In past debates denominational preachers, seeing they have no truth to present, spent their time crying about being mistreated. Mr. Till used more than two pages doing the same, after earlier stating he couldn't get to Biblical archaeology due to lack-of-space, and now, in his last, states the same. He, proposing to be an intellectual, seems unable to see that when he says he's not sure if God exists, he is then in no position to deny anything as action God would take, or to deny that a Bible statement is something God would not express! We can now lay his two pages--dripping with his tears--aside.
I furnished a number of points that work together to support the view that the Bible is inspired of God. When I pointed out that the case did not rest on one point alone, he acted as if I said otherwise, giving my point zero value, and claiming all amounted to the same zero! He argues as if I had said that antiquity alone proves divine inspiration (Till, p. 11), when I had mentioned (1) Antiquity, (2) Association with Israel, (3) Development of one consistent theme, within Israel, down through many years, (4) Stated prophecies and their fulfillment, (5) Scientific foreknowledge, and (6) Plan to save the whole world. Mr. Till comes forth with other religious volumes, and their claiming to be inspired, and argues their antiquity! But I did not argue antiquity alone, and Mr. Till has still remained silent on my arguments on antiquity and content! If Mr. Till wishes to argue that these other volumes have the same support as does the Bible, let him show from these volumes that it is so. He will not have to believe the points to show that the same features are there!
Mr. Till replies to my point on prophecy and fulfillment with "just another unsupported claim." He promises to respond when I give specific examples, choosing to ignore the Genesis passages I gave, except for a dodge concerning "seed of woman." I cited the passages, and he left them alone, and then claims I offered nothing specific!
He dismisses Isaiah 40:22, "the circle of the earth," with the view that Isaiah may not have been speaking literally. He cites the encyclopedia to the effect that the ancients knew the earth was round, and maybe Isaiah did! I know that Isaiah did, because God told him! He cannot get around the point that most of the ancients had no idea of such; note also how he's willing to accept encyclopedic "truth" but not Biblical truth! He should know that men commonly speak of the "four corners of the earth," adoptive of the four directions, but men standing on earth have no reason to speak of the earth's rotundity. You have no rebuttal, Mr. Till!
Till's one big point has been to point to other religious volumes, and yet, to press the point he has in mind he would have to show (1) The antiquity of the books, (2) Their association with a history of the people of God, (3) Development of a constant theme and purpose of God, (4) Prophecies therein and their fulfillment, (5) Scientific foreknowledge therein, and (6) A plan whereby the world can be saved. If Till will look at it, it is he who has used antiquity alone as regards these other books!
Mr. Till has given me something, though. Later, when he begins to spell out "absurdities and contradictions," all I'll have to do is say, "Prove it is literal," or ask, "How do you know it's not figurative?" That's the way he answers, so I guess I have the same privilege. He dismisses "seed of woman" and "paths of the sea" with: "How do you know they mean what you think they mean?" Then he again says, "If I had more space...," and yet we remember his two pages of weeping and wailing! Ah, that's real debating, Mr. Till!
For some thousands of years men have known that "seed of woman" in Genesis 3:15 refers to Christ, with the clear prophecy that while He would suffer hurt at the time of his passion, he would bruise the head of sin/Satan. Till says we can't know what the verse means. On Psalm 8:8, Matthew Maury knew what paths in the sea meant and thus charted the shipping lanes. Till says we can't know what the verse means. With what Till did with Isaiah, he'll probably say that Moses was a gynecologist and David an oceanographer!
In the area of prophecy and fulfillment, here's some more for Till: (a) Micah 5:2 fulfilled by Matthew 2:5-6, in Bethlehem's being the place of Jesus' birth; (b) Jeremiah 31:15 fulfilled in Matthew 2:16-18, in the slaughter of the innocents; (c) Isaiah 53:7 fulfilled in Mark 15:4-5 in Jesus' silence before Pilate; (d) Psalm 69:21 fulfilled in Matthew 27:34, in Jesus being given vinegar; and (e) Psalm 22:18 fulfilled in Matt. 27:35, lots cast for Jesus' garments. These could not have a contrived, arranged fulfillment, but could only be so by God's foreknowledge and given through inspiration. Now, Mr. Till, will your debating skills be brought to bear on these with the dismissal, "How do you know these verses mean what you think they mean?"
In the area of scientific foreknowledge, (a) The fact that life is in the blood (Gen. 9:4), a matter that medical science did not know until fairly modern times. The question is, "How did Moses know it, unless God told him?" Of course, Till might answer that Moses was trained in hemotherapeutics! Then (b), the fact that the moon witnesses the sun on the other side of the earth (Ps. 89:37), and thus gives reflected light. How did David know it, in a time when virtually all men thought the moon had light of its own? And then (c), archaeology's discovery of the Hittite empire, after men for generations had criticized the Bible's mention of the Hittites as a myth concerning a non-existent people! Does Mr. Till have an explanation for these without God, and will he even try??
Let us now consider what Mr. Till has presented in the way of negative arguments in our discussion. Considering the six points mentioned on my page 13 (this affirmative), he chose one of them, and merely stated, "There are other books of antiquity." On the matter of how God would communicate His will to man, Till said, "I don't know." On Isaiah 40:22, Till says Isaiah may have had the information independent of God. On Genesis 3:15, Till says, "How do you know it means what you think it means?" On Psalm 8:8, Till says, "How do you know it means what you think it means?" And, when it comes to what he feels is a strong argument (archaeology) against the Bible's inspiration, he pleads, "I don't have enough space!" His responses indicate a storehouse overflowing with nothing!! Why in the world this man thought he needed to engage in a debate, I'll never know! Such dodging and bending should have been telegraphed to me when he had earlier said as to creation or evolution, "I don't know." He has had plenty to reply to, but he has truly been in the negative in his constant stating, "I don't know!"
[Editor's Note: Actually, Till said, I don't know," only once, and that was in reply to Jackson's question: "If God does exist and has a will for man, how do you think God reveals that will?"]
He has been most irritated at the point I made on the other so-called "inspired books." He merely pointed to books of antiquity, ignoring all else I said in addition to antiquity, and took his stand on these other volumes. I pointed out, correctly, that if he was going to answer the points I had made concerning the make-up of the Bible, he needed to show where, in these other ancient volumes, the same features--and not just one of them--were present! I did not ask him to believe these volumes, nor to defend them as authoritative, but merely to show the same features in them as are found in the Bible! And, he acted insulted!! Why? If one presented the Book of Mormon to me, claiming inspiration for it, I would not mind showing features in it that are identical to the so-called "inspired" works of Seventh-Day Adventism! I don't have to believe either system to show that one offers exactly what the other does!
Now, Mr. Till, since your whole response has been to indicate that the books of some of the Eastern religions are the same as what we find in the Bible, show us, and do not just point to antiquity alone, as you have done repeatedly!
Let us now recap our affirmative points. With the Bible, we have a book claiming to be from God, who therein gives his will to man. In verification of the Bible's claim to be from God, we have (1) Its antiquity, (2) Its association with Israel, and then giving us a verified history of God's connection with man, (3) Its development of a steadfast and consistent theme pertaining to the plan of God, (4) Its containing prophecies and then fulfillment in later years, beyond the possibility of there being an arranged or contrived connection, (5) Its scientific foreknowledge, wherein matters then known only to God, but later shown to be so in the development of the fields of science were accurately stated, and (6), Its revealing a plan from God to the saving of the entire world. That final point would be expected, given the Bible's claim to be from God and for the redemption of mankind.
Mr. Till, you are indeed running out of time and space. If you are going to make a response to the six points that I have mentioned, regarding proofs that the Bible is inspired of God, now is the time to do so! Your being in the negative obligates you to say more than, "I don't know," or "I don't have enough space."Go to Till's Third Rebuttal.
