This is my final affirmative, and Till's last negative will follow. His position is typical: He wastes space, cries over lack of space, and then begs for more space! He states that I "more or less" established the format, as if I gained some advantage. I made the format suggestion, and he accepted, and that was that! Let's use his own rule on him: If Till couldn't do his work in five articles, then we know he couldn't if he had eight of them!
We might mention to him that verbosity doesn't prove truth. He points to his 474 words in one instance, and 910 in another. Such doesn't prove truth, Mr. Till, but it does prove why you ran out of space! One said it: "Inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity!"
Seeing himself a teacher of argumentation, he states that I "overblew" his use of "very likely" and "quite probably." I didn't overblow but pointed out how poorly these were from one who prides himself on his argumentation skills and ability to mount evidence! Now, when he affirms, will he accept my "very likely" and "quite probably" statements as plausible enough to cause the loss of his points?
Mr. Till, at the same time admitting that the Bible's internal evidence needs to be cited, is chafed that, regarding prophecy and fulfillment, I cite the Old Testament prophecy and the New Testament's record of fulfillment. The event at the heart of the two is clear, and when one sees the Old Testament passage pointing to some future event, and then sees the event, with the New Testament statement of fulfillment, what more is needed? For the believer in God and in God's communicating with man, these are sufficient. How will Till set such aside? He's rejected the Bible revelation from God, but states he has no idea how God might communicate with man; then, Mr. Till, God might communicate through the Bible! Till already has indicated he'll not accept Biblical evidence, but will accept the Encyclopedia Britannica or what some "scholar" has said. I still maintain that when the event of Jesus' birth is a known fact, and when an Old Testament passage points to the place, when New Testament words show fulfillment, when even the Jewish scholars of the time knew it was prophecy and fulfillment, the point is established! Mr. Till simply denies with "quite probably" and "not necessarily."
Mr. Till falsely states that I "brushed aside" what he had to say on Micah 5:2 and "clan." Yet his great NIV support footnotes "rulers," and his RSV support footnotes "among the insignificant clans of Judah" the king would be born, "in Bethlehem." His own sources will tell us that irregardless [sic] of a man's name, or clan, or family being centered in that region, it still was a prophecy of our prince, the Christ, to be born in Bethlehem! Till has had no point at all!
Mr. Till's great problem, and one of his own making, is that he has decided that for a passage to be a prophecy with later fulfillment, the very same conditions to the utmost detail must be present and that the stated fulfillment must be given word-for-word, when that never has been so regarding type/anti-type, shadow/substance, prophetic/actual, and application/ reapplication. One need not be a scholar in approaching the Bible in order to know these things.
In this, my last affirmation, I need to show once again the type of material we've received from Till: (1) On prophecy and fulfillment, Till tells us "it never happened." The authority is Till! (2) On particular points, Till tells us "very likely" and "possibly" it meant something else. (3) On Genesis 6:1-4, Till finds "angels" in the passage. (4) On matters of scientific foreknowledge, clearly shown, Till says "men of that day knew such on their own." (5) On Isaiah 53:7, Psalm 69:21, Psalm 22:18, with stated fulfillment given, Till ignores them! (6) On the matter of Genesis 9:4 and blood, the matter of Psalm 89:37 and the moon, and on the matter of the Hittite empire, Till ignores them! (6) On the matter of Jesus, the Nazarene, Till tells us no prophet ever uttered anything that wasn't written down! (8) Till then is in a stew, challenging that no Old Testament passage speaks of the Messiah's rising from the dead. We'll just let Peter give him one (Acts 2:25-34), citing Old Testament verses in Psalms 16:8-10 and 110:1. Peter shows that David was not speaking of himself, but of one whom David called "Lord." (9) When Till gets in a tight, he simply asks, "How do you know the verses mean what you think they mean?" (10) His "expertise" is to deny the way God has communicated with man, and when asked how he did communicate, is to say, "I don't know!" And (11), his worst failure goes back to the first exchange, when I had set forth the Bible's antiquity, the message of God in Israel's history, the development of a steadfast and consistent theme throughout history, stated prophecies and fulfillment, scientific foreknowledge uttered and then later discovery made and the plan of God therein by which the world can be saved! All of these points shout out a powerful argument, and Till says, "There are other ancient books of antiquity." He chooses to ignore all of those points when he was given opportunity to show those points in the other religious books of antiquity. Why did he not do so?Mr. Till states that he wanted to debate because he knew my position could not be proven, and he means physical proof by taste, touch, smell, hearing or seeing. He sees "proof" in what an encyclopedia states, and in a chimpanzee's genes, but will reject the Bible immediately. By what he wants in the way of "proof," Till cannot accept that he has a liver, can he?
Mr. Till stated that archaeology has a strong argument against Biblical inerrancy, but then, why did he not make use of it? Is he saving the "big guns until later? He could have made quick work in his negatives by showing how other so-called inspired volumes meet the six-points I stated regarding the Bible or by showing that the rivers, mountains, valleys, cities, empires mentioned in the Bible have never been found to exist! Yeah, big guns, when will you speak????
Mr. Till is closer to being an atheist than he realizes. He is on record as believing atheism has the better of it in the creation-evolution dispute. He rejects the Bible, believes in no prophecy and fulfillment, believes that the resurrection of Christ was not prophesied, and thus he believes that Matthew, Mark, Peter, Paul and the rest misapplied in their use of Old Testament scriptures. In Till, the hardening process is well advanced!
When he takes the affirmative, it will be most interesting, for when he advances some so-called absurdity, or some so-called contradiction, my reply must be (in keeping with his pattern): "Well, Till, how do you know the words mean what you think they mean? And, you will have to exhaust every possibility that I can offer, for just one `most likely' and `probably' from me, and at least my view is plausible." Get ready to take it, Till, for you handed it out!
Till's most frantic exercise, making use of the NIV and all else he could find, had to do with Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:5-6. God says it is fulfillment, through Matthew, and Matthew even cites the Jewish chief priests and scribes as knowing it as prophecy with expected fulfillment in Bethlehem. Now, Till tells us it was a perversion by Matthew! Till versus Matthew! Till rambles about clans, families, family names, etc., as if the locale wherein some clan or family lived could not be ancient Bethlehem, and thus, among so many, our prince the Christ could not thus come from the city! Pitiful, Mr. Till! If that is a sample of what we can expect in your coming affirmatives, we're in for one more boring ride!
In summation, let us mention once more that the nature of God demands that his utterances to man, involving responsibility and accountability, require the word to be infallible and inerrant. The Bible is thus given, claiming infallibility and inerrancy, and thus is available for testing, both internally and externally. We have shown that it has (1) the antiquity, (2) the association with the confirmed history of Israel, (3) the development of one consistent theme down through the Old Testament period, (4) the stated prophecies and then the New Testament's showing of fulfillment, (5) the stated scientific foreknowledge from ancient periods, and of matters revealed only by science in recent times, and (6) connected with all of it, and in keeping with the plan of God concerning responsible man, the system whereby the world may be saved! Till has not touched any of these, except to say, "It isn't so!"
Mr. Till will have one more negative, wherein rules forbid his introducing new material, but he has plenty he has not dealt with anyway! He will then begin his affirmative, and by what he has said about proper debating, he must set forth his objections to the Bible's content, making his arguments giving such thorough exegesis that I cannot even set forth a "very likely" or "most probably" answer. If I bring forth a "likely" or "probably," by the Till rule I have at least introduced a plausible point and thus his position is rendered doubtful!
Go to Till's Fifth Rebuttal.
