[Editor's Note: Readers are reminded, as noted in the introduction to this debate, that Mr. McDonald refused to allow corrections to his manuscripts, so all places marked with [sic] contain mistakes that were in his original manuscript.]
Mr Till and respected readers:
I am once again grateful for the opportunity to be in the affirmative position of this proposition, and give further proof that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of Jehovah God. As I did last time, I will answer my opponent's arguments, [sic] and then make further affirmative arguments to sustain my position. At this time I would like to ask five questions [sic] and then I will answer his questions, [sic] respond to previous answers that he has given.
Questions:
Now I will answer the questions that he has submitted. I want to encourage the reader to watch closely when we are answering these questions. The truthfulness or the fallacy can be detected by the way that a participant handles his opponents [sic] questions.
[Editor's Note: Again, Mr. McDonald did not repeat the questions with his answers, so for the convenience of readers, they are being repeated in italics above his answers.]One: When Samuel killed Agag, the only Amalekite to survive Saul's massacre (1 Sam. 15:8), was that the end of the Amalekite nation?
Answer: No! 1 Samuel 27:8 and 30:1 both mention the Amalekites during David's reign. You are no doubt going to ask me to explain the phrase: [sic] "...and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword." [sic] in 1 Sam. 15:8. The phrase "all the people" must be qualified. According to 1 Sam. 15:7 Saul smote all of the Amalekites from: [sic] "...Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt." There were Amalekites in different places in the world. Saul smote only the ones from Havilah until you come to Shur which is over by Egypt. However, he did not smite the Amalekites in Shur. David had to do that later: "And David and his men went up, and invaded the Gershurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites: for these nations were of old the inhabitants of the land as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt." [sic] (1 Sam. 27:8) [sic] Mr. Till would solve a great many of his own problems if he would just carefully read what the Bible has to say on a certain subject.
Two: How can one prove by applying the "science of textual criticism" (referred to in your answer to my third question) that any given Bible discrepancy, say, the variant readings existing between 1 Samuel 24:13 and 1 Chronicles 21:12 (seven years of famine as opposed to three years of famine), was not in the original manuscripts?
Answer: We are asked to explain the so-called discrepancy between 2 Samuel 24:13 and 1 Chronicles 21:12, and he wants to know how one can prove by applying the science of textual criticism that any given Bible discrepancy (this one included) was not in the original autographs. Must I give you a lesson in textual criticism? It would seem so! [A] There is no discrepancy between the two verses you produced. I believe them both to have been in the original autographs just as they are. 2 Samuel 24:13 gives David the choice of enduring the whole famine (three years they had already endured due to [sic] Saul's sins. (2 Sam. 21:19) [sic] The year they were already in, and three years to come for David's sins.) [sic] while 1 Chronicles 21:12 only mentions the three years for David's sins. One writer includes all of the famine, while the other only writes of the three years to come. If Till took half as much time trying to harmonize these passages as he does trying to find contradictions, he would be much better off. [B] Textual criticism is: [sic] "...confined to the words, or the collocation of the words, as they stand in the manuscript or printed texts, the ancient versions and other legitimate sources of appeal." [sic] (Evidence That Demands a Verdict [sic] Volume II, p.35) [sic] Gleason Archer says: [sic] "...the science of lower criticism (textual criticism) is concerned with the task of restoring the original texts on the basis of the imperfect copies which have been preserved to us. It attempts to sift the evidence provided by the variants, or different readings, where the surviving manuscripts disagree with each other, and by the use of a scientific system, arrive at what was most probably the wording used by the original author." [sic] (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, (p.54) [sic] In other words, where there is a variant reading, all of the evidence (the statements of the early church fathers, the early versions and the majority of the manuscripts or sometimes the oldest manuscripts) is [sic] compiled, and a decision is made as to what the author originally said. There is your lesson in textual criticism.
Three: Doesn't the same science of textual criticism that you speak about indicate that Moses did not write the Pentateuch and that Deuteronomy was written by someone other than the author of the other four books in the Pentateuch.
Answer: No! Higher criticsm deals with the authorship and integrity of the text of the Bible books. If you do not understand the difference between higher criticism and textual criticism, I am in doubts as to whether you should even be participating in this debate!
Four: Was Mark 16:9-20 in the original autograph?
Answer: Yes! There is enough manuscript evidence for Mark 16:9-20 to be added to the text and be considered as part of the originals.
Five: Which of the following statements is true? (If you do not answer, I will assume no telling what.) (A) Killing is wrong because Yahweh said that it is. (B) Yahweh said that killing is wrong because killing is wrong.
Answer: Neither statement is true. Killing is not wrong simply because God said it is wrong, and God did not say that it is wrong simply because it is wrong. This is the classic dilemma that unbelievers always throw up when the [sic] begin to run out of steam. Is a thing good because God says it is good, or does God say it is good because it is good. [sic] Notice the dilemma he is trying to put me into. If I say that killing is wrong because God says it is wrong, then I am in fact affirming that God can say anything is wrong. He might have said that killing is right, and it would be wrong not to kill. However, on the other hand, if I say that God says that killing is wrong because it is wrong, then I am affirming that there is a law to which, [sic] even, [sic] God is amenable too. Neither of these alternatives will do because they do not constitute a proper dilemma. Murder is a breach of goodness and goodness flows from the Ultimate Good, who is God. Goodness flows from the nature of God. God is not below the good, neither is he above the good, but goodness flows from him. The will of God is not under a law, and it is not above an arbitrary law. Mr. Till's so-called dilemma is not really a dilemma at all.
Now I want to respond to the answers which he gave the questions I asked him in my second affirmative article.
[Editor's Note: So that readers can easily check to see how McDonald distorted Till's answers to make them say what Till obviously never intended to say, links to Till's answers to those questions have been inserted below and then Till's answers inserted in italics after McDonald's distortions of his answers.]
One: He would not answer with a true or a false, so as was stated in the question, we will assume that his answer is true. It is true that he absolutely knows that the Nazis were not guilty of real (objective) moral wrong when they exterminated the 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 boxcars coated with quicklime (producing excruciating burns) which required about four days to kill the victims. They were not guilty of real (objective) moral wrong when they did this? Come now, Mr. Till! When Dr. Anthony [sic] G. N. Flew met Thomas Warren, he was asked this question, and his answer was that they were guilty of real (objective) moral wrong. Dr. Flew is a world renown atheists [sic], one of their champions. He signed the Humanist Manifesto II. Now Mr. Till, who is virtually unknown, even by some in his own home state, basically says that Dr. Flew is wrong and that the Nazis were not guilty of real (objective) moral wrong. Who [sic] will we believe, Dr. Flew or Mr. Till?
Then Till says: [sic] "That is not to say, however, that they were not guilty of immorality." Whose immorality, Mr. Till? If they did not violate real (objective) morality, then they are only guilty of violating subjective morality. If there is no such thing as real (objective) morality as Till contends, then there is only subjective morality which says that every man is to do as is good in his own eyes. This is exactly what the Nazis contended for in the Nuremberg Trails [sic]. They said that they were morally obligated, according to the laws and standards of morality of their own country, to exterminate the Jews. They said that they were being tried by a law foreign to their country and they should be allowed to go free.
If there is no such thing as real (objective) morality, then why does Till condemn God for ordering the total destruction of the Amalekites? What does he base this accusation upon, his own subjective moral standards? Does he condemn God simply because he does not like God or what he did? If so, where will it end? Who will he condemn next, simply because he does not like them [sic] or what they do, or how they live? He wants me to stop worrying about the Nazis and start worry about why God is so Nazilike in his attitude towards the non-Hebraic tribes of Palestine. Well, Mr. Till, if God is like the Nazis and if the Nazis were guilty of violating nothing more than your subjective moral standards, then maybe God is not so bad after all.
[Editor's Note--here is how Till answered question #2: In replying to the first question in his first affirmative, I plainly said that there is no such thing as objective morality. If there is no objective morality, then neither the Nazis nor Saul, the butcher of the Amalekites, was guilty of objective immorality. That is not to say, however, that they were not guilty of immorality. The atrocities described in this question sound more Yahwistic than anything else, so I suggest that Mr. McDonald stop worrying about Nazi atrocities and invest more of his time to explaining why Yahweh was so Nazilike in his attitude toward the non-Hebraic tribes of Palestine.]
Two: He would not answer this question with a true or false answer [sic] so we will assume that his answer is true. Those who tried the Nazis for crimes against humanity were guilty of real (objective) moral wrong. But, Till explains: [sic] "How could anyone be guilty of objective moral wrong when there is no such thing as objective morality?" Mr. Till, you should have answered that question with a false answer if this is what you wanted to say. Mr. Till does not want to go down in history as the man who exonerated the Nazis and condemned their prosecutors at Nuremberg, so he does not answer. Instead he tries to beat around the bush, [sic] and mouth around until the reader has lost interest in the question that was asked. However, by not answering he has left it up to me to give his answer. That answer is true. The Nazis were not guilty of real (objective) moral wrong, but their prosecutors at Nuremberg were guilty of such.
Then he wants to know why I am so interested in the Nazis. I think that Mr. Till is the only one reading this debate who does not understand why I brought up the Nazis to begin with. But what can you expect from a man, who does not understand the difference between higher criticism and textual criticism. I am concerning [sic] about the Nazis because [A] you say that there is no such thing as real (objective) morality, but when it comes to God and his dealings with the non-Hebraic tribes of Palestine, you condemn him as though he were guilty of such. [B] I wanted to see if you would be as consistent in your condemnation of the Nazis as you were with God. [C] Since you stated that we are under no real (objective) moral obligation to become skeptics, and since you said that real (objective) morality did not exist, I wanted to see if you would remain consistent. I found out, [sic] that you will remain consistent until it comes to God and his dealings with the non-Hebraic tribes of Palestine. Then you become inconsistent and condemn him.
[Editor's Note--here is how Till answered question #2: How could anyone be guilty of objective moral wrong when there is no such thing as objective morality? Why is McDonald so concerned about Nazi crimes against humanity but completely unconcerned about the many Yahwistic crimes against humanity recorded in the Bible?]
Three: He wanted to answer the next question with a partly true and partly false. No, Mr. Till! There are not two questions here, [sic] there is only one. The statement says that since Mr. Till absolutely knows that no man can know anything by any means other than his five senses, and since he has never experienced an original autograph of the Bible, he cannot absolutely know that the Bible was not inspired of God. These are answers that he has given in previous questions. I am not asking him if this is his position, [sic] I know that this is his position because of the answers he has already given in this debate. And since he cannot know that the Bible is not inspired, it must be accepted by faith. I am not asking him if this is his position, [sic] I know that this is his position by the statements that he has made in his debate with Bill Jackson. Now here is what the question deals with. Since it must be accepted by faith and since his own definition of faith is that it is a belief in something for which there is insufficient evidence to establish fact, I wanted him to admit that he does not have sufficient evidence to establish his position that the Bible is not the inspired word of God. That is the question, [sic] the rest is just frame work leading to the question. He must admit that since he cannot know it, it must be accepted by faith. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to establish his position that the Bible is not inspired of God. Therefore, we will answer it for him, since he will not. True, there is not sufficient evidence to establish the Till position that the Bible is not inspired of God.
[Editor's Note--here is how Till answered question #3: What I like about McDonald's questions is their simplicity. By the time one wades through all of the "nots" and "absolutelies," the point of the question gets lost along the way. In this case, it appears that he has actually presented me with two statements, so I can't answer true or false to the entire paragraph. The first statement is true; I cannot know with certainty that the original autographs of the Bible were not inspired. I wish to point out, however, that he cannot know that they were inspired, and this poses a much bigger problem for him than for me. He is the one who is affirming a proposition that says the original autographs were inspired, so the burden of proving that falls on him. I would like to see him do it. His second statement is false. I think that I do have sufficient evidence to support my belief that the original autographs were not inspired. When it is my time to affirm, I will be presenting that evidence.
Four: He did not answer this question with a true or false answer [sic] so we will answer it for him. It is true that he absolutely knows (I wonder which of his five senses told him this) that his answer to question number 3 is true.
[Editor's Note--here is how Till answered question #4: My response to the question speaks for itself. As I indicated, the statement is partly true and partly false.]
Five: He would not answer this with a true or false answer [sic] so we will answer it for him. True, he cannot consistently engage in this discussion about the Bible, [sic] he is inconsistent (as we have seen a number of times in this debate) in discussing it.
[Editor's Note--here is how Till answered question #5: My reply to question # 3 states my belief that I do have sufficient evidence to support my claim that the Bible is not inspired; therefore, I can see no inconsistency in my participation in this debate.]
Now it is time to answer Mr. Till's article, point by point, and argument by argument. He admits and brags (it seems) that he has not answered my second affirmative point by point and argument by argument. He says that he only wanted to answer a few. I guess he is going to try the same thing on me that he tried on Bill Jackson: [sic] "...I'm going to take just one of his claims, to the neglect of the others, and do a proper, in-depth analysis of it to show that the scriptures he cites in support of it don't prove what he thinks they prove. Perhaps then at least the readers will know that with adequate time and opportunity I could do the same with his other ridiculous claims." [sic] (The Jackson-Till Debate, Till's Third Rebuttal, pp.2,3) [sic] No! Mr. Till, you are obligated to answer all of my arguments. Mr. Till, let me ask you a question: "How much space would you need to answer all of your opponents [sic] arguments?" You had six pages in your debate with Bill Jackson [sic] and you cried that this was not enough. You now, [sic] have 20 pages in this debate [sic] and you are still crying about lack of space! Notice: "I don't have space left to analyze those arguments,... [sic] I would have liked to comment on other things that Mr. McDonald has said, but I have used my allotted space." [sic] (pp.20,21) [sic] Are you saying that you do not have the space to answer all of my arguments in this debate? How much more space do you need? Let me know and we will work it out. I want you to answer my arguments, [sic] if you need more space, I will give it to you. Do you honestly believe that more space is the answer to your problems? I seem to get everything into the allotted space. Why is it that you cannot seem to do it in any debate you have? I think that you would be able to answer all of my arguments if you would stop dealing in irrelevancies.
He says that God's word was not co-existent with him. He asked if I am saying that the quaint little fables that he mentioned co-existed with God somewhere out in the big nothing for eons before God created the universe. Mr. Till [sic] the principles and moral laws, which are part of his word, co-existed with God. Also all of these things you call quaint little fables did co-exist with God in the sense that God knew in detail everything that would happen before it happened. Just as surely as the church was in the mind of God before the world was created (Eph.3:10,11) all of these other things were as well. I know what I believe, and I know how to prove it. I must have done a pretty good job, because you will have not [sic] touched top, side, nor [sic] bottom of my first two affirmatives.
Then he says: [sic] "On the matter of God's existence being relevant to McDonald's position, it would of course be necessary for God to exist before he could inspire the writing of a book." Thank you! Another modest admission! By the time Till gets through making his modest admissions he is not going to have a position left. Then maybe he will come back to the truth.
I agree that if Till could find errors in the (original) manuscripts of the Bible then he would be able to show proof that it had not been inspired by God, but this is something he cannot do. Therefore, he must rely upon the idea that God does not exist. I am convinced that, if it were not for the arguments on God's existence, he would complain about something else. I want you to own up to your responsibilities and answer the arguments as I give them. There is no reason for you to shirk your responsibilities in not answering these arguments. You would expect me to do this if you were in the affirmative, and I expect it from you. How would you like for me to say that I am going to answer only one or two of your arguments and neglect the rest?
In his next [sic] he wants to wonder [sic] off into nowhere in bringing up a hypothetical situation about an old manuscript that claims that Shakespeare was its author. He talks about it making reference to the U.S.A., the guillotine, and other anachronisms that did not exist until after Shakespeare died. There is no parallel here because he cannot find these problems in the Bible manuscripts that we have today. Then he assumes that reputable chemists establish that the paper and ink types are types that did not exist in Shakespeare's day. Well, that all depends on if this was an original autograph or a copy. It it was a copy, then that part would not dis-prove [sic] its authenticity. Next he wants to assume that notable graphologists determine that the styling of the handwriting belonged to the late eighteenth century, about a hundred and [sic] fifty years after Shakespeare's death. Mr. Till, do we have Shakespeare's works today? Are all of these in the original autographs? Most of the works of Shakespeare is [sic] in copies, just like everything else of that era. Yet, we do not say something is not the work of Shakespeare simply because it was written in a hand style a hundred and [sic] fifty years after his death. It could be that someone merely copied it. Now to answer his question: "Armed with facts like these, would it be necessary for Shakespearean scholars to prove absolutely that Shakespeare never existed before they could prove that he did not write this particular manuscript?' Answer: No! However, this is not a parallel with my argument for the existence of God and the Bible. [1] I have shown that simply because a thing was written with paper and ink which existed after Shakespeare would not necessarily prove that it was not his works. Nor [sic] would the handwriting style, [sic] prove it. Now, the first objection would prove it. However, Mr. Till must show something parallel to this in the Bible before he can prove that the Bible was not inspired by God. The later handwriting and paper and ink surely would not be proof. [2] Since Mr. Till cannot find anything like this in the Bible, and since he cannot find a contradiction in the Bible [sic] which would keep it from being inspired by God, his only recourse is to prove that there is no God. [3] If an anti-Shakespearian wanted to prove that a certain work was not written by Shakespeare, his strongest and first argument would be to prove that Shakespeare never existed.
What about the Quran and the Book of Mormon. [sic] He chides me in my answer, but my answer still stands. If the Islamic spokesman wanted to prove the inspiration of the Holy Quran, then he is free to do so. We would both be agreed on God's existence (though I would question his view of God), and then he would go on and give arguments for the inspiration of the Quran. If he could not produce those arguments and/or they could not stand the test of debate, we would know that it was not inspired. The Bible can and has withstood the test of debate for centuries. All I would need to do is prove the inspiration of the Bible and show that the two books do not agree with each other. If the Islamic spokesperson wanted to prove the inspiration of the Quran and compare it to the Bible, I would not pounce on him, [sic] I would tell him to do so. I would question, however, his arguments on the inspiration of the Quran. Till says that: [sic] "...in debates like this, bibliolaters always want and expect their opposition to make a concession: the Bible is right in everything it says, so everthing [sic] it says must automatically be accepted as infallible truth. I'm sorry, but I won't grant that concession to Mr. McDonald." Why not? You have conceded everything else, [sic] you might as well concede that! I have proven my position and by the fact that Till has dodged nearly every argument I have made is of [sic] good evidence of that fact.
Next he takes a stab at refuting my argument on the existence of God. The main thrust of this so-called answer is that if the existence of God could be proven unequivocally, all reasonably intelligent people would accept that proof? [sic] Really? Mr. Till, for your information, most reasonably intelligent people do accept the existence of God. There are some, however, in this world, who will deny it because they were raised to deny it. Some deny it because they know that if they acknowledge his existence, then they must change their lives or live with the realization of their lost condition. Some deny it because of social pressures. Some deny it because they cannot see throught the mud of evolutionist arguments. There are many reasons why reasonably intelligent people do not accept the evidence for the existence of God. That does not mean that his existence cannot be proven. That is like the person who believes in "salvation by faith alone" and will not accept that he must be baptized in order to be saved regardless of the evidence that is given him. Does this mean that he is not reasonably intelligent? Does this mean that the essentiality of baptism cannot be proven? No! It simply means that some will not change regardless of the evidence.
It is a matter of established fact that the earth is round. Yet, Swindler says that some people still believe that it is flat. He says that they even use the Bible to prove their contention: "Hold to the Bible and you, like the Amish and the people of Zion City, Illinois, will believe the earth is flat." [sic] (The Skeptical Review, Vol. 1 Num.3, p.10) [sic] Mr. Till, are you saying that there are no reasonably intelligent people among them? I do not think that you would go that far. Yet you could show them science and from the Bible that the earth is round [sic] and they would deny it still. Does this mean that the rotundity of the earth cannot be unequivocally proven? No! It simply means that some will ignore the truth regardless of the evidence presented.
Till says if I could unequivocally prove the existence of God the number of atheists would dwindle down to almost nothing. Well, we have made great strides in this area. Dr. Antony G.N. Flew debated Thomas Warren a few years ago and signed the proposition that he knew that God did not exist. However, it was not long before he began to complain about having great difficulty in holding to the atheistic position. Brother Warren then childed him because he had always been so God-intoxicated [sic] and now he was backing away from it. His statement on Wednesday evening was:
Dr. Warren may be assured that I am sobering up from God intoxication. I shall be writing considerably less, if anything, in this area in the future. I shall be concentrating largely on social matters--except of course for trying to reply to things that people write against the things I have written in the religious area: either to say: [sic] "No [sic] I don't think they have it right,' or to say: [sic] 'Well, yes, I think you have got it right.'" [sic] (The Warren-Flew Debate, p.143) [sic]
Thus [sic] we see that even some well known atheists are not as sure as they ought to be. We have been trying to get someone to meet us on the existence of God [sic] and no one wants to do it. As I understand it, Till has even been challenged on it and refused. I wonder why?
He hopes that I will finally see that the existence of God has nothing to do with this debate. Well! I still say that it is relevant to the issue. When Dr. Flew met Gary Habermas on the resurrection of Christ, they agreed not to discuss the existence of God, but Dr. Flew admitted that if they had the time, that [sic] arguments for the existence of God would make the resurrection more probable. I believe the same principle will apply here. I believe that arguments for the existence of God will make the inspiration of the Bible probable. Therefore, I am going to continue to make them and make it known when Farrell does not answer them. Those are valid arguments [sic] and I expect you to answer everyone [sic] of them. Please do so! You have not begun to negate my proposition. You are suppose [sic] to be answering my arguments, Mr. Till.
Till seems to have missed the whole point (but what else is new) for my bringing up Wheless' book. He says: [sic] "He seems to be obsessed with attacking Joseph Wheless's book Is it God's Word? as if he thinks I am duty bound to defend everything in it merely because I believe it is a good anti-inerrancy book that..." Now, he changes! It used to be: [sic] "...the most convincing anti-inerrancy book that..." [sic] [emp. added) [sic] (Till to McDonald, Sept 1, 1989) he has ever read. Now, it is just: [sic] "...a good anti-inerrancy..." [emp. added) book. I am glad to see him make that change. He is beginning to see the pit-falls [sic] in this book [sic] and he apparently wishes to rid himself of defending it. He says that he has never demanded that I defend certain books, but that is because I have never told him that certain books were the best inerrancy books I have ever read. He wants to know if I endorse everything in the books that he has listed? No! I do not! There is error in all of them. I do not take all that any of them say. I read what they say and compare it with [sic] the totality of Biblical teaching, and if it agrees with this totality of Biblical teaching, then I accept it. If it does not agree, then I reject it. Now, I guess this does not apply to him, but I am glad to see that he does not accept everything that Wheless wrote. I will not be out of this debate by taking a position, because I have never stated that any of these are the most convincing inerrancy books I have ever read. The most convincing inerrancy book I have ever read is the Bible, and I am defending it.
He says that I did not respond to his statement on page 18 of his first rebuttal: "The premise implies that any task performed by humans will involve error, and that just isn't so. It is possible for humans to write books and do other tasks without committing errors," [sic] Oh, really? I thought I responded to this, [sic] let us see: [sic] "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." [sic] (McDonald's Second Affirmative, p.15) [sic] He says that the reason that he believes that the Bible has error in it, [sic] is not because it was written solely by man, but because it has errors in it. "Why Do You Think It Has Error In it, Mr. Till?" [Editor's note: McDonald's incorrect capitalization retained.] If God inspired it, there would be no errors in it, would there? But if man wrote without the aid of divine inspiration there would be error in it, right? So, I am not so far off base after all, am I? "Will everything done by human agency always, without exception, include error?" His question--my answer: "Everything that is done without the aid of divine intervention, by humans, will always involve error." Human-beings will never become so perfect that they will cease to commit error. Everything that we do has error to some degree involved. Even the articles that Mr. Till sends to me (setting aside doctrinal error) has error to some degree in them.
Then he tries my syllogism out on Archer's book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties as though I am caught in a trap. I agree that Archer's book has error in it. I will admit it. Mr. Till, I have never said that Archer's book is the most convincing inerrancy book I have ever read. I do not endorse everything in that book. The most convincing book, [sic] is the bible. I agree with the Bible 100%. Try your argument out on the Bible. You say that I quoted from Archer's book the most. Sir, I beg to differ with you, but I quoted the Bible more than I did Archer's book. It is the only one that I fully endorse.
Now we go to knowledge [sic] and he finally tells us that when he reads he uses his sense of sight. Oh! Thank you! I thought that your position was that you would have to have been there to personally see, hear, taste, touch or smell before you could call that knowledge. Another modest admission, Mr. Till? I was sure that you said in your debate with Jim Laws that you would have to have been there to personally experience inspiration before you could know for sure that the Bible was inspired of God. Now, it seems that you are saying that you can gain this knowledge by reading, as long as you use your sense of sight. I agree, but that opens the door for everything you seem to stand against. Now, I can freely use the testimony of others and the authorities to prove my point, and I can also use logic and reason to prove my point. Why? Simply because I am using my sense of sight to learn this from reading books and other materials. Great! I think we are getting some place now.
He wants me to take the challenge that he made to Jim Laws which basically says that he wants to have someone hide an object. He does not want that person to tell anyone where that object is [sic] and it is to be far enough away that we cannot experience it with our senses. Then he wants me to pray about it, speculate about it and meditate about it until I come to intellectual cognizance regarding the identity of the object. However, he is to be allowed to go to the place where it is hid [sic] and inspect the object with any and all of his five senses. He then wants to know if afterwards, I will hang on to my belief that knowledge comes by some mystical means separate and apart from the senses. Mr. Till, your challenge is so ridiculous, [sic] it can be seen why Jim Laws did not accept it. Your idea is that we think we gain knowledge simply by praying and meditating. Sir, you have us confused with the Mormons, [sic] that it their doctrine of inspiration. They are the ones who believe in praying to see if their book is inspired, not us!
This has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible doctrine of inspiration. We do not sit around and pray, meditate and speculate about this, [sic] we look at the evidence in favor of it. Now let me make a challenge to Mr. Till. Let us take that same object hidden by that same person. I will take all of the information regarding it, the testimony of those who have seen it, the authorities who placed it there, the experts who have tested it before and pictures of it if possible, and I will draw my conclusions from that. Now let Mr. Till go and hunt for that object. No one can tell him where it is, [sic] he must find it [sic] and we will see who comes to a conclusion of what it is first. Or better yet! Let us say that the object which has been hidden was hidden by someone who has long sense [sic] died and did not tell anyone where it was, or maybe it was destroyed in some way. Now, I am to be able to use all of the evidence, the testimony of others, the authorities and the experts, logic and reason [sic] and we will allow Mr. Till to go and hunt for the object. Now, let us see who comes to the conclusion of what the object is, first. There is your challenge, Mr. Till, [sic] this is an example of our belief concerning knowledge.
I will admit that knowledge enters the mind through one or more of the five senses as long as you are willing to admit that you do not have to personally experience that thing before you can know it. If I can read about it and know it, I agree with you. This has been my position all along in this debate. I am glad to see that you are coming over to my point of view. For your point of view, in your debate with Jim Laws, was:
"... [sic] To sustain his proposition, he must therefore prove that, even though he lives in the 20th century, he has somehow perceived through one or more of his senses the exact circumstances under which all the books of the Bible were originally written hundreds and even thousands of years ago so that he can now, in our time, know that all of these books were written by the inspiration of God. In order to have experienced such perceptions, however, he would have had to have been all of the men God presumably chose to write the Bible so that he could attest to whatever they saw, heard, tasted, smelled, and/or felt when they were writing under the influence of divine guidance. If not that, at the very least he would have had to have been with these inspired men while they were writing the Bible so that he could testify to having perceived in some way whatever happens when men are divinely inspired to write.
Dr. Laws can establish none of this, of course, for the obvious reason that he was [n]either any of the Bible authors nor an observer of any of them while they were writing. The circumstances that produced the Bible happened in the distant past, and once a behavioral circumstance occurs, it passes into history and can never again be re-created for objective observation. Hence, Dr. Laws cannot possible know that the Bible is the inspired word of God. He may believe that the Bible was inspired of God, and obviously he does believe this very intensely, but he cannot know that it was inspired." [sic] (The Laws-Till Debate, p.6) [sic]
Now he takes the position that we can have knowledge through reading (Till's Second Rebuttal, p.8) and that is a big step for a man in Till's position to take. I would like to shake your hand [sic] sir, [sic] I agree with you on that. With that out of the way, let us go on to other matters.
Mr. Till, now, stands in violation of the rules of this debate. "3. Hedges rules for controversy will be adhered to." [sic] (The Propositions and Rules for the McDonald-Till Debate.) [sic] Till stands in violation of rule number four of Hedges rules for controversy. Notice:
"Rule 4th. Personal reflections on an adversary should in no instance be indulged in. Whatever his private character, his follies are not to be named, nor alluded to in controversy. Personal reflections are not only destitute of effect in respect to the question in discussion, [sic] but are productive of real evil." [sic] (Christian Contend For Thy Cause, p.40) [sic]
Mr. Till violated that rule when he started in [sic] talking about my not being able to know that Thomas H. McDonald was my father. Now he did say that he had no desire to insult my family, but notice what he did.
"I have no desire to insult the McDonald
family, but...
I want to assure Mr. McDonald that I am not trying [sic] malign his family. [sic] |
By the time he got through not trying to insult and malign my family name, there is just not much of a name to malign. [1] Maybe I am illegitimate because maybe my mother had an affair of which I might be the result. [2] Maybe my parents really adopted me and kept this from me all these years, in which case they lied to me. [3] Maybe my grandfather did something that he had to run and [sic] hide, and change his name for. [4] And maybe there are skeletons in my family closet that caused my parents to lie to me. [5] And finally, maybe my parents had been lied to and believed that lie. There are a lot of maybes in there, but not much plausibility. Farrell could not have said that maybe I was accidently [sic] switched at the hospital, in which case my parents would have known nothing about it, and their names would have been free and clear. But, no! He had to bring up things that were dirty and filthy, and for which there is not a shred of evidence anywhere. In fact, every point can be answered, and I will answer them after I say this. Farrell says that he brought all this up to show me the difference between belief and knowledge. Baloney, he brought it up because he cannot answer the argument that I made [sic] and he is trying to take the readers [sic] minds off the argument. Farrell, you still have not proven that my dad (whoever you think he is) could not have come into existence without a dad. You need to answer that and quit trying to sqwirm [sic] out of it.
Now to answer his points. [1] I know that I am the son of Thomas H. McDonald, because I look almost just like him. Also I am a mirror image of my oldest brother's oldest son. Oh! I forgot to tell you my mother is not the mother of my oldest brother. His mother died around 4 years before I came into existence. Now, tell us how I could be a mirror image of Sidney Eugene McDonald unless my dad had something to do with both our conceptions. Me, directly [sic] and Sidney, indirectly through my brother Gene. [2] I know that my grandfather (Robert Sidney McDonald) is my grandfather because Gene's youngest son Ricky McDonald is almost a mirror image of Robert Sidney McDonald. [3] I know that he did not change his name because he is a great-grandson of a man named John McDonald who came over from Scotland with 12 sons. My grandfather is the grandson of one of those twelve sons. I am glad, however, to see that he has come over to my point of view by saying that I can know by reading (seeing) being told (hearing)
Next, the baby with no senses. I called a doctor about this and was told that if it was born that way that [sic] it would die shortly thereafter. Therefore, Mr. Till canot make a point here because no experiments can be made.
Then he goes back to his former argument on the Amalekites and tries to show that God was terrible for ordering their total destruction. "All this was done to seek vengeance on a tribe whose ancestors 400 years before them had protected their land from Israelite encroachment during the trek to the promised land... [sic] The Bible doesn't mention a single thing that the Amalekites of Saul's day had done to Israel." (p.11) [sic] Really? It seems that Mr. Till has not read all of the Old Testament. Let us jog over to the book of Exodus, chapter 17, and verses 14 through 16: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek under heaven... [sic] For he said, Because the Lord hath sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." What? Nothing in Saul's day? The Bible said that there would be war between the two from generation to generation. Why? Well, you must go to the book of Deuteronomy to find out why. Deuteronomy 25:17,18: "Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt; How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary..." [sic] Oh! That sheds a little light upon the subject. The Amalekites killed the old and the feeble when Israel came up out of Egypt. And there was war between the two nations throughout all these generations. They are not quite so innocent now, are they [sic] Mr. Till? But, Farrell does not study his Bible, so he did not know that. He seems to know more about literature written by unbelievers than the Bible. What about the Amalekite children? As the giver of all life, God has the right to decide who will live and who will die? [sic] He says that I think they did these children a big favor by killing them and then he says: [sic] "Pardon me while I gag." Go ahead and gag. The parents were wicked and deserving of death. The children, had they lived, would have grown up and rebelled. God being Omniscient, decided that the children should die. Now he had the right to make this decision because he gave all life. No man can take life without authorization from God because man did not give the life. Why not go ahead and kill the babies today so they will go to heaven? Today, God's kingdom is a spiritual nation and instead of conquering nations with a sword (Isa.2:2-4) it conquers with the gospel of peace. [sic] (Mt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15,16; Rom. 10:12-17) [sic] Why does Mr. Till charge God with moral atrocities when he does not even believe in objective morality? Well, he has to fill his 20 pages with something!
What about the Parents [sic] dying in battle. Till made fun of this statement, but let us look at the facts. Saul and his men went into a city of the Amalekites. There they found Kenites who had showed them kindness, waited in the valley and allowed them to escape, [sic] then they smote the Amalekites. Where? In the cities. That is where the battles took place. In the cities the parents, both men and women would have died, as well as the children. They did not fight the battle elsewhere then come to the cities and kill the women and children. [sic] (1 Sam. 15:4-8) [sic]
Next we come to the Midianite women [sic] and Till had quite a bit to say about this, almost four pages to be exact. But, it will not take me that much space to answer him. He says that the Bible did not say that God told the Israelites to completely destroy the Midianites. I will give him the point if he can prove that avenge did not mean to completely destroy! They warred against them and slew all of the males and all of the kings. If avenge did not mean to completely destroy, I do not know what else it meant, especially since they did kill all the men and kings. Moses apparently understood that they were to kill them all, because he became angry with them for bringing back captives. [sic] (vs.14,15) [sic] Now, whether or not Moses disobeyed God is a different matter. However, Till cannot prove that God did not instruct Moses to tell the men of Israel, since they disobeyed in the first place, to go ahead and keep all of the virgins for themselves.
What makes Till think that if these virgins were used as servants that they would be used to dig cisterns and wells, etc? Did he quote any authority on the matter? No! This is simply his own assertion. Have you ever heard of household servants who prepare meals and tend the house? This is what Archer said they would be used for, but as usual Till did not read very carefully.
What about this keeping the virgins for themselves. If sex was what these virgins were to be used for, why kill all of the women who had known men by lying with them. Would they not be more experienced in sexually satisfying a man than virgins would be? If God was as evil as Till made him out to be, why not keep them all, virgins and non-virgins [sic]? Till says it is because of the premium placed upon virginity. Why was there a premium placed upon virginity? If God is that evil, it would only seem logical to keep the non-virgins [sic] around to really satisfy the men after they had fun with those un-experienced [sic] virgins. Did it ever occur to Till that the Midianites were destroyed, in the first place, for seducing the Israelites to commit whoredom? (Num. 25:1,6, 14-16) [sic] Why destroy a race for sexual impurity then turn right around and have your people use the virgin captives for sexual impurity. [sic] The non-virgins [sic] were destroyed because they were defiled. Why would a God, who hates sexual immorality, to the point of having all violaters [sic] stoned, as Yahweh did, have his people commit sexual immorality? Answer that!
Till thinks that because Israels [sic] barbaric neighbors did things like this that [sic] Israel had to do it too. Have you ever notice [sic] how Till will tag Israel's neighbors as being barbaric and evil when the thinks that it will help him lable [sic] Israel and God as such, only to turn right around and make those same neighbors look innocent when he feels it will make Israel and God look barbaric? Then he complained about the High Priest only being allowed to marry a virgin. Is there anything wrong with God wanting his High Priests to have wive's [sic] who had known no other man? King Ahasureus [sic] was not an Israelite, [sic] therefore [sic] not everything he did was sanctioned by God or the Bible. David was not guilty of any wrong doing, [sic] he was near death. The scripture plainly says that she was to be brought in to give him heat. Why a virgin? If her job was to have sex with him, why not bring in someone who was experienced. [sic] It may be that no woman other than a virgin, other than his wife(s) was to touch the king, so that no scandals could get started. This would make more sense than Till's inference. I guess Mr. Till thinks that this virgin could have made him sexually active. Then the woman who was suppose [sic] to be a virgin and was found out. Was it wrong to punish her. [sic] She had either had an affair before or during her betrothal. Adultery was punishable by death at this time. As for Judges 21:6-14, I do not endorse everything that the Israelites did. Nothing here even implies that God sanctioned this. Till seems to think that if something is mentioned, God sanctioned it. He is wrong. However, these virgins were given to the tribe of Benjamin as wives: "And Benjamin came again at that time, and they gave them wives which they had saved of all the women of Jabesh -- gilead..." [sic] (v:14) [sic] Mr. Till likes the Berkeley version because it uses the word "women" instead of "wives" [sic] I will stick with the KJV.
Now, I want to make an apology. Anytime I am wrong, I want to correct the wrong. It is not my intention to charge anyone with a position that they [sic] do not hold to. I charged Mr. Till with being a pro-abortionist. However, after talking with him on the phone, I see that I was in the wrong. I am sorry. Please forgive me. However, for him to accuse me of sanctioning infanticide and sexual abuse of children, simply because he says that the Bible defends this, is absurd. I hate all abuse of children. However, I do not believe that neither [sic] I nor [sic] Mr. Till has the right to judge God because he killed those Amalekite babies. He gave the life and he can take it away. As far as the sexual abuse of children is concerned, I have shown that Till's interpretation of this account is false.
He wants to know why I believe that the book of Judges is inspired by God when I do not know who wrote it. Mr. Till, I do not know who wrote the books of 1 and 2 Chronicles. I do not know who wrote the book of Hebrews and other books that did not give the name of the human author. However, this does not mean that they are not inspired. Judges was listed in the Hebrew Canon [sic] and it fits perfectly in the rest of the Old Testament.
Next he takes a stab at answering my argument on the Old Testament Canon. His answer seems to lie in the area of asking why if Jesus used it, it would have to be the correct Canon [sic]. I have proven that Jesus was the Son of God and whatever Canon [sic] he used would have been the correct one. If Mr. Till would spend half as much time reading what I actually say, rather than what he wants me to say [sic] he would pick up on those things. He finally got around to saying that my argument on the all sufficiency and the authority of the Bible were begging the question. He then says that he did not have the space to analyze them. Well, if he would quit wasting space on irrelvancies [sic], like trying to show that I might be illegitimate, he would have the space to answer those arguments. All I will say at this time is that he needs to prove that I begged the question. I used the Bible to show that it is authoritative and all-sufficient. How else could I prove it. [sic] Mr. Till seems to think that every argument that his opponent produces is totally irrelvant [sic]. I would like to see him make an argument for me that he thinks would be relevant. Please do that. Well, we see that he did not do so well that time either. He had nothing to say about my answers to his questions. Why not? He had nothing to say about my counter [sic] arguments on his assertions that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch. Why not? What about Psalm 137:8,9; [sic] or Numbers 5:11-13; [sic] or my counter [sic] arguments to his good men being the writers of the Bible. Why not? He had nothing to say about my counter [sic] argument on 1 Kings 22:1-36. Why not? He had nothing to say about my syllogism that he asked for. Why not? He made no reference to my quotation by Josephus or my arguments on the Canon [sic]. Why not? My defense on the origin and inerrancy of the Bible was left unanswered. Why? I showed that he was guilty of Argumentum [sic] ad Hominem [sic] and he had nothing to say. Why not? I challenged him to bring up all the moral atrocities that he could. Did he bring up any new one's [sic]? No! Why not? 13 [sic] arguments or sets of arguments were left totally unanswered and ignored. Why? The reason is simple, [sic] he did not answer because he could not answer them.
Further Affirmative Arguments:
D. The Argument for the New Testament Canon.
Major Premise: If it is the case that the New Testament Canon that we have today, in versions such as the KJV and the ASV, have the characteristics of inspiration, then it is the case that we have the correct New Testament Canon.
Minor Premise: It is the case that the New Testament Cano [sic] in versions such as the KJV and the ASV, [sic] do have the characteristics of inspiration.
Conclusion: Therefore, we have the correct New Testament Canon today.
a. The canon that we have today is the earliest canon that was given to us. (1) Josh McDowell says: [sic] "Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 367) gives us the earliest list of New Testament books which is exactly like our present New Testament. This list was in a festal letter to the churches...Shortly [sic] after Athanasius, two writers, Jerome and Augustine, defined the canon of 27 books." [sic] (Evidence that Demands a Verdict,p.37) [sic]
(2) [sic] Merrill C. Tenney gives us a listing of that list of books: "The Festal Letter of Athanasius (A. D. 367) distinguishes sharply between 'God inspired scripture...handed [sic] down to our fathers by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning' and the 'so-called writings' of heretics. Athanasius' list comprised the four Gospels, Acts, James, I and II Peter, I, II, and III John, Jude, Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Thessalonians, Hebrews, I and II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, [sic] Revelation. 'These,' said Athanasius, 'are the springs of salvation...let [sic] no one add to them or take away from them,'" [sic] (New Testament Survey,p.410) [sic]
b. How do we know that these books are inspired? How is inspiration demonstrated?
(1) Inspiration will be supported by their intrinsic content. Every book of the N.T. has one central theme: The Salvation of Man through Jesus Christ. This is brought out in every book.
(2) Inspiration can be corroborated by their moral effect. The N.T. books are different from all other books on morality. Other books may record human thought, and some may influence it profoundly, but the N.T. books transform it.
(3) Inspiration can be shown by the value that early Christians placed on these books. People such as Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Iraeneus, Tertullian, Origen and many others quoted from these books, [sic] and considered them to be inspired of God.
Element Number Seven:
A. "Till's Prison." Again we see Till trying to escape from his prison, but he cannot because he has not been able to break through any of the aforementioned walls. Now we have another wall to add to this prison, the wall of the uniqueness of the Bible. He must know that the Bible is not the most [sic] unique book on earth, but this is something that he cannot know. Therefore, he must stay in his prison.
The Argument for the uniqueness of the Bible.
Major Premise: If it is the case that the Bible is the most [sic] unique book on earth, then it is the case that the Bible is of divine origin.
Minor Premise: It is the case that the Bible is the most [sic] unique book on earth.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is the case that the Bible is of divine origin.
Why would the Bible's being the most [sic] unique book on earth mean that it would have to be of divine origin? Simply because if it were written solely by men [sic] it would not possess the unique characteristics that it does. No other book does!
C. Proof for the argument.
a. The Bible is unique in continuity. It was written over a period of 1,500 years which covered a span of over 40 generations. It was written by over 40 authors from every walk of life. Some were kings while some were peasants. Some were Philosophers [sic] while some were fishermen. Some were poets and statesmen and others were scholars. It was written in different places in the world. Moses wrote in the wilderness. Paul wrote in prison. Luke wrote while traveling and John on the Isle of Patmos. It was written at different times. David wrote in times of war while Solomon wrote in times of peace. John wrote in troublesome times for the church. It was written during different moods. Some wrote from the depths of sorrow and despair while others wrote from the heights of joy. It was written on three different continents. [sic] Asia, Africa and Europe. It was written in three (now) dead languages. [sic] Aramaic, Hebrew and Koine Greek. It was written on hundreds of controversial subjects with harmony and continuity all the way through. There is only one unfolding story from beginning to end: The Salvation of man, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
No book ever written solely by man could have been written by so many, with such a wide variety of professions, over such a period of time, in different moods, on three different continents, and over hundreds of controversial subjects, and have only one central theme in mind with such harmony and continuity. Divine inspiration is the only possible way.
b. The Bible is unique in its circulation. The Bible has been read by more people and published in more languages than any other book. There have been more copies produced of its entirety and more portions and selections than any other book in history. Overall, no book has ever come close to the circulation that the Bible has.
According to Hy Pickering, about 30 years ago, for the British Bible Society to meet its demands, it had to publish "one copy every three seconds night and day; 22 copies every minute day and night; 22 copies every hour [sic] day and night; 1,369 copies every minute [sic] day and night; 32,876 copies every day in the year. And it is deeply interesting to know that this amazing number of Bibles were [sic] dispatched to various parts of the world in 4,583 cases weighing 490 tons." [sic] (Evidence That Demands A [sic] Verdict,pp.18,19) [sic] The Cambridge History of the Bible says that no other book has ever known anything approaching this constant circulation.
c. The Bible is unique in its translation. The Bible was one of the first books to be translated. The Hebrew Old Testament was translated into the Septuagint. Josh McDowell says: [sic] "The Encyclopedia Britannica says that by 1966 the whole Bible had appeared...in [sic] 240 languages and dialects...one [sic] or more whole books of the Bible in 739 additional ones, a total publication of 1,280 languages." [sic] (Evidence that [sic] Demands A [sic] Verdict,p.21) [sic]
d. The Bible is unique in its survival.
(1) It has survived time. Being written on material that perishes, having to be copied and recopied for hundreds of years before the printing press came into existence, did not diminish its style, correctness or existence. The Bible compared with other ancient writings has more manuscript evidence and [sic] any 10 pieces of classical literature.
(2) The Jews preserved it as no other manuscript has ever been preserved. They kept tabs on every letter, syllable, word and paragraph. They had special classes of men within their culture whose sole duty was to preserve and transmit these documents with practically perfect fidelity. Whoever counted the letters and syllables and words of Plato or Aristotle?
(3) It has survived persecution. The Bible has withstood vicious attacks from its enemies as no other book has. Many have tried to burn it, ban it, and outlaw it from the days of the Roman Empire unto present time. No other book has ever been mis-treated [sic] like this and still be [sic] in existence.
(4) The Bible has survived criticism. "H.L. Hastings, cited by John W. Lea, forcibly illustrated the unique way the Bible has withstood the attacks of infidelity and skepticism: 'Infidels for eighteen hundred years have been refuting and overthrowing this book, and yet it stands today as solid as a rock. Its circulation increases, [sic] and is more loved and cherished and read today than ever before. Infidels, with all their assaults, make about as much impression on this book as a man with a tack hammer would on the Pyramids of Egypt. When the French monarch proposed the persecutions of Christians in his dominion, an old statesman and warrior said to him, 'Sire [sic], the church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.' [sic] So the hammers of infidels have been pecking? [sic] away at this book for ages, but the hammers are worn out, and the anvil still endures. If this book had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long ago. Emperors and popes, kings and priests, princes and rulers have all tried their hand at it; they die and the book still lives on.'" [sic] (Evidence That Demands A [sic] Verdict,p.21) [sic]
I am going to quit here because I want to make a couple of comments on Mr. Till's charge that the Bible has moral atrocities in it. Mr. Till charges the Israelites and God with moral atrocities because God instructed Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites. However, Mr. Till did not tell us what the Amalekites did to Israel. God had promised Israel the land of Canaan. It was God's to give, was it not? On the way the Amalekites came into their camp and smote them. [sic] (Num. 14:43) [sic] Then the Midianites and the Amalekites came up and destroyed everything that Israel had even to the point that Israel was greatly impoverished. [sic] (Judges 6:3-6) [sic] This war went on for generations. [sic] (Judges 7:12; 10:12) [sic] The Amalekites started this war by coming up behind Israel when they crossed the land of the Amalekites and smote the old and the feeble. [sic] (Deut. 25:17,18) [sic] [Editor's note: McDonald's confusing syntax retained in previous sentence.] These are things that Till did not mention. Why? Simply because he did not want to admit that the Israelites were justified in taking revenge on the Amalekites. Till might bring up that Israel was disobedient to God and God withdrew his protection [sic] and this is why they were destroyed. True, but the fact that Israel was disobedient to God did not cause the Amalekites to do what they did. Those poor old Amalekites only destroyed all the food so that the Israelites babies would starve to death. I wonder what kind of abuse that makes Till a defender of? [sic] Now the Midianites, [sic] helped the Amalekites at one time [sic] and they also lured the Israelites to commit fornication and idolatry. But there is nothing wrong with that, is there [sic] Mr. Till? Surely God was not justified in punishing them for that little thing! Yes, he was! Had the Amalekites and the Midianites left the Israelites alone, they would have never suffered any retribution. I hope Till pays closer attention to this article than he did my last two.
Go to Till's Third Rebuttal.
