It is amazing that Mr. Till assures us that those who believe in inerrancy are grabbing at a "how-it-could-have-been" device when that is exactly what he used in his negatives! From the air he would pull a "very likely" or "very probably" in answer to every point made. He states that his doing so at least offers plausibility that Jackson could be wrong. Well, Mr. Till, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so we have offered the "very likely" and "very probably" in responding to you! Let us remember that Till promises to offer such as excludes all possibility that God authored the Bible. That would mean that he could offer complete, absolute, positive proof beyond all and any possibility or likelihood that it could be otherwise.
But he can't do that! He admits that he has no idea how God might have communicated to man, and he has admitted atheism as being of greater weight than creation. Then, he has no idea how God might have said something and is in no position, on any point, to declare that "there is no possibility that God could have said this or said it in this way." What he has going for him is exactly what you have when you peel a zero! And where is that "big gun," promised so long ago, when he would just slay our position with archaeological evidence? Yea, "big gun," when will you speak?
Notice how he, very carefully, crafted an illustration wherein one might argue that Shakespeare made no errors in spelling, grammar, or punctuation, and we wonder if he thinks that twentieth-century punctuation or the spelling of some words today, means that God did not author the original autograph. Apparently he has never seen either Hebrew or Greek script. But is this the big argument: punctuation? May we remind Till that the point he made also applies to him: If he has not seen and studied the original autographs of Scripture, he cannot possibly prove errors therein! But we, in our affirmatives, gave the points wherein the Scriptures are shown to be of God!
Mr. Till, in giving the "very likely" argument, I was following you, since you valued the approach so highly. In Biblical terms, it is "answering the fool according to his folly" (Prov. 26:5). Of course, Mr. Till is not prejudiced in his own favor in stating that my "very likely" points were poor, indeed, while he "documented likely and probable counterarguments." Oh, yes, you certainly did, Till, and your "proof" is one of the "wonders of the world!"
Now we are made to wonder if Till has read his own material--is it "ghost written"? He indicates that the reigns had nothing to do with the point he made, and yet in his first affirmative, in that very paragraph, he speaks of "succession to the throne.... began to reign.... had reigned.... one made king.... began to reign...," etc. The ages, and his argument, were tied to the reigns and how these were calculated. He needs to read his own articles, as well as the Bible!
Can we believe Till? He doesn't believe the Lord authored the Bible, and he calls on me for a "thus saith the Lord!" He points to our insistence on such for all matters of faith and practice, and yet does not realize that there must be study, examination, and an interpretation to matters set forth in the Word? We, in examining his verses, gave explanation based on the Biblical use of ages, numbers, lengths of reign, etc. He may not like it, but it is still so, and common usage in these matters provides plausibility that Till is off-base.
Mr. Till is an absolute jewel when it comes to the record of David and whether he had men with him or not. Till's reasoning is that if David ever had men to accompany him, he had to have them from the first day of his flight from Saul! Then, Till feels that if David had any men, he had to have them physically present with him when he and Jonathan were in the field together. Ridiculous! But the point is that the priest, when David came to him, noted he was alone (there in speaking with the priest), but the priest himself acknowledged that David had young men with him (1 Sam. 21:4), whether over the next hill, around the next bend, or wherever! Ah, Till!
[Editor's Note: Although Till's delineation of the argument warranted a more in-depth response than Jackson's nine-line response, the six-page limit on manuscripts imposed by Jackson prior to the debate didn't allow Till enough space to develop this argument fully. Those interested in a more detailed analysis of 1 Samuel 21, 22, and 23, which leaves no doubt that the author of this book understood that David was traveling alone can see that evidence in "What Men with David?" and "Turkel Takes the Bait" in which Till replied point by point to an attempt by an internet apologize to put men on the scene with David. These detailed articles will also rebut Jackson's attemps below to find inerrancy in the Old Testament and New Testament accounts of this time in David's life.]
On whether or not David lied, Mr. Till, I am not defending any of God's servants who misbehave, and remember that it is God who tells us of David, Noah and others who erred! It is further evidence of the truth of the Biblical record that God did not hide such!
Once more, the absurdity of Till in David's visit to Philistia. His view is that if David ever had men, he had to have them present with him, even in seeking refuge in Philistia. He does not know that it was David whom Saul sought; Till thinks it impossible that David could have, for his life's sake, left his men and sought refuge in Philistia alone.
Mr. Till feels his double modus tollens syllogism stands, but it stands or falls depending on whether Till proves that the Bible is untrue and inaccurate--mind you, beyond all possibility of there being an explanation when there is a variance. That Till has not proven, nor [sic] can he!
And notice his next "Tillism"--Saul couldn't have gone to Arabia, as he indicated, because the disciples didn't believe he had been converted. Which disciples? How many? Not every disciple of the Lord, for Barnabas knew of it (Acts 9:27)! Till thinks that the communications of the day was such that they surely would have seen it on the 6:00 newscast. What an argument!
Now, for a man who promised so much, Till's last simply rehashed the points he had made earlier, and he offered nothing else! He keeps promising, and promising, and with bated breath we have anticipated the "big gun," and all we've heard is a fizzle, spurt, pop and snort! Mr. Till, when I was in the affirmative, you wasted time, as you're doing now, and then pled lack of space and time, to the begging for more space--and you're doing it again!
Can anyone believe that one who claims to have made a far, far better move in quitting the church and the Lord, and who did so on the basis of so much error in the Bible, has thus far pointed to ages of certain men, whether David had men with him at a certain time in his life, whether Paul ever went to Arabia, etc.! He had earlier indicated exposure of the Bible's failed prophecies, plagiarisms and God's moral atrocities, as well as clear archaeological evidence that would knock God off His throne, etc., and where is all of that? He only has three articles left! If he spends these three in great debate on whether David had young men forty feet from him or over the hill 100 yards away, etc., he'll be completely out of space, just as he's completely run out of soap!
From the beginning of our discussion, I pointed out six marks of Biblical history and content that, all taken together, speak of the Bible as being from God. And what did he do with it? He, along the way, mentioned two of those points, and even then did not attempt to show that the other so-called "inspired" volumes came near to matching those six points in favor of the Bible's being from God. This from the man who earlier said that he could have said something clearer than God did!
[Editor's Note: The link immediately above will connect readers to another "Editor's Note," which will take them to the exact places where Till replied to all of Jackson's six marks, which he sometimes called points. This link is repeated below where Jackson again repeated his "six marks" as if they had not already been answered.]
May we all be reminded that, using some of Till's own terminology, he is giving assurance that God is not the author of the Scriptures, and Till asserts that we cannot look upon the Bible as being from God, pointing out "contradictions" that were characteristic of the "no-longer-existent, unavailable-for-critical-examination, original autographs." Being more of an atheist than anything else, and with a conscience--no doubt--that virtually screams out as it recalls his early Christianity, preaching and missionary work, he must attack the Bible and God as the author of it. Yet, for it all, he states he has no idea how God might have communicated with man, and never, in even one instance, is he able to firmly declare that God could not have said thus-and-so and that God could not have said it in just the way the standard translations record it! In the procedures he uses, regarding dates, ages, movements and reigns, in any one of the instances he points to there might be any one of a half-dozen explanations to account for it, and none of it amounting to contradiction!
Let the readers remember that, regarding the Bible, I had pointed to several--not just one--factors all working together to make the case for the Bible as the Word of God: (1) The Bible's antiquity in its claim to be of God, (2) The Bible's association with Israel and God's plan unfolding in His dealings with that nation, (3) The Bible's stated prophecies and fulfillment, (5) The Bible's scientific foreknowledge, and (6) The Bible's revelation of God's plan for man's salvation, now culminating in the gospel of Christ! Till mentioned other "inspired" volumes found in other religious systems, and now, in the affirmative he has the opportunity to show, in some such system, all six of those points demonstrated and verified! Will he do it?
We will now await Mr. Till's bringing forth of his "big-gun" material. He does not have an abundance of articles remaining, and if he's going to bring forth those things to definitely prove that the Bible is not from God, now is the time. He's made his promises when I was in the affirmative, and he's made them since he's been in the affirmative, and now it's time to quit promising and start producing!
Go to Till's Third Defense.
