This is my last article for this debate, and I want to say that it has been a pleasure being able to participate in it. It is my hope that it will help all who read it to see the error of the "errancy" doctrine and come to a knowledge of the truth. If even one soul is allowed to spend eternity in heaven because of this debate, then I will have been paid back a hundred fold. Before I attack Mr. Till's final defense of this proposition there is something that I wish to bring to the reader's attention. I wish to point out the fact that Farrell has failed in his obligations as the affirmative. His proposition says: "Resolved: There are intertextual contradictions and inconsistencies, historical and scientific inaccuracies, failed prophecies, absurdities, moral atrocities attributed to divine ordainment, plagiarisms, and other disparities recorded in the Bible that disprove its claim to be the inspired word of God." By signing to affirm this proposition it was his obligation to produce at least two of each of these categories. This was an obligation that even he admitted was his. In his second defense he says: "McDonald said that I cannot sustain my proposition unless I prove that at least two intertextual contradictions, two inconsistencies, two historical and two scientific inaccuracies, etc. exist in the Bible text. Technically, he is right because all of these are mentioned in my proposition...". [sic] Did he produce two of each category? No! He did not even produce one of each category, [sic] thus he has failed in his obligations to prove his proposition.
He said that he would not be able to do this because of my constant tangents and circumlocuations that he had to deal with. However, he should remember that he is the one who insisted on this proposition. I proposed that he affirm this proposition: "Resolved: The Bible is the work solely of men," and he refused to sign it. He said: "At Bill Jackson's request, I agreed to a simplified proposition that merely says, 'The Bible contains materials that disprove its claim to be inspired of God.' I suppose I could compromise with you too and settle on the same proposition or something similar, but I would really prefer to affirm a proposition that specifically states the issues I will be bringing into the debate" (Letter from Till to McDonald, dated September 1, 1989, pp. 3,4) [sic]
Therefore I agreed to sign the proposition as he had modified it which is the proposition he is supposed to affirm. Yet he has not produced even one scientific inaccuracy or one historical inaccuracy. Unless I missed it he did not produce even one plagiarism. I don't recall him producing even on absurdity. We did deal with prophecy, contradictions, inconsistencies and moral atrocities. Therefore, he has not lived up to his obligations in this debate. Since he has not done that, he has failed in this debate.
He accuses me of attempting to tiptoe around the problem of the variations in the two accounts of what the prophet Gad allegedly said to David in offering him his choice of punishments for number Israel. He says: "My position has been clearly stated. What a person says is what he says, so any inerrant account of what the person said would have to state the exact words that were said." Is that so? This is a rule that Farrell could not keep if his life depended on it. I will give a couple of examples from Farrell Till which will show that even he does not believe in such a ridiculous rule. He binds it on the Bible because he is in the position of having to prove that the Bible is not inspired by God. However, before I do that I want to quote from Farrell which refutes the very doctrine that he is now binding. In his third rebuttal on page 23 Farrell writes: "Slight variations in the wording of what Gad said (said! said! said! jdm) [Emphasis added jdm] to David in presenting the three choices could be explained on the basis of one writer choosing to tell more details of the conversation [Emphasis added jdm] than the other...". [sic] I have presented this statement to Mr. Till several times during the course of this debate, and just as he has done every thing [sic] else that paints him into a corner, he has ignored it, every time. That statement came from Farrell Till, himself. He said that,[sic] "(s)light variations in the word of what Gad said [emphasis added] to David in presenting the three choices could be explained on the basis of one writer choosing to tell more details of the conversation [emphasis added] than the other...". [sic] I didn't make that statement, Farrell Till did. Now he has changed the rules and says: "What a person says is what he says, so any inerrant account of what the person said would have to state the exact words that were said." These two statements do not harmonize. That is the reason he will not deal with the statement he made in his third rebuttal. He knows that they do not harmonize, so he thinks that by ignoring that statement, that I will just forget about it. Well, he is wrong about that because I won't! In answer to his multiple choice question, I will say that all four answers would be an inerrant account of what was said on the basis that Y's boss chose to tell all of the details of Y's sickness. He was sick for 7 days, 3 of which he missed work. If Y's boss used the word "ill" instead of sickness there would be no mistake, no error. If Y's boss said that Y said, "For three days I was sick" when Y actually said, "I was sick for three days" there is still no error because he was stating what Y said. Mr. Till often says that I said something, but he does not quote me verbatim, that doesn't mean that he has erred.
Example # 1: "This was stated in the context of my reply to his answer to my question: 'Was every verse that Paul wrote in all of his epistles verbally inspired?' McDonald has said that the answer to this question was yes...". [sic] Actually that was not an "inerrant" copy of the question that was asked, if we are to believe Farrell's view of inerrancy. The actual question was this: "Every single verse of scripture in the original autographs of Paul's epistles was completely inerrant" (Till's Second Defense, p.31), and my answer was not "yes," it was "True" (McDonald's Second Rebuttal, p.31). So according to Farrell's new definition of "inerrancy" he has given us an "errant" account of that exchange. Therefore, his statement in his fifth defense is inaccurate and therefore should not be trusted. No, we understand that Farrell did not have to have it verbatim. Farrell even understands that; that is when the Bible is not involved, but if it is the Bible, then exact wording has to be used. I tell you that this is a rule that Farrell would not allow to be bound on any book or any writing in the world, except the Bible. Why the Bible? Because he is in the position of having to prove his "errancy" doctrine, and he will uphold it even if he has to invent new rules.
Example # 2: Mr. Till wrote about a question he had asked me in the oral debate and my answer to that question. He said: "His response was true. He qualified his answer by saying [Emphasis added jdm] that he would have regretted having to do it, but, nevertheless, he would have willingly killed women, pregnant women, mothers, children, and babies." Now was that the exact words I used in answering that question? No! In the first place the question was not a true or false question, it was a "yes" or "no" question. In answering the question I put a check on the "Yes" line, and my qualification was: "only if ordered by God. Willingly in the sense that I am willing (Ready) to carry out any command of God to me." However, Till said that I answered by "saying that he [I jdm] would have regretted having to do it...". [sic] Now according to Till's new definition, he has given us an errant account what my answer was to that question. Therefore it is not trustworthy because it has error in it. Do we consider this to be an "errant" account of my answer to that question? Of course not! We know that the gist is there, all of the elements are there. If it is not "errant" it must be "inerrant." As I said, Till would not bind this new law upon anyone or any book or writing, but the Bible. And the only reason he binds it upon the Bible is because he is in the position of having to prove that there are errors in the Bible, and he will do whatever he can to make it appear as if he has carried out that obligation.
I believe that the above examples are sufficient to prove that Till's rule that if it is inerrant, it must be word-for-word is absurd. He will not allow that law to be applied to the two examples just cited, so why should he expect us to bow down to it regarding the Bible? Only because he is in the position of having to prove that the Bible is not inspired by God and now he must find some sort of "evidence" to back up his claim.
Till claims that the syllogism I formulated to restate his argument on the letter written previously to the letter we now call 1 Corinthians which was apparently lost, then the Bible is not inspired of God, is imprecisely stated. He says that it makes no reference to who wrote the lost epistle, but Pauline authorship is understood in both cases. He says it makes no reference to whether or not the epistle was "verbally" inspired, but he knows that when I speak or write of Bible inspiration, I am speaking or writing of verbal inspiration. Therefore my syllogism is not imprecisely stated; this is just more of Till's smoke-screen tactics to draw attention away from the fact that he has failed in proving his case. Namely that because an epistle written by Paul previous to the letter we know as 1 Corinthians was lost, then this proves that the Bible is not inspired. May I remind you (the reader) that it was Mr. Till who said: "McDonald asserts that every verse that the Apostle Paul wrote in his epistles was inerrant (implying of course that he was divinely guided by the Holy Spirit to protect him from error), yet some of the epistles he wrote have been lost" (Till's Third Defense, p.16)? [sic] He was the one who was saying that simply because one of Paul's epistles had been lost that he was not inspired, by God, to write them! However, after trying to re-write [sic] my syllogism, he finally says: "So in and of itself, this lost, 'verbally-inspired' epistle to the Corinthians may not (underline added jdm) prove conclusively that the Bible was not divinely inspired, but it certainly doesn't do anything to strengthen the belief that it was." Well, if it doesn't prove it then why does he bring it up? Is he saying that this, plus other evidences that he produces sufficiently show that the Bible is not inspired? If so, what other evidences could be attached to this to show that the Bible was not inspired? He says, "(c)ollectively [sic], they become just one more reason at least to doubt the inerrancy doctrine." He is supposed to be proving that the Bible is not inspired, not doubting its inspiration. His proposition says nothing about his beliefs, [sic] or his doubts. His proposition obligates him to prove that the Bible contains such discrepancies that it cannot be inspired by God.
He wants to know what my reaction would be if this letter was found? I would examine it in the light of the other epistles known to have been written by Paul. If it was consistent with those, and if it was consistent with the overall text of the Bible, I would have no problem with accepting it into the canon.
Now we get into his further defense of his alleged discrepancy of 1 Cor. 1:14-16. He objects to the response I gave because Epaenetus was also called the "first-fruits" of Achaia (Rom. 16:5). Therefore, in his mind, the household of Stephanas could not have been the "first-fruits" of Achaia. How ridiculous! Then to make his claim even more ridiculous he says: "Luke's account of Paul's sojourn in Athens specifically named 'Dionysius the Areopagite and a women named Damaris' as converts who 'clave' unto Paul, both of whom are mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament. So isn't it strange that the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to mention these two unknowns as Paul's converts but omit the name of his very first convert in Achaia, a man who later figured prominently in Paul's work in Achaia?" If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable. Mr. Till have you ever read Acts 17:34? Notice: Now pay attention Farrell...">sic] Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris and others with them." You mean to tell me that you have never read that verse? Those phrases, "Howbeit certain men clave unto him and believed,... and others with them" is talking about people like the household of Stephanas, [sic]and Epaenetus. All of them, and anyone else who was baptized while Paul was in Athens would be considered "the first-fruits of Achaia." This objection is nothing more than more of Till's smoke-screen attempts at getting people to look the other way so he will not have to prove his proposition. Farrell, I would be ashamed to have raised an objection like that!
Till tells us that because Paul said, "I thank God that I baptized none of you save Crispus and Gaius," and then immediately said, "and I baptized also the household of Stephanas" that this proves that he considered the household of Stephanas a part of the "you" to whom that statement was addressed. Therefore it did not matter where Paul baptized Stephanas. This is false reasoning. Paul was writing them to let them know that he had baptized no one while he was in Corinth, [sic] but Crispus and Gaius. And so no one would argue about the matter he told them that he had baptized also the household of Stephanas, but the household of Stephanas had not been baptized at Corinth. They had been baptized elsewhere. He did it for emphasis. Remember, reader, I brought up a statement that Farrell Till made which, unless the reader knew better, might be taken as a mistake. Since he ignored it (as he has everything else that paints him into a corner), let me produce it again: "Such muddle [sic] thinking as this almost defies--no scratch the almost. It doesn't almost defy; it does defy comprehension" (Till's Fourth Rebuttal, p.5). Now did Till make a mistake here and back up and change it? No! It is an expression used in writing that even he recognizes. If one thinks for a moment that Farrell had a momentary lapse of thought and that he just went on ahead and changed it because he did not want to start over, you need to realize that Till was using a word processor called "Word-Star [sic]" on his computer. All he had to do was to hit the backspace key and delete the mistake and no one would have ever known about it. However, due [sic] to the fact that he did not do that, we can see that he did it for a reason. What was that reason: "He did it for emphasis." The very reason that I contend for Paul making the statement he made. He did it for emphasis. If Mr. Till can, without committing an error, why can't Paul? The legs of the lame are not equal. If Paul made a mistake in doing this, then Farrell Till also made a mistake. Why? Simply because error, is error. If it was error for Paul, it is error for Farrell. And of all things, Farrell is an English professor. I had made the statement that Paul was not so far along in his epistle that if it was erroneous that he could not have set it aside and started over. Paul was not an idiot, he was a highly educated man. If he felt that there was an error here, he would have changed it. He committed no error in writing what he wrote. The fact that Farrell doesn't agree with this does not mean that Paul was guilty of anything. If Farrell is going to condemn Paul, he will condemn himself as well.
It has never been doubted that Stephanas and his household were members at Corinth. However, this does not prove Farrell's contention because of the things that I said concerning where Stephanas was baptized and why Paul made the statement that he did. I have checked several versions that I have, the KJV, the ASV, the NASB, the TEV, the RSV, the NKJV, the Living Bible Paraphrase as well as the NIV and I do not find in any of them where Paul wrote: [sic] "to the church of God at Corinth, with all the saints that are in the whole of Achaia." They just don't read that way. Everyone of them has something comparable to the KJV's rendering, "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's [sic] and ours" (1:1). I don't know why Farrell even brought it up, but I never made such an argument. Farrell stick to the arguments I made, and leave the others alone. Quit trying to put words in my mouth.
His illustration does not serve to show any inconsistency on my part. If I was [sic] to write back and say, "I thank God that I baptized none of you save Joe Doaks and Bob Smith, lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name, and I also baptized John Jones" it would be an inerrant account. Just as Farrell's statement was an inerrant account when he said, "Such muddle [sic] thinking almost defies--no scratch the almost. It doesn't almost defy, it does defy comprehension." If Farrell can make such a statement and it be inerrant, then why can't I make the statement (mentioned above) and it be inerrant? Both are made for emphasis. I would make the statement to show that while at Sullivan I had baptized no one but Joe Doaks and Bob Smith. However John Jones, whom I had baptized at Oskaloosa, KS [sic] had moved to Sullivan and so no one could come back and say, "Well, you also baptized John Jones" I would say, "I also baptized John Jones." Since John Jones was not baptized at Sullivan, I would not include him in the first list, but rather the second.
Did Paul make a mistake? No! Did the Holy Spirit cause Paul to miscue? No! As I said earlier, had Paul made a mistake, he would have started over because he was not so far along in the epistle to do that. He could also have just scratched it out. If he did not believe that his writing was inspired (as Till contends) then it would have been nothing for him to merely scratch through the error and write it correctly behind the error. Till can't say that the Jews were very particular about their writings, because they were only that particular about their writings that they considered inspired. If Paul did not consider his writings inspired, he would have merely crossed it out and corrected the mistake. Farrell can't even say that Paul was just not smart enough to know that there was a mistake, because such would destroy his idea that Paul corrected himself after he found the mistake. Farrell asked: "If it isn't a memory lapse, then what is it?" Answer: "It is an expression of writing, Farrell, that even you recognize and use."
Farrell says that my statement: "The only mistake is in the mind of one who has already made up his mind that the Bible is not inspired, and now he must find a premise to fit the conclusion" is absurd for two reasons: [1] because Farrell says that he has produced enough evidence to establish to any reasonable person that a mistake has existed. That is something that I would like to see, because so far I have seen nothing which would establish to any reasonable person that a mistake exists. And [2] the statement can be turned back on me: "The only inerrancy in 1 Corinthians 1:14-16 is in the mind of one who has already made up his mind that the Bible is inspired and so must therefore find a premise to fit this conclusion." In any discussion of the Bible with an atheist, the Bible is under attack. The atheist is the attacker and the Bible is the defendant. In our country, in a court of law, the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. My statement is acceptable because I am defending the Bible. The Bible does not have to prove its innocence, the prosecutor must, however, prove its guilt. Since Farrell obviously uses the kind of expression in writing that Paul used in 1 Corinthians 1:14-16, and since Farrell obviously sees nothing wrong with it when he does it, but only when it is found in the Bible, my charge is correct. The only error is in the mind of the one who has already made up his mind that the Bible is not inspired of God, and now he must find a premise to fit the conclusion.
If I was to charge Farrell with infidelity against his wife, and after attempting, and failing, to prove my case, I produced a ridiculous accusation that Farrell was seen talking to a woman and Farrell destroyed the accusation by showing that the woman was merely asking directions, he said, "The only guilt is in Jerry McDonald's mind because he has already made up his mind that I am guilty and now he must find a premise to fit the conclusion" I would look like an [sic] complete fool for saying, "Well, I will simply turn Farrell's statement back on him. The only innocence is in Farrell Till's mind because he has already made up his mind that he is innocent and now he must find a premise to fit the conclusion." I would look like a fool, now wouldn't I? Well, that is exactly what Farrell looks like in attempting to turn my statement back on me.
He says that when one takes the Bible fundamentalist route in life, "he abandons personal pride and integrity and hangs his intellectual objectivity on a nail in the back of the closet." Why would he make such a statement? Because we disagree with him. We don't see the Bible as he sees it. He looks at variances in the scripture and says that there is no way to harmonize them and we look at the same variances and say: "Here is how they can be harmonized!" I guess that is why we need debates like this one, because not everyone sees the Bible the same way. We can, all, understand it it alike, but we don't. However to accuse one of not having any integrity because he believes that the Bible is inspired of God is ridiculous. Farrell, does your mother (providing that she is still alive) have any integrity? Did your father have any integrity? They both believed in the inspiration of the Bible. You ought to think about that! To say that one has no integrity is to say that he is dishonest. Was your father dishonest, Farrell?
Once again he brings us to the alleged discrepancy between Acts 9:26 and Gal. 1:15-23. He is so confused on this that he does not know which way he is going.
- In his debate with Bill Jackson he wrote:
"Well, if he will read the Bible more carefully, he'll find the answer. 'And when he (Paul) was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple.' [sic] (Acts 9:26). This verse says that the disciples were all afraid of Paul. Is Mr. Jackson going to dispute his own inerrant Bible? He wants us to believe that three years had passed and somehow news of the great persecutor's conversion had not yet traveled from Damascus to Jerusalem, a distance of only some 200 miles" (The Jackson-Till Debate, p.48).However, in this debate he turned around and contradicted that statement with this one: "McDonald argued that Luke did not say that the apostles and Christians at Jerusalem had not heard of Paul's conversion. 'Where is that found?' he asked. 'All Luke said was 'but they were afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple [sic] (Acts 9:26). By this, I assume that McDonald is arguing that the apostles and Christians had heard of Paul's conversion but just didn't believe what they were hearing. He wanted to know where my proof was that they had not heard. Well, the proof is there clearly by implication" (Till's Third Defense, pp.20,21).
How does Farrell explain this contradiction of his? This way: "In my debate with Jackson, I was pointing out the absurdity of his belief that three years went by without the disciples at Jerusalem hearing that Paul had been converted. My purpose in the second statement was to show that Acts 9 clearly teaches by implication that the disciples had indeed not heard about Paul's conversion until he tried to 'join himself' to the disciples. One has to be desperate to find a contradiction in the two statements, but, of course, McDonald is quite desperate" (Till's Fifth Defense, p.25).
He tells us that in his debate with Bill he was pointing out that the absurdity of Bill's argument that three years had passed and still news of Paul's conversion had not reached the disciples in Jerusalem, but in our debate he was showing that Acts 9:26 taught, by implication, that the disciples had not heard of Paul's conversion until he tried to join himself to them. That might work for an explanation had he not used the same verse in both statements. In his debate with Bill he used Acts 9:26 (and he quoted it) to show that the disciples had heard of Paul's conversion, but they were still afraid of him. In our debate he used Acts 9:26 (and quoted it) to show that the disciples had not heard of Paul's conversion until he tried to join himself to them. In both statements he uses Acts 9:26. In one debate he used Acts 9:26 to show that they had heard, and in the other he used Acts 9:26 to show that they hadn't heard. Which is it, Farrell? Does Acts 9:26 show that the [sic] had heard, or does it show that they had not heard?
- He uses Occam's razor to see which account (Paul's or Luke's) account is the accurate one. He says that it is ridiculous to believe that after Paul's conversion he left Damascus because the Jews threatened to kill him (Acts 9:23-25), went to Arabia, spent three years there (Gal. 1:16-18), and then made his first trip back to Jerusalem at which time the Jerusalem Christians had not heard sufficient evidence to convince them that their prosecutor had been converted. He says that, [sic] "(s)uch an interpretation also makes absolute nincompoops of the apostles." He says, [sic] "(t)he rule of Occam's razor requires objective students of the Bible to accept a far more sensible interpretation of the discrepant passages in this matter: Paul and Luke simply disagree on the timing of Paul's return to Jerusalem. Since one could logically assume that Paul would have known when he first went to Jerusalem after his conversion, the sensible conclusion is that Luke made a mistake." Did Farrell Till Say That? My, my, my! We are confused aren't we [sic] Farrell? I was so sure that Farrell was arguing in another article that Paul was the one who made the mistake because of a lapse of memory. I thought Farrell had argued earlier that Luke's account was the correct one, and that Paul's account was in error! Maybe I was wrong, let's check it out: "Is it at all possible that Paul suffered memory lapses when he said that he did not go to Jerusalem until three years after his conversion and that when he did go there for the expressed purpose of visiting Cephas he saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother?" (Till's Third Defense, p.24). It seems to me that Farrell is accusing Paul of having a memory lapse. Then on the next page, after further discussion contrasting Luke's account with Paul's Farrell says: "Is it at all possible that Paul suffered another memory lapse that this time he left uncorrected? If we consider the fact that we are talking about a man who couldn't even remember whom he had baptized at Corinth, this possibility seems more than just remote." [sic] (p.25). Well, that certainly sounds like Farrell is saying that Paul's account is the faulty one, doesn't it? Well, doesn't it? Yet, now he jumps clean over into the other side of the position and says that Paul's account is the accurate one while Luke made the mistake. He even implied in his third defense that we should trust Luke's account: "So if we are going to trust Luke's account when he reported that Barnabas took Paul to the apostles, what are we to do with Paul's claim that he saw no apostles on his first trip back to Jerusalem except Cephas (Peter) and James, the Lord's brother?" (p.25). Now he says that we should not trust Luke's account, but rather we should trust Paul's account.
However, in order to show just how confused this man really is, let me point out that he contradicted himself on this point even in his fifth defense. He pointed out that Luke's account in Acts 9:23-26 was far more sensible than Paul's account in Gal. 1:16-18. Notice what he said: "This is a far more sensible interpretation than the one that asks us to believe that after his conversion, Paul left Damascus because of threats that the Jews had made to kill him (Acts 9:23-25), gone to Arabia, spent three years there (Gal. 1:16-18), and then made his first trip back to Jerusalem, at which time the Jerusalem Christians had not heard sufficient evidence to convince them that their prosecutor had been converted." What is he saying here? He is saying that understanding Luke's account to read that Paul immediately went from Damascus to Jerusalem and attempting to join the apostles was far more convincing than Paul's account that he waited for three years and the Christians in Jerusalem had not heard sufficient evidence to believe that he had changed. Then in the next paragraph he says that such an interpretation of the latter would make the apostles look like nincompoops because they had been chosen by Jesus, baptized in the Holy Spirit, empowered to perform miracles and they did not have sufficient evidence after three years to believe. He says: "This is what McDonald expects us to think, but it is entirely too ridiculous to believe." Then in the same paragraph he tells us about Occam's Razor and says, "Paul and Luke simply disagree on the timing of Paul's return to Jerusalem. Since one can logically assume that Paul would have known when he first went to Jerusalem after his conversion, the sensible conclusion is that Luke made a mistake." Way to go, Farrell. According to this statement, we should believe that Paul left Damascus because of the threats (Acts 9:23-25), went to Arabia, spent three years there (Gal. 1:16-18), and then made his first trip to Jerusalem. That's the very thing you told us not to believe. Now you are telling us that it is the most sensible explanation because Paul knew when he went to Jerusalem. Friends this man is so confused that he doesn't know which way is up.
Is it ridiculous to think that the apostles had gone for three years without believing that Paul was a Christian, especially since Paul stated that he, "was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ. But they had heard only, that he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which he once destroyed." There are two things that need to be pointed out, here.
- The passage says that Paul was unknown by face to the churches of Judaea. I pointed this out in my third rebuttal on page 27. I produced two passages where the word Judaea was used and it did not include Jerusalem; these passages were Acts 2:14 (Jerusalem is mentioned in that passage along with Judaea) and Acts 8:1 where the church was scattered throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria. Was Jerusalem included in the word Judaea, I don't think so because it says that the apostles did not scatter with the church, but they stayed in Jerusalem. I also pointed out that Paul, in person, stood and gave endorsement to the stoning of Steven (Acts 7:58). I pointed out that Paul scattered the church in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1). And I pointed out that Paul obtained letters from the high priest at Jerusalem to bring Christians from Damascus to Jerusalem for the purpose of imprisonment. Will Mr. Till ask us to believe that Paul could do all these things at Jerusalem and still be unknown by the face to them?
- It needs to be remembered that when Steven was killed, Paul stood and gave endorsement to his death. Paul had scattered the church, and even obtained letters from the high priest to go to Damascus and bring Christians back to Jerusalem to be imprisoned. The apostles knew all of this, and more. Yes, they were chosen by Christ. Yes, they had been baptized into the Holy Spirit. And yes, they had the power to perform miracles one of which was the ability to discern what was in the mind of individuals. However, that did not make them believe that Paul had been truly converted. Farrell brought this point up in his first defense and I answered it in my first rebuttal. I pointed out that Thomas had heard of Jesus' resurrection, but he did not believe it until he saw Jesus (Jno. 20:25). I also pointed out that this is exactly the kind of trick that one would expect an enemy of Christ's to pull. If I had been an apostle, I probably would not have believed it either. I would expect him to infiltrate the church so as to destroy it. I mean, after all, he had tried just about everything else, hadn't he? If someone was to tell me that Farrell had come back to the church, do you honestly think that I would believe it until I had several serious conversations with Farrell? Not on your life! Even after those conversations, it might be months or even years before I would fully accept it as fact. I would have to see a big change in his overall attitude before I would accept such a story.
Well, I am not the apostles, the apostles had the gift of the Holy Spirit. Doesn't that mean that they could have just gone to the Holy Spirit and asked him to tell them. That's what it means, but did they? The fact that they had these powers did not mean that God would force the truth on them. I pointed out in my first rebuttal that Peter had these same powers, but for some reason he still caused a dissimulation between the Jew and Gentile brethren, so much so that Paul had to rebuke him to his face (Gal. 2:11-16). The fact that he did wrong did not mean that he did not have the gift of the Holy Spirit, but only that he refused to do what was right because of his fear. Mr. Till (and I asked this in my first rebuttal on p.20, and you never did respond to it, maybe you will now) do you not know that, [sic] "...the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets?" (1 Cor. 14:32). Christ gave them the power to cast out demons, but there was a time (because of their lack of faith) that they could not do it. Does that mean that they did not have the power? No!
Mr. Till might contend that 3 years is a long time for them not to find out, and as I said in my first rebuttal, "I can accept that as a valid point." However, Mr. Till needs to tell us how many times in the last 30 years he has gone to God and asked him to lead him, through his word, to the truth. I asked him that in my first rebuttal and I have not heard an answer as of yet. Maybe we will get one now that I cannot respond to it. I doubt, however, if I would be wrong in saying that since he quit the church, he has not gone even one time to God in prayer asking for guidance in finding the truth. And we are talking about 30 years as opposed to 3.
- He has already admitted that Luke would not have needed to tell every stop that Paul made before the itinerary would be correct. Notice what he said: "Jackson tried the old, worn-out 'explanation' that says one can correctly give a travel itinerary without listing every single stopping place on the trip. If one should leave St. Louis, for example, go to Denver for a while, then on to Phoenix for a period, and finally to Los Angeles, he would not be incorrect if he later said, 'I left St. Louis and went to Los Angeles.' This is of course correct, but a problem in this resolution that Jackson could never successfully resolve in trying to apply it to Paul's intinerary after leaving Damascus is its failure to explain why the disciples in Jerusalem did not know after an interval of three years that the great persecutor of Christianity had been converted" (Till's First Defense, p.27).
Well, it is good that he agrees that the gapped itinerary is correct, so we have agreement on that part. Now since I have successfully resolved his problems of the apostles not believing that Paul was converted the only logical conclusion is that both accounts (Acts 9:23-27 and Gal. 1:16-18) are correct and therefore there is no contradiction here. Thank you [sic] Farrell, for that concession modest though it may be.
Then he brings us to the final argument he presented to us in his fourth defense; the problem with God punishing Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong until they ate the fruit, [sic] therefore God was unjust for punishing them. I pointed out that they knew not to eat the fruit because God told them not to. They disobeyed God and when they did then they became capable of knowing right from wrong. They were punished for disobeying God and they began to know right from wrong. They would have sin in their lives, and could not live in the garden of Eden where the tree of life was, so they had to be driven out.
I pointed out that I punish my son for doing things that I tell him not to do even though he does not understand the difference between right and wrong. Till's response is that I am not God, and therefore it is possible that I am in error for punishing my son when he does wrong. Thank you [sic] Mr. Till [sic] for admitting that God was not in error for punishing Adam and Eve. If I am not God and because of this it is possible that I am in error for punishing my son when he disobeys then that implies that God was not in error for punishing Adam and Eve. Therefore he was just in what he did.
Then Till makes this statement: "Truth might actually be that children too young to know the difference in right and wrong should not be punished if they disobey parental orders." In our oral debate in 1991 I said that Farrell blamed God for punishing evil nations because Farrell saw nothing wrong with sin. To him sin is nothing more than a child's disobedience of parental rule, and he does not see anything wrong with that. Well, here we have him telling us this in plain language.
Farrell, the jails and prisons in this country are full of people whose parents thought that children who do not know right from wrong are too young to punish when they disobey parental orders. By the time the children get old enough to know right from wrong they are too old to retrain. Those parents who do attempt to retrain their children often find that they have serious problems on their hands. All too often, however, the parents have held to this philosophy so long that they never get to the point where they feel that their children are old enough to be punished for what they do. I wonder when Farrell thinks that they should be punished by parents. If they are too young before they learn right from wrong, then parents will never punish them because when they do get old enough to know the difference between right and wrong, they have lived this way so long that even if parents did start trying to punish them, it would be too late.
Farrell says that my analogy is, "a resort to false analogy." Why? Because, "McDonald is not God; therefore, it is possible that he is in error when he punishes his son for disobeying him." Well, it is possible that I am in error at times, and when I am I have to admit it, but God has given me the charge of raising my child and there are times when I have to punish him to train him up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. He has to grow up respecting authority.
God will only punish people in hell who are responsible for their actions. I can't believe that I am having to lecture a former preacher for the churches of Christ on this matter. God's punishment in hell will be only for those adults who are responsible for their actions. He will not eternally punish a mentally retarded adult regardless of what he has done. He will not eternally punish a baby or a child under the age of accountability regardless of what they have done. However, children need to be raised to respect authority, and that sometimes means that parents have to punish them. If he does not know the difference between God punishing an adult who is responsible for his actions and not punishing a child in eternal fire, he has more problems than what I will ever be able to help him with. If he does not know the difference between a parent punishing a child for disobedience and God punishing an adult for disobedience, he has more problems than what I can help him with.
Adam and Eve were not babies. They were not children. They were adults! God told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and he told them what would happen if they did. They ate of it anyway and they were punished for their disobedience. Before they ate, they were as innocent as children, but since they were adults they had the ability to reason and they should have used this ability and refrained from eating of that tree. When they ate, they allowed sin to enter into the world and they became conscious of right and wrong. So conscious were they that they realized that they were naked and they sought to cloth themselves. A baby or a small child does not sin when he/she disobeys, but he/she needs to be taught that there is punishment for disobedience. It is part of the training process. God was just for punishing Adam and Eve, just as a parent is just for punishing a child. Adam and Eve were adults and deserved the kind of punishment they were given. Small children do not understand the difference, but they still have to be punished as part of their training, so that they will understand that punishment is the result of wrong-doing.
He continues to complain about my charges that he has not been honest with us about why he left the church. However, his own material is the source from which I have drawn that conclusion. His letter, which I have quoted from several times, dated July 27, 1989 [sic] specifically tells us that he quit before all of the evidence, regarding the Bible's inspiration and inerrancy, was in: "I decided to 'drop out' until I had found satisfactory answers to the problems that were bothering me" (Underline added jdm). As I pointed out in earlier articles any judge in this country of ours that would do such a thing in setting in judgement [sic] in any criminal case in this country would be considered atrocious. However, Farrell can do it, admit it, and everything is A-OK. He tells us that he never ran low on funds and that Michael and I are wrong for so stating in Challenge and my fourth rebuttal. He tells us that: [1] he never ran low on funds and after spending a year in the states he raised support to return simply by making a speaking tour to present his case. Response: If it was so simple then why the critical articles? The way he is writing today, there was no problem with raising funds to go overseas. If raising funds was so simple, and if there were only 100 missionaries in the foreign field, then maybe the problem was with the missionaries instead of the church. If it was so simple to raise funds, then his articles were definitely inappropriate. The only way his articles could be considered appropriate would be if raising funds to go overseas was not so simple as making a speaking tour. [2] He tells us that the articles he wrote were written on behalf of missionary efforts of the church of Christ in general. In other words, they were not designed to help him return to France. I find that a little hard to believe especially since he quoted letters, in the article, which were written by congregations to him informing him that they could not help him. In the October 28, 1958 [sic] issue of the Firm Foundation Mr. Till's article entitled "Dear John Letters or Go In Peace [sic] contained this statement and letter:
"On September 17th I had the opportunity to speak to the church at ......, Michigan about the work in France. I pointed out the above characteristics of the typical 'dear John letter' that churches write in response to missionary pleas. I observed that: (1) If it is short (three or four lines), the experienced worker can tell at a glance that it is a dear John. (2) In such circumstances, he can quote the essence of it before he actually reads it. When I returned home a few days later I received a dear John which said, quote:
Fraternally yours,Dear Brother Till:
Your letter has been read with care, and we at............ believe it to be a most worthy work.
We would like to have a part in it, but our present commitments will not allow us to. May we bid you godspeed in the great work you are doing.
On the same day that I wrote the church that sent me this letter I also contacted six other churches. None of the others even felt the necessity of sending a reply. I did not select this particular letter for any special reason, except for the fact that I had just told the ....... church that a 'dear John letter' would follow the above pattern of the above letter. I have several other dear Johns in my files in France. I could have used any one of them, and it would have followed the same pattern.
Here is a question that has been foremost in my mind ever since I started receiving dear John letters..." [sic]
Now if these articles were not efforts to raise money for him to return to France, why was he receiving the dear John letters? If he was not trying to raise money why was he writing letters to congregations (such as the which prompted the response he quoted in his article) which apparently made these elders think that he was trying to raise money?
However, I believe that a review of another article, he wrote earlier that year will prove that he was trying to raise money to return to France. In April of 1958 the Firm Foundation ran Mr. Till's article, "Revived Judaism" which included this statement:
"Some of the preachers in France intend to return home this summer. Replacements for them are badly needed, but it would require two years for a man to prepare himself to step into the vacancies that these men will leave. We could start to work immediately. We shall be glad to furnish references to anyone interested enough to inquire, although inquiry can be made to any of the workers in France.
Because of the acute shortage of workers that will be produced by the return of present workers, we would like to take at least one other family back with us. We would be happier if two or three volunteers could be found, but we would be glad to settle for just one. If you would like to become a fellow-worker with us in France, contact me and let us work together in this matter. I am entirely at the disposal of all interested parties." [sic] (April 15, 1958, Vol. 75, No 15, p.231) [Underlines belong to me, jdm].
In this article he said that he could start immediately and he would like to take at least one family back with him. Back where? To France of course! But...I thought he was not writing these articles to raise money to return to France? Well, that is what he said, isn't it? However, the Farrell Till of 1958 tells us a different story altogether. The Farrell Till of 1958 tells us that he wrote these articles because he was trying to raise support to return to France to preach, but the Farrell Till of 1994 tells us that these articles were not written to raise funds for himself, but merely to criticize missionary efforts of the church of Christ because it purported to be the only true church. Now just which Farrell Till are we to believe, the one of 1958 or the one of 1994?
In an article which will be published in the Winter 1993 issue of Challenge, Farrell said that the reasons he came home was because [1] he was asphyxiated by an unvented hot water heater in his apartment, [2] he had an automobile accident and [3] the French government rescinded his vehicle registration. He says that when he returned to the states that he knew that he could not go back for at least a year. In fact he said that he did not even start trying to raise funds to return until after his daughter was born in November of 1958. If that is the case why did he say in his article in April of 1958 that he could return immediately. He also said in his article in October that he still had files in France. If he was not able to return for at least a year, why did he leave his files in France. It sounds to me like he lost some support, had to return home and replace that support.
The article he mentions that was written by Michael Hughes was written in response to an article he wrote in The Skeptical Review in which he charged all fundamentalist preachers with just preaching for a living. Now when he called me whining about the article that Michael wrote I reminded him of his article and he denied grouping us all together. He later wrote back and said:
As I said during our phone conversation about Hughes's article, I checked my article "There's a Living in It" and found exactly what I thought I remembered. I at no time said that all of you are in it for the money. A subscriber in Florida had written to me to express amazement at how fundamentalists can continue to defend the inerrancy doctrine in view of all the evidence against it. He said, "I think that the Bible is simply their meal ticket." I then stated that I had wanted to believe that fundamentalists are sincere, but the more I write on the subject and debate it with fundamentalists, the harder it is for me to give them the benefit of the doubt. So could it just be that our reader in Florida is right? I asked. "The Bible is simply a meal ticket to many of the fundamentalist preachers who proclaim it from their pulpits but won't defend it in public debates with informed opponents.
Now please look at what I said. I didn't say that all fundamentalist preachers use the Bible as a meal ticket, but many do, and I even qualified the many to be those who "proclaim it [inerrancy] from their pulpits but won't defend it in public debate with informed opponents." Obviously that would exclude you because you will defend inerrancy in public debate." [sic] (Letter from Till to McDonald, 12/7/93, p.3) [sic]
Now while Michael and I realized that in this part of his article he had no reference to us, this was not the part of the article which caught our attention. The part we took offense at was this part:
"Oh, but that is Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart," some will say. "My preacher would never do anything that dishonest." Well, don't be too sure of it. If the public suddenly stopped believing in Bible inerrancy, what would that do to the thousands of fundamentalist preachers in the land? It would put them all (who? "the thousands of fundamentalist preachers in the land. [sic] jdm) out of work, so don't tell me that they (who? "the thousands of fundamentalist preachers in the land. [sic] jdm) don't have a vested interest in the outcome of the inerrancy controversy. They (who? "the thousands of fundamentalist preachers in the land. [sic] jdm) have a lot of pressure on them (who? "the thousands of fundamentalist preachers in the land. [sic] jdm) to say that they (who? "the thousands of fundamentalist preachers in the land. [sic] jdm) believe in Bible inerrancy even if they (who? "the thousands of fundamentalist preachers in the land. [sic] jdm) don't (underlines and comments added) (The Skeptical Review, Spring 1992, p. 16).
It sounds to me like [sic] he was talking about all fundamentalist preachers, "the thousands of fundamentalist preachers in the land." If not, then maybe he can give us a logical answer as to whom he was writing about in that paragraph.
He says that my accusing him of being intolerant is a case of the pot calling the kettle black because he says that I am intolerant of those who would use instrumental music. Let it be known that as harsh as I am against error I have never resorted to accusing a group of lying simply because they disagree with me. I will stand for what I believe in, but the articles that I have written have never been so harsh as the articles that Farrell wrote in 1958. The only time that I have ever questioned one's motives in debate is in this debate and in one other debate. In both of these debates my opponents gave me good reason to question their motives. Farrell tells us that he quit the church because of some awful moral atrocities and contradictions that he thinks that he found in the Bible, but other materials he has written suggests a different reason. However, I am not even intolerant towards Farrell. I do not have religious fellowship with him, such would be absurd. I am not intolerant towards those who advocate instrumental music. I disagree with them, and I do not have religious fellowship with them, such would be absurd.
He made a point about their only being two or three brief references to singing in the New Testament. There are more than just two or three, there are 8 references in the New Testament to the kind of singing that God demands. Ephesians 5:19 is just as clearly worded as Matthew 28:19 or Mark 16:15.
He tells us that if I was to prove that he is a liar about why he quit the church that such would not establish the falsity of his claim that the Bible is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. Well maybe not, but what it would establish is a motive for why Farrell brings up ridiculous arguments in his attempts at proving that the Bible is errant. It would sure cause one to question why he brings up the arguments he does.
In his fourth affirmative he told us that truth or falsity is always independent of its source and my response was: "I can't believe that statement from a man who does not believe in objective right or wrong." In response he says that rocks exist and the existence of objective right or wrong isn't necessary to prove that it is truth. He brought up the law of excluded middle to show that Oswald either shot Kennedy or he did not. Rocks either exist or they do not. In the first place I am glad to see Till upholding the law of excluded middle. In his fourth rebuttal to my proposition he denied this law, he criticized me for seeing things as either black or white and not seeing grey areas. He said:
It reveals the mind-set that is typical of fundamentalist thinking. Logicians even have a name for it: the either or fallacy. Sometimes it is called the black or white fallacy. It occurs when one sees only two categories or classifications into which a matter in dispute can be put. A fundamentalist will say, for example, that the Bible is either inspired of God or it is not. The possibility that parts of the Bible were inspired and parts of it were not never occurs to a person who thinks like this. It must be all or nothing as far as he is concerned" (Till's Fourth Rebuttal, p.11).
The law of excluded middle states that rocks exist or they do not exist. Either Oswald shot Kennedy or he did not shoot Kennedy. Those are statements about reality, and I am glad to know that Mr. Till and I now agree on that.
However, the law of excluded middle is based upon the fact that there is an objective standard of what is right and what is wrong. If there is no objective standard of what a rock is, then how could one say that rocks either exist or they do not exist. Someone might come up and say: "They do not exist and they do not, not exist because no one knows for sure what a rock is. There is no objective standard which says 'this is a rock, or that is not a rock.'" If Farrell is going to contend that rocks either exist or they do not exist, he is going to have to admit that there is an objective standard which tells us what a rock is. I contend that without objective right or wrong, there can be no law of excluded middle. This is the very point that Farrell used to argue: "the law of excluded middle was false because there is no objective standard of what is right and what is wrong." I believe, however, that he has seen the utter absurdity of that position and now he wants to stand in the middle and allow the truthfulness of the law of excluded middle, but he wants to keep the foundation for that law out of the realm of truth.
The Bible is either inspired or it is not inspired. That is the very argument I made when I was in the affirmative, and it is the very argument Farrell denied. I must agree that Farrell's personal character will not prove or disprove its inspiration, but what it will do is to show his motive for claiming that the Bible is not inspired. I agree with him that truth or falsity is always independent of its source, but the only way he can get this is if there is an objective standard of what is right and what is wrong. I wonder where he studied logic!
Getting back to the Quran, Mr. Tills attempts once more to prove that the Quran claims inspiration, but his arguments do not hold up. He left something out of the first verse he quoted:
"A.L.M.R. These (what? A.L.M.R. jdm) are The signs (or Verses) Of the Book: that which Hath been revealed unto thee From Thy Lord is the Truth; But most men believe not" (Chapt. 13:1.1).
What is the A.L.M.R. in this verse? Let the commentator of the Quran answer: "Here there seems to be a combination of the groups A.L.M. and A.L.R. We consider here not only the beginning (A), the middle (L), and the end (M), of man's spiritual history, but also the immediate future of the interior of our organisation [sic], such as it appeared to our Ummat towards the close of the Meccan period. But in trying to understand the mystic symbolism, we must not be dogmatic. The befitting attitude is to say: God knows best" (Holy Quran, A Abdulla Yusuf Ali, p.602). It is not the verses of the Quran. His second verse says:
"A.L.R. These (what? A.L.R. jdm) are the Ayats of revelation,--Of a Quran That makes things clear" (Chapt. 15:1.1).
These signs, which after a person reads something, are supposed to make it clear so that a person can understand it. These things are merely symbols of revelation and they are also symbols of a Quran. They do not mean that the Quran was inspired by God. He brings up chapter 17:10.85:
"They ask thee concerning The Spirit (of inspiration) [what did we say Islamic inspiration was? They were inspired when they read the book] Say: 'The Spirit (cometh) By command of my Lord: Of knowledge it is only A little that is communicated To you (O men!)."
All in the world this means is that the spirit of inspiration (which is nothing more to the Islamics according to the Quran, than when a person reads he is inspired so he can understand what he read) comes by commandment of God. It is not a claim that the Quran is inspired by God. Chapter 18:4.27 says:
"And recite (and teach) What has been revealed To thee of the Book Of thy Lord: none Can change His Words, and None wilt thou find as a refuge other than Him."
I have already established, time and again, that the Quran speaks of a book that did come from God, a book that is not the Quran. Here is just another reference to that book. Even one of the quotations Farrell produced talked about both the book and the Quran. In chapter 29:6.47 the Quran says:
"And thus (it is) that We Have send down the Book To thee. So the People Of the Book believe therein, As also do some of these (Pagan Arabs): and none But Unbelievers reject our Signs."
Here you have reference to a book that was sent down to the people. The people of this book believed what was in it. This, however, is not a reference to the inspiration of the Quran, but to the sending of another (other than the Quran) to the people for them to live by. Chapter 16:14.102 says:
"Say, the Holy Spirit has brought The revelation from thy Lord In Truth, in order to strengthen Those who believe, and as a Guide And Glad Titings to Muslims."
This passage talks about revelation from God, and since Islam teaches that God revealed a Book to man (a book that is not the Quran) this is what it is talking about rather than the Quran. The religion Islam does not teach that the Holy Spirit revealed the Quran, but rather the Angel Gabriel. Thus this cannot refer to the Quran. The Quran mentions both a Book, and the Quran. Never once does the Quran teach that it, itself is inspired. Chapter 56:3.75-81 says:
"Furthermore I call To witness the setting Of the stars,--And that is indeed A mighty adjuration If ye but knew---That this is indeed A Quran most honorable, In a Book well-guarded, Which none shall touch But those who are clean: A Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds. Is it such a Message That ye would hold In light esteem?"
This passage says that the writer is calling them to witness two things: [1] the setting of the stars which is a mighty adjuration, and [2] that the Quran is most honorable. How are they to witness this? It is in a book well guarded. A book which no one who is unclean shall touch. A book that is revealed from God. Again, you have the Quran and a Book from God mentioned. It is believed that the Quran was prophecied about in other spiritual books (Chapter 26:196). This other book is a book that was believed to have been given by Moses which is mentioned in chapter 25:35: "(Before this,) We sent Moses The Book, and appointed His brother Aaron with him As Minister." Farrell talks about the phrase "the Book" and says that this is the Quran. No, the Quran was never claimed to have been given to Moses, but "the Book" was. Thus showing that they are two different books. Chapter 26:11.192-193 says:
"Verily this is a Revelation From the Lord of the Worlds: With it came down The Spirit of Faith and Truth."
What is a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds? Go back and read the context. This section talks about the Quran being written. It was announced in other spiritual books. It is not a sign to the Jews. The revelation that the Quran would be written was not revealed to any non-Arabs, for they would not have believed it. Whatever people might say or do will not destroy the revelation that the Quran will be written. This, friends is the about the closest he will get to the Quran claiming inspiration, and when one looks at it one can easily see that the only revelation is that the Quran will be written. Chapter 2:12.97 says: "Say: Whoever is an enemy To Gabriel--for he brings down The (revelation) to thy heart By God's will, a confirmation Of what went before, And guidance and glad tidings For those who believe." This simply says that Gabriel would give revelation, and give confirmation of the things that happened before as well as guidance and glad tidings. It says nothing about this revelation being the Quran. The Islam religion teaches direct revelation from God. This happens to be that direct revelation. There is nothing in any passage that he has produced to lead us to believe that the Quran teaches that it (the Quran) was inspired of God. Thus we do not find where it claims inspiration so the argument I made concerning the Bible cannot be applied to the Quran.
He tells us that in light of the passages from the Quran that he has quoted, for me to deny that it claims divine inspiration is too ridiculous to deserve additional comment. Then he says, "(t)o [sic] so argue puts McDonald in the position of saying that when the Bible claims that the Holy Spirit revealed words being written or spoken (1 Cor. 2:10; Eph. 3:5; 2 Pet. 1:21) this meant that the Bible was inspired of God but when the Koran claims that it was revealed by the Holy Spirit, this doesn't mean that the Koran was inspired by God." [1] I have successfully answered every claim that he has produced, in this debate, to show that the Quran claims divine inspiration, and have shown everyone of his claims to be false. I have an idea that if he was to debate an Islamic over the inspiration of the Quran, that he would be making the same arguments that I have made on each of those passages. However, in this debate he must argue that the Quran claims inspiration so he can show that my argument on the Bible being of divine origin do not hold water. I have found that Farrell will argue whatever point he can (even if he has to contradict himself) in order to hold on to his precious errancy doctrine. [2] I have successfully answered his claims that the Holy Spirit revealed the Quran. I showed that Islamic dogma teaches that the angel Gabriel was supposed to have revealed the Quran, not the Holy Spirit. And this doctrine did not come from the Quran, but sources outside of the Quran. [3] 1 Cor. 2: 9-14 (which includes verse 10) simply shows that no man can know the mind of God, except the Spirit of God, revealed it unto him. In Eph. 3:1-9 (which includes verse 5) shows that Paul had been given the job of taking the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15). The message he preached and wrote was revealed to him by Christ (Gal. 1:11,12) and no one else. He tells them that when they read they will understand his knowledge in the mystery (gospel) of Christ which in ages past had not been revealed to the sons of men, but at the time he wrote, it was being revealed (Gal. 3:19-24) so that the gentiles could be fellow-heirs in the promise of Christ by the gospel, whereof Paul was made a minister. It was his job to preach to the gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ. In 2 Pet. 1:21 we simply see that when the Spirit of God inspired men to speak (or write) that they were to speak (or write) only that which had been revealed. They were not to interpret, but simply speak (or write). These passages are far different from the examples he produced from the Quran in his attempt to show that it claims inspiration. The Quran consistently speaks of a book which would confirm the law of Moses and the law of Christ. I showed that the Quran does neither. Part of the law of Christ is that Christ was God in the flesh (Col. 1:15), but the Quran calls such blasphemy. The Quran does not even recognize the Pentateuch as being the law of Moses. How could it confirm these things? Yet it did talk about a book which would confirm them. This book was to be revealed by God, and the Quran prophecies of it, but the Quran is not that book. Nowhere does it say that it is.
I have never claimed that a mere claim of inspiration is enough to prove inspiration. This is a straw-man that Till erected early on in this debate and when I did not make the argument he proceeded to beat it to death as though I had made that claim. Erecting and beating straw-men is nothing new, I see false teachers do it all the time.
In this debate, he has erected a straw-man to fight in regards to my arguments on the inspiration of the Bible. I did show that the Bible claims to be inspired, but I did this to show that there was internal evidence for the Bible's inspiration. I showed that there was a claim, but I did not rest my case solely upon this. I also produced external evidence such as the Bible's uniqueness. I showed that the Bible is unique in continuity, in circulation, in translation, in its survival of time, the elements, criticism and persecution. I showed that the Bible is unique in its teaching on prophecy, history, in dealing with the personalities of the characters in the Bible, and its influence on surrounding literature. I showed that historically, the Bible is a reliable document. I made an argument on the canon of the Scriptures. I made an argument to show that the Bible is all-sufficient, that it needs no other book to confirm it or explain it. I showed that the Bible's character is such that man could not have written on his own, Satan could not have written it, therefore God had to have written it. I showed that the Bible is inerrant. I first showed that God existed. The only arguments that Till dealt with was my argument on the Bible being of divine origin, it being inerrant. The arguments on continuity and the arguments on prophecy. All others were just cast into the wind as though I never made them. And yet, he had the audacity to pretend that the only evidence I rested my case upon was internal evidence.
For him to say that because the Quran claims that Islam is the true religion is to say that the Quran claims inspiration is the same for him to say that if I write a book which includes the claim that Christianity is the true religion is a claim of divine inspiration for that book. I brought up that argument once, and as usual, Till completely ignored it.
Next we come to his quibble on Christ's words: "the word that I have spoken the same shall judge him in the last day" and Till wants to know, "When did Jesus speak all the words in the Bible?" In Matthew chapter 12 Jesus had cast out a demon from a man and the Pharisees not willing to admit that he had done this by the power of God accused him of doing it by the power of Beelzebub, the prince of devils. In verses 26-28 Jesus responded: "And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come upon you." Jesus claimed here that he had cast out this demon by the power of the Holy Spirit of God. In other words, the Holy Spirit was the source while Jesus was the agent. Now, Christ is the source because he and the Holy Spirit changed roles. Christ promised that, "the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father shall send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (Jno. 14:26). Then in John 16:13 Jesus said, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." Now my point is this: Christ is the source (just as the Holy Spirit was the source when Jesus cast out the demon in Matthew chapter 12) and the Holy Spirit is the agent. The Holy Spirit was sent in the name of Christ (or by his authority) to teach those apostles and prophets and to bring all the things to their remembrance that he had taught them. He was not to speak of himself, but whatever he would hear (from the one who was in authority) is what he would speak. Since Christ was in authority (as king of the kingdom) he spoke all the words to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit then spoke them to the inspired writers or speakers. Thus Jesus did speak all of the words of the New Testament. Before he came to earth as the Son, he was called the "Word" of God (Jno. 1:1-3,14). As the "Word" of God, he gave the word of God, therefore he spoke the words of the Old Testament. Therefore, Jesus spoke all of the words of the Bible. Farrell thinks that Jesus had to speak all the words of the Bible while he was on earth during his personal ministry, but such is a ridiculous assertion.
Did Jesus speak the words found in Jude 14, "(a)nd Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints." which Farrell thinks originated in the pseudepigraphal book of First Enoch? [1] Farrell would be hard pressed to prove that these words originated in that piece of literature. It is in there to be sure, but as the late Guy N. Woods said:
"It is alleged by many scholars that this prophecy which Jude cites was taken from an aprocryphal book entitled 'Book of Enoch,' copies of which are in existence to this day, and containing the following prophecy, 'Behold he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgement upon them, and to destroy the wicked, and to strive (at law) with all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done and committed against him.' The 'book of Enoch' was discovered shortly before the Revolutionary War--about 1773--in a copy of the Ethiopic Bible, and translated into English in 1821. The book cannot be certainly traced back of the third century, and there is no reliable evidence when it was written. An examination of it reveals that it was written by a Jew; that its author subscribed to the idea of a judgement such as that taught in the New Testament; and that it was influenced by New Testament conceptions. Numerous matters in it suggest a post-apostolic origin. There are sharp variations between the statement allegedly cited by Jude and the actual statement as it appears in Jude. There is more reason for supposing that the book of Jude is older than this so-called 'Book of Enoch,' and that the author quoted from Jude rather than Jude from him! In the same fashion that Peter knew that Noah was a preacher, that Lot was vexed in Sodom, and that Paul knew the names of the Egyptian magicians; Jude learned of Enoch's prophecy--by inspiration" (A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles Volume VII, Peter, John and Jude, Guy N. Woods, pp.398,399).
[2] However, if it could be proven that Jude quoted from the "Book of Enoch" what would this prove? Would this prove that Jesus did not tell Jude to write it? No, especially since Paul (under the influence of inspiration) quoted from secular works in his sermons, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring" (Acts 17:28) and in his writings, "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true" (Tit. 1:12.,13). Was Jesus a bigot who went around stereotyping entire nations of people? No! Jesus told the Spirit who in turn instructed Paul to write what a Cretian prophet (not a poet) had admitted about the Cretians. It was their own prophet which said that they were this way. Christ, the Spirit, and Paul merely affirmed the truthfulness of that statement. A secular writer could be quoted from and the work in the Bible be inspired by God.
What about 1 Cor. 7:12: "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away"? Does this prove that some of Paul's statements were not inspired by God? Does Paul not mean for us to understand that his statement was uninspired, but only that Jesus had never spoken anything about the subject? The answer to both of those questions is "No!" Paul meant for us to understand that his works were inspired, but in this passage he was saying that this was a matter that Jesus did not cover during his personal ministry on earth, so Paul (by inspiration of the Holy Spirit who spoke what Jesus told him to speak) had to cover it now. I think all this agrees very well with my statement that the Bible is the word of Christ.
He tries, again, to place me into the affirmative by attempting to make me prove that Jesus actually said what is written in John 12:48 and that the Bible is the word of Christ. [1] I have shown that the Bible is the word of Christ (through inspiration), and one rule of testing the reliability of any document is the "Benefit of the Doubt" test which says: "that literary critics still follow Aristotle's dictum that 'the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself..., one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualifies himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies'" (Evidence That Demands A Verdict, pp. 60,61). So it is Till's responsibility to show that John 12:48 was not spoken by Christ. He is going to have to show where this statement contradicts something said by Jesus elsewhere before he can say that Jesus did not say it. However, I have a feeling that if such could be done he would have done it long before now. [2] I am not in the affirmative, Till is. The passage he continues to bring up was one that I have in defense of my proposition. Well, that proposition is no longer being discussed. The argument is no longer under consideration. Till is supposed to prove that there are contradictions, inconsistencies, moral atrocities, plagiarisms, failed prophecies, historical and scientific inaccuracies, absurdities and other disparities in the Bible which prove that it is not inspired by God. He should have spent the time he spent working on my affirmative arguments, proving his proposition. It is not my obligation to prove that the Bible is inspired in this part of the debate, it is Till's obligation to prove that at least two of every category in his proposition exists in order to show that the Bible is not inspired by God.
Was I supposed to track down Kimchi and Abarbinel's statement before I could quote from it? Not [sic] hardly! I quoted what John Gill said on the matter, he wrote what they said and I quoted him. I did not tell Till to go check out their claim, he wanted to know what their reasons were for making the claim and I told him that I didn't know. I told him that if he wanted to know what their reasons were he would need to go and check it out for himself. I do not have to have their reasons for making the claim before I can quote from them. If that is something that Till wants an answer to, he needs to do the research. I will not do the research for him. Is quoting someone inadmissible in court in every case. Don't make me laugh! If I get called to the scene of an accident and when I pull up a man jumps out of his car and says, "It is all my fault, I am to blame" and I find that he was to blame, I can put that into the report and it will stand up in court. It is called "spontaneous utterance." It is legal, check it out! Or do you want me to do your research on that too? An accountant can give testimony of what his employer said to him regarding money that was misappropriated from company accounts and it will stand up in court. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible because hearsay is defined as something that someone says that someone told him that someone told him that so and so did something. John Gill stated what Kimchi and Abarbinel said, he did not give their reasons, but he wrote what they said. If quoting someone that quoted someone else is inadmissible then when Till quoted from his debates with Laws and Jackson where he had quoted them in the debate, he was producing inadmissible evidence. Yet, we all know that such is ridiculous. The only thing is, he can do it, but I can't. There is that double-standard again!
I am not the one who started the re-hasing [sic] of the same materials of David and Solomon's co-reign, Farrell is the one who kept it going. I merely responded to what he said to show that his arguments did not prove his contention. His contention was that David and Solomon had a rather short co-reign, but he failed to produce any evidence of it. I successfully refuted everything he said about the matter. And let me say that there is no discrepancy between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chron. 22:2. Farrell told me that if I could prove that Jehoram reigned longer than the 8 years in Jerusalem mentioned in the scriptures that I could prove my point. I did give textual evidence of his reigning longer, and you saw what Farrell did with it, didn't you? He completely ignored it! Just like he has on everything else that I have produced which puts him in a corner. Till bragged that he had spent more space on this so-called discrepancy and then shamed more for not spending as much space. However, when the words were counted and it was shown that I used 1,548 more words than Farrell did, he was as silent as the grave about the matter. That is nothing new for Till because he is known far and wide for his ability to just completely ignore matters that really press him.
He has completely ignored the point that I made that if the Chronicle's writers were trying to clean up the unsavory events in the life of David, that they would not have where all of the events of David's life could be found. Yet 1 Chron. 29:29 still says: "Now the acts of David, the king, first and last, behold they are written in the Book of Samuel the seer...". Why would they tell readers where to go to find the acts of David "first and last" (or in other words, all of his acts) if they were trying to clean up the unsavory events in his life. As I said, the Chronicles accounts were written about different events in David's life. Sure there were some overlapping of events, but the Chronicles accounts also spoke about aspects of David's life. Did the Holy Spirit instruct the writer(s) of 1 and 2 Samuel to tell all of the details of David's life, but then instruct the writer(s) of 1 and 2 Chronicles to leave out some of those details? Yes, he did! What is so ridiculous about that?
I stated that it is possible that Swindler did not write both statements, but I also pointed out that such would make him look pretty foolish for allowing this to be sent without proof reading it. It especially makes him look foolish for not making sure that I understood this when I charged him with contradicting himself. However, I did say that even though it is possible that Swindler did not make the statements, the statements do contradict each other. One can be proven to be true and the other can be proven to be false. This does nothing to harm my argument, but it does plenty to harm his. I am willing to admit that Swindler did not contradict himself, but by his own foolishness he has allowed these contradictions to exist. He should have written back and said, "I didn't write both of those statements, so just forget about the one the secretary wrote." However, all Farrell has proven is that when two statements seem to contradict each other, this does not prove that they are actually contradictory. If, "the tactics that fundamentalists use to explain away obvious Bible discrepancies will, if applied uniformly to all written documents, make contradiction impossible" then Farrell is the one with the problem, not me. Because if contradiction is impossible, he cannot prove that the Bible contradicts itself.
He says, "On the 'correctness' of my how-it-could-have-been explanations of what Swindler mean, [sic] McDonald said, 'Now if [Till] admits that he was only bringing up any explanation to explain the two statements Swindler made, then he cast a shadow on his own credibility because he knew that the contradiction existed, but he did not want to admit it in debate' (p.19)." Then he tells us that this is a curious statement because we claim that no one can claim a contradiction if we can show how it could have been. Some key words of my statement was, "because he knew that the contradiction existed, but he didn't want to admit it in debate." Now if he can prove that we know that contradictions exist in the Bible, but we just don't want to admit it then he can prove that my statement is curious. This seems to have alluded him, but that doesn't surprise me.
He quotes J.W. McGarvey who said, "Two statements are contradictory not when they differ, but when they cannot both be true. If, on any rational hypothesis, we may suppose them both to be true, we cannot rightfully pronounce them contradictory. We are not bound to show the truth of the given hypothesis, but only that it may be true [sic] (Evidences of Christianity [sic] J.W. McGarvey, Part 2 1886, p.32). Would someone please point out the difference between that statement and this one, "When a debater examines the conclusion of an affirmant's (Underline [sic] added) argument and establishes that there are likely or probable conclusions besides the one arrived at in the argument, then the argument stands impeached until the affirmant discredits the likeliness or probability of the counterconclusions" (The Jackson-Till Debate, p.29). The first statement is made by J.W. McGarvey and the second is made by Farrell Till. McGarvey said that as long as we show that two statements may be true that a contradiction cannot be claimed until the attacker proves that they are both not true. Till said that as long as he shows that there are likely or probable explanations to arguments, then they stand impeached until we prove that his likeliness or probability is false. Yet, Till condemns McGarvey for making almost the same statement he did. Till is like liberal preachers in the church of Christ for saying that Christians do not have to repent of their sins in order to go to heaven, but then turn right around and condemn Baptist Preachers for teaching the doctrine of impossibility of apostasy. I mean, "what's the difference?" What's the difference between Till's statement and the one McGarvey made? The difference is that McGarvey was a believer in the inspiration of the Bible and Till isn't. There is that double standard again, [sic] they can, but we can't.
As anyone, who reads this debate, knows I have not just advanced any old explanation to explain Biblical contradictions. This is, but, another one of Till's straw-men that he has erected and continues to fight. Every explanation I have given has been time honored explanations given by reputable Bible scholars (not reputable as defined by Till, but nonetheless reputable).
He says, "He wants to deny me the right to say that all I was doing with Swindler's statements was showing that one can 'come up with any old explanation to try and explain away contradictions' (p.19), but regardless of what he wants, that is exactly what I am going to say." I was not attempting to deny him of any such right. However if this is what he wants, he may have it. So, in other words, there is a contradiction between the two statements, right? Do Swindler's statements contradict each other, Farrell? Are you telling us that you know that the contradiction exists, but you are going to argue that it doesn't anyway just to make a point? To do so destroys all credibility that you might have left. What Farrell needs to do now, is to show that I believe that the Bible contradicts itself, but I just want to produce any old explanation to explain the contradiction away. If he can do that he can show that his argument is valid. He admits that he believes Swindler's statements contradict each other, and he admits that he was just arguing to explain away the contradiction because he didn't want to admit that there was a contradiction between the two statements. However, he can't prove that I believe that the Bible contradicts itself and I was just producing any old explanation in an attempt to explain away the contradiction.
Another thing this admission does is to surrender his position on what constitutes a contradiction. If he is to prove that two statements in the Bible contradict each other he is going to have to prove that one of those statements is false. Showing that they differ will not get the job done, he must show where one is false. He asked, "(h)ow [sic] do we know that McDonald has been honest in the things he has been saying in this debate?" Well, Farrell, at least I didn't produce explanations simply to explain away contradictions. I really believe that the Bible is harmonious all the way through. You can question my intellectual integrity if you want, but you may not question my honesty. I can question both your intellectual integrity and your honesty, because you admitted that you were lying when you brought up the explanations to explain away the contradiction between Swindler's statements.
Then he goes back to Deuteronomy 23:2 and says that I have gone to an extreme in my effort to avoid admitting that the Bible obviously contains textual discrepancies. I showed that he wanted to take the word "to" out of the text and make it say, "even the tenth generation." I told him that if he could properly delete the word "to" then he would have a point. He tried by showing that there was no separate word for "to" and therefore should be deleted. Apparently Mr. Till knows little about translating from Hebrew and Greek into English. He brought Young's Literal Translation and Hickerson's Interlinear Bible into evidence and showed that one left the word "to" completely out and the other put it in parentheses. I pointed out that Hickerson put the word "to" in parentheses because there was no separate word for it, but it was a proper translation otherwise he would not have put it there. I put The Englishman's Greek New Testament's rendering of Luke 23:22 into evidence and showed that the last word "him" was in brackets because there was no separate word for it, but that it was a proper translation. On that one Till was a silent as the grave. I quoted Deut. 23:2 from the Greek Bible and showed that the word "hehos" which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew "gam" meant, "to denote the end of a period of time, till, until" (A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p.334). When it is used as a preposition of time it means: "until, up to" (Ibid). I produced these and Till just ignored them with the qualification: "A 'Greek text' of Deuteronomy 23:2 would be just another translation, so there is no need to comment about what hehos meant in Greek. His concern should be what gam meant in Hebrew. I don't really know what to say about a statement like that! I could just as easily say, "An 'English text' would be just another translation, so there is no need to comment on what even meant in English. His concern should be what gam meant in Hebrew." If I had made such a statement he would still be howling about it. The Greek Bible I used is a translation of the Hebrew text. He likes to talk about the Septuagint, so what is my version if it is not a Septuagint (Hebrew translated into Greek)? The translators translated the word which comes from the root word gam into the Greek hehos which shows it to be a preposition of time. If it is a preposition of time in the Greek it will be because it is a preposition of time in the Hebrew; unless he can prove that it was improperly translated into the Greek. The usage of words do not change from translation. If a word is a noun in the Hebrew and Greek, it will be a noun when translated into English. If a word is a verb in Hebrew it will be a verb when translated into Greek. If he doesn't understand that, he has more problems than I can help him with, but that seems to be an established fact. If the Greek word hehos is the proper translation of the Hebrew word gam (and it is) and if hehos is a preposition of time which means "even to" or "until" then the Hebrew word gam is also a preposition of time meaning "even to" or "until."
I pointed out that words can be supplied which are part of the translation and still be proper. To this Mr. Till quotes Hickerson's rendering of Deut. 19:7, 9 which puts words like "and" and "the" in parentheses and then says: "surely [sic] McDonald will not argue that Hebrew had no words for and and the, both of which have been enclosed in parentheses in the translations." Well, if the book The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew by Kile M. Yates, Ph.D. is any authority on the matter the Hebrew has no separate conjunction. The only conjunction that the Hebrew has is like the preposition, it is part of the word itself: "The conjunction __ 'and' is always written as an inseparable prefix" (p.26). Now as far as the word "the" is concerned, "The Hebrew has no indefinite article...The definite article is always a prefix. It is joined to the word so closely as to make one word in writing and pronunciation" (p.21). Therefore, Mr. Till, there are no separate words for "the" and "and" in the Hebrew, so you see my point still stands. I agree with Hickerson when he said, "At times it was necessary to supply words in the English translation that have no Hebrew or Greek words behind them. These supplied words are always enclosed in parentheses; all words so inclosed were supplied." Now going on to prepositions, "These prepositions are always written as prefixes" (The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew, p.23). What prepositions? These prepositions: "in, by, with, as, like, according to, to, for, at" (p.23). They don't have any Hebrew words for them, they are always written as prefixes. Thus the word "to" is just as proper and just as correct in Deut. 23:2 as the words "and" and "the" are in Deut. 19:7,9 are. That's clear enough even for Farrell Till to understand. I didn't ignore Young's translation, I simply said that I didn't have it, but I also showed that the majority of translators were against him. I showed that the KJV, the ASV, the NIV, the NASB, the RSV, the NJB all include the word "to" in the translation of Deut. 23:2. The only four I could find that didn't was the Living Bible Paraphrase which is not even a translation the Living Books Of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy Paraphrased which is not a translation, but a paraphrase. The NEB which is one of the most ill-translated versions that there is and Young's translation. I don't have Young's and frankly I do not need it. However, if I wanted to know why Young translated it the way he did, I would not ask Farrell to do my research for me, I would simply do that myself.
He says that he is tempted to go on with the word "gam," but he doesn't have the space because he wants to give me the coup de grace. I often get tickled at Farrell, because every time he attempts to give me the coup de grace it back-fires in his face. He said: "I knew the position that McDonald would take on David's qualifications to enter the assembly, so actually what I wanted was to use David as bait to get McDonald to say that Deuteronomy 23:2 barred descendants of bastards from entering the assembly of Yahweh for at least 10 generations. Once he had taken this position (as he has done), he would be forced to admit that anyone who was closer than the tenth-generation descendant of a bastard should have been barred from entering the assembly. So now that he has taken the bait, I can administer the coup de grace and let him wrestle with the problem of Aaron's sons and grandsons, who not only entered into the assembly but served as priests before the altar of Yahweh."
You know, Farrell, you really ought to do more study in the Bible, you might not make as many blunders as you do. What is his argument? Aaron married a woman named Elisheba, who was the daughter of Amminadab who was the sister of Nashon, according to Exodus 6:23. He says that the significance can be seen when the genealogy of the bastard Perez (Gen. 38:24-30) is examined. Amminadab was only the fourth generation from Perez (Ruth 4:18; 1 Chron. 2:5-9) and according to Till his (supposed) daughter (who supposedly married Aaron) was fifth from Perez which made Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar only six generations away from the bastard Perez. Then Till fanaticizes what we might say in response to this which means absolutely nothing in the world. Let me tell you what I will say to this.
Who says that Aaron's father-in-law was the Amminadab who was in the line of Judah? Does the Bible? No! Farrell Till did, but that does not make it so. Let us look at the line of Levi (Aaron's line) and the line of Judah. Levi was older than Judah, and as we will see in the chart below it would have been impossible for Aaron to have married any daughter of Amminadab who was fourth from Perez. I think that when one looks at the chart below he/she will be able to see the utter folly of what Mr. Till is asking us to believe. Chronologically it would have been an impossibility for any daughter of Amminadab (the fourth from Perez) to be the mother of Nadab, Abihu, Eleazer and Ithimar.
_________________________________________________________________________________________ LEVI JUDAH ---Tamar's bastard sons GERSHOM KOHATH MERARI ER ONAN SHELAH PEREZ ZERAH AMRAM AMMINADAB HEZRON AARON [NASHON ELISHEBA] RAM NADAB ABIHU ELEAZER ITHAMAR AMMINADAB NASHON [ELISHEBA] _________________________________________________________________________________________If you will notice you will see Nashon's and Elisheba's names in brackets in the line of Levi and also Elisheba's name is in brackets in the line of Judah. My reason for doing this is because their names are not mentioned in the genealogies in 1 Chronicles chapters 2 & 6. It would have been an impossibility for Aaron to have married and sired children by a person who was born after her first born child was supposed to have been born (Nadab). However Kohath did have another son and his name was Amminadab (1 Chron. 6:22), and if he had a son named Nashon and a daughter named Elisheba, those two would have been contemporary with Aaron. We don't know if Amminadab had a son and a daughter by those names, or not, because they are not listed in the geneaologies. However, Elisheba's name is not mentioned in the genealogy of the Amminadab who was fourth from Perez either. All we know is that Aaron married a woman named Elisheba who was the daughter of Amminadab, and who had a brother named Nashon. We don't know, for sure, who she was, but I can tell you right now, that she was not the daughter of Amminadab who was fourth from Perez for such a person would not even have been born when Aaron married and begat children. Let's say that Ruben was born, then nine months later Simeon was born, then nine months later Levi was born, and then nine months later Judah was born. Alright now let's suppose that Judah married before Levi and he sired a son Er. If you wish we can say that Levi still had not married (although it is not likely). Now let's suppose that Levi marries and begets Gershom. Let's suppose that Gershom and Er are contemporary. Er and Gershom (who is a few years younger than Er) grow up and Er marries Tamar. Travelling back, Judah begets Onan and lets [sic] suppose that Levi begets Kohath, and they grow up as contemporaries. Er displeases God and dies and Onan is forced to take Tamar as his wife, but he displeases God and he dies. Tamar asks for Shela who is Judah's youngest son (who apparently is old enough to marry, for Tamar would not take a child as her husband). Now Tamar pulls her little trick when she finds out that Judah has let several years go by without letting him have her. The result of her adulterous union is Perez and Zerah. After the children of Israel migrated to Egypt, Perez is born, marries and begets Hezron. We don't know how long it was between the time that the Israelites went to Egypt and Exodus chapter two but it was a few years because Exodus 2:1-4 tell how Amram (the descendent of Levi) who was the son of Kohath had married and had begat Moses who was three years younger than Aaron. Let's say that Aaron was contemporary with Ram because Ram had not been borne when the Israelites migrated into Egypt. We saw in our last article that Hezron was not yet born when this happened. If Amram was born a few years later than Hezron this would make his son Aaron contemporary with Ram. Ram begets Amminadab about the time that Aaron marries Elisheba. You have a big problem, Farrell. Even if you make Aaron contemporary with Amminadab (which would have to really stretch things to do) you still have Elisheba being born about the same time Nadab was. Your theory simply will not stand up.
Farrell will no doubt contend that I am overlooking something very important. He will contend that what I am overlooking is that I am working from the position of assumption that the Bible is correct and that there is no mistake made on Elisheba's genealogy. In other words, he is going to argue that I do not know that the Bible writers did not make a mistake and place Amminadab to late in the genealogy of Judah. Well, let me say that I am not in the affirmative, Farrell is. If there was a mistake, Farrell is going to have to show that one was made, and he is going to need more than just saying: "Well, how do you know that the Bible writers did not make a mistake on this list and place Amminadab to [sic] late in the list?". If this is what his argument is going to rest on, he is going to have to show that there was a mistake.
Would it have been unlikely that Amminadab (the son of Kohath) to have had a son named Nashon? Hardly! One needs to remember that duplication of names was very common back then, and still are today for that matter. For example, my late father's name was Thomas H. McDonald with the "H" standing for Harvey, and my son's name is Thomas H. McDonald with the "H" standing for Hardeman. Now if Thomas Hardeman ever grows up, gets married and fathers a son and names him Jerry D. McDonald with the "D" standing for David, you would have the same names as my father and I had, and you would not have any mistake.
Now we go back to objective morality again, and I am not going to spend too much space on this because it has been hashed and rehashed time and again during this debate. To Till morality is simply the result of human intelligence. In other words, before there was one human being on the earth there was no moral value. If there was no moral value then it came from humans. If that be the case then everyone is the standard for his own set of moral values. If one person feels that it is morally right to commit adultery, according to Till's doctrine, there is nothing wrong with that. If one feels that it is morally right to be a homosexual, Till's doctrine says that such is alright. If Christine Bucillachi's father thought it was morally right to pull the plug on Christine, then according to Till's doctrine, there was nothing wrong with that. If a woman feels that it is morally right for her to abort her unborn baby then according to Till's doctrine (because morality is the result of human intelligence) there is nothing wrong with that. If I feel that it is morally right to believe in and teach those who believe in the inspiration of the Bible that the Bible is inspired, then according to Till's doctrine, there should be nothing wrong with that. Why does he oppose those of us who want to teach the inspiration of the Bible? After all, there's no objective standard of what is right and wrong, its all up to one's intelligence and the situation. However, you have seen just how far he will allow that argument. I've got it, when Till agrees with a moral position (whether it be abortion or homosexuality) there is no objective standard of right and wrong. But let one disagree with Till's position (on the inspiration of the Bible, for example) and you suddenly become guilty of real moral wrong.
I have already dealt with his argument on why murder is wrong. I dealt with it when I was in the affirmative. Murder is wrong because it violates the morality which flows from God's nature. He is not above it, he is not below it. It is part of him, it is part of his nature. It is part of his being and existence. God can take life, because God gave the life. Man has no right to take life because man is not on the same level of existence that God is. Man did not give the life, he did not create the life. Therefore man cannot take the life unless it is authorized by God. Where did the Gentiles (who were spoken of in Romans 2:14) get their ideas that certain things were wrong. They got it because God instilled it in every man. Though they did not have the written law, they did by nature the things that were written in the law (the moral precepts). This was the same law that Adam had. It was the law that Cain violated when he murdered Abel. Neither had the written law, but it was a moral precept which God had instilled in them.
There is no promise in the Bible that God will ever make another universe after this one is destroyed, so any discussion on such a topic would be wholly irrelevant and would be pure speculation. I don't care to waste my space in speculation, Farrell.
His question on "Why is a given moral principle moral?" is nothing more than another twist on why is murder wrong. It is moral because it flows from God's nature, it is part of his being and existence. Did the woman in South Dakota commit any immoral act or violate any immoral precept to have these children? If not, then she did nothing immoral. Did she harm her fellow man or violate the will of God? What about lifting ova from the ovaries of dead women? Is this harming their fellow man or is it in violation of the will of God in some way? If not, then there is nothing immoral or wrong with such a process. However, to deliberately take the life of one human (of the Siamese twins) to save the life of another when both could live is a different matter altogether. If both could have lived, they should have been left alone until we were technologically advanced enough to save both lives. That was an immoral act.
I have a problem with a man who will defend the killing of innocent human beings by the process of abortion and operation to save one of two twins by saying that there is no objective moral code, but who will turn right around and denounce God for banning descendants up to 10 generations from serving in religious services. If there is no objective moral code, then who cares what God did? It was his business and none of Mr. Till's. God's barring physically and mentally handicapped people from doing these things is nothing more than our refusing to allow physical and/or mentally handicapped people be police officers who go on the road. Sometimes the physically handicapped can work with the telephone system and push paper work, if their handicap is not too bad. But no one would expect the city of S t. Louis to put people who were to handicapped to walk and run on as road officers or jailers. The Missouri Highway Patrol will not even hire you if you exceed their weight and age limits. Are they wrong for this? When I am in uniform I wear my uniform (consisting of a shirt, a tie, and a pair of heavy duty pants), my bullet proof vest, my .357 mag. and carry six cartridges in the chamber and 12 more on my belt. My duty belt with all of the accessories, mace, cuffs, flashlight (which uses 5 D cell batteries) and all of the holders for these things. By the time I get suited out, I am carrying about 30 extra pounds with me during my 12 hour shift. My badge is a very heavy badge probably weighing 1/2 pound then the collar brass and name tag. If it is cold I must wear a winter coat which adds a few more pounds on me. I then will wear long underwear and an extra pair of soxs. My shoes are heavy duty work shoes. Therefore, I probably carry 35 to 40 extra pounds with me during that 12 hour shift instead of just 30. I weigh 265 lbs and with 35 extra pounds on me I am carrying around 300 lbs. How in the world could a physically handicapped person do that, and I don't even have to wear gold plates on me like the high priest did. God, you sorry rascal you. Imagine him not allowing physically and/or mentally handicapped people from doing the service of the high priests and the other priests. After all, all they had to do was to stand around and light candles, right? Well, right? Oh, I forgot, they had to be strong enough to kill oxen and sheep and cattle and put their carcasses on the altar. Then they had to be strong enough to carry basins of blood into the temple (tabernacle). They had to be strong enough to carry the ark of the covenant and other vessels of the tabernacle before the temple was made. They had a very strenuous job and on top of all that they had to wear clothing laced with gold (not gold colored, but gold) and gold plates on their shoulders and heads (which only the high priests wore).
Then we go back to the word "real," and all I want to say about it is that I quoted from the dictionary what the word meant when used in philosophy which is the way we were using it. Farrell wants to make up definitions for words and use them regardless of how they are used. If the dictionaries agree with him, then fine, but if they don't they are wrong, because Farrell Till is never wrong about anything. If I hold up a dollar and say this is a "real" dollar, I am saying that it is an actual dollar, one that is authentic, one that is genuine. Is there an objective standard in this country of what it takes to constitute a dollar? If so, then I am saying that it is an absolute or objective dollar.
He brags about his understanding of language being vastly superior to mine. Well, it ought to be since he majored in it, and he is an English professor. This means that he should have no mistakes. He says that I found, "an occasion, or two to ridicule typographical errors that slipped by" him when he proofread his manuscripts, but mine are filled with errors that aren't typographical errors. He was the first one to start picking on grammatical errors, not I. He started this when I was in the affirmative. I was simply showing that he had no room to complain about the mistakes I make. When he makes grammatical mistakes we are just supposed to overlook them, but when I make them I have committed a sin so grievous that I should have all credibility stripped from me. If I expose his grammatical errors, I have committed the unpardonable sin, but he should be allowed to expose mine without retribution. There's that double standard again.
The word hegorasan is a word that is third person plural, 1st aorist, indicative and active which can be translated like this: "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Salome, having bought spices, that they might come and anoint him." Summers says: "The Greek aorist may be translated by either the simple past tense in English 'I loosed' or the perfect tense in English 'I have loosed." (Essentials of New Testament Greek, pp. 66,67). There are many examples in the scriptures which use the past tense "had" along with the verb which I believe will justify the KJV's translation. In Luke 14:18 and 19 we read: "...I have bought a piece of ground...I have bought five yoke of oxen..." and the word used in both places is hegorasa in which the only difference between it and hegorasan is that hegorasan is third person plural and hegorasa is first person singular. However both words are 1st aorist, active, indicative verbs. I do not doubt that hegorasan is sometimes translated as simply "bought," but it is also rightly translated as either "have bought," "having bought," or "had bought." There are many places where the literal translation is "have" or "having" and the smooth translation is "had." To show that the word "had" can justly be put into the translation I direct your attention to Matthew 1:25: "...until she had brought forth her first born son." The word for "had brought" is the word eteke which is third person singular, 2nd aorist, indicative of the verb tikto. Yet it is properly translated as "had brought." So Mr. Till's objections do not hold water. In case Mr. Till thinks that because eteke is 2nd aorist rather than 1st that it would make any sizeable difference in the translation, let him read Summer's: "Some Greek verbs add a s to the stem and are called 'first aorist'; others add the endings without the s and are called 'second aorist.' There is no difference in function between the two" (Essentials of New Testament Greek, p.66). So my argument continues to stand. Mr. Till probably won't want to heed my advice, but it would probably be a good idea for him to take lessons in Greek before he delves into it. He might not be faced with so much embarrassment next time.
Getting back to Isaiah 7:14 again, Mr. Till makes one final attempt in showing that "almah" is not the pure word for virgin, but rather it is "bethulah." He dealt with just enough of my argument to make it appear as if he knows what he is talking about. However, Mr. Till did not like my statement showing that the word "bethulah" is used to refer to a married woman who has lost her husband in Joel 1:8, and said: "Of all the idiotic defenses he has dreamed up in this debate, that one has to be put at the top of the list. How many married women are virgins?" Well Farrell, you have the Hebrew text, so why not look up Joel 1:8: "Lament like a virgin [bethulah] girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth"? I have never said that "bethulah" never referred to a "virgin" who has never known man, but I have said that when it does, it will qualify the word by stating that she has never known a man. The reason for that is because sometimes the word refers to married women. However, "almah" never refers to a woman who has had sexual intercourse. As I pointed out in my last article, when the translators of the Septuagint translated Isaiah 7:14 they used the purest word for virgin, "parthenos." If "almah" is not the word for a "sexually pure" woman then why did the Septuagint translators use "parthenos" to translate "almah"?
He goes into an attempt to prove that Joel 1:8 is the same as Deut. 22:23, 25 where it talks about a virgin [bethulah] who is betrothed to a husband. This is a fine argument except for the fact that in those places the virgin is specifically said to be betrothed to her husband, [sic] however Joel 1:8 talks about the [bethulah] weeping for the husband of her youth. The Greek word for "virgin" here is "numtha" which means, "A bride" (The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, p.280). The translators did not use the word "parthenos" as they did in Isaiah 7:14, but they used a word which referred to a married woman. In Judges 11:37,38 as well as 21:12 you have the qualifying statement that these virgins knew not man by lying with him, which you do not have in Joel 1:8. However, you never have that statement with an "almah" virgin. In my last article I pointed out that Miriam (who was a little girl at this point) was an "almah" virgin [maid] and there is no such qualifying statement because none was needed. "Almah" never has a qualifying statement, but every time "bethulah" is used to refer to a sexually pure virgin it always has one, as Mr. Till's own passages point out. "Bethulah" does not always refer to married women, but sometimes it does. "Almah" never never never refers to a woman who is sexually impure [that is unless Isaiah 7:14 is the one exception and Mr. Till has yet to prove that one.]
Farrell challenges me to prove what Isaiah 7:14 has to do with anyone other than the people of Ahaz's day. I did this while I was in the affirmative, but apparently Farrell did not read what I had said so I will quote my remarks.
"Now we get down to the prophecies concerning Jesus. He camped on Isaiah 7:14 and tried to show that it was not a prophecy of the coming Christ. Till says that the sign was given to Ahaz to show him that the alliance with Rezin and Pekah would not succeed it its war against Judah. But as usual, Till is wrong. He did not read carefully what Isaiah was saying here. In these passages, Isaiah told Ahaz to ask for a sign and Ahaz refused. So Isaiah turns to the house of David and says, '..., [] He [sic] ye now, O house of David; it is a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign...' This sign was not for the throne of Ahaz, for it was going to fall, but for the house of David. Ahaz had refused a sign. Thus Isaiah goes on to give a sign for the house of David. This should have as much comfort for Ahaz as anyone else since it was only by the blood of Christ that Ahaz could have his sins removed. This should have been a joy to him even at that time" (McDonald's Fifth Defense, p.23).
Now going back to the roll which Jeremiah was to write, Farrell quibbles about my redundancy in grammar and then gets into telling me that I have to prove that God ever told Jeremiah to write in the first place. The argument is not over whether or not God told him in the first place, but it is over whether or not Jeremiah had original autographs from which to copy the second roll. Till says, "McDonald sees no evidence that God was going to tell all these things to Jeremiah again, but I see clear evidence that the text intended the reader to understand that there was no prior scroll at this time on which Jeremiah had originally written the things Yahweh had told him." This is another one of his smoke screens he has erected to divert attention away from his dilemma of not being able to defend his proposition. Who said that the original autographs were on a scroll? Did I say that? No! Who even implied it? Farrell Till is the only one I know of doing it. These were sermons given by God to Jeremiah and they were given at different times and would have been done on different parchements. The first roll referred to in the scriptures is the roll that Jehoiakim destroyed, but that was not the original autograph. It was the first roll made up from all the sermons Jeremiah had previously preached. The reason that words were added to the second roll is because now God was giving more instruction to Israel than he had given by the time the first scroll was written.
I would like to see Farrell prove that the Holy Spirit ever quoted from the Septuagint version. The Septuagint version was a Greek translation, was it not? When the Holy Spirit had the Bible writers quote the Old Testament, they writing in Greek would have translated from Hebrew to Greek [by inspiration of course] those passages which would make them say virtually the same thing the Septuagint version said since they were both translations from Hebrew to Greek. Even if he could prove that the Holy Spirit quoted from the Septuagint (which he can't, but if he could) he would then be obligated to prove that the Septuagint quoted from by the Holy Spirit was the unreliable one Farrell Till has in his library. According to Josephus there were many Septuagint translations in existence at that time. How would Farrell prove that he has a copy of the one used by the Holy Spirit, if he could prove that the Holy Spirit quoted from the Septuagint?
He makes an attempt to justify his failure to answer my questions, but he knows that the only reason he didn't is because he is unable to without getting himself into trouble. I have already dealt with his two statements on Acts 9:27 so I won't get into them here except to deal with his so-called analogy of the words "hearing" and "heard" in Acts 8:7 and 22:9. The difference between what he did and what is argued for Acts 9:7 and 22:9 is that his statements are talking about the same passage of scripture while the words for "hearing" and "heard" are not. They are two different passages of scriptures using two different words. This is nothing more of his "smoke-screen" tactics to fill up space and divert attention from his real problem; his inability to fulfill his obligations.
I have already shown how 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chron. 22:2 are harmonized so I wont' get into it at this time. However, let me point out that Farrell's illustration is not parallel. Let me make it parallel. Instead of saying that Farrell was born at 6:35 P.M. on Friday June 17, 1934, let's say he was born at 12:00 A.M. on Wednesday, April 26, 1933. Now I have no way of knowing if Farrell was born in April or June, but just for the sake of illustration we will use the April date. If Farrell was born in Missouri it would have been 2:00 A.M. on that date, but in California it would have been midnight. So if brother Till called someone in California to tell them about the event they might correctly say he was born at 12:00 A.M. on that date because that was when they got the call. However, the time on the birth certificate was 2:00 A.M. Now it is more parallel to the two statements about Ahaziah's age.
The problem with Farrell's objection to my solution of why Pharez's sons were mentioned is that Moses wrote this after the fact. By the time he wrote, Hezron and Hamul were already dead. Their names were included to complete the line. I stated: "(a)pparently [sic] children that were born within Jacob's life time, even after coming into Egypt were also included as those who made the journey." Farrell did not touch that statement when he made his ridiculous objection. I wonder why?
Farrell wants to know why God inspired the book to use 70 people if 70 people did not literally make the trip. As I pointed out, these others were children born in Jacob's lifetime and even they were included in the list. The reason? Well possibly because that is the way Hebrew literature is written; something Farrell cannot deny. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew thus it would follow Hebrew writing principles. The New Testament was written in Greek and the account Farrell complains about was written by the Physician Luke who was writing to a Greek. The Greeks demanded detail and chronology while the Jews demanded legality.
He complains because I had Judah marrying Shua when he was the father of Judah's wife. Well, I will admit that it is possible that I have the wrong name on this person, even though Smith's Bible Dictionary says that the name "Shua" is a woman's name as well as a man's. But I want to ask: Is the [sic] the best he could do? Find where I have ascribed the wrong name to a person! Let him refute the argument I made concerning this person. I will stick to the KJV and if this is the worst mistake I make from reading it, I will be happy. He knows that I disagree with Peter Ruckman on the inspiration of the KJV. He puts it in there to fill space, and nothing more.
Then he attacks my argument on Mark 16:2 and attempts to show that because liberal translations have translated it, "when the sun was risen" that the KJV is wrong. I believe that even the ASV is wrong on this passage. What Farrell did not check out is the fact that "anateilanto" is a 1st aorist participle which is different from a 1st aorist verb. Summers says: "The kind of action in the aorist participle is punctilliar, i.e., finished action. The time of action is antecedent to the main verb; therefore the time of action is a relative matter. The main thing stressed in verbs other than the indicative mood is the kind of action. For this reason the agument, which indicates action in past time, is absent in participles, infinitives, subjunctives, etc...The first aorist participle is like the present middle participle except for the tense suffix sa added to the stem.... The use of the participle with our without the article is the same here as in the present participle" (Essentials in New Testament Greek, pp.94-95). However when we go back and read about the function of the present participle we find that, "the present participle indicates continuous action which takes place at the same time as the action of the main verb" (Ibid, p.90). If it is like the present middle participle it should be translated "at the rising of the sun." However, Farrell's objection brings up an interesting point. He undoubtedly saw the 1st aorist tense there which caused him to want to put "having risen" or "had risen" in that passage. Isn't that exactly what he was arguing against earlier on "hegorasan "? Think about it!
In answer to his question on what Mary told Peter, if Farrell will read down in John chapter 20 he will see that when Mary made this statement, the angel had not yet told her that Christ had risen. His quotation from Matthew did not tell the whole story. John told about Peter coming to the tomb before they were told that Christ had risen from the dead. Matthew's account does not tell when the angel told Mary that Christ had risen, it just says that he told her this. John's account adds information to the event that Matthew's did not. I am not afraid to answer his questions. The answer to all of them is Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (according to Matthew's account). However, Farrell wants to fix it to where I cannot go to any other account to get all of the information, but his saying that I can't does not mean that I can't. Farrell would not allow such a ridiculous rule to be bound on any other book on earth, except the Bible. And the only reason for this IS? Because he has made up his mind that the Bible is not inerrant, and now he must formulate a premise to fit the conclusion, even if it means making up new rules to interpret the Bible. I do not admit to his conclusions. I have stated that no one account gave all of the information. Matthew's account gave some information while John's account gave other information. When put all together they will be harmoneous. Why was this done this way? Let me give a possibility: "God wanted us to study the Word, not just read over it. He wanted us to dig into it and find out why it said what it said. That is what is meant by 'Study to shew thyself approved unto God...' (2 Tim.2:15).
Farrell need not worry about my giving a point-by-point response to his objections, I always do that. However, even he admits that he does not do that. I wonder why that is? I wonder why it is that if I don't give a point-by-point response and, "satisfactorily explain any of these problems" that he has the right to say that I have failed, when he would not allow that rule to be bound upon him for any amount of money? I wonder why that is?
Well, as I said in the beginning of this article, this is all the space I have left. My part of this debate is finished, but I want to encourage the readers to go back and read it over and again. Notice how Farrell has dodged questions and arguments. Notice how he has "overlooked" arguments that I have made and then ask yourself why. Notice that I have given space to every argument he has raised. Notice how I have answered each of his questions and then ask yourself why. When you do this, I think you will see that he has avoided these things because he has no evidence to back up his proposition. When you do this, I think you will see that I have given straight forward responses and defenses because I have the truth. Truth has nothing to fear by investigation. Your soul-salvation is depending upon the decision that you make. Read this and study it, and whatever decision you make is one that you will be held accountable for in the day of judgement, so study carefully. If you will study with an open mind and an open Bible (a decent translation thereof) and study with the right attitude and the right motive, neither Farrell nor I can ever blame you for the position that you take.
As the late Guy N. Woods once said, so say I: "I have done the best I can. I have preached my heart out. And I have preached from God's word. I now take the burden of responsibility off of [sic] my shoulders and place it on yours." Make the right decision, and may God bless you in this study. Your's [sic] in Christ, Jerry D. McDonald.