Mr. Till, [sic] and respected readers:

Mr. Till spends his final rebuttal employing tactics which are typical of his debating practices. He begins by stating that I complained because he said my articles were frustrating. All I said was: "Till said that my manuscripts frustrated him. Let me suggest that the reason they did is because he has not been able to defeat the arguments therein." [sic] (final affirmative, p.29) [sic] If he wants to call that a complaint, then so be it. All I did was to make an observation. He then spent two pages telling how my articles were: [sic] "... filled with mistakes in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and syntax ...," [sic] (p.2) all of which we had agreed over the phone not to bring up again in the debate. He has, previously, told me that my articles were not that bad [sic], now he wants us to believe that they are filled with these mistakes. I still feel that he complained because he could not answer my arguments. He goes on to call my syllogisms "silly-gisms" which is alright [sic] with me, I have yet to see a false teacher who did like the syllogisms that I bring forth in debate. I have had a lot of opponents make fun of them, but their making fun did not nullify their strength or force.

[Editor's Note: Till does not recall the phone conversation that McDonald mentioned above. The numerous errors in McDonald's manuscripts should be obvious to readers educated in the basics of English grammar, spelling, and punctuation, so if such a conversation happened, as McDonald claims, Till was surely trying to be tactfully polite to him.]

He said: "In a debate with a Moslem or a Mormon about the inspiration of their sacred books, he would never accept unsubstantiated quotations from the books in question as proof of anything, yet he expects us to swoon in amazement at Bible quotations that say the very thing he is supposed to be proving about the Bible." [sic] (p.l) [sic] Mr. Till knows that this is a false charge, or maybe he did not read my final article very carefully. I said:

"This is a strawman and Till knows it. I have never said that the Quran or the Book of Mormon should not be quoted to back its claims. As a matter of fact, I took the position in my third affirmative in my debate with Swindler on the resurrection that, 'If I were to debate a Mormon or a Muslim over some doctrine of theirs I would not be opposed to them [sic] quoting from their books. I would hope that I would have the good sense to allow that.'" [sic] (Fifth Affirmative, p.25) [sic]

From this, we can see that I would allow them to quote from their books. [Editor's Note: Till did not say that McDonald would not allow Muslims or Mormons to quote their holy books; he said that McDonald "would never accept unsubstantiated quotations from the books in question as proof of anything."] However, they cannot even do that because their books do not make the claims that the Bible makes. Mr. Till apparently does not want to allow the Bible to speak in its own behalf. This is something that we would not even prohibit a man accused of murder from doing. Even he could speak in his own defense. Why not allow the Bible that courtesy? He says that he has taken the arguments I made in defense of the Bible and applied them to the Quran [sic] and the Book of Mormon and shown that they either prove the inspiration of those two books or they do not prove the inspiration of the Bible. He did apply them to these books, but I destroyed his objections by showing that these books (Quran [sic] and Book of Mormon) did not make the claims that the Bible makes. Then [sic] he says: "What has been his response to these analogies? He does it again!" Mr. Till you know better than that. There is no excuse for a blunder like that in a written debate!

The Jehoram - Ahaziah Co-reign

He spends the next 10 pages trying to refute what it took only a little more than a page to make. He calls this debating? Let us look at his objections and show them to be false.

1. He says that it was absurd and called it a "how-it-could-have-been" scenario. Maybe it is absurd to him, but it is a time honored argument. Kimchi was a Rabbinic Commentator [sic] who lived during the middle ages. We can only assume that Abarbinel was a colleague of his. [Editor's Note: Isaac Abarbanel (the correct spelling) and David Kimchi could not have been colleagues. Abarbanel lived in the 15th century and Kimchi in the 12th. They both wrote separate commentaries on Old Testament scriptures, in which they apparently took the same position on a possible Jehoram-Ahaziah co-reign.] They were quoted by Hieron in his Hebrew Tradition in Paralip. [Editor's Note: Hieron died at the beginning of the 4th century AD, some eight centuries before Kimchi's birth and eleven before Abarbanel's, so Hieron could not have quoted them. Whatever Gill intended by his footnote {b}, it could not have meant that a writer who died in AD 300 quoted writers who would not even be born till several centuries later. In an editorial note below where McDonald again appealed to Hieron, the footnote is quoted and analyzed within the context of Gill's comments about Kimchi and Abarbanel.] [I do not know if this is an abreviation [sic] or the whole title of the book, [sic] [Editor's Note: Paralip. is an abbreviation for Paralipomeno, which is an obsolete name for the books of Chronicles.] it is all that John Gill had. [sic]] as giving this as the answer to the discrepancy. They apparently did not see any problem with sons co-reigning with their fathers. It seemed to be a normal occurrence for Gill says: [sic] "... this was greedily received by many ..." [sic] (Gill's Commentary, II Chronicles, p.510) [sic] It may be absurd to Till in our day and age, but to the people of that time, it seemed to be a normal thing.

   [Editor's Note: Readers have already been linked here and here to McDonald's misrepresentation of Gill's position in this matter through his quoting out of context only fragments of what Gill had said about the assumed Jehoram-Ahaziah co-reign. Readers are urged to read all of Gill's commentary on 2 Chronicles 22:2, but just a part of his comments are going to be quoted here to expose McDonald's misrepresentation of Gill's position in the matter of a biblically unmentioned Jehoram-Ahaziah co-reign. The quotation that McDonald truncated above, i. e., "this was greedily received by many," to leave the impression that Gill thought that the solution proposed by Kimchi and Abarbinel was credible will be emphasized in italic print.

   (D)ifferent ways are taken to solve this difficulty; some refer this to Jehoram, that he was forty two when Ahaziah began to reign, but he was but forty when he died; others to the age of Athaliah his mother, as if he was the son of one that was forty two, when he himself was but twenty two; but no instance is given of any such way of writing, nor any just reason for it; others make these forty two years reach to the twentieth of his son Joash, his age twenty two, his reign one, Athaliah six, and Joash thirteen; but the two principal solutions which seem most to satisfy learned men are, the one, that he was twenty two when he began to reign in his father's lifetime, and forty two when he began to reign in his own right; but then he must reign twenty years with his father, whereas his father reigned but eight years: to make this clear they observe {b}, as Kimchi and Abarbinel, from whom this solution is taken, that he reigned eight years very happily when his son was twenty two, and taken on the throne with him, after which he reigned twenty more ingloriously, and died, when his son was forty two; this has been greedily received by many, but without any proof: the other is, that these forty two years are not the date of the age of Ahaziah, but of the reign of the family of Omri king of Israel; so the Jewish chronology {c}; but how impertinent must the use of such a date be in the account of the reign of a king of Judah? all that can be said is, his mother was of that family, which is a trifling reason for such an unusual method of reckoning: it seems best to acknowledge a mistake of the copier, which might easily be made through a similarity of the numeral letters, bm, forty two, for bk, twenty two {d}; and the rather since some copies of the Septuagint, and the Syriac and Arabic versions, read twenty two, as in Kings; particularly the Syriac version, used in the church of Antioch from the most early times; a copy of which Bishop Usher obtained at a very great price, and in which the number is twenty two, as he assures us; and that the difficulty here is owing to the carelessness of the transcribers is owned by Glassius {e}, a warm advocate for the integrity of the Hebrew text, and so by Vitringa {f}: and indeed it is more to the honour of the sacred Scriptures to acknowledge here and there a mistake in the copiers, especially in the historical books, where there is sometimes a strange difference of names and numbers, than to give in to wild and distorted interpretations of them, in order to reconcile them, where there is no danger with respect to any article of faith or manners....

   Rather than endorsing the solution of Kimchi and Abarnibel when Gill said that it "has been greedily received by many," he was clearly disagreeing with these "many" for having "greedily" accepted this solution, as he went on to say, "without any proof."]

2. He said that I took offense at his accusing me of relying on "ifs" and "maybes" only to turn around and use them. I took no offense at his accusation, [sic] I merely asked that he show where I had done this to the extent that he charged. [Editor's Note: See the editor's note after this paragraph for a partial listing of the places where McDonald used maybes, ifs, could-have-beens, and other unverified speculations to explain biblical discrepancies.] I did use them, here, because I stated: [sic] "We do not know everything about the case because we have not communicated with the man who wrote this account." [sic] (p.16) [sic] I did, however, establish plausibility and according to Till that is sufficient. He then says: "I really don't object to hypothetical counterarguments as long as likeliness and plausibility for them are established, but when a debater presumes to rebut an argument simply by saying, 'It could have happened this way; now let me see you prove that it did not so happen,' that is when it is time to question his methods." [sic] (Fifth Rebuttal, p.3) [sic] Mr. Till, would you please show me any place where I have done this either directly or indirectly? Now that ought to give him something to chew on!

   [Editor's Note: Examples of where McDonald presented a "maybe" reply to Till's rebuttal argument can be seen here, and the same "maybe" was repeated here. McDonald surmised here that the solution to the problem of Ahaziah's age when he began to reign "could have been" that he co-reigned with his father for 20 years and then reigned on his own for one year, and even in this, his rejoinder, he returned to this could-have-been scenario here and then repeated it here and here.]

3. He tried to show that Solomon did not co-reign with David for the last part of David's reign. He says that 1 Chronicles 29:23,26 says nothing about the co-reign, but it does. It shows David made Solomon king over Israel while he was still alive. This could be nothing more than a co-reign. He did nothing to show that this was just a few months or so before David's death. The scriptures merely say that David was old and full of days. My dad is old and full of days and has been for 20 years, but he is not on his death bed. He says that this ceremony took place in the final year of David's reign according to 1 Chronicles 26:31: "Among the Hebronites was Jerijan the chief, even among the Hebronites, according to the generations of his fathers. In the fortieth year of the reign of David they were sought for, and there were found among them mighty men of valor at Jazer of Gilead." Now would you kindly show me where this refers to the ceremony making Solomon the king? 1 Kings chapter one only shows that Bathsheba came to David just before his death and asked him to make Solomon the one who would reign after his death. Apparently there was some concern about who would reign after David's death, but this does not nullify the idea of Solomon co-reigning with David before his death, and even some time before his death.

   [Editor's Note: When Till's second affirmative is posted, the link immediately above will take readers to a more detailed analysis of the textual evidence only summarized here to show that Solomon's co-reign did not start until the last year of David's reign. Chapter 26 of 1 Chronicles was a continuing part of elborate ceremonies that began in chapter 23 with David's designation of Solomon as king (v:1). If this ceremony took place in the 40th year of David's reign (26:31), then Solomon was made king in the last year of David's reign, because he reigned for only 40 years (29:26-27). If Solomon had co-reigned "for some time" before David's death, the power struggle between Solomon and his half-brother Adonijah detailed in 1 Kings 1:5-53 would not have happened, because Adonijah would have known that Solomon by virtue of his having co-reigned "for some time" had already secured the right to the throne.]

4. He says that the only reason for a lengthy co-reign for Ahaziah would be Jehoram's health or some political expediency. Is he sure about that? He writes this according to his knowledge of 20th century custom and law, not the custom and law of that time. Where is his proof that this would be the only reason for a lengthy co-reign. He says that I should be able to point to some textual indication, either Biblical or extrabiblical that such a co-reign did exist. I pointed out what Kimchi and Abarbinel said and his response was, "If Kimchi and Abarbinel have any proof that supports their 'solution' to this discrepancy, let's see it." I would suggest that Mr. Till obtain a copy of Hieron's Hebrew Tradition in Paralip.

   [Editor's Note: An editorial note above pointed out that Hieron died in AD 300, whereas Kimchi and Abarbanel were not born until the eighth and eleventh centuries respectively, so Hieron could not have quoted writers who had not yet been born. The editorial note just linked to and another one after it have pointed out McDonald's careless research into John Gill's position on a Jehoram-Ahaziah co-reign, which Gill said had been "greedily received by many" but "without any proof," whereas McDonald truncated this comment to make it appear that Gill approved of this solution by saying that many have greedily received it. An analysis of Gill's reference to Hieron shows that McDonald didn't understand what Gill had meant in his footnote {b}. In presenting the "different ways" that some have taken to explain the discrepancy in Ahaziah's age when he began to reign, Gill first summarized the co-reign theory that had, according to Gill, been advocated by others even prior to Kimchi and Abarbanel.

   (T)he two principal solutions which seem most to satisfy learned men are, the one, that he [Ahaziah] was twenty two when he began to reign in his father's lifetime, and forty two when he began to reign in his own right; but then he must reign twenty years with his father, whereas his father reigned but eight years: to make this clear they observe {b}, as Kimchi and Abarbinel, from whom this solution is taken, that he reigned eight years very happily when his son was twenty two, and taken on the throne with him, after which he reigned twenty more ingloriously, and died, when his son was forty two....

   McDonald apparently mistook the pronoun they (emphasized in light italic print) as a reference to Kimchi and Abarbanel, so he understood footnote {b}, which says, "{b} In Hieron. Trad. Heb. in Paralip." to mean that Hieron had quoted Kimchi and Abarbanel, which he could not have done because these two Jewish writers hadn't yet been born. Gill evidently intended the antecedent of the pronoun they to be advocates of the co-reign theory who were contemporaries of Hieron or had lived prior to him.The editor apologizes again for the frequent insertions of these notes, but, without them, McDonald's misunderstanding and distortion of John Gill's commentary on 2 Chronicles 22:2 would probably have eluded readers who don't have access to Gill's commentary, as Till didn't either at the time of the debate.]

5. He discusses the potential problem of Jehoram reigning only one year in Jerusalem. I gave two explanations for it, and Mr. Till, as is typical of him, only dealt with one. He had nothing to say about Gill's explanation. Why not? I showed that 2 Chronicles 21:11 implied that Jehoram spent part of his reign elsewhere. "Moreover he (Jehoram jdm) made high places in the mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication, and compelled Judah thereto." Mr. Till says: [sic] "If I had not read this with my own eyes, I would never have believed that a bibliolater could be driven to such an extreme in his hunt for 'solutions' to Bible discrepancies. What does he want us to see in this verse?" [sic] (p.6) [sic] What I want him to see is the fact that where the worship was held is where the king's throne was. In 1 Kings 12:20 through 13:1-8 Jeraboam [sic] was made King [McDonald's capitalization retained] by Israel and he took the Israelites up to both Dan and Bethel and caused them to worship there. Bethel is where he resided [sic] and where he resided is where he reigned. Thus by inference we see that when Jehoram took Judah up to the high places to worship this is where he resided. [Editor's Note: Jeroboam resided in Shechem and not in Dan or Bethel: "Then Jeroboam built Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim and dwelt therein" (1 Kings 12:25). This was where the northern tribes declared Jeroboam to be their king (1 Kings 12:1). There is no indication that Jeroboam ever resided in either Dan or Bethel.] They did not just worship one day and return the next, but their worship lasted for long periods of time. Thus Jehoram could have had them worshipping for long periods of time and only been in Jerusalem for short periods of time. When all of this was added up it amounted to 8 years. That is what I want Mr. Till to get out of that verse.

   2 Chronicles 22:6-9 shows that Ahaziah spent time in Jezreel visiting Jehoram who was healing from his wounds. If he was there he would be reigning, and since the two kingdoms were friendly there would be no problem with Ahaziah ruling his kingdom from Jezreel. It also states that he hid in Samaria. While in Samaria he was still in power. Nothing is said about how long he spent in either of these places. We simply do not know, but it is unlikely that Ahaziah fought two wars in one short year. [sic] (2 Chronicles 22:5; 2 Kings 8:21) [sic]

   [Editor's Note: The "war" mentioned in 2 Kings 8:21 was actually just an unsuccessful battle, and it was fought by Ahaziah's father Jehoram [Joram] and not by Ahaziah: "In his [Joram's] days Edom revolted against the rule of Judah, and set up a king of their own. Then Joram crossed over to Zair with all his chariots. He set out by night and attacked the Edomites and their chariot commanders who had surrounded him; but his army fled home."]

6. Then he brings up 2 Kings 8:16 which said that Jehoram began reigning in the fifth year of Joram's (king of Israel) reign, and 2 Kings 8:25 says that Ahaziah began reigning in the twelfth year of Joram's reign. However, I have already shown that the 8 years in Jerusalem for Jehoram did not necessarily mean that this was 8 years in succession. Yes, Ahaziah did begin reigning in the twelfth year of Joram's reign but this does nothing for Till's position unless he can show [1] that the 8 years in Jerusalem means 8 years in succession and [2] that 8 years was all that Jehoram reigned. [3] He must prove that 5 from 12 equals 8. I am no math whiz, but even I know that the correct answer is 7. [Editor's Note: McDonald again misrepresented Till's position. As readers can see here Till's point was that Jehoram of Judah [Ahaziah's father] began to reign in the 5th year of Jehoram of Israel (2 Kings 8:16) but that Jehoram of Israel reigned for only 12 years: "Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years" 2 Kings 3:1). Ahaziah, Jehoram of Judah's son, began to reign in the 12th year of Jehoram of Israel (2 Kings 8:25), which would have been Jehoram of Israel's final year, and Ahaziah died in the first year of his own reign (2 Kings 8:26), so there is no way to squeeze into the fifth through the 12th and final year of the reign of Jehoram of Israel an eight-year reign by Jehoram of Judah "in Jerusalem" plus a 20-year, unmentioned co-reign with Ahaziah somewhere else. Furthermore, Jehoram [Joram] of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah were killed by Jehu on the same day (2 Kings 9:21-28). The math just won't allow time for this imagined 20-year co-reign somewhere outside of Jerusalem.] Given 2 Kings 9:29 we see that literally there were only 6 years that passed in Jehoram 's (king of Israel) reign between the time that Jehoram (king of Judah) began to reign and when Ahaziah was said to have begun to reign, which leaves Mr. Till with a problem because he needs those extra two years to substantiate his point. Since he does not have that extra two years, his argument falls. [4] He must prove that Jehoram (king of Israel) only reigned for 12 years. How is he going to do that? [Editor's Note: As quoted above, 2 Kings 3:1 says, "Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years."] In fact, how is he going to prove any of the above? He cannot do it! Therefore, his whole argument falls. He would have been better off had he never used this passage to back his claim.

7. He shows that Jerusalem was under the political control of the Judean kings until it fell to Nebuchadnezzar. This being true, does not nullify my position. A king could have control over a section of his kingdom and still not have his throne there. How does he think that these kings controlled the rest of Judah without their throne being in each one of these places?

8. He says that Jerusalem was the pride of the nation, [sic] therefore the king had to have his throne there and no place else. I want him to prove that this necessitates that the kings throne had to be there and no place else. Jerusalem was the place where the throne was mentioned, showing its importance. However, as we stated this 8 years in Jerusalem did not necessitate 8 years in succession. He may not realize it, but he has made an argument in favor of my position. Yes, it was the pride of the nation, and however long the king was there was what was mentioned. If, all together, he reigned in Jerusalem, this would be mentioned, while his reign elsewhere might not be mentioned because the other place was not the pride of the nation. Since Jerusalem was the pride of the nation, his reign from that place would be mentioned. Thank you Mr. Till, that is a very good argument; good for me, but bad for you.

9. Then, he brings up Josephus and implies that since I quoted from Josephus in my debate with Swindler, that I must accept everything that Josephus said. I only quoted from three places in Josephus in that debate. When Swindler would attack them, I would have to quote them again to defend what he said, but it was not as if I quoted from him extensively. The answer to Josephus is found in the fact that he used some Septuagint manuscripts. Some of the Septuagint manuscripts had Ahaziah's age as 22 in both places. Not all of the Septuagint manuscripts had it this way, but some did. Apparently Josephus used some of these that did. In clearing up what he thought was a discrepancy he apparently changed everything around. Will Mr. Till accept Josephus on Ahaziah's age, [sic] he says it was 22. If so then this will also defeat his argument about there being a contradiction.

   I do not accept everything that Josephus had to say, but he was pretty accurate as a historian. This, however, is different from Mr. Till saying that Joseph Wheless' book is the most convincing anti-inerrancy book that he ever read, then turning around and simply saying that it was good. Mr. Till does not know where he wants to stand in regards to Wheless. I pointed out that a thing might be good, but not the best. He never responded. I wonder why? I am glad however to see Mr. Till call Josephus, "... [sic] a respected Jewish historian ...".[sic]

10. Mr. Till wants me to abandon my position and take the "copyist-error" approach for this, he thinks, will be easier to answer. Well, Mr. Till, if I had taken this position you still would not be able to answer it. However, this is not my position, and I find nothing in your article that in any way damages the position which I have taken. So, if you do not mind, sir, I will continue to hold on to the idea of a co-reign until you destroy it. However, you are going to have to do better than what you have already done in order to do that.

11. Mr. Till tells us of Bill Jackson's position of different methods of calculation. Bill laid out several possibilities showing that anyone [sic] of them might be true. One of those possibilities was different methods of calculation. Another was the possibility of the co-reign that I mentioned. Bill did not elaborate on any of these points. I have! Bill simply put several possibilities out to show that Mr. Till's contention that this excluded any possibility of there being a reconciliation between the two verses was false. To date, Mr. Till has not shown that the passages, in question, are irreconcilable.

Unless I have missed something, this just about covers the 10 pages Mr. Till wasted on this objection. Still he has not even come close to showing a contradiction. I earlier pointed out that before he could say that this was a contradiction, he must show that one is true and the other is false. As Bill Jackson had to constantly remind Mr. Till, a difference does not always necessitate a contradiction.

Since I only have a short space to respond, I will not be able to get to the other items Mr. Till has raised. However, I will respond to them in my rebuttals. Now, I would like to get back and show Mr. Till's inadequacies in the negative.

[Editor's Notes: McDonald's exaggerations of his performance immediately below are repetitions of the same claims whose refutations by Till have been linked to throughout this website version of the debate, so no additional links will be inserted here except for one link after McDonald's summation list, which will take readers to an editor's note that links to all of the places where Till replied to each of McDonald's eight points.]

1. I made arguments on the existence of God, and Mr. Till's response has been that since many volumes have been written on this subject and some do not think the matter is settled, that this means I have not proven his existence. He wants to know why educated people do not debate on the rotundity of the earth or the base 10 math. Is everyone who believes the earth is flat, an ignorant person? Many educated people, among the Amish, etc. believe the earth is flat, because they believe the Bible to teach it. They refuse to look at the evidence simply because they believe it is flat. If a person believed that 2+2=5, you could prove that 2+2=4 all you want to and you would not prove it to that person, unless that person is willing to give up his/her beliefs along that line. There is evidence for the existence of God, but because of beliefs, atheist/agnostics, etc. refuse to accept it regardless of the evidence. You can prove the existence of God, but unless they are willing to give up their beliefs, you cannot prove it to them.

2. I made an argument on the Bible being of divine origin and Mr. Till said that it could be of Satanic origin or human origin. However, I refuted both positions in my first article. With no place left to turn, Mr. Till denies the law of excluded middle which says that every precisely stated proposition is either true or it is false by contending that the Bible writers could say they knew that they were inspired, when they were not, and still not be lying. [Editor's Note: A note is necessary here to correct McDonald's misrepresentation of what Till said in this matter. He did not say that Bible writers could have said that they were inspired when they knew that they were not. He said that they could have believed that they were inspired but were honestly mistaken in which case their claim to inspiration would not have been lying, which is a deliberate attempt to mislead by knowingly stating something that is incorrect.] Let him argue with the logic books. I stand by my argument. Either the Bible writers were telling the truth when they said that they were inspired or they were not telling the truth. If they were not telling the truth, then they were telling a lie. If they told lies (when they claimed inspiration), they could not have written the Bible for liars (bad men)would not write something that condemned their evil ways. These writers left no room for error in their statements, thus they were either inspired (in which case they told the truth) or they were not inspired (in which case they lied) because they affirmed their inspiration with knowledge of it. There is no way out of this dilemma.

3. I made an argument on the inerrancy of the Bible. I showed that since the Bible was of divine origin that it would necessarily be inerrant. I also quoted the Bible to show that it claimed inerrancy. However, my case did not rest solely upon these quotations. These quotations were in conjunction with element number two. He said I begged the question because I quoted the Bible. Mr. Till does a man accused of murder have the right to speak in his own behalf? If so, why not allow the Bible to speak in its own behalf? Whatever happened to one being presumed innocent until proven guilty?

4. I made arguments on the Bible being authoritative, and again Mr. Till complained about me [sic] quoting the Bible. I have asked him to show me how I could prove that the Bible was authoritative without quoting it, three times, and he has failed to come up with a single argument I might use. I think he just wants to complain. Up until now, he has made no counterarguments on elements 4 and 5. Then in his final rebuttal he made some which he must have known that I would not be able to respond to in this rejoinder. However, I will respond to them in my rebuttals.

5. I made arguments on the all sufficiency of the Bible. Again Till complains about my quoting the Bible. Again I have asked to him to show me how it ought to be done, and again he has failed. Again, I think he just wants to complain.

6. I made an argument on the canon. His response has been that he does not understand why Jesus using a certain Canon would make it the correct one. His main point of contention here has been and still is "how do we know that certain things are true?" He also deals with other writings to show that my argument may not be valid. I will deal with these other writings in my rebuttals.

7. I made an argument on the uniqueness of the Bible. He complained because I used the words most unique. However, when I re-worded [sic] the argument, he had nothing to say about it. I wonder why?

8. I made an argument on [sic] reliability of the Bible. All he said was that by reliability I must mean inerrant. No, Mr. Till, by reliable I mean that historically it was a reliable document. It passed through all those ages and maintained its integrity. Mr. Till has no answer for this so he ignores it.

   [Editor's Note: Readers may go here to see links to every place where Till replied, often in detail, to McDonald's eight points summarized above.]

In giving these arguments I gave evidence to back up each argument. Mr. Till simply ignored most of this evidence. He called my syllogisms "silly-gisms" and stated that I seem to think very highly of myself. No, Mr. Till, I do not think more of my self [sic] than I ought. You see, most of these arguments were arguments which came either from Roy C. Deaver or Thomas B. Warren. Do you wish to put yourself against these learned men, being only a professor of English? How much of an expert are you at logic? What are your qualifications there? Do they match Thomas Warren's? What about Roy Deaver's? Many of these were their arguments, not mine! Some of these were arguments used in debate against men such as Dr's. [sic] A.G.N. Flew, Wallace Matson, and Joe Barnhart. They stood up in those debates and they have stood up in this debate. Mr. Till's efforts to refute these arguments are like the efforts of a soldier standing with a toy cap pistol in his hand firing at a Sherman Tank. It makes a little bit of noise, but has absolutely no effect.

[Editor's Note: A previous editor's note pointed out that the Warren-Flew Debate resulted in the deconversion of three Church-of-Christ preachers who attended this debate, researched the issues discussed, and eventually became atheists. McDonald himself acknowledged here that these deconversions happened after Warren's debate with Flew.]

Mr. Till tells us of the advantage his position has over mine. He admits and even brags about his position leaving margin for error, while mine does not. Thank you, Mr. Till, for conceding the debate. What kind of position would leave margin for error? Why an erroneous position, of course! What kind of position would not leave room for error? Why a truthful position, of course! Therefore, when Mr. Till brags about his position leaving room for error and mine not leaving room for error, he is in effect saying that his position is erroneous while mine is true. How could a man make a bigger concession? If there ever has been a man who has conceded his position in debate, Mr. Till is the man!

He says that I have failed to sustain my proposition. I believe that I have proven and sustained it. He on the other hand has, for the most part, ignored my arguments, and even admits it. Therefore he is the one who has failed in his duties.

I now encourage you to read Mr. Till's first affirmative and my first rebuttal. I will show him what the duties of the negative really are.

Go to Till's First Defense.