Farrell Till and James Patrick Holding, the Land Promise Debate, part 1

 Over at Holding's YouTube channel, somebody asked Holding how he fared in his debate many years ago with skeptic Farrell Till in the Land Promise Debate.  Notice how Holding answers like some prideful know-it-all:

WroughtIronMGTOW1 day ago
Hey JP,I remember seeing your responses to Tills "failed land promise" articles years ago,did Till ever responding to your refutation of his article series?If he did,could you give us the rundown?
REPLY
Hide 2 replies


tektontv23 hours ago
No, he gave up after a while because I was forcing his own tactics down his throat. He insisted I quote every word in his article, so I did -- I quoted it 1 sentence at a time and then wrote a huge response (mostly fluff -- just like he always did) to each and every sentence. He tried to keep up but eventually it snowed him under. The article I have up now is a summary version but contains all the relevant arguments. And as far as I know Till's article is no longer found anywhere -- his old website is long gone.

------------------------- 

Those comments were taken from here on June 18, 2021 at 2:40 p.m.

Holding is correct that Till's article is no longer on the web.  I wanted to make sure to preserve the exact way he boasted above, so that you can judge for yourself when you read the actual exchange, that Holding's opinion is unrealistically high (tell us something we don't know!).

I'll let the reader acquire what Holding's "summary" deprives them of, exactly who said what, so that the reader may more objectively decide for themselves whether Holding performed as well in debates with Till as he constantly boasts.

I would ask the reader to consider, as they peruse the following materials, Holding's incessant need to insult his opponents, a trait he exhibited in 2002 and which remains in full force in 2021.  If you ever wondered why Holding is currently being sued for libel, now you know:  he is literally incapable of shutting the fuck up....except when his lawyer tells him that if he doesn't shut the fuck up, the jury will have more difficulty believing his trifling excuses on the witness stand.

+++++

The Skeptical Review
2002: July/August

---

'James Patrick Holding', the Want-to-Be Apologist

Farrell Till

James Patrick Holding is a pseudonym used by Robert Turkel to write website articles in defense of biblical inerrancy. For some reason, he doesn't want his real identity to be known, even though almost everyone familiar with his attempts to reply to articles written by Jeff Lowder, Brian Holtz, Earl Doherty, and me (among other skeptics) knows what his real name is. His rationale for concealing his identity was that he worked as a librarian in a prison, so he was afraid that if he wrote under his real name, inmates upon their release might seek vengeance on him for "disciplinary reports" he had written. He was never able to explain why using a phony name to write internet articles, which prison inmates would have no access to, was going to protect him from vengeance seeking ex-inmates who from daily contacts with him while they were in prison already knew his real name.

With just a little internet snooping and help from others, I was able to find quite a bit of information about Robert Turkel. He is 34 years old and is married to 33-year-old Susan Mayo Turkel, both of whom were employed by Lake Correctional Institute near Clermont, Florida, which is west of Orlando. Turkel was the prison librarian, and his wife was a data input operator. They live at 2609 Greywall Avenue, in Ocoee, FL 34761, which is, a suburb of Orlando, and their telephone number is (407) 292-8670.

The website of this prison can be accessed here. A description of the prison is on this site.

This facility was originally established as a migrant labor camp, but more recently housed a bait farm and beverage distribution warehouse. In 1973 it was converted to house adult male inmates. It is designated to accept minimum, medium, close custody and all medical grade inmates. Lake C. I. provides academic, vocational and self- betterment programs.

This is certainly no description of a maximum-security facility like Pelican Bay, so I doubt that the staff members live in fear that they are putting their lives on the line just by showing up for work. I have suggested to Turkel that if he really does use a phony name because he fears that ex-inmates may come after him when they are released, then he should consider getting professional help for his irrational paranoia.

There are over 100 inmates throughout the United States who subscribe to TSR, so I would be interested in hearing their opinions about this excuse that Turkel has used for writing under a phony name. There is obviously some ulterior motive behind Turkel's pseudonym. All across the country, district attorneys prosecute criminal offenses and judges impose sentences on those convicted without hiding behind fake names, so if the danger that released inmates with grudges will come after public officials is so likely that Turkel felt he had to put a pseudonym on the apologetic articles he wrote, I wonder why district attorneys and judges don't use phony names or wear masks in court. I would be interested in hearing inmates and prison officials express their opinions on Turkel's attempt to justify concealing his identity with a pseudonym.

Since beginning his "apologetic" career as James Patrick Holding, Turkel was laid off his prison job, so around October 2001 he began looking for support to begin a full-time career as an internet "apologist." He still uses the phony name and seems rather put out when anyone writes something that refers to him by his real name, but if he is not now working in a prison and, hence, no longer writes "disciplinary reports" [for those who are late checking their books back in, I assume], why does he still cringe in fear that some vengeful ex-inmate is going to come after him?

At any rate, Turkel is now trying to sell himself as an apologist who deserves the financial support of Bible believers so that he can become a full-time defender of the faith. He has established Tekton Apologetic Ministries, for which he has received IRS recognition as a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit, tax-exempt organization, and is soliciting contributions on its website here. In an article entitled "How To Help Support the Tekton Apologetics Ministry," which can be accessed here, he makes a plea for contributions on the grounds that "the majority of our support must come from the general public." It so happens that Skepticism, Inc., is also a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, but if such a provision as this is a guideline that Turkel's "ministry" must adhere to, it has been added since Skepticism, Inc., received nonprofit approval on May 23, 1991. I have reviewed the approval documents sent to me, which outlined the guidelines that must be followed, and I have found nothing that states such a requirement. The guidelines, of course, allow contributions, but I see no provision that requires the majority of the organization's support to come from the "general public." Skepticism, Inc., has received contributions from supporters, but it has never solicited them. It has survived through the sale of subscriptions (which subscribers have always agreed were priced well below what they should be), unsolicited donations, and my own personal contributions. Periodic reports to IRS have been required, but in the forms I have completed, I never once encountered a question that asked if most of the organization's support came from the general public. I suspect that this statement in Turkel's plea for contributions was just his spin on IRS guidelines that was intended to make his readers think that their contributions are needed to help him comply with guidelines that he must meet in order to keep the nonprofit status of his organization.

His plea for money stated that Tekton Apologetic Ministries receives "referral fees through [its] association with Amazon.com in [its] Bookshop," but he quickly added that these earnings are "called ‘unrelated business’ income and cannot constitute the majority of this ministry's support." The message seems to be, "Please send your money so that I can make a living at this." He no doubt finds sitting home at his computer more enjoyable than writing disciplinary reports on prison inmates who dog-ear the library materials they check out.
No doubt Turkel will accuse me of impugning his motives, but unless his intention was to increase the flow of contributions to his "ministries," there was really no reason to apply for nonprofit status. I applied for recognition of The Skeptical Review as a nonprofit organization in order to get a substantial reduction in bulk-mailing rates, but when I learned that the post office would not issue a nonprofit mailing permit unless the organization was recognized by IRS, I then applied for and received 501(c)(3) status. After the mailing permit was received, I personally paid for all the mailings until subscriptions had increased enough to pay most of the costs. The nonprofit mailing rates decreased production costs enough that I could offer the paper at a rate of $4 per year when it was a quarterly and then $6 per year when it became bimonthly. At no time, did I ever solicit contributions, so except for the mailing advantage mentioned above, I would probably never have formed Skepticism, Inc. Turkel, on the other hand, doesn't publish paper editions of his articles, so he should have no appreciable mailing expenses. Even he stated in his website article that postage and supplies "should amount to less that [sic] $100 per year." He further stated in his plea for money that the cost of his website is just $35 per month, which is about $415 per month less than the monthly cost of dispensing TSR, so the yearly expenses for his website are rather minimal.

Why then does he want money? He has to want it for himself, and at one time he even said as much in his website article. He had set a goal of $28,000 to $29,000 per year in contributions to replace the salary he lost when he was laid off at the prison, but that part of the article has since been deleted. As the article now reads, his goal is to attract $70 to $80 as a "daily support requirement " that he will need "for full time operation" throughout the 365-day year. He set forth different plans in the article whereby contributors could pledge "daily sponsorships" of "70-80 dollars per year to support one day out of every year," and he will soon announce a program of half-day sponsorships. He even has a "PayPal" icon in the article, which contributors can click in order to authorize their pledges through Visa, MasterCharge, Discover, or American Express.

I'm not misrepresenting Turkel, then, when I say that his goal is to gather enough contributors to enable him to make a living writing his so-called apologetic articles. He is just what the world needs, another media evangelist urging people to send their money in. One has to wonder if this kind of enterprise will ever reach a point of diminishing return where there will be more of them than the public is willing to support. To increase his chances of joining the ranks of those who make their livings by pulling the wool over the sheep's eyes, maybe Turkel should put a catchy slogan in all articles on his website. How about, "Keep James Patrick Holding out of prison send your money now"?

The old Robert Turkel: From the time that Turkel first came onto the internet scene, he avoided situations that would put his apologetic "talents" to the test before informed opposition. He hunkered down on his own personal website, where he published "rebuttals" of anti-inerrancy articles under his pseudonym without giving his readers a chance to read both sides. Most website articles will include "links" when references to other articles are made so that readers can click onto the links, access the articles referred to, and then read what the authors said in the articles that are being criticized. This enables interested readers to study both sides of the question in dispute and form their opinions from having read what both disputants have said on the issue, but Turkel would put no links in his "rebuttal" articles. His tactic was to choose an article written in opposition to biblical inerrancy and then quote it selectively to give his readers the impression that he was giving the author of the article a sound thrashing, but his readers were never given the opportunity to see just how much Turkel skipped in his "replies." Some of us called him Robert "No Link" Turkel.

Turkel has recently indicated that he intends to change his ways and not just put links into his articles but also come out into an open forum and debate where readers will have the opportunity to see everything his opponent says rather than just what he selectively quotes. He is, in effect, claiming that there will be a new Turkel, but whether the new Turkel ever becomes a reality remains to be seen, because signs are coming in almost daily that his promise of change may be just talk.

I am revising this section of my article to show that Turkel's promise to allow his ideas to be scrutinized by informed opposition in an open-forum debate may just be damage control. On the day that I revised this section, I received a 216-K reply to Turkel that was written by Brian Holtz on the so-called "trilemma" issue parroted by biblicists who claim that Jesus was either "liar, lunatic, or lord." Holtz's detailed reply to Turkel's efforts to defend this illogical position can be accessed here. It reveals that Turkel has refused not only to put links in his "rebuttals" of Holtz's articles on this subject but also refuses to reveal Holtz's name to his readers. Turkel refers to Holtz as "our critic," so he apparently fears that if he refers to his "critic" by name, some of his gullible readers may actually have enough internet savvy to do a search and find the articles that Holtz has written on this subject. Turkel undoubtedly realizes that his position can't withstand that type of scrutiny, so he continues to dig in on his own little website where he can enjoy being the big fish in the little pond. If he ever comes out into the open to submit his "apologetic ministry" to informed review, even some of his readers may begin to see that he isn't quite the defender of the faith that he appears to be when he is preaching to his choir. That is a risk I am sure he doesn't want to take, especially now that he has lost his day job and is trying to find contributors who will support him in his ambition to become an on-line Gleason Archer or Josh McDowell. The trouncings he would inevitably take in open-forum debates on the internet just wouldn't look good on his resumé.

I am very sure that Turkel realizes all this, and that is why he avoids links on his website and, at times, even hides the name of his opponents just as he tries to conceal his own name. After receiving Holtz's article, I e-mailed Turkel to ask if he intended to post Holtz's article on his website or at least give his readers a link. Here is the answer I received.

A link for Mr Crybaby H.? Of course not. He is even more silly than you are. And twice as obnoxious, and three times more deluded about his own self-importance (5/20/02).

I told Turkel that my policy in The Skeptical Review has always been to publish the articles of biblical inerrantists so that readers can see for themselves just how ridiculous they can become in their desperation to defend their inerrancy belief. I suggested to Turkel that if Holtz is even half as incompetent as he claims, he should put Holtz's article on his website and let readers see for themselves just how silly he is. As I write this, Turkel hasn't yet indicated to me what his reaction to my suggestion will be. I predict that the new Turkel that he has been promising us will turn out to be the old Turkel, and his readers will never see Holtz's rebuttal. He will remain Robert "No Link" Turkel.

A new Turkel? For several years, I have occasionally received messages from Turkel admirers, who chided me for not answering articles about me that they had read on his website. I would forward to them copies of replies that I had written to a Turkel article, and inform them that for several years I had periodically challenged Turkel to defend biblical inerrancy in an open-forum internet debate where readers could see everything that both sides said on the issues and not just what Turkel would selectively quote from articles that he was "refuting." I would tell the writers of these queries that Turkel had refused those challenges, and then I would ask them to contact him and urge him to accept my challenge. I recall only one time that I received a reply to these materials, and this fellow had the integrity to tell me that after reading my responses to Turkel, he could see that I wasn't the incompetent klutz that Turkel had depicted on his website.

I have no way of knowing how many of these contacts acted on my request and urged Turkel to accept my challenge, but recently there have been indications that Turkel may be feeling the heat and now realizes that his continual rejection of the challenges may be making him look bad, because he finally published on his site the semblance of an acceptance of my challenge. This "acceptance" can be accessed here. Turkel's acceptance had conditions attached to it that were so patently absurd that he has since retreated from most of them. One condition was that I would have to pay 90% of the cost of maintaining his website, which would be 90% of $35 per month or $378 per year ($31.50 x 12), and would have to pay it eight years in advance. In other words, Turkel was saying that he would debate me on my site and his if I would just agree to pay him $3024 before the debate begins. (I guess his plea for money in the article mentioned above isn't bringing in the $80 per day he needs to be a "self- supporting" apologist.) I informed Turkel that I would pay a proportional cost of his website for as long as the debate continued, but that I certainly would not pay for eight years in advance. He has since informed me that he will debate me on a "neutral" site but will not post the debate on his own site, so this advanced-payment condition has been dispatched to the trash can where it belonged in the first place. But wait a minute! I have to add a comment to this paragraph. I just received a message from Turkel in which he informed me that the "neutral site," which he had arranged to post the debate on, will no longer be necessary, since I am going to publish it on my site. He said that he would put links to it on his site, but who knows what he will be saying by the time this article goes to press?
Another ridiculous condition to Turkel's "acceptance" was that I would first have to defend what I said about Marco Polo in "Did Marco Polo Lie?" (TSR, July/ August 1996, pp. 1, 11). Although Marco Polo was only incidental to the thesis of my article that had ruffled Turkel's feathers, I immediately accepted this condition, after which he wrote to tell me that he had another condition. While I was defending my Marco-Polo article, I would not be permitted to refer to the Bible, Christianity, inerrancy, or religion. My article had been written to illustrate how historians apply the same critical standards to ancient secular documents that they use to evaluate biblical claims, but Turkel wanted a provision in our debating agreement that would prohibit my referring to the Bible, inerrancy, Christianity, or religion as I defended what I had said in an article that pertained to the Bible, inerrancy, Christianity, and religion. This left no doubt that he wasn't about to enter into any serious debate on this or any other issue.

Since I was eager to get Turkel into an open-forum debate on biblical inerrancy, I agreed to accept this restriction if after the Marco-Polo strawman had been put to rest, he would then debate multiple propositions directly related to biblical inerrancy. I agreed to affirm this proposition: "Everything that Farrell Till said about Marco Polo in the July/August 1996 issue of The Skeptical Review was factually correct." Turkel immediately began to wiggle. In a reply to my proposal of this proposition, he said, "I know you want an expansion because it enables you to take refuge in vagueness and distractions rather than employing specifics, but that dog won't hunt with me. I know how you operate, and[,] Fife, I'm nipping it in the bud" (e-mail dated 4/29/02). That was the sum total of his reply to this, so what he meant by it is anybody's guess. I was never able to figure out how he could construe an offer to defend everything I had said about Marco Polo to be "an expansion" that would enable me to "take refuge in vagueness and distractions." Such a complaint would be in order if I had agreed to defend only some of what I had said about Marco Polo, but how could he object to my willingness to defend everything I had said about Polo? I suspect that when I accepted his challenge, he felt the pressure to say something but really didn't know what to say. He had insisted that I defend what I had said about Marco Polo in the article in dispute, and when I submitted a proposition that obligated me to defend everything I had said about Polo, he sent me the ambiguous reply above just to delay getting serious about negotiating an agreement. Turkel has since dropped the Marco Polo matter and has said that he wants to debate the issue of Yahweh's land promises to the Israelites. I informed him that this was acceptable to me but that we would need to agree on addition propositions, which we would debate after this one had been discussed. Trying to pin him down to other propositions has since proven to be somewhat like nailing Jello to a wall. I have proposed a proposition on the general inerrancy of the Bible, and he has not sent me a reply. I have proposed propositions on the fulfillment of Isaiah's and Ezekiel's prophecies against Babylon, Tyre, and Egypt, but all he has indicated is that he will agree to debate the Tyre prophecy. When I asked him why he would defend Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre but would not defend his prophecy against Egypt, he informed me that there is "insufficient data." I tried to pin him down on specific details in Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. Would he, for example, agree to affirm that Egypt was once made desolate and uninhabited for a period of 40 years, during which no foot of man or beast passed through it, as prophesied in Ezekiel 29:11-12? Turkel skipped over this part of my letter without comment. I have asked if he will agree to debate the historicity of the biblical account of the wilderness wanderings, the character of God as depicted in the Old Testament, the resurrection of Jesus, the virgin birth of Jesus, and the historicity of biblical miracles, but Turkel has dismissed all of these inquiries as matters that he will not discuss until we have debated the land-promise issue. He talks boldly on his website in articles that he knows will be read primarily by his admirers, but when he is out of that pond, he flips and flops and finds all kinds of excuses not to defend his biblical beliefs in an open forum where he will have to confront informed opposition.

Those who are assisting me in switching TSR to an electronic format hope to have the website in operation by August, at which time this article and all others in this issue will be posted. I plan to write replies to some of Turkel's articles on his website, and these too will be posted here. Whether the promised "new" Turkel will put links on his site so that his readers can see these rebuttals remains to be seen. I predict that he won't.

I apologize for the space devoted to a would-be apologist whose bark is worse than his bite, but he makes a lot of static boasting on his closed forum. What the eventual outcome of Turkel's recent claims that he will at least give his readers links so that they can see what his opponents are writing in reply to his rantings remains to be seen. One day he says one thing the next day he says another. As this article goes to press, Turkel has retreated from a promise to reach a written agreement, which would include precisely worded debate propositions, and has said that he will go after me on his own without an agreement. He says that he will reply to my article "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise," which can be accessed here. [ Local Link ] He won't put my article on his site, but he has said that his reply will link to my original article. If he keeps this promise, his readers will see him get his nose wiped clean, because much better apologists than he is have tried to resolve this discrepancy. They couldn't do it, and he won't either.  

----------------------------

The reader who wishes to see exactly what Till argued and how Holding replied (in debates other than the Land-Promise debate), can access those debates through wayback, here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20040205215718/http://theskepticalreview.com/articles-idx.html

Other articles by Till are here, one of them being a reply to Holding's critique of ETDAV:

https://infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/

-------------------------------

Well now, you read the article that started it all.  I believe in resurrection.  Here's the entire exchange.

++++++++++++++++++  

Editors Note: The following article was written by Robert Turkel, under the psuedoname James Patrick Holding, in response to Farrell Till's article "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise". This article also appears on Mr. Turkel's own website, but he has agreed to allow The Skeptical Review to publish it here. I have attempted to retain Mr. Turkel's formatting where possible, and the text is copied directly from the article he posted on his site. Mr. Turkel's version on his site does not include links to Farrell Till's original article (which also appears at the Internet Infidels' website) but all of Mr. Till's articles will include links to Mr. Turkel's articles. Mr. Till is not afraid for anyone to read the original work that he is replying to.

Farrell Till's rebuttal starts here

Land Ahoy (Holding's reply)

---

Our focus is the article "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" (TSR 1991/1) in which it was argued that the Biblical "land promises" to Abraham and his descendants were not fulfilled by God in the Israelite conquest. As formulated the article addressed only the internal consistency of the Biblical record on this subject. Questions of the historicity of the Conquest, or the propriety of driving out and/or killing the inhabitants of Canaan, were not addressed at all, and will not be addressed here. Readers should bear in mind that in any replies to this essay, any resort by our opponent to any subject other than that addressed in "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" -- that is, the internal consistency of the Biblical record on this subject -- can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

In their desperate efforts to prove that the Bible was verbally inspired of God, inerrancy believers often point to prophecy fulfillment.

In previous encounters we would have ordinarily bypassed such comments as these as irrelevant to the topic at hand, which indeed they are. In light of our opponent's insistence that we are covering up something by failing to quote EVERYTHING said in his material, we will now use such irrelevant comments as exemplars of the profound depths of distraction that our opponent must resort to in order to "set the tone" for gullible readers. We would just as easily say, "In their desperate efforts to prove that the Bible was not verbally inspired of God, errancy believers often point to prophecy failures." Is this an argument? No. It is a theme and summary of what is to follow. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. From here on, substantive comment from our opponent will be highlighted in red in order to demonstrate just how little he offers of substance.

In my debate with Bill Jackson, he referred to "multiplied dozens of Old Testament prophetic utterances, fulfilled in minute detail in the New Testament, and in such a manner that there could be no contrivance at all," (Jackson-Till Debate, p. 3).

This is a very interesting accounting of something Bill Jackson said, but it is still nothing but space filler. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

As is true of all who use the prophecy-fulfillment argument, Jackson could only claim "multiplied dozens" of prophecy fulfillments; he could not cite a single verifiable example of a fulfilled OT prophecy.

This is also a very interesting accounting of something Bill Jackson said, and also could not say, but it is still nothing but space filler, and at best serves again the purpose of a distraction to set the tone for gullible readers. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. We cannot guess what "dozens" of prophecies Jackson had in mind, so comment can hardly be made. It is not explained how any of the "dozens" are not shown to be "verifiable" or "fulfilled" so no more detailed comment can be made either. What does need explaining, from our opponent, is why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

As I said in the debate, the "prophecy fulfillments" that are invariably cited in support of this argument never actually "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-Till Debate, p. 17).

This is very interesting and colorful accounting of something our opponent said in reply to Bill Jackson, but it is nothing but a sound bite without specifics, and at best serves again the purpose of a distraction to set the tone for gullible readers. As it is but a distraction, and as it contains no specifics, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

When logical analysis is applied to these alleged instances of prophecy fulfillment, it quickly becomes obvious that there is no real evidence of fulfillment.

This certainly serves to lay out our opponent's thematic intent, but only those who have never heard his name would ever suppose that he would take any other general position than that there is no real evidence of prophecy fulfillment. As this remark is merely a statement of purpose common to our opponent's methodology, and it contains no specifics, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Time would fail me if I tried to analyze the many alleged prophecy fulfillments that inerrantists have pointed to, so instead I will concentrate on a failed prophecy that they never say much about.

This is another example of the profound depths of distraction that our opponent must resort to in order to "set the tone" for gullible readers. We would just as easily say, "Time would fail me if I tried to analyze the many genuine prophecy fulfillments that inerrantists can point to, so instead I will concentrate on a successful prophecy that errantists never say much about." Is this an argument? No. It is a manipulative, tactical way of giving the false impression that our opponent has carefully looked into every possible example of alleged prophecy fulfillment and critically determined that they have all failed, and that only the nebulous barrier of "time" makes it impossible to elucidate every example. It is also an attempt to claim that alleged silence on this issue somehow adds credibility to our opponent's case, when it has yet to be proven that there is a problem worth responding to at all. At any rate, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

On several occasions prophetic statements were made in the Pentateuch about the land that Yahweh, the tribal god of the Israelites, had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

This is merely setup of a matter that all parties would agree to. No one in this debate doubts that on several occasions, prophetic statements were made in the Pentateuch about the land that Yahweh, the tribal god of the Israelites, had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

These were clearly stated promises that Yahweh would give the land of the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites to the seed of Abraham.

This is also merely setup on a matter that all parties would agree to. No one doubts that there were clearly stated promises that Yahweh would give the land of the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites to the seed of Abraham. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

In Deuteronomy 7:17-24, for example, Yahweh presumably made this emphatic promise:

For the first time, after several sentences of superfluous commentary, our opponent at last delves into a reading of the text. We see a snide "presumably" added in order to subtly instill doubt and take a swipe at the authors of the OT by suggesting that they simply made this word of Yahweh up out of thin air -- a pertinent example of the sort of non-subject distraction we refer to (i.e., the subject is no longer consistency of the Biblical record as has already been stated, but now, historical authenticity of the contents). Being that this is the case, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to insert the wedge of doubt on another issue which is of no relevance to the topic at hand, thereby attempting to gain debate points illicitly.

Our opponent quotes the ASV thusly:

If thou shalt say in thy heart, These nations are more than I; how can I dispossess them? Thou shalt not be afraid of them: thou shalt well remember what Yahweh thy God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt; the great trials which thine eyes saw, and the signs, and the wonders, and the mighty hand, and the outstretched arm, whereby Yahweh thy God brought thee out: so shall Yahweh thy God do unto all the peoples of whom thou art afraid. Moreover Yahweh thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves, perish from before thee. Thou shalt not be affrighted at them; for Yahweh thy God is in the midst of thee, a great God and a terrible. And Yahweh thy God will cast out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee. But Yahweh thy God will deliver them up before thee, and will discomfit them with a great discomfiture, until they be destroyed. And he will deliver their kings unto thy hand, and thou shalt make their name to perish from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them," (ASV with Yahweh substituted for Jehovah).

It is then said:

The substance of this prophecy was repeated in such places as Exodus 23:20-33; Deut. 4:33-39, Deut. 7:1-2, and Deut. 31:1-8.

This is also merely setup on a matter that all parties would agree to. No one doubts that the substance of this prophecy was repeated in such places as Exodus 23:20-33; Deut. 4:33-39, Deut. 7:1-2, and Deut. 31:1-8. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

In some of these passages, the names of the "seven nations greater and mightier than thou" to be driven out of the land were also specified as they were above: the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Jebusites, and the Perizzites.

This is a repetition of information already provided above. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

When Joshua assumed the leadership of Israel after the death of Moses, the land promise was renewed in very specific terms:

This is merely transitional information. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. Joshua 1:1-6 is quoted from the ASV:

Now it came to pass after the death of Moses the servant of Yahweh that Yahweh spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying, Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel. Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, to you have I given it, as I spake unto Moses. From the wilderness, and this Lebanon, even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your border. There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life; as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee; I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. Be strong and of good courage; for thou shalt cause this people to inherit the land which I sware unto their fathers to give them, (Joshua 1:1-6, ASV, Yahweh substituted).

And then:

Just before crossing the Jordan, Joshua repeated the promise:

This is merely transitional information. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. Joshua 3:9-11 is quoted from the ASV:

And Joshua said unto the children of Israel, Come hither, and hear the words of Yahweh your God. And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Hivite, and the Perizzite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Jebusite. Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into the Jordan," (Joshua 3:9-11).

Then it is said:

To stress the emphatic nature of parts of the land promises that Yahweh made to Israel, I have underlined certain statements.

This is merely transitional information, and we have likewise underlined the same statements our opponent has underlined. However, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. The emphatic nature of the text does not need underlining for the stress to be apparent. Simple rules of composition and reading comprehension, and the premise of the main idea, tell us easily enough what the most relevant parts of the prophecies should be within the quoted material.

So when all of the passages I have quoted and listed are considered, we see that the prophecies included all of the following:

This is also merely transitional information. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Without fail, God would drive out of the land beyond the Jordan ALL of the people then possessing it.

Here for the first time our opponent finally brings some substance to the fore. This is his first claim of content with reference to the prophecies. Several others follow.

No man among these people would be able to stand before the Israelites all the days of their lives.

Aspect 2. Comment will be reserved until all aspects are listed.

The Israelites would drive out the nations possessing the land and utterly destroy them and the memory of their name under heaven.

Aspect 3.

>They were to make no covenants with the nations in this land or show mercy to them (Deut. 7:2).

Aspect 4.

Every place that the sole of their feet would tread upon, God would give to them.

Aspect 5.

Their empire would stretch from the Red Sea unto the river Euphrates and from the great sea (Mediterranean) toward the going down of the sun.

Aspect 6 and last. Now our opponent offers a summary of what he contends is the typical response to the problem of "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise":

To circumvent obvious contradictions that result when Yahweh's promises are compared to biblical history recorded later, inerrantists contend that the land promises made to the Israelites were conditional on their good behavior, but there is no support for that dodge in the Bible.

Here we find our opponent's first substantive attempt at argument (though padded with unnecessary words), and where we deem it first necessary to make any substantive reply. We shall return to our opponent's words after an extended explanation.

We begin with consideration of the original land promise, given in Genesis 12:7 and 13:15 (cf. 28:13):

And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

Abraham and his descendants are "given" the land, but what does that mean? It does not connote any modern sense of property ownership. What it does mean for Abraham to have been "given" the land is made most clear within the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity.

According to ancient conceptions, deities were associated with certain spheres, usually of a geographic nature, but also of a social nature. In Greek thought, this worked out with the assigning of the realm of earth to Zeus, that of the sea to Poseidon, and that of the underworld to Hades. In an Old Babylonian text the same spheres were divided among Anu, Enlil, and Enki. In both the OT and in extrabiblical sources the nature of this relationship is expressed in such phrases as "the god of Moab", "the gods of Byblos" or "the God of Israel." Other phrases identify the people as being of a particular deity: "the god of the sons of Ammon"; "God of the Hebrews." The division was not always clear-cut, and nations with multiple deities would assign various places within their land to certain deities, and gods may have been associated with specific tribal groups or households. Nevertheless it is beyond dispute that land belonged to the gods.

The Israelites understood matters somewhat differently in light of Yahwism, for they understood Yahweh to be the owner of all of the land, rather than other deities being in charge of it. In Deut. 32:8-9 we read:

When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

Certain manuscript traditions read "sons of God" (angels) in place of "children of Israel" but the result the same. It is the Most High who has allotted the inheritance for each nation. Yahweh declares the bounds of territory for the various peoples:

Deut. 2:5 Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession.

Deut. 2:9 And the LORD said unto me, Distress not the Moabites, neither contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their land for a possession; because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession.

Deut. 2:19 And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession.

It should be noted in all three cases that the words for "give" is the same Hebrew word as used in Gen. 12:7, 13;15 (nathan), and that the word for "possession" is a form of the word yarash (see below). We can clarify the nature of the land-people-deity relationship with some illustrative Bible passages. Moving from one land to another, or becoming part of another people, meant a change of gods for a person:

Ruth 1:16 And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.

This concept also makes sense of a passage some people find strange:

2 Kings 5:17 And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules' burden of earth? for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the LORD.

By Namaan's thinking, the only way one could worship a deity properly was to have a piece of the dirt that deity owned. That the land of Israel was not owned by the people, but by Yahweh, is made most clear in this verse:

Lev. 25:23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.

On the other hand, we may see easily that the role of the people was that of a tenant in the land. This relationship of people to land and deity is clearly expressed here:

Judges 11:24 Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess.

Judges 11:24 expresses in a microcosm the concpetual relationship between deity, land, and persons. The god is the one that gives and owns the land; the people possess it. The word "possess" here is the Hebew yarash, which we may now explain in more detail. It is used about 230 times in the OT; here is a Strong's definition, and some samples:

423. yarash, yaw-rash'; or yaresh, yaw-raysh'; a prim. root; to occupy (by driving out previous tenants, and possessing in their place); by impl. to seize, to rob, to inherit; also to expel, to impoverish, to ruin:--cast out, consume, destroy, disinherit, dispossess, drive (-ing) out, enjoy, expel, X without fail, (give to, leave for) inherit (-ance, -or), + magistrate, be (make) poor, come to poverty, (give to, make to) possess, get (have) in (take) possession, seize upon, succeed, X utterly.

Gen. 15:3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

Gen. 24:60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.

Lev. 20:24 But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people.

Judges 18:9 And they said, Arise, that we may go up against them: for we have seen the land, and, behold, it is very good: and are ye still? be not slothful to go, and to enter to possess the land.

The last cite is most relevant. Yarash represents the human activity of transfer of property or territory, including in war. But it is quite clear that this transfer did not involve legal ownership as we understand it, but possession. Evidence from ANE documents and the OT further clarify the nature of the relationship between a deity and its people as that of a feudal landlord and his tenants. Under such an arrangement the land was owned by a deity and granted for the use of the people; the "landlord" had certain obligations, and the people had certain responsibilities:

2 Kings 18:33-35 Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered at all his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah? have they delivered Samaria out of mine hand? Who are they among all the gods of the countries, that have delivered their country out of mine hand, that the LORD should deliver Jerusalem out of mine hand?

The comments of this Assyrian official reflect an expectation that at such time as a nation is attacked, it is expected that their god will come to their defense. Otherwise, as the territory of the land extends, so does the territory of the deity whose side wins, as indicated in this boast of the Assyrian king Sargon:

Over [Ashur's] entire broad land and his numerous population I installed my nobles as officials, and thus extended the territory of Ashur, king of the gods.

It was usually believed by the ancients that a god's power only extended as far as national borders, as here:

1 Kings 20:23 And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him, Their gods are gods of the hills; therefore they were stronger than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they.

The patron deity also had the prerogative of selecting the leader of the people. The Sumerians believed that the office of the kingship was lowered from the heavens. The Assyrians appealed to the divine election of their kings. Cyrus' conquest of Babylon was legitimized by the pronouncement of the Babylonian god Marduk. And of course, when the time came for Israel to select a king, Yahweh was called upon to make the choice, and at various times thereafter the OT states that Yahweh took some part in selecting a king for the nation (cf. 1 Kings 11:14) and even foreign kings (1 Kings 11:23).

In terms of the obligations of the "tenants," it is obvious that within any feudal structure, the occupants of a land were subject to the lord of the land, and that lack of fulfillment of obligations brought about penalties. The Moabite inscription speaks of the Moabite deity Chemosh being angry with "his land" and delivering judgment, though the cause of the anger is not specified. The Assyrian king Esarhaddon authorized a record noting that ethical and cultic offenses by the Babylonian people provoked the wrath of the Baylonian god Marduk, resulting in the cursing and desolation of Babylon. In the OT we read of Yahweh's complaint that the Israelites have "defiled my land" (Jer. 2:7, 16:18) with their iniquity and of impending judgment for sins.

In terms of our topic at hand, the relevance of this data is that even the original promise of Genesis, by the thinking of the ancients, was not a matter of "here it is with no strings attached." Abraham would have expected the grant of land to be accompanied by conditions; one did not merely occupy land without some sort of nod to the landlord, and with no expectation that one could do as one pleased.

We would consider now in this context numerous cites which speak of the land in terms of a yarash:

Gen. 15:7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give (nathan) thee this land to inherit it.

Gen. 17:7-11 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give (nathan) unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Two words here deserve special attention. The word "everlasting" is the Hebrew 'olam, a word that is often taken to mean "forever" but actually means "in perpetuity". It is used to indicate a state intended to be permanent within the context offered, as in 1 Samuel 1:22:

But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the LORD, and there abide for ever.

Verse 28 says, "Therefore also I have lent him to the LORD; as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the LORD. And he worshipped the LORD there." Therefore "everlasting" does not connote a "forever" state without any conditions. (However, as we will see later, "forever" is nevertheless the term under which Israel does "possess" the land, so that the meaning is, "as long as there are Jews to take part in the covenant".)

The word "possession" is not yarash but 'achuzzah, something seized. It is essentially synonymous with yarash and is used in Lev. 25:24:

The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land.

Once again, "possession" does not equate with property ownership in the modern sense. Note further that we see the first full expression of the future landlord-tenant relationship in which it is indicated that having the land as a "possession" requires following certain rules. Here, that covenant is symbolized by circumcision, the entry ritual into the covenant relationship. (As a side note, let it not be argued as a distraction by our opponent that this passage may be taken to indicate that circumcision was the sole element of human obedience within the covenant! Circumcision as the entry ritual is the part representing the whole, and would have been understood as such. If our opponent wishes to address the nature of symbols and actions within a Semitic thought-context, he will have to do so in another debate rather than attempt a distraction here from the main issue.)

Exod. 19:5-6 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Though no word for possession is used here, the clear implication is that if the people keep the covenant, then Yahweh will execute His privilege and right as owner of all the earth to provide the people with the means to be a nation.

Deut. 1:8 Behold, I have set (nathan) the land before you: go in and possess (yarash) the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give (nathan) unto them and to their seed after them.

Deut. 1:21 Behold, the LORD thy God hath set the land before thee: go up and possess (yarash) it, as the LORD God of thy fathers hath said unto thee; fear not, neither be discouraged. (cf. Deut. 1:39, 2:31,

Deut. 3:18-20 And I commanded you at that time, saying, The LORD your God hath given you this land to possess (yarash) it: ye shall pass over armed before your brethren the children of Israel, all that are meet for the war. But your wives, and your little ones, and your cattle, (for I know that ye have much cattle,) shall abide in your cities which I have given you; Until the LORD have given rest unto your brethren, as well as unto you, and until they also possess (yarash) the land which the LORD your God hath given them beyond Jordan: and then shall ye return every man unto his possession (yerushshah), which I have given you.

Deut. 4:1-6 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess (yarash) the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth (nathan) you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you. But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day. Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

Here a direct link is made between obeying the laws and keeping possession of the land Yahweh has given. Even more concise, and describing the "everlasting" nature of the covenant, is Deut. 4:25-31:

When thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger: I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed. And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you. And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Deut. 6:17-18 Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee. And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the LORD: that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess (yarash) the good land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers,

Deut. 7:1-4 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

Deut. 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:

Deut. 8:1 All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess (yarash) the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers.

Deut. 10:11-13 And the LORD said unto me, Arise, take thy journey before the people, that they may go in and possess the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give unto them. And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

Deut. 11:8-9 Therefore shall ye keep all the commandments which I command you this day, that ye may be strong, and go in and possess the land, whither ye go to possess (yarash) it; And that ye may prolong your days in the land, which the LORD sware unto your fathers to give (nathan) unto them and to their seed, a land that floweth with milk and honey.

Deut. 11:22-25 For if ye shall diligently keep all these commandments which I command you, to do them, to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, and to cleave unto him; Then will the LORD drive out all these nations from before you, and ye shall possess (yarash) greater nations and mightier than yourselves. Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphrates, even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be. There shall no man be able to stand before you: for the LORD your God shall lay the fear of you and the dread of you upon all the land that ye shall tread upon, as he hath said unto you.

Time and again, possession of the land is linked with keeping of the covenant rules -- in exact correspondence with the ancient deity-nation, landlord-tenant relationship. At the close of the Deuteronomic treaty, the terms are most explicitly spelled out:

28:15, 25, 63-4 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee...The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth...And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone...

Such are the promises for disobedience. And yet it is also clear in the blessings portion of the treaty that the land remains as something given to Israel to have as a possession when they return to right behavior:

Deut. 30:1-5 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess (yarash) it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.

The covenant is indeed forever, in spite of any interruptions by human error. This, and the paradigm of the landlord-tenant relationship, renders our opponent's primary arguments null and void. To our opponent we now address these questions:

1. Do you wish to deny that when Yahweh said he would give Abraham and his descendants the land in Gen. 12:7, 13:15, etc. it was meant in an entirely different way than it would have been understood by other persons living in the Ancient Near East?
2. If so, what grounds do you have for arguing this? Do you have any examples of an ancient deity allowing people to live in a land with "no strings attached" that use parallel language to that of the Genesis account?
3. Do you wish to deny that the promises of Genesis were made within the context of an ancient deity-subject, feudal landlord-tenant relationship? If so, why?

Now note some of the passages cited earlier by our opponent. The notice in Ex. 23:20-33 briefly spells out obligations upon the tenants and the provision of the landlord; note especially 24-25: Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images. And ye shall serve the LORD your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee. This section of Exodus is itself a covenant made with the initial generation coming out of Egypt.

Joshua 1:1-6, another such promise, is followed by a reminder of obligation in Joshua 1:7 hearkening back to the entire law. ("Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.") Joshua 3:9-11 emphasizes the presence of the Ark of the Covenant, a symbol of the contractual agreement between Israel and Yahweh which holds the tables of the covenant.

The book of Deuteronomy, where most of the relevant promises are found (4:33-39; 7:1-2, 17-24; 9:3-7; 31:1-8), is in the form of an ancient suzerainty treaty between a king and his vassals. It is, if you will, a lease. It spells out the obligations of the tenants (the various laws and codes of conduct) and the duties of the landlord, as well as outlining the penalties for disobedience. It is illicit to take verses or passages from Deuteronomy in isolation; the text must be considered, as a whole, just like one cannot simply pick out or ignore the parts of a lease or contract one desires. In that light we now add these questions:

1. Do you wish to deny that Deuteronomy is in the genre of an ancient suzerainty treaty, a contract between a suzerain and his vassals? If so, why?
2. If Deuteronomy is a treaty or contract, then isn't it illicit to pull the "promise" passages out of it as though they could be taken in isolation from the "obligation" passages?

We now return to the words of our opponent, who offers this as evidence of "no support" for the "dodge" of requisite behavior:

In Deuteronomy 9:3-7, another prophetic passage relating to the land promise, specific notice was taken of the fact that the Israelites of the then present generation were themselves undeserving of the land but that it would be given to them for the sake of the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:

And the quote:

Know therefore this day, that Yahweh thy God is he who goeth over before thee as a devouring fire; he will destroy them, and he will bring them down before thee: so shalt thou drive them out, and make them to perish quickly, as Yahweh hath spoken unto thee. Speak not thou in thy heart, after that Yahweh thy God hath thrust them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness Yahweh hath brought me in to possess this land; whereas for the wickedness of these nations Yahweh doth drive them out from before thee. Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thy heart, dost thou go in to possess their land; but for the wickedness of these nations Yahweh thy God doth drive them out from before thee, AND THAT HE MAY ESTABLISH THE WORD WHICH YAHWEH SWARE UNTO THY FATHERS, TO ABRAHAM, TO ISAAC, AND TO JACOB. Know therefore, that Yahweh thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiff-necked people.

It is said:

So here is another clear statement.

This is a fine example of a descriptor, by our opponent, of the previously quoted passage, but it adds nothing to his analysis in terms of substance. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

God was not giving the land to the Israelites because of their righteousness; in fact, he considered them a stiff-necked, undeserving people. (See also Exodus 33:1-6.)

This summary represents actual argument and deserves to be addressed. Our opponent elucidates further:

He was giving the land to them because of the unconditional promise that he had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

And:

Unless he did this, he would have reneged on a promise made to the patriarchs with no strings attached, (Gen. 12:7; 13:14-16).

There is substantive argument here, but one hardly sees why it was necessary to belabor the point via repetition. It is only necessary to quote one of these two sentences above in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such repetitive commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

With reference to Deut. 9:3-7: this has nothing to do with whether the Israelites would continue to be able to possess the land; that will depend on their fulfillment of their obligations as tenants, as stated in the Deuteronomic contract. The stress here is that the ability to enter the land is the result of an act of unmerited grace with respect to those present. They are riding in, as it were, on Abraham's coattails; but this has nothing to do with whether they will be able to stay in the land as tenants.

The unconditional nature of Yahweh's land promise was restated in Leviticus 26:42-45:

This is merely transitional information. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. The quote reads:

Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob; and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. The land also shall be left by them, and shall enjoy its sabbaths, while it lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity; because, even because they rejected mine ordinances, and their soul abhorred my statutes. And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them; for I am Yahweh their God; but I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am Yahweh.

Commentary by our opponent:

So time and time again, it was specifically said that the Israelites would be given the land of Canaan, REGARDLESS OF THEIR OWN CONDUCT, so that Yahweh could fulfill the promise that he made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

This reading is incorrect. The passage indicates that the punishment for Israelites misbehavior is not loss of what was "given" to them (for they did not own the land, but were tenants) but loss of possession. The covenant will be remembered, and the land was reserved for them once their punishment (for the sort of offenses described earlier in Lev. 26, but not quoted by our opponent) was complete. That is what was promised to Abraham: land reserved and given for the use and possession of his descendants -- even in their absence due to punishment.

Inerrantists who deny this are denying biblical statements worded just as plainly as anything ever said on the subject of creation, the resurrection, baptism, final judgment, and other important Christian doctrines.

This statement is of no substance or relation to the issue at hand, and is merely an example of the depths of distraction that our opponent must resort to in order to "set the tone" for gullible readers. We would just as easily say, "Errantists who deny this are denying a solution as plainly in front of them as others, and thereby risking damnation." Is this an argument? No. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

As proof that the land promise was dependent on the good behavior of the Israelites, inerrantists like to cite Exodus 23:20-33 where a conditional suggestion was attached to the promise: "But if thou shalt indeed hearken unto his voice (the angel that was to go before them, FT) and do all that he speak, then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies and an adversary unto thine adversaries."

This is indeed one verse expressing the conditional nature of the land-possession covenant, but as shown it is far from the only one.

In emphasizing the if in this verse, they overlook an important point.

This sentence is merely transitional. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

If Yahweh said that he would fulfill the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob regardless of the wickedness of the generation that went in to possess the land, he could not turn around later and say that he would make good his promise only if the people were obedient.

This apparently refers back to our opponent's misguided exegesis of Deut. 9:3-7 above. No further reply is required.

That would put a contradiction into the scriptures that the inerrantists would have to explain, because the land promise could not have been both conditional and unconditional at the same time.

This states our opponent's case yet again, and since we already know well enough that it is his contention that there is a contradiction in the Scriptures on this subject, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to pad his case with superfluous pep-commentary.

And clearly the passages cited earlier were unconditional in promising the land to the Israelites.

This merely restates an earlier argument unnecessarily. Since we know well enough already that it is our opponent's contention (albeit misguided) that earlier passages were unconditional, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to pad his case with superfluous pep-commentary.

So after Yahweh had unconditionally promised to the Israelites that they would be given the land beyond the Jordan, under Joshua's leadership they went in to possess it, and initially the Bible claims that they succeeded.

This is transitional; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

The claim, in fact, was that Joshua thoroughly and completely subdued the land:

This statement of interpretation does deserve attention. The quote given:

So Joshua smote ALL the land, the hill-country, and the South, and the lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but he utterly destroyed all that breathed, AS YAHWEH, THE GOD OF ISRAEL, COMMANDED. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon. And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because Yahweh, the God of Israel, fought for Israel. And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal, (Joshua 10:40-43, ASV, Yahweh for Jehovah).

It is said:

In places, the Bible is almost boringly repetitious, but this writing characteristic of the "inspired" spokesmen of God often works to the advantage of those who seek to debunk the myth that God verbally inspired the writing of the Bible.

The snide remarks, "boringly repetitious", putting "inspired" in sarcastic quotes, and the insertion of the "myth" commentary, serve no concrete argumentative purpose in this context and are added for no other purpose than to be insulting to believers and provide a cheering point for gullible skeptical readers. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to gain debate points illicitly.

In this case, it makes it easy to establish that a complete, unqualified fulfillment of the land promises was claimed by the "inspired" men who wrote the Old Testament.

As this remark is merely a statement of purpose common to our opponent's methodology, and it contains no specifics, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Consider, for example, the clearly stated claim of the following passages:

As this remark is merely transitional, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. But then an extended quote is offered:

And Yahweh said unto Joshua, Be not afraid because of them (the armies of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Hivites poised for battle against the Israelites, FT); for tomorrow at this time will I deliver them up ALL slain before Israel: thou shalt hock their horses, and burn their chariots with fire. So Joshua came, and all the people of war with him, against them by the waters of Merom suddenly, and fell upon them. And Yahweh delivered them into the hand of Israel, and they smote them, and chased them unto great Sidon, and unto Misrephothmaim, and unto the valley of Mizpeh eastward; and they smote them, until they left them none remaining. And Joshua did unto them as Yahweh bade him: he hocked their horses, and burnt their chariots with fire. And Joshua turned back at that time, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor before time was the head of all those kingdoms. And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them; THERE WERE NONE LEFT THAT BREATHED: and he burnt Hazor with fire. And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and he smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed them; as Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded. But as for the cities that stood on their mounds, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn. And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any that breathed. As Yahweh commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua: and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that Yahweh commanded Moses, (Joshua 11:6-15, Yahweh substituted).

And:

So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that Yahweh spake unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land had rest from war, (Joshua 11:23, Yahweh substituted).

And:

So Yahweh gave unto Israel ALL the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And Yahweh gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand. THERE FAILED NOT AUGHT OF ANY GOOD THING WHICH YAHWEH HAD SPOKEN UNTO THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL. ALL CAME TO PASS,(Joshua 21:43-45, Yahweh substituted).

Thus it is said:

These statements are fully as clear as Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38.

These are two more pertinent examples of the sort of non-subject distraction we refer to (i.e., the subject is no longer consistency of the Biblical record on the subject of Yahweh's Land Promise, as has already been stated, but now, the interpretation of Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38). Being that this is the case, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to insert the wedge of doubt on another issue which is of no relevance to the topic at hand, thereby attempting to gain debate points illicitly.

Yahweh gave unto Israel ALL the land that he swore to give to their fathers, and the dimensions of that land were clearly laid out in such passages as Exodus 23:20-33 and Joshua 1:1-6.

A reply is warranted here, of two types.

Re Josh. 10:40-43, 11:6-15, and 11:23 versus Joshua 13:1, which says there was "yet very much land to be possessed": In context these refer to the "whole land" of the particular nations being attacked in each section. Josh. 10:40-43 refers only to the land of the specific kings and cities being battled in Josh. 10, whose territory comprised a specific swath of land west of the northern half of the Dead Sea. Josh. 11:23 also refers to a specific parcel of land, much larger, but not the entirety of the land in the grant. What remains to be taken is specified in 13:2-6. The word "land" ('erets) is a common word used over 2500 times in the OT to refer to large parcels of land of varying size with delineations that are specific ("land of Egypt"). In Josh. 10 it is "these kings and their land", i.e., just the land of these kings mentioned previously, which does not encompass all of the grant. In Josh. 11 it is the land of a specifically named set of kings and peoples with their territories, which also does not encompass all of the grant, and is never said to encompass all of the grant.

Re Joshua 21:43-45:

Critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete. That is a naive view held over only by the most primitive of inerrantists. Others recognize that certain blocks of the text had their origins as oral units of tradition, formulated and designed for a specific purpose. Josh. 21:43-45 comes at the end of an extended accounting of the assigning of territories to the Israelite tribes, and before several other independent units. 21:43-45 sits by itself, and for a specific purpose. It is a formulaic summary of previous events, with the emphasis on God's faithfulness to His promises.

As a formulaic composition, 21:43-45 contains several elements designed for easy oral memory: the repetitive "and" which is typical of Semitic literature; the forceful central chiasm using the phrase "all their enemies" as a core (not apparent in the English translation: the Hebrew order is, "And not stood ['amad] a man before them all of their enemies; all their enemies gave Yahweh into their hand [yad]"); the reuse of the phrase "sware to their fathers"; the use of exclusive language (all, any, not -- notably, not applied to the word possessed). In short, it is designed to be memorized and repeated, and as such is not concerned with reporting the niggling "exception" details about which critics complain. These details are assumed to be known by the hearers, who are to use this summary formula to encourage themselves to continue on the same path, as Yahweh has proven to be faithful in all of his promises up to the time that this formula is inserted in the text. Apparently such critics expect the ancients to kowtow to their own modernist expectations and have the passage read as follows:

And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed all except the parts they had yet to conquer (see previous passage) and a few areas where they could or did not drive the people out, and dwelt therein. And the LORD gave them rest round about, though there were still some battles to come in the future, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them, other than those few holdouts like the Jebusites; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand, with the exception of those yet to be conquered and those few he left to help keep the wild animals under control (see previous passage). There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass, at least so far, wasn't that nice?

In light of this we ask our opponent these questions:

1. Do you deny that the Ancient Near East was a predominantly oral culture?
2. If not, do you deny that such formulaic expressions as these existed in oral cultures, and were intended to serve a particular purpose?
3. Do you insist that Yahweh should have inspired the OT writers to neglect their oral background and readership, and include details of niggling exception so as to make the matter more "clear" to you?
4. If so, why? On what grounds do you insist that Yahweh should have accommodated the graphocentric prejudices of you, and those of just a few like you in modern times, as opposed to inspiring a formulaic description for millions in the past, for whom making such passages easy to remember was so important, and for whom the material was the most relevant?

Those critics who insist upon the inclusion of such niggling details are guilty of what certain authorities on communication issues call graphocentrism -- an inherent bias in which writing is privileged over speech. Speech and writing are different forms of media with highly differing functions, and we should not demand that those people whose primary "media outlet" was speech conform to our demands as those who primary "media outlet" is writing. Nor should we expect God to have inspired persons in an oral culture (and it is in that type of culture in which the overwhelming majority of people even today are immersed) to write things down in a way that would have been far less effective for them. We have hindsight to help us make the interpretive analysis. The ancients did not have such hindsight. Should he take this view, we defy our opponent to explain his self-centeredness on this point.

Continuing:

Its borders extended from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, from the wilderness, to Lebanon, and to the great river Euphrates.

This is merely setup on a matter that all parties would agree to. No one doubts that these were the geographic boundaries of the land Yahweh had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Furthermore, the fulfillment claims state that the Israelites left none alive to breathe and that not a man of all their enemies stood before them.

As this remark is merely transitional, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Who were those enemies?

As this question is merely transitional, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Time and time again, they were named in the land prophecies: the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Jebusites, and the Perizzites.

This is merely a repeat of earlier information. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Yet after audaciously claiming in the passages noted above that every aspect of Yahweh's land promise had been fulfilled, the writer(s) turned around and brazenly admitted that some parts of the land were not conquered and some of the peoples in these lands were not driven out:

And this quote is made:

Now Joshua was old and well stricken in years; and Yahweh said unto him, Thou art old and well stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed. This is the land that yet remaineth: all the regions of the Philistines, and all the Geshurites; from the Shihor, which is before Egypt, even unto the border of Ekron northward, which is reckoned to the Canaanites; the five lords of the Philistines; the Gazites, and the Ashdodites, the Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avvim, on the south; all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that belongeth to the Sidonians, unto Aphek, to the border of the Amorites; and the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baalgad under mount Hermon unto the entrance of Hamath; all the inhabitants of the hill-country from Lebanon unto Misrephothmaim, even all the Sidonians; them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only allot thou it unto Israel for an inheritance, as I have commanded thee, (Joshua 13:1-6, Yahweh substituted).

And:

This statement flatly contradicts the claim in Joshua 11:23 that Joshua "took the whole land, according to all that Yahweh spake unto Moses" so that the land had rest from war.

This is already answered above.

All of the territorial regions singled out in this passage as land that remained to be possessed lay within the boundaries that were laid out in Joshua 1:1-6 to specify the scope of the land that Yahweh would give to the Israelites.

This is merely a repeat of earlier argumentation. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent; such arguments as are implied are answered above.

So if Joshua had indeed taken "the WHOLE land, according to all that Yahweh spake unto Moses," as claimed In Joshua 11:23, how could it be said later that "very much land" remained to be possessed?

This is merely a repeat of earlier argumentation. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Perhaps some of our inerrantist readers can answer this question.

This is merely a snide remark intended to provoke the psychological effect that no inerrantist reader can answer the question. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

They are good at coming up with far-fetched, how-it- could-have-been scenarios to "explain" obvious contradictions in the Bible.

This snide remark serves no concrete argumentative purpose in this context and is added for no other purpose than to be insulting to believers and provide a cheering point for gullible skeptical readers, and is a manipulative, tactical way of giving the false impression that there are indeed obvious contradictions; that our opponent has carefully looked into every "obvious contradiction," and critically determined that all solutions to them have failed. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to gain debate points illicitly.

Most of the rest of the book of Joshua and the better part of Judges contradict all of the fulfillment claims that I have noted above.

As this comment is merely transitional, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. But then some quotes are offered:

Joshua 15:63 says, "And as for the JEBUSITES, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day."

And:

Yet the Jebusites were specifically named as one of the seven nations "greater and mightier than thou" that would be utterly destroyed.

This is Example 1.

Joshua 16:10 says, "And they drove not out the CANAANITES that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwell in the midst of Ephraim unto this day, and are become servants to do taskwork."

This is example 2.

But the Canaanites were specifically listed as one of the seven nations that would be utterly destroyed.

Since the point here is the same as that above, this sentence offers an unnecessary repetition. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. But then some quotes are offered:

Joshua 17:12-13 says, "Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. And it came to pass, when the children of Israel were waxed strong, that they put the Canaanites to taskwork, and did not utterly drive them out."

Example 3.

Yet the promise had clearly been that the Canaanites would be utterly driven out, that NO MAN would be able to stand before the Israelites all the days of their lives.

Since the point here is the same as that above, this sentence offers an unnecessary repetition. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Making servants of them can hardly be considered fulfillment of a prophecy declaring that they would be "utterly driven out."

This point deserves reply. It is correctly observed by our opponent:

In fact, it contradicts a restriction noted on page three that expressly prohibited the Israelites from making covenants with the inhabitants of their promised land.

Yes, indeed, the restriction was violated. We will return to this shortly, but first our opponent repeats all of his arguments in summary form:

In Joshua 16:10; 17:12-13; Judges 1:1-5; 1:9; 1:21; 1:27-36; 3:1-6 and many other places, references are made to the people that the Israelites could not drive out of the land, and many of these were specific references to people from the "seven nations greater and mightier than thou" that Yahweh promised that he would drive out WITHOUT FAIL.

This is merely a repeat of earlier argumentation. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

But he didn't, and so the inerrancy champions have some serious explaining to do.

This snide remark serves no concrete argumentative purpose in this context and is added for no other purpose than to provide a cheering point for gullible skeptical readers, and is a manipulative, tactical way of giving the false impression that our opponent has carefully looked into the issue and critically determined that no solution is possible, and that a grave burden lies upon inerrantists. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to gain debate, sound bite points illicitly.

IF "Yahweh gave unto Israel ALL the land which he sware to give unto their fathers" (Joshua 21:43-45) and IF "they possessed it (the land) and dwelt therein" (same passage) and IF Yahweh "gave them rest round about, according to ALL that he sware unto their fathers" (same passage) and IF "there stood not a man of ALL their enemies before them" (same passage) and IF "Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand" (same passage) and IF "there failed not AUGHT of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken unto the house of Israel" (same passage) and IF "all came to pass" (same passage), how could it have been that some of the enemies of Israel were still in the land during the time of the book of Judges and how could it have been that some of the people of the "seven nations greater and mightier than thou" were still dwelling with the children of Israel "unto this day"?

This horrendously verbose sentence is merely a repeat of earlier argumentation. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. But now that these superfluous words are beyond us, we go to an answer. The cites indicated may categorized in two ways:

1. Places where it is said that the Israelites did not drive out the inhabitants, but reduced them to forced labor. (Josh. 16:10, 17:12-15; Judges 1:21; 1:27-35) Our opponent notes these as a violation and is right to do so. Yet because of the landlord-tenant relationship described above, such instances as these can hardly be taken to account against Yahweh's promise to drive out the nations, since it reflects the choice of the Israelities to not drive them out. By that accounting it was a specific violation of the covenant terms by the Israelites, and there was indeed a punishment for this:

   Judges 2:1-3 And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you. And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this? Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.

   Once Israel broke the terms of the lease, all bets were off and Yahweh was "out" of His obligation as landlord to do His part in driving out the peoples.

2. Places where it is said that the Israelites could not drive out the inhabitants, but that they remained in place. These may be divided into two types: Places where a reason is given why the Israelites could not drive the people out, and places where no reason is given why the Isrealites could not drive the people out.

   Places where a reason is given why the Israelites could not drive the people out -- as it happens there is but one example of this, in Judges 1:19, where the cause is said to be iron chariots owned by the enemy. Is this a case of God's promise failing? There are two reasons to say it is not. First, there is a certain proviso within the Deuteronomic contract:

   Deut. 7:22 And the LORD thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.

   Given this proviso, it is manifest that there would be a certain point at which the Israelites would no longer achieve victory in battle, until such time as Yahweh determined that they were secure enough to gain control of more land. This is sound military and social principle -- don't overextend yourself. In this case the enemy is the "beasts of the field"; but should anyone doubt the threat of being overwhelmed by such creatures, let them take up an agricultural/pastoral form of living surrounded by unmanaged wilderness and find out for themselves where the danger lies. This proviso does well enough to answer a place like Judges 1:19 where the enemy possessed superior technology and could not be beaten. It may be noted that although Judah was out to get the Canaanites (1:10), the locales they conquered were Philistine territory (1:18)! This has all the bearings of an overextension of viable influence, and it is therefore likely that the proviso of 7:22 was kicking into effect.

   Places where no reason is given why the Israelites could not drive the people out -- Here there are actually only two cites: Josh. 15:63 and 17:12 (though Judges 1:27 may also be an example). Strictly speaking this provides no contradiction to the promises unless it is specifically said that the Israelites could not drive out the people in spite of being loyal to the covenant. At worst this is a matter with no resolution. However, viable inferences allow us resolution enough for satisfaction. The sin of even one of the people is enough to guarantee military non-success. The sin of one man, Achan (Josh. 7), nearly ruined the campaign against Ai. It may be argued that no sin is specified in these texts; to which we reply, it is not needed -- once again, we cannot assume our graphocentric prejudices upon an oral culture. The example of Achan was enough to show that violation of the rules of war laid down by Yahweh was sufficient to ensure military failure. And as such instances grew, it is within the expectation of human behavior that rather than determine the guilty parties and make things right, it would be decided rather to just "skip it" and move on, living with the results. Any who dare deny the likelihood of disobedience needs only to look at the history recorded in Kings, and at human history as a whole, to know better.

   Someone has a lot of explaining to do, and it isn't those of us who reject the inerrancy doctrine.

   Our explaining is done. In sum:

   • Our opponent, who complains mightily about his remarks being edited for brevity, offers a text that is at least 85% filler, repetition, transitional statements, non-relevant arguments, and snide remarks. We wonder whether he is able to explain why it is necessary to quote or respond to so much non-argumentation.
   • Our opponent makes his arguments without any reference to the ancient conceptions of the relations between land, deity, and people. Without this understanding his arguments are worthless and anachronistic.

   Editor's Note: Farrell Till's rebuttal starts here

+++++++++++++++++++++

  Tilling Turkel’s “Land Ahoy” - Part 1

-------------------------------------------------

Land Ahoy!

Rebuttal to "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise"

published by

 Robert Turkel at  http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_WRE.html

under the pseudonym James Patrick Holding

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Turkel:

            Our focus is the article “Yahweh's Failed Land Promise” (TSR 1991/1) in which it was argued that the Biblical "land promises" to Abraham and his descendants were not fulfilled by God in the Israelite conquest. As formulated the article addressed only the internal consistency of the Biblical record on this subject. Questions of the historicity of the Conquest, or the propriety of driving out and/or killing the inhabitants of Canaan, were not addressed at all, and will not be addressed here. Readers should bear in mind that in any replies to this essay, any resort by our opponent to any subject other than that addressed in “Yahweh's Failed Land Promise”--that is, the internal consistency of the Biblical record on this subject-can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

 

Till:

Turkel need not worry that I will evade his attempts to rebut my arguments in the article he attempted to reply to. He will see that there are very specific replies to every one of his points, so he will get more “replying” from me than he wanted.  I have read through his miserable failure to show that Yahweh's land promise to the descendants of Abraham was fulfilled, so why would I want to miss an opportunity to expose him as a would-be apologist who just doesn't have what it takes to defend biblical inerrancy?  That is really no personal insult to him, because the fact is that biblical inerrancy is completely indefensible, so it isn't his intellectual level that is the problem but the ridiculous position that he attempts to defend.  I wish I knew why people who are perfectly intelligent in most matters take complete leave of their senses when religious beliefs are involved.

 

Before I proceed to rebut his counter arguments, I must first take the time to point out that Turkel has already reneged on his promise to provide a link to my article that he was replying to.  All that he did was to note above that the article appeared in the first issue of The Skeptical Review in 1991, but that is hardly a link that would enable his readers to click and read exactly what I had said.  I sent an e-mail message to Turkel and asked where his link was, and he wrote back to say that he had put it in another article on his site, so we can already see the game Turkel is playing.  By putting a link to my original article somewhere else besides in what is supposed to be his reply, he increases the chances that some of his readers will see only his article and never notice the link to mine. 

I suppose, then, that Turkel will also refuse to put a link to this reply, or else he will put it somewhere on his site where some readers will be likely not to see it.  Hence, we are already seeing indications that he is not going to debate in an open forum but will continue to hide on his personal web site and selectively quote what he wants his readers to see.  I have said for years now that Turkel is too cowardly to debate biblical inerrancy in an open forum where he will have to confront informed opposition, and his latest antics are confirming that I was right.  My original article is here, and it will be posted here (on the TSR Online website) when my replies to Turkel are posted there. If Turkel does not put this link into his article and then give his readers a link to my reply, he will be reneging on a promise he made during the failed debating negations that everyone can read about in another article that will soon be posted on the new TSR web site.  This article will contain all of the private e-mails that he and I exchanged while I was trying to get him to agree to negotiate a written agreement, and the correspondence will show that he (1) refused to post our debate on his web site, but (2) agreed that he would provide links to my articles and rebuttals.  Right at the very beginning of the debate, he has already reneged on one promise, so what will we see from him next?  In an article about Turkel that I published in the July/August 2002 issue of The Skeptical Review, I said that some skeptics call him Robert “No Link” Turkel, so he is already living up to this name.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

In their desperate efforts to prove that the Bible was verbally inspired of God, inerrancy believers often point to prophecy fulfillment.

 

Turkel:

In previous encounters we would have ordinarily bypassed such comments as these as irrelevant to the topic at hand, which indeed they are. In light of our opponent's insistence that we are covering up something by failing to quote everything said in his material, we will now use such irrelevant comments as exemplars of the profound depths of distraction that our opponent must resort to in order to “set the tone” for gullible readers. We would just as easily say, “In their desperate efforts to prove that the Bible was not verbally inspired of God, errancy believers often point to prophecy failures.” Is this an argument?  No. It is a theme and summary of what is to follow. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. From here on, substantive comment from our opponent will be highlighted in red in order to demonstrate just how little he offers of substance.

 

Till:

Admittedly, this was part of an introductory paragraph to my article, but why would he want to leave it out?  Why not let the readers see it and determine for themselves whether it is deserving of consideration?  I suppose if we were engaged in an oral debate that was being recorded on audio tapes, Turkel would think it appropriate to bleep out my comments that he thought were superfluous.  My point is that a debate is a debate, and audiences who read it should be entitled to see everything that both parties say.  The problem with Turkel's selective quoting on his private web site is that he sets himself up as judge and jury of what his readers should and should not see.  In my opinion, the “replies” that he has written to some of my articles have gutted arguments and counterarguments by cutting out material and justifying it on the grounds that it was “90% fluff.”  When a written debate is published in its entirety, however, neither participant can complain of unfair treatment, so I'll leave it to readers to decide which is the better policy.

 

If I were replying to an article written by Turkel that contained, in my opinion, superfluous material that I didn't agree with, I would let my readers see it and then issue a challenge for Turkel to defend in another debate whatever superfluous claims he may have made if I thought they were worth debating.  I wonder if he is willing to do the same.  If he thinks that my introductory remarks in my article were just “set-up” statements, why doesn't he challenge me to defend those remarks in another debate?  If he should say, “Well, Till, if you think that biblical prophecy fulfillment cannot be defended, why don't we debate that subject after we have finished with the land-promise issue?”   If he should issue such a challenge, he will get an acceptance so fast, he will think that lightning has struck him, and all I would demand is that he publish links on his web site so that his readers could see both sides of the issues.  However, he isn't going to make any such challenge for reasons that I will soon explain.  My attempt to negotiate a written agreement with him for this debate revealed that he is very skittish about trying to defend biblical prophecy claims.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

In my debate with Bill Jackson, he referred to "multiplied dozens of Old Testament prophetic utterances, fulfilled in minute detail in the New Testament, and in such a manner that there could be no contrivance at all” (Jackson-Till Debate, p. 3).

 

Turkel:

This is a very interesting accounting of something Bill Jackson said, but it is still nothing but space filler. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

If any believers in biblical prophecy fulfillment want to see the Jackson-Till written debate, I will send them a copy and let them decide for themselves if what I said immediately below was not an accurate summary of Jackson's performance in that debate.  I did exactly what I said above.  When Jackson made his claim that “multiplied dozens of Old Testament prophetic utterances” were fulfilled “in minute detail in the New Testament,” I called his hand and defied him to prove it, and he evaded the challenge.  The article Turkel is replying to was written shortly after that debate had been published.  I  had distributed hundreds of copies of it to  subscribers of The Skeptical Review, so I considered this an appropriate example to use in reference to the absurd claims that Bible believers make about prophecy fulfillment.

 

Turkel has an opportunity here to call my bluff.  Let him challenge me to defend what I said about prophecy claims in the introductory remarks of my article, and I will accept the challenge if he will agree to publish on his web site links to my part of the exchanges.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

As is true of all who use the prophecy-fulfillment argument, Jackson could only claim “multiplied dozens” of prophecy fulfillments; he could not cite a single verifiable example of a fulfilled OT prophecy.

 

Turkel:

This is also a very interesting accounting of something Bill Jackson said, and also could not say, but it is still nothing but space filler, and at best serves again the purpose of a distraction to set the tone for gullible readers.

 

Till:

I will soon show why Turkel thinks that references to prophecy fulfillment are just “space filler” and  “distraction to set the tone for gullible readers.”   He is afraid to defend prophecy fulfillment in an open-forum debate.

 

Turkel:

 It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. We cannot guess what “dozens” of prophecies Jackson had in mind, so comment can hardly be made. It is not explained how any of the “dozens” are not shown to be “verifiable” or “fulfilled” so no more detailed comment can be made either. What does need explaining, from our opponent, is why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

Now I have a simple question for Turkel.  Why didn't he just quote this entire introductory paragraph to my article and then say after it that there was nothing in the paragraph that needed a reply, because it did not pertain to the issue of whether the land promise prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled as predicted.  That way, his readers would have seen what I said, and I could not have complained that he had quoted me selectively.  The obvious intention of the paragraph was to introduce the subject of biblical prophecy and to indicate the degree that some inerrantists will go to in order to claim that biblical prophecies have been fulfilled.  To put me on the spot, Turkel could then have challenged me to defend in another debate what I had said about biblical prophecy in my introductory paragraph, but, as I said above, Turkel is obviously not willing to get too involved in defending biblical prophecy fulfillments, at least not in an open forum where his readers will see what his opponent says, because prophecy fulfillment was one of the sticking points in my attempt to negotiate an agreement with him.  I proposed that we agree to debate 12 different propositions related to biblical inerrancy, and several of the propositions I proposed pertained to prophecy fulfillment.  I submitted these propositions to him.

 

Resolved: Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt was fulfilled in all of its details.

Resolved: Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre was fulfilled in all of its details.

Resolved: Isaiah's prophecy against Tyre was fulfilled in all of its details.

Resolved: Isaiah's prophecy against Babylon was fulfilled in all of its details.

 

Turkel rejected all of these proposals except the one about Ezekiel’s Tyre prophecy.  When I asked him why he would defend Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre but not his prophecy against Egypt, Turkel wrote back and said that there were  “insufficient data.”  What he meant by that is anyone's guess,  but I will serve notice to him here and now that if he is willing to defend the above proposition about Tyre, he has an opponent.  I'll be ready to begin it as soon as we finish the land-promise issue.  All that I will demand is that he agree to put links to my articles in whatever he writes on the subject and publishes on his web site.

 

I urge those who frequent Turkel’s web site to write and tell him that they would be very interested in seeing Till “ground down to size” on prophecy-fulfillment issues.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

As I said in the [Jackson] debate, the “prophecy fulfillments” that are invariably cited in support of this argument never actually “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-Till Debate, p. 17).

 

Turkel:

This is [a] very interesting and colorful accounting of something our opponent said in reply to Bill Jackson, but it is nothing but a sound bite without specifics, and at best serves again the purpose of a distraction to set the tone for gullible readers. As it is but a distraction, and as it contains no specifics, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

If Turkel thinks that what I said was just a  “sound bite” that I was using for  “the purpose of a distraction to set the tone for gullible readers,” then he should be eager to accept my proposal and agree to debate the prophecy-fulfillment propositions stated above.  I am ready to debate every one of them.  Is he?  As for my claim in the Jackson-Till Debate that  the prophecies that New Testament writers claimed were fulfilled were prophecies only in the fertile imaginations of the religious mystics who said that they were prophecies, I would like very much to debate this issue with Turkel.  I am fully prepared to show how numerous New Testament prophecy fulfillments were based on out-of-context interpretations and outright distortions of Old Testament statements that were never intended to refer to events in the New Testament.  Is Turkel willing to accept this challenge? Well, I advise readers not to hold their breaths until these debates materialize, because I will insist that he agree to publish on his web site links to all of my exchanges, and I don't think that he will be too eager to do that, especially not after he has read this rebuttal that I am now writing.

 

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

When logical analysis is applied to these alleged instances of prophecy fulfillment, it quickly becomes obvious that there is no real evidence of fulfillment.

 

Turkel:

This certainly serves to lay out our opponent’s thematic intent, but only those who have never heard his name would ever suppose that he would take any other general position than that there is no real evidence of prophecy fulfillment.

 

Till:

Many who are reading this know that I have posted several times on my Errancy list a standing challenge for anyone who believes in biblical prophecy fulfillment to prove a single verifiable case of prophecy fulfillment.  I now pass that challenge along to Turkel.

 

Turkel:

 As this remark is merely a statement of purpose common to our opponent's methodology, and it contains no specifics, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

I have explained above to the satisfaction of any reasonable person why a written debate should include everything that both sides say on the issue, and I have also explained what an apologist confident of his position would do when confronted with statements like those contained in the introductory paragraph of my article.  He would challenge the person who made the remarks to defend them in a separate debate.  Why doesn't Turkel challenge me to defend my position on biblical prophecy fulfillment?

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

Time would fail me if I tried to analyze the many alleged prophecy fulfillments that inerrantists have pointed to, so instead I will concentrate on a failed prophecy that they never say much about.

 

Turkel:

This is another example of the profound depths of distraction that our opponent must resort to in order to “set the tone” for gullible readers. We would just as easily say, “Time would fail me if I tried to analyze the many genuine prophecy fulfillments that inerrantists can point to, so instead I will concentrate on a successful prophecy that errantists never say much about.”

 

Till:

Now I will explain the difference in Turkel and me. If he should make such a statement in an article I was rebutting, I would say, “Okay, Bud, you're on.  After we have debated the ‘successful prophecy’ that errantists never say much about, we will then go  to the other  ‘many genuine prophecy fulfillments that inerrantists can point to’ and debate them.” Turkel can consider this a formal challenge.  All I will demand is that when we debate those many other genuine prophecy fulfillments, he will publish links to my articles on his web site.  I will let him hide partially by refusing to put my articles on his site, but I will insist on links. If he will agree to provide them, he will have another opportunity to “grind me down to size.”  For those who may not understand my references to this expression, I’ll point out that Turkel boasted on his web site that he was busy grinding me down to size.

 

He has a challenge before him, so now it is time for Turkel to put up or shut up.  I predict he will do neither.

 

Turkel:

 Is this an argument? No.

 

Till:

No, it isn't, but it is an assertion that was made for introductory purposes. If Turkel made an assertion that I didn’t agree with, I would challenge him to defend it, and I have just challenged him to defend some of his beliefs about biblical prophecies.  In such a debate, I would assume the burden of proof on some of the prophecies, and by the time we had finished, our readers would be able to make their own decisions about whose position had prevailed.

 

I'm willing to do this, but I doubt that Turkel is.

 

Turkel:

It is a manipulative, tactical way of giving the false impression that our opponent has carefully looked into every possible example of alleged prophecy fulfillment and critically determined that they have all failed, and that only the nebulous barrier of “time” makes it impossible to elucidate every example.

 

Till:

Turkel may be surprised how much time I have put into researching biblical prophecies.  I'm confident enough of my position to present to him the challenges that I made above.  Is he confident enough in his position to accept the challenges?

 

As for the “nebulous barrier of time,” surely Turkel isn't so naive that he thinks I could have discussed all biblical prophecy claims in just a five-page article.

 

Turkel:

 It is also an attempt to claim that alleged silence on this issue somehow adds credibility to our opponent's case, when it has yet to be proven that there is a problem worth responding to at all.

 

Till:

If Turkel thinks there is no problem worth responding to in my introductory paragraph, then he should jump at the opportunity to debate several aspects of biblical prophecy fulfillment so that he can demonstrate to our readers just how wrong I am about biblical prophecies.  Will he jump at this chance?  Will he even crawl toward it?  I predict that we won't even be able to drag him into a debate on the subject.

 

Turkel:

 At any rate, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

What I have said above is sufficient to show that in a written debate, readers are entitled to see everything that both parties say.  My comments above will also show that Turkel is skittish about debating the subject of prophecy fulfillment.  His performance in trying to rebut the rest of my article should tell readers why he isn't too enthusiastic about trying to defend biblical prophecies.

 

So that readers will not be confronted with the discouragement of a novel-length web site article, I am going to divide my replies to Turkel into parts.  At this point, my arguments for the failure of Yahweh's land promise began, so I will stop here and begin part (2).

 Editor's Note: Farrell Till's rebuttal continues here

++++++++++++++++++++++++++   

Tilling Turkel’s “Land Ahoy” - Part 2

-------------------------------------------------

Land Ahoy!

Rebuttal to "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise"

published by

 Robert Turkel at  http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_WRE.html

under the pseudonym James Patrick Holding

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

On several occasions prophetic statements were made in the Pentateuch about the land that Yahweh, the tribal god of the Israelites, had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

Turkel:

This is merely setup of a matter that all parties would agree to. No one in this debate doubts that on several occasions, prophetic statements were made in the Pentateuch about the land that Yahweh, the tribal god of the Israelites, had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

It seems that just about everything I say is “setup” to Turkel.  If Turkel had been in my college writing classes, I think he could have benefited.  I would have taught him that good writing should have what he calls “setup.”  Without proper introductory comments and transitional devices, writing will be truncated,  incoherent, jerky, and uninteresting to read.  The proper thing to do in a written debate is to quote the “setups” and transitional devices to provide readers continuity and flow, and then go to the heart of the opposition's argument and rebut it.  The “set-ups” and transitions need not be mentioned in the opponent’s rebuttal of key points.   I think that after the first round of this debate has been posted, I will go through my article, cut out everything that Turkel identified as “setup,” “fluff,” and  “irrelevant distractions” so that everyone could see what a disconnected, incomprehensible mess would be left.   Turkel apparently has  yet  to learn that in a written debate, neither opponent has the right to decide what should and should not be left in the published text for readers to see.    If a participant sees no argument or relevance to a statement made by his opponent, he can simply cut to the chase and respond to what he thinks is relevant.  Readers who see everything that both participants wrote can then judge whether a participant who skips over something is evading it, and the opponent can point out what argument or relevance is in the part that was skipped over and then ask that it be answered.   A debating manual or textbook would be a useful addition to Turkel's library. 

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

These were clearly stated promises that Yahweh would give the land of the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites to the seed of Abraham.

 

Turkel:

This is also merely setup on a matter that all parties would agree to. No one doubts that there were clearly stated promises that Yahweh would give the land of the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites to the seed of Abraham. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

This is just a boring repetition of a complaint that Turkel has already made about a dozen times in the short space of  “replying” to my introductory paragraph.  When he says that “all parties would agree to” what I said, he shows a colossal ignorance of just how uninformed some people are in biblical matters.  If he doesn't know that there are some people who know very little about biblical matters, then he needs more help than I can give him.  I think he would profit from securing a writing textbook and studying what it says about  “exposition” and   “explication.”  I would also suggest that in reviewing the text­book, he take notice of what it says about the writer's duty never to assume that what he knows about a subject being explicated will also be known by the readers.  That is a major flaw in technical writing today, especially in computer and software manuals.  The writers, who obviously are knowledgeable in the subjects they are writing about, assume that readers will also have such knowledge, and the result has been confusing manuals that require hotlines so that users can call and ask for explanations of what should have been explained more clearly in the instruction manuals.

 

As for whether introductory and transitional statements should require a reply from a “respondent,” I have never said that they should.  However, in a written debate, both parties should have the right to have everything they wrote be seen by the audience.  When one of the participants presumes the right to decide what is information that deserves to be seen and what is  “set up” and   “fluff,” he assumes a right that he isn't entitled to.  Turkel could indeed profit from reading some debating textbooks.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

In Deuteronomy 7:17-24, for example, Yahweh presumably made this emphatic promise:

 

Turkel:

For the first time, after several sentences of superfluous commentary, our opponent at last delves into a reading of the text.

 

Till:

“Our opponent?”  Who else is assisting Turkel in replying to me?  Oh, I get it.  He is just using the pretentious first-person plural.  And he has the audacity to talk about “distractions” and “fluff” in my writing style!

 

Turkel:

We see a snide  “presumably” added in order to subtly instill doubt and take a swipe at the authors of the OT by suggesting that they simply made this word of Yahweh up out of thin air-a pertinent example of the sort of non-subject distraction we refer to (i.e., the subject is no longer consistency of the Biblical record as has already been stated, but now, historical authenticity of the contents).

 

 

 

Till:

There was no snideness in the comment.  It was a simple statement about what biblicists assume.  When they read the Bible and see tales about the chats that the Hebrew god Yahweh routinely had with different biblical characters, they naively think that these communications actually happened.  Of course, if they were reading, say, the inscription on the Moabite Stone, they would probably chuckle at king Mesha's  apparent belief that he had a hotline connection to his god Chemosh.  The article that Turkel “replied to” was written when he was a  22-year-old kid.  I didn't write it with him in mind or with any other gullible believer in biblical inerrancy in mind.  I discovered long ago that gullible Bible believers are beyond hope.  My article was written for the benefit of people whose minds have not yet rusted shut on the issue of biblical inerrancy, and such people would  be open to the possibility that just because the Bible says,  “Thus saith Yahweh of  hosts,” that would not constitute any proof that a primitive war-god had actually said it or had even existed to say it.

 

I find it rather curious that Turkel would bring up this issue, because right at the beginning of his reply, he said that  the “historicity” of the conquest would  be off limits.  Here are his own words.

 

As formulated the article addressed only the internal consistency of the Biblical record on this subject. Questions of the historicity of the Conquest, or the propriety of driving out and/or killing the inhabitants of Canaan, were not addressed at all, and will not be addressed here. Readers should bear in mind that in any replies to this essay, any resort by our opponent to any subject other than that addressed in “Yahweh's Failed Land Promise”--that is, the internal consistency of the Biblical record on this subject--can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

 

So after declaring “historicity” off limits, right away Turkel brings up an issue that would require a discussion of the historicity of the statement attributed to the Hebrew god in Deuteronomy 7, so is historicity off limits or not?  I'd be very glad to present reasons why sensible people would seriously question the biblical claim that a god named Yahweh “chose” one nation from all nations on earth to be his “special people” and then routinely chatted for several centuries with their leaders.  I would be happy to quote ancient records where similar claims were made for other tribal gods.  In those cases, I don't think Turkel would find fault with anyone who said that those texts contained records of incidents when ancient gods “presumably” spoke to whomever.

 

 

 

Turkel:

Being that this is the case, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to insert the wedge of doubt on another issue which is of no relevance to the topic at hand, thereby attempting to gain debate points illicitly.

 

Our opponent quotes the ASV thusly:

 

Till:

I hope everyone will take a good look at Turkel's inconsistency.  After repeatedly wasting space to chant his mantra about my use of  “irrelevant setup” statements, he then turned and said, “Our opponent quotes the ASV thusly,” so he recognizes that writing that communicates clear ideas will necessarily use expressions and statements at times that serve no purpose  except transition and introduction of  topic changes.  He has made this issue into a straw man, I suppose, to make his readers think that he is really scoring points when he is actually doing nothing but trying to distract attention from the force of my arguments.  By attacking my sentence that introduced the text in Deuteronomy 7, he apparently hoped  that he would make his readers think that the quoted passage following it was no more important than my “superfluous commentary” that had  introduced it, so once again, I'll say that he is a fine one to talk about “distractions” in someone else's writing.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

If thou shalt say in thy heart, These nations are more than I; how can I dispossess them?  Thou shalt not be afraid of them: thou shalt well remember what Yahweh thy God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt; the great trials which thine eyes saw, and the signs, and the wonders, and the mighty hand, and the outstretched arm, whereby Yahweh thy God brought thee out: so shall Yahweh thy God do unto all the peoples of whom thou art afraid. Moreover Yahweh thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves, perish from before thee. Thou shalt not be affrighted at them; for Yahweh thy God is in the midst of thee, a great God and a terrible. And Yahweh thy God will cast out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee. But Yahweh thy God will deliver them up before thee, and will discomfit them with a great discomfiture, until they be destroyed. And he will deliver their kings unto thy hand, and thou shalt make their name to perish from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them," (ASV with Yahweh substituted for Jehovah).

 

Turkel:

It is then said:

 

 

Till:

“It is then said”? Such superfluous commentary doesn't require quotation or reference from a respondent.  Why did Turkel insert it into his reply?  Why didn't he just go from my quotation of the text  in Deuteronomy to my comments about it that immediately followed in my article?  He cannot, and never will be able to, explain why he didn’t just quote my own article with the transitional introductory statements and the biblical quotations all together.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

The substance of this prophecy was repeated in such places as Exodus 23:20-33; Deuteronomy 4:33-39, Deuteronomy 7:1-2, and Deuteronomy 31:1-8.

 

Turkel:

This is also merely setup on a matter that all parties would agree to.

 

Till:

Was it any worse of a  “setup” than the ones that I have identified in Turkel's writing above, which he used throughout his “rebuttal”?  My point has been made on this, so I will save time from now on and simply reply to this kind of quibbling with the term that it deserves--straw man.  As for whether my statement was  “a matter that all parties would agree to,” I will remind him of the general biblical ignorance of the American population.  To say that all parties would agree to what I said is ridiculous, because there are many parties who wouldn't know whether to agree with it or not, because they just don't know much about the Bible.

 

From now on, I'll respond to such comments as this in the way they should be answered.  Straw man!

 

Turkel:

 No one doubts that the substance of this prophecy was repeated in such places as Exodus 23:20-33; Deut. 4:33-39, Deut. 7:1-2, and Deut. 31:1-8. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

Straw man!

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

In some of these passages, the names of the “seven nations greater and mightier than thou” to be driven out of the land were also specified as they were above: the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Jebusites, and the Perizzites.

 

Turkel:

This is a repetition of information already provided above. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

Straw man!

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

When Joshua assumed the leadership of Israel after the death of Moses, the land promise was renewed in very specific terms:

 

Turkel:

This is merely transitional information. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

Straw man!

 

Turkel:

Joshua 1:1-6 is quoted from the ASV:

 

Till:

Such superfluous commentary doesn't require quotation or reference from a respondent.  Why did Turkel insert it into his reply?  Why didn't he just  quote my transitional sentence and the quotation from Joshua 1:1-6 all together?    As readers will see below, my quotation of the text included a parenthetical identification of the chapter and verses in Joshua and the version I was quoting from. Hence, a composite quotation of both my transitional sentence and the biblical quotation that followed would have looked like this.

 

When Joshua assumed the leadership of Israel after the death of Moses, the land promise was renewed in very specific terms:

 

Now it came to pass after the death of Moses the servant of Yahweh that Yahweh spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying, Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel. Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, to you have I given it, as I spake unto Moses. From the wilderness, and this Lebanon, even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your border. There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life; as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee; I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. Be strong and of good courage; for thou shalt cause this people to inherit the land which I sware unto their fathers to give them  (Joshua 1:1-6, ASV, Yahweh substituted).

 

 

So what game is Turkel playing?  He is fighting desperately to justify his flagrant snipping and skipping  of my arguments in past articles where he gutted my materials down to nothing and called these “replies.”  Anyone who can see through a ladder should be able to recognize his flagrant quibbling.  

 

Till [quoted by Turkel; bold print is used to replace underlining in the original]:

Now it came to pass after the death of Moses the servant of Yahweh that Yahweh spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ minister, saying, Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel. Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, to you have I given it, as I spake unto Moses. From the wilderness, and this Lebanon, even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your border. There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life; as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee; I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. Be strong and of good courage; for thou shalt cause this people to inherit the land which I sware unto their fathers to give them  (Joshua 1:1-6, ASV, Yahweh substituted).

 

Turkel:

And then:

 

Till:

Why did Turkel waste our time with this transitional expression?  My original article will show that my transitional sentence below was adequate to let readers know that I was going from one biblical text to another.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

Just before crossing the Jordan, Joshua repeated the promise:

 

Turkel:

This is merely transitional information. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

Here is the same straw man again, coming from someone whose writing demonstrates that he too recognizes the need to use transitional devices in clear writing.  He cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such transitional devices could not have been quoted  along with the text below.  He is trying to give his readers some justification for having snipped and skipped materials from other articles of mine that he supposedly “replied to,” but I will be glad, in a separate debate, to show his readers some of my arguments that he evaded and then tried to justify the evasion by labeling it “fluff” or “distractions” or “irrelevant repetition.”

 

If he accepts this challenge, he will have the opportunity to show his readers that what he snipped and skipped was comparable to the transitional sentences that he has made such an issue in this article.  Of course, I would expect a guarantee that Turkel would allow his readers to see my articles that expose his past snipping and skipping, but I suspect I have a better chance of winning the Mega Millions jackpot than ever getting an agreement from him to post my exposures on his website.

 

Turkel:

Joshua 3:9-11 is quoted from the ASV:

 

Till:

My transitional sentence above contained only nine words: “Just before crossing the Jordan, Joshua repeated the promise.”  Turkel made a straw-man  issue over it and then saw the need to introduce my quoted passage with his own transitional sentence of eight words.  Why didn't he just put my transitional sentence and the quotation from Joshua all together?  Well, he's too busy quibbling to do the sensible thing.   There is an old adage that says there is a difference in having something to say and in having to say something.  I think everyone has seen by now that Turkel knows that he has to say something but doesn't really have anything to say.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

And Joshua said unto the children of Israel, Come hither, and hear the words of Yahweh your God. And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Hivite, and the Perizzite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Jebusite. Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into the Jordan (Joshua 3:9-11).

 

Turkel:

Then it is said:

 

Till:

Such superfluous commentary doesn't require quotation or reference from a respondent.  Why did Turkel insert it into his reply?  Why didn't he just quote my transitional sentence and the quotation from Joshua 1:1-6 all together?  

 

Has everyone noticed that we have gone this far, and Turkel has not yet tried to answer anything? He has spent his time quibbling about my use of transitional and introductory sentences, and has then turned around and repeatedly used them himself.  I'm going to hammer away on this point so that his readers, who may think that he is a cracker-jack apologist, may finally realize that he spends more time in distractive quibbling than actually trying to answer his opponents’ arguments.

 

 

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

To stress the emphatic nature of parts of the land promises that Yahweh made to Israel, I have underlined [now emphasized in bold print] certain statements.

 

Turkel:

This is merely transitional information,

 

Till:

The same old straw man!

 

Turkel:

and we have likewise underlined [now emphasized in bold print] the same statements our opponent has underlined.

 

Till:

"We"?  "Our opponent"?  Oh, I forgot; Turkel likes to use the pretentious first-person plural.  And he has the brass to criticize my writing style.

 

Turkel:

However, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

 

Till:

Straw man!  Maybe I should tell readers to be patient.  Eventually Turkel does get around to trying to reply to my arguments.  I can't wait till I get there.  I  enjoy shooting fish in a  barrel.

 

Turkel:

 The emphatic nature of the text does not need underlining for the stress to be apparent. Simple rules of composition and reading comprehension, and the premise of the main idea, tell us easily enough what the most relevant parts of the prophecies should be within the quoted material.

 

Till:

Hmm, I wonder why Turkel uses special devices to emphasize expressions in his own writing.  Even in his reply to my land-promise article, he used such emphasis.  Here is just one example, which appears later in his article.

 

Lev. 25:23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with  me.

 

Consistency is not one of Turkel’s virtues.  I will call attention to other devices of emphasis in his writing as I go along.

As for whether emphasis was necessary in the biblical passages I quoted, I considered them necessary to make sure that readers noticed what the promises were and then the statements in the quotations that clearly contradicted the claim that Yahweh had done  for Israel everything that he had promised.  Even today, after over 50 years of serious biblical studies, I will sometimes notice significant statements in passages I am reading that had escaped my notice on prior readings.  Turkel's criticism above is just another one of his straw men intended to make his readers think he is really kicking butt, and it is a criticism that even he ignores in his own writing.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

So when all of the passages I have quoted and listed are considered, we see that the prophecies included all of the following:

 

Turkel:

This is also merely transitional information. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

Straw man!

 

At this point, Turkel finally got around to trying to answer my arguments, so I will end Part (2) here and begin Part (3) with my rebuttals of his “replies.” 

Editor's Note: Farrell Till's rebuttal continues here

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++   

Tilling Turkel’s “Land Ahoy” - Part 3

-------------------------------------------------

Land Ahoy!

Rebuttal to "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise"

published by

 Robert Turkel at  http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_WRE.html

under the pseudonym James Patrick Holding

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Till [repeated from Part 2 for, pardon the expression, transition]:

[So when all of the passages I have quoted and listed are considered, we see that the prophecies included all of the following:]

 

Till [quoted by Turkel in red]:

Without fail, God would drive out of the land beyond the Jordan all of the people then possessing it.

 

Turkel:

Here for the first time our opponent finally brings some substance to the fore. This is his first claim of content with reference to the prophecies.

 

Till:

So now readers should watch very carefully to see how Turkel ignores the “substance” to take us into a tangent that does nothing to explain why the biblical text clearly said that the Israelites had been given all the land that Yahweh had promised them but then later began backpedaling to admit that all the land they were promised had not yet been conquered.

 

Turkel:

Several others follow.

 

Till:

Why did Turkel put this transitional fluff into his “reply”?  It says nothing that readers would not have noticed without it, because obviously my article had listed several other points about what had been promised in the land prophecies.  Readers would have noticed them without Turkel’s saying, “Several others follow.”  Why can’t Turkel follow his own standard and cut out such “fluff” and “distractions” as this?

 

Till [quoted by Turkel in red]:

No man among these people would be able to stand before the Israelites all the days of their lives.

 

Turkel:

Aspect 2. Comment will be reserved until all aspects are listed.

 

Till:

Yes, that way readers won’t be so likely to remember what he couldn’t explain away.  Keep an eye out for his evasion of this “aspect.”

 

Till [quoted by Turkel in red]:

The Israelites would drive out the nations possessing the land and utterly destroy them and the memory of their name under heaven.

 

Turkel:

Aspect 3.

 

Till:

Why did Turkel put this fluff into his reply?  Readers could have gone through my list of points without having him tell them which was number 2 and 3 and 4, etc.  Watch to see how he never comes back to “aspect 3.”

 

Till [quoted by Turkel ]:

They were to make no covenants with the nations in this land or show mercy to them (Deut. 7:2).

 

Turkel:

Aspect 4.

 

Till:

Why did Turkel put this fluff into his reply?  Readers could have gone through my list of points without having him tell them which was numbers 2 and 3 and 4, etc. 

 

Til [quoted by Turkel in red]:

Every place that the sole of their feet would tread upon, God would give to them.

 

Turkel:

Aspect 5.

 

Till:

Why did Turkel put this fluff into his reply?  Readers could have gone through my list of points without having him tell them which was number 2 and 3 and 4, etc.  Be alert to see how he later creeps around “aspect 5” too.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel in red]:

Their empire would stretch from the Red Sea unto the river Euphrates and from the great sea (Mediterranean) toward the going down of the sun.

 

Turkel:

Aspect 6 and last. Now our opponent offers a summary of what he contends is the typical response to the problem of "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise":

 

Till:

Why did Turkel put this fluff into his reply?  Did he think that his audience wouldn’t be able to see for themselves that I was summarizing a “solution” that inerrantists often resort to in order to circumvent the obvious contradiction that I was explicating in my article?

Notice that he didn’t reply here to any of the “aspects.”  Watch to see what he does later about these.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel partly in red, indicated by bold print]:

To circumvent obvious contradictions that result when Yahweh's promises are compared to biblical history recorded later, inerrantists contend that the land promises made to the Israelites were conditional on their good behavior, but there is no support for that dodge in the Bible.

 

Turkel:

Here we find our opponent's first substantive attempt at argument (though padded with unnecessary words), and where we deem it first necessary to make any substantive reply. We shall return to our opponent's words after an extended explanation.

 

Till:

“We” shall return after an extended explanation?  Uh, oh, I smelled irrelevant fluff and distraction coming up, and I was right.  As will be seen, “we” returned to “our opponent’s words” after a long tangent that did nothing to explain why the biblical text first said that Yahweh had given the Israelites all the land he had promised but then backpedaled and said that they had not been given all the land they were promised.  Turkel hopes that by the end of his tangent some readers will have forgotten the exactness of what had been promised.  Readers will see that when “we” returned to “our opponent’s words,” he evaded almost all of these “aspects.”

 

Turkel:

We begin with consideration of the original land promise, given in Genesis 12:7 and 13:15 (cf. 28:13):

 

Till

This is just transitional fluff and distraction.  Turkel cannot, and will never be able to, explain why it was necessary to include it in his reply, but let us see where we begin our consideration of the land promise.

 

Turkel:

And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him. For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

 

Till:

And the conditions?  I don’t see any.

 

Turkel:

Abraham and his descendants are “given” the land, but what does that mean? It does not connote any modern sense of property ownership. What it does mean for Abraham to have been “given” the land is made most clear within the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity.

 

Till:

What did it mean for Abraham to have been “given” the land?  Well, perhaps it meant that his descendants [seed] were to be given the land in the sense that they would possess it, as the following texts indicate.

 

Leviticus 20:24  But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am Yahweh your God, which have separated you from other people.

 

Deuteronomy 1:8  Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which Yahweh sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them.

 

Deuteronomy 1:21  Behold, Yahweh thy God hath set the land before thee: go up and possess it, as Yahweh God of thy fathers hath said unto thee; fear not, neither be discouraged.

 

Deuteronomy 3:18-20  And I commanded you at that time, saying, Yahweh your God hath given you this land to possess it: ye shall pass over armed before your brethren the children of Israel, all that are meet for the war.   But your wives, and your little ones, and your cattle, (for I know that ye have much cattle,) shall abide in your cities which I have given you; Until Yahweh have given rest unto your brethren, as well as unto you, and until they also possess the land which Yahweh your God hath given them beyond Jordan: and then shall ye return every man unto his possession, which I have given you.

 

A comment is in order here.  The last verse above stated that wives and “little ones” would remain in the conquered cities until Yahweh had given “rest” to their brethren, which would come when they possessed the land that Yahweh their god was giving them beyond the Jordan.  My article noted that Joshua had taken “the whole land,” and then “the land had rest” (Josh. 11:23), so did the Israelites “possess” all the land Yahweh had promised them or not?  The promised “rest” was to come when the Israelites had possessed the land that Yahweh was giving them, and a text in Joshua said that “the land had rest.”  Does Turkel know what necessary inferences are in literary interpretation?

 

We’ll see that Turkel was unable to resolve this inconsistency, but first I’ll quote more scriptures that indicate that “giving” the land to the Israelites meant that they were to “possess” it.  There are at least 40 other passages in Deuteronomy that used the word “possess” to denote what the Israelites’ relationship to the promised land would be after they had crossed the Jordan, so I’ll resume the quotations with the book of Joshua.  Notice that the first quotation indicates that what it meant to be “given” land was that the ones to whom the land was given would “possess” it.

 

Joshua 1:11  Pass through the host, and command the people, saying, Prepare you victuals; for within three days ye shall pass over this Jordan, to go in to possess the land, which Yahweh your God giveth you to possess it.

 

Joshua 23:5  And Yahweh your God, he shall expel them from before you, and drive them from out of your sight; and ye shall possess their land, as Yahweh your God hath promised unto you.

 

This should be clear enough even for Turkel to understand.  The promise was that Yahweh would drive out or expel the nations in the land of Canaan so that the Israelites could then “possess” it.  What it meant for “God” to give land to the Israelites, then, was that he would drive out or expel the people living in the land, and then the Israelites would occupy it.  We will see that although the Bible says in places that Yahweh gave to the Israelites all the land he promised them, other texts say that he didn’t.

 

Turkel:

According to ancient conceptions, deities were associated with certain spheres, usually of a geographic nature, but also of a social nature. In Greek thought, this worked out with the assigning of the realm of earth to Zeus, that of the sea to Poseidon, and that of the underworld to Hades. In an Old Babylonian text the same spheres were divided among Anu, Enlil, and Enki. In both the OT and in extrabiblical sources the nature of this relationship is expressed in such phrases as “the god of Moab“, “the gods of Byblos” or “the God of Israel.” Other phrases identify the people as being of a particular deity: “the god of the sons of Ammon“; “God of the Hebrews.” The division was not always clear-cut, and nations with multiple deities would assign various places within their land to certain deities, and gods may have been associated with specific tribal groups or households. Nevertheless it is beyond dispute that land belonged to the gods.

 

Till:

Well, not exactly.  What is beyond dispute is that these ancient people believed that the land belonged to the gods, but ancient people believed a lot of things that were ridiculous.  Anyway, does Turkel think that this is information that I didn’t know? I’ll later show that the concept of land “belonging” to gods did not preclude the concept of personal ownership.  For now, I’ll just ask how anything he said here explains why the biblical text says in one place that every place that the soles of Israelite feet would tread upon would be given to them, that they would drive out all of the nations in the land and leave nothing alive to breathe, that they would be given the land from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great (Mediterranean) Sea, etc., but texts later said that it didn’t happen.  The issue here is consistency, and even Turkel himself said that “the internal consistency of the Biblical text” is the issue, so I’ll keep looking to see if I can find where he reconciled the different texts on this subject to make them consistent.  So far he hasn’t, and having read all of his “reply,” I know that he didn‘t.

 

 

 

Turkel:

The Israelites understood matters somewhat differently in light of Yahwism, for they understood Yahweh to be the owner of all of the land, rather than other deities being in charge of it.

 

Till:

And so if Yahweh owned all the land, he shouldn’t have, given his omnipotence, had any problem making sure that the Israelites received all the land he had promised them (from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great Sea), so why didn’t he?  All of Turkel’s talk about “ancient conceptions” of gods and what lands they owned hasn’t done anything to explain the inconsistencies that I identified in my article.  Regardless of what “ancient concepts” of deity-land-possession may have been, Yahweh said that in some sense he was going to “give” the Israelites all the land within clearly defined borders.  In what sense did the book of Joshua mean that he had “given” them all of this land, and in what sense did the book later mean that he didn’t give them all of the land?  This is the problem confronting Turkel, and his time would have been better spent trying to explain the inconsistency rather than taking us into long tangents like the one I am now replying to.

 

Turkel:

 In Deut. 32:8-9 we read:

 

Till:

Hmm, Turkel has wasted more of our time on a transitional sentence.

 

Turkel:

When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

 

Till

And the “Most High,” who owned all the land in the world, promised that he would give the Israelites every bit of land that the soles of their feet would tread upon from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great Sea, so why didn’t he keep this promise?  That’s the problem, and nothing that Turkel has said yet in this tangent he has led us into has even begun to explain away the inconsistency.

 

Turkel:

Certain manuscript traditions read “sons of God” (angels) in place of “children of Israel” but the result [is] the same. It is the Most High who has allotted the inheritance for each nation. Yahweh declares the bounds of territory for the various peoples:

 

Deut. 2:5 Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession.

 

Till:

And this does what to explain why Yahweh promised that he would give the Israelites all the land their feet would tread upon from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great Sea, and then didn’t do it?  If the Israelites were not to take so much as “a foot breadth” of Mt. Seir, because Yahweh had given it to Esau for a possession, then why couldn’t he have made good on his word to give to the Israelites all of the land within the boundaries described in Joshua 1:4?  I’m still waiting to see Turkel resolve this inconsistency.

 

Turkel:

Deut. 2:9 And the LORD said unto me, Distress not the Moabites, neither contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their land for a possession; because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession.

 

Till:

And this does what to explain why Yahweh defined the boundaries of all the land he would give the Israelites and then didn’t make good on his word?  It seems that Yahweh could “give” land to Esau [the Edomites] and to the Moabites, but he couldn’t seem to make good on his promise to give to the Israelites all the land he had promised within defined boundaries.

 

Turkel:

Deut. 2:19 And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession.

 

Till:

Ditto.

 

Turkel:

It should be noted in all three cases that the words for “give” is the same Hebrew word as used in Gen. 12:7, 13;15 (nathan), and that the word for "possession" is a form of the word yarash (see below).

 

Till:

Well, let’s just look at some passages where nathan was used.

 

Exodus 2:9  And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages. And the woman took the child, and nursed it.

 

Numbers 3:47  Thou shalt even take five shekels apiece by the poll, after the shekel of the sanctuary shalt thou take them: (the shekel is twenty gerahs:)  And thou shalt give the money, wherewith the odd number of them is to be redeemed, unto Aaron and to his sons.

 

Judges 14:12  And Samson said unto them, I will now put forth a riddle unto you: if ye can certainly declare it me within the seven days of the feast, and find it out, then I will give you thirty sheets and thirty change of garments:  But if ye cannot declare it me, then shall ye give me thirty sheets and thirty change of garments. And they said unto him, Put forth thy riddle, that we may hear it.

 

Judges 17:10  And Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give thee ten shekels of silver by the year, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals. So the Levite went in.  And the Levite was content to dwell with the man; and the young man was unto him as one of his sons.

 

There are, of course, hundreds of other Old Testament passages that used the word nathan.  A study of those other passages will show that the word was used much in the same way that we use the word give in English.  If someone gives an object, a piece of land, or an animal to someone else, the other person “possesses” it.  Turkel needs to explain why, if Yahweh promised to give [nathan] the Israelites a land, with southern, northern, eastern, and western boundaries defined, with the assurance that they would “possess” [yarash] every bit of ground within that area that their feet would tread upon,  this promise was only partially kept.

 

Turkel:

We can clarify the nature of the land-people-deity relationship with some illustrative Bible passages. Moving from one land to another, or becoming part of another people, meant a change of gods for a person:

 

Till:

But, of course, Turkel doesn’t believe that there were any other real gods besides Yahweh, so since he thinks that Yahweh was real, he needs to explain why the land promise wasn’t kept.

 

 

Turkel:

Ruth 1:16 And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.

 

Till:

Why should this text be understood to mean any more than that Ruth, in choosing to go with her mother-in-law Naomi, had decided that she would also accept Naomi’s god?  In fact, if Turkel had quoted more than just this one verse, he should have seen a definite implication that Ruth had already accepted Yahweh as her god, even though she was still living in Moab at the time.  “Yahweh do so to me, and more also,” she said to Naomi, “if ought but death part thee and me.”

 

Balaam, the prophet who got a bum rap in the New Testament, lived in Pethor in Mesopotamia, but as the yarn about him was spun in Numbers 22-24, he was a believer in the Hebrew god Yahweh.  When Jacob went to Paddan-aram, he worked for his uncle Laban, who worshiped idols and accused Jacob of stealing his “gods” when Jacob left with his families to return to Canaan (Gen. 31:30), but Jacob didn’t change his god while he was living in Paddan-aram.  Solomon married foreign wives who worshiped other gods and enticed Solomon to worship them, but Solomon and his wives lived on Yahweh’s turf.  I’ve seen quibbles before, but this one ranks close to the top.

 

All of this aside, I wonder what the relevance of this tangent is.  Yahweh clearly promised to “give” a land with clearly defined boundaries to the Israelites so that they could “possess” it, and it didn’t happen.  Turkel can’t explain that away by talking irrelevantly about “ancient concepts” of “land-people-deity” relationships.  Does he believe that the Hebrew god Yahweh exists and that he is the only true god?  Does he believe that this Yahweh’s word is as good as gold?  If so, how does he explain the problem I identified in my article?

 

Turkel:

This concept also makes sense of a passage some people find strange:

 

2 Kings 5:17 And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules' burden of earth? for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the LORD.

 

By Namaan's [sic] thinking, the only way one could worship a deity properly was to have a piece of the dirt that deity owned. That the land of Israel was not owned by the people, but by Yahweh, is made most clear in this verse:

 

Till:

I think that Turkel’s spin on this verse is exactly right, but what does this do to explain the inconsistencies identified in my article?  He said above that the Israelites  “understood Yahweh to be the owner of all of the land,” so does Turkel think this “ancient conception” of the Israelites was right and that Yahweh did own all the land?  If so, then what is his explanation for Yahweh’s failure to give the Israelites all of the land he promised for them to “possess”?  So far Turkel has said exactly nothing to explain this problem.

 

Turkel:  

Lev. 25:23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.

Till:

Why did Turkel emphasis “is mine” in bold print?  The text was written clearly enough that readers could understand that Yahweh was saying [presumably] that the land was his?

 

Turkel:

On the other hand, we may see easily that the role of the people was that of a tenant in the land.

 

Till:

My, my, here is Turkel emphasizing a word in bold print after criticizing me for using devices of emphasis.  Attentive readers should notice that more and more, as he goes along, he uses this writing device that he thought was unnecessary in my article.  As I said, consistency isn’t one of his virtues.

 

Now after emphasizing that “the role of people was that of a tenant,” he needs to go a step further and show us how this “ancient concept” explains why Yahweh promised the Israelites that he would “give” [nathan] every scrap of land that their feet would tread upon from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great Sea to “possess“ [yarash], and then didn’t do it?  All of Turkel’s talk about “ancient concepts” of deity-land-possession does what to explain why the book of Joshua first said that Yahweh “gave unto Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers” (Josh. 11:23) but then later said that there remained “very much land” for the Israelites to possess (13:1)?

 

Does Turkel even understand what the issue is?

 

Turkel:

 This relationship of people to land and deity is clearly expressed here:

 

Till

Hmm, another piece of transitional “fluff” and “distraction.”

 

Turkel:

Judges 11:24 Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess.

 

Judges 11:24 expresses in a microcosm the concpetual [sic] relationship between deity, land, and persons. The god is the one that gives and owns the land; the people possess it. The word "possess" here is the Heb[r]ew yarash, which we may now explain in more detail.

 

Till:

Yes, I have already said that the ignorant, uneducated people of ancient times had a belief that different gods reigned in different realms, but what does this do to resolve the inconsistencies identified in my article?  Turkel doesn’t believe that Chemosh was real any more than he believes that Zeus was real, so how does any of this explain why a god, who Turkel believes was real, promised to give a land with clearly defined borders to the Israelites to “possess,” but then didn’t make good on that promise?  Was this Yahweh that Turkel believes in unable to “inspire” biblical writers to record accurately what he had said and to do so in language that would be understandable?

 

Perhaps Turkel should explain to us what his position is on biblical “inspiration.”  Does he believe in it or not?

 

Turkel:

It is used about 230 times in the OT; here is a Strong's definition, and some samples:

 

423. yarash, yaw-rash'; or yaresh, yaw-raysh'; a prim. root; to occupy (by driving out previous tenants, and possessing in their place); by impl. to seize, to rob, to inherit; also to expel, to impoverish, to ruin:--cast out, consume, destroy, disinherit, dispossess, drive (-ing) out, enjoy, expel, X without fail, (give to, leave for) inherit (-ance, -or), + magistrate, be (make) poor, come to poverty, (give to, make to) possess, get (have) in (take) possession, seize upon, succeed, X utterly.

 

 

Till:

For readers who may not be familiar with Turkel’s “apologetic” style, I should explain something.  When he is in a bind, he apparently thinks that he can wiggle his way out of it by conning his readers into thinking that he is able to see subtleties in the Hebrew text that eluded the hundreds of Hebrew scholars who have partipated in translating the various English versions of the Old Testament.  The fact that Turkel’s “scholarship” in Hebrew is almost always limited to quoting Strong’s concordance speaks volumes about his skills in Hebrew.  I’d be very interested in seeing his “scholarly” reasons why we should reject how  translations like the KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, etc. have rendered the word yarash in the different texts that spoke of the Israelites’ “possessing” the land.

 

As for his expertise in scholarship, I noticed that he even got Strong’s number for the word yarash wrong.  It is 3423 and not 423, an understandable typographical error, I suppose, but he should give more attention to details if he is going to try to base an argument on what he knows about Hebrew.

 

Turkel:

Gen. 15:3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

 

Till:

The emphasis on “heir” was Turkel’s, but why he felt the need to emphasize it is beyond me.  After all, he is the one who thinks the use of emphatic devices in writing is unnecessary, because “(s)imple rules of composition and reading comprehension, and the premise of the main idea, tell us easily enough what the most relevant parts” of the scripture he quoted meant, but he apparently emphasized “heir” intending to signal that the word used in Hebrew was yarash.   If so, all he has shown us is that Hebrew, like probably all other languages, had homographs, i.e., words spelled alike and pronounced alike that had different meanings.  Bear and bear in English are homographs, but when we see one of them in context, we are able to determine what it means.  For example, if one whose native language is English encountered the sentence, “I can’t bear the boredom any longer,” he would never think that bear was referring to a carnivorous mammal of the Ursus family

 

So it is with yarash in Genesis 15:3.  Contextual evidence indicates that it conveyed the sense of “heir” here, so how does this in any way show that when Yahweh spoke in various places of giving the Israelites all the land their feet would tread upon in Canaan to possess, he didn’t mean that he intended to give them all the land to possess?

 

Turkel:

Gen. 24:60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.

 

 

Till:

And this helps Turkel’s case how?  To me, it merely confirms what I have been arguing, i.e., Yahweh promised to give the Israelites [descendants of Rebekah] vast holdings of land to possess.  So why didn’t he give them all that he promised?

 

 

 

Turkel:

Lev. 20:24 But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people.

 

Till:

Well, why don’t we just take a look at the context in which this statement appeared?

 

Leviticus 20:22  Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.

23  And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

24  But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am Yahweh your God, which have separated you from other people.

 

I really appreciate Turkel’s taking the time to quote this text, because it is consistent with the texts that I quoted to show that Yahweh had promised the Israelites that he would drive out of Canaan seven nations mightier than they so that they could possess the land and dwell in it.  So why didn’t Yahweh keep this promise?

 

Turkel:

Judges 18:9 And they said, Arise, that we may go up against them: for we have seen the land, and, behold, it is very good: and are ye still? be not slothful to go, and to enter to possess the land.

 

The last cite is most relevant. Yarash represents the human activity of transfer of property or territory, including in war. But it is quite clear that this transfer did not involve legal ownership as we understand it, but possession. Evidence from ANE documents and the OT further clarify the nature of the relationship between a deity and its people as that of a feudal landlord and his tenants.

 

Till:

And this explains away the problem how?  For the sake of argument, let’s just assume everything Turkel said.  There are examples in the Bible that dispute what Turkel is saying, and I will get to them later, but for now, let’s just assume that he is right.  The “ancient concept” was that Yahweh owned the land, and the people were “tenants” in  a feudallike system.  If a feudal lord told a family that they would be given permanent tenancy on property from sea A to river B and from mountain C to valley D, but later the feudal lord gave them tenancy on just a fraction of that land, the feudal lord would have reneged on his promise, wouldn’t he?  If not, why not?

 

I think my point is clear enough that Turkel should understand it?  All his talk about “ancient concepts” is merely a smoke screen to try to hide the obvious fact that he has no

solution to the biblical inconsistencies on this matter. This is the guy who complained about “fluff,” “set-up,” and “irrelevant distractions” in my article.  Go figure.

 

Keep the passage that Turkel quoted above (Judges 18:9) in mind, because I will return to it when I reply to Turkel’s claim that the sin “of just one of the people” was sufficient for Yahweh to withhold his promise.

 

Turkel:

 Under such an arrangement the land was owned by a deity and granted for the use of the people; the “landlord” had certain obligations, and the people had certain responsibilities:

 

Till:

Very well, let’s just accept this ancient “concept.”  As I noted above, all this would prove is that Yahweh owned the land and had granted its “use” to the Israelites.  So now let Turkel explain why he promised that every bit of ground the Israelites would tread on from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great Sea would be given to the Israelites for their “use,” but then later he reneged on the promise.  And don’t forget that the book of Joshua first said that all the land Yahweh had promised had been given to them and that “there failed not aught of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel” and that “all came to pass” (Josh. 21:45), but then later, this same book said, “Ooops, the Israelites didn’t get all the land after all, and there still remained much for them to possess” (13:1-2).

 

Turkel:

2 Kings 18:33-35 Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered at all his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah? have they delivered Samaria out of mine hand? Who are they among all the gods of the countries, that have delivered their country out of mine hand, that the LORD should deliver Jerusalem out of mine hand?

 

The comments of this Assyrian official reflect an expectation that at such time as a nation is attacked, it is expected that their god will come to their defense.

 

Till:

So ancient people, living in superstitious times, had such beliefs as this? They also believed a lot of other irrational things too.  How does this explain why the omni-everything Yahweh said that he would give to the Israelites to possess [use] ALL the land within the boundaries I have repeatedly noted, but it never happened?  Why?  Why would the omniscient Yahweh, who cannot lie, have told the people something that he knew wasn’t going to happen?  And why did he “inspire” the writer of Joshua to say that the Israelites had received all the land they had been promised and then later say that there remained much land for them to possess?

 

All this flapdoodle about “ancient concepts” of deity-land-people ownership doesn’t explain away these gross inconsistencies in a book that is supposed to be inerrant.

 

Turkel:

Otherwise, as the territory of the land extends, so does the territory of the deity whose side wins, as indicated in this boast of the Assyrian king Sargon:

 

Over [Ashur's] entire broad land and his numerous population I installed my nobles as officials, and thus extended the territory of Ashur, king of the gods.

 

Till:

Turkel doesn’t have to convince me that people in biblical times had superstitious beliefs, but the fact that king Sargon of Assyria believed that Ashur had a territory over which he was “god” and the fact that Naaman believed that Yahweh was god of the land where the Israelites lived does absolutely nothing to explain the problem.  I’ll try to draw Turkel a picture so that he can see the problem.

 

1.  Yahweh, a presumably [there’s that cuss word again] omniscient god, told the Israelites [presumably] that he would give them all the land to possess [use] that their feet would tread upon from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea.

 

2.  This didn’t happen.

 

Since Turkel believes that Yahweh, unlike Chemosh, Ashur, and other gods, was the real thing, i.e., a genuine, rootin’ tootin’ god, why would the superstitious belief that gods had certain territories or lands that they ruled over explain why Yahweh’s land promise to the Israelites didn’t happen?  Furthermore, since the Israelites believed that Yahweh owned all the land in the whole world, and since Turkel believes that this was the correct view of deity-land-possession, why didn’t Yahweh’s promise to the Israelites pan out as he had promised?

 

That is problem number one.  Here is the second problem.

 

1.  The book of Joshua claims that Yahweh gave the Israelites all the land he had promised to them and that nothing failed in all that he had promised.

 

2.  The books of Joshua and Judges later say that this didn’t happen, that Yahweh did not give all the land he had promised to the Israelites.

 

I suggest that Turkel keep in mind that, in his own words, the issue in this debate is “the internal consistency of the Biblical record” in the land-promise matter, so he needs to show consistency in the two problems outlined above rather than waste our time talking about ancient superstitious beliefs.

 

Turkel:

It was usually believed by the ancients that a god's power only extended as far as national borders,

 

Till:

So how does this explain the two inconsistencies shown in my article and outlined above?

 

Turkel:

as here:

 

1 Kings 20:23 And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him, Their gods are gods of the hills; therefore they were stronger than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they.

 

Till:

But the omniscient, omnipotent Yahweh was, pardon the expression, presumably god of the hills, the plains, the valleys, the deserts, the rivers, the seas, etc.  He was presumably god of everything in the whole world, so if he made the promises that I presented in my article and outlined above, why couldn’t he make good on them?

The passage Turkel quoted above reminded me of another text that may explain why Yahweh couldn’t come through with what he promised the Israelites: “And Yahweh was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron” (Judges 1:19).  Maybe Yahweh was just another god like Chemosh and Ashur, who was therefore no more able to make good on his promises than the other imaginary gods.

 

Turkel:

The patron deity also had the prerogative of selecting the leader of the people.

 

Till:

And this does what to explain why an omniscient, omnipotent deity made a land promise that he couldn’t keep?

 

Turkel:

The Sumerians believed that the office of the kingship was lowered from the heavens.

 

Till:

And this does what to explain why an omniscient, omnipotent deity made a land promise that he couldn’t keep?  Isn’t Turkel the one who has made such a big issue over “fluff” and “irrelevant distractions”?

 

Turkel:

The Assyrians appealed to the divine election of their kings.

 

Till:

And this does what to explain why an omniscient, omnipotent deity made a land promise that he couldn’t keep?

 

Turkel:

Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon was legitimized by the pronouncement of the Babylonian god Marduk.

 

Till:

And this does what to explain why an omniscient, omnipotent deity [who Turkel believes was real] made a land promise that he couldn’t keep?

 

Turkel seems to think that if he leads us far enough into a tangent, quotes enough biblical passages along the way, and rambles on and on about “ancient concepts,” some readers may believe that he is on to something.  Is this the guy who had the gall to talk about “fluff” and “irrelevant distractions” in my articles?

 

Turkel:

 And of course, when the time came for Israel to select a king, Yahweh was called upon to make the choice, and at various times thereafter the OT states that Yahweh took some part in selecting a king for the nation (cf. 1 Kings 11:14) and even foreign kings (1 Kings 11:23).

 

Till:

Yes, the omni-one seemed to have a knack for choosing bad eggs to be king over “his people,” but that is another debate for another time if Turkel would care to pursue it.  What does it have to do with the inconsistencies in Joshua about fulfillments of the land promise? 

 

What was that that Turkel said about “fluff” and “irrelevant distractions”?

 

Turkel:

In terms of the obligations of the “tenants,” it is obvious that within any feudal structure, the occupants of a land were subject to the lord of the land, and that lack of fulfillment of obligations brought about penalties. The Moabite inscription speaks of the Moabite deity Chemosh being angry with “his land” and delivering judgment, though the cause of the anger is not specified. The Assyrian king Esarhaddon authorized a record noting that ethical and cultic offenses by the Babylonian people provoked the wrath of the Baylonian god Marduk, resulting in the cursing and desolation of Babylon.

 

Till:

Yes, this was another superstitious belief of the times.  Good fortune meant that one was pleasing his god, but misfortune meant that one had “done that which was evil” in the sight of his god, so how does this explain that Yahweh made a clear, no-strings-attached land promise to the Israelites that he didn’t keep?  What did Turkel say about “fluff” and “irrelevant distractions”?

 

Turkel:

 In the OT we read of Yahweh's complaint that the Israelites have “defiled my land” (Jer. 2:7, 16:18) with their iniquity and of impending judgment for sins.

 

Till:

Yes, and we also read in the OT that Yahweh made an unconditional land promise to the Israelites.  I quoted it in my article, but it is apparently time to look at it again.  I have been quoting the ASV and KJV, but I’m going to use the NRSV here, with Yahweh substituted for “the LORD,” so that the modern language might make the reading clearer to Turkel.  I will also emphasize in bold print certain expressions to show that the promise made here was independent of the conduct of the Israelites and therefore had to be an unconditional promise.

 

Deuteronomy 9:1  Hear, O Israel! You are about to cross the Jordan today, to go in and dispossess nations larger and mightier than you, great cities, fortified to the heavens,

 

 

What were these nations “mightier” than the Israelites?  That was explained in Deuteronomy 7:1, “When Yahweh your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy, and he clears away many nations before you--the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations mightier and more numerous than you....”

 

So the nations larger and mightier than the Israelites were the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites.  Keep an eye on these names.

 

Deuteronomy 9:2  a strong and tall people, the offspring of the Anakim, whom you know. You have heard it said of them, "Who can stand up to the Anakim?"

 

3  Know then today that Yahweh your God is the one who crosses over before you as a devouring fire; he will defeat them and subdue them before you, so that you may dispossess and destroy them quickly, as Yahweh has promised you.

 

Notice the emphatic language of this verse.  “Moses” didn’t say that Yahweh might defeat these nations or that he would defeat them if the Israelites were good little children of God.  He emphatically said that Yahweh will defeat them, just as Yahweh has promised you.  Notice also that Yahweh said that he would dispossess and destroy these nations quickly.  I’ll return to this verse when we come to Turkel’s “wild-beastie” quibble later on.

 

Deuteronomy 9:4  When Yahweh your God thrusts them out before you, do not say to yourself, "It is because of my righteousness that Yahweh has brought me in to occupy this land"; it is rather because of the wickedness of these nations that Yahweh is dispossessing them before you.

 

Turkel criticized my use of emphatic devices like underlining, but sometimes it is necessary to draw a picture for those who have deluded themselves into believing that the Bible is inerrant.  Notice that the verse above did not say if Yahweh thrusts out these nations; it said when Yahweh thrusts them out.  “Moses” told the people that when these nations had been thrust out before them, they should not think that Yahweh had done this for their own righteousness but rather because of the wickedness of the nations that Yahweh would drive out.  Keep an eye on what “Moses” said about the righteousness of these people whom Yahweh was going to give the land to.

 

Deuteronomy 9:5  It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to occupy their land; but because of the wickedness of these nations Yahweh your God is dispossessing them before you, in order to fulfill the promise that Yahweh made on oath to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

 

There are not enough tangents for Turkel to lead us into that will ever distract me from bearing down on what this verse says.  It repeated what “Moses” had said in the verse before, i.e., it wasn’t because of the righteousness of the Israelites but because of the wickedness of the nations in Canaan that Yahweh was driving them out.  Then “Moses” gave a second reason why Yahweh was dispossessing the other nations so that the Israelites could have the land despite their unrighteousness: Yahweh had to fulfill the promise he had made with an oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

Now if Yahweh had sworn with an oath to give this land to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he could not renege on that promise, because Yahweh cannot lie, can he?.  Turkel will try later to argue that the land promise was conditional on the good behavior of the Israelites, but the rest of Deuteronomy 9 shoots that “explanation” so full of holes that it will never float.

 

Deuteronomy 9:6  Know, then, that Yahweh your God is not giving you this good land to occupy because of your righteousness; for you are a stubborn people.

 

Now why would Yahweh have said this at this particular time but then later say, “Well, you people have been too unrighteous for me to keep my land promise”?  Could the unrighteousness of the people later exceed their unrighteousness that “Moses” went on to catalog in this chapter?

 

Deuteronomy 9:7  Remember and do not forget how you provoked Yahweh your God to wrath in the wilderness; you have been rebellious against Yahweh from the day you came out of the land of Egypt until you came to this place.

 

If the Israelites had been rebellious against Yahweh from the day they came out of Egypt until the day “Moses” made this speech to them but Yahweh was still going to give them the land anyway, what could they have possibly done later that would have been bad enough to provoke Yahweh to withdraw the land promise?  This is a problem Turkel must explain in addition to the problem of an omni-max deity’s making a promise without apparently knowing that the subjects of his promise would later prove so wicked that he would have to withhold the promise.

 

Just look at the sins of these people that “Moses” went on to catalog.

 

Deuteronomy 9:8  Even at Horeb you provoked Yahweh to wrath, and Yahweh was so angry with you that he was ready to destroy you.

9  When I went up the mountain to receive the stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant that Yahweh made with you, I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water.

10  And Yahweh gave me the two stone tablets written with the finger of God; on them were all the words that Yahweh had spoken to you at the mountain out of the fire on the day of the assembly.

11  At the end of forty days and forty nights Yahweh gave me the two stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant.

12  Then Yahweh said to me, “Get up, go down quickly from here, for your people whom you have brought from Egypt have acted corruptly. They have been quick to turn from the way that I commanded them; they have cast an image for themselves.”

13  Furthermore Yahweh said to me, “I have seen that this people is indeed a stubborn people.

14  Let me alone that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make of you a nation mightier and more numerous than they.”

15  So I turned and went down from the mountain, while the mountain was ablaze; the two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands.

16  Then I saw that you had indeed sinned against Yahweh your God, by casting for yourselves an image of a calf; you had been quick to turn from the way that Yahweh had commanded you.

17  So I took hold of the two tablets and flung them from my two hands, smashing them before your eyes.

18  Then I lay prostrate before Yahweh as before, forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water, because of all the sin you had committed, provoking Yahweh by doing what was evil in his sight.

19  For I was afraid that the anger that Yahweh bore against you was so fierce that he would destroy you. But Yahweh listened to me that time also.

20  Yahweh was so angry with Aaron that he was ready to destroy him, but I interceded also on behalf of Aaron at that same time.

21  Then I took the sinful thing you had made, the calf, and burned it with fire and crushed it, grinding it thoroughly, until it was reduced to dust; and I threw the dust of it into the stream that runs down the mountain.

22  At Taberah also, and at Massah, and at Kibroth-hattaavah, you provoked  Yahweh to wrath.

23  And when Yahweh sent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying, “Go up and occupy the land that I have given you,” you rebelled against the command of Yahweh your God, neither trusting him nor obeying him.

24  You have been rebellious against Yahweh as long as he has known you.

25  Throughout the forty days and forty nights that I lay prostrate before Yahweh when Yahweh intended to destroy you,

26  I prayed to Yahweh and said, “Lord GOD, do not destroy the people who are your very own possession, whom you redeemed in your greatness, whom you brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand.

27  Remember your servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; pay no attention to the stubbornness of this people, their wickedness and their sin,

28 otherwise the land from which you have brought us might say, ‘Because Yahweh was not able to bring them into the land that he promised them, and because he hated them, he has brought them out to let them die in the wilderness.’

29  For they are the people of your very own possession, whom you brought out by your great power and by your outstretched arm.”

 

Even after all of this, Yahweh told the Israelites that he was going to give them the land promised to the patriarchs despite their own unrighteousness, so if the disobedience, rebellion, and unrighteousness of the Israelites weren’t sufficient cause for Yahweh to withhold renewing the land promise at this time, why did their unrighteousness later become a reason why Yahweh withheld some of the land he promised?  After all, Yahweh is supposed to be unchanging, the same yesterday, today, and forever, isn’t he, so why was extreme unrighteousness not a reason to withhold the land from the Israelites as they were about to enter Canaan but later it was?  This is a problem that Turkel must explain, and, needless to say, he hasn’t done it yet.

 

Turkel:

In terms of our topic at hand, the relevance of this data is that even the original promise of Genesis, by the thinking of the ancients, was not a matter of “here it is with no strings attached.” Abraham would have expected the grant of land to be accompanied by conditions; one did not merely occupy land without some sort of nod to the landlord, and with no expectation that one could do as one pleased.

 

Till:

So Turkel is even able to read Abraham’s mind?  Anyway, as I have shown above, the renewal of the land promise was made without conditions, despite the rebellion, disobedience, and unrighteousness of the Israelites from the day they left Egypt, so if Yahweh wanted to look for conditions, he had plenty that he could have found at this time if his intention was to make the promise conditional.  Deuteronomy 9, however, is very clear in saying that Yahweh was going to drive out the nations and give the land to the Israelites despite their unrighteousness and that he was going to do this because of the promise he had made with an oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

Turkel at this point has failed to explain away the inconsistency, and as we continue on, we will see that he finished his rebuttal without ever finding a solution to this problem.

 I’ll continue in Part (4). 

Editor's Note: Farrell Till's rebuttal continues here

+++++++++++++++++++++  

Tilling Turkel’s “Land Ahoy” - Part 4

-------------------------------------------------

Land Ahoy!

Rebuttal to "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise"

published by

 Robert Turkel at  http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_WRE.html

under the pseudonym James Patrick Holding

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Turkel:

We would consider now in this context [of Yahweh’s land promise] numerous cites which speak of the land in terms of a yarash:

 

Till:

Well, we are off to the races again, to see Turkel, whose skills in Hebrew go little beyond being able to cut and paste from an electronic version of Strong’s concordance, show us subtleties in the Hebrew text that all of the scholars who worked on the various English versions overlooked.

 

Turkel:

Gen. 15:7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give (nathan) thee this land to inherit it.

 

Gen. 17:7-11 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give (nathan) unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

 

Two words here deserve special attention. The word “everlasting” is the Hebrew 'olam, a word that is often taken to mean “forever” but actually means “in perpetuity”.

 

Till:

Hmm, Turkel likes to quote Strong, so I’ll go to my electronic version of it and quote what it says about ‘olam.

 

5769. 'owlam, o-lawm'; or  'olam, o-lawm'; from H5956; prop. concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; gen. time out of mind (past or fut.), i.e. (practically) eternity; freq. adv. (espec. with prep. pref.) always:--always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Comp. H5331, H5703.

 

Turkel wants to argue that the word meant “perpetual” in the text he quoted, but has he checked the meaning of this word in a dictionary?  If so, he should have noticed that it means “eternal, everlasting, continual,” and his own source gave “eternity,” “always,” and “eternal” as meanings of ‘olam.   I noticed that he didn’t emphasize “everlasting possession” in bold print as he emphasized other expressions.  That, of course, is because he apparently wants to argue that the promise meant that Abraham’s descendants would be given the land only temporarily or “in perpetuity” or, jumping ahead to find another of his quibbles, “as long as there are Jews to take part in the covenant.”  What does Turkel think he is gaining with such a strained argument as this?  Is he going to claim that there were no Jews “to take part in the covenant” in the time of Joshua when it was first said that all the land and all that Yahweh had sworn to the Israelites through Moses had been given to them but then later said that all the land had not been given and that there was still “much land” to be possessed?  I’ll say more later about Turkel’s apparent attempt to make the land promise short-lived, but first I want to take a look at how Jews translated their own sacred literature.  Here is the JPS version of the text in Genesis 17.

 

Abram threw himself on his face; and God spoke to him further, “As for Me, this is My covenant with you: You shall be the father of a multitude of nations.  And you shall no longer be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I make you the father of a multitude of nations.  I will make you exceedingly fertile, and make nations of you; and kings shall come forth from you.  I will maintain My covenant between Me and you, and your offspring to come, as an everlasting covenant throughout the ages, to be God to you and to your offspring to come.  I assign the land you sojourn in to you and your offspring to come, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting holding.  I will be your God (vs:3-8).

 

The introduction to the JPS names the principal Hebrew scholars who worked on this translation.  Harry M. Orlinsky, professor of Bible at Hebrew Union College--Jewish Institute of Religion, was the editor-in-chief, and his panel of assistant editors included H. L. Ginsberg, professor of Bible at the Jewish Theological Seminary, and  Ephraim A. Speiser, professor of Semitic and Oriental Languages at the University of Pennsylvania. The names of associates on the translation panel were also given.  It’s a pity that Robert Turkel wasn’t present during the translation work to tell them that ‘olam  didn’t mean everlasting but only “in perpetuity” for “as long as there are Jews to take part in the covenant.”  Anyway, I wonder if Turkel will argue that there are no longer any Jews to take part in the covenant or perhaps that there were no Jews in the time of Joshua to take part in the covenant.  Who knows what a desperate biblical inerrantist will resort to when he is looking for an explanation to a discrepancy?

 

After I read through this section of Turkel’s “rebuttal,” I wondered what he thought he was proving.  How does anything in this entire section explain why Yahweh, on the eve of the Israelite crossing of the Jordan into Canaan, renewed the promise to the Israelites that I quoted and explicated in Part (3) of my reply.  Throughout that text, Yahweh, presumably speaking through Moses, told the Israelites that he wasn’t going to give them the land because of their righteousness, because in reality they had been an unrighteous, rebellious, stubborn  people from the day they left Egypt, but that he was giving them the land because of (1) the wickedness of the nations living there and (2) to fulfill the promise he had made with an oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  How does Turkel expect to explain this problem by arguing that the promise was only temporary?  If the promise never was fulfilled, then it wasn’t even temporary, because a promise would have to be fulfilled at least for a time before it could be correctly called even a temporary fulfillment.  The problem for Turkel is that (1) the Israelites never did, even temporarily, possess all the land the soles of their feet had trod upon from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea, and (2) the books of Joshua and Judges are on-again, off-again about the fulfillment.  First, the Israelites were given all the land and everything Yahweh had promised them, and then they were not given all of the land.  X and not X cannot both be true.

 

Where has Turkel said anything that explains away these inconsistencies?  The longer I go in replying to his tangent, the more I think about his gall in saying that my articles are about 90% “fluff” and “irrelevant distractions.”

 

Turkel:

 It is used to indicate a state intended to be permanent within the context offered, as in 1 Samuel 1:22:

 

Till:

Hmm, more transitional fluff followed by bold-print emphasis, as if readers could not see the term “for ever“ and know what it meant.

 

Turkel:

But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the LORD, and there abide for ever.

 

Verse 28 says, “Therefore also I have lent him to the LORD; as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the LORD. And he worshipped the LORD there.” Therefore "everlasting" does not connote a "forever" state without any conditions.

 

Till:

As I said earlier, all written languages have homographs, so we wouldn’t expect Hebrew to be any different.  Just as we determine from context whether bear means the carnivorous mammal or the verb that means “to carry” or “sustain,” so the context in 1 Samuel 1:22 shows that Hannah was not using ‘olam  in the sense of “eternal” or “everlasting,” because, as she herself noted, her son wasn’t going to live forever.

 

For those who may be unfamiliar with inerrantist tactics, I should point out that Turkel is playing a familiar game.  They will try to explain away the obvious contextual meaning of a clearly stated text by focusing on a homograph that was used with a different meaning somewhere else in the Bible.  Everette Hatcher used this ploy in our debates on the dating of Daniel.  The 5th chapter of Daniel repeatedly referred to Nebuchadnezzar as the “father” of Belshazzar and once referred to Belshazzar as the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar.  The contextual usages of these words clearly indicated that whoever wrote this chapter thought that Nebuchadnezzar was the father of Belshazzar in the strictest sense of the word, but Hatcher cited biblical texts where “father” and “son” were obviously used in secondary senses to mean “ancestor” and “descendant” respectively and then tried to argue that because these words were used in secondary senses elsewhere, they therefore meant ancestor and descendant in Daniel 5.  He ignored the principle of literary interpretation that says the meanings of words must be determined from the context in which they are used, and he cited no contextual evidence from Daniel 5 to support his case.  He just arbitrarily declared that the words were used in their secondary senses in this chapter.

 

Turkel is trying to play the same game.  He cited no contextual evidence in Genesis 17 to show that ‘olam was being used to mean only “in perpetuity”  for as “long as there were Jews to take part in the covenant,” and then proceeded to cite other passages where the word had some secondary meaning.  Hence, his argument is that because ‘olam  didn’t mean “everlasting” in 1 Samuel 1:22 and other passages, it didn’t mean “everlasting” in Genesis 17:8.

 

His argument is so fallacious that it hardly needs additional comment, but sometimes overkill is necessary when dealing with biblical fundamentalists.  I have already quoted the JPS version of Genesis 17:8 to point out that this translation by Jewish scholars used “everlasting” both times that the word ‘olam  was used in the verses I quoted, but this word was used two other times (vs:13, 19) in chapter 17, and the JPS used “everlasting” to translate it in these verses too.  I have checked other versions and found that the ASV used “everlasting” all four times; the NKJV used “everlasting” all four times; the RSV used “everlasting” all four times; the NASV used “everlasting” all four times; and the NAB used “throughout the ages” in verse 7, “permanent possession” in verse 8, and “everlasting” in verses 13 and 19. I have checked various other translations and found that they used such terms as “permanent,” “age-during,” “everlasting,” and “forever,” but along comes Turkel to tell all of the scholars who worked on these translations, “Hey, ‘olam didn’t mean ‘everlasting’ or ‘forever’; it just meant for as long as there were Jews to take part in the covenant, and I know this, because I have Strong’s concordance.”

 

Turkel”

 (However, as we will see later, “forever” is nevertheless the term under which Israel does "possess" the land, so that the meaning is, “as long as there are Jews to take part in the covenant”.)

 

Till:

Is Turkel implying that in the time of Joshua and the Judges, there were no Jews “to take part in the covenant,” and so that was why Yahweh didn’t give them all of the land?  If so, let him explain why just before the Hebrews crossed the Jordan into Canaan, Yahweh told them he would drive out seven nations greater and mightier than they and give them the land, not because of their own righteousness, because they were an unrighteous rebellious people and had been ever since they left Egypt, but (1) because of the wickedness of the nations then living in the land, and (2) because of the promise he had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Did the omni-one not know at this time that the Israelites would become even more unrighteous--or whatever Turkel thinks caused Yahweh to renege on his promise--or did the omni-one not know that there would be no Jews “to take part in the covenant”--if this is what Turkel is trying to argue?

 

 

Turkel:

The word "possession" is not yarash but 'achuzzah, something seized. It is essentially synonymous with yarash and is used in Lev. 25:24:

 

Till:

So if ‘achuzzah is “essentially synonymous” with yarash, why bring such “fluff“ and “irrelevant distraction” into the debate?   I suspect it is Turkel’s way of saying, “Hey, look at me; I know Hebrew.”  Those who don’t know that he is just getting his information from Strong’s may be impressed but not those who are a bit more informed in biblical matters.

 

Turkel:

The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land.

 

Once again, "possession" does not equate with property ownership in the modern sense.

 

Till:

Hmm, I wonder why Turkel quoted only this one verse.  Why didn’t he quote more of the context and let his readers see that this passage wasn’t saying that land couldn’t be sold, period?

 

Leviticus 25:23  'The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants.

24  Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land.

25  If one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest relative is to come and redeem what his countryman has sold.

26  If, however, a man has no one to redeem it for him but he himself prospers and acquires sufficient means to redeem it,

27  he is to determine the value for the years since he sold it and refund the balance to the man to whom he sold it; he can then go back to his own property.

28  But if he does not acquire the means to repay him, what he sold will remain in the possession of the buyer until the Year of Jubilee. It will be returned in the Jubilee, and he can then go back to his property.

 

Everyone should keep an eye on Turkel, because I have learned that he is not above distorting the meaning of a statement by quoting it out of context.  The full context quoted above shows that land was personal property that could be sold but could not be sold  permanently.  The original owner retained a right of redemption, and if he lacked the money to redeem it, the property would revert to him in the year of Jubilee, and he could then go back to, or repossess, his property.

 

It looks as if it is time to put to rest Turkel’s claim that possession in biblical times didn’t equate with property ownership, because there are clear indications to the contrary besides the passage just quoted above.  There was a superstition at this time that gods had different territorial domains and that Yahweh, to the Hebrews, was god of everything, but that doesn’t mean that the Hebrews didn’t have concepts of personal property.

 

The book of Joshua discusses the division of the conquered land among the different tribes, and I assume that Turkel is familiar enough with this that it will be unnecessary to cite passages that described the territorial divisions.  Territory was divided first according to tribes with the tribal boundaries defined (Josh. 13-18), but within those tribal boundaries land was alloted to families and individuals, and it became theirs.  Numbers 27:1-4 tells the plight of the daughters of Zelophehad, who had died in the wilderness.

 

Numbers 27:1  Then the daughters of Zelophehad came forward. Zelophehad was son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh son of Joseph, a member of the Manassite clans. The names of his daughters were: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.

2  They stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the leaders, and all the congregation, at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and they said,

3  “Our father died in the wilderness; he was not among the company of those who gathered themselves together against Yahweh in the company of Korah, but died for his own sin; and he had no sons.

4  Why should the name of our father be taken away from his clan because he had no son? Give to us a possession among our father's brothers.”

 

Verse 5 says that Moses took the matter to Yahweh, as Hebrew leaders routinely did in those days, and he got the following response.

 

27:6  And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying:

7  The daughters of Zelophehad are right in what they are saying; you shall indeed let them possess an inheritance among their father's brothers and pass the inheritance of their father on to them.

8  You shall also say to the Israelites, “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance on to his daughter.

9  If he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers.

10  If he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father's brothers.

11  And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to the nearest kinsman of his clan, and he shall possess it. It shall be for the Israelites a statute and ordinance, as Yahweh commanded Moses.”

 

Numbers 36 claims that when territory was allotted to the tribe of Manasseh, the daughters of Zelophehad were given their part of it.  The only restriction was that the land had to remain in the tribe, and so the daughters of Zelophehad were required to marry within their tribe so that the land would not pass through inheritance to someone in another tribe (36:6ff).  Verse 8 said that the purpose of this law was to assure that every man will possess the inheritance of his fathers and that no inheritance would pass from one tribe to another.  Unless the Israelites had a concept of individual possession of property, such transfers from one tribe to another could not have happened.  This text clearly indicates that within their tribal territories, individuals possessed their own land, which was passed from them to their heirs.

 

A story in Ruth shows that land individually owned could be sold, and the only restriction was that it had to be sold within the family, as directed in the passage just quoted.

 

Ruth 4:1  No sooner had Boaz gone up to the gate and sat down there than the next-of-kin, of whom Boaz had spoken, came passing by. So Boaz said, “Come over, friend; sit down here.” And he went over and sat down.

2  Then Boaz took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, “Sit down here”; so they sat down.

3  He then said to the next-of-kin, “Naomi, who has come back from the country of Moab, is selling the parcel of land that belonged to our kinsman Elimelech.

4  So I thought I would tell you of it, and say: Buy it in the presence of those sitting here, and in the presence of the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, redeem it; but if you will not, tell me, so that I may know; for there is no one prior to you to redeem it, and I come after you.” So he said, “I will redeem it.”

5  Then Boaz said, “The day you acquire the field from the hand of Naomi, you are also acquiring Ruth the Moabite, the widow of the dead man, to maintain the dead man's name on his inheritance.”

6  At this, the next-of-kin said, “I cannot redeem it for myself without damaging my own inheritance. Take my right of redemption yourself, for I cannot redeem it.”

7  Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging: to confirm a transaction, the one took off a sandal and gave it to the other; this was the manner of attesting in Israel.

8  So when the next-of-kin said to Boaz, “Acquire it for yourself,” he took off his sandal.

9  Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, “Today you are witnesses that I have acquired from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and Mahlon.

10  I have also acquired Ruth the Moabite, the wife of Mahlon, to be my wife, to maintain the dead man's name on his inheritance, in order that the name of the dead may not be cut off from his kindred and from the gate of his native place; today you are witnesses.”

 

When Naomi’s husband Elimelech had died, Naomi acquired his “parcel of land” by inheritance, and she was entitled to sell it as long as the nearest of kin was given first dibs.  This story shows that Turkel’s claim that private ownership of property was not known in Israel is contrary to biblical evidence.

 

Another story that confirms the existence of private ownership of property is in 1 Kings 21.  A man named Naboth owned a vineyard that was adjacent to king Ahab’s palace, and Ahab wanted it.  He offered to buy it or trade for it, but Naboth refused.

 

1 Kings 21:2  And Ahab said to Naboth, “Give me your vineyard, so that I may have it for a vegetable garden, because it is near my house; I will give you a better vineyard for it; or, if it seems good to you, I will give you its value in money.”

3  But Naboth said to Ahab, “Yahweh forbid that I should give you my ancestral inheritance.”

4  Ahab went home resentful and sullen because of what Naboth the Jezreelite had said to him; for he had said, “I will not give you my ancestral inheritance.” He lay down on his bed, turned away his face, and would not eat.

 

Naboth’s refusal to sell his vineyard to Ahab resulted in the conspiracy to murder Naboth instigated by Ahab’s wife Jezebeel, but this story shows that there was a concept of private ownership of property, which could be transferred by sale or barter.  Another interesting aspect of this story is that the word “give” [highlighted] appeared five times, and each time it was translated from the Hebrew word nathan; hence, nathan [give] was used in the Old Testament to convey the sense of transferring ownership. 

 

There were OT condemnations of removing ancient boundaries or landmarks that the “fathers had set” (Prov. 22:28; 23:10).  The last of these references condemned entering “the fields of the fatherless,” an offense that could not have been possible unless the fatherless had fields to enter, and in Deuteronomy 19:14 there was a direct law against tampering with property landmarks.

 

Deuteronomy 19:14  You must not move your neighbor's boundary marker, set up by former generations, on the property that will be allotted to you in the land that Yahweh your God is giving you to possess.

 

The existence of such a law as this shows that private ownership of property was indeed a concept in ancient Israel, so when Yahweh gave the land to the people to possess, it was divided along tribal boundaries as outlined in Joshua, and then the property within that tribal territory was divided among the individual tribal members.  The property became theirs, and they could sell it.  Unless this is so, the law above and the stories of Boaz’s transaction and Ahab’s attempt to buy Naboth’s vineyard make no sense.  When Joshua died, he was buried “on the border of his inheritance in Timnath-sera” (Josh. 24:30).  The transferral of this property to Joshua was recorded earlier in this book.

 

 

Joshua 19:49  When they had finished distributing the several territories of the land as inheritances, the Israelites gave an inheritance among them to Joshua son of Nun.

50  By command of Yahweh they gave him the town that he asked for, Timnath-serah in the hill country of Ephraim; he rebuilt the town, and settled in it.

 

So the text says that Joshua was not only given his own land, on which he rebuilt a town, but that Yahweh had commanded that it be given to him.  All of Turkel’s attempts to prove that private ownership didn’t exist in ancient Israel has gone down the tube.

 

Turkel:

Note further that we see the first full expression of the future landlord-tenant relationship in which it is indicated that having the land as a "possession" requires following certain rules. Here, that covenant is symbolized by circumcision, the entry ritual into the covenant relationship.

 

Till:

Yes, indeed, the text in Genesis 17 did say that all male children had to be circumcised on the eighth day, or else they would be “cut off” from their people (v:14).  I assume that Turkel recognizes that “cut off” was an expression that meant “to kill,” but if he doesn’t know this and wants to argue it, I’m here ready to go.  All I’ll want are links on his site so that his readers will know where to go to see him unable to defend another of his positions. I find it ironic that “cut off” was used to denote the killing of a male infant who hadn’t been circumcised.  (Who says that Yahweh didn’t have a sense of humor?) If Turkel wants to defend such a barbaric god as this, well, that would be just like him, wouldn’t it?  I’m sure that Turkel will find some subtleties in the Hebrew text that will make killing an infant not so barbaric as it seems to us today.  Why, the Hebrews probably had some “ancient concept” about killing uncircumcised babies that would make it seem downright logical.

 

Anyway, I have to ask Turkel what this has to do with the problems I discussed in my article and outlined in this reply: (1) Yahweh promised the Israelites that, despite their own unrighteousness, he was going to give them all the land in Canaan in order to fulfill his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but it never happened.  (2)  The book of Joshua first said that Yahweh had given them all the land and everything Yahweh had promised through Moses, and then this book and Judges backpedaled and said that all the land had not been given and that there remained “much land” to possess.  X and not X cannot both be true.

 

Turkel:

(As a side note, let it not be argued as a distraction by our opponent that this passage may be taken to indicate that circumcision was the sole element of human obedience within the covenant! Circumcision as the entry ritual is the part representing the whole, and would have been understood as such. If our opponent wishes to address the nature of symbols and actions within a Semitic thought-context, he will have to do so in another debate rather than attempt a distraction here from the main issue.)

 

Till:

Well, I’m sure Turkel would be very offended if I attempted a “distraction” on this issue, because he has stuck right to the subject and has said nothing that could even remotely be considered “fluff” or “irrelevant distraction.”

 

Turkel:

Exod. 19:5-6 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

 

Though no word for possession is used here, the clear implication is that if the people keep the covenant, then Yahweh will execute His privilege and right as owner of all the earth to provide the people with the means to be a nation.

 

Till:

Yes, I’m aware of this passage and all of the others that Turkel quoted below to try to establish that the land promise was conditional, but as I said in my article, the land promise could not have been simultaneously both conditional and unconditional. I also developed that point more at length in Part (3), where I thoroughly explicated Deuteronomy 9 to show that although the Israelites had been disobedient, rebellious, and generally unrighteous from the day they left Egypt until they reached the plains of Moab to cross the Jordan River, Yahweh, nevertheless,  said to them that he was going to give them the land anyway, because of (1) the wickedness of the nations in Canaan, and (2) the promise he had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  So if all the sins that “Moses” had cataloged in Deuteronomy 9 were not sufficient to cause Yahweh to withhold his land promise, then how could anything else they later did have been bad enough to make Yahweh renege?

 

This is the crux of the matter, and Turkel has tap danced all around it in his “rebuttal.”  All of the texts that he quoted below say, “If you obey my laws and keep my covenant, I will give you the land that I promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” but Deuteronomy 9 said that Yahweh was giving the land to the Israelites to possess regardless of their unrighteousness.  Let’s see Turkel reconcile these two.  I am going to juxtapose them below to simplify his task.

 

1.  Yahweh said to the Israelites that if they would obey his voice and keep his covenant, he would give them the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

2.  Yahweh said that despite the disobedience, rebellion, and unrighteousness of the Israelites from the day they left Egypt until they reached the Jordan River, he, nevertheless,  was going to give them the land that had been promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

So let’s see Turkel reconcile the two statements.  He need not quote any more passages where conditions were attached to the land promise, because I acknowledged in my article that passages like Exodus 23:2-33 did attach conditions but that “the land promise could not have been both conditional and unconditional at the same time.”  The existence of both unconditional and conditional land promises in the OT is simply another of many examples of inconsistency in the biblical text, so what else is new?  Turkel’s task is to explain to us how Deuteronomy 9 allowed for any conditions to the promise.  If this text allowed for no conditions, based on disobedience and rebellion of the Israelites, then the texts that did stipulate conditions become examples of inconsistency in the biblical text.

 

Didn’t Turkel say that the issue in this debate was “the internal consistency of the Biblical record”?  I believe he did, right in his opening paragraph, so it is way past time for him to get down to the real issue in this debate and explain to us how Deuteronomy 9 is consistent with the passages he quoted above and below.

 

Oh, by the way, Turkel said above that “if the people keep the covenant, then Yahweh will execute His privilege and right as owner of all the earth to provide the people with the means to be a nation“ and prior to that, he said that the rite of circumcision was “the entry ritual“ into a covenant relationship with God.  Now let’s look at those two statements.  Turkel is arguing that breaking the covenant relationship with Yahweh would have caused him to withhold the land promised to the patriarchs and that this was made clear in passages like Exodus 19:5-6 that attached an “if” to the promise.  If the Israelites obeyed Yahweh’s voice and kept Yahweh’s covenant, he would, by implication, give them the land he had promised to the patriarchs, but if circumcision was the “entry rite” into the covenant, the Israelites to whom Yahweh promised the land in Deuteronomy 9 had not kept the covenant at all, because they had not kept the rite of circumcision while they were in the wilderness.  We know this from the following text in Joshua, which recorded an incident that happened after the Israelites had crossed the Jordan into Canaan.

 

Joshua 5:2  At that time the LORD said to Joshua, "Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelites a second time."

3  So Joshua made flint knives, and circumcised the Israelites at Gibeath-haaraloth.

4  This is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: all the males of the people who came out of Egypt, all the warriors, had died during the journey through the wilderness after they had come out of Egypt.

5  Although all the people who came out had been circumcised, yet all the people born on the journey through the wilderness after they had come out of Egypt had not been circumcised.

6  For the Israelites traveled forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, the warriors who came out of Egypt, perished, not having listened to the voice of Yahweh. To them Yahweh swore that he would not let them see the land that he had sworn to their ancestors to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey.

 

7  So it was their children, whom he raised up in their place, that Joshua circumcised; for they were uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised on the way.

8  When the circumcising of all the nation was done, they remained in their places in the camp until they were healed.

 

So, according to Turkel, (1) circumcision was the entry ritual into a covenant relationship with Yahweh, and (2) if the Israelites would hear the voice of Yahweh and keep his covenant, Yahweh would give them the land promised to the patriarchs, but Yahweh promised in Deuteronomy 9 that he was going to give them the land despite their continual disobedience from the day they came out of Egypt, but the Israelites to whom he made this promise hadn’t even kept the covenant entry ritual of circumcision.

 

What kind of wiggling and squirming will Turkel resort to in trying to get himself out of this mess?

 

Turkel:

Deut. 1:8 Behold, I have set (nathan) the land before you: go in and possess (yarash) the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give (nathan) unto them and to their seed after them.

 

Till:

And this text does what to explain the inconsistencies that I have explained and explained and explained above?

 

I trust readers noticed that the passage Turkel just quoted did not stipulate any conditions.  It simply said that the Israelites were to go in and possess the land that Yahweh had sworn to give to the patriarchs.

 

Turkel:

Deut. 1:21 Behold, the LORD thy God hath set the land before thee: go up and possess (yarash) it, as the LORD God of thy fathers hath said unto thee; fear not, neither be discouraged. (cf. Deut. 1:39, 2:31,

 

Till:

Ditto.

 

Turkel:

Deut. 3:18-20 And I commanded you at that time, saying, The LORD your God hath given you this land to possess (yarash) it: ye shall pass over armed before your brethren the children of Israel, all that are meet for the war. But your wives, and your little ones, and your cattle, (for I know that ye have much cattle,) shall abide in your cities which I have given you; Until the LORD have given rest unto your brethren, as well as unto you, and until they also possess (yarash) the land which the LORD your God hath given them beyond Jordan: and then shall ye return every man unto his possession (yerushshah), which I have given you.

 

Till:

This is not a text that Turkel wants readers to become familiar with.  I have already quoted it to show that Yahweh would give rest to the brethren of those who remained in the cities after that they had possessed the land that Yahweh was giving them, and Joshua 21:43 says that Yahweh had given to Israel all the land that he had sworn to their fathers, and then they “had rest,” according to all that Yahweh had sworn to their fathers.  Then later, the books of Joshua and Judges backpedaled and said that all the land had not been given to Israel and that there remained “much land” to possess.

 

How does Turkel explain this inconsistency?  He has yet to address it.  All he has done is lead us into a long tangent of biblical quotations that do nothing at all to explain the inconsistencies identified in my article and further explicated in this reply.

 

I hope that readers noticed above that the last text Turkel quoted spoke of every man returning to his possession that Yahweh had given him.  It sounds very much like personal ownership of property.

 

Turkel:

Deut. 4:1-6 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess (yarash) the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth (nathan) you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you. But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day. Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

 

Here a direct link is made between obeying the laws and keeping possession of the land Yahweh has given.

 

Till:

This proves nothing more than my replies to the texts where I pointed out that my article acknowledged that some biblical passages did state conditions.  If Turkel had been more attentive to my article, perhaps he could have saved himself and us a lot of time by not stringing together all of these passages that stipulated nothing more than what I had acknowledged in my article.  My argument is that Deuteronomy 9 clearly stated that despite the disobedience and unrighteousness of the Israelites, Yahweh was going to give them the land anyway in order to fulfill his promise to the patriarchs. If, as he presumably said in Deuteronomy 9, Yahweh had to give the land to the unrighteous Israelites in order to keep his promise to the patriarchs, he could not have later withheld that promise because of Israelite disobedience.  That is the problem, and Turkel hasn’t even tried to touch it.

 

This is a simple matter of text A saying X, whereas texts B, C, and D say not X.  I could write an article ten times as long as these replies to Turkel in which I analyzed this kind of textual inconsistency in the Bible.  Turkel is trying to argue that the texts he is quoting in this string said that Yahweh would give the land to the Israelites if they heard his voice and kept his covenant.  At the same time, Turkel has argued that circumcision was the “entry ritual” into Yahweh’s covenant, so if Turkel is right in both cases, why did Yahweh tell the unrighteous rebellious Israelites in Deuteronomy 9 that he was going to give them the land, even though they had been rebellious from the day they left Egypt and had not kept the “entry ritual” of circumcision while they were in the wilderness?

 

These are problems in Turkel’s position that he must explain.

 

Turkel:

 Even more concise, and describing the “everlasting” nature of the covenant, is Deut. 4:25-31:

 

When thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger: I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed. And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you. And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

 

Till:

Needless to say, there was a bit of after-the-fact predicting here, but even if Turkel could prove--and he can’t--that this statement was made by Moses just before crossing into Canaan, he would have shown nothing except what I said above.  Sometimes text A in the
Bible says X, and then texts B, C, and D say not X.  Deuteronomy 9 says X (the promise is unconditional, and the land must be given to the Israelites despite their unrighteousness), and the passages that Turkel has strung together in this tangent are saying not X (the land promise was conditional on hearing the voice of Yahweh and keeping his covenant).  As I said in my article, both cannot be right, because the land promise could not have been both conditional and unconditional.  To argue otherwise would be to argue against the logical law of contradiction and say that it is possible for X and not X to be both true.

 

This is the problem.  Turkel needs to address it, but he would apparently rather waste our time on tangents like this string of scriptures.  Didn’t he say something about my “fluff” and “irrelevant distractions”?  I believe he did.

 

Turkel:

Deut. 6:17-18 Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee. And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the LORD: that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess (yarash) the good land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers,

 

Till:

Ditto.

 

Turkel:

Deut. 7:1-4 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

 

Till:

Ditto here too, with one additional observation.  Yahweh did not keep his promise here, because he did not cast out these nations and “deliver them“ to the Israelites.

 

Joshua 16:8  From Tappuah the boundary goes westward to the Wadi Kanah, and ends at the sea. Such is the inheritance of the tribe of the Ephraimites by their families,

9  together with the towns that were set apart for the Ephraimites within the inheritance of the Manassites, all those towns with their villages.

10  They did not, however, drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer: so the Canaanites have lived within Ephraim to this day but have been made to do forced labor.

 

Notice that the Canaanites were in the list of nations that Yahweh said he would drive out in the passage that Turkel just quoted.  Notice also that verse 10 above said that the “Canaanites have lived with Ephraim to this day.”  The expression in bold print indicates that the Canaanites had lived in Ephraim for an extended period of time, because “to this day” would make no sense if the person writing this had lived within just a few years of the conquest.

 

Joshua 17:11  Within Issachar and Asher, Manasseh had Beth-shean and its villages, Ibleam and its villages, the inhabitants of Dor and its villages, the inhabitants of En-dor and its villages, the inhabitants of Taanach and its villages, and the inhabitants of Megiddo and its villages (the third is Naphath).

12  Yet the Manassites could not take possession of those towns; but the Canaanites continued to live in that land.

13  But when the Israelites grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not utterly drive them out.

 

So here is another text that said that the Israelites could not drive out the Canaanites or take possession of some of their towns, even though the text Turkel quoted has Yahweh saying that he would drive out and “utterly destroy” the Canaanites, along with all of the six other nations.  The consistency of the Biblical record is the issue in this debate--as Turkel noted at the very beginning of his “reply”--so when is he going to address such inconsistencies as this related to the land promise?

 

Judges 1:19  Yahweh was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron.

20  Hebron was given to Caleb, as Moses had said; and he drove out from it the three sons of Anak.

21  But the Benjaminites did not drive out the Jebusites who lived in Jerusalem; so the Jebusites have lived in Jerusalem among the Benjaminites to this day.

 

The context of the verses preceding #19 shows that Judah was fighting against the Canaanites at this time.  With Yahweh fighting with Judah, they took possession of the hill country, but they could not drive out the inhabitants [Canaanites] of the plain, because they had chariots of iron.  (Does Turkel ever get embarrassed trying to defend this kind of nonsense?)  The Benjaminites could not drive out the Jebusites from Jerusalem, and so the Jebusites had lived in Jerusalem to this day, but the Jebusites were one of the nations that Yahweh said (in the passage Turkel quoted above) he would drive out and “utterly destroy.”

 

Judges 1:27  Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and its villages, or Taanach and its villages, or the inhabitants of Dor and its villages, or the inhabitants of Ibleam and its villages, or the inhabitants of Megiddo and its villages; but the Canaanites continued to live in that land.

 

28  When Israel grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not in fact drive them out.

29  And Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer; but the Canaanites lived among them in Gezer.

30  Zebulun did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, or the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites lived among them, and became subject to forced labor.

31  Asher did not drive out the inhabitants of Acco, or the inhabitants of Sidon, or of Ahlab, or of Achzib, or of Helbah, or of Aphik, or of Rehob;

32  but the Asherites lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; for they did not drive them out.

33  Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh, or the inhabitants of Beth-anath, but lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; nevertheless the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became subject to forced labor for them.

34  The Amorites pressed the Danites back into the hill country; they did not allow them to come down to the plain.

35  The Amorites continued to live in Har-heres, in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim, but the hand of the house of Joseph rested heavily on them, and they became subject to forced labor.

36  The border of the Amorites ran from the ascent of Akrabbim, from Sela and upward.

 

Notice how many times this passage mentioned that the different tribes could not drive out the Canaanites, whom in Turkel’s proof text Yahweh said that he would drive out and “utterly destroy.”  Then the text shifted to the “Amorites,” which was another of the nations that Turkel’s passage--along with many others--said that Yahweh would drive out and “utterly destroy,” and all of this was said after Joshua 11:23 and 21:43-45 said that all of the land Yahweh had promised the Israelites had been given to them and that “there failed not aught of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel.”

 

As Turkel said, the consistency of the Biblical record is the issue, so Turkel needs to show the consistency in all of these conflicting statements.

 

Furthermore, verse 36 above said that the border of the Amorites “ran from the ascent of Akrabbim, from Sela and upward.”  Akrabbim was on the border of southern Canaan, and Sela was located south of the Dead Sea.  All of this was within the borders that Yahweh defined in Joshua 1:1-6, i.e., from the wilderness [of Sinai] to Lebanon and from the river Euphrates to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea.  The promise was that “every place” on which the soles of Israelite feet would tread, Yahweh would give to them as he had spoken through Moses, but the text in Judges 1, quoted above, says that the best the Israelites could do was press the Amorites into forced labor.  The issue in this debate is the consistency of the Biblical record, so Turkel needs to show us where the consistency is in these matters.

 

Turkel:

Deut. 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:

 

Deut. 8:1 All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess (yarash) the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers.

 

Deut. 10:11-13 And the LORD said unto me, Arise, take thy journey before the people, that they may go in and possess the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give unto them. And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

 

Deut. 11:8-9 Therefore shall ye keep all the commandments which I command you this day, that ye may be strong, and go in and possess the land, whither ye go to possess (yarash) it; And that ye may prolong your days in the land, which the LORD sware unto your fathers to give (nathan) unto them and to their seed, a land that floweth with milk and honey.

 

Deut. 11:22-25 For if ye shall diligently keep all these commandments which I command you, to do them, to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, and to cleave unto him; Then will the LORD drive out all these nations from before you, and ye shall possess (yarash) greater nations and mightier than yourselves. Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphrates, even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be. There shall no man be able to stand before you: for the LORD your God shall lay the fear of you and the dread of you upon all the land that ye shall tread upon, as he hath said unto you.

 

Till:

Here I need say only what I have said several times above.  The promise in Deuteronomy 9 was obviously unconditional.  Even though the Israelites had been disobedient and rebellious from the day they left Egypt and had not even kept what Turkel says is the “entry ritual” of Yahweh’s covenant, Yahweh told the Israelites that he was giving the land to them anyway in order to keep his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  How could the promise have been both conditional and unconditional?  Is it possible for X and not X to be both true?

 

That’s the problem facing Turkel.

 

 

Turkel:

Time and again, possession of the land is linked with keeping of the covenant rules--

 

Till:

And I will point out to Turkel again that the Israelites, in addition to their continual disobedience and rebellion from the day they left Egypt, had not even kept what he claims

was the “entry ritual” of Yahweh’s covenant, yet Yahweh said to them that he was giving them the land anyway in order to keep his promise to the patriarchs.

 

How can X and not X be both true?

 

If, however, Turkel wants to talk about what was said time and again about the possession of the land, I can quote some other unconditional promises.  The one made to Abraham,  in fact, had no conditions attached to it.

 

Genesis 12:6  Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land.

7  Then Yahweh appeared to Abram, and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." So he built there an altar to Yahweh, who had appeared to him.

8  From there he moved on to the hill country on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; and there he built an altar to the LORD and invoked the name of Yahweh.

 

Genesis 15:12  As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a deep and terrifying darkness descended upon him.

13  Then Yahweh said to Abram, "Know this for certain, that your offspring shall be aliens in a land that is not theirs, and shall be slaves there, and they shall be oppressed for four hundred years;

14  but I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions.

15  As for yourself, you shall go to your ancestors in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age.

16  And they shall come back here in the fourth generation; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."

17  When the sun had gone down and it was dark, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces.

18  On that day 18  On that day Yahweh made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,

19  the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites,

20  the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim,

21  the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites."

 

Genesis 17:7  I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.

8  And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding; and I will be their God."

 

In none of these accounts of the promise did Yahweh say to Abraham, “I will give all this land to your offspring if they are good guys, do what I command them, and keep my covenant.”  He made an outright promise, with no conditions attached, that he would give the land to Abraham’s descendants.  Hence, the account of Yahweh’s renewal of the promise in Deuteronomy 9 said that Yahweh was giving the land to the Israelites despite their unrighteousness because he had to do so in order to keep his promise to the patriarchs.

 

Turkel:

 [Time and again, possession of the land is linked with keeping of the covenant rules--]in exact correspondence with the ancient deity-nation, landlord-tenant relationship. At the close of the Deuteronomic treaty, the terms are most explicitly spelled out:

 

28:15, 25, 63-4 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee...The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth... And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone...

 

Such are the promises for disobedience. And yet it is also clear in the blessings portion of the treaty that the land remains as something given to Israel to have as a possession when they return to right behavior:

 

Deut. 30:1-5 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess (yarash) it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.

 

The covenant is indeed forever, in spite of any interruptions by human error. This, and the paradigm of the landlord-tenant relationship, renders our opponent's primary arguments null and void.

 

Till:

I’m sorry, but nothing that Turkel has quoted renders “our” opponent’s arguments null and void, because the law of contradiction will not allow X and not X to be simultaneously true.  I have already repeated several times my analysis of Deuteronomy 9, which had Yahweh saying that he would give the land to the Israelites despite their continual unrighteous from the day they left Egypt, because he had made a promise to the patriarchs that he had to fulfill, so I am just restating it briefly at this point.  At the time of Yahweh’s renewal of this promise, the Israelites were on the plains of Moab ready to cross the Jordan into Canaan, yet they had not at that time even kept the rite of circumcision, which Turkel claims was the “entry ritual” into the covenant.  Yahweh’s renewal of the promise at this time, under the circumstances of the Israelites’ continual rebellion and disobedience, is impossible to reconcile with other passages that did affix conditions to the promise.

 

Turkel cannot explain this problem while at the same time clinging to his belief that the biblical record is consistent on this subject.  On the other hand, I can easily explain the inconsistency.  Almost all of Turkel’s biblical quotations that affixed conditions to the promise are in the book of Deuteronomy.  Only diehard biblical fundamentalists would claim that this book was written by Moses prior to his death, which would have been prior to the Israelite crossing into Canaan.  A critical reader doesn’t even have to have an eagle’s eye to spot passages in Deuteronomy that betray its late authorship, at a time well after the alleged conquest of Israel.  In other words, when Deuteronomy was written, the author was aware of the history of Israel and Judah up to the time of the postexilic era, so the passages that Turkel quoted were presenting a retrospective view of the land promise.  Although the original land promise made to Abraham had no conditions, as can be seen in the quotations above, the author of Deuteronomy knew that the promise had not been fulfilled as originally given.  Hence, this author wrote the promise so that it would contain “ifs” and other conditions so that there would be an explanation for why Israel had never possessed all of the land within the boundaries previously defined and why Israel had not been able to drive out all of the other nations in the land of Canaan.  The D writer’s explanation was simple: the Israelites had not obeyed the voice of Yahweh and had not kept the covenant; hence, the promise had not been fulfilled in its entirety.

 

I will support this position with other examples of rationalization, but first I want to point out some passages in Deuteronomy that should convince all but diehard fundamentalists that Deuteronomy was written from a retrospective view.  The D writer knew, for example, that Israel would be taken into captivity.  This is evident from one of the very passages that Turkel quoted above, but evidently the clues went right over his head.

 

Deuteronomy 28:47  Because you did not serve Yahweh your God joyfully and with gladness of heart for the abundance of everything,

48  therefore you shall serve your enemies whom Yahweh will send against you, in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and lack of everything. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you.

49  Yahweh will bring a nation from far away, from the end of the earth, to swoop down on you like an eagle, a nation whose language you do not understand,

50  a grim-faced nation showing no respect to the old or favor to the young.

 

51  It shall consume the fruit of your livestock and the fruit of your ground until you are destroyed, leaving you neither grain, wine, and oil, nor the increase of your cattle and the issue of your flock, until it has made you perish.

52  It shall besiege you in all your towns until your high and fortified walls, in which you trusted, come down throughout your land; it shall besiege you in all ssyour towns throughout the land that Yahweh your God has given you.

 

Some scholars see the prophet Jeremiah as the Deuteronomic author, and some expressions in this passage, emphasized in bold print, do echo his style of writing. 

 

Jeremiah 28:14  For thus says Yahweh of hosts, the God of Israel: I have put an iron yoke on the neck of all these nations so that they may serve King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and they shall indeed serve him; I have even given him the wild animals.

 

Jeremiah 5:15  I am going to bring upon you a nation from far away, O house of Israel, says Yahweh. It is an enduring nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language you do not know, nor can you understand what they say.

 

Whether Jeremiah was the D author is not a crucial point, because a fair, critical examination of Deuteronomy will show that it was written from a retrospective view regardless of who the author was.  The author, for example, knew about not only the captivity but a return from the captivity.  Turkel quoted this passage but evidently missed the clues again.

 

Deuteronomy 30:1  When all these things have happened to you, the blessings and the curses that I have set before you, if you call them to mind among all the nations where Yahweh your God has driven you,

2  and return to Yahweh your God, and you and your children obey him with all your heart and with all your soul, just as I am commanding you today,

3  then Yahweh your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, gathering you again from all the peoples among whom Yahweh your God has scattered you.

4  Even if you are exiled to the ends of the world, from there Yahweh your God will gather you, and from there he will bring you back.

5 Yahweh your God will bring you into the land that your ancestors possessed, and you will possess it; he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors.

 

The D writer also knew that Israel would have kings, who would be extravagant and excessive in their affluence, and so he retrospectively wrote into the D law restrictions on this kind of ostentation.

 

Deuteronomy 17:14  When you have come into the land that Yahweh your God is giving you, and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,"

15  you may indeed set over you a king whom Yahweh your God will choose. One of your own community you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not of your own community.

16  Even so, he must not acquire many horses for himself, or return the people to Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since Yahweh has said to you, "You must never return that way again."

17  And he must not acquire many wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; also silver and gold he must not acquire in great quantity for himself.

 

The D writer apparently didn’t like the flagrant displays of wealth and affluence that were attributed to kings like Solomon, and so he retrospectively wrote into the D law a condemnation of that sort of conduct.

 

I could cite other examples of passages in Deuteronomy that show that the author was writing from a retrospective advantage, but these are sufficient to support my point.  The land promise to Abraham was unconditional, but Israelite history proved that the promise was not fulfilled in its entirety, so “explanations” were retrospectively written into the biblical text.  The “explanation” became that the land promise wasn’t entirely fulfilled, because the Israelites didn’t meet the conditions.  The D writer, however, was careless in chapter 9 and  wrote a renewal of the promise in such a way that it became irreconcilable with any claims that conditions had been attached to the promise.

 

Such revisionism wasn’t unusual.  For the sake of brevity, I will cite only one example among many that are available.  When the northern kingdom split away from Judah after Solomon’s reign, Yahweh promised that he would always keep Judah intact for the sake of David.

 

1 Kings 11:31  He [the prophet Ahijah] then said to Jeroboam: Take for yourself ten pieces; for thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, "See, I am about to tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon, and will give you ten tribes.

32  One tribe will remain his, for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city that I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel.

33  This is because he has forsaken me, worshiped Astarte the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the Ammonites, and has not walked in my ways, doing what is right in my sight and keeping my statutes and my ordinances, as his father David did.

34  Nevertheless I will not take the whole kingdom away from him but will make him ruler all the days of his life, for the sake of my servant David whom I chose and who did keep my commandments and my statutes;

35  but I will take the kingdom away from his son and give it to you--that is, the ten tribes.

36  Yet to his son I will give one tribe, so that my servant David may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I have chosen to put my name. 

 

Thereafter, references were made to kings of Judah “who did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh,” but Yahweh refused to destroy Judah because of “David’s sake,” to whom Yahweh had promised to “give a lamp to his descendants forever.”

 

2 Kings 8:18  He [Jehoram] walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab had done, for the daughter of Ahab was his wife. He did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh.

19  Yet Yahweh would not destroy Judah, for the sake of his servant David, since he had promised to give a lamp to him and to his descendants forever.

 

2 Kings 19:32  "Therefore thus says Yahweh concerning the king of Assyria: He shall not come into this city, shoot an arrow there, come before it with a shield, or cast up a siege ramp against it.

33  By the way that he came, by the same he shall return; he shall not come into this city, says Yahweh.

34  For I will defend this city to save it, for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David.”

 

2 Kings 20:4  Before Isaiah had gone out of the middle court, the word of Yahweh came to him:

5  “Turn back, and say to Hezekiah prince of my people, Thus says Yahweh, the God of your ancestor David: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; indeed, I will heal you; on the third day you shall go up to the house of Yawheh.

6  I will add fifteen years to your life. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; I will defend this city for my own sake and for my servant David's sake.”

 

The time came, however, when Judah fell to Babylon, so not even the most radical Yahwist could deny the failure of the promise that Yahweh would preserve Judah and Jerusalem forever “for the sake of David.”  Revisionists had to go to work to try to explain the failure, and so they put the blame on a scapegoat.  The fault was Manasseh’s.  He was so wicked that Yahweh had to renege on his promise to David, despite even the unparalleled righteousness of Josiah.

 

2 Kings 23:24  Moreover Josiah put away the mediums, wizards, teraphim, idols, and all the abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, so that he established the words of the law that were written in the book that the priest Hilkiah had found in the house of Yahweh

25  Before him there was no king like him, who turned to Yahweh with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him.

26  Still Yahweh did not turn from the fierceness of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him.

27  Yahweh said, “I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel; and I will reject this city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there.”

 

When the writer recorded Jerusalem’s fall to Nebuchadnezzar, he repeated this excuse so that everyone would know why the promise of a Davidic dynasty that would last forever had to be scrapped.

 

2 Kings 24:3  Surely this [the Chaldean siege] came upon Judah at the command of Yahweh, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, for all that he had committed,

4  and also for the innocent blood that he had shed; for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and Yahweh was not willing to pardon.

 

One has to wonder why when the omni-max Yahweh promised that he would preserve the kingdom of Judah forever for David’s sake, he didn’t know that the super-wicked Manasseh would come along to upset all of his plans for an everlasting Davidic dynasty, but who are we to question the omni-one?  Maybe Turkel knows of some “ancient concept” that will explain away this problem.

 

Revisionism will also explain why the books of Joshua first said that the Israelites had received all the land and everything else Yahweh had promised but then later said that they didn’t receive everything, but I’ll get to that later in Part (5). 

Editor's Note: Farrell Till's rebuttal continues here

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++   

Tilling Turkel’s “Land Ahoy” - Part 5

-------------------------------------------------

Land Ahoy!

Rebuttal to "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise"

published by

 Robert Turkel at  http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_WRE.html

under the pseudonym James Patrick Holding

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turkel:

To our opponent we now address these questions:

 

1. Do you wish to deny that when Yahweh said he would give Abraham and his descendants the land in Gen. 12:7, 13:15, etc. it was meant in an entirely different way than it would have been understood by other persons living in the Ancient Near East?

 

Till:

I deny that Turkel has a proper grasp of the ancient concept of land ownership.  He has taken it to an extreme not justified by the ancient concept that gods had territorial domains.  Belief in Bacchus, for example, did not preclude the recognition that vineyards could be privately owned. I showed that Turkel’s feudal-landlord concept is contrary to some rather clear biblical references to buying and selling land.  This feudal-landlord concept would have made the Israelites serfs, who simply tended the land, but serfs could not buy and sell land, whereas the Israelites could and did buy and sell land.  As in the case of Naboth, private ownership of land entitled him to refuse to sell it even to a king.  I certainly don’t deny that an ancient text that referred to a god “giving” land to an individual and his descendants would have meant what people living in that time understood the “giving” and receiving of land meant, but I just don’t think that Turkel has it quite right. 

 

This, however, is really beside the point.  If Turkel has paid attention to my replies, he should have noticed by now that I have acknowledged that ancient people superstitiously believed that gods ruled over different territories and domains, but this concept obviously didn‘t preclude the notion of personal property.  I have shown in my replies that Yahweh told Abraham that he would “give” all the land he could see from north to south, from east to west, to him and his seed forever (Gen. 15:14-17).  This is just one of many biblical passages where the promise was made without conditions attached.  Obviously, whoever wrote this yarn thought that “give” meant something, and many of the other land-promise texts said that the land would be given to Abraham and his seed “to possess,” so “giving” someone land “to possess” had intended meaning.  I think that Turkel’s deity-land-possession is close to being correct, but I doubt that even “ancient people” were as extremist in their “concept” as Turkel has argued, because various texts that I explicated earlier showed that the ancient Hebrews had concepts of private property that could be sold or bartered, whereas Turkel‘s extremist view would exclude the idea of land being privately owned by individuals.  I think the ancient view of land ownership would be somewhat like referring to United States territory.  The territory referred to “belongs” to the United States, but within that territory are parcels owned by Jones, Brown, Williams, Smith, etc., etc., etc.  So all the land in the world belonged to Yahweh, but there were parcels of this land owned by Naboth, Naomi, Joshua, Zelophehad’s daughters, etc., and these people could sell or barter their individual parcels.

 

For the sake of argument, I earlier took Turkel’s “feudal landlord” concept and showed that even if we accept this as what the land promise meant, it will not explain away the inconsistency. To illustrate the problem, let’s substitute terms that denote Turkel’s “feudal landlord” concept for key words in the land-promise texts.  Here first is Genesis 15:18 rewritten to reflect Turkel’s feudal-landlord concept.

 

On that day Yahweh made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give tenancy to this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates--the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”

 

Now when exactly did the Israelites ever exercise even a feudallike tenancy over all of the land within the boundaries named here?  Unless they occupied the land and tended it as farmers or shepherds, then the land was never “given” to them to have “tenancy” over.

 

This feudal-landlord concept would have made the Israelites serfs, who simply tended the land, but serfs could not buy and sell land, whereas the Israelites could, and unless the serfs lived on land and tended it, they didn‘t have tenancy over it.  At any rate, for the sake of argument, I’ll continue to apply this feudal-landlord concept to the rewriting of some other texts that stated the land promise.  Here is Genesis 17:8 so rewritten.

 

Over the whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give a perpetual tenancy to you and your descendants after you.

 

Even if this is what the writer--I won’t say Yahweh--meant, when did it happen?  Why was the book of Joshua on-again, off-again about this?  Unless Turkel can show that Yahweh gave a “perpetual tenancy” to all the land of Canaan, from the river of Egypt to Lebanon and from the great river [the Euphrates] to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea, he has not resolved the inconsistency in the biblical texts.  So the Israelites didn’t have “deeds” to their individual property, which they registered at tribal courthouses, but what does that prove?  They had land that was defined with landmarks that the Deuteronomic code said should not be tampered with. 

 

Just when did the Israelites have this feudallike tenancy over all the land within the boundaries that were laid out in Genesis 15:18-19; Joshua 1:4; Exodus 23:31; and Deuteronomy 1:8?  We have come this far, and Turkel has not shown any evidence that the land promise was fulfilled within those borders.

 

Turkel:

2. If so, what grounds do you have for arguing this?

 

Till:

Those grounds were just explained.

 

 

Turkel:

Do you have any examples of an ancient deity allowing people to live in a land with “no strings attached” that use parallel language to that of the Genesis account?

 

Till:

Well, since deities didn’t exist, I can’t give any such examples.  I can, however, give an example of ancient literature that told of a deity who made a no-strings-attached promise that a man and his descendants would be “given” to possess forever a well defined territory.  That deity, of course, was Yahweh, who made the promises to Abraham in texts that I have already quoted above.  As I explained in Part (4) the “strings” to the promise were added retrospectively.

 

Anyway, I wonder if Turkel’s position is going to be that truth and consistency in the Bible must be determined by comparing what is written therein to what was written in the religious texts of other ancient people.  If so, he will be leaving himself open to a peck of trouble.

 

Turkel:

3. Do you wish to deny that the promises of Genesis were made within the context of an ancient deity-subject, feudal landlord-tenant relationship?

 

Till:

I wish to deny that the promises of Genesis were made within the context of the feudal landlord-tenant relationship as Turkel has presented it.

 

Turkel:

If so, why?

 

Till:

I have already explained why twice.

 

Now that I have answered Turkel’s questions, I’ll ask him some questions.  He asked only three, so I’ll limit myself to three.

 

1.  Do you deny that within territory thought to belong to Yahweh, there were individual, personal ownerships of property, which could be sold or bartered?

 

2.  Can you explain how the land promise could have been conditional on the good behavior and covenant obedience of the Israelites when Yahweh clearly told the Israelites in Deuteronomy 9:3ff that he was going to give them the land of Canaan despite their unrighteousness and rebellion from the day they came out of Egypt and despite the fact that they had not observed the “entry ritual” of circumcision while they were in the wilderness?

 

3.  Could Yahweh have withheld the land from the Israelites and still kept his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

 

Turkel:

Now note some of the passages cited earlier by our opponent. The notice in Ex. 23:20-33 briefly spells out obligations upon the tenants and the provision of the landlord; note especially 24-25: Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images. And ye shall serve the LORD your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee. This section of Exodus is itself a covenant made with the initial generation coming out of Egypt.

 

Till:

I have acknowledged, and even did so in my original article, that some versions of the land promise contained conditions.  However, I have pointed out that the original promises contained no conditions, and I have given a perfectly rational explanation for why some versions, especially those in Deuteronomy, contained conditions.  It was a matter of retrospective editing in order to cover the butts of those who had transmitted the original traditions either in oral or written form.

 

 

Turkel:

Joshua 1:1-6, another such promise, is followed by a reminder of obligation in Joshua 1:7 hearkening back to the entire law. ("Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.") Joshua 3:9-11 emphasizes the presence of the Ark of the Covenant, a symbol of the contractual agreement between Israel and Yahweh which holds the tables of the covenant.

 

Till:

One can possess property without necessarily prospering, so this admonition would not prove anything.  Anyway, I have acknowledged--even in my original article--that some versions of the land promise attached conditions.  However, I do not consider this to be one of them.  If Turkel wants to make it one, let him do so.  He still has to explain why Yahweh, wanting his land promise to be conditional upon obeying his voice and keeping his covenant, would have renewed the promise in Deuteronomy 9 to Israelites who were described in terms that made them little better than the scum of the earth and who had not even yet performed the “entry ritual“ into the covenant.  He must also explain why, if the promise was conditional, Yahweh said that he had to give the land to this sordid bunch of rebels in order to keep his promise to the patriarchs.

 

The ark symbolized a contractual agreement between Israel and Yahweh, but as I just reminded readers above, according to Turkel, circumcision was the “entry ritual” into the covenant, but the Israelites who crossed the Jordan with the ark had not yet been circumcised.  They were circumcised two chapters later in 5:2ff. 

 

Turkel:

The book of Deuteronomy, where most of the relevant promises are found (4:33-39; 7:1-2, 17-24; 9:3-7; 31:1-8), is in the form of an ancient suzerainty treaty between a king and his vassals. It is, if you will, a lease. It spells out the obligations of the tenants (the various laws and codes of conduct) and the duties of the landlord, as well as outlining the penalties for disobedience.

 

Till:

Tenants cannot sell property, but the Israelites had land, set off with landmarks that were not to be removed, and they could sell their property.  A better analogy, in my opinion, is that of US national territory, which “belongs” to the United States, but is individually owned by Smith, Brown, Jones, Williams, etc., etc., etc., who can sell their property.

 

Anyway, for the sake of argument, I will say again that if I concede this ancient view of land ownership to Turkel, he will still have to explain why the Israelites never exercised “tenancy” over all the land within the borders defined in the passages I have cited above.  So in what sense did Yahweh “give” land to the Israelites “to possess”?

 

Turkel:

 It is illicit to take verses or passages from Deuteronomy in isolation;

 

Till:

Illicit?  Does this mean I may go to prison? 

 

Turkel:

the text must be considered, as a whole, just like one cannot simply pick out or ignore the parts of a lease or contract one desires.

 

Till:

 I couldn’t agree more.  That’s why I have taken the time to point out when Turkel quoted a verse out of context.  Remember when he quoted this, with emphasis as indicated?

 

Leviticus 25:23  The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.

 

I then put the verse into its context to show that it actually taught that property was personally owned and could be sold.

 

25:23  The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.

24  And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land.

25  If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold.

26  And if the man have none to redeem it, and himself be able to redeem it;

27  Then let him count the years of the sale thereof, and restore the overplus unto the man to whom he sold it; that he may return unto his possession.

28  But if he be not able to restore it to him, then that which is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the year of jubilee: and in the jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return unto his possession.

 

In Part (3), I had to put Turkel’s quotations of Leviticus 20:24 and Ruth 1:16 into their contexts, because he had quoted them in isolation to leave a different impression from what the contexts were saying.   So I do agree that passages should not be isolated out of context.  Turkel should take his own advice.

 

Turkel:

In that light we now add these questions:

 

1.  Do you wish to deny that Deuteronomy is in the genre of an ancient suzerainty treaty, a contract between a suzerain and his vassals?  If so, why?

 

Till:

No, I won’t deny that there are some characteristics of a Hittite suzerainty treaty in Deuteronomy, but the parallel isn’t perfect.  For example, a suzerain was a feudallike overlord, but I have shown that the Israelites didn’t have this exact relationship in the land of Canaan, because the tribes owned the land after it was subdivided, and individuals within these tribal territories were given land that they owned, which they could sell or barter.  Territory owned by a feudal overlord could not be sold by those who lived on it.

 

As for the imitation of Hittite suzerainty treaties in some parts of Deuteronomy, I find it rather ironic that an omni-everything deity had to plagiarize a heathen pattern of organization when he “inspired” the writing of this book. 

 

Turkel:

2.  If Deuteronomy is a treaty or contract, then isn't it illicit to pull the “promise” passages out of it as though they could be taken in isolation from the “obligation” passages?

 

Till:

Illicit?  Well, if one wants to derive the meaning of a written text, whether it be a treaty or a contract, or any other written document, statements should always be interpreted within their contexts.  I taught college literature for 30 years and obtained 90+ postgraduate hours in this field and the related field of writing, so I think I understand principles of interpretation as well as, if not better than, Turkel.  I have had to point out places where he was quoting out of context, so he is hardly qualified to lecture me on this subject.

 

Turkel:

We now return to the words of our opponent, who offers this as evidence of “no support” for the “dodge” of requisite behavior:

 

Till:

It doesn’t become “no support” or a “dodge,” just because Turkel says so.  My analysis of the text below has become a nail in Turkel’s coffin that he can’t extract.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel in red]:

In Deuteronomy 9:3-7, another prophetic passage relating to the land promise, specific notice was taken of the fact that the Israelites of the then present generation were themselves undeserving of the land but that it would be given to them for the sake of the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:

 

Turke:

And the quote:

 

Till:

Now why did Turkel put such “fluff” as this into his reply?  He cannot, and never will be able to, explain why the distractions of his transitional sentences are necessary in this context.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

Know therefore this day, that Yahweh thy God is he who goeth over before thee as a devouring fire; he will destroy them, and he will bring them down before thee: so shalt thou drive them out, and make them to perish quickly, as Yahweh hath spoken unto thee. Speak not thou in thy heart, after that Yahweh thy God hath thrust them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness Yahweh hath brought me in to possess this land; whereas for the wickedness of these nations Yahweh doth drive them out from before thee. Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thy heart, dost thou go in to possess their land; but for the wickedness of these nations Yahweh thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may establish the word which Yahweh sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Know therefore, that Yahweh thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiff-necked people.

 

Turkel:

It is said:

 

Till:

Why such fluff as this?  Is this the guy who has complained about “fluff” and “irrelevant distractions” in my articles?  Turkel’s rebuttal of  my article contained 13,502 words, but my article contained only 3,457.  That means that he used 10,045 words, or almost three times as many as my article contained, to reply to me.  So who is the one whose writing contains “fluff,” “set-up,” and “irrelevant distractions”?  He could probably have cut a thousand words from his “reply” if he had cut out all of his unnecessary transitions, which simply repeated transitions that were in my article.

 

By the way, I can’t resist commenting on his pretentious style, which constantly uses indirectness and awkward plurals to refer to himself.  So I’ll ask why he couldn’t have said, “Till said,” instead of, “It is said”?  He must enjoy sounding like a pompous stuffed shirt.

 

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

So here is another clear statement.

 

Turkel:

This is a fine example of a descriptor, by our opponent, of the previously quoted passage, but it adds nothing to his analysis in terms of substance. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

Well, it added my assessment of the statement, and then the comments immediately below explained why I considered it a clear statement. At any rate, someone who took 10,000 words to reply to 3,000 hardly has room to talk about unnecessary “descriptors.”  Anyway, a “descriptor” is “a significant word or symbol used to identity and classify data to facilitate retrieval,” so I appreciate Turkel’s recognition that this six-word sentence was “significant.”

 

Now here is a question for him.  Why didn’t he just include my transitional sentence with  the rest of my paragraph quoted immediately below and let it go without comment if he considered it an unnecessary “significant” statement?

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

God was not giving the land to the Israelites because of their righteousness; in fact, he considered them a stiff-necked, undeserving people. (See also Exodus 33:1-6.)

 

Turkel:

This summary represents actual argument and deserves to be addressed. Our opponent elucidates further:

 

Till:

I urge readers to notice carefully what “our opponent elucidate[d] further.”

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

He was giving the land to them because of the unconditional promise that he had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

Turkel:

And:

 

Till:

It was just one word, but why this unnecessary “fluff”?  My sentence quoted immediately below followed the one quoted above, so readers would have been able to go from one sentence into the next without Turkel’s interruption.  Everyone should keep in mind that Turkel has complained almost incessantly about “fluff,” “set-ups,” and “irrelevant distractions” in my writing.  I am taking the time to comment on his distractions just to keep readers reminded of his inconsistencies.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

Unless he did this, he would have reneged on a promise made to the patriarchs with no strings attached, (Gen. 12:7; 13:14-16).

 

Turkel:

There is substantive argument here,

 

Till:

There certainly is, so everyone should  try to notice how Turkel tries to tap dance around it.

 

Turkel:

 but one hardly sees why it was necessary to belabor the point via repetition.

 

Till:

I simply repeated the crucial points in the quotation in order to drive the points home. As a retired professional educator, I know that repetition is an important method of teaching that will assist learning, so I merely used a recognized teaching method.  At any rate, Turkel has little room to talk about unnecessary comments and repetitions in my writing.  Look at how much space he has wasted cutting and pasting complaints about what he considers unnecessary comments in my article.

 

Turkel:

It is only necessary to quote one of these two sentences above in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such repetitive commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

I don’t need to explain why “a respondent” needs to quote it or make reference to it.  Both sentences were part of an article that Turkel is purportedly “replying to,” so both should be a part of any written debate published on the issues addressed in the article.  If Turkel didn’t think that comment was necessary, he could have withheld it, and then, if I thought the comment deserved a response, it would have been my responsibility to point out his failure to rebut it.

 

My argument in the sentences he complained about was that Yahweh told the Israelites about to enter Canaan that he was giving the land to them despite their unrighteousness and that unless he did this he would be reneging on an unconditional promise that he had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Follow the bouncing ball and see what kind of “rebuttal” Turkel gave to this.

 

Turkel:

With reference to Deut. 9:3-7: this has nothing to do with whether the Israelites would continue to be able to possess the land;

 

Till:

Oh, yes, it does, because the promise made to Abraham was that Yahweh would give all the land of Canaan, as far as his eyes could see (Gen. 13:14-17; Gen. 17:18), whose boundaries would be from the “river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates” (Gen. 15:18), and that this land would be given to his “seed” as an “everlasting possession” (Gen. 17:18).  So how could Yahweh have fulfilled this promise unless he made the possession of the land permanent?  Let Turkel quibble about “feudal-overlord” concepts all he wants to and let him have his “ancient concept” of “tenancy” of land owned by a god.  The Israelites obviously were not given even permanent “tenancy” of all the land promised to the Israelites.  Well, for that matter, they weren’t even given permanent “tenancy” of any of the land within those borders. 

 

His task, then, is to explain to us why, if Yahweh understood a need to fulfill a promise made to Abraham, fulfillment of that promise would not have entailed fulfillment of everything in the promise. 

 

Let’s go on now and watch him try to tap dance around this problem.

 

Turkel:

that will depend on their fulfillment of their obligations as tenants, as stated in the Deuteronomic contract.

 

Till:

As I just explained, an unconditional promise was made to Abraham and that promise was repeated unconditionally to the Israelites, most forcefully in Deuteronomy 9, so if Yahweh said in Deuteronomy 9 that he had to give the land to the Israelites of that time, even though they were rebellious and unrighteous, in order to fulfill a promise made to the patriarchs, then fulfillment of the promise would have required fulfillment of everything said in the promise.  Permanent possession of the land was one of the elements of the promise. 

 

1.  Yahweh said that he had to give the land of Canaan to an undeserving, unrighteous generation of Israelites in order to fulfill a promise made to Abraham.

 

2.  The promise made to Abraham entailed giving his descendants land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates river to have as an everlasting possession.

 

3.  Therefore, Yahweh could not have given them just part of the land temporarily and fulfilled his promise to Abraham.

 

I’d like to see Turkel tap dance his way around this argument.

 

As for conditions stated in the “Deuteronomic contract,” I have already addressed that point to show that this “contract” contained revisionist views of someone writing long after the fact, who knew the failure of the promise and revised the originally unconditional promise to give it conditions that could be used as an excuse for why the promise as originally made had failed.

 

Turkel:

The stress here is that the ability to enter the land is the result of an act of unmerited grace with respect to those present. They are riding in, as it were, on Abraham's coattails;

 

Till:

Riding in on Abraham’s coattails would have entailed getting everything that had been promised to Abraham.  If part of the land that had been promised could have been withheld, then why couldn’t all of it have been withheld?  If only part of the duration of the promise could have been withheld, then why couldn’t all of the duration have been withheld? 

 

Turkel:

but this has nothing to do with whether they will be able to stay in the land as tenants.

 

Till:

Oh, it doesn’t?  Then “everlasting possession”--or Turkel’s “perpetual tenancy”--didn’t really mean everlasting possession or perpetual tenancy?

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

The unconditional nature of Yahweh's land promise was restated in Leviticus 26:42-45:

 

Turkel:

This is merely transitional information. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

Here is that straw man again.

 

 

Turkel:

The quote reads:

 

Till:

Here is more transitional fluff from Turkel.  He cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary as his complaint above should be put into a written debate and then followed with a transitional statement that would have been unnecessary had he simply included my transitional [introductory] sentence with the quotation immediately below.

 

In saying that Turkel could have cut 1,000 words from his 10,000 word “reply” if he had refrained from such petty, superfluous  complaints as this, maybe I underestimated.  The saving in unnecessary fluff would probably have exceeded a thousand words.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob; and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. The land also shall be left by them, and shall enjoy its sabbaths, while it lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity; because, even because they rejected mine ordinances, and their soul abhorred my statutes. And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them; for I am Yahweh their God; but I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am Yahweh.

 

Turkel:

Commentary by our opponent:

 

Till:

Why put unnecessary fluff like this into a “reply”?  My article went directly from the biblical quotation above into my comments below.  Readers could have easily followed the flow of my argument without Turkel interjecting himself to tell intelligent readers that a comment from me was following the biblical quotation.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel in red]:

So time and time again, it was specifically said that the Israelites would be given the land of Canaan, regardless of their own conduct, so that Yahweh could fulfill the promise that he made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

Turkel:

This reading is incorrect.

 

Till:

Oh, it is?  I have already quoted several times the various unconditional promises made to Abraham in the book of Genesis, and in addition to Deuteronomy 9, there are these land-promise statements that contained no conditions.

 

Exodus 3:7  And Yahweh [speaking to Moses from a burning bush] said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;

8  And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

9  Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me: and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them.

10  Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt.

 

Exodus 3:16  Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, Yahweh God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:

17  And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey.

 

Exodus 6:6  “Therefore, say to the Israelites: ‘I am Yahweh, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment.

7  I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians.

8  And I will bring you to the land I swore with uplifted hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. I am Yahweh.’”

 

There were no conditions attached to the promise in these passages or the ones in Genesis, so if there were seven or eight places where the promise was made unconditionally, I think that would qualify to be called “time and time again.”  I am, however, willing to admit to a little careless wording in my statement, because it implies that Yahweh had said time and time again that even though the Israelites were unworthy, he was giving the land to them to keep a promise to Abraham.  All of those elements actually were included only in Deuteronomy 9.  Here would be a better wording of my statement:

 

Time and time again, it was said that the Israelites would be given the land of Canaan with no conditions stated, and in the passage just quoted Yahweh said that he was going to give the land to that generation of Israelites, regardless of their own conduct, and that he had to do this in order to fulfill a promise that he had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

With that acknowledgement, I will stick by my position that the promise to give the land unconditionally to the Israelites had been made time and time again.

 

Turkel:

The passage indicates that the punishment for Israelites [sic] misbehavior is not loss of what was "given" to them (for they did not own the land, but were tenants) but loss of possession.

 

Till:

I won’t bore Turkel with needless repetition here, so I will just remind him that I earlier gave ample textual evidence to show that he is wrong in saying that Israelites did not “own” land, because the examples that I gave show that he is wrong.  Even one of his own proof texts (Lev. 25:24) when examined in context clearly shows that Israelites could sell their land.

 

As for this “feudal-overlord” theory of his, I have also relegated that to the trash bin where it belongs, so I will just remind Turkel that I have conceded, for the sake of argument, his “perpetual tenancy” theory and have shown that no stretch of imagination can show biblical evidence that the promise to give the descendants of Abraham “perpetual tenancy” of all of the land within the defined borders of Canaan was fulfilled.

 

Turkel

The covenant will be remembered, and the land was reserved for them once their punishment (for the sort of offenses described earlier in Lev. 26, but not quoted by our opponent) was complete.

 

Till:

If I had quoted Leviticus 26, which has 46 verses, I’m sure Turkel would have complained about unnecessary “fluff” and “irrelevant distractions.”  The chapter shows a promise from Yahweh [presumably the speaker in this chapter] that he would remember the covenant of the Israelite ancestors, whom he brought out of Egypt, and not reject them even when they were “in the land of their enemies” (another retrospective statement, by the way).  Leviticus 26:44-45, like Deuteronomy 9, says that despite their disobedience, Yahweh would not break his covenant with the ancestors of the Israelites.

 

26:44  Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies [for having been disobedient], I will not spurn them, or abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them; for I am Yahweh their God;

45  but I will remember in their favor the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, to be their God: I am Yahweh.

 

 

Turkel:

That is what was promised to Abraham: land reserved and given for the use and possession of his descendants -- even in their absence due to punishment.

 

Till:

Well, let’s cut to the chase.  The boundaries of the land promised to the Israelites included the coastal plains of the Levant [Palestine], so if Yahweh “reserved” this land “for the use and possession of [Abraham’s] descendants,” why did they never possess it?  This territory was occupied by the Philistines, who were a thorn in the side of the Israelites all through their “history.”  This is just one example of land within the defined boundaries of the land promise that the Israelites never possessed, so this brings us back to square one.  Turkel must explain why a promise to give the descendants of Abraham all the land from the river Egypt to Lebanon and from the river Euphrates to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea was never fulfilled.

 

Till: ]quoted by Turkel]

Inerrantists who deny this are denying biblical statements worded just as plainly as anything ever said on the subject of creation, the resurrection, baptism, final judgment, and other important Christian doctrines.

 

Turkel:

This statement is of no substance or relation to the issue at hand, and is merely an example of the depths of distraction that our opponent must resort to in order to "set the tone" for gullible readers. We would just as easily say, "Errantists who deny this are denying a solution as plainly in front of them as others, and thereby risking damnation." Is this an argument? No. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

My article was written in the fall of 1990 and published in the first issue of The Skeptical Review in 1991.  At that time, TSR was in its infancy, having begun publication just the year before.  I began this paper with no subscribers, so I began mailing it to Bible believers I knew, who were primarily members of the Church of Christ, so at that time I was directing arguments to people whom I knew to have this mind persuasion.  This church fervently believes in creationism, the resurrection, final judgment, and the necessity of  baptism in the “plan of salvation,” so I cited these doctrines only because of what I knew to be central beliefs taught by this church. 

 

If Turkel will acquire a textbook in writing on the college level, he will see that a primary principle of writing is that the writer should keep in mind his reading audience at all times.  I did that, so Turkel’s complaint is just another version of the straw man he has been beating on from the beginning of his “rebuttal” until now.

 

Anyway, Turkel’s statement left me wondering if he had no beliefs in creationism, resurrection, and the final judgment.  I left out baptism, because I don’t know his church affiliation.  I think it is Baptist, but I’m not sure.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel in red]:

As proof that the land promise was dependent on the good behavior of the Israelites, inerrantists like to cite Exodus 23:20-33 where a conditional suggestion was attached to the promise: "But if thou shalt indeed hearken unto his voice (the angel that was to go before them, FT) and do all that he speak, then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies and an adversary unto thine adversaries."

 

Turkel:

This is indeed one verse expressing the conditional nature of the land-possession covenant, but as shown it is far from the only one.

 

Till:

And as I showed, at length, the original promises of Yahweh (made to Abraham) had no conditions attached, and the conditional versions of the promise (mainly in Deuteronomy) are in contexts that show very clear signs of retrospective excuse-making.  Except for “scholars” with “inspired-word-of-God” beliefs to protect, scholars recognize that the book of Exodus is also a patchwork job that wasn’t written by Moses but by writers and editors who came after him.  Retrospective excuse-making would be expected in this kind of work too.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel}

In emphasizing the if in this verse, they overlook an important point.

 

Turkel:

This sentence is merely transitional. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

Here is Turkel’s straw man again.  He cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary was necessary.   He could have quoted my transitional sentence with my quotation immediately below, and readers would have easily recognized for themselves the transition.  Doing so would have spared us his distracting “fluff.”

 

Till [quoted by Turkel in red]:

If Yahweh said that he would fulfill the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob regardless of the wickedness of the generation that went in to possess the land, he could not turn around later and say that he would make good his promise only if the people were obedient.

 

Turkel:

This apparently refers back to our opponent's misguided exegesis of Deut. 9:3-7 above. No further reply is required.

 

Till:

So we have been subjected to another tap-dancing routine by Turkel.  Since he has not rebutted my argument that Deuteronomy 9:3-7 would necessarily remove all conditions from Yahweh’s promise to give Abraham’s descendants all land within clearly defined borders, further reply is very much required.  Here is my argument again.

 

1.  Yahweh said that he had to give the land of Canaan to an undeserving, unrighteous generation of Israelites in order to fulfill a promise made to Abraham.

 

2.  The promise made to Abraham entailed giving his descendants land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates river to have as an everlasting possession.

 

3.  Therefore, Yahweh could not have given them just part of the land temporarily and fulfilled his promise to Abraham.

 

Will he tap dance around it this time?

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

That would put a contradiction into the scriptures that the inerrantists would have to explain, because the land promise could not have been both conditional and unconditional at the same time.

 

Turkel:

This states our opponent's case yet again, and since we already know well enough that it is his contention that there is a contradiction in the Scriptures on this subject, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply,

 

Till:

But if Turkel is going to debate this issue, he needs to reply to my argument, which I have copied for his benefit directly above.  When has he refuted this?

 

Turkel:

and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to pad his case with superfluous pep-commentary.

 

Till:

So Turkel put his straw man in the form of a flagrant dodge this time.  Just to bug him, I am going to copy it again.

 

1.  Yahweh said that he had to give the land of Canaan to an undeserving, unrighteous generation of Israelites in order to fulfill a promise made to Abraham.

 

2.  The promise made to Abraham entailed giving his descendants land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates river to have as an everlasting possession.

 

3.  Therefore, Yahweh could not have given them just part of the land temporarily and fulfilled his promise to Abraham.

 

Now let’s see him refute it.  Gullible readers of his own website may be fooled into believing that Turkel has refuted this argument, but this is going to be posted on sites where readers are a bit more critical.  Is he actually naive enough to think that he can fool them too?

 

Till:

And clearly the passages cited earlier were unconditional in promising the land to the Israelites.

 

Turkel:

This merely restates an earlier argument unnecessarily. Since we know well enough already that it is our opponent's contention (albeit misguided) that earlier passages were unconditional, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to pad his case with superfluous pep-commentary.

 

Till:

I’m sure readers who don’t hang onto every word Turkel puts onto his website will have no difficulty seeing Turkel’s flagrant evasion.  I’ll bug him again by copying below the argument that he has not yet refuted.

 

1.  Yahweh said that he had to give the land of Canaan to an undeserving, unrighteous generation of Israelites in order to fulfill a promise made to Abraham.

 

2.  The promise made to Abraham entailed giving his descendants land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates river to have as an everlasting possession.

 

3.  Therefore, Yahweh could not have given them just part of the land temporarily and fulfilled his promise to Abraham.

 

Out of consideration to readers, I won’t quote this again in this part of my reply.  If Turkel dodges it again, I’ll just refer everyone to where I have copied the argument.

 

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

So after Yahweh had unconditionally promised to the Israelites that they would be given the land beyond the Jordan, under Joshua's leadership they went in to possess it, and initially the Bible claims that they succeeded.

 

Turkel:

This is transitional; it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

Straw man!  If it is transitional, then why didn’t Turkel just quote it along with my statement below?  Readers would have had no problem at all following the flow of this section of my article.  Such fluff as this is nothing but irrelevant distraction on Turkel’s part to deceive his flunkies into believing that he is actually answering something.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel in red]:

The claim, in fact, was that Joshua thoroughly and completely subdued the land:

 

Turkel:

This statement of interpretation does deserve attention. The quote given:

 

Till:

I hope everyone notices the kind of “attention” that Turkel gave it.  It is about “90% fluff” and  just as much “irrelevant distraction,“ which adds up to 90% evasion.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

So Joshua smote ALL the land, the hill-country, and the South, and the lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but he utterly destroyed all that breathed, as Yahweh the God of Israel commanded.  And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon. And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because Yahweh, the God of Israel, fought for Israel. And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal (Joshua 10:40-43, ASV, Yahweh for Jehovah).

 

Turkel:

It is said:

 

Till:

Why such transitional fluff as this.  Turkel cannot, and never will be able to, explain why he couldn’t have put the biblical quotation and my subsequent comment all together.  Readers would have had no problem following the flow of this section of the article.

 

“It is said”?  Oh, he meant, “Till said,” didn’t he?

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

In places, the Bible is almost boringly repetitious, but this writing characteristic of the "inspired" spokesmen of God often works to the advantage of those who seek to debunk the myth that God verbally inspired the writing of the Bible.

 

Turkel:

The snide remarks, “boringly repetitious”, putting “inspired” in sarcastic quotes, and the insertion of the “myth” commentary, serve no concrete argumentative purpose in this context and are added for no other purpose than to be insulting to believers and provide a cheering point for gullible skeptical readers.

 

Till:

Well, I have no doubt that snide remarks and sarcastic quo[tations] are very offensive to Turkel, who has never made a snide or sarcastic remark in his life.  I wonder if he recognizes the quotation below:

 

We have also stated, however, that we do not expect Till to offer better arguments in any event. Farrell Till carries no academic credentials beyond a Masters’ degree in English; he knows no Hebrew, is blithely and manifestly ignorant of ANE culture and social settings, and offers little more than his own authority as Farrell Till, Plain Reader of the Text and Shouter Down of the Unwashed, as backing for his arguments. We would certainly not EXPECT someone of such minimal and unrelated qualifications to provide adequate answers to scholars who have made the OT, its language, and its culture their lifeblood. Yes, it is POSSIBLE -- but in the same sense that it is possible that Big Bird may have some unforeseen insight into the principles of nuclear fusion. Let it be stated again: Unless Till can provide answers that are substantiated and informed with appropriate linguistic, sociological, historical, and other relevant subject data, then he is doing no more than blowing smoke and flashing mirrors for the appeal of his circle of sycophants.

 

Does Turkel recognize this?  He should. It’s from an article entitled “Till We Meet Again, Trey,” or “Bubbles from the Mouth of a Fish out of Water.” It can be found at <http://www.tektonics.org/till03.html>.  Hey, that’s Turkel’s website, isn’t it?  No, excuse me; it’s from “James Patrick Holding’s” website.  Turkel is too chicken to publish under his real name.

 

What I quoted is just one of many, many snide, sarcastic comments that I could cut and paste from Turkel’s website.  His site reeks with sarcasm, which is his stock and trade.  I wonder if Turkel has ever heard of the old adage about the pot calling the kettle black.

 

By the way, Turkel spoke, sarcastically, of course, of my “credentials,” which do go well beyond just a Master’s degree, but I believe that his “credentials” are just a Master’s degree in library science.  Yes, indeed, we have a case here of the pot calling the kettle black.

For the record, Turkel is incorrect in saying that I “know no Hebrew.”  I’m far from an expert in Hebrew, but I did study it at one of the Bible colleges I attended, and I suspect that this is more training than Turkel has in it.

 

As for Turkel’s reference to scholars who have made the Old Testament, its language, and its culture their “lifeblood,” if I can quote such scholars who have recognized that the claimed fulfillments of the land promise in Joshua and elsewhere never happened, will he then concede that these are discrepancies in the OT?

 

Don’t look for him to say yes to this question.

 

Turkel:

 It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to gain debate points illicitly.

 

Till:

Why such fluff and irrelevant distraction as this?  Well, it’s Turkel’s straw man again.  He hasn’t been able to “explain” much of anything, and what he has “explained” has been based on unsupported assumptions (which I have soundly refuted), but he wants to make his readers think he is kicking butt, so he has to spend most of his 10,000 words beating on a straw man.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

In this case, it makes it easy to establish that a complete, unqualified fulfillment of the land promises was claimed by the "inspired" men who wrote the Old Testament.

 

Turkel:

As this remark is merely a statement of purpose common to our opponent's methodology, and it contains no specifics,

 

Till:

The “specifics” were scattered all through the article.  I’m sure everyone has noticed that Turkel has done a lot of tap dancing but has made very little effort to reply.  He would rather waste time on comments like the one directly below.

 

Turkel:

it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

I made a claim, i. e., “(A) complete, unqualified fulfillment of the land promises was claimed by the ‘inspired’ men who wrote the Old Testament,” so why doesn’t it need a reply, especially since I have piled textual evidence upon textual evidence that the OT made unqualified claims that the land promises were fulfilled and then backpedaled and said that they hadn’t been fulfilled?

 

I would never agree to play dodge ball with Turkel, because he would beat me hands down.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

Consider, for example, the clearly stated claim of the following passages:

 

Turkel:

As this remark is merely transitional, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

Here is Turkel’s straw man again.  He cannot, and never will be able to, explain why he could not have put my transitional sentence with the biblical passage below and quote the two all together.  Readers would have had no problem at all following the flow of my ideas in this section of the article.

 

Others may not know what Turkel has been doing throughout his “reply.”  He knows that in past attempts to reply to me, he snipped and skipped very relevant parts of my articles and that I have pointed this out in my replies to him, so he is trying to convince his readers that all he had snipped before were just transitional sentences and expressions.  I know better, and if he will agree to publish it on his website, I’ll very accommodatingly write an article that shows just what kind of snipping and skipping he did in his other “replies.”

 

Don’t hold your breath till Turkel agrees to this proposal.

 

Turkel:

But then an extended quote is offered:

 

Till:

Why this unnecessary fluff?  If Turkel had simply quoted my transitional sentence and the quotation [below] that came after it, readers could have easily followed the flow of my ideas, and we would have been spared another of his irrelevant distractions.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

And Yahweh said unto Joshua, Be not afraid because of them (the armies of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Hivites poised for battle against the Israelites, FT); for tomorrow at this time will I deliver them up all slain before Israel: thou shalt hock their horses, and burn their chariots with fire. So Joshua came, and all the people of war with him, against them by the waters of Merom suddenly, and fell upon them. And Yahweh delivered them into the hand of Israel, and they smote them, and chased them unto great Sidon, and unto Misrephothmaim, and unto the valley of Mizpeh eastward; and they smote them, until they left them none remaining. And Joshua did unto them as Yahweh bade him: he hocked their horses, and burnt their chariots with fire. And Joshua turned back at that time, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor before time was the head of all those kingdoms. And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them; There were none left that breathed: and he burnt Hazor with fire. And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and he smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed them; as Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded. But as for the cities that stood on their mounds, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn. And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any that breathed. As Yahweh commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua: and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that Yahweh commanded Moses (Joshua 11:6-15, Yahweh substituted).

 

Till:

Everybody stay alert and watch Turkel try to tap dance around this clearly stated passage.

 

Turkel:

And:

 

Till:

Why this unnecessary fluff?  In my article, the passage below immediately followed the one above, and this section had been introduced by my transitional sentence (“Consider, for example, the clearly stated claim of the following passages”), which Turkel dismissed as unnecessary transition and then had to put into his “reply” two transitional statements of his own to tie the quotations together.  Had he simply included my transitional sentence and the quotations all together, as I presented them in my article, readers could have easily followed the flow of my ideas, but Turkel is desperately trying to justify flagrant snipping, skipping, and evasion in his past attempts to reply to my articles.  In so doing, he has made a fool of himself.

 

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that Yahweh spake unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land had rest from war, (Joshua 11:23, Yahweh substituted).

 

Turkel:

And:

 

Till:

More unnecessary fluff from Turkel.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

So Yahweh gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And Yahweh gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not aught of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken unto the house of Israel. All came to pass (Joshua 21:43-45, Yahweh substituted).

 

Tukel:

Thus it is said:

 

Till:

Why this unnecessary fluff?  Why didn’t he explicate the passages to show that they didn’t mean that the Israelites had received all the land promised to them.

 

Readers, should watch Turkel’s tap-dancing routine.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

These statements are fully as clear as Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38.

 

Till:

As explained above, this article was written in 1990 and was aimed at a predominantly Church-of-Christ audience.  The necessity of baptism is a very primary doctrine of this church, so my comment was in order in view of what audience it was directed to.

 

Turkel:

These are two more pertinent examples of the sort of non-subject [sic] distraction we refer to (i.e., the subject is no longer consistency of the Biblical record on the subject of Yahweh's Land Promise, as has already been stated, but now, the interpretation of Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38).

 

Till:

Hmm, “non-subject [sic] distractions” are “pertinent”?  I think Turkel would profit from a little research in English diction.

 

The subject was still the consistency of the biblical record on the subject of Yahweh’s land promise.  The “non-subject [sic]” but “pertinent” examples  were intended to provoke a predominantly Church-of-Christ audience into doing a mental comparison between the clarity of these passages about the land promise and their primary proof texts for their doctrine on baptism.  Since, as noted before, a skilled writer will always keep his audience in mind, the statement was entirely appropriate.  If Turkel has no beliefs in the necessity of baptism, he could have simply noted this and passed on without wasting our time on unnecessary fluff.

 

Turkel:

Being that this is the case, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to insert the wedge of doubt on another issue which is of no relevance to the topic at hand, thereby attempting to gain debate points illicitly.

 

Till:

Turkel’s straw man again.  I decided to do a check to see how many of Turkel’s 10,045 words were wasted on this irrelevant distraction.  The findings were interesting, to say the least.  The expression “it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent” contains 33 words, and Turkel cut and pasted it into his 10,045-word reply 41 different times, so 1,353 words, or 13.5% of his reply was wasted on a repetition of this statement, which was obviously intended to rationalize his obvious snipping and skipping of very relevant arguments and questions that were in articles of mine that he had previously replied to.

 

I’ll repeat my proposal.  If he will agree to post it on his website, I’ll gladly go through an article of mine that he has “replied to” and quote the material that he snipped and skipped and then tried to justify its omission by calling it “fluff” and “irrelevant distractions.”

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

Yahweh gave unto Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers, and the dimensions of that land were clearly laid out in such passages as Exodus 23:20-33 and Joshua 1:1-6.

 

Turkel:

A reply is warranted here, of two types.

 

Till:

So at last Turkel is going to reply to something.

 

Turkel:

Re Josh. 10:40-43, 11:6-15, and 11:23 versus Joshua 13:1, which says there was “yet very much land to be possessed“: In context these refer to the “whole land” of the particular nations being attacked in each section. Josh. 10:40-43 refers only to the land of the specific kings and cities being battled in Josh. 10, whose territory comprised a specific swath of land west of the northern half of the Dead Sea. .

 

Till:

This is the usual quibble that inerrantists resort to in trying to get around the inconsistency in the texts, but it cannot explain the inconsistencies in Joshua about how much land was conquered and when.  Furthermore, as I will show later, an analysis of the “specific kings and cities” encompassed in the descriptions of Joshua’s victories will show that they were inclusive of all the land promised to the Israelites.

 

First, let’s notice that Joshua 10:43 says that Joshua struck “all the land, the hill-country, and the South, and the lowland, and the slopes.”  That sounds pretty inclusive, but statements made later in this text claim that “Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even to Gaza and all the country of Goshen, even to Gibeon” (v:41).  Now this gives us some specific locations to use as geographical references.  Goshen, of course, could hardly have been the land of Goshen in Egypt, where the Israelites had lived when they were in bondage.  The geographical reference points would put this “land of Goshen” somewhere in the hill country of Judah.  Kadesh-barnea was one of the stopping points for the Israelites during their 40-year wanderings (Num. 20:14-16; 33:36-37).  This was an oasis on the northern edge of the Sinai wilderness, so the passage in Joshua 10 located the southern edge of the Israelite strike against the kings of this area at the northern edge of the Sinai wilderness.  The division of the land in Joshua 15 referred to towns in the region of Gaza along “the brook of Egypt” (v:47).  The “brook of Egypt” was either a tributary of the Nile or, more likely, the wadi el-‘Arish, a stream that begins in the central Sinai and flows into the Mediterranean Sea south of Gaza.  With this information, we can pretty well fix the southern extent of Joshua’s attack claimed in Joshua 10 at the extreme southern end of Judah or probably even into the northern regions of the Sinai wilderness.

 

Joshua 10:41 says that the strike went from Kadesh-barnea “even to Gaza and all the country of Goshen,” so this would take the extent of the claimed attack to the Mediterranean Sea.  The same verse says that the strike extended “unto Gibeon,” which was a town located about 5 miles north of Jerusalem, so if Joshua had routed all the kings of this region and utterly destroyed all that breathed (v:40), he would have driven out and destroyed the Jebusites, who lived in and around Jerusalem, and this would have happened early in Joshua’s invasion of Canaan, yet texts describing events after this time specifically noted that the Israelites were unable to drive out the Jebusites.  I have already quoted these, but sometimes overkill is necessary, so I will put them right here where Turkel can’t claim that he didn’t notice them.

 

Joshua 15:63  Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the people of Judah.

 

Judges 1:21  The Benjamites, however, failed to dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites.

 

Now if Joshua had swept through all the region from the northern area of the Sinai (Kadesh-barnea) all the way to the Mediterranean Sea (Gaza) and up to Gibeon (five miles north of Jerusalem) and had utterly destroyed all that breathed, why was it that later it was said that the Israelites couldn’t drive out the Jebusites?

 

 

No inconsistencies in the biblical text?  In Turkel’s dreams.  Unless, he can explain how Joshua could have swept through all of the territory from Kadesh-barnea, to Gaza, and up to Gibeon and utterly destroyed all that breathed and yet did not drive out the Jebusites, we can only conclude that there is an inconsistency in the biblical text.

 

Turkel:

Josh. 11:23 also refers to a specific parcel of land, much larger, but not the entirety of the land in the grant.

 

Till:

Unfortunately for Turkel, there are inconsistencies in Joshua about the area of this “parcel of land,” which Turkel says did not encompass “the entirety of the land in the grant.”  I’ll begin dismantling this quibble by quoting and analyzing Joshua 11:23 so that what it says will be fresh in everyone’s memory.

 

11:23  So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that Yahweh said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.

 

The full context of this verse will show that Turkel’s “explanation” won’t work.

 

Joshua 11:1  When Jabin king of Hazor heard of this, he sent word to Jobab king of Madon, to the kings of Shimron and Achsaph,

2  and to the northern kings who were in the mountains, in the Arabah south of Kinnereth, in the western foothills and in Naphoth Dor on the west;

3  to the Canaanites in the east and west; to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites and Jebusites in the hill country; and to the Hivites below Hermon in the region of Mizpah.

 

The place names will again give us geographical references to determine what regions were involved in this conflict.  Hazor was located about 8 miles north of the Sea of Galilee.  The location of Madon hasn’t been determined with certitude, but it is generally thought to be what is now called Qarn Hattin, which is about five miles northwest of Tiberias, which was located on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee.  Shimron’s location has also not been determined for sure, but when the land was divided among the tribes, Shimron was given to Zebulun, whose tribal land was in the northern region, west of the Sea of Galilee [Chinnereth], between the territory of Asher and Naphtali (Josh. 19:10-16).  Achsaph was assigned to Asher (Josh. 19:25), so it too was located in the northern part of the land.  The fact that king Jabin sent word “to the northern kings” (v:2) would indicate that all of these places were located in the northern part of the land, so “the Arabah south of Kinnereth [Chinnereth]” was also a northern location adjacent to the Sea of Galilee [Chinnereth].  Naphoth Dor Hermon, and Mizpah were also located in this region, so keep these northern locations in mind as I go on through the rest of the passage.

 

11:4  They came out with all their troops and a large number of horses and chariots--a huge army, as numerous as the sand on the seashore.

5  All these kings joined forces and made camp together at the Waters of Merom, to fight against Israel.

6  Yahweh said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid of them, because by this time tomorrow I will hand all of them over to Israel, slain. You are to hamstring their horses and burn their chariots."

7  So Joshua and his whole army came against them suddenly at the Waters of Merom and attacked them,

8  and Yahweh gave them into the hand of Israel. They defeated them and pursued them all the way to Greater Sidon, to Misrephoth Maim, and to the Valley of Mizpah on the east, until no survivors were left.

9  And Joshua did unto them as Yahweh bade him: he hocked their horses, and burnt their chariots with fire.

 

The “Waters of Merom” has been identified with Lake Huleh, which was located 10 miles north of the Sea of Galilee [Chinnereth], although some think that it referred to a stream that ran into the Sea of Galilee.  Regardless of what the location was, the battle took place in the northern region of the land after Joshua had allegedly driven out all the kings from Kadesh-Barnea to Gaza and up to Gibeon, at which time he utterly destroyed all that breathed (Josh. 10:40-43).  The kings of the north, under the leadership of Jabin, gathered their forces against Joshua to try to defeat him, but after they were defeated at the “Waters of Merom,” the Israelites pursued them all the way to Greater Sidon, to Misrephoth Maim, and to the Valley of Mizpah.  Sidon was located in Lebanon, north of Tyre, on the coast of “the Great [Mediterranean} Sea, and Misrephoth Maim was located on the Phoenician coast.  These locations mean that Joshua 11 claimed that the Israelites had routed their enemies to both the Mediterranean Sea and the northern borders of the land that Yahweh had promised to give them, so this is perhaps why Joshua 11:23 claimed that the Israelites had taken “all the land that [Yahweh] swore to give to their fathers.”

 

But there were fourteen verses between where I left off quoting above to 11:23.  Let’s look at what they say.

 

11:10  And Joshua at that time turned back, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms.

11  And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor with fire.

12  And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and smote them with the edge of the sword, and he utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded.

13  But as for the cities that stood still in their strength, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn.

14  And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe.

15  As Yahweh commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that Yahweh commanded Moses.

16  So Joshua took all that land, the hills, and all the south country, and all the land of Goshen, and the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same;

17  Even from the mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir, even unto Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon under mount Hermon: and all their kings he took, and smote them, and slew them.

18  Joshua made war a long time with all those kings.

19  There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle.

20  For it was of Yahweh to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as Yahweh commanded Moses.

21  And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities.

22  There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained.

 

Just look at the catalog of all the place names that this passage says that Joshua conquered and in so doing utterly destroyed their inhabitants and left none to breathe.  After routing the northern kings to Lebanon and the Mediterranean coast, he turned back and took Hazor, burned it, and utterly destroyed the people there, leaving none alive to breathe.  As noted above, Hazor was eight miles north of the Sea of Galilee [Chinnereth].  All--not some but all--the cities of all the northern kings he had routed were taken by Joshua (v:12), and the inhabitants of the cities were “utterly destroyed.”  Verse 3 in this context had earlier identified these kings as kings of the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Hivites--six of the seven nations that Yahweh had said the Israelites would utterly destroy (Deut. 7:1-2).  Only the Girgashites were missing in this alliance of kings.

 

Verse 15 says that Joshua “left nothing undone of all that Yahweh commanded Moses,” so quoting again what Yahweh commanded Moses is not necessary, because we have already seen Yahweh’s orders to utterly destroy the seven nations in Canaan.  Notice that verse 16 said that Joshua took “all of that land,” of the northern kings, and then said that he also took “the hills, and all the south country, and all the land of Goshen.”  Remember the land of Goshen?  It was the area that Joshua had captured in the south by Gaza before his excursion into the north.  The text is now claiming that Joshua routed the kings of six nations in the north, utterly destroyed all the people there, and left none alive to breathe, so now the narrator of this text has taken his readers south again to the land of Goshen and in his summation of conquered territory has thrown in “the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same.”  So what else was left to conquer?

 

Is Turkel still not convinced?  Then he should notice that this description of the routing of kings and the utter destruction of their people extended from the south of Canaan (even Kadesh-barnea in the northern edge of the wilderness of Sinai) to Sidon in Lebanon, including the coastal regions of the Levant [Palestine].  To emphasize how thorough the destruction of the nations within these boundaries was, the writer continued to catalog the places that were captured and destroyed. “From mount Halak that goes up to Seir, even to Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon, which was under mount Hermon” was used to describe the scope of the destruction.  Turkel should get a Bible atlas and check the location of the places I have emphasized in bold print.  Mount Halak was located in the Negev, in the southernmost region of the territory that later became Judah.  Seir was located in Edomite territory (Gen. 14:6; Deut. 2:4-5), so in saying that Joshua took all of the land--and utterly destroyed the people living there--from mount Halak that goes up to Seir, the writer was obviously saying that Joshua took all of the area between those two points, but the conquest and destruction then extended from Seir “even to Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon, which was under mount Hermon.  Mount Hermon was in Lebanon, and the melt-off of its snow is the source of the Jordan River, so if Joshua pursued the kings and destroyed their people as far north as Baalgad, which was below mount Hermon, then Joshua had conquered territory as far north as the land promise had stipulated.

 

Verse 21 claims that Joshua drove the “Anakim” [legendary giants] from “all the hill-country of Judah and all the hill-country of Israel,” so when all the geographical locations mentioned in Joshua 11 are analyzed, no other conclusion can be reached except that the narrator was claiming here that Joshua had conquered all the land from the far south of Canaan [Kadesh-barnea and the Negev] to the coastal regions of the Mediterranean to the land of Edom on the eastern side of the Jordan to Sidon and the valley of Lebanon in the extreme north.  No wonder the writer summed up this chapter by saying...

 

11:23  So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that Yahweh said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.

 

Three points should be noted about this text: (1) Joshua took the whole land, according to ALL that Yahweh had said to Moses.  (2) Joshua gave all the land that had been taken according to what Yahweh had said to Moses to the Israelites for an inheritance.  (3)  The land rested from war.  I’ll discuss these point in a 1, 3, 2 order. 

 

One: What was all the land according to what Yahweh had said to Moses?  Exodus 23:31 has Yahweh speaking through Moses [as he often did in those days], and the boundaries of the land he gave here were “from the Red Sea, to the Sea of the Philistines [Mediterranean], and from the wilderness [of Sinai] to ‘the River’ [Euphrates].”  In Deuteronomy 1:7, Moses said that Yahweh had spoken to him in Horeb and said that the Israelites would take the land from Arabah [in the south] to Lebanon and to the “great river, the river Euphrates.”  In Joshua 1:4, Yahweh speaking to Joshua said that as he had spoken to Moses,  he was giving to the Israelites every place that the soles of their feet would tread upon “From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea [Mediterranean] toward the going down of the sun.”  So if Joshua 11:23 claimed that Joshua had taken all the land according to all that Yahweh had said to Moses, how could he have failed to take some of the land within these clearly defined borders?

 

Three:  Joshua 11:23 said that “the land rested from war.”  I have previously referred to this verse in explicating Deuteronomy 3:20, which says that the women and children would remain in conquered cities until Yahweh gave “rest” after the men had taken the land.  Deuteronomy 25:18 also spoke of Yahweh’s giving the Israelites “rest” in an obvious sense of having driven out their enemies from the land.  So if Joshua 11:23 said that the land had “rest” in a context where it was also said that the Israelites had taken all of the land Yahweh had promised through Moses, how could it have been later that there remained “much land” to possess?

 

Two:  Joshua 11 ended with verse 23, and chapter 12 began with a listing of the land that Joshua had conquered and began dividing among the Israelites. 

 

This will be repetitious, but I am going to analyze chapter 12, which repetitiously reviewed all of the territories of the kings that Joshua had conquered.

 

Joshua 12:1  Now these are the kings of the land, which the children of Israel smote, and possessed their land on the other side Jordan toward the rising of the sun, from the river Arnon unto mount Hermon, and all the plain on the east:

 

The river Arnon flowed into the Dead Sea from territory east of the Jordan, and it formed the boundary between Amorite territory to the north and Moab to the south.  So if the Israelites possessed the land from the valley of this river to mount Hermon, in Lebanon, they had conquered land between two boundary points in Yahweh’s promise.

 

12:2  Sihon king of the Amorites, who dwelt in Heshbon, and ruled from Aroer, which is upon the bank of the river Arnon, and from the middle of the river, and from half Gilead, even unto the river Jabbok, which is the border of the children of Ammon;

 

So if Sihon ruled land from Aroer on the bank of the river Arnon [located above] to the river Jabbok [the border between Amorite and Ammonite territories], and if Joshua took all of this land and possessed it, this would have extended Israelite land holdings even farther north.

 

12:3  And from the plain to the sea of Chinneroth on the east, and unto the sea of the plain, even the salt sea on the east, the way to Bethjeshimoth; and from the south, under Ashdothpisgah:

 

This would have extended the conquest holdings to include the plains or valley areas from the Sea of Galilee [Chinneroth] to the Dead [Salt] Sea.

 

12:4  And the coast of Og king of Bashan, which was of the remnant of the giants, that dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei,

5  And reigned in mount Hermon, and in Salcah, and in all Bashan, unto the border of the Geshurites and the Maachathites, and half Gilead, the border of Sihon king of Heshbon.

6  Them did Moses the servant of Yahweh and the children of Israel smite: and Moses the servant of Yahweh gave it for a possession unto the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh.

 

Conquest of this territory would have extended the Israelite land holdings to Lebanon, where mount Hermon was located, but as noted, this was territory conquered under the leadership of Moses.  This land was given to the tribes of Reuben and Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh before the Israelites entered Canaan  (Num. 32).

 

7  And these are the kings of the country which Joshua and the children of Israel smote on this side Jordan on the west, from Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon even unto the mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir; which Joshua gave unto the tribes of Israel for a possession according to their divisions;

8  In the mountains, and in the valleys, and in the plains, and in the springs, and in the wilderness, and in the south country; the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites:

 

As noted earlier, Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon was located in what was the fringe of the northern boundary that Yahweh had promised the Israelites, and mount Halak, which went up to Seir, was located in the fringe area of the southern boundary.

 

12:9  The king of Jericho, one; the king of Ai, which is beside Bethel, one;

10  The king of Jerusalem, one; the king of Hebron, one;

11  The king of Jarmuth, one; the king of Lachish, one;

12  The king of Eglon, one; the king of Gezer, one;

13  The king of Debir, one; the king of Geder, one;

14  The king of Hormah, one; the king of Arad, one;

15  The king of Libnah, one; the king of Adullam, one;

16  The king of Makkedah, one; the king of Bethel, one;

17  The king of Tappuah, one; the king of Hepher, one;

18  The king of Aphek, one; the king of Lasharon, one;

19  The king of Madon, one; the king of Hazor, one;

20  The king of Shimronmeron, one; the king of Achshaph, one;

21  The king of Taanach, one; the king of Megiddo, one;

22  The king of Kedesh, one; the king of Jokneam of Carmel, one;

23  The king of Dor in the coast of Dor, one; the king of the nations of Gilgal, one;

24  The king of Tirzah, one: all the kings thirty and one.

 

Thirty-one defeated kings were listed here.  I have highlighted only a few of the place names, because their locations were earlier identified, but if Turkel will get a Bible atlas and check the others, he will find that they were located from the extreme south to the extreme north and from the extreme east to the extreme west of the boundaries that Yahweh promised.  Turkel’s attempt to explain away the discrepancy in Joshua 11 by claiming that “the whole land” that Joshua conquered referred only to land within specific regions and not to all of the land promised has been soundly refuted.  As I said, the Bible in places is boringly repetitious.  Turkel may consider this a “snide” and “insulting comment,” but it is an accurate literary criticism of some parts of the Bible.  The writer(s) of Joshua were too specific and repetitious in cataloging all of the places that Joshua conquered, whose inhabitants he “utterly destroyed,” leaving none alive to breathe, to give any room to try to wiggle out of admitting that the book of Joshua did at first claim that the Israelites had taken all the land Yahweh had promised them but then later backpedaled and said that some of the land--well, to be exact, “much land”--remained to be taken.

 

I’ve killed Turkel ten times over on this point, so I will make only one observation and then go on.  I noted earlier that Joshua 10:40-43 claimed that Joshua utterly destroyed the inhabitants of Canaan from Kadesh-barnea to Gibeon, and if he had done this the Jebusites in Jerusalem, just south of Gibeon, would have been utterly destroyed, but Joshua 15:63 and Judges 1:21 both said that the Israelites were unable to drive out the Jebusites.  Notice above that Joshua 12:10 listed “the king of Jerusalem” as one of the kings that Joshua “smote” in his conquest of the land.  If, however, Joshua had defeated the king of Jerusalem and “utterly destroyed” its inhabitants, that would have been the end of the Jebusites.  How then could biblical texts later say that the Israelites were unable to drive out the Jebusites?

 

That question is easy to answer.  The OT is a patchwork of materials by different authors at different times, so the piecing together of these works resulted in many inconsistencies.

 

Turkel:

What remains to be taken is specified in 13:2-6. The word “land” (‘erets) is a common used [sic] over 2500 times in the OT to refer to large parcels of land of varying size with delineations that are specific ("land of Egypt"). In Josh. 10 it is “these kings and their land”, i.e., just the land of these kings mentioned previously, which does not encompass all of the grant. In Josh. 11 it is the land of a specifically named set of kings and peoples with their territories, which also does not encompass all of the grant, and is never said to encompass all of the grant.

 

Till:

Ah, more insights into Hebrew nuances!  Whatever nuances Turkel may think he sees in the Hebrew word ‘erets cannot make this bird fly, because my detailed analysis of Joshua 11 showed that the catalog of conquered places and cities went from the extreme south to the extreme north and from the extreme east to the Mediterranean coast.  In listing the “much land” that remained to be conquered, Joshua 13:2 listed “all the regions of the Philistines,” but Gaza was on the Mediterranean coast, right smack in the middle of Philistine territory, and Joshua 10:40-41 claimed that Joshua “smote” all the land of the southern hill-country and lowlands and all of their kings, from Kadesh-barnea and all the country of Goshen, where Gaza was located.  Gaza was listed as one of the towns allotted to Judah (Josh. 15:47). 

 

Joshua 13:3 listed “five lords of the Philistines” who had not yet been conquered, and the lord of Ashdod was one of these, but Joshua 15:47 also allotted Ashdod, with all of its villages, to Judah.

 

Turkel will have to take his “explanation” back to the drawing board and try again.

 

Turkel:

Re Joshua 21:43-45:

 

Critics with a fundamentalist hermeneutical past tend to keep their preoccupation with the idea that an inerrancy doctrine means that the Bible dropped out of heaven complete.

 

Till:

Hmm, I’ve never known a “critic” with a fundamentalist past who believed this.  Critics with a fundamentalist past do know, however, that biblical fundamentalists almost invariably espouse the doctrine of verbal inspiration, which requires a belief that the very words of the Bible were inspired of God in the original manuscripts and were the words that God wanted them to use.  This belief is patently ridiculous, but I firmly believe that it is a belief justified by what the Bible says about divine guidance that was given to prophets, writers, and apostles.  If Turkel would care to argue otherwise, this would be another potential debate topic after we have finished the land-promise issue.  All I would insist upon would be that he agree to post all of my exchanges with him on his website.

 

Turkel:

That is a naive view held over only by the most primitive of inerrantists.

 

Till:

Yes, it would be a naive view to think that the Bible “dropped out of heaven complete,“ but belief in verbal inspiration is a view fully justified by what the Bible teaches about divine guidance of God’s “chosen vessels.”  It is an absurd belief, but if one is naive enough to believe that the Bible is “the inspired word of God,” verbal inspiration is a necessary consequence of believing in divine inspiration.

 

Turkel:

Others recognize that certain blocks of the text had their origins as oral units of tradition, formulated and designed for a specific purpose. Josh. 21:43-45 comes at the end of an extended accounting of the assigning of territories to the Israelite tribes, and before several other independent units. 21:43-45 sits by itself, and for a specific purpose. It is a formulaic summary of previous events, with the emphasis on God's faithfulness to His promises.

 

Till:

In case some have forgotten what Joshua 21:43-45 says.  I will quote it again.

 

43  Thus Yahweh gave to Israel all the land that he swore to their ancestors that he would give them; and having taken possession of it, they settled there.

44  And Yahweh gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their ancestors; not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for Yahweh had given all their enemies into their hands.

45  Not one of all the good promises that Yahweh had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.

 

Turkel is right about this passage coming at the end of an extended accounting of the territories that been assigned to the Israelite tribes.  That accounting began at Chapter 13:8 and ran through nine chapters.  The section is too long for me to analyze as I did the passages describing the cities and regions that had been conquered,  but anyone who takes the time to look at the tribal allotments, all of which gave clearly defined boundaries for each of the tribe, should see, with the aid of a Bible atlas, that the allotments covered every speck of territory within the boundaries that Yahweh had promised to the Israelites, so after detailing all of these allotments to the tribes, whoever wrote 21:43-45 [quoted above] flatly said that this land encompass all the land that Yahweh had sworn to give to the Israelites to possess and that he then “gave rest on every side” [also as he had sworn he would do when all the land was conquered] and that Yahweh had “given all their enemies into their hands.”  He further said that not one of all the good promises that Yahweh had made to Israel had failed, because all came to pass.

 

The division of the land described in chapters 13-23 would confirm what was said in verses 43-45 if it were true, but other biblical and extrabiblical records do not confirm that the Israelites ever possessed territory this extensive.  Furthermore, later references in Joshua and Judges flatly say that some of the “enemies” of Israel, such as the Jebusites and Canaanites could not be driven from the land.  According to 1 Kings 9:20, as late as the reign of Solomon, over 400 years after the events in Joshua, some of those seven nations “greater and mightier” than Israel, which Yahweh had promised to drive out and utterly destroy, were still living in the land.

 

1 Kings 9:20  All the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the people of Israel--

21  their descendants who were still left in the land, whom the Israelites were unable to destroy completely--these Solomon conscripted for slave labor, and so they are to this day.

 

If Turkel is going to find consistency in the biblical text, he will have to beat what he has done so far.

 

Turkel:

As a formulaic composition, 21:43-45 contains several elements designed for easy oral memory: the repetitive “and” which is typical of Semitic literature; the forceful central chiasm using the phrase “all their enemies” as a core (not apparent in the English translation: the Hebrew order is, “And not stood [‘amad] a man before them all of their enemies; all their enemies gave Yahweh into their hand [yad]”);

 

Till:

Whoa!  Isn’t everybody impressed with the way Turkel slings references to Hebrew words as if he knows the language like the back of his hand?  He knows no more about Hebrew than I do, and he wouldn’t recognize a “forceful central chiasm” if it slapped him in the face.  In fact, I suspect that he meant “chiasmus” but  wasn’t paying careful attention to what he was copying from some source to leave the impression with gullible readers that he is able to see insightful nuances in the biblical text that escape the notice of others.

 

Turkel:

 the reuse of the phrase “sware to their fathers”; the use of exclusive language (all, any, not -- notably, not applied to the word possessed). In short, it is designed to be memorized and repeated, and as such is not concerned with reporting the niggling "exception" details about which critics complain. These details are assumed to be known by the hearers, who are to use this summary formula to encourage themselves to continue on the same path, as Yahweh has proven to be faithful in all of his promises up to the time that this formula is inserted in the text.

 

Till:

This all sounds like excuse-making for what Turkel realizes are obvious inconsistencies in the biblical record.  What is he trying to say?  Is he arguing that the omni-one, when “inspiring” whoever wrote this text, allowed him to inject error into his historical report because it would be easier to repeat from memory?  If so, is he arguing that “inspiration” by an omni-everything deity couldn’t direct the writer to give an accurate account of what had happened up to this point in Israelite history?  Is he saying that an omni-max deity sacrificed historical accuracy in order to make a text easier to memorize?

 

Turkel was the one who said in the first paragraph of his “reply” that the issue in this debate would be “the consistency of the biblical text,” so is he now backpedaling too?  Does he think that the biblical text on this issue was inconsistent so that a passage like this could be memorized more easily by those who wanted to pass it along orally?  Does inconsistency in a biblical text magically go away because the intention of the writer was to word the statement so that it would be easier to memorize?

 

He needs to explain himself.

 

I’ll finish my reply to Turkel in Part (6).

Editor's Note: Farrell Till's rebuttal continues here

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  

Tilling Turkel’s “Land Ahoy” - Part 6

-------------------------------------------------

Land Ahoy!

Rebuttal to "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise"

published by

 Robert Turkel at  http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_WRE.html

under the pseudonym James Patrick Holding

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Turkel:

Apparently such critics [those who were formerly biblical fundamentalists] expect the ancients to kowtow to their own modernist expectations and have the passage read as follows:

 

And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed all except the parts they had yet to conquer (see previous passage) and a few areas where they could or did not drive the people out, and dwelt therein. And the LORD gave them rest round about, though there were still some battles to come in the future, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them, other than those few holdouts like the Jebusites; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand, with the exception of those yet to be conquered and those few he left to help keep the wild animals under control (see previous passage). There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass, at least so far, wasn't that nice?

 

Till:

Why didn’t the writer just give an accurate statement of what had happened and say something like, “At this time, most of the land that Yahweh promised to Israel and their fathers had been given to them except...” and then list the land that remained to be conquered?  Is there something wrong with factual reporting?  Is it asking too much of an omni-max deity to expect accuracy in written materials that he “inspired”?

 

If a statement like what I suggested had ended chapter 11, then it could have been prefixed to the beginning of chapter 13 so that the composite would have read like this:

 

11:23 and 13:1 At this time, most of the land that Yahweh promised to Israel and their fathers was given to them except the much land that remains to be possessed. 

2  This is the land that still remains: all the regions of the Philistines, and all those of the Geshurites

3  (from the Shihor, which is east of Egypt, northward to the boundary of Ekron, it is reckoned as Canaanite; there are five rulers of the Philistines, those of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron), and those of the Avvim,

4  in the south, all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that belongs to the Sidonians, to Aphek, to the boundary of the Amorites,

5  and the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon, toward the east, from Baal-gad below Mount Hermon to Lebo-hamath,

6  all the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon to Misrephoth-maim, even all the Sidonians.

 

Instead of doing it this way, the omni-one inspired his chosen vessel to write the texts with a claim that Joshua had taken the whole land according to what Yahweh had promised through Moses, insert a listing of all the land that had been conquered, and then say, “Now Joshua was old and advanced in years; and Yahweh said to him, “You are old and advanced in years, and very much of the land still remains to be possessed” (13:10).

 

No flapdoodle about “forceful central chiasms” designed to make the statement easier to memorize can explain away an obvious inconsistency.  Furthermore, Turkel’s rewriting above with all of the “excepts” is a tacit admission that the texts as written are inconsistency.  Didn’t he say that the issue in this debate would be “the internal consistency of the Biblical record”?  I believe he did, so it is time for him to show us that the Biblical record is consistent in the matter of how much land the Israelites possessed.

 

Turkel:

.In light of this we ask our opponent these questions:

 

1. Do you deny that the Ancient Near East was a predominantly oral culture?

 

Till:

Well, “our opponent” will be more than happy to answer the questions.  No, I don’t deny that the Ancient Near East was a predominantly oral culture.  At the time that all of these conquests were presumably happening, the Israelites were probably an entirely oral culture, because alphabetic writing was in its infancy at this time.  Oral traditions, when later written down in different regions, became inconsistent accounts that were patched together to form the hodgepodge of inconsistencies that characterize much of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel and Kings.  Instead of just recognizing this, biblicists like Turkel tie themselves into verbal knots to try to “explain” the inconsistencies, as if it would have been beyond the ability of an omni-max deity to “inspire“ correctness in written materials in a society that was “predominantly oral.”

 

Turkel:

2. If not, do you deny that such formulaic expressions as these existed in oral cultures, and were intended to serve a particular purpose?

 

Till:

Accuracy is accuracy and inaccuracy is inaccuracy whether oral or written.  No “formulaic expressions” can make oral inaccuracies accurate.  An inconsistent statement, whether written or oral, is an inconsistent statement.

 

Turkel:

3. Do you insist that Yahweh should have inspired the OT writers to neglect their oral background and readership, and include details of niggling exception so as to make the matter more "clear" to you?

 

Till:

I insist that an omni-everything deity, who cannot lie, should have inspired OT writers to report events accurately.  A really omni-max deity could have easily guided the inspired ones to use their oral background to report accurately what had happened in the events that they wrote about.  If not, why not?  Of what use was “inspiration” anyway if it didn’t guide the writers to record facts accurately as they were writing?  If an inspired writer was reporting something that he knew of through oral tradition, why wouldn’t guidance from the omni-one have directed him to correct whatever inaccuracies may have been in the oral tradition?

 

Turkel:

4. If so, why? On what grounds do you insist that Yahweh should have accommodated the graphocentric prejudices of you, and those of just a few like you in modern times, as opposed to inspiring a formulaic description for millions in the past, for whom making such passages easy to remember was so important, and for whom the material was the most relevant?

 

Till:

This is a multi-faceted question, so I will take it a facet at a time.  First, my grounds for insisting that Yahweh should have inspired his “chosen” writers to record accurately what had happened is that truth is better than falsity and that a deity who cannot lie should be expected to report the truth.  As for “graphocentric prejudices” of me and “just a few like [me],” if expecting truth in reporting is a graphocentric prejudice, I plead guilty, and if there are only a few like me in the world, I am glad to be in the minority on this issue.

 

Second, the OT history of Yahweh’s “chosen people” was presumably an inspired record for all mankind throughout history or--excuse the expression--forever.  The omni-one should have realized that (1) reporting exactly what had happened could have been understood by Hebrew readers, (2) inspiring written records without inconsistencies in them would have commanded much more respect from future generations whose concepts of logic and truth would be more advanced than the “millions in the past,” and (3) inspiring accuracy in the written records of a predominantly oral culture would have prevented discussions like this one.

 

Now I will return the favor and ask Turkel four questions.

 

1.  Is it your position that inconsistencies are not inconsistencies if they were recorded in a time when the culture was predominantly oral?

 

2.  If so, is it your position that inconsistency and contradiction were impossible in oral communications?

 

3.  Or is it your position that consistency was not possible in oral accounts?

 

4.  If inconsistency was possible in oral communications, why wouldn’t the “inspiration” of an omni-max deity have enabled writers so inspired to remove inconsistencies from oral traditions as they were writing down that which had previously been transmitted orally?

 

Turkel:

Those critics who insist upon the inclusion of such niggling details are guilty of what certain authorities on communication issues call graphocentrism -- an inherent bias in which writing is privileged over speech. Speech and writing are different forms of media with highly differing functions, and we should not demand that those people whose primary "media outlet" was speech conform to our demands as those who primary "media outlet" is writing.

 

Till:

So is Turkel arguing that saying something would remove inconsistencies that would be in the same statement if it were written down?  Words are words, so if an inconsistency exists in words that are written down, why would the inconsistency vanish if the same words were spoken?

 

Turkel:

Nor should we expect God to have inspired persons in an oral culture (and it is in that type of culture in which the overwhelming majority of people even today are immersed) to write things down in a way that would have been far less effective for them. We have hindsight to help us make the interpretive analysis. The ancients did not have such hindsight. Should he take this view, we defy our opponent to explain his self-centeredness on this point.

 

Till:

Well, my comments above fully explain my “self-centeredness on this point.”  Inconsistency is inconsistency whether it is oral or written.  If Turkel thinks that inconsistency is not inconsistency in orally transmitted accounts, he needs to explain why it isn’t.  Furthermore, once an oral tradition was written down, it became a written account, so Turkel cannot find an excuse for inconsistency in the book of Joshua on the grounds that these were just accounts of what had once been transmitted orally. 

 

I hope everyone is noticing that Turkel is now tacitly admitting that there are inconsistencies in the biblical records of the conquest.  I thank him for the admission.

 

Turkel:

Continuing:

 

Till:

What?  Another transition!

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

Its borders extended from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, from the wilderness, to Lebanon, and to the great river Euphrates.

 

Turkel:

This is merely setup on a matter that all parties would agree to. No one doubts that these were the geographic boundaries of the land Yahweh had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

Till:

Well, if everyone agrees that these were the promised boundaries, then Turkel needs to explain how nothing failed of all that Yahweh had promised the Israelites, yet they never possessed all of the land within those boundaries.

 

Oh, I forgot.  This was a time when the culture was predominantly oral. 

 

Never mind.

 

Turkel:

It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

This is part of the 1,353 words of “irrelevant distractions” in Turkel’s “reply.”

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

Furthermore, the fulfillment claims state that the Israelites left none alive to breathe and that not a man of all their enemies stood before them.

 

Turkel:

As this remark is merely transitional, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

There is the same “irrelevant distraction” again.

 

I assume everyone noticed that Turkel sidestepped this problem once again.  He must explain how the Israelites could have left none alive to breathe and how not a man of all their enemies stood before them, and yet they couldn’t take all of the land promised to them and some of the Canaanites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Hivites, Hittites, and Amorites remained in the land until the time of Solomon over 400 years later.

 

Oh, I know, I know!  This was a time when the culture was predominantly oral.

 

I forgot.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

Who were those enemies?

 

Turkel:

As this question is merely transitional, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

This is still more of Turkel’s 1,353 words of “irrelevant distraction.”

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

Time and time again, they were named in the land prophecies: the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Jebusites, and the Perizzites.

 

Turkel:

This is merely a repeat of earlier information. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

This is still more of Turkel’s 1,353 words of “irrelevant distraction,” which wasn’t distractive enough to keep intelligent readers from seeing how he evaded this issue.  If Yahweh had promised that he would drive out and utterly destroy the Amorites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and if the Israelites left none alive to breathe and if not a man of all their enemies stood before them, then why didn’t the Israelites take all of the land within the borders defined in the promise and why were Canaanites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Hivites, Hittites, and Amorites still in the land until the time of Solomon over 400 years later?

 

If Turkel replies to my rebuttal articles, watch him dance around this problem again.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel in red]:

Yet after audaciously claiming in the passages noted above that every aspect of Yahweh's land promise had been fulfilled, the writer(s) turned around and brazenly admitted that some parts of the land were not conquered and some of the peoples in these lands were not driven out:

 

Turkel:

And this quote is made:

 

Till:

Another unnecessary transition.  If Turkel had simply quoted the passage that followed my statement above, readers could have followed the flow of my ideas.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

Now Joshua was old and well stricken in years; and Yahweh said unto him, Thou art old and well stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed. This is the land that yet remaineth: all the regions of the Philistines, and all the Geshurites; from the Shihor, which is before Egypt, even unto the border of Ekron northward, which is reckoned to the Canaanites; the five lords of the Philistines; the Gazites, and the Ashdodites, the Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avvim, on the south; all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that belongeth to the Sidonians, unto Aphek, to the border of the Amorites; and the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baalgad under mount Hermon unto the entrance of Hamath; all the inhabitants of the hill-country from Lebanon unto Misrephothmaim, even all the Sidonians; them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only allot thou it unto Israel for an inheritance, as I have commanded thee, (Joshua 13:1-6, Yahweh substituted).

 

Turkel:

And:

 

Till:

Sigh!  Another needless transition.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

This statement flatly contradicts the claim in Joshua 11:23 that Joshua "took the whole land, according to all that Yahweh spake unto Moses" so that the land had rest from war.

 

Turkel:

This is already answered above.

 

Till:

And I hammered that answer “above” flatter than a cow patty.  My analyses of all of the accounts of Joshua’s attacks and listings of land conquered, possessed, and divided among the Israelites show that these passages were claiming conquest and possession from the northern fringe of the Sinai wilderness to the southern regions of Lebanon and from the territory of the Amorites and Moabites east of the Jordan to the Mediterranean coastal regions.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

All of the territorial regions singled out in this passage as land that remained to be possessed lay within the boundaries that were laid out in Joshua 1:1-6 to specify the scope of the land that Yahweh would give to the Israelites.

 

Turkel:

This is merely a repeat of earlier argumentation.

 

Till:

And this is argumentation that Turkel was unable to answer.  Hence, my argument remains unimpeached.

 

Turkel:

It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent;

 

Till:

This is still more of Turkel’s 1,353 words of “irrelevant distractions” obviously intended to divert attention from his inability to answer arguments.

 

Turkel:

such arguments as are implied are answered above.

 

Till:

And the answers “above” were dismantled by analyzing the relevant texts to show that some passages in Joshua clearly claimed that all the land promised had been given to the Israelites and that nothing had failed in anything that Yahweh had spoken through Moses.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

So if Joshua had indeed taken "the whole land, according to all that Yahweh spake unto Moses," as claimed In Joshua 11:23, how could it be said later that "very much land" remained to be possessed?

 

Turkel:

This is merely a repeat of earlier argumentation.

 

Till:

It is an earlier argument that Turkel tried to refute and couldn’t.

 

Turkel:

It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

This is yet more of Turkel’s 1,353-word straw man that he repeated 41 times to distract attention from his failure to rebut my arguments.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

Perhaps some of our inerrantist readers can answer this question.

 

Turkel:

This is merely a snide remark intended to provoke the psychological effect that no inerrantist reader can answer the question.

 

Till:

Ah, the pot calls the kettle black again.  I previously quoted an example of “snide remarks” from Turkel’s website, so let’s look at some more.  This is from an article entitled “Caught with Your Pants Down” or “What Happens When You Take Off Your Bible Belt” at <http://www.tektonics.org/scottb01.html>.

 

Being that we're running out of skeptics to refute, we at Tekton have resorted to scraping barrel bottoms. This includes challenging Farrell Till to debate and now, writing pieces about minor skeptics such as this one.

 

When he reads the thoroughness of my reply, I suspect that Turkel won’t be too eager to debate me again.  Only time will tell.  If he wants a return engagement, I am ready and eager to lock verbal swords with him on the issue of prophecy fulfillment.

 

Oh, I forgot.  He won’t debate this issue, because there are “insufficient data.”

 

Here’s another comment from the pot’s website.

 

Yes, even now our critic is still at it, and still floundering around in the paste trying to make a respectful collage, even after five months of sticky fingers. As the level of response has become a bit ungainly, we're now putting it in a separate article, and this includes the latest, latest, latest responses.

 

This one is from an article entitled “Scratching the Cat Post” or “Our Critic Continues on the Trilemma” at <http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_03_01_CC1.html>.  “Our critic” in this article was Brian Holtz, who published a thorough rebuttal of Turkel on his, er, McDowell’s, er, C. S. Lewis’s “liar, lord, or lunatic trilemma.”   In keeping with his nickname Robert “No Link” Turkel, he has provided his readers with no link to Holtz’s rebuttal article. He hasn’t even used Holtz’s name on his website. Instead, Turkel refers to him as “our critic,” as he selectively quotes from Holtz’s rebuttal articles so that readers will see only what Turkel wants them to see from Holtz’s rebuttals and never know what name they could use to search the web for Holtz‘s replies.  The replies can be accessed at <"http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Trilemma.html">.

 

For Turkel to fault me for “snide remarks” has to be the height of hypocrisy.

 

Turkel:

It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

Here is Turkel’s straw man again.  If he had devoted these 1,353 words to relevant points, he may have actually answered an argument or two.  As it is, he has answered nothing.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

 

They are good at coming up with far-fetched, how-it- could-have-been scenarios to “explain” obvious contradictions in the Bible.

 

Turkel:

This snide remark serves no concrete argumentative purpose in this context and is added for no other purpose than to be insulting to believers and provide a cheering point for gullible skeptical readers,

 

Till:

The “pot” complains again.

 

Turkel:

and is a manipulative, tactical way of giving the false impression that there are indeed obvious contradictions;

 

Till:

If claiming there are “obvious contradictions” in the Bible is a “manipulative, tactical way of giving [a] false impression,”  then  why  didn’t  Turkel  show us that the biblical text is consistent in what it says about the amount of land that was conquered and possessed and when it was conquered and possessed?  What better way to show that I am “giving a false impression”?  He obviously has a great deal of interest in trying to discredit me, as anyone can immediately see by accessing his site, so why didn’t he really embarrass me by showing that the book of Joshua is consistent in what it says about the land promise and its fulfillment?

 

Turkel:

that our opponent has carefully looked into every “obvious contradiction,” and critically determined that all solutions to them have failed.

 

Till:

No, I haven’t looked into every “obvious contradiction,” because in my reading of the Bible I continue to notice inconsistencies that are rather obvious that I hadn’t noticed before. I doubt that I am yet aware of every obvious contradiction in the Bible. If Turkel is referring to the whole body of materials published by so-called biblical skeptics, then I don’t claim that all solutions have failed, because I don’t believe that some of these so-called discrepancies are real discrepancies.  Unfortunately, some skeptics specialize in the nitpicking kind of discrepancies, and I have openly opposed this and will continue to do so.  I do know, however, that biblicists, in general, have been unable to give successful solutions to real inconsistencies like the land-promise failure.  Turkel is now testimony to the fact that someone who obviously considers himself one of the best in apologetics cannot find a satisfactory solution to this problem.

 

Turkel:

It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to gain debate points illicitly.

 

Till:

Here is Turkel’s straw man again. 

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

Most of the rest of the book of Joshua and the better part of Judges contradict all of the fulfillment claims  that I have noted above.

 

Turkel:

As this comment is merely transitional,

 

Till:

And, of course, Turkel finds transitional comments appalling.  That’s why he avoids them like the plague in his own writing.

 

Turkel:

it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

There’s the straw man again.  To how much better use would Turkel’s 1,353 words have been put if he had devoted them to trying to answer my arguments that he has tap danced around?

 

Turkel:

But then some quotes are offered:

 

Till:

What?  Another transitional distraction!

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

Joshua 15:63 says, “And as for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.”

 

Turkel:

And:

 

Till:

Hmm, another unnecessary transition.  Turkel cannot, and never will be able to, explain....

Oh, well....

 

Till [quoted by Turkel in red]:

Yet the Jebusites were specifically named as one of the seven nations “greater and mightier than thou” that  would be utterly destroyed.

 

Turkel:

This is Example 1.

 

Till:

Which Turkel didn’t reply to.  I guess he intends to come back to this, as he said he would do when he skipped over Aspect 1, Aspect 2, Aspect 3, etc. with a promise to reserve comment on them until all aspects had been listed.  Somehow I failed to see any refutation of those “aspects” after they had all been listed.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

Joshua 16:10 says, “And they drove not out the CANAANITES that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwell in the midst of Ephraim unto this day, and are become servants to do taskwork.”

 

Turkel:

This is example 2.

 

Till:

Yes, it is example 2, so why didn’t Turkel answer it?  I ask readers to watch attentively to notice that Turkel never came back to these to explain specifically how Jebusites and Canaanites could have remained in the land after it was said that no man of the enemies of the Israelites were able to stand before them and that nothing failed in all of the promises that Yahweh had made to Israel through Moses.  You will see that he lumped them all together and swept them under a rug with general comments that didn’t specifically answer anything.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

But the Canaanites were specifically listed as one of the seven nations that would be utterly destroyed.

 

Turkel:

Since the point here is the same as that above, this sentence offers an unnecessary repetition.

 

Till:

But it is repetition that Turkel needs to answer.  How could there have been Canaanites in the land after the text had said that no man was able to stand before the Israelites and that nothing had failed in all of the promises that Yahweh had made to Israel through Moses?

 

Turkel:

It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

Here is Turkel’s straw man again.  If he had devoted the 33 words in this expression--all 41 times that he repeated it--maybe he could have explained to us how Jebusites and Canaanites could have been in the land after it had been said that no man of the Israelite enemies were able to stand before them and after it was claimed that nothing had failed in all that Yahweh had promised to Israel.

 

Turkel:

But then some quotes are offered:

 

Till:

Sigh!  Another transitional distraction, but let’s watch to see if Turkel replies to the “quotes that [were] offered.”

 

Till [quoted by Turkel in red]:

Joshua 17:12-13 says, “Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. And it came to pass, when the children of Israel were waxed strong, that they put the Canaanites to taskwork, and did not utterly drive them out.”

 

Turkel:

Example 3.

 

Till:

Yes, it is example 3, so why didn’t Turkel reply to it?  Keep an eye on him and watch how he tries to lump these examples all together and dance around them.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

Yet the promise had clearly been that the Canaanites would be utterly driven out, that no man would be able to stand before the Israelites all the days of their lives.

 

Turkel:

Since the point here is the same as that above, this sentence offers an unnecessary repetition.

 

Till:

Since it repeats an argument that Turkel hasn’t yet replied to, why is it unnecessary, and why didn’t Turkel try to answer it?

 

Turkel makes Steppin’ Fetchin’ look like a rank amateur.

 

 

Turkel:

It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

The straw man again.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel in red]:

Making servants of them can hardly be considered fulfillment of a prophecy declaring that they would be “utterly driven out.”

 

Turkel:

This point deserves reply. It is correctly observed by our opponent:

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

In fact, it contradicts a restriction noted on page three that expressly prohibited the Israelites from making covenants with the inhabitants of their promised land.

 

Turkel:

Yes, indeed, the restriction was violated. We will return to this shortly, but first our opponent repeats all of his arguments in summary form:

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

In Joshua 16:10; 17:12-13; Judges 1:1-5; 1:9; 1:21; 1:27-36; 3:1-6 and many other places, references are made to the people that the Israelites could not drive out of the land, and many of these were specific references to people from the “even nations greater and mightier than thou” that Yahweh promised that he would drive out without fail.

 

Turkel:

This is merely a repeat of earlier argumentation.

 

Till:

So when is Turkel going to answer it?  Be alert to notice how he later lumps everything together and sweeps it under a rug.

 

Turkel:

It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

The straw man again!

 

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

But he didn't, and so the inerrancy champions have some serious explaining to do.

 

The Pot:

This snide remark serves no concrete argumentative purpose in this context and is added for no other purpose than to provide a cheering point for gullible skeptical readers, and is a manipulative, tactical way of giving the false impression that our opponent has carefully looked into the issue and critically determined that no solution is possible, and that a grave burden lies upon inerrantists.

 

Till:

The pot calls the kettle black.  I just received an e-mail message in which Turkel made the following comments.

 

Hiya porkchop! I thought I heard the wind blowing, and what do you know, you wrote me a note! Ha ha! :-D

 

I'm very sorry. I'll be sure and include some pictures next time, but it is up to you to buy the crayons to color them with.

 

The last comment was made about the 13,502 words in his “reply” to my article, but there were even more such comments in his message.  I had told him that I was patiently working away to reply point-by-point to his rebuttal, and he said this.

 

Well, your patience is quite admirable, Mr. Job, and it shall be rewarded. I'm sending Bildad right over to tell you what a miserable fellow you are.

 

And it continued in that vein.  Those who know me understand that snide comments, barbs, and insults don’t bother me, because I think they can liven up debates that would otherwise get tedious, but for Turkel to complain about “snide remarks” in my article, which were tame compared to the invective that is a primary feature of his website, has to be audacity gone to seed.

 

Turkel:

It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to gain debate, sound bite points illicitly.

 

Till:

Straw man!

 

Turkel may think it isn’t necessary to “quote this” in a reply, but why doesn’t he at least reply to it?

 

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:   

If “Yahweh gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers” (Joshua 21:43-45) and if “they possessed it (the land) and dwelt therein” (same passage) and if Yahweh “gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers” (same passage) and if “there stood not a man of all their enemies before them” (same passage) and if “Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand”  (same passage) and if “there failed not aught of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken unto the house of Israel” (same passage) and if “all came to pass” (same passage), how could it have been that some of the enemies of Israel were still in the land during the time of the book of Judges and how could it have been that some of the people of the “seven nations greater and mightier than thou” were still dwelling with the children of Israel “unto this day”?

 

Turkel:

This horrendously verbose sentence is merely a repeat of earlier argumentation.

 

Till

It’s a repeat of earlier argumentation that Turkel hasn’t answered yet.  Gullible readers of his website who are naive enough to pledge $70 to $80 per year to him so that he can become a full-time “apologist” to churn out evasion such as this may think that he is kicking butt, but readers with any critical skills at all will have no difficulty seeing that he isn’t answering much of anything and is kicking straw men around by repeatedly saying, “This is merely a repeat of earlier argumentation,” and so “it is not necessary to quote this in a reply.”

 

Turkel:

It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

 

Till:

This is straw man number what?  Who knows?  It isn’t worth my time to count them.

 

Turkel:

But now that these superfluous words are beyond us, we go to an answer. The cites indicated may categorized in two ways:

 

Till:

Ah, yes, here is a familiar tactic.  The inerrantist skips over the arguments as his opponent presents them and then pretends to “categorize” them and answer them all together.  When we have gone through his dance routine, I’ll just restate the questions above that Turkel didn’t answer.

 

Turkel:

1. Places where it is said that the Israelites did not drive out the inhabitants, but reduced them to forced labor. (Josh. 16:10, 17:12-15; Judges 1:21; 1:27-35) Our opponent notes these as a violation and is right to do so. Yet because of the landlord-tenant relationship described above, such instances as these can hardly be taken to account against Yahweh's promise to drive out the nations, since it reflects the choice of the Israelities [sic] to not drive them out. By that accounting it was a specific violation of the covenant terms by the Israelites, and there was indeed a punishment for this:

 

Till:

Yahweh promised that he would drive out all of the nations and that not a man would be able to stand against them, so if the Israelites put some of the people into forced labor, how could it have correctly been said that “there failed not aught of any good thing that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel” (Josh. 21:45)?  Let’s take a look at the examples that were mentioned above.

 

Joshua 16:10  They did not, however, drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer: so the Canaanites have lived within Ephraim to this day but have been made to do forced labor.

 

Joshua 17:12  Yet the Manassites could not take possession of those towns; but the Canaanites continued to live in that land.

13  But when the Israelites grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not utterly drive them out.

 

The promise in Joshua 1:5 was that “no man will be able to stand against you [the Israelites],”  and Johua 23:44 said that “there stood not a man of ALL their enemies before them,” but in between these two statements, it was said that the Israelites could not drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer and that the Manassites could not take possession of some towns that the Canaanites continued to live in.  They did not utterly drive them out.

 

Now I want Turkel to explain how Joshua 1:5 and 23:44 could be true but Joshua 16:10 and 17:12-13 were also true.  Here’s my question again, slightly modified, which Turkel is trying to dance around by “categorizing” it, so why don’t we just look at the question in isolation?

 

If “there stood not a man of ALL their enemies before them” and if “Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand” and if “there failed not aught of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken unto the house of Israel” and if “all came to pass” and IF all four of these “if” statements are inerrantly true, how could it have possibly been that the Israelites did not drive out and did not utterly destroy the Canaanites mentioned in Joshua 16:10 and Joshua 17:12-13?

 

If Turkel answers my replies to his 13,045 word masterpiece in evasion, watch him dance around these questions again.

 

As for putting the Canaanites into “forced labor,” if the Israelites were able to enslave them, then why were they not able to drive them out or utterly destroy them?  I don’t suppose that Turkel has ever paused to think about that.

 

Turkel:

Judges 2:1-3 And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you. And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this? Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.

 

Once Israel broke the terms of the lease, all bets were off and Yahweh was “out” of His obligation as landlord to do His part in driving out the peoples.

 

Till:

Sorry, but all bets were still on, because the claim was made that (1) not a man of Israel’s enemies had been able to stand before them, (2) the Israelites had taken all the land that Yahweh had sworn to give to their fathers, and (3) there failed not aught of any good thing that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel [Joshua 21:43-45], so if these are inerrantly true statements, there would have been no non-Hebrews in the land for the Israelites to make covenants with, because part of Yahweh’s promise was that all the nations would be driven out and utterly destroyed.  If “there failed not aught of any good thing that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel,” and if “all came to pass,” how could Canaanites have still been in the land?

 

Furthermore, the passage that Turkel quoted can at best explain only why Hivites were still in the land after Joshua’s conquests were apparently over; it cannot explain why Canaanites, Perizzites, Hittites, Amorites, and Jebusites were still in the land.  Unless there is another inconsistency in the biblical text, what the “angel of the Lord” had to have been referring to in Judges 2:1-3 was the “covenant” that the Israelites had made with the Hivites in Gibeon, who in Joshua 9:3-27 fooled the Israelites  into thinking that they were men from a “far country” who had come to make a covenant with them.  According to the story, the Israelites fell for the ruse and made the covenant, but according to Joshua 11:19, these Hivites were the only people in the land that the Israelites “made peace with.”

 

11:19  There was not a town that made peace with the Israelites, except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all were taken in battle.

 

Notice that this text clearly says that the town of Gibeon, inhabited by Hivites, was the only one that made peace with the Israelites.  Except for this one, all were taken in battle.  This verse is in a context I have already analyzed, which claims that Joshua took “all the land, the hill-country, and all the south, and all the land of Goshen, and the lowland, and the Arabah, and the hill-country of Israel, and the lowland of the same, from mount Halak [in the south], which goes up to Seir, even to Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon [in the north], etc., etc., etc.” (vs:16-17), and verse 18 claims that Joshua took all their kings and put them to death.  So if the Israelites made peace only with the Hivites of Gibeon, Turkel’s “explanation” doesn’t explain why nations besides the Hivites were still in the land.  It’s back to the drawing board for Turkel.  He shouldn’t feel bad about that, because inerrantists almost invariably have to return to the drawing board after they see their first “solutions” shot down. 

 

Finally, I will point out that we have here another example of Turkel’s quoting out of context, so why don’t we take a look at his passage in its full context?  I will highlight statements damaging to Turkel’s attempt to make this some kind of proof text for his claim that “all bets were off“ because the Israelites broke the covenant.

 

Judges 2:1  Now the angel of Yahweh went up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, “I brought you up from Egypt, and brought you into the land that I had promised to your ancestors. I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you.

2  For your part, do not make a covenant with the inhabitants of this land; tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed my command. See what you have done!

3  So now I say, I will not drive them out before you; but they shall become adversaries to you, and their gods shall be a snare to you.”

4  When the angel of Yahweh spoke these words to all the Israelites, the people lifted up their voices and wept.

5  So they named that place Bochim, and there they sacrificed to Yahweh.

6  When Joshua dismissed the people, the Israelites all went to their own inheritances to take possession of the land.

7  The people worshiped Yahweh all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great work that Yahweh had done for Israel.

8  Joshua son of Nun, the servant of Yahweh, died at the age of one hundred ten years.

 

When we come to Turkel’s claim that “the sin of even one of the people” would have kept Yahweh from keeping his land promise, everyone should keep in mind that the text I just quoted claims that “the people worshiped Yahweh all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua,” so that shoots a big hole in his theory, coming up, that the sin of just one person could have caused failure of the land promise. Furthermore, verse six in the text said that “all went to their own inheritances to take possession of the land.”  Hence, going to their own inheritances constituted taking possession of the land.

 

Turkel:

2. Places where it is said that the Israelites could not drive out the inhabitants, but that they remained in place. These may be divided into two types: Places where a reason is given why the Israelites could not drive the people out, and places where no reason is given why the Isrealites [sic] could not drive the people out.

 

Till:

Reasons why the Israelites could not drive [some] people out?  If the omni-one fought for Israel, as claimed in Joshua 10:14, 42, then what possible “reason” could there have been for the Israelites’ inability to drive out some of the people? 

 

Well, let’s see what excuse Turkel offers below.

 

Turkel:

Places where a reason is given why the Israelites could not drive the people out -- as it happens there is but one example of this, in Judges 1:19, where the cause is said to be iron chariots owned by the enemy.

 

Till:

Uh, excuse me, but if an omni-max deity fought for Israel, it shouldn’t have mattered if the enemy had had A-bombs, tanks,  and guided missiles. 

 

Turkel:

Is this a case of God's promise failing?

 

Till:

Yes, I believe it is, for “God’s promise” was that “there shall not be any man able to stand before you all the days of your life” (Josh. 1:5), and later after long passages that described battle after battle and victory after victory from the Sinai wilderness to Lebanon and the Mediterranean coast, Joshua 21:44 claimed that “there [had] stood not a man of all their enemies before them,” but “Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand.”  It seems, however, that men who had iron chariots could and did stand before the Israelites and Yahweh did not deliver them into the hands of the Israelites.

 

Is this Turkel’s idea of internal biblical consistency?  Is it his idea of God’s promise being fulfilled?  Well, let’s go on to see what kind of quibble he has to “explain” this.

 

Turkel:

There are two reasons to say it is not. First, there is a certain proviso within the Deuteronomic contract:

 

Deut. 7:22 And the LORD thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.

 

Given this proviso, it is manifest that there would be a certain point at which the Israelites would no longer achieve victory in battle, until such time as Yahweh determined that they were secure enough to gain control of more land. This is sound military and social principle -- don't overextend yourself. In this case the enemy is the "beasts of the field"; but should anyone doubt the threat of being overwhelmed by such creatures, let them take up an agricultural/pastoral form of living surrounded by unmanaged wilderness and find out for themselves where the danger lies.

 

Till:

All Turkel has done is point out another inconsistency, because the promise was that Yahweh would drive the nations out quickly.

 

Deuteronomy 9:3  Know then today that Yahweh your God is the one who crosses over before you as a devouring fire; he will defeat them and subdue them before you, so that you may dispossess and destroy them quickly, as Yahweh has promised you.

 

Darn it, there is that passage in Deuteronomy 9 again.  It seems to backfire in Turkel’s face each time he thinks he has found some viable “explanation” for the land-promise failure.  Notice that it said that Yahweh would drive out the nations quickly, as he had promised the Israelites, so this text is not just saying that the nations would be driven out quickly but that the quickness with which the nations would be driven out was part of the promise.

 

So what about Turkel’s text that said Yahweh would drive the nations out little by little?  It’s nothing more than another example of textual inconsistency, but let’s take a look at another account of this wild-beast “proviso” that he thinks he has found.

 

Exodus 23:27  I will send my terror in front of you, and will throw into confusion all the people against whom you shall come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you.

28  And I will send the pestilence in front of you, which shall drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites from before you.

29  I will not drive them out from before you in one year, or the land would become desolate and the wild animals would multiply against you.

30  Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and possess the land.

 

This version of the promise said that an expulsion of the other nations in the land would not be done in one year so that the wild beasts wouldn’t take over the land, so delay in driving out all the nations would have had to go beyond one year.  Ten or 20 years, of course, would be more than one year, but the fact that “not in one year” was stated as the minimal duration of the expulsion certainly suggests that Yahweh didn’t have in mind taking 20 or 30 years to get the job done. For one thing, 20 or 30 years would have hardly been “quickly.”  Besides this, there are good reasons to think that these wild-beast versions of the promise are also examples of retrospective excuse-making to explain why all the land was not taken and all the inhabitants weren’t driven out as promised.

 

From the Negev, which was the southern extreme of the area that the book of Joshua mentioned as places that the Israelites captured, to Mount Hermon in Lebanon, which was the northern extreme of the conquest areas described, was a distance of about 150 miles.  From the Jordan River, where Joshua crossed and launched the attack against Jericho, to the Mediterranean coast was a distance of about 50 miles.  If the Israelites had advanced just five miles per day, they could have reached the sea in 10 days.  Traveling at the same rate from the Negev to Lebanon would have taken just 30 days.  Five miles per day is only about one fourth of the biblical day’s journey, but I want to give Turkel every advantage conceivable, so I‘ll suggest an advancement of only five miles per day.  Heck, let’s just make the rate of advancement one mile per day.  At that rate the Israelites could have gone from the Jordan to the Sea in 50 days or less than two months.  From the Negev to Lebanon would have taken just five months at an advancement rate of one mile per day. 

 

Let’s cut the advancement rate to just half a mile per day.  This would have enabled the Israelites to reach the coast in 100 days or a little more than three months, and they could have gone from the Negev in the south to Lebanon in the north in 10 months, which would have been less than a year. 

 

Just how fast could populations of wild animals have exploded?  After all, animals have gestation periods, and I doubt that the gestation periods of dangerous beasts like lions and bears would have been much shorter than the time it would have taken the Israelites to go through the land at the snail’s pace suggested above and occupy it.  Where, then, would have been the danger of “wild beasts” taking over the land?

 

Keep in mind too that the army driving out the Jebusites, Hittites, Canaanites, etc., etc., etc., had 601,730 soldiers (Num. 26:51), so as the Canaanite nations were being driven out and “utterly destroyed,” several hundred thousand soldiers would be moving into the vacated land.  If there were 601,730 soldiers (who were 20 years old and up), then surely the total population of Israel would have exceeded two million.  Two million people in a land area of about 7500 square miles, which would have been about 266 people per square mile, could surely have kept the “wild beasts” under control.

 

Another factor to consider is the likely time period covered by the book of Joshua, who was described as a “young man” in Exodus 33:11, while the Israelites were in the wilderness.  How young is young?  Well, he had to be of military age, which meant that he was at least 20 years old (Num. 1:3), when the Amalekites attacked the Israelites in Exodus 17, because Joshua led the Israelite forces in that battle (v:8).  He was one of the 12 spies that Moses sent into the land of Canaan (Num. 13:8-16), the report of whom on their return sparked the rebellion that Joshua and Caleb refused to participate in (14:6, 30).  I think that estimating the age of this young man at 30 would be reasonable, but let’s make him the same age that Caleb was at this time.  In Joshua 14:7, Caleb said that he was 40 when Moses sent him “to spy out the land,” so surely no one could seriously object if I fixed the age of the “young man Joshua” also at 40 at this time.  The Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years because of this rebellion (Num. 14:33-34), so when Joshua led the Israelites into Canaan, he would have been 80.  (Old guys could do things a lot better than 80 year olds today.)  Joshua was 110 when he died (Josh, 24:29), so estimating his age at a more than reasonable 80 at the time of Israel’s entry into Canaan would make the events in Joshua span 30 years.  I know that Yahweh said that he wouldn’t drive out the nations of Canaan in less than a year, but 30 years?  What danger would wild beasts have posed to a population of over two million moving in to occupy the land?  Two million people could have easily spread out over a region of 7500 square miles within a matter of weeks and settled in to keep the wild beasties from taking over the land.

 

As I said, the wild-beast versions of the land promise were very likely retrospective examples of excuse-making intended to explain why the land promise wasn’t fulfilled as Yahweh had said, because when they are analyzed critically, they don’t make much sense.   However, even if they weren’t retrospective examples of rationalization, I have explained how this could not have been a reasonable explanation for why the Israelites didn‘t take all the land.  Certainly, it isn’t a reasonable explanation for why the book of Joshua said that all the land had been taken and then later said that all the land had not been taken.  (Keep in mind that X and not X cannot both be true.)  Nothing--absolutely nothing--in this excuse that Turkel has suggested would explain why the book of Joshua clearly said that all the land Yahweh had promised had been taken, that not a man of their enemies were able to stand before the Israelites, and that there failed not aught of anything that Yahweh had promised.

 

Turkel:

This proviso does well enough to answer a place like Judges 1:19 where the enemy possessed superior technology and could not be beaten. It may be noted that although Judah was out to get the Canaanites (1:10), the locales they conquered were Philistine territory (1:18)! This has all the bearings of an overextension of viable influence, and it is therefore likely that the proviso of 7:22 was kicking into effect.

 

Till:

An overextension?  An army of 601,730 soldiers had overextended themselves in a land area that was only about 50 miles wide and 130 miles long? On D-Day, allied forces used only 150,000 troops in the invasion of France, 130,000 on the beach assaults and 20,000 in parachute and glider drops.   Turkel really is desperate for quibbles.

 

Turkel:

Places where no reason is given why the Israelites could not drive the people out -- Here there are actually only two cites: Josh. 15:63 and 17:12

 

Till:

The example that I quoted from 1 Kings 9:20--and, of course, Turkel must believe that this verse is inerrant--claimed that there were Amorites, Hittites, etc. still living in the land 400 years later in the time of Solomon.

 

1 Kings 9:20  All the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the people of Israel--

21  their descendants who were still left in the land, whom the Israelites were unable to destroy completely--these Solomon conscripted for slave labor, and so they are to this day.

 

Turkel:

(though Judges 1:27 may also be an example).

 

Till:

Judges 1:27ff was an example, but so was Judges 3:1ff.

 

Judges 3:1  Now these are the nations that Yahweh left to test all those in Israel who had no experience of any war in Canaan

2  (it was only that successive generations of Israelites might know war, to teach those who had no experience of it before):

3  the five lords of the Philistines, and all the Canaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hivites who lived on Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal-hermon as far as Lebo-hamath.

4  They were for the testing of Israel, to know whether Israel would obey the commandments of Yahweh, which he commanded their ancestors by Moses.

5  So the Israelites lived among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

 

Joshua 11:10-18 claimed that Joshua routed the northern kings [Canaanites, Hivites, Amorites, Hittites, Perrizites, and Jebusites, 11:3] from Hazor to Sidon and the valley of Lebanon below mount Hermon, but apparently in all of this routing 601,730 Israelite soldiers could not “utterly destroy” all of these nations, and so 400 years later their descendants were still in the land for Solomon to use as slave laborers.

 

But there is still more.  Second Samuel 24:7 referred to “all the cities of the Hivites and Canaanites” during the census that David ordered.  

 

Internal consistency in the biblical records?  Why, I think we can all see that there is.

 

Turkel:

Strictly speaking this provides no contradiction to the promises unless it is specifically said that the Israelites could not drive out the people in spite of being loyal to the covenant.

 

Till:

Well, I beg to differ. First of all, Turkel is begging a question that he needs to prove.  He assumes that not being “loyal to the covenant” would have kept Yahweh from fulfilling the land promise, but I have shown repeatedly that Yahweh told the Israelites on the plains of Moab that they were an unrighteous, stubborn people who had been rebellious against him from the day they came out of  Egypt, yet despite their depravity, he said that he would give them the land anyway.  Furthermore, I have noted repeatedly that these Israelites had not even kept what Turkel said was the “entry ritual” into the covenant, i. e., circumcision,  yet this violation of the “entry ritual” of the covenant  and their other unrighteousness did not keep Yahweh from promising to give them the land.  I’ll say more about this in commenting on Turkel’s concluding remarks below.

 

Second, If the text in Joshua said--and it did--that Yahweh (1) gave to Israel all the land he swore to give to their fathers, that (2) there stood not a man of all their enemies before them, that (3) Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand, that (4) there failed not aught of any good thing that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel, and that (5) all came to pass (21:43-45), then there is a contradiction if some of the nations were not driven out and utterly destroyed. 

 

Turkel has evaded this argument and will continue to do so.  The best he could do was argue that Israel at that time was a predominantly “oral culture,” and so this somehow made inconsistencies not inconsistencies.

 

Turkel:

At worst this is a matter with no resolution.

 

Till:

No, at worst it is an outright contradiction, and Turkel cannot sweep that aside by claiming that it is just “a matter with no resolution.”  Anyway, I thought that he was the man who had the resolutions to the land-promise inconsistencies.  He has been a huge disappointment.

 

Turkel:

However, viable infereces [sic] allow us resolution enough for satisfaction.

 

Till:

Maybe for those who are determined to believe in biblical inerrancy no matter how compelling the evidence to the contrary may be, “viable infereces [sic]” may be “resolution enough,” but people not so gullible will certainly not be satisfied with Turkel’s tap dancing.

 

Turkel:

 The sin of even one of the people is enough to guarantee military non-success [sic]. The sin of one man, Achan (Josh. 7), nearly ruined the campaign against Ai.

 

Till:

Turkel is now taking a familiar track and trying to prove biblical inerrancy by assuming inerrancy.  He is arguing that because Joshua 7 records a story of one man who sinned and brought defeat to Israel during its first attack on Ai, this story must be true. Furthermore, he is assuming that this story, which he assumes to be historically true, proves that Yahweh would see the sin of just one person in an entire nation as sufficient reason to punish the whole nation by denying them victory in battle.  I would never deny that people of that era superstitiously believed that the gods engaged in vicarious punishment, but ancient superstitions were almost always erroneous.  This brings us back to the text in Deuteronomy 9, which I said above that I would return to later.  I have pointed out several times that despite the unrighteousness and disobedience of an entire nation, Yahweh promised to give them the land anyway in order to fulfill a promise made to Abraham, so what Turkel is now asking us to believe is that just before the entry into Canaan, Yahweh wouldn’t allow the general depravity and rebelliousness of an entire nation to keep him from giving the land to the Israelites, but after the crossing into Canaan if just one person sinned that was sufficient for Yahweh to begin withholding his land promise.  That’s the kind of silliness that inerrantists must resort to in order to defend their irrational belief in the “internal consistency of biblical records.”

 

If Yahweh practiced such a principle as this, he was inconsistent.  In Judges 18, there is a fanciful little yarn that shoots down Turkel’s theory that just the sin of one person would have caused Yahweh to keep victory from the Israelites.  Judges 17 told the story of a man named Micah living in Ephraim who stole 1100 pieces of silver from his mother but then returned them to her.  Out of gratitude, the mother then had a graven image made with 200 pieces of the silver and gave it to her son.  Later when a Levite came by, Micah hired him to be a priest for him.  This tale and chapter 18 are obviously way out of chronological order, because the latter tells of the capture of the Canaanite city Laish by the Danites, who then changed the name to Dan in honor of their eponymous father Dan.  That this tale is out of chronological sequence is evident from Joshua 19:47, which reported the Danite capture of this city.  At any rate, as the story was related in Judges 18, when the Danites came by Micah’s house on the way to take Laish, they stole the molten image and persuaded the Levite to go with them and be a priest for them (vs:18-26).  Verses 27-29 related the success of the Danites in taking Laish, killing the people there, and burning it.

 

They had success in battle despite their theft and idolatry, which continued after their victory.

 

Judges 18:27  The Danites, having taken what Micah had made, and the priest who belonged to him, came to Laish, to a people quiet and unsuspecting, put them to the sword, and burned down the city.

28  There was no deliverer, because it was far from Sidon and they had no dealings with Aram. It was in the valley that belongs to Beth-rehob. They rebuilt the city, and lived in it.

29  They named the city Dan, after their ancestor Dan, who was born to Israel; but the name of the city was formerly Laish.

30  Then the Danites set up the idol for themselves. Jonathan son of Gershom, son of Moses, and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the time the land went into captivity.

 

31  So they maintained as their own Micah's idol that he had made, as long as the house of God was at Shiloh.

 

So stealing by not just one Danite but several and then the practice of idolatry didn’t cause Yahweh to keep them from victory at Laish.  Yahweh wasn’t very consistent, was he?

 

Another problem in Turkel’s the-sin-of-even-one-of-the people scenario is that if this had really been a principle that Yahweh practiced, then he would have given the Israelites absolutely nothing, because in a population of more than two million people, there never would have been a time when no one was doing anything wrong.  Their advancement into Canaan would have stopped right at the Jordan River if everyone at every moment had to have been doing only the things that pleased their god.

 

Apparently, the possibility that the story of Achan was just another of many tales of vicarious punishment written in a time when people generally believed that misconduct by just one person who “did evil in the sight” of his god could bring punishment upon the whole nation has never even crossed Turkel‘s mind.   Likewise, I suppose the appalling immorality of such a tale as this has never even occurred to Turkel.  I suppose that he has never even paused to think that tales like this also conflict with Deuteronomy 24:16, which decreed against vicarious punishment.  The man Achan “sinned,” and so Yahweh allowed 36 Israelite soldiers to be killed in the first assault on Ai (Josh 7:5).  Then when Achan was discovered to be the culprit responsible for Yahweh’s anger, Joshua took Achan, his sons and daughters, and all of his livestock and stoned Achan and burned the others with fire.

 

Isn’t Yahweh a really nice guy?  Isn’t Turkel ever embarrassed at what his belief in biblical inerrancy requires him to believe?

 

Turkel:

It may be argued that no sin is specified in these texts; to which we reply, it is not needed-

 

Till:

No, of course, it isn’t, because whatever the Bible says has to in some way be true,  so if there is nothing in a text to explain a discrepancy, inerrantists will always manufacture an explanation.  That’s the kind of mindset that we are dealing with.

 

Turkel

-once again, we cannot assume our graphocentric prejudices upon an oral culture.

 

Till:

Once again, Turkel cannot explain why inconsistencies in different stories that were perhaps orally transmitted are not inconsistencies because of oral transmission.  If  orally transmitted story A said X but orally transmitted story B said not X, this would be a contradiction. The method by which the stories had been transmitted could not change inconsistency into consistency.  Just why would this be a contradiction if transmitted in writing but not a contradiction if transmitted orally?  I’ve heard of silly “explanations” of biblical discrepancies, but this one has to rank close to the top for silliness.

 

Turkel:

The example of Achan was enough to show that violation of the rules of war laid down by Yahweh was sufficient to ensure military failure. And as such instances grew, it is within the expectation of human behavior that rather than determine the guilty parties and make things right, it would be decided rather to just "skip it" and move on, living with the results.

 

Till:

As noted above, if this ridiculous “solution” that Turkel has resorted to in his desperation had actually been in place, then the Israelites would never have taken a single city in Canaan, because it would be ridiculous to think that in a population of over two million everyone would have always been good little covenant keepers.  Furthermore, if cities and regions were “skipped” because of failures that resulted from some individual party in Israel violating a Yahwistic command, what were these cities?  My analyses of the geographical names listed in passages like Joshua 11-12, which summarized the victories of Israel, were pretty well inclusive of the whole region that had been promised.  The place names even included towns and cities in Philistine and Phoenician territories on the Mediterranean cost, which the Israelites never succeeded in taking.

 

Turkel

Any who dare deny the likelihood of disobedience needs only to look at the history recorded in Kings, and at human history as a whole, to know better.

 

Till:

I assume that Turkel realizes by now that I wouldn’t “dare deny the likelihood of disobedience,” because my position, as explained above, is that if this were really a criterion that Yahweh used to determine whether he would let the Israelites win battles, then they never would have won any battles.  The “likelihood of disobedience” would have been so great at any given moment that the Israelites would have lost all of the battles, and certainly the Danites would not have been victorious over Laish.  Turkel is going to have to go back to the drawing board to see if he can come up with a better quibble than this.

 

Till [quoted by Turkel]:

Someone has a lot of explaining to do, and it isn't those of us who reject the inerrancy doctrine.

 

Turkel:

Our explaining is done. In sum:

 

Our opponent, who complains mightily about his remarks being edited for brevity, offers a text that is at least 85% filler, repetition, transitional statements, non-relevant arguments, and snide remarks. We wonder whether he is able to explain why it is necessary to quote or respond to so much non-argumentation.

 

Till:

No elaboration on this comment is necessary, because I have taken the time to go through Turkel’s 10,045 words a point at a time to show just how many of them were “filler, repetition, transitional statements, and nonrelevant rebuttal arguments.”  This was in addition to the number of words that he took to circumvent arguments he couldn’t answer.  As for my “snide remarks,” I quoted twice from his website and once from his e-mail messages to show that if ever there was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, we have it in Turkel’s complaints about my “snide remarks.”

 

 

Turkel:

Our opponent makes his arguments without any reference to the ancient conceptions of the relations between land, deity, and people. Without this understanding his arguments are worthless and anachronistic.

 

Till:

I will just say again that truth is truth, and falsity cannot be made into truth by appealing to “ancient conceptions.”  The fact is that the more ancient a conception is, the more likely it is to be false, because they were formulated in a time when people had almost no knowledge of science and scientific methods.  Turkel, of course, is referring primarily to the “ancient concept” of deity-land-possession, which I thoroughly refuted by showing that what he claimed was an “ancient concept” was not consistent with passages in the Bible that clearly indicated that these “ancients” had clear concepts of private property that could be bought and sold.

 

Needless to say, Turkel’s attempt to find unity and consistency in the various biblical texts that mention Yahweh’s land promise has failed miserably.

 

Maybe now he would care to try his luck at defending biblical prophecy.  He can consider this a challenge.  All I will demand is that he agree to post on his website my exchanges with him.

 At any rate. it would appear that Turkel’s “Land Ahoy” has been thoroughly Tilled.

++++++++++++++++++++

 

See here for Holding's reply

I keep reminding James Patrick Holding's admirers of how blind they are

Holding's followers constantly shower him with praise for his for "apologetics" at his ridiculous Looney Tune YouTube apologetics channel.  Apparently, they would shower praise on a pastor who committed adultery every day of life, because they think that as long as he is smarter than them in apologetics, this trumps the biblical requirement that he abstain from sin.

Here's how I respond to them (link to video is here).  Since my comments never show up unless I myself am logged into my Google account, I have to assume that Holding is routinely deleting my comments.  Rest assured, Holding will be held accountable for all of his actions toward me. 

Text:

The bible requires you to disassociate yourself from any Christian brother who is a "reviler":

 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one. 

12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?

 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Cor. 5:11-13 NAU)

If you would see a serious problem with a Christian brother who committed any of the other sins Paul lists there, why don't you see a serious problem with Christians who routinely commit his listed sin of "reviler"?

Holding's history of "reviling" everybody he disagrees with is undeniable, and I am currently suing James Patrick Holding for Defamation/Libel, and my 534-page Complaint extensively documents exactly how reviling, hateful, spiteful and downright disgusting Mr. Holding's speech toward others has been consistently since 1998.

You can download that complaint for free at https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2020/06/james-patrick-holding-has-committed.html

I suggest you start on page 486, "tenth act of perjury". Holding lied under oath, stating in answer to an Interrogatory that he had never deliberately intended to insult anybody.  

  I use up about 30 pages to show that Holding knew he was lying when he gave that answer, and thus he committed "perjury".

  When Holding tells you the accusations in my complaint are false, ask him why he doesn't counter-sue me for abuse of process. 

You might also ask him what happened to his aggressively mouthy nature.  If he  seriously thinks God's requirements upon him are more important to obey than any earthly authority, then why isn't he obeying God's command to keep insulting me?   When faced with a conflict between godly and earthly authority, true Christians always choose to obey God and willingly suffer the consequences the earthly rulers impose (Acts 5:29), right?

If Holding is so sure Christians should be imitating the honor/shame riposte of ancient Jews, why isn't he equally sure that they should obey God when faced with a conflict between the rules of God and the rules of earthly authorities, the way Peter did in Acts 5:29?

My reply to R.L. Solberg on Jesus and Isaiah 53

 R.L. Solberg is a Christian apologist and attempts at his blog to respond to Jewish objections to the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53, here.

I posted a reply as follows, which is crossposted here, given my experience of Christian apologists deleting my polite and scholarly challenges

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Barry Jones

June 16, 2021 8:37 pm

The NAU of Isaiah 53 translates the Hebrew words “zerah” and “tseetsa” as “offspring” and in the immediate context of each, only “biological” offspring is meant. You are thus forced to argue that the meaning of zerah in Isaiah 53:10 is an exception to the rule.

What would be unreasonable in the skeptic who says “offspring” in Isaiah 53:10 means only naturalistic biological offspring, so because Jesus didn’t have any naturalistic biological children, he is not the suffering servant of Isaiah 53?

How do you know the canonical gospel authors weren’t simply creating fictions about Jesus to make him sound more like the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 than he really was? Of course you will tout the historical reliability of the gospels, but I would provide scholarly resistance to that conclusion every step of the way. The question is not whether YOU can be reasonable to see Jesus as the Isaiah 53 servant but whether skeptics can be reasonable to deny this allegation.

---------------------------------

I could have thrown many other reasonable objections at him:

Isaiah 53:10 says if the servant offers himself as a guilt offering, he will prolong his days.  Christians will blindly insist that because Jesus died for our sins as a guilt-offering, God raised him to immortal life.  But because there is no record of any Jew in the 1st century or before thinking that the messiah would have to die and come back to life, its pretty safe to assume that Isaiah's originally intended recipients would have understood "prolong his days" to take the normal sense of "delay the day of his death".

Worse, if it is not unreasonable for a person to refuse to get drawn into the reasons why the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with the 9th Circuit on whether the 2nd Amendment created a right to private gun ownership, simply because it seems to be an unresolvable quarrel of fatally ambiguous words, then the fact that Christians and Jews have been disagreeing on Isaiah 53 for 2,000 years would similarly make reasonable the unbeliever or skeptic who considered such a debate too convoluted to justify an expectation that any amount of study would be capable of yielding conclusions of any degree of reasonable certainty.  And the disagreements about the meaning of Isaiah 53's words would also constitute the "word-wrangling" which apostle Paul forbade in 2nd Timothy 2:14.

 

Jason Engwer admits professional bible skeptics have integrity

I found this posted by Jason Engwer at Triablogue here:  

Sunday, May 16, 2021

The Moral Value Of Intellectual And Apologetic Work

"On the one hand, writing the way [the apostle Paul] usually writes - developing precise arguments with cogency and clarity - is not, in my view, morally neutral. It is a sign of honesty. To give reasons for what you believe and to strive for clarity that reveals what you truly think are marks of integrity." (John Piper, Why I Love The Apostle Paul [Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2019], 94)

“… the objector is right. Paul has driven himself into a position in which he has to deny that God’s freedom of action is limited by moral considerations. ‘Has the potter no right over the clay?’ It is a well-worn illustration. But the trouble is that a man is not a pot; he will ask, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ and he will not be bludgeoned into silence. It is the weakest point in the whole epistle.”

(C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, London (1932), p. 159)

"cogent"?  "clear"?  Then why do so many Christian scholars admit that Paul's use of the OT is a subject of never-ending debate?  Just how prevalent is the "problem of Paul"?

If Paul argued in "clear" fashion, why didn't anybody notice what he really meant about grace until Dodd, Sanders and others invented the "New Perspective on Paul"?

Do today's neo-evangelicals counsel unbelievers that becoming a genuinely born-again Trinitarian bible-studying praying Jesus-fanatic Christian apologist might not do all that needs doing in order to gain proper understanding of Paul?  

From Gary v. Smith, "Paul's use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8", JETS 18-3-pp181-190

My reply to Lee Strobel's YouTube video about Jesus' resurrection

 I posted the following comments in reply to one of Lee Strobel's videos about Jesus' resurrection and the allegedly "early" nature of the "creed" in 1st Corinthians 15:3-4.   That video is here.  I had to post my reply in two parts because it was too long as a single message.

First, even assuming the skeptical theory of legendary development is wrong, the reasonableness of resurrection skepticism does not require that the resurrection accounts be late legends. How many people who attend a Benny Hinn crusade testify just a few days later about how Hinn healed people? How soon after the alleged appearances of Mary in Fatima were they first reported? Very soon, And yet you couldn't care less, the early nature of the miracle testimony doesn't sway you in the least, you are STILL skeptical. So you have no right to pretend that if the late-legend hypothesis is refuted, this forces the conclusion that the reports are truthful. AS IF THE ONLY TIME TESTIMONY CAN CONTAIN LIES IS WHEN IT IS LATE (!?) You will say the rumor about Paul in Acts 21:18-24 was false, so apparently, thousands of Jews within the mother church CAN screw up the truth within the lifetime of the person in question. The ending of John's gospel admits that a misunderstanding of Jesus had prevailed among the "brethren". So apparently, testimony being "early" does precisely nothing to intellectually obligate an unbeliever to be more trusting that the testimoy is true. And Irenaeus says John wrote a gospel to refute Cerinthus, which logically requires that Cerinthus' more gnostic version of the gospel was even earlier than John's gospel...yet Christians today insist that Cerinthus was wrong, no matter how early his version of the gospel was. So stop telling yourself that "early" means "truthful". YOU don't even believe that.

Second, the truths in Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 are earlier than the "creed" of 1st Cor. 15:3-4, and those gospel texts show that Jesus' own family didn't find his miracles convincing. There is nothing unreasonable in saying, on the basis of these texts, that Jesus couldn't do genuinely supernatural miracles, and so, like with so many other religious fraudsters, Jesus might have been able to wow large crowds, but they were stupid and gullible. A messiah who cannot do real miracles, probably wouldn't be selected by God to rise from the dead, nor to die for anybody's sins.

Third, even assuming Jesus rose from the dead, Deut. 18 warns that even false prophets can possibly perform true miracles. Of course the test is whether the prophet spoke consistently with Mosaic law. Jesus did not, he forgave sins often in contexts neither expressing or implying he wanted them to obey the Mosaic ritual. You will say Jesus was god and could change the rules, but I deny he is god, so your presupposition of Jesus' divinity does not impose an intellectual obligation on a skeptic in any degree. I call Paul a liar, so I don't really care whether he was calling Jesus god in 50 a.d., Paul's word is not the end of an argument, but the beginning.

Fourth, if we cannot find fault with ignorant teens who accept Christ and thus make an ultimate judgment call about Jesus' resurrection before they even know about, much less have any ability to refute, all the skeptical arguments, then fairness demands that YOU cannot find fault with ignorant skeptics who reject Christ and thus make an ultimate judgment call about Jesus' resurrection before they even know about, much less have any ability to refute, all the apologetics arguments. Is it written in the stars that only Christians are allowed to benefit from ignorance? No.

Fifth, the NT portrays James as a Judaizer leading a large church of legalistic Christians (Acts 21:20), and Josephus reports that the more scrupulous Jews were angered when James was put to death, which would hardly be the case if James had been preaching to them things they considered blasphemous, such as "Christ died for your sins" or "Jesus rose from the dead". And this legalistic church shows by their dumbfounded response in Acts 11:18 that they would never have guessed God granted repentance to Gentiles unless Peter revealed his vision story to them. And contrary to Christian scholarly trifles, apostle Paul is a liar, the rift in Acts 15 and Galatians 2 wasn't between him and some ultra-conservative faction of the Jerusalem church, it was between him and the entire Jerusalem church, period. So since it is reasonable to say the original apostles were Judaizers, who therefore continued seeing divine significance in Temple ritual and animal sacrifice, would never have viewed Jesus' death as an atonement, therefore, we can be reasonable to say the first part of the Corinthian creed (i.e., "Christ died for our sins") wasn't given to Paul by the original 12 apostles during the critical early period.

Sixth, Paul, using language identical to the "creed" in 1st Cor. 15:3-4, says in 11:23 that he received "from the Lord" actual words of the historical Jesus at the last supper. That is, even if Paul really did get gospel facts from the original 12 apostles, he was not willing to properly credit these human sources, he just characterizes these as facts which the "Lord" revealed to him. So the issue is not the actual historical truth, but merely what Paul meant with his words, since you as a bible believer are stuck with whatever Paul meant, you don't have the option of saying Paul got the gospel wrong, or lied about which sources he got it from. So Paul is being somewhat dishonest in 1st Cor. 15:3-4, if by "received", he means "from other apostles". But see next argument for why that's probably not what he meant.

Seventh, Paul in Galatians 1 speaks about how he "received" the gospel, and in vv. 11-12 explicitly denies that the method involved the input of any other human being. It was SOLELY by divine telepathy, at least according to Paul. So there cannot be anything unreasonable in the skeptical hypothesis which infers on the basis of Galatians 1, that when he says "received" in 1st Cor. 15:3, he does NOT mean "from other people", but rather "solely from God". All attempts to make the Corinthian creed originate from apostles earlier than Paul, are abortive.

Eighth, that the NT texts are too ambiguous to justify Christian dogmatism is clear from the fact that even Christian apologists disagree with each other about how reliable the sources are. Lydia McGrew denies bible inerrancy, but says a resurrection case should include the witness of all canonical gospels. Licona, on the other hand, explicitly refuses to characterize the resurrection testimony of Matthew and John as "historical bedrock", because he thinks apostolic authorship of the gospels is "fuzziest" when it comes to Matthew and John.

Ninth, Paul cursed other Christians whose gospel disagreed with his own (Galatians1:6-9), which means "accepting Jesus" is nowhere near as safe as you pretend when you do apologetics or evangelism on unbelievers. According to Galatians 1, and Jesus' similar warning in Matthew 7:22-23, lots of sincere people who thought they were Christians will be getting a nasty surprise on Judgment Day despite their ability to truthfully say they performed many wonderful works in his name. The Galatian churches Paul founded obviously knew him personally, yet STILL abandoned his gospel in favor of the legalistic Judaizer gospel. So the atheist is only being reasonable by refusing to do anything that might cause him to commit the additional sin of heresy. And yet doctrinal divisions in Christianity for the last 2,000 years makes it reasonable to infer that the NT text is fatally ambiguous as to meaning, and therefore, remaining an unbeliever is an evil that is less serious than the idiot who take a chance and finds out he didn't accept the right Jesus, and ends up in hell forever.

======================== 

Tenth, you preach that God wants a personal relationship with me, which means you are committing the fallacy of equivocation. You intend for us to define "personal relationship" normally but in fact you mean a relationship with an invisible man who never interacts with his followers except through writings of dubious text, origin and authorship from 2,000 years ago, and who apparently seems to think that leaving his sincere followers in the dark about important aspects of their daily lives is best...which must mean that Christian apologists are more eager to promote divine/human relations than God himself. A skeptic could not possibly be unreasonable to demand that if God wants me to make a radical commitment to Jesus, he first show me radical authentication of the relevant evidence. The arguments of apologists do not "radically authenticate" that evidence, they merely show that the evidence often conforms to rules of historiography.

Eleventh, you will insist that all skepticism toward Jesus' resurrection is unreasonable, but you are simply overstating how wonderful your "evidence" is. Reasonableness can be consistent with accuracy, but by no means demands accuracy. Not all jurors who convict an innocent person were necessarily stupid, blind, drunk, biased, bribed, etc. So even assuming skepticism is "wrong", that doesn't automatically mean skeptics are "unreasonable".

Twelfth, it is acceptable to say that this or that skeptic was unreasonable, but it is illogical to jump from there to "skepticism is unreasonable". Just like if I hear stupid arguments from stupid Christians, i should not jump to the conclusion "Christianity is unreasonable". One particular skeptic, myself, has very strong arguments showing the reasonableness of doubting Jesus' resurrection. You'll probably never know how Lee Strobel would hold up under cross-examination, because he refuses to debate informed skeptics. At my blog I've been challenged resurrection apologists for years. Aside from a few anonymous YouTube know-nothings, nobody has dared accept the challenge.

Thirteenth, more and more conservative Christian scholars are rejecting the eternal conscious torment view of hell for Annihilationism, which says God will extinguish your sense of self-awareness. Since it is reasonable to adopt that interpretation, you are deprived of the ability to use "hell" to scare the skeptic into heaven: the skeptic has already accepted that nature will extinguish her consciousness, so that rejecting Jesus is about as dangerous as rejecting Mormonism. Therefore, the skeptic cannot be said to be ignoring any serious danger "warnings".

Finally, Given that your god is hidden and allegedly infinite in his ways, you don't have the first clue what he wants me to study first, nor for how long. So you forfeit the right to balk if I answer those questions for myself. I've decided that studying Christian apologetics for 20 years justifies me to draw ultimate conclusions about the reasonableness of Christianity.

I've challenged Christian apologists for years to produce the one miracle they think the most impervious to falsification, and they never respond.

Come get you some:

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/12/my-questions-to-dr-craig-keener.html

my challenge to isjesusalive.com

Today I sent the following challenge to the person or persons who post to the isjesusalive.com website: