[Editor's Note: As noted in the introduction to this debate, Mr. McDonald insisted that his manuscripts be posted exactly as he had submitted them. Consequently, none of his frequent mistakes in grammar, syntax, spelling, punctuation, etc. have been corrected. All places where [sic] appears in the text below are mistakes that were in his original manuscript]
As Farrell assumes the affirmative role in this debate he pledges: [sic] "...to stick to the issues involved in the defense..." of his proposition, and promises, [sic] "...I will avoid introducing matters that don't relate to the origin of the Bible. I will not waste time seeking Mr. McDonald's opinion about the existence of God, the theory of evolution, or the nature of good and evil." [sic] (p.1) [sic] And even though he makes this promise he turns right around and uses a little more than a half of a page dealing with the very thing he promised not to address; the existence of God.
He gives us a syllogism which he thinks will surely put the matter to rest:
Major Premise: If it is the case that God exists, then the Bible is the verbally inspired word of God.
Minor Premise: It is the case that God exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible is the verbally inspired word of God.
Mr. Till's argument does not parallel what I was doing with my arguments on the existence of God. Notice that I was affirming that the Bible is the inspired word of God. If it is inspired by God, then God must necessarily exist, right? This is something that I do not believe that even he will attempt to deny. If God must exist before he could inspire the writing of the Bible, then before the Bible can be proven to be the inspired word of God, God's existence must be established. A proper syllogism would be:
Major Premise: If it is the case that God must exist before he could inspire the writing of the Bible, and if it is the case that the Bible claims to have been inspired by God, then it is the case that God's existence must be proven before the Bible's claim (of divine inspiration) can be substantiated.
Minor Premise: It is the case that God must exist before he could inspire the writing of the Bible, and it is also the case that the Bible claims to have been inspired by God.
Minor Premise: Therefore, it is the case that God's existence must be proven before the Bible's claim (of divine inspiration) can be substantiated.
There is simply no way for Mr. Till to deny this argument. It is valid, that is the form of the argument is correct. It is sound, that is the premises are true [sic] and the conclusion logically follows from the premises. It is the case that God must exist before he could inspire the writing of any book, including the Bible. And it is also the case that the Bible claims to have been inspired by God. [sic] (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16) [sic] Therefore [sic] it is the case that God's existence must be proven before the Bible's claim (of divine inspiration) can be substantiated. Deny it if you can, but you will find that you are going to have to do more than just claim that such is not the case if you are going to refute this argument.
During negotiations for our recent oral debate (over the so-called moral atrocities of the Bible) Mr. Till, on May 13, 1991, insisted that I make at least one argument on the existence of God prior to establishing the existence of objective morality. He informed me that he was not going to allow me to assume God's existence, but I must prove it. We are discussing the same so-called moral atrocities in this debate that we discussed in that one, and if I needed to prove God's existence in that debate in order to prove my point, why would I not need to do it in this one as well? This is a question to which Mr. Till needs to address himself
I do not see how he can possibly argue his way out of that one, but it may be that this is just one of those places where his position leaves margin for error. By the way, Mr. Till, just how much error are we supposed to look for in your articles? Mac Deaver asked you that question in San Marcos and you never did answer. Maybe you would like to answer it now!
In his debate with (the late) Bill Jackson, Farrell chided Bill for not proving God's existence before he stated that God wrote the Bible:
"The main problem with this argument, if it can even legitimately be considered an argument, is that it begins with a very big if. 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 upon an assumption. Logic based upon assumption proves nothing." [sic] (The Jackson-Till Debate, p.5) [sic]
He says that he intends to waive the right to ask questions so that I will not be put into the position of defender. Well [sic ] that, of course, is his business, but I am going to continue to ask questions (as the affirmant) in any debate I have or I will simply refuse to debate. I am not so anxious to debate that I would be led to sign a set of rules with which I could not agree. Mr. Till's anxiety to debate may lead him to do such a thing, but mine will not. He signed the rules which allowed the affirmant to ask questions while in the affirmative and now he wants to complain about it. I just do not understand why he would give me permission to do something and then complain because I do it.
[Editor's Note: As the link above will show, Till did not complain about the rule that permits the affirmant to ask questions of his opponent. He simply said that he was going to waive his right to ask questions so that McDonald would not have his attention diverted from his negative duty to reply to affirmative arguments.]
Next he proceeds to state his proposition and define it. He cannot even do that properly. I would like to know, Farrell, where the word "chronological" appears in your proposition? Your proposition says: "There are intertextual contradictions and inconsistencies, historical and scientific inaccuracies, failed prophecies, absurdities, moral atrocities attributed to divine ordainment, plagiarisms and other disparities recorded in the Bible that disprove its claim to be the inspired word of God." Where does the word "chronological" appear in your proposition? Deal with it as it is and I will be happy.
[Editor's Note: The last link above will show that the word chronological was indeed in Till's proposition. Till's original manuscript has been checked to verify that chronological was the sixth word in the proposition.]
On the final page of his first defense he says: "I urge Mr. McDonald to deal directly with the issues that I have raised in my first defense and not try to pussyfoot around them, because my strategy is going to be the same as it was in my debate with Mr. Jackson. I will keep dumping these same contradictions into his lap until he either proves that they are not contradictions or until he admits that he knows of no way to explain them." [sic] (p.29) [sic] His proposition obligates him to produce at least two of every category involved in his proposition. If he does not produce at least two of each one of these categories, he will fail in his obligation as the affirmant. My obligation is to bring up explanations for his arguments. If I can show plausibility for whatever he brings up, I will defeat him in this debate because he must show that whatever he brings up conclusively proves that the Bible is not inspired of God. He need not worry about my duties in this part of the debate, [sic] he had better be worrying about his own. I predict that he is in for some hard times.
He defines the Bible as the Protestant Canon, but also such Bibles as allow the apocryphal books. I wonder where he got the idea that we were debating about translations? In his second rebuttal he made this statement: "I think that I do have sufficient evidence to support my belief that the original articles were not inspired. When it is my turn to affirm, I will be presenting that evidence. [sic] (Underlines are mine, jdm) [sic] (p.18) [sic] [Editor's Note: The link just given will show that Till's statement reads original autographs rather than original articles.] Now he wants to switch from the originals to discussing the translations. The only way he is going to be able to discuss the translations is for him to get into textual criticism, but he does not seem to want to do that.
By intertextual contradiction he says that he means statements that in some way disagree or conflict with parallel accounts, statements or passages within the overall Canonical text. [Editor's Note: By clicking this link readers will see that Till, understanding the basic rules of capitalization in American English, did not capitalize canonical as McDonald has done throughout this debate.] He says that he will not be using the word "contradiction" in its rigidly logical sense that I made reference to when I was in the affirmative. I do not blame him; if I held his position I would not want to use the word in its rigidly logical sense either. However, I refuse to accept the definition that he has given upon the basis that two accounts can differ and yet not contradict one another. In Luke chapter 22 [sic] Luke has Jesus giving the cup before he takes the bread, but in Matthew and Mark's accounts they have Jesus taking the cup after the bread is taken. Is this a contradiction? Not when all of the evidence is in and reasoned about properly. When one reasons properly it can be easily seen that Luke had Jesus take the cup, divide it among the disciples, take the bread and give it to them, then he had them drink the cup. Now Matthew and Mark just record Jesus breaking the bread and having them drink the cup. They did not mention the part where Jesus divided the cup before the bread.
No, we will not allow such trivia. If Mr. Till is going to produce contradictions, we are going to hold him to the task of producing bonafide contradictions. In order to do that he is going to have to show where one account is true and the other is false. Copi says that: "The principle of contradiction asserts that no statement can be both true and false." [sic] (Introduction to Logic, p. 306) [sic] On page 346 he says that if a contradiction is involved one statement must be true while the other must be false. Webster says that the word "contradictory" means, "A proposition so related to another that if one of the two is true, the other is false and if either is false the other must be true." [sic] (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p.244) [sic]
[Editor's Note: The editorial note here will link readers to places where Till has shown that mistakes don't necessarily have to be "contradictions" in the strict logical sense of the word contradict and that such mistakes can occur in inconsistent statements that are both wrong. Till's position is that such mistakes, although not strict contradictions, would not occur in a book verbally inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity.]
Mr. Till says that he wants to use the word in the sense that is used by the majority of people today. This debate is not concerned with what the majority thinks. I would never take the position that the majority does not say that there are contradictions in the Bible, [sic] only a fool would do such a thing. However, I will take the position that there are no real, actual, absolute contradictions in the Bible. That is all that I am concerned about. Do not talk to me about what the majority thinks, [sic] I could care less [sic]! Show me where there are real, actual, and absolute contradictions in the Bible. Every time he brings up one of his so-called contradictions, I am going to press him to show which account is true and which one is false. He cannot find a real, actual, absolute contradiction in the Bible! No wonder he does not want to use the word "contradiction" in its rigidly logical sense!
I reject his definition of "moral atrocities" upon the same grounds that I rejected his definition of "contradictions." He thinks if the majority thinks that a thing is a "moral atrocity" then all must accept that as a moral atrocity. If the majority thinks that the Amalekite destruction was a moral atrocity, then he seems to think that we should just accept that fact and go on without ever saying a word. Sorry [sic] pal, we do not operate that way. The world sees nothing wrong with slaughtering a million and a half babies each year, [sic] in fact the world gets mad if we try and [sic] oppose abortion. Yet if God, the ultimate creator of the universe from whom all life stems, destroyed a nation of wicked people, [sic] and killed their babies so as to give them eternal life and keep them from growing up in their predecessors footsteps, then that is a moral atrocity. Now, mind you, it is not an objective moral atrocity, [sic] it is not quite that bad, but it is a moral atrocity! I guess we are suppose [sic] to just bow down to this kind of thinking, because this is what the majority thinks. Well, I am real [sic] sorry about that, but I do not feel like bowing down. If it was not an objective moral atrocity, then all he has to say is much ado about nothing.
He, once again, brings up his slanderous statement concerning my mother's good name and tries to defend it after I asked him not to bring it up again. He says that he pointed out, [sic] "...as tactfully..." [sic] as he could that my father might not be my father. Question: "How can one be tactful in saying that it is possible that someone elses [sic] mother was a whore?" Did you ever look at the implication of what you were actually saying, Farrell? The word "whore" is defined as: "any women who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse." [sic] (Webster's New World Dictionary, p. 1624) [sic] Now when he made that statement, he was at least implying that a woman whom he has never met, knows nothing of, one whose name he does not even know was possibly a whore because he said that it was possible that she engaged in promiscuous sexual intercourse; which is the definition of a whore
His statement implies that I might be the "illegitimate" result of my mother's possible "whoring" activities which means that I would be nothing more than a "bastard." Then on top of that he implies that my mother might be a liar because she not only would have had to have lied to Thomas McDonald about my being his son, but she would also have had to have lied to me about my parentage. So he really drags the name of a good Godly woman, whom he knows nothing about, through the mud, and all of this because he says that he just wanted to make a point.
If the point was all he was interested in, he could have said that it was possible that two nurses got me mixed up with some other male child in the hospital nursery [sic] and he would have made his point without dragging my mother's good name into it. Well [sic] this is the last time I am going to say anything about it. If he wants to continue to bring it up, so be it. However, I refuse to say anything further about the matter.
He brings up the story of the backwoods preacher who was trying to explain the difference between faith and knowledge, and he could not even tell that one without botching it. The story actually goes like this: "The preacher said, 'Now Henry, he only believes them young'uns is his (not her's [sic] Farrell), but now Betsy, she knows them young'uns is his." However, this preacher held the same misconception of faith that Farrell holds. Jesus said to Thomas: [sic] "...because [sic] thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." [sic] (Jno. 20:29) [sic] In the story of the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well, people said to her, "Now we believe him our [sic] selves [sic] and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." [sic] (Jno. 4:42) [sic] True faith, Biblical faith [sic] is based upon knowledge of God's word. [sic] (Rom. 10:17) [sic]
I asked him, previously, if knowledge came by reading about something as well as being there to experience with my empirical senses and his answer was false. [Editor's note: Readers should go here to see that in answering McDonald's question, Till went on to say that "(i)f one reads about a subject, he can come to know what the writers thought or believed about the subject, but he cannot know if they were right about what they thought or believed."] Again, how do I know that he wrote the articles which bear his name? Should I believe him because he says that he wrote them, or should I say that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate his claim? Which one, Farrell?
He says that there is a difference between faith and knowledge. When I introduced Norman Geisler's list for validating beliefs in my first affirmative, he said: "I have no quarrel with Geisler's criteria for validating beliefs, but belief is not knowledge." [sic] (Till's first rebuttal, p.4) [sic] He apparently overlooked the fact that Geisler included empiricism in that list of criteria for validating beliefs.
[Editor's note: As the link above will show, Till said that he had no quarrel with what Geisler said about validating beliefs. Belief, however, is not knowledge, which must be empirically acquired through use of the senses.]
He brought up the example of a palace to show his belief that I would say that the palace was perfect without ever examining it. He did this to try and [sic] show that I am saying that the Bible is perfect without ever examining it. I say no such thing! Nor would I ever say that the palace is perfect without ever examining it. I have examined the Bible and have found it inerrant. I am truly sorry that he cannot see this great truth, but let me suggest that this is his problem, not mine!
He says that his position is advantageous over mine because I would have
to have been there all during the construction of the palace before I could know that it
was perfect, while he can look at the finished product to see if it is flawed. Let me
ask a question: "If, when you look at this palace, and find no flaws in it, can you then
know that it is perfect, or must you say that you cannot
Let me ask another question: "Can a building inspector inspect the finished product and know that the building meets specifications, or would he need to have been there all during its construction?"
His next argument was actually an argument in my favor; [sic] the extinction of the passenger pigeon. Let us apply this to the Bible. Mr. Till says that he knows that the Bible is not inspired. In order to know this he is going to have to search every nook and cranny to find proof for his contention. [1] He is going to have to find legitimate contradictions, etc., which will show that the Bible could not have been inspired by God. [2] Then he is going to have to show that the original autographs had legitimate contradictions in them before he can show that the Bible was not inspired by God. He has already admitted that this is something which he cannot do, and he does not believe that he can use the science of textual criticism, logic, and the testimony of others to prove his point. He must use, only, his five empirical senses to do this. Since he cannot do such a thing, then he will never substantiate his claim.
I, on the other hand, can use textual criticism, logic, and the testimony of others to prove that the Bible, in its original autographs, was inspired. Where is the great advantage that his position has over mine? If anyone is at a disadvantage, it is him.
He has admitted that he does not have the original autographs, and given his position on how knowledge is attained, he is faced with an impossible task.
He says: "We will see enough cracks in the foundation of this house called the Bible to dispel for all times the preposterous myth that it is the inerrant word of God. [sic] (p.6) [sic] Other atheists in time past have made such claims [sic] and they failed in their tasks just as Farrell Till will fail in his. Paine and Voltaire, both made such statements, but the Bible is still here, and they are dead and have, for the most part, been forgotten. The common man on the street, [sic] probably does not even know who they are, but I would be surprised to find very many people who do not know what the Bible is. I wonder why? Bible believers have nothing to fear because long after Farrell Till and his cohorts are gone, the Bible will still be here and people will still be believing in it.
He goes back to the concession (which he made to Jim Laws, and which he has had to answer for in practically every debate since) and complains that I have misrepresented him. He says: "I didn't then and I don't make a practice of presenting arguments and then saying, 'Oh, but I could be wrong.'" Alright [sic], you have me. You do not do such things. Instead you tell us that you could be wrong, then you proceed to make your argument. In other words, you tell your audience that you might be wrong, but then you expect the audience to believe in the very arguments which you say might be in error. My statement did at least give you some credibility, but if you want to strip yourself of even that, be my guest!
[Editor's Note: McDonald continues to misrepresent Till's answer to Laws, when Laws asked Till if he could possibly be wrong. The link here will show that Till's answer was not a concession of anything. After telling Laws that from long years of dogmatically believing that he was right, totally right, and couldn't possibly be wrong, he had learned that it is unwise to take the position on any matter that he couldn't be wrong, Till said, "Yes, it is possible that I am wrong, but I must insist that Dr. Laws prove he is right before I admit that I am wrong."]
He tries to defend himself by saying that the reason he made the concession was that he was just trying to be modest. What is all this about modesty? He is not modest! Notice his debate with Bill Jackson: "I have proven that the Bible is not inerrant. Therefore, I am absolutely sure that it is not the verbally inspired word of God. It can't be!" [sic] (The Jackson-Till Debate, p.35) [sic] In his debate with Jim Laws he said: "Since I know that the Bible lacks all of these qualities, I am not likely to ever again believe that it is the inspired word of God." [sic] (The Laws-Till Debate, p.11) [sic] Are those the words of a man who is claiming modesty in knowledge, with Till's definition of modesty? No! And then after claiming modesty, in this debate, he says: [sic] "...I [sic] feel completely justified in saying that I know the Bible is not the inspired word of God." [sic] (Till's First Defense, p.7) [sic] Where is his so-called modesty now? Yet, after making the statement he made in debate with Jim Laws (on p. 11) he stated that, [sic] "...it is possible that I am wrong...". [sic] (The Laws-Till Debate, p.11) [sic] Now what is that if it not self-contradiction? One statement says that he knows that he is not wrong, while the other says that it is possible that he is wrong. One statement is true, while the other is false. The one where he admitted the possibility of being wrong is the true one, while the other statement is the false one. Self-contradiction, Farrell.
[Editor's Note: Those who check the link above will see that McDonald has again lifted a brief statement out of a long paragraph and distorted it to make Till seem to say something that he didn't.]
He says that he proposes a way out of the deadlock that he and I are in concerning his concessions. He and I are not in any deadlock. He is in the deadlock with himself. I am merely the one who pointed the problem out. He says that he wants to make his arguments and me make my counter-arguments [sic]. Well [sic] be my guest, Farrell! No one is stopping you but you! However, I intend to keep these concessions before you until you either admit your error, or until you explain them away.
Mr. Till's concessions:
[Editor's Notes: McDonald gave no page references below in his list of Till's alleged concessions, so links are attached to each alleged concession in the list so that readers can conveniently check to see how McDonald has distorted Till's statements to make them say what he never intended to say.]
Concessions 1 and 6 are up for grabs because he does not seem to know where he wants to stand, so we will put those up as "contradictions" until he decides where he is going to stand. The others, however, are concessions that he has made, and we are going to demand that he deal with them and stop "pussyfooting around."
He gives us the same argument he made in his debate with Bill Jackson. Let me remind him, as Bill did, that his argument obligates him to produce arguments, [sic] "...that [sic] will excluded [sic] all possibility of God's authorship." [sic] (The Jackson-Till Debate, p.36) [sic] How is he going to do that? "All possibility when he has said that a 'very likely' will do!" [sic] (Ibid) [sic] If I produce a plausible explanation for his objections, then he has failed in his efforts, and he is not the judge about what is plausible and what is not! If he thinks my answers are not plausible, he has the obligation to show that they are not, and why they are not. Yes, I predict that he is in for some hard times ahead.
I think we can dispense with what he said concerning George DeHoff's position on the inerrancy of the scriptures. I believe that all can see that brother DeHoff and I are in agreement with one another on that. Then he says that he does not know where to begin. Jerry Moffitt told him to begin with the good stuff, but I just want him to begin!
[Editor's Note: Readers should check the link just given to see where Till explained (after McDonald had indicated that Jerry Moffitt was defeating Till in another written debate) that Moffitt, as Jim Laws had earlier done, quit that debate after only three manuscript exchanges and, despite promises to resume it, never did send Till another rebuttal manuscript.]
He wants to know how Jehoram could have had a son who was 2 years older than he was. Please, produce the verse which says: "Jehoram was 40 years old when he died", Mr. Till! He takes Jehoram's age when he began to reign and adds that to the number of years he was said to have reigned in Jerusalem and adds them together to come up with 40. However, this has been explained in my rejoinder. I now await his reply.
[Editor's Note: The rules did not entitle Till to write a rejoinder to McDonald's rejoinder, so in his first defense, Till replied to McDonald's recycling of his solution to the problem of Jehoram's age. In his fifth rebuttal, Till also noted that Josephus, the Jewish historian whom McDonald will often quote, said that the inhabitants of Jerusalem buried Jehoram "when he had lived forty years" (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 9, 5:3).]
He says that this discrepancy plagued me throughout the first half of the debate. That is not true. That particular discrepancy was not even brought up until Mr. Till's fourth rebuttal. He brought it up, I answered it in my final affirmative, and he responded in his final rebuttal, then I defended my argument in my rejoinder. I guess, though, I am just misrepresenting information. Actually, I was afraid that he was not going to bring it up. I worked very hard on that particular difficulty [sic] and I tried to get him to bring it up earlier, but he did not do it [sic] and I was afraid he was not going to bring it up. I am not afraid of anything he has to say concerning it, [sic] let him bring up whatever he desires on this discrepancy [sic] and I will be glad to answer.
[Editor's Note: McDonald was correct. Although the issue of Ahaziah's age when he began to reign was introduced in his second defense, it wasn't discussed in detail until the fourth and fifth exchanges.]
Next he brings up the rules of evidence and says that when two statements contradict each other they cannot both be right (with which we will agree), but then he said that they can both be wrong. Here is where I take issue with him. If two statements contradict each other, one statement must be true and the other statement must be false. This is what the dictionaries and the logic books say, but Mr. Till comes along in all of his infinite wisdom and opposes these works. I wonder what qualifies Mr. Till to take issue with these works?
[Editor's Note: Till repeatedly made clear in the debate that he was using the word contradict not in its strict sense as used in formal logic but in its venacular sense recognized by all reputable English dictionaries, which define contradiction simply as discrepancy or disagreement in meaning. The person affirming a proposition is entitled to define the key terms in it, and Till clearly defined contradiction in the way just noted.]
Two statements can differ and both of them be right. This is called a "sub-contrary", [sic] one of those logical terms which Farrell seems to be unfamiliar with. [Editor's Note: An editorial note after Copi's "Square of Opposition" copied into McDonald's final affirmative manuscript explains how uncategorically written biblical narratives cannot 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." There is also a link to McDonald's Subcontrary Blunder, an internet post in which Till replied in detail to McDonald's attempt in another debate to make the resurrection narratives "subcontraries." As this debate is being posted, McDonald has not replied to Till's rebuttal.] This is where Ahaziah's age falls! Example: Suppose in 100 years from now someone finds a book written about preachers in the church of Christ in the 20th century. Suppose this book was written by different people. The reader is reading along and comes across this statement: "Jerry McDonald was 27 years old when he began to preach." Now suppose he is reading in another chapter written by another man, and he reads: "Jerry McDonald was 29 years old when he began to preach." Would these two statements necessarily contradict each other? Absolutely not, because all one needs to do is to do a little bit of research into my background to know that both statements are true.
I began attending the Brown Trail School of Preaching when I was 27 years old. During those two years, I preached practically every week. I held my first gospel meeting during those two years. The first person I ever baptized, I baptized during those first two years. I preached my first wedding and my first funeral during those first two years. I held my first debate during those first two years. Near the end of the first year and all the way through the second I worked with the Flamingo Rd. church of Christ in Ft. Worth, Texas as the associate preacher. However, in looking for places to preach, I have found that few congregations will consider those two years as preaching experience. So you see, both statements about me are true. Would Mr. Till say that those two statements are contradictory? I am sure that he would not say such a thing. Why, then [sic] will he not allow for such a difference on Ahaziah's age?
Mr. Till, regardless of what he wants us to believe, has an axe to grind with the church of Christ. In his debate with Dr. Hollar, Mr. Till said, in answer to a question: "And I was...I [sic] did not suffer any emotional impact. I did not suffer any...uh...uh...disappointment [sic ]of any kind. The church that sponsored me in foreign missionary work was very decent and good to me...". [sic] However, the Mr. Till of 1958 denies what the Mr. Till of 1989 said. The Mr. Till of 1958 submitted four articles to The Firm Foundation which show that Mr. Till did suffer disappointment while he was preaching for the churches of Christ. The articles entitled: "What Would You Think...?", [sic] "Revived Judaism", [sic] "Except Your Righteousness Shall Exceed", [sic ] and "Dear John Letters or Go In Peace." [sic] picture a man who was frustrated because he and other missionaries were having trouble getting money to preach the gospel overseas.
His articles also show us that he had an intolerable attitude toward anyone who did not see things his way. If this attitude bled over into his local work, and there is nothing to suggest that it did not, then it would not be hard to see why he did not make it in the church. Therefore, I am not convinced that he just found these so-called contradictions and quit because of that.
[Editor's Note: An editorial note in Till's second affirmative addresses McDonald's misrepresentation of Till's articles referred to above and points out that McDonald brought up these same articles in an internet debate on the Errancy list in April 2007. Because of the immediacy allowed by internet posting, he was challenged to post those articles. He did so, but the information in them did not support his claim that Till was embittered from having lost the support of his sponsoring churches while he was in France. Eventually, on April 14th, McDonald posted "an apology and admission of error" in what he had said about Till. The fact is that Till twice returned from France voluntarily and never had his financial support withdrawn.]
(1) Who moved David to take the Census? 2 Sam. 24:1 says that God did, while 1 Chron. 21:1 says that Satan did. Which one is true and which one is false? Is it not possible that God allowed Satan to provoak [sic] David to do this, thereby God being the ultimate cause? Remember, Satan had to have God's permission to tempt Job? (Job 1:12; 2:16) Cooke said: "If Satan therefore provoked David to number the people, God allowed him. And whatever God allows, He may be said to do." [sic] (Bible Commentary on the Old Testament, 1 Samuel through Esther. p.352) [sic] Is there a contradiction here? Hardly! Wake up and smell the coffee, Mr. Till.
(2) How many men were there? Mr. Till undertakes the task of trying to explain this one away before I had the chance to respond. He says that there will be alot [sic] of mumbo-jumbo [sic] and double-talk [sic]. Really? I wonder where he got that idea? Which one of these is true and which one is false? Could they not both be true, especially since the census was never finished? [sic] (cf. 1 Chron. 21:6) [sic] Could it not be possible that in the final analysis, had the census been completed, both sets of numbers would have been identical? [Editor's Note: The census numbers given in 2 Samuel 24:5 totaled 1,300,00. The numbers in 1 Chronicles 21:6, which Mr. McDonald implied was an incomplete census, totaled 1,570,000 or 270,000 more than the total in 2 Samuel 24:5, so if the numbers in 1 Chronicles 21:6 reflected a census that was "never finished," the total here should have been fewer not more than the total in 2 Samuel 24:5.] What about one writer (of 2 Sam. 24) including only those, in Israel, who were battle ready and when he gave the number for Judah, and giving the already known 30,000 of Benjamin, as well as the Levites without counting them; while the other writer (1 Chron. 21) giving the number of all the men whether they were battle ready or not, leaving off the Benjamites and the Levites? One writer using one method of counting, while the other using yet another. [Editor's Note: As stated in the note above, if the census figures in 1 Chronicles 21:6 "left off" the Benjamites and Levites, the total here should have been fewer not more than the total in 2 Samuel 24:9.] Would there be something so terribly wrong with that? Where is all this mumbo-jumbo [sic] and double-talk [sic] he promised?
Mr. Till wants to know why God could not have made it any clearer than he did. The only one who has problems with it is the person who has already drawn the conclusion that the Bible is not inspired []sic and now he must formulate a premise to fit the conclusion. Mr. Till has not taken the time to see what the customs of the day were. He brags that if he wrote the Bible these accounts would be very different, and on that I say Amen, Amen, Amen! Notice that Farrell Till used almost a half a page explaining his calculations while the Holy Spirit did it in only two short sentences! If Mr. Till had written the Bible (without the aid of divine inspiration, of course) it would be so heavy and so thick that no one would be able to carry one around with them. He would need a freight train to move it!
The only real fault that Mr. Till can find with the Bible is that it does not use 20th century methods of counting, measuring and 20th century customs. He says, "Let him (McDonald) remember that the very moment he resorts to how-it-could-have-been scenarios to explain the discrepancies he is admitting that there is a flaw in his inerrancy doctrine." [sic] (p.13) [sic] What he needs to remember is that the very moment he resorts to showing that customs, methods of counting and calculation, etc., found in the Bible do not match those of the 20th century to find flaws in the Bible, he is admitting that there is a serious flaw in his precious errancy doctrine.
(3) He brings up, again, the number of years given between the two accounts. We have already dealt with this one while I was in the affirmative. I ask the reader to go back and reread my answer to it. (McDonald's Fourth Affirmative [sic] pp. 19,20) [sic]
[Editor's Note: McDonald's reference here was somewhat vague, so readers can go here to see that Till's argument concerned the problem of whether Gad offered David seven years of famine (2 Sam. 24:13) or just three years (1 Chron. 21:12).]
He wants me to show just how much time he spends trying to find contradictions in the Bible. I do not know, but I do know that he bragged in his debate with Dr. Hollar that he spent quite a bit of time fooling with the Bible (the little dead bird). [Editor's Note: As readers have probably seen, McDonald makes frequent allusions to incidents in Till's past that can't be understood without more background information than just a passing comment. Even Till doesn't remember what "the little dead bird" reference was in his debate with the Presbyterian minister Dr. Hollar.] My guess is he spends more time trying to find contradictions than he spends trying to harmonize them. [Editor's Note: In his autobiographical article "Long Day's Journey into Light," in which Till explained his transition from inerrantist preacher to biblical skeptic, he told of his first efforts, after leaving the ministry, to look for explanations to the biblical discrepancies that had caused him to doubt biblical inerrancy.] He wants to know why I do not spend as much time trying to find them as I spend trying to harmonize them. Mr. Till, the Bible is the defendant in this trial, I am its representative. You are the prosecutor. As with every other defendant, it should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Thus, I consider it innocent until you prove it guilty.
He says that when David delivered seven innocent men to death, in accordance with the finest characteristics of Yahwistic justice, the rain came and the famine ended. [sic] (vv. 10-14) [sic] Where does it say that the famine ended? Where does it say that the famine was a drought? He quotes the NRSV (which seems to be on the liberal mode like its predecessor) which said that: "after that God heeded supplications for the land." [sic] (v. 14) [sic] There is a big difference between that verse and the one in the KJV: "And after that God was entreated for the land." In other words, after that they went to God and asked him to end the famine. However, nothing was said about God [sic] ending the famine! He assumes that the famine was a drought, but I showed earlier that the famine could have been a flood in which case the rain would have only added to the problem. The famine could have been crops failing, or pestilence. He wants it to have been a drought, but he could not prove that if his life depended upon it. Whenever he is presented with an argument he cannot answer he simply pretends (like the Care Bears) that it was never made. I quoted from the World Book encyclopedia concerning famines, but he never alluded himself to it. I wonder why?
He says that my explanation will not work about what Gad said to David, but notice Mr. Till: "Slight variations in the wording of what Gad said to David in presenting the three choices could be explained on the basis of one writer choosing to tell more details of the conversation than the other...". [sic] (Till's Third Rebuttal, p.23) Is that not what I said?
[Editor's Note: Those who read the entire context of the link just given will see that McDonald's out-of-context truncation of Till's statement is not the same as what McDonald has said in his explanation of this discrepancy. The statement went on to say, "(B)ut with both "inspired" writers purporting to state the exact words of Gad, one could not have him saying seven and the other three, without at least one of them being wrong."]
He brings up the situation about something that A said X said about Y being sick for three days and A saying that D said that Y was sick for seven days. Would these statements necessarily contradict each other? If so, how? Which one is true and which one is false? Suppose that X was speaking of the days that Y missed work and was in bed because of being sick, but D was speaking of the whole time that Y was sick. It usually takes about 4-5 days for the flu to get me down to the point where I go to bed with it. However, I am sick for the whole time.
He faults me for holding to the KJV which he says that: [sic] "McDonald apparently believes the Apostle Paul carried with him in his hip pocket...". [sic] No, Mr. Till, I do not believe that Paul carried the KJV, [sic] it was not even in existence at the time. This is a quibble [sic] and he knows it!
[Editor's Note: The statement was actually intended as a joke, which McDonald apparently failed to recognize.]
When does a statement in the Bible not mean exactly what it says? When literal language is involved, it means exactly what it says!
(4) How much Did David pay for the Threshingfloor? One account says he paid 600 sheckles of gold by weight for the place, while the other account says he paid 50 sheckles of silver for the threshingfloor and the oxen. Is there a contradiction? If so, which one is right and which one is wrong? One account says he paid the full price for the place while the other just mentioned the oxen and the threshingfloor. What is so hard to understand about that?
He made a big deal out of my usage of the word "cart." I could have used the word "sledge" [sic] but still he would have complained because he thinks that the threshingfloor was a piece of land. He quoted Eerdman's Bible Dictionary on page 1002 to sustain his point. However, this source refutes his position. Notice: "Threshingfloors were set on hilltops...". [sic] (emp. added) [sic] Question: "How do you set a piece of land on a hilltop?"
Gleason Archer used the word "cart" on page 190 of his book: Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties to refer to the threshing sledge and that is all I was doing. What is so terrible about that?
[Editor's Note: Strong's entry for threshing-floor #1637 reads, "goren, go'-ren; from an unused root mean[ing] to smooth; a threshing-floor (as made even); by anal[ogy] any open area:--(barn, corn, threshing-) floor, (threshing-, void) place." Theshing floors were usually flat areas on high ground, where the earth had been beaten hard or paved with stones. A picture of a paved threshing floor can be seen here. As this link will explain, the "sledge," referred to by McDonald, was a wooden sled or board with spikes in it, which oxen pulled over the stalks of grain to break open the heads. These broken stalks and grain heads were then tossed into the air with a pitch fork so that the wind would separate the chaff from the grain as it was falling back to the threshing floor. Such references as Genesis 50:10; 2 Samuel 6:6; and 1 Samuel 23:1 are not consistent with the claim that a threshing floor was a cart.]
He brings up 2 Sam. 6:6 where the oxen stumbled at Nachon's Threshingfloor and said: "McDonald, I suppose, would have us believe that these oxen stumbled when they were trying to pull their cart over another cart." Since when does coming to something mean going over it. If I drive to my house, does that mean I drive over it?
He complains about God taking Uzzah's life for touching the ark of the covenant. I guess, [sic] he thinks that God cannot do anything unless Farrell Till says it is alright [sic]. God is not subject to Farrell Till's subjective thinking of what is right and what is wrong. Uzzah disobeyed God, regardless of his motive, and he did it knowing what the consequences would be. Thus it was his fault rather than God's.
He gives us a syllogism and tries to show that since I accept both major premises, I must disprove the minor (disjunctive) premise. I believe that I have done just that. Both accounts are accurate in every detail.
[Editor's Note: The numbering in McDonald's outlining method is inconsistent and confusing at times, but in accordance with his demand, it is being retained as he presented it in his original manuscript.]
[Editor's Note: Here, as he had done often before, McDonald, without giving any supporting evidence, made an assertion about what the Bible meant. In this case, he claimed that Yahweh did not kill the 70,000 for something that David had done, but no biblical reference was cited to support this assertion. Careful readers will notice below that he continued to do this.]
(1) Even righteous men fall. Peter was a righteous man [sic] yet he denied the Lord three times. [sic] (Mt. 26:69-75) [sic] He sinned in separating himself from the brethren in Antioch simply because the Jews came on the scene. So great was the sin that Paul felt that Peter needed a public rebuke. Whether Mr. Till recognizes it or not, a man can be the kind of a man who does right in the sight of God, in that the sins he commits are not done in rebellion to God. This is all 1 Kings 15:5 refers to, it is saying that the only time that David ever rebelled in God's eyes was in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. Every other time he would repent when he committed the sin and go on and try to do right. In the case of Uriah the Hittite, he deviated from his usual actions.
(2) Mr. Till produced two other places where he thinks that David's sins contradict 1 Kings 15:5. 1 Sam. 27:8-12 where David killed everyone in the villages he invaded so [sic] they would not tell Achish what he was doing. Remember that Achish, as well as all of those people were Philistines, who were the enemies of the Israelites. Even though David was on the run from Saul [sic] he was still at war with these people. Mr. Till makes it sound as though David was some kind of criminal or something like that. I guess he thinks that anyone in our armed forces, behind enemy lines, is a criminal because he continues to destroy the enemy. The two countries were at war, and many things happen in war that are acceptable which would not be acceptable in peace time. 2 Sam. 12:31 is that kind of action. Was the United States guilty of criminal actions when it dropped the bomb on Hiroshima?
The only real objection that Mr. Till has is the fact that David led Achish to believe that he was on his side when in reality he was fighting against him. I guess Mr. Till would classify this as a lie! [Editor's Note: In reporting his activities to king Achish, David lied about what he had done so that Achish would not know that david had massacred entire populations of Philistine towns, and McDonald argued in his affirmative manuscripts here and here that men who lie are not "good men."] Would such a thing be a lie if Mr. Till was to do it? He can send out bogus debate propositions to selected preachers in the church of Christ, pretending to be preacher's from different religious groups, for the purpose of entrapping our preachers, and that is perfectly alright [sic]. There is nothing dishonest about that, is there? Not in his eyes, but let a man of God do such a thing, and presto, it miraculously becomes a lie.
[Editor's Note: As was evident in McDonald's affirmative part of the debate, he claims that morality is objective [absolute]; Till makes no such claim, so he would not say that lying is always morally wrong.]
Well, he might say, David killed people! How many people has Mr. Till killed spiritually? If you put spiritual killing along side of physical killing, those who kill spiritually are far worse. Yet, Farrell sees nothing wrong with killing someone spiritually. That is alright [sic]. However, he complains (when it is convenient) if one of God's people, back then, took the temporal life of anyone.
However, the Bible did not uphold what David did, [sic] it just recorded it. Did David lie? Is it lying for our spies, today, to conceal their true identity? If not, why should it be considered a lie for David to conceal his true motives? Anyway, if it was a lie (which Mr. Till is going to have a tough time proving), who is to say that David did not repent for telling that lie? Was Mr. Till there to see one way or the other? No, and according to his epistemological belief he would have had to have been there to experience it with at least one of his five senses. He would also have to be able to show that David, if he did lie, did this in open rebellion to God. He cannot prove any of these things. He certainly cannot prove that it was a lie without condemning himself for sending out bogus debate propositions.
[Editor's Note: McDonald's references to "bogus debate propositions" will not be understood by those who don't know what he was referring to. This section of my second affirmative will explain his reference.]
As far as the people dying is concerned, this was war. How many civilians died in the last war in which this country was involved? Was the United States guilty of crimes against humanity?
Well, what about the Holy Spirit? They were apostles, and they had the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Why did they not just ask the Holy Spirit? The fact that they had the gifts of the Spirit did not mean that they would never make any mistakes. Peter had the gifts, but he yielded to temptation at Antioch and caused a dissimulation between the Gentile and Jewish brethren. That did not mean that he did not have the gifts, [sic] it only meant that he refused to do what was right because of his fear. Mr. Till, do you not know that, [sic] "...the [sic] spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets."? [sic] (1 Cor. 14:32) [sic] Just because they had these gifts did not mean that they always did what was right. Christ gave them the power to cast out demons, but because of their unbelief, there was a time when they could not do that.
Yes, they had these powers, and they could have gone to the Holy Spirit at any time and found out for sure, but the did not. God will not force truth upon anyone. It is available for anyone who wants it, but he will not force it on anyone.
Mr. Till might say that 3 years is a long time for them to doubt, and that surely one of them would have thought to go to God during those three years. I can accept this as a valid point. Let me ask you a question Mr. Till: "Over the last 25 to 30 years, how many times have you gone to God to ask him to open your heart (through his word, of course) so that you might see the truth?" I doubt that I would be very wrong if I said that you probably never have. We are talking about 25 to 30 years as opposed to 3 years.
[Editor's Note: Till at the time was an agnostic, now an atheist, who would not have felt any need ever to "go to God." The apostles, presumably, were believers in God.]
Farrell claims that he found these so-called contradictions and moral atrocities in the Bible, so he decided to quit preaching and even quit worshiping God, until he resolved them. Now, while I doubt that this is the case, especially in light of the four articles he submitted to The Firm Foundation in 1958, we will assume, just for the sake of argument that he is giving it to us straight. [Editor's Note: In another debate with McDonald on the errancy list in 2007, McDonald again brought up these same articles, which Till had written in 1958, and claimed that they showed that he was angry at the Church of Christ for having had support withdrawn from him while he was working as a missionary in France. McDonald was challenged to post the articles, but after they were posted, he had to admit that they did not show what he had previously claimed.] Alright [sic], he finds some places he cannot seem to reconcile with the Bible Inerrancy doctrine. What does he do about it? Well, I would work on it until I had them resolved, but I would still continue to preach or at least continue to remain faithful to God and serve him to the best of my ability, if I could not bring myself to preach. Is this what Farrell did? Absolutely not! Notice what he says:
".... [sic] By September of 1963, I realized that textual inconsistencies and discrepancies I had begun to notice in my personal Bible studies would no longer allow me to continue preaching or even participate in worship services. I decided to 'drop out' until I had found satisfactory answers to the problems that were bothering me. I devoted many hours to researching the pros and cons of the inerrancy doctrine, and eventually the only conclusion I could conscientiously reach was that the inerrancy doctrine was erroneous." [sic] (Letter from Till to McDonald, July 27, 1989, p.2) [sic]
He decided to "drop out" until his questions had been answered. If, this is what happened, and I do say if, because I do not believe that it happened the way he tells it, it is no wonder he was not able to reconcile these difficulties. If someone tells a woman that her husband is cheating on her, and she decides to "drop out" until he proves his innocence, do you think he will ever be able to prove his innocence to her? Absolutely not! If a woman has no more trust in her husband than that, she would not believe it if he got the person who told her the story to admit that her husband was the victim of a vicious lie. If she "drops out" before finding the answers, her husband will never prove his innocence as far as she is concerned.
I say the same thing concerning Farrell. If his story is true, then he should have at least stayed in the church until he reached his conclusion. [Editor's Note: McDonald, like society in general, assumes that there is virtue in theism but disgrace in agnosticism/atheism. If theism is based on nothing but superstition, as all reliable evidence indicates, the disgrace would be in clinging to it rather than renouncing it, which would be an act of moral courage in view of the scorn that western society heaps on atheism.] However, as it stands (providing his story is correct), he reached his conclusion before all of the evidence was in; by his own admission: "I decided to 'drop out' until I had found satisfactory answers to the problems that were bothering me." I submit to you that if his story is true he will never find the truth of the matter because he formed his conclusion before all of the evidence was in. If he was a judge in one of our criminal courts today, and he formed his conclusion, and sentenced a man to death row before all of the evidence was in, that would be an outrage. Now, why is he not considered unjust for doing what he claims he did in sentencing the Bible to "death row" (so to speak) before all of the evidence was in? Do not talk to me about the apostles not going to the Holy Spirit to find out if Paul's conversion was genuine until you do go to God and genuinely ask for guidance in studying his word.
[Editor's Note: Till never said that the apostles should have "gone to God" to ask guidance in the matter of Paul's conversion. He said only that the apostles, having been baptized in the Holy Spirit, had received miraculous insights that would have enabled them to know the thoughts of people, as Peter allegedly knew that Ananias and Sapphira were lying about the amount that they had received from the sale of their property (Acts 5:1-10). McDonald never explained how the gift of the Holy Spirit would have enabled Peter to know when a couple had lied about the relative unimportance of how much money they had received for a sale of property but did not empower him to know a much more important detail about the conversion of a persecutor who was destined to spread Christianity throughout the known world and to become the chief author of the New Testament.]
Well [sic] he says that his article should keep me busy for a life time. I have answered him point-by-point and still have some space left over for questions and such. I will try to get to my affirmative arguments, which he did not answer until his final rebuttal, in my next articles.
Questions:
- Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "It is perfectly alright [sic] for me (Farrell Till) to send out bogus debate propositions to preachers of the churches of Christ, pretending to be different preacher's [sic] of different religious groups, for the purpose of showing that these preachers of the churches of Christ will not debate me (as Farrell Till) but will debate me (as some denominational preacher)."
- Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "David was guilty of lying to Achish when he pretended to be his friend yet all the while he was trying to destroy Achish by raiding his country."
- Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "I (Farrell Till) can look at the finished product of the Bible, and if I find errors in it, I can know that the Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of Jehovah God."
- Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "I (Farrell Till) can look at the finished product of the Bible, but if I find no errors in it, I cannot know that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of Jehovah God because I was not present when it was allegedly inspired."
- Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "The United States of America was guilty of crimes against humanity when it dropped the bomb on Hiroshima which upon hundreds died (including babies, and children.)"
Argument # 1: Mr. Till thinks that he has found a problem with Ex. 22:28: "Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." [sic] (KJV) [sic] He brought out, in a phone conversation, that the ASV says: "Thou shalt not revile God, nor curse the ruler of thy people." There is a difference between the two translations, but this does not really serve as a problem. Strong said that the word "elohiym" is, [sic] "...occasionally applied by the way of defense to magistrates...". [sic] (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, p.12) [sic] Notice the following: "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" [sic] (Jno. 10:34) [sic] This is from Psa. 82:6: "I have said, Ye are gods...". [sic] This indicates that both the Psalmist and Jesus Christ recognized that the Jews were sometimes called gods. Sometimes the magistrates were called gods and sometimes the children of Israel were called gods because of their nearness to God.
Why [sic] then, is there a difference between the KJV and the ASV? The ASV translators probably thought that they were correcting an error in the KJV. However, the context seems to indicate that these gods were mere men. The verse is not talking about the false gods of the heathen nations round about them. Rather, Ex. 22:28 more than likely uses the word "gods" to refer to the magistrates. I believe a careful study of this will show this to be the case.
Argument # 2: Some think that there is little or no manuscript evidence for the authenticity of Mk. 16:9-20. The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanius omit these verses. We will, however, look at quite abit [sic] of manuscript evidence as well as evidence from the early church fathers.
[Editor's Note: McDonald's paragraphs below are almost unintelligible and will, no doubt, be unintelligible to readers unfamiliar with abbreviations used in the reference works that he cited. His citations were not accompanied by supporting information.]
Thse Verses in question I find are recognized. In the IInd century;-...;-by Pahias;- Justin M,;-Irenaeus;-Tertullian. In the IIIrd century; -Eusebius; Marcharius Magnes; -Aphraates; -Didymus...; -Ephiphanius; -Leontius; -Ambrose; -Chrysostom; -Jerome;- Augustine... In the Vth century...,-by Leio;- Nestorisu; -Cryil of Alexandria; -Victor of Antioch; -Patricius; -Marius Mercator. In the VI and VII centuries..., -by Hesychius;-Gregentius;-Prosper;- Joh, abp of Thessalonica; and Modestus, bishop of Jerusalem." [sic] (The Revision Revised, pp. 422, 423) [sic]
[Editor's Note: Readers should keep in mind that there are 100 years in a century. Hence, the second century would have been up to 100+ years after the time that the events in Mark 16 allegedly happened and a half century after this book was written, the third century 200 years after the fact, the fourth century 300 years, etc. One hundred years ago, the Spanish American War was fresh in the memories of people who had lived through it, 200 hundred years ago, the War of 1812 was still five years away, 300 years ago, the Revolutionary War was still 70 years away, and 400 years ago, the Jamestown Colony had just been settled and the Pilgrims had not yet landed in New England. The reliability of what people hundreds of years removed from the time that the book of Mark was written thought about the authenticity of the disputed Marcan Appendix should be evaluated accordingly.]
With all of this evidence, how can anyone make the claim that there is either no or very little manuscript evidence for these verses. They at least have enough to merit study.
Argument # 3: One of the most controversial verses in the King James Version is Acts 12:4. It is also one of the most frequently used verses in objecting against the KJV. This passage is the only passage which translates the word pasca as Easter. In all other passages, the word is translated "passover." Now without ever trying to find out what the problem was, some have gone to the extreme of castigating the KJV. When one looks at all of the evidence it can be seen that this was merely an oversight, and not a deliberate mis-translation [sic] which teaches the endorsement of the false doctrine of Easter. In his book A Review of the New Versions, Foy E. Wallace said:
[Editor's Note: Foy E. Wallace, like McDonald, was a Church-of-Christ preacher, who like most of his cohorts was a biblical inerrantist, who probably relied on the KJV or the American Standard version. His opinion on matters concerning inerrancy would hardly have been objective.]
The term Easter is derived from the Vernal Equinox, springtime, with the Latin vernals from vernus, denoting the spring as distinguished from the autumnal equinox -- hence, belonging to and relating to the spring of the year. The word Easter, evidently in this application, was found in various places in several versions previous to the Authorized version.... (KJV of 1611 jdm) [sic] But the King James Translators weeded out all of the Easter references with the one exception of Acts 12:4 -- the question is therefore posed, why does the term Easter occur in this passage?... [sic] The conclusion is reasonable and logical, for why should the translators so studiously "remove 'Easter from places out of number, where in earlier versions it had stood as the rendering of paska" but allow it "to remain in this single passage," and Trench emphasizes his conclusion that the retention was undoubtedly an oversight which the King James Translators could have no opportunity later to correct. [sic ] (pp. 640, 641)[sic]
From this quotation we can see that this was merely an oversight. The King James Translators did not have computers to help them in their work like we do today. They had to rely upon their own abilities in order to do the work they did. I think they did a pretty good job to have only missed it one time instead of several.
[Editor's Note: On the issue of the word Easter in Acts 12:4, Till has always considered this a mistranslation and not an error in the Greek text.]
Argument # 4: 1 John 5:7 is another one the controversial passages of the King James Version: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one." Some say that this verse is spurious and should not be allowed in the pages of the Bible. We will look at the manuscript evidence in favor of it, as well as the early church fathers who favored it. We will do this by looking at objections to this passage and we will see that it, at the very least, deserves serious study.
[1] Some object to the passage by stating that it has Jesus witnessing of himself while Jno. 5:31 says that he cannot do such a thing. Let us notice that the verse in question: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." [sic] does not say teach [sic] that Jesus could not bear witness of himself, [sic] he was merely saying that his witness alone would not be sufficient. This is the same as saying that the Bible's claims of inspiration alone are not sufficient to prove its inspiration. However, we should not object to allowing the Bible to make its own claim.
Jesus did witness of himself on occasion. In Mt. 26:63,64 he was asked if he was the Son of God and he responded by saying: "Thou hast said...". [sic] In other words [sic] he was admitting to being the Son of God. Here and other places, he testifies of his sonship to God. In 1 Jno. 5:7,8 he has four other witnesses: The Father, the Holy Spirit, the water and the blood. His testimony alone was not sufficient to sustain his position. He needed added witnesses to corroborate it.
[2] These verses are objected to upon the grounds that it [sic] does nothing for the text, rather it takes breaks [sic] the thread of the argument that John is making. However [sic] upon consideration of the text, it is clearly seen that if one takes this verse out of the text that there is an abrupt interruption. Notice what the text would look like without this verse: "And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. And there are three that bear witness in earth...". [sic] One can immediately see that something is missing. Some translators get around this problem by omitting the words "in earth" from the text. However [sic] those words were in at least some Greek manuscripts for Wuest said: [sic] "The words 'in earth' are not found in the best manuscripts." [sic] (Word Studies in the Greek New Testament. [sic] Vol. II, p.176) [sic] One wonders what is meant by the phrase, [sic] "the best manuscripts"? What many scholars are calling the best manuscripts are those which were tampered with, [sic] the most. It is easy to see why the opponents of the [sic] 1 Jno. 5:7 do not want that phrase in there, [sic] that is simply because with it there they have no way of explaining it without verse 7. Why would there be testimony on earth without testimony in heaven. Leaving out verse 7 definitely takes something away from the text.
[3] Some object to 1 Jno. 5:7 by saying that it was found in no Greek manuscript until Erasmus made the challenge that if it could be found in a Greek manuscript he would include it. {A} First it should be acknowledged that if there was no manuscript evidence for it [sic] there would have been no problems caused when Erasmus left it out of his first edition. However, when he left it out, the omission was brought to his attention: "On a number of fronts, therefore, Erasmus had left himself open to a number of attacks. One attack concerned his omission of the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7...". [sic] (The King James Version Debate, p.34) [sic] When this omission was brought to his attention he promised that if it could be found in a Greek manuscript he would include it in his next edition. One year later it was found in the "Codex Minuscule 61" [sic] which some believe was made just for the purpose of getting Erasmus to include it in his text. {B} However, it was even in a Greek manuscript which preceded Erasmus'. It was found in the Complutensian Polyglot of 1514. Carson admitted that it had it in it, but it was only there because it relied upon the Latin Vulgate. [sic] (The King James Version Debate, p.61) [sic] The Latin Vulgate had this passage as far back as 800 A.D. or so. Some of the Old Latin Versions had it as far back as 500 A.D. No, these were not Greek manuscripts but some of these Old Latin Versions went back as far as 200 A.D. [sic] which was only about 100 years or so from the original autographs. The earliest Greek manuscripts we have are 4th century manuscripts and we have Old Latin Versions, which include this passage, which are only a 100 years later than these two we have. Now with these Old Latin Versions going back that far, they are closer to the originals than most of the Greek manuscripts which we have in existence today.
Some say that because it was not in either of the Syriac versions, one of which is believed to be written in the first century, that it is not genuine. It needs to be pointed out that an omission of these manuscripts does not necessarily indicate spuriousness. It was found in the Old Latin Versions going back as far as 500 A.D. and some Greek manuscripts: "the [sic] codex minuscule 61, the minuscule 88; a twelfth century manuscript, the complutensian polyglot and another manuscript variously dated to the fourteenth or seventeenth century."
[Editor's Note: In this section, McDonald presented some "negative arguments" on issues that Till had never raised, so no reply to them was necessary. On the matter of McDonald's support of New Testament passages that many scholars consider spurious, readers should review the footnote above, which pointed out the length of time that had passed between when the controversial passages were presumably written and when the writers appealed to as witnesses to authenticity had lived.]
[4] Some object because none of the Greek Fathers quoted it and none of the Latin Fathers quoted it until 500 A.D. This is not true. Although the Greek fathers did not quote it, it was quoted by the Latin Fathers much earlier than 500 A.D. Alford says: "Suppose to be alluded to or cited by Tert Cypr...". [sic] Alford's Greek New Testaments, Vol. IV, p.503) [sic] Tertullian lived around 200 A.D. and Cyprian lived around 250 A.D. There were other who cited this verse, [sic] Athanasius cited it around 350 A.D. Alford says: "clearly cited by Vig, Fulg...". [sic] (p.503) [sic] Vigilus lived during the fifth century. Gill says that it was cited by "Fulgentius in the beginning of the sixth century against the Arians, without any scruple or hesita tion...". [sic] (The King James Version Debate, p.59) Gill also says that this passage was in Jerome's version of the Old Latin Vulgate, but Carson said that Gill made the same mistake that many make in thinking that the Old Latin Vulgate we have today was the same as it was when it left Jerome. However, Gill also says: "Jerome...In [sic] his epistle to the Eustochium prefixed to his translation of the canonical epistles, he complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters." [sic] (The King James Version Debate, p.60) [sic] If Carson's contention is true, that the one we have today is different from Jerome's version, it would still not mean that this passage was not in Jerome's version. For if Jerome went to the trouble to complain about it being omitted by unfaithful interpreters, he would surely have included it in his version. This statement was never alluded to by Carson and for good reason. Alford then says: [sic] "..., [sic] and further by many other writers after the 9th cent:" [sic] (p.503) [sic] So all the way from 200 A.D. to the end of the 9th century we have references or statements where these men either alluded to it or cited it. Therefore, this objection does not stand.
[Editor's Note: Readers are reminded again that (1) McDonald devoted a long section of his first rebuttal to "negative arguments" concerned with issues that Till never raised and that (2) the "witnesses" that he cited in defense of New Testament passages considered spurious by some scholars were removed from New Testament times by 150 to as many as 900 years. As he has done so often in "quoting" Till's manuscripts, McDonald also truncated quotations from his sources, mainly the "church fathers," so drastically that readers can't determine their contextual honesty.]
[5] Some object to it by saying that even if it is left out, it will cause no harm to the doctrine of the triune nature of God. This same argument is used in opposition to Mark 16:9-20 by those who do not have the intestinal fortitude to take a stand one way or the other. The argument is simply this: "We have enough scripture teaching the same elsewhere, [sic] thus [sic] we do not need it here." The point in question is not whether it will strengthen the doctrine or weaken it, but whether or not it is inspired of God. If God saw fit to put it in the Bible, then what right does man have to take it out? [sic] (cf. Duet. [sic] 4:2; Rev. 22:18,19) [sic] If God did not see fit to put it in the Bible then what right does man have to add it? [sic] (same passages) [sic]
Also, there are no other verses in the Bible that spell out the doctrine of the triune nature of God any more clearly as this one does. It is easy to see why those who do not believe in the triune nature of God want this passage deleted, just as it is easy to see why those who do not believe in baptism for the remission of sins want Mark 16:9-20 deleted. Neither passage can be twisted or taken out of context.
[6] One final objection is that the style of writing of 1 Jno. 5:7 differs from the known penmanship of John. The argument is made that John never used the figures of: [sic] "The Father and the Word" together. They say he would have used: [sic] "The Father and the Son." However, this does not hold true because of Jno. 1:14: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among them, and they beheld his glory as the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth." Would one be willing to affirm that John did not write Jno. 1:14? Hardly! This is a very weak argument and it only serves to show that some will do anything to deny the authenticity of certain passages.
In looking at these objections and how they are answered, I believe that I have at least given credible evidence for the authenticity of 1 Jno. 5:7. If Mr. Till does not agree, he may try to show me where I am wrong.
Well, my space is gone. I must now ask you to carefully watch Mr. Till and see how he reacts to the things in this article. He says that he is going to keep contradictions, which he brought up in his first defense, before me. Well, we shall see. Thank you for your attention and now please pay close attention to Mr. Till.
Go to Till's Second Defense.
