We had stated that Mr. Till and I should be debating the existence of God, but he spurned that topic. Indeed, he admitted that he didn't know who was right on the matter of origins. Then, in wanting to lead me from "false belief," he is hardly the one to do so, since he's not sure what is true or false! He admits the origins argument "tilts" toward atheism, and if so, then Till can have no standard, rule, code--no reason ever for offering advice to any who are on some other course--for, what does it then matter?
Till stated I had nothing "unique," but I didn't promise such. Perhaps it was the search for something "unique" and "ear-tingling" that led you from faith in the first place, Mr. Till? (2 Tim. 4:3,4). One point he made is hereby answered: Your finding groups claiming to have an "inspired" volume does not thereby prove the Bible is not inspired! A false claimant to be the Christ (Matt. 24:24) does not disprove a real Christ. Counterfeits tend to prove, rather, there was an authentic in the first place!
We note Mr. Till's claims for "logic, rationality," typical of all unbelievers. What supports their position is always "logical and rational," and what they reject is "illogical and irrational." Logic you say, Mr. Till? In whose eyes??? He certainly discounts faith, and apparently to him evidence rules out faith--seems he wants only evidence by the physical senses. By that same "logic," Mr. Till, you cannot prove you have a liver!
Note his misuse of what I said on "no one point being the sum." He overlooked my word "sum," pretending that I said that a single point had no value (zero), and thus adding up the six points, no value and still zero! A clever jump, Mr. Till, but deceitful. Let me give each point the value of one. The one is not the six, Mr. Till, but the ones, summed, amount to the six! I see that I will have to watch Mr. Till very carefully! Remember, he has no standard to cling to at all, and "anything goes"!
I stated that if God exists, He would have a will for man. Till doesn't like the if, but it is proper, since even he admits God might exist. So the "if" suits his own position. I had good reason for asking him how God would reveal his will to man, and he flounders over two pages to say, "I don't know!" Then, Mr. Till, with such ignorance and admitting that God might exist, you have no basis for faulting the Bible as God's instructing instrument! On the "if" business, I grant you Mr. Till just loves the philosophies of infidelic men, who fill their position papers with "ifs, shoulds, maybes, and possiblys." He will ridicule faith, and, to him, no proof is therein. Again, your liver, Mr. Till!
He has so long lived with evolutionists that he sees kinship with dogs, cats, etc. and wonders of God's will for them. His "99+% chimpanzees" are suspect as to the percentages, seeing the chimp cannot do "99+%" of what man can do! Something Till once knew I will give to him again: Genesis 1:26-27 and 2:7 explains the difference in men and animals, Mr. Till; too bad you've lost the distinction, and are unaware that man is made in the image of God. It may shock Mr. Till, but God does have a will for animal-kind, known as natural law, and to the animal, instinct!
Now he wishes to lay the Koran, the Avesta and the Vedas before me; I recognize the tactic, Mr. Till, but it won't work! I am obligated to produce evidences to indicate the inspiration of the Bible. I do not have to delve also into every so-called "sacred" or "inspired" book that you can find and show them to be fakes. Mr. Till, when you respond, you may show by the internal evidences that these other volumes are inspired, if you care to. But you can't do that, since you believe none of them are inspired. Get out of the dilemma, if you can--and I don't think you can!
The arrogance typical of the unbelieving philosophers now shows its face, as Till wishes God had done a better job, stating God has been a dismal failure, stating God has been unclear and confusing. The unbeliever wishes to blame God for everything, just as a criminal blames everyone else for his own misdeeds! Till finds the Bible so confusing, but seems perfectly at home in the "logic" of man-made philosophies. He's among those like the blind dog staggering around at midnight in a former meat market, sniffing out the steak that isn't there--and he thinks he's "logical, rational."
On the antiquity of the Bible, note that this was one point of several making the sum picture of inspiration and inerrancy, but Mr. Till doesn't want to look at the sum, does he? He doesn't want Scripture quoted, not even wanting the Bible to speak on its own behalf, though in court criminals are allowed to speak in their own behalf. I'll continue to allow the Bible to speak, Mr. Till, on matters wherein it can give us some evidence.
We certainly look forward to all he promises to show us about the Bible's faults. In earlier letters to me, it looked like something from someone who has never read the Bible, but who has become enamored of atheistic ramblings of the "irrational" sort. If Mr. Till desires to show that the other "sacred" books he has found have just what the Bible has, he will have to show that these books have: Consistency in theme and plan from Deity, the utterance and fulfillment of prophecy over centuries, archaeological confirmation, scientific foreknowledge, and the consistent historical/geographical confirmation. When you have presented those matters from these other volumes, Mr.Till, you will have made a legitimate reply to what I have said of the Bible. But you will have problems, since you believe none of these are inspired, won't you?
I must mention this: Mr. Till's letter to me (Sept. 22nd) revealed that "archaeology offers one of the strongest external arguments against the inerrancy doctrine." That being so, Mr. Till, why didn't you use some of it? You could have just zapped Jackson with it and silenced him! Why didn't you? Back to "logic" again: Is it "logical" that you did not use such a powerful weapon?
Now, back to affirmative points. What did Mr. Till say about the Bible's antiquity and on the point of its earlier parts being associated with Judaism, and thereby the theme, purpose and plan of God was developed toward fulfillment in the New Testament? He was silent! Will he show, by the other "sacred" volumes, that the consistent plan and will of God is brought forth through the centuries to a fixed purpose and goal now realized in these times? He will not!
What did Till say about Bible prophecy given in ages past and whereby man could not manipulate or connive an end to across the centuries, and the fulfillment following? Nothing! Can he, by the other volumes he wants to use in argument, show the same consistency in prophecy and fulfillment across the centuries? He cannot!
What did Till say about the scientific foreknowledge in the Bible, revealing from long ago truths that science itself could not verify until recent times, much of it in this century? He said nothing! Mr. Till, how did Moses know of woman's seed being involved in conception of children? (Gen. 3:15). How did Isaiah know in his day that the earth is round? (Isa. 40:22)? How did Job know that the earth rests on no material foundation? (Job 26:7). Add this to the list: How did Moses know that life is in the blood (Gen. 9:4), when medical science didn't know it until a late date? How did David know of the moon's bearing witness (Ps. 89:37) to the sunlight on the other side of the earth? How did David know that there are paths in the seas (Ps. 8:8) long before oceanography and Matthew Maury's work found it so? The "How?" is legitimate, and since man could not know these things of himself, there remains one answer: God told him, and inspired men recorded it!
We are aware that Mr. Till will not like the word "how?" anymore than he likes the word "if." He speaks of reason and logic, and the uses of these abilities will bring one to consider the "how" and the "if." He certainly doesn't mind the philosophers using their thinksos and maybes, and for them he was willing to give up his faith and his soul! And, blinded by them, he now seeks to limit all evidence to the physical senses, disparaging the word "faith." But what faith has he had to place in the secular philosophers he now is so attached to?
Naturally, the inspiration of the Bible is attached to faith in God. If there's no God, the Bible is not the Word of God! Nature itself points to a Divine Being, Mind, Will above man, causing all that we see (Ps. 19:1-6). Amazing that Till can look and see nothing, or what he does see "tilts" toward man coming from dirt and rocks, and that all existing order and arrangement in our world just "happened" without cause! He argues for physical proof and mocks faith; we see the reason he spurned debating the existence of God! Besides, on each point I make, Mr. Till, in admitting he knows nothing of origins, must admit that there can be validity to my points. If you don't know, Mr. Till, then you are in no position to deny, and are a poor one to demand a physical proof. Your "tilt" is toward atheism, which has neither physical nor rational proof to offer!Go to Till's Second Rebuttal.
