Turkel:
What McTill blaps out to be "distortion" is actually accepted and normal Jewish exegetical procedure for the period.

Till:
Well, we have reached the point where Turkel turns to citing or quoting books or websites, as if finding someone who agrees with his religious position would be particularly hard to do.  I could fill this page with URLs that blast preterism to pieces--and do a fairly good job of doing it--but that would prove nothing except that I can find writers who side with me on this issue.  That isn't my style.  I delineate arguments, support them with detailed information, and then wait for Turkel to evade them.

Turkel:
We've referred McTill to Glenn Miller's article at Christian Think Tank, but it didn't make an impact in that brick he calls a head, so we'll show how it relates to this example.

Till:

Oh, no, Turkel, don't sic Glenn Miller onto me.  Have you no pity?

For those who may not know him, Glenn Miller is a Mississippi-based biblical inerrantist, who maintains a website that undertakes to prove that the Bible is inerrant.  Readers should therefore have no trouble guessing what his position will be in any matter pertaining to biblical inerrancy.  No matter what the textual problem may be, Miller's position will always be that the problem is not an actual discrepancy.  He will always have some kind of explanation for it.  On the subject of biblical inerrancy, he has about as much objectivity as the pope would have on the issue of papal infallibility.  I have done some reading on Miller's site, and he is better at "apologetics" than Turkel, but that isn't saying a lot, since they are both dedicated to defending a position that is patently absurd.  To Miller's credit, he keeps himself above the petty sarcasm and insults that permeate Turkel's site, but he is addicted to the same apologetic method as Turkel.  He thinks that if he quotes someone who wrote a book, that will prove his position.

Turkel:
Jewish exegesis of this period had four general methods: literalist, midrashic, pesher, and allegorical. McTill and the Church of Christ only recognize one -- the first, and McTill will allow the fourth to keep from looking foolish when it suits his purposes. It is the second that has relevance here, as Miller notes, quoting Longenecker:

Till:
Which Longenecker?  There are several.  Didn't Turkel once make a snide comment about my failure to identify what edition of Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon I had quoted?

Turkel [quoting Richard N. Longenecker]:

The central concept in rabbinic exegesis, and presumably that of earlier Pharisees as well, was "midrash." The word comes from the verb darash (to resort to, seek; figuratively, to read repeatedly, study, interpret), and strictly denotes an interpretive exposition however derived and irrespective of the type of material under consideration. In the Mishnah, the Palestinian Gemaras, and the earlier Midrashim the verb peshat and derash are used in roughly synonymous fashion, for the earlier rabbis (the Tannaim) did not see any difference between their literal interpretations and their more elaborate exegetical treatment. Only among the Amoraite rabbis, sometime in the fourth century C.E were literalist exegesis and midrash exegesis consciously differentiated. But while not recognized as such until later, midrashic exegesis can be seen in retrospect to have differed from literalist exegesis among the Pharisaic teachers of the New Testament period.

Midrashic exegesis ostensibly takes its point of departure from the biblical text itself (though psychologically it may have been motivated by other factors) and seeks to explicate the hidden meanings contained therein by means of agreed-upon hermeneutical rules (e.g., Rabbi Hillel's seven Middoth; Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha's later set of thirteen; Rabbi Eliezer ben Jose ha-Galili's thirty-two). The purpose of midrash exegesis is to contemporize the revelation of God given earlier for the people of God living later in a different situation. What results may be characterized by the maxim: "That has relevance for This"--that is, what is written in Scripture has relevance for our present situation. In so doing, early Judaism developed what George Foote Moore once aptly defined as "an atomistic exegesis, which interprets sentences, clauses, phrases, and even single words, independently of the context or the historical occasion, as divine oracles; combines them with other similar detached utterances; and makes large use of analogy of expression often by purely verbal association" (Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, 1.248).

Romans 10:14-18 is precisely an example of this. McTill shoots himself in both feet on this one with his crass and childish hyperliteralism, and the whole oikoumene has fallen on his head.

Till:
There are four problems here: (1) Turkel, through Miller, has made an appeal to authority without even attempting to show that Longenecker's claims about "Jewish exegetical procedures" are valid methods of literary interpretation.  (2) Turkel said nothing about Longenecker's qualifications to speak on the subject of "Jewish exegetical procedures."  (3)  The quotation from Longenecker said nothing at all about Romans 10:14-18, so we have no way of knowing if Longenecker would even consider it an example of "midrashic exegesis."  (4)  Turkel himself made no attempt at all to explicate Romans 10:14-18 to show that the principles that Longenecker stated above are applicable to this passage.

In other words, Turkel is at it again.  He quotes an author and declares that the author's opinion settles whatever the issue in dispute is.  If I, for example, should quote an author who thinks that the apostle Paul's quotation of Psalm 19:4 was intended to prove that the "word of Christ" had gone into the entire world, would we have a draw here, or would I actually have a victory, through an appeal to authority, since Turkel's authority actually made no reference at all to the quotation in Romans 10:18?

I'd like to see Turkel's answer to this, but I would also like to see pigs fly.

By the way, when I asked if we would have a "draw" if I should quote an author who thinks that Paul was quoting Psalm 19:4 to prove that the "word of Christ" had gone into the entire world, I was actually quoting Turkel indirectly.  A full explanation of this will be found at the beginning of Part Four of my reply, where Turkel appealed to G. B. Caird to "prove" that prophetic references to falling stars and the darkening of the sun and moon were just "apocalyptic language not intended to be understood literally.

Turkel:
Banging his head against oikoumene takes up one whole page;

Till:
Since I nailed Turkel's "shimmying hiney" to the wall on the meaning of oikoumene, I must have banged my head pretty well. My analyses of the 15 places in the New Testament where oikoumene was used showed conclusively that Turkel is flat-out wrong in his claim that "what little frame of ref we have shows that when the NT writers thought of the oik- word, they meant just Rome's Empire."  I didn't sidestep anything.  I took every text in the New Testament that used oikoumene and showed that seven of them unquestionably--unless a preterist is doing the questioning--used the word to mean the entire world and that at least some of the others meant more than just the Roman Empire.

Will Turkel reply to these analyses of those 15 texts?

Will pigs fly someday?

Turkel:
another page or so is spent trying to stretch ge into a whole world. Unlike the oik- word, this indeed CAN be taken as meaning the whole magilla, but it also clearly is flexible enough to include smaller areas of land.

Till:
Yes, it is flexible enough to include smaller areas of land, but I also did an analysis of  ge passages and showed that when the word was so used, there were either qualifiers like "of Judah" or" of Canaan" or "of Egypt" to show the limited meaning of the word, or else there was something within the context that showed the limited meaning.  Turkel just can't seem to get through that brick he calls a head that the meaning of homographs is determined by the contexts in which they are used.  I'll have more to say about this below as I continue my point-by-point reply to Turkel's attempt to make ge mean what he wants it to mean in texts that are important to his preterist beliefs.

Turkel:
McTill thinks he has found the magic poof for this one in that "qualifiers were almost always used with ge to indicate when it was being used in its limited sense of land within a region" (i.e., "land of Egypt").

Till:
Does Turkel deny that such qualifiers were almost always used when the limited meaning was intended?  If so, why didn't he favor us with some examples where limited meaning was unequivocally intended without qualifiers or some other contextual clue to the limited meaning in the contexts where the word was used?

I'll answer that question for him.  He didn't, because he knows that any such attempt to cite such examples will underscore just how weak his position is.  At any rate, I have taken the time a few paragraphs below to quote those analyses of passages that used ge.  This section was in my reply to Turkel's "Olivet Discourse," but he ignored it.  Watch him ignore it again.

Turkel:
By extension he apparently thinks that when there is no such delimitation, we are allowed to assume the whole planet is in view,

Till:
Well, yes, that is exactly what I think.  A primary rule of literary interpretation is that words should be interpreted in their primary senses unless there are compelling contextual reasons to assign secondary or figurative meanings.  Hence, if there are no "delimitations" used in a context containing the word ge, it should be interpreted in its primary sense, unless some contextual reason indicates that it was being used in a secondary or figurative sense.  A basic course in literary interpretation would be very helpful to Turkel.

As I explained in my first reply to Turkel (copied again below), there are two ways to determine when ge meant only a limited area of ground: (1) when qualifiers like "of Judah" or "of Egypt" were used, and (2) when contextual information made the limited meaning obvious.  Both of these were discussed in my first reply to Turkel, which he ignored, and readers can see below that I gave examples of both.

Turkel:
though he isn't quite dumb enough to say it outright and even qualifies his "always" with "almost" just in case someone finds a cite [sic] to blow him off the surface.

Till:
I said "almost always" because I know that there was another way besides the use of qualifiers to determine when ge was being used to mean land within a limited region.  Although that is discussed in the quotation of my original rebuttal (below), I will put one of the examples here just so that Turkel can ignore it three times.

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.

This example illustrates both ways that the limited meaning of ge was indicated in the New Testament.  First, the qualifiers "of Egypt" and "of Canaan" were used to show that in the first two uses of ge  the entire ge [earth] was not meant but only parts of it, i. e., those areas of the earth that were known as the countries of Egypt and Canaan.  Second, the context shows that the last usage of ge did not mean the entire earth but only that part of it that was allotted to the Israelites after they had destroyed seven nations in the "land [ge] of Canaan."

Now this is so simple that even Turkel should be able to see it.  The fact is that he does see it, but he can't dare take the time to try to refute my argument, because that would show to his admirers that he cannot show my position to be erroneous.

Turkel:
One of the cites he barks out as a "whole earth" is Luke 23:44.

Till:
Notice Turkel's technique.  He hopes that by saying I had "bark[ed] out" Luke 23:44 instead of quoting and analyzing it, he will somehow discredit the example I used.  I like for readers to have before them the text that is being considered, so I will quote Luke 23:44, which refers to the darkness that fell over the "earth" while Jesus was on the cross.

Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth [gen] until the ninth hour.

There is nothing in the context that even hints that a limited meaning was intended for the word ge, so a primary rule of literary interpretation must be given preference here.  That rule is that the words within a written text should be interpreted literally unless there are compelling reasons  to assign figurative meaning.  There are no compelling reasons to think that Luke meant that darkness had fallen on just a limited part of the earth, such as the region in and around Jerusalem.  Indeed, the obvious purpose of the statement was to show that the crucifixion of Jesus was accompanied by a remarkable phenomenon.  Darkness over the entire earth would have been far more phenomenal than just darkness over the city of Jerusalem, so that can be seen as a compelling reason to assign primary meaning to the word ge.  The fact that Luke could have easily used "of Judah" with ge if he had meant only the region around Jerusalem becomes another compelling reason to think that he meant for the word to be understood in its primary sense.  Otherwise, we will have to consider the Holy Spirit an incompetent "inspiring" agent, who was unable to guide his chosen writer to communicate clearly just what had happened here.

Turkel:
He doesn't say much here, referring readers to an earlier article,

Till:
No, I didn't say much about Luke 23:44, because, as I have explained several times now, my space was limited to just five pages because Turkel's cut-and-pasted job had taken up 10 pages, and my reference to the previous article ("The Absence of Evidence") was intended only to document for readers where I had done another analysis of ge to show the two points I just stated above.  I'll just quote what I said, so that readers can see that it obviously wasn't my intention to base any argument on Luke 23:44.

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.

I don't recall a single time in my life when I heard the word earth and didn't know whether the person who had used it meant the entire world or just a part of it, as when a farmer speaking about his land might say, "This is good earth."  I lived in France for five years and became fluent enough in French to preach sermons in it and understand what was being said in conversations I engaged in and on television programs I watched, but I can't recall any time when I heard the word terre used that I didn't know whether it was being used to mean the entire world or just a part of it.  Biblicists like Turkel make a trade out of focusing on homographs in biblical languages in order to try to read into them the meanings that would be the most beneficial to whatever screwball beliefs they are trying to peddle.

There is no real problem with the word ge in Greek.  Context and common sense will enable readers to recognize what writers intended when they used it, but biblicists like Turkel will try to make homographs problematic in order to find far-fetched support for doctrinal beliefs that are not supported by the face-value meanings of texts relevant to those beliefs.  In the case of Luke 23:44, for example, common sense should tell readers who don't have emotionally important beliefs to defend that ge meant the entire earth.  Why would Luke have said that darkness came over olen ten gen [the whole earth] if he had intended his readers to understand that this was only a darkness that all fallen over the "land" in and around Jerusalem?  How likely is it that darkness would have fallen over part of Jerusalem and its environs?  The unlikeliness of this would have made the word olen [whole or all] unnecessary, because readers would have realized that if darkness had fallen over the land in and around Jerusalem, it would have fallen over all of that land.  The use of olen [whole], then, was to leave no doubt with readers how extensive the darkness was.  It had fallen over the "whole earth."

Turkel, of course, is never going to admit the obvious, so readers who don't have their minds rusted shut because of some preconceived beliefs are going to have to decide for themselves whether an unlimited ge in a context that gave no reason to think that the word had an intended limited meaning meant the whole earth or just a part of it.  My explications of examples below are sufficient to show that Turkel's position on this point is clearly wrong.

Turkel:
but he's already given himself a hermeneutical hernia.

Till:
I have?  Then I am sure that Turkel won't mind rising to the occasion below to take each of my examples of passages where ge was used and show us where I got the hernia.  He will see, when he gets there, that I have asked pertinent questions after each example, which will give him the opportunity to show just where I got the hernia.

My prediction is that he will hop, skip, and jump over these examples without answering the questions.  He may wave at them in passing and hurl a few McTills, but he won't attempt to reply to my questions.

Turkel:
If a delimiter is required, then in Rom. 10:14-18 Paul has given his delimiter -- the oikoumene.

Till:
Did everyone catch Turkel's evasion?  At this point, the issue is not what oikoumene meant in Romans 10:14-18 but what ge meant in Luke 23:44. These are separate issues.   You have to keep an eye on Turkel, because he will try to shift the subject away from what he cannot answer.  In Luke 23:44, there was no "delimiter" used with ge, but there was a qualifier "whole," which clearly indicated that ge was being used to mean... well, the whole earth.

If not, why not?

As for the meaning of oikoumene in Romans 10:14-18, that has been settled too, but for Turkel's benefit, I'll quote the proof again, so that he can evade it again.

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.

In addition to this, I have taken all 15 examples of New Testament passages where oikoumene was used and have shown that in at least seven of them the word conveyed the sense of the whole world, and in seven of the others, arguments for the same usage could be made.  Only in one of them (Luke 2:1) did the context indicate that only the Roman empire was meant.  Turkel's oikoumene claim has withered on the vine, and he has been reduced to asserting, arbitrarily, that the apostle Paul was using "Midrashic exegesis" in Romans 10:18.

What was his proof of this?  A book that Glenn Miller had quoted on his website, but the quotation from the book said nothing anywhere about Romans 10:18.  Turkel simply asserted, arbitrarily, that Richard Longenecker's statement about "Midrashic exegesis" explains what Paul was saying.

There was no "delimiter" used by Paul in Romans 10:18, because (1) oikoumene was used in the New Testament to mean the whole world, (2) Paul was quoting an Old Testament verse that used the world tebel in obvious reference to the whole world, (3) Septuagint translators used oikoumene  to translate tebel, which meant the whole world, and (4) the verse that Paul quoted used both "world" and "earth" interchangeably in an example of Hebrew parallelism, which was a literary form that repeated the same meaning for the purpose of emphasis.

These are arguments that Turkel must answer, but, of course, he won't.  He will hop, skip, and jump right over them.  He won't be bothered by anything that shows he is wrong.

Turkel:
Scratch that one off the list.

Till:
Nope, we will keep it, because my rebuttal arguments above clearly show that my position on ge is rock solid.  Any argument in a debate stands until it is rebutted, and Turkel just doesn't know how to rebut arguments.  The fact that his positions don't usually have any textual information to support them no doubt accounts for his habitual evasion.

Turkel:
Luke 23:44 doesn't have a delimiter,

Till:
No, it doesn't.  I explained above that it has instead a qualifier, "whole," which shows that the writer's intention was to say that darkness had covered the whole earth.

Turkel:
but excuse me, McTill, can we open the dimension box for a moment?

Till:
Gladly!  I would be delighted if you ever actually discussed anything.  Discussion is always better than evasion and assertion.  I discuss, while you evade and assert.

Turkel:
The darkness, whatever it was, was an airborne phenomenon.

Till:
Turkel is again trying to prove inerrancy by assuming inerrancy.  A darkness at midday, whether local or worldwide, would be so phenomenal that it would require phenomenal evidence to support it.  Turkel has none.  He is simply assuming that because the New Testament says that it happened, it did happen.

As for his claim that the darkness would have been "airborne," I don't know where he gets that.  Darkness is the absence of light, so darkness does not originate in the air.  The only reason that such a thing as this could have happened would have been for the sun to go out like a lamp being turned off.  Several versions (ASV, NRSV, CONCORDANT LITERAL, etc) say that this is what happened: the sun's light failed.  The only thing that air would have had to do with this would be that there would have been no light from the sun passing through the air to reach the earth.

If Turkel wants to believe that the sun's light failed, well, what can I say except that a belief like this would be no sillier than various other things he believes?

Turkel:
It was unlikely to have been constrained by geographical considerations.

Till:
What can I say?  I agree.  If it suddenly went dark at Jerusalem at midday, because the sun's light had failed, then it would have become dark in Egypt, Syria, Babylon, and the rest of the hemisphere.  If Turkel wants to believe that his god switched the sun off for three hours, well, why not?  He also believes that this god of his caused the sun to stop in its course to give Joshua's army time to defeat an enemy.  He also believes that his god caused a donkey to talk in human language, suspended the natural law that water will seek its own level, etc., etc., etc.  In other words, Turkel is so gullible that he will believe anything just as long as it is written in the pages of a book that has "Holy Bible" embossed on the cover.

Turkel:
It could hardly have been whipping a map out to say, "I only want to be over Judea, so I have to stop at this border." So excuse me, McTill, but how on ge is Luke going to be able to say "over the land of..." anything?

Till:
Well, gee, Turk, that's easy.  If he meant that darkness fell over only the region in and around Jerusalem, as some people think he meant, then he could have said, "Darkness came over all the land [ge] of Judah."  After all, isn't this what the writer of Exodus did in recording the plague of darkness?  Didn't he say that "there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt" (Ex. 10:22)?  Did he not use a "delimiter" to indicate exactly where the darkness was?

Do you have any more questions?  I'll be glad to answer them.  Some debaters actually reply to their opponents point by point.  You ought to try it sometime.

Now since Luke did not say that darkness came over all the ge of Judah but instead said that darkness came over all the ge, that is a compelling reason to think that he meant exactly what he said: darkness came over all the earth.

Turkel:
Unless the darkness matched or had a reasonably close match to a specific socio-political border, and/or unless Luke was able to hire a satellite to check it out or go around asking everyone in the Empire, "Hey, psst, did you see it that day and did it match your borders?"

Till:
If it had happened, no one at that time would have had to ask, "Did you see it that day?"  Millions would have seen it and left records of the phenomenon all over the hemisphere.  As it is, no verifiable records of such an event exist.  Why, not even the apostle John, who presumably was present in Jerusalem that day to witness everything that happened mentioned it in his gospel.  He said nary a word about it.  Just think about it.  A phenomenal three-hour period of darkness fell at midday, the apostle John was right in the thick of it, but he didn't even mention it when he wrote his account of that day.  This would be somewhat like a person who was at ground zero in New York on September 11, 2001, who would later write an account of that day but wouldn't even mention the airliners crashing into the World Trade Center.

As for matching borders, no one would have asked about that either, because if the sun's light had failed, borders wouldn't have been involved, because darkness would have covered the entire hemisphere.  I'll give Turkel a quick science lesson.  We have daylight because of the sun's light.  If there is no light from the sun, because the sun's light failed, then there would be no daylight anywhere.

Now that shouldn't be hard to understand, Turk, but somehow I suspect you will have trouble grasping it.

Turkel:
{no such delimit as "land of Egypt" is possible or practicable.)

Till:
It wasn't?  Why wasn't it?  I just used the plague of darkness as an example to show that the writer of this tale did use "of Egypt" as a delimiter to explain exactly what land it was that experienced the darkness.  He even said that although there was a "thick darkness" over all the land of Egypt,  the Israelites had light (10:23).  This sounds a lot like as if "borders" were involved, doesn't it?  A Egyptian standing in spot A was in total darkness, but an Israelite in spot B, maybe only inches away had light. (This sort of thing happened in biblical stories.)  Since Luke used no "delimiter," such as "of Judah," then we have a compelling reason to understand that he meant for ge to be understood in its primary sense and that darkness (according to him) had fallen over the "whole earth."

Turkel:
Nice try.

Till:
Thank you.  I thought so too.

Turkel:
The descriptor and the data fits [sic] a darkness that was over a very limited area, with no connection to political borders, and indeed far smaller than the political borders of Judea.

Till:
Yeah, sure, the data fits [sic] darkness over a very limited area, and so that was why Turkel didn't bother to give any of the data.  Not a scrap.

Is everybody seeing by now that his stock in trade is to assert.  Those of you who have considered him an apologist who deserves the money you have been sending him should be embarrassed for not being able to see through him.

My extended argument on the usage of ge in the New Testament is immediately below.  We will now see if Turkel will actually try to answer an argument.

Turkel:
Where Farrell specifically wants to bap ge into the whole earth, though, is in Matthew 24:29-30. He loads up the places where Matt uses ge for the whole earth, and thinks this magically poofs 24:29-30 into line. It doesn't.

Till:
Did everyone notice that Turkel made no effort at all to reply to my analyses of passages where Matthew used ge with qualifiers to show unequivocally that he was using the word in the sense of limited land area rather than the entire earth?  That's Turkel's style.  When an opponent drills him with argument that he can't answer, he tries to dismiss it with flippant comments like his "bap" remark above, but he won't dare try to answer that which he cannot answer.  When he does this, I just repeat the argument to keep readers reminded of just how evasive he is, so here is that section of my reply again.  This time, I will periodically interrupt my argument to put Turkel's feet to the fire and ask him questions that he can hop, skip, and jump over again if he bothers to "reply" to this.

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.

Question for Turkel: Was the word ge used in a limited sense here?  If so, how do you know?  If not, how do you know?

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.

Question for Turkel: Was the word ge used in a limited sense here?  If so, how do you know?  If not, how do you know?

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 Juda--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."

Question for Turkel: Was the word ge used in a limited sense here?  If so, how do you know?  If not, how do you know?

Matthew 14:34  When they had crossed over, they came to the land [gen] of Gennesaret.

Question for Turkel: Was the word ge used in a limited sense here?  If so, how do you know?  If not, how do you know?

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.

Question for Turkel: Was the word ge used in a limited sense here?  If so, how do you know?  If not, how do you know?

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.

Question for Turkel: Was the word ge used here to mean the whole earth?  If so, how do you know?  If not, how do you know?

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.

Question for Turkel: Was the word ge used here to mean the whole earth?  If so, how do you know?  If not, how do you know?

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.

Question for Turkel: Was the word ge used here to mean the whole earth?  If so, how do you know?  If not, how do you know?

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."

Question for Turkel: Was the word ge used here to mean the whole earth?  If so, how do you know?  If not, how do you know?

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."

Question for Turkel: Was the word ge used here to mean the whole earth?  If so, how do you know?  If not, how do you know?

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."

Question for Turkel: Was the word ge used here to mean the whole earth?  If so, how do you know?  If not, how do you know?

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.

This section from my first reply to Turkel referred to an earlier article of mine in which I had answered a similar quibble that another inerrantist had made about the Greek word ge, so I will quote that here in order for Turkel to see that there are other examples in addition to the ones I quoted in my reply to him.  This quotation will also give additional information for Turkel to consider on the darkness at midday alleged in Luke 23:44.

When Jesus was crucified, the sun allegedly failed to give its light from the sixth hour till the ninth hour (Luke 23:44; Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33).  The problem for biblicists in this matter is similar to the difficulty presented to them by the long day of Joshua.  The sun illuminates the earth a hemisphere at a time, so if the  sun had failed to give its light at midday for the space of three hours, this would hardly have gone unnoticed in other record-keeping societies, but no contemporary records in other cultures mentioned any such event as this.  There were secular writers living at the time that this event allegedly happened, but none of them mentioned it.  Both Seneca the Younger and Pliny the Elder discussed natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, eclipses, and comets in their books, but neither one of them mentioned a three-hour period of darkness at midday.  They referred to events far less phenomenal but didn't mention three hours of darkness at midday.  Again, this would be somewhat like newspapers in the United States failing to mention the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

Biblical inerrantists have resorted to two primary explanations for the failure of contemporary records to report this phenomenal event claimed  in the synoptic gospels of the New Testament.  First, they have argued that this was just a regional darkness, which would have been unobservable in Egypt, Greece, Rome, and other parts of the hemisphere.  They argue that the Greek word ge  [earth] could have had the meaning of "land," and so there was darkness only in the land that was in that part of the earth.   The word  ge was admittedly used in the New Testament to denote a "land" or region, but when so used the context almost always included some kind of contrasting or qualifying term that made the sense of  land clear.  It was, for example, used to denote land in contrast to the sea. 

Mark 4:1  Again he [Jesus] began to teach beside the sea. Such a very large crowd gathered around him that he got into a boat on the sea and sat there, while the whole crowd was beside the sea on the land [ges].

Luke 8:26  Then they arrived at the country of the Gerasenes [traveling by ship], which is opposite Galilee. As he [Jesus] stepped out on land [gen], a man of the city who had demons met him. For a long time he had worn no clothes, and he did not live in a house but in the tombs.

John 21:8  But the other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not far from the land [ges], only about a hundred yards off. 

Acts  27:39-44 In the morning they did not recognize the land  [gen], but they noticed a bay with a beach, on which they planned to run the ship ashore, if they could. So they cast off the anchors and left them in the sea. At the same time they loosened the ropes that tied the steering-oars; then hoisting the foresail to the wind, they made for the beach. But striking a reef, they ran the ship aground; the bow stuck and remained immovable, but the stern was being broken up by the force of the waves. The soldiers' plan was to kill the prisoners, so that none might swim away and escape; but the centurion, wishing to save Paul, kept them from carrying out their plan. He ordered those who could swim to jump overboard first and make for the land [gen], and the rest to follow, some on planks and others on pieces of the ship. And so it was that all were brought safely to land [gen].

Many other examples could be quoted, but these are sufficient to show that when ay was used in the sense of land near a sea, the context made the meaning clear.

As for the inerrantist claim that gen in the synoptic accounts of the midday darkness could have meant only that the sun failed to give its light in the region of Jerusalem or Judea, the proponents of this quibble conveniently fail to mention that when ge was used in the sense of the land within a region, the context also made that clear with some kind of qualifier such as "the  land of Israel" or  "the land of Egypt."

Matthew 2:20   "Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land [gen] of Israel, for those who were seeking the child's life are dead."

Matthew 10:15   "Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land [gen] of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

Acts 7:3-5  To this he [Stephen] replied: "Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, and said to him, 'Leave your country [ges] and your people,' God said, 'and go to the land [gen] I will show you.'  So he left the land [ges] of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. After the death of his father, God sent him to this land [gen] where you are now living. He gave him no inheritance here, not even a foot of ground. But God promised him that he and his descendants after him would possess the land, even though at that time Abraham had no child."

Jude 5  Now I desire to remind you, though you are fully informed, that the Lord, who once for all saved a people out of the land [ges] of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

These are only a few of the many New Testament examples that show how the Greek word  ge was used when it meant only a  region rather than the whole earth, so if the synoptic writers had meant that darkness fell at midday only on a region, they would surely have written that there was darkness in the land  [gen] of Judea or Jerusalem.  Instead, they said that there was darkness over "all the gen" or  "the whole gen."

A look at how ge was used in the New Testament to denote the entire earth will support the view that the synoptic writers meant that darkness covered  the whole earth. 

Matthew 5:18  "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth [ge] pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished."

Matthew 10:34   "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth [gen]; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Luke 21:25-35  "There will be signs in the sun, the moon, and the stars, and on the earth [ges] distress among nations confused by the roaring of the sea and the waves.  People will faint from fear and foreboding of what is coming upon the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud' with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to take place, stand up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."

Then he told them a parable: "Look at the fig tree and all the trees; as soon as they sprout leaves you can see for yourselves and know that summer is already near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all things have taken place.  Heaven and earth  [ge] will pass away, but my words will not pass away. Be on guard so that your hearts are not weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of this life, and that day catch you unexpectedly, like a trap. For it will come upon all who live on the face of the whole earth  [ges]."

There are also many other examples of this usage of ge  that I could quote, but these are sufficient to show that the inerrantist attempt to make the darkness over "all the earth" only a regional event doesn't have any real substance ("The Absence of Evidence," The Skeptical Review, March/April 2002, pp. 3-4).

Trial lawyers and judges often talk about the "preponderance of the evidence."  If there was ever a case where one had the preponderance of the evidence on his side, I have it here.  Turkel needs to respond to this information with a rebuttal that will show he has the preponderance of the evidence in his favor when he says that ge in the Matthew 24 passages meant only the land in and around Jerusalem.  So far, he has offered no evidence at all.  He has simply asserted that this was the meaning of ge in those texts.

Now here is a warning that I hope Turkel will read very slowly.  If he does not answer this argument, which clearly shows that the meaning of words like ge has to be determined by context, then I will just repost it if he plays leapfrog on it again.

Turkel:
The delimiter is given by the use of the word tribes, which we showed to be a reference to Israel's tribes. We said of this:

...Matthew uses "tribes" elsewhere only of Israel [19:18], and the word is used in the Septuagint to refer to them; and "earth" is ge, or land, can mean a limited area or the entire globe; in context, and in the light of the use of "tribes," as well as the allusion to Zech 12:10 ["And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him"] it most likely means Jerusalem or Judaea only...

McTill has almost zip to say about this at first;

Till:
As I have explained, Turkel's cut-and-pasted DeMarisms took up ten pages in The Skeptical Review, so I had only five pages to reply to him.  He need not worry, however, because I am now going to give him a lesson on how to reply to an opponent point by point.  I don't think the lesson will do him any good, but at least readers will see that his "argument" has been blasted out of the sky.

First, he said that Matthew used the word tribes "elsewhere" only of Israel, and the "elsewhere" is just one other reference, because aside from Matthew 24:30 and 19:28, he didn't use the word anywhere else.  Here is Matthew 19:28.

So Jesus said to them, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

How can readers know that the word in this verse referred to the tribes of Israel?  Well, duh, that's what the verse says.  In other words, a qualifier, "of Israel," was used, just as qualifiers were used above to indicate that ge was being used in a limited sense to mean "the land of Judah" or "the land of Israel."  In other words, we come back to a simple principle of literary interpretation that, to borrow an expression from Turkel, seems not to have seeped into that brick that he calls a head: the meaning of words must be determined from the contexts in which they are used.

If he can hold that thought long enough, I would now like for him to answer a question about Matthew 19:28.  If Jesus had said to his disciples, "You who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging all the tribes of the earth [ge]," would tribes have then meant just the tribes of Israel?  If so, how would he know this?

Here's another question.  Let's suppose that Jesus had said, "You who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging every tribe and tongue and people and nation in all the earth."  If he had said this, would "every tribe" have meant just all the tribes of Israel?  If so, how would he know?

If Turkel hasn't yet figured out the reason for these questions, he soon will as I proceed to nail his "shimmying hiney" to the wall on this issue of what "tribes" meant in Matthew 24:30.

Second, he said in his quotation above that "the word is used in the Septuagint to refer to them."  By this, he apparently meant that the Greek word phule was used in reference to the tribes of Israel.  He is right, of course, but he didn't bother to mention that the Septuagint also used phule in reference to non-Hebraic tribes and nations.  Here are some examples from Brenton's translation of the Septuagint.

Genesis 12:3  And I will bless those that bless thee [Abraham], and curse those that curse thee, and in thee shall all the tribes of the earth [phulai tes ges] be blessed.

So it is question time again, Turkel.  Did Yahweh, speaking to Abraham here, mean that only the tribes descended from him would be blessed, or did he mean that... well, all the tribes of the earth [the whole ball of wax] would be blessed through Abraham?  Whatever your answer is, please tell us how you know.

Genesis 28:14  And thy [Jacob's] seed shall be as the sand of the earth; and it shall spread abroad to the sea, and the south, and the north, and to the east; and in thee and thy seed shall all the tribes of the earth [phulai tes ges] be blessed.

Same question, Turkel: Did Yahweh, speaking to Jacob here, mean that only the tribes descended from him would be blessed, or did he mean that... well, all the tribes of the earth [the whole ball of wax] would be blessed through Jacob?  Whatever your answer is, please tell us how you know.

I'll give you my explication, and you can tell everyone what is wrong with it if you think it is wrong.  Yahweh meant here that all the tribes or nations of the entire earth would be blessed through the seed of Jacob, because it would have been redundant for Yahweh to have said, "Through thee, Jacob, thy seed and all the tribes of thy seed will be blessed," because tribes of Jacob would have been of the seed of Jacob.  Obviously, then, the intention of the promise was that all tribes over the entire earth would be blessed through the seed of Jacob.

This is how one explicates a text to determine its meaning.  Are you paying attention, Turkel?

Ezekiel 20:32  And it shall not be as ye say, We will be as the nations, and as the tribes of the earth [phulai tes ges], to worship stocks and stones.

It's question time again, Turkel.  Were these "tribes of the earth" the tribes of Israel?  If so, how do you know?  Does the text not mean that the Israelites would not be like the other [non-Hebraic] tribes of the earth, who worshipped stocks and stone?

You won't forget to answer these questions will you, Turkel?

Are you beginning to see how the context in which a word like phulai [tribe] was used is what determines its meaning?

Amos 3:2  You [house of Israel] especially have I known out of all the families of the earth [phulon tes ges]....

It's question time again, Turkel.  If Yahweh had "especially" known the house of Israel out of all the families [phulon] of the earth, then these "phulon" [tribes] of the earth would have included all non-Hebraic tribes, wouldn't they have?  If not, why not?

Zechariah 14:16-17  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall be left of the nations [plural] that came against Jerusalem, shall even come up every year to worship the king, the Lord Almighty, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.  And it shall come to pass that whosoever of all the families of the earth [ton phulon tes ges] shall not come to Jerusalem to worship the king, the Lord Almighty, even these shall be added to all the others [those who had been overthrown in verses 12-15].

To show Turkel just how simple it is for context to determine the meaning of a word like phule when one doesn't have a pet belief to defend, I'm going to quote verse 18 from the passage quoted above in Zechariah 14.

Verse 18  And if the family of Egypt [de phule Aiguptou] shall not go up, nor come; then upon them shall be overthrown with which the Lord shall smite all the nations, whichever of them shall not come up to keep the feast of the tabernacles.

See how ridiculously simple it is?  When the biblical text restricted phule with a qualifier like "of Egypt," that meant that only the one tribe indicated by the qualifier was meant, but when texts referred to "all the tribes of the earth," it meant all the tribes of the earth and not just the Hebraic tribes.

These are things that Turkel doesn't bother to mention, because he knows that explicated information like this would destroy his position, so he just says, "(T)he word [phule] is used in the Septuagint to refer to them [the tribes of Israel]," but gives his readers no quoted examples and not even any unquoted citations where the word was used in the Septuagint in obvious reference to non-Hebraic tribes or families.  That is flagrant intellectual dishonesty.

Third, Turkel said in the quotation from his original article that "'earth' is ge, or land, can mean a limited area of the entire globe."  Well, yes, he is right, but he quoted no examples of both uses so that readers could see how one determines when it meant a limited area and when it meant the entire earth.  He left it to me to do that, because he knew that if he quoted actual examples even some of his own admirers might actually be able to see that context is what determines how the words were used.  I have quoted several examples of each usage above and will now wait for him to reply to them.

I'm also waiting for pigs to fly too.

Fourth, Turkel said that ge [earth] most likely meant Jerusalem or Judaea only.  I'll just quote here what he said so that readers won't have to scroll back up to his quotation.  Notice in reading just how sketchy he was in his attempt to prove his assertion.  Notice also the mixed grammatical structure of his first sentence.  I'll keep reminding Turkel that he should put at least some of his time into editing and revising.

(A)nd "earth" is ge, or land, can mean a limited area or the entire globe; in context, and in the light of the use of "tribes," as well as the allusion to Zech 12:10 ["And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him"] it most likely means Jerusalem or Judaea only...

Well, the "light" in which tribes was used has already backfired on him, but I have much more to say on this, which I will save until answering his attempted argument below where he tried to prove that phule in the New Testament always referred to the tribes of Israel.  Just wait until you see the exposure of his biblical ignorance on this point.

As for his allusion to Zechariah 12:10, he made no attempt at all to explain himself, so I guess I will have to step in and explain what he meant.  Zechariah's reference to those who looked upon "whom they have pierced" is an attempt to make this a reference to the same ones that the writer of Revelation referred to in saying, "Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him" (Rev. 1:7), but anyone who doesn't have a doctrinal axe to grind should be able to read Zechariah and see that he was not referring  to first-century events that preterists see as the fulfillment of his prophecies in chapters 12-14.

Zechariah was a postexilic prophet, who began his prophetic rantings toward the end of the sixth century BC.  The context of chapter 12 shows that this could not have had reference to any events that happened either at the time that Jesus was "pierced" or at the time the Romans destroyed Jerusalem.  To see this, all that one needs to do is read Turkel's favorite verse in its context, which the following analysis will lead up to.

Zechariah 12:1"Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of drunkenness to all the surrounding peoples, when they lay siege against Judah and Jerusalem.

Here is an early hint that this text cannot be applied to first century AD events.  Jerusalem was to be surrounded by peoples, and they would lay siege to Judah and Jerusalem.  Turkel and his preterist friends, however, won't let a problem like this bother them.  They have a solution.  You see, it was all figurative.  Any biblical problem can be solved by that one magical word--figurative.

³And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it.

Neither at the time that Jesus was "pierced" nor at the time the Romans destroyed Jerusalem did Yahweh "cut into pieces" all the nations of the earth.  Indeed, all nations of the earth were not gathered against it, and the army of the empire [Rome] that was gathered against Jerusalem prevailed and destroyed it. The Roman empire was certainly not "cut in pieces" in AD 70.

But is Turkel worried?  Not in the least, because it was all...  That's right.  It was all figurative.

⁴In that day," says Yahweh, "I will strike every horse with confusion, and its rider with madness; I will open My eyes on the house of Judah, and will strike every horse of the peoples with blindness.

When did this happen?  This prophecy was predicting victory for Judah against the nations gathered against it.  That didn't happen when Jesus was "pierced," and it didn't happen when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem.  But, if you can believe it, the prophet was just speaking allegorically.  You see, the house of Judah here represented Christianity, so at the time when Jerusalem was destroyed, God opened his eyes on the church.

Why are you nonpreterists so dumb that you can't see something this obvious?

⁵And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, 'The inhabitants of Jerusalem are my strength in Yahweh of hosts, their God.' ⁶In that day I will make the governors of Judah like a firepan in the woodpile, and like a fiery torch in the sheaves; they shall devour all the surrounding peoples on the right hand and on the left, but Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place—Jerusalem.

What governors of Judah?  Was this a reference to Pilate?  Was it a reference to the procurator over Judah when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem?  Can't those who try to make this a prophecy of first-century AD events see that this was a prophecy of victory, when Judah would "devour" all the peoples who came against it?  Nothing like this happened when Jesus was "pierced," and nothing like it happened when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem.  I'll give Turkel a hint here.  The Romans won; the Jews lost.  If this was a prophecy of first-century AD events, then it obviously failed.

But no sweat!  It was all allegorical.  How do I know?  Well, Turkel and his preterist allies say that it is.  What else do you want?  When Humpty Dumpty says that a text means thus and so, that settles it.

⁷"Yahweh will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall not become greater than that of Judah. ⁸In that day Yahweh will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; the one who is feeble among them in that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the Angel of Yahweh before them. ⁹It shall be in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

Uh, when did this happen?  Did Yahweh save the tents of Judah when Jesus was "pierced"?  Did Yahweh defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem when the Romans destroyed it?  Did Yahweh destroy all the nations that came against Jerusalem?  Here I was, thinking all along that Jerusalem lost the battle.

But, of course, I'm too dumb to see that it was all allegorical.  The tents of Judah was the church, which God "saved" when Jerusalem was being destroyed.  God defended it and ensured its survival.  You people who can't read this text and see this should be ashamed of yourselves.

¹⁰"And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication;

Was the "piercing" of Jesus "the Spirit of grace and supplication" that Yahweh poured on the house of David?  Was the destruction of Jerusalem a pouring out of "the Spirit of grace and supplication"?

Yes, it was, because...  that's right.  It was all allegorical.

then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

Here is a fragment of a verse that prophecy-fulfillment buffs lift out of context and try to make it applicable to Jesus, but my analysis of the context above shows that this "prophecy" could not have been referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, unless one wants to take complete leave of his senses and make the prophecy allegorical in order to preserve an emotionally important belief.

Oh, yes, by the way, Turkel's quotation from his original article, which I am now replying to in this section, brought up the Septuagint.  I wonder if he is aware that the Septuagint version of Zechariah 12:10 says, "(A)nd they shall look upon me, because they have mocked me, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved friend, and they shall grieve intensely, as for a first-born son."

The italicized words were not in the Septuagint text but were supplied by Brenton in the same way that the KJV put nontextual words in italics.  The Septuagint predates the earliest Masoretic copy of Zechariah by several centuries, so it is entirely possible, or even likely, that the Hebrew text that the Septuagint translators had before them did not even refer to someone who had been "pierced" but instead to someone who had been mocked.  Hence, it is likely that Turkel--er, DeMar--has built his argument on a corruption of an earlier reading of Zechariah 12:10.

As I proceed to pick Turkel's arguments apart, point by point, we will see that his argument about the meaning of ge [earth] and phule [tribe] falls apart.  We will get to that part rather quickly now.

Turkel:
the best he can do here and on Rev. 1:7 (which contextually limits "every eye" to the "tribes" referred to)

Till:
I agree.  Only I would state it this way: "Every eye extends to the tribes contextually referred to," and the context, as well as the meaning of phule [tribe] has to favor an unrestricted meaning of tribe as we will soon see below.  But first, let's brush the dinosaur prints aside and look at what Arndt and Gingrich said about the meaning of phule.

Their first definition is "tribe" as "the 12 tribes of Israel."  Various examples were given, which we won't need to discuss, since there is no dispute that phule can and did mean the tribes of Israel, but there is a second definition: "nation, people" (1960, p. 876).  Here various examples are given too, and would you believe it?  After citing examples from the Septuagint, some of which I quoted above, the first New Testament example that A & G gave was Matthew 24:30.  What was the second one?  None other than Revelation 1:7.  Turkel has argued that tribes in both of these passages meant just the tribes of Israel, but these two notable scholars disagree.  It could be that dinosaurs stepped on their brains, but it will be Turkel's responsibility to prove that they are wrong.  He will have ample opportunity to do that as I take us through each of the other New Testament examples that A & G cited as places where phule was used to mean "nation" or "people."

Turkel:
as a parallel is barble about "ambiguity" in the passages and the inability of the Holy Spirit to inspire clarity to the extent necessary to cover his miseducation. (I plan on marketing a bumper sticker real [sic] soon that says, "It's not that it's confusing. It's just that you're stupid.")

Till:
I think the bumper sticker is a really good idea if a slight change is made so that it will read, "It's not that it's confusing.  It's just that I'm stupid."  Of course, Turkel should be his first customer, because, believe me, he is about as biblically stupid as any person that I have debated.  He's not quite the stupidest, but he is close to the top.

Turkel:
A little later he does try to fumble his way past the meaning of "tribes" first by doing his usual childish fuss about a typo (it is Matthew 19:28, and remember, McTill, we're still waiting for an explanation of that "90% of your website" gaffe that makes any typo look like perfection in comparison)

Till:
Oh, is Turkel still waiting for that?  I answered that in Part One, but I'll quote it here for his benefit, just in case his attention span has forgotten it already.

Well, if Turkel didn't stipulate as a condition for debating me that I pay 90% of the cost of space for my articles on his website, then I'm unable to understand what he meant below, which I have quoted directly from his site at Tektonics.org.  In his acceptance of my challenge to debate in an open internet forum, he stipulated three ridiculous conditions.  The one below was his second condition.

2  I pay for this site, so correspondent with the 90% fluff ratio I demand that Till pay for 90% of the costs of hosting any item he submits -- whether  he meets challenge #1 above or not. Obviously the amount would have to be determined based on going rates for server space and the length of the  article written. I also want payment for 8 years in advance (about the time I have the tektonics.org name reserved). Based on Till's behavior I am not so sure he'll be around that long before giving himself a coronary, and I think the security is a good idea.

Since it would not have been possible to determine how much I might write in our debates over an eight-year period or even if I would live that long, I could conclude only that he was demanding that I pay the 90% for eight years in advance.  If Turkel didn't mean this, he should pay a little more attention to quality and not so much to quantity in what he posts on his site.  If he does this, maybe he will be able to express himself more clearly. 

I need to add a comment to my original answer to Turkel's statement above.  He doesn't pay for his website.  The gullible ones who send their money to him pay for it.

As for Turkel's typos--if they are indeed typos--I can't resist mentioning them, because they demonstrate how little time he puts into editing and revising.  Quantity and not quality is his goal, so he has to crank away.  That leaves him no time for proofreading.

Turkel:
and then barking that the 24:29-30 one doesn't say specifically the tribes of Israel.

Till:
Come now, Turk, the least you can do is quote me correctly.  Oh, I forgot; if you do that, you might have to take a little time to check what I said, and that would cut down on how much hackwork you can crank out.  For the record, I'll let readers see exactly what I said. First, I quoted Matthew 19:18, so that readers could see exactly what the text said: "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

I emphasized the phrase in which tribes was used, so that readers would see the obvious that I then pointed out to them: " Here we know that tribes referred only to the 12 tribes of Israel, because the text says so, but there is no such qualification in Matthew 24:30, just as there is no qualification of the word ges [earth] with "of Judea" or  "of Jerusalem" to show that Jesus meant for ges to refer only to the region around Jerusalem."

The word phulai [tribes] in Matthew 24:30 has no qualifier like "of Israel," and ges [earth] has no qualifier like "of Judaea" to signal an intended restricted sense of "land," so if ai phulai tes ges [all the tribes of the earth] meant "all the tribes of the land of Judaea," as Turkel claims, then he must point us to linguistic reasons in the context of the statement that support his claim.  The truth is that he has no contextual reasons to support his claim, or he would have given them by now.  He takes this position only because of a far-fetched doctrinal belief that he has.

Turkel:
He then hypocritically bellows about making words mean what we want them to mean,

Till:
Hypocritically?  What is hypocritical about stating a fact?  Turkel fills his articles with assertion after assertion about what words and phrases mean, but he rarely attempts to support his claims with linguistic reasons that can be found within the contexts where these words are used.

By the way, I assume people have noticed that when Turkel is hit with an argument that he cannot answer, he refers to it as something that I "burped" or "bellowed" or "barked" or "barbled," as if such derogatory remarks will make my arguments not true.  He seems to think that such derision refutes what I say, and so it isn't necessary for him to try to reply to my rebuttals.

Yes, Turkel almost persuades me to be a Christian. (I assume that he can recognize irony.)

Turkel:
but 'scuse me, McTill,

Till:
See what I mean?  Repeatedly calling me "McTill" answers what?

Keep those dollars coming in for Turkel, folks.  I want as many as possible to see the "spirit of Christ" in this fellow who longs to be a full-time apologist.

 Turkel:
without the delimiter you do exactly the same,

Till:
See how confused Turkel is?  He doesn't understand that "without the delimiter," the words phule and ge were probably being used in their strictest senses, unless there are some contextual reasons to understand that "ai phulai tes ges [all the tribes of the earth]" didn't mean all the tribes of the earth.  If there are such contextual reasons, what are they?  Why won't Turkel cite them?

Well, he doesn't because he can't.  There are no delimiters, and there are no contextual reasons to think that the words were not being used in their strictest senses.  

Someone hurry up and find that fork. 

Turkel:
and this one against all evidence we have (Matthew's use of the word previously; the LXX use of the word, which Till doesn't mention, nor the Zech. 12:10 allusion

Till:
I explained that my first reply didn't refer to all of Turkel's assertions because I was limited to five pages.  Believe me, there was much, much, MUCH more that I wanted to say, and I am saying it now.  I have already replied to his LXX reference by showing that the Septuagint used phule in contexts that obviously referred to "all the tribes of the earth" in the strictest sense of the expression, so that quibble has been shot to pieces.  I have also analyzed Zechariah 12:10 to show that it obviously could not have referred to first-century events when Jesus was "pierced" and Jerusalem was destroyed, because Judah experienced no resounding victory over all the nations of the earth at that time.  I also showed that the Septuagint version used mocked instead of pierced, so it is likely that the Hebrew text at this time didn't even have the word pierced in Zechariah 12:10.

Folks--those of you who are admirers of Turkel--be very careful what you accept on his mere word, because this guy is no apologist.  He puts his foot into his mouth in nearly every article he writes.

Turkel:
-- to this we can also note the use of the word for Israeli tribes in Luke 2:36, Acts 13:21, Rom. 1:11, Phil. 3:5, Heb. 7:13-14, James 1:1, and all through Revelation, not ONCE used of Gentiles -- who were designated with the word ethnos), so that a "local" view has a distinct and unchallenged advantage the "universal" view doesn't. Bad boy, Farrell.

Till:
Didn't I just say that Turkel manages to stick his foot into his mouth in almost every article he writes?  I have lost count of how many times he has done it in this article, but let me shove it in a little farther by looking at each of the passages he cited above.  Notice that I said "cited."  He didn't quote them, because he is at least smart enough to know that actually quoting his "proof texts" so that his readers can see what presumably supports his case will expose his shoddy method of debating.

Luke 2:36 Now there was one, Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher.

Okay, boys and girls, it's time to begin today's Sunday school class.  How do we know that the word tribe had a restricted meaning in the verse I just read?  Yes, Susie, you have your hand up.  That's right, Susie; we know that tribe had a limited meaning in this passage, because a delimiting expression, "of Asher," was used.  Very good, Susie.  Do you think you may have time to go down to Ocoee, Florida, some day and point out the obvious to Mr. Turkel?

Acts 13:21  And afterward they [the Israelites] asked for a king; so God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years.

Now how do we know that the word tribe had a restricted meaning in this verse?  No, no, Susie, you've already answered a question.  Let's let Billy have this one.  What's that, Billy?  Because the word tribe was restricted with "of Benjamin" to show that just the one tribe of Benjamin was meant?  That's right, Billy.  Do you think you might be visiting Florida any time soon?

What about Romans 1:11?  Well, here is what Romans 1:11 says, "For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, so that you may be established."  There's nothing about tribes here, but, you know, I'll bet Turkel had Romans 11:1 in mind, but was hacking away so furiously that he didn't take time to proofread and revise. Let's look at Romans 11:1, boys and girls.

Romans 11:1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

If this is what Mr. Turkel meant, is there any way we can determine that tribe had a limited meaning?  What's that, Ashley?  The word tribe is modified by the delimiter "of Benjamin"?  Very good, Ashley.  Let me know if you're planning a trip to Florida any time soon.

Philippians 3:4  If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: ⁵circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee....

What about this one, boys and girls?  Is there any way we can tell from the context if the word tribe had a broad or narrow meaning?  Yes, Johnny?  It's narrow in its meaning because the modifier "of Benjamin" limits the meaning to just one tribe?  That's good, Johnny.  When do you think your next vacation to Florida may be?

Yes, Susie?  What does circumcised mean?  Well, we'll talk about that later, but for now, we just want to study the word tribe as it was used in Mr. Turkel's favorite passages.

Hebrews 7:13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. ¹⁴For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.

Now this one may be a little harder, boys and girls, because there is no modifier like in the other examples.  Yes, Bobby?   The word is singular, so you know it is referring to only one tribe, just as if it had referred to "another boy" or "another dog"?  That's good, Bobby.  You wouldn't be planning a trip to Florida, would you?

Yes, Brittany?  You say that the verses just before this also show that tribe had a limited meaning here.  Would you read them for us?

Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? ¹²For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

You think that "Levitical priesthood" may refer to the tribe of Levi, which would have been just one tribe, and so when the author went on to say that "he of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe," he was comparing just one singular tribe to another singular tribe?  That's very good, Brittany.  How old are you?  Twelve?  I hope you will be going to Florida soon.  I know someone there who could benefit from your ability to apply common-sense interpretations to what you read.

James 1:1  James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings.

So what about this one, boys and girls?   Jason?  It says twelve tribes, so you know that more than just one was meant?  That's right, but what were these twelve tribes?  Brittany?  You think it must refer to the tribes of Israel?  Why do you think that?  Because there were twelve tribes of Israel?  But hadn't the twelve tribes of Israel become unidentifiable by this time, Brittany?  Yes, Jason, go ahead.  You think that just as the twelve tribes of Israel had been scattered all over the world, the church was scattered too, and so James was written to Christians everywhere and was just calling them "the twelve tribes"?

That's good, Jason, so would the twelve tribes be limited in meaning or not?  Brittany?  You say that it would be limited to just those who were Christians?  And you say you are just twelve, Brittany?  I do hope you will be going to Florida soon.

Okay, boys and girls, that brings us to Mr. Turkel's passages in Revelation, so we will look at them. 

Revelation 1:7  Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth [ai phulai tes ges] will mourn because of Him. 

Yes, Billy?  You think it means all the tribes of the earth?  Why?  Because that's what it says?  Yes, but Mr. Turkel thinks that it means only the tribes of Israel.  You don't agree?  Why not?  Because it doesn't say only the tribes in Israel, and you think that if the writer had meant just the tribes in Israel, he would have said so?  How old are you, Billy?  Ten!  Just ten! 

Revelation 5:9  And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe [phules] and tongue and people and nation....

So what about this one, boys and girls?  Let's hear from someone who hasn't answered yet.  Maggie?  You think that "every tribe" means every tribe on the whole earth?  Why do you think that?  Because "tribe" is mixed in with every tongue and people and nation, and it just isn't sensible to think that every tongue or language and people and nation would be referring to just those languages spoken in Israel and people and nations living in Israel?  That's good, Maggie.  You're my niece, so I know that you are only ten too.  It just doesn't make sense to think that the writer would mention "every tribe and tongue and people and nation" but mean only tribes, tongues, peoples, and nations in a tiny area like Israel, does it?

I'll be making a trip to Florida next spring, Maggie.  Do you think your mother would let you go along so that we could stop in and talk to Mr. Turkel?

Revelation 7:9  After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes [phulon], peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands....

Yes, Maggie, you're on a roll, so take this one too.  You think that tribes means all the tribes of the whole earth for the same reason as in the other passage?  The writer spoke of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, and it doesn't make sense to think that he was referring only to nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues that were living in the tiny area of Israel?

Yes, Jason, you have something to add?  You don't think that it would be correct to refer to foreigners living in Israel as "nations" because they wouldn't have been nations but just people from other nations living in Israel, just as we have people from other nations living in our country?  And how old are you, Jason?  Nine?  Just nine?  Think about trying to get your family to vacation in Florida next year.

Revelation 11:9  Then those from the peoples, tribes [phulon], tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves.

Yes, Maggie?  You think that tribes here refers to many tribes and not just to the twelve tribes of Israel?  Why?  For the same reasons that you think "peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations" in the other verses referred to many more than just those who would be living in Israel?

Yes, Billy, you disagree?  Why?  Because the verse before this says that all these things will happen in a "great city" where our Lord was crucified, and that would have to be Jerusalem?  What about that, Maggie?  There's supposed to be some big battle take place that all nations of the earth will be involved in, so if that happens then there would be bodies from all these peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations, but these bodies would not be only the people who had lived there before the battle?

Okay, let's go on.

Revelation 13:7  It was granted to him [the beast] to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe [phulen], tongue, and nation. ⁸All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Yes, Susie?  You think that this refers to every tribe on the earth?  Why?  Because this is like the other passages that spoke of every tribe, tongue, and nation?  You think that anyone in even the fourth grade would know that if the writer meant just people living in a tiny area like Israel, he would have said so and not talked about every tribe, tongue, and nation?  You say that if you were writing this and meant just the tiny area of Israel, you would have said so, so that people reading it would know what you meant?

Yes, Brittany?  And the passage went on to say that "all who dwell on the earth" will worship this big beast?  There is nothing said to make you think that earth didn't mean earth, so if the writer didn't mean all the earth, he was a poor writer?  That's a good observation, Brittany.  Keep Florida in mind.

Revelation 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe[phulen], tongue, and people—⁷saying with a loud voice, "Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water."

Susie?  You think that tribes means all the tribes of the earth?  Why?  Because this is like all the other verses we looked at, which talked about "every nation, tribe, tongue, and people" who dwell on the earth and that only a dork would have written it this way if he had meant just people who lived in the tiny area of Israel?

That's good, kids, so now we come to Mr. Turkel's final passage in Revelation.

Revelation 7:4  And I heard the number of those who were sealed. One hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed: ⁵of the tribe of Judah twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Gad twelve thousand were sealed; ⁶of the tribe of Asher twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand were sealed; ⁷of the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Levi twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand were sealed; ⁸of the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Benjamin twelve thousand were sealed.

Yes, Maggie?  You say that these are tribes of Israel?  How do you know?  Well, duh, because that's what it said?  Maggie, you definitely have to go with me to Florida next spring.

At this point, Turkel's reply turned to his claim that the heavenly signs [sun, moon, stars] were just figurative language, so this is a good place to begin Part Four.