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

Turkel(1):
The patron deity also had the prerogative of selecting the leader of the people. The Sumerians believed that the office of the kingship was lowered from the heavens. The Assyrians appealed to the divine election of their kings. Cyrus' conquest of Babylon was legitimized by the pronouncement of the Babylonian god Marduk. And of course, when the time came for Israel to select a king, Yahweh was called upon to make the choice, and at various times thereafter the OT states that Yahweh took some part in selecting a king for the nation (cf. 1 Kings 11:14) and even foreign kings (1 Kings 11:23).

Till(1):
And this does what to explain why an omniscient, omnipotent deity made a land promise that he couldn't keep?

Till(2):
I think I will add to my first comment on Turkel's statement above by adapting one of his frequently cut-and-pasted statements. This is a nice lecture on ancient superstitions about kings and leaders, but how does it explain the two problems that I focused on in "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise"?

The first inconsistency:
1. Yahweh, a presumably [there's that cuss word again] omniscient god, told the Israelites [presumably] that he would give them all the land to possess [use, rent, occupy] that their feet would tread upon from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea.

2. This didn't happen.

The second inconsistency:
1. The book of Joshua claims that Yahweh gave the Israelites all the land he had promised to them and that nothing failed in all that he had promised.

2. The books of Joshua and Judges later say that this didn't happen, that Yahweh did not give all the land he had promised to the Israelites.

Now here is Turkel's dilemma. Even if he should succeed in proving beyond all doubt that this "Ancient Near Eastern concept" of his made the land promise conditional to the behavior of the Israelites, he would still be faced with the second problem. Why did the Bible say in one place that the Israelites had received all the land promised to them and that nothing had failed in all that Yahweh had promised but later the Bible said that the Israelites had not received all the land Yahweh had promised them?

You know, I'll bet I can predict what Turkel is going to say. "We explained this fully and thoroughly below."

Turkel(2):
Our opponent's pretense at being ignorant is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no explanation. As we noted clearly, and explain in more detail throughout this essay****

Till(2):
See what I mean? Turkel's evasive cutting and pasting has long passed the point of absurdity, so I'm going to be far more aggressive in deleting his cut-and-pasted jobs. Parts (1) through (7) of my second-round replies, which have already been posted, contained 85,896 words, a large percentage of which were Turkel's cut-and-pasted evasions. I began in Part Four to cut out some of his repetitions, and from now on I will cut even more. If he accuses me of deleting any points that needed replies, he can repost them and ask me to answer them.

Turkel(2):
In response to Sumerians:

Till(1):
And this does what to explain why an omniscient, omnipotent deity made a land promise that he couldn't keep?

Till(2):
If Turkel had indeed "noted clearly" and "explain[ed] in more detail," he would have cut and pasted those explanations instead of his tiresome evasion, which I snipped in the bud above.

Till(1):
****

Bantering about "fluff" and "irrelevant distractions" was snipped.

Turkel(2):
Re: the Assyrians:

Till(1):
And this does what to explain why an omniscient, omnipotent deity made a land promise that he couldn't keep?

Till(2):
No comment is necessary. Readers can determine from the beginning of what I snipped that it was just more of his cut-and-pasted evasion. If Turkel had really "noted" clearly and in detail a convincing answer to this problem, he would have cut and pasted it here to drive home the fact that he had indeed answered it. His constant cutting and pasting of evasive comments like those above is proof within itself that he hasn't answered anything.

Turkel(2):
Re the Babylonians:

Till(1):
And this does what to explain why an omniscient, omnipotent deity [who Turkel believes was real] made a land promise that he couldn't keep?

Turkel(2):
Our opponent's pretense at being ignorant is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership****

Yahweh's omniscience and omnipotence have no bearing upon the freewill decision of His people to violate the obligations of their contract and therefore suffer the consequences clearly laid out for such violations in the OT and especially in the contractual document, Deuteronomy.

Till(2):
This is another cut-and-pasted evasion, which I have replied to above, but rather than just asserting that I have replied to it, I am going to quote my previous reply.

I'll demonstrate to Turkel what he should be doing instead of cutting and pasting evasive denials like his comments above. I'm not going to say that I have thoroughly refuted Turkel's position on the land-promise issue; I'm going to requote the detailed argument that I have stated several times in this debate so that it will be on record right here in this particular spot where he claims that I haven't refuted anything.

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.

Turkel(2):
Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts pompously****

Till(1):
Turkel seems to think that if he leads us far enough into a tangent, quotes enough biblical passages along the way, and rambles on and on about "ancient concepts," some readers may believe that he is on to something.

Turkel(2):
Our opponent's inability to grasp the relevance of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is of little concern to us, and he has provided no refutation to any point we have given on this subject; and his repetition, nearly a dozen times, of the same irrelevant argument concering [sic] omniscience and human freedom leads us to suggest that our opponent seems to think that if he repeats an argument enough times, and rambles on and on about "omniscience," some readers may believe that he is actually answering the subject at hand and not realize that he has ignored the question of the consistency of the Biblical record with respect to Yahweh's land promises.

Till(2):
This is an adaptation of previous cut-and-pasted evasions, but it was too good to snip. I just had to let everyone see Turkel's comments about my repetition and rambling. This is another case of the pot calling the kettle black.

As the quotation (above) of my extended rebuttal argument "clearly" shows, I have refuted Turkel's claim that his "Ancient Near Eastern" concept of land-people-deity somehow explains why Yahweh's land promise failed. Anyway, I'll make a deal with him. If he will answer my arguments with supported rebuttals rather than bald assertions, I will stop repeating them. Until he does answer them, however, I will keep repeating them. Repeating that which one's opponent obviously evades is an effective way to keep the audience reminded of his failures.

Till(1):
****

Bantering about "fluff" was deleted down to the following comment from Turkel.

Turkel(2)
The issue is not use of such fluff and distractions, but the obsessive requirement of our opponent that we quote EVERYTHING he writes including such fluff and distractions.

Till(2)
I should have snipped this too, because I have already shown several times that Turkel is misrepresenting me when he says that I had demanded that he quote everything I write. I have demanded only that his audience be given access to everything I say in a debate, and when he links his readers to my articles, he has satisfied that demand. I will remind everyone again that I tried to get Turkel to negotiate a written agreement that would structure the debate with guidelines, but he refused to cooperate. My proposed guidelines included the following.

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.

In proposing those guidelines, I obviously wasn't "obsessively" demanding that Turkel quote everything I said. If that had been my demand, I would have so stated it. I was proposing only that both of us agree to reply to all arguments and rebuttals made by the other. The way number 6 was worded was a recognition that in trying to answer all points of the opposition, it is possible that a debater may overlook a point, so this was proposed as a guarantee that each party would answer the other's arguments if some were overlooked, and oversights could happen only if the debaters were not quoting everything the other one said.

I don't know if Turkel will come back for a third round, but if he does and still keeps setting up this straw man about my demand that he quote everything I say, there will then be no doubt about his dishonesty, because my position on this has now been clarified several times.

Turkel(2):
I have never made such outraegous [sic] demands of my opponents, asking only for a fair and honest representation of my argument.

Till(2):
Neither have I.

Turkel(2):
Our opponent did not need to quote the above to be fair and honest; he need only have noted generally that I laid out the obligations of deities to their peoples.

Till(2):
Correction! Turkel has asserted this, but he certainly has not proven that there was an "Ancient Near Eastern concept" that would explain why (1) Yahweh promised to give land within clearly defined borders to the Israelites and then didn't do it, and (2) why the Bible said that the Israelites had possessed all the land Yahweh had promised them but later said that the Israelites had not possessed all the land Yahweh had promised them.

It's the old problem of how P and ~P can both be true, Turkel, and the problem isn't going to go away. I am going to keep hammering it home until you explain it or else admit that you can't.

Turkel(2):
Re Israel and selecting kings:

Till(1):
Yes, the omni-one seemed to have a knack for choosing bad eggs to be king over "his people," but that is another debate for another time if Turkel would care to pursue it. What does it have to do with the inconsistencies in Joshua about fulfillments of the land promise?

Turkel(2):
Our opponent's inability to grasp the relevance of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is of little concern to us****

Till(2):
More cut-and-pasted evasion. No comment is necessary.

Turkel(2):
In terms of choosing "bad eggs" we would challenge our opponent to provide a full and complete list of candidates for the kingship in Israel who would have been a better choice, in the longer term, than those who did get the nod. If he can produce such a list, his debate challenge is accepted.

Till(2):
What a stupid demand! In the first place, my position is that much of the "history" of Israel was fictionalized, and I might add that this is becoming the prevailing view among responsible biblical scholars. Even prominent seminaries are now teaching this. Furthermore, even if there was good evidence that the "history" of Israel was fairly reliable, it would still be too incomplete to compile such a list. Since I have no way of knowing who lived when the "bad eggs" were kings, I couldn't very well compile this list, could I? However, if someone like, say, Manasseh was even half the tyrant he was depicted in 2 Kings, it shouldn't have been too hard to find someone who would have been a better king. I would think that Yahweh could have yanked just anybody off the street and gotten a better king than Manasseh was.

Anyway, if Turkel wants to affirm the historical accuracy of the Old Testament in all of its details, he has another debate on his hands, but I suspect this will end the matter.

Till(1) and Turkel (2):
****

Till(2):
I deleted here bantering between Turkel and me over "irrelevant fluff" and his cut-and-pasted misrepresentation of my demand to let his readers have access to everything I say in a debate with him. He has distorted this demand to mean that I was "obsessively" demanding that he quote everything I say, but I have shown above that this is a straw man that Turkel has been beating on to justify his distractive cut-and-pasted evasions.

Turkel(1):
In terms of the obligations of the "tenants," it is obvious that within any feudal structure, the occupants of a land were subject to the lord of the land, and that lack of fulfillment of obligations brought about penalties.

Till(2):
As I have repeatedly shown, Turkel's "feudal-landlord" analogy is false, because he is comparing an unconditional structure to a conditional structure. If a feudal landlord had granted land to serfs unconditionally, that would have been parallel to Yahweh's unconditional grant of land to Abraham's descendants because of the "fidelity" of Abraham (as Frank Moore Cross noted in previously quoted material).

Genesis 26:2 Yahweh appeared to Isaac and said, "Do not go down to Egypt; settle in the land that I shall show you.
3 Reside in this land as an alien, and I will be with you, and will bless you; for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will fulfill the oath that I swore to your father Abraham.
4 I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven, and will give to your offspring all these lands; and all the nations of the earth shall gain blessing for themselves through your offspring,
5 because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

The promise was not that "I may give all these lands to your descendants" but that "I will give all these lands to your descendants," and the reason given for the promise was that Abraham had kept the commandments, statutes, and laws of Yahweh. Hence, because of the fidelity of Abraham, the land promise was made unconditionally to his descendants. If Turkel is going to equate this to "feudal-landlord" relationships, he would have to hypothesize a feudal landlord who was so impressed with the faithfulness and loyalty of a particular servant that the feudal landlord granted permanent tenancy to his descendants because of the fidelity of the one servant.

Turkel(1):
The Moabite inscription speaks of the Moabite deity Chemosh being angry with "his land" and delivering judgment, though the cause of the anger is not specified.

Till(2):
But the Moabite inscription did not say that because Chemosh was angry with his land he was taking the land from its inhabitants. This statement was made to "explain" why Omri, the king of Israel, had been able to "oppress" the land of Moab, so Mesha's reference to the anger of Chemosh was an expression of superstitious belief that when calamity befell a nation, the gods were angry. Similar statements in the Old Testament attribute national calamities and defeats in battle to Yahweh's anger at Israel. Mesha went on to describe victories that his god Chemosh had given him over Israel, a section of the Moabite inscription that would read much like a page from the Bible if the name Yahweh were substituted for Chemosh. Linguistic similarities in the Moabite inscription and biblical texts should convince any reasonable person that all of the biblical claims of victories and defeats because of either the pleasure or anger of Yahweh were nothing more than reflections of an ancient superstition that were believed by all nations of people at that time.

Turkel simply cannot use widespread ancient superstitions as an explanation for why a written text that says P and then later says ~P should not be considered contradictory statements. Ancient superstitions cannot nullify the law of contradiction.

Turkel(1):
The Assyrian king Esarhaddon authorized a record noting that ethical and cultic offenses by the Babylonian people provoked the wrath of the Baylonian [sic] god Marduk, resulting in the cursing and desolation of Babylon.

Till(2):
The same answer applies here. I have agreed that people in biblical times had such superstitious beliefs as these, but ancient superstitions cannot make P and ~P consistent statements. I want Turkel to explain to us 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. The superstitions of ancient people cannot alter the universally recognized principle that P and ~P cannot both be simultaneously true.

Turkel(1]:
In the OT we read of Yahweh's complaint that the Israelites have "defiled my land" (Jer. 2:7, 16:18) with their iniquity and of impending judgment for sins.

Till(1):
Yes, this was another superstitious belief of the times.

Turkel(2):
This is nothing but a gratuitous insult to ancient peoples for the purpose of engending [sic] sympathetic skeptical cheer. Whether it was a "superstitious belief" is of no relevance****

Turkel(2):
what is of relevance in this context is the consistency of the Biblical record

Till(2):
I wholeheartedly agree, so I would like for Turkel to explain to us how ancient superstitions could alter the universally recognized law of contradiction and make P and ~P both true statements. If we let P be the Israelites possessed all the land Yahweh had promised them and let not ~P be the Israelites did not possess all the land Yahweh had promised them, then we have a contradiction, so I challenge Turkel to explain how ancient superstitions about gods, land, and people could override the law of contradiction and make P and ~P both true statements.

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

Till(1):
Good fortune meant that one was pleasing his god, but misfortune meant that one had "done that which was evil" in the sight of his god, so how does this explain why Yahweh made a clear, no-strings-attached land promise to the Israelites that he didn't keep?

Till(2):
If Turkel really believed that he had "noted clearly" and explained in detail "throughout [his] essay" why his "Ancient Near Eastern context" would show why P and ~P could both be true statements, why didn't he cut and paste one of those "clear" explanations here instead of cutting and pasting his same old evasive ranting?

Till(1) and Turkel (2):
****

Bantering about "fluff" and "irrelevant distractions" has been snipped.

Till(1):
Yes, and we also read in the OT that Yahweh made an unconditional land promise to the Israelites.

Till(2):
No comment is necessary here, because Turkel's evasive tactics have become very clear to all by now. If he had indeed "noted clearly" and "explain[ed] in more detail" why there is no inconsistency in the various texts related to the land promise, he would have cut and pasted one of those "clear" and "thorough" explanations here so that he could emphasize to readers that he has satisfactorily explained this. The fact that he cuts and pastes evasive comments like the above instead of his clear and thorough "explanation" is proof within itself that he knows that he has answered nothing.

Till(1):
I quoted it in my article, but it is apparently time to look at it again.

Turkel(2):
What follows is an extended list of quotations from Deuteronomy 9. We noted in our response that Deuteronomy is in the genre of an ancient legal contract spelling out obligations of landlord and tenant.

Till(2):
And I have shown that this so-called "suzerainty treaty" with which Turkel and other biblicists have tried to compare Deuteronomy granted land unconditionally to the people living in clearly defined land borders and imposed behavior conditions only on the kings or rulers of this land. No suzerain that I ever heard of actually took the land away from the people living there, because the land would have been of no use to the suzerain without people to tend it to make it possible for the suzerain to collect tribute. Even when people were taken into captivity, only some of the people were taken. The captivity of Judah is an example of this. When Jerusalem fell, Nebuchadnezzar carried away the princes, the mighty men of valor, and the craftsmen (2 Kings 24:14) but left behind "the poorest sort of the people of the land." Jeremiah and apocryphal works like Baruch referred to the Judeans who had been left in Judah. The tactic of removing the cream of the crop from a captured land was the suzerain's way of keeping control over the land without having to leave a large occupying army there.

Common sense should tell Turkel that suzerains didn't remove all people from a vassal territory because of their conduct, because this would have imposed on him the need to fill the land with new occupants in order to maintain its productivity so that he could receive his tribute. The suzerain demanded allegiance from the king or ruler of the land and depended on him to maintain order. When the vassal king didn't fulfill this obligation, he was removed and replaced by another, but the people remained on the land.

Turkel(2):
We also noted that to extract any passage from Deuteronomy without respect to this fact is illicit.

Till(2):
Turkel has "noted" this through mere assertion, but he has by no means established it. He has failed throughout this debate to recognize that my article "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" identified not one but two inconsistencies in the biblical text: (1) Yahweh promised to give to the Israelites all land within clearly defined borders but didn't do it. (2) The biblical text first says that the Israelites possessed all the land Yahweh had promised them but later says that the Israelites did not possess all the land Yahweh had promised them.

For the sake of argument, let's just assume that Turkel has made his case and proven beyond all doubt that the land promise was conditional to the behavior of the Israelites and that this is why the promise was not fulfilled. With that concession, he would have solved problem number 1.

But what about problem number 2? How could the conditional nature of the land promise have possibly made P and ~P both true statements? How could it possibly be that the Israelites both did and did not possess all the land Yahweh had promised them?

Turkel(2):
Nevertheless our opponent sees fit to do so without any justification or reasoning.

Till(2):
Either Turkel is unable to recognize clearly delineated rebuttal arguments or else he is a flat out liar, because I have filled this debate with arguments to support my contention that the land promise was unconditional. I have requoted them periodically and will continue to do so as Turkel repeats his claim that I haven't answered his arguments.

Turkel(2):
We also addressed Deut. 9, in the same order as our opponent, but our opponent either lacks the sense to realize this or is being dishonest in not admitting it here.

Till(2):
I'm perfectly willing to let the readers decide who presented the stronger case in analyzing Deuteronomy 9. Readers are going to see Turkel take an embarrassing trouncing immediately below, so be alert for the number of times that Turkel interrupted my analysis of the chapter with nothing more than cut-and-pasted evasive comments.

Till(1):
I have been quoting the ASV and KJV, but I'm going to use the NRSV here, with Yahweh substituted for "the LORD," so that the modern language might make the reading clearer to Turkel.

Turkel(2):
Regardless of what language it is said in, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, which rules the paradigm of the land promises, was such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had certain obligations****

Till(2):
See what I mean? Turkel's stock in trade is to distract attention by cutting and pasting long, boring comments like the one above, which everyone has previously seen in its entirety several times. I will ask again why Turkel didn't cut and paste here one of those many "clear" and "thorough" explanations he has boasted about throughout this debate. We have now reached the point that he repeatedly referred to as "below," so I want everyone to look closely at how "clear" his explanations were.

Till(1):
I will also emphasize in bold print certain expressions to show that the promise made here was independent of the conduct of the Israelites and therefore had to be an unconditional promise.

Turkel(2):
We will follow in the bolding, but the contextual reality of Deuteronomy as an ancient legal contract spelling out obligations of landlord and tenant means that to extract any passage from Deuteronomy without respect to this fact is illicit.

Till(2):
I have shown repeatedly that no matter how many other versions of the land promise had conditions, generally recognized as retrospective editing, the land promise as stated in Deuteronomy 9 necessarily precluded any behavioral conditions. I ask everyone to notice how Turkel danced around this argument in his so-called "reply" to my analysis of Deuteronomy 9.

Till(1):

Deuteronomy 9:1 Hear, O Israel! You are about to cross the Jordan today, to go in and dispossess nations larger and mightier than you, great cities, fortified to the heavens,

What were these nations "mightier" than the Israelites? That was explained in Deuteronomy 7:1, "When Yahweh your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy, and he clears away many nations before you--the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations mightier and more numerous than you...."

Turkel(2):
No one doubts, and it is of no relevance to the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, who the nations were to be driven out or how mighty they were. It remains that Deuteronomy as an ancient legal contract****

Till(2):
The same old same old that I have answered a dozen times by now, which was then followed by Turkel's "it is not necessary to quote..." distraction. If Turkel is going to cut and paste repeatedly, why doesn't he cut and paste some of those "clear" and "thorough" rebuttal arguments that he has talked about so much? As I said, we have now moved into the territory that fits Turkel's word "below," but I am not seeing any of those "clear" and "thorough" rebuttals. I am, however, seeing plenty of cut-and-pasted evasive comments like the one above.

Till(1):
So the nations larger and mightier than the Israelites were the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Keep an eye on these names.

Turkel(2):
This is needless repetition. The list of nations has now been offered no less than four times. It is not necessary to quote this****

Till(2):
This list of nations is quite relevant to this debate. I have been showing and will continue to show that the Bible clearly states that most of these seven nations were not driven out. Hence, Yahweh's promise that he would drive out and utterly destroy the Hittites, Hivites, Canaanites, Jebusites, etc. clearly contradicts later statements that said that some of these nations, especially the Canaanites and Jebusites, could not be driven out and continued to dwell with the Israelites.

It's a simple matter of P and ~P, Turk. You could profit from a course in basic logic.

Till(1):

Deuteronomy 9:2 a strong and tall people, the offspring of the Anakim, whom you know. You have heard it said of them, "Who can stand up to the Anakim?"
3 Know then today that Yahweh your God is the one who crosses over before you as a devouring fire; he will defeat them and subdue them before you, so that you may dispossess and destroy them quickly, as Yahweh has promised you.

Notice the emphatic language of this verse. "Moses" didn't say that Yahweh might defeat these nations or that he would defeat them if the Israelites were good little children of God. He said that Yahweh would destroy them quickly.

Turkel(2):
The emphatic language of this single verse does not affect in any way the fact that Deuteronomy is an ancient legal contract spelling out obligations of landlord and tenant, and that to extract any passage from Deuteronomy as a whole, or in this case Deut. 9 alone, without respect to this fact is illicit.

Till(2):
This "ancient legal contract" that "spell[ed] out obligations of landlord and tenant" has been fully addressed and shown to be of no help to Turkel for four reasons: (1) The original land promise was unconditional because of Abraham's fidelity [Gen. 26:5]. (2) The situation in Deuteronomy 9 was such that the renewal of the promise to a nation of Israelites, who at that time were described as having been completely reprobate from the day they had left Egypt, necessarily precluded conditions of behavior, because if their behavior at that time was not reason enough to deny the land to them, how could their subsequent behavior, which couldn't possibly have been any worse, have been a reason to deny them the land? (3) Yahweh's land promise included the factor of permanence when he said that he would give the land to Abraham's seed as an everlasting possession. (4) The passages in Deuteronomy that attached conditions to the promise were the result of retrospective editing, which were primarily after-the-fact references to dispersions and captivities that the Israelites had experienced long after the time of "Moses.". If Turkel entered into a contractual rental agreement after which he altered the wording of the contract, his landlord would not be under any obligation to honor anything stipulated in the altered sections of the contract.

Turkel(2):
The "if" is found throughout Deuteronomy. They are alluded to in Deut. 8:18-20, which is immediately before the passages our opponent quotes:

But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day. And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God.

Before, and after, these passages quoted by our opponent, Deuteonomy [sic] is shot through with "ifs" and conditions that cannot simply and arbitrarily be rudely jerked from the larger context of Deuteronomy as a contractual document.

Till(2):
My last comment above explains the "ifs" that Turkel is putting so much stock in. Anyway, I'm glad he quoted the passage above, because if he hadn't, I would have. I went through the passage and emphasized certain words in bold print to call attention to what it was saying. Please scroll back up and notice that Yahweh was saying only that the people would perish if they forgot "the LORD" and worshiped other gods. He did not say that he would keep the land from them if they worshiped other gods.

The fact is that the passages in Deuteronomy that Turkel thinks stipulated conditions for receiving the land actually taught that longevity of life and prosperity in the land were conditional to their behavior. I have reviewed the relevant passages and don't find that they threatened to keep the land from the Israelites if they didn't toe the line. Perhaps this is an issue that Turkel would care to discuss.

Till(1):
He emphatically said that Yahweh will defeat them, just as Yahweh had promised. Notice also that Yahweh said that he would dispossess and destroy these nations quickly. I'll return to this verse when we come to Turkel's "wild-beastie" quibble later on.

Turkel(2):
The emphatic language of this single verse does not affect in any way the fact that Deuteronomy is an ancient legal contract spelling out obligations of landlord and tenant****

Till(2):
I have repeatedly replied to this cut-and-pasted evasion. Out of consideration for the readers, I won't quote my reply here, having just quoted it above, but as Turkel keeps cutting and pasting such evasions, I will periodically requote it.

Till(1):

Deuteronomy 9:4 When Yahweh your God thrusts them out before you, do not say to yourself, "It is because of my righteousness that Yahweh has brought me in to occupy this land"; it is rather because of the wickedness of these nations that Yahweh is dispossessing them before you.

Turkel(2):
As we deal with Deut. 9:4 later in our essay, citing it is merely pep-rallying intended to pre-empt the argument****

Till(2):
I'll keep reminding readers that if Turkel really thought that he had dealt with this elsewhere in his "essay," he would have copied that answer here to emphatically remind readers that he had indeed answered it. Instead, he chose to cut-and-paste an evasive comment that we have seen now at least a hundred times. That speaks volumes about his awareness of how much he has failed to sustain his case.

Till(1):
****

Off-topic bantering about devices of emphasis has been snipped.

Till(1):
Notice that the verse above did not say if Yahweh thrusts out these nations; it said when Yahweh thrusts them out.

Turkel(2):
The use of "when" as opposed to "if" does not affect in any way the fact that Deuteronomy is an ancient legal contract spelling out obligations of landlord and tenant****

Till(2):
A complete rebuttal of Turkel's "legal-contract" argument has been posted several times. It was last quoted [in italic print] close to the beginning of this 8th part of my replies. As Turkel keeps parroting this refuted assertion, I will periodically quote it to keep readers reminder of my rebuttal points.

Till(1):
"Moses" told the people that when these nations had been thrust out before them, they should not think that Yahweh had done this for their own righteousness but rather because of the wickedness of the nations that Yahweh would drive out. Keep an eye on what "Moses" said about the righteousness of these people whom Yahweh was going to give the land to.

Turkel(2):
As we deal with Deut. 9:4, and this very idea, later in our essay, we will see what more is said later on about it.

Till(2):
Later, later, below, below--Turkel is always going to explain or answer everything later or below. Later and below never seem to come.

Till(1):

Deuteronomy 9:5 It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to occupy their land; but because of the wickedness of these nations Yahweh your God is dispossessing them before you, in order to fulfill the promise that Yahweh made on oath to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

Turkel(2):
As we deal with Deut. 9:5 later in our essay, citing it is merely pep-rallying intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game****

Till(2):
Here was another cut-and-pasted evasion, but this time, let's take a look at what Turkel said. He claimed that since he dealt with Deuteronomy 9:5 later in his "essay," my quoting it now was merely pep-rallying intended to preempt the argument, etc., etc., etc., but if he dealt with it later, I would not have known it at this point in the first round, so how could my quoting it at this point have been "pep-rallying intended to preempt the argument"?

Does Turkel ever pay attention to what he is writing? I say that he doesn't. He threw his cut-and-pasted second reply together in less than a week, so he couldn't have been paying much attention to what he was saying.

Turkel(2):
We note however that it is specifically stated that it is not for righteousness that the Israelites are going in to occupy the land, which is not the same thing as saying that it is not for righteousness (rather, lack thereof) that the Israelites will be able to keep occupying the land.

Till(2):
No, look again, Turkel. The text actually says....

Deuteronomy 9:6 Know, then, that Yahweh your God is not giving you this good land to occupy because of your righteousness; for you are a stubborn people.

Yahweh was giving these Israelites the land to occupy, yet they were a stubborn, rebellious, unrighteous people at this time. If Turkel wants to quibble about occupying the land as opposed to "keeping" the land, let him answer a question that he has now evaded more times than I can remember. If the moral behavior of the Israelites at this time, just before they entered Canaan, was not a condition for receiving the land promised to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, why did it suddenly become a condition right after they had entered the land?

I have also put the question another way. If not giving the land to these reprobate Israelites would have caused Yahweh to break his promise to Abraham, why wouldn't withholding the land from them later have also caused him to break the promise to Abraham?

Furthermore, there were two aspects to the promise: (1) Yahweh would give the land to Abraham's descendants because Abraham had kept Yahweh's commandments and laws. (2) Yahweh would give the land to Abraham's descendants as an everlasting possession to have forever. Therefore, if Yahweh had to give the land to the Israelites regardless of their morality so that he would keep his promise to Abraham, then he would also have to give it to them forever in order to keep his promise.

If not, why not?

Till(1):
There are not enough tangents for Turkel to lead us into that will ever distract me from bearing down on what this verse says.

Turkel(2):
That our opponent is obsessive even in error is something well known to all parties,

Till(2):
Now here is a typical Turkel assertion. I think I will try the same technique. That Turkel is obsessive even in error is something well known to all parties.

Hey, I like it. Argumentation by assertion eliminates the annoyance of having to provide supporting details.

Turkel(2):
however, we deal with Deut. 9:5 later in our essay,

Till(2):
Later, later--Turkel is always going to deal with thus and so later. I have now gone through more than 90,000 words in the second-round phase of this debate, so when is "later" going to come?

Turkel(2):
and our opponent has yet to answer what we say about it later in our essay****

Till(2):
I'll ask Turkel the same question again. How could I have been expected to answer at this point what he had said "later" in his "essay"?

In addition to Turkel's appalling ignorance of American punctuation rules and his careless writing habits, he doesn't seem to know what an essay is either.

Till(1):
It repeated what "Moses" had said in the verse before, i.e., it wasn't because of the righteousness of the Israelites but because of the wickedness of the nations in Canaan that Yahweh was driving them out.

Turkel(2):
We deal with Deut. 9:5 later in our essay, and our opponent has yet to answer what we say about it later in our essay.

Till(2):
Later, later--Turkel is always going to deal with thus and so later, and how could I be expected to answer at this point in the debate something that Turkel said "later" in his "essay"?

If Turkel had really dealt satisfactorily with Deuteronomy 9:5 later in his "essay," why didn't he cut and paste that answer here so that he could emphasize to readers that he has indeed answered it? Instead, he chooses to cut and paste evasive comments like the one above.

Readers, does that tell you anything?

Till(1):
Then "Moses" gave a second reason why Yahweh was dispossessing the other nations so that the Israelites could have the land despite their unrighteousness: Yahweh had to fulfill the promise he had made with an oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Turkel(2):
We deal with Deut. 9:5 later in our essay, and our opponent has yet to answer what we say about it later in our essay. This is therefore merely presumptuous****

Till(2):
Later, later--Turkel is always going to deal with thus and so later. I have two questions for him: (1) How could I be expected to answer at this point in the debate something that he didn't answer until "later"? (2): Instead of cutting and pasting an evasive comment that we have now seen probably a hundred times, why didn't he scroll down to "later," copy his reply to Deuteronomy 9:5, and paste it here so that everyone could see that he had indeed answered it?

Till(1):
Now if Yahweh had sworn with an oath to give this land to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he could not renege on that promise, because Yahweh cannot lie, can he?

Till(2):
No additional reply to this cut-and-pasted "Ancient Near Eastern concept" comment is necessary, but I did save a section of it below so that I can remind readers that I have replied to this unsupported assertion that Turkel keeps cutting and pasting.

Anyway, Turkel obviously evaded my question, so I will ask it again. If Yahweh had sworn with an oath to give this land to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he could not renege on that promise, because Yahweh cannot lie, can he?

If he ignores it again, I will ask it again.

Turkel(2):
Our opponent does not ever refute this point, not with Deut. 9 or any other passage; he merely struts pompously****

Till(2):
I have indeed refuted Turkel's "Ancient Near Eastern concept," and it was last quoted in full close to the beginning of this 8th part of my reply. I will periodically quote it as Turkel keeps cutting and pasting his evasive comment.

Till(1):
Turkel will try later to argue that the land promise was conditional to the good behavior of the Israelites, but the rest of Deuteronomy 9 shoots that "explanation" so full of holes that it will never float.

Turkel(2):
Our opponent has little choice but to resort to this empty promise, since he has utterly failed, and will continue to fail, to show why this explanation is "full of holes."

Till(2):
Well, gee, I guess it is time to quote my argument in full again just to remind readers that I have indeed shown why Turkel's conditional argument is full of holes.

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.

If Turkel now goes for a third round in this debate and keeps cutting and pasting a claim that I have not replied to his conditional argument, he will have shown that his honesty leaves much to be desired.

<>Turkel(2):
Moreover he can not [sic] explain wh [sic] it is necessary to quote such statements in a reply, and cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary****

Till(1):

Deuteronomy 9:6 Know, then, that Yahweh your God is not giving you this good land to occupy because of your righteousness; for you are a stubborn people.

Now why would Yahweh have said this at this particular time but then later say, "Well, you people have been too unrighteous for me to keep my land promise"? Could the unrighteousness of the people later exceed their unrighteousness that "Moses" went on to catalog in this chapter?

Turkel(2):
We deal with Deut. 9:6 later in our essay, and our opponent has yet to answer what we say about it later in our essay.

Till(2):
I should have known that this was something that Turkel would deal with "later" in his essay. However, I have to wonder why he didn't scroll down to "later," copy his explanation of Deuteronomy 9:6, and paste it here so that everyone would know that he had indeed explained it. Instead, he chose to cut and paste the evasive comment below.

The same question is in order here. If Turkel didn't explain this until "later" in his "essay," how could he have expected me to answer it here.

Turkel(2):
This is therefore merely presumptuous and an attempt to pre-empt the argument****

Till(2):
If Turkel is going to spend 90% of his time cutting and pasting, why didn't he cut and paste one of those "clear explanations" that come "later" in his "essay"?

Turkel(2):
Otherwise let us stress again....

Till(2):
Okay, I'll let you. Go ahead and stress it again.

Turkel(2):
[Otherwise let us stress again] that Deuteronomy is an ancient legal contract spelling out obligations of landlord and tenant, and that to extract any passage from Deuteronomy without respect to this fact is illicit. Even without that, though, to say that the land is being given to occupy initially with no reference to righteousness in no way suggests that there are no strictures with reference to continued occupation of the land.

Till(2):
I answered that above, but instead of just saying that I answered it, I'm going to show that I answered it by quoting it below.

No, look again, Turkel. The text actually says....

Deuteronomy 9:6 Know, then, that Yahweh your God is not giving you this good land to occupy because of your righteousness; for you are a stubborn people.

If not, why not?

So Turkel's attempt to differential between giving the land to the Israelites regardless of their behavior and letting them keep the land the land after it had been given to them has fizzled like most of his quibbles.

Till(1):

Deuteronomy 9:7 Remember and do not forget how you provoked Yahweh your God to wrath in the wilderness; you have been rebellious against Yahweh from the day you came out of the land of Egypt until you came to this place.

Turkel(2):
We deal with Deut. 9:7 later in our essay,

Till(2):
Yes, I should have known that Turkel would deal with this later. I have just demonstrated how simple it is to cut and paste a reply made elsewhere in a debate if an opponent raises an issue related to that reply, so I have to wonder why Robert "Cut-and-Paste" Turkel doesn't use some of his cutting and pasting skills to hammer home decisively to us that he has indeed replied to this.

I know the answer to that question. Whenever he did attempt to reply to anything, it was so glaringly weak that if he had cut and pasted it into the debate as many times as his claim that "we deal with thus and so later in our essay," readers would have had constant reminders before them of just how weak Turkel's "answers" are.

Turkel(2):
but would add now that this only confirms our thesis that the promises were conditional, for otherwise, what is the point of reminding the Israelites of their rebellious behavior in the past? If there were no conditions, what difference did behavior make and why is this a relevant example?

Till(2):
Oh, that one is too easy to answer. How about the possibility that the cataloging of the Israelite sins in a context in which Yahweh was saying he was going to give them the land despite their complete unworthiness was a way of emphasizing the faithfulness of Yahweh to the promise he had made to Abraham?

Any more questions?

Turkel may as well have asked why "Moses" constantly raved about the rebellious behavior of the Israelites even when the land issue was not the subject.

Till(1):
If the Israelites had been rebellious against Yahweh from the day they came out of Egypt until the day "Moses" made this speech to them but Yahweh was still going to give them the land anyway, what could they have possibly done later that would have been bad enough to provoke Yahweh to withdraw the land promise?

Turkel(2):
Our opponent still apparently fails to see, as we explain below,

Till(2):
Oh, I should have known that this was something that Turkel would explain "below." I wonder why he didn't cut and paste here that explanation from "below" so that he could have more effectively driven home the fact that he has indeed explained this?

Turkel(2):
[Our opponent still apparently fails to see, as we explain below,] a key difference in that Deut. 9:3-7 has nothing to do with whether the Israelites would continue to be able to possess the land; that will depend on their fulfillment of their obligations as tenants, as stated in the Deuteronomic contract.

Till(2):
I just requoted my rebuttal of this (above), so I won't quote it again. As Turkel keeps cutting and pasting this comment, however, I will periodically quote it to remind readers that this quibble has been answered.

As for the "Deuteronomic contract" that Turkel keeps referring to in trying to quibble his way around the problems I have identified in the land promise, I think it is time to discuss something that Turkel has apparently not seen in this so-called Deuteronomic contract. The book of Deuteronomy in its entirety is recognized by responsible biblical scholars as a view of this stage of Israelite "history" that is even more retrospective than the other books in the Pentateuch, and only naive fundamentalists believe that "Moses" wrote these books as he was able now and then to snatch time from his other duties during the wilderness years. Since this debate began, I have taken the time to read through Deuteronomy twice, very deliberately, to take special notice of the passages that referred to the land. Although I had read it many times before, I had not done so with a concentration on just the land-promise issue. This additional study of the book has reinforced three conclusions about the book, which I am ready to defend if Turkel wishes to dispute them: (1) The actual land promise was unconditional, thanks, as Frank Moore Cross said, to the fidelity of Abraham. (2) Up to chapter 28, the so-called "conditional passages," stipulating the need to obey Yahweh's statutes, were "conditions" for not receiving the land but for enjoying longevity and prosperity after the Israelites had possessed the land. (3) Chapter 28 begins a section, rather obviously exilic or postexilic in composition, which retrospectively refers to dispersions and captivities, and attributes them to disobeying Yahweh‘s statutes and commands. Turkel is confusing number (3) with numbers (1) and (2).

Before Turkel disputes this, I advise him to sit down and go through the book of Deuteronomy with a view to noticing all passages that referred to the land promise. I conducted this study with a new Bible that had been unmarked so that I could color code the various passages without having the distractions of various notes that are in the margins of the Bible that I use in personal studies. To illustrate what he will find in such a study, I will quote as an example the text he tried to use to show that the land promise as stated in chapter 9 was conditional.

Deuteronomy 8:11 Beware that thou forget not Yahweh thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day;
12 Lest when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein;
13 And when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied;
14 Then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget Yahweh thy God, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage;
15 Who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint;
16 Who fed thee in the wilderness with manna, which thy fathers knew not, that he might humble thee, and that he might prove thee, to do thee good at thy latter end;
17 And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth.
18 But thou shalt remember Yahweh thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day.
19 And it shall be, if thou do at all forget Yahweh thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish.
20 As the nations which Yahweh destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of Yahweh your God.

As I pointed out previously, this text was not saying that one who forgot Yahweh would not receive any inheritance in the land, because the text was obviously referring to wealth in flocks and herds and silver and gold that would be acquired after entering the land. The warning was not that one who forgot Yahweh and worshiped other gods would have his land taken from him but that he would "surely perish." (Deuteronomy 13:6ff and 17:2ff proscribed the death penalty for this offense.) After having perished, however, the land owned by the offender would remain with his heirs. It would not be taken away and given to, say, Egyptians or Syrians or Philistines.

Here are some other similar passages.

Deuteronomy 4:1 So now, Israel, give heed to the statutes and ordinances that I am teaching you to observe, so that you may live to enter and occupy the land that Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, is giving you.

Deuteronomy 4:25-26 When you have had children and children's children, and become complacent in the land, if you act corruptly by making an idol in the form of anything, thus doing what is evil in the sight of Yahweh your God, and provoking him to anger,
26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that you will soon utterly perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to occupy; you will not live long on it, but will be utterly destroyed.

Deuteronomy 4:40 Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live long in the land Yahweh your God gives you for all time.

These passages stipulated that obedience to Yahweh's statutes and commands were a condition for prosperity (it may go well with you) and long life in the land that Yahweh was giving to the Israelites. Notice that the last verse quoted above stipulated that the land was being given to them "for all time." This part of the promise was necessary because Yahweh had clearly said that he was giving the land to Abraham's descendants as an everlasting possession.

Deuteronomy 5:32 So be careful to do what Yahweh your God has commanded you; do not turn aside to the right or to the left.
33 Walk in all the way that Yahweh your God has commanded you, so that you may live and prosper and prolong your days in the land that you will possess.

Deuteronomy 6:1 These are the commands, decrees and laws Yahweh your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess,
2 so that you, your children and their children after them may fear Yahweh your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life.

Deuteronomy 6:23 But he [Yahweh] brought us out from there [Egypt] to bring us in and give us the land that he promised on oath to our forefathers.
24 Yahweh commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear Yahweh our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today.

Deuteronomy 7:8 Yahweh did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples.
8 But it was because Yahweh loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
9 Know therefore that Yahweh your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands.
10 But those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction; he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him.
11 Therefore, take care to follow the commands, decrees and laws I give you today.

Deuteronomy 11:8 Keep, then, this entire commandment that I am commanding you today, so that you may have strength to go in and occupy the land that you are crossing over to occupy,
9 and so that you may live long in the land that Yahweh swore to your ancestors to give them and to their descendants, a land flowing with milk and honey.

There are many others like these that stipulated obedience to Yahweh's statutes as a condition to prosperity and long life in the new land. If examined more carefully, some passages that have been cited as conditions to possessing the land can actually be viewed as parallels to the ones just quoted above.

Deuteronomy 6:17 You must diligently keep the commandments of Yahweh your God, and his decrees, and his statutes that he has commanded you.
18 Do what is right and good in the sight of Yahweh, so that it may go well with you, and so that you may go in and occupy the good land that Yahweh swore to your ancestors to give you,
19 thrusting out all your enemies from before you, as Yahweh has promised.

The passages quoted above this attached obedience to Yahweh's statutes as a condition for long life and prosperity, and there is really no reason to see the one immediately above any differently. Presumably, this speech by "Moses" was made before the Israelites had entered Canaan, and the "history" of their trek to the promised land is filled with tales of Yahweh's petulant vengeance on the Israelites for various offenses. Yahweh once sent forth fire to consume two priests who lit their censers with "strange fire" (Lev. 10:2), he struck them with "a very great plague" for having complained about not having meat (Num. 11:33), he opened the earth and swallowed 250 men for complaining about the leadership of Moses (Num. 16:31-35), he killed 24,000 at Peor for consorting with Moabite women, etc., etc., etc. With such a "history" as this behind them, one could well interpret the passage immediately above as a warning that those who disobeyed the commandments of Yahweh would be struck dead and therefore not live to go into "the good land that Yahweh swore to [their] ancestors to give [them]."

What Turkel needs to find is a passage where Moses said to the Israelites, "If you don't keep Yahweh's commandments, he will not give you the land," but there really is no such passage. Even the obviously postexilic redactions in Deuteronomy 28ff, which tried to rationalize the dispersions of the Jews, taught that captivity would be only temporary.

Turkel(2)
The stress here is that the ability to enter the land is the result of an act of unmerited grace with respect to those present. They are riding in, as it were, on Abraham's coattails;

Till(2):
Everyone should understand by now that I agree that this was what was being said in Deuteronomy 9. As the story was told, the Israelites at that time were morally corrupt, but Yahweh said that he was going to give the land to them anyway because of the promise that he made to Abraham.

Genesis 26:4 I [Yahweh] will make your [Isaac] offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven, and will give to your offspring all these lands; and all the nations of the earth shall gain blessing for themselves through your offspring,
5 because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

As Turkel said, the Israelites were riding into the promised land on Abraham's coattails, and several passages in Deuteronomy mention the oath to Abraham that required Yahweh to give these disobedient Israelites the land he had promised.

Deuteronomy 1:8 See, I have set the land before you; go in and take possession of the land that I swore to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give to them and to their descendants after them.

Deuteronomy 4:31 Because Yahweh your God is a merciful God, he will neither abandon you nor destroy you; he will not forget the covenant with your ancestors that he swore to them.

Deuteronomy 6:10 When Yahweh your God has brought you into the land that he swore to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give you--a land with fine, large cities that you did not build,
11 houses filled with all sorts of goods that you did not fill, hewn cisterns that you did not hew, vineyards and olive groves that you did not plant--and when you have eaten your fill,
12 take care that you do not forget Yahweh, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

Deuteronomy 6:18 Do what is right and good in the sight of Yahweh, so that it may go well with you, and so that you may go in and occupy the good land that Yahweh swore to your ancestors to give you....

Deuteronomy 6:23 He brought us out from there in order to bring us in, to give us the land that he promised on oath to our ancestors.

Deuteronomy 7:8 It was because Yahweh loved you and kept the oath that he swore to your ancestors, that Yahweh has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

In Deuteronomy, which Turkel refers to as a "contractual agreement," there are many other references to the promise that Yahweh swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and this oath is going to prove an insurmountable obstacle in Turkel's attempt to prove that the land promise failed because the Israelites were unfaithful. If Yahweh had promised with an oath to give the land to Abraham's seed because Abraham kept Yahweh's commandments, then there was no way that Yahweh could have withheld the land and still kept his promise to Abraham. Likewise, if Yahweh had promised with an oath that he would give this land to Abraham's descendants as an everlasting possession, there was no way that Yahweh could have given them only partial, temporary possession and still kept his promise.

So, yes, the Israelites rode into Canaan on Abraham's coattails, and unless Turkel wants to think that his Yahweh is unfaithful, there is no other way that it could have been. The biblical text, however, indicates that the Israelites did not receive all the land that Yahweh had promised, and that is a problem I am still waiting for Turkel to explain.

Turkel(2):
but this has nothing to do with whether they will be able to stay in the land as tenants.

Till(2):
Indeed it does have something to do with whether they would be able to stay in the land as "tenants," because the promise was that Yahweh would give land within clearly defined borders to Abraham's seed forever. Turkel is having a problem recognizing that there were two parts to Yahweh's oath to Abraham: (1) Land within defined borders would be given to Abraham's seed. (2) This land would be given to Abraham's seed as an everlasting possession.

As I noted above, even the postexilic references in Deuteronomy to the dispersion and captivity recognized that the land belonged to the Israelites by virtue of Yahweh's oath to Abraham, and so they would be restored to the land (although actually some Israelites had remained on the land during these captivities).

Deuteronomy 30:1 "Now it shall come to pass, when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where Yahweh your God drives you,
2and you return to Yahweh your God and obey His voice, according to all that I command you today, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul,
3 that Yahweh your God will bring you back from captivity, and have compassion on you, and gather you again from all the nations where Yahweh your God has scattered you.
4 If any of you are driven out to the farthest parts under heaven, from there Yahweh your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you.
5 Then Yahweh your God will bring you to the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it. He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers.
6 and Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live."

Notice that verse 5 said that the "fathers" of the dispersed Israelites had possessed the land and that the repatriates would also possess it as the "fathers" had done, so even these after-the-fact references to dispersion and captivity were claiming that Yahweh would not be unfaithful to his promise to Abraham.

Turkel(2):
In short, our opponent's objection is oblivious to the point that the behavior is stressed precisely in order to make it clear that entry into the land at all is an act of unmerited grace -- and to stress that as of entry, the "grace period" was up and the Deuteronomic contract was in force.

Till(2):
I'm not going to challenge Turkel; I'm going to defy him to produce a passage that says anything about a "grace period" that expired when the Israelites entered the land. To make his case he needs to find a passage that says, "Yahweh is giving you the land because of the fidelity of Abraham, but the moment you enter the land, the grace accorded you through Abraham's fidelity will end, and the land will be taken from you if you don't keep Yahweh's statutes."

I will remind Turkel that his quibble cannot be true, because there were two parts to Yahweh's land promise: (1) Yahweh would give the land to Abraham's descendants, because Abraham had kept Yahweh's commandments. (2) Yahweh's gift of the land to Abraham's descendants would be for an everlasting possession.

What Turkel can't seem to realize is that Abraham's coattails were substantially longer than he thinks. Those coattails would not just entitle the Israelites to enter the promised land, but they would entitle them to keep the land forever.

Till(1):
This is a problem Turkel must explain in addition to the problem of an omni-max deity's making a promise without apparently knowing that the subjects of his promise would later prove so wicked that he would have to withhold the promise.

Turkel(2):
This is nothing but a diversion, the same one made above --

Till(2):
Turkel is proving to be like many other biblical inerrantists that I have debated. He doesn't seem to realize that any explanation of a biblical discrepancy must be consistent with all other biblical passages and doctrines; otherwise, one discrepancy will have been explained at the expense of some other biblical passage. If explaining discrepancy A, creates discrepancy B, then the inerrantist hasn't gained anything.

That is the situation that Turkel finds himself in. He has presented an "explanation" for the land-promise discrepancy that is logically inconsistent with other biblical doctrines. The Bible teaches, for example, that Yahweh is all-knowing and all-powerful, so Turkel must make his explanation of the land-promise discrepancy consistent with the passages that teach that Yahweh had these attributes. Therefore, it is not a diversion to ask Turkel to explain why an omniscient, omnipotent deity would have promised to give land within clearly defined borders to Abraham's descendants for an everlasting possession, knowing at the time that the promise would not be fulfilled because of (according to Turkel) the immorality of those descendants.

The question is very relevant to this debate, so I will ask it again. Why didn't the omni-max Yahweh know at the time of the promise that the descendants of Abraham would be too immoral for Yahweh to keep the promise? If Yahweh did know at the time that the promise would not be fulfilled because the descendants of Abraham would be too immoral to allow fulfillment, why did Yahweh make the promise in the first place?

If Turkel evades these questions again, I will--to borrow an expression from him--take his evasion as evidence of an inability to address the questions.

Turkel(2):
it will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue (the land promises), for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject (the relation of omniscience to free will) never addressed in the original article.

Till(2):
As I just explained above, the questions are quite relevant to the debate, so I will exercise my right as a party in a formal debate to ask Turkel to reply to them. As for my ability to "address the subject at hand," I have more than proven my ability to defend my position in this matter. If Turkel will be more specific and identify what he thinks I am incapable of "addressing," I will gladly reply to it.

Will he extend the same offer to me?

Turkel(2):
We are under no obligation at all to offer any explanation on this subject.

Till(2):
Turkel again shows his complete ignorance of the rules of formal debating. Before a debate begins, the parties have no way of knowing which direction the discussion may turn as the participants present their arguments and rebuttals. That is why the guidelines below are standard in most formal debates.

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.

I presented these in a set of guidelines, which Turkel refused to negotiate prior to the beginning of this debate, and I now understand why he wouldn't cooperate in working out an agreement. He wanted room to wiggle and squirm and duck and dodge and bob and weave as he has been doing throughout this "debate." However, since the guidelines above are reasonable standards for a formal debate, I am going to ask him to answer the questions that he just dodged. If he evades them again, I will--to borrow an expression from him--see this as an inability to address an issue relevant to the debate.

Till(1):
Just look at the sins of these people that "Moses" went on to catalog.

Turkel(2):
We are well aware of the sins listed in Deut. 9. This has nothing to do with whether the Israelites would continue to be able to possess the land; that will depend on their fulfillment of their obligations as tenants, as stated in the Deuteronomic contract. The stress here is that the ability to enter the land is the result of an act of unmerited grace with respect to those present -- an act of grace they need, precisely because if it were rated on behavior, they would fail before ever opening the door to the Promised Land. They are riding in, as it were, on Abraham's coattails; but this has nothing to do with whether they will be able to stay in the land as tenants.

Till(2):
I have rebutted this quibble several times, but rather than just saying so, I am going to quote my rebuttal again so that there will be no doubt that I have answered it.

I'm not going to challenge Turkel; I'm going to defy him to produce a passage that says anything about a "grace period" that expired when the Israelites entered the land. To make his case, he needs to find a passage that says, "Yahweh is giving you the land because of the fidelity of Abraham, but the moment you enter the land, the grace accorded you through Abraham's fidelity will end, and the land will be taken from you if you violate Yahweh's statutes."

Till(2):
I will be waiting to see Turkel quote the passage that said "the grace period" ended when the Israelites entered Canaan. As I just pointed out above, there were two parts to the promise: (1) The land would be given to the Israelites because of Abraham's obedience and faithfulness. (2) The land would be given to the Israelites as an everlasting possession.

How could Yahweh do (1) but not do (2) and still be faithful to his promise? That is what Turkel has yet to explain, no matter how much he talks about what he has "clearly" said "later" in his "essay."

Turkel(2):
This is our answer to the cites from Deut. 9, but to satisfy our opponent's obsession to be quoted in EVERYTHING we provide them nevertheless:

Till(2):
Turkel's distortion in this matter has been pointed out several times now. I never did demand of him that he quote everything I would say in a debate where readers of his website would have access [links] to my articles. I have repeatedly quoted the two guidelines (above) that I proposed to him prior to the debate. Those two guidelines are clearly inconsistent with his claim that I had demanded that he quote everything I said. I was asking only that he agree to reply to all of my arguments and rebuttals, and there is a big difference in this guideline and what he is claiming I demanded.

If he repeats this misrepresentation in round three--if there is one--we will know that he is being deliberately dishonest.

Having reached 14,000 words in this part, I will conclude it and continue my replies in Part Nine. Unlike Turkel, I will be deliberate and thorough in my replies, and I will not evade anything he says. If at any time, he thinks I am not keeping this commitment, all he has to do is point out what he thinks I have overlooked, and I will reply to it.