Turkel:
McTill finally blows his nose by spending the last 1 1/2 pages on a diversion in context.

Till:
Notice again Turkel's tactics.  He thinks that if he calls me McTill--I am still wondering what it is supposed to prove--and cracks an insult about blowing my nose, he has somehow answered my arguments.  His motive is to divert attention from his inability to answer my arguments.

I have two comments about his charge that I spent one and a half pages on a "diversion in context": (1) I had to devote one entire part of this series of my replies to the tangent that he led us into by cutting and pasting a previously written article on Jeremiah 7:22, which had nothing at all to do with preterism, so he is a fine one to talk about diversions.  (2)  In his--er, DeMar's--article on the "Olivet Discourse," Turkel quoted from various biblical texts outside of the original "discourse" in Matthew 24.  I'll comment on this more immediately below, where Turkel brings up this complaint again.

Turkel:
My entire essay is about the Olivet Discourse,

Till:
The intention of that "discourse" was to prove that Jesus's promise of an imminent return happened with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.  That theory, however, must be consistent with everything that the New Testament says about the return of Jesus.  If Turkel cannot reconcile it with other New Testament passages, then even if he can prove beyond all doubt that the "Olivet Discourse" meant what he is claiming, he will have done so at the expense of other texts in the New Testament.  After all, if the texts that I quoted elsewhere are inconsistent with the so-called Olivet discourse, then the New Testament is not inerrant.  That seems simple enough for even Turkel to understand.

Turkel's entire "essay" may have been about the Olivet discourse, but in trying to defend the preterist position on this discourse, he either cited or quoted the following passages that were outside this "discourse": Acts 1:6; Matthew 12:32; 13:39, 49; 28:20; Hebrew 9:27; 2 Corinthians 10:10; 1 Corinthians 16:17; Acts 5:36-37; 11:27-29;16; 2 Corinthians 11:24; Acts 13:16; 2 Timothy 2:16-17; 1 John 4:1; Luke 2:1; Romans 10:18; 16:25-27; 2 Timothy 4:17; Romans 1:8; Colossians 1:6; Ezekiel 5:9; Joel 2:2; Daniel 12:1; Daniel 11; Jeremiah 12:12; Exodus 20:18; Deuteronomy 33:2; Matthew 2:2; John 8:59; Acts 1:9, 11; Luke 17:24; Revelation 4:7; 12:14; Isaiah 13:10; Isaiah 34:3-5; Ezekiel 32:6-8; Amos 8:9; Genesis 22:17; 26:4; 37:9; Deuteronomy 1:10; Isaiah 14:4ff; Job 38:7; Nehemiah 9:23; Malachi 4:2; Jude 13; Revelation 1:20; 1 Kings 9:19; Isaiah 30:26; Isaiah 7:14; Daniel 7; Matthew 19:18 [sic]; Zechariah 12:10; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19; Ephesians 2:21; Hebrews 12:22; Ephesians 1:20; Acts 2:33; 1 Corinthians 15:25; Matthew 1:20; 13:40; 16:27; 28:2; Luke 1; Matthew 12:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27; 9:52; 1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Peter 2:9-10; Luke 17:25; Luke 18:35-36; Jeremiah 6:11; and Hebrew 9:27.  I may have overlooked some others, but these 77 passages outside of the Olivet discourse were either quoted or cited in Turkel's article.

Of course, Turkel just cited most of them, because he has enough sense not to quote some of them, because he probably knows that if he quoted them some of his readers would likely notice that they don't support what he was trying to prove by them.  I'm not at all complaining about his references to these passages, because if he thought that citing them was necessary to support his case, he had the right to refer to them.  I, in fact, understand what he is doing, because I did the same thing when I was a preacher.  I would string together a long list of citations and quotations in my articles and sermons to create the effect I wanted, i. e. pulpit warmers gaping in awe at Brother Till for using so many scriptures.  The audiences would be like baby robins in the nest with mouths wide open, waiting for their parents to poke worms down their throats.  I'm sure Turkel has had enough experience with gullible audiences to know that this tactic will work for him too.

No matter how effective this tactic may be with those already predisposed to believe the Bible, it doesn't prove anything unless the quoter or citer explicates the texts to show their relevance, and we all know by now that Turkel does very little of that. I have taken the time to comment on Turkel's remark above, because I wanted everyone to be aware of his double standard.  He seems to think that he can quote or cite as many biblical texts as he wishes, but if I do it, then I am "blowing my nose" on a "diversion in context."  As I have said many times, consistency is not one of Turkel's virtues.

Turkel:
but because it seems he can't explain away 90% of my article so easily, McTill drags in and burps about 2 Peter 3:1-12, managing to fill almost a whole column with the cite [sic] itself to cover his incompetence at actually addressing the issues at hand.

Till:
I have explained umpteen times, that only sixteen pages were available in the paper where I published Turkel's "Olivet Discourse" and my reply to it.  Turkel's--er, DeMar's--article took 10 of those pages, and one page was needed for the editorial.  That left me with just five pages to answer him, so I obviously couldn't answer all of his points.  On the other hand, there were no such constraints on the so-called website reply that he has written to my article, so what is his excuse for ignoring 90% of my rebuttal arguments?  When I have gone through every one of his points--point by point--I will quote the arguments and other materials that he completely evaded, so we will soon see what his excuse is for hopping, skipping, and jumping over so much of my rebuttal article.

As for 2 Peter 3:1-12, I quoted and analyzed this because it drives a stake into the heart of preterism, and Turkel knows it.  That is why he made only a half-assed attempt to answer it below.  All of his whining and complaining about scriptures that I refer to in my rebuttals are not going to stop me from driving the stake in even deeper.  I'll quote what I think is necessary to support my position, and he can ignore it at the risk of having at least some of his choir members wise up to his evasions.

Turkel: 
Despite McTill's blather,

Till:
You see?  If he calls it "blather," he thinks that will somehow rebut it.

Turkel:
it isn't at all hard to "explain away"

Till:
Then why didn't Turkel explain it away?

Turkel:
but since he knows he needs to fill more space and create more diversions, McTill makes sure to add some other unrelated blatter on the date and authorship of 2 Peter (which he can bang, along with his head, against this).

Till:
My introduction of 2 Peter 3:1ff was not "unrelated blatter."  This text speaks of the "coming" of the Lord in typical catastrophic terms, so if this epistle was written long after AD 70, as almost all mainstream scholars claim that it was, then preterists like Turkel have a big problem on their hands.  They must explain why the "inspired" writer of this epistle didn't know that "the Lord" had already come.  That is exactly why Turkel is eager to dismiss it as just "unrelated blatter."

At any rate, his "reply" to the 2 Peter text was typical of Turkel's style.  He cites an article on Glenn Miller's website, as if that is supposed to prove his point.  As I said before, I have read some articles on Miller's website, but I have yet to find one that did not defend biblical inerrancy.  I'm sure that regardless of what discrepancy may be claimed, if Miller undertook to answer it, he would take the position that no discrepancy exists.  That's real scholarship, isn't it?  That tactic would be as if I quoted McKinsey or Barker or some other errantist writers in support of my position.  Is Turkel really so ignorant that he can't see that?

If I cite sources with far better credentials than Glenn Miller, will I win?  Let's see if Turkel will stick to the standard that he set on the old CCBE internet list when he said the following about a quotation from Philo Judaeus that had been posted.

That's nice, but Philo is simply reading into the text what is not there.

Oh, by the way, a comment is in order here.  Do you suppose that Turkel ever reads into a text that which isn't there, as in the case of the figurative astral signs or the limited meanings of words like earth [ge] and tribes [phule]? 

So if I find a Jewish commentator of equal worth that says the opposite, is it a draw? If I find two, do I win? Remember that Philo is trying to promote Moses and Aaron here and would maximize their feat to the greatest extent possible.

Does anyone suppose that Turkel is trying to promote preterism? Could his desire to promote preterism possibly have an influence on his tendency to see figurative language in just about every New Testament passage about the second "coming"?  Anyway, by the standards that Turkel established here, if I find a Bible-believing commentator of "equal worth" to Glenn Miller who thinks that Second Peter was written after AD 70, then we have a draw.  If I find two, then I win.  Turkel set the rules, so let's see if he will abide by them.

I'll begin with Bruce Metzger.  That Metzger is a distinguished New Testament scholar cannot be disputed.  He was born in 1914, so I suspect that he put a lot more years into biblical research than Turkel has.  One might even say that biblical research was the  "lifeblood" of Metzger's career, and we know from previous statements from Turkel that he puts a lot of stock in those who have made biblical research their "lifeblood." 

Metzger was an editor of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, and he was a Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary. He served on the board of the American Bible Society, which produced the Revised Standard Version in 1952.  With credentials like these, I think we can safely agree that Metzger's qualifications were at least equal to Glenn Miller's, whose credentials are what?

In The New Testament, Its Background, Growth, and Content, Metzger gave the following opinion of the authorship and date of 2 Peter.

Although the author of this letter calls himself 'Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ' (1:1), and makes reference to his being present at the transfiguration of Jesus Christ (1:18), several features of its style and contents have led nearly all modern scholars to regard it as the work of an unknown author of the early second century who wrote in Peter's name (p. 258).

Metzger then went on to say: "In light of such internal and external evidence one must conclude that 2 Peter was drawn up sometime after A.D. 100 by an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the great apostle in order to give his letter greater authority."  In his "Introduction to Second Peter" in The Reader's Digest Bible, Metzger said, "Because the author refers to the letters of Paul as 'scripture,' a term apparently not applied to them until long after Paul's death, most modern scholars think that this letter was drawn up in Peter's name sometime between A.D. 100 and 150."

Turkel, of course, will dispute Metzger, and that is a perfectly legitimate reaction for him to make.  However, I didn't quote Metzger in this matter with any intention of claiming that because Metzger thinks that Second Peter was written after the first century, the matter is thereby settled.  I'm simply pointing out the folly of a would-be apologist who thinks that he settles matters by sprinkling throughout his writings truncated references to what Caird said or what DeMar thinks or what Whitney believes.  For every Caird that Turkel quotes, I can quote a Bible-believing scholar who disagrees with him, and for every position that Turkel quotes from Gary DeMar, I could probably quote 50 Bible-believing writers who disagree with him, because preterism is a minority opinion by far in the Christian world, and many Bible believers consider it an appalling heresy.  So certainly if quoting Caird or Whitney or Feinberg, etc., etc., etc. proves nothing, quoting Glenn Miller will prove even less, because Miller is just another would-be apologist like Turkel, who believes that pasting together citations and quotations from writers who agree with his inerrancy beliefs constitutes scholarship.

At any rate, I have now reached a draw with Turkel by quoting a commentator who by any reasonable standards must be considered of "equal worth" with Glenn Miller, so I will now go for the tie-breaker.

While the ascription to Peter has been often doubted by modern scholars who generally date the work to c. AD 100, the letter was accepted as Petrine and canonical from the earliest times. Second Peter, however, is almost universally recognized as pseudonymous, and is dated by many scholars as late as AD 150. It was one of the last New Testament books to be  admitted to the canon. In the face of the delayed second coming of Jesus, the author exhorts the readers to godly living, warning against scoffers and false teachers and affirming that the second coming will happen. Parts of Second Peter are adapted from the letter of Jude ("Peter,").

This is just a website article, Turkel says?  And Glenn Miller's article isn't on a website? I'm just playing Turkel's game to show him that citing books and websites doesn't prove anything, but I am at least quoting what the writers say in context and not just citing a website as if a mere citation would be sufficient to prove anything.

So let's take a look at another source.  The following quotation is from the New American Bible's introduction to 2 Peter, which readers should be able to find in most copies of the NAB.

In both content and style this letter is very different from 1 Peter, which immediately precedes it in the canon. The opening verse attributes it to "Symeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ." Moreover, the author in 2Pe 3:1 calls his work a "second letter," referring probably to 1 Peter as his first, and in 2Pe 1:18 counts himself among those present at the transfiguration of Jesus.

Nevertheless, acceptance of 2 Peter into the New Testament canon met with great resistance in the early church. The oldest certain reference to it comes from Origen in the early third century. While he himself accepted both Petrine letters as canonical, he testifies that others rejected 2 Peter. As late as the fifth century some local churches still excluded it from the canon, but eventually it was universally adopted. The principal reason for the long delay was the persistent doubt that the letter stemmed from the apostle Peter.

Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, i.e., one written by a later author who attributed it to Peter according to a literary convention popular at the time. It gives the impression of being more remote in time from the apostolic period than 1 Peter; indeed, many think it is the latest work in the New Testament and assign it to the first or even the second quarter of the second century.

The principal reasons for this view are the following. The author refers to the apostles and "our ancestors" as belonging to a previous generation, now dead (2Pe 3:2-4). A collection of Paul's letters exists and appears to be well known, but disputes have arisen about the interpretation of them (2Pe 3:14-16). The passage about false teachers (2Pe 2:1-18) contains a number of literary contacts with Jude 1:4-16, and it is generally agreed that 2 Peter depends upon Jude, not vice versa. Finally, the principal problem exercising the author is the false teaching of "scoffers" who have concluded from the delay of the parousia that the Lord is not going to return. This could scarcely have been an issue during the lifetime of Simon Peter (emphasis added).

So the score now is three to one in my favor, so I guess that by quoting three writers who are "of equal worth" to Glenn Miller, I have now taken the lead.  But why stop now?

The Catholic Encyclopedia can at times be refreshingly objective.  The following reference to 2 Peter was made in an article entitled "Biblical Criticism (Higher)."

First Peter is generally held to be the work of that Apostle, but the composition of Second Peter is placed in the second century, even some Catholics inclining to this date.

Let's take a look now at early opinions about Second Peter.  Eusebius was a third/fourth-century AD church historian, who is probably best known for The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine.  He was therefore 17 centuries closer to the writing of Second Peter than was Turkel's "scholar" Glenn Miller.  In Book 3 of this work, he discussed apostolic writings in which he said this about the epistles attributed to Peter.

Of Peter one epistle, known as his first, is accepted, and this the early fathers quoted freely, as undoubtedly genuine, in their own writings.  But the second Petrine epistle we have been taught to regard as uncanonical; many, however, have thought it valuable and have honoured it with a place among the other Scriptures (Dorset Press, 1965, p. 108).

Eusebius went on to discuss the Acts of Peter, the Gospel of Peter, and the Revelation of Peter, of which he said, "(W)e have no reason at all to include these among the traditional Catholic Scriptures...."  My purpose here is not to discuss the arguments of those who rejected the authenticity of Second Peter but to show that Turkel can talk about the amateur apologist Glenn Miller all that he wishes, but nothing will remove the fact that scholars far more eminent and writers far more qualified than Miller have soundly rejected the authenticity of Second Peter.  I will, however, say that so many spurious works were attributed to the apostle Peter in the early centuries that this within itself should give pause to those like Turkel and Miller who so readily accept the authenticity of an epistle that was so controversial in the early church.  After all, if Peter really wrote this epistle, why would it have been so widely disputed in a time when there would have been church leaders who would have been in a position to know that Peter had written it?  In addition to the spurious works of Peter that Eusebius mentioned in the reference above, there was also The Preaching of Paul, The Passion of Peter and Paul, The Letter of Peter to James, The letter of Peter to Philip, and perhaps others that momentarily escape my memory.  Spurious writings attributed to Peter were commonplace in the early church, so this fact alone would require a defender of a widely disputed epistle of Peter to present some very strong evidence in support of its authenticity.  Simply postulating how-it-could-have-been scenarios as Miller did in his website article cannot remove the specter of doubt that overshadows Second Peter's authenticity.

I can see why Turkel would be impressed with Glenn Miller's attempt to prove the authenticity of Second Peter, because Miller uses the same tactic that is Turkel's stock in trade.  He quotes what other writers have said and presents that as definitive proof that this epistle was written by the apostle Peter.  As I have shown above, however, finding writers who agree with one's religious position is not at all difficult to do.  Indeed, one would have to be dumber than Turkel's box of rocks not to know where to find such sources.  Turkel has therefore proven exactly nothing when he tells me to bang my head against Glenn Miller's website article.  If Miller's arguments in defense of Second Peter's authenticity are so masterful, let Turkel quote the arguments.  I guarantee him that I can match Miller scholar for scholar when Miller states an argument and "proves" it by quoting a scholar.

Turkel:
When we actually get back from La La Land and into eschatology again where we were supposed to be,

Till:
Were we in La La Land during Turkel's cut-and-pasted tangent about Jeremiah 7:22?  What did that have to do with "eschatology"?

Turkel:
he wants to first bark about the seeming "excuse" Pete is making for a late parousia.

Till:
The excuse is certainly part of the problem.  In 1 Peter, the writer (who may not have been Peter either), warned his readers to be "sober in prayer," because "the end of all things is at hand" (4:7).  After a time, a warning like this would lose its edge, because only so many years could pass before people would begin to wonder, "When is this end of all things that was at hand going to happen?"  The first epistle of "Peter" gives reason to believe that the writer was at least claiming that he was in Rome at the time of its authorship, because he closed with a salutation from "she that is in Babylon" (4:13), which has been traditionally accepted as a reference to the church at Rome.  Tradition ascribes Peter's death to martyrdom in Rome during Nero's persecutions, which began in AD 64.  First Peter refers to "trials" of Christians (4:21) but doesn't describe anything that indicates the persecutions of Nero were in progress at the time.  For this reason, those who accept the authenticity of 1 Peter date it between AD 60 and 64, which would be  dates that put Peter in Rome before the persecutions began.  For the sake of illustration, however, let's just suppose that Peter was in Rome five years earlier than this and wrote his first epistle around AD 55.  This scenario would have Peter warning his readers that "the end of all things is at hand," but then within just another decade telling them in his second epistle to be patient about the coming of the Lord, because "one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (3:8). If "Peter" had felt the need to describe the "coming" of Jesus in these terms in AD 60-64, why would he not have felt the need to use similar terms just a couple or so years earlier?  Why was the end of all things at hand in AD 60-64, but just a couple of years or so later, it was presented in a simile that could have meant that the end was perhaps thousands of years away?  In other words, Turkel must give us a sensible explanation for why "Peter" would have said in 1 Peter 4:7  that the end of all things was "at hand" but within just a couple of years felt the need to describe the time of this "coming" in terms of one day being as a thousand years.  Needless to say, he hasn't done that yet, so let him give us a sensible explanation for why AD 70 would have been "at hand" in AD 60 or so but would not have been "at hand" in 60 to 64.

I explained in my first reply to Turkel that the thousand-year "explanation" of the delay in Jesus's return is incompatible with the warning just a few years earlier that the end was at hand.

No doubt Turkel will argue that this epistle is authentic and that its author was the apostle Peter, but as noted above, it is unlikely that scoffing and mockery about the return of Jesus as intense as the passage above described would have developed before Peter's death. The first epistle of "Peter" had warned that "the end of all things is at hand" (4:7), so the use of "a thousand years is as one day" in the second epistle to explain the delay suggests that a considerable length of time had passed since the warning had been issued.  The time description would hardly seem appropriate for concerns about delay in the second coming that had developed in Peter's lifetime but would be a fitting description to use as late as AD 125-150 to allay concerns about the delay in Jesus's return (The Skeptical Review, September/October 2002, pp. 15-16).

In typical fashion, however, Turkel just waved at this in passing with his comments below, which I will address when I come to them.  For now, I want to juxtapose 1 Peter 4:7 and 2 Peter 3:8, which readers with common sense should be able to see were not likely to have been written within a few years of each other.

1 Peter 4:7  But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Those who keep in mind that the second statement was made as an explanation for why Jesus had not yet returned should have no trouble recognizing that it is unlikely that this was said within three or four years of the first statement, but Turkel's position requires us to believe that Peter warned Christians to be prepared because the end of all things was at hand, but just a few years later turned around and gave them his thousand-year "explanation" for why the end had not yet come.  Those who are determined to believe that the Bible is the "inspired word of God" may be willing to buy that, but those not fettered to such an emotionally important belief will have no trouble recognizing that it is far more likely that after "Peter" (and other New Testament writers) had proclaimed that the return of Jesus was "at hand," several decades later there was a felt need, because of scoffers arising in the church, to explain why he had not yet returned.  Hence, someone wrote a second epistle, attributed it to Peter, and, in effect, said, "Well, when I said that the end was at hand, you have to understand that a thousand years to the Lord is as one day, and one day is as a thousand years."

One more point is very important to the interpretation of Peter's thousand-year example.  Turkel and his preterist cohorts argue that Peter used this simile even though he knew through inspiration that the "coming" was going to happen within just a couple of years or so, but the very next verse shows that their interpretation is too far-fetched to believe.

⁹The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

So after using his thousand-year simile, Peter felt the need to make the statement above, which was obviously intended to convey that the "coming" was going to be delayed a considerable length of time, perhaps as much as a thousand years or more, but people should not take this to mean that "the Lord" was slack in keeping his promise.  The delay would just be "the Lord's" way of showing his longsuffering toward us in his desire to have as many people as possible be saved.  That statement makes no sense at all if the "coming" was just a couple of years or so away when Peter wrote this.  What would be so longsuffering about the Lord's delaying his "coming" just a couple of years or so?

I have not taken the time to develop this rebuttal argument with any allusions that Turkel will be swayed by it.  A ton of dynamite exploding under his feet would not budge him from any position he takes.  I have developed the rebuttal for the benefit of readers whose minds have not yet rusted shut on the issue of biblical inerrancy. They now have a choice.  They can accept either the most sensible critical analysis of 2 Peter 3:1ff, which is almost universally accepted by mainstream biblical scholars, or they can accept another far-fetched inerrantist attempt to explain away a biblical problem. 

Turkel:
McTill needs to check this site before running his gator, because we address that very point elsewhere:

Till:
If Turkel "addressed this point elsewhere," he could have at least cited where "elsewhere" was.  Of course, if he bothered to get specific, he might have to spend some time locating "elsewhere," and that would interfere with the pace with which he cranks out his hackwork, so he settles on just leaving everyone guessing what he meant.  His readers should be insulted that he would think that claiming he has answered something "elsewhere," without giving specifics of the "elsewhere" would be a satisfactory response. 

Turkel:
this fits in nicely with Jewish scoffers in the 50s and early 60s, within the predicted "generation,"

Till:
What Jewish scoffers were these?  Did Turkel mean Jewish scoffers who ridiculed Christians for believing that Jesus would return?  (Turkel has a hard time explaining himself, doesn't he?)  If so, then he needs to take another look at 2 Peter 3:1ff, which referred to the coming of scoffers. 

1 Peter 3:1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), ²that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, ³knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, ⁴and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."

Whatever Turkel is referring to that he mentioned "elsewhere," he apparently expects us to believe that "Peter" was just referring to scoffing Jews, who were not Christians, that were ridiculing Christians for still believing that Jesus would return, but New Testament warnings of the coming of false teachers and prophets referred to those within the church who would lead others astray.

Acts 20:17  From Miletus he [Paul] sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. ¹⁸And when they had come to him, he said to them: "You know, from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you, ¹⁹serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears and trials which happened to me by the plotting of the Jews.... ²⁸Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. ²⁹For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. ³⁰Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.

1 Timothy 4:1  Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, ²speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, ³forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

2 Thessalonians 2:1  Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, ²not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. ³Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, ⁴who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.  ⁵Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? ⁶And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. ⁷For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. ⁸And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

By the way, just out of curiosity, I'd like for Turkel to tell us who this "lawless one" was whom "the Lord" consumed with the breath of his mouth and destroyed with the brightness of his coming (in AD 70, of course).

2 Timothy 3:1  But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: ²For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, ³unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, ⁴traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, ⁵having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! ⁶For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, ⁷always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Jude 3  Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. ⁴For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jude 17  These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage. ¹⁷But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: ¹⁸how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts. ¹⁹These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.

Jude 6-16 also contains warnings of apostates in the church, who would attempt to lead others astray.  The New Testament abounds with such warnings, and even "Peter" in his second epistle issued the same warning.

2 Peter 2:1  But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. ²And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. ³By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.

The rest of this chapter described these "false prophets" in very uncomplimentary terms, calling them "wells without water" and "clouds carried by a tempest, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever" (v:17).  They allegedly spoke "great swelling words of emptiness" and  allured others "through the lusts of the flesh" who had "actually escaped from those who live in error" (v:18).  "Peter's" tirade continued through this chapter and on into the next, where he referred to the "scoffers" who asked, "Where is the promise of his coming," but Turkel apparently expects us to believe that even though the writer was obviously referring to false teachers within the church, as were the writers in the other passages quoted above, he suddenly shifted gears in chapter 3 and was talking about Jews outside the church who were scoffing at Christians for believing that Jesus would return.

Before any of Turkel's choir members buy this "explanation," I would urge them to consider how Turkel always seems to have an explanation that has somehow eluded everyone else.  His stock in trade is the positing of unlikely scenarios to explain biblical discrepancies.  I'll have more to say about this later.

Turkel:
figuring that with the Romans still wagging their tails even as Jewish nationalism gets ardent, there isn't much to worry about where Jesus' predictions were concerned.

Till:
Why would they have figured that?  First of all, Turkel is begging the question of whether Jesus's prophecy of his "coming" in Matthew 24:29ff meant what Turkel and his preterist cohorts claim that it meant, i. e.,  Jerusalem would be destroyed to end the Jewish age, but that is the very issue in dispute. Turkel can't just beg the question, so this is another good opportunity to quote the prophecy and ask Turkel to explicate it and show that it was just a figurative prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Matthew 24:29 "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. ³⁰Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. ³¹And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Now I would like to see Turkel explicate this passage to point out the specific language that would have enabled Christians of that time to know that it was just a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. By what stretch of imagination can references to falling stars, the darkening sun and moon, the sign of "the son of man in heaven" coming on clouds with angels, etc. be considered just a figurative way to describe the destruction of a city and the end of the "age of the law"? I have pressed him from the beginning to explicate the text, but he won't do it.

Anyway, I love it when Turkel puts his foot into his mouth.  Notice that he said above that "the predicted generation figuring that with the Romans still wagging their tails even as Jewish nationalism gets ardent, there isn't much to worry about where Jesus' predictions were concerned."  This statement assumes that (1) Christians had ever even heard of the Matthew 24 prophecy by the AD 60s, (2) Christians understood that this prophecy in Matthew 24 had simply meant that Jerusalem would be destroyed to end the Jewish age, and (3) with the Romans "wagging their tails," the Christians figured that there was no need to worry whether the prediction would be fulfilled.  In other words, Turkel is claiming that Christians would have been able to see in Roman activities that the fulfillment was coming.  If that is the case, then how does Turkel explain what Jesus said just a few verses later?

Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. ³⁷But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. ³⁸For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, ³⁹and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. ⁴⁰Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. ⁴¹Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. ⁴²Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. ⁴³But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. ⁴⁴Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

Turkel is claiming, however, that Christians would have known by Roman activities that the time of the coming of "the Lord" was about to happen.  After all, if the Roman army had laid siege to Jerusalem and if Christians understood that the destruction of Jerusalem was going to be the fulfillment of Jesus's prophecy to "come" within the lifetime of that generation, then they would have known when he was coming.  However, he warned that they should be ready, because he would come at a time they did not expect.

"Peter" used the same figure of the thief in the night in his thousand-year explanation.

2 Peter 3:8  But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. ⁹The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. ¹⁰But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

The idea behind the imagery of the thief in the night was that the time of the coming of "the Lord" would be so unexpected that it couldn't be predicted, but Turkel's preterist scenario would have made it very predictable.  Christians, who presumably understood that Jesus had predicted only the destruction of Jerusalem to end the Jewish age, would have been able to anticipate Jesus's "coming" by the gathering of the Roman army around Jerusalem, and Turkel even said above that "the predicted generation" could have figured by the "wagging" of Roman tails that the fulfillment was going to happen.  Jesus analogized his "coming" with the Genesis flood, but the movement of an army to lay siege to a city could not have been as sudden and unexpected as  the Genesis flood, which began on the 17th day of the second month, when Yahweh "on the same day of the month, opened the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven (Gen. 7:11).  The people living then couldn't have seen these events coming, but the Jerusalemites in AD 70 could have easily seen the gathering of an army against their city.

As noted above, Turkel's claim that the Christians of "the predicted generation" would have known that the fulfillment was near assumes that those Christians even knew about the prediction.  After all, the gospels, which contain the "Olivet discourse" weren't written until after the destruction of Jerusalem.  Some mainstream scholars think that "Mark" may have written his gospel in AD 70, but they date the other synoptics after the fall of Jerusalem.  If Turkel wants to dispute this, I will happily match him scholar for scholar if he wants to sling another website article by Glenn Miller at us and quote some claims of fundamentalist writers, who do, of course, date the gospels before AD 70.

Turkel:
As for the "thousand years"" part being some remote way to excuse a delay, it's just more fundaliteralist fudging -- we answered this elsewhere as well, though maybe too late for McTill to notice even if he was awake at the time. We quoted an anti-preterist site as saying:

This is unbelievable given that Preterists insist at the time this epistle was written the second coming was only a few years away. How could Peter not have known this? Why does he not remind his audience that the second coming of Christ was about to occur? Why does he not remind the believers that Jesus said he would come within their lifetimes? Why instead does he speak of God's patience, God's timing, and thousands of years being as a day to the Lord?

Till:
It would be nice to know what "anti-preterist site" said this.  Without bothering to tell us, Turkel at this point began to cut and paste from his website article entitled "Pushing Off Preterism".  In typical Turkel fashion, he gave his readers no links in this article to the "anti-preterist site" that he was "replying to."  He identified it only by its name "In Depth Bible Studies."  It so happens that I had looked at this site even before I was aware of Turkel's "answer" to it, and in my opinion the site presented some arguments that preterists cannot satisfactorily answer. This is the seventh in a series of nine articles on preterism, and accessing this one will give readers an index to the other eight articles.  It contains a lot of typical fundamentalist nonsense, but its spin on second-coming passages is far more sensible than the preterist position.

Turkel quoted only a short paragraph from a much longer context--so what else is new?  I will quote the broader context, so that readers can see the entirety of the authors' comments on 2 Peter 3:1ff.   The short paragraph that Turkel quoted will be italicized.

We now move on to Peter's second epistle in which he deals with similar issues.

2 Peter 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Scholars tell us that the letter was likely written at around 64-65 AD. Even if this year is off a little we do note that it is odd that Peter would have been in the beginning of the end even by Preterist standards. Yet as we read through this second [sic] chapter we notice that Peter does not seem startled that Jesus had not come back yet. Nor does he present the notion that Jesus is about to return, or that the return is at hand. Instead we find Peter assuring his readers that  though Jesus' return is apparently not within view that it will surely someday come. We find him discussing God's patience, God's timing, and long periods of time. Notice how he alludes to  Psalm 90 in verse 8.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Peter uses this verse from the Psalms to remind his readers to be patient that God is not slack (verse 9) regarding his promise to return. In the Greek the word slack is Strong's #1019. The definition is listed below.

1019 braduno {brad-oo'-no}
from 1021; v
AV - tarry 1, be slack 1; 2
1) to delay, be slow
1a) to render slowly, retard
1b) to be long, to tarry, loiter

We can see from Peter's writings he understood that though almost 40 years had passed since Jesus ascended into heaven that Jesus [sic]  promise to return was not discredited. And although he and the other hearers of Jesus [sic] Olivet Discourse had grown old and death approached he does not expect a "soon" second coming of Jesus even at 65 AD. Neither does Peter reassure his audience that a second coming of Christ was about to occur.

This is unbelievable given that Preterists insist at the time this epistle was written the second coming was only a few years away. How could Peter not have known this? Why does he not remind his audience that the second coming of Christ was about to occur? Why does he not remind the believers that Jesus said he would come within their lifetimes? Why instead does he speak of God's patience, God's timing, and thousands of years being as a day to the Lord? 

We can only conclude that as far as Peter knew Jesus [sic] return was not eminent [sic] even in 65 AD.  But he is not alone in this understanding. In the previous article we provided the writings of several centuries of early church Christians who together with Peter present an unbroken chain of futurist Christian leaders from 65 AD through 200 AD. These writings, when taken together with 2 Peter 3, constitute compelling evidence that Jesus did not return in 70 AD as Preterist [sic] contend. In fact, they also provide compelling evidence that the first, second, and third century Church did not believe Jesus' words indictated [sic] that he would return within the life span of that first generation. Based on Peter's words in chapter 3 of his second epistle, we can see why they did not believe Jesus had to return within the life span of that first generation.

An irony in Turkel's website article that quoted the italicized paragraph above is that in his introduction to "In Depth Bible Studies," the site that carried the anti-preterist article he was "replying to," Turkel said that it was "run by two apparently earnest young people who are laymen," as if the 34-year-old Turkel is anything but a young layman.  If the two young people who maintain the "In Depth Bible Studies" site are indeed "earnest," I suspect that this is more than can be said for Turkel, because I have seen little indication of any sincerity on his part.  His chief interest is spelled m-o-n-e-y, and those that doubt this should check the entry page of his website.

The "In Depth Bible Studies" website, like any site whose goal is to defend the word-of-God view of the Bible, is shallow and illogical in its reasoning in many places, but as I have said before, preterism is essentially a doctrinal issue, so the worth of this site should be evaluated accordingly.  In my opinion the various websites and books that attack preterism do a much better job of defending their position on second-coming issues than do the preterists.  Both views are ludicrous attempts to try to explain that New Testament promises of an imminent return of Jesus didn't really fail, so both sides are required to take absurd positions on the meanings of key words in the various passages that promised an imminent return.  The advantage that the dispensationalists have in this doctrinal dispute is that they don't have to twist and distort the scriptures to the extremes that preterists do.  Dispensationalists need only contend that terms like "soon," "at hand," "shortly," "this generation," etc. meant soon, at hand, shortly, and this generation in the sense that God reckons time.  Their favorite text, of course, is 2 Peter 3:8, which says that to the Lord a thousand years is as one day and one days as a thousand years.  Preterists, on the other hand, have to take the position that practically everything said in passages that spoke of an imminent return of Jesus was cloaked in a sort of figurative secret code.  I'll use Matthew 24:29ff to illustrate the advantage that dispensationalists have over the preterists.

Matthew 24:29"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. ³⁰Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. ³¹And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

³²"Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. ³³So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors! ³⁴Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. ³⁵Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

I have underlined "this generation" in verse 34 to show the only key term in this passage that dispensationalists have to twist and distort in order to explain why Jesus did not return within his generation.  They have resorted to all sorts of absurd explanations to make "this generation" not mean this generation, but the issue in this debate is preterism and not dispensationalist flapdoodle, so there is no need for me to address the ridiculous dispensationalist spins that have been proposed for "this generation."  In contrast to the dispensationalists, preterists claim that "this generation" was used literally in this passage, but that position requires them to say that everything in verses 29-31, emphasized in bold print, wasn't literal but figurative.

Sun wasn't literal but figurative.  The darkening of the sun didn't mean that the sun would actually be darkened but meant something "apocalyptic."  Exactly what this apocalyptic meaning of the darkening of the sun meant has yet to be explained, because Turkel is trying to dance around this point as furiously as some young layman with ants in his pants.  Likewise,  stars wasn't literal, not even in the sense when it is used to refer to "falling stars," but had instead some figurative meaning.  The text says that the stars would "fall from heaven," but this didn't really mean that the stars would fall.  It meant something "apocalyptic."  Exactly what apocalyptic meaning it has isn't known either, because in his furious, ants-in-the-pants dance, Turkel won't tell us what it meant.  Likewise clouds didn't mean clouds but something "apocalyptic."  What exactly--well, don't ask, because Turkel isn't saying beyond assuring us that DeMar, Whitney et al see it this way.  What about the "sign of the son of man in heaven"?  Well, don't ask, because Turkel isn't saying except to assure us that it in some way referred to the end of the Jewish age. "All the tribes of the earth"?  Well, of course, "all the tribes of the earth" didn't mean all the tribes of the earth.  Earth didn't even mean earth.  It meant just the limited land area around Jerusalem.  The angels?  Well, these weren't angel angels but just messengers, who began at that time to go over the world to "gather the elect" from the four winds in the sense that they went about preaching the gospel to make salvation possible for them.  Never mind that the apostle Paul had gone all over the oikoumene (Roman empire) preaching the gospel before AD 70 and that he said that the gospel he had been made a minister of had been preached to "every creature under heaven" (Col. 1:23).  Never mind that Paul also said before AD 70 that the gospel had come to "all the world" [kosmos] and was bearing fruit. Turkel has a pet theory to defend, so, by golly, angels didn't mean angels but just "messengers" sent to preach the gospel.

There is more in the passage, but this is enough to illustrate how preterists have to tie themselves into verbal knots to force Matthew 24:29ff  into a preconceived preterist mold that was formulated to explain how Jesus did "come" in the lifetime of his generation even though he didn't actually come.  In trying to explain this problem, preterists have brought upon themselves far more embarrassment by having to take a figurative position on practically everything else that was ever said about the second coming.

In my opinion, this statement that Turkel quoted from the "two young laymen" who maintain the "In Depth Bible Studies" site raises a legitimate question that Turkel needs to answer.  If the "coming of the Lord" was just a year or two away when "Peter" wrote his second epistle, why would he have used this thousand-year explanation in reference to a "coming" that was as imminent as just a couple of years?  Why couldn't he have simply said that, despite the delay, God had revealed to him (as God had presumably revealed to Peter so many other things) that the return of Jesus was indeed at hand and would happen soon?  Why did he feel the need to speak in terms of a thousand years and the "longsuffering" of the Lord, who wanted all men to be saved?  Why didn't he just remind his readers how the Romans were "wagging" their tails at that time, and so Christians who understood Jesus's prophecy should realize that they had no need for concern?

Well, the most likely answer is that the writer of this epistle was engaging in damage control, so, knowing that the more than a century of delay in the return of Jesus was a cause to realize that there was no telling when this event might happen, he intended his thousand-year excuse as a catch-all explanation that could be used no matter how much time passed with no sign of Jesus.  If 10 or 20 or 100 or 200 or 500 or 1000 years or more passed with no sign of Jesus, gullible Christians could always say, "Well, Peter told us that to the Lord a thousand years was as one day and one day as a thousand years."  To "Peter's" credit, his ploy worked, because almost 1,900 years have passed, and there are still gullible believers in a second coming who quote this verse as an explanation for why  the promise of an imminent return hasn't happened yet.

By the way, if Turkel would like to see them, I can post a list of "anti-preterist" sites as long as my arm that do a credible job of showing that the preterist spin on second-coming prophecies is too far-fetched to believe.  Of course, the anti-preterist thousand-year spin on them is just as far-fetched.  Both are ridiculous attempts to "explain" an obvious prophecy failure that was made to people living in a time when they generally believed that the end of the world was at hand.

Turkel:
And we noted that DeMar has answered the careless use of this verse. Just like McTill, dispensationalists never use this verse anywhere else - does this mean Jesus' three days in the tomb lasted 3000 years? Of course not. The point is that for God, time is meaningless (note: not a day "is" a thousand years, but "is AS"), but it isn't for US. God doesn't care about your mockeries, because as far as He is concerned, time is meaningless and the parousia is set in stone and has already happened. Ps. 90:4 is alluded to here, and says, "For a thousand years in thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night."

Till:
Later, I will answer this paragraph point by point, but I want to keep it intact here so that I can show everyone how Turkel's habit of cutting something from another article without properly identifying it and adapting the content to the new situation he is applying it to makes for some confusing reading.  I searched his website and found that what he said above was pasted from his article "Pushing Off Preterism," which I have identified above, so I want to do his work for him and give readers the context of the short quotation that he cut from the "two young" anti-preterists' explication of 2 Peter 3:8.  I will again italicize the argument of the anti-preterists.  I will periodically interrupt Turkel's narrative to make some appropriate comments. Turkel's opening sentence is typically garbled by mixed construction.

Delay that Order. In the next section the site [of the two young anti-preterists] works to justify the idea that, contrary to the time texts that speak of Jesus' judgment as "soon" or in "this generation," the idea was that Jesus' "second coming will be delayed, later than expected, or a long time in coming."

I agree with Turkel that this dispensationalist position is far-fetched, but as I showed above, it isn't as far fetched as the preterist spin on texts like this.  All the dispensationalists must do is claim that words that denoted imminence were figurative, whereas preterists, after accepting the probable literal meanings of words like shortly, at hand, soon, and this generation, have to argue that practically everything else besides "this generation" was figurative.  Therefore, I would say to Turkel that contrary to the plain language of the text concerning the darkening of the sun and moon, the falling of the stars from heaven, the coming in the clouds, the mourning of all the tribes of the earth, the sending of the angels, etc., preterists work to justify the idea that the "coming" happened, unnoticed, with none of these signs having actually occurred.

So just who is straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel?  The "two young laymen" who maintain the anti-preterist site have only to argue that one key term (this generation) was used figuratively.  Turkel, the young preterist layman, has to argue that "this generation" was used literally but practically every other word in the passage was used figuratively.

To this end they cite texts warning believers to be on guard, noting that no one knows the day or the hour, and so on, as in Matthew 24:48: "But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming..." DeMar has already answered this from the preterist view:

Take another look at apologetics Turkel style.  He thinks that it is sufficient to say that DeMar has "already answered this," as if the "two young layman" could not quote anti-preterist sources and say that they have already answered DeMar's spin.  Since when does a debater rebut anything by just saying that So-and-So has already answered this?

The people whom the Lord left in these parables are the same people he comes back to. Far from indicating a lengthy delay, these indicates a time that IS short, but that will be long enough, nevertheless, to encourage some to get complacent. (Note that the first "time texts" speak of "this generation," while the "soon" texts appear in Revelation, written perhaps 30 years later when indeed only 10 years remained on the generational measure, thus making it indeed "soon" by that time.)

Trying to follow Turkel's line of reasoning is at times like trying to make sense out of Pentecostal gibberish called "speaking in tongues," but he is apparently claiming that Revelation was written just 30 years after the statement that Jesus made in Matthew 24:34.  I assume that he meant 30 years after the statement was spoken and not 30 years after Matthew was written, because this would require him to argue that Matthew was written around AD 30, then 30 years later (around AD 60) Revelation was written, and then 10 years after Revelation was written, Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.  Turkel is a big one on citing "sources," so I will inform him right now that for every source he quotes that dates Revelation as early as AD 60, I will cite more who date it decades after AD 70.  Mine, by the way, will be sources whose "lifeblood" has been biblical research.  His sources will be either preterists or biblical fundamentalists who recognize the problems in dating a book allegedly written by the apostle John as late as the end of the first century.

The one appeal they make that falls outside this paradigm relates to 2 Peter 3:8:

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

The site then asks:

This is unbelievable given that Preterists insist at the time this epistle was written the second coming was only a few years away. How could Peter not have known this? Why does he not remind his audience that the second coming of Christ was about to occur? Why does he not remind the believers that Jesus said he would come within their lifetimes? Why instead does he speak of God's patience, God's timing, and thousands of years being as a day to the Lord?

This brings us to the cut-and-pasted paragraph that I quoted in its entirety earlier and said that I would later answer point by point. That point-by-point reply will begin immediately below.

Turkel:
And we noted that DeMar has answered the careless use of this verse.

Till:
Where did Turkel "note" this?  How can I reply to DeMar's exposure of a careless use of this verse if Turkel doesn't quote it to me?  I took the time to do a search-and-find to locate which of his articles Turkel was cutting this from, but as readers can see from the full context of the article that I quoted above, Turkel did not explain there what DeMar had said to "answer the careless use of this verse."  He didn't explain it there, and he didn't explain it here. This is another example of Turkel being in a mad rush to crank out more hackwork or, if not that, just another case of Turkel's not knowing how to answer an opponent's arguments.

Turkel:
Just like McTill, dispensationalists never use this verse anywhere else -

Till:
Well, of course, as should be obvious from my comments above, I'm not a dispensationalist.  Both the preterists and the dispensationalists are wrong.  Both are attempting to explain an obvious prophecy failure, and ironically, as I showed above, they use similar methods.  The dispensationalists say that "at hand," "soon," "shortly," "this generation," and other expressions that indicated an imminent return of Jesus didn't really mean at hand, soon, shortly, etc.  They were all figurative expressions.  Preterists claim that all such terms were literal but that the language about signs (falling stars, darkening sun and moon, the mourning of all tribes of the earth, the coming of the son of man on the clouds, the destruction of the earth with fire, etc.) were all just symbolic or figurative expressions that meant the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish age.  They are both first cousins as far as plausible explanations are concerned, because both must take the implausible position that the Bible didn't really mean what it said.

The fact that Turkel's cut-and-pasted job retained the comments about "dispensationalists" in a statement directed to an opponent who isn't a dispensationalist is another example of his hackwork.  What do dispensationalists have to do with me in this matter?  I consider their position almost as ludicrous as the preterist view.

Turkel:
does this mean Jesus' three days in the tomb lasted 3000 years? Of course not.

Till:
Here is an excellent example of how Turkel doesn't know how to adapt a cut-and-pasted statement to the situation where he is quoting it.  I would say the same thing to dispensationalists who try to explain the delay in Jesus's return by saying that one day is as a thousand years to God.  Did three days in reference to the time Jesus was allegedly in the tomb mean that he was in the tomb 3,000 years?  Did 40 days in reference to the temptation of Jesus mean that Jesus was in the wilderness 40 thousand years? Why is Turkel wasting our time with irrelevant drivel like this?  Like him, I think that dispensationalist interpretations of 2 Peter 3:8 and Matthew 24:34 are ridiculous. However, I also think that his "apocalyptic" spins on such passages are even more ridiculous, so I am going to turn the tables on him, and dump his line of reasoning right back into his lap.  Did references to the darkening of the sun and moon in Old Testament passages mean that the "age of the law" ended at the times designated in those prophecies.  When prophecies referred to stars falling as figs fall from a tree (Is. 34:5), did this mean that the "age of the law" ended at that time?

Turkel cannot argue that these questions are not relevant.  He is claiming that the astronomical signs in Matthew 24:29ff were not literal but were just apocalyptic ways of saying that the age of the law was ending.  Hence, if he can ask a dispensationalist if the thousand years as one day meant that Jesus was in the tomb for 3,000 years, why can't I ask if the astronomical signs in Old Testament prophecies meant that the age of the law would end when Babylon or Egypt or whatever fell?  After all if these "signs" in the "Olivet discourse" had this meaning, why would not the references to falling stars and the darkening of the sun and moon in Old Testament prophecies have meant that the age of the law ended when Babylon or Egypt or Edom or whatever fell?  If I presented this as an argument, it would be just as sensible as Turkel's question about 3000 years in the tomb.  He has yet to realize that the meanings of words are determined by the contexts in which they are used.  The fact that a word or expression may have had a particular meaning in context A does not mean that the same word or expression would have had the same meaning in context B.  If he doesn't know that, he is in serious need of a course in basic literary interpretation.

In the past, I have shown Turkel how easy it would have been for the "inspired" writers to have said exactly what Turkel claims that certain passages really meant if that was indeed what they had meant.  I did this with Jeremiah 7:22 to illustrate how just a very fallible retired English instructor could have written this text to make it obviously say what Turkel claims it really meant.  I'll now do that with Matthew 24:29ff to show how simple it would have been to write this prophecy to communicate what preterists claim that it meant.

1 Till 24:29  In the tribulation of those days, signs of the coming end of the age of the law of Moses will appear.  The Roman army will lay siege to Jerusalem.  The walls will be breached, and the horses and chariots of the Romans will fill the streets.  They will slay with the sword those who rejected the Son of Man at his first coming, and the city will be made desolate.  The temple will be destroyed until not one stone is left standing on the other, and the age of the law will end. 

So if the prophecy meant this, why didn't Jesus say this?  If Turkel thinks he can argue that "apocalyptic" prophecies were not this specific, he may want to think again.  Look how specific Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre was in giving the specific name of the army and its king that would destroy it.

Ezekiel 26:7  "For thus says the Lord GOD: 'Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, with chariots, and with horsemen, and an army with many people. ⁸He will slay with the sword your daughter villages in the fields; he will heap up a siege mound against you, build a wall against you, and raise a defense against you. ⁹He will direct his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. ¹⁰Because of the abundance of his horses, their dust will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen, the wagons, and the chariots, when he enters your gates, as men enter a city that has been breached. ¹¹With the hooves of his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people by the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. ¹²They will plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; they will lay your stones, your timber, and your soil in the midst of the water. ¹³I will put an end to the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps shall be heard no more. ¹⁴I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets, and you shall never be rebuilt, for I Yahweh have spoken,' says the Lord GOD.

This prophecy was very specific, as were others too, in naming the specific agent that would bring about the destruction of the place on which Yahweh was venting his wrath.  Turkel expects us to believe that in the case of a prophecy of the end of the age of law and the "coming" of Jesus, however, God chose to reveal this all-important matter in riddles that would be misunderstood by all but only a select few like Turkel.  I am sure that more reasonable people will see the improbability of such a position.  People of that age believed that the end was near, and this was believed even before the time of Jesus.  He and his disciples, believing he was the Messiah, prophesied that he would come again in the lifetime of that generation, but he didn't.  The prophecy failed, but diehard Bible believers just can't admit it.  Hence, they have divided themselves into dispensationalists and preterists to put different spins on the relevant texts to make them not mean what they clearly said. 

Turkel:
The point is that for God, time is meaningless (note: not a day "is" a thousand years, but "is AS"),

Till:
Yes, it was a simile, so I don't at all disagree that this was the intended meaning of the statement, but that is beside the point.  To say that to God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years are as one day is a simile that was obviously intended to explain the delay in the fulfillment of Jesus's promise to return soon.  So regardless of whether "Peter" was saying that this is the way that God perceives time, he nevertheless used a simile that would convey to his readers that the return of Jesus was still a significant time away, but that simile is incompatible with Turkel's view that 2 Peter was written by the apostle Peter just a short time before AD 70.  It is also incompatible with "Peter's" follow-up statement about "the Lord" not being slack in his promise but is instead "longsuffering" so that he can give people additional opportunity to be saved.  That statement would make no sense if "Peter" was saying that the "coming" was going to occur in just a few years.  What would be longsuffering about delaying the "coming" for just a couple of years?

Watch Robert hop.  Watch Robert skip.  Watch Robert jump.  Watch Robert hop, skip, and jump.

Turkel:
but it isn't for US. Peter is saying, God doesn't care about your mockeries, because as far as He is concerned, time is meaningless and the parousia is set in stone and has already happened.

Till:
Say what?  Peter was saying that the parousia had already happened?  If the "parousia" had already happened, then 2 Peter was indeed written after AD 70, because, according to Turkel, the "parousia" happened when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.  Yet Turkel is disputing the widespread claim that 2 Peter was written after AD 70 while saying that the "parousia" had already happened when 2 Peter was written. 

Does this guy ever pay any attention to what he is writing?

Turkel:
Ps. 90:4 is alluded to here, and says, "For a thousand years in thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night."

Till:
Yes, it probably was an allusion to Psalm 90:4.  So what?  Whatever Psalm 90:4 said, Turkel can't base on it any kind of argument about what 2 Peter 3:8 meant, or has he forgotten the position he took when I pointed out that Romans 10:18 was a quotation of Psalm 19:4, which said that the heavens had declared the glory of God through all the earth and to the ends of the world?  I pointed out that Paul had quoted from the Septuagint version, which had used the word oikoumene for world, so he could not have intended for oikoumene to mean just the Roman empire.

What was Turkel's response?  Well, let me refresh his memory.

He said that Paul's quotation of Psalm 19:4 was an example of "Jewish exegetical procedure," whereby New Testament writers used "Midrashic" methods, which took a "point of departure" from the biblical text in order to find "hidden meanings" appropriate for contemporary audiences.  In other words, Turkel resorted to another of his the-Bible-didn't-really-mean-what-it-said "explanations" of a biblical discrepancy. 

I have only summarized Turkel's quibble on this point, which can be reviewed in its entirety at the beginning of Part Three of my replies.  Those who review his attempt to make Paul's quotation of Psalm 19.4 not convey the scope of the entire world because of a use of "Midrashic exegetical procedures" that revealed a "hidden meaning" to Paul's contemporary audience should have no trouble seeing Turkel's audacity in now trying to base an interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8 on not a quotation but only an allusion to Psalm 90:4.  According to Turkel's--er, Longenecker's--"Midrashic exegetical procedure," when this interpretative method was applied to Old Testament scriptures, the New Testament writer didn't exegete the original  meaning but only referred to it with the intention of bringing out "hidden meanings" for a contemporary audience.  How, then, can Turkel know that "Peter" wasn't doing this when he alluded to Psalm 90:4 in his thousand-year simile and that "Peter's" hidden meaning was entirely different from what the psalmist had intended. One thing about Turkel is that he will never let consistency get in the way of fabricating some kind of quibble to try to make the Bible not mean what it says.

Furthermore, if Turkel wants to base an argument on the intended meaning in Psalm 90:4, he should study the context--there's that word again--of the verse that Peter alluded to.  The intended meaning had nothing to do with the "longsuffering" of God but was merely making an observation about the brevity of life compared to the eternal nature of God.

Psalm 90:1  Lord, You have been our dwelling place in all generations. ²Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. ³You turn man to destruction, and say, "Return, O children of men." ⁴For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past, and like a watch in the night. ⁵You carry them away like a flood; they are like a sleep. in the morning they are like grass which grows up: ⁶In the morning it flourishes and grows up; in the evening it is cut down and withers.

Obviously, then, the psalmist was commenting on the shortness of human life compared to the eternal existence of God, so the best that Turkel can do here is argue that "Peter" was using this thing that Longenecker called "Jewish exegetical procedure," and if that is the case, whatever the intended meaning of Psalm 90:4 may have been, it can shed no light on how the thousand-year simile was used in 2 Peter 3:8.

Turkel:
That is the point of 2 Peter 3:8 - it is not a way of excusing away the lateness of the parousia, and fits perfectly with the idea of mockers saying not that it didn't happen, but that it wouldn't. McTill fails the reading test yet again.

Till:
Oh, so 2 Peter 3:8 was not a way of "excusing away the lateness of the parousia"?  And we have Turkel's word for that, don't we?  Well, I can play his assertion game too.  Second Peter 3:8 was a way of excusing the lateness of the second coming.  So there!  Turkel asserts that 2 Peter 3:8 was not a way of excusing the lateness of the second coming, and I assert that it was.  So do we have a draw?  If I can quote someone who agrees with me, will that break the tie?

I'm going to go one step further, however, and analyze the text to show sound reasons for seeing this text as an attempt to explain away an embarrassing prophecy failure, but I'll hold that until I have exposed the pathetic literary ignorance indicated in Turkel's comments below.  In this exposure of Turkel's literary ignorance, readers should have no problem seeing just who has failed the reading test.

Turkel:
Finally McTill plays the same harp over the latter part of the passage which uses apocalyptic imagery.

Till:
Notice that Turkel has asserted "apocalyptic imagery" again without supporting the claim with textual analysis that would show that the writer did indeed intend for this text to be understood "apocalyptically."

Turkel:
No, he says, this has to be literal, and you are just making excuses.

Till:
Well, Turkel asserts that it has to be figurative, so the problem here cuts both ways.  As I explain below, I do textual analyses to show why I think language in such texts is literal, whereas Turkel... well, Turkel just asserts that it is figurative and gives no supporting evidence beyond a, "DeMar said," or a "Caird thinks...."

I say that a primary principle of literary interpretation demands that the passage be understood to mean that "Peter" was predicting a literal end of the world by fire.  Turkel should be familiar with that principle by now.  It is a principle that says that the language of a text should be interpreted in the literal or primary senses of the words unless there are compelling reasons to assign figurative meaning.  I see no such compelling reasons in this text, so if the compelling reasons are there, Turkel should enlighten us and explicate the text to point them out.  My explication of the text will follow my dismantling of Turkel's ridiculous quibbles below.

Turkel:
He tries to make his usual silk purse out of the sow's ear of 2 Peter 3:4 and 11, which says, "And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation," and, "...Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness..." I suppose Mr. Pedantic Literalist also thinks that when Mark says Jesus explained "all things" (Mark 4:34) to his disciples that included the mating habits of sea slugs. I suppose he also thinks that when Paul speaks of people who eat "all things" (Rom. 14:2) he means to include rocks and dirt.

Till:
Amazing!  Absolutely amazing!  It is hard to believe that even Turkel could be this ignorant.  No, I want a stronger word, so I'm going to say it is hard to believe that even Turkel could be this stupid, but when a biblical inerrantist gropes for some way to explain away a textual discrepancy, there is no telling what kind of stupidities he may resort to.  If Turkel had read the contexts of the biblical examples he used above, he should have noticed that the "all things" were identified in the contexts of the respective texts.

Before analyzing the text, I'll use an example that should seep through even that brick that Turkel calls a head.  Let's suppose that a real estate developer planning to build a golf course is speaking to a property owner who is reluctant to sell his land to the developer.  In trying to persuade the reluctant owner, the developer says, "The houses around your home will be demolished for five blocks in all directions, all trees will be cut down, and the streets that give you the closest entry into town will be torn out.  You'll have to drive five miles in the opposite direction to find a road that will take you into town."  Let's suppose that the developer then says to the land owner, "Seeing that all these things will be destroyed, shouldn't you consider selling your property?"

Now if that happened, what person with any sense at all would think that the developer was talking about sea slugs when he said that all these things will be destroyed?  The context--c-o-n-t-e-x-t--of the developer's statement communicated to the reluctant property owner what "all these things" were that would be destroyed.  Turkel just can't seem to get through his brick head that the meanings of words are communicated by the contexts in which they are used.

So I'll walk him through 2 Peter 3:5ff to show him that the context communicates the meaning of "all these things" to any reader who doesn't have an emotionally important religious belief to defend.  I'll emphasize certain expressions in bold print to see if that won't help Turkel see that the context of this passage clearly communicates what "all these things" were.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, ⁶by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. ⁷But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. ⁸But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. ⁹The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. ¹⁰But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. ¹¹Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, ¹²looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?

Can you see it, Turkel?  Are you so incredibly dense that you just can't see that the writer of this text clearly identified "all these things" that would be dissolved?  I'll give you a hint, Turk.  Look at the expressions that I emphasized.  After telling about the earth [ge] that once was and the destruction of the "world that then existed" but perished--and, by the way, that world was the kosmos--the writer then went on to say that the "heavens and the earth [ge] that now exist are reserved for fire.  The writer then continued to say that the heavens would pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

What elements would these be, Turk?  Could it possibly be the elements in the "earth" [ge] that he said in verse 7 had been reserved for fire?  Sure, it could.  After all, he said just three verses later that the "elements" would melt with fervent heat, and if there was any doubt what "elements" these were, he immediately said that "both the earth and the works that are in it would be burned up.  What do you suppose the antecedent of the pronoun it was, Turk? 

So now use a little common sense, Turk.  When the writer went on in the very next sentence and said, "Since all these things will be dissolved," what do you suppose "all these things were"?  The elements will melt with fervent heat; all "these things" will be dissolved.  Is any of this sinking in, Turk?  What would make anyone think that the writer was talking about anything here but all those things that were in the elements of the earth that were going to burn with fire and melt?

If Turkel denies this, I'll have no choice but to consider him a flagrant liar, because not even he can be so linguistically ignorant that he cannot see that the context of this passage clearly identified "all these things."

So now let's look at the examples that he used, which he probably selected at random while thumbing through a concordance without bothering to study the contexts in which all things was used.  The context of the first one is too long to quote in its entirety, so I will summarize it to show that the meaning of "all things" was made clear by the context.

Jesus taught his disciples in parables, but his disciples had difficulty understanding the meaning of the parables.  After Jesus had told the parable of the sower, whose seed fell by the wayside where the birds ate them or on rocky or thorny ground where they couldn't take root, etc., the disciples asked him to explain the meaning of the parable.  After explaining the meaning to his disciples, verse 33 said that he taught the disciples in many other parables.

Mark 4:33 And with many such parables He spoke the word to them as they were able to hear it. ³⁴But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.

So now just take a wild guess, Turk, and tell us what "all things" were that Jesus explained to his disciples when he was alone with him.  The context--there is that word again--clearly shows that "Mark" meant that after Jesus had explained to them the parable of the sower, he taught his disciples "all things" in the other parables that he had spoken to them.

Folks--those of you who send your money so that Turkel can be a full-time apologist--there is your hero.  As I have said before, you can have him.  Even if I were still a believer in biblical fantasies, I would be embarrassed to have him on my side.

Now for Turkel's other "all-things" example.

Romans 14:1  Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. ²For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. ³Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him.

The context of this passage shows that the apostle Paul was discussing the religious qualms that some people had about eating certain foods.  Elsewhere (1 Tim. 4:4), he declared that "every creature of God was good" and that "nothing is to be refused," but he recognized that some people didn't have this understanding, so the context of the passage above shows that he was advising tolerance in this matter toward those who had qualms about eating certain meats. (He discussed a related aspect of this subject in 1 Corinthians 8.)  Thus, when he said that one believes that he may eat "all things," he was referring to "all meats," as is evident from the rest of the sentence, which said that those who were weak [in faith] would eat "only vegetables."  No one with any interpretative talents at all would read this passage and think that the context was saying that some people ate dirt and rocks.

I'm going to adapt a political slogan from the 1992 presidential campaign.  It's the context, stupid!  Is Turkel ever going to learn this basic literary principle, or does he want to going on looking... well, stupid?

At this point, Turkel tried to argue that the "coming" in AD 70 was "conspicuous."  I am going to dig a big hole to bury this claim in, so I will do Part Eight to complete my point-by-point reply to all of Turkel's quibbles.  I will include in it my explication of 2 Peter 3:1ff.  Maybe Turkel will then reciprocate.

And maybe pigs will fly someday too.