[Editor's Note: Because of his continual distortion of Till's rebuttal points by truncating them or quoting them out of context, links have been inserted in many of the places where McDonald referred to what Till had previously said, so that readers can conveniently compare Till's statements to the ways that McDonald presented them. These links will appear before expressions like he said or he asked or he complained, etc. By accessing them and reading the statements in context, in their entirety, readers will easily see McDonald's distortions of them. As noted in the introduction to this debate, Mr. McDonald refused to allow corrections to his manuscripts, so all places marked with [sic] contain mistakes that were in his original manuscript.]
Mr. Till, [sic] and respected readers:
This is my fifth affirmative to this proposition, and to date, Mr. Till has done little more than fill his responses with complaints about not having adequate space to answer arguments; [sic] about my tendency to beg the question; and (in this [sic] article) allowing his emotions to show to the point of threatening to put mine [sic] and Bill Jackson's original articles out for public inspection. Yet, one thing is for certain and that is, [sic] he has failed to answer my affirmative arguments. His responses are summarized below.
[Editor's Note: McDonald contradicted himself. He first said that Till "has failed to answer my affirmative arguments," and then he began immediately below to "summarize" Till's responses to his arguments. Because McDonald's summaries of Till's responses don't always accurately reflect Till's rebuttals, links are inserted in the summaries below so that readers can click and go directly to the rebuttals to see them in Till's own words.]
[Editor's Note: As the last link above will show, Till actually said that if the existence of God could be proven, "all reasonably intelligent people would accept the proof."]
[Editor's Note: Readers who check the link immediately above will see that Till merely informed McDonald that linguistic experts would consider inappropriate his qualification of the word unique with the adverb most. As readers will see, there was no intention here to say that McDonald's argument was "invalid" because of this mistake. In the next sixteen paragraphs after correcting McDonald's qualification of the word unique, Till rebutted in detail McDonald's claims of biblical uniqueness.]
[Editor's Note: Till discussed at length the unreliability of the gospel writer Matthew. He addressed the argument in general in his fifth rebuttal.]
As anyone can see, he has not even begun to touch the issue. His articles have been filled with illogical and irrational responses. He continues to contend that real (objective) right and wrong does not exist. Yet he claims that the Bible is full of moral atrocities. He complains because I have asked questions while in the affirmative, yet he signed an agreement which allows me to ask questions. He whines about not having enough space to answer arguments. Yet when more space is given to him [sic] he uses it unwisely and still does not answer arguments. He has dodged nearly every argument I have made [sic] and the only one he has given any kind of decent response to was my argument on the Bible [sic] being of divine origin. He claims that I have begged the question. Yet he failed to produce evidence of such.
[Editor's Note: By mutual agreement, the 20-page limit was increased to 27, but this didn't solve the problem of McDonald's stringing together more unsupported assertions than Till could possibly answer in just seven more pages, because as the debate progressed, McDonald increased his output until this, his fourth affirmative, was ostensibly within the increased limit, but by switching to smaller fonts and single spacing long sections, he was able to put 100+K onto those pages. By contrast, Till maintained the same font size and kept within the page limit for a total length of just 79K. Hence, Till had only 79K to reply to 100+K. By the end of the debate, McDonald's fifth rebuttal had reached a length of 135K.]
He closed his fourth rebuttal with these words: "Quite frankly, I'm a little weary of bibliolaters who want to debate the inerrancy issue but can't deliver on their promise to prove that the Bible was verbally inspired of God." [sic] (p.28) [sic] To tell the truth, I am a little weary of agnostics and atheists who go around begging someone to debate them, then when they get into one, they seem to lie down and play dead.
Before I go any further I have something to say about a statement in his third rebuttal. In trying to get out of the dilemma he was in on Wheless' book, he stated, "In 1989, he contacted me and expressed an interest in debating the inerrancy doctrine. So that he could prepare for the debate, he asked if I would recommend to him a list of books and publications that presented the anti-inerrancy view, and I did." [sic] (Till's Third Rebuttal, p.20) [sic] Prove it! Bring forth the proof (in your next rebuttal) where I ever asked you for such a list. The truth of the matter is, Mr. Till, I did not ask you for this list, [sic] you volunteered it. Notice his letter dated September 1, 1989, addressed to me:
"In your research on the inerrancy issue, I'm sure that you have already become familiar with the works of men like John Haley, Gleason Archer, J. W. McGarvy, William Arndt, R. A. Torrey, Norman Geisler, and George DeHoff. If you are interested in looking at books on the other side of the issue during our preparation, (emp. added) you might want to read the works of writers like Richard Elliott Friedman, Frank Cross, Baruch Halpern, Joseph Hoffman, and G. A. Wells. Some specific titles of other writers that I have found useful in my own research are Out of the Desert by William H. Stiebing, Jr., and The Exodus Enigma by Ian Wilson. Both of these discuss the difficulties involved in reconciling the biblical account of the Israelite exodus with the findings of modern archaeology. The most convincing anti-inerrancy book that I have ever read is one by Joseph Wheless, Is It God's Word? It is out of print and therefore hard to find, but I did succeed in obtaining a copy. I first read it by getting a copy through interlibrary loan, a system that is now available in most public and college libraries."
Now would you be so kind as to show where I ever asked for this list? This was volunteered not asked for. He was so proud of that book by Wheless, [sic] I figured he would want to endorse it, but to my sad surprise he has disavowed it and even tried to blame me because he gave me the list. Sorry, but it will not work! You volunteered this list. Do not blame it on me.
[Editor's Note: As the links here and especially here will show, Till never disavowed Wheless's book. He simply said that he didn't agree with everything in it but still maintained that it was the most convincing anti-inerrancy book he had yet read.]
He opened his fourth rebuttal by trying to show where I was inconsistent in saying that he barely had a position left from which to argue. Then he turned around and said that he had completely given up his position. [Editor's Note: Till was never able to determine why McDonald had concluded that Till had "turned around and said that he had completely given up his position." As the link just given will show, Till made no such about face. The fact that he continued the debate through to its conclusion will indicate to readers that no such admission was made. The near incoherence of McDonald's paragraph into which this note is being asserted was just one of many in his manuscripts that Till was referring to here to explain why he had earlier said that he found McDonald's manuscripts frustrating to read.] Is this an inconsistency? Not hardly [sic]! In the first statement I said that he barely had any position left from which to argue. In the second I showed that he had completely given up on what position he had left. He still has some small portion of his position left from which he can argue but he has given that up in defeat. Does the reader need anything else to see that Till's logic is shallow? The only inconsistency is what is in Till's mind.
He then goes back and tries to defend himself by saying that the concessions he has made are not as bad as I tried to make them and that some of the things that I said were concessions, [sic] were not actually concessions. Which one's [sic] were not, Mr. Till? He admits that he admitted that he might be wrong regarding his position. He uses the word admission, but when one goes to the dictionary and looks up the word admission one will find the word concession as one of the meanings. Therefore [sic] that one was a concession. He said that he had admitted that the Bible in its original autographs could not be proven not to be inspired by God. That one is a concession. In response to his concession about not being able to prove that Moses did not exist, he says, "McDonald also sees a significant concession in my saying that there is no way I could possibly prove that Moses did not exist.'" [sic] (p.5), but he is the one who called it a concession. Notice, [sic] "If Mr. McDonald is looking for a concession (emp. added), I'll freely give him one...". [sic] As far as it [sic] not being significant is concerned, I believe it is significant because if he cannot prove, by the use of his five senses, that Moses did not exist, then he is not going to be able to prove by the use of his five senses, [sic] that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. And after all, his ideas on how knowledge is attained is what that point was all about anyway. Now he wants to do away with that part and make it look as though I just said he could not prove that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. I want him to prove, only by the use of his five senses, that Moses did not write the Pentateuch.
[Editor's Note: On the page linked to above, Till explained that proving that Moses did not exist was no more possible than proving that characters in ancient Greek mythology did not exist. McDonald's proposition required him to prove that the Bible is inerrant, but even undeniable proof that Moses existed and wrote the Pentateuch would not prove the inerrancy of what he allegedly wrote.]
On his response to the existence of God, he says that he admits that before God could write a book, he must exist. However, he thinks that this does not necessarily force him to prove that God did not exist before he could prove that God did not write this book. Again, I disagree with him [sic] for if I must prove the existence of God before I could prove that God inspired the Bible [sic] then he must disprove it. [Editor's Note: Till's Shakespeare and Howard Hughes rebuttal arguments explain why proving that an entity did not write a document would not require proving that the entity did not exist.] If I had not made this argument, he would have simply stated that I could not prove that God wrote the Bible, because I had not proven that God existed. Those who doubt [sic] need to read his debate with Bill Jackson. He says, "The existence of God has never been established and furthermore cannot be established in man's present state of technology, so the essential weakness of this point is that it depends on an assumption." [sic] (Till's First Rebuttal, p.3) [sic] Since Bill did not make an argument to prove God's existence, Till said that it was an assumption and that the idea of the Bible [sic] being God's will for man was also an assumption [sic] because God's existence had not yet been proven. Therefore, I decided to prove the existence of God before I made the argument on the Bible [sic] being his word. I figured this would alleviate his complaints about our basing the inspiration of the Bible upon an assumption that God exists. However, all he has done since is to cry about these arguments!
Then he brings up the book of Mormon again as though I said nothing about this. He wants to know why I would not have to disprove the existence of God before I could prove that he did not inspire the book of Mormon. The answer is simple. I believe in the existence of God, [sic] Mr. Till does not. If I were an atheist or agnostic, my first and strongest argument would be that God does not exist. Therefore he could not have inspired the book of Mormon.
He also brings up Shakespeare as though I said nothing about that. To conserve space I am going to ask the reader to go back and read my third affirmative and get my arguments from there.
Editor's Note: In the first link in the paragraph immediately above, Till, to show that the existence of an entity does not have to be denied in order to prove that he did not write documents attributed to him, did refer to Shakespeare, whom he had mentioned in an earlier rebuttal, but his argument linked to centered on a will that had been attributed to the billionaire Howard Huges. Till showed that the courts, without contesting whether Hughes had ever existed, ruled that the will had not been written by him. McDonald never addressed this rebuttal argument].
Then he says, "McDonald alleges other damaging concessions that I have made, but why waste more time clearing away the smokescreen he is trying to lay down in order the hide the inadequacies of his affirmative efforts?" Oh, I agree. By all means if you do not want to spend any more time clearing yourself of these concessions, then go ahead and stop! However, these concessions will stand as long as you do not defend yourself. So it is up to you! Now let us go back and notice some pertinent points of the man's article.
[Editor's Note: The statement that McDonald quoted immediately above was made at the end of Till's use of a bogus will attributed to Howard Hughes as an example of how the existence of a entity does not have to be denied in order to prove that he did not write documents attributed to him. As stated in the note above, McDonald referred to Till's incidental mentioning of Shakespeare in this rebuttal argument but said nothing at all about Hughes, who was the focal point of the rebuttal.]
He says that if his biggest concession is that he admits that he may be wrong, then he is in pretty good shape. Well, I just do not know how I can respond to a statement like that. If I want to make all of my arguments in favor of my proposition, then at the end say, "Oh, but you see, it is possible that I am wrong regarding my proposition.", [sic] Mr. Till would have something to howl about from now on. Does anyone honestly think that he would ever allow me to live that down? No! He would not! However, the shoe is on the other foot now. So it is not such a big deal. Because he is the one making the concession. If one is not sure of his position, why debate it? I would never debate a subject I was not absolutely sure about.
[Editor's Note: Nowhere in the entire debate did Till ever present an argument and then say, "It is possible that I am wrong regarding my proposition." As the last link above will show, Till, after explaining to Jim Laws that long years of dogmatically believing that he was right and couldn't possibly be wrong had taught him that it is unwise ever to say that he could not be wrong, then said, in reply to Laws' question, that it was possible that he was wrong, "but I must insist that Dr. Laws prove he is right before I admit that I am wrong.]
He reiterates on [sic] a question that he asked in the first rebuttal. The question was: "If you have never seen the original autographs of the books in the Bible and if you have never discussed the originals with anyone who has seen and examined them, how could you possibly know that they are inerrant?" My answer: I go to the testimony of those who have seen the originals. The science of textual criticism and logic helps out in this area. Now he wants me to quote from those who saw the original autographs of the book of Jeremiah. He wants me to give their names and see what they say concerning the, [sic] "... puzzle of the sections missing from the Septuagint version of this book (translated from the Hebrew text in the third century B.C) that are present in the Masoretic text of 895 A.D. from which the various English versions have been translated." [sic] (p.4) [sic]
Answer:: [1] I know of no one who has seen the original autographs of this book, but this was not the only part of my answer. My answer also included the science of textual criticism and logic. [2] Now, to answer his question, "How can 'the science of textual criticism and logic' help out in this area?" [A] I am really at a loss for words! How do you answer a question like that? Is it any wonder that Jim Laws threw up his hands in despair and ended their debate? Till knows nothing about the science of textual criticism or logic. I can see why Jim ended that one, but I am not going to be as merciful as he was. I am going to see this debate to its end (whatever and whenever that may be). Till has talked about logic as though he knows what it is, but he does not even understand how it helps out. I really do not know what to say.
[B] Till wants to know how textual criticism helps out. I have already shown in my third affirmative that textual criticism is, [sic] "... confined to the words, or collocation of the words, as they stand in the manuscript or printed texts, the ancient versions and other legitimate sources of appeal." [sic] (Evidence That [sic] Demands A [sic] Verdict [sic] Volume II, p.35) [sic] Archer tells us that, "... the science of lower criticism (textual criticism) is concerned with the task of restoring the original texts on the basis of the imperfect copies which have been preserved to us. It attempts to sift the evidence provided by the variants, or different readings, where the surviving manuscripts disagree with each other, and by the use of a scientific system, arrive at what was most probably the wording used by the original author." [sic] (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction [sic] p.54) [sic] Need I say more? This is the third time I have had to explain this to Mr. Till, how many more times must I explain it before he catches on? What about logic? How does this help? Without logic we could not use things such as common sense to help us decide what was said.
[Editor's Note: Readers can decide for themselves if McDonald's quotations of generalizations and abstractions about "collocations of words" and "the task of restoring the original texts on the basis of imperfect copies" tell them anything concrete or specific about how textual criticism can definitively determine (1) what was in the original manuscripts and (2) whether the original manuscripts were inerrant.]
[C] Now to answer his query as to why the Septuagint did not have Jeremiah 27:19-22; 33:14-26; 39:3:14; and 48:4:45-47, and the Masoretic text did have it. Notice what Gleason Archer says:
"There is good evidence to believe that even apart from the original edition of Jeremiah's prophecy, which was destroyed by Jehoiakim, there was a later edition which preceded the final form of the text as we have it in the Masoretic tradition. At least this is a reasonable deduction to draw from the LXX, since it appears to be about one-eighth shorter than that of the MT. It differs also in the arrangement of the chapters, for chapters 46-51 of the MT are placed after chapter 25 in the LXX. and they are arranged in a somewhat different sequence. Jeremiah 33:14-26 of the MT is altogether missing in the LXX. It would seem that this earlier edition was published in the prophet's own lifetimeime and first disseminated in Egypt. Later, after jeremiah's [sic] death, it appears that Baruch made a more comprehensive collection of his master's sermons and rearranged the material in more logical order. The MT undoubtedly preserves this posthumous edition of Baruch. In this connection, note that 36:32 indicates that a second preliminary edition was published in the reign of Jehoiakim, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that Jeremiah kept adding to these earlier sermons the messages the Lord gave him in the reign of Zedekiah and in the period subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem." [sic>] (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, pp. 361,362) [sic]
Do you see a problem here, Mr. Till? The very reason for 33:14-26 is also true for the rest of your complaint.
He complains about me [sic] going to the dictionary on the word negative and says, "What McDonald did was to find the one that suited his purpose, and in doing so he went to the definition of the [sic] negative when it is used as a transitive verb, which is a rare, uncommon usage of the word and certainly not the sense we have been using it in this debate." Had he checked the noun definitions of the word ..." [sic] Farrell, did you even bother to read my article? Notice that I quoted Webster as saying that the negative was, (maybe I should put this in large print so he can see it) "...the side that upholds the contradictory proposition in debate." (McDonald's Fourth Affirmative, p.1) That is the noun usage! That is what the negative position is, but that is not its purpose! Its purpose is to, [sic] "... demonstrate the falsity of: disprove ..." [sic] (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p.762) [sic] I agree with the dictionaries he lists, but he only listed what the negative is, [sic] he did not list the negative's purpose in debate. The only way for the negative to function properly is to disprove the affirmant's arguments. He says that he has been properly functioning in the negative. Well, I wonder if he will allow me to say that it is not my obligation to disprove his position when I get into the negative? No! He is going to insist that I disprove his arguments. How do I know this? Simply by reading his debate with Bill Jackson. He insisted that Bill Jackson disprove his arguments. This is evident from statements such as, "... I don't intend to let him off of the mat until he has dealt honorably with those issues ... [sic] I'll be more than satisfied if Mr. Jackson will explain ..." [sic] (Till's Third Defense, pp.2,3) This can also be seen in his second defense to Jerry Moffitt, [sic] "... my advice to Mr. Moffitt is this: Don't worry about the good stuff! just answer the arguments as I make them." [sic] (emp. his) [sic] (p.2) [sic] These are sufficient to show that Till expects the negative, when he is affirming, to disprove his arguments. That is all I want from him! Is that too much to ask?
Then he brings up a character named Yodah and tries to show that I would be taking his position if he was [sic] to ask me to prove that Yodah did not exist or that he did not write a book by inspiration. Yodah is not a real historical, [sic] or mythological character. He is someone Till conjured up in his mind for the purpose of this argument? [sic] If he was [sic] a real historical or even mythological character, I could go to the authorities and logic to show whether or not he existed and the same to show whether or not he wrote by inspiration. However, since he is a figment of Till's vivid imagination, I can only go to logic to show that he does not exist. In any case, I will not become guilty of taking Till's position.
Till seems to forget why I made the challenge about Moses in the first place. I made this challenge because he contends that the only way that knowledge can be attained is through perception of one or more [sic] the five senses. Since this was his position, I wanted him to prove only by the use of his five senses that Moses never existed and that he did not write the Pentateuch. Did he do that? No! He admitted that he could not prove that Moses never existed [sic] and he went to the arguments of the higher critics and attempted to show that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. He did exactly what I said he would do and now he wants to try and [sic] confuse the issue so [sic] this audience will not see his inadequacy in not being able to sustain his position on knowledge. No, No, Mr. Till! That tactic has been tried before. It failed then and it will fail this time. I want you to prove only by the use of your five senses that Moses did not exist, and only by the use of your five senses that he did not write the Pentateuch.
Then he tells us that when one is on trial for murder, that person has no obligation to prove his innocence. He says, "Smith is not obligated to prove that he is not guilty of murder; the prosecution must prove that he is guilty." [sic] (p.6) [sic] Someone please remind me never to hire Mr. Till as a defense lawyer. I just might end up in prison. What is the point of having a trial, if it is not to allow the defendant the opporutunity to defend himself? However, let us say, just for the sake of argument, that Till is right and the defendant has no obligation to prove his innocence. Is the Bible not the defendant in this trial? Am I not the representative of the Bible? Therefore, if Mr. Till is correct I have no obligation to prove that the Bible is not errant [sic] Mr. Till is obligated that [sic] to prove that it is. You see, I am just defending the Bible and according to him the defense has no obligation to prove anything. In this trial, Mr. Till is playing the role of the prosecutor. Thus he is to prove (if his theory is right) that the Bible is errant. Now, I do not believe that he will stay with this position because that puts all of the burden upon him. However, if he agrees with me he still has the burden of disproving my position. So which ever [sic] position he decides to take, he needs to stop beating around the bush and get on with fulfilling his obligations.
[Editor's Note: Readers who check the link at the beginning of the paragraph above will see that Till was discussing a basic rule of evidence that says he who asserts must prove. The prosecution asserts that Smith is guility, so the burden of proving Smith's guilt rests on the prosecution. Smith does not have to prove that he is not guilty. Likewise, the one who asserts that the Bible is inerrant has the burden of proving that it is inerrant. Those who disagree have no obligation to prove that it is not inerrant.]
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (The [sic] argument from ignorance), [sic] is defined by Copi as that which, [sic] "...is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is (emp. added) true simply on the basis that it has not(emp. added) been proven false, or that it is (emp. added) false because it has not (emp. added) been proven true." [sic] (Introduction to Logic, p.91) [sic] If I were to say that because Mr. Till did not prove that Moses did not exist, then he did exist, I would be guilty of this fallacy. However, I have never said anything like that. I said that if Mr. Till could not prove that Moses did not exist, then maybe he did. Maybe, Mr. Till! How am I guilty of this fallacy? I have not conceded my ability to produce solid evidence to support my claim. I gave evidence. He just ignored it. Go back to my second affirmative and read it. If I cannot prove that God does exist, then maybe he does not! Does that statement make me guilty of this fallacy? If God's existence cannot be proven, then maybe he does not exist. That is just common sense, but Mr. Till does not believe in common sense. So why bother with it?
[Editor's Note: Readers can go here to see that Till did not say that McDonald was guilty of the argumentum ad Ignorantiam. He said that McDonald was "certainly courting the argumentum ad ignorantiam when he said that if Till cannot prove that Moses did not exist, then maybe he did exist and did write the Pentateuch." The editor regrets the constant need to insert notes to direct readers to the contexts of Till's statements so often distorted or quoted out of context by McDonald.]
He talks about the "if's [sic], maybe's [sic], could haves, and simplistic question-begging arguments ..." [sic] which he says were the main thrust of my arguments. I challenge him to prove it. I have used a few "if's [sic], and maybe's" [sic], but he uses them too. He even believes that such arguments are legitimate, or at least he did when he met Bill Jackson. Only then his favorite terms were, "most probably, quite likely, etc.". [sic] Why condemn me?
[Editor's Note: With the internet now readily available, Till's manuscripts in the Jackson-Till Debate can be easily searched to see that Till did not use the terms "most probably" or "quite likely" a single time in the entire debate. He did use the terms "very likely" and "quite probably," but as the link will show, this was done when he was replying to Jackson's usage of them.]
Now we get down to the prison wherein he has been placed. I have been wanting him to say something along this line, but up until now he has been as silent as the stars. Now he wants to include it in his discussion, which is fine with me! He says that the walls in this prison in reality are, [sic] "... made of tissue thin paper." [sic] (p.9) [sic] No, actually they are made of the truth and Mr. Till cannot get through them because he cannot overcome the truth. I only asked the reader to imagine that they were made of steel and concrete.
Wall number one: He continues to contend that he does not have to know that God does not exist before he could know that God did not inspire the Bible. If Mr. Till and I were agreed on the existence of God, there would be no difficulty here, but we are not agreed. He is on record as stating that if God did exist he does not know how God would reveal himself to man. How is it that he can know that God did not write the Bible? He says that the Bible could not have been inspired by God. Apart from the Bible he knows very little of God. How can he possibly know that God did not inspire the Bible? His only logical answer would be, [sic] that God does not exist.
[Editor's Note: Till explained here and here and here why it is unnecessary to prove the nonexistence of an entity in order to prove that the entity did not write documents attributed to him. The last link is to the Howard-Hughes rebuttal, mentioned in a note above, which pointed out that no one questioned the existence of Howard Hughes before the court ruled that he had not written a will attributed to him.]
Wall number two: He says that I am in the prison because it is my duty to affirm and I cannot do that. I have done that! I produced an argument and then backed that argument with evidence. What more need do I need to do?
Concerning the Bible being of Satanic origin again: He says that my, [sic] "... only response to this was an evasive dismissal: 'Since Till does not believe that the Bible is of Satanic origin and since I do not believe in such, I am not going to waste my space elaborating on it.'" Is this guy for real? Has even [sic] bothered to read my articles? (I am going to put this in large print too, and maybe he will see it this time.) The Bible could not have been written by Satan because the Bible teaches that which is good. The Bible defines that which is good [sic] and it claims that there is no good in Satan. How could Satan possibly have written that which would cause men to live good moral lives? (Gal. 5:19-23) [sic] Therefore, Satan could not have written the Bible." [sic] (McDonald's First Affirmative, p.13.) [sic] Now, I do not believe that the large print will make any difference, because Till will not respond to it. [Editor's Note: Till replied in detail to McDonald's goodmen/bad men argument here and here and here and here and in a reply to a final summation in McDonald's fourth affirmative of all his rebuttals, but McDonald, who believes in the existence of Satan, replied to Till's Satanic origin possibility only by saying that "(s)ince Till does not believe that the Bible is of Satanic origin and since I do not believe in such, I am not going to waste my space elaborating on it."] However, it is there and all can see that I did respond to this in a way other than what Till claims. I did say that, but that is not all I said. I made both statements and Till knows it.
Now, he complains about my good-men/bad-men argument. I said that good men could not have written the Bible because the Bible claims divine inspiration and if good men wrote it they would have had to lie and good men do not lie. Bad men would not have written it because it condemns their evil ways. Till brought up the possibility that good men wrote it but they were mistaken about inspiration. Does this statement sound like Paul is mistaken or only thinks he was inspired? "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." [sic] (Gal. 1:11,12) [sic] Does that sound like he only thinks it, [sic] or that he is mistaken? There is no room for mistakes in that statement. Either he was lying or he was telling the truth. If he lied, then he was a bad man. If he told the truth, then he was a good man.
[Editor's Note: As all reputable dictionaries will show, a lie is something said with the purpose or intention of deceiving, so if the apostle Paul sincerely thought that he had received the gospel he preached by revelation of Jesus Christ but in reality had not so received it, he was honestly mistaken. In that case, what he said would not have been true, but it wouldn't have been a lie. That would have been true of all biblical writers who indicated that they were speaking on behalf of God. If they were honestly mistaken, they would not have been lying, even though what they said was not true. McDonald was never able to distinguish the difference in a lie and a sincere mistake, or at least, he claimed not to recognize the difference.]
"The Principle of Excluded Middle asserts that any statement is either true or false." [sic] (Introduction to Logic, p.306) [sic] Now, Paul's statement is either true or false. Take your pick! If it is true, then he is a good man. If it is false, then he is not a good man. Till criticizes me for seeing things as black and white and not seeing grey areas. He says, "It reveals the mind-set that is typical of fundamentalist thinking. Logicians even have a name for it: the either-or fallacy. Sometimes it is called the black-or-white fallacy. It occurs when one sees only two categories or classifications into which a matter in dispute can be put." [sic] (p.ll) [sic] Again, I quote Copi, "The Principle of Excluded Middle asserts that any statement is either true or false." I make no apology for seeing things as either true or false, or black or white. Till says, "A fundamentalist will say, for example, that the Bible is either inspired of God or it is not." (p.ll) Amen, Amen, Amen! Either it is, or it is not! Till's statement, "The possibility that parts of the Bible were inspired and parts of it were not never occurs to a person who thinks like this. It must be all or nothing as far as he is concerned." [sic] is true. This is the way we look at it. Paul said, All scripture is given by inspiration of God." [sic] (emp. added) [sic] (2 Tim. 3: 16) [sic] Nothing was even hinted to about some scripture, [sic] but all scripture. Now since the law of excluded middle says that every statement is either true or false, then I maintain that either all of the Bible is inspired, or none of it is inspired. Till even tells me that he has more respect for one who believes that all of it is inspired than he does for those who pick and choose which they want to accept as inspiration and what is not. Now, he seems to have changed his mind and he condemns me (and those who think as I do) because we see it that way.
[Editor's Note: Those wanting to investigate recognized problems in the traditional "law of the excluded middle" may want to read such articles as the Law or Principle of Bivalance, Degrees of Truth, the Double Negation Principle, the Coherence Theory of Truth, and numerous other philosophical articles on the subject of logic that are now accessible on the internet.]
Mr. Till says that I have concocted a strawman on the issue of moral atrocities, but I believe that I can disprove this charge just as I have disproven all his other charges. Till said in one place that, [sic] "The Old Testament almost bleeds with moral atrocities perpetrated presumably in obedience to Yahweh's commands." [sic] (Till's first Rebuttal, p.14) [sic] Then in the same article he says, "Hence, it is very likely that the Bible was written by good, uninspired men ..." [sic] (p.17) [sic] I then asked how he could reconcile good men [sic] committing and endorsing moral atrocities. Here is his answer, "To their way of thinking, they were not endorsing moral atrocities. They sincerely thought they were reporting Yahweh's will." [sic] (Till's fourth Rebuttal, p.12) [sic] I guess the woman in Rogers, Arkansas [sic] who killed her two year old baby girl, back in the seventies, should be considered good because she said that she believed God told her to do it? I guess she is a good person! Let us not lock her up. Let her out so she can kill someone else when she thinks God tells her to. After all she is a good person!
[Editor's Note: The fact that people like the woman in Rogers, Arkansas, may not think that their acts of killing others are not moral atrocities would not keep them from being moral atrocities. Reality is never determined by what people may think, so the fact that biblical characters like Saul may have thought that they were doing the will of their gods when they massacred neighboring tribes would not have kept their acts from being moral atrocities.]
Then he brings up the Amalekites and the Midianites, again, as though nothing has been said about this. He says, "The only odd thing about the subject of endorsing moral atrocities is that McDonald would even bring it up, because he is the one who spent three pages (13-16) in his third affirmative manuscript endorsing the moral atrocities of the Bible." [sic] (p. 12) [sic] I deny that, with every fiber of my being! I have never endorsed moral atrocities, anywhere! I served as President for the Jefferson County Chapter of Kansan's [sic] For Life, for almost a year (until I moved) because I hate the moral atrocity of aborting babies. I detest the idea of any kind of abuse of children, and stand firmly against it. What I did endorse and defend in that affirmative, [sic] was God's punishment upon the Amalekites. Till made an argument that God was guilty of wrong doing because he had Saul to destroy even the infants and sucklings. I pointed out that [A] God is the giver of all life, and as such he, and he alone, has the right to take life, whenever he decides and by whatever means he decides to use. In this case he decided to use Saul as his means. [B] I pointed out that God gave these babies eternal life. Something they would not have had otherwise. [C] I pointed out that since neither Till nor I are divine beings that neither one of us has the right to question God. He could see into the future and see how these people would turn out. We cannot. Therefore, we have no right to say who should live and who should die. Now with all of this in mind, how can Till say that I endorsed moral atrocities. [sic] More importantly [sic], he does not even believe in objective morality. How can he say that there are such things as moral atrocities? According to his way of thinking all that exists is subjective morality. In other words, each man is to do as is right in his own eyes. How can he say, thinking the way he does, that anyone can possibly be guilty of moral atrocities. According to his doctrine what might be a moral atrocity in his eyes, just might be justice in the eyes of someone else. And that person would be just as right as Till would be.
Then he says, "He thought that Yahweh's command to 'utterly destroy' the Amalekites for something done by their ancestors 400 years before was the proper thing to do." [sic] (p.12) [sic] Mr. Till, if I were you, I would be ashamed to allow my ignorance of the Bible be known to this reading audience. On the last page of my third affirmative, I showed that the reason that God had Saul destroy the Amalekites was because [A] while Israel was on their way to the promised land, the Amalekites came up behind Israel smiting the old and feeble. [sic] (Deut.25:17,18) [sic] [B] The Amalekites also came into the Israelite camp and smote them again. [sic] (Num. 14:43) [sic] [C] The Midianites and the Amalekites came up and destroyed everything they had even to the point that Israel was greatly impoverished. [sic] (Judges 6:3-6). [D] And God said that there would be war between the two nations from generation to generation. [sic] (Ex. 17:14-16) [sic] [Editor's Note: All of McDonald's examples just cited referred, as Till said, to what the ancestors of the Amalekites contemporary to Saul had done around 400 years earlier, and none of them referred to what Amalekites of Saul's generation had done.] In Till's second rebuttal he said, "The Bible doesn't mention a single thing that the Amalekites of Saul's day had done to Israel; they were slaughtered for something their ancestors had done 400 years earlier." [sic] (Till's Second Rebuttal, pp. 11,12) [sic] In the very chapter before the mention of the destruction of the Amalekites the text says, "So Saul took the kingdom over Israel, and fought against all his enemies on every side, against Moab, and against the children of Ammon, and against Edom, and against the kings of Zobah, and against the Philistines: and whithersoever he turned himself, he vexed them. And he gathered an host and smote the Amalekites, and delivered Israel out the hands of them that spoiled them." [sic] (1 Sam. 14:47-48) [sic] Nothing in Saul's day, huh? Have you never read those verses, Mr. Till? You would be much better off if you would leave your atheistic source books alone and study the Bible and see what really happened.
[Editor's Note: The very passage where Saul was ordered to destroy the Amalekites also stated the reason for the order: "Thus saith Yahweh of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" (1 Sam. 15:2-3). As was typical of the barbaric times, a constant state of warfare existed among many of the tribes and nations of the Middle East in the time of Saul, and grudges centuries old were remembered from generation to generation as they still are in some parts of the Middle East. That Saul warred with neighboring tribes and nations was not at all unusual, but the fact remains that the Bible mentions nothing that the Amalekites did to Israel that would have justified slaughtering even all of their children and infants. To say that the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Philistines, and Amalekites had "spoiled [plundered]" the Israelites does not state anything of a specific nature that would indicate that they had done any more than what the Israelites themselves did at various times in Old Testament "history."]
As far as the Midianites were concerned, I showed that if these virgins were to be used for sex, why is it that the non-virgins [sic] were destroyed? Surely the non-virgins [sic] would have been more experienced in sexually satisfying a man than virgins would be. Why not keep them all? Another point I made was that God had destroyed the Midianites for sexual promiscuity in the first place. Why use their virgins for sexual promiscuity, the very thing they were destroyed for in the first place. Silent as the grave! Then he says that I only had Archer's word that this was not an act of mass rape. No! I pointed out that this was not an act of rape with my arguments, but I guess Till did not see that either. Do I need to put that in large letters for you to see as well, Mr. Till? I did quote Archer, but I did not rely solely upon his word. Logic shows (but then Mr. Till does not know what logic has to do with this debate anyway) that God, who hated sexual immorality as much as he did even to the point of having the violators stoned, would not have had his people, whom he had forbidden to participate in sexual immorality, to commit sexual immorality. That is something that Mr. Till cannot even begin to answer. I guess that is why he has allowed all this time to go by without answering! He has no answer for it.
[Editor's Note: The link given immediately above shows that Till explained in detail that (1) the virgin Midianite girls were probably spared because the societies of that time put a "high premium" on virginity and that (2) the Israelites even had laws regulating the sexual treatment of women taken in captivity.]
Then he says that Archer is not even to be considered a reliable Biblical scholar because, [sic] "He approaches every situation with a pre-determined [sic] intention to 'show' that it can be harmonized with the Bible inerrancy doctrine." [sic] (p.13) [sic] Is that something bad? Let me quote from two of Mr. Till's scholars. [1] Joseph Wheless says:
The earnest hope is cherished for this book, that the simple and sincere search here made of the Scriptures for truth's sake, will serve to make only theology and religious intolerance vain and ridiculous; that it shame contending Christians from an unfounded faith in the untrue, (emp. added) and encourage them and all men into the brotherhood of the only possible true and pure religion -- to
Do good, for good is good to do.
Then will indeed be realized the burden of the herald angel's song:
Peace on earth to men of good will.'Is It God's Word, Foreword, p. viii)
[2] Ian Wilson states.
"No book yet written on the subject can be described as truly definitive, and this one is no exception, but in recent years there have been some remarkable new findings and new theories expounded. So far these have been scattered in different scholarly publications, often in language nearly incomprehensible to the average layman, yet collectively they are of such interest in overturning many previous assumptions about the Exodus (emp. added) that it is only right that some attempt should be made to bring together. This is the aim of my book. [sic] (emp. added)" [sic] (The Exodus Enigma, Author's Preface, p.6) [sic]
[Editor's Note: Readers are reminded that Till did not at any time, in the entire debate, quote either Wheless or Wilson in support of any of his arguments or rebuttals. McDonald, on the other hand, quoted Gleason Archer here and here and here in his first affirmative manuscript, here and here in his third, and here and here in this, his fifth manuscript. In his rebuttal manuscripts, readers will see McDonald citing Archer again here in his first and here in his fourth. Those who check will see that Archer was quoted in these places as if his word definitively settled the issue being disputed.]
Wheless says that he is writing so as to make theology and religious intolerance vain and ridiculous. In other words, he wrote with one thing in mind, destroy the Bible. Wilson says that his book is to collect all of the arguments which he thinks will over throw [sic] the previous (he calls them assumptions) arguments on the Exodus. Now according to Till, both of these writers have invalidated themselves, because they approached every situation with a pre-determined [sic] intention to show that it cannot be harmonized with the Bible inerrancy doctrine. And according to Till that makes them, [sic] everything but reputable scholars, ...". [sic] Because reputable scholars accept the conclusions that the evidence points to no matter what those conclusions might be." [sic] (p.13) [sic] And both of those books were on Till's volunteered list! They either stand together or they fall together. If Archer is wrong because of his attitude, then so were Wheless and Wilson. Will Till denounce them?
[Editor's Note: Till would not denounce them, but because of their view of the Bible, he would not quote them in public debates in support of his propositions. Doing so would give his opposition the same right to question their objectivity as he has to question the credibility of works written by Gleason Archer, Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler, and such like.]
Then he says that the Bible, [sic] "... spawned an industry that thrives on publishing other books to 'explain' that contradictions in the Bible text aren't really contradictions." [sic] (p.13) [sic] I say prove it! The Bible does not need these others books [sic] and it did not spawn these books. These books were written by men because men like Till have tried to show that there are contradictions in the Bible. However, the Bible had absolutely nothing to do with this industry, anymore [sic] than it had to do with the industry that publishes books to show that there are contradictions in the Bible text. If anything spawned these books, it is the industry that publishes books on Till's side of the issue.
Till says, "Shouldn't we expect an omniscient God to produce a more competently written inspired work than that? Certainly we have the right to expect it, yet Bible inerrantists like Mr. McDonald would have us believe that the omniscient, omnipotent Yahweh apparently knew no more about the principles of lucid writing than a lackluster college student struggling to pass freshman composition." [sic] (p.13) [sic] No! Mr. Till is the one who is trying to get us to see God that way, not I! I contend that the Bible was written very precisely and competently. In fact one needs help in misunderstanding it. Mr. Till does not like it because it is written so competently. He does not want to admit that it is inspired because he does not want to submit to its laws. The only way his conscience will allow him to live without constant turmoil is to convince himself that the Bible is a fake.
Next he brings up several so-called contradictions to try and show that the Bible
was not inspired by God. There is something that I would like to point out before I answer
them. What Mr. Till calls contradictions are not contradictions at all According [sic]
to Copi. "The Principle of Contradiction asserts that no statement can be both true and
false." (Introduction to Logic,
p.306) Continuing on he says,
More graphically, the general connections between the universal and the existential quantification can be described in terms of the square array shown in figure 18.
[Editor's Note: Copi's square of opposition in figure 18 below was drawn into McDonald's manuscript with a ballpoint pen. It has been copied directly from his manuscript.]
Continuing to assume the existence of at least one individual: we can say that the two
top propositions are contraries, that is, they might both be false but both cannot be
true; the two bottom propositions are subcontraries. that is, they can both be true
but cannot both be false; propositions which are at opposite ends of the diagonals are
contradictories., one of which must be true and the other false; and finally, on the
side, the truth of the lower proposition is implied by the truth of the proposition directly
above it." (Introduction to Logic, p.346)
Now, using the box mentioned by Copi, let us go on to see if what Till calls contradictions
are indeed actual contradictions.
[Editor's Note: Eighteen years after this debate began, in an internet debate on whether Matthew's and John's depictions of Mary Magdalene were consistent, McDonald, in an effort to make inconsistent parallel accounts in the Bible "subcontraries" that could be both true, once again tried to apply his "square of opposition" to biblical narratives that were not categorically stated as were the four corners in Copi's square. In McDonald's Subcontrary Blunder, posted May 30, 2006, Till replied in detail to McDonald's argument and showed that uncategorically written narratives could not be made parallel to categorical statements like "all S are P," "no S are P," "some S are P," and "some S are not P" in the traditional "square of opposition." McDonald has never replied to this rebuttal of his "subcontraries argument."]
2 Samuel 24:24 & 1 Chronicles 21:24,25: Is there a contradiction here? "And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver." "And King David said to Ornan. Nay; but I will verily buy it for the full price: for I will not take that which is tine [sic] for the Lord, nor offer burnt offerings without cost. So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight. If there is a contradiction here, one statement must be true and the other must be false. Which one is true and which one is false? Actually, they are both true. One reason that people make mistakes like this in Biblical interpretation is because they do not carefully read what the text has to say. In 2 Samuel 24:24 the writer refers to David buying the, [sic] "... threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver." However, the writer in 1 Chronicles 21:24,25 refers to David, [sic] "... paying ... the full price ... for the place (of the threshingfloor, v.22 jdm) six hundred shekels of gold by weight." One writer simply refers to David paying for the oxen and the cart (the threshingfloor), while the other writer refers to David paying the full price for the place of the threshingfloor, and the threshingfloor (along with the oxen) itself.
2 Kings 8:26 & 2 Chronicles 22:2: Is there a contradiction here? "Two and Twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem." "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem." If there is a contradiction here, then one of these two statements is true while the other is false. Which is true, and which is false? If he is going to say that this is a contradiction, he must show that one is true, and the other is false. Will he do that? The truth is, [sic] both are true.
When Ahaziah was 22 years old, he could have begun to co-reign with his father, Jehoram. During that time he may have co-reigned for 20 years, then when he was 42 years old his father died and he took complete control of the reign. To show the plausibility of this co-reigning one needs only read 1 Chronicles 29:23, "Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him." Then verse 26 says, "Thus David, the Son of Jessie [sic] reigned over all Israel." If Solomon could co-reign with his father David, then Ahaziah could have co-reigned with his father Jehoram.
However, some object to this because the Bible says that Jehoram only reigned eight years, and Ahaziah only reigned one year. However, this is not what the passage says. The Bible says that Jehoram reigned in Jerusalem for eight years and Ahaziah reigned in Jerusalem for one year. One explanation of this would be Jehoram reigned only eight years in Jerusalem and reigned longer elsewhere. When one counts the years for the kings [sic] reigns and then counts the years of the split, it can be seen that there are more years of the kings [sic] reigns (393.3) than there are for the split (345). Now at first glance one notices that we have a discrepancy here. A logical solution would be that there are more years of the split than we know of. If this is true, then how can we say that Jehoram reigned only eight years and Ahaziah only one year. [sic] If the dates we have of the split are in error, then the idea of Ahaziah [sic] co-reigning with Jehoram is a valid point.
Someone might point out that every Judean king was said to have reigned in Jerusalem. Yes, but not every Judean king was said to have spent some of that reign somewhere else. It is implied that Jehoram spent part of his reign elsewhere (cf. 2 Chronicles 21:11) and it is specifically stated that Ahaziah spent part of his elsewhere. [sic] (2 Chronicles 22:6-9) [sic]
Another explanation was cited by John Gill: "... [sic] but then he must reign 20 years with his father, whereas his father reigned but eight years: to make this clear they observed, as Kimchi and Abarbinel, from whom this solution is taken, that he reigned eight years very happily when his son was 22; and taken on the throne with him, after which he reigned 20 more ingloriously, and died, when his son was 42..." (Gill's Commentary II Chronicles. p.510) [sic]
[Editor's Note: This is an argument that McDonald appropriated from Bill Jackson's part of the Jackson-Till Debate, apparently without checking it for accuracy. Readers interested in seeing how both Jackson and McDonald distorted Gill's comments about a theoretical Jehoram-Ahaziah co-reign by quoting Gill out of context can read the link above to 2 Chronicles 22 in Gill's commentary and read also the editorial note inserted after Jackson's appeal to Gill. This note quotes Gill's entire commentary on 2 Chronicles 22:2 and will show that Gill merely presented the solution of Kimchi and Abarbinel as one of many that have been proposed. In his commentary, Gill rejected this solution as too unlikely to warrant serious consideration and ended his comments with the suggestion that the disparity in the 2 Kings 8:6 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 ages given for Ahaziah was most likely the result of a scribal error in recording Ahaziah's age in the second account.]
Mr. Till took the age of Jehoram when he began to reign and took the time that he reigned in Jerusalem and added them together to come up with his age at the time of his death. The Bible does not say that Jehoram was forty years old when he died. It merely states that he died. [Editor's Note: Here is what 2 Chronicles 21:20 says: "Thirty and two years old was he [Jehoram] when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and he departed without being desired; and they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings.] According to the discrepancy between the years of the split and the years of the kings [sic] reigns, we cannot say for sure that Jehoram only reigned eight years. This may have been the length of his reign in Jerusalem. That time in Jerusalem may have been consecutive or it may not have been. We do not know everything about the case because we have not communicated with the man who wrote this account. However it is possible that Jehoram was in his 60's when he died which would make the age of Ahaziah (42) perfectly legitimate.
2 Kings 24:17 & 2 Chronicles 36:10: Is there a contradiction here? "And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father's brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah. And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon. with goodly vessels of the house of the Lord, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem." One place says that Zedekiah was Jehoichin's father's brother and another says he was his brother. Is there a contradiction? If so, which statement is true and which statement is false? One must be true and one must be false before it can be a contradiction. In the Old Testament a man's forefather was often called his father. An uncle was often called his brother. Such is the case here. Zedekiah was Jehoichin's father's brother, but was called Jehoichin's brother in 2 Chronicles 36:10
Matthew 28:8--[Editor's Note: Till's citation was from Mark and not Matthew. In presenting his explanation below, McDonald corrected the miscitation]--and Luke 24:9: Is there a contradiction here? "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they anything to any man; for they were afraid." "And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word." "And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest." Is there a contradiction here? If so, which statement is true and which one is false? Archer says,"They did not pause to inform anyone else as they hurried back (Mark 16:8), partly because they were fearful and shaken by their encounter at the empty tomb. But in their eagerness to deliver their tidings, they actually ran back to the house (Matt 28:8) and made their happy announcement to the disciples who were gathered there." [sic] (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p.348) [sic] Where are his so-called contradictions now? I have taken them one by one and [sic] as he put it, relegated them to the trash bin where they belong.
Mr. Till says that I am like Esau, in that I have sold my intellectual birthright for a mess of cheap, superstitious pottage, but I am not the one who sold myself. Mr. Till has sold his soul salvation for a mess of cheap and worthless philosophy. He has sold his soul salvation because he did not understand the difference of [sic] 50 shekels of silver being paid for a threshingfloor and the oxen and 600 shekels of gold for the threshingfloor, the oxen and the place where it stood. He sold his soul salvation because he did not understand the age of a king when he began to reign; because he did not understand the old far east culture of calling an uncle a brother; because he did not understand that when the women ran they did not tell anyone on their way, but waited until they got to their destination before they told about the risen Christ. Now who do you think has sold himself? I stand today where I have always stood. He does not!
Next he talks about begging the question again and agrees with me that begging the question is where one makes his premise and conclusion the same. Let me form a syllogism:
Major Premise: Mr. Till agrees that begging the question is where one makes his premise and conclusion one and the same.
Minor Premise: In answering my question as to why he thinks the Bible has errors in it, he made his premise and conclusion one and the same.
Conclusion: Therefore, according to Till's own admission, he has begged the question in his answer to that question.
Then he proceeds to tell me that if I think that no more than this is involved then I need a crash course in logic. What Till would like for me to have is a crash course in his kind of logic. You know, the Perry Weddle idea that the teenager cannot prove his age by his drivers [sic] license because that would be begging the question. There are two parts to begging the question. They are [A] where one makes his premise and his conclusion one and the same, and [B] circular reasoning. Weddle did not even come close to giving a proper example of circular reasoning. Copi did and I quoted him on it. My personal feelings about Weddle have absolutely nothing to do with his accuracy or lack thereof. His argument does not stand because it is faulty. What could this young man use to prove his point, if not his drivers [sic] license and draft card? Weddle says that in good argumentation support for the premises must not come from the conclusion. What he means by this, or at least Till's interpretation of this statement, is when one argues that the Bible is authoritative, you cannot go to the Bible to prove that it is authoritative. Mr. Till, how else would you prove the authority of the Bible? This is the third time I have brought this up to him and he has avoided it like the plague. Answer the question and stop beating around the bush! Mr. Till knows (or at least he should) that a certain amount of proof in this discussion is going to come from the Bible. He has no answer for this evidence so he holds it up in ridicule and hopes that this will alleviate any responsibility he has towards answering it. I have had far too many debates to be fooled by this kind of tactic. You answer the argument, or admit that you cannot.
Next he quotes from Stephen Barker, The Elements of Logic [sic] who takes a position that is not even a second cousin to that which was taken by Weddle. Barker says, "An argument is called a petitio principii (or begging the question) if the argument fails to prove anything because it somehow takes for granted what it is suppose [sic] to prove." [sic] (p.190) [sic] Amen, Amen, Amen! I agree 100%! If I were to say that one should accept the Bible as being authoritative without giving any kind of evidence for it, then that would be begging the question. If I say the Bible is authoritative and ask Mr. Till to accept my conclusion with no evidence to back for my claim, then I would be begging the question. However, as anyone who has read this debate knows, I have not done that. I made an argument on the authority of the Bible. I showed that the Bible is not to be added to or taken from. [Editor's Note: McDonald quoted where the Bible says that it should not be added to or taken from.] I showed that the Bible will be our judge. [Editor's Note: McDonald quoted where the Bible says that what is in it will be our judge.] I showed that the Bible shows man how to live. [Editor's Note: McDonald quoted where the Bible says that men should live by its precepts.] Mr. Till's only responses to this has been [1] that this is begging the question and [2] these very arguments are made in the Holy Quran [sic]. These have been his only responses. He has not shown where the Bible does not show man how to live. He has not shown that the Bible may be added to or subtracted from, and he has not shown that the Bible will not be our judge. In fact, he has not even come close to answering this argument. And he calls his response critical analysis!
[Editor's Note: With the easy access to information that the internet now provides, readers can easily Google "beg the question" and see that it takes various forms, which would include Weddle's explanation and the type of question begging that McDonald has relied on throughout this debate, which was conducted when information was harder to access. Fallacy: Begging the Question, for example, gives the following definition of this fallacy with emphasis added.
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.
- Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
- Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."
The following example of begging the question was given.
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
An additional example very parallel to Weddle's followed the one above.
Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."
Additional websites that define begging the question can be found here and here and various other sites.
Then he used a senerio [sic] from Barker and changed it to fit this debate. Although I have never said that the Bible is inspired simply because it claims inspiration, he acts as though I have. I gave arguments for my belief of the inspiration of the Bible. On my arguments on the existence of God [sic] I demonstrated, from the respiratory system, that God had to exist because this system could not have evolved. On my arguments concerning the Bible being of divine origin [sic] I proved that Satan could not have inspired the Bible. I showed that God had to have been the source. On my arguments concerning the inerrancy of the Bible, I proved that since the Bible was of divine origin, the Bible had to be inerrant. I also quoted the Bible as claiming inerrancy. On my arguments concerning the authority of the Bible, I argued that any book of divine origin would be authoritative. I also proved that since it shows a man how to live and since it is going to be our judge and since it cannot be added to or subtracted from [sic] then it is authoritative. I have shown that since the Bible gives us all things that will help us live this life and be Godly, then it is all sufficient. (Till's one and only response to this was that it begged the question.) [Editor's Note: Till replied to McDonald's "authority argument" here and here and here and here.] I argued that since Jesus was the Son of God, (and I did give evidence for it) that whatever Canon [sic] he used would be the correct Canon [sic]. I proved that the Bible is unique in continuity, in circulation, in translation, in survival, in its teachings, in dealing with its personalities, and in its influence on surrounding literature. I began showing that historically the Bible is a reliable document. I showed that it passes the Bibliographical [sic] test. In this article I will show that it passes the internal evidence test and the external evidence test. Now where have I asked anyone to assume anything at all?
To all of this, Mr. Till simply, "pooh pooh's [sic]" it away. God's existence cannot be proven, the Bible might be of Satanic origin or it might be of human origin. I have begged the question because I quoted scripture to show that the Bible is inerrant. I have begged the question because I quoted scripture to show that the Bible is authoritative. And the Quran [sic] claims to be authoritative. I have begged the question because I quoted scripture to show that the Bible is all sufficient. He wanted to know why Jesus using this Canon [sic] would make it correct. It is no more unique than the Book of Mormon or the Holy Quran [sic]. And we are still waiting for some sort of response to the reliability of the Bible. However, all of this does not begin to answer my arguments. His feeble attempt to paralell [sic] Barker's example does not apply to my arguments on this proposition, and anyone who has working eyeballs can see this.
[Editor's Note: See the editor's note above about the types of question begging.]
Then he claims that I have not given evidence of Jesus being the Son of God. Mr. Till, have you not read my quotation from Josephus, where Josephus said that Jesus was the Christ? (If one wants further evidence of this, I would suggest reading my debate with Adrian Swindler on the Resurrection of Christ when it comes out. Sufficient evidence is given in that debate that Jesus is the Christ, the messiah.) Now, for Till to say that I have given no proof, makes me wonder if he is even bothering to read my manuscripts.
[Editor's Note: McDonald never published the debate with Swindler. As for the passage quoted from Josephus, this is widely known as the Testimonium Flavianum and is generally considered spurious in scholarly circles. The Catholic Encyclopedia is objective enough to acknowledge the problems that confront those who claim that this text is authentic. By Googling "Testimonium Flavianum," readers can easily find articles that take positions as diverse as genuine to spurious. In Did Josephus Refer to Jesus? A Thorough Review of the Testimonium Flavianum, Christopher Price discussed the pros and cons of this controversy. Those who read it will see the variety of views that surround the question of whether this passage is authentic.]
Mr. Till reminds me of the "Care Bears." These are cartoon characters for small children. These bears have a philosophy which goes something like this. "If you cover your eyes when danger approaches, the danger will not see you." Farrell thinks that if he covers his eyes when an argument is presented, that [sic] it will have no effect on him. Thus he simply dismisses it by accusing me of not making it, [sic] or that it begs the question; anything to keep from dealing with it. Now, that kind of attitude might be cute in a five year old, but there is nothing cute about it when it is displayed by a man Farrell's age.
Then he wonders why we must do everything by the authority of Christ. I have already shown that since Christ is God, he is deserving of our worship, service, and obedience. To this he says that I have assumed that Christ is God. If I had quoted the scriptures to prove that he was God, I would have been accused of begging the question. What else does he want? I did not know that this debate was over whether or not Christ is God. I showed that he was the Christ, therefore, the messiah. Do you think Till accepted that? No! He even denied that I gave any evidence for such a claim. Mr. Till will not accept my conclusion, regardless of what I bring up. As the messiah, he is deserving of our worship, service, and obedience. The scriptures teach us that he is God (Jno. 1:1-3,14). Therefore, on that account he is worthy of our worship, service, and obedience. The Bible also tells us that he is the creator. [sic] (Col. 1:15) [sic] Therefore, as such he is worthy of our worship, service, and obedience. Do you want anything else, Mr. Till?
[Editor's Note: McDonald again assumed that if the Bible says X (Jesus was God), that claim has to be true. He assumed that if the Bible says Y (Jesus was the creator), that claim has to be true.]
Next, he tries to show that my argument on the uniqueness of the Bible is invalid because I used the term most unique in my argument. I will admit that this is a poor term, and as Roy Deaver said, [sic] "... it is redundant." However, this should not have kept him from answering all of the arguments. As usual he responded to those points he felt he could handle and discarded the rest. The only points he responded to were [A] the Bible's dealings with its characters in which he said that a book would not have to be inspired to deal honestly with its characters, [B] the Bible's dealings with historical teachings in which he says that the Moabite Stone and Sennacherib's records do not agree with the Bible, and [C] the Bible's dealings on prophecy in which he said that Isaiah 7:14 does not deal with Christ anymore than Micah 5:2 dealt with his birth place. However, he did not deal with the Bible's uniqueness of continuity, circulation, translation, survival, or influence on surrounding literature. I wonder why? Is Mr. Till surrendering these points as truth?
[Editor's Note: Till did correct McDonald's mistake in modifying the word unique with the adverb most, but this link will show that after pointing out this mistake, Till continued over the space of some 16 paragraphs to rebut his "unique" argument. These paragraphs addressed McDonald's claims that the Bible is unique in its honest portrayal of biblical characters, unique in its historical accuracy, unique in its prophecy fulfillments, etc. All of his specific claims of uniqueness in the Bible were discussed in detail.]
However, so [sic] Mr. Till will have nothing more to cry about. I will restate the argument.
Major Premise: If it is the case that the Bible contains attributes/qualities of such nature as to evidence conclusively that its origin can be explained only upon the grounds that it came from God. [sic] Then it is the case that the Bible did come from God and is in fact the word of God.
Minor Premise: It is the case that the Bible does contain attributes/qualities of such nature as to evidence conclusively that its origin can be explained only upon the grounds that it came from God.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is the case that the Bible did come from God and is in fact the word of God.
There you have it [sic] sir! It is stated in proper form and now there is no reason for you not to answer it. Do not just pick a couple of points, answer them all. [Editor's Note: The links in the editor's note above will show that Till did reply to all of McDonald's points in his "uniqueness argument.] I could have given other attributes/qualities of its uniqueness, but I will be satisfied if you will just answer the ones I have given. I am glad, however, to see him admit that there is not another book on earth like the Bible. [sic] "... [sic] I am in complete agreement with him; the Bible is indeed a unique book. There isn't another one even remotely like it on earth." [sic] (p.18) [sic] Now, we will simply remind him of this statement the next time he tries to show that the Book of Mormon, The [sic] Holy Quran [sic], The [sic] Avesta, and other books claiming inspiration are just like the Bible. We will simply remind him that he has already stated that there is no other book like it on earth.
[Editor's Note: A glowing tribute to the Qur'an's unique ability to transform the world was quoted here in Till's lengthy replies to McDonald's claim that the uniqueness of the Bible proves that it is the word of God.]
Next he tried to show that my arguments could be used to show that the Quran [sic] or the Book of Mormon were inspired. I showed, in my responses, that neither one of those books even made the claims that the Bible makes. He said that he relied on Maulana Muhammad Ali's English Translation of the Quran [sic], while I only said that these passages did not mean what he said they meant. However, as usual he is wrong. I quoted from the English translation by Abdulla Yusuf Ali, and I relied upon his English translation and footnotes.
Next, he ridiculed me for saying that the passage he quoted from the Book of Mormon prophecied [sic], not about what was written, but another book altogether. Let us notice this passage: "... And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall bring forth unto you the words of a book, and they shall have the words of them which have slumbered." [sic] (emp. added) [sic] (2 Nephi 27:6) [sic] This says nothing about this passage being a part of that prophecy. This is a prophecy of another book altogether. You will find no such ridiculous claims like this in the Bible. Then, he says that he will let me argue this out with the Mormons. That would be fine with me if I could find one to debate it. However, I have yet to see one who will defend the inspiration of the Book of Mormon. If you hear of one, Farrell, be sure to send him my way. I have thrown out challenges to the Mormons and they seem to ignore them.
Then he says: [sic] "At II Nephi 27, two of these capitulations--[Editor's Note: Till used the word headers here and not capitulations]--say, 'The Book of Mormon shall come forth--Three witnesses shall testify of the book.'" [sic] (p.20) [sic] Where does it say that, Farrell? Not one place in 2 Nephi chapter 27 are the words "Book of Mormon" used. In fact the only place in the whole book where those words are used is Mormon 1:1: "And now I, Mormon, make a record of the things which I have both seen and heard, and call it (emp. added) the Book of Mormon." Now according to this, the only part of the book which is truly the Book of Mormon is that which was written by Mormon.
[Editor's Note: In the place that McDonald referred to above, Till did not say that the text of 2 Nephi 27 said that the Book of Mormon would come forth and that three witnesses would testify of the book. He said that an official copy of the Book of Mormon, which he quoted from, says in a "chapter header" at the beginning of 2 Nephi 27, "The Book of Mormon shall come forth--Three witnesses shall testify of the book." The fact that this header is in an official copy of the Mormon Church is proof that the position of the Mormon Church is that this chapter prophesied the coming of the Book of Mormon. Once again, the editor expresses his regret at having to insert editorial notes so frequently, but McDonald's repeated misrepresentations of Till's statements require it in order to ensure that readers understand what the issues, as Till presented them, were.]
Next he tried to show that Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 7:25, "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgement, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful." [sic] (KJV) [sic] is the same as those statements found in the Book of Mormon where the writers admitted to making errors and writing according to their own knowledge. 1 Cor. 7:25 does not repudiate inspiration. Paul merely, [sic] "... proceeds as an inspired apostle, to set forth the sacred message, know [sic] that the Lord had not personally -- in the public ministry -- issued a 'command' relating to the matter at hand." [sic] (Difficult Texts of the New Testament Explained. A lesson given by Roy C. Deaver, p.238) [sic] Giving judgement and writing according to one's own knowledge are two totally different things. Paul was simply giving his judgement as an inspired apostle.
Next he tells us that Luke was not inspired because he traced the course of all things accurately that he was not inspired. [Editor's Note: The garbled syntax in the preceding sentence was in McDonald's original, which he would not allow to be corrected.] All Luke was saying was that he was more accurate in detail and chronology. What is so difficult about understanding that?
Then he tries to show, from quoting the Quran, that it is unlike any book on earth. Well, let us see if the Quran can make claims of uniqueness in continueity [sic], circulation, survival, translation, teaching, dealing with its personalities, and its influence on surrounding literature. No, it cannot? Boy, that was a let down [sic]! Does that answer your question?
Then he wants to know why the Bible being honest in dealing with all of its characters makes it of divine origin. Simply this, Mr. Till, no other book on earth, except the Bible, deals honestly with all of its characters. The Bible tells the bad characteristics of its characters as well as the good. It holds nothing back. The Bible simply tells it like it is. Books written by humans have a tendency to hide the bad things that its good characters do, but not the Bible. He says, "While he is at it, he might explain to us the significance of the Chronicles writer(s) cleaning up many unsavory parts of the books of Samuel and Kings." Please be specific, I do not know what you are talking about. Please do not fail to bring up at least one specific case in your last rebuttal.
Finally we get to the Moabite stone. Till says that this stone tells a different story than what the Bible tells, but notice what Kenyon says:
"... [sic] The celebrated Moabite Stone records that Moab was subject to Israel in the days of Omri and during half the days of his son (Ahab), but that then Mesha, king of Moab, successfully rebelled, defeated Israel, and took the vessels of Yahweh (Jehovah) and laid them before his god Chemosh. In 2 Kings i, I and iii, 4, etc., it is recorded that Mesha, king of Moab, was tributary to Israel, but after the death of Ahab Moab rebelled, and eventually was heavily defeated by Jehoram and Jehoshaphat in alliance. [sic] (The Bible and Archaeology, p.l7) [sic]
The Moabite stone only tells of Moabs [sic] rebellion and immediate victory. The Bible also records this, but it also tells of the eventual defeat of the Moabites at the hands of jehoram [sic] and Jehoshaphat.
Now for Sennacherib's defeat. Till made a big deal out of the fact that this defeat was not part of Sennacherib's records. Notice Kenyon's statement:
"... [sic] That there is no record of the incident in the Assyrian annals is not surprising, for the autocrats do not generally advertise their defeats if they can help it. Moreover, there is not so complete record of the latter part of Sennacherib's reign as there is of his first fourteen years. That the disaster occurred to an army of Sennacherib, and not of any other king, is independently confirmed from Egyptian sources by Herodotus (ii,141)." [sic] (The Bible and Archaeology, p.52) [sic]
Is there a problem with this, Mr. Till?
Then Till says concerning these things that, [sic] "... fundamentalist preachers never refer to them in their sermons. They just go on their merry way proclaiming the Bible to be wondrously accurate in every detail. And gullible pulpit audiences, to their everlasting shame, swallow it hook, line, and sinker." [sic] (p.23) [sic] Why does Mr. Till launch an attack upon the church [sic] of Christ by calling the members gullible? It might suprise him, but the congregation where I presently work, and the last two congregations where I worked would not be so gullible as to swallow the doctrine that he preaches. If he tried to preach his doctrine from any of those pulpits he would be met with the truth. The only way that he would ever be allowed to preach from any of those pulpits is in public debate.
Now we get down to the prophecies concerning Jesus. He camped on Isaiah 7:14 and tried to show that it was not a prophecy of the coming Christ. Till says that the sign was given to Ahaz to show him that the alliance with Rezin and Pekah would not succeed in its war against Judah. But as usual, Till is wrong. He did not carefully read what Isaiah was saying here. In these passages, Isaiah told Ahaz to ask for a sign and Ahaz refused. So Isaiah turns to the house of David and says, "..., [sic] Hear ye now, 0 house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign ..." [sic] This sign was not for the throng of Ahaz, for it was going to fall, but for the house of David. Ahaz had refused a sign. Thus Isaiah goes on to give a sign for the house of David. This should have had as much comfort for Ahaz as anyone else since it was only by the blood of Christ that Ahaz could have his sins removed. This should have been a joy to him even at that time.
Then Till says, "... [sic] according to 2 Chronicles 28, the Syrian-Israelite alliance against Judah did succeed, so even as a contemporary 'sign,' Isaiah 7:14 proved to be a prophetic dud." No! It did not prove to be a prophetic dud because it had nothing to do with Judah's present distress, rather it dealt with Judah's spiritual problem. Isaiah did tell Ahaz that Judah would not fall to this alliance and then conditioned it upon belief. He said, "If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established." [sic] (Isaiah 7:9) [sic] He told Ahaz that he must believe and ask for a sign. Ahaz refused to ask for a sign thereby showing his unbelief. At this point Isaiah said that God would give a sign (v.14) but this sign was given to the house of David (v.13). This sign was a spiritual sign. After he gave this sign he then told Ahaz that Judah would fall (vs.17-25) So Isaiah did prove true, [sic] he told Ahaz that Judah would fall and it happened. [sic] (2 Chronicles chapter 28) [sic]
Then he complained about my questions and wanted to know why I have the right to ask true or false questions, and then assume an answer if he does not answer. I have that right because I am the one asking the question. I did not want you to simply skip past them. I wanted them answered. You had the opportunity to answer and you were warned about what would happen if you did not answer. If you do not want this to happen, then answer the questions as they are asked. Also, I did not skip your responses, I answered every one of them.
Before I get into responding to the questions, I have something that I would like to point out. Mr. Till has been pointing out some typographical, and proofreading errors in my original articles by putting [sic] behind these places. This is, [sic] "... [sic] used within brackets [sic], to show that a quoted passage, often containing some error, is precisely reproduced." [sic] (Webster's New World Dictionary, p.1353) [sic] Now, all of these errors would have been corrected in the printed material, but Mr. Till opted to make them known to the reader. I think he is doing this to try and [sic] humilate me because he cannot answer my arguments. Who Knows? However, one thing that I do know is that these mistakes would have been taken care of in the printed material, and Till was wrong for bringing them out for this audiance [sic] to see since they have nothing to do with the debate.
[Editor's Note: As pointed out in editorial notes at the beginning of all of McDonald's posted manuscripts, Till wanted to correct all of McDonald's mistakes in grammar, spelling, and punctuation, but McDonald refused the offer and demanded that his manuscripts be posted exactly as he had sent them. This section of his manuscript was single-spaced and printed in a small font apparently to fit all that he wanted to say into the modified page limit agreed upon. This, however, increased his length to 100+K to answer Till's 79K. Readers should keep this in mind as they encounter McDonald's complaint that Till didn't answer everything he said.]Responses to Till's Responses to my Questions:
[Editor's Note: When McDonald failed to repeat the questions or summarize them sufficiently to refresh the readers' memories of what the questions were, they will be repeated in italics above his responses to them. Likewise, when McDonald distorted or misrepresented Till's answers, the answers will also be repeated in italics.]
Thank you! Yes, your answer does satisfy me. However, it may not satisfy you because it has you in direct conflict with yourself on this matter. Till has reverted back to his old position. In my second affirmative I told him that he was in a mess on this point because he had told me that Adrian Swindler was one of the most knowledgeable men he knew and the reason for his observation of this was that Adrian read everything. I then responded, "Knowledge through reading, Mr. Till?" I thought that your position was that knowledge can come only though the five senses." [sic] (McDonald's Second Affirmative, p.5) [sic] To this Till responds by saying, "Well, Mr. McDonald, I always use my sense of sight when I read, don't you?" [sic] (Till's Second Rebuttal, p.8) [sic] In that same rebuttal, Farrell says, "If Mr. McDonald knows (emp. added) that Thomas Harvey McDonald is his father, he had to learn that through having heard the name or else seeing (emp. added) it in writing ... [sic] Jerry knew (emp. added) that his grandfather was a preacher who died at 76 either because he was told these facts (hearing) or he read them (seeing). This is all so elementary that it is almost embarrassing to have to point it out." [sic] (Till's Second Rebuttal, p.9) [sic] Yes, it is embarrassing, but only for Till, for now, he says you cannot know by these means, but you have to personally experience these things with your five senses. Poor Mr. Till is so confused that he does not know where he is suppose [sic] to stand. I really feel sorry for him. I really do!
[Two: Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer, we will assume that your answer is true.) "... To sustain his position, he must therefore prove that, even though he lives in the 20th century, he has somehow perceived through one or more of his five senses the exact circumstances under which all the books of the Bible were originally written hundreds and even thousands of years ago so that he can now, in our time, know that all of these books were written by the inspiration of God. In order to have experienced such perceptions, however, he would have had to have been all of the men God persumably chose to write the Bible so that he could attest to whatever they saw, heard, tasted, smelled, and/or felt when they were writing under the influence of divine guidance. If not that, at the very least he would have had to have been with these inspired men while they were writing the Bible so that he could testify to having perceived in some way whatever happens when men are divinely inspired to write."]
[Till's Answer: This statement is true; I made it in my first rebuttal in the Laws-Till Debate. What galls McDonald is that he cannot prove it wrong.]
Till's idea that if real (objective) morality exists, then God was guilty of real (objective) moral atrocities is wrong because of the fact that God is the giver of life. He fails to take this into consideration. He is trying to put God down on the level of humans and he cannot do that.
Till's Answer: If real (objective) morality exists, then the answer is true. God was guilty of real (objective) moral atrocity (if objective morality does in fact exist). This is a good time to press McDonald for an answer to my question that he ignored in his last manuscript. If a system of objective morality does in fact exist, would God be subject to the requirements of that system?]
[Editor's Note: In Till's second affirmative, which has yet to be coded and posted, he explained how abstract concepts exist without the simultaneous existence of objective standards for those concepts: "McDonald has also rejected my definition of 'moral atrocities,' because it does not acknowledge the existence of objective morality. That doesn't bother me. He may reject all that he wants to. I am willing to leave the matter to the judgment of our readers, most of whom, I am sure, will recognize that abstract concepts can and do exist independently of objective standards by which those concepts are judged. People recognize that beautiful things exist, but they know that there is no such thing as an objective standard of beauty. People recognize that sad things happen in life, but they know that there is no such thing as an objective standard of sadness. In the same way, people whose sense of logic has not been distorted by the wackiness of religious fundamentalism, realize that immoral things can and do happen in life, even though there is no such thing as an objective standard of morality."]
Answers to Till's Questions:
[Editor's Note: The editor again expresses regret at the need to insert notes so frequently to point out McDonald's distortions and misrepresentations. Till's question asked if there would be irreconcilable contradiction if after stating his age when he began to teach at Spoon River College [32] and the length of his tenure at that time [25 years], his wife then said that "she and I," meaning Till and his wife, had a son who was 59.]
[Editor's Note: The link immediately above will take readers directly to where McDonald chided Till for pleading lack of space to answer all of his arguments. He made an especially sarcastic tirade here about Till's references to insufficient space to answer everything that McDonald said. Similar comments were also made here and here and here and even here and here in this, his fifth affirmative, he cited lack of space as his reason for not giving more complete discussion to points he mentioned.]
Final Affirmative Arguments:
(1) Benefit of the Doubt. "On this test John Warwick Montgomery writes that literary critics still follow Aristotle's dictum that 'the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself [sic] ..., [sic] one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.'" [sic] (Evidence That Demands A [sic] Verdict, pp.60,61) [sic]
[Editor's Note:
(2) We must, unless there is evidence to the contrary, admit that Paul wrote all the books he said he wrote. The books of Luke and Acts were written by the same person, Luke the Physician [sic]. The fourth account of the Gospel was written by the same man who wrote the three epistles. Some have taken the position that Mark was not inspired, but no evidence has ever been produced to show such. The Gospel according to Mark is considered inspired as Dorris said, "Its right to a place among the inspired books has never been questioned." [sic] (Commentary on the Gospel According to Mark, pp.x.xi) [sic] There is absolutely nothing which can be used to show that the books of the New Testament are not reliable nor [sic] inspired.
(3) The New Testament witnesses to the fact that the Old Testament scriptures are reliable and inspired. [sic] (Mt. 21:42; 22:29; 26:55,56; Lk. 24:44; Jno. 5:39; 10:35; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Rom. 1:2,3,4; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 15:4; 16;26 [sic]; 1 Cor. 15:3,4; Gal. 3:8,22; 4:30; 1 Tim. 5:18; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20,21; 3:16) [sic]
(1) Evidence of the New Testament as given by the early church fathers. "With the age of Irenaeus, who flourished about A.D. 170, there was no question that the books of the New Testament were authoritative [sic] ... [sic] Irenaeus used and quoted at length all four Gospels, the epistles of Paul, many of the General epistles, and Revelation [sic] ... [sic] He alluded to every book of the New Testament except Philemon and III John." [sic] (New Testament Survey, p.407) [sic] "Tertullian of Carthage [sic] ... quoted from all of the New Testament except Philemon, James, II and III John- [sic] (p.407) [sic] Origin divided the New Testament into two classes, those which were not disputed, and those that were. However, he did not say that those in the class which were disputed were not inspired. II and III John were included in the Muritorian Canon. Origin considered Philemon reliable and inspired by placing it in the class of books which were not disputed.
(2) Archaeology shows that the Old Testament is reliable. There are so many archaeological findings which coincide with the Old Testament that one would not be able to do justice in getting to all of them. I will list one here, and if Till can find where archaeology has refuted the Bible he may bring it up. For years skeptics claimed that archaeology disproved the Bible because of the Bible's mention of the Hittites in the Pentateuch. They claimed that since archaeology had not found their cities then the Bible must be wrong. Sir fredrick [sic] Kenyon says, "It is one of the major discoveries of archaeology in our own day that the Hittites once ruled over a wide stretch of country, and for a time rivalled the great empires of Assyria and Egypt." [sic] (The Bible and Archaeology, p.81) [sic] From this we can see that Mr. Till might bring up something that archaeology has not discovered (such as the conquest of Ai in the book of in the book of Joshua) but he needs to remember what Kenyon said: "The more firmly a student believes in he [sic] Bible, the more firmly convinced he must be that no new fact that the spade may reveal can be really incompatible with it." [sic] (The Bible and Archaeology, p.261) [sic] Whatever Mr. Till can bring up can be shown to be compatible or that when all of the evidence is in it will be compatible with the Bible.
[Editor's Note: From having read the Jackson-Till Debate, McDonald was anticipating here that Till would react to this claim with the results of Joseph Callaway's excavation of the ancient site of the city of Ai, which the Israelites allegedly conquered and burned in Joshua 8, which would have dated its destruction at about 1426 BC. The link just given to Callaway's excavation will show that he, a conservative Southern Baptist and former professor at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was objective enough to admit, after nine years of excavation, that the city of Ai was destroyed at least 1800 years before the time that the Bible claims that Joshua's army destroyed it. The Biblical Archaeological Review (November/December 1988, p. 24) quoted Callaway as having said, "Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8."]
I want to apologize to the reader because I have not been able to give all of the evidence for the inspiration of the Bible that I wanted to give. For space (even as much as is allotted for this discussion) would not allow such. However, I did make eight arguments for the inspiration of the Bible. [A] God does exist. [B] The Bible is of divine origin. [C] The Bible is inerrant. [D] The Bible is authoritative. [E] The Bible is all-sufficient. [F] The Canon that we have is correct. [G] The Bible is unique. [H] The Bible, historically, is reliable. Most of these have not been touched by Mr. Till and I admonish him to do so in his final rebuttal. Mr. Till said that he has shown in his debate with Bill Jackson, that Matthew misused Micah 5:2 and that this did not refer to where Christ was going to be born, but it referred to a person named Bethlahem [sic]. Let me give evidence to the contrary.
[Editor's Note: Readers who check will find that Till responded to [A] (the existence of God) here and here and here, among other places; to [B] (divine origin of the Bible) here and here and here and here and here and here and here, as well as other places; to [C] (inerrancy of the Bible) here and here and here and here and other places as well; [D] (authority of the Bible) here and here and here and here and several other places; [E] (all-sufficiency of the Bible) here and here; [F] (the correct canon) here and here; [G] (the uniqueness of the Bible) here and at length here; and [H] (the Bible's historical reliability) was discussed here in Till's fifh rebuttal, because McDonald didn't introduce it until his fourth affirmative. Those who take the time to check all of these links will see that Till replied to all of McDonald's points from [A] to [H], often in detail.]
In 1 Chronicles chapter two we find a geneological table which starts with Judah. Judah had five sons. Their names were Er, Onan, Shelah, Pharez and Zerah. Now Pharez had two sons. Their names were Hezron and Hamul. Hezron had five sons. Their names were Jerahmeel, Ram, Chelubai, Caleb and Segub. Now Ram, one of the sons of Hezron had one son whose name was Amminadab who had a son by the name of Nashon. Nashon had a son by the name of Salma who had a son by the name of Boaz. Boaz had a son by the name of Obed who had a son by the name of Jessie. Jessie had a son by the name of David who became the second king over Israel. This is the linage [sic] that Christ came from.
How [sic] Hezron had another son whose name was Caleb who married Ephrath (or Ephrathah) who gave birth to Hur. Hur had a son whose name was Caleb who had a son whose name was Salma (do not confuse this Salma with the one previously mentioned) who had a son named Bethleham [sic]. Bethleham's [sic] name was given to two villages, one in Zebulun and the other in Judea (where Christ was born). If you look in the linage [sic] of Christ you will find no one named Bethleham, for Christ came through the linage [sic] of Ram (Hezron's other son) and not Caleb. So we can see that Matthew was correct after all when he said that it was prophecied [sic] that Christ was to be born in Bethleham [sic].
[Editor's Note: Biblical genealogies are much too convoluted to allow for adequate analysis of them even in a debate that had gradually increased the length of manuscripts to 30 pages. Elsewhere on this website, Till has posted extensively on genealogies and especially on the lineage that McDonald summarized much too briefly above to establish any definitive point. Those who want to see evidence that McDonald did not understand the content of the genealogy that he appealed to above should read "Finley's Solution" where Till replied in great detail to an effort to prove that generations were skipped in the genealogies of Hezron in 1 Chronicles 2 and Jacob or Israel in Exodus 6:14-28 and thereby showed that the writer of Chronicles, seemingly unaware of a captivity in Egypt, wrote his genealogies as if biblical characters like Caleb, Ephraim, Hezron, Machir, etc. were living at the time of the Israelite settlement of Canaan. The article "Uzziel" analyzed the Exodus 6 genealogy to show that the author intended this to be understood as a generation-by-generation genealogy, which would have made Aaron's wife Elisheba the literal daughter of Amminadab and placed fourth-generation descendants of Judah's son Hezron in Egypt contemporary to the time of Moses, which was presumably 430 years after the Israelites had gone into Egypt (Ex. 12:40). These articles are long and intricate in their analyses of genealogies but are worth the time for those who want to see that inconsistencies in biblical genealogies cannot be explained away by superficial analysis like McDonald's.]
The Argument:
Major Premise: All total situations, the constituent elements of which are factual are total situations which are true.
Minor Premise: The total situation described by my proposition is a total situation the constituent elements of which are factual.
Conclusion: Therefore, the total situation described by my proposition is a total situation which is true.
I have proven my argument with the following elements. [1] God does exist. [2] The Bible is of divine origin. [3] The Bible is inerrant. [4] The Bible is authoritative. [5] The Bible is all sufficient [sic]. [6] The Canon that we have is the correct canon. [7] The Bible is historically a reliable document. [Editor's Note: The editor's note above contains links that will take readers to the exact places where Till replied to all seven of these points.] Mr. Till has been ineffective in answering these elements. The only one he gave fair hearing to was number two and he did not defeat that element then. Since I have proven my argument to be true, my proposition is also true. Since my proposition is true, Mr. Till's proposition is false. The Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of Jehovah God. Mr. Till said that my manuscripts frustrated him. Let me suggest that the reason they did is because he has not been able to defeat the arguments therein.
I would like to close this affirmative with the following poem.
"Last eve I paused beside a blackmith's door
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime,
Then Looking in, I saw upon the floor
Old hammers worn with beaten years of time.
"How many anvils have you had," said I,
"To wear and batter all these hammers so?"
"Just one," he said; then with a twinkling eye,
"The anvil wears the hammers out you know."
And so, I thought, the anvil of God's word
For ages skeptics blows have beat upon;
Yet though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The anvil is unharmed -- the hammers gone!"
It is my most sincere hope that good will come about from this debate. I realize that
it is only half finished, but I feel that sufficient evidence has been given to prove
that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of Jehovah God. Mr. Till will have but
one more rebuttal, then I will have a short rejoinder. After that it will be Mr. Till's
turn to give a reason for his beliefs. When Mr. Till begins his affirmations I will show
him what the duties of the negative really are.
Go to Till's Final Rebuttal.
