Mr. Till is now down to one last affirmative, and one would think that he should have long since filled his latter articles with multiplied proofs that the Bible could not be from God. But, he is still hung up on a king's age, when David formed his men, and whether Paul went to Damascus! Pitiful!
Mr. Till chides that I did not answer his question on a trivial mistake and such excluding all possibility of verbal inspiration. If he will look at my last, page 40, he will find my dealing with the matter, and that was the basis of my pointing to a "variance" not always being contradiction.[Editor's Note: This was Till's question: "Would the existence of just one trivial mistake in the Bible be enough to exclude all possibility of verbal inspiration? If not, please explain why not. How could an omniscient deity make even one little mistake?" An examination of page 40 (in the paper copy of this debate), which begins here will show that Jackson did not answer Till's question. His comments above may have referred to his final paragraph in which he repeated his claim that Till had raised only trivial issues about the ages of kings, when Paul first went to Jerusalem, whether David had men with him, etc., but nowhere on this page did he answer Till's question.]
Please note Till's references to my "playing to the gallery," grandstanding, ranging on and on, and then "a pint of cold spit." He is a real genteel fellow, it seems; he had the nerve to ask a mutual acquaintance if Jackson "is always so sarcastic," etc. Yessir, the "cold spit" remark fits well with his image as a polite teacher of English!
He still has much to say on what a "contradiction" will do to the doctrine of inerrancy, but that is the point: Is what he insists on citing really contradiction? When he was in the negative, he met that which I offered with a point which he said inserts plausibility that my point does not carry. But when the situation is reversed, he wishes to cry, "Contradiction!" when he chooses but will not allow me that which he took for himself: points of plausibility. He asks for that which I will not give, and that is a dealing with a "big" or "little" contradiction. He cries, "Contradiction," and he means contradiction excluding any possible reconciling with the doctrine of inerrancy. But when he enters into the area of "excluding all possibility" he has said too much and cannot possibly sustain the point, whether in the affirmative or in the negative!
Now, as a convenience to himself, Mr. Professor wishes to enlighten on the word variance, which he says suggests that which cannot be reconciled. We ask Mr. Professor to consult a dictionary, and he will find variance to be, among other things, used of "a degree of change or difference," and variant being "different in some way from others" (Webster's New World Dictionary, p. 660). I knew Till didn't study his Bible, but thought that perhaps in his profession there would be some acquaintance with the dictionary!
[Editor's Note: If Jackson had extended this #2 definition in Webster's, readers would have seen that the entire definition says "a degree of change or difference; a divergence; a discrepancy" (emphasis added), so variance does connote the idea of discrepancy or error, whereas antinomy means "an apparent contradiction between valid principles or conclusions that seem equally necessary and reasonable" (emphasis added), so this word, which can connote the same idea as paradox more accurately describes Jackson's claim about "variances" not necessarily being contradictions.]
He has to fill up his space with something, so he launches into an explanation of Galatians 6:2,5, as if no one knew what the verses meant. You're wasting time, Till, for it was the variance in the wording that caused me to illustrate the matter. All you've done is proven my point: variance in wording, for seeming incompatibility, does not always mean contradiction. Thank you for making the point for me, but, really, isn't it time you made some points regarding your own propositions?
Still bothered by the age of Ahaziah, he wants to lead us into that matter again, when I offered the range of options wherein any one of the points could be true--and at least offered plausibility that Till's points were in error. Still he rubs the point, as if he really had something! He asks for a "thus saith the Lord," and the very verses he offered are "thus saiths the Lord." Then, he turns to Jehoram's son and his age, as though this had not been dealt with at all. I, again, had placed several options before him, any one of which could be true--and at least there was offered plausibility that Mr. Till's view is incorrect. And he continues to rub the point as if he really had something. I really thought that atheists and agnostics had such an array of material that one would be overpowered by it all. Now I find Till with about three points to make, and that's it!
He covers the same ground as to David's men. Ample verses refer to David's band of men, and in the case at point, David, the priest, the writer and the Christ all knew that David had men at the time. Till is the only one who doesn't know it. Then, Till ventures into the same beaten path on whether Paul went into Arabia or not. He will not accept Paul on the matter, but he wants "a sensible explanation given as to why more disciples didn't know it." Till comes up with the point (and he wants, he says, something "sensible?") that one could not mention two or three points on an itinerary without mentioning every stop along the way! Now, how's that for a rule? How ridiculous it is, and so contrived to "create" Bible error! Till is stating that if I visited Colorado, South Dakota, Yellowstone Park and then went to California, I could not mention that I visited Colorado and then went on to California. By Till's view I would be lying; I would have to mention every stop along the way to be telling the truth!
Remember, reader, when I chided Till on his pointing out that archaeology is one of the strongest arguments against Biblical inerrancy? Then, we went from article to article as he rambled on, and where was that strong argument? He first stated that he didn't promise such in the debate, but one will ask, "Why not use the strongest argument?" He next states that "our format will not allow our dealing with such a complex matter." One of the strongest arguments, but for its great strength, too complex?
So, we had to shame him into presenting his points on archaeology! Now, what will his tactic be? In other matters, he is free in his use of encyclopedias, "scholars'" claims, etc., and all of it, of course, perfectly reliable as far as Till is concerned. Any kind of testimony is swallowed, except Biblical statements. Now, entering into archaeology, all Till wants to find is someone who will be in denial of the Bible. Naturally, he can come up with such! Mr. "Cold Spit" then turns to the field of archaeology, and for the many thousands of verified sites and facts, we wonder why he picked Ai? The question is, "Has he then found evidence that contradicts a Bible point?" And the answer is "No." Admitting there is a record of Ai in even more ancient times, he simply states that the excavations have not revealed anything definite for the Joshua time-period! But that tells us nothing! There are yet thousands of sites yet to be excavated in Bible lands, and many more digs to be made at sites where work has already been done! Let Mr. Till hear from another true scholar, Mr. Edwin Yamauchi: "The lack, however, may not necessarily mean the inaccuracy of the Biblical account, but simply the incompleteness of the archaeological excavations" (The Stones and the Scriptures, p. 152). Yamauchi goes on to illustrate the matter by a settlement positively known to have existed, and yet no archaeological evidence has been found! Does that mean the city never existed? He further illustrated the matter by a list of excavated cities, seven of them in all, and archaeology has yet to find any cemeteries there. By Till's view, then, those cities never existed! Still, the truth is that Ai existed, and all Till can say is that there is no archaeological evidence that the site was occupied in Joshua's time! He cites his authority, Callaway, who states finding no evidence, and then jumps to the point that "archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility the conquest of Ai...." Wiped out? He couldn't state that until all digging that ever could be done has been done! This has no more value than a year before Megiddo was found some man states, "We've found nothing yet, and thus archaeology has wiped out the Bible record of Megiddo!"
"Cold Spit" then makes a last-ditch effort on the Philistines, and he's in error there as well. Till tries to make a point on the Philistines not occupying any of Palestine during the Bible time-frame. The point is not whether they were called "Philistines" at some given time, but whether the land was inhabited, even if they were not called "Philistines" until later, when the accounts were made a part of the Bible's record. Pitiful, Mr. Till! We could have searched the world over, and lined up five hundred atheists and agnostics, and picked one at random, and he could have surpassed Till's efforts. Indeed, Mr. Steve Bratteng had more to offer, from Till's standpoint, and he was a graduate student at the University of Texas! Is this the best you can do, Mr. Till? This is the powerful and convincing testimony that destroys the doctrine of Bible inerrancy?
To repeat: (1) Till failed to show the six marks in other "inspired" volumes he mentioned. (2) Till failed in archaeology, only pointing to what has not been found. (3) Till failed in holding that any New Testament fulfillment, each and every word of the prophecy had to be mentioned. (6) Till failed as regards David, pitting himself against David, the priest, Samuel, and the Christ. (7) Till failed as regards Paul and Arabia, holding that in order for a stop to be mentioned, every step along the way must be noted. (8) Till failed as regards ancient dates, ages, reigns, calculations, not admitting explanations giving plausibility, though he freely allows such for himself. (9) Till fails again, in archaeology, holding that something not as yet found will never be found. (10) Till fails regarding the Philistines, holding that a people later known by a certain name could not have existed before the name is given. And (11) Till failed as to his contradiction. "It's possible I am wrong.... I have proven the Bible is not inerrant!"
[Editor's Note: As now noted in other editorial notes, Till did reply to all of Jackson's six points. The link just given will in turn link readers to the exact places where these points were answered in far more detail than Jackson put into answering Till's points. A check of Till's necessarily brief report of Joseph Callaway's excavation of the site of ancient Ai will show that in reaching his conclusion about biblical inaccuracy in reporting Joshua's destruction of this city, he made his decision not on the basis of what was not found but from the evidence of what was found.]
To sum it up: "Cold Spit" has failed, and he has only one more article. This last one should be a dandy! Better make it a good one, Mr. Till; it's your last opportunity!
Go to Till's Final Defense.
