I see nothing in Till's last negative needing a reply. He cried about lack of space, commented on my procedures, and apologized to readers for my efforts. In one breath, he will criticize that I made "unsupported" claims, and then will excuse himself for merely using a "very likely" or "quite probably"! In Till's view, his work has been simply grand!
It is good that I remind that, by my proposition, the emphasis was on what God provides in the original autographs. I was not, and am not, in defense of any and everything calling itself a "translation." Just here, we might ask Mr. Till a question or two: (1) Do you, Mr. Till, have copies of the original autographs, and/or have you examined the same? (2) When you offer a range of objections, as mentioned early in your affirmative, just how do you know the words you fault meant what you think they mean? Remember also, Mr. Till, that you have already stated that offering a "very likely" or "probably" at least presents plausibility that the opponent's view is flawed!
In stating that his "cup runneth over," he offered a statement on God's nature, accountability for others, the righteous begging bread, etc., and yet he is the man who constantly shouted, "Explicate! Explicate! Explicate!" Well, Mr. Till, how about going back and doing some of that explication when you make your points?
He introduces with a worthwhile syllogism, but of course it hinges on the "if" of the major and minor premises. And in the case of the minor premise, something must be presented that will exclude all possibility of God's authorship. All possibility, when he has already said a "very likely" will do!
Noticing his material, surely Mr. Till doesn't think that he, in 1990, has found something men haven't noticed in ages past! If Bible believers saw these as fatal flaws, they'd have made the corrections years ago! Please mark this: No Bible critic will allow men of Bible times to think, speak, measure time, and relate events in keeping with procedures, customs, and methods of their own culture and time. Now, what does Mr. Till afford us?
Mr. Till then brings forward a "double-whammy syllogism"! We will grant his first point and his second; but the third does not follow when Mr. Till inserts an element into it of his own making! Till decides the accounts are in contradiction!
Mr. Till has the same type [sic] problem as to the immediacy of Saul's going to Jerusalem. In Acts 9:23-26, because one sentence follows another, Till again assumes that nothing could have transpired between verse 25 and 26, thus giving him basis for using Galatians 1:17 as "contradiction." Till is a contriver, for sure! Mr. Till, do you mean I could not state that I once left Korea and went to South Carolina? May I state it in two sentences, without mentioning that in between I spent some time in Alabama for visiting and for marriage? Till says he's just scratched the surface, but shows himself to be too anxious to scratch! Quite probably, and yea, for certain, Till is falling all over himself seeking to remove God from the Word!
The very nature Till has developed will not allow the Bible to speak in terms that have always been used, nor in ways generally acknowledged as to numbers, reigns, years, tabulations. Till, then, would be the one to censure the weathercaster for stating "sunrise" and "sunset." He would jump down a person's throat in stating he had been married for 25 years, with Till screaming that he had only been married for 24 years, 11 months! Till would shout down a World War II veteran who mentioned that his brigade landed on a certain beach, when a division landed--the brigade being a part of the division! He would yell, "Contradiction!" if a general mentioned that two divisions took to the beach and another spoke of three divisions being involved--the answer being two, with portions of the third also involved! In one sense, three, and in another, two! Till must have fits when someone mentions we are in the "9th year of the Reagan presidency," since Reagan only served eight! He overlooks the manner of speaking wherein the Bush stance is so like the Reagan position, that "Reagan's 9th year" is mentioned!
Now, with Till's declared intent, in his proposition, one would have thought he had some most-powerful argument against God as the author of the word--some grand design or sweep whereby the coup de grace is administered--but what does he come up with? Years of a reign, the age of a person, and a few numbers! Really, Mr. Till! Where is the "big gun" we are expecting? Where is that archaeological argument that virtually throws the Bible out on the trash heap? Is it very likely and quite probably [sic] that it is all bluff and bluster!
May we now point out that this is a fine time for Till to show us those other so-called "inspired" volumes, and show wherein all six of the points I had made concerning the Bible are also in these! Early on, Till picked out only one of the original points I made and offered some reply to it. After repeatedly showing him his error in this regard, he finally mentioned another point, but never dealt with the whole of them, showing that these other religious volumes had every mark that the Bible has!
[Editor's Note: In Till's fifth rebuttal, he reviewed all of Jackson's six points and replied to them as much as space would allow. His claim of scientific foreknowledge was specifically addressed as it had also been earlier in Till's second and fourth rebuttals. His claim of amazing prophecy fulfillment was specifically addressed again, as it had also been replied to in detail in Till's third rebuttal. Jackson's claim that the Bible's antiquity proved its divine origin and inerrancy was again specifically addressed as it had earlier been answered in Till's first and second rebuttals. His claim that the Bible's "association with the nation of Israel" proved divine origin and inspiration was likewise specifically addressed to show that Jackson had merely assumed that the Israelites were "the people of God." These are all direct links that will take readers to the exact places in Till's rebuttals where he addressed all of Jackson's "points" as much as the six-page limit imposed before the debate by Jackson would permit.]
Now, Mr. Till, was this first affirmative just a "teaser"? With a virtual smorgasbord of devastating material to choose from, you pick on some of the years, ages, reigns? Are you saving your big blast until later? Never in debating history has one bragged on his own debating skills so, to hide them under a bushel!
We hope Mr. Till will do better with his next. If he, now with such a mad-on against the church, can bring forth some sweeping attacks so as to destroy the idea of the Bible being from God, let him do so! And yet, by his own admission, merely offering a very likely or "probably" introduces enough plausibility to keep his point from carrying. Let us remember that he promises to give such material as to exclude all possibility that God was involved in the writing of the Bible--exclude all possibility, mind you! Yet, we have shown him to be completely off base on Paul's going to Jerusalem and on the priest to whom David spoke! So much for material he offers that must exclude God's participation with Scripture!
Go to Till's Second Defense.
