Turkel:
McTill's initial response
takes up 5 printed pages, and 7 of these are taken up with wasted
blather,
Till:
Come again? My
article took up 5 printed pages, and seven of those were taken
up with wasted blather? Turkel's math is a bad as his
logic. I will recommend to him again that he concentrate less
on quantity and more on quality. A little time spent
proofreading and editing may cut down on the quantity of his
production, but it just might improve the quality. If anyone
could use improvement in quality, that would be Turkel.
Turkel:
which is
substantially less than usual. It seems the enforced discipline of
the printed page makes it hard for McTill to use his favorite weapon,
but don't worry, McTill fans, he manages to use a few of his popgun
tactics nonetheless.
Till:
Has everyone noticed
how everything Turkel's opponents say is always "wasted
blather" or "fluff" or "irrelevant
distractions" or "superfluous commentary" or some
such. Turkel's stock in trade is to paste and cut
repeated repetitions of the same evasions (word for word). In
the land-promise debate, he has wasted no telling how many thousands
of words, cutting and pasting comments like, "It is not
necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and
never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary
requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent...."
This particular one he must have cut and pasted a hundred times, and
it was just one of several cut-and-pasted evasions. That they
were just perfunctory cutting-and-pastings was apparent from the
repetition over and over of the same typographical errors like
"moroever" for "moreover." I suppose
Turkel doesn't consider these pointless repetitions to be
"wasted blather."
All the time that he wasted on such evasions as these could have been spent trying to answer my arguments, but, of course, if he actually tried to answer my arguments, his inability to respond satisfactorily to them would become too apparent to his admirers, so he seeks to divert attention from his failures by trying to cut and paste his way around them. Since Turkel obviously doesn't proofread or edit, I suspect that he put his replies on his site as soon as he had thrown them together. In so doing, I doubt that he had any idea just how bad he would look to those who took the time to read his hackwork. I suggest that he go back and read it to give himself an idea of just how bad he did look.
Turkel:
The first attempt at
actual argument comes when McTill strains like a constipated elephant
to push the word oikoumene into meaning the whole danged
world, not just the Roman Empire.
Till:
Then I suppose that
lexicographers also strained like constipated elephants when they
gave inhabited earth as one of the meanings of this word.
Arndt and Gingrich gave "the Roman empire" only as its
secondary definition after giving "the inhabited earth, the
world" as its primary meaning. Oh, yes, Turkel, who tries
to present himself as an expert in both Greek and Hebrew, wants an
exact page number, doesn't he, possibly because he isn't
nearly the expert that he wants everyone to think he is? This
word [oikoumene] is discussed on pages 563-564 of the 1960
edition of this lexicon.
Turkel apparently doesn't understand that when a word like this has a primary and secondary meanings, the one claiming that a certain text uses the word in one of its secondary senses has the responsibility of showing that it does. He can't just assert that it does and expect everyone to accept his unsupported assertion, especially when that meaning is central to a pet doctrine that the person is trying to defend.
I'll say more about this after we have looked at Turkel's attempts to show that my examples of oikoumene did not convey the sense of the world.
Turkel:
I really enjoy when
McTill does goofy things like this and can only use a lexicon (his
1960 AG with the dinosaur prints still in it) and Bible translations
(any of the 7,745,938 he normally uses) to support himself, though
these actually flummox his case rather than help it.
Till:
Apparently, Turkel
doesn't know that koine Greek is a dead language, so it has not
undergone linguistic evolution since 1960. As for the various Bible
translations that I will cite in support of positions that I take, I
can certainly understand why Turkel disapproves of this. Citing
a dozen or more translations would amount to citing the scholarship
of hundreds of linguistic scholars, because translations are most
often done by committees and rarely by single individuals.
Anyway, I will repeat what I have said before. If Turkel could
quote translations in support of his positions, he would certainly do
it, but he keeps translations at arm's length, because he is
usually trying to defend some arbitrary meaning that he has assigned
to a word without having any real scholarship on his side.
Turkel:
After that he strains
and whines a bit more to make passages with oikoumene in them
come out worldly. For example, take this crackpot stretching of Luke
4:5:
And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
Gasping for some air, McTill says meekly, "Most of the Roman empire lay to the west of this region, so if Jesus was able to see all the kingdoms of the world, how likely is it that Luke meant that the devil had shown to Jesus only the kingdoms that lay to the west of his mountain but not those to the east of it?" How likely? With the oik- word, 100% likely, McTill.
I just love it when Turkel puts his foot into his mouth. As I have often said, when a biblical inerrantist does this, I just can't resist shoving it farther in. To do that, I will call readers' attention to Matthew's version of this temptation tale.
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil took Him [Jesus] up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
The word that Matthew used in reference to the kingdoms of the "world" that the devil showed Jesus on this occasion was not the word oikoumene but kosmos. Why is that important? Well, let's just let Turkel answer that.
In his original "Olivet Discourse," which was just a knockoff of a similar article by Gary DeMar, Turkel made the following statement.
The word for "world" is not a reference to the physical world, but is the Greek aion, or "age." The question is about the end of the age a time period, not the end of the world. Had that been the intent, the Greek word kosmos would have been used ("Come Again?" The Skeptical Review, September/October 2002, p. 3, emphasis added).
Do you see it, folks? In the article that precipitated this whole debate, Turkel said that if Matthew had intended to mean "the world" [in 24:4], he would have used the word kosmos. Lest he try to quibble here that he was making a point relative to age [aion] as opposed to the physical "world," he should read his own article again, because later on, he said this in trying to weasel out of the obvious meaning of a parable in Matthew 13:36ff.
No commentator would disagree that upon death the wicked, and the justfied [sic] in Christ, are encountering their final judgment (Heb. 9:27)--and the "field" here is the "world" (kosmos), the entire world. The seed sown by Jesus is sown over the entire kosmos (Ibid. p. 3, emphasis added).
So we have it straight from none other than Turkel himself that when New Testament writers used the word kosmos, they meant the "entire world," but he even said more about this while expounding on the "real" meaning of another verse in Jesus's Olivet speech.
But we need to look behind a key word: world--this time, it isn't aion, and it also isn't kosmos, the word which indicates the broadest possible connotations, as we noted earlier--this time, it is oikoumene, a word used to express only the Roman Empire (cf. Acts 11:28, Luke 2:1). It is significant that this is the only place Matthew uses this word; he has selected it carefully as a geographical delimitation; it is also significant that he has used this word rather than kosmos as he did with reference to the spreading of the Gospel correspondent with the separation of the justified and the wicked.
We have Turkel's word here that kosmos is a word that "indicates the broadest possible connotations." He cannot now deny that he has said that the word kosmos in the New Testament was meant to indicate the whole world, so when Matthew recorded his version of the temptation of Jesus, he said that the devil showed Jesus all the kingdoms in ton kosmon [the world]. If the devil showed Jesus all the kingdoms in the whole world [according to Matthew], and if the New Testament is indeed the "inspired, inerrant word of God," then Luke's usage of oikoumene where Matthew used kosmos would likely be 100% proof that oikoumene and kosmos were at times used interchangeably in the New Testament.
If not, why not?
Don't look now, Turk, but that constipated elephant just took a big dump right into your lap.
Turkel:
Just to blow this
little parade off the street, let's talk to some real experts,
Till:
Well, would Matthew be
expert enough to suit Turkel? If so, Turkel should read Matthew
4:8 until the implications of the writer's usage of kosmos
sinks in.
The ancient Roman view was of a spherical world, the inhabited region of which (the oikoumene) was surrounded by oceans, and this world centered around the Mediterranean. It was bordered on the west by the Atlantic Ocean and on the east by the mouth of the Ganges River. The southern extent of the African continent and the northern expanses of the land masses of Europe and Asia were vastly underestimated.
Till:
So a heavy book in the hand isn't
nearly as reliable as an internet website? Is that what Turkel
is saying?
If the "ancient Roman view" was that the oikoumene extended from the Atlantic Ocean to the mouth of the Ganges River on the east, then they did not consider the oikoumene to be just the Roman empire, because the Roman empire did not extend that far to the east. Anyway, just where did this quotation say that oikoumene meant only the Roman Empire? Turkel apparently can't see that his own sources are not saying what he claims about the meaning of oikoumene. Turkel's claim was that oikoumene in Matthew's reference to preaching the gospel "in all of the world" (24:14) meant only the Roman Empire, so where did the quotation above say that this word meant that in Turkel's proof text? The "expert" that Turkel quoted above didn't even say that the Roman empire was referred to as the "oikoumen," but identified a border that was well beyond the eastern limit of the Roman empire.
Is it Turkel's position that oikoumene always meant "the Roman empire"? If so, when he presents proof that this was the only meaning of the word, then he will have made his case. Until then, he must prove that oikoumene meant only the Roman empire in Matthew 24:14, and he has not proven that. He has simply asserted it.
Turkel:
Oops! It seems these guys don't
know about oikoumene meaning the whole danged planet.
Till:
Is it Turkel's
position that oikoumene never conveyed the sense of "the
whole danged planet"? Let him clarify this for us.
I hope he does take that position, because it will be as easy as
Humpty Dumpty falling off the wall to prove that he is wrong.
In fact, I proved him wrong on this in my first reply to him, but he
just won't admit it. As I proceed through this section of
his "reply," I will bury him with evidence that oikoumene
could convey the sense of the whole world.
Turkel:
They say it means the
inhabited region, and only goes as far as the Ganges -- which is as
far as Alex the Great went. Forget China and the Congo.
Till:
In this reply, Turkel
has played his usual "smorgasbord" game in which he
carefully picks what arguments he wants to answer and leaves the
others unanswered. Along the way, he throws in a lot of
derogatory and insulting comments as if he expects readers to think
that they constitute answering arguments. I will have more to
say later about what Turkel left unanswered, but for now, I want to
point out that it was never my position that oikoumene
was never used in the sense of the Roman empire but that it wasn't
always so used. Sometimes it was used to convey the sense of
the whole world. Anyone can read page 12 of my reply to
Turkel's--er, DeMar's--"Olivet Discourse" and
see that this was clearly my position (The Skeptical Review,
September/October 2002). I'll be reinserting into the
record what Turkel left unanswered about my arguments on this issue,
but at this point I want to drop a ton of bricks on his head and see
if this will wake him up.
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, of course, but in the first half of the third century BC, work was begun on a Greek version that is called the Septuagint. This version can shed considerable light on what the translators at this time understood the Greek word oikoumene to mean, and the Holy Spirit must have considered it a reliable translation, because he often "inspired" New Testament writers to quote it. Let's look at some Septuagint versions of Old Testament statements that referred to "the world." Readers should keep in mind that at the time work on the Septuagint began, Rome had conquered all of the Italian peninsula, but no Roman "empire" existed at this time. The quotations below are from Brenton's translation of the Septuagint with the Greek word for world enclosed in brackets.
2 Samuel (Kings) 22:16 And the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world [oikoumenes] were discovered at the rebuke of the Lord, at the blast of the breath of his anger.
Did oikoumenes refer to an empire that didn't exist at the time this part of the Septuagint was translated?
Psalm 9:8 And he [Yahweh] will judge the world [oikoumenen] in righteousness....
Did the writer mean that Yahweh would judge just the Roman empire, which didn't yet exist at this time?
Psalm 18:15 And the springs of water appeared, and the foundations of the world [oikoumenes] were exposed, at thy rebuke, O Lord....
Did the Septuagint translators think that "the Lord" had laid only the foundations of the Roman empire?
Psalm 24:1 The earth is the Lord's and the fulness [sic] thereof; the world [oikoumene] and all that dwell in it.
Did the Septuagint translators think that only those who dwelled in the not-yet-existent Roman empire were the Lord's?
This is plenty sufficient to drop another dump from the constipated elephant into Turkel's lap, but when one deals with his ilk, overkill is necessary, so I intend to go on. As I said above, I intend to drop a ton of bricks onto his head. The drop won't wake him up, but it may help some of his admirers see that defending his inerrancy claim isn't nearly as easy as Turkel tries to make it look when he is preaching to the choir on his website. From this point, I will just quote the Septuagint texts that show the translators thought that oikoumene meant "the world."
Psalm 33:8 Let all the earth hear the Lord; and let all that dwell in the world [oikoumenen] be moved because of him.
Psalm 77:18 The voice of thy thunder was abroad, and around thy lightnings appeared to the world [oikoumene]....
Psalm 89:11 The heavens are thine, and the earth is thine: thou has founded the world [oikoumenen] and the fulness [sic] of it.
Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains existed, and before the earth and the world [oikoumenen] formed, even from age to age, Thou art.
Psalm 93:1 (F)or he [the Lord] has established the world [oikoumenen], which shall not be moved.
Psalm 96:10 Say among the heathen, The Lord reigns: for he has established the world [oikoumenen] so that it shall not be moved.
Psalm 96:13 (F)or he [the Lord] comes to judge the earth; he shall judge the world [oikoumenen] in righteousness, and the people in truth.
Psalm 97:4 His lightnings appeared to the world [oikoumene]; the earth saw, and trembled.
Psalm 98:7 Let the sea be moved, and the fulness [sic] of it; the world [oikoumene], and they that dwell in it.
Psalm 98:9 For he [the Lord] is come to judge the earth; he shall judge the world [oikoumenen] in righteousness, and the nations in uprightness.
Proverbs 8:26 The Lord made countries and uninhabited tracts, and the highest inhabited parts of the world [oikoumena].
Isaiah 13:11 And I will command evils for the whole world [oikoumene], and will visit their sins on the ungodly.
Isaiah 23:17 And it shall come to pass after the seventy years, that God will visit Tyre, and she shall be again restored to her primitive state, and she shall be a mart for all the kingdoms of the world [oikoumenes] on the face of the earth.
Jeremiah 10:12 It is the Lord that made the earth by his strength, who set up the world [oikoumenen] by his wisdom....
Jeremiah 51:15 (Sept. 28:15) The Lord made the earth by his power, preparing the world [oikoumenen] by his wisdom....
There are others, but this is enough overkill to show that oikoumene was frequently used to convey the sense of the entire world. That is readily apparent from the many passages above where emphasis by parallelism (as in the last verse quoted) used earth and world interchangeably. What ducking and dodging Turkel may resort to when confronted with clear evidence that conflicts with his theories is anybody guess, but if he tries to quibble that these quotations are from an uninspired Greek translation of Hebrew, I will just remind him that the Septuagint seemed to be a version of the Old Testament that the Holy Spirit preferred over the Masoretic, because it was the version that New Testament writers frequently quoted. If this version was good enough for the Holy Spirit, it should be good enough for Turkel. Besides, so-called "inspiration" isn't an issue. The existence of even an uninspired" Greek text in which oikoumene was used before the Roman empire even existed would show that the word had a primary meaning before some began to apply it to the Roman empire.
I haven't even scratched the surface yet, but I will save some of my ammunition for Turkel's quibbles below.
Turkel:
Now let's see what some
scholar McTill don't [sic] know better than says in the
Bryn
Mawr Classical Review:
Among the older geographical tradition, D. stresses the role that periploi played as source material for Strabo and discusses the meaning the word oikoumene had in this tradition (pp. 43-45): while in Homer, the idea of the whole oikoumene being one island in the Ocean prevailed, to Strabo as to earlier geographers the term applies only to the known world. Thus, not only can there be peoples living outside the oikoumene, but the oikoumene itself can be extended--a merit attributed to Alexander and, most of all, to the Roman empire.
Till:
I emphasized in bold a
statement in Turkel's quotation above that I will return to
after some preliminary comments. Turkel gave no background
information about this internet source he quoted, so I think readers
should know that he has quoted from Ralf Behrwald's review of
Daniela Dueck's book Strabo of Amaseia. A Greek Man of
Letters in Augustan Rome. The quotation is therefore
secondary and not primary, but more important than that is Turkel's
failure to give us any information about Dueck to establish her
credentials as an authority in Greek. She is a professor of
classical languages at Bar Ilan University in Israel. That
doesn't necessarily make her an expert, but for the sake of
argument, I'll concede that she is a competent expert on Greek.
If Turkel thinks that Ms. Dueck is expert enough to quote as an authority, then he should be willing to accept what she said in reply to a direct inquiry about the meaning of oikoumene. In looking for information about her credentials, I found her e-mail address, so I sent her the following message.
Although I have not read your book Strabo of Amaseia. A Greek Man of Letters in Augustan Rome, I have read Ralf Behrwald's review of it. Something he said in the review made me wonder if oikoumene was a Greek word that meant just the Roman Empire and not other parts of the world. Was the word used exclusively to denote the Roman empire, or was it sometimes used in reference to the entire world?
She sent me the following reply. I am retaining the British system of punctuation that she used.
Regarding your question: the Greek word oikoumene is an adjective in the feminine form derived from the verb "oikeo" which means "to inhabit, to occupy". It is in the feminine form because it defines the land or the earth (ge). Therefore it literally means "the inhabited land", thus pointing out the Greek concept of what was considered their world: as far as lands were inhabited and thus known to them -- they formed the extent of the known world. What was beyond that was unknown and therefore uninhabited and so outside the framework of their world. This means that oikoumene does not necessarily correspond with the Roman Empire, although according to Strabo's Geography, for instance, there are parts in the world where the two do correspond: the boundaries of the Roman Empire meet the limits of the oikoumene because the Romans reached regions as far as they were geographically and culturally known at the time.
Her reply agrees with what I have said about the meaning of oikoumene. It meant the inhabited world but was sometimes used in reference to the Roman empire. Since the word did not always mean the Roman empire, it is Turkel's responsibility to prove that it did mean this in Matthew 24:14, but he has not done this. He hasn't even attempted to do it. He has simply asserted it.
Even without Ms. Duecek's clarification, nothing in Turkel's quotation from Behrwald's review of her book would support his position on the meaning of oikoumene in Matthew 24:14. I suppose that Turkel didn't even notice that his source did not say that oikoumene meant just the Roman empire. After stating that the word had been used by different writers to convey different meanings from just an island in the ocean to "the known world," Behrwald said that Duecek said--talk about secondhand testimony--that this word could refer to people living outside the oikoumene [known world] but could be extended. We now have Duecek's personal confirmation that the meaning of the word could be so extended. So just how does Turkel's quotation prove his claim that the word oikoumene as used in Matthew 24:14 meant "only the Roman empire"? If this word in the past has been used to refer to an island, to the empire of Alexander, to the "known world," which varied from time to time, and if its meaning could be "extended" to include people living outside of the known world, then how does Turkel know that it meant only the Roman empire in Matthew 24:14? Well, he didn't explain, either in his original article or in his "reply" that I am now answering; he just asserted that it meant this.
To show that Behrwald's review does not support Turkel's position, which is that Matthew's usage of oikoumene meant only the Roman empire, let's look at what he said in his--er, DeMar's--"Olivet Discourse," the article that kicked off this debate. I will emphasize key expressions.
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Mark 13:10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.(no Lucan parallel)
Most [sic] everything so far, few would dispute happened between 30 and 70, but what about this one? Surely, the critics and dispensationalists say, the gospel wasn't preached to the entire world by 70; it hasn't even reached some people now! But we need to look behind a key word: world--this time, it isn't aion, and it also isn't kosmos, the word which indicates the broadest possible connotations, as we noted earlier--this time, it is oikoumene, a word used to express only the Roman Empire (cf. Acts 11:28, Luke 2:1). It is significant that this is the only place Matthew uses this word; he has selected it carefully as a geographical delimitation; it is also significant that he has used this word rather than kosmos as he did with reference to the spreading of the Gospel correspondent with the separation of the justified and the wicked. The gospel had to be preached to the Roman Empire as a whole before the end of the age. Was this fulfilled? According to the NT, it was (Rom. 10:18, 16:25-7; cf. 2 Tim. 4:17; see also Rom. 1:8 and Col. 1:6, which uses kosmos hyperbolically). Secular history would agree that there were churches as far away from Judea as Italy; evidence of evangelism in places like Britain and Germany are based only on tradition. Nevertheless, with a church in Rome by the 50s, it could hardly be argued that evangelism in Britain, the farthest--flung part of Rome's Empire with respect to Judea, was not likely by 70 (The Skeptical Review, September/October 2002, p. 5).
Turkel was clearly claiming that oikoumene as Matthew used it in 24:14 meant only the Roman empire. In this section I am now replying to, he seems at times to be saying that oikoumene always meant the Roman empire, but I'll leave it to him to clarify whether this is a position he wants to take. The quotation above shows that he clearly did say that oikoumene in Matthew 24:14 meant only the Roman empire. I'm sure careful readers noticed that he simply asserted this but went no further than to cite some New Testament passages, which he didn't bother to explicate. Turkel rarely explicates, and many times, he doesn't even quote. He just cites, asserts what the citations mean, and then moves on, as if to say, "Don't bother me with demands that I try to prove anything."
I'm going to take the time to analyze in detail how oikoumene was used in the New Testament by looking at all 15 texts where the word was used. Before I do this, I want to remind readers of something that Turkel said in the passage that I quoted above from his article. He said that if Matthew had meant to say that the gospel would be preached throughout the entire earth before the end came, he would have used kosmos because this was a word that "indicate[d] the broadest possible connotations." As I noted earlier, he had said prior to this that Matthew's usage of kosmos in a parable in Matthew 13 meant that the "'field' here is the 'world,' (kosmos), the entire world." What I want readers to keep in mind is that I showed above that Matthew (4:8) and Luke (4:5) both told the tale of Jesus's temptation when the devil took Jesus onto a high mountain and showed him "all the kingdoms of the world." In my first reply to Turkel, I had quoted Luke 4:5 as an example of where a New Testament writer had used oikoumene to refer to more than just the Roman empire, and Turkel came back to say it was "100% likely" that Luke was referring only to the kingdoms west of the mountain, which would have been within the Roman empire. To Turkel's chagrin, however, I pointed out that Matthew's account of this same incident used the word kosmos, so he must admit that either his "definition" of kosmos is wrong or his definition of oikoumene is wrong. This leaves him in an interesting fix that we will watch him try to wiggle out of, because two writers "inspired" by the Holy Spirit used kosmos and oikoumene interchangeably in reference to the geographical regions that Jesus saw on this occasion. We can sit back now and watch the "McTills" fly, because it is almost a sure bet that Turkel will try to wiggle out of this predicament by seeing how many insults he can hurl at me, as if it is somehow my fault that two "inspired" writers used these words interchangeably.
The word oikoumene was used 15 times in the New Testament, so to show that Turkel is dead wrong in claiming that it meant only the Roman empire, I'm going to analyze each passage that used it. I think that open-minded readers will see that my position is the correct one. The word sometimes denoted the Roman empire, but it also was used to indicate the whole world or at least the "inhabited world." This word was used in Matthew 24:14, but since that is the text in dispute, I'll save it for a later explication.
I don't know how many times I have had to tell Turkel that two rules of literary interpretation must apply when explicating written texts: (1) The meanings of words must always be determined by context. (2) Words within a text should be interpreted in their strictest sense unless there are compelling reasons to assign figurative meanings. As I go through the 15 different New Testament texts where oikoumene was used, I will be appealing to these two principles. The bold print will indicate where oikoumene was used in the texts.
Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
Context here indicates that "world" [oikoumene] meant the Roman empire, because a Roman emperor [Caesar Augustus] could not have decreed a taxation or census outside of his empire.
Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
As I just noted above, Matthew's parallel account of this same incident used kosmos instead of oikoumene, which Luke used. We have no doubt, then, that oikoumene in Luke's text referred to the entire world, because we have it on no better authority than Robert "Greek Expert" Turkel that kosmos was a word that was used to indicate the entire world.
Luke 21:26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
This verse is within the context of Luke's account of Jesus's "Olivet Discourse," so we won't have to guess what Turkel's position will be on the meaning of "earth" [oikoumene]. He will argue that the word meant just the Roman empire, but a look at the broader context will show that this meaning is unlikely.
Verse 25 "And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; 26men's hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near."
This is, of course, parallel to the text in Matthew, which Turkel says is symbolic. but I have highlighted expressions in the text that make this unlikely. In this passage, Jesus said that there will be "on the earth distress of nations." Turkel's position is that "earth" [ges] in Matthew 24 had only a regional meaning and referred to just the land in and around Jerusalem, so we will expect him to take the same position here. However, there is no real parallel in Matthew 24 to what Luke said above: "There will be... on earth distress of nations." In my first reply to Turkel, I showed that when ge was used in the New Testament in a limited regional extent, it always attached a qualifier, such as "land [ge] of Judah" or "land [ge] of Egypt," etc. or else had contextual information as in Acts 7:4 to show that ge was being used in a regional sense, but there is no such qualifier or contextual information in Luke 21:25 to indicate that Luke meant for ges to mean just the region around Jerusalem. To the contrary, the context indicates that ges was intended to convey its strictest sense, i. e., the entire earth, because it speaks of a "distress of nations" that would be "on the earth." How could there have been a distress of nations (plural) in the tiny geographical area around Jerusalem. Furthermore, the sun, moon, and stars aren't visible just in one isolated region like Judah; they are visible at least hemispherically. Hence, the signs in the sun, moon, and stars (even if Turkel is going to argue that this is just "apocalyptic language") would have been visible well beyond the region of Jerusalem.
The broader context shows that Luke used ges [earth] in verse 25 to speak of the "distress of nations" on the earth, and in the next verse used oikoumene [earth] to speak of "the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth," so the words were being used interchangeably in the same context. Turkel can--and no doubt will--argue that both words were used in limited senses, but the context also spoke of "the sea and the waves roaring" in reference to "the distress of nations" on the earth, but chaos in the seas is a statement that is hard to reconcile with a theory that the "earth" referred to here was just the land around Jerusalem, but it is entirely consistent with passages that depict a worldwide upheaval and chaos that would accompany the return of Jesus. I discussed at length one such passage in my first reply, but Turkel did little more than wave at it in passing. I will say more about that when I come to his evasion of that argument, but for now I will just say that the language in both Matthew's and Luke's descriptions of the return of Jesus are consistent with universal chaos but not at all consistent with Turkel's--er, DeMar's--regional view.
As noted above, the references to the shaking of the powers of the heavens and the signs in the sun, moon, and stars (even if symbolic) are not appropriate symbols to use in reference to just the region around Jerusalem. The context is therefore more supportive of "the entire world" as the meaning of oikoumene in Luke 21:26, but I want to give Turkel as much advantage as I can, so I'm going to let him count this text as one in which oikoumene meant only the Roman empire. At least one oikoumene text above (Luke 4:5) shows proof, which only someone like Turkel could deny, that oikoumene was used to signify the entire world, and there are still more coming up. At this point, however, I have already established that oikoumene did not always mean just the Roman empire. That being the case, Turkel is obligated to prove--not just assert--that it meant the Roman empire in Matthew 24:14.
Acts 11:28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
The reference to the emperor Claudius Caesar would give a contextual reason to think that oikoumene was here used to mean the Roman empire, but it would not have been at all impossible that the writer meant that the famine [dearth] had come over the entire world.
Acts 17:31 Because he [God] hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
It will be interesting to see Turkel's reaction to this example, if he even bothers to comment on it, because unless he is willing to admit now that oikoumene was sometimes used to mean the entire world, he will have to argue that God has appointed a judgment day but only those who lived in the Roman empire will be judged. The apostle Paul, however, said in Romans 3:6 that God would judge the world [kosmos], and we have it from Turkel himself that kosmos was a word that signified the entire world. Here, then, is conclusive proof that the word oikoumene was sometimes used to mean the whole world. If Turkel is going to stone wall this issue, he should tell us if he also thinks that the "assurance" that God gave to "all men," stated in the text above, was just an assurance given to all men within the Roman empire.
Acts 19:27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.
Asia was a Roman province in Asia Minor, so it is possible that the writer here meant for the word to denote only the Roman empire, but that isn't necessarily so. Worship of Diana (Artemis) extended outside the borders of the Roman empire, especially into remote regions of Europe, so Demetris the coppersmith, who was upset about the damage that Paul was doing to his commerce in silver shines of Diana, could have been aware of this. His argument against allowing Paul to continue his work in Asia would have carried more force to his audience if they had understood him to mean that Diana was worshiped throughout the world. Anway, I want to give Turkel as much advantage as possible, so I will let this one stand as a probable reference to just the Roman empire.
Acts 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.
There were Jews living outside the Roman empire at this time. Acts 2 refers to Jews present at Pentecost who were Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and Mesopotamians (v:9), who would have lived east of the borders of the Roman empire. However, it is possible that the accusers of Paul on this occasion wanted to convince a Roman procurator that Paul was causing sedition only among Jews living in the Roman empire, so we will give this one to Turkel.
Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
We will see later that Turkel actually claimed that the Hebrew writer was saying that God brought his first begotten son into the Roman empire. God so loved the world [kosmos] that he gave his only begotten son, but the Hebrew writer, apparently unaware of this, thought that God had sent his son just into the Roman empire. Lazarus' sister Martha understood that Jesus was "the son of God... he who comes into the world [kosmos]," but, of course, the "inspired" writer of Hebrews didn't know this. He thought that he had come into just the Roman empire.
Here again is a verse where the broader context shows that the entire world was signified by using the word oikoumene. Turkel is a slow learner, so I will quote that context for his benefit.
Hebrews 1:6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him." 7And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire." 8But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom. 9You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions." 10And: "You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. 11They will perish, but you remain; and they will all grow old like a garment; 12Like a cloak You will fold them up, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not fail." 13But to which of the angels has He ever said: "Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool"? 14Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?
The writer was obviously attributing to the "son" a domain that extended far beyond just the Roman empire, as the next quotation from the same context shows, but if Turkel still isn't satisfied--and he will never be satisfied with any explication that disagrees with his preterist claim--he should take a look at Hebrew 10:5, where the writer said in reference to Jesus, "Therefore, when He came into the world, He said...." Here the writer used the word kosmos, and we have Turkel's assurance that kosmos means the entire world. Thus, the Hebrew writer was saying in 10:5 that Jesus had come into the "entire world," so why should we think that the writer meant only the Roman empire in 1:6 when he spoke of the "son's" coming into the oikoumene?
Hebrews 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
Was this "world to come" the Roman empire, which had already come at the time this was written? How likely would that meaning be within this context. I won't quote them, but the verses following this show the same thing as the context quoted above. The writer saw the "son's" dominion extending far beyond the Roman empire. This is a verse that Turkel cannot claim as proof that oikoumene meant just the Roman empire.
Revelation 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
Here is another passage that used both earth [ges] and world [oikoumene]. Ges was not restricted by anything in this context to give it the meaning of "the land [ges] of Judah" or the "land [ges] of Jerusalem," so unless there is some compelling reason within the context--and there isn't--to assign the secondary meaning of "land" to this word, a basic principle of literary interpretation requires readers to assign the primary meaning, i. e., earth, to this word. Hence, the writer was saying that an "hour of temptation" was coming upon the "world" to try those who "dwell on the earth." Using earth interchangeably with world indicates that both words were to be understood as synonyms.
Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Surely, Turkel isn't going to argue that Satan deceived just those who lived in the Roman empire. This verse also said that Satan was "cast out into the earth," which was gen with no qualifier to indicate that he meant a land area less than the entire earth. Then two verses later, the writer pronounced a woe "for the earth and the sea, because the devil is gone down to you" (v:12). Again, the word for "earth" was gen, without any qualifier to indicate that it meant a restricted area of land. Using earth and sea together would indicate to all but those with some pet theory to defend that the writer was speaking of the entire world, which consists of land and sea.
Turkel cannot reasonably claim this verse as a text where oikoumene meant just the Roman empire. Besides, what would he gain by contending this, because his preterist position is that the "woes" that came upon the "earth" came only upon the limited area around Jerusalem when the Romans destroyed it.
Revelation 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
"The kings of the earth and of the whole world"--how could oikoumene here mean just the Roman empire? How could earth be just a limited land area? A limited land area, such as the region around Jerusalem, would not have had kings in it, who could have gathered armies together to go to battle against the forces of God. The whole world, however, would have many kings on it, so which is the more likely meaning here, that the writer was saying that kings within a limited area of land would go forth to that final apocalyptic battle or that the kings of the whole world would come together for this battle? Turkel, of course, will say the former, but I'm not taking hours to answer this just for his benefit. I'm writing it for others to show them the silliness that this guy will resort to in order to keep from admitting that there are errors in the Bible.
Now here is an extensive rebuttal argument that Turkel needs to answer, but I predict he won't. He will wave at it in passing, hurl a few "McTills" and McKinsey quips, and then proceed on his way. Everyone watch to see if I am not a prophet.
In this section, I skipped Romans 10:18 in my analyses of passages that used oikoumene, because I discuss this text below, and I will also analyze Matthew 24:14 later.
Turkel [still quoting Behrwald's review of Dueck's book]:
This in turn springs from a slightly changed concept of barbarism: while the barbarians' inferior way of life is determined by conditions of their environment--conditions that they cannot escape--education according to Strabo can bring former barbarians to (almost) the same cultural level as the Greeks. This is, of course, the case of the Romans: and while Strabo does not try to construct a Greek ancestry for Rome, as Dionysius did, he concedes to them a central place in the oikoumene because through learning they have arrived at an almost Greek status (p. 79).
Till:
As I said in my first
reply to Turkel, he is the Humpty Dumpty of biblical apologetics,
because words always mean what he arbitrarily declares them to
mean.
Proof? Well, heck, don't bother him with minor details
like this. That would slow down the production of the hackwork
that he cranks out. Suffice it to say that the "scholar"
he is so proud of hasn't said anything yet to support his
position that oikoumene meant only the Roman empire. In
fact, the quotation above indicates that Strabo saw the oikoumene
not as the Roman empire but as all regions that had acquired the
"same cultural level as the Greeks." If Behrwald
was correctly representing Strabo's position, then Strabo
thought that the Romans had acquired a place in the oikoumene
because they had almost arrived at Greek status in their culture.
Turkel:
Dang. We're
still not globular. In fact we're explicitly NOT globular.
Till:
We aren't? We were
globular long ago, in my first reply when I analyzed Romans 10:18 to
show that this verse quoted Psalm 19:1-4, which was obviously
"globular" when it said that "the heavens declare
the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork."
I pointed out that the psalmist said that "there is no speech
nor language where their [the heaven's] voice is not heard,"
and that "their line has gone out through all the earth
and their words to the end of the world." In
quoting the last verse of this passage in Romans 10:18, the apostle
Paul used oikoumenes to translate the Hebrew word tebel, so
no doubt the Holy Spirit, who inspired Paul, considered oikoumenes
and tebel to mean the same thing. The intention of
Psalm 19:1-4 was obviously to convey that God's handiwork in
the heavens is being proclaimed throughout the entire world, and not
just in the Roman empire, which didn't even exist when Psalm
19:1-4 was written. Or maybe Turkel will want to argue that the
heavens did not declare the glory of God in those regions that were
not within his narrow concept of oikoumene. If so, maybe
he can explain to us how the heavens declared the glory of God in,
say, Israel or Syria or Egypt but not in China or Australia.
I quoted above some passages from the Septuagint version of the Old Testament to show that these 3rd-century BC translators used oikoumene in texts that obviously made references to the entire world. I purposefully saved Psalm 19:1-4 until now. The quotation is from Brenton's English translation of the Septuagint.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims the work of his hands. Day to day utters speech, and night to night proclaims knowledge. There are no speeches or words in which their voices are not heard. Their voice has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the end of the world [oikoumenes].
Although I presented this argument in my first reply to Turkel, we will see below that he simply waved at it in passing, but Paul's use of oikoumenes (Rom. 10:18) in quoting the last verse of this text shoots to pieces Turkel's claim that oikoumene meant just the Roman empire. The Hebrew parallelism in the verse in which earth and world were obviously used interchangeably shows that oikoumene did at times convey the sense of the whole world, and the context of Psalm 19:1-4 shows that this was clearly the psalmist's intention, unless Turkel wants to argue that in Old Testament times the heavens declared the glory of God only in those geographical regions that later became part of the Roman empire. The Septuagint translators used oikoumenes to translate the Hebrew word tebel, and Paul quoted the Septuagint version in Romans 10:18. That is clear evidence that Turkel is wrong when he says that oikoumene meant only the Roman empire.
I'll have more to say about this below, as we watch Turkel become mired in his attempt to defend an obviously erroneous position on the meaning of oikoumene.
Turkel:
Let's see if A Dictionary of Scientists, Oxford University Press on Strabo the geographer at xrefer does McTill any service:
Till:
A more relevant concern
would be whether Turkel's reference does him any service.
I will soon show that it doesn't, but first, let's let
Turkel put his foot into his mouth before I shove it in farther.
Turkel [quoting the website referred to]:
...Strabo accepted the traditional description of the Earth as divided into five zones with the oikoumene, or inhabited part, represented as a parallelogram spread over eight lines of latitude and seven meridians of longitude.
That's a tar-nation shame, ain't it? I checked a print [sic] copy of Strabo, and what do you know, it had a map showing that the "inhabited earth" according to the S-man was just from Spain to India.
Till:
Tarnation, I checked
the site Turkel cited and found him up to his old tricks again, i.
e, selectively quoting. This site has only three short
paragraphs about Strabo, and Turkel lifted his quotation from the
middle paragraph. Let's look at what he didn't
quote.
Although the historical writings of Strabo, including his Historical Sketches, in 47 books, have been almost entirely lost, his Geography, in 17 books, has survived virtually intact. This major geographical work is an important source of information on the ancient world. In it Strabo accepted the traditional description of the Earth as divided into five zones with the oikoumene, or inhabited part, represented as a parallelogram spread over eight lines of latitude and seven meridians of longitude. Where he excelled, however, was in the field of historical and cultural geography and he gave a detailed account of the history and culture of the lands and people of the Roman Empire and of such areas as India, which lay beyond the dominion of Augustus. In this he quoted much from the earlier Greeks, including Eratosthenes, and Artemidorus.
Turkel claims that oikoumene meant the Roman Empire, but he has been quoting material about a first-century BC geographer who recognized that the inhabited part of the world extended to "such areas as India, which lay beyond the dominion of Augustus." Obviously, then, Strabo did not think that the oikoumene consisted only of land within the Roman empire.
As for Strabo's map, if the "S-man's" view of the "inhabited earth" extended from Spain to India, then, as I just showed above, the oikoumene to Strabo did not mean just the Roman empire, because the Roman empire stopped far short of India. Poor Turkel, he goes about quoting "scholars" but seems unable to see that what they say doesn't support his position. I took the time to quote above the section from Turkel's--er, DeMar's--"Olivet Discourse" to show that his position is that oikoumene meant only the Roman empire, and so when Matthew said in 24:14 that the gospel would be preached to "the whole world" before the end came, he meant that it would be preached to the whole Roman empire before the end came. Now just where was it said in anything that Turkel has quoted that oikoumene meant only the Roman empire? Everything he has quoted so far proves my position that the primary meaning of oikoumene was "the inhabited world," which included more than just the Roman empire.
Turkel:
That's it.
Till:
That's what?
It certainly isn't proof that Turkel is right in saying that
oikoumene meant only the Roman empire. His sources don't
even come close to saying what they must say in order to support his
position.
Turkel:
Just one more, from
Roman
Empire Net:
The importance of Parthia was simple: Rome could not claim to be master of the oikoumene (or civilised world) until her empire embraced the Hellenised areas of Iran and Northern India, thus encompassing all the lands that had been ruled by Alexander the Great.
Till:
I urge readers to go to this site and
check it out for an example of what Turkel considers scholarship.
This is a section of the
Roman Empire Net named "Visitor Contributions," which
solicits articles from people on different subjects. The page
is introduced with the following statement.
Here are posted articles of special interest posted to the site by visitors who seek to share their knowledge with us.
If you have any article you would wish to contribute, please feel free to mail it to me at centurion@roman-empire.net.
Feel free to choose any subject...
The article that Turkel quoted from was written by Andrew Mason, but nothing at all was said about his background or qualifications to write on the subject. I searched for information on Mason but found that there were umpteen Andrew Masons mentioned on the internet, so I was unable to determine who he was and what qualifications he had to make Turkel think he is an expert. His article was actually about the conspiracy of Antony and Cleopatra to wrest control of the eastern part of the empire and to expand it into eastern regions that were once in the kingdom of Alexander the great. I'm going to quote below the context from which Turkel lifted his brief quotation above. I'll italicize the part that he quoted so that readers may compare it to the fuller context.
By 37 B.C Antony was frustrated by Octavian's abuses of the treaty terms of Brundisium. He had been continually denied entrance to Italy, his Gallic legions had been usurped by Octavian and he had given two squadrons of ships to Octavian and had never received the two legions promised in return. In a symbolic gesture Antony sent Octavia back to Rome. Still assured that a successful Parthian campaign would bring him to favour in Rome, Antony once again drifted into an alliance with Cleopatra to procure the necessary material.
The importance of Parthia was simple: Rome could not claim to be master of the oikoumene (or civilised world) until her empire embraced the Hellenised areas of Iran and Northern India, thus encompassing all the lands that had been ruled by Alexander the Great. Antony could claim that a war with Parthia was being waged in Rome's name, to avenge past defeats, to follow through with Caesar's plans to conquer the last independent Hellenistic kingdom [see figure XI]. However, Antony also had a deeply personal motive for the campaign. Though Antony's main objective still appeared to be attaining power in Rome, he and Cleopatra were also laying the foundations for an entirely new political and social order in the Eastern provinces of the Empire.
At this time, the borders of the Roman Empire extended to the Eastern fringes of the Mediterranean Sea. It included Syria but hadn't yet annexed even Israel. Later in his article, Mason told of Antony's failed attempt to annex Parthia.
In 36 B.C Antony was finally ready to invade Parthia. Aided by a Parthian defector, Monaeses, and a somewhat unwilling ally, Artavasdes of Armenia, Antony crossed the Parthian border at the head of 100,000 troops (but of this number only two legions were of Roman stock). Antony allowed his siege train to fall to the enemy early in the campaign and was thus unable to take his objective, the city of Praaspa [see figure XII]. At this point Artavasdes deserted Antony's force with all the cavalry and Antony was forced to retreat. The retreat became a rout in the face of pursuing Parthian horsemen [see figure XIII], as starvation, exhaustion and thirst took their toll. Antony lost 20,000 troops before he returned to friendly soil. Antony was not discouraged. Instead he chose to blame Artavasdes's treachery for the defeat, and prided himself on not having suffered Crassus' fate. For her part, to rally support to their cause, Cleopatra launched an effective state tour of the East in which she wooed supporters and gained fresh accolades.
Readers will find a map of the Roman empire as it existed in AD 54, during the reign of Claudius. By this time, Israel and Egypt had been annexed, but the eastern borders were still in the Mediterranean area. By AD 116, the empire had extended into the Mesopotamian valley, but Parthia and India, which had been in the empire of Alexander the Great were not conquered.
Turkel's expert, Andrew Mason, said in the part of his article that Turkel quoted that the Roman empire could not claim to be master of the oikoumene until the Hellenized regions of Iran [Parthia] and Northern India, which had been in Alexander's kingdom, were conquered. Since Parthia and Northern India were never conquered by the Romans, then Turkel's own expert claims that Rome was never the master of the oikoumene.
I love it when an argument backfires in an opponent's face, and that happens routinely with Turkel.
Turkel:
That sure as hoo-neck don't
[sic] sound like the whole globe to me.
Till:
No, it doesn't, so what is
Turkel's point? His claim is that oikoumene meant
only the Roman empire, and he has been trying to prove that by
quoting alleged experts who have used oikoumene in reference
to (1) just an island, (2) the inhabited world, (3) the Roman empire
sometimes, and (4) regions beyond the Roman empire. I guess I
should thank him for taking the time to post quotations from articles
that support my position on the meaning of oikoumene, which is
that its primary meaning was "the inhabited world" but
was secondarily used to refer to the Roman empire.
Turkel:
Now of course McTill has by now
gotten his shorts in a sweat by saying, "Yeah, but see! It's
still more than the Roman Empire. You forgot Iran, India, and all
that stuff to the east!"
Till:
So even Turkel can see that his
position is wrong. The word oikoumene didn't mean just
the Roman empire, so since it had other meanings, he has the
obligation to show that the word as used in Matthew 24:14 meant only
the Roman empire. Do you suppose he is ever going to try to
explicate this verse to show that oikoumene had to mean
here what he is claiming it meant?
Do you suppose pigs will ever fly?
Turkel:
No sweat.
Till:
Well, of course not, because Turkel
will always be able to postulate some kind of explanation to make any
information in conflict with his beliefs mean whatever it needs to
mean in order to agree with him. Keep in mind that he is the
Humpty Dumpty of biblical apologetics, so words will always mean what
he says they mean.
Turkel:
We got traditions of Thomas
preaching as far as India, and even if they are false,
Till:
I'm not surprised that Turkel
would quickly backpedal on a claim about traditions that had Thomas
preaching in India, because I don't think even he is dumb
enough to try to defend all of the conflicting traditions about where
the apostles went after the death of Jesus. For the sake of
argument, let's just assume that Thomas was an actual
historical person and that he did go to India as a missionary.
How would that help Turkel's case? He has claimed that
oikoumene meant only the Roman empire, and now he is admitting
that oikoumene was sometimes used in reference to India but
that the Roman empire never reached as far as India. Below, we
will see him admitting that oikoumene didn't always mean
just the Roman empire. He is so mixed up that I sometimes
wonder if he even knows what he believes. He is a classic
example of an apologist who takes a position without being properly
informed and then tries to stutter and stammer his way out of corners
that he gets backed into by making claims that are contrary to known
facts.
Turkel:
if Christianity made it all the way
to Rome by 40, a trip to India by 70 is peas [sic] of cake.
Till:
But that is besides the point, which
is that Turkel's defense of preterism was centered on a claim
that oikoumene in Matthew 24:14 (where Jesus allegedly said
that the gospel would be preached to all the world [oikoumene]
before the end came) meant only the Roman empire. What is his
evidence to support this claim? We haven't seen it yet.
He has just asserted it. If he is now admitting that oikoumene
didn't always mean just the Roman empire, then what is his
contextual evidence that this is what it meant in his proof text
(Matt. 24:14)?
Turkel:
I can take the expansion if
needed;
Till:
If Turkel takes the "expansion,"
then he will have to admit that oikoumene did at times mean
more than just the Roman empire. If it did sometimes mean more
than just the Roman empire, then what is his reason for claiming that
it meant only the Roman empire in Matthew 24:14?
That is the corner that he now finds himself backed into.
Turkel:
McTill is still on the rocks,
though, because it's still a lot less real estate than McTill
needs it to be. LOTS less.
Till:
What rocks? One of Turkel's
own experts has said that oikoumene meant "the inhabited
world," as did Arndt & Gingrich and other lexicographers
that I will soon be mentioning. Furthermore, textual evidence
that I have presented above in quotations from the Septuagint clearly
shows that oikoumene sometimes meant the entire world, as in
that oikoumene where the heavens have declared the glory of
God. My evidence also includes a comparison of Luke 4:5 and Matthew
4:4, the parallel accounts of the temptation of Jesus on a high
mountain when Satan showed him all the kingdoms of the world.
Luke used oikoumene here, but Matthew used kosmos.
Turkel himself has said that kosmos was a Greek word
that meant the entire earth. Hence, oikoumene and kosmos
were sometimes used interchangeably, as the Hebrew writer did in
1:6 and 10:5, where he first said that Jesus had come into the
oikoumene and then later said that he had come into the
kosmos.
If not, why not? Furthermore, if oikoumene did at times mean the entire earth, how does Turkel know that it didn't mean that in Matthew 24:14?
When Matthew recorded the so-called Great Commission in which he said that Jesus told his disciples to go make disciples of all the nations, did he mean just the nations within the Roman empire? If so, why did Mark in recording this commandment use kosmos: "Go into all the world [kosmos] and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15)? Turkel says that kosmos meant the entire world, so was this not a command to go preach the gospel to every person on earth? If it was, then why was Jesus willing to let the "end" come after the gospel had been preached only throughout the Roman empire? Why was preaching the gospel within just the Roman empire, which despite its size was really just a small part of the whole world, a requisite that had to be met before the "end" could come?
Someone stick a fork into Turkel. He's done.
Turkel:
And beyond that still, what little
frame of ref we have shows that when the NT writers thought of the
oik- word, they meant just Rome's Empire.
Till:
Were Luke and Matthew New Testament
writers who meant "just Rome's Empire" when they
thought of the oik- word? If so, then why did Luke use
the oik- word to describe the kingdoms of the world that Satan
showed Jesus, whereas Matthew used the word kosmos, which
Turkel himself has said meant the entire world? When
Paul said in his speech on Mars Hill in Athens that God had appointed
a day in which he would judge the oikoumene in
righteousness, did he mean that God would judge only people who lived
in the Roman empire? It looks as if it is question time again.
1. Did the word kosmos mean the entire world?
2. If so, when Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the kosmos, did this mean that he showed him all the kingdoms in the entire world?
3. If this is what Matthew meant in recording this event, would Luke's use of the word oikoumene in recording this same event not mean that the oikoumene was intended to signify the entire world?
4. If not, why not?
Turkel:
McTill doesn't comment on the
cite of Luke's taxation passage, or the famine of Claudius, no
doubt because he knows it sets him sailing with a hole in his oars,
Till:
In my first reply, in which I had
very limited space to reply to Turkel's 10-page article, I
cited only those examples where oikoumene was used to convey
much more than just the Roman empire, but I have now commented on
both of those passages (above), along with the 12 other places where
oikoumene was used in the New Testament. I have shown
that the primary rule of literary interpretation determines when the
word meant just the Roman empire and when it meant the entire
world.
That primary rule is context. The context of Luke 2:1
shows the Roman empire was the probable meaning of oikoumene here,
and the same is true of the famine during the reign of Claudius (Acts
11:28). I haven't dodged anything and certainly don't
need to dodge examples of where oikoumene meant the Roman
empire, because my position is that this word did at times
refer to just the Roman empire but didn't always convey this
meaning.
Context, however, shows to any reasonable person that oikoumene in Luke 4:5; Acts 17:31; Hebrews 1:6; Hebrews 2:5; Revelation 3:10; Revelation 12:9; and Revelation 16:14 signified the whole world. My contextual analyses of these passages were done above, so let's see Turkel refute them.
Turkel:
but too bad, McTill -- you can't
squeeze a whole global revolution out of an oikoumene.
Till:
I don't know about McTill, but
Till can squeeze and has squeezed "a whole global
revolution out of oikoumene." We'll eagerly
wait to see what kind of verbal knots Turkel will tie himself into in
order to deny the obvious meanings of the texts that I explicated
above.
Turkel:
And if McTill wants more to gum on,
here's some thoughts. Try the Strong's entry for oik:
625. oikoumene, oy-kou-men'-ay; fem. part. pres. pass. of G3611 (as noun, by impl. of G1093); land, i.e. the (terrene part of the) globe; spec. the Roman empire:--earth, world.
Till:
Did Turkel not even notice that his
favorite "scholar" said that oikoumene at times
meant "globe," "earth," "world"?
If oikoumene could mean "globe," "earth,"
or "world," how does this prove Turkel's claim that
it meant only the Roman empire in Matthew 24:14? What is there
in the context of Matthew 24:14 that supports this claim? I
hate to bother Turkel with details like this, but if he is going to
debate, he needs to learn that asserting that a text meant thus and
so just won't fly. He has the obligation to show
that it meant what he is claiming, and he has yet even to attempt an
explication of Matthew 24:14.
Turn about is fair play, so now I will give Turkel something to chew on. He doesn't like Arndt and Gingrich, so I suggest that he refer to Thayer's and Vine's to see that they too say that the primary meaning of oikoumene was the inhabited world. He will find a site maintained by a Christian organization that provides lexicographical information based on the lexicons mentioned above, and this site gives the following definition of oikoumene.
1. the inhabited earth
a. the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians
b. the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire
c. the whole inhabited earth, the world
d. the inhabitants of the earth, men
2. the universe, the world
These lexicons support exactly what I have said: oikoumene did at times mean only the Roman empire, but at other times its meaning was broader and could even mean the whole world.
These are lexicons of New Testament Greek, so it is question time again.
1. Would you give us an example of when oikoumene conveyed the meaning of 1-c, i.e., the whole inhabited earth?
2. Would you give us an example of when oikoumene conveyed the meaning of 2, i.e., the universe, the world?
3. If you say that the word was never used in the New Testament in any of these sentences, does that mean you are saying that you know more about Greek than the scholars who compiled these lexicons?
Turkel:
More, though. The thing that really
upsets McTill's apple cart amd [sic] even takes his
lexicon and translations from his poor, trembling hands, is seen in
the entry about Strabo.
Till:
How does the entry
about Strabo take my lexicon and translations from my poor, trembling
hands? I analyzed the quotations about Strabo and even obtained
e-mail clarification from the author of the book that oikoumene
did at times extend beyond the Roman empire.
Turkel:
McTill laughingly
thinks that because AG and his two trans say "the inhabited
earth" they say the word can mean to include Australia, the
Americas, and Tristan da Cuhna, too. No, Farrell. Bad dog.
Till:
Down, boy, down, boy,
you're attacking the scholarship of those whose "lifeblood"
has been the study of biblical languages. Are you seriously
proposing that we should think that you know more about it than they
did? Just tell us, yes or no, did oikoumene sometimes
convey the sense of the entire world? If not, then why did
these lexicographers say that it did?
Anyway, when have I ever said that New Testament writers had Australia or the Americas in mind when they used oikoumene? I don't believe they did, because they were geographically ignorant at this time. I think that when they said the "whole world," they meant what they thought was the whole world. What they said merely reflected the misinformation of the time, but since they were "inspired" by the omniscient, omnipotent Holy Spirit, they should have known better than to speak of the "whole world" when they made statements that were intended to include all of the world. Is it my fault that Luke was so uninformed that he didn't know that one could not see all the kingdoms of the world from one location? I'm not responsible for the ignorance of the times.
Turkel:
The lexicons may
think this (though the 2000 BAGD also says that the word can mean the
Roman Empire,
Till:
I have never said that
oikoumene was not sometimes used to indicate the Roman empire,
a usage that no doubt developed from Roman arrogance about its
position of importance, but Turkel keeps evading the fact that
Lexicons list "the inhabited earth" as the primary
meaning of oikoumene. Since "the inhabited earth"
is the primary meaning of this word, Turkel must deal with a
fundamental rule of literary interpretation that says the language of
a text should be interpreted in the primary senses of the words
unless there are compelling reasons to assign figurative or secondary
meaning. So what are the compelling reasons to assign secondary
meaning to oikoumene in Matthew 24:14? Turkel's reason
for assigning secondary meaning to the word, of course, is that he
needs it to have this meaning in order to fit it into his preterist
scenario, but that is a profoundly dishonest approach to literary
interpretation.
I trust that readers are noticing in this section that Turkel is admitting that oikoumene did mean "the inhabited world," but he is not going to let that deter him from his headlong dash into intellectual dishonesty. He is still going to insist that the word meant "the Roman empire." I have heard of people who argue with signposts, but Turkel is one of the few I have encountered who argue with the most reputable lexicons in existence.
Folks--those of you who used to write and ask me why I didn't reply to Turkel's articles about me on his closed forum--here is your hero. You can have him.
Turkel:
as do Thayer's and
Liddell-Scott), but check Strabo: People DID live outside what was
called "the inhabited earth." It's also a fluid
little booger, that can be extended.
Till:
Thayer's and
Liddell-Scott are two of the most reputable Greek lexicons, but that
doesn't matter to Turkel. His attitude is, "I don't
care what Arndt and Gingrich or Thayer's or Liddell-Scott say
that oikoumene meant. I say that it meant only the Roman
empire, and so that settles it."
This attitude should not be at all surprising to the audience following this debate. After all, Turkel is the Humpty Dumpty of biblical apologetics, and so words mean what he says that they mean.
Turkel:
So yes, Hebrews 1:1-6
says that Jesus was brought into the inhabited world, and that meant
the Empire at least and maybe those little stretches to the east --
Till:
No kidding, Turkel,
when the Hebrew writer said that Jesus came into the world
[oikoumene], he "meant the empire at least"?
Since the Roman empire was in the world and not on Mars or Venus,
that's really profound. It's somewhat like saying
that when Jesus told his disciples to go into all the world and
preach the gospel to every creature, he meant at least for them to go
to Egypt.
I will again point out Hebrews 1:6 used oikoumene in saying that Jesus came into the "world," but the same writer in Hebrews 10:5 used kosmos when he said that Jesus had come into the "world." Why would he have meant anything different in 1:6 from what he meant in 10:5. The problem for Turkel here is parallel to the one presented by Luke 4:5 and Matthew 4:8. One "inspired" writer used oikoumene in saying that Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the "world," whereas the other, in describing the same event, used the word kosmos. Turkel himself has said that kosmos meant the "entire world," so he must admit that these two words can be used as synonyms or else say that one of these "inspired" writers erred in his description of this event.
This leaves Turkel with two alternatives: (1) He can run to Gary DeMar--or perhaps Glenn Miller--to see what he has to say, or (2) he can say that Matthew was using the world kosmos "hyperbolically," as he said in his "Olivet Discourse" that the apostle Paul had done in Colossians 1:6 when he said that the gospel was bearing fruit in "all the world [kosmos]." You see, when a biblicist encounters a text that says something contrary to his belief, all is not lost. He can always arbitrarily declare that the language in the problem passage was "figurative" or "symbolic" or "hyperbolic." This is what Turkel has done regarding Colossians 1:6. He simply said that this passage "uses kosmos hyperbolically" without attempting any kind of explication of the text to show that there are good reasons to conclude that hyperbolic usage was intended. I suppose that Turkel would also say that Paul was speaking "hyperbolically" 17 verses later when he said that the gospel had been "preached to every creature under heaven" (v:23). "Every creature," of course, didn't really mean every creature, and "under heaven" didn't really mean under heaven. How can we know this? Well, if "every creature under heaven" meant every creature under heaven, then Turkel would have a big hole in his preterist theory.
Turkel:
it is, Farrell, an
anthro-centric designation,
Till:
Is everyone noticing
how Turkel just asserts and goes on his way, as if we are supposed to
accept his mere word? I have pointed out that the Hebrew writer
first said that Jesus had come into the world [oikoumene] and
then said that he had come into the kosmos, so is kosmos
also an "anthro-centric designation? When the
apostle Paul said in his speech on Mars Hill that God had appointed a
day in which he would judge the world [oikoumenos], was he
using an "anthro-centric" designation? And just
what the hell does Turkel mean by "anthro-centric"
designation? He didn't bother to explain, just as he
often doesn't bother to explain his assertions. He needs
to define what he meant by "anthro-centric" and then
explain why this would keep oikoumene in Hebrews 1:6 from
meaning the entire world.
Turkel could profit from studying how the writer of John used kosmos consistently in his references to the "world." Some of those uses referred to Jesus's coming into the kosmos.
John 1:10 He [the word, i. e., Jesus]was in the world [kosmos], and the world [kosmos] was made through Him, and the world [kosmos] did not know Him.
John 1 :29 The next day John [the Baptist] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world [kosmos]!"
John 3:16 For God so loved the world [kosmos] that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17For God did not send His Son into the world [kosmos] to condemn the world [kosmos], but that the world [kosmos] through Him might be saved. 18He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world [kosmos], and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
John 6:32 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world [kosmos]."
John 6:50 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world [kosmos].
John 9:5 As long as I am in the world [kosmos], I am the light of the world [kosmos].
John 9:39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world [kosmos], that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind."
John 10:35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world [kosmos], 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
John 12:46 I have come as a light into the world [kosmos], that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world [kosmos] but to save the world [kosmos].
John 16:28 I came forth from the Father and have come into the world [kosmos]. Again, I leave the world [kosmos] and go to the Father.
John 17:18 As You [the Father] sent Me into the world [kosmos], I also have sent them [the disciples] into the world [kosmos].
John 18:37 Jesus answered, "You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world [kosmos], that I should bear witness to the truth."
These are just some of the passages in John that speak of Jesus's coming into the world [kosmos] with a mission to the kosmos. When "John" spoke of Jesus's coming into the world, he always used the word kosmos. In fact, he seemed not even to be aware of the word oikoumene. If, as Turkel said, kosmos always meant the entire world (except, of course, when it was being used "hyperbolically" in texts embarrassing to preterism), then clearly "John" was saying that Jesus had come into world on a mission that encompassed the whole world. Why, then, would another "inspired" writer have said that Jesus had come only into the Roman empire, and why after saying that Jesus had come only into the Roman empire, did this same writer say that Jesus had come into the kosmos [the entire world]?
Turkel:
and
it's a delicious irony that a provincialist like you misses it.
Till:
I didn't miss it
because it wasn't there to miss, so if Turkel wants to speak of
irony, he should speak of his own failure to see that oikoumene
and kosmos were used interchangeably and that
oikoumene was used in contexts where the obvious meaning was
the entire world. Those passages have been explicated in detail
above, so we will just have to wait for Turkel to hop, skip, and jump
over them.
Turkel:
Rev. 3:10 says that
trial was coming on the inhabited world (i.e., Rome, or at
best for you, as far as India) -- and that last one, by the way,
tears your attempt as well to make ge into a global commodity.
Till:
Here is another bald
assertion. How does Turkel know that oikoumene in
Revelation 3:10 meant Rome "or at best for [me] as far as
India"? Where is his explication of the text to support
this claim? I showed above that the language of this text
supports a worldwide meaning for oikoumene. I will quote
that explication here for Turkel's benefit.
Here [Rev. 3:10] is another passage that used both earth [ges] and world [oikoumene]. Ges was not restricted by anything in this context to give it the meaning of "the land [ges] of Judah" or the "land [ges] of Jerusalem," so unless there is some compelling reason within the context--and there isn't--to assign the secondary meaning of "land" to this word, a basic principle of literary interpretation requires readers to assign the primary meaning, i. e., earth, to this word. Hence, the writer was saying that an "hour of temptation" was coming upon the "world" to try those who "dwell on the earth." Using earth interchangeably with world indicates that both words were to be understood as synonyms.
In my reply to Turkel's first article, I analyzed the use of ge in the New Testament to show (1) that when it was used in a restricted sense to mean land, there would almost always be a restrictive qualifier like "of Judah" to show its limited meaning, and (2) when such restrictive qualifiers were not used, the context clearly conveyed its limited meaning. Turkel has yet to address that analysis, so I will just throw it back at him here.
What about the Greek word ge? In Matthew 24:30, when Jesus said that "all the tribes of the earth" would see Jesus coming, did he mean only the "tribes" in the "limited area" of the land around Jerusalem? In "The Absence of Evidence" (TSR, March/April 2002), I addressed this ge-means-only-land-within-a-region quibble with reference to Luke's claim that darkness fell over the "whole land [gen]" (Luke 23:44). I pointed out that the word ge could mean either "earth" or "land," just as the word earth in English and terre in French can be used in both senses. However, when English speakers hear the word earth and French speakers hear the word terre, they don't scratch their heads wondering what is meant, because context enables the meanings to be determined.
In the article just mentioned, I pointed out that qualifiers were almost always used with ge to indicate when it was being used in its limited sense of land within a region. Thus, we read about "the land of Egypt" or "the land of Israel" as in the following examples.
Matthew 11:24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land [ge] of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.
John 3:22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land [gen] of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized.
Hebrew 8:8-9 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah_not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land [ges] of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD."
Matthew 14:34 When they had crossed over, they came to the land [gen] of Gennesaret.
Acts 13:17-19 The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land [ge] of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He brought them out of it. Now for a time of about forty years He put up with their ways in the wilderness. And when He had destroyed seven nations in the land [ge] of Canaan, He distributed their land [ge] to them by allotment.
In discussing this point in "The Absence of Evidence," I used Matthew 2:20, Matthew 10:15, Acts 7:3-5, and Jude 5 as examples to show that contextual qualifiers were used to convey the limited sense of ge. I intentionally used a different set of examples this time to emphasize the number of New Testament passages in which the limited meaning of ge was consistently signified in this way. In other words, I am saying no more than what I have had to say many times in my replies to Turkel's articles in which he applied unlikely meanings to words in order to find support for his inerrancy belief: the meanings of homographs [words spelled and pronounced alike that have different meanings] are almost always easily determined by the contexts in which they are used.
Throughout the New Testament, contexts also determined when ge was being used in the sense of the entire earth, but since the meaning of ge as used by Matthew is in dispute, I'll quote only examples from his gospel.
Matthew 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth [ge] pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Matthew 5:34-35 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth [ge], for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
Matthew 6:9-10 In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth [ges] as it is in heaven.
Matthew 6:19-20 "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth [ges], where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal."
Matthew 9:4-6 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Arise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth [ges] to forgive sins"--then He said to the paralytic, "Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house."
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth [ges], that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes."
There are several other examples in Matthew, but these are sufficient to make the point. When ge was used, the context indicated whether it was being used to signify the entire earth or only a regional area of land or just ground or dirt. An example of the latter is Matthew 13:5, where one of the parables of Jesus referred to seed that fell upon rocky places where they had "not much earth [gen]," and so the plants withered and died from not having "depth of earth [ges]." Here the word ge, used twice, obviously meant neither the entire earth nor a regional area of land but ground or dirt.
I have developed this point at length, because the meaning of Matthew 24:29-30 is crucial to the preterist position.
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth [ges] will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.?
Turkel, of course, claimed that ges in this verse meant only "the land" around the region of Jerusalem, but this is just a Humpty-Dumpty definition that he arbitrary imposed on the word in order to make the statement fit into his preconceived preterist mold. The word ges was not qualified in any way with "of Jerusalem" or "of Judea" to convey that only the people living in the "land" around Jerusalem would see the "son of man coming." Since it was Matthew's style to so qualify ge when it was being used in this limited sense (2:6; 2:20-21; 4:15; 10:15; 11:24; 14:34), it seems that the Holy Spirit was rather careless to "inspire" such ambiguity in a passage so important to a central biblical doctrine. All that the Holy Spirit had to do was direct Matthew to write "ges of Jerusalem" or "ges of Judea," and Turkel and I wouldn't be having this discussion.
To any reasonable person, the fact that this passage said that "all the tribes of the earth" would mourn upon seeing the sign of the son of Man in heaven should be clear contextual evidence that ges was being used here to mean the entire earth, but when one has an emotional attachment to a religious belief, common sense will often take a back seat to a desire to cling to the doctrine. In order to make Matthew 24:29-30 consistent with his preterist belief, Turkel was required to make just about everything in this passage figurative or symbolic. The sun, moon, and stars weren't really the sun, moon, and stars; they were simply "apocalyptic imagery," and "all the tribes of the earth" weren't really all the tribes of the earth but were only the tribes of Israel....
Now here is a rebuttal argument that has been supported with extensive textual explications that Turkel is obligated to answer. Will he answer it? No, he won't. He may wave at it in passing, but he will not take the various points in the argument and try to rebut them. He won't because he knows he will wind up looking silly if he should try to explain that these explicated passages don't mean what they clearly say. When confronted with evidence like this, his attitude seems to be, "Don't bother me with details that disagree with my beliefs, because I'm not going to listen to them."
Turkel:
More there in a
moment. And YES, that means that Paul DID have in mind in Romans
10:18 just the Empire, and maybe even as far as India, in spite of
whatever Ps. 19:1-4 may have had in mind. If Ps. 19 did have a
global aspirations in view, it makes no difference.
Till:
We have here a frank
admission of the extremes that a biblicist will go to in order to
stick to his guns. Turkel is actually saying that it doesn't
matter what the original statement that Paul may have quoted meant;
oikoumene in the quotation will be detrimental to his
preterist position unless it meant just the Roman empire, so,
therefore, it meant just the Roman empire, regardless of what it may
have meant in the original quoted text. Do readers see why I say that
Turkel is the Humpty Dumpty of biblical apologetics? Like the
character in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass,
words mean what he says that they mean, and he just won't
be bothered with evidence to the contrary. When New Testament
writers appealed to Old Testament scriptures, their obvious intention
was to show that the weight of Old Testament authority was on their
side, but this tactic would make no sense unless the scriptures they
quoted had originally conveyed whatever position they were
supporting. Paul, for example, said in Romans 14:10 that "we
shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God," and in
support of this claim, he quoted Isaiah 14:22-23: "As I live,
says the Lord, Every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall
confess to God." Now unless the scripture that Paul quoted said
what he said that it said, it would convey no force of argument.
The Septuagint version of Isaiah 14:22-23 says, "By
myself, I swear... that to me every knee shall bend and every tongue
shall swear by God." This was said in a context that
spoke of Yahweh's salvation reaching "all the ends of the
earth," which may have meant just to the ends of the Roman
empire. I suppose that only Turkel would know.
At any rate, we now have Turkel in a situation where he is arguing against his own "inspired, inerrant word of God" and saying that what it meant isn't important as far as his preterist beliefs are concerned.
Turkel:
In fact McTill shows
off his wound where he gigs himself when he stops to comment on how
Paul here gives an "excellent example of how New Testament
writers twisted and distorted the Old Testament scriptures to make
them fit into whatever doctrinal views they were trying to prove..."
Till:
Does Turkel want to
debate this issue? If so, I will be happy to inundate him with
examples of New Testament quotations, which didn't convey at
all the meaning of the Old Testament scriptures they were
quoting.
If he doesn't know this, then his biblical ignorance is far
more profound than I had previously thought.
Turkel:
On the contrary. This
is an excellent example of how McTill the provincialist hasn't grown
past the fundaliteralism he inherited from the Church of Christ, and
which he supplemented with equally contextually-uneducated bean
tossers like Thomas Paine.
Till:
Turkel never tires of
wagging in my past membership in the Church of Christ, as if that
would have anything to do with my present positions. I find
this rather amusing, coming from a Baptist, who believes that a book
riddled with tales of talking animals, routine patriarchal chats with
"God," men walking unharmed through a fiery furnace,
people rising from the dead, etc., etc., etc. is the "inspired
word of God." I have read The Age of Reason, but,
believe it or not, I had concluded that the Bible is a crock of you
know what long before I had ever read this book or any other book
written by deists, skeptics, or atheists. I made my decision
about the Bible without having read any book by Thomas Paine
or Robert Ingersoll or any other biblical skeptic. The Bible is
its own worst enemy, and all one has to do is read it with his mind
free of childhood indoctrinations to see it for what it really
is.
On September 5th of this year, I received the following letter, which
is like many I have received from people who told me that just
reading the Bible and seeing what was really in it opened their eyes.
Up to age 40 (3 years ago), I was a dyed-in-the wool, soldier for Christianity. Choir, committees, giving sermons (on laity Sunday), donations, evangelism, bible study/classes--you name it and I was into it. Oddly enough, it was a Bible study class that "led me astray." The vast majority of bible classes refer only to carefully selected verses which constitute less than 10% of the total. Then I took a class called "Disciple Bible Study," which goes through the entire bible. What an eye opener! The more I read, the worse it got. In the end, I couldn't go along with it anymore. I stopped believing. The result was, as expressed by so many others who have contacted you, that I feel a lot better for shedding it. I no longer wring my hands and pray before making a decision. I no longer agonize over what god wants me to do and search for a "sign" as to which way to go. I make my own decisions, and I am a lot better at making them and better for making them. I feel fresher, more relaxed, more alive then back in the dark old days. My only regret is the foolishness I feel for having wasted so much of my life and money on a primitive superstition (oh, the stories I could tell).
So Turkel can call me "McTill," "fundaliteralist," "provincialist," or whatever he wishes. Nothing can hide the fact that he--not I--is the one who believes in ancient, superstitious nonsense. He doesn't hesitate to express his opinion of me, so I will express mine of him. He is either an ignorant man, or else he is smart enough to use religion as a means of giving him a livelihood that will enable him to stay at home and live off the gullible. Check his webpage to see why I think the latter may be true.
At this point,
Turkel
shifted the subject to "normal Jewish exegetical procedure for
the period," so I will kick off Part
Three by replying to that.
