Till(2):
Part Eight ended with Turkel's assertion that "the behavior [of the Israelites] is stressed [in Deuteronomy 9] precisely in order to make it clear that entry into the land at all is an act of unmerited grace."  He then said that he would not comment any further on the verses that I had quoted below to show the catalog of sins that Moses alleged the Israelites had been guilty of from the day they came out of Egypt.  The purpose of my explication of this chapter was to show that if the behavior of the Israelites had been a condition for Yahweh's fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, then these Israelites would never have been given the land because, according to Moses, they had been guilty of just about every sin imaginable.

Recognizing the problem that this passage posed to his position that the land promise was conditional, Turkel began to take a new track.  He modified his position to make the giving of the land unconditional but the retention of the land conditional.  In other words, he began to argue that the giving of the land to the Israelites was an unconditional act of "unmerited grace" (an anachronistic application of a New Testament principle), which enabled the Israelites to ride into the land of Canaan on "Abraham's coattails," but, so Turkel suddenly began to claim, retaining the land would be conditional to their obedience to the commandments of Yahweh.

You can always expect a biblical inerrantist to keep modifying his position as he encounters rebuttal arguments that expose problems in it, and that is what has happened here.  This debate began with Turkel originally arguing that the land promise was conditional from the start, because it was just an "Ancient Near Eastern concept" of the relationship between land, people, and their deity that land given by deities was always conditional, but confronted with the problem presented by Deuteronomy 9, Turkel has revised his position to make entry into the land unconditional but retention of the land conditional.  In typical inerrantist fashion, however, Turkel has modified his position without giving adequate consideration to a fact that I have repeatedly called to his attention: the original land promise consisted of two parts.  The first part was an unconditional promise that the land would be given to Abraham's descendants because of Abraham‘s fidelity.  The second part was that it would be given to them as an everlasting possession.

Genesis 17:8 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. ⁸Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

Genesis 22:15 Then the Angel of Yahweh called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, ¹⁶and said: "By Myself I have sworn, says Yahweh, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son—¹⁷blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. ¹⁸In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."

Genesis 26:3  Dwell in this land, and I will be with you [Isaac] and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. ⁴And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; ⁵because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws."

I'm certainly glad that Turkel finally realized that if Yahweh had sworn to give the land to Abraham's descendants because of Abraham‘s fidelity, he could not have kept the land from the Israelites without breaking his promise.  However, in recognizing that the promise to give the land to Abraham's descendants was necessarily unconditional, Turkel did not go quite far enough, because there was a second part to Yahweh's unconditional promise: Yahweh would not only give the land to Abraham's descendants because of Abraham's fidelity, but he would give the land to them as an everlasting possession.  Turkel therefore cannot argue that the Israelites rode into the promised land on Abraham's coattails as an "act of unmerited grace" but that keeping the land after this was conditional to their behavior, because just as the promise to give Abraham's descendants the land was unconditional so was the promise to give the land to them as an everlasting promise. 

If not, why not?

Furthermore, if, as Turkel now seems to realize, the promise to give the land to Abraham's descendants was an unconditional promise by which the Israelites rode into Canaan on the coattails of Abraham, the extent of the land promise would also have been necessarily unconditional.

Genesis 15:18  On the same day Yahweh made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates...."

Exodus 23:31 And I will set your bounds from the Red Sea to the sea, Philistia, and from the desert to the River. For I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you.

Joshua 1:1  After the death of Moses the servant of Yahweh, it came to pass that Yahweh spoke to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' assistant, saying: ²"Moses My servant is dead. Now therefore, arise, go over this Jordan, you and all this people, to the land which I am giving to them—the children of Israel. ³Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given you, as I said to Moses. ⁴From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the River Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your territory.

The sum of all this is that Yahweh's land promise was threefold: (1) Land would be given to Abraham's descendants because of Abraham‘s fidelity.  (2)  This land would be an everlasting possession for Abraham's descendants.  (3)  This land would be contained within defined borders from the River of Egypt to Lebanon and from the River Euphrates to the Great Sea [Mediterranean].  So Turkel needs to explain why number 1 was unconditional so that the Israelites could ride into Canaan on Abraham's coattails, but numbers 2 and 3 were conditional to the behavior of the Israelites after they had gotten their free ride into Canaan.

That is the predicament that Turkel is in at this point of the debate as he skipped over the following verses that I quoted in Deuteronomy 9.

Deuteronomy 9:8 Even at Horeb you provoked Yahweh to wrath, and Yahweh was so angry with you that he was ready to destroy you.
9 When I went up the mountain to receive the stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant that Yahweh made with you, I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water.
10 And Yahweh gave me the two stone tablets written with the finger of God; on them were all the words that Yahweh had spoken to you at the mountain out of the fire on the day of the assembly.
11 At the end of forty days and forty nights Yahweh gave me the two stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant.
12 Then Yahweh said to me, "Get up, go down quickly from here, for your people whom you have brought from Egypt have acted corruptly. They have been quick to turn from the way that I commanded them; they have cast an image for themselves."
13 Furthermore Yahweh said to me, "I have seen that this people is indeed a stubborn people.
14 Let me alone that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make of you a nation mightier and more numerous than they."
15  So I turned and went down from the mountain, while the mountain was ablaze; the two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands.
16 Then I saw that you had indeed sinned against Yahweh your God, by casting for yourselves an image of calf; you had been quick to turn from the way that Yahweh had commanded you.
17 So I took hold of the two tablets and flung them from my two hands, smashing them before your eyes.
18 Then I lay prostrate before Yahweh as before, forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water, because of all the sin you had committed, provoking Yahweh by doing what was evil in his sight.
19 For I was afraid that the anger that Yahweh bore against you was so fierce that he would destroy you. But Yahweh listened to me that time also.
20 Yahweh was so angry with Aaron that he was ready to destroy him, but I interceded also on behalf of Aaron at that same time.
21 Then I took the sinful thing you had made, the calf, and burned it with fire and crushed it, grinding it thoroughly, until it was reduced to dust; and I threw the dust of it into the stream that runs down the mountain.
22 At Taberah also, and at Massah, and at Kibroth-hattaavah, you provoked Yahweh to wrath.
23 And when Yahweh sent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying, "Go up and occupy the land that I have given you," you rebelled against the command of Yahweh your God, neither trusting him nor obeying him.
24 You have been rebellious against Yahweh as long as he has known you.
25 Throughout the forty days and forty nights that I lay prostrate before Yahweh when Yahweh intended to destroy you,
26 I prayed to Yahweh and said, "Lord GOD, do not destroy the people who are your very own possession, whom you redeemed in your greatness, whom you brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand.
27 Remember your servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; pay no attention to the stubbornness of this people, their wickedness and their sin,
28 otherwise the land from which you have brought us might say, ‘Because Yahweh was not able to bring them into the land that he promised them, and because he hated them, he has brought them out to let them die in the wilderness.'
29 For they are the people of your very own possession, whom you brought out by your great power and by your outstretched arm."

The description of the Israelites in this passage was about as uncomplimentary as one could imagine, so if the moral depravity of the Israelites at that time was not sufficient reason to deny them the land promised to Abraham's descendants, their conduct later could not become a reason not to let them retain the land, because just as the promise of the land was unconditional, the promise that the land would be an everlasting possession for Abraham's descendants was necessarily unconditional too.  Furthermore, if the promise of the land was made because of Abraham's fidelity, then the "everlasting possession" promise was also made because of Abraham's fidelity.

If not, why not?

Turkel(2):
Again, our answer to this, which was given later in our essay: We are well aware of the sins listed in Deut. 9.

Till(2):
Later, later--Turkel keeps claiming that his "answer" to this was given later, but somehow later never seems to come.  As I pointed out before, Turkel is big on cutting and pasting, but he seems only to cut and paste evasive comments like this one.  If he had really "answered" this problem "later," why wouldn't he have copied that answer here so that he would have it on record at a point where I was asking him to explain this problem?  I think readers will be able to see that Turkel never gave an answer to this problem "later."  He certainly made assertions later, but he never seems able to support those assertions.

Turkel(2):
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. 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):
Turkel is making a claim that he needs to support.  He has modified his original position to now claim that the original promise of the land was unconditional but that the keeping of the land was conditional to the behavior of the Israelites after they had entered the land.  Where does he get that?   He doesn't explain; he just asserts it, as if he thinks that his mere word is enough to carry the day.

I just showed above that the land promise was triple faceted: (1) Yahweh would give the land to the descendants of Abraham.  (2)  This land would be contained within boundaries marked by the River of Egypt, Lebanon, the Euphrates River, and the Great Sea.  (3)  This land would be an everlasting possession for Abraham's descendants.

The original promise was clear in stating that the land would be given because of Abraham's fidelity.  Hence, there were no strings attached to the promise.  Abraham had been faithful to Yahweh, so on the basis of Abraham's faith, the promise was made.  The promise, however, contained the three facets listed above, so how could keeping the land after the descendants of Abraham had entered it be dependent on the behavior of those descendants if the giving of the land had no conditions attached?

Turkel is reading into the text what he wants it to say so that he can have an "explanation" for the obvious failure of the promise.

Till (1):
Even after all of this, Yahweh told the Israelites that he was going to give them the land promised to the patriarchs despite their own unrighteousness, so if the disobedience, rebellion, and unrighteousness of the Israelites weren't sufficient cause for Yahweh to withhold renewing the land promise at this time, why did their unrighteousness later become a reason why Yahweh withheld some of the land he promised?

Turkel(2):
Because 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. 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):
Did everyone notice that Turkel offered no textual support at all for this assertion?  He keeps talking about "Abraham's coattails" by which the Israelites rode into Canaan as an act of "unmerited grace," but the promise wasn't just a promise that the land would be given to Abraham's descendants because of his fidelity; the promise was that, because of Abraham's fidelity, his descendants would be given the land as an everlasting possession.  Turkel cannot make the first part of the promise unconditional but the last part conditional.  He must explain why the "everlasting-possession" part of the promise would not have been just as conditional as the first part of the promise.

He could help his case a great deal if he would just quote scriptures that say what he is claiming, i. e., getting the land was unconditional, an act of "unmerited grace," but keeping the land was conditional to the behavior of the Israelites.  Readers should know that if such scriptures existed, he would have quoted them.

Till(1):
After all, Yahweh is supposed to be unchanging, the same yesterday, today, and forever, isn't he, so why was extreme unrighteousness not a reason to withhold the land from the Israelites as they were about to enter Canaan but later it was?

Turkel(2):
Yahweh's immutability has nothing to do with whether the Israelites would, because of their own freewill decisions, continue to be able to possess the land; that would depend on their fulfillment of their obligations as tenants, as stated in the Deuteronomic contract.

Till(2):
Where does Turkel get this?  The promise had two parts: (1)  The descendants of Abraham would be given land within defined borders.  (2)  This land would be an everlasting possession.  The promise was made because of Abraham's fidelity, so if (1) was unconditional, (2) would also have to be unconditional.

If not, why not?

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; but this has nothing to do with whether they will be able to stay in the land as tenants.

Till(2):
But Abraham's coattails had two parts, somewhat like the tail of a tuxedo: (1)  The land would be given to Abraham's descendants.  (2)  The land would be an everlasting possession for Abraham's descendants.  Turkel can't just keep talking about the "unmerited grace" afforded the Israelites by Abraham's coattails without explaining why one side of the coattail was unconditional but the other side was conditional.

Turkel(2):
Our opponent still has not grasped the [sic] there is a promise to enter the land, to have a "chance" to possess it as it were, and then there are boucoups [sic] of conditions, laid out within Deuteronomy, and [sic] ancient contract, from which it is illicit to take verses or passages in isolation.

Till(2):
"Our opponent," however, has grasped that there were two parts to a promise that Yahweh had made because of Abraham's fidelity: (1) Abraham's descendants would be given land within defined borders.  (2)  This land would be given to Abraham's descendants for an everlasting possession.

Turkel can't seem to grasp that if the promise was made because of Abraham's fidelity, then both parts of the promise were necessarily unconditional.

If not, why not?

Till(1):
This is a problem that Turkel must explain, and, needless to say, he hasn't done it yet.

Turkel(2):
Despite our opponent's comprehension difficulties,

Till(2):
Comprehension difficulties?  When have I shown an inability to comprehend something as simple as the analysis of the land promise that I have now posted umpteen times.  Yahweh made the land promise because of Abraham's fidelity, so if the first part of the promise was unconditional and entitled the Israelites to ride into Canaan on Abraham's coattails, how could the second (everlasting) part of the promise have been conditional?

Is Turkel ever going to explain this?

Turkel(2):
we have explained this issue and thoroughly refuted our opponent's contention, and he has not provided any answer.

Till(2):
If Turkel really thought that he had "explained this issue and thoroughly refuted ‘our opponent's' contention," he--the king of all cutters and pasters--would surely have quoted that thorough refutation here so that it would be a matter of record at a point in the debate where I had called for him to explain the problem.

Turkel(2):
In terms of our topic at hand, the relevance of this data is that even the original promise of Genesis, by the thinking of the ancients, was not a matter of "here it is with no strings attached." Abraham would have expected the grant of land to be accompanied by conditions; one did not merely occupy land without some sort of nod to the landlord, and with no expectation that one could do as one pleased.

Till(2):
Turkel has made this assertion numerous times, but not once has he ever cited any kind of supporting information.  He hasn't quoted a single example of ancient suzerainty treaties, and he hasn't cited a single authority on these treaties to support his assertion.  He seems to believe that if he asserts something that should be sufficient.

On the other hand, I have quoted Frank Moore Cross, a scholar whose "lifeblood" has been the study of ancient Near Eastern languages and cultures, and he cited examples of suzerainty treaties to show that the land part was unconditional and that conditions were place on the kings or rulers of vassal states and not on the people, whom the suzerains would need to rely on to make the land in the vassal state productive.  It is too long to quote here, but if Turkel would read the lengthy discussions of covenants and ANE treaties in Anchor Bible Dictionary, volume 1, he should see that his "comprehension" of the "Ancient Near Eastern concept" of land, people, and their deity is not nearly as simplistic as he imagines it.

I will be saying more about this later as Turkel keeps bringing this subject up.

Till(1):
So Turkel is even able to read Abraham's mind?

Turkel(2):
This snide comment is merely a distraction from the point that the overwhelming evidence of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, places the burden of proof upon any respondent claiming that such was not, or would not have been, known to Abraham when Yahweh appraoched [sic] him with the land promise.

Till(2):
I retained this evasive comment just to remind readers of Turkel's penchant for evading issues with such irrelevant comments, but from now on, I will cut them with **** so that the discussion won't become entirely bogged down in Turkel's cut-and-past jobs that serve no purpose except to distract attention from his evasion of arguments that he cannot answer.

The only other comment I will make here is that Turkel has only asserted this "Ancient Near Eastern" concept that he keeps parroting, but he has offered no proof that it was understood as he claims.  On the other hand, I have offered the scholarship of Frank Moore Cross as a view that disagrees with Turkel's claim, and I doubt that upon Cross's retirement from his position, the board of trustees at Harvard will say, "I wonder if we can get Robert Turkel to fill the position Cross has vacated."

Turkel(2):
We anticipated that our opponent would simply, desperately, and without any contrary evidence, deny the applicability of the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity to the particular case of Abraham, and our anticipation has been 100% accurate.

Till(2):
Readers may refer back to my lengthy quotation from Frank Moore Cross's works on ancient Hebrew and Canaanite epics to see that Turkel's anticipation has been 100% wrong.

Turkel(2):
Our opponent is clearly lost and unable to respond effectively, for he has no evidence with which to respond and can only make snide comments begging peculiar exceptions to known, widespread, established data-paradigms of the Ancient Near East.

Till(2):
So that I won't unnecessarily impose on the patience of readers, I will quote only part of a longer quotation from Frank Moore Cross's book From Epic To Canon, which I posted in Part Four of this series.  This particular part is  a quotation from a long footnote on page 14.

There are, to be sure, some interesting parallels between two types of  "dynastic promise to David" and two types of dynastic clauses of suzerainty treaties of the second millennium. Certain elements are common to both types: The suzerain secures the vassal on the throne, secures the land in his possession, and lists land boundaries.  Sometimes "sonship" is granted.

But two types of promise are found in regard to the future of the dynasty. The usual is to promise that a king's heirs will remain on the throne under the protection of the suzerain so long as they are obedient to the stipulations of the covenant. The treaty makes the perpetuation of the dynasty conditional. In the second type, the promise of the land and  promise of the dynastic succession are unconditional.  This type is found in pure form in the Treaty of Tudkhaliyas  IV and Ulmi-Teshup of Dattassa. It is said that if Ulmi-Teshup is faithful to his covenant with his suzerain, it is the obligation of the suzerain to preserve his heirs on the throne of Dattassa, and to preserve the land in the heirs' possession. If a future son sins (rebels), he may be punished or removed, but kingship and land must pass to another heir of Ulmi-Teshup, in theory thereby creating an eternal dynasty.  Put another way, it can be said that permanence of dynasty and possession of land rests on the "reservoir of grace" filled by the obedience of Ulmi-Teshup alone, and therefore is not dependent on the fidelity of each succeeding heir--presumably intensifying Ulmi-Teshup's motivation to obedience. The analogy with the "high" or unconditional royal ideology of the Davidids is obvious. Thanks to the piety of David, the throne is eternally promised to the house of David; thanks to the fidelity of Abraham, the land is promised perpetually to his seed. One suspects that in this unconditional promise to heirs, archaic kinship ideology is at work: the family of the faithful covenant partner is bound forever in kinship bonds with the suzerain, and his family.

So if anyone is "clearly lost," it is Turkel, because I have debated this "suzerainty-treaty" angle before.  It was certainly not new to me.  I have supported my view of the concept with supporting information from a scholar as eminent as Frank Moore Cross, and Turkel?  Well, all Turkel has done is ramble on and on about an "Ancient Near Eastern concept," which he apparently expects us to accept on his mere word alone.  What evidence from reputable sources has he presented to support his view?  What examples of ancient suzerainty treaties has he quoted?

The answer is none, so he has yet to understand that one would have to be as sappy as a sugar maple tree to accept the unsupported word of someone who has shown himself to be very underinformed in biblical matters.

Till(1):
Anyway, as I have shown above, the renewal of the land promise was made without conditions, despite the rebellion, disobedience, and unrighteousness of the Israelites from the day they left Egypt, so if Yahweh wanted to look for conditions, he had plenty that he could have found at this time if his intention was to make the promise conditional.

Turkel(2):
Our opponent has shown no such thing from Deut. 9, which has nothing to do with whether the Israelites would continue to be able to possess the land; that would 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. 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. Our opponent still has not grasped the there is a promise to enter the land, to have a "chance" to possess it as it were, and then there are boucoups [sic] of conditions, laid out within Deuteronomy, and [sic] ancient contract, from which it is illicit to take verses or passages in isolation.

Till(2):
Readers may scroll up to see where I gave a detailed reply to this to show that Yahweh's land promise had two parts: (1) The land within defined borders would be given to Abraham's descendants.  (2)  This land would be given to them as an everlasting possession.  The promise was made because of Abraham's fidelity.

Turkel now admits that the first part was unconditional, and so the Israelites were given a free ride into Canaan on Abraham's coattails, but if the first part of the promise was unconditional, the second part also had to be unconditional.  If not, why not?

That is what Turkel has yet to explain.  His reasoning ability in this matter is about as deficient as his understanding of French.  Even a first-year French student in high school would know how to spell beaucoup

He repeats this mistake several times in cutting and pasting this same evasive comment when he was unable to reply to my arguments, so when he cuts and pastes it again, as he does very soon, I will truncate it with ****.  If he ever restates this claim and attempts to support it, I will reply to it; otherwise, I see no need to impose on the patience of readers by retaining all of his cut-and-pasted evasions.

Till(1):
Deuteronomy 9, however, is very clear in saying that Yahweh was going to drive out the nations and give the land to the Israelites despite their unrighteousness and that he was going to do this because of the promise he had made with an oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Turkel(2):
As we have shown, and to which our opponent has yet to respond, Deut. 9 which has nothing to do****

Till(1):
Turkel at this point has failed to explain away the inconsistency, and as we continue on, we will see that he finished his rebuttal without ever finding a solution to this problem.

Turkel(2):
This is merely commentary intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare victory ahead of the game. It is not necessary****

Till(2):
Readers have seen this cut-and-pasted job umpteen times now, so there is no need to clutter my reply by retaining it in the text.

Turkel(1):
We would consider now in this context numerous cites which speak of the land in terms of a yarash:

Till(1):
Well, we are off to the races again, to see Turkel, whose skills in Hebrew go little beyond being able to cut and paste from an electronic version of Strong's concordance, show us subtleties in the Hebrew text that all of the scholars who worked on the various English versions overlooked.

Turkel(2):
As above, this is superfluous, snide commentary; it is not necessary to quote this****

Till(2):
It's time to take an additional look at Turkel's yarash diversion.  For some reason, he thought it necessary to inform readers that the Hebrew word translated "possess" or "possession" in the land-promise text was yarash, an item that he cut and pasted from Strong's concordance.  He never bothered to explain why it was significant to know that the Hebrew word for possess  in these texts was yarash.  Apparently, he just though it would make him look better if he could make people think that he knew something about Hebrew.

Since Turkel brought up the subject of yarash, I'll pursue it to show that this Hebrew word rather than giving any support to his "Ancient Near Eastern concept" actually undercuts it.  Here is what Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary  says about yarash (page 182). 

Basically yaras means "to inherit."  The verb can connote the state of being designated as an heir.  Abram said to God: "Behold, to me thou hast given no [offspring]: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir [literally, "is the one who is inheriting me"]" (Gen. 15:3--the first biblical occurrence of the word).  Whatever Abram had to be passed on to his legal descendants was destined to be given to his servant.  Hence his servant was his legally designated heir.

This root can also represent the status of having something as one's permanent possession, as a possession which may be passed on to one's legal descendants.  God told Abram: "I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it" (Genesis 15:7).  Yaras can mean "to take over as a permanent possession": "And his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it..." (Num. 27:11).  The verb sometimes means to take something over (in the case of the Promised Land) by conquest as a permanent possession: "The Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it" (Deut. 28:21).

Earlier, I quoted several passages in the Old Testament that confirm what Vine said in this quotation.  The daughters of Zelophehad, who had had no sons, were awarded an inheritance with the stipulation that they had to marry within their tribe so that the land would remain in permanent possession of their tribe, and I quoted Leviticus 25:23ff  to show that when a man sold land, his kinsmen had the right to redeem it but that if wasn't redeemed in the year of the jubilee, the land would revert to its original ownership.  Land was given as a permanent possession, and that seems to be a concept that Turkel hasn't yet grasped.  All of his talk about yarash accomplished nothing, and it was nothing except a ploy to make readers think that he had enough expertise in Hebrew to shed some special light on what "possess" [yarash] meant, but if Turkel shed any light on this subject, I didn't see it.

Turkel(1):

Gen. 15:7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give (nathan) thee this land to inherit it.

Gen. 17:7-11 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give (nathan) unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Two words here deserve special attention. The word "everlasting" is the Hebrew ‘olam, a word that is often taken to mean "forever" but actually means "in perpetuity". It is used to indicate a state intended to be permanent within the context offered, as in 1 Samuel 1:22:

Till(1):
Hmm, Turkel likes to quote Strong, so I'll go to my electronic version of it and quote what it says about ‘olam.

Turkel(2):
Our opponent does this, but should be advised that my source for this data about ‘olam is not Strong's, but James Barr's work Biblical Words for Time. Barr is a Semitic scholar who has also written a premier work highly critical of the sort of fundamentalist thinking our opponent once adhered to (and still does), and if our opponent wishes to refute Barr's arguments he will need to pick up Biblical Words for Time and do so.

Till(2):
Well, since, as everyone can see, Turkel quoted nothing from Barr's work, I have nothing to reply to.  As everyone can see by scrolling up, Turkel merely said that he wanted to "speak of the land in terms of a yarash," and then he proceeded to quote the passages above.  He mentioned nothing at all about Barr, so he has quoted nothing that could not have been obtained from Strong's, Vine's, or any other lexicon.

Even if Turkel had quoted Barr, we would have to wonder if he was quoting him out of context and misrepresenting Barr's position.  Those who have followed all of my exchanges with Turkel will remember when he quoted a book by Richard L. Rohrbaugh in the Abiathar debate to try to prove that feelings of guilt didn't exist in biblical times. John Kesler, a member of the Errancy list, considered this claim as ridiculous as I did, so he wrote to Rohrbaugh to ask if Turkel had correctly applied the quotation from his book.  Kesler's inquiry quoted the statement from Rohrbaugh's book Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, which Turkel had quoted as proof that feelings of guilt didn't exist in biblical times.

"Since the introspective, guilt-oriented outlook of industrialized societies did not exist [in NT times], it is unlikely that forgiveness meant psychological healing. Instead, forgiveness by God meant being divinely  restored to one's position and therefore freed from fear of loss at the hands of God" [63].

On August 22, 2002, Rohrbaugh sent this reply by e-mail .

I know nothing about the web site, though I (and many other scholars) am often uneasy about the use of our work on the web.  To be precise it is not quite accurate to say that guilt is a "modern" invention. Both guilt and shame exist in most societies though one response or the other usually dominates. Collectivist societies (dyadic view of personality) are ALL shame societies. Thus All known agrarian societies have been honor-shame societies and it is only individualistic societies in which guilt comes to the fore. The issue is therefore not the modern versus the ancient, but the collectivist versus the individualistic. Since industrialized societies allow for economic, political, and especially psychological individualism, it is industrialized societies that are guilt cultures. It is because the ancient Mediterranean world was a highly collectivistic, agrarian society that guilt was virtually unknown. Reading it into ANY biblical text is a serious mistake.

Rohrbaugh went on to say that he thought loyalty rather than guilt was what motivated David to offer his protection to Abiathar, but his statements above are clear in saying that guilt is not a modern invention that was unknown in biblical times. He obviously thinks that feelings of guilt were rare in biblical times, but he doesn't fanatically claim that this emotion didn't exist at all. Hence, even if Turkel had quoted Barr's book, I would want to check the quotation in context, because, as I said, I have learned that Turkel is not above misrepresenting and distorting if he thinks that it will help his case.

As for Turkel's repeated references to my "fundamentalist thinking," I will remind him that my goal is to expose the absurdity of fundamentalist thinking that leads some people to believe that the Bible is the "inspired, inerrant word of God."  He is the one who believes in the historical accuracy of a book filled with tales of talking animals; deities who routinely dropped in to chat with patriarchs; miracles such as the changing of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, the resurrection of dead people, walking unharmed through the flames of a fiery furnace, the parting of the Red Sea, and such like.  And he has the gall to accuse me of "fundamentalist thinking"!

Till(1):

5769. 'owlam, o-lawm'; or 'olam, o-lawm'; from H5956; prop. concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; gen. time out of mind (past or fut.), i.e. (practically) eternity; freq. adv. (espec. with prep. pref.) always:--always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Comp. H5331, H5703.

Turkel(2):
We would note that Strong's is superseded by Barr's more detailed work on this subject, though in the end we still agree that "everlasting" is an appropriate meaning.

Till(2):
Okay, if Turkel agrees that everlasting is an appropriate meaning of ‘olam why did he waste our time to say that ‘olam "is often taken to mean ‘forever' but actually means ‘in perpetuity'"?  I can think of no reason except to try to make readers think that he had some kind of special expertise in Hebrew.  I have some questions for him.

1.  If translators used "everlasting" to translate ‘olam in Genesis 17:7 and if you agree that "‘everlasting' is an appropriate meaning," what was the point of your telling us that the Hebrew word for "everlasting" in Genesis 17:7 was ‘olam?

2.  You said that two words in this text deserved "special attention" and then identified "everlasting" as one of them, but if "everlasting" was translated from ‘olam and if you agree that "everlasting" is "an appropriate meaning" of ‘olam, why did you say that this word deserved "special attention"?

I'm emphasizing this matter only to call attention to Turkel's readers that he has no credentials that qualify him to speak with any authority about biblical languages, so when he says such things as, "The Hebrew word for possess in this verse was yarash,"  or, "The word for everlasting in this verse was ‘olam," he is adding nothing of importance to the discussion but is merely repeating what anyone can learn by consulting a concordance or lexicon.  He does this to make the gullible think that he has special expertise in biblical languages.

Till(1):
Turkel wants to argue that the word meant "perpetual" in the text he quoted, but has he checked the meaning of this word in a dictionary?

Turkel(2):
I did not say "perpetual," I said "in perpetuity."

Till(2):
Oh, Turkel didn't say "perpetual" but "in perpetuity"?  It seems that Turkel can quibble too, doesn't it?  But we already knew that, didn't we?

Turkel(2):
I also provided an example of ‘olam used in a way that indicated that ‘olam is used to indicate a state intended to be permanent within the context offered. As yet there has been no response to this.

Till(2):
I didn't respond to this?  Well, here is the example that Turkel quoted.

But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the LORD, and there abide for ever.

This was 1 Samuel 1:22, and this was what I said in reply to it.

As I said earlier, all written languages have homographs, so we wouldn't expect Hebrew to be any different.  Just as we determine from context whether bear means the carnivorous mammal or the verb that means "to carry" or "sustain," so the context in 1 Samuel 1:22 shows that Hannah was not using ‘olam  in the sense of "eternal" or "everlasting," because, as she herself noted, her son wasn't going to live forever.

For those who may be unfamiliar with inerrantist tactics, I should point out that Turkel is playing a familiar game.  They will try to explain away the obvious contextual meaning of a clearly stated text by focusing on a homograph that was used with a different meaning somewhere else in the Bible.  Everette Hatcher used this ploy in our debates on the dating of Daniel.  The 5th chapter of Daniel repeatedly referred to Nebuchadnezzar as the "father" of Belshazzar and once referred to Belshazzar as the "son" of Nebuchadnezzar.  The contextual usages of these words clearly indicated that whoever wrote this chapter thought that Nebuchadnezzar was the father of Belshazzar in the strictest sense of the  word, but Hatcher cited biblical texts where "father" and "son" were obviously used in secondary senses to mean "ancestor" and "descendant" respectively and then tried to argue that because these words were used in secondary senses elsewhere, they therefore meant ancestor and descendant in Daniel 5.  He ignored the principle of literary interpretation that says the meanings of words must be determined from the contexts in which they are used, and he cited no contextual evidence from Daniel 5 to support his case.  He just arbitrarily declared that the words were used in their secondary senses in this chapter.

Turkel is trying to play the same game.  He cited no contextual evidence in Genesis 17 to show that ‘olam was being used to mean only "in perpetuity"  for as "long as there were Jews to take part in the covenant," and then proceeded to cite other passages where the word had some secondary meaning.  Hence, his argument is that because ‘olam  didn't mean "everlasting" in 1 Samuel 1:22 and other passages, it didn't mean "everlasting" in Genesis 17:8.

His argument is so fallacious that it hardly needs additional comment, but sometimes overkill is necessary when dealing with biblical fundamentalists.  I have already quoted the JPS version of Genesis 17:8 to point out that this translation by Jewish scholars used "everlasting" both times that the word ‘olam  was used in the verses I quoted, but this word was used two other times (vs:13, 19) in chapter 17, and the JPS used "everlasting" to translate it in these verses too.  I have checked other versions and found that the ASV used "everlasting" all four times; the NKJV used "everlasting" all four times; the RSV used "everlasting" all four times; the NASV used "everlasting" all four times; and the NAB used "throughout the ages" in verse 7, "permanent possession" in verse 8, and "everlasting" in verses 13 and 19. I have checked various other translations and found that they used such terms as "permanent," "age-during," "everlasting," and "forever," but along comes Turkel to tell all of the scholars who worked on these translations, "Hey, ‘olam didn't mean ‘everlasting' or ‘forever'; it just meant for as long as there were Jews to take part in the covenant, and I know this, because I have Strong's concordance."

Obviously, then, I did reply to Turkel's example, so I can only assume that he said I didn't because he hoped that his readers wouldn't remember what I had said.  By now, he should know that when he misrepresents me, I will take the time to correct his misrepresentations.

Till(1):
If so, he should have noticed that it means "eternal, everlasting, continual," and his own source gave "eternity," "always," and "eternal" as meanings of ‘olam.

Turkel(2):
I did notice this, but being rather more familiar with the relevant scholarship in this field I also noted that James Barr's work Biblical Words for Time, written by a highly respected Semitic scholar who has also written a premier work highly critical of the sort of fundamentalist thinking our opponent once adhered to (and still does), has superseded Strong's on these points. If our opponent wishes to refute Barr's arguments he will need to pick up Biblical Words for Time and do so.

Till(2):
No, I won't "need" to "pick up" Barr's book and refute anything, because a debater has no obligation to go to a URL or a book cited by his opponent and undertake to read it and "refute" whatever was said here.  In the first place, Turkel hasn't even quoted what Barr said, so we don't know exactly what it is that Barr said about ‘olam that I should "refute." If, for example, I had said earlier that Frank Moore Cross said in From Epic to Canon that land grants in suzerainty treaties were unconditional, so if Turkel wishes to refute Cross's arguments, he will need to pick up From Epic to Canon and do so, I'm sure Turkel would be telling me exactly what I am now telling him.  I took the time to quote what Cross had said on this subject and to document where he said it, so if Barr said anything particularly relevant about the meaning of ‘olam that Turkel thinks will sustain his position and refute mine, he should tell us what it is and where we can find it in Barr's book.

How many besides me suspect that if Barr had said anything in Biblical Words for Time that would have been devastating to my position, Turkel would have quoted and documented it?  What we are seeing from him is more bluffing like the kind when he says such things as, "The Hebrew word for thus-and-so in this text is whatever."  He hopes it will make a favorable impression and make gullible readers think, "Oh, my God, Turkel is referring to a book, so he must be right." 

Such tactics as these are simply more evidence of his amateurish methods.

Till(1):
I noticed that he didn't emphasize "everlasting possession" in bold print as he emphasized other expressions.

Turkel(2):
To emphasize "everlasting possession" is not in the least necessary, for as has been clearly explained, both the meaning of ‘olam and the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, are controlling elements in Gen. 15 that define what it means for the land to be an "everlasting possession."

Till(2):
When has Turkel ever "clearly explained" anything about this "Ancient Near Eastern context" that he keeps rambling about?  He has never explained it.  He has simply asserted that there was an ancient "concept" that made the land promise to
Abraham conditional, but he has quoted no scholars and cited no ancient documents to sustain what he is claiming.  I, on the other hand, have quoted respected sources that flatly dispute what Turkel has claimed.

Till(1):
That, of course, is because he apparently wants to argue that the promise meant that Abraham's descendants would be given the land only temporarily or "in perpetuity" or, jumping ahead to find another of his quibbles, "as long as there are Jews to take part in the covenant."

Turkel(2):
This is hardly a quibble, since it is manifest that the covenant is with the Jews, and if somehow Jews cease to exist (just as in my cited example below, a slave dies) the covenant effectively ends. At the same time, our opponent seems to be under the impression that this point was made in order to express the giving of the land temporarily. It was not cited for that purpose; it was cited to show that ‘olam by itself does not effect any sort of unconditional "eternality" upon the occupational possession of the land.

Till(2):
Well, since Jews have not "ceased to exist," what is Turkel's point?  As readers will see below, I pointed out that Jews certainly had not ceased to exist in the time of Joshua, so what is Turkel's explanation for Yahweh's failure to give the Jews, existing at that time, the land he had promised.  As for Turkel's claim that ‘olam by itself "does not effect any sort of unconditional ‘eternality' upon the occupational possession of the land," he doesn't need to tell me that the meanings of homographs must be determined by the contexts in which they are used.  I have been preaching that to him for as long as we have been debating.  However, when we have a context like Genesis 17:8, there is no reason at all to think that "everlasting" [‘olam in Hebrew] was not intended to mean forever.

Genesis 17:8  Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting [‘olam] possession; and I will be their God."

Just as the context in 1 Samuel 1:22 shows that ‘olam was not intended to mean forever but only for as long as Hannah's son lived, so the context of Genesis 17:8 clearly communicates the sense of forever to the word ‘olam.  The word for possession in this verse was 'achuzzah, which Turkel has said elsewhere meant the same thing as yarash, so I will refer Turkel to my quotation above from Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary, which pointed out that the verb yarash sometimes conveyed the sense of "to take something over (in the case of the Promised Land) by conquest as a permanent possession."  Therefore, the use of both ‘olam and a synonym for yarash in this verse sort of gives a double whammy to this statement to remove any reasonable doubt that Yahweh was telling Abraham that he was giving the land to his descendants forever.  Furthermore, Isaiah 60:21 even used ‘olam and yarash together to say that the land would be inherited [yarash] forever [‘olam].   

Till(1):
What does Turkel think he is gaining with such a strained argument as this? Is he going to claim that there were no Jews "to take part in the covenant" in the time of Joshua when it was first said that all the land and all that Yahweh had swore to the Israelites through Moses had been given to them but then later said that all the land had not been given and that there was still "much land" to be possessed?

Turkel(2):
As I do not, and will not, make such an argument,

Till(2):
Turkel didn't make such an argument?  Well, let me quote here what he said below.

Verse 28 says, "Therefore also I have lent him to the LORD; as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the LORD. And he worshipped the LORD there." Therefore "everlasting" does not connote a "forever" state without any conditions. (However, as we will see later, "forever" is nevertheless the term under which Israel does "possess" the land, so that the meaning is, "as long as there are Jews to take part in the covenant".)

It certainly seems that Turkel said here that "everlasting" did not "connote a ‘forever' state without any conditions" but meant "as long as there are Jews to take part in the covenant."  However, since he doesn't know basic rules of American English punctuation, he may not understand basic American English vocabulary either.

Anyway, he hopped, skipped, and jumped over another argument.  There were obviously Jews living "to take part in the covenant" at the time of events in the book of Joshua, so why won't Turkel explain to us how both of the following statements in the book of Joshua could have been true?

1.  All of the land that Yahweh had sworn to give to the Israelites had been given to them.

2.  All of the land that Yahweh had sworn to give to the Israelites had not been given to them.

Please stay alert to see that Turkel tries to explain this contradiction by arguing that this is not a matter of X and not X but a matter of X plus Y.  It's too good to miss, because it affords readers another chance to see just how far inerrantists will lean over backwards to "explain" biblical discrepancies.

Turkel(2):
this is merely snide commentary offered for no other purpose than to score debate points with a skeptical readership****

Till(2):
What Turkel meant, of course, was that he couldn't answer the argument, and so he was cutting and pasting another evasive comment to distract attention from his inability to reply to it.

Till(1):
I'll say more later about Turkel's apparent attempt to make the land promise short-lived, but first I want to take a look at how Jews translated their own sacred literature. Here is the JPS version of the text in Genesis 17.

Abram threw himself on his face; and God spoke to him further, "As for Me, this is My covenant with you: You shall be the father of a multitude of nations. And you shall no longer be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I make you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fertile and make nations of you; and kings shall come forth from you. I will maintain My covenant between Me and you, and your offspring to come, as an everlasting covenant throughout the ages, to be God to you and to your offspring to come. I assign the land you sojourn in to you and your offspring to come, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting holding. I will be your God (vs:3-8).

Turkel(2):
We do not disagree with anything in the JPS translation of this passage, which does not say anything that contradicts what we have said about he meaning of 'olam and the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people.

Till(2):
Well, excuse me, but Turkel has tried his best to make ‘olam not mean "everlasting" or "forever," and he just got through saying above that it meant "as long as there are Jews to take part in the covenant."  Perhaps I misunderstood him, so I will accept his word that he does not "disagree with anything in the JPS translation of this passage."  That being the case, he must now agree that ‘olam meant "everlasting," and so the meaning of Yahweh's promise was that he would give "all the land of Canaan" to Abraham's offspring as "an everlasing holding."

Let's see how long it will take him to backpedal on this agreement.

Till(1):
The introduction to the JPS names the principal Hebrew scholars who worked on this translation. Harry M. Orlinsky, professor of Bible at Hebrew Union College--Jewish Institute of Religion, was the editor-in-chief, and his panel of assistant editors included H. L. Ginsberg, professor of Bible at the Jewish Theological Seminary, and Ephraim A. Speiser, professor of Semitic and Oriental Languages at the University of Pennsylvania.

Turkel(2):
Since we do not disagree with anything in the JPS translation of this passage, which does not say anything that contradicts what we have said about the meaning of ‘olam and the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people,

Till(2):
Well, I believe the JPS translation of this passage does contradict what Turkel has said about the meaning of ‘olam, because he has said that it didn't mean "forever" but only for as long as there are Jews "to take part in the covenant," but the JPS translation has Yahweh saying that he would "assign" all the land of Canaan to Abraham's offspring as an "everlasting holding."

As for Turkel's "Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and its deity," all Turkel has done is assert that somehow this made Yahweh's promise of an "everlasting possession" not be a promise of an everlasting possession, but he has presented only his word on this.  He hasn't quoted any experts on Ancient Near Eastern cultures, and he hasn't cited any examples of ancient suzerainty treaties that would support the spin that he has tried to put on the land promise.  On the other hand, I have quoted the opinions of recognized experts on Ancient Near Eastern cultures and languages who say that the land promise was unconditional.

Turkel(2):
this is merely irrelevant fluff. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to****

The citation of Speiser is especially ironic, since our opponent thought so little of him in an earlier debate that he mistyped his name as "Spiser".

Till(2):
I have no idea what Turkel is talking about. I write hundreds of articles per year, so I can't remember everything about all of them without having some specific point of reference. If Turkel would learn to be specific, perhaps I would be able to reply to him.  Of course, if he was specific in his writing, he wouldn't be able to crank out the quality of hackwork that pollutes his website.

Till(1):
The names of associates on the translation panel were also given. It's a pity that Robert Turkel wasn't present during the translation work to tell them that ‘olam didn't mean everlasting but only "in perpetuity" for "as long as there are Jews to take part in the covenant."

Turkel(2):
The assumption here is that in using the word "everlasting" the JPS translators were in fundamental disagreement and would not acknowledge what we have written with reference to the meaning of ‘olam

Till(2):
We can know only what they said in their translation, and they chose to translate ‘olam as "everlasting."  The JPS puts footnotes where there is uncertainty about the meaning of words or possible alternative meanings, but there is no footnote at all at Genesis 17:8 to inform readers that ‘olam could have meant "for as long as there are Jews to take part in the covenant."

Turkel(2):
and the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people.

Till(2):
I have commented repeatedly on Turkel's constant ramblings about a "Near Eastern context of the relationship," etc. and blah, blah, blah, which has been nothing but his own assertion that this "context" somehow made Yahweh's promise of an everlasting land possession not be a promise of an everlasting land possession.  Until he supports that claim with some kind of evidence besides his mere assertion, there is nothing to reply to here, especially since I have quoted very reputable experts who disagree with Turkel's assertion.

Turkel(2):
Since our opponent is not in possession of a poll of these translators, he has no grounds for assuming that we would disagree with what we have written,

Till(2):
"We would disagree with what we have written"?  If Turkel would take the time to do a little proofreading and editing instead of cutting and pasting furiously to see how many "1 meg" replies he can post, he would perhaps notice mistakes like this.  As I said above, I'm sure that if the JPS translators had thought that Turkel's spin on ‘olam would more accurately convey the sense of Genesis 17:8, they would have so rendered it.  However, since they translated it "everlasting," it is reasonable to assume that they agree with almost all other translations that rendered the word this way.

Turkel(2):
or with what Barr has written,

Till(2):
What has Barr written?  Turkel has never told us.  He simply said that Barr had "written a premier work highly critical of the sort of fundamentalist thinking our opponent once adhered to" and that I "need to pick up Biblical Words for Time" and refute it.  That doesn't say anything specific enough to call for a reply, but I'm beginning to think that Turkel doesn't know how to be specific.  Perhaps he has preached to his choir for so long on his closed website that he thinks that imprecise assertions will carry the day anywhere.

Turkel(2):
and this is merely distracting fluff and a crude game of quoting versions without doing the necessary depth research.

Till(2):
Yes, I should really be ashamed for not doing research as deep as Turkel's.  If I should learn how to do that kind of "deep" research, perhaps I would know how to make unsupported assertions (like Turkel's "Ancient Near Eastern" land concept) and then keep cutting and pasting them over and over and over without ever bothering to try to support them with evidence.

Till(1):
Anyway, I wonder if Turkel will argue that there are no longer any Jews to take part in the covenant or perhaps that there were no Jews in the time of Joshua to take part in the covenant. Who knows what a desperate biblical inerrantist will resort to when he is looking for an explanation to a discrepancy?

Turkel(2):
As I do not, and will not, make such an argument,

Till(2):
Readers can scroll up and see where I quoted Turkel to show that he did indeed make "such an argument."  He is the only debating opponent I can remember who tries to deny that he said what has been quoted to show that he did say it.

Turkel(2):
and as the "wonder" over whether I would is based upon our opponent's gross misapprehension of what I wrote and why, this is merely snide commentary offered for no other purpose than to score debate points****

Till(1):
After I read through this section of Turkel's "rebuttal," I wondered what he thought he was proving.

Turkel(2):
This is a very interesting accounting of how our opponent spent his personal time, but it is not necessary to quote this in a reply****

Till(1):
How does anything Turkel has said in this entire section explain why Yahweh, on the eve of the Israelite crossing of the Jordan into Canaan, renewed the promise to the Israelites that I quoted and explicated in Part Three of my reply?

Turkel(2):
That the promise was renewed is not at issue. At issue in this context is whether indeed the promises were "unconditional" as our opponent insists,

Till(2):
Turkel seems to have forgotten that at the end of Part (8) and the beginning of this part, he was admitting that the promise of the land was unconditional, and so the Israelites rode into Canaan on "Abraham's coattails" as an act of unmerited grace, but now he seems to be retreating from that admission to argue that the entire promise was conditional.  One never knows from one paragraph to the next what Turkel's position will be, so I will remind him here that he has clearly admitted that the giving of the land was unconditional because of Abraham's faithfulness but that keeping the land was conditional.  I have asked him to explain to us how he was able to determine that the first part of the promise was unconditional but that the second part was conditional.

My rebuttal of Turkel's strange position that half of the land promise was conditional but the other half unconditional can be found at the beginning of this part of my reply.  Because of its length, I will quote only my summation paragraph at the end of it.

The sum of all this is that Yahweh's land promise was threefold: (1) Land would be given to Abraham's descendants.  (2)  This land would be an everlasting possession for Abraham's descendants.  (3)  This land would be contained within defined borders from the River of Egypt to Lebanon and from the River Euphrates to the Great Sea [Mediterranean].  So Turkel needs to explain why number 1 was unconditional so that the Israelites could ride into Canaan on Abraham's coattails, but numbers 2 and 3 were conditional to the behavior of the Israelites after they had gotten their free ride into Canaan.

I will ask Turkel again to explain to us how a threefold promise that Yahweh had made because of Abraham's fidelity could have been partly unconditional and partly conditional.  Let him explain to us why (1) above had to be unconditional but (2) and (3) were conditional.  If the whole promise had been made because of Abraham's fidelity, how could any of the promise be conditional to the behavior of Abraham's descendants centuries later?

Turkel(2):
contrary to significant and relevant social and Biblical data which he has offered no reply for other than snide charges of "mind reading" and attempts to circumvent the clear meanings of words that he can find no contrary data for.

Till(2):
Just when has Turkel offered "significant and relevant" social data that supports his position?  He has blabbed on and on and on and on and on about an "Ancient Near Eastern context of land, people, and their deity," which he claims somehow made an unconditional land promise conditional, but he has certainly offered no supporting evidence for this assertion.  On the other hand, I have quoted experts in Ancient Near Eastern languages and cultures who say that the land promise to Abraham and his descendants was unconditional, and these quotations contained citations of ancient treaties that weren't at all like what Turkel claims about Yahweh's land promise.

He has cited "Biblical data" only in that he claims that the book of Deuteronomy was a "contract" that put conditions on the land promise.  In reply to this, I have shown that the "conditions" in Deuteronomy pertained to longevity of life and prosperity in the land, but did not say that the people would not receive the land if they broke Yahweh's laws, and neither did these sections claim that the Israelites would not be able to keep the land unless they were good little children of God.  I pointed out that responsible biblical scholarship, which is not the kind that publishes in Grand Rapids, Michigan, is in almost universal agreement that the book of Deuteronomy is a retrospective work, parts of which date as late as the postexilic era, that attempted to explain why Yahweh had apparently abandoned his people and allowed them to go into captivity.  Even those parts of the book, however, took the position that the land belonged to the Israelites and that they would be returned to it.  Furthermore, even during captivities not all the Israelites were dispersed to other countries.

Turkel has said what about all this?  Nothing so far.  If he wants to dispute the view of Deuteronomy just stated, he has another debate waiting in the wings.

Till(1):
Throughout that text, Yahweh, presumably speaking through Moses, told the Israelites that he wasn't going to give them the land because of their righteousness, because in reality they had been an unrighteous, rebellious, stubborn people from the day they left Egypt, but that he was giving them the land because of (1) the wickedness of the nations living there and (2) to fulfill the promise he had made with an oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Turkel(2):
As we have already explained the referenced passages (Deut. 9) below, and now above as well, this is nothing but****

Till(2):
Below, below--always below.  We have come this far with over 150,000 words posted in this debate, and every argument Turkel encounters is "replied" to with the claim that he has answered that "below."  When is "below" ever going to come?

As I have asked before, if Turkel really thought that he had explained this or that below, he would have quoted those explanations wherever the issue came up so that he would have his replies on record at each place where I challenged him to reply.  Instead of doing this, he repeatedly cuts and pastes evasive comments like the one I deleted where **** is above. 

Till(1):
How does Turkel expect to explain this problem by arguing that the promise was only temporary?

Turkel(2):
We have not argued that the promise was "temporary" in any sense; we have agrued [sic] that it is "conditional" and that ‘olam does not refute any contention that the promises were conditional.

Till(2):
If Turkel claims, as he has done above, that getting the land was an act of "unmerited grace" by which the Israelites rode into Canaan on "Abraham's coattails" but keeping the land was conditional to their behavior, then he is in effect arguing that the promise was temporary, because as I have repeatedly noted--and Turkel has just as often ignored--the promise was twofold:  (1) The land would be given to Abraham's descendants because of his fidelity.  (2)  The land would be an everlasting possession.  So if Turkel argues that part (1) had to be fulfilled in order to keep the promise to Abraham but that Part (2) did not have to be fulfilled unless the Israelites were all good little children of God, then he has made the promise temporary.  If not, why not?

Till(1):
If the promise never was fulfilled, then it wasn't even temporary, because a promise would have to be fulfilled at least for a time before it could be correctly called even a temporary fulfillment.

Turkel(2):
We have shown that the promises were fulfilled, with respect to their clearly conditional nature, and our opponent has still not provided any refuting response.

Till(2):
"Our opponent" has not provided any "refuting response" to the claim that the promises were "clearly conditional"?  Well, "our opponent" has not only refuted this; he has forced Turkel to admit that the actual "giving" part of the promise was unconditional but that the "keeping" part was conditional.  Here is just one place cut and pasted from above where he has taken this position.

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; but this has nothing to do with whether they will be able to stay in the land as tenants.

Readers can scroll back to the beginning of this part of my reply and read a very detailed rebuttal of this position.  It is so long that I won't quote it here, but I will quote again my summation paragraph that ended this section.

The sum of all this is that Yahweh's land promise was threefold: (1) Land would be given to Abraham's descendants.  (2)  This land would be an everlasting possession for Abraham's descendants.  (3)  This land would be contained within defined borders from the River of Egypt to Lebanon and from the River Euphrates to the Great Sea [Mediterranean].  So Turkel needs to explain why number 1 was unconditional so that the Israelites could ride into Canaan on Abraham's coattails, but numbers 2 and 3 were conditional to the behavior of the Israelites after they had gotten their free ride into Canaan.

When Turkel denies that I have responded to thus and so, I intend to keep quoting where I have rebutted it.  He, on the other hands, dodges my requests for replies by saying that he has answered thus and so "below" or by cutting and pasting some evasive comment like the one immediately below, which I have truncated with ****.

Turkel(2):
This is merely repetitive fluff; it is not necessary to quote this****

Till(2):
I contend that Turkel is indeed arguing that the "everlasting possession" part of the promise was only a temporary promise, which would have been nullified by the behavior of Abraham's descendants, so I am going to exercise the right of a participant in a formal debate and ask Turkel to reply to my argument quoted in part above.  He can find the full argument at the beginning of this part of my replies.

I will alert readers to watch Turkel hop, skip, and jump again.  Is this the hero of so many Bible believers who wrote to ask me why I wasn't replying to Turkel's website articles?

Till(1):
The problem for Turkel is that (1) the Israelites never did, even temporarily, possess all the land the soles of their feet had trod upon from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea, and (2) the books of Joshua and Judges are on-again, off-again about the fulfillment.

Turkel(2):
We have shown that there is no "problem" for in the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity, the people were "rentors" [sic] under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land. 

Till(2):
Turkel has "shown" no such thing.  He has asserted it--repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly--but he has never offered any proof beyond his mere assertion that this "Ancient Near Eastern" concept would explain why the land promise was never fulfilled in its entirety.  In fact, Turkel has been caught contradicting himself.  He began by saying that this so-called "Ancient Near Eastern" concept of land, people, and their deity made the entire promise to Abraham conditional to the behavior of his descendants, but when he was confronted with the problem of Deuteronomy 9, which showed that the behavior of the Israelites obviously was not a factor in their entry into Canaan, Turkel modified his position.  His modified position was that the "giving" of the land was unconditional, which enabled the Israelites to ride into Canaan on "Abraham's coattails," but the "keeping" of the land was conditional to their behavior.  (I just quoted above one of several places where he stated this modified position.)  However, he forgets now and then and slips back into his original position that some "Ancient Near Eastern" concept of land, people, and their deity made the whole promise conditional.  So it looks as if it is question time again.

1.  Would you clarify for us, once and for all, what your position is?  Was the entire promise made to Abraham conditional to the behavior of his descendants?

2.  If so, why did Yahweh tell Isaac in Genesis 26:5 that he would give the land to his descendants because Abraham had obeyed his voice and kept his statutes and laws?

3.  Once Yahweh had said that he was giving the land to Isaac's descendants because of Abraham's fidelity, how could he have later made the giving of the land conditional to the behavior of Isaac's descendants?

4.  If the giving part of the promise was unconditional, which would enable Abraham's descendants to ride into Canaan on his coattails, how could the keeping of the land have been conditional to their behavior, since another part of the promise was that the land would be given to Abraham's descendants as an "everlasting possession"?  How could everlasting be only for a time?

5.  When did Abraham's descendants ever possess even for a time, all the land within the borders stated in some versions of Yahweh's promise (such as Genesis 15:18-19).

It's hop, skip, and jump time again, folks.  See Bob hop.  See Bob skip.  See Bob jump.  See Bob hop, skip, and jump.

Turkel(2):
Like our rentor [sic] who ripped the wallpaper upon entry and set it aflame, the Israelites did not even make it to the point of full occupation of the grant before the contractual penalties kicked in, and thus the Biblical record is fully consistent with respect to our primary subject, that is, whether Yahweh fulfilled His promises of land to the Israelites.

Till(2):
I'm sure attentive readers will remember where I replied to this hypothetical example, but for the benefit of those who may not remember it, I am quoting it below from Part Seven.

First, here is Turkel's presentation of the hypothetical example.

By analogy, a rentor [sic] who steps into his apartment and immediately, at the front door, rips wallpaper off the wall and starts a fire, has already technically violated his lease (if it prohibits such acts, which may not be prohibited in certain collegiate rentals) and could readily be evicted by the landlord.

Now here is my reply to it.

Notice the "if" in Turkel's analogy.  What if the landlord signed an agreement with the "rentor" [sic] that simply said, "I give John Doe and his descendants after him permanent tenancy forever to Apartment 102 at 430 East Elm Street, Canton, IL"?  The owner of the apartment would be in a spot to remove him later, wouldn't he?

So the problem for Turkel is that his analogy is false.  Yahweh's land promise stated that he was giving the land within defined borders to the descendants of Abraham  for an everlasting possession.  He stated no conditions, just as the hypothetical rental contract above granted permanent tenancy forever with no conditions.  The passage in Deuteronomy 9, which has given Turkel such fits that he was forced to modify his position, clearly stated that Yahweh had to give the land to a bunch of stiff-necked, unrighteous, disobedient ingrates in order to "fulfill the word which Yahweh swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (v:5).  This shows that the "giving" part of the promise was unconditional, but if the "giving" part was unconditional, the "keeping" part also had to be conditional, because the same texts that say that Yahweh would give the land to Abraham's descendants said that it would be given as an everlasting possession.

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

Till(2):
When Turkel can't reply, he will cut and paste evasive comments like the above.

Till(1):
First, the Israelites were given all the land and everything Yahweh had promised them, and then they were not given all of the land. X and not X cannot both be true.

Turkel(2):
We have shown that the formula is not "X" versus "not X", but "X plus Y" (giving land plus fulfilling conditions) versus "X plus Z" (giving land plus not fulfilling conditions).

Till(2):
Turkel has shown no such thing.  He can't even recognize the difference in apples and oranges.  When I say that the Bible says X and not X (or P and ~P), I'm not talking about what was said in the original land promise but what the books of Joshua and Judges said about the fulfillment of  the promise.  First, Joshua claimed that the Israelites had been given all the land that Yahweh had promised.

Joshua 21:43 So Yahweh gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. ⁴⁴Yahweh gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand. ⁴⁵Not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.

This passage is clear enough that even Turkel should be able to understand it.  The passage flatly says that Yahweh had given to Israel all the land that he had sworn to their fathers to give to them.  It even explicitly says that "not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel." It then went on to say that "all came to pass."

Yet we read something entirely different in another passage.

Joshua 13:1  Now Joshua was old, advanced in years. And Yahweh said to him: "You are old, advanced in years, and there remains very much land yet to be possessed...."

Turkel, being Turkel, will probably try to argue that the statement in Joshua 13:1 was made before the one in Joshua 21, and so at the time of Joshua 13, the Israelites had not taken all of the land but had done so in Joshua 21.  Notice, however, that 13:1 was said when Joshua was "old, advanced in years."  What we have, then, is a typical problem of inconsistencies that resulted from the patchwork method that was used in putting the hexateuch together from different documents and/or traditions.  That this is the explanation for why a text about Joshua's "advanced" years would have preceded one about his earlier years is evident from a statement in chapter 21.  The chapters following this recorded the dividing of the land among the tribes, and it was in this context that the claim was made that "Yahweh gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers," but after two more chapters that described the division of the land, this statement was made about Joshua's age.

Joshua 23:1 Now it came to pass, a long time after Yahweh had given rest to Israel from all their enemies round about, that Joshua was old, advanced in age. ²And Joshua called for all Israel, for their elders, for their heads, for their judges, and for their officers, and said to them: "I am old, advanced in age...." 

The text in Joshua 21, which said that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had sworn to their father to give to them, also said that "Yahweh gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers" (v:44), so after the time that it was claimed that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised them, it was said two chapters later that "a long time after Yahweh had given rest to Israel" Joshua was "old, advanced in age," so at the time of the claim in Joshua 21:43 that Yahweh had given all the land promised to the Israelites, Joshua was younger but later became old and advanced in years.  Hence, the reference in 13:1 to the "much land" that remained to be possessed could not have chronologically preceded the claim in 21:43 that all of the land promised had been given to the Israelites, because in 13:1 Joshua was old and advanced in age, but in 21:43, he wasn't yet old and advanced in years but became so "a long time after" this.

Clearly, then, we have a case of X and not X (or P and ~P), because one text says X (Yahweh gave the Israelites all the land he had promised them) but another text says not X (Yahweh did not give the Israelites all the land he had promised them).  So this is not a matter of X (giving the land) plus Y (keeping the land), as Turkel is trying to claim, but both X and not X (P and ~P) pertain to the giving of the land and not to the keeping of it.  One text says that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised, and the other text says that all the land had not been given to the Israelites.  This is a clear case of X and not X (P and ~P), so Turkel has not explained this contradiction, but maybe he explained it "below," and we just haven't come to it yet. We'll have to wait to see.

In case Turkel wants to quibble that Joshua 13 1 (the not X text) was written before 21:43 (he X text), I will point out that even if he could establish this, he would still have the same X and not X problem, because the book of Judges claimed  that the Israelites could not take all of the land. 

Judges 1:19 And Yahweh was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron.

Furthermore, Joshua 21:44 said that "there stood not a man of all their enemies before them," and the next verse says that "not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel" but that "all came to pass."  One of the good things that Yahweh promised was that the Israelites would drive out all the nations in Canaan" (Deut. 7:1-2; 9:20-24), but Judges is filled with examples of where the Israelites had been unable to drive out the original inhabitants of the land.

Judges 1:21  But the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who inhabited Jerusalem; so the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day.

Judges 1:27  However, Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth Shean and its villages, or Taanach and its villages, or the inhabitants of Dor and its villages, or the inhabitants of Ibleam and its villages, or the inhabitants of Megiddo and its villages; for the Canaanites were determined to dwell in that land.

Judges 3:1-3  Now these are the nations which Yahweh left, that He might test Israel by them, that is, all who had not known any of the wars in Canaan ²(this was only so that the generations of the children of Israel might be taught to know war, at least those who had not formerly known it), ³namely, five lords of the Philistines, all the Canaanites, the Sidonians, and the Hivites who dwelt in Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal Hermon to the entrance of Hamath. ⁴And they were left, that He might test Israel by them, to know whether they would obey the commandments of Yahweh, which He had commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses.

We see a lot of rationalization in the last passage, but these texts clearly contradict Joshua 21:43ff, which claimed that everything Yahweh had promised to the Israelites had been fulfilled at that time, but one of Yahweh's promises was that he would drive out all of the nations in Canaan and that not a man would be able to stand against them. Judges 3:1-3 claims that this didn't happen.  Some nations did stand against the Israelites.

This too becomes an X and not X problem that Turkel must solve to resolve the inconsistency problem.  He does not solve it by saying that it was a matter of X [getting the land] plus Y [keeping the land], because the scriptures cited above all pertain to getting the land.  Some texts say X [the Israelites got all the land promised to them], but other texts say not X [the Israelites did not get all the land promised to them].

Thus Turkel has hopped, skipped, and jumped over another argument.

Till(1):
Where has Turkel said anything that explains away these inconsistencies?

Turkel(2):
Our opponent's pretense is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no explanation.

Till(2):
So Turkel is going to evade the argument again.  My explication of the problem (above) clearly shows that there is an X and not X (P and ~P) problem in the books of Joshua and Judges.  Some texts say X [the Israelites got all of the land promised to them], but other texts say not X [the Israelites did not get all the land promised to them].

If Turkel really thinks that I am just presenting a ploy to make readers think that the problem has no explanation, why doesn't he embarrass me by just posting the explanation?  Instead, he attempts to draw attention away from his failure to reply by cutting and pasting the worn-out evasive comment below, which we have seen umpteen times, and which I have repeatedly replied to.

Turkel(2):
As we noted clearly, and explain in more detail throughout this essay,

Till(2):
If Turkel has indeed "noted clearly" and "explain[ed] in more detail throughout this essay," why didn't he just cut and paste here that "clearly explained" explanation so that it would be on record where I challenged him to explain it?  Instead, he cut and pasted an evasive comment that we have seen repeatedly.

Turkel(2):
the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" [sic] under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land.

Till(2):
I have repeatedly pointed out that Turkel has simply asserted this but has never presented any proof that such an "Ancient Near Eastern" concept could explain why the Bible in some places says X [the Israelites got all the land promised to them] but in other places says not X [the Israelites did not get all the land promised to them].  Neither has he ever posted any information that would corroborate this evasive claim that he has parroted throughout this debate.  I, on the other hand, have quoted scholarly references that show that Turkel's view of the "Ancient Near Eastern" concept is not shared by scholars whose "lifeblood" has been the study of ancient Near Eastern languages and cultures.

Turkel(2):
Our opponent does not ever refute this point,

Till(2):
It is time to call a spade a spade.  Turkel is lying, and he knows it.  I have not just refuted this point, but I have quoted that refutation at various points in this debate at places where Turkel said that I hadn't replied to it.  I would quote it here again except that this part of my reply has reached the word limit that my assistants have asked me to stay within.

Turkel(2):
and here he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it****

Till(2):
I'll say again that Turkel is lying and knows it.  He cannot possibly not know that I have replied numerous times to his unsupported claim of an "Ancient Near Eastern context" that would explain why the land promise was not fulfilled.  I'll make him an offer.  If I post that refutation separately, in an article by itself, will he post it on his website and then reply to it?

I'll continue my response in Part Ten.  Turkel is going to get a detailed reply to everything in his articles that even remotely resembles an argument.  He hop, skips, and jumps over what he cannot answer.  I reply in detail to his points.  The reason for the difference is that I have the facts on my side.