Mr Till and respected readers:

I made 16 arguments in my first affirmative which directly applied to the issue at hand, and Mr. Till responded to only three of them. He responded to my constituent element argument, the argument that I made on the origin of the Bible, and one of the arguments that I made on Bible inerrancy. He said that the rest of my arguments were irrelevant and refused to answer them. He said that he would not: [sic] "...waste time discussing the existence of God..." and complained about my making those arguments. Mr. Till apparently does not understand that God's existence is an integral part of our subject matter. He thinks that God could have existed without his word coexisting with him. I deny this kind of reasoning. God's word is part of him and it has existed as long as he has. Now the written form of God's word is not as old as God is, but the written form is just that, the written form. It does not teach one thing and God teach another; it teaches exactly the same thing as God teaches. Therefore, we see that those arguments were relevant after all. Mr. Till refuses to answer them because there is no answer for them.

However, I made arguments not only on the existence of God, but also on the inerrancy of the Bible, the authority of the Bible, and the all-sufficiency of the Bible. Till did deal with one of my arguments on Bible inerrancy, and we will look at his resonse later on in this article. However, he did not deal with my arguments on the authority and the all-sufficiency of the Bible. One only wonders why! He would have us believe that these arguments were irrelevant as well. I would just like for Mr. Till to please explain to us how the Bible could possibly be God's word without possessing the characteristics of being authoritative and being all-sufficient. Maybe he can, but I want him to get busy on it.

Mr. Till wanted to know, if he were a Mormon trying to prove to me that the Book of Mormon was inspired, if I would feel obligated to disprove the existence of God before I could disprove the inspiration of the Book of Mormon. No! The reason being that all I would have to do is to prove the inspiration of the Bible, and then compare the two books and show that they do not agree with each other. However, Mr. Till has no other book to compare the Bible with and show that it could not have been written by God. However, each and every objection that he can produce can be answered.

Mr. Till wanted to know why I would not be obligated to prove the existence of God before I could prove the inspiration of the Bible. Had he read my first affirmative, he would have seen that I did exactly that. Therefore, I have nothing to explain.

I will now ask Mr. Till five questions, then I will answer his, and then I will respond to his answers to my previous questions.

1. Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "Since I (Farrell Till) absolutely know that there is no such thing as real (objective) morality, I absolutely know that the Nazis were not guilty of real (objective) moral wrong when they exterminated millions of Jews by working them to death under unbearable conditions, subjecting them to inhuman indignities and then killing them in gas chambers, and putting them in freight cars coated with quicklime (producing excruciating burns) which required about four days to kill the victims."

2. Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "Since the Nazis were not builty of real (objective) moral wrong in exterminating the Jews, those who tried the Nazis, for crimes against humanity, in the Nuremberg trials, were guilty of real (objective) moral wrong in prosecuting the Nazis."

3. Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "Since I (Farrell Till) absolutely know that no man can know anything at all by means other than his five sense, and since I (Farrell Till) have never seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled the original autographs of the Bible, then I must admit that I do not and cannot know with certainty that these manuscripts were not inspired and, since this is true, all I can sey is that I can only believe that they were not inspired, but then according to my own definition of faith and belief, I do not have sufficient evidence to support my claims."

4. Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "I absolutely know that my answer to question #3 is true."

5. Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "Since my answers to questions 3 and 4 indicate that I cannot know that the Bible is not God's word, and since there is insufficient evidence to support my claims, I (Farrell Till) cannot consistently engaged in this discussion about the Bible."

Now to answer Mr. Till's questions.

1. Would you have to prove that God does not exist before you could absolutely prove that the Koran is not the inspired word of God?

   Answer: No, I would handle this situation in exactly the same way that I would handle your objection on the book of Mormon.

2. Are there contradictions and discrepancies in the existing Bible text?

   Answer: There are some discrepancies and errors between the different manuscripts and versions. There are also variant readings between writers which no not necessarily constitute errors. Example: Ahaziah's age when he began to reign.

3. If there are contradictions and discrepancies in the existing Bible text, how do you know that these mistakes were not in the original autographs?

   Answer: The science of textual criticism makes it possible to know which reading between manuscripts is the correct one.

4. 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 were inerrant?

   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.

5. Who wrote the book of Judges and how do you know who wrote it?

   Answer: I do not know. What possible difference could this make?

Now to respond to the answers that Till has given to my previous questions.

Mr. Till laces his first rebuttal with names such as "religious extremists" and "dogmatic inerrantists" to refer to those of us who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. In his exchange with Bill Jackson, Till charges brother Jackson with haranguing him and becoming guilty of the fallacy of logic called Argumentum ad Hominem which is defined as the: [sic] "argument directed toward the man." Copi's Introduction to Logic, (p.89) [sic] However, by using the names that Mr. Till used in this debate he became guilty of the very same fallacy that he charged Jackson with. It is my hope that Mr. Till will cease from this type [sic] strategy and proceed on [sic] with the debate.

Next Till tried to defend his position on knowledge, and all he accomplished was to make a bigger mess out of it than he already had. He says that he has no quarrel with Geisler's five criteria or logics for validating beliefs. However, then he says: [sic] "...but belief is not knowledge." (p.4) [sic] You know, Mr. Till, Geisler included empiricism in that list of criteria or logics. Are you saying that empiricism is good only for validating beliefs. You had better think about that one again, too! In a recent phone conversation Mr. Till told me that Adrian Swindler (a friend of his) is one of the most knowledgeable men he knows. Here is the reason why (now get this): [sic] "...he reads everything...." [sic] Oh? Knowledge through reading, Mr. Till? I thought that your position was that knowledge can come only through the five senses. Given your position, Mr. Swindler would have had to have been there to have personally seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted the things about which he has read before he could have knowledge. I do not believe for one moment that Till (or anyone of his faith) really believes in this fallacious position on knowledge, [sic] it is just a smoke screen they throw up so that people will not see the weakness of their position. What Till should have said is that Adrian Swindler is one of the most faithful men he knows, but then that faith would be based upon insufficient evidence to establish fact. Therefore, that would make Swindler one of the most insufficiently faithful men that Till knows.

Next Till challenges me to show just one thing that I know that I came to know by any means other than my five senses. Then he stated that if I could do that it would certainly settle the matter in my favor. This is going to be easy! Mr. Till, observe! I know that my dad (Thomas Harvey McDonald) had a dad. I know that his name was Robert Sidney McDonald. I know that he was a gospel preacher. I know that he died at the age of 76. How do I know all of this? Did I ever see, hear, touch, smell, or taste the man? No! He died before I was conceived. Then how can I say that I know these things? I know these things based upon the following criteria. [A] I have a copy of his death certificate which is a legal document stating that he was once alive and that he had died. This falls into the category of the authorities. [B] My parents told me about him, and they would have no reason to lie. This falls into the category of faith and the testimony of others. [C] My dad could not have been brought into existence without him. This falls into the category of logic, reason, and common sense. Now is that not exactly what Geisler said to begin with? Is the matter settled in my favor? Yes! That is, of course, unless Mr. Till wants to make himself look like the biggest fool of all time trying to prove that my dad did not have a dad.

I challenged Mr. Till to prove that Moses never existed or that he was not the inspired witer of the Pentateuch. In his responses, he makes another one of his famous modest admissions by saying: [sic] "If Mr. McDonald is looking for a concession, I'll give him one and freely admit that there is no way I could possibly prove that Moses did not exist..." [sic] Thank you! Another point surrendered! This, by the way, is a very important point in his position. If he cannot prove that Moses did not exist, then there is the possibility that he did. If Moses did exist, then Till is going to be hard pressed to prove that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch. According to his own belief he would have had to have been there to know that Moses did not write it. I just love his modest admissions. I have never in my life debated a man who has thrown in the towel as easily and quickly as Mr. Till has.

Till then says that I cannot prove that characters such as Agamemnon, Paris, or Helen of Troy did not exist. Oh? I did not know that I was bound by the Till Rule that knowledge comes only through the five senses. Till may be found by it, but I am not! I can use all of the criteria that Geisler gave, not just part of it.

Mr. Till feels no obligation to prove that Moses was not a real historical character. He can say that now because he has no place to turn. I just wonder if he would have tried to prove that Moses did not exist if I had never made such a challenge. We shall never know now. He says that there is no way to prove that Moses did not exist. Tell that to Ian Wilson or Richard Elliott Friedman or any other of the higher critics that Mr. Till learned from, and see what they say.

Mr. Till seems to think that he has nothing to prove in this debate. He thinks that all of the burden of proof lays [sic] upon my shoulders. I have never known of a false teacher who, when it got right down to it, thought he had to prove anything. This was usually attributed to the fact that they had no affirmative position and they knew it, so they felt no obligation to prove anything at all. You had better watch yourself, Mr. Till, you are getting very close to being guilty (if you are not already guilty) of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam which is defined as the argument from ignorance. Copi says that: [sic] "The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false, or that it is false because it has not been proven true." Introduction to Logic, (p.91) [sic] Mr. Till does indeed have something to prove, and he had better get on with it.

He challenges me to prove that Moses was a real historical character. There is nothing relatively difficult about this task. It needs to be remembered that I am not bound by Till's rule on knowledge. I do not believe for one minute that he will accept the proof that I give, but I learned a long time ago that proving something and proving it to someone else are sometimes two entirely different things. Here is my proof. Elias Auerbauch says: [sic] "We do have, however, one certain proof of his physical existence. Moses left descendants. Quite apart from the Moses stories, a grandson of his, the Levite Jonathan ben Gershon, is attested to in Judges 18:30. The Eli family of Shiloh also can very likely be traced back to Moses." Moses, (p.21) [sic] Also, Hester states: [sic] "Some secular historians rank this man Moses, as one of the greatest men in all history." The Heart of Hebrew History, (p.115) [sic] Now to answer the objections that Mr. Till uses to prove that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch.

1. He says that because Moses' death is recorded in the final chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, it is impossible to attribute the rest of this book and the rest of the Pentateuch to Mosaical authorship. Gleason Archer says: [sic] "Obviously Moses did not write in advance the account of his death. Deuteronomy 34 is an obituary written by a friend and contemporary, possibly Joshua the son of Nun (v9). Under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then, Joshua possibly appended an appropriate record of the death and burial of his revered master and framed the eloquent praise with which the book closes." Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, (p.154) [sic] Is there anything about someone writing Moses' obituary at the end of this book which would keep the rest from being penned by Moses? No! Down goes objection number one.

2. Deuteronomy 34:10 is also produced to show that Moses could not have authored the Pentateuch: "And there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses." This, Till says [sic] must have been written by a: [sic] "...person who lived long after Moses' death and thus had the opportunity to judge succeeding prophets in terms of Moses' greatness. Otherwise, the statement becomes completely meaningless." [sic] (p.6) [sic] Because it is assumed that this chapter was written long after Moses' death, another assumption is made that the whole Pentateuch was written long after Moses' death. Till is good at making assumptions, almost as good as he is at making modest admissions, but not quite. Sir Fredrick Kenyon says: [sic] "There have recently not been wanting some who would push back these dates to an earlier period, even as far as Moses himself; and it must be recognized that the situation has been changed, not only by the proof of the antiquity of written literature, but also by the knowledge that we now have of the Eastern world in general. It is, for example, no longer admissable [sic] to argue that Mosaic Law is too minute and detailed for so early an age, for the Code of Hammurabi proves the existence of legislation no less detailed at a much earlier date in an adjoining land... [sic] In the light of all this new evidence it is clear that the criticism of the Pentateuchal legislation as too elaborate and as reflecting a much later date than that of Moses will have to be reconsidered." [sic] The Bible and Archaeology, (pp.268,269) [sic] I would like to ask Mr. Till a question: "How many years after Moses' death would have had to have passed before such a thing could legitimately be said about this man?" The fact is, [sic] there never was a prophet in the literal nation of Israel that ever came close to being like Moses. Christ was the only one who was ever able to be compared to Moses. Moses was the type (of Christ) and Christ was the antitype. Therefore, Mr. Till cannot use this against Mosaical authorship. This statement could have been made six months to a year after the death of Moses. Objection number two is down.

3. Till uses the statement's comparison to other prophes "in Israel." He says that Israel did not even become a nation until after the conquest. Mr. Till, this is not saying that Israel was a formal nation in the eyes of the world. In fact, Israel did not become a formal nation in the eyes of the world until Saul was made their king. Go back and read Exodus 19:1 and see where Israel is called the children of Israel even then. Objection number three is down and out.

4. The final point he makes is on Exodus 15:14,15. Till says: [sic] ["]Now common sense..." [sic] Common sense, Mr. Till? Did he say that? Yes, he did. I went back and read it again just to make sure. Till will condemn Geisler's list of criteria for validating beliefs to being limited only to belief and not knowledge. And yet, he turns around and uses points from the same list to prove that he knows such and such. Why does he use something he condemns? Because he cannot prove very many things without using it. Ah [sic] consistency, thou art a jewel! Common sense is included in the same list that Geisler gives.

   Getting back to the objection, [sic] Mr. Till says: [sic] "Now common sense should tell even Mr. McDonald that in the time of this alleged event the (the crossing of the Red Sea), news of it could not have spread rapidly enough for the lyrics of this song, presumably sung immediately after the miraculous crossing, to include the information in these verses." [sic] (p.7) Mr. Till should read this song again. This is a song of prophecy to motivate the Israelites to continue on. Objection number four is down for the count.

5. Is that it? Is that all he has? Are we supposed to assume that the preceding is Mr. Till's tangible internal evidence that will disprove Mosaic authorship? [A] Moses' obituary is penned in the last chapter of the last book. [B] Moses had no contemporaries which came close to him. [C] Israel was not a formal nation at the time of Moses. [D] The song of victory in prophecy. If that is all he has, we have nothing to fear because so far he has produced nothing which can legitimately be used to disprove Mosaic authorship.

Mr. Till then tells us that his concessions are just modest admissions and should not be held against him. He may call them whatever he pleases, but regardless of the names he tags them with they are still admissions of error. I will gladly take them however I can get them. Any admission is a surrender of that point. He has surrendered three points: [A] He concedes Moses' existence. [B] He concedes his firm view on the inspiration of the Bible. [C] He concedes his firm faith in Wheless' book. Now I would say that those are not merely modest admissions but rather a surrender of his whole position, but we will let him call them whatever he pleases. We will still accept them.

He complained about my taking time to discuss a discrepancy mentioned by Wheless on Methuslah's age and the time of the flood. Although Till says that I did not refute Wheless' accusation, he never bothered to respond to the argument I made. I wonder why?

He finally gets around to dealing with my constituent element argument and says that the minor premise is false. Someone needs to inform him that merely saying that a premise is false and proving it false are two different things. How can he say that my second premise is false when he only dealt with two of the elements that were given? He needs to deal with each and every element before he can say that the minor premise is false. If he feels that some of the elements are irrelevant, he needs to say so and show why they are irrelevant. I do not believe that he can do that, else he would have already done so. As it stands, he respond to the base argument, element number two, and one argument under element number three. I guess the authority of the Bible and the all-sufficiency of the Bible have nothing to do with the debate. I do not see how a person can believe in the inspiration of the Bible without believing in the authority and all-sufficiency of the Bible.

In dealing with my argument on the Bible [sic] being of divine origin, he asks, "What exactly does Mr. McDonald mean by the term Divine?" He knows exactly what I mean by that term. I mean exactly what he means by the same term in his proposition: "...moral atrocities attributed to divine (und. mine jdm) ordainment..." [sic] Is this the kind of tactic we can expect from him throughout this debate? If so, we are in for a very boring ride.

Till spends the next several pages trying to defend his view that the Bible could have been inspired by Satan only to turn right around and say: [sic] "I do not believe Satan inspired the Bible; I don't even believe that Satan exists." (p.16) [sic] Well, Mr. Till, why did you spend so much of your space defending a position you do not even believe is plausible? I will tell you why! To kill space so he would not have the space to answer the rest of my arguments. That way he can plead a lack of space when pressed on it. Till is famous for this, believe me! All the way through his debate with Bill Jackson he would spend all of his space elaborating on some point, most of which was irrelevant, and then plead a lack of space when it came to answering the relevant arguments. Well, it will not work in this debate, Mr. Till. You should have spend less space defending Satanic origin and more space on the existence of God, the inerrancy, the authority, and the all-sufficiency of the Bible. He had around 7300 words in his first rebuttal and [sic] there is no excuse for his not answering the arguments.

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. My arguments were made in my first affirmative, and I encourage the reader to go back and read and see why I say that Satan could not have inspired the Bible.

There are several points, however, that he produced to try and [sic] show that moral atrocities exist in the Bible, [sic] that I feel should be answered. I would not want the reader to think that these things are unanswerable.

1. Till uses 1 Samuel 15:1-9 where God instructed Saul to: [sic] "...go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both men and women, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (v.2) [sic] to show that moral atrocities attributed to divine ordainment exist in the Bible text. This (from a man who believes in and endorses the wholesale slaughter of a million and a half babies a year by the process of abortion, and justifies such by calling it "A [sic] Woman's [sic] Right [sic] To [sic] Choose [sic]") constitutes a moral atrocity? In our text here there are a couple of things that need to be brought out. [A] God is a divine being and is the creator of all life on earth. As such he has the right to decide who will live upon earth and who will die. Since God decided that these babies should die, could he not give them eternal life in the hereafter? Of course, he could and did! He, being the all-knowing God that he is, knew that these babies would grow up and rebel and then they would not have eternal life. However, if they died as babies he could give them eternal life. Now, if Mr. Till was [sic] a divine being, he would have the right to challenge God on his actions here, but since he is not, he has no such right. [B] It was more merciful to kill them outright rather than to allow them to die of starvation, thirst, and exposure. The parents had died in battle. What was God supposed to do, Mr. Till, allow the babies to die a slow, painful death? I guess that would be more merciful in Till's mind. No! If God had done this, Mr. Till would be complaining about that way as well. You know, it sure is funny that Mr. Till (who does not even believe in objective morality) will classify this as a moral atrocity.

2. Next he tells us that Moses, the meekest man on earth (Num. 12:3), became wroth with his officers of the host and the captains of thousands for having brought back captive women and children, so he commanded that they kill every male child and kill every woman that had known man sexually. (Num. 31:17) [sic] However, Mr. Till says: [sic] "...but Yahweh had better plans for the 'women-children that had not known man by lying with him' [sic] (v.18). These the men were to "keep alive for yourselves." (p.14) [sic] Then Till asks: [sic] Is this McDonald's idea of teaching that which is good?" (p.14) [sic] Till's inference [sic] here is that (1) Moses was not really a meek man, but rather a brutal, stark raving maniac because he became angry with the Israelites for bringing back captives. God had instructed Israel to completely destroy the Midianites, and they disobeyed. Moses, Mr. Till, was angry with the children of Israel because they disobeyed God's word. Whenever God's people disobey God's word today, I become angry. Regardless of their motive, God's word needs to be obeyed to the letter. Are you going to consider me a stark raving maniac? (2) Till tries to leave the impression that these women and children were to be used for sex and things such as that. There are only two reasons that one would draw this sort of conclusion from the text. [A] Because he has an awful [sic] filthy mind or [B] because he wants, so bad [sic], to find something wrong with the Bible that he will do anything to discredit it. I believe that Till is guilty of the latter. I believe that he would stop at nothing to destroy the Bible, and I believe that he hates it so much because it constantly gnaws at his conscience because he knows that he is not living right. Even if these women and children were to be used for sex (which they were not), how could Till complain? Remember, now, he is the one who does not believe in objective morality. Archer says: [sic] "Only the young girls and virgins had their lives spared, and they were taken as servants into the Israelite households." Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (p.142). [sic] Nothing here even points to the idea that these women and children were to be used for sex.

3. Next he uses 2 Samuel 21:1-9 to show that the Bible has moral atrocities in it. Till says that David was under orders from God to hang seven of Saul's grandsons for an atrocity which Saul committed against the Gibeonites. Till asks [sic] "Is executing innocent people for a crime committed by someone else Mr. McDonald's ideas of 'teaching that which is good?'" [sic] (p.14) [sic] (1) I wonder where Mr. Till came up with the idea that God ordered this action? I checked with the KJV, the ASV, the NKJV, the Jerusalem Bible, the RSV, and I even (as much as I detest it) checked with the Living Bible Paraphrase [sic] and you know what? Not a one of them even hinted to the idea of this being ordered by God. Is this another one of Mr. Till's assumptions? I think so. If the text shows anything at all, it shows that this was an agreement between David and the Gibeonites. However, even if God had ordered it, how can Farrell talk about moral atrocities when he does not even believe in objective morality? (2) Till assumes that Saul's grandsons were innocent. Another assumption he is not allowed to make. [sic] He needs to be proving these things rather than making assumptions. For all Till knows, these seven people may have encouraged Saul to do this.

4. Till says: [sic] "Bible fundamentalists sometimes have to believe strange things in order to protect their precious inerrancy doctine.["] I say that skeptic errancy advocates have to sometimes believe strange things in order to propagate their precious errancy doctrine.

Next Till states that he could have filled the rest of his manuscription with: [sic] "...summations of other atrocities presumably committed under direct orders from Yahweh, and I believe that Mr. McDonald will have the good sense not to challenge me on this." (pp.14,15) [sic] At the risk of sounding like [sic] I do not have good sense, I am going to challenge Mr. Till to bring up any and all that he can which will show that the Bible does not teach that which is good. If the aforementioned objections are any example of what he has, I have nothing to fear by his bringing up more.

Till mentions Psalm 137:8,9 to show that moral atrocities are in the Bible. This is a psalm by a man who evidently was a member of the captivity of Judah. He had no doubt witnessed the Chaldean soldiers taking the babies from their mothers' arms and killing them. He was altogether justified in asking God to take vengeance upon his captors who had committed these atrocities. God, who inspired this, was justified in this inspiration and in punishing the Chaldeans. Besides, why should Mr. Till cry over something like this? He does not even believe in objective morality. What does he care? Archer says: [sic] "Only thus could the pagan world be taught that there is a God in heaven who requires men to regard the basic standards of right and wrong as truly binding on their consequences. They needed to learn that bloody violence practiced upon others was sure to come back on themselves." Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, (p.245) [sic]

Then there is the case of the woman who is accused of adultry [sic] in Numbers 5:11-13. (The reference is in Numbers, Mr. Till not in Leviticus.) (1) There was a reason for her being accused of adultry [sic]. Women, in those days, just were not accused of adultry [sic] without there being some reason. Adultry [sic] was a very serious charge, and if one was proven guilty of it, then that person (man or woman) was to be taken outside of the gates of the city and stoned to death. (2) This was a test to see if her husband's suspicions were correct. If she was guilty, then her thigh would rot and her body would swell. If she was not guilty, then nothing would happen and she would be left alone. Again, why should Mr. Till cry over some little something like this when he does not even believe in objective morality? Answer please!

Till wanted to know that since Paul said that Satan could appear as an angel of light, if he could not have possibly written the Bible even though it teaches good. No! The key words in the verse are: [sic] "appears as an angel of light." It does not say that he became an angel of light; he only appeared as one. He can only appear to do good, [sic] he cannot actually do that which is good. The Bible actually teaches that which is good. If all men were to follow the Bible, then this world would be a beautiful place to live. The problem comes in when men begin to stray from the Bible. Why would Satan inspire a book that teaches men to avoid him? Answer please!

Till says that the Bible sanctions slavery, murder, injustice, lying, and you name it. Oh? Where? Show us these places Mr. Till! It is one thing to say that these things exist, and it is entirely different to produce them. Have fun!

In finally dealing with my argument, Mr. Till states: [sic] "It is entirely possible--and I believe very probable--that the Bible writers who claimed inspiration sincerely believed that they were being directed by Yahweh to write what they wrote. If so, they were merely good men (und. mine jdm) who were honestly mistaken in claiming inspiration. Hence, it is very likely that the Bible was written by good (und. mine jdm) uninspired men..." (p.17) [sic] Good men, Mr. Till? On one page you say that the: [sic] "...Old Testament almost bleeds with moral atrocities perpetrated presumably in obedience to Yahweh's commands." [sic] (p.14) [sic] And here you say that: [sic] "...it is very likely that the Bible was written by good uninspired me..." [sic] Adrian Swindler says that: [sic] "The Hebrews were inspired by nothing more than their political and religious motivations.." The Skeptical Review, (Vol. 1, Num.1, pg.11) [sic] Swinder does not make them sound very good to me! I would not think that good men would write solely from their own political and religious motivations and then lie and say that God told them to write. I do not call that being good. Do you? Good men do not perform or endorse moral atrocities. Another contradiction from Till. However, in order to clear things up on the Bible writers [sic] being mistaken, allow me to quote from the apostle Paul: [sic] "But I certify you [sic] brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after men. For I neither received it of any man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1:11,12) [sic] Now either Paul told the truth or he lied. There is no middle ground, no room for being mistaken. He did not say, "I think", [sic] but rather: [sic] "...I certify you...". [sic] This means that he was telling them the truth. He was not making any mistake about the matter. If Paul was a good man, then he told the truth. However, if he was not telling the truth, he was a bad man, and bad men would not have written the Bible.

Next Mr. Till tries to show that my syllogism on the way that the skeptic reasons is faulty. He says: [sic] "Mr. McDonald may know sketics and agnostics who reason in the way that he described, but I certainly don't." (p.18) [sic] Then he gives a syllogism that he thinks is proper. Notice--

Major Premise: Any book verbally inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity would necessarily be entirely free of textual discrepancies and errors.

Minor Premise: The Bible contains textual discrepancies and errors.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible was not verbally inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity.

Till says in his major premise that any book that was written by God would have to be free from error, and I agree. This is what sets it apart from other books. Right? Right! His minor premise states that the Bible contains textual discrepancies and errors, and his conclusion follows that the Bible is not of divine origin. I wonder why Mr. Till thinks that the Bible contains textual discrepancies and errors? [sic] Simply because he thinks that it was written solely by men and to err is human. If humans could write without error, then Mr. Till's major premise would be faulty and his minor premise would have no meaning at all. Therefore, his conclusion would not follow from the two premises. So you see, my argument is a sound argument after all. Mr. Till may say it in a different way, but the principle is the same.

Now, Mr. Till, answer the argument that I made concerning Joseph Wheless' book! He even states that he does not endorse everything about that book. Well, which part is truth and which part is error? How can I know what is truth in Wheless' book and what part is error? As I said, either way that he answers this argument, he is out of the debate. If he answers by saying that Wheless' book is faulty and therefore wrong, then he discredits the most convincing anti-inerrancy book he has ever read. However, if he says that the argument concerning Wheless' book is wrong, then he of necessity admits that the Bible is inerrant, even though it was written with human agency and therefore he is out of this debate, because he has no position. I suspect that Mr. Till will dance around this and not answer it at all.

Finally [sic] he deals with one argument under element number three. What about the other arguments, Mr. Till? Were they irrelevant? I made an argument to show that if God was omnipotent then he would have the power to inspire men to write the Bible to be free from error, and Mr. Till did not touch it. I wonder why? [sic] Is he in agreement with this argument? If so, then we can go on to other things. If not, he needs to get busy and answer this argument.

He feels the need to instruct me on the fallacy of begging the question. Mr. Till, I have no need of instruction from you on this point. My argument still stands because you have not refuted my argument on the Bible being of divine origin. I demolished your response to that argument, so now you have it to do all over again. He accuses me of merely quoting scripture and not giving proof. Mr. Till, is not quoting scripture giving internal evidence? You do not disagree that the scriptures I quoted mean what I say they meant. Here he contradicts himself again. Observe on page one he says: [sic] "...he has yet to produce any evidence, either internal (und. mine jdm) or external, that proves that the Bible was verbally inspired of God." Then on page 19 he says: [sic] "What evidence (und. mine jdm)did McDonald present to prove the 'truth' of his minor premise? He did what all fundamentalists do when their backs are against the wall on this issue. He confused quoting scripture with proving, and this is begging the question gone to seed." In one place he says that I gave no internal evidence and in another he says that this is all I gave. How many times can a man be allowed to contradict himself before he loses all credibility? Since he has not refuted my argument on the Bible being of divine origin, he cannot refute this one either.

He said absolutely nothing about the prison wherein he has been placed. I see he did not like the way that I handled my first affirmative, but this is just too bad. He must answer the arguments, in order, to be able to get out of this prison. That is just the way that the article was designed. It is airtight, and Till cannot escape.

To show that God can lie, he goes to 1 Kings 22:1-36 to show that God not only lies, [sic] but that he enlists the aid of others to help in fabricating one whenever he cannot think of one. The phrase which says that one of the spirits came forth with a plan to be a lying spirit in the mouths of Ahab's prophets is not saying that God lies, has others to lie, or even condones such things. Mr. Till have you ever heard of a figure of speech called Anthropopatheia? Bullinger says that this figure is: [sic] "The Ascribing of Human Attributes, etc. to God." Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, (p.871) [sic] This is all that is being said here. This is the same thing as is found in 2 Thess. 2:11 where the Bible says that God will: [sic] "...send strong delusions that they might believe a lie..." [sic] All he is doing is allowing people to believe lies. God is of purer eyes and cannot behold sin. (Hab. 1:13) [sic] Lying is sin. [sic] (Rev. 21:8) [sic] Therefore God cannot lie. [sic] (Heb. 6:18; Tit. 1:2) [sic] However, he can allow people to believe in lies. He promises those who follow him that he will provide a way of escape with every temptation that Satan throws in their path, [sic] (cf. 1 Cor. 10:13) but those who refuse to obey him, he will not provide the way of escape. Mr. Till says: [sic] "Perhaps he has another syllogism he can spring on us." All right!

Major Premise: If the Bible can say that God sends strong delusions upon the wicked that they may believe lies and if he is only guilty of allowing them to believe these lies, then it could be said that God sent a lying spirit to Ahab's prophets' mouths and all God was guilty of was allowing Ahab to believe the prophets' lies.

Minor Premise: The Bible can say that that [sic] God will send strong delusions upon the wicked that they may believe a lie, and all God is guilty of is allowing them to believe this lie.

Conclusion: Therefore, it can be said that god sent a lying spirit into the mouths of Ahab's prophets' mouths [sic] and all he was guilty of was allowing Ahab to believe that [sic] prophets' lies.

Mr. Till needs to read up on the figures of speech which are used in the Bible. I think that this would solve a great many of his problems. In any case, we have seen that Mr. Till did not do so well his first time around. Hopefully [sic] he will do better next time. I want to point out that I have answered every point that Mr. Till has produced, and he has yet to answer 13 of mine. Why?

Further Affirmative Arguments:

(4)[sic] Aliens from Christ are taught how to become Christians. [A] They are taught that they are in sin. [sic] (Isa. 59:1,2; Rom. 3:23) [sic] [B] They are taught that they must hear the word. [sic] (Rom. 10:17) [sic] [C] They are taught that they must believe. [sic] (Jno. 8:32) [sic] [D] They are taught that they must repent. [sic] (Lk. 13:3,5) [sic] [E] They are taught that they must confess. [sic] [Rom. 10:10) [sic] [F] They are taught that they must be baptized. [sic] (Acts 2:38) [sic] [G] They are taught that they must walk a new life. [sic] (1 Jno 1:7) [sic] [H] They are taught that they must obey from the heart. [sic] (Rom. 6:17) [sic]

(5) [sic] Christians are taught how to live the Christian life. [A] We are taught how to live in purity. [sic] (1 Cor. 6:12-20) [sic] [B] We are taught how to live in submission to God's will. [sic] (Lk. 14:26-33; Acts 21:13) [sic] [E] We are taught that we must recognized the authority of God by submitting to his will. [sic] (Deut. 4:2) [sic]

c. [sic] The Bible clearly shows that it is all that is needed to show us how to live in this world.

Element Number Six: The Canon [sic] that we have in versions such as the KJV and the ASV is the correct Canon [sic].

A. "Till's Prison." Again we see Mr. Till in the innermost room of the prison, and he cannot escape from it because he cannot get through the walls. He cannot come through the wall of God's existence. He cannot come through the wall of the Bible being of divine ordainment. He cannot come through the wall of the Bible [sic] being inerrant. He cannot come through the wall of the Bible [sic] being authoritative. He cannot come through the wall of the Bible [sic] being all-sufficient. Now we have another wall to add to his prison, the wall of the Canon [sic]. He must know that we have the wrong Canon [sic] before he can break free from this prison.What is the Canon [sic]? Josh McDowell says: [sic] "The word 'canon' applied to scripture means 'an officially accepted list of books,'... [sic] One thing to keep in mind is that the church did not create the canon or books included in what we call scripture. Instead, the church recognized the books that were inspired from their inception." [sic] Evidence That Demands a Verdict, (p.29) [sic]

C. The argument for the Old Testament Canon.

Major Premise: If the Old Testament Canon that we have in the KJV and the ASV is the same Canon [sic] as that which was spoken of by Jesus, then we have the correct O. T. Canon.

Minor Premise: The O. T. Canon that we have in the KJV and the ASV is the same Canon [sic] as that which was spoken by Jesus.

Conclusion: Therefore, we have the correct O. T. Canon.

1. First of all I need to establish the fact that Jesus did exist and there is testimony as to his being the son of God. If this can be established, then we can believe that the Canon [sic] Jesus used was the correct Canon [sic]. Josephus said: [sic] "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us had condemned him to the cross, + those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, + as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." The Works of Josephus, (p.379) Note* It is interesting to note that Josephus, who lived just a few years after Christ, said that the Christians were not extinct unto this day. I wonder what that does to Till's idea that the writer of Deuteronomy chapter 34 had to live many years after Moses. Josephus lived from 37 to 100 AD. Getting back to the issue, this is proof that Christ was the son of God. Therefore, we can rest assured that whatever Canon [sic] he used was the correct Canon [sic].

2. The Hebrew Canon.

   1. The Hebrew Canon [sic] consisted of the following: "The Law: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. The Prophets: [A] The Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings. [B] The Latter Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Exekiel, The Twelve. The Writings: [A] Poetical books: Psalms, Proverbs, Job. [B] Five Rolls: Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentation, Esther, Ecclesiastes. [C] Historical Books: Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles."

   2. We have, for all intents and purposes, the same Canon [sic]. The only difference is our number of books differ because we divide Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles into two books each, and the twelve are divided into twelve books. Our order is also different from the Hebrew Canon. It followed the official order while ours follws a topical order.

c. Jesus testifies to the O. T. Canon.

1. Luke 24:44: "...all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets and in the Psalms concerning me." Here Jesus uses all three sections of the Hebrew Canon. McDowell says that the word "Psalms" is used here instead of the word "Writings" because: [sic] "...the book of Psalms is the first and longest book in this section." Evidence That Demands a Verdict, (p.30).

2. Luke 11:51: "...from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias..." [sic] Here he confirms his witness to the O. T. Canon. Abel was the first martyr (Gen. 4:8) and Zacharias was the last to be named in the Hebrew Canon. [sic] (2 Chron. 24:20-21) [sic] Genesis being the first and Chronicles being the last in the Hebrew Canon. essentially Christ said: [sic] "...from Genesis to Chronicles..." [sic] Or in our order: [sic] "...from Genesis to Malachi."

d. We have seen historical evidence that Jesus Christ was the son of God. We have seen what the Hebrew Canon was and that the one we have in the KJV and the ASV, for all intents and purposes, is the same one. And we have seen that Jesus testified of the Hebrew Canon. From this we can draw the inference that we have the correct O. T. Canon.

I am not going to be able to get into my next argument as of yet. Therefore, I will drop here and pick up again in my next affirmative.

I said that for all practical purposes, this debate could end because of Mr. Till's position on knowledge. Farrell tried to make that sound like [sic] I was wanting to end now. I want it know that I do not want this debate to end before it is time to end, but I was just point out that logically, Mr Till has no other alternative. He admits that he may be wrong in his views regarding the inerrancy of the Bible and he admits that he cannot prove that Moses did not exist. Therefore, he has no other logical alternative than to end his part of this debate, but I hope he stays in it until the end. I believe that I can show him where he is in error.

I would just like to remind the reader that I have answered Mr. Till's objections point by point, and he has not done this for me. He has called my arguments on the existence of God, the inerrancy of the Bible, the authority of the Bible, and the all-sufficiency of the Bible, irrelevant. I just wonder if he is going to tag my argument on the Canon [sic] as being irrelevant as well. I hope not! Now I ask you to turn your attention to Mr. Till's second rebuttal.

Go to Till's Second Rebuttal