[Editor's Note: Because of his continual distortion of Till's rebuttal points by truncating them or quoting them out of context, links have been inserted in many of the places where McDonald referred to what Till had previously said, so that readers can conveniently compare Till's statements to the ways that McDonald presented them. These links will appear before expressions like he said or he asked or he complained, etc. By accessing them and reading the statements in context, in their entirety, readers will easily see McDonald's distortions of them. As noted in the introduction to this debate, Mr. McDonald refused to allow corrections to his manuscripts, so all places marked with [sic] contain mistakes that were in his original manuscript.]
Mr. Till, [sic] and respected readers:
This is my fifth affirmative to this proposition, and to date, Mr. Till has done little more than fill his responses with complaints about not having adequate space to answer arguments; [sic] about my tendency to beg the question; and (in this [sic] article) allowing his emotions to show to the point of threatening to put mine [sic] and Bill Jackson's original articles out for public inspection. Yet, one thing is for certain and that is, [sic] he has failed to answer my affirmative arguments. His responses are summarized below.
[Editor's Note: McDonald contradicted himself. He first said that Till "has failed to answer my affirmative arguments," and then he began immediately below to "summarize" Till's responses to his arguments. Because McDonald's summaries of Till's responses don't always accurately reflect Till's rebuttals, links are inserted in the summaries below so that readers can click and go directly to the rebuttals to see them in Till's own words.]
[Editor's Note: As the last link above will show, Till actually said that if the existence of God could be proven, "all reasonably intelligent people would accept the proof."]
[Editor's Note: Readers who check the link immediately above will see that Till merely informed McDonald that linguistic experts would consider inappropriate his qualification of the word unique with the adverb most. As readers will see, there was no intention here to say that McDonald's argument was "invalid" because of this mistake. In the next sixteen paragraphs after correcting McDonald's qualification of the word unique, Till rebutted in detail McDonald's claims of biblical uniqueness.]
[Editor's Note: Till discussed at length the unreliability of the gospel writer Matthew. He addressed the argument in general in his fifth rebuttal.]
As anyone can see, he has not even begun to touch the issue. His articles have been filled with illogical and irrational responses. He continues to contend that real (objective) right and wrong does not exist. Yet he claims that the Bible is full of moral atrocities. He complains because I have asked questions while in the affirmative, yet he signed an agreement which allows me to ask questions. He whines about not having enough space to answer arguments. Yet when more space is given to him [sic] he uses it unwisely and still does not answer arguments. He has dodged nearly every argument I have made [sic] and the only one he has given any kind of decent response to was my argument on the Bible [sic] being of divine origin. He claims that I have begged the question. Yet he failed to produce evidence of such.
[Editor's Note: By mutual agreement, the 20-page limit was increased to 27, but this didn't solve the problem of McDonald's stringing together more unsupported assertions than Till could possibly answer in just seven more pages, because as the debate progressed, McDonald increased his output until this, his fourth affirmative, was ostensibly within the increased limit, but by switching to smaller fonts and single spacing long sections, he was able to put 100+K onto those pages. By contrast, Till maintained the same font size and kept within the page limit for a total length of just 79K. Hence, Till had only 79K to reply to 100+K. By the end of the debate, McDonald's fifth rebuttal had reached a length of 135K.]
He closed his fourth rebuttal with these words: "Quite frankly, I'm a little weary of bibliolaters who want to debate the inerrancy issue but can't deliver on their promise to prove that the Bible was verbally inspired of God." [sic] (p.28) [sic] To tell the truth, I am a little weary of agnostics and atheists who go around begging someone to debate them, then when they get into one, they seem to lie down and play dead.
Before I go any further I have something to say about a statement in his third rebuttal. In trying to get out of the dilemma he was in on Wheless' book, he stated, "In 1989, he contacted me and expressed an interest in debating the inerrancy doctrine. So that he could prepare for the debate, he asked if I would recommend to him a list of books and publications that presented the anti-inerrancy view, and I did." [sic] (Till's Third Rebuttal, p.20) [sic] Prove it! Bring forth the proof (in your next rebuttal) where I ever asked you for such a list. The truth of the matter is, Mr. Till, I did not ask you for this list, [sic] you volunteered it. Notice his letter dated September 1, 1989, addressed to me:
"In your research on the inerrancy issue, I'm sure that you have already become familiar with the works of men like John Haley, Gleason Archer, J. W. McGarvy, William Arndt, R. A. Torrey, Norman Geisler, and George DeHoff. If you are interested in looking at books on the other side of the issue during our preparation, (emp. added) you might want to read the works of writers like Richard Elliott Friedman, Frank Cross, Baruch Halpern, Joseph Hoffman, and G. A. Wells. Some specific titles of other writers that I have found useful in my own research are Out of the Desert by William H. Stiebing, Jr., and The Exodus Enigma by Ian Wilson. Both of these discuss the difficulties involved in reconciling the biblical account of the Israelite exodus with the findings of modern archaeology. The most convincing anti-inerrancy book that I have ever read is one by Joseph Wheless, Is It God's Word? It is out of print and therefore hard to find, but I did succeed in obtaining a copy. I first read it by getting a copy through interlibrary loan, a system that is now available in most public and college libraries."
Now would you be so kind as to show where I ever asked for this list? This was volunteered not asked for. He was so proud of that book by Wheless, [sic] I figured he would want to endorse it, but to my sad surprise he has disavowed it and even tried to blame me because he gave me the list. Sorry, but it will not work! You volunteered this list. Do not blame it on me.
[Editor's Note: As the links here and especially here will show, Till never disavowed Wheless's book. He simply said that he didn't agree with everything in it but still maintained that it was the most convincing anti-inerrancy book he had yet read.]
He opened his fourth rebuttal by trying to show where I was inconsistent in saying that he barely had a position left from which to argue. Then he turned around and said that he had completely given up his position. [Editor's Note: Till was never able to determine why McDonald had concluded that Till had "turned around and said that he had completely given up his position." As the link just given will show, Till made no such about face. The fact that he continued the debate through to its conclusion will indicate to readers that no such admission was made. The near incoherence of McDonald's paragraph into which this note is being asserted was just one of many in his manuscripts that Till was referring to here to explain why he had earlier said that he found McDonald's manuscripts frustrating to read.] Is this an inconsistency? Not hardly [sic]! In the first statement I said that he barely had any position left from which to argue. In the second I showed that he had completely given up on what position he had left. He still has some small portion of his position left from which he can argue but he has given that up in defeat. Does the reader need anything else to see that Till's logic is shallow? The only inconsistency is what is in Till's mind.
He then goes back and tries to defend himself by saying that the concessions he has made are not as bad as I tried to make them and that some of the things that I said were concessions, [sic] were not actually concessions. Which one's [sic] were not, Mr. Till? He admits that he admitted that he might be wrong regarding his position. He uses the word admission, but when one goes to the dictionary and looks up the word admission one will find the word concession as one of the meanings. Therefore [sic] that one was a concession. He said that he had admitted the the Bible in its original autographs could not be proven not to be inspired by God. That one is a concession. In response to his concession about not being able to prove that Moses did not exist, he says, "McDonald also sees a significant concession in my saying that there is no way I could possibly prove that Moses did not exist.'" [sic] (p.5), but he is the one who called it a concession. Notice, [sic] "If Mr. McDonald is looking for a concession (emp. added), I'll freely give him one...". [sic] As far as it [sic] not being significant is concerned, I believe it is significant because if he cannot prove, by the use of his five senses, that Moses did not exist, then he is not going to be able to prove by the use of his five senses, [sic] that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. And after all, his ideas on how knowledge is attained is what that point was all about anyway. Now he wants to do away with that part and make it look as though I just said he could not prove that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. I want him to prove, only by the use of his five senses, that Moses did not write the Pentateuch.
[Editor's Note: On the page linked to above, Till explained that proving that Moses did not exist was no more possible than proving that characters in ancient Greek mythology did not exist. McDonald's proposition required him to prove that the Bible is inerrant, but even undeniable proof that Moses existed and wrote the Pentateuch would not prove the inerrancy of what he allegedly wrote.]
On his response to the existence of God, he says that he admits that before God could write a book, he must exist. However, he thinks that this does not necessarily force him to prove that God did not exist before he could prove that God did not write this book. Again, I disagree with him [sic] for if I must prove the existence of God before I could prove that God inspired the Bible [sic] then he must disprove it. [Editor's Note: Till's Shakespeare and Howard Hughes rebuttal arguments explain why proving that an entity did not write a document would not require proving that the entity did not exist.] If I had not made this argument, he would have simply stated that I could not prove that God wrote the Bible, because I had not proven that God existed. Those who doubt [sic] need to read his debate with Bill Jackson. He says, "The existence of God has never been established and furthermore cannot be established in man's present state of technology, so the essential weakness of this point is that it depends on an assumption." [sic] (Till's First Rebuttal, p.3) [sic] Since Bill did not make an argument to prove God's existence, Till said that it was an assumption and that the idea of the Bible [sic] being God's will for man was also an assumption [sic] because God's existence had not yet been proven. Therefore, I decided to prove the existence of God before I made the argument on the Bible [sic] being his word. I figured this would alleviate his complaints about our basing the inspiration of the Bible upon an assumption that God exists. However, all he has done since is to cry about these arguments!
Then he brings up the book of Mormon again as though I said nothing about this. He wants to know why I would not have to disprove the existence of God before I could prove that he did not inspire the book of Mormon. The answer is simple. I believe in the existence of God, [sic] Mr. Till does not. If I were an atheist or agnostic, my first and strongest argument would be that God does not exist. Therefore he could not have inspired the book of Mormon.
He also brings up Shakespeare as though I said nothing about that. To conserve space I am going to ask the reader to go back and read my third affirmative and get my arguments from there.
[Editor's Note: In the first link in the paragraph immediately above, Till, to show that the existence of an entity does not have to be denied in order to prove that he did not write documents attributed to him, did refer to Shakespeare, whom he had mentioned in an earlier rebuttal, but his argument linked to centered on a will that had been attributed to the billionaire Howard Huges. Till showed that the courts, without contesting whether Hughes had ever existed, ruled that the will had not been written by him. McDonald never addressed this rebuttal argument].
Then he says, "McDonald alleges other damaging concessions that I have made, but why waste more time clearing away the smokescreen he is trying to lay down in order the hide the inadequacies of his affirmative efforts?" Oh, I agree. By all means if you do not want to spend any more time clearing yourself of these concessions, then go ahead and stop! However, these concessions will stand as long as you do not defend yourself. So it is up to you! Now let us go back and notice some pertinent points of the man's article.
[Editor's Note: The statement that McDonald quoted immediately above was made at the end of Till's use of a bogus will attributed to Howard Hughes as an example of how the existence of a entity does not have to be denied in order to prove that he did not write documents attributed to him. As stated in the note above, McDonald referred to Till's incidental mentioning of Shakespeare in this rebuttal argument but said nothing at all about Hughes, who was the focal point of the rebuttal.]
He says that if his biggest concession is that he admits that he may be wrong, then he is in pretty good shape. Well, I just do not know how I can respond to a statement like that. If I want to make all of my arguments in favor of my proposition, then at the end say, "Oh, but you see, it is possible that I am wrong regarding my proposition.", [sic] Mr. Till would have something to howl about from now on. Does anyone honestly think that he would ever allow me to live that down? No! He would not! However, the shoe is on the other foot now. So it is not such a big deal. Because he is the one making the concession. If one is not sure of his position, why debate it? I would never debate a subject I was not absolutely sure about.
He reiterates on [sic] a question that he asked in the first rebuttal. The question was: "If you have never seen the original autographs of the books in the Bible and if you have never discussed the originals with anyone who has seen and examined them, how could you possibly know that they are inerrant?" My answer: I go to the testimony of those who have seen the originals. The science of textual criticism and logic helps out in this area. Now he wants me to quote from those who saw the original autographs of the book of Jeremiah. He wants me to give their names and see what they say concerning the, [sic] "... puzzle of the sections missing from the Septuagint version of this book (translated from the Hebrew text in the third century B.C) that are present in the Masoretic text of 895 A.D. from which the various English versions have been translated." [sic] (p.4) [sic]
Answer:: [1] I know of no one who has seen the original autographs of this book, but this was not the only part of my answer. My answer also included the science of textual criticism and logic. [2] Now, to answer his question, "How can 'the science of textual criticism and logic' help out in this area?" [A] I am really at a loss for words! How do you answer a question like that? Is it any wonder that Jim Laws threw up his hands in despair and ended their debate? Till knows nothing about the science of textual criticism or logic. I can see why Jim ended that one, but I am not going to be as merciful as he was. I am going to see this debate to its end (whatever and whenever that may be). Till has talked about logic as though he knows what it is, but he does not even understand how it helps out. I really do not know what to say.
[B] Till wants to know how textual criticism helps out. I have already shown in my third affirmative that textual criticism is, [sic] "... confined to the words, or collocation of the words, as they stand in the manuscript or printed texts, the ancient versions and other legitimate sources of appeal." [sic] (Evidence That [sic] Demands A [sic] Verdict [sic] Volume II, p.35) [sic] Archer tells us that, "... the science of lower criticism (textual criticism) is concerned with the task of restoring the original texts on the basis of the imperfect copies which have been preserved to us. It attempts to sift the evidence provided by the variants, or different readings, where the surviving manuscripts disagree with each other, and by the use of a scientific system, arrive at what was most probably the wording used by the original author." [sic] (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction [sic] p.54) [sic] Need I say more? This is the third time I have had to explain this to Mr. Till, how many more times must I explain it before he catches on? What about logic? How does this help? Without logic we could not use things such as common sense to help us decide what was said.
[Editor's Note: Readers can decide for themselves if McDonald's quotations of generalizations and abstractions about "collocations of words" and "the task of restoring the original texts on the basis of imperfect copies" tell them anything concrete or specific about how textual criticism can definitively determine (1) what was in the original manuscripts and (2) whether the original manuscripts were inerrant.]
[C] Now to answer his query as to why the Septuagint did not have Jeremiah 27:19-22; 33:14-26; 39:3:14; and 48:4:45-47, and the Masoretic text did have it. Notice what Gleason Archer says:
"There is good evidence to believe that even apart from the original edition of Jeremiah's prophecy, which was destroyed by Jehoiakim, there was a later edition which preceded the final form of the text as we have it in the Masoretic tradition. At least this is a reasonable deduction to draw from the LXX, since it appears to be about one-eighth shorter than that of the MT. It differs also in the arrangement of the chapters, for chapters 46-51 of the MT are placed after chapter 25 in the LXX. and they are arranged in a somewhat different sequence. Jeremiah 33:14-26 of the MT is altogether missing in the LXX. It would seem that this earlier edition was published in the prophet's own lifetimeime and first disseminated in Egypt. Later, after jeremiah's [sic] death, it appears that Baruch made a more comprehensive collection of his master's sermons and rearranged the material in more logical order. The MT undoubtedly preserves this posthumous edition of Baruch. In this connection, note that 36:32 indicates that a second preliminary edition was published in the reign of Jehoiakim, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that Jeremiah kept adding to these earlier sermons the messages the Lord gave him in the reign of Zedekiah and in the period subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem." [sic>] (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, pp. 361,362) [sic]
Do you see a problem here, Mr. Till? The very reason for 33:14-26 is also true for the rest of your complaint.
He complains about me [sic] going to the dictionary on the word negative and says, "What McDonald did was to find the one that suited his purpose, and in doing so he went to the definition of the [sic] negative when it is used as a transitive verb, which is a rare, uncommon usage of the word and certainly not the sense we have been using it in this debate." Had he checked the noun definitions of the word ..." [sic] Farrell, did you even bother to read my article? Notice that I quoted Webster as saying that the negative was, (maybe I should put this in large print so he can see it) "...the side that upholds the contradictory proposition in debate." (McDonald's Fourth Affirmative, p.1) That is the noun usage! That is what the negative position is, but that is not its purpose! Its purpose is to, [sic] "... demonstrate the falsity of: disprove ..." [sic] (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p.762) [sic] I agree with the dictionaries he lists, but he only listed what the negative is, [sic] he did not list the negative's purpose in debate. The only way for the negative to function properly is to disprove the affirmant's arguments. He says that he has been properly functioning in the negative. Well, I wonder if he will allow me to say that it is not my obligation to disprove his position when I get into the negative? No! He is going to insist that I disprove his arguments. How do I know this? Simply by reading his debate with Bill Jackson. He insisted that Bill Jackson disprove his arguments. This is evident from statements such as, "... I don't intend to let him off of the mat until he has dealt honorably with those issues ... [sic] I'll be more than satisfied if Mr. Jackson will explain ..." [sic] (Till's Third Defense, pp.2,3) This can also be seen in his second defense to Jerry Moffitt, [sic] "... my advice to Mr. Moffitt is this: Don't worry about the good stuff! just answer the arguments as I make them." [sic] (emp. his) [sic] (p.2) [sic] These are sufficient to show that Till expects the negative, when he is affirming, to disprove his arguments. That is all I want from him! Is that too much to ask?
Then he brings up a character named Yodah and tries to show that I would be taking his position if he was [sic] to ask me to prove that Yodah did not exist or that he did not write a book by inspiration. Yodah is not a real historical, [sic] or mythological character. He is someone Till conjured up in his mind for the purpose of this argument? [sic] If he was [sic] a real historical or even mythological character, I could go to the authorities and logic to show whether or not he existed and the same to show whether or not he wrote by inspiration. However, since he is a figment of Till's vivid imagination, I can only go to logic to show that he does not exist. In any case, I will not become guilty of taking Till's position.
Till seems to forget why I made the challenge about Moses in the first place. I made this challenge because he contends that the only way that knowledge can be attained is through perception of one or more [sic] the five senses. Since this was his position, I wanted him to prove only by the use of his five senses that Moses never existed and that he did not write the Pentateuch. Did he do that? No! He admitted that he could not prove that Moses never existed [sic] and he went to the arguments of the higher critics and attempted to show that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. He did exactly what I said he would do and now he wants to try and [sic] confuse the issue so [sic] this audience will not see his inadequacy in not being able to sustain his position on knowledge. No, No, Mr. Till! That tactic has been tried before. It failed then and it will fail this time. I want you to prove only by the use of your five senses that Moses did not exist, and only by the use of your five senses that he did not write the Pentateuch.
Then he tells us that when one is on trial for murder, that person has no obligation to prove his innocence. He says, "Smith is not obligated to prove that he is not guilty of murder; the prosecution must prove that he is guilty." [sic] (p.6) [sic] Someone please remind me never to hire Mr. Till as a defense lawyer. I just might end up in prison. What is the point of having a trial, if it is not to allow the defendant the opporutunity to defend himself? However, let us say, just for the sake of argument, that Till is right and the defendant has no obligation to prove his innocence. Is the Bible not the defendant in this trial? Am I not the representative of the Bible? Therefore,