This is the last article in our discussion, and Mr. Till wants all to know that, by accompanying letter, he has challenged me to another debate on the Bible and Archaeology. In earlier letters, he had said that archaeology is one of the strongest arguments against Biblical inerrancy, and then repeatedly said he "didn't have sufficient space" to deal with it! He finally made one feeble point along this line and it fell flat! His last article is like the others, in that he pleads lack of space, then wastes great space in crying about how badly he has been treated. Mean old Jackson actually used the term "cold spit," he said; may we remind him which one of us first used that expression? Mr. Till, "Thou art the man," in one of those times when you lost your intellectual "cool"!
[Editor's Note: Jackson declined Till's challenge to debate biblical archaeology in a format that would allow adequate space for supporting and rebutting claims.]
As might be expected, Till's view is that he has been one of the great wonders of the world in his argumentation, while Jackson dealt with harangues, smokescreens and derisive epithets. Well, we knew from the outset that Till thought he was the "cat's meow" when it comes to agnostic debating skills, but those who read the discussion can see how pitiful it all has been! Imagine, this man once obeyed the gospel of Christ, and for years preached the truth, and even took the gospel to a foreign land, and then forsook it all because of (1) Kings' ages and reigns--Kings and Chronicles; (2) The men with or not with David--1 Samuel 21; and (3), whether Paul went directly to Jerusalem or Arabia! Pitiful, Mr. Till! You sure sold out your faith, and forfeited your soul, so very, very cheaply! If all men were as easy as you were, Satan would think he's on a perpetual vacation!
Mr. Till pointed to the matters he thinks indicates the Bible could not be inerrant, and his view is that Jackson "could not satisfactorily explain" them. The operative word there is "satisfactorily," meaning Till is not satisfied! I have certainly shown him that an error--a true error--would thus make the Bible fallible, but we had to show the difference between a true error and a variance, different (but not contradictory) rendering, etc. Till proceeds as though I am to defend every modern-day translation, when all of us know these have many errors in them; he forgets, going back to when we began this, that inerrancy was claimed for the original autographs!
Till then explains why he only had eight points. Remember he had said that "having done so well with a certain one, then we could know he could do well with others?" Now, to the matter of kings ages and reigns, we showed abundantly that there are methods of calculating, some by full years, some by partial years; some by yearly reckoning by men, and some by reckoning in the nation's official chronicles; some reigns of a son overlapped with the reign of a father, one record combining the two, and other separating the two; and in some instances, the reigns in a family of men would amount to the son's reign being included with the years of the father's reign. When Till sets forth the "absolute proof" of error, all we need to do is offer plausibility of explanation. Till said the same, when he was in the negative as I affirmed; now, when I offer, he asks, "Why does Jackson expect us to accept his plausible explanations?" Note this again: Mr. Till says his should be accepted, but mine should not be! Ah, fairness is a Till trademark!
Mr. Till offers his age and teaching career at Spoon River College as a prime example of kings and ages. Not hardly [sic] the same, is it, Mr. Till? Here, you are personally telling us of your age and length of time. But that is not the same as taking it back 3,000 years, with others doing the calculating, some keeping official national records, and dealing with sons, stepsons, fathers and their reigns, with varied bases of calculating, etc. Mr. Till says it is the same as his stating his age and when he began and ended a teaching stint. It merely shows how far Till has drifted from Biblical faith; he will readily accept anything uttered by an infidel against the Bible, and has no concept any longer of either Old Testament or New Testament truth. Most importantly, let us remember that in this same area, Mr. Till, in his discussion with Jim Laws, said, "It is possible that I am wrong" (p. 7). There's the debate, Mr. Till! You fault the Bible, accept any infidel's work, cite the encyclopedias, cite the Interpreter's Bible and cite the NIV, and claim, "Here's proof," only to turn around and say, "But it is possible that I am wrong!" So much for your being taken seriously, Mr. Till! Let's look at it, charted for us. Till says:
Error on David's men! But it is possible that I am wrong!
[Editor's Note: In a subsequent inerrancy debate, Till's opponent Jerry McDonald, another Church-of-Christ preacher, took, almost to the point of plagiarizing, some of his material from Jackson's part in this debate. To see how Jackson, and later McDonald, quoted completely out of context Till's answer to a question posed by Laws, readers can go here to see where Till quoted his entire answer in its original context. When McDonald ignored Till's correction of the distortion of his answer to Law's question and kept distorting it, Till emphatically declared his certainty of biblical errancy in his first affirmative manuscript: "(S)o that no one will misunderstand my position, I declare here and now, without reservation, that there have been few things in my life that I have been as sure of as I am that the Bible is not the inspired word of God.]
Reader, did you notice that Mr. Till has a surge of agnostic adrenalin--a surge so strong that he didn't even stop to look at the verses he copied from his atheistic sourcebooks. Look at a sample or two: (1) Mark 16:8--the women told no man they met by the way, but the accounts are correct in that they told the apostles; (2) Exodus 6:2-3--God was not earlier called Jehovah; the verses note that He had been called Lord; (3) 1 Kings 6:1--480 years from Egypt to beginning the temple, whereas Acts 13 refers to calculating to the time of Samuel, not the temple's beginning. Can't you read more carefully, Mr. Till? (4) Exodus 12:40 speaks of 430 years in Egypt, whereas Exodus 6 tells of how long certain men lived--not even the same point being made! Till, while you can say "ad hominem" and "modus ponens," there is a great English word we wish you knew something about. The word is: stidy. If you would do a little of that, it would help you greatly, unless you have destroyed the will and now have passed the point of no return! Remember, you said you could be wrong!
[Editor's Note: The contradictions that Jackson replied to here are far too complex to be answered with the short, undocumented explanations that Jackson offered. Those wishing to examine these issues more in depth can find the Mark 16:8 problem analyzed in detail here, and contradictions in the claim of a 430-year Israelite sojourn in Egypt examined in far greater detail here and here, and here, with additional articles on the subject available at the same site.]
Till then came to the end of the most disappointing effort I have seen from a supposedly well-qualified agnostic. The atheist Crackin, who was a young graduate student here, did far, far better! Till passed on Biblical information with a "very likely... quite probably... raises the possibility..." in denying truth. He said all he had to do was raise plausibility; when I did the same with his points, it was "always insufficient evidence!" So he says, but he also said he could be wrong! On scientific foreknowledge in the Bible, he passed it off with, "Maybe they knew this already and without God." On any given point made, he, in desperation, would say, "How do you know the verses mean what you think they mean?" But somehow, the verses he cited always meant what Till wanted them to mean--except, he admitted that he could be wrong! Along that line, remember also that he earlier was in denial of the Bible as being from God, but then said he did not have any idea how God might have communicated with man! He indeed could be wrong, and has been wrong, throughout our discussion. And, he wants to be taken seriously when offering himself as one who can so powerfully debate on the subject of Bible archaeology!
Now, in concluding, I want to make a personal and prayerful appeal to this man in an effort to see him once again back among the faithful of God. He has left the truth he once proclaimed, and in the process doubtless has influenced others to do the same. He is much, much farther down the road to absolute atheism than he may realize, and we'd like to see him reclaimed for God. We would hope that he could go back and see what pitiful agnostic materials he had, and to see also that for all his anti-Bible declarations, he has at times given in to some remaining conscience, and then would say, "But there is a possibility that I am wrong!"
Mr. Till, let me urge you to go back to the basics--man and earth are here, and they are here by some force and power other than either man's efforts or blind chance. There is God, and God has not only revealed His existence in nature, but has communicated His will to man. That communication is the Bible. If man rejects it, he has rejected his hope! If one, in rejection of the Bible, then goes far enough, he can burn every bridge behind him, sear his conscience, and then only eternal rejection by God is before him.
Mr. Till, it is very clear that you have mind and ability, and heretofore had an understanding of the will of God, and had the desire to teach it to others. You saw value in it then; and now, what have you found in its place? The course of rejection of the Bible, mocking of its contents, disdain for the idea of inspiration, and lack of concern for matters pertaining to your soul. I do not believe you are the better man for the change; yea, I must believe otherwise! I do not want you lost, nor does God (2 Pet. 3:9). I wish above all else that you might "repent of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the hought of thine heart" (and the actions the heart has encouraged) "may be forgiven thee" (Acts 8:22). As you read this last article in our discussion, I urge that you, in view of eternity, think seriously on these things!
[Editor's Note: Throughout the debate, Jackson sarcastically called Till's debating abilities pitiful, one of the wonders of the world, referred to him as an absolute jewel, Mr. Cold Spit, and so on, but at the very end of his part of the debate he said of Till, "It is very clear that you have mind and ability." The latter is not consistent with the former, so did Jackson finally have a change of opinion or did he know all along that his opponent was better than he was pretending?]
