in Hebrew," to leave with his readers the impression that he was. His constant references to what the Hebrew or Greek words were in whatever texts were being discussed was designed to leave with his readers that he did have an expertise in biblical languages, because he didn't bother to tell them that he was just browsing through a concordance.

Turkel(2):
As such, it is merely fluff, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply****

Till(2):
And blah, blah, blah, and so on and so forth. If Turkel spent a tenth as much time trying to answer his opponents' arguments as he does cutting and pasting evasive drivel like this, maybe he wouldn't come off looking so much like a buffoon.

Till(1):
I'd be very interested in seeing his "scholarly" reasons why we should reject how translations like the KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, etc. have rendered the word yarash in the different texts that spoke of the Israelites' "possessing" the land.

Turkel(2):
Since I give no reason, here or later, to reject the understanding of yarash presented in these versions, this is merely presumptive and misguided fluff for the purpose of gulling skeptical readers. It is not necessary to quote this****

Till(2):
Then maybe Turkel would like to explain to us why he repeatedly noted that the word for "possess" in whatever passages were being discussed was yarash. What earthly reason would he have had for doing this unless he had intended the comment to mean something significant? He was telling his readers, at least by implication, that understanding what these texts meant required one to know that yarash was the Hebrew word that had been translated by the English word possess. He was obviously trying to make his readers think that he had some special insights into Hebrew that I didn't have.

Till(1):
As for his expertise in scholarship, I noticed that he even got Strong's number for the word yarash wrong. It is 3423 and not 423, an understandable typographical error, I suppose, but he should give more attention to details if he is going to try to base an argument on what he knows about Hebrew.

Turkel(2):
As our opponent earlier neglected to give the full and proper cite from the book of Numbers,

Till(2):
Turkel is actually trying to equate his biblical language gaffes with this? I quoted Numbers 3:47-48 but labeled it only as Numbers 3:47. Anyone could have used the information I gave to locate the passage quoted, but when Turkel labeled yarash as word #423 when it was actually #3423, this was a mistake that would have caused difficulty for those who don't know Hebrew. Furthermore, if Turkel knew much at all about Hebrew, he should have known that a word that began with the letter yod would not have been word #423 in an alphabetized lexicon, since yod is the 10th character in the Hebrew alphabet.

Turkel(2):
we reply that he too should give more attention to details if he is going to try to base an argument on what he knows about the Bible.

Till(2):
Before I post anything, I proofread it two times. I use spell checkers, but I still proofread the text twice before I approve it for posting. Then I read it through after postings to check for mistakes that got by my proofreadings. I do let a few mistakes get by me, but they are minimal compared to the ones found in Turkel's writing.

Turkel(2):
However, the omission of the 3 was actually due to the cut and paste function from my CD-ROM missing the 3, not because of poor typography in this instance.

Till(2):
Turkel can't blame this mistake on his software. As I said above, if he knew much at all about Hebrew, he would have known that a Hebrew word that began with yod could not have been numbered as low as 423 in an alphabetized lexicon.

My associates and I are trying to keep my replies shorter than 14,000 words, so I will end Part Six here and resume in Part Seven.