In concluding his first affirmative manuscript, Mr. Jackson made a statement that he should be reminded of. After speculating on what points I might make to attack the credibility of the Bible, he said, "We await such passages as he will use and ask that he make arguments regarding them, not just give a listing of them. We answer when he argues," (original emphasis). Since then, and even before, Jackson has consistently refused to apply to himself the same standard of argumentation that he demanded of me (even though I had not yet begun the defense of my proposition). As I have repeatedly pointed out, he has done little or nothing but list, without exegesis, various scriptures that he claims will prove thus-and-so or this-and-that, so it's time that he explained himself. What gives him the right to just list his scripture references when he demands that I "make arguments, not just give a listing of them"? He has a strange sense of fairness.
In his third affirmative effort, for example, he listed (page 11) five examples of prophecy fulfillment (Micah 5:2 fulfilled by Matthew 2:5-6, Jeremiah 31:15 fulfilled in Matthew 2:16-18, etc., etc., etc.) but said absolutely nothing to prove that the event in the second reference of each listing did in fact fulfill the prophecy alleged in the first. Then on the heels of this, he listed (again without exegesis) three alleged examples of "scientific foreknowledge" in the Bible. So he is doing the very thing he insisted that I not do. Perhaps he will explain what makes it right for him but wrong for me.
"We answer when he argues." That was his promise, but we have seen very little to indicate he intends to keep it. After I had devoted 474 words out of the entire 2049 in my second rebuttal to showing that Isaiah's reference to "the circle of the earth" didn't necessarily prove that he knew the earth was a sphere and that, even if he did, he wouldn't have been the only one of his contemporaries to know it, what did Jackson have to say? "I know that Isaiah did (know Earth was a sphere)," he quipped, "because God told him!" To turn a phrase of his back on him, "Ah, that's real debating, Mr. Jackson!" Then, regarding the evidence I documented from Encyclopedia Britannica to show that the Greeks and Egyptians prior to and during Isaiah's time knew the earth was spherical, he said, "(Till) cannot get around the point that most of the ancients had no idea of such," (emphasis added, p. 13). Apparently, he can't see that, as far as his argument is concerned, whether most ancients thought the earth was flat is irrelevant, because to prove that a confirmed, undisputed biblical reference to a spherical earth is an example of scientific foreknowledge, he would have to show that none of the ancients of that time knew this. So when is Mr. Jackson going to keep his commitment and "answer when he (Till) argues"? Will he ever do it, or will he continue to evade documented counterarguments with irrelevant quips about how I am "willing to accept encyclopedic `truth' but not biblical truth"? Why doesn't he make an effort to demonstrate that his "biblical truth" is indeed truth? He doesn't because he can't!!!!!!!!!!!!
As Jackson was winding down his third harangue, he said, "Why in the world this man thought he needed to engage in a debate, I'll never know!" In reality, I think he knows only too well why I wanted to debate. I wanted to because I knew that his position could not be successfully defended, and with each manuscript exchange he is demonstrating more and more that I was right. I must say, however, that, given his reputation in the Churches of Christ, I did expect a better effort than what we have seen from him. Assuming the problem may be that he just hasn't yet caught his stride, I make a proposal to him. He more or less established the format of the debate (five, six-page exchanges by each participant on each proposition), so why don't we increase the number of exchanges to eight on each proposition? This would allow him to select four of his arguments and devote six pages to presenting and developing each one he selects. If he will do that, I assure him that I will "answer (in depth) when he argues." To the readers, I will just say that you surely realize I wouldn't be making this proposal if for one moment I thought that I was taking a beating from Mr. Jackson.
In his fourth manuscript, which was just more of nothing, he demonstrated a complete failure to understand what I meant in saying that arguments consist of claims and evidence. "He (Till) also surely knows," said Mr. Jackson, "that a claim of inspiration/inerrancy must have internal evidence, and the internal evidence is a good part of the proof!" Well, of course, I know this, and it is exactly what I have been trying to get him to see. If the Bible is what he claims it is, there must be within it (somewhere) internal evidence that will prove it to be the verbally in spired word of God. All I want him to do is show us this evidence. To do that, he will of course need to quote the Bible text, but in addition to quoting, he must demonstrate that the quotations mean what he is claiming they mean. He seems to believe that I object to his quoting the Bible to support his proposition, but I have never challenged his right to quote the Bible. What I challenge is the way he has been listing scriptures (often without even quoting them) as proof of some off-the-wall claim and then making no pretense at all to explicate them to show that they do in fact prove what he is claiming. I believe he said something about sauce for the goose being also sauce for the gander, so it's past time for him to heed his own advice and "make arguments" from the scriptures he cites and "not just give a listing of them."
If Mr. Jackson will review my manuscripts, he will see that I have done quite a bit of scripture quoting myself, but my approach to it has been somewhat different from his. He quotes--or rather cites--and then without even a semblance of explication goes on his merry way to his next claim; I quote and then analyze to show that the quotation probably means what I am claiming. My explications of Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:5-6 (pages 14-15) illustrate the difference. Mr. Jackson used 14 whole words (page 11) to "prove" that the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem fulfilled the Micah 5:2 "prophecy." I devoted 910 words out of the 2046 in my third rebuttal (almost half of the entire manuscript) to showing that the Bethlehem in Micah 5:2 probably referred to a family clan rather than the village. This counterargument was supported with references to Young's Analytical Concordance and the genealogical tables in 1 Chronicles, both of which show that there was an Old Testament character named Bethlehem. This evidence was in turn supported by translation comparisons from several versions of the Bible that use the word "clan" in Micah 5:2, a fact that must mean many Bible scholars view the Bethlehem in this passage as a reference to a clan or extended family rather than a village. All of this was followed with an analysis of the "prophecy" as quoted by Matthew to note in particular that he had referred to the Bethlehem in question as one of the "princes of Judah." This suggests that even someone as desperate as Matthew was to find prophetic fulfillment in the circumstances of Jesus's birth couldn't distort the original statement quite enough to conceal what its real meaning was.
How did Mr. Jackson react to all of this? He brushed it aside with, "Till may not like it or see it (that the Bethlehem in Micah 5:2 was the village), but Matthew did and the chief priests and scribes of Judaism could see it!" Did he in any way show that the Bethlehem of Micah 5:2 could not have been a family clan? No, he didn't. He didn't even try. Did he try to show that Bible versions referring to the Bethlehem of Micah 5:2 as a "clan" had mistranslated the verse? No, he didn't. All he could do was say, "Till may not like it or see it, but Matthew did and the chief priests and scribes of Judaism could see it!" When confronted with logic as overwhelming as that, what can I say?
Mr. Jackson made an overblown issue of my use of expressions like "very likely" and "quite probably" in developing my counterarguments. In so doing, he proved only what I have already said: he doesn't understand the first thing about the science of argumentation. Sound arguments always lead to unimpeachable conclusions, but none of his conclusions have even come close to being unimpeachable. He has claimed, for example, that the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem fulfilled a prophecy that had been made in Micah 5:2, but in my counterargument I gave sufficient grounds for doubting the claim. I showed how it was "very likely" or "quite probable" that the Bethlehem in the "prophecy" was a clan rather than a village. By establishing at least plausibility in another interpretation of Micah 5:2, I have impeached the integrity of his claim. And it will remain impeached until he in some way demonstrates implausibility in my counterclaim.
This same principle will take care of Mr. Jackson's other "arguments." He saw scientific foreknowledge in Isaiah's reference to the "circle of the earth," but I presented adequate proof to show that, even if the word circle in Isaiah's statement meant sphere, there would still be no basis in it for a scientific-foreknowledge argument. By proving that the Greeks and Egyptians prior to and during Isaiah's time knew about the rotundity of the earth, I showed that it was "very likely" or "quite probable" that a Hebrew contemporary could have known it too. So until Jackson can establish beyond reasonable doubt that (1) Isaiah meant sphere when he said circle and that (2) no one in his day could have known by natural means that the earth was a sphere, the integrity of his argument will remain impeached. I realize how distressing these facts must be to Mr. Jackson; nevertheless, they are facts, and he must deal with them or suffer the consequences of ignoring them.
In my third rebuttal, I challenged Mr. Jackson to cite the scriptures where it had been written, as claimed in Luke 24:46 and 1 Corinthians 15:4, that the Messiah would rise from the dead on the third day. His response to the challenge is now a matter of record. He couldn't produce them! "The prophecy had to do with the event," he said, "and the fleshed-out details need not have been given at the time." Oh, I see. Is this the gospel according to Jackson? If so, perhaps he can explain how he arrived at this conclusion when Luke plainly said that Jesus said, "Thus it is written that the Christ should... rise again from the dead the third day." If the Bible is as inerrant as Mr. Jackson claims it is, why can't he produce the scripture Jesus was referring to when he said it had been written that he would "rise again from the dead the third day"? If Mr. Jackson isn't careful, he might find himself asking, "How does Till know this means what he says it means?"
Actually, I feel sorry for Mr. Jackson; he is treading hard just to keep his head above water. So I'm going to go easy on him and withdraw my request for the scriptures that said the Messiah would "rise again from the dead the third day." Instead, I'm just going to ask him to produce an Old Testament scripture where it was written that the Messiah would rise from the dead period. Surely he can do that, because he has said that "the prophecy had to do with the event," not the "fleshed-out details." So let's forget about the "fleshed-out details." We'll settle for just an obvious prophecy of the event. Maybe he'll find it in the same place where it was prophesied that Jesus would be called a Nazarene.
Go to Jackson's Fourth Defense.
