The longer the debate continues, the more apparent it becomes that Mr. Jackson doesn't know the first thing about argument development. In my second rebuttal, I pointed out that proper arguments absolutely must contain two elements, claims and evidence, but for all the good it did, I may as well have left this unsaid. We have heard a lot of claims from Mr. Jackson, but that all-important second element--evidence to support his claims--has been conspicuously absent. He seems to think that if he repeats a claim often enough this will be sufficient to prove it. That notion, however, is just as erroneous as the proposition he is affirming (if it is even proper to speak of his performance so far as "affirming"). A claim is only as good as the evidence presented in its defense, and without any supporting evidence at all, as the case has been in practically all of Mr. Jackson's "arguments," a claim is just a claim. Once again, then, I will remind Mr. Jackson of his duty as the affirmant. We have heard his claims; let's hope now that we will at last hear his evidence.
In referring to some of Jackson's claims based on scriptures that he merely cited without explication, I have legitimately demanded that he explain how he knows that these scriptures meant what he wants us to believe they meant. In typical Jacksonian fashion, he has exploited this demand with a lot of "pulpit pounding." All Till can do, he accuses, is cry, "Prove it is literal," or ask, "How do you know they mean what you think they mean?" Incidentally, I wonder if the readers are noticing that Mr. Jackson seems to believe that if he punctuates a claim or accusation with an exclamation point or, apparently even better, types it in bold letters and then tacks on an exclamation point or two, this will somehow give the statement a ring of authority and truth. But amateurish techniques like these will not work. If he intends to prove his claims, he must produce supporting evidence.
My insistence that he make at least a pretense at explicating the scriptures he cites as he stumbles along on his merry way to nowhere is, as I said, a perfectly legitimate negative demand. Let's suppose, for example, that I should claim, as I do, that the Genesis writer believed marriages between angels and earthly women took place in man's early history and produced a generation of literal giants. In support of my claim, I quote, but don't explicate, Genesis 6:1-4: "When the earth began to be populated and daughters were born to the people, it developed that the sons of God took notice of the daughters of men, admired their looks and married all those of them whom they chose.... There were giants on the earth in those days, and later, too, when the sons of God used to cohabit with the daughters of men, who bore them children, those mighty men of old who made a name" (RBV). What do you suppose Mr. Jackson's reaction would be if I just quoted without explicating? Would we expect him to say, "Well, you've got me there. What can I say?" No, I suspect we would hear him saying such things as, "How do you know the sons of God in this passage were celestial beings?" or "How do you know that the `giants' in this passage were literal giants?" In other words, he would want, and rightly so, more than just my mere word that the Genesis writer in this statement meant that such marriages had at one time occurred.
At the risk of having Mr. Jackson accuse me of weeping, I'm going to say that I don't have enough space to examine every scripture citation that he has hurled at me, so I'm going to take just one of his claims, to the neglect of the others, and do a proper, in-depth analysis of it to show that the scriptures he cites in support of it don't prove what he thinks they prove. Perhaps then at least the readers will know that with adequate time and opportunity I could do the same with his other ridiculous claims.
He argues that prophecy fulfillment provides marvelous evidence that the Bible is the inspired word of God. What about all those amazing prophecies uttered in "ages past" that "man could not manipulate or connive an end (to) across the centuries"? How do I explain that? Well, the explanation is quite simple. They never happened except in the fertile imaginations of a few religious mystics whose fanciful interpretations of certain events have been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by gullible people like our Mr. Jackson.
Jackson claims, for example, that Micah 5:2 was fulfilled by the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem of Judea. How does he know this? Well, Matthew told him so, (2:5-6). The fact that no contemporary event seemed too insignificant for Matthew to see prophecy fulfillment in it doesn't seem to faze Mr. Jackson. If Matthew said it, that's good enough for him. What Jackson will probably never understand is that just because it's good enough for him does not mean that it's good enough for people who use logic to determine what should or should not be believed. Matthew, for example, saw fulfillment of Hosea 11:1 in the flight into and return from Egypt of Joseph's family (2:15). And what does Hosea 11:1 say? "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." The context of this statement shows very clearly that Hosea intended this statement as a reference to the Israelite exodus from Egypt. Jackson can talk until he is blue in the face about the "double intention" of some prophecies, and the truth will still remain: if Matthew had not imaginatively applied this statement to Jesus, no one would have thought it referred to anything but the Israelite exodus.
This Matthew who saw fulfillment of Hosea 11:1 in Joseph's flight into Egypt was the same Matthew who saw fulfillment of prophecy in Joseph's decision to take his family to Nazareth on their return from Egypt: "(A)nd being warned of God in a dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee, and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene" (2:22-23). The only problem is that none of the prophets ever said anything that Bible scholars have been able to identify as Matthew's point of reference, yet he didn't just say that a prophet had said this; he said that the prophets (plural) had so prophesied. If it is true that the prophets did make this prediction, why can't anybody find at least one reference to it? The fact is, as I'm sure even Mr. Jackson knows, the Old Testament doesn't mention the town of Nazareth or Nazarenes a single time. Yet he expects us to swoon over Matthew's claim that the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem fulfilled Micah 5:2.
Another problem with the Micah 5:2 "prophecy" is the fact that the "Bethlehem" in this passage, rather than being a town, was very likely intended as a reference to the head of a family clan. What many people who stand in awe of this alleged prophecy fulfillment don't know is that a person named Bethlehem was an Old Testament character descended from Caleb through Hur, the firstborn son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chron. 2:18-19; 2:50-52; 4:4). Young's Analytical Concordance, p. 92, identifies Bethlehem as this person in addition to its having been the name of two villages, one in Zebulun and the other in Judea.
An examination of the Micah 5:2 "prophecy" in context indicates that it was quite probably a reference to the clan rather than the town: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting." The fact that the Bethlehem in this verse was described as "little to be among the thousands of Judah" casts serious doubt on Matthew's application of the statement. In a region as small as Judah, one could hardly speak of a town as one of "thousands," yet in terms of a Judean clan descended from Bethlehem of Ephrathah, it would have been an appropriate description for a small family group that hadn't particularly distinguished itself in the nation's history. The NIV translates that part of the verse like this: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah...." Similar renditions are made by the RSV, NAS, NAB, the Jerusalem Bible, and other translations, all agreeing that Micah referred to a family clan rather than a town.
We should also look at the verse as Matthew quoted it: "And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor...." It would be rather strange to call an insignificant village a "prince of Judah," yet not at all inappropriate to refer to the head of an undistinguished clan descended from Caleb as a prince. Notice also how Matthew misquoted the scripture. Micah said, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah," but Matthew twisted it to say, "And thou, Bethlehem, land of Judah...." Omitting the reference to Ephrathah seems rather careless of a "verbally inspired" writer, but it also raises the possibility that Matthew intentionally distorted the original statement to make it better suit his purpose of wanting it to appear to be a reference to the town of Bethlehem rather than a family clan. At any rate, before Mr. Jackson can expect rational people to see this as a marvelous example of prophecy fulfillment, he will have to show that the problems I have identified in Matthew's application of Micah 5:2 have no basis in fact. Since he sees the passage as a messianic prophecy, he might also want to produce evidence that Jesus descended from Bethlehem of Ephrathah. I look forward to seeing him do either one.
The same problems in principle apply to the other scriptures Jackson cited as wonderful examples of prophecy fulfillment. Jeremiah 31:15, examined in context, turns out to be a reference not to Herod's slaughter of the children in Bethlehem but to the sorrows the people of Judah experienced in Babylonian captivity. If I am wrong about this, let Mr. Jackson explain what Jeremiah meant in the very next verses: "Thus saith Jehovah: Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall be rewarded, saith Jehovah; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope for thy latter end, saith Jehovah: and thy children shall come again to their own border." Perhaps Jackson will tell us this was a prophecy that the children Herod slaughtered would be resurrected from the dead and "come again to their own border."
May Mr. Jackson pardon me for weeping, but I have no space left to expose flaws in the other passages that he cited but didn't explicate. In the few lines I have left, I want to ask him a question that relates directly to the prophecy issue he has raised. Luke 24:44-47 tells us that after his resurrection Jesus spoke to his disciples concerning things that had been written about him in "the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms." Among other things, he said, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day" (v:46). The Apostle Paul said that "he (Christ) hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:4). In two places, then, claim was made that the scriptures had said the messiah would be resurrected "on the third day." My question to Mr. Jackson is this: Just where in the scriptures was it written that the Christ would rise on the third day? When he fails to produce any such text, perhaps our readers will then see that New Testament claims of prophecy fulfillment were nothing but highly speculative inventions.
Go to Jackson's Fourth Defense.
