Farrell Till's Goofy Gaffe of the Week, 4/25/03

[jpholding]

We now begin a special feature titled unofficially, “Goofy’s Gaffe of the Week” in which we will feature a specific embarrassing, major-bonehead gaffe by F Till – not a typo or some minor concentration error, but a boneheaded, honking huge error that shows a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship. Though the name implies a weekly presentation we may do this biweekly if other projects are pressing. The goal as always is to show that Goofy is not a credible source and should be either ignored or laughed at by informed Christians.

Goofy’s Gaffe for this week comes of an attempt he made in the Land Promise debate to make land areas in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlap. Please note the following:

This thread is specifically about this particular gaffe. Goofy and his fans will undoubtedly try to distract the reader with other issues while never addressing this particular one. Such diversionary tactics should be taken as an admission that the gaffe is admitted to, and that they have no resolution but to cover up for this embarrassing error.

So now to the Gaffe. I initially noted, in reply to a claim that passages in Josh. 10 and 11 were in conflict with Josh. 13:1:

Josh. 10:40-3 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea 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 the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel. And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal.

Josh. 11:23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD 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.

Josh 13:1 Now Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the LORD said unto him, Thou art old and stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.

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.

Goofy replied that he would show that “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.” He began:

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.

With all of this so far we had no disagreement. Here is where Goofy’s Gaffe on Josh. 10 begins:

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.

This is false. If the attack was to Gaza it does not include Gaza, on the sea, which was Philistine territory. But there is more. Goofy went on:

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.

This is false. Gibeon is actually approximately five miles northwest of Jerusalem, at 35 degrees, 14'30 east, while Jerusalem itself is at 35 degrees, 19'56 east. The map also shows it separated from Jerusalem by a river, a natural barrier. Goofy desperately wishes to erase these five miles in a different direction, as well as disregard any issue of delineating geographical features, which would clearly exclude Jerusalem from the range between Kadesh-Barnea and Gibeon, but that geographical equivocation will not float in this ocean. To this we can add that Goofy has also naively assumed, even if he were correct, that the delineation in Joshua 10 would be a straight line, when it would more likely be drawn, in this era before maps, along natural barriers like rivers, mountains, and wilderness.
Joshua 10 indicates this with respect to Jerusalem: It's king came out to fight with others, and he was captured (10:23, 12:10) and executed. But the city by itself remains conspicuously uncaptured and unattacked, and unaddressed, until Ch. 15.

So Goofy strained for a camel here, but spat out a gnat, with respect to Josh. 10. Now to Josh. 11. Josh. 11:23 also refers to a specific parcel of land, much larger, but not the entirety of the land in the grant. Goofy tried to wind his way out with the following:

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. 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).

Thus far none of this is disagreeable. It is here that Goofy tries to fudge his way out of an embarrassing geographical gaffe:

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 Main 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.”

This is false. None of the indicated territory overlaps with that specified as "not yet taken" in Joshua 13. The description does not bring the conquests to the northern borders of the land grant. The grant went as far as the Euphrates River (Gen. 15:18), and Josh. 13:5 specifies as yet untaken, "And the land of the Giblites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baalgad under mount Hermon unto the entering into Hamath." From Baalgad unto the entering of Hamath, and all Lebanon, up to the Euphrates, is a portion of land that is farther north than what Goofy claims is the "northern borders" of the land grant. The Joshua 11 excursion does not finish the job, and Josh. 11:23 does not say anything about the fathers and what was sworn to them; it says, "So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD 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." Goofy has failed completely to demonstrate overlap with the Joshua 13 lands. He goes on:

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.

We looked at the catalog of place names, and there is no overlap whatsoever with the northern portion of the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13. Goofy continues:

After routing the northern kings to Lebanon and the Mediterrnean cost, 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.”

What does the Mediterranean "cost", we wonder? Whatever it costs, nothing here demonstrates any overlap whatsoever with the northern portion of the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13. Hazor is south-southeast of Sidon, in the wrong direction for Goofy's case. He goes on:

[/I]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.[/I]

This is very interesting, but nothing here demonstrates any overlap whatsoever with the northern portion of the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13. Goofy again:

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?

What is left to conquer is what is specified in Joshua 13, and Goofy still fails to demonstrate any overlap whatsoever with any portion of the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13, which includes non-members of the listed nations such as Philistines, Giblites, and Sidonians. Goofy blatters on:

[Holding] 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 costal 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. [Holding] should get a Bible atlas and check the location of the places I have emphasized in bold print.

I have a Bible atlas on CD-ROM, with nice bold print and lots of colors and entries, and it shows no overlap whatsoever with the described territories and any portion of the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13.

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.

False. Joshua did not conquer territory as far north as the land promise had permitted, as Joshua 13 with Genesis 15 indicates.

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 costal 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.

The description is accurate, but still does not demonstrate any overlap with the land specified as "not yet taken" in Joshua 13. Again: The grant went as far as the Euphrates River (Gen. 15:18), and Josh. 13:5 specifies as yet untaken, "And the land of the Giblites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baalgad under mount Hermon unto the entering into Hamath." From Baalgad unto the entering of Hamath, and all Lebanon, up to the Euphrates, is a portion of land that is farther north than what Goofy claims is the "northern borders" of the land grant. Goofy later says:

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.

The writer(s) of Joshua were indeed very specific and repetitious in cataloging all of the places that Joshua conquered, whose inhabitants he “utterly destroyed,” leaving none alive to breathe, and it shows, as we have shown, no overlap shown between land taken in Josh. 10-11 and land yet to be taken in Josh. 13. Now again I noted:

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.

Goofy replied, with a corncob pipe in his mouth:

Ah, more insights into Hebrew nuances! Whatever nuances [Holding] 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).

So now Goofy also thinks that overlap can be found in the specific city of Gaza. But he needs to piece things together a little more carefully. Josh. 10:41 first mentions Gaza: "And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon." This says only that Joshua smote the kings referenced in Josh. 10 unto Gaza. This does NOT include Gaza itself, and Gaza itself was neither attacked nor captured here. This verse speaks of a geographic range within which Joshua smote the forces in retreat. Gaza is next mentioned in 11:22: "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." This specifically lays out three cities, including Gaza, where the Anakim remained, and as yet there is no mention of attack or conquest of the city. Finally indeed there is 15:47 where Gaza is allotted to Judah. To which we say: And this means? It means nothing that helps Goofy. The allotting of Gaza was pre-emptive, but it does not require that the city be conquered before it can be decided which tribe should get it. Does Goofy expect the Israelites to simply wait, for his personal satisfaction, until Gaza was captured before they decided which tribe would get it or that a tribe would get it? That is not required, and Josh. 15:47, because it says nothing about a conquest of Gaza, does not thereby stand against Josh. 13:3, which says it had yet to be taken. The same may be said for Ashdod, which Goofy also brings up.

In conclusion: Goofy stuck his foot in his mouth here big time, vastly underestimating the northern reach and trying a plethora of excuses to include Jerusalem and certain Philistine cities in the specified conquests of Josh. 10-11. This is the most likely reason he has abandoned the Land Promise debate – because in his turn he is coming up shortly on this embarrassing error.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 05:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78562#post78562)
jpholding:


Till

[I]The same verse says that the strike extended 'unto Gibeon,' which was a town located about 5 miles north of Jerusalem....

Holding

This is false. Gibeon is actually approximately five miles northwest of Jerusalem, at 35 degrees, 14'30 east, while Jerusalem itself is at 35 degrees, 19'56 east. The map also shows it separated from Jerusalem by a river, a natural barrier.



Presumably Holding thinks ancient people were too stupid to know how to cross, let alone, dam a river.

http://www.planetware.com/towns/PRISR.HTM

Gibeon is given as 31.50 North and 35.11 E

Jerusalem is given as 31.47 North and 35.13 E


Where does JP (Oh no I've goofed again) Holding
get 35 degrees North for Jerusalem from? Does he think Jerusalem is on the same latitude as Tokyo?


And where does he get a distance from Jerusalem to Gibeon of 14 30 east to 19 degrees East - not a whole time zone , but half way there?

Remind me to post Holding's goof on Errancy.



Gibeon is , as Till, said about 5 miles north of Jerusalem. I admit Till did not give exact compass directions, but Holding spends so much time complaining about fluff, that perhaps Till felt that giving the exact longtitude and latitude (while beyond Holding's capacity to do so), was a bit pernickety.

Remind me to chastise Till for not giving exact compass directions. People flying from Jerusalem to Gibeon, relying on his articles for directions, would be in trouble.

But not as much as pilots relying on Holding's directions, who would be somewhere near Yemen (must check exactly where Holding thinks Israel is)

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 05:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78562#post78562)
jpholding:

This is false. If the attack was to Gaza it does not include Gaza, on the sea, which was Philistine territory. But there is more.



I think I understand Holding's English.

If the Americans took the attack to Baghdad, it meant that their attack did not include Baghdad.



Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Jesus meant, of course, that he would go *unto* Jerusalem, but that would not include Jerusalem.

Acts 8:26 'And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.'

Philip realised, of course, that he was not to go into Gaza, but just go unto it, and hang about the outside for a bit.

[Woman]

We now begin a special feature titled unofficially, “Goofy’s Gaffe of the Week” in which we will feature a specific embarrassing, major-bonehead gaffe by F Till – not a typo or some minor concentration error, but a boneheaded, honking huge error that shows a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship. Though the name implies a weekly presentation we may do this biweekly if other projects are pressing. The goal as always is to show that Goofy is not a credible source and should be either ignored or laughed at by informed Christians.

Is THIS in the spirit of TW?

If so, then I am sorely disappointed. I objected strongly to a similar thread when one was launched against Socrates. I simply see no point in creating and naming a thread for the sole purpose of attacking another member with such sarcastic glee.

[Alien]

Today @ 01:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78679#post78679)
Woman:
Is THIS in the spirit of TW?

If so, then I am sorely disappointed. I objected strongly to a similar thread when one was launched against Socrates. I simply see no point in creating and naming a thread for the sole purpose of attacking another member with such sarcasrtic glee.

Well said.

When I was in High School, the class below mine spent a highly disproportionate amount of their time making up silly names for each other. I thought it was stupid then and still do, but hey, they were just kids and I'll bet they've grown out of it by now.

Maybe there should be a new logical fallacy, named in Latin of course .... hmmm, how about Nomen Ridiculum, "The notion that addressing one's opponent by a derisive name, particularly if it is a corruption of his real name, invalidates his arguments".

[jpholding]

Excuse me Stevie Weevie,

http://www.planetware.com/towns/PRISR.HTM

Is that MODERN Gibeon or ancient Gibeon?

Not that it matters. I note that your best effort is addressing minor details while ignoring the giant gaffes your Master made. Cool. :thumb:

If the Americans took the attack to Baghdad, it meant that their attack did not include Baghdad.

Gee Stevie, how do you know the prepositions in Hebrew and Greek are the same? :rofl: Better yet, when do you get "TO" a city, Stevie?

When you arrive where you can see it?

When you arrive at the city limits?

When you get INTO it?

Too bad. That seems to be the best Stevie can do is pick cherries for fun and profit. :rofl: Try these:

Gen. 10:19 And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.

Does this mean Gaza was in Canaan?

Gen. 34:20 And Hamor and Shechem his son came unto the gate of their city, and communed with the men of their city, saying,

Guess what, Stevie? This refers to a communal meeting IN FRONT OF or next to a city gate, NOT inside it! :rofl: They'd block the way like Baptists otherwise!

Woman: You've arrived in the middle of a long exchange that goes beyond TWeb. Don't assume too much. :smile:

[dizzle]

Dear Woman and Alien:

Since, in part, both correspondents are well known personages within their fields and common debate opponents, there is not a problem with this thread which has quite a bit of history behind it. Also JP has been the subject of similar other threads, some of them still existing in this forum on subjects concering his work and alleged mistakes and contradictions, and is the subject of such inquiries in Till's published work so yes that is allowed. There are no restrictions against targeting a particular person's work or methods from debate and discussion. If it degenerates into something against the rules or has outlived its purpose, such thread are moved into the Janitor's Closet, closed, or both which is what happened with the Socrates thread. However, I am going to, in the interest of being proactive, move this one to the Janitor's Closet.

[Bald Ape]

Edit: I cross-posted w/ you Dee - if this is inappropriate, please delete.

So when's the next installment of jp's Vapid Vitrole? I really enjoy such Witless Whines. One can only hope his next collection Childish Chatter has as many Putrid Piles of Poop.

Writing posts full of creative alliteration mixed with sophomoric namecalling is oh so fun.

[Woman]

Dee Dee,

I applaud your decision. And yes, I have noticed that there is a great deal of "baggage" on this site from the past.

[dizzle]

Today @ 04:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78765#post78765)
Woman:

Dee Dee,

I applaud your decision. And yes, I have noticed that there is a great deal of "baggage" on this site from the past.

Thank you Woman. And it is not just from the past but debates and things published elsewhere... but here is one thing that I have noticed about the Net and forums.... after a few years you discover that it really is a small world after all, and the people that participate a lot run into the same people over and over, both ally and opponent. In fact I received an email from someone telling me they joined because they were my debate opponent about oh, I would say at least three years ago on a forum which was a very heated and intense debate. Now if we ever debate here, though it may not be apparent to all observers, he and I wil have that history already between us. That is really very common on forums. There is a forum right now that I am participating in a small way on in which a conversation is going on with some guys ahbout a history we have that spans years and three forums..... it is the nature of the beast. I do not think there is any more of that here than any other forum that allows strenuous debating.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 09:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78732#post78732)
jpholding:

Excuse me Stevie Weevie,

http://www.planetware.com/towns/PRISR.HTM

Is that MODERN Gibeon or ancient Gibeon?



I'm sure that neither place was near Malta, or Afghanistan or wherever your coordinates were.

Where was ancient Gibeon then? About 5 miles in a northerly direction from Jerusalem?


[i]Today @ 09:29 PM

Gen. 34:20 And Hamor and Shechem his son came unto the gate of their city, and communed with the men of their city, saying,



Clearly the author means that they were at the gate of the city was, just as 'unto Gaza' means that they were at Gaza.

As for your claim that you were talking about prepositions in Hebrew, well, I , and the rest of the world, only saw English prepositions in your posting.

Woe unto those who think Holding is a great Christian apologist.

[Alien]

Today @ 02:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78736#post78736)
Dee Dee Warren:
Since, in part, both correspondents are well known personages within their fields and common debate opponents, there is not a problem with this thread which has quite a bit of history behind it. Also JP has been the subject of similar other threads, some of them still existing in this forum on subjects concering his work and alleged mistakes and contradictions, and is the subject of such inquiries in Till's published work so yes that is allowed. There are no restrictions against targeting a particular person's work or methods from debate and discussion. If it degenerates into something against the rules or has outlived its purpose, such thread are moved into the Janitor's Closet, closed, or both which is what happened with the Socrates thread. However, I am going to, in the interest of being proactive, move this one to the Janitor's Closet.

Oh yeah, I wasn't actually upset about it, or wishing to suggest that any kind of action should be taken. In fact I get the feeling that both sides enjoy this stuff, whether they are giving or receiving the abuse, maybe like clowns slapping custard pies in each other's faces?

I guess it depends on whether they want anyone to take them seriously or not. I personally switch off when I start to read this kind of thing, but maybe that's just me.

[johnransom]

Today @ 02:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78674#post78674)
stevencarrwork:
Today @ 11:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78562#post78562)
jpholding:


Till

The same verse says that the strike extended 'unto Gibeon,' which was a town located about 5 miles north of Jerusalem....

Holding

This is false. Gibeon is actually approximately five miles northwest of Jerusalem, at 35 degrees, 14'30 east, while Jerusalem itself is at 35 degrees, 19'56 east. The map also shows it separated from Jerusalem by a river, a natural barrier.Presumably Holding thinks ancient people were too stupid to know how to cross, let alone, dam a river.

http://www.planetware.com/towns/PRISR.HTM

Gibeon is given as 31.50 North and 35.11 E

Jerusalem is given as 31.47 North and 35.13 E


Where does JP (Oh no I've goofed again) Holding
get 35 degrees North for Jerusalem from? Does he think Jerusalem is on the same latitude as Tokyo?

And where does he get a distance from Jerusalem to Gibeon of 14 30 east to 19 degrees East - not a whole time zone , but half way there?

Remind me to post Holding's goof on Errancy.
Maybe we need to start a thread on Carrdork's errors and idiotic misconstruals. "Stevie's Screw-ups", perhaps?

Stevie seems to think that JP was giving two-dimensional coordinates for Jerusalem and Gibeon, assuming that the "35 degrees" in each case was the longitude and that "14'30" east and "19'56 east" the latitude. He completely fails to note that JP has already stated that Gibeon is northwest of Jerusalem, which would be a nonsense if they were both at the same longitude - the one would be directly north of the other. He also seems to think that the apostrophe is the diacritical mark for degrees. He completely fails to realize that JP is giving the longitude for each location only, which were, respectively, 35°14'30 and 35°19'56. JP's point was to demonstrate that Gibeon was west as well as north of Jerusalem.

Thus, JP's coordinates differ from Stevie's by about 3 minutes for Gibeon and six minutes for Jerusalem, a minute being about a mile at that latitude as near as I can figure. Not so far off, depending on the point of measurement.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 10:20 PM
Alien:

I guess it depends on whether they want anyone to take them seriously or not. I personally switch off when I start to read this kind of thing, but maybe that's just me.

Well, Holding is doing you a favour then, by removing his links to Till's articles, where you can see why Holding is reduced to sniping that Gibeon is slightly more northwest of Jerusalem rather than due north, and quibbling that the land 'unto Gaza', did not include Gaza.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 09:29 PM
jpholding:
Gen. 10:19 And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.

Does this mean Gaza was in Canaan?




I have no idea. Never studied it.

Was it not?

A quick glance at the web shows

http://www.museum.upenn.edu/Canaan/LandandTime.shtml

'The land known as Canaan was situated in the territory of the southern Levant, which today encompasses Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, and the southern portions of Syria and Lebanon.'

http://www.visit-palestine.com/gaza/gaz-main.htm

'The city was first inhabited by the Canaanites and occupied by Egypt in the 15th century BC. Several hundred years later, Gaza became a chief Philistine city.'

So some people think it was in Canaan at one time. Was there no time in which it was in Canaan?

Was Gaza in Canaan at the time of Genesis 10, which if I remember the Bible correctly, is before the Exodus? Or was it, as you claim, a Philistine city at the time of Genesis 10?

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 10:24 PM
johnransom:

He completely fails to realize that JP is giving the longitude for each location only, which were, respectively, 35°14'30 and 35°19'56. JP's point was to demonstrate that Gibeon was west as well as north of Jerusalem.

Thus, JP's coordinates differ from Stevie's by about 3 minutes for Gibeon and six minutes for Jerusalem, a minute being about a mile at that latitude as near as I can figure. Not so far off, depending on the point of measurement.

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it.

I was confused by JP not using any standard recognised method of giving his coordinates, and made a mistake. Perhaps JP just didn't know how to get the correct punctuation for co-ordinates on his keyboard.

Still, he was a bit out, because , of course, Jerusalem is so big that his giving co-ordinates to the second is meaningless - a second being about 60 yards at that distance.

http://www.bibleexplained.com/Gospels/map-nr-jerusalem.html

is a map.

As you can see , Gibeon is at about 11 o'clock to Jerusalem, perhaps 10:30. Not quite due north.

Saying Gibeon is north of Jerusalem (which it is, as you say) is hardly gaffe, even if is slightly more to the Northwest.

Is this quibble really all Holding can dredge up?

[jpholding]

Bald Ape:

Happy to meet another sideline Frustrated Farter. :rofl:

Stevie Weevie:

I defer to Ransom's comments re the coordinates. Otherwise:

Clearly the author means that they were at the gate of the city was, just as 'unto Gaza' means that they were at Gaza.

Oops, not IN Gaza? :rofl: I hear you pedalling backwards...now tell me Stevie, when was Genesis 10 WRITTEN?

Aside from that -- your Master has a lot more territory to cover. Like all that Northern stuff. Do you admit his error there?

Quibble? No matter how hard he tries, he's not going to squeeze Jerusalem into the picture, Stevie. West is west, if he wants to play that straight line game of his.

[stevencarrwork]

Yesterday @ 11:39 PM
jpholding:


Stevie Weevie:


Clearly the author means that they were at the gate of the city was, just as 'unto Gaza' means that they were at Gaza.

Oops, not IN Gaza? :rofl: I hear you pedalling backwards...now tell me Stevie, when was Genesis 10 WRITTEN?



'Unto Gaza' means including Gaza, and woe unto those who say otherwise.

Are you claiming Genesis 10 is anachronistic, reflecting the times it was written , rather than the times it was supposedly referring to? Seems a desperate dodge to me.

And a look at the map I gave shows Gibeon north of Jerusalem if not due north.

[jpholding]

'Unto Gaza' means including Gaza, and woe unto those who say otherwise.

Sorry, Stevie, just saying so and woe ain't gonna cut it. :teeth:

Are you claiming Genesis 10 is anachronistic, reflecting the times it was written , rather than the times it was supposedly referring to? Seems a desperate dodge to me.

Seems like a proper way to respect the context to me. :rofl: Which would have been more meaningful to the readers it was written to, Stevie?

And a look at the map I gave shows Gibeon north of Jerusalem if not due north.

Your head is apparently tilted. :rofl: Don't forget what I said as well about straight lines and geographical barriers.

I take it from your silence that you have no other defense of your master?

[Revolg]

Is it just me or is Stevie not prepared to handle a seminary trained (and old) James Patrick Holding? This is another case of trying to tell a Professor he is wrong when you are eleven years old.

I have no idea. Never studied it.

I really have to beg the question.

God Bless,
Eric

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 01:06 AM
jpholding:

'Unto Gaza' means including Gaza, and woe unto those who say otherwise.

Sorry, Stevie, just saying so and woe ain't gonna cut it. :teeth:

Are you claiming Genesis 10 is anachronistic, reflecting the times it was written , rather than the times it was supposedly referring to? Seems a desperate dodge to me.

Seems like a proper way to respect the context to me. :rofl: Which would have been more meaningful to the readers it was written to, Stevie?



I love it when Holding destroys Biblical inerrancy.

Genesis 10:18-19
'Later the Canaanite clans scattered 19 and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha.'


If the geography is screwed up, that is because it is meant to be wrong.

Just as a history of the American Revolution would not be wrong to say the 50 States (including Hawaii) fought the English, It is simply more meaningful to its readers who live in a land with 50 States.

All this so Holding can try to claim that 'as far as Gaza' does not mean including Gaza.

Holding is really dodging when he claims that , while Till might have his geography right for the time period the text refers to, Till should really be using the geography of the time the text was last changed.



Today @ 01:06 AM

[i]And a look at the map I gave shows Gibeon north of Jerusalem if not due north.

Your head is apparently tilted. :rofl: Don't forget what I said as well about straight lines and geographical barriers.



Josua 10:41 '...subdued them from Kadesh Barnea to Gaza and from the whole region of Goshen to Gibeon.

Goshen is south of Jerusalem. I cannot be bothered to give the exact compass bearing. Shows how goofy I am!

Gibeon is a few miles north of Jerusalem (or North by North by Northwest, of it keeps Holding happy.

Why is Till goofy when he deduces that the text means to say that Joshua subdued the land around Jerusalem , when he subdued the whole region between Goshen and Gibeon?

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/landprom/5land.html is Till's article, where readers can see why Holding is reduced to saying that one town is not north of another, just because it is not exactly due north.

Is that really the best Holding can dredge up?

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 01:37 AM Revolg:

Is it just me or is Stevie not prepared to handle a seminary trained (and old) James Patrick Holding? This is another case of trying to tell a Professor he is wrong when you are eleven years old.

I have no idea. Never studied it.

I really have to beg the question.



I hadn't studied it.

But it took about 5 mins. to refute Holding's claim that Gaza was not in Canaan. It was in Canaan at the time Genesis 10 is supposed to refer to, and Holding is reduced to claiming that this is an anachronism, and is meant to be wrong.

Of course, when people like Holding find something that seems wrong to later readers, but turns out to be correct at the time the text refers to, he crows and crows.

But when the opposite occurs, he changes his tune altogether and says that the Bible was *supposed* to be referring to a later time, and not the time the text was supposed to be about.

[stevencarrwork]

Yesterday @ 11:39 PM jpholding:
I hear you pedalling backwards...now tell me Stevie, when was Genesis 10 WRITTEN?


Perhaps Revolvg might like to answer this question. I would ask Holding when Genesis 10 was written, but he would only dodge.....

Zech. 14:17 'And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.'

Of course, the Temple was *outside* Jerusalem , as we know that 'unto Jerusalem' does not include Jerusalem.

[Revolg]

I hope you think so. But as a Messianic Jew... I'll keep my mouth shut :P

Eric

[jpholding]

I love it when Holding destroys Biblical inerrancy.

We ALL love it when you set a strawman aflame. :teeth:

If the geography is screwed up, that is because it is meant to be wrong.

Gosh, Stevie. If a history of the UK written in 1986 says that the Romans crossed the English Channel, are you going to cry that it's "wrong" because back then it was the Litus Saxonicum?

Just as a history of the American Revolution would not be wrong to say the 50 States (including Hawaii) fought the English,

Oops, Stevie, apples and oranges again. The number 50 is unique to the modern world. Bad boy, Stevie.

All this so Holding can try to claim that 'as far as Gaza' does not mean including Gaza.

Stevie, poor soul, he doesn't want to admit that "as far as" can mean to ANY point of a city or location -- whether inside the limits or to the borders, OUTSIDE. Tut tut.

Sure was funny BTW to see Ransom correct you here, and Jim Java on Errancy too. Poor Stevie got shot down from BOTH sides. :rofl:

Holding is really dodging when he claims that , while Till might have his geography right for the time period the text refers to, Till should really be using the geography of the time the text was last changed.

Sorry, that was incoherent. Are you posting after swilling English Leather again?

Gibeon is a few miles north of Jerusalem (or North by North by Northwest, of it keeps Holding happy.

Awww, poor Stevie. And don't forget those straight lines and natural barriers.

Why is Till goofy when he deduces that the text means to say that Joshua subdued the land around Jerusalem , when he subdued the whole region between Goshen and Gibeon?

Duh ah,

1) Because Jerusalem's conquest is not related, which anywhere but Goofyville means that the range must EXCLUDE the city itself.
2) Because do you think they got their maps out and figured out the territory in a straight line? You think Josh consulted his satellite uplink?

where readers can see why Holding is reduced to saying that one town is not north of another, just because it is not exactly due north.

Yep, a straight line is NOT a straight line. Gotcha. :thumb:

Is that really the best Holding can dredge up?

It's all the silt that was needed, Stevie, to send your master spinning.

Now for the third time -- nothing to say about his other elephant-sized gaffes, especially re the northern territories?

Didn't think so. :rofl:

Good night, Stevie Weevie.

[Sheepdog]

Wow,

it's Farrel Till's birthday today. happy birthday :cheers:

looks like JP gave you his gift early :poke: :smile:

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 03:28 AM
jpholding:

I love it when Holding destroys Biblical inerrancy.

We ALL love it when you set a strawman aflame. :teeth:

If the geography is screwed up, that is because it is meant to be wrong.

Gosh, Stevie. If a history of the UK written in 1986 says that the Romans crossed the English Channel, are you going to cry that it's "wrong" because back then it was the Litus Saxonicum?

All this so Holding can try to claim that 'as far as Gaza' does not mean including Gaza.

Stevie, poor soul, he doesn't want to admit that "as far as" can mean to ANY point of a city or location -- whether inside the limits or to the borders, OUTSIDE. Tut tut.




To my utter astonishment, Holding dodged his own question 'When was Genesis 10 written?'

Amazing. I've never known him dodge a question before, and suddenly he didn't even go as far as attempting to answer.

But he did come up with another of his famous false analogies.

He claimed that saying that Gaza was Philistine territory rather than in Canaan is no more wrong than using the English name of the Channel rather than the Latin name.


If he had said that a 1986 history should say that the English Channel belonged in Roman times to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and was not under the control of the Romans, he would have a better analogy.

And his writing is so obscure that I have no idea what he is on about by Northern Territories.


Of course, applying the Holding rule, this is not a mistake on his part.

He is simply using the modern name for the area in Australia , called the Northern Territories, rather than the name 2,000 years ago.

Holding has to think of what his readers would be familiar with.


Sorry about getting your co-ordinates wrong. I saw two measurements for both towns, and assumed you were giving latitude and longitude.

[jpholding]

Stevie Weevie,

To my utter astonishment, Holding dodged his own question 'When was Genesis 10 written?'

How can I dodge my own question that I didn't even ask? :whack:

I can accept that that part was added by Jeremiah as part of his redactive work compiling the Pentateuch. Or by Moses c. 1400 BC. I don't care either way.

But he did come up with another of his famous false analogies.

Stevie, given your penchant for bad analogies, you'd never know the difference. Stevie, read this carefully: If the passage was written in the time I say, then it was CORRECT at the time it was written. As for this mellow tripe:

If he had said that a 1986 history should say that the English Channel belonged in Roman times to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and was not under the control of the Romans, he would have a better analogy.

Sorry Stevie, nothing in the passage says dip about political control over the areas in question. It says:

And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.

Do you see anything about political control over the cities? Into the Beefeater's again? No, the cities are geographic references written for the people to whom this was written. In that light it made no difference whether Gaza existed in the time being described, or whether it was held by someone else, or whether it was a truck stop. Nice try.

And his writing is so obscure that I have no idea what he is on about by Northern Territories.

Nice excuse. :rofl: But because you actually apologized for something for once, I will frame that and not mock you further today. Happy Birthday.

[dizzle]

I have moved this thread back to Religion 101 and rethought my decision to move it to the Janitor's Closet. JP's original post is fine for this section for the reasons I already articulated. The only reason I moved it is because it was going off topic into a dispute about whether or not the topic was appropriate and about JP's style.... however, the thread has come back on topic, and those other questions can be the subject of other theads. If JP can be the subject of alleged mistakes and contradictions in his writings in Religion 101 then the equation works both ways.

As other threads involving these players have tended to degenerate and go off topic, I had said that only the wayward posts would be moved to the Closet, and that is what will be done here. I decided that my initial decision was not fair to JP, and all facts be known, I encouraged him to do this series, so any complaints about its appropriateness can be directed to me.

[jpholding]

I'd like to add one more thought for folks like Alien and Woman who enter this aena with a low context.

Farrell Till has been at this game for well over 12 years now. He is not merely a newbie here on TWeb but has been advancing bad and uninformed arguments like the one presented above for many years, and has tricked any number of people with his manipulation games. If you find me hard to believe, go check the Arena discussion on his debate with Cadet, where you will find now near the end comments by one of his fellow Skeptics, Joe Alward (Doc), attesting to his manipulative and narcissistic behavior following years of observation.

The purpose of this "Gaffe of the Week" feature, I openly admit, is to cause loss of credit to Till's work. He should not be believed. He is like a quack doctor dispensing snake oil and cannot be permitted to continue spreading his nonsense unopposed. To allow him to keep mouthing off unopposed would be an abomination. I would oppose him even if I were an atheist.

If you still do not accept this, then continue to watch each week as a new gaffe is presented. These are not minor technical errors (as his crowd is fond of ringing up against me) but major, boneheaded gaffes that show that he has no more business writing as an authority on the Bible than he would on the Zulu culture.

He has earned the title of Goofy by hard work. But he will be called FTill in this forum for future references.

[Richard Romano]

Today @ 04:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79489#post79489)
Dee Dee Warren:

I have moved this thread back to Religion 101 and rethought my decision to move it to the Janitor's Closet. JP's original post is fine for this section for the reasons I already articulated. The only reason I moved it is because it was going off topic into a dispute about whether or not the topic was appropriate and about JP's style.

I have known jp for several years now...his amusing monikers are purely fun...he means no harm by them. The fact of the matter is that jp is a threat to illogical thinkers, or stinkers, who really demonstrate how bankrupt liberal (skeptic?) views are. Don't get mad at jp just because he knows how to spot nonsense while others feast and gorge themselves on sheer stupidity.

Just look at the recent silliness and irrelevancy of carr's question and non answer speculation. He selectively reads jp's post and then contrives ways of avoiding the real issues. You can't blame jp for honestly calling this kind of balderdash for what it is...and perhaps throwing a moniker in there for added verisimilitude--it is an apt description of views that are simply untenable, especially to anyone remotely rational.

regards,

R. Romano.

[stevencarrwork]

Farrell Till said Gibeon was about 5 miles North of Jerusalem.


Holding quibbled that Gibeon was north west of Jerusalem.

I gave a map showing Gibeon North of Jerusalem (perhaps North by North by Northwest)

What would Holding say if somebody quibbled about one his articles in the way he quibbled about Till's?

Holding would say '...... -- and telling us that Syria is NNE of Jerusalem, which is still east, no matter how many N's are thrown in the batch.....'

That was from
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_04_03_CC1.html

Interesting how Holding has different rules about what constitutes a gaffe. When he says something is East of Jerusalem, any idiot who quibbles it was actually NNE, is rightly dismissed as an idiot.

When Till says something is North of Jerusalem, Holding steps up to the plate , with exactly the same sort of quibble he rightly treats with scorn elsewhere on his web page.

[jpholding]

Stevie,

You may yet earn the name Goofy instead of your master.

Your master was arguing that Jerusalem would be included because his argument was essentially that, IN A STRAIGHT LINE from Kadesh Barnea to Gibeon, Jerusalem would be included.

I showed the absurdity of this NOT ONLY via the showing of Gibeon's location, but by the point about natural barriers that you STILL are ignoring.

In contrast, the point in the Nativity article was with reference to members of the Parthian empire (Magi) coming from the East -- which was east of Syria, Palestine, etc. -- a vast area. Kotter's quibble was more along the sort your master pulled.

Have another cup of Beefeater's. Oh, and your bit about days in John is a bad connection too. :rofl:

[stevencarrwork]

Yesterday @ 06:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79464#post79464)
jpholding:

Stevie Weevie,

To my utter astonishment, Holding dodged his own question 'When was Genesis 10 written?'

How can I dodge my own question that I didn't even ask? :whack:

I can accept that that part was added by Jeremiah as part of his redactive work compiling the Pentateuch. Or by Moses c. 1400 BC. I don't care either way.




Holding wrote on a posting on this very page

'I hear you pedalling backwards...now tell me Stevie, when was Genesis 10 WRITTEN?'

Now JP (IIM) Holding denies what he wrote on this very thread :-)


And his strange claim that Gensis 10 might have been added by Jeremiah is worth noting....

Holding wrote 'Your master was arguing that Jerusalem would be included because his argument was essentially that, IN A STRAIGHT LINE from Kadesh Barnea to Gibeon, Jerusalem would be included.'

Of course, there is no STRAIGHT LINE in what Till wrote. This STRAIGHT LINE was added by Holding so he could point out that it was not a straight line.

Till wrote '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.'

Is Jerusalem (5 miles from Gibeon) in the region of Gibeon? I think so?

Is 5 miles enough to disqualify something as being part of the region?

Once again we must turn to JP Holding for an answer.

'The city of Gerasa was about 30 miles southeast of the traditional location of this event; that being so, to speak of being in the "region" is hardly any more erroneous than saying, after landing a boat thirty miles south of Milwaukee, that you have landed in the "region" of Milwaukee. '

From http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02_MK.html

So Holding thinks a gap of 30 miles, with a lake in the way is not enough to disqualify something as being in the same 'region'.

Yet Holding can also claim that a distance of 5 miles is so far from being part of the region, that it deserves to be called goofy.


Joshua is supposed to have routed *all* the kings of this region. Did that include kings just a few miles from Gibeon?

[jpholding]

Now JP (IIM) Holding denies what he wrote on this very page :-)

Shrug. My bad. Shall I write a ten paragraph excuse like your master does? :brow: Not that I was obliged to answer -- I was asking YOU.

And his strange claim that Gensis 10 might have been added by Jeremiah is worth noting....

Nothing strange about that if you're educated. :brow:

[stevencarrwork]

I think Holding is complaining that the itinerary given in Joshua 10 would not have included Jerusalem , although Jerusalem was only a couple of miles from the town of Gibeon.

Let us see how loosely Holding can interpret 'region' and 'itineraries' when it suits him

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02_MK.html

'Mark 10:1a Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. '

Holding writes '
??? - I am confounded again by Kümmel's confusion. Here again we have a very general statement of a "region" and perhaps what is probably an itinerary: 1) the region of Judea; 2) across the Jordan. Is Mark not being specific enough for Kümmel's tastes? If so, why should this be a problem? Other than that Peter's audience would (again) not care about such minor details, we may add that Mark was a native of Jerusalem (Acts 12:12), and thus an urbanite. As such, we would not expect him to make an exact fix on certain places that were either far from his home or out on the country somewhere. Not even I, acquainted as I am with atlases and road maps as part of my library work, can get more precise than this when referring to boondock areas only 100 or so miles from where I live!'

As for natural barriers which I am still ignoring, does Holding think ancient people were too stupid to cross a river? What is this river, this natural barrier? The Mississipi?

I repeat, Gibeon is 5 miles northwards from Jerusalem. By any sane reckoning Jerusalem is in the region mentioned in Joshua 10:43.

Does Holding want me to keep giving quotes of his about 'region', just to show how two-faced he is?

[jpholding]

In rides Stevie on that Frog Prince of his own Intellect: :rofl:

I think Holding is complaining that the itinerary given in Joshua 10 would not have included Jerusalem , although Jerusalem was only a couple of miles from the town of Gibeon.

I think Stevie is whining that he can't find the conquest of Jerusalem in that itinerary and that his master can't except by assuming straight lines and a remarkably stupid contradiction. :teeth:

Let us see how loosely Holding can interpret 'region' and 'itineraries' when it suits him

Let's see Stevie draw another fluffy analogy based on a primitive reading of my material. :shrug: Stevie seems to forget that the words "region" and "itinerary" aren't even part of his master's argument in the way mine is, so what's the point of the comparison?

As for natural barriers which I am still ignoring, does Holding think ancient people were too stupid to cross a river?

If Stevie thinks they were too stupid to dam a river, why not? :rofl: Stevie seems impervious to the point that what we have is a described region, not an account of conquest. If a range of land is described, and there are natural features, then REGARDLESS of how wide or deep, a river is a natural barrier for the range. It is the buden of his master to explain why Jerusalem should be included, especially when it is referenced later as unconquered. Anywhere but Goofy Skepticland, this is a sure indication that it was NOT intended to be included.

I repeat, Gibeon is 5 miles northwards from Jerusalem. By any sane reckoning Jerusalem is in the region mentioned in Joshua 10:43.

Stevie thinks repeating himself is a way to argue. :rofl: :whack:

Does Holding want me to keep giving quotes of his about 'region', just to show how two-faced he is?

Nah, I want Stevie to get a job since his boss just fired him again for using company computers while the place is closed. :rofl: But if he does find a new computer to use, he'd best make sure the analogy actually fits. Sure didn't make any sense on the one he pulled.

[dizzle]

I think Stevie is whining that he can't find the conquest of Jerusalem in that itinerary and that his master can't except by assuming straight lines and a remarkably stupid contradiction.

Those are the ones that get me, the incredibly stupid allegations of contradiction. Like finding contradcitions within two verses of each other.

[Sher]

Today @ 01:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80087#post80087)
Dee Dee Warren:

Those are the ones that get me, the incredibly stupid allegations of contradiction. Like finding contradcitions within two verses of each other. Yeah ... shoot ... how smart do you have to be to realize that there is a message there, that the author wasn't so stupid as to miss such a blatant, supposed error?

[Farrell Till]

Yesterday @ 01:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79009#post79009)
stevencarrwork:

Why is Till goofy when he deduces that the text means to say that Joshua subdued the land around Jerusalem , when he subdued the whole region between Goshen and Gibeon?

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/landprom/5land.html is Till's article, where readers can see why Holding is reduced to saying that one town is not north of another, just because it is not exactly due north.

Is that really the best Holding can dredge up?

Let's suppose that the Bible said that Gibeon was north of Jerusalem. Could you imagine the scorn that Skippy would heap on a skeptic who would declare this an error on the grounds that Gibeon is actually north norwest of Jerusalem?

Why I suspect he would call this skeptic a "hyperliteralist."

[dizzle]

Did that make sense to you Farrell??? Did you OD on sugar yesterday at your birthday bash? Too much cake?

[jpholding]

Let's suppose that the Bible said that Gibeon was north of Jerusalem. Could you imagine the scorn that Skippy would heap on a skeptic who would declare this an error on the grounds that Gibeon is actually north norwest of Jerusalem?

Dear Goofy,

Did the ancients c. 1440-600 BC define their compass points that narrowly?

If they didn't, you lose. :rofl:

Is that ALL you have to say about the humongous gaffe I wrote of above? No wonder Part 17 has been delayed for so long. :lol:

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 07:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80121#post80121)
Farrell Till:



Let's suppose that the Bible said that Gibeon was north of Jerusalem. Could you imagine the scorn that Skippy would heap on a skeptic who would declare this an error on the grounds that Gibeon is actually north norwest of Jerusalem?



Why imagine? Why not quote Holding's words?

Holding would say '...... -- and telling us that Syria is NNE of Jerusalem, which is still east, no matter how many N's are thrown in the batch.....'

That was from
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_04_03_CC1.html


And let us not forget Holding declaring that areas 30 miles away were still in the same region, while he thinks a town 5 miles from Jerusalem was not in the same region at all.

Apparently, this river forms a mighty natural barrier - perhaps like the Rockies.

It might be wise to repeat Joshua 10

40 So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD , the God of Israel, had commanded. 41 Joshua subdued them from Kadesh Barnea to Gaza and from the whole region of Goshen to Gibeon. 42 All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because the LORD , the God of Israel, fought for Israel.

Gosh, hill country, foothills,mountain slopes. Doesn't sound like the sort of person put off by a piffling little river.

Or perhaps the King of Jerusalem did not need to be subdued, being quite happy to have Joshua's huge army rampaging just a couple of miles from his territory.


But Holding wants to claim that Jerusalem is nowhere near any possible itineray from Goshen to a town just 5 miles in a northwest direction from Jerusalem.

But Holding is normally very relaxed indeed about itineraies Northwest of Jerusalem

From http://www.tektonics.org/ajinod_11.html

'Even so, in the context of Jeremiah, it is clear that they are somewhere northwest of the city, and growth has indeed been accomplished in that area.'

So when it suits him, Holding thinks 'somewhere northwest of the city' (of Jerusalem) is accurate enough to refute sceptics, yet he demands Till account for this river, which is apparently a mighty natural barrier dividing Jerusalem from the northwest, so that ommiting it in your explanations is a major goof.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 06:12 PM Dee Dee Warren:



Those are the ones that get me, the incredibly stupid allegations of contradiction. Like finding contradcitions within two verses of each other.

Of course, Dee Dee couldn't find a contradiction in the Koran given 20 years to look.

At least, not one that can't be resolved using Holdingesque methods.

How does Holding resolve contradictory itineraries in the Bible?

'For example, McConville and Millar [McC.TPD, 29] chalk up differences in the travel itineraries between Deut. 2 and Numbers 20-1 as something intended "to provoke the Israelites to jealousy and expose to them the folly of their past actions" while emphasizing that in them, Israel has a second chance here on the plains of Moab.'


With that sort of artistic licence on my side, Dee Dee will never ,ever find a contradiction in the Koran. I doubt if she will even try.


(I love the way Holding complains about an imagined defect in Till's itinerary when he waves his hands over real differences in the Bible)

[stevencarrwork]

Here is part of a Glenn Miller article about which towns should or should not be considered to be attacked in Joshua 10 , up to verse 43

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/noai.html

'Chapter 10 of the book of Joshua tells of the battle with a coalition of kings of the Shephelah and the hill country--the kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Yarmut, Lachish, and Eglon. In the course of this battle Joshua conquers Makkedah, Libneh, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir, and at the conclusion of the tale, the conquest of wide areas is described: "the hill country, the Negeb, the Shephelah, and the slopes . . . from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza, all the land of Goshen, and up to Gibeon" (Jos. 10:40-41). The location of some of the towns (Makkedah, Libneh, and Eglon) is not established. The other towns may be identified with certainty, and among them, Jerusalem, Lachish, Hebron (Tell Rumeideh), and Debir (Khirbet Rabud in the southern Hebron hills) have been excavated.'

He fails to address Holding's point of this natural barrier between Gibeon and Jerusalem :-)

[stevencarrwork]

04-25-2003 @ 05:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78562#post78562)
jpholding:


Joshua 10 indicates this with respect to Jerusalem: It's king came out to fight with others, and he was captured (10:23, 12:10) and executed. But the city by itself remains conspicuously uncaptured and unattacked, and unaddressed, until Ch. 15.




Joshua 10:43 ' Joshua subdued them from Kadesh Barnea to Gaza and from the whole region of Goshen to Gibeon. All these kings AND THEIR LANDS their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because the LORD , the God of Israel, fought for Israel.'

So if Joshua subdued the king of Jerusalem,as Holding claims, where was his land?

[jpholding]

Sorry Stevie Weevie,

Holding would say '...... -- and telling us that Syria is NNE of Jerusalem, which is still east, no matter how many N's are thrown in the batch.....'

Been here. Answered this. Wake up.

And let us not forget Holding declaring that areas 30 miles away were still in the same region, while he thinks a town 5 miles from Jerusalem was not in the same region at all.

Backwards, Stevie Weevie. Your master uses "region" to INCLUDE a city otherwise unspecified. I use "region" to note lack of specific area.

Apparently, this river forms a mighty natural barrier - perhaps like the Rockies.

Nothin' said about it being a barrier to military action, Goofy Jr. I said it was a natural barrier to be used as a dividing line as opposed to the straight line your master thinks the cartographers and satellites of the day would use. :doh:

Or perhaps the King of Jerusalem did not need to be subdued, being quite happy to have Joshua's huge army rampaging just a couple of miles from his territory.[/i\

He did go out on the town, Stevie.

[i]But Holding wants to claim that Jerusalem is nowhere near any possible itineray from Goshen to a town just 5 miles in a northwest direction from Jerusalem.

What did you say? "POSSIBLE" itinerary? Gosh. No need for YOU or your master to prove it was specifically in there, huh?

But Holding is normally very relaxed indeed about itineraies Northwest of Jerusalem

More sore analogizing from Stevie. He sees the words "northwest" and "Jerusalem" and figures there's a parallel there, even if it takes more straining than constipation to explain one. :rofl: Stevie -- that one talks about an UNKNOWN locale. Not a known one. Your attempts to draw parallels look like more Beefeater Bazaar. Explain how each of those is the same as what I said before. It's just your usual, "Hey, here's the same word so it must be parallel" crapola. I can't even figure what you're trying to prove with the Numbers-Deut. thing.

Addressed your confused misuse of Miller elsewhere. Finally this:

Joshua 10:43 ' Joshua subdued them from Kadesh Barnea to Gaza and from the whole region of Goshen to Gibeon. All these kings AND THEIR LANDS their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because the LORD , the God of Israel, fought for Israel.'

So if Joshua subdued the king of Jerusalem,as Holding claims, where was his land?

It refers back to v. 41, Stevie: "And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon." If Jerusalem isn't in that area, too bad for you. :rofl: That's the very question at issue and neither of us can beg it -- we just have texts which specify the fate of Jerusalem later on -- and note how it is NOT one of the cities listed as captured in Josh. 10.

BTW three asides:

1) Since they made a treaty with Gibeon, and they fought TO Gibeon, does that mean they fought IN Gibeon? :ahem:
2) Did Ramsses III really turn his prisoners into ashes and nothingness and THEN capture them?
3) You're not online at your usual time. Were you fired again?

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 04:22 PM
jpholding:


Addressed your confused misuse of Miller elsewhere.




You have to admire Skippy. He posted absolutely nothing which remotely address Miller's quote. His posting made no reference to any word of Miller's quote.


Nothing at all - and he comes to this thread and says he has addressed it elsewhere!

The man is simply brazen!


Here is Holding's entire post about Miller's quote 'The goof is yours, Stevie-poo. Like your master you assume that the capture of the KING of Jerusalem equates with the capture of the CITY.
I guess we should have just went after Saddam and ignored the Republican Guard.'

As anybody can see, not one word refers to Miller's posting! Holding must have read it - it talks about the city of Jerusalem.


JP Holding would deny that there were American tanks in Baghdad, if somebody had not beaten him to that role!

I will repost part of what Miller quoted, simply so Skippy can ignore it again 'The location of some of the towns (Makkedah, Libneh, and Eglon) is not established. The other towns may be identified with certainty, and among them, Jerusalem, Lachish, Hebron (Tell Rumeideh), and Debir (Khirbet Rabud in the southern Hebron hills) have been excavated.'

Holding also does his normal 'all' only means 'some' tactic.

'All these kings AND THEIR LANDS their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because the LORD , the God of Israel, fought for Israel.' This obviously sums up the entire chapter, although Holding claims the antecedent of 'All these kings' is a verse which has no mention of kings.....

Holding the Bible-denier strikes again! 'All' means 'some'. There were kings attacked and subdued in Joshua 10, but when Joshua talks about 'all these kings' who were conquered - Holding claims it only means 'some' of the kings who were conquered.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 04:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80888#post80888)
jpholding:


1) Since they made a treaty with Gibeon, and they fought TO Gibeon, does that mean they fought IN Gibeon? :ahem:
2) Did Ramsses III really turn his prisoners into ashes and nothingness and THEN capture them?
3) You're not online at your usual time. Were you fired again?

Joshua 10:9-10
After an all-night march from Gilgal, Joshua took them by surprise. The LORD threw them into confusion before Israel, who defeated them in a great victory at Gibeon.

Is Holding denying that Joshua marched to Gibeon?

verse 15
' And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal.'

Poor Joshua - marching back to his army camp, but unable to enter it, because Holding says 'unto' does not mean going in.

What is Holding on about with talk of Pharoah's?

Was Holding fired from his prison library - one of the few libraries in America it seems that does not have Internet access for its librarians?

Oh well, back to my accountancy studies......

[jpholding]

Before I forget Stevie -- it was the Khosr, not the Tigris. How soon we forget when we drink.

He posted absolutely nothing which remotely address Miller's quote. His posting made no reference to any word of Miller's quote.

And then, he posts my answer. Is Stevie stoned?

Holding also does his normal 'all' only means 'some' tactic.

No, it's more like "all" does not include what is not specified. :duh:

Joshua 10:9-10 After an all-night march from Gilgal, Joshua took them by surprise. The LORD threw them into confusion before Israel, who defeated them in a great victory at Gibeon.
Is Holding denying that Joshua marched to Gibeon?

No, I am asking whether by your logic the passage meant that they conquered or went inside Gibeon when they were "unto" it. Did they also fight 10:9-10 IN Gibeon proper?

Poor Joshua - marching back to his army camp, but unable to enter it, because Holding says 'unto' does not mean going in.

No, Stevie. I say it has a broad meaning that can be going in or near. Which is determined by other contexts. Stoned?

What is Holding on about with talk of Pharoah's?

Search my site for the word "Tjekker" and get the point.

one of the few libraries in America it seems that does not have Internet access for its librarians?

Prison libraries here do not have Internet access, Stevie. Would you like for Bubba to write you and your kids a nice email?

Oh well, back to my accountancy studies......

Your new boss says BLOW YOUR NOSE! That just went on your account!

[Farrell Till]

Skippy:
Farrell Till's Goofy Gaffe of the Week, 4/25/03
(post#1 )
We now begin a special feature titled unofficially, “Goofy’s Gaffe of the Week” in which we will feature a specific embarrassing, major-bonehead [sic] gaffe by F Till _ not a typo or some minor concentration error, but a boneheaded, honking huge error that shows a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship. Though the name implies a weekly presentation we may do this biweekly if other projects are pressing. The goal as always is to show that Goofy is not a credible source and should be either ignored or laughed at by informed Christians.

I will ask everyone to take notice of the way that I reply to Skippy as opposed to the way he evades my arguments/rebuttals with unsupported claims that he has "already" answered "that." I will skip nothing in my reply, but Skippy will not reply to me in kind. After seeing my point-by-point replies, I think readers will be able to see just who is the one whom should be laughed at.


Skippy:
Goofy’s Gaffe for this week comes of an attempt he made in the Land Promise debate to make land areas in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlap.

Why did Skippy, uh, well, skip Joshua 12? We will see that this chapter was also analyzed in the section of my reply in which he thinks he found a "goofy gaffe." It is an important passage that I will be quoting from again to show that no "goofy gaffe" was made.


Skippy:
Please note the following:

This thread is specifically about this particular gaffe. Goofy and his fans will undoubtedly try to distract the reader with other issues while never addressing this particular one. Such diversionary tactics should be taken as an admission that the gaffe is admitted to, and that they have no resolution but to cover up for this embarrassing error.

Skippy should know better than to say that I will "never" address this issue, because he has seen enough of me to know that I reply to him point by point and skip nothing, I will let the readers judge for themselves whether I address "this particular one." I predict that he will be the one who won't address issues and will try to shift the subject to something else. In fact, that is the entire reason for this new thread he has started. On his other "gaffe" claim, I have nailed his hide to the wall again by requoting rebuttals that he evaded in our land-promise debate, and so he is eager to distract attention to something else. He will see, however, that I will simply requote here what he has evaded in the land-promise thread.


Skippy:
So now to the Gaffe. I initially noted, in reply to a claim that passages in Josh. 10 and 11 were in conflict with Josh. 13:1:

Josh. 10:40-3 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea 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 the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel. And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal.

Josh. 11:23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD 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.

Josh 13:1 Now Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the LORD said unto him, Thou art old and stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.

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.

Goofy replied that he would show that “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.”

I'll interrupted Skippy to remind him of a rebuttal argument that he has repeatedly tiptoed around. Before I requote it, I'll tell readers what to look for. First, if Skippy could prove--and he can't--that the land listed and described in Joshua 10, 11, and 13 was not "all encompassing" of the land that Yahweh had promised the Israelites, he would accomplish nothing, because the argument I will be requoting below shows that the book of Joshua said that the Israelites received all the land Yahweh had promised them and dwelt in it, but after this claim of the complete fulfillment of Yahweh's land promise, the book of Joshua said that the Israelites had not received all of the land promised but that "much land" remained to be possessed. Proof of the contradiction is in the rebuttal argument that he ignored in the land-promise thread, so here is that argument again.


Till in first round:
First, the Israelites were given all the land and everything Yahweh had promised them, and then [it said that] they were not given all of the land. X and not X cannot both be true.

Skippy in second round:
We have shown that the formula is not "X" versus "not X", but "X plus Y" (giving land plus fulfilling conditions) versus "X plus Z" (giving land plus not fulfilling conditions).

Till:
Skippy has shown no such thing. He can't even recognize the difference in apples and oranges. When I say that the Bible says X and not X (or P and ~P), I'm not talking about what was said in the original land promise but what the books of Joshua and Judges said about the fulfillment of the promise. First, Joshua claimed that the Israelites had been given all the land that Yahweh had promised.

[b][i]Joshua 21:43 So Yahweh gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and DWELT in it. 44 Yahweh gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand. 45 Not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.

This passage is clear enough that even Skippy should be able to understand it. The passage flatly says that Yahweh had given to Israel all the land that he had sworn to their fathers to give to them.and that they took possession of it and DWELT in it. It even explicitly says that "not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel." It then went on to say that "all came to pass."

Yet we read something entirely different in another passage.

Joshua 13:1 Now Joshua was old, advanced in years. And Yahweh said to him: "You are old, advanced in years, and there remains very much land yet to be possessed...."

Skippy, being Skippy, will probably try to argue that the statement in Joshua 13:1 was made before the one in Joshua 21, and so at the time of Joshua 13, the Israelites had not taken all of the land but had done so in Joshua 21. Notice, however, that 13:1 was said when Joshua was "old, advanced in years." What we have, then, is a typical problem of inconsistencies that resulted from the patchwork method that was used in putting the hexateuch together from different documents and/or traditions. That this is the explanation for why a text about Joshua's "advanced" years would have preceded one about his earlier years is evident from a statement in chapter 21. The chapters following Joshua 13 recorded the dividing of the land among the tribes, and it was in this context that the claim was made that "Yahweh gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers," but after two more chapters that described the division of the land, this statement was made about Joshua's age.

Joshua 23:1 Now it came to pass, a long time after Yahweh had given rest to Israel from all their enemies round about, that Joshua was old, advanced in age. 2 And Joshua called for all Israel, for their elders, for their heads, for their judges, and for their officers, and said to them: "I am old, advanced in age...."

The text in Joshua 21, which said that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had sworn to their father to give to them, also said that "Yahweh gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers" (v:44), so after the time that it was claimed that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised them, it was said two chapters later that "a long time after Yahweh had given rest to Israel" Joshua was "old, advanced in age," so at the time of the claim in Joshua 21:43 that Yahweh had given all the land promised to the Israelites, Joshua was younger but later became old and advanced in years. Hence, the reference in 13:1 to the "much land" that remained to be possessed could not have chronologically preceded the claim in 21:43 that all of the land promised had been given to the Israelites, because in 13:1 Joshua was old and advanced in age, but in 21:43, he wasn't yet old and advanced in years but became so "a long time after" this. In 21:43, however, before Joshua was old and advanced in years, it was said that Yahweh gave to the Israelites all the land he had promised to their fathers and that they possessed it and DWELT in it.

Clearly, then, we have a case of X and not X (or P and ~P), because one text says X (Yahweh gave the Israelites all the land he had promised them) but another text says not X (Yahweh did not give the Israelites all the land he had promised them). So this is not a matter of X (giving the land) plus Y (keeping the land), as Skippy is trying to claim, but both X and not X (P and ~P) pertain to the giving of the land and not to the keeping of it. One text says that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised, and that they possessed it and dwelt in it, and the other text says that all the land had not been given to the Israelites. This is a clear case of X and not X (P and ~P), so Skippy has not explained this contradiction.

In case Skippy wants to quibble that Joshua 13 1 (the not X text) was written before 21:43 (he X text), I will point out that even if he could establish this, he would still have the same X and not X problem, because the book of Judges claimed that the Israelites could not take all of the land.

Judges 1:19 And Yahweh was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron.

Furthermore, Joshua 21:44 said that "there stood not a man of all their enemies before them," and the next verse says that "not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel" but that "all came to pass." One of the good things that Yahweh promised was that the Israelites would drive out all the nations in Canaan (Deut. 7:1-2; 9:20-24), but Judges is filled with examples of where the Israelites had been unable to drive out the original inhabitants of the land.

Judges 1:21 But the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who inhabited Jerusalem; so the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day.

Judges 1:27 However, 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; for the Canaanites were determined to dwell in that land.

Judges 3:1-3 Now these are the nations which Yahweh left, that He might test Israel by them, that is, all who had not known any of the wars in Canaan 2 (this was only so that the generations of the children of Israel might be taught to know war, at least those who had not formerly known it), 3namely, five lords of the Philistines, all the Canaanites, the Sidonians, and the Hivites who dwelt in Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal Hermon to the entrance of Hamath. 4 And they were left, that He might test Israel by them, to know whether they would obey the commandments of Yahweh, which He had commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses.

We see a lot of retrospective rationalization in the last passage, but these texts clearly contradict Joshua 21:43ff, which claimed that everything Yahweh had promised to the Israelites had been fulfilled at that time, but one of Yahweh's promises was that he would drive out all of the nations in Canaan and that not a man would be able to stand against them. Judges 3:1-3 claims that this didn't happen. Some nations did stand against the Israelites.

This too becomes an X and not X problem that Skippy must solve to resolve the inconsistency problem. He does not solve it by saying that it was a matter of X [getting the land] plus Y [keeping the land], because the scriptures cited above all pertain to getting the land. Some texts say X [the Israelites got all the land promised to them and dwelt in it], but other texts say not X [the Israelites did not get all the land promised to them].

Thus Skippy has hopped, skipped, and jumped over another argument.

Till in first round:
Where has Skippy said anything that explains away these inconsistencies?

Skippy:
Our opponent's pretense is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no explanation.

Till:
So Skippy is going to evade the argument again. My explication of the problem (above) clearly shows that there is an X and not X (P and ~P) problem in the books of Joshua and Judges. Some texts say X [the Israelites got all of the land promised to them and possessed it and dwelt in it], but other texts say not X [the Israelites did not get all the land promised to them].

If Skippy really thinks that I am just presenting a ploy to make readers think that the problem has no explanation, why doesn't he embarrass me by just posting the explanation? Instead, he attempts to draw attention away from his failure to reply by cutting and pasting the worn-out evasive comment below, which we have seen umpteen times, and which I have repeatedly replied to.

The argument just requoted above shows the irony of Skippy's attempt to show that I erred in saying that Joshua 10,11, and 13 claimed the conquest of all the land Yahweh had promised to the Israelites, for even if he can show that this was the "goofy gaffe" that he claims it was, this would in no way remove the facts that (1) the book of Joshua said that during the younger years of Joshua, the Israelites were given all the land that Yahweh promised their fathers and that they took possession of it and dwelt in it, but (2) when Joshua was old and advanced in years, the book of Joshua said that the Israelites had not received all the land Yahweh had promised them. Hence, there is still a P and ~P statement in Joshua even if Skippy can prove his claim that I made a "goofy gaffe."

I will show later that I made no such gaffe, but before I proceed to that, I have some questions for Skippy. Are the following statements true or false.

1. The Israelites received ALL the land Yahweh promised them, and they possessed it and dwelt in it.

2. Not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel.

3. All that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel came to pass.

4. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said that not a man of all their enemies would stand against them.

5. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said he would drive out the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Hivites, Hittites, and Jebusites.

So now it is time for yes or no questions.

1. Was any man of all the enemies of the Israelites able to stand against them?

2. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Canaanites?

3. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Jebusites?

4. Did everything that Yahweh had promised the Israelites come to pass?

Folks, watch Skippy ignore these questions and make some excuse for not answering them. Expect to hear a lot of talk about "fluff" and "excess verbiage," but don't expect any answers. You won't get them.

I'll continue my point-by-point reply in Part 2.

[Farrell Till]

Part 2

Poor Skippy continues to present what he thinks was my "goofy gaffe," and in so doing, he shows that he has not yet recovered from his foot-in-mouth disease. If he weren't so cocky and arrogant, I would almost feel sorry for him.

Those who want to read the entirety of this section of my original reply to Skippy can access it at <http://www.theskepticalreview.com/landprom/5land.html>. If you go there, you will find Skippy's hide nailed to the wall.


Skippy:
He [Till] began:

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.

With all of this so far we had no disagreement. Here is where Goofy’s Gaffe on Josh. 10 begins:

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.

This is false. If the attack was to Gaza it does not include Gaza, on the sea, which was Philistine territory. But there is more.

My, my, Skippy, accused me of... what was it? Oh, yes, here it is. It was at the beginning of his imaginary "Goofy Gaffe #1."


Skippy:
We now begin a special feature titled unofficially, “Goofy’s Gaffe of the Week” in which we will feature a specific embarrassing, major-bonehead [sic] gaffe by F Till _ not a typo or some minor concentration error, but a boneheaded, honking huge error that shows a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship.

So let's just see now who has made a "honking huge error that shows a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship." Notice that Joshua 10:41 said that Joshua struck them [enemy forces] from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza and all the country of Goshen. So Joshua's strike even unto Gaza went also unto "all the country of Goshen," but how could Joshua have struck unto all the country of Goshen unless his forces had penetrated into the country of Goshen? The fact that the writer said that Joshua's strike extended unto all the country of Goshen shows that he did not mean that Joshua took his army up to the border of Goshen and stopped. How could he have taken his army up to "all the country of Goshen" unless he entered it? Obviously, then, this meant that his army had struck all through the country of Goshen. If that isn't what the text meant, then perhaps Skippy can explain this verse to us.


Joshua 11:16 Thus Joshua took all this land: the mountain country, all the South, all the land of Goshen, the lowland and the Jordan plain--the mountains of Israel and its lowland.

Gee, that sounds rather inclusive, Skippy, but if you want to quibble that this would not include all the land in the southern part of Palestine, you can at least tell us if Joshua took all the land of Goshen. That's what it says, isn't it? So if Joshua took all the land of Goshen, the expression striking "unto all the country of Goshen" (used later in this same chapter) must have meant that Joshua's forces went into Goshen and captured it. If not, why not?

Then if striking "unto all the country of Goshen" meant that Joshua took all the country of Goshen, why wouldn't striking "even unto Gaza" have meant that Joshua had captured Gaza? Give us the benefit of your "relevant study and scholarship" and let us know, will you?

Anyway, whenever I take a position that has been derived from the clear meaning of a text, Skippy likes to call me the "hyperliteralist" if that position is inconsistent with other scriptures, but I would like to know when I have ever taken a position as "hyperliteralist" as his attempt to claim that striking enemy forces even unto Gaza would not mean that Joshua's forces entered Gaza and captured it.

Furthermore, the same text in question also says that Joshua struck "even unto Gibeon." If striking "unto Gaza" meant only that Joshua's army went up to the border of Gaza and stopped, then striking "even unto Gibeon" would mean that Joshua's forces went up to the city limits of Gibeon and stopped. If that is what Skippy thinks that striking "even unto Gaza or Gibeon" meant, then how does he explain this text, which is in the same chapter as the passage about striking unto Gaza and all the country of Goshen?


Joshua 10:9-10 Joshua therefore came upon them [the Amorites gathered at Gibeon], having marched all night from Gilgal. So Yahweh routed them before Israel, killed them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, chased them along the road that goes to Beth Horon, and struck them down as far as Azerek and Makkedah.

So I have quoted separate texts that claim the forces of Joshua captured all the land of Goshen and Gibeon, so if striking even "unto" all the land of Goshen and even "unto" Gibeon meant capturing these places, then why would striking even "unto" Gaza not have meant that Joshua had captured Gaza?

Hey, folks, pay careful attention and watch how much of this Skippy jumps over.

What was that you said about "relevant study and scholarship," Skippy?

Don't you ever tire of looking silly?


Skippy:
Goofy went on:

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.

This is false. Gibeon is actually approximately five miles northwest of Jerusalem, at 35 degrees, 14'30 east, while Jerusalem itself is at 35 degrees, 19'56 east.

Others have pointed out that Gibeon was actually north northwest of Jerusalem, so what was that that you have said about my hyperliteralism, Skippy? As I said in a brief post elsewhere in this thread, if the Bible had said that Gibeon was north of Jerusalem, I can imagine the ridicule you would heap on any skeptic who would claim that this was a mistake on the grounds that Gibeon was actually north northwest of Jerusalem. You do have double standards, don't you, Skippy?


Skippy:
The map also shows it separated from Jerusalem by a river, a natural barrier.

I do hope that everyone will take the time to get a Bible atlas and check into Skippy's quibble. I am using Holman's PC Bible Atlas for my source of information. There was a river (more like a stream) between Jerusalem and Gibeon, but Jerusalem was on the south side of the river, and Gibeon was on the north side. To get to Gibeon, which we have already seen that Joshua captured, the Israelite army would have had to cross this river, but since the Israelites were advancing from the south, they could have attacked Jerusalem without crossing the river. If this river were such a "natural barrier," then how were the Israelites able to cross it to strike their enemies "even unto Gibeon" and slaughter them with a great slaughter?

Furthermore, Joshua's southern assault began at Kadesh-barnea 10:41, which was in the extreme southern region of the land. To get from there to the other places that were defeated (Gaza, Goshen, Debir, Eglon, etc., etc., etc.), the Israelites would have had to cross eight rivers (streams), so these "natural barriers" were apparently not the formidable impediments that Skippy would have us believe. Furthermore, why would a river have been any kind of "natural barrier" for the forces of Yahweh, since the Bible claims that Yahweh fought with Israel?


Joshua 10:14 For there has been no day like that, before it or after it, that Yahweh heeded the voice of a man; for Yahweh fought for Israel.

Joshua 10:42 All these kings and their land Joshua took at one time, because Yahweh God of Israel fought for Israel.[/b]

So if Yahweh was fighting for Israel, how could a little stream have impeded them from taking Jerusalem, especially since that stream was north of Jerusalem, and Joshua's army was coming from the south? Does Skippy ever stop to think before he writes? Probably not, because if he had thought before posting this ridiculous claim of a "gaffe," he would have remembered that Yahweh parted the waters of the Jordan River so that the Israelites could cross it and enter Canaan (Josh. 3:14-17). If Yahweh did this upon the initial entry of the Israelites into Canaan, why would he, if he were indeed fighting for Israel, have later allowed a stream to hold back the advancement of Joshua's army.

I'll ask again if Skippy ever stops to think before he writes.

One more observation about the last text quoted above is in order. This is the verse that comes immediately after the one that said that Joshua struck "them" from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza and all the land of Goshen. Notice that this verse specifically says that Joshua "took" all these kings and their land, but how could he have taken the land of these kings if he had just gone up to the borders of their land and then turned back?

Hey, Skippy, do you still think that I will "never address this particular one [gaffe]"?

Steve Carr has contributed something to this thread that deserves mentioning here. Glenn Miller is frequently cited by Skippy in his articles. In my debates with him, he cited an article on Miller's website as a "reply" to my claim that 2 Peter was written well after AD 70, and he has cited and defended one of Miller's website articles as a solution to the "staff/no staff" problem posed by Matthew 10:9/Mark 6:8, so I would assume that Skippy holds Miller in high esteem and would never accuse him of "a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship."

I point this out, because Steve Carr has found that Miller's position on the capturing of Jerusalem is the same as mine.


Miller at <http://www.christian-thinktank.com/noai.html>:

Chapter 10 of the book of Joshua tells of the battle with a coalition of kings of the Shephelah and the hill country--the kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Yarmut, Lachish, and Eglon. In the course of this battle Joshua conquers Makkedah, Libneh, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir, and at the conclusion of the tale, the conquest of wide areas is described: "the hill country, the Negeb, the Shephelah, and the slopes . . . from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza, all the land of Goshen, and up to Gibeon" (Jos. 10:40-41). The location of some of the towns (Makkedah, Libneh, and Eglon) is not established. The other towns may be identified with certainty, and among them, Jerusalem, Lachish, Hebron (Tell Rumeideh), and Debir (Khirbet Rabud in the southern Hebron hills) have been excavated.

So Glenn Miller agrees that Joshua 10, properly interpreted, shows that Jerusalem was captured by the Israelites during their southern campaign. This means that it is time to ask Skippy a few more questions.

1. Will you be starting here a thread entitled "Glenn Miller's Goofy Gaffes"?

2. Will you be informing Miller that "he is not a credible source and should be either ignored or laughed at by informed Christians"?

3. Will you be informing Miller that the above quotation from his website contains "a boneheaded, honking huge error that shows a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship"?

You won't forget to answer these questions, will you, Skippy?

In defense of Miller's position, let's notice that Joshua 12 listed the "king of Jerusalem" as one of the many kings that Joshua defeated in his assaults from the wilderness "in the south" to the valley of Lebanon in the north. Keep in mind that Joshua 10:42, quoted above, claimed that Joshua took "all these kings and their land."


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: 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; 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: 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.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:

In my complete rebuttal of Skippy's quibbles at <http://www.theskepticalreview.com/landprom/5land.html>, I analyzed all of the place names in this passages to show how inclusive they were of the territory in the defined borders of Yahweh's land promise, but some in this forum don't like thoroughness, so I will eliminate that part for the sake of brevity. However, as this passage continues, notice that the "king of Jerusalem" was listed as one of the kings that Joshua defeated in his southern campaign.


Joshua 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.

Earlier, I asked why Skippy omitted all of my references to Joshua 12, so I have to wonder if he didn't want readers to see the part that said that the king of Jerusalem was one of the kings that Joshua defeated in his southern campaign in which he took all their land. If he defeated the king of Jerusalem, which had no river south of it to present a "natural barrier" to Joshua's forces during their advance to the north, then why wouldn't Joshua, while he was on a roll, have taken Jerusalem too? Well, Judges 1:8 says that the "children of Judah" did take Jerusalem.


Now the children of Judah fought against Jerusalem and took it; they struck it with the edge of the sword and set the city on fire.

But the same chapter says later that the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites from Jerusalem (v:21), and so the Jebusites dwell in Jerusalem until this day. In fact, the Bible claims elsewhere that the Jebusites controlled Jerusalem until David captured it in 2 Samuel 5:6, but, hey, there aren't any inconsistencies in the Bible.

Just ask Skippy; he'll tell you.


Skippy:
Goofy desperately wishes to erase these five miles in a different direction, as well as disregard any issue of delineating geographical features, which would clearly exclude Jerusalem from the range between Kadesh-Barnea and Gibeon, but that geographical equivocation will not float in this ocean.

I suggest that Skippy take this up with Glenn Miller.


Skippy:
To this we can add that Goofy has also naively assumed, even if he were correct, that the delineation in Joshua 10 would be a straight line, when it would more likely be drawn, in this era before maps, along natural barriers like rivers, mountains, and wilderness.

My comments above show the futility of Skippy's attempt to show that the details in Joshua 10-12 did not mean that the Israelites had captured all the territory in the south, including Jerusalem (which had no "natural barrier" between it and Joshua's advancing forces.). Those who will click the URL cited above will also see a thorough explication of the texts in Joshua 10-12. Skippy, of course, is... well, skipping over these.

Anyway, Skippy's approach in this section of his attempt to find a "gaffe" in my articles baffles me. Joshua 21:43-45 says that (1) Yahweh gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers and that (1) they possessed it and dwelt in it, but all the land that Yahweh promised Abraham's seed would have included all the land from the river of Egypt, to the south, to the Mediterranean Sea, to the east, and to the Euphrates River, to the north. Jerusalem and Gaza were both within those borders, so if Yahweh did indeed give to the Israelites all the land he had promised, he would have had to have given them both Gaza and Jerusalem. Hence, Skippy should be trying to prove that Gaza and Jerusalem were both within the land area conquered by the Israelites, but instead he is pedaling hard to try to prove that neither Jerusalem nor Gaza were within the conquered territories. In other words, he is doing the opposite of what he should be doing, so apparently he would rather find some "gaffe" that I have made rather than prove the inerrancy of the Bible.

Strange indeed!


Skippy:
Joshua 10 indicates this with respect to Jerusalem: It's king came out to fight with others, and he was captured (10:23, 12:10) and executed. But the city by itself remains conspicuously uncaptured and unattacked, and unaddressed, until Ch. 15.

Well, I suppose that Skippy expects us to think that just the king of Jerusalem had come out alone without his army, and so just the king was killed. That scenario is so stupid that it hardly deserves serious comment, but Skippy said that I would never address the issues he raised here in his presentation of "Goofy Gaffe #1," so I will follow him wherever he leads us in his silly attempt to find a gaffe in my articles.

The "smiting" of the king of Jerusalem was in a text that listed several other kings who were defeated, but the chapter in which this list is found began with this statement.


Joshua 12:1 These are the kings of the land whom the children of Israel defeated and whose land they POSSESSED on the other side of the Jordan toward the rising of the sun.

The king of Jerusalem was in this list of defeated kings, so this text requires readers who don't have a pet belief in biblical inerrancy to understand that the writer was saying that after the king of Jerusalem was defeated, the children of Israel possessed his land. If not, why not?

If readers will take the time to study Joshua 12, they should be able to see that the writer was being very thorough in his description of the geographical boundaries of the land that Joshua conquered. I'll quote just a few verses at the beginning of the chapter.


Joshua 12:1 These are the kings of the land whom the children of Israel defeated, and whose land they possessed on the other side of the Jordan toward the rising of the sun, from the River Arnon to Mount Hermon, and all the eastern Jordan plain: 2 One king was Sihon king of the Amorites, who dwelt in Heshbon and ruled half of Gilead, from Aroer, which is on the bank of the River Arnon, from the middle of that river, even as far as the River Jabbok, which is the border of the Ammonites, 3and the eastern Jordan plain from the Sea of Chinneroth as far as the Sea of the Arabah (the Salt Sea), the road to Beth Jeshimoth, and southward below the slopes of Pisgah. 4The other king was Og king of Bashan and his territory, who was of the remnant of the giants, who dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei, 5and reigned over Mount Hermon, over Salcah, over all Bashan, as far as the border of the Geshurites and the Maachathites, and over half of Gilead to the border of Sihon king of Heshbon.

An analysis of these place names and those that follow will show that the writer was claiming that all the territory from Kadesh-barnea, in the south, to Mt. Hermon, in the north, and from the Salt {Dead} Sea, on the east, to Gaza, on the Mediterranean Sea, was conquered in Joshua's sweep through the Levant. In other words, these passages claim that all of the land within the borders that Yahweh defined in his original promise had been taken and possessed by the Israelites except for the extreme northern border (the Euphrates River), which seems to be the focus of the last part of Skippy's post, so I will discuss that in Part 3.

I'll conclude this part by reminding everyone that the more territory Skippy tries to exclude in his attempt to find a "gaffe," the more damage he does to his inerrancy position, because Joshua 21:43 clearly claims that Yahweh gave to the Israelites all the land he had promised their fathers, and they possessed it and dwelt in it. The Israelites never did possess all of the land within the promised borders, so if Skippy wants to agree to that, all he will be accomplishing is to show that an erroneous statement was made in Joshua 21:43.

[Farrell Till]

04-27-2003 @ 01:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79984#post79984)
jpholding:

Stevie,

You may yet earn the name Goofy instead of your master.

Your master was arguing that Jerusalem would be included because his argument was essentially that, IN A STRAIGHT LINE from Kadesh Barnea to Gibeon, Jerusalem would be included.

I just posted two replies that nailed Skippy to the wall on the question of whether Joshua 10-12 says that Jerusalem was captured. I will be posting a third reply to it tomorrow to finish my point-by-point reply to Skippy's quibbling, and then we can stick a fork in him because he will be done.

Besides the fact that Joshua 12:1 says that Joshua possessed the land of the kings in the list of kings that followed and that the king of Jerusalem was in this list, I invite readers to find a Bible atlas, locate Kadesh-barnea and Gibeon, and then with a ruler draw a straight line between the two. The "straight line," of course, is Skippy's premise, but an army of 600,000 would hardly have fought in a straight line. An army that large advancing from south to north would have made a wide sweep. Anyway, for the sake of argument, let's take Skippy's idea of a straight line. A straight line from Kadesh to Gibeon would pass so close to Jerusalem that only a diehard quibbler would argue that an army of 600,000 could have passed along that line without coming into contact with Jerusalem. To do so, the soldiers would have had to gather in straight columns and almost intentionally strive to avoid intruding onto Jerusalem's territory.

All that is beside the point, because my first two replies to Skippy's imaginary "goofy gaffe" clearly shows that the text of Joshua says that Joshua took the land of the king of Jerusalem.

I think that Skippy must like the taste of shoe polish.

[Farrell Till]

04-27-2003 @ 01:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79989#post79989)
stevencarrwork:

As for natural barriers which I am still ignoring, does Holding think ancient people were too stupid to cross a river? What is this river, this natural barrier? The Mississipi?

I repeat, Gibeon is 5 miles northwards from Jerusalem. By any sane reckoning Jerusalem is in the region mentioned in Joshua 10:43.

Does Holding want me to keep giving quotes of his about 'region', just to show how two-faced he is?

Skippy is whining that you have ignored his "natural-barrier" quibble--and it is a quibble--but he will find that I addressed this in detail in my replies. It is a quibble that is completely without merit and hardly deserves a reply.

Let's watch Skippy... well, skip my reply to this quibble.

Anyway, all of his talk about natural barriers and straight lines is irrelevant, because...

1. Joshua 12:1 says that Joshua struck "the kings of the land" and POSSESSED their land.

2. The king of Jerusalem is in the list of kings that were "struck" in the Israelite assault on the kings of the land (Josh. 12:10).

We have here a literary/hermeneutic principle known as "necessary implication." These two texts considered together necessarily imply that Joshua captured Jerusalem at this time.

Hey, Skippy, what do you think about Glenn Miller's article that agrees that Jerusalem was captured at this time?

Will you be starting a thread about Glenn Miller's Goofy Gaffes?

[jpholding]

See Goofy dodge. Dodge, Goofy, dodge.

See Goofy insert pages of irrelevancies to distract from his gaffe.

See jpholding bring him back to earth and on focus.

See Goofy spend hours writing about country of Goshen. See Goofy waste time by not explaining where I disagreed with this. See Goofy not explain where I disagreed on Goshen. See Goofy waste time with distractions.

See Goofy ask, "...I would like to know when I have ever taken a position as 'hyperliteralist' as his attempt to claim that striking enemy forces even unto Gaza would not mean that Joshua's forces entered Gaza and captured it." See Goofy goof the same way Stevie did. See Goofy think that "unto" always means "into" rather than meaning a range. See Goofy ignore my discussions with Stevie on this so far. See Stevie sink. See Goofy make the same mistake Stevie did:

Furthermore, the same text in question also says that Joshua's struck "even unto Gibeon." If striking "unto Gaza" meant only that Joshua's army went up to the border of Gaza and stopped, then striking "even unto Gibeon" would mean that Joshua's forces went up to the city limits of Gibeon and stopped.

See Goofy forget that a treaty was forged with Gibeon making them Israel's allies. See Goofy fail to realize that this makes it absurd to suggest that they fought in Gibeon. See Goofy use Joshua 10:9-10. See Goofy think that chasing others to Gibeon and striking them down "at Gibeon" means they were inside Gibeon. See Goofy not explain how the Amorites got in the city. See Goofy sink.

See Goofy repeat his question about compass directions, already answered. See Goofy way behind in answering. See Goofy plead for sympathy later.

To get to Gibeon, which we have already seen that Joshua captured, the Israelite army would have had to cross this river, but since the Israelites were advancing from the south, they could have attacked Jerusalem without crossing the river.

See Goofy missing the difference between military and geographical barriers. See Goofy waste time missing the point and wasting 200 blowhard paragraphs addressing it. See Goofy repeat Stevie's mistake that was already addressed. See Goofy fall further behind in his posts. See Goofy faint. See Goofy get more desperate when we post Gaffe #2 this week.

See Goofy cite Joshua 12. See Goofy fail to explain how capturing a king far from his city or even claiming his land as a result means you have managed to get all the people out of the city he was from. See Goofy think that the king's army was the only people living in Jerusalem and that the city was left empty with no one to defend it, not even part of the army. See Goofy miss the forest for the trees. :rofl: See Goofy bring up Josh. 21:43-45 as a diversion from his errors. See my website for a reply.

See Goofy put us all to sleep. :zzz: See how little of his rants actually have relevant substance.

[Farrell Till]

Today @ 04:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81971#post81971)
jpholding:

See Goofy dodge. Dodge, Goofy, dodge.

See Goofy insert pages of irrelevancies to distract from his gaffe.

See jpholding bring him back to earth and on focus.[quote]

See Skippy not answer anything.

[QUOTE]
See Goofy spend hours writing about country of Goshen. See Goofy waste time by not explaining where I disagreed with this. See Goofy not explain where I disagreed on Goshen. See Goofy waste time with distractions.

See Skippy try to evade a simple argument. If striking the enemy forces "even unto Gaza" meant that the Israelites turned back at the border of Gaza but did not actually enter Gaza, then why wouldn't striking them even unto Gaza and all the land of Goshen not mean that the Israelites advanced just to the border of Goshen and then turned back?

See Skippy skip this question.

If the Israelites "took all that land, the hill country, and all the south, and all the land if Goshen (Josh. 11:16), how could they have taken "all the land of Goshen" if they turned back at the border of Goshen?

See Skippy skip this question.

See Skippy's choir members praise him anyway.

[jpholding]

See Goofy play his usual game.

See all relevant questions answered. See all irrelevant off-topic dodges answered on my site. See Goofy pretend Goshen question is relevant.

See Goofy erect straw man. See Goofy sneeze. :rofl:

See Goofy retire in embarrassment trying to explain NEXT problem, too. :rofl: :rofl: :dufus:

[Farrell Till]

Today @ 04:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81971#post81971)
jpholding:...

See Goofy ask, &quot;...I would like to know when I have ever taken a position as 'hyperliteralist' as his attempt to claim that striking enemy forces even unto Gaza would not mean that Joshua's forces entered Gaza and captured it.&quot; See Goofy goof the same way Stevie did. See Goofy think that &quot;unto&quot; always means &quot;into&quot; rather than meaning a range.

See Skippy skip the fact that there is only one "unto" in Joshua 10:41.


And Joshua struck them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza and all the land of Goshen....

If "unto" was used only once in this verse, then it could have had only one meaning. Hence, if "unto" in this verse meant that the Israelites went only upto Gaza but did not enter it, the word would also have to mean that the Israelites went only upto the land of Goshen but did not enter it.

Yes or no, Skippy?

Watch Skippy skip this question.

If Joshua 10:41 means that Joshua went only upto the land of Goshen but did not take his army into Goshen, what did the summation of his victories mean in Joshua 11:16 where it said that "Joshua took all that land, the hill country, and all the south and all the land of Goshen"?

Watch Skippy skip this question.

Since Gaza was "in the south," how could Joshua have taken all the south without also taking Gaza?

Watch Skippy skip this question.

[Farrell Till]

Today @ 09:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82260#post82260)
jpholding:

See Goofy play his usual game.

See all relevant questions answered. See all irrelevant off-topic dodges answered on my site. See Goofy pretend Goshen question is relevant.

See Goofy erect straw man. See Goofy sneeze.

See Goofy retire in embarrassment trying to explain NEXT problem, too.

See Skippy try to evade a simple argument. If striking the enemy forces "even unto Gaza" meant that the Israelites turned back at the border of Gaza but did not actually enter Gaza, then why wouldn't striking them even unto Gaza and all the land of Goshen not mean that the Israelites advanced just to the border of Goshen and then turned back?

See Skippy skip this question.

If the Israelites "took all that land, the hill country, and all the south, and all the land if Goshen (Josh. 11:16), how could they have taken "all the land of Goshen" if they turned back at the border of Goshen?

See Skippy skip this question.

See Skippy's choir members praise him anyway.

See Goofy make a prophecy that will come true.

Skippy will skip the above rebuttal arguments again.

See Goofy post this rebuttal again if his prophecy comes true--and it will.

[Farrell Till]

Today @ 04:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81971#post81971)
jpholding:

See Goofy ask, &quot;...I would like to know when I have ever taken a position as 'hyperliteralist' as his attempt to claim that striking enemy forces even unto Gaza would not mean that Joshua's forces entered Gaza and captured it.&quot;

Did everyone see Skippy skip this question?

[jpholding]

See Skippy skip the fact that there is only one "unto" in Joshua 10:41.

See Goofy ignore the "and" -- and a comma, mysteriously missing from his copyof the KJV, but not mine -- between them which makes all the difference. :rofl: See Goofy pull out a Hebrew grammar showing "unto" modifies Goshen.

NOT. :rofl:

See Goofy make multiple posts to attract attention ot himself illicitly. :whack:

See the mods kick Goofy out on his ear if he keeps it up. :rofl:

[Sher]

Stay tuned tomorrow for The Skippy and Goofy hour

With Special Guest Stars:
............................Dopey, Whiney, and Alky

Where Goofy will prove once again that "size really doesn't matter"!

[jpholding]

See Goofy hoist on his own petard. :rofl: See Goofy misuse Josh. 10:41:

And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon.

See Goofy claim "unto" modifies not only "Gaza"but also "all the country of Goshen." See Goofy miss the comma and the "and" which separates the two phrases, showing that "all the country of Goshen" is modified rather by "smote". See Goofy miss the parallelism:

And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza,
And (Joshua smote) all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon.

See Goofy draw back in horror from his keyboard. See Goofy evade the question of whether "unto Gibeon" means IN Gibeon. :lol:

See Goofy wish he'd never asked the question. :rofl: See Goofy wish I really HAD skipped it. :rofl: :rofl:

[dizzle]

The maximum post length is 24K characters. Please keep the points concise. Please limit the number of major points made in a debate/discussion to 1 or 2 per post max as this encourages discourse. Rebuttal posts get undesirably lengthy when addressing many points. Additionally, please allow the other person to respond to your post before making additional substantive posts and points directed towards that person. Multiple posts back-to-back responses to a single poster is not allowed. There are progress bars below the reply boxes to assist you. When making a reply or referring to multiple replies please make use of the Link, Quote and Multi-Quote features. Breaking of posts or multiple posts to post an article is not allowed, if you wish to post an article or such that will exceed the post limit please contact a moderator to get your article posted in the appropriate Bulletin Board section where you may then make a link to in the thread you wish to create for discussion regarding the article. Discussion will not take place in the Bulletin Board sections only articles are posted there. Discussion will take place in the proper forum for the context of the article. If you need assistance with this please do not hesitate to contact a moderator or administrator about this.

Your text has been preserved Mr. Till, let me know if you need me to PM or email it to you.

[Farrell Till]

Today @ 04:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81971#post81971)
jpholding:

Goofy:
To get to Gibeon, which we have already seen that Joshua captured, the Israelite army would have had to cross this river, but since the Israelites were advancing from the south, they could have attacked Jerusalem without crossing the river.

Skippy:
See Goofy missing the difference between military and geographical barriers.

See Skippy not explain the difference between military and geographical barriers.

See Skippy not explain how a river could have been a "natural barrier" to the Israelites, which would have prevented their capturing Jerusalem, if (1) that river was north of Jerusalem and the Israelites were advancing from the south, (2) why a stream could have been a "natural barrier" to an army that had the omniscient Yahweh fighting with them, and (3) why the omniscient Yahweh, who had parted the River Jordan to let the Israelites cross the largest river in the region, could not have found someway to help the Israelites cross a smaller river.

This, folks, is an example of the apologetic methods of a man whom many of you almost venerate. I have repeatedly said that he doesn't answer his opponents' arguments. Now you are seeing for yourselves that he doesn't.

[Farrell Till]

Yesterday @ 04:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81971#post81971)
jpholding:

See Goofy dodge. Dodge, Goofy, dodge.

See Goofy insert pages of irrelevancies to distract from his gaffe.


In a formal debate, an opponent is expected to reply to his opponent's arguments. When a participant fails to reply to his opponent's arguments, those arguments remain unimpeached. Skippy has obviously evaded my first post on this issue, so I am going to post it again. If he evades the arguments again, I'm sure the forum members will have no problem recognizing that he is doing exactly what I have said before: skipping that which he cannot answer.
******************************

Skippy:
Farrell Till's Goofy Gaffe of the Week, 4/25/03
(post#1 )
We now begin a special feature titled unofficially, “Goofy’s Gaffe of the Week” in which we will feature a specific embarrassing, major-bonehead [sic] gaffe by F Till _ not a typo or some minor concentration error, but a boneheaded, honking huge error that shows a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship. Though the name implies a weekly presentation we may do this biweekly if other projects are pressing. The goal as always is to show that Goofy is not a credible source and should be either ignored or laughed at by informed Christians.

I will ask everyone to take notice of the way that I reply to Skippy as opposed to the way he evades my arguments/rebuttals with unsupported claims that he has "already" answered "that." I will skip nothing in my reply, but Skippy will not reply to me in kind. After seeing my point-by-point replies, I think readers will be able to see just who is the one whom should be laughed at.


Skippy:
Goofy’s Gaffe for this week comes of an attempt he made in the Land Promise debate to make land areas in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlap.

Why did Skippy, uh, well, skip Joshua 12? We will see that this chapter was also analyzed in the section of my reply in which he thinks he found a "goofy gaffe." It is an important passage that I will be quoting from again to show that no "goofy gaffe" was made.


Skippy:
Please note the following:

This thread is specifically about this particular gaffe. Goofy and his fans will undoubtedly try to distract the reader with other issues while never addressing this particular one. Such diversionary tactics should be taken as an admission that the gaffe is admitted to, and that they have no resolution but to cover up for this embarrassing error.

Skippy should know better than to say that I will "never" address this issue, because he has seen enough of me to know that I reply to him point by point and skip nothing, I will let the readers judge for themselves whether I address "this particular one." I predict that he will be the one who won't address issues and will try to shift the subject to something else. In fact, that is the entire reason for this new thread he has started. On his other "gaffe" claim, I have nailed his hide to the wall again by requoting rebuttals that he evaded in our land-promise debate, and so he is eager to distract attention to something else. He will see, however, that I will simply requote here what he has evaded in the land-promise thread.


Skippy:
So now to the Gaffe. I initially noted, in reply to a claim that passages in Josh. 10 and 11 were in conflict with Josh. 13:1:

Josh. 10:40-3 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea 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 the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel. And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal.

Josh. 11:23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD 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.

Josh 13:1 Now Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the LORD said unto him, Thou art old and stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.

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.

Goofy replied that he would show that “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.”

I'll interrupted Skippy to remind him of a rebuttal argument that he has repeatedly tiptoed around. Before I requote it, I'll tell readers what to look for. First, if Skippy could prove--and he can't--that the land listed and described in Joshua 10, 11, and 13 was not "all encompassing" of the land that Yahweh had promised the Israelites, he would accomplish nothing, because the argument I will be requoting below shows that the book of Joshua said that the Israelites received all the land Yahweh had promised them and dwelt in it, but after this claim of the complete fulfillment of Yahweh's land promise, the book of Joshua said that the Israelites had not received all of the land promised but that "much land" remained to be possessed. Proof of the contradiction is in the rebuttal argument that he ignored in the land-promise thread, so here is that argument again.


Till in first round:
First, the Israelites were given all the land and everything Yahweh had promised them, and then [it said that] they were not given all of the land. X and not X cannot both be true.

Skippy in second round:
We have shown that the formula is not "X" versus "not X", but "X plus Y" (giving land plus fulfilling conditions) versus "X plus Z" (giving land plus not fulfilling conditions).

Till:
Skippy has shown no such thing. He can't even recognize the difference in apples and oranges. When I say that the Bible says X and not X (or P and ~P), I'm not talking about what was said in the original land promise but what the books of Joshua and Judges said about the fulfillment of the promise. First, Joshua claimed that the Israelites had been given all the land that Yahweh had promised.

[b][i]Joshua 21:43 So Yahweh gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and DWELT in it. 44 Yahweh gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand. 45 Not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.

This passage is clear enough that even Skippy should be able to understand it. The passage flatly says that Yahweh had given to Israel all the land that he had sworn to their fathers to give to them.and that they took possession of it and DWELT in it. It even explicitly says that "not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel." It then went on to say that "all came to pass."

Yet we read something entirely different in another passage.

Joshua 13:1 Now Joshua was old, advanced in years. And Yahweh said to him: "You are old, advanced in years, and there remains very much land yet to be possessed...."

Skippy, being Skippy, will probably try to argue that the statement in Joshua 13:1 was made before the one in Joshua 21, and so at the time of Joshua 13, the Israelites had not taken all of the land but had done so in Joshua 21. Notice, however, that 13:1 was said when Joshua was "old, advanced in years." What we have, then, is a typical problem of inconsistencies that resulted from the patchwork method that was used in putting the hexateuch together from different documents and/or traditions. That this is the explanation for why a text about Joshua's "advanced" years would have preceded one about his earlier years is evident from a statement in chapter 21. The chapters following Joshua 13 recorded the dividing of the land among the tribes, and it was in this context that the claim was made that "Yahweh gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers," but after two more chapters that described the division of the land, this statement was made about Joshua's age.

Joshua 23:1 Now it came to pass, a long time after Yahweh had given rest to Israel from all their enemies round about, that Joshua was old, advanced in age. 2 And Joshua called for all Israel, for their elders, for their heads, for their judges, and for their officers, and said to them: "I am old, advanced in age...."

The text in Joshua 21, which said that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had sworn to their father to give to them, also said that "Yahweh gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers" (v:44), so after the time that it was claimed that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised them, it was said two chapters later that "a long time after Yahweh had given rest to Israel" Joshua was "old, advanced in age," so at the time of the claim in Joshua 21:43 that Yahweh had given all the land promised to the Israelites, Joshua was younger but later became old and advanced in years. Hence, the reference in 13:1 to the "much land" that remained to be possessed could not have chronologically preceded the claim in 21:43 that all of the land promised had been given to the Israelites, because in 13:1 Joshua was old and advanced in age, but in 21:43, he wasn't yet old and advanced in years but became so "a long time after" this. In 21:43, however, before Joshua was old and advanced in years, it was said that Yahweh gave to the Israelites all the land he had promised to their fathers and that they possessed it and DWELT in it.

Clearly, then, we have a case of X and not X (or P and ~P), because one text says X (Yahweh gave the Israelites all the land he had promised them) but another text says not X (Yahweh did not give the Israelites all the land he had promised them). So this is not a matter of X (giving the land) plus Y (keeping the land), as Skippy is trying to claim, but both X and not X (P and ~P) pertain to the giving of the land and not to the keeping of it. One text says that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised, and that they possessed it and dwelt in it, and the other text says that all the land had not been given to the Israelites. This is a clear case of X and not X (P and ~P), so Skippy has not explained this contradiction.

In case Skippy wants to quibble that Joshua 13 1 (the not X text) was written before 21:43 (he X text), I will point out that even if he could establish this, he would still have the same X and not X problem, because the book of Judges claimed that the Israelites could not take all of the land.

Judges 1:19 And Yahweh was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron.

Furthermore, Joshua 21:44 said that "there stood not a man of all their enemies before them," and the next verse says that "not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel" but that "all came to pass." One of the good things that Yahweh promised was that the Israelites would drive out all the nations in Canaan (Deut. 7:1-2; 9:20-24), but Judges is filled with examples of where the Israelites had been unable to drive out the original inhabitants of the land.

Judges 1:21 But the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who inhabited Jerusalem; so the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day.

Judges 1:27 However, 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; for the Canaanites were determined to dwell in that land.

Judges 3:1-3 Now these are the nations which Yahweh left, that He might test Israel by them, that is, all who had not known any of the wars in Canaan 2 (this was only so that the generations of the children of Israel might be taught to know war, at least those who had not formerly known it), 3namely, five lords of the Philistines, all the Canaanites, the Sidonians, and the Hivites who dwelt in Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal Hermon to the entrance of Hamath. 4 And they were left, that He might test Israel by them, to know whether they would obey the commandments of Yahweh, which He had commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses.

We see a lot of retrospective rationalization in the last passage, but these texts clearly contradict Joshua 21:43ff, which claimed that everything Yahweh had promised to the Israelites had been fulfilled at that time, but one of Yahweh's promises was that he would drive out all of the nations in Canaan and that not a man would be able to stand against them. Judges 3:1-3 claims that this didn't happen. Some nations did stand against the Israelites.

This too becomes an X and not X problem that Skippy must solve to resolve the inconsistency problem. He does not solve it by saying that it was a matter of X [getting the land] plus Y [keeping the land], because the scriptures cited above all pertain to getting the land. Some texts say X [the Israelites got all the land promised to them and dwelt in it], but other texts say not X [the Israelites did not get all the land promised to them].

Thus Skippy has hopped, skipped, and jumped over another argument.

Till in first round:
Where has Skippy said anything that explains away these inconsistencies?

Skippy:
Our opponent's pretense is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no explanation.

Till:
So Skippy is going to evade the argument again. My explication of the problem (above) clearly shows that there is an X and not X (P and ~P) problem in the books of Joshua and Judges. Some texts say X [the Israelites got all of the land promised to them and possessed it and dwelt in it], but other texts say not X [the Israelites did not get all the land promised to them].

If Skippy really thinks that I am just presenting a ploy to make readers think that the problem has no explanation, why doesn't he embarrass me by just posting the explanation? Instead, he attempts to draw attention away from his failure to reply by cutting and pasting the worn-out evasive comment below, which we have seen umpteen times, and which I have repeatedly replied to.

The argument just requoted above shows the irony of Skippy's attempt to show that I erred in saying that Joshua 10,11, and 13 claimed the conquest of all the land Yahweh had promised to the Israelites, for even if he can show that this was the "goofy gaffe" that he claims it was, this would in no way remove the facts that (1) the book of Joshua said that during the younger years of Joshua, the Israelites were given all the land that Yahweh promised their fathers and that they took possession of it and dwelt in it, but (2) when Joshua was old and advanced in years, the book of Joshua said that the Israelites had not received all the land Yahweh had promised them. Hence, there is still a P and ~P statement in Joshua even if Skippy can prove his claim that I made a "goofy gaffe."

I will show later that I made no such gaffe, but before I proceed to that, I have some questions for Skippy. Are the following statements true or false.

1. The Israelites received ALL the land Yahweh promised them, and they possessed it and dwelt in it.

2. Not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel.

3. All that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel came to pass.

4. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said that not a man of all their enemies would stand against them.

5. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said he would drive out the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Hivites, Hittites, and Jebusites.

So now it is time for yes or no questions.

1. Was any man of all the enemies of the Israelites able to stand against them?

2. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Canaanites?

3. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Jebusites?

4. Did everything that Yahweh had promised the Israelites come to pass?

Folks, watch Skippy ignore these questions and make some excuse for not answering them. Expect to hear a lot of talk about "fluff" and "excess verbiage," but don't expect any answers. You won't get them.

I'll continue my point-by-point reply in Part 2.

Oh, no, I can't continue my point-by-point reply in Part 2, because Part 2 was censored in its entirety by a moderator. I guess that is one way of helping the resident hero look a little better than he would if forum members were allowed to witness the shellacking he is taking.

[dizzle]

Mr. Till: Please see moderator note on previous page and cease posting back to back responses to a single person. Please give JP time to respond to the points you made thus far.

JP: Unless you are giving Mr. Till the go-ahead to post additional points, do not post any kind of response until it is your complete response to what he has said so far. You may have done that, I just wanted to make this part clear.

Thank you.

[Farrell Till]

Today @ 02:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82582#post82582)
Dee Dee Warren:

The maximum post length is 24K characters. Please keep the points concise. Please limit the number of major points made in a debate/discussion to 1 or 2 per post max as this encourages discourse. Rebuttal posts get undesirably lengthy when addressing many points. Additionally, please allow the other person to respond to your post before making additional substantive posts and points directed towards that person. Multiple posts back-to-back responses to a single poster is not allowed. There are progress bars below the reply boxes to assist you. When making a reply or referring to multiple replies please make use of the Link, Quote and Multi-Quote features. Breaking of posts or multiple posts to post an article is not allowed, if you wish to post an article or such that will exceed the post limit please contact a moderator to get your article posted in the appropriate Bulletin Board section where you may then make a link to in the thread you wish to create for discussion regarding the article. Discussion will not take place in the Bulletin Board sections only articles are posted there. Discussion will take place in the proper forum for the context of the article. If you need assistance with this please do not hesitate to contact a moderator or administrator about this.

Your text has been preserved Mr. Till, let me know if you need me to PM or email it to you.

Nice try, Dee Dee, but one of Skippy's posts that I answered last night had 24,276 characters, but it was still allowed to be posted. If I put even one character over 24K, my post is not allowed.

You don't need to e-mail the text, because I have learned that I had better save my material when I post here, so I have reposted it. I will be interested to see if you have a double standard.

I was under the impression that multiple posts were prohibited only in the formal debate forums. I didn't know that "Till's Goofy Gaffes" was a formal debate.

If I put posts that exceed 24K, so that I can really put the nails into Skippy's hide, will you demand that he answer the points in my article?

I like to ask silly questions.

[Farrell Till]

Today @ 02:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82596#post82596)
Dee Dee Warren:

Mr. Till: Please see moderator note on previous page and cease posting back to back responses to a single person. Please give JP time to respond to the points you made thus far.

Okay, what if I give him five days to answer Part 1 that I posted? If I do that, do you think he will respond to the points I made? If you do, I have some beachfront property in the middle of the Sarhara that I will sell you at a bargain price.

I would promise you that I won't post anything else until he answers all my points in Part 1, but if I waited for him to do that, I would never post anything again.


JP: Unless you are giving Mr. Till the go-ahead to post additional points, do not post any kind of response until it is your complete response to what he has said so far. You may have done that, I just wanted to make this part clear.

Thank you.

His posts have been typical of the way that he "answers" my arguments. The main thing I am interested in here is showing the forum members that he is Captain Evader.

[dizzle]

Mr. Till, the moderators cannot be everywhere. The forum software does not allow posts over 24K characters, so any single post will not be over that limit. The limit is not the only concern. Even if multiple posts if combined would not exceed the limit, they are still prohibited. If you see posts that violate this rule in a debate, hit report post, and they will be dealt with. I

To answer your second question, if JP posts, you can assume that is the answer, and you may proceed from there to interact n with the answer given and introduce new points as needed. The spirit of the rule is also to prevent stacking.

Are you aware of the multi-quote feature? There is box at the bottom of each post that allows you to quote multiple posts on the same page of the thread. Check that box, and then hit post reply and the posts will be quoted. I ask that for in your resposne to me you broke it up into two posts when it should have been one. I am assuming you did that to quote both posts. That could be accomplished by using the multi-quote feature or the quote tags that you are familiar with.

[Farrell Till]

04-25-2003 @ 08:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78679#post78679)
Woman:


Quoting JP:
We now begin a special feature titled unofficially, “Goofy’s Gaffe of the Week” in which we will feature a specific embarrassing, major-bonehead gaffe by F Till – not a typo or some minor concentration error, but a boneheaded, honking huge error that shows a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship. Though the name implies a weekly presentation we may do this biweekly if other projects are pressing. The goal as always is to show that Goofy is not a credible source and should be either ignored or laughed at by informed Christians. ”

Woman:
Is THIS in the spirit of TW?

Haven't you noticed that this kind of sarcasm is typical of this person?


Woman:
If so, then I am sorely disappointed. I objected strongly to a similar thread when one was launched against Socrates.

Ah, so you have noticed.


I simply see no point in creating and naming a thread for the sole purpose of attacking another member with such sarcastic glee.

Don't object because of me, Woman. Stick around and see who winds up being embarrassed.

[Farrell Till]

04-25-2003 @ 08:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78676#post78676)
stevencarrwork:



I think I understand Holding's English.

If the Americans took the attack to Baghdad, it meant that their attack did not include Baghdad.

Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Jesus meant, of course, that he would go *unto* Jerusalem, but that would not include Jerusalem.

Acts 8:26 'And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.'

Philip realised, of course, that he was not to go into Gaza, but just go unto it, and hang about the outside for a bit.


What about these examples, Steve?


Joshua 1:2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over the Jordan, thou, and all this people, UNTO the land which I will give to them.

Yahweh meant, of course, that they were to go over the Jordan just TO the land but not to go into the land. But wait a minute. If they went over the Jordan, they would be IN the land. Ah, the burdens of those who try to quibble their way to biblical inerrancy.


Judges 2:6 Now when Joshua had sent the people away, the children of Israel went every man UNTO his inheritance and possessed the land.

This means, of course, that these people just went up to the boundaries of their property but didn't go onto their properties. I guess they just admired their inheritances from afar.

But wait a minute! How could they have POSSESSED their inheritances if they did not go onto the properties that were their inheritances?

Ah, the problems of those who try to quibble their way to biblical inerrancy.

Haven't I heard Skippy say something about "hyperliteralism"? I think I have.

[Farrell Till]

04-25-2003 @ 10:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78845#post78845)
stevencarrwork:

http://www.bibleexplained.com/Gospels/map-nr-jerusalem.html

is a map.

As you can see , Gibeon is at about 11 o'clock to Jerusalem, perhaps 10:30. Not quite due north.

Saying Gibeon is north of Jerusalem (which it is, as you say) is hardly gaffe, even if is slightly more to the Northwest.

Is this quibble really all Holding can dredge up?

Well, Steve, you probably know as well as I that when literalism suits his purposes, Skippy will be as literal as anyone could possibly be, but when literalism results in an error in the Bible, he will launch into lectures about Hebrew nuances and idioms, Ancient Neareastern social customs, and--one of his latest--"it didn't matter" to the Semitic mind.

I'm just killing time to see if Skippy will answer my Part 1, so that I can continue my rebuttals by posting Parts 2 and 3.

[Farrell Till]

04-25-2003 @ 09:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78731#post78731)
Alien:

When I was in High School, the class below mine spent a highly disproportionate amount of their time making up silly names for each other. I thought it was stupid then and still do, but hey, they were just kids and I'll bet they've grown out of it by now.

Maybe there should be a new logical fallacy, named in Latin of course .... hmmm, how about Nomen Ridiculum, &quot;The notion that addressing one's opponent by a derisive name, particularly if it is a corruption of his real name, invalidates his arguments&quot;.

I use the name Skippy to designate my opponent only because the moderators will not permit me to use his real name. I have explained that a very fundamental principle will not allow me to use his pseudonym, and I can't explain what that principle is. If I did, this post would be censored.

[Farrell Till]

04-26-2003 @ 01:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78999#post78999)
Revolg:

Is it just me or is Stevie not prepared to handle a seminary trained (and old) James Patrick Holding?

Say what? Seminary trained!

[Farrell Till]

04-27-2003 @ 06:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80087#post80087)
Dee Dee Warren:

Those are the ones that get me, the incredibly stupid allegations of contradiction. Like finding contradcitions [sic] within two verses of each other.

I spent 30 years reading the essays of college students, and, believe me, contradictions within such short amounts of space, occur far more often than you would think. My experience with this sort of contradiction must not have been unusual, because I once used a textbook that gave examples from student writing where students had contradicted themselves within the same paragraphs.

What you are not taking into consideration is the widely recognized view that the biblical books were edited over time, so some editors may have made insertions without noticing that what they were inserting was inconsistent with something that had been said elsewhere in the same context.

[Farrell Till]

Today @ 03:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82631#post82631)
Dee Dee Warren:

Mr. Till, the moderators cannot be everywhere. The forum software does not allow posts over 24K characters, so any single post will not be over that limit.

I have sent you a personal message about this. I checked the post in question again, and it contained 24.246K.


To answer your second question, if JP posts, you can assume that is the answer, and you may proceed from there to interact n with the answer given and introduce new points as needed. The spirit of the rule is also to prevent stacking.

Well, of course, I would assume that this is his "answer," but if his "answer" really doesn't answer anything, it is an evasion. Why, then, should I not be entitled to repost my arguments? Doing this will drive home to our readers that he is evading my rebuttals.


Are you aware of the multi-quote feature? There is box at the bottom of each post that allows you to quote multiple posts on the same page of the thread. Check that box, and then hit post reply and the posts will be quoted.

I have looked, but I see no icon that is for multiple quotes.

[dizzle]

Mr. Till: I have received your email and will respond to it on this thread later tonight.

[Sher]

Today @ 12:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83182#post83182)
Farrell Till:

I have sent you a personal message about this. I checked the post in question again, and it contained 24.246K.

Um ... Till ... I hate to embarrass you on this, but the original post cannot contain more than 24K ... the person would get an error message that they posted too many characters ... to go back and edit.

When you "quote" someone's post ... the way you would check it ... you get all the characters of the quoting mechanism ... click "quote" on mine and you will see [ quote] Today @ ... etc., etc. (without the spaces) ... and for the " symbol, you get & quot ; (without the spaces) which is the HTML for " and is 6 characters instead of 1 character ...

In other words, the HTML makes it appear that there are more characters than there actually were. The original post on this topic was 23,708 characters long ... you can confirm this fact by copying the actual post from the first page ... and pasting it into a "post reply" box ... it will show you how many actual characters were used ... remember not to grab the bold title from the top, nor his sig line ... which are not counted in the total characters.

Hope this helps your understanding that the forum is being fair across the board on this. :smile:

[Sher]

Today @ 12:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83194#post83194)
Dee Dee Warren:

Mr. Till: I have received your email and will respond to it on this thread later tonight.
Sorry DDW ... I didn't see this as I was typing my reply at the time. :angel:

[Farrell Till]

Well, I'm going to give it another try and repost a previously censored post. Since this will not be a second consecutive post in reply to the same one posted by my opponent, shouldn't the rules allow it? I am simply trying to show the forum members that my opponent's stock in trade is evasion of arguments that he cannot answer.

As I note elsewhere in this thread, I am in agreement with those who say that the sarcasm and insults have gotten out of hand in this forum. Accordingly, I have replaced all of the "Skippys" with "My Opponent," which no one should find objectionable. I have also edited out other insults. If any are still in the post below, they are there because I overlooked them in the editing process. We will see if my opponent reciprocates to try to put this discussion on a higher plane.

Yesterday @ 04:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81971#post81971)
jpholding:

See Goofy dodge. Dodge, Goofy, dodge.

See Goofy insert pages of irrelevancies to distract from his gaffe.


In a formal debate, an opponent is expected to reply to his opponent's arguments. When a participant fails to reply to his opponent's arguments, those arguments remain unimpeached. My opponent has obviously evaded my first post on this issue, so I am going to post it again. If he evades the arguments again, I'm sure the forum members will have no problem recognizing that he is doing exactly what I have said before: skipping that which he cannot answer.
******************************

My Opponent:
Farrell Till's Goofy Gaffe of the Week, 4/25/03
(post#1 )
We now begin a special feature titled unofficially, “Goofy’s Gaffe of the Week” in which we will feature a specific embarrassing, major-bonehead [sic] gaffe by F Till _ not a typo or some minor concentration error, but a boneheaded, honking huge error that shows a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship. Though the name implies a weekly presentation we may do this biweekly if other projects are pressing. The goal as always is to show that Goofy is not a credible source and should be either ignored or laughed at by informed Christians.

I will ask everyone to take notice of the way that I reply to my opponent as opposed to the way he evades my arguments/rebuttals with unsupported claims that he has "already" answered "that." I will skip nothing in my reply, but my opponent will not reply to me in kind. After seeing my point-by-point replies, I think readers will be able to see just who is the one whom should be laughed at.


My Opponent:
Goofy’s Gaffe for this week comes of an attempt he made in the Land Promise debate to make land areas in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlap.

Why did my opponent skip Joshua 12? We will see that this chapter was also analyzed in the section of my reply in which he thinks he found a "goofy gaffe." It is an important passage that I will be quoting from again to show that no "goofy gaffe" was made.


My Opponent:
Please note the following:

This thread is specifically about this particular gaffe. Goofy and his fans will undoubtedly try to distract the reader with other issues while never addressing this particular one. Such diversionary tactics should be taken as an admission that the gaffe is admitted to, and that they have no resolution but to cover up for this embarrassing error.

My opponent should know better than to say that I will "never" address this issue, because he has seen enough of me to know that I reply to him point by point and skip nothing, I will let the readers judge for themselves whether I address "this particular one." I predict that he will be the one who won't address issues and will try to shift the subject to something else. In fact, that is the entire reason for this new thread he has started. On his other "gaffe" claim, I have nailed his hide to the wall again by requoting rebuttals that he evaded in our land-promise debate, and so he is eager to distract attention to something else. He will see, however, that I will simply requote here what he has evaded in the land-promise thread.


My Opponent:
So now to the Gaffe. I initially noted, in reply to a claim that passages in Josh. 10 and 11 were in conflict with Josh. 13:1:

Josh. 10:40-3 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea 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 the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel. And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal.

Josh. 11:23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD 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.

Josh 13:1 Now Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the LORD said unto him, Thou art old and stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.

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.

Goofy replied that he would show that “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.”

I'll interrupt my opponent to remind him of a rebuttal argument that he has repeatedly tiptoed around. Before I requote it, I'll tell readers what to look for. First, if My opponent could prove--and he can't--that the land listed and described in Joshua 10, 11, and 13 was not "all encompassing" of the land that Yahweh had promised the Israelites, he would accomplish nothing, because the argument I will be requoting below shows that the book of Joshua said that the Israelites received all the land Yahweh had promised them and dwelt in it, but after this claim of the complete fulfillment of Yahweh's land promise, the book of Joshua said that the Israelites had not received all of the land promised but that "much land" remained to be possessed. Proof of the contradiction is in the rebuttal argument that he ignored in the land-promise thread, so here is that argument again.


Till in first round:
First, the Israelites were given all the land and everything Yahweh had promised them, and then [it said that] they were not given all of the land. X and not X cannot both be true.

My Opponent in second round:
We have shown that the formula is not "X" versus "not X", but "X plus Y" (giving land plus fulfilling conditions) versus "X plus Z" (giving land plus not fulfilling conditions).

Till:
My opponent has shown no such thing. He can't even recognize the difference in apples and oranges. When I say that the Bible says X and not X (or P and ~P), I'm not talking about what was said in the original land promise but what the books of Joshua and Judges said about the fulfillment of the promise. First, Joshua claimed that the Israelites had been given all the land that Yahweh had promised.

[b][i]Joshua 21:43 So Yahweh gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and DWELT in it. 44 Yahweh gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand. 45 Not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.

This passage is clear enough that even My opponent should be able to understand it. The passage flatly says that Yahweh had given to Israel all the land that he had sworn to their fathers to give to them.and that they took possession of it and DWELT in it. It even explicitly says that "not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel." It then went on to say that "all came to pass."

Yet we read something entirely different in another passage.

Joshua 13:1 Now Joshua was old, advanced in years. And Yahweh said to him: "You are old, advanced in years, and there remains very much land yet to be possessed...."

My opponent will probably try to argue that the statement in Joshua 13:1 was made before the one in Joshua 21, and so at the time of Joshua 13, the Israelites had not taken all of the land but had done so in Joshua 21. Notice, however, that 13:1 was said when Joshua was "old, advanced in years." What we have, then, is a typical problem of inconsistencies that resulted from the patchwork method that was used in putting the hexateuch together from different documents and/or traditions. That this is the explanation for why a text about Joshua's "advanced" years would have preceded one about his earlier years is evident from a statement in chapter 21. The chapters following Joshua 13 recorded the dividing of the land among the tribes, and it was in this context that the claim was made that "Yahweh gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers," but after two more chapters that described the division of the land, this statement was made about Joshua's age.

Joshua 23:1 Now it came to pass, a long time after Yahweh had given rest to Israel from all their enemies round about, that Joshua was old, advanced in age. 2 And Joshua called for all Israel, for their elders, for their heads, for their judges, and for their officers, and said to them: "I am old, advanced in age...."

The text in Joshua 21, which said that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had sworn to their father to give to them, also said that "Yahweh gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers" (v:44), so after the time that it was claimed that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised them, it was said two chapters later that "a long time after Yahweh had given rest to Israel" Joshua was "old, advanced in age," so at the time of the claim in Joshua 21:43 that Yahweh had given all the land promised to the Israelites, Joshua was younger but later became old and advanced in years. Hence, the reference in 13:1 to the "much land" that remained to be possessed could not have chronologically preceded the claim in 21:43 that all of the land promised had been given to the Israelites, because in 13:1 Joshua was old and advanced in age, but in 21:43, he wasn't yet old and advanced in years but became so "a long time after" this. In 21:43, however, before Joshua was old and advanced in years, it was said that Yahweh gave to the Israelites all the land he had promised to their fathers and that they possessed it and DWELT in it.

Clearly, then, we have a case of X and not X (or P and ~P), because one text says X (Yahweh gave the Israelites all the land he had promised them) but another text says not X (Yahweh did not give the Israelites all the land he had promised them). So this is not a matter of X (giving the land) plus Y (keeping the land), as My opponent is trying to claim, but both X and not X (P and ~P) pertain to the giving of the land and not to the keeping of it. One text says that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised, and that they possessed it and dwelt in it, and the other text says that all the land had not been given to the Israelites. This is a clear case of X and not X (P and ~P), so Skippy has not explained this contradiction.

In case my opponent wants to quibble that Joshua 13 1 (the not X text) was written before 21:43 (he X text), I will point out that even if he could establish this, he would still have the same X and not X problem, because the book of Judges claimed that the Israelites could not take all of the land.

Judges 1:19 And Yahweh was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron.

Furthermore, Joshua 21:44 said that "there stood not a man of all their enemies before them," and the next verse says that "not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel" but that "all came to pass." One of the good things that Yahweh promised was that the Israelites would drive out all the nations in Canaan (Deut. 7:1-2; 9:20-24), but Judges is filled with examples of where the Israelites had been unable to drive out the original inhabitants of the land.

Judges 1:21 But the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who inhabited Jerusalem; so the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day.

Judges 1:27 However, 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; for the Canaanites were determined to dwell in that land.

Judges 3:1-3 Now these are the nations which Yahweh left, that He might test Israel by them, that is, all who had not known any of the wars in Canaan 2 (this was only so that the generations of the children of Israel might be taught to know war, at least those who had not formerly known it), 3namely, five lords of the Philistines, all the Canaanites, the Sidonians, and the Hivites who dwelt in Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal Hermon to the entrance of Hamath. 4 And they were left, that He might test Israel by them, to know whether they would obey the commandments of Yahweh, which He had commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses.

We see a lot of retrospective rationalization in the last passage, but these texts clearly contradict Joshua 21:43ff, which claimed that everything Yahweh had promised to the Israelites had been fulfilled at that time, but one of Yahweh's promises was that he would drive out all of the nations in Canaan and that not a man would be able to stand against them. Judges 3:1-3 claims that this didn't happen. Some nations did stand against the Israelites.

This too becomes an X and not X problem that my opponent must solve to resolve the inconsistency problem. He does not solve it by saying that it was a matter of X [getting the land] plus Y [keeping the land], because the scriptures cited above all pertain to getting the land. Some texts say X [the Israelites got all the land promised to them and dwelt in it], but other texts say not X [the Israelites did not get all the land promised to them].

Thus my opponent has hopped, skipped, and jumped over another argument.

Till in first round:
Where has Skippy said anything that explains away these inconsistencies?

My Opponent:
Our opponent's pretense is no more than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no explanation.

Till:
So My Opponent is going to evade the argument again. My explication of the problem (above) clearly shows that there is an X and not X (P and ~P) problem in the books of Joshua and Judges. Some texts say X [the Israelites got all of the land promised to them and possessed it and dwelt in it], but other texts say not X [the Israelites did not get all the land promised to them].

If My opponent really thinks that I am just presenting a ploy to make readers think that the problem has no explanation, why doesn't he embarrass me by just posting the explanation? Instead, he attempts to draw attention away from his failure to reply by cutting and pasting the worn-out evasive comment below, which we have seen umpteen times, and which I have repeatedly replied to.

The argument just requoted above shows the irony of my opponent's attempt to show that I erred in saying that Joshua 10,11, and 13 claimed the conquest of all the land Yahweh had promised to the Israelites, for even if he can show that this was the "goofy gaffe" that he claims it was, this would in no way remove the facts that (1) the book of Joshua said that during the younger years of Joshua, the Israelites were given all the land that Yahweh promised their fathers and that they took possession of it and dwelt in it, but (2) when Joshua was old and advanced in years, the book of Joshua said that the Israelites had not received all the land Yahweh had promised them. Hence, there is still a P and ~P statement in Joshua even if Skippy can prove his claim that I made a "goofy gaffe."

I will show later that I made no such gaffe, but before I proceed to that, I have some questions for my opponent. Are the following statements true or false.

1. The Israelites received ALL the land Yahweh promised them, and they possessed it and dwelt in it.

2. Not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel.

3. All that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel came to pass.

4. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said that not a man of all their enemies would stand against them.

5. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said he would drive out the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Hivites, Hittites, and Jebusites.

So now it is time for yes or no questions.

1. Was any man of all the enemies of the Israelites able to stand against them?

2. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Canaanites?

3. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Jebusites?

4. Did everything that Yahweh had promised the Israelites come to pass?

Folks, watch my opponent ignore these questions and make some excuse for not answering them. Expect to hear a lot of talk about "fluff" and "excess verbiage," but don't expect any answers. You won't get them.

I'll continue my point-by-point reply in Part 2.

Oh, no, I can't continue my point-by-point reply in Part 2, because Part 2 was censored in its entirety by a moderator. I guess that is one way of helping my opponent look a little better than he would if forum members were allowed to witness the shellacking he is taking.

[jpholding]

See my favorite punching bag (MFPB) evade the rules by finding posts by other persons to reply to. See my favorite punching bag be obvious. :rofl:

See Skippy not explain the difference between military and geographical barriers.

See my favorite punching bag not explain why this is a problem. See my favorite punching bag repeat the same lame repsonses assuming I said it was a barrier to invasion. :rofl: My favorite punching bag thinks maps were made with straight lines in the ancient world. :rofl:

See my favorite punching bag embarrass himself again with technical error. Poor MFPB.

See my favorite punching bag still evade what "unto Gibeon" means. See my favorite punching bag still evade the point about "unto" being flexible. My favorite punching bag, when is one "unto" a city? In the city? In view of it? Either one?

See MFPB reload the bombast. See me ignore MFPB's off-topic distractions.

MFPB, get back on focus. You're MUCH too obvious. :rofl: See answers to MFPB's off topic diversions on my site where they lay unanswered by him.

[Farrell Till]

Today @ 05:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83196#post83196)
SherBear:

Um ... Till ... I hate to embarrass you on this, but the original post cannot contain more than 24K ... the person would get an error message that they posted too many characters ... to go back and edit.

When you &quot;quote&quot; someone's post ... the way you would check it ... you get all the characters of the quoting mechanism ... click &quot;quote&quot; on mine and you will see [ quote] Today @ ... etc., etc. (without the spaces ... and for the &quot; symbol, you get &amp; quot ; (without the spaces) which is the HTML for &quot; and is 6 characters instead of 1 character ...

In other words, the HTML makes it appear that there are more characters than there actually were. The original post on this topic was 23,708 characters long ... you can confirm this fact by copying the actual post from the first page ... and pasting it into a &quot;post reply&quot; box ... it will show you how many actual characters were used ... remember not to grab the bold title from the top, nor his sig line ... which are not counted in the total characters.

Hope this helps your understanding that the forum is being fair across the board on this.

I don't doubt at all that you are right, SherBear. I have said many times that my knowledge of the internet is very limited. However, as I explained to Dee Dee, I have learned that I had better write my posts off line or risk losing them. I write them in an e-mail window and then paste them into the message windows here. I encode them off line too. I usually have to do some editing to get them under the 24K limit, and I recall once when I edited a post down to 23.999K. I clicked "submit," and it was posted, but in reading it again, I noticed that I had omitted commas before and after a subordinate clause, but when I tried to "save changes," I was informed that there were too many characters. The red bar showed 24001.

I am learning as I go along. I have found that k's can be saved by pulling the paragraphs up so that there will be only two lines between them rather than the three that are apparently inserted automatically by the system, so I don't yet understand what does and does not count.

I personally believe the 24K limit is much too restrictive. It may be sufficient for those who want to post snippets, but the delineation of arguments that contain supporting details often can't be done under that kind of limitation.

[jpholding]

I personally believe the 24K limit is much too restrictive

Translation: It limits the amount of times I can blather, insert diversions, and repeat myself. :rofl:

[Sher]

Today @ 12:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83223#post83223)
Farrell Till:

I don't doubt at all that you are right, SherBear. I have said many times that my knowledge of the internet is very limited. However, as I explained to Dee Dee, I have learned that I had better write my posts off line or risk losing them.
I've had this happen as well. For me, it was the fault of my browser (IE) which wouldn't allow me to go back (press the back key) and still find my info intact ... it was a setting that I had to learn about that needs to be changed ... even still ... sometimes IE "burps" and I lose what I write. For longer posts of content I want to make sure "makes it" ... I also type in Word or Notepad ... with the vB Code inserted (the bold tags ... etc.)I am learning as I go along. I have found that k's can be saved by pulling the paragraphs up so that there will be only two lines between them rather than the three that are apparently inserted automatically by the system, so I don't yet understand what does and does not count.Yeah, that is an automatic thing by the designer of the BB program ... not much you can do there save make your own edits.I personally believe the 24K limit is much too restrictive.I agree! But then I AM the "Angel of Verbosity" ... :lol:It may be sufficient for those who want to post snippets, but the delineation of arguments that contain supporting details often can't be done under that kind of limitation. Perhaps if you stuck to one point at a time ... post all your supporting info ... then in your next point ... if related ... just post a link to your previous point with a snippet about how that point relates.

Or ... you can take advantage of the article feature on this site ... have Dee Dee, or someone, post your article ... then you can link to that article on this forum ... perfectly acceptable because it isn't an outside link ... and isn't really an argument by hyperlink. Then the thread you link it to ... this one for example ... would be used to discuss your article. That works very well, IMO, because it allows one to fully develop a thought ... and that thought isn't spread over multiple pages ... necessitating that points have to be repeated for the whole issue to be understood.

.... Excuse my typos ... I posted directly in this little box ... If I were going to :rant: to the designers of this BB (not the people who host this particular forum) ... it would be that they didn't include a spell-check feature into the program ... something that would be invaluable for my fast typing skills that often race ahead of my internal spell-checking system.

[Sher]

Today @ 01:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83237#post83237)
jpholding:

I personally believe the 24K limit is much too restrictive

Translation: It limits the amount of times I can blather, insert diversions, and repeat myself. :rofl:

::smacks JP's hand with a ruler:::

Be nice, will ya? (repeat after me ... "Yes, Mom" :lol:)

Till does appear to be waving a white flag at the moment. :angel:

[Farrell Till]

Today @ 05:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83219#post83219)
jpholding:

See my favorite punching bag (MFPB) evade the rules by finding posts by other persons to reply to. See my favorite punching bag be obvious.

See Skippy not explain the difference between military and geographical barriers.

See my favorite punching bag not explain why this is a problem. See my favorite punching bag repeat the same lame repsonses assuming I said it was a barrier to invasion. My favorite punching bag thinks maps were made with straight lines in the ancient world.

See my favorite punching bag embarrass himself again with technical error. Poor MFPB.

See my favorite punching bag still evade what &quot;unto Gibeon&quot; means. See my favorite punching bag still evade the point about &quot;unto&quot; being flexible. My favorite punching bag, when is one &quot;unto&quot; a city? In the city? In view of it? Either one?

See MFPB reload the bombast. See me ignore MFPB's off-topic distractions.

MFPB, get back on focus. You're MUCH too obvious. See answers to MFPB's off topic diversions on my site where they lay unanswered by him.

I assume that everyone easily noticed that my opponent once again ignored my rebuttal arguments. In the post that the above remarks were supposed to be a reply to, I said, "Folks, watch my opponent ignore these questions and make some excuse for not answering them. Expect to hear a lot of talk about 'fluff' and 'excess verbiage,' but don't expect any answers. You won't get them." I was right, wasn't I?

Let's see if he will answer just the questions that were in that post.


I have some questions for my opponent. Are the following statements true or false.

1. The Israelites received ALL the land Yahweh promised them, and they possessed it and dwelt in it.

2. Not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel.

3. All that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel came to pass.

4. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said that not a man of all their enemies would stand against them.

5. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said he would drive out the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Hivites, Hittites, and Jebusites.

So now it is time for yes or no questions.

1. Was any man of all the enemies of the Israelites able to stand against them?

2. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Canaanites?

3. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Jebusites?

4. Did everything that Yahweh had promised the Israelites come to pass?

I predict that he will evade these again.


My Opponent:
See my favorite punching bag still evade what &quot;unto Gibeon&quot; means. See my favorite punching bag still evade the point about &quot;unto&quot; being flexible. My favorite punching bag, when is one &quot;unto&quot; a city? In the city? In view of it? Either one?

I answered this in detail in my Part 2 post that for some reason has been censored twice, so I will see if at least my reply to my opponent's "unto Gaza" quibble will escape censorship. I will edit out the "Skippys" in my original and replace them with "my opponent."


Till:
So let's just see now who has made a "honking huge error that shows a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship." Notice that Joshua 10:41 said that Joshua struck them [enemy forces] from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza and all the country of Goshen. So Joshua's strike even unto Gaza went also unto "all the country of Goshen," but how could Joshua have struck unto all the country of Goshen unless his forces had penetrated into the country of Goshen? The fact that the writer said that Joshua's strike extended unto all the country of Goshen shows that he did not mean that Joshua took his army up to the border of Goshen and stopped. How could he have taken his army up to "all the country of Goshen" unless he entered it? Obviously, then, this meant that his army had struck all through the country of Goshen. If that isn't what the text meant, then perhaps Skippy can explain this verse to us.

Joshua 11:16 Thus Joshua took all this land: the mountain country, all the South, all the land of Goshen, the lowland and the Jordan plain--the mountains of Israel and its lowland.

Gee, that sounds rather inclusive, but if my opponent wants to quibble that this would not include all the land in the southern part of Palestine, he can at least tell us if Joshua took all the land of Goshen. That's what it says, isn't it? So if Joshua took all the land of Goshen, the expression striking "unto all the country of Goshen" (used later in this same chapter) must have meant that Joshua's forces went into Goshen and captured it. If not, why not?

Then if striking "unto all the country of Goshen" meant that Joshua took all the country of Goshen, why wouldn't striking "even unto Gaza" have meant that Joshua had captured Gaza? Maybe my opponent will give us the benefit of his "relevant study and scholarship" and let us know.

Anyway, whenever I take a position that has been derived from the clear meaning of a text, my opponent likes to call me the "hyperliteralist" if that position is inconsistent with other scriptures, but I would like to know when I have ever taken a position as "hyperliteralist" as his attempt to claim that striking enemy forces even unto Gaza would not mean that Joshua's forces entered Gaza and captured it.

Furthermore, the same text in question also says that Joshua struck "even unto Gibeon." If striking "unto Gaza" meant only that Joshua's army went up to the border of Gaza and stopped, then striking "even unto Gibeon" would mean that Joshua's forces went up to the city limits of Gibeon and stopped. If that is what my opponent thinks that striking "even unto Gaza or Gibeon" meant, then how does he explain this text, which is in the same chapter as the passage about striking unto Gaza and all the country of Goshen?

Joshua 10:9-10 Joshua therefore came upon them [the Amorites gathered at Gibeon], having marched all night from Gilgal. So Yahweh routed them before Israel, killed them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, chased them along the road that goes to Beth Horon, and struck them down as far as Azerek and Makkedah.

So I have quoted separate texts that claim the forces of Joshua captured all the land of Goshen and Gibeon, so if striking even "unto" all the land of Goshen and even "unto" Gibeon meant capturing these places, then why would striking even "unto" Gaza not have meant that Joshua had captured Gaza?

I predict that my opponent will evade this rebuttal argument too.


My Opponent:
MFPB, get back on focus. You're MUCH too obvious. See answers to MFPB's off topic diversions on my site where they lay unanswered by him.

If my opponent has answered my rebuttals on his site, why doesn't he just quote them here? I am cutting and pasting my rebuttal arguments from my site, so everyone can clearly see that I replied to his quibbles. However, those who take the time to check my opponent's website will see that his so-called "replies" to my arguments are filled with the same kinds of insults and evasions that we are seeing here.

[Farrell Till]

Today @ 06:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83249#post83249)
SherBear:

Till does appear to be waving a white flag at the moment.

That white flag is being waved only to try to get the debate to focus on issues rather than personalities. In the matter of issues, I am not waving a flag, because I am fully convinced that my position is right: there are numerous discrepancies in the OT passages that pertain to the land promise and its fulfillment. My opponent's persistence in evading my rebuttal arguments should be enough to convince even the most fervent Bible believer in this forum that he is having huge problems in trying to defend the inerrancy of the Bible on this issue.

That is why you won't see me waving white flags on the issues.

[Sher]

Today @ 01:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83260#post83260)
Farrell Till:

That white flag is being waved only to try to get the debate to focus on issues rather than personalities.
You misunderstand me, Till. That is exactly what I was saying here ... that you appear to be trying to reshift focus away from the wee'ng contest ... and on to the topic at hand.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point. I thought I was obvious ... given what I "slapped" JP's hand for.

Sher ... who is cranky and ornery today ... not really in the mood for anymore male belly-buckin'

(:lol: DB on that term, though)

[jpholding]

I assume that everyone easily noticed that my opponent once again ignored my rebuttal arguments.

Sorry, MFPB, but 90% what you posted (all of what was the old Post 1) are not "rebuttals" to the subject issue of this thread. They are diversions and distractions from the main issue here, which is the one of geography between Josh. 10, 11, and 13. Hence they are your OWN evasion and will be ignored. Those parts that DID address 10, 11, 13 HAVE been responded to. -- such little as you have brought up so far, which is little more than Josh. 10:41-43:

1) What "unto" means or can mean
2) What borders were in view
3) Whether capturing a king or even possessing his land means you automatically get his city with no fight

And this has ALL been answered. Your list of questions is not relevant to your geography gaffe and mixup of the land covered by 10,11, and 13. Asking them over and over and over again is merely posturing and a way for you to avoid dealing with your error.

If my opponent has answered my rebuttals on his site, why doesn't he just quote them here?

Because your diversions are an evasion. Simple as that. :smile: How about if I cut and paste about 30 of my articles about you or mentioning you in new threads here? When will you answer all those? :rofl:

How does the smell of your own crack hit you? :smile:

[Farrell Till]

04-26-2003 @ 06:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79234#post79234)
Sheepdog:

Wow,

it's Farrel Till's birthday today. happy birthday :cheers:

looks like JP gave you his gift early :poke: :smile:

If you think he did, then maybe you can answer these questions that he refuses to answer.


Till:
Are the following statements true or false.

1. The Israelites received ALL the land Yahweh promised them, and they possessed it and dwelt in it.

2. Not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel.

3. All that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel came to pass.

4. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said that not a man of all their enemies would stand against them.

5. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said he would drive out the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Hivites, Hittites, and Jebusites.

So now it is time for yes or no questions.

1. Was any man of all the enemies of the Israelites able to stand against them?

2. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Canaanites?

3. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Jebusites?

4. Did everything that Yahweh had promised the Israelites come to pass?

I will look forward to seeing your answers. :fight:

[Farrell Till]

Today @ 06:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83267#post83267)
jpholding:

I assume that everyone easily noticed that my opponent once again ignored my rebuttal arguments.

Sorry, MFPB, but 90% what you posted are not &quot;rebuttals&quot; to the subject issue of this thread. They are diversions and distractions from the main issue here, which is the one of geography between Josh. 10, 11, and 13. Hence they are your OWN evasion and will be ignored.

If my opponent has answered my rebuttals on his site, why doesn't he just quote them here?

Because your diversions are an evasion. Simple as that. How about if I cut and paste about 30 of my articles about you or mentioning you in new threads here? When will you answer all those?

How does the smell of your own crack hit you?

Well, okay, I can keep reposting the rebuttal of my opponent's "unto Gaza" quibble.


Till:
So let's just see now who has made a "honking huge error that shows a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship." Notice that Joshua 10:41 said that Joshua struck them [enemy forces] from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza and all the country of Goshen. So Joshua's strike even unto Gaza went also unto "all the country of Goshen," but how could Joshua have struck unto all the country of Goshen unless his forces had penetrated into the country of Goshen? The fact that the writer said that Joshua's strike extended unto all the country of Goshen shows that he did not mean that Joshua took his army up to the border of Goshen and stopped. How could he have taken his army up to "all the country of Goshen" unless he entered it? Obviously, then, this meant that his army had struck all through the country of Goshen. If that isn't what the text meant, then perhaps my opponent can explain this verse to us.

Joshua 11:16 Thus Joshua took all this land: the mountain country, all the South, all the land of Goshen, the lowland and the Jordan plain--the mountains of Israel and its lowland.

Gee, that sounds rather inclusive, but if my opponent wants to quibble that this would not include all the land in the southern part of Palestine, he can at least tell us if Joshua took all the land of Goshen. That's what it says, isn't it? So if Joshua took all the land of Goshen, the expression striking "unto all the country of Goshen" (used later in this same chapter) must have meant that Joshua's forces went into Goshen and captured it. If not, why not?

Then if striking "unto all the country of Goshen" meant that Joshua took all the country of Goshen, why wouldn't striking "even unto Gaza" have meant that Joshua had captured Gaza? Maybe my opponent will give us the benefit of his "relevant study and scholarship" and let us know.

Anyway, whenever I take a position that has been derived from the clear meaning of a text, my opponent likes to call me the "hyperliteralist" if that position is inconsistent with other scriptures, but I would like to know when I have ever taken a position as "hyperliteralist" as his attempt to claim that striking enemy forces even unto Gaza would not mean that Joshua's forces entered Gaza and captured it.

Furthermore, the same text in question also says that Joshua struck "even unto Gibeon." ÁIf striing "uno Gaza"Ámeant oÁly thatJoshua'Á army wnt up to the border of Gaza and stopped, then striking "even unto Gibeon" would mean that Joshua's forces went up to the city limits of Gibeon and stopped. If that is what Skippy thinks that striking "even unto Gaza or Gibeon" meant, then how does he explain this text, which is in the same chapter as the passage about striking unto Gaza and all the country of Goshen?

Joshua 10:9-10 Joshua therefore came upon them [the Amorites gathered at Gibeon], having marched all night from Gilgal. So Yahweh routed them before Israel, killed them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, chased them along the road that goes to Beth Horon, and struck them down as far as Azerek and Makkedah.

So I have quoted separate texts that claim the forces of Joshua captured all the land of Goshen and Gibeon, so if striking even "unto" all the land of Goshen and even "unto" Gibeon meant capturing these places, then why would striking even "unto" Gaza not have meant that Joshua had captured Gaza?

Since my opponent was the one who tried to prove that I had made a "Goofy Gaffe" and did so by arguing that "unto Gaza" meant only up to Gaza but wasn't inclusive of Gaza, why would my rebuttal requoted above be the diversion/evasion that he claims?

Let's see if he answers it this time.

While I am at it, I'll also repost the questions he has evaded.


Till:
Are the following statements true or false.

1. The Israelites received ALL the land Yahweh promised them, and they possessed it and dwelt in it.

2. Not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel.

3. All that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel came to pass.

4. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said that not a man of all their enemies would stand against them.

5. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said he would drive out the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Hivites, Hittites, and Jebusites.

So now it is time for yes or no questions.

1. Was any man of all the enemies of the Israelites able to stand against them?

2. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Canaanites?

3. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Jebusites?

4. Did everything that Yahweh had promised the Israelites come to pass?

I predict that he will evade these questions again. If he does, I will keep reposting them.

How does the smell of my own crack hit me? Well, as I have said before, when I read such as this in my opponent's articles and posts, I have the opposite reaction to the comment that Agrippa made after the apostle Paul's speech: "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian."

Some of the forum members here need to take my opponent aside and "teach him the way of the Lord more perfectly."

[Farrell Till]

04-27-2003 @ 12:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79962#post79962)
Richard Romano:

I have known jp for several years now...his amusing monikers are purely fun...he means no harm by them. The fact of the matter is that jp is a threat to illogical thinkers, or stinkers, who really demonstrate how bankrupt liberal (skeptic?) views are. Don't get mad at jp just because he knows how to spot nonsense while others feast and gorge themselves on sheer stupidity.

Just look at the recent silliness and irrelevancy of carr's question and non answer speculation. He selectively reads jp's post and then contrives ways of avoiding the real issues. You can't blame jp for honestly calling this kind of balderdash for what it is...and perhaps throwing a moniker in there for added verisimilitude--it is an apt description of views that are simply untenable, especially to anyone remotely rational.

Well, okay, RR, if you really believe this, perhaps you will volunteer to reply to the rebuttal of my opponent's "unto Gaza" quibble and to the list of questions that he has evaded. They have been posted twice further along in this thread, but if you can't find them, I would be glad to repost them.

[Farrell Till]

Today @ 04:22 PM
jpholding:

Addressed your confused misuse of Miller elsewhere.

Carr:
You have to admire Skippy. He posted absolutely nothing which remotely address Miller's quote. His posting made no reference to any word of Miller's quote.

Nothing at all - and he comes to this thread and says he has addressed it elsewhere!

The man is simply brazen!

Here is Holding's entire post about Miller's quote 'The goof is yours, Stevie-poo. Like your master you assume that the capture of the KING of Jerusalem equates with the capture of the CITY.
I guess we should have just went after Saddam and ignored the Republican Guard.'

As anybody can see, not one word refers to Miller's posting! Holding must have read it - it talks about the city of Jerusalem.

Why don't we just take another look at what Miller said so that readers can judge whether my opponent has really replied to the problem that Miller's quotation presents to one who often quotes Miller as an authority who should be respected?


Miller at <http://www.christian-thinktank.com/noai.html>:

[i]Chapter 10 of the book of Joshua tells of the battle with a coalition of kings of the Shephelah and the hill country--the kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Yarmut, Lachish, and Eglon. In the course of this battle Joshua conquers Makkedah, Libneh, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir, and at the conclusion of the tale, the conquest of wide areas is described: "the hill country, the Negeb, the Shephelah, and the slopes . . . from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza, all the land of Goshen, and up to Gibeon" (Jos. 10:40-41). The location of some of the towns (Makkedah, Libneh, and Eglon) is not established. The other towns may be identified with certainty, and among them, Jerusalem, Lachish, Hebron (Tell Rumeideh), and Debir (Khirbet Rabud in the southern Hebron hills) have been excavated.

After quoting this in a previous post, I said....


So Glenn Miller agrees that Joshua 10, properly interpreted, shows that Jerusalem was captured by the Israelites during their southern campaign. This means that it is time to ask [my opponent] a few more questions.

1. Will you be starting here a thread entitled "Glenn Miller's Goofy Gaffes"?

2. Will you be informing Miller that "he is not a credible source and should be either ignored or laughed at by informed Christians"?

3. Will you be informing Miller that the above quotation from his website contains "a boneheaded, honking huge error that shows a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship"?

You won't forget to answer these questions, will you?

It seems that my opponent did forget to answer those questions, so maybe he will answer them now.

[Farrell Till]

04-25-2003 @ 10:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78799#post78799)
Alien:

Oh yeah, I wasn't actually upset about it, or wishing to suggest that any kind of action should be taken. In fact I get the feeling that both sides enjoy this stuff, whether they are giving or receiving the abuse, maybe like clowns slapping custard pies in each other's faces?

I guess it depends on whether they want anyone to take them seriously or not. I personally switch off when I start to read this kind of thing, but maybe that's just me.

Actually, Alien, I much prefer a debate in which the opponents dispense with personal matters and focus on the issues, but I have said many times that I have a personality flaw. I can't seem to resist replying in kind to opponents who use sarcasm and insults. When I say that this is a personality flaw, I really mean that I recognize that this kind of conduct in a debate is inappropriate.

I am making an effort to remove sarcasm and insults from my posts, so I will be referring to my opponent as "my opponent," which is a term that participants often use in debates. No one should find this objectionable.

Some have contacted me off-forum to tell me that they disagree with my positions but that they regret my opponent's conduct. I appreciate your messages, but telling me this will not bring about any changes. Until those who are in agreement with my opponent's beliefs confront him and tell him to his face that his conduct is damaging to what you and he believe, his tactics will continue. One has only to go to his website to see that the hurling of sarcasm and insults is a deeply ingrained characteristic of his personality.

[dizzle]

Actually, Alien, I much prefer a debate in which the opponents dispense with personal matters and focus on the issues

I have read your Errancy postings.... :rofl: Sure thing there Farrell. Nice voguing. You aren't going to presume to incorrectly tell me that vogue is not a verb again are you? And is your signature line also an example of this kind, sweet, gentle, prefering to be uninsulting Farrell? Yep.

[jpholding]

Dear MFPB,

Well, okay, I can keep reposting the rebuttal of my opponent's "unto Gaza" quibble.

Keep reading. You're back where Romanoi and Alien are and the answer is ahead of you. Maybe if you stopped wasting time posting the same irrelevant and repetitive guff you'd be caught up by now.

I will in turn remind those who don't know (all 2) that these questions are already answered on my site. If and when we get MFPB to get on focus with the topic at hand, one or more of those issues may become a subject of future debate.

One has only to go to his website to see that the hurling of sarcasm and insults is a deeply ingrained characteristic of his personality.

Funy, Doc Alward had something similar to say about you. Those who know the site well will know that 15% of less of the articles use such tactics; that they are reserved for people like MFPB who are the worst manipulators; and that I have provided "banter-free" versions -- which only 1/3 of people signing in and reading the particular articles have used. The people vote with their keyboard and it sure hasn't been in that direction. :brow:

[dizzle]

Mr. Till, SherBear is completely write about the 24K thing. When you hit quote it adds characters to the post already cited because it adds the "quoted by" language and the URL. JP's post was well under the 24K limit. Did you think we actually installed a hack to the software that allowed JP to post more than 24K but not you? Really? You know that the software without mercy does not allow anyone, myself included, to break that 24K barrier in any one post.

[Farrell Till]

Today @ 08:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83326#post83326)
Dee Dee Warren:

I have read your Errancy postings. Sure thing there Farrell. Nice voguing.

Christians can be as sarcastic and insulting as anyone, so much of what you have seen is tit-for-tat barbs. I thought you didn't have time for other forums, Dee Dee. Anyway, even though I may be inconsistent about this, do you want things to continue as they are, or would you rather that we move the debates here to a higher plane?


You aren't going to presume to incorrectly tell me that vogue is not a verb again are you?

I won't if you won't assume that hampster is an incorrect spelling. Anyway, I made an inexcusable error about vogue. My professional experience should have told me that language constantly evolves and that because vogue was not a verb in my day would not be an indication that it would never come to be one. As I said, that was an inexcusable mistake. You were right.


And is your signature line also an example of this kind, sweet, gentle, prefering to be uninsulting Farrell? Yep.

Don't you remember what my signature was when I first joined TW? I changed it, because... well, as I said, I have a personality flaw. I tend to respond in kind.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll gladly change my signature if you will persuade my opponent to dispense with his insults and sarcasm and focus on answering my arguments and rebuttals.

[dizzle]

Today @ 06:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83491#post83491)
Farrell Till:



Christians can be as sarcastic and insulting as anyone, so much of what you have seen is tit-for-tat barbs. I thought you didn't have time for other forums, Dee Dee. Anyway, even though I may be inconsistent about this, do you want things to continue as they are, or would you rather that we move the debates here to a higher plane?

I have read Errancy postings forwarded to me mostly by you and a few others. I do not have time for substantive participation in other forums, though I do post occasinally at a few others. I have no problem with the debates here going either way, and do not consider aggressively and satirically countering someone who has a goal to maliciously (from my p.o.v) destroy the faith of my brethren a bad thing. A veneer of forced politeness does not solve anything, and no, I am not in suppport of that in every instance.

I won't if you won't assume that hampster is an incorrect spelling.

I will not. I don't pretend to be the Paragon of Literary Perfection.

Anyway, I made an inexcusable error about vogue. My professional experience should have told me that language constantly evolves and that because vogue was not a verb in my day would not be an indication that it would never come to be one. As I said, that was an inexcusable mistake. You were right.

Thank you. And you were right about hampster

Don't you remember what my signature was when I first joined TW? I changed it, because... well, as I said, I have a personality flaw. I tend to respond in kind.

Well I believe JP is responding in kind to your attacks upon our faith and motivations. There are others ways to be a jerk other than using blatant words. "Polite" is does not always equate to good, and as JP as shown in not always Biblical. I have been both polite and aggressive with you as the situation warrants. I believe JP has also shown you kindnesses when warranted.


I'll make a deal with you. I'll gladly change my signature if you will persuade my opponent to dispense with his insults and sarcasm and focus on answering my arguments and rebuttals.

I am making NO such request. Of course you are excusing your hypocrisy which is why I often find you manipulative. Leave your signature line, we allow you the freedom of such expression. And I believe JP has been answering the arguments as they are appropriately presented, but not when you use them as a diversion from your answering the topic of threads and questions already posed.

[stevencarrwork]

Holding protests that it is a goofy gaffe to think that the city of Jerusalem , where the Jebusites were, was part of the land conquered by Joshua.

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_WRE.html

Holding writes '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.'

If the land of the Jebusites was promised, then why was Jerusalem not conquered?

[Richard Romano]

Today @ 04:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83295#post83295)
Farrell Till:



Well, okay, RR, if you really believe this, perhaps you will volunteer to reply to the rebuttal of my opponent's &quot;unto Gaza&quot; quibble and to the list of questions that he has evaded. They have been posted twice further along in this thread, but if you can't find them, I would be glad to repost them.

Hello Mr. Till,

Please do repost them for me, or at least the main points. From what I have seen so far is that jp has properly answered the questions and pointed out some clearly irrelevant arguments and questions posed in such a way as to make it difficult to answer.

My defense has been that his riposte is quite playful but also an extension of the nonsense being communicated on the other side. Keep in mind that I am a Grad student in English literature, so I am well aware of authors who have used satirical jest to raise points and refute others.

God bless you Mr. Till, I await your reply.

Richard.

[jpholding]

Message to all:

It's time for a reminder of what this thread was started for, and to show that MFPB is playing his usual game of obfuscation and manipulation by repeatedly posting the same irrelevant questions. It's his way of avoiding the main subject and getting out of answering for a huge error that he doesn't want to admit to.

The core focus is on Joshua 13:1-5:

1 Now Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the LORD said unto him, Thou art old and stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed. 2 This is the land that yet remaineth: all the borders of the Philistines, and all Geshuri, 3 From Sihor, which is before Egypt, even unto the borders of Ekron northward, which is counted to the Canaanite: five lords of the Philistines; the Gazathites, and the Ashdothites, the Eshkalonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avites: 4 From the south, all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that is beside the Sidonians unto Aphek, to the borders of the Amorites: 5 And the land of the Giblites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baalgad under mount Hermon unto the entering into Hamath.

The question at hand is that MFPB claimed that portions of land noted as conquered in Josh. 10 and 11 overlapped the above, and indeed that 11 claimed that ALL the land in the grant was taken already, so that the list in 13 above is redundant, and therefore contradictory. So far we have not reached 11, which is no surprise because this is where MFPB's errors are blatantly obvious and no amount of explaining or rationalization will get him out of it. Instead he has resorted to:

1) Focus on Josh. 10, where he can quibble about the meaning of "unto"
2) Diversions to other issues not germane to the matter of whether the land in 10, 11 overlaps that of 13.

Now let's summarize the issues raised for 1), on Josh. 10.

40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. 41 And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon. 42 And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel.

Also noted is that the king of Jerusalem was captured in 12:11. Here is how MFPB has tried to achieve overlap so far:

a) by arguing that "unto Gaza" includes the city of Gaza itself, which would therefore contradict 13:3 above. I have shown that:

- "unto" has a flexible meaning that can mean to the edge of something or in proximity to it (as "unto the city gate") -- MFPB has tried to evade this by focussing on cites where "unto" by clear context does mean "inside" a city or place, but it is clear that both meanings adhere and which is meant is determined by context. Here, that Gaza is specifically listed as unconquered tells us that "unto" did NOT mean inside the city; this is also supported by the fact that an excursion INTO Gaza would have been politically impossible, as the Philistine inhabitants would never have given refuge to the Canaanite army, and for Israel to have entered Gaza would have been a declaration of war against the Philistines which would have begun another battle.

Furthermore, it is clear from the reference to the battle going "unto Gibeon" that this does not mean IN Gibeon, since the Gibeonites were Israel's allies. At best the "unto" in both cases would have to mean that the battles went to the political borders of Gaza and Gibeon, or perhaps that they reached to the outlying villages that would share the city's name identity (as in modern suburbs). Anywhere but Skepticland, the context would tell us this.

- In addition I showed that there was a clear parallelism:

And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza,
and (Joshua smote) all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon.

MFPB has quoted some version without the comma after "Gaza" that seems to make it look like the phrase is, "even unto Gaza and all the country of Gideon" but the punctuation given, plus the parallelism, refute that. Perhaps he can dig out a Hebrew grammar trick, but I wouldn't count on it, and that would not refute the parallelism.

b) by arguing that the capture of Jerusalem's king and the resultant possession of his land contradicts Josh. 15:63: "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." In response I have argued that simply capturing a king does not equate with capturing his city. MFPB tried to get around this by noting that the king would have his army with him, but it is notable in reply that the king would also hardly leave the city empty and defenseless. The Jebusites left behind to defend the city were then the ones not dislodged. Israel probably did inhabit surrounding villages sharing Jerusalem's urban identity, but getting the Jebusites out of the walled city would not be so simple, and they were hardly going to just drop dead because their king was captued.

c) by arguing that the range given in 10:41-3 above -- "and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon" -- would include Jerusalem. I have replied that this is an assumption based on the idea that the "map" was drawn with straight lines. Natural barriers like rivers would be more likely to be used to draw such a border. MFPB has wasted time pretending I mean this was a barrier to conquest, which is not the point. The point is that "all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon" cannot be automatically assumed to include Jerusalem. That must be proven.

Now let's get to the matter of 2), and the questions that MFPB keeps posting repeatedly as a distraction. We will look at each question in turn and show that these have nothing to do with the issue of overlap of lands in Josh 10, 11 and 13, and thus MFPB is just trying to divert attention from his errors. As noted all these questions have indeed been answered on my site; at such time after MFPB admits to his error and completes this conversation on Josh 10, 11 and 13, I will happily take up one or more of these other questions. Until then, here they are:

I will show later that I made no such gaffe, but before I proceed to that, I have some questions for my opponent. Are the following statements true or false.

1. The Israelites received ALL the land Yahweh promised them, and they possessed it and dwelt in it.

As can be seen, this does not have anything to do with whether or not the land described in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlaps.

2. Not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel.

As can be seen, this does not have anything to do with whether or not the land described in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlaps.

3. All that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel came to pass.

As can be seen, this does not have anything to do with whether or not the land described in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlaps.

4. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said that not a man of all their enemies would stand against them.

As can be seen, this does not have anything to do with whether or not the land described in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlaps.

5. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said he would drive out the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Hivites, Hittites, and Jebusites.

As can be seen, this does not have anything to do with whether or not the land described in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlaps.

So now it is time for yes or no questions.

1. Was any man of all the enemies of the Israelites able to stand against them?

As can be seen, this does not have anything to do with whether or not the land described in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlaps.

2. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Canaanites?

As can be seen, this does not have anything to do with whether or not the land described in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlaps.

3. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Jebusites?

As can be seen, this does not have anything to do with whether or not the land described in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlaps.

Did everything that Yahweh had promised the Israelites come to pass?

As can be seen, this does not have anything to do with whether or not the land described in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlaps.

MFPB has also horned in with Josh. 21:43-5, and several passages in Judges, none of which have anything to do with whether or not the land described in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlaps.

In conclusion, it is clear that MFPB is deliberately stalling for time with these off-topic diversions. If he reposts these items again I will simply answer each one with the same phrase: "As can be seen, this does not have anything to do with whther or not the land described in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlaps."

One last aside -- MFPB had best hurry with his answers, because on Friday we will start a thread about Gaffe #2. :teeth:

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 02:03 AM jpholding:


The core focus is on Joshua 13:1-5:

So far we have not reached 11, which is no surprise because this is where MFPB's errors are blatantly obvious and no amount of explaining or rationalization will get him out of it. Instead he has resorted to:

1) Focus on Josh. 10, where he can quibble about the meaning of &quot;unto&quot;
2) Diversions to other issues not germane to the matter of whether the land in 10, 11 overlaps that of 13.




Amazing. These are Holding's quibbles.

When Jesus went unto Jerusalem, he went in Jerusalem.

It is Holding who quibbles about 'unto' - and it is one of his worst quibbles.

As for not answering questions, Holding's inability to answer questions is legendary.

Holding wrote himself that the land of the Jebusites had been promised, and it is HOLDING who is trying to show that Jerusalem, the land of the Jebusites, that had not been conquered.

Holding's quibble actually destroys his case that the Bible is not in error.

It is Till, who is claiming that Jerusalem, the land of the Jebusites, had been conquered in Joshua 10, where it is written that all these kings and their lands had been conquered.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 01:35 AM

Richard Romano:




I was interested in your sig
"To be forced to believe only one conclusion--that everything in the universe happened by chance--would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye....some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer...They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But, must we really light a candle to see the sun?"

Wernher von Braun, director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, 1960-76

Fascinating how Nazis believed in Creation.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0275962172/102-0290776-3552935?vi=glance

[Richard Romano]

Today @ 04:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83872#post83872)
stevencarrwork:



I was interested in your sig
&quot;To be forced to believe only one conclusion--that everything in the universe happened by chance--would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye....some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer...They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But, must we really light a candle to see the sun?&quot;

Wernher von Braun, director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, 1960-76

Fascinating how Nazis believed in Creation.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0275962172/102-0290776-3552935?vi=glance

Dear Steve,

Thanks (?) for your note. So are you suggesting that all evolutionists have a pristine background and are not free from error or deliberate frauds?

We still don't know for certain his allegiances, or lack thereof, to Nazi politics...but the US wasn't as worried as you seem to be since they made him director of NASA. You also neglect to mention that regardless of his past, he was still the pioneer in Rocket Science and his theories are still those that helped us put men on the moon as well as the continuing exploration of space.

This is the kind of self righteous attitude that characterizes the militant skeptical purview. Please, don't bother me with your nonsense if you insist on narrow minded biases and inequal treatment of issues.

regards,

Richard.

[jpholding]

Amazing. These are Holding's quibbles.

Incredible. Stevie never answered my questions about when one is or can be "unto" a place. Neither does FTill yet. Fair, isn't it? :rofl:

He also employs diversions (land conquered). Are he and FTill father and son?

And he still doesn't get that capturing a king doesn't mean all the people in his city give up and leave.

I award him a :poke: and a :whack:

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 03:36 PM jpholding:

And he still doesn't get that capturing a king doesn't mean all the people in his city give up and leave.

I award him a :poke: and a :whack:

How many times does Holding want to see quotes about people going 'unto Jerusalem' to embarrass him more in his claim that 'unto' only meant 'up to but not in'?

Holding still claims that the land of the Jebusites was promised , that it was promised that the Jebusites would be driven out

Yet he is determined to prove that the land of the Jebusites was not conquered and he scoffs at the idea that the Jebusites were driven out.

Time to quote the Bible, I think :-'

Joshua 12 'These are the kings of the land that Joshua and the Israelites conquered on the west side of the Jordan, from Baal Gad in the Valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, which rises toward Seir (their lands Joshua gave as an inheritance to the tribes of Israel according to their tribal divisions- 8 the hill country, the western foothills, the Arabah, the mountain slopes, the desert and the Negev-the lands of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites):

9 the king of Jericho one
the king of Ai (near Bethel) one
10 the king of Jerusalem one'

Notice Johsua gave the land of the king of Jerusalem as an inheritance , although Holding claims Joshua never conquered Jerusalem.

Joshua 23:14 '14 "Now I am about to go the way of all the earth. You know with all your heart and soul that not one of all the good promises the LORD your God gave you has failed. Every promise has been fulfilled; not one has failed.'

Holding admits the land of the Jebusites was promised, and it was promised that the Jebusites would be driven out, yet he claims that that is one of the good promises the LORD his God gave which failed, and Holding claims that not every promise was fulfilled.

[jpholding]

How many times does Holding want to see quotes about people going 'unto Jerusalem' to embarrass him more in his claim that 'unto' only meant 'up to but not in'?

How many times does Stevie want to wipe off the egg on his face of "unto Gibeon" and "unto the city gate"? How many times will Stevie repeat the lie that I say "unto" ONLY means "up to but not in" when I actually say it can encompass both, and which is meant is determined by context?

How many times will it escape Stevie that capturing a king does not make all his people just disappear? :rofl: :rofl:

How many new diversions and threads will Stevie start to cover up his inability to answer these questions?

Truly thou art a Son of Till! :brow:

[Farrell Till]

Yesterday @ 04:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84145#post84145)
jpholding:

Carr:
How many times does Holding want to see quotes about people going 'unto Jerusalem' to embarrass him more in his claim that 'unto' only meant 'up to but not in'?

My Opponent:
How many times will it escape Stevie that capturing a king does not make all his people just disappear?

My opponent continues to ignore a fact that has been posted several times. Joshua 12, which lists the king of Jerusalem, as one of the many kings that the Israelites defeated, begins with this statement.


12:1 Now these are the kings of the land, whom the Israelites defeated, whose land they occupied beyond the Jordan toward the east, from the Wadi Arnon to Mount Hermon, with all the Arabah eastward.

Since the "king of Jerusalem" was listed nine verses later as one of the kings who was defeated during this campaign, a simple question for my opponent would be in order.

Did the Israelites occupy the land of the kings of the land whom they defeated in this context?

My opponent will sometimes answer an argument by just citing a URL from Glenn Miller's website, so I would like to ask him again if he thinks that Miller committed a "goofy gaffe" when he analyzed this same chapter of Joshua and concluded that Jerusalem was captured during this military campaign of the Israelites.


My Opponent:
How many new diversions and threads will Stevie start to cover up his inability to answer these questions?

The issue about the capture of Jerusalem is not a "new diversion," because my opponent brought up this matter himself in his "Goofy-Gaffe" thread.


My opponent:
Truly thou art a Son of Till!

We have here another example of how my opponent will resort to ad hominem attacks to divert attention from his inability to answer an argument.

[Farrell Till]

Yesterday @ 03:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84114#post84114)
jpholding:

Carr:
Amazing. These are Holding's quibbles.

My Opponent:
Incredible. Stevie never answered my questions about when one is or can be &quot;unto&quot; a place. Neither does FTill yet. Fair, isn't it?

Neither does FTill?

I have repeatedly shown that Joshua 10:41, which says that Joshua "smote them unto Gaza and all the country of Goshen" had to mean that Joshua captured both Gaza and all the country of Goshen. I have explicated this text in detail and posted it several times, but my opponent has repeatedly evaded it. I will be glad to post it again if my opponent will promise that he will answer it point by point after I have reposted it.


My Opponent:
He also employs diversions (land conquered). Are he and FTill father and son?

As I just noted in another post to this thread, my opponent was the one who introduced this topic in his "Goofy-Gaffe" thread, so if it is a "diversion," it is a diversion that he himself introduced. I will be glad to quote my opponent's introduction of this issue if he will agree to explain to us why replying to a subject that he brought up would be a diversion.


My Opponent:
And he still doesn't get that capturing a king doesn't mean all the people in his city give up and leave.

I don't believe that Carr has ever claimed that capturing Jerusalem would mean that all the people gave up and left the city. He has said only that a proper analyze of Joshua 12 requires readers to understand that Joshua defeated the king of Jerusalem and possessed his land.

I will run this by my opponent again.


Joshua12:1 Now these are the kings of the land, whom the Israelites defeated, whose land they occupied beyond the Jordan toward the east, from the Wadi Arnon to Mount Hermon, with all the Arabah eastward:

Joshua 12:7 The following are the kings of the land whom Joshua and the Israelites defeated on the west side of the Jordan, from Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, that rises toward Seir (and Joshua gave their land to the tribes of Israel as a possession according to their allotments)

These texts are very clear in saying that the Israelites took possession of the land of these kings after they had been defeated. Since verse 10 in this chapter listed the king of Jerusalem as one of the defeated kings, it necessarily follows that the writer was claiming that the Israelites possessed the land of the king of Jerusalem.

I will ask my opponent the same questions again.

1. Did the Israelites take possession of the land of the kings that they defeated during the military campaigns described in Joshua 12?

2. Was the king of Jerusalem one of the kings that the Israelites defeated during these campaigns?

3. Did the Israelites take possession of the land of the king of Jerusalem after he was defeated?


My Opponent:
I award him a :poke: and a :whack:

Here is another example of how my opponent uses sarcasm, insults, and derision to try to hide his inability to answer arguments.

No back to back posting Mr. Till :no:

[Farrell Till]

Yesterday @ 10:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83966#post83966)
Richard Romano:

This is the kind of self righteous attitude that characterizes the militant skeptical purview. Please, don't bother me with your nonsense if you insist on narrow minded biases and inequal treatment of issues.

I wonder if Richard would like to reply to the arguments and questions pertaining to the land-promise issue that my opponent has been evading.

[jpholding]

My opponent continues to ignore a fact that has been posted several times. Joshua 12, which lists the king of Jerusalem, as one of the many kings that the Israelites defeated, begins with this statement:

Gee. I didn't know occupying a land meant you had someone on every square inch of that land. :shake: Tell me, do you think that the city proper of Jerusalem was the ONLY land the king of Jerusalem had under his sway? But anyway:

Did the Israelites occupy the land of the kings of the land
whom they defeated in this context?

...you have my answer above. I think you can figure it out.

so I would like to ask him again if he thinks that Miller committed a &quot;goofy gaffe&quot; when he analyzed this same chapter of Joshua and concluded that Jerusalem was captured during this military campaign of the Israelites.

I rather don't see him saying that.

The issue about the capture of Jerusalem is not a &quot;new diversion,&quot;

That isn't. The rest of it was. You only had about 8-9 questions that had nothing to do with the specific territories in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlapping.

We have here another example of how my opponent will resort to ad hominem attacks to divert attention from his inability to answer an argument.

He's NOT your son? :poke:

Oh. Gaffe thread #2 goes up soon. If you really are in a better mood, I expect you to behave yourself better. If not the gloves go back on for a while. :brow:

[Farrell Till]

My opponent:
Message to all:

It's time for a reminder of what this thread was started for, and to show that MFPB is playing his usual game of obfuscation and manipulation by repeatedly posting the same irrelevant questions. It's his way of avoiding the main subject and getting out of answering for a huge error that he doesn't want to admit to.

Since my opponent has posted this in reply to me, I assume that I can now post my Part 3, which was not allowed earlier because of a rule that disallows two consecutive posts. My Part 3 addresses many points that my opponent brought up here, but after he has replied to this, if he does, I will then reply point by point to the rest of his post introduced by the paragraph above.

Part 3
My opponent has obviously become obsessed with finding an error in my rebuttals, but as we have seen, the only thing he has accomplished is the personal embarrassment that he has brought upon himself.


My Opponent:
So Goofy strained for a camel here, but spat out a gnat, with respect to Josh. 10.

My rebuttals in Part 1 and Part 2 showed who was really straining at the camel. Sometimes, I honestly wonder why my opponent seems so intent on embarrassing himself.


Now to Josh. 11. Josh. 11:23 also refers to a specific parcel of land, much larger, but not the entirety of the land in the grant.

Joshua 10-12 gives a continuous narrative of Joshua's conquests. When all the place names are identified, they show a dispersion from south to north and east to west. Of course, the Israelites never occupied the western seaboard, which was in Philistine and Phoenician control, so the claims of conquest and occupation in Joshua 10-12 are inconsistent with the "historical" narratives, which told of a perpetual conflict with the western inhabitants of the Levant, whom the Israelites were never able to drive out. Likewise, the Israelites never possessed the land in northern Lebanon up to the Euphrates River, but I will discuss that in more detail below. Hence, Joshua 21:43 presents a problem that my opponent must resolve in order to show inerrancy in the biblical narratives.


My Opponent:
Goofy tried to wind his way out with the following:

Till:
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. 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).

My Opponent:
Thus far none of this is disagreeable.

Then why did my opponent, who complains so often about the "fluff" in my articles bother us with material that he doesn't disagree with?


My Opponent:
It is here that Goofy tries to fudge his way out of an embarrassing geographical gaffe:

Till:
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 Main 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.”

My Opponent:
This is false. None of the indicated territory overlaps with that specified as "not yet taken" in Joshua 13.

Oh, it doesn't? Well, let's just see. First, I'll have to point out that my opponent is "spot quoting" again. The section that he quoted above came from a larger context that I quoted in which some of the very places that Joshua 13 said had not yet been taken were identified as places that the Israelites had conquered. A juxtaposition of the passages that my opponent skipped with parallels in Joshua 13 will show that my opponent has put his foot into his mouth again. In the context from which my opponent cut and pasted the passage above, for example, I quoted Joshua 11:16-17.


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; 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 [Joshua] took, and smote them, and slew them.

Joshua 12:7 also listed areas from Mount Halak to Baal-gad and the valley of Lebanon "under Mount Hermon" as parts of all the land that Joshua took in his military campaign. Mount Halak was in the extreme southern limits of Joshua's invasion of Canaan, and the valley of Lebanon and mount Hermon were in the extreme northern limits. Hence, this passage was obviously saying that Joshua had taken all the land from the extreme southern part of Canaan to the extreme north. It was sort of like the expression "from Dan to Beersheeba," which was often used in the OT to convey the idea of all the land of Israel, since Dan was in the extreme north and Beersheeba the extreme south. So now I'll juxtapose Joshua 13:2-5 to show that some of the very places that were listed as conquests in Joshua 10-12 were listed in Joshua 13 as places that had not yet been conquered.


Joshua 13:1b You [Joshua] are old, advanced in years, and there remains yet very much land to be possessed. This is the land that still remains... 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. I will myself drive them out from before the Israelites; only allot the land to Israel for an inheritance, as I have commanded you.

Notice that this "not yet taken" text listed in verse 5 all Lebanon as part of the land that remained to be possessed, but Joshua 12, which my opponent has omitted from his reply but which was quoted in my article, clearly said that Joshua's campaign had swept up into Lebanon as far as "the valley of Lebanon" at Mount Halak.


Joshua 12:7 The following are the kings of the land whom Joshua and the Israelites defeated on the west side of the Jordan, from Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, that rises toward Seir (and Joshua gave their land to the tribes of Israel as a possession according to their allotments....

So this text says that the Israelites defeated kings on the west side of the Jordan from Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, but the "not yet taken" text in the very next chapter said that all Lebanon, toward the east, from Baal-gad below Mount Hermon had not yet been taken. Hence, my opponent is not only wrong in saying that there was no "overlap" in the lands mentioned in Joshua's conquests and the lands listed as those that had not yet been taken, but he is confronted with another P and ~P statement.

P: Joshua smote the kings from Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon even unto Mount Halak and gave their land as a possession to the Israelites (Josh. 12:7).

~ P: All Lebanon from Baal-gad under Mount Hermon to the entrance of Hamath remained to be possessed.

There is a clear "overlap" here and a P and ~P problem for my opponent to solve.

I have also shown that Joshua 10:41 requires the understanding that Joshua captured Gaza in his southern campaign, which would make the land of the "Gazites" in Joshua 13:2-3, listed as territory yet to be possessed, an inconsistency, but my opponent is still wrestling to harmonize his "unto Gaza" claim with the realities of the biblical text as they have been repeatedly explicated. At any rate, I have shown above one "overlap" in the lands first claimed as conquests and the lands listed as "not yet taken" in another text. Hence, I have shown that my opponent is wrong in claiming that there was no overlap.


My Opponent:
The description does not bring the conquests to the northern borders of the land grant. The grant went as far as the Euphrates River (Gen. 15:18), and Josh. 13:5 specifies as yet untaken, "And the land of the Giblites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baalgad under mount Hermon unto the entering into Hamath." From Baalgad unto the entering of Hamath, and all Lebanon, up to the Euphrates, is a portion of land that is farther north than what Goofy claims is the "northern borders" of the land grant.

I have just shown that Joshua 12:7 said that the Israelites defeated the kings from Baal-gad to the valley of Lebanon and Mount Hermon and took possession of them but that Joshua 13:5 lists these very names as places that remained to be possessed, so I will confine my remarks here to my opponent's incredible blunder in trying to prove that the Israelite conquest did not extend to the Euphrates River.

I agree with him, as I will show later, but in denying that the Israelite conquests extended as far north as the Euphrates River, he is simply confirming that an error was made in Joshua 21:43-45, which claimed that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised to their fathers. We have seen it before, but I want to put this text before our readers as I explicate this blunder of my opponent.


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.

So this text claims that the Israelites had taken possession of and dwelt in all the land that Yahweh had promised their fathers, but the borders of the land that Yahweh promised to the Israelites extended to the Euphrates River in the north.


Genesis 15:18 On the same day Yahweh made a covenant with Abram, saying: “To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates—19the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites."

Deuteronomy 1:6 “Yahweh our God spoke to us in Horeb, saying: ‘You have dwelt long enough at this mountain. 7 Turn and take your journey, and go to the mountains of the Amorites, to all the neighboring places in the plain, in the mountains and in the lowland, in the South and on the seacoast, to the land of the Canaanites and to Lebanon, as far as the great river, the River Euphrates. 8 See, I have set the land before you; go in and possess the land which Yahweh swore to your fathers—to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—to give to them and their descendants after them.’”

Joshua 1:3 Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given you, as I said to Moses. 4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the River Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your territory. 5No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life; as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave you nor forsake you.

My opponent seems so obsessed with trying to find a "gaffe" that I made that he can't seem to realize that he is taking positions that are irreparably damaging to his quest to prove that there are no inconsistencies or contradictions in the OT concerning Yahweh's land promise, for if, as he correctly says, the Israelites didn't conquer land all the way to the Euphrates River, he must explain why Joshua 21:43 said that they had taken possession of all the land that Yahweh had promised.

As for my position on the northern boundary of the land promise, I have always said that the Israelites never did possess land as far as the Euphrates River. I made that clear in my first-round rebuttals of my opponent's reply to my article "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" <http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1991/1>. In my rebuttals, I used my opponent's real name, so I will have to substitute ****** for it in order for this post to escape the wrath of the moderators.


The problem for ****** 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 (<http://www.theskepticalreview.com/landprom/4land.html>), emphasis added.

Now after emphasizing that “the role of people was that of a tenant,” he [my opponent] 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 (http://www.theskepticalreview.com/landprom/6land.html).

The same answer would explain why (1) some of the Canaanite nations were able to withstand the Israelite invasion when Yahweh's promise was that no man would be able to stand against them, (2) Yahweh would utterly destroy all of the nations in the land, yet some of these people were still in the land as late as the reign of Solomon, and (3) the land from the Red Sea to the River Euphrates and to the Great (Mediterranean) Sea would be given to the Israelites, yet their borders were never that extensive <http://www.theskepticalreview.com/landprom/where4.html>.

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, rent, occupy] 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 (http://www.theskepticalreview.com/landprom/where8.html).

When, then, did the Israelites occupy all of the land of Canaan from the Euphrates River to the river of Egypt up to the Mediterranean Sea? If Holding had any evidence that the Israelites had occupied this land, he would have cited it. Without the evidence, all he could do was assert that "(t)he descendants of Abraham did indeed exercise tenancy over the land as described" and hope that those who know no better would buy it <http://www.theskepticalreview.com/landprom/where16.html>.

So my position all along has been that the Israelites never possessed all the land of Canaan as far north as the Euphrates River. Two areas in particular pose insurmountable problems for anyone who tries to claim that Joshua 21:43-45 is historically accurate in that the Israelites possessed all the land within the borders defined in Yahweh's land promise. Those two areas are the Mediterranean coast and the northern area up to the Euphrates River.

My opponent's attempt to find a "gaffe" where I said that the descriptions of Joshua's conquests would be inclusive of all the land that Yahweh had promised seems to be based on this statement.


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.”

What my opponent apparently can't understand is that when skeptics like me quote or paraphrase the Bible, we don't mean for our readers to understand that we think that everything within the quotation really happened. For example, I have made frequent references to the land that Yahweh promised to Abraham's descendants, but surely when my opponent reads a statement like this, he doesn't think that I believe that Yahweh actually existed and made such a promise. I am simply writing accommodatively in order to spare myself the task of having to preface such statements as these with notices that I don't believe that any of this happened. It was certainly the writers' intention to convey that the Hebrew god had promised land to Abraham's descendants, so when I make references to the land that Yahweh promised, I am simply writing from the point of view of what the writers intended their readers to understand.

I do the same in referring to the conquests of Joshua. More and more biblical scholars are joining the camp of those who think that the book of Joshua is fictionalized history, and I share their opinions. Thus, when I speak of land that Joshua conquered, I don't intend for my readers to mean that I think he actually made these conquests. I am speaking from the point of view of what the writer(s) meant for their readers to understand.

Now if we examine the descriptions of the Israelite conquests in Joshua 10-12, we find that many places within the land area that Yahweh promised to Abraham and his descendants were not mentioned. Ashkelon and Gerar, for example, were not mentioned as places the Israelites conquered, and neither were Ashdod or Ekron, but on the basis of the places that were mentioned (Gaza, Eglon, Gezer, Heper, Dor, etc.), which were all located in the western coastal area and some of them (Heper, Gaza, and Dor) either on or adjacent to the coast, sensible readers will understand that the writer was claiming that the Israelite conquests had extended as far as the Great (Mediterranean) Sea. The same would apply to the places mentioned in the northern area of the Israelite conquests. Not every single place was mentioned. After all, my opponent should remember one of his own premises, i.e., a shortage of writing materials in those days required writers to leave out information. However, the long lists of place names from west to east and from south to north show that the writer's intention was to convey that the conquests had been inclusive of all the land Yahweh had promised the Israelites. What else can we conclude about the writer's intention when we see summary passages like those below, which concluded descriptions of conquests from south to north and west to east?


[i]Joshua 11:23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that Yahweh had spoken to Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal allotments. And the land had rest from war.

Joshua 21:43 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.

So if my opponent is so obsessed with finding a "gaffe" in my articles, I will gladly admit that while I was presenting what the writer(s) of Joshua intended readers to understand, I said something that wasn't literally true, even though the writer(s) apparently thought it was.

Now that he has that concession, let him explain to us when the Israelites ever possessed the land on the Mediterranean coast and land in northern Lebanon that extended to the Euphrates River. If he cannot show us that they ever possessed this land, then he must explain why Joshua 21:43 said that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised their fathers.

Space will not permit me to reply to the last part of my opponent's attempt to find a goofy gaffe in my rebuttals of his land-promise articles, so I will post this, wait until he posts some kind of reply, and then post a Part 4. Otherwise, I will be censored for posting two consecutive replies to him. Eventually, I will address all of his points.

[jpholding]

Looks like we finally get to Joshua 11, with some pain and strain. We'll skip the fluff and get to the main issue of overlap between Josh. 10, 11, and 13. Remembering the core claim:

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 Main 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.”

I declared this false as it did not overlap land mentioned in Josh. 13. I'm accused of skipping, but in my original reply I went sentence by sentence over that "larger context" and there was no overlap. Furthermore the argument now raised is not one that was made in Till's original articles, so I can hardly "skip" an argument not made. Since I am not worried about southern limits here, but northern ones, I will chop out references to southern reaches.

12:16...even unto Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon under mount Hermon: and all their kings he [Joshua] took, and smote them, and slew them.

Joshua 12:7 also listed areas from Mount Halak to Baal-gad and the valley of Lebanon "under Mount Hermon" as parts of all the land that Joshua took in his military campaign....the valley of Lebanon and mount Hermon were in the extreme northern limits. Hence, this passage was obviously saying that Joshua had taken all the land from the extreme southern part of Canaan to the extreme north....So now I'll juxtapose Joshua 13:2-5 to show that some of the very places that were listed as conquests in Joshua 10-12 were listed in Joshua 13 as places that had not yet been conquered.

“ Joshua 13:1b You [Joshua] are old, advanced in years, and there remains yet very much land to be possessed. This is the land that still remains... 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. I will myself drive them out from before the Israelites; only allot the land to Israel for an inheritance, as I have commanded you.”

So this is the effort. We're just going to try and find overlap with Baalgad. Well, if so, we have the same debate we have in the other place, Gaza: "unto" meaning, what? Into? Up to the point of? Same argument here, and it also doesn't do more than send Baalgad into his arms at best. But it doesn't, and it sure as heck doesn't grab up all the way to the Euphrates.

Notice that this "not yet taken" text listed in verse 5 all Lebanon as part of the land that remained to be possessed, but Joshua 12, which my opponent has omitted from his reply but which was quoted in my article, clearly said that Joshua's campaign had swept up into Lebanon as far as "the valley of Lebanon" at Mount Halak.

“ Joshua 12:7 The following are the kings of the land whom Joshua and the Israelites defeated on the west side of the Jordan, from Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, that rises toward Seir (and Joshua gave their land to the tribes of Israel as a possession according to their allotments....”

This is a bit muddled, as he first says "at Mount Halak" but Josh. 12:7 says TO Mount Halak, and the verbiage seems to say from his quote that "the valley of Lebanon" was AT Mt. Halak, which would not make sense because Seir is way down in the south. Either way it seems the only attempt at overlap is Baalgad itself, which rests on his dubious, inflexible interptretation of "unto" (versus mine, which is more flexible and respects the usage of the word both in the Bible AND in modern usage) as well as the fact that nowhere is Baalgad specified as moved against or captured. The mountain labored and brought forth a mouse -- only 999,999,999 square miles to go, all the way to the Euphrates. And in that light, we now have an amazing admission:

I agree with him, as I will show later, but in denying that the Israelite conquests extended as far north as the Euphrates River, he is simply confirming that an error was made in Joshua 21:43-45...

No, no -- hold it right there.

Joshua 21:43-45 is not the issue here and is a distraction in context.

In essence he as just ADMITTED that he now agrees with my position, AGAINST what he said earlier:

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.”

End of thread. He has confessed. Other than the dubious attempts to stretch an "unto" over Baalgad, he has just admitted that his earlier comment above was in error. That he cites the note from his first round rebuttal would only show that he was inconsistent when he made this statement above. I will not accept the rationalization that follows as a valid excuse -- it was admitted above that he cannot "honestly" remember aspects of the debate; yet he remembers THIS in detail? That is not credible. Nor is it credible to say it is like a place where he says, "Yahweh promised..." even though he does not believe Yahweh existed. Read it: He said, "These locations mean that Joshua 11 claimed.... End of story. This is not "writing accomodatively" because he said it was what the text CLAIMED. It is an error, plain and simple. He can attribute it to lack of concentration, his dog biting him while he was typing, the lights going out, Republican Guards, I don't care. The rationalizations ring hollow and he has admitted the largest error that this thread was started over.

The further attempt to refer to silence in the text is obfuscation in context. The issue is two delineations: Josh. 10 and 11 versus Josh. 13, not Josh. 10 and 11 versus a silence, and I have already remarked that "whole land" in 11:23 contextually refers only to the lands conquered in Josh. 11. Either way the gaffe has been admited, even though incredibly rationalized, and I consider this thread at an end unless Till wants to quibble some more over "unto" Gaza/Baalgad or over Jerusalem. I will discuss Josh. 21:43 in the future, and perhaps after our discussion in Gaffe Thread 2, if Till will stop using distractive techniques and adhere to the limitations specified, and not reach out for diversions in context. But as hard as it seems to be for him to just say, "I goofed" and leave it at that -- I wouldn't count on it.

[Richard Romano]

Today @ 01:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85257#post85257)
Farrell Till:



I wonder if Richard would like to reply to the arguments and questions pertaining to the land-promise issue that my opponent has been evading.



Dear Mr. Till,

Tell me, just what is it you attempt to prove if what you are proposing (re: land promise) is validated? I am interested in what drives you here. Do you actually believe, for example, that the Bible is falsified by demonstrating some possible errors in this area?

God bless you Mr. Till,

Richard Romano.

[Farrell Till]

05-03-2003 @ 01:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86262#post86262)
Richard Romano:

Till:
I wonder if Richard would like to reply to the arguments and questions pertaining to the land-promise issue that my opponent has been evading.

R. Romero:
Tell me, just what is it you attempt to prove if what you are proposing (re: land promise) is validated? I am interested in what drives you here. Do you actually believe, for example, that the Bible is falsified by demonstrating some possible errors in this area?

Biblical fundamentalists argue that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God. The most fervent of them argue that everything that the Bible says is completely without error in history, geography, science, etc. as well as in matters of faith and practice. This claim is often used as a basis for trying to make civil laws conform to their opinion of what the Bible teaches. My purpose is to show that their claim of biblical inerrancy is patently wrong. The land-promise matter is just one of many areas in which the Bible is errant. I will be glad to post other examples of biblical error if you want me to. Will you reply to these posts point by point if I take the time to identify other errors in the Bible?

Do I believe that the Bible is falsified by demonstrating error in the matter of the land promise? For the record, I will say that I believe that much information in the Bible is accurate, so demonstrating an error in X would not falsify all of the Bible, but it would demonstrate that the Bible is false in the matter of X. If the Bible is false in X, then it cannot be said that the Bible is inerrant.


God bless you Mr. Till,

Well, of course, I trust you understand that I see no reason at all to think that any god exists to bless me.

I had to spend yesterday in Central Iowa, and I returned to a problem of e-mail reception that I am trying to solve. I replied to your post because it was short, but I see that my opponent has posted two other evasions. I will try to answer them tomorrow.

[Richard Romano]

Today @ 01:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87739#post87739)
Farrell Till:

Well, of course, I trust you understand that I see no reason at all to think that any god exists to bless me.


Dear Mr. Till,

Thanks, but no thanks. I don't see us getting anywhere when you're attitude towards biblical things is so inimical. We know from the past many have tried to refute the Bible for some apparent contradiction...only until other evidences corroberated the particular difficulty.

Unless you have an open mind, then nothing will ever satisfy you...the task at refutation would be endless. I think that jp has handled you decisively on several occasions, so I see no need to argue further.

God bless you Mr. Till, I won't let your rejection of God affect the way I treat you...you have a right to an opinion and I respect the fact that you have chosen not to believe. But, I do believe and leave God's blessings with you...regardless if you accept that or not.

best,

Richard Romano.

[Farrell Till]

Farrelll Posts Fuddled
(post#113 )


Till:
My opponent continues to ignore a fact that has been posted several times. Joshua 12, which lists the king of Jerusalem, as one of the many kings that the Israelites defeated, begins with this statement:

My Opponent:
Gee. I didn't know occupying a land meant you had someone on every square inch of that land. Tell me, do you think that the city proper of Jerusalem was the ONLY land the king of Jerusalem had under his sway?

I keep pointing out to everyone that my opponent has a bad habit of just selectively quoting what he thinks he has answers for, so I will repost here what he omitted from my statement above. I can only assume that he omitted it in hopes that readers wouldn't remember what it said.


Joshua 12:1 Now these are the kings of the land, whom the Israelites defeated, whose land they occupied beyond the Jordan toward the east, from the Wadi Arnon to Mount Hermon, with all the Arabah eastward.

To this text, I could have also added the following, which I have at times included in other posts in this thread.


[i]Joshua 12:7-8 These are the kings of the country which Joshua and the children of Israel conquered on this side of the Jordan, on the west, from Baal Gad in the Valley of Lebanon as far as Mount Halak and the ascent to Seir, which Joshua gave to the tribes of Israel AS A POSSESSION according to their divisions.

As I will notice later, the obvious intention of these passages was to convey that Joshua's conquest had been extensive and inclusive of all the land within the areas specified, which had previously been controlled by the defeated kings, but first I will answer my opponent's question. Do I think that the city proper of Jerusalem was the ONLY land the king of Jerusalem had under his sway? No, of course not; the king of Jerusalem was a Jebusite, who undoubtedly controlled land that was outside of Jerusalem proper, because the Jebusites were one of the seven nations that Yahweh promised to drive out before the Israelites (Deut. 7:1; 20:17; Ex. 23:23; Joshua 3:10), so certainly the Jeubusites would have controlled more than just the city of Jerusalem. However, Joshua 12:1, quoted above, states that the children of Israel defeated the kings listed thereafter and occupied their land. Joshua 12:7, also quoted above, states that, Joshua gave the land of the conquered kings to the tribes of Israel as a possession. Joshua 10:1-5 listed Adonizedek, the king of Jerusalem, as one of the five kings whose armies allied themselves against the Israelites. Verses 7-14 described their complete rout from Gibeon to Azeka and Makkedah. The rest of the chapter describes the slaughter of the five kings and the people in their territories. Verse 39 says that the Israelites left "none remaining," and then the chapter concludes with the claim that Joshua conquered all the land in the hill country, the south, the lowland, the slopes and all their kings.

To argue that this meant that the Israelites conquered only some of the land of these kings would be a position contrary to the obvious intention of the writer in Joshua 10-12 to convey that the Israelites had conquered all of the land within the areas specified.


Joshua 10:40 40 So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left no one remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as Yahweh God of Israel commanded. 41 And Joshua defeated them from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, as far as Gibeon. 42 Joshua took all these kings and their land at one time, because Yahweh God of Israel fought for Israel.

Joshua 11:16 14 All the spoil of these towns, and the livestock, the Israelites took for their booty; but all the people they struck down with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, and they did not leave any who breathed. 15 As Yahweh had commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did; he left nothing undone of all that Yahweh had commanded Moses. 16 So Joshua took all that land: the hill country and all the Negeb and all the land of Goshen and the lowland and the Arabah and the hill country of Israel and its lowland, 17 from Mount Halak, which rises toward Seir, as far as Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon. He took all their kings, struck them down, and put them to death. 18 Joshua made war a long time with all those kings.

The writer repeatedly stated the thoroughness of the Israelite conquests to emphasize that all the land had been conquered and that the Israelites had killed all the inhabitants of these lands and left nothing alive to breathe, so how likely is it that he made an exception in the case of the king of Jerusalem? In fact, the king of Jerusalem was one of the five kings who hid in a cave and were later capured and hanged (Josh. 10:23).

Let's just take a run through the list of kings in Joshua 12 whose land "Joshua gave to the tribes of Israel as a possession" (v:7).

1. Did the Israelites take all the land of the king of Jericho or just some of it (v:9)?

2. Did the Israelites take all the land of the king of Ai or just some of it (v:9)?

3. Did the Israelites take all the land of the king of Jarmuth or just some of it (v:10)?

4. Did the Israelites take all the land of the king of Hebron or just some of it (v:12)?

5. Did the Israelites take all the land of the king of Lachish or just some of it (v:11)?

6. Did the Israelites take all the land of the king of Eglon or just some of it (v:12)?

7. Did the Israelites take all the land of the king of Debir or just some of it (v:13)?

8. Did the Israelites take all the land of the king of Libnah or just some of it (v:15)?

9. Did the Israelites take all the land of the king of Makkedah or just some of it (v:16)?

10. Did the Israelites take all the land of the king of Bethel or just some of it (v:16)?

11. Did the Israelites take all the land of the king of Madon or just some of it (v:19)?

12. Did the Israelites take all the land of the king of Hezon or just some of it (v:19)?

13. Did the Israelites take all the land of the king of Shimron-meon or just some of it (v:20)?

14. Did the Israelites take all the land of the king of Achshaph or just some of it (v:20)?

15. Did the Israelites take all the land of the king of Dor or just some of it (v:23)?

I can quote passages before Joshua 12, which show that all of the land of these kings was taken. I'll cite just one example and highlight the verses in Joshua 12 that name the kings also listed in the total routing described in the passage below. Other highlighted sections will describe the extent of Joshua's conquests.


Joshua 10:28 Joshua took Makkedah [12:16] on that day, and struck it and its king with the edge of the sword; he utterly destroyed every person in it; he left no one remaining. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho. 29 Then Joshua passed on from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, to Libnah [12:15], and fought against Libnah. 30 Yahweh gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel; and he struck it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left no one remaining in it; and he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. 31 Next Joshua passed on from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish [12:10,] and laid siege to it, and assaulted it. 32 Yahweh gave Lachish into the hand of Israel, and he took it on the second day, and struck it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah. 33 Then King Horam of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua struck him and his people, leaving him no survivors. 34 From Lachish Joshua passed on with all Israel to Eglon [12:12; and they laid siege to it, and assaulted it; 35 and they took it that day, and struck it with the edge of the sword; and every person in it he utterly destroyed that day, as he had done to Lachish.
36 Then Joshua went up with all Israel from Eglon to Hebron [12:10;] they assaulted it, 37 and took it, and struck it with the edge of the sword, and its king and its towns, and every person in it; he left no one remaining, just as he had done to Eglon, and utterly destroyed it with every person in it. 38 Then Joshua, with all Israel, turned back to Debir [12:13] and assaulted it, 39 and he took it with its king and all its towns; they struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person in it; he left no one remaining; just as he had done to Hebron, and, as he had done to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and its king. 40 So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left no one remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as Yahweh God of Israel commanded.

So now it is time to ask a couple of more questions.

1. Did the Israelites take all the land of the king of Jerusalem or just some of it (v:10)?

2. Was Jerusalem located in the "hill country"?


My Opponent:
But anyway:

Till:
Did the Israelites occupy the land of the kings of the land whom they defeated in this context?

My Opponent:
...you have my answer above. I think you can figure it out.

This was my opponent's answer "above."


Gee. I didn't know occupying a land meant you had someone on every square inch of that land.

Such quibbling as this has been typical of my opponent from the time that we began verbally sparring on the internet. I quoted the passage above--which was just one of many I could have quoted--to show that the writer's intention was to convey that the Israelites had completely routed the kings that joined forces against them. If these kings were utterly destroyed, as claimed in the text quoted above, and if the Israelites left none of the people alive to breathe and if the Israelites took all of their land, why would this not mean that the Israelites had captured all of the land previously controlled by these kings?

I predict that my opponent will skip over 90% of my rebuttals above and dismiss it as "fluff" that doesn't need to be answered.


Till:
so I would like to ask him again if he thinks that Miller committed a "goofy gaffe" when he analyzed this same chapter of Joshua and concluded that Jerusalem was captured during this military campaign of the Israelites.

My Opponent:
I rather don't see him saying that.[/b]

I will just quote again what Miller said about this (with emphasis added).

[quote]
Miller:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/noai.html
Chapter 10 of the book of Joshua tells of the battle with a coalition of kings of the Shephelah and the hill country--the kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Yarmut, Lachish, and Eglon. In the course of this battle Joshua conquers Makkedah, Libneh, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir, and at the conclusion of the tale, the conquest of wide areas is described: "the hill country, the Negeb, the Shephelah, and the slopes . . . from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza, all the land of Goshen, and up to Gibeon" (Jos. 10:40-41). The location of some of the towns (Makkedah, Libneh, and Eglon) is not established. The other towns may be identified with certainty, and among them, Jerusalem, Lachish, Hebron (Tell Rumeideh), and Debir (Khirbet Rabud in the southern Hebron hills) have been excavated.

Obviously, then, Miller counted Jerusalem among the cities that had been conquered during Joshua's campaign described in chapter 10, so it is time to repeat my question.

Does my opponent think that Miller committed a "goofy gaffe" when he analyzed this same chapter of Joshua and concluded that Jerusalem was captured during this military campaign of the Israelites?


Till:
The issue about the capture of Jerusalem is not a "new diversion,"

My Opponent:
That isn't. The rest of it was. You only had about 8-9 questions that had nothing to do with the specific territories in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlapping.

My opponent seems not to understand the biblical inerrancy issue. My intention in posting examples of biblical inerrancy is always, whether the issue is the land-promise question or something else, to show that biblical fundamentalists are patently wrong when they say that the Bible is inerrant. I find that my opponent in the land-promise matter is making the same mistake that is frequently made by would-be apologists. He, in this case, is trying to resolve a discrepancy by postulating a far-fetched explanation without giving any consideration at all to whether his "explanation" is consistent with the rest of the Bible. That is important, because an "apologist" has accomplished nothing if he posits an explanation that is inconsistent with other biblical texts.

That is exactly what has happened with my opponent's attempts to make rather clear passages not mean that Gaza and Jerusalem were captured during Joshua's southern campaign. Of course, his reason for denying the obvious meanings of the texts in question is that he wants to find a "gaffe" in my writing. In so doing, he has posited "explanations" that create other inconsistencies, for if Joshua did not conquer Gaza and Jerusalem, there is an error in Joshua 21:43-45, which clearly says that the Israelites received all the land that Yahweh had promised their fathers, and possessed it and dwelt in it. This is why the other "8-9 questions," which my opponent has repeatedly evaded, are relevant.

So I will just ask them again so that everyone can see my opponent evade them again.


Are the following statements true or false.

1. The Israelites received ALL the land Yahweh promised them, and they possessed it and dwelt in it.

2. Not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel.

3. All that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel came to pass.

4. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said that not a man of all their enemies would stand against them.

5. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said he would drive out the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Hivites, Hittites, and Jebusites.

So now it is time for yes or no questions.

1. Was any man of all the enemies of the Israelites able to stand against them?

2. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Canaanites?

3. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Jebusites?

4. Did everything that Yahweh had promised the Israelites come to pass?

I'm sure that reasonable people in this forum can see why my opponent keeps evading these questions. He wants to claim that Gaza and Jerusalem were not captured in the Joshua 10-12 campaigns (for no reason but to catch me in a "gaffe"), but Gaza and Jerusalem were both in the borders of land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River and from beyond the Salt [Dead] Sea to the Great (Mediterranean) Sea. Hence, if Jerusalem and Gaza were not captured and possessed, the writer of Joshua erred when he said that Yahweh gave to the Israelites all the land he had promised their fathers, and they possessed it and dwelt in it (Josh. 21:43-45).

If my opponent wants to keep quibbling and claim that I made a "gaffe" so that he can give himself a sense of satisfaction, he is welcome to do so, but after he has congratulated himself, he must explain the inconsistency in his "explanation" of the Gaza/Jerusalem problem and the claim that the Israelites possessed and dwelt in all the land Yahweh had promised their fathers.

I predict he will ignore this problem again.

As for the "overlap," I have shown that there were overlaps in the land conquered according to Joshua 10-12 and the land "not yet taken" in Joshua 13. My opponent has tried to quibble his way around this in another post, so I will be replying to that separately. Right now, he has his hands full trying to reconcile his claim that Gaza and Jerusalem were not taken in Joshua 10-12 with Joshua 21:43-45, which says that the Israelites possessed and dwelt in all the land that Yahweh had promised their fathers.


Till:
We have here another example of how my opponent will resort to ad hominem attacks to divert attention from his inability to answer an argument.

My Opponent:
He's NOT your son? :poke:

No further comment is necessary, because such comments as this show that my opponent will try to hide his evasions behind sarcasm and insults.


Oh. Gaffe thread #2 goes up soon. If you really are in a better mood, I expect you to behave yourself better. If not the gloves go back on for a while.

It appears that my opponent will be trying to shift the subject away from the first alleged "gaffe" that in failing to sustain, he created the inconsistency with Joshua 21:43-45.

The longer this goes, the more he confirms my claim that his stock in trade is evasion, which he tries to hide beneath tirades of sarcasm and insults. It is regrettable that some are taken in by it.

[jpholding]

Once again FTill plays the same game of posting distractions to keep from facing up to his gaffes. I have now moved primary attention to Gaffe Thread 2:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3938

As for the rest:

I keep pointing out to everyone that my opponent has a bad habit of just selectively quoting what he thinks he has answers for, so I will repost here what he omitted from my statement above.

None of which had one iota of effect on his answer or mine. I said: I didn't know occupying a land meant you had someone on every square inch of that land. Tell me, do you think that the city proper of Jerusalem was the ONLY land the king of Jerusalem had under his sway? The "restored" text answers none of this and solves no problem for FTill. It is just a load of bravado meant to gull his own choir into thinking something was done to rob him of dignity. Thus he posts Josh. 12:7-8, highlighting the words "conquered" and "gave to the tribes of Israel as a possession," not one word of which offers any answer to what I have said. Conquering and giving the land as a possession does not make the people in Jerusalem just walk out with their hands in the air. He admits that the king "undoubtedly controlled land that was outside of Jerusalem proper" -- then repeats his same old tired chants, "...Joshua 12:1, quoted above, states that the children of Israel defeated the kings listed thereafter and occupied their land. Joshua 12:7, also quoted above, states that, Joshua gave the land of the conquered kings to the tribes of Israel as a possession. Joshua 10:1-5 listed Adonizedek, the king of Jerusalem, as one of the five kings whose armies allied themselves against the Israelites." Well, which of these actions causes the people left in Jerusalem to be defeated and expelled from their city? As I asked, does he think occupation meany every square inch was stepped on by an Israelite soldier? Does he think that when news of Joshua's giving of possession reached the city, everyone would just get up and leave? No, sorry, it doesn't. And thus nothing was ommitted which hurt his case. As usual, it's all bravado.

The closest he gets to making any such point worth a hoot is when he quotes Josh. 10:40:

So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left no one remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as Yahweh God of Israel commanded.

Well, news flash, but that's obviously contextually related to the persons and cities attacked, and once again, Jerusalem is conspicuous by its absence from the list of cities attacked in Joshua 10 and 11. He keeps missing the same points over and over, which is a bad sign of concentration, or else a good sign of subversive manipulation. Jericho, Ai, Lachish, and Eglon are specifically listed as captured. Jerusalem is not. Other cities are not either, but no report of their fate is given while the fate of Jerusalem IS clearly reported. No matter how hard he tries, no matter how many lists of questions he makes for effect, the fact is that he can't wrest contradiction into a place where no specifics are given. To refer to my point about occupying every square inch "quibbling" is merely a cover for the admission that it plainly does NOT mean that. Occupation of a territory does not imply that you have every inch covered. Period. There are holdouts. There are desperate people who barricade themselves in buildings, cities, rooms. That's why there is such a thing as "urban warfare". FTill's fundamentalist "all or nothing" approach creates a false dilemma that ignores the realities of warfare. I can also ask if the “Israelites left none of the people alive to breathe” means that when you killed the king of a city, everyone behind the walls of the city died of respiratory failure. No, the context is clearly those who were on the attack and attacked -- not people left behind in cities who were not in on the battle at hand.

Miller’s quote is a diversion but once again, says zero about Jerusalem being conquered. It says the king was warred with, and that Jerusalem is one town that has been identified archaeologically. It says zip about it being conquered. FTill needs to stop listening to Stevie (PWS) Carr; otherwise he adds another sub-gaffe to his record.

FTill provides a long-winded excuse for posting all of his off-topic, diversionary questions which is no excuse at all. He wants to create diversions to confuse the issue. This has been his tactic every day for the past 30 years and it will not be tolerated. Josh. 21:43-5 has zero to do with overlap between Josh. 10, 11 and 13. It will discussed in proper order and if FTill wants to get to it, he can move to Gaffe thread 2, which is where I expose his inadequate replies to my base agruments. Note that of he proves me wrong there, my whole case collapses and we do not even need to talk about Josh. 21:43-5. If he has a sincere interest and is not just wasting time, he should be happy to keep the topic narrow and defeat me (chuckle, chuckle) at the base of my argument. Yes, I will ignore it again because we do not submit to such blatant manipulation tactics.

He’d better hurry, because Gaffe Thread 3 goes up on Friday. :smile:

[Farrell Till]

05-03-2003 @ 12:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=8575
2#post85752)
jpholding:

Looks like we finally get to Joshua 11, with some pain and strain. We'll skip the fluff and get to the main issue of overlap between Josh. 10, 11, and 13. Remembering the core claim:

When my opponent says that he is going to "skip the fluff," he means that he can't reply to what he is skipping without looking foolish, so he declares it "fluff" and hopes that no one will notice the relevance of what he is dodging.

I will periodically reinsert material that my opponent skipped so that readers can see that he is evading rebuttals that are decisively relative to the issue we are debating.


Till:
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 Main 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.”

My Opponent:
I declared this false as it did not overlap land mentioned in Josh. 13. I'm accused of skipping, but in my original reply I went sentence by sentence over that &quot;larger context&quot; and there was no overlap.

Well, anyone can check my article at http://www.theskepticalreview.com/landprom/5land.html and see that my opponent obviously did not go sentence by sentence over the larger context of my rebuttal argument, but all that one needs to do is read what my opponent snipped to see that I very clearly showed that some of the "not-yet-taken" land in Joshua 13 was the same as some of the land specifically mentioned as conquered land in Joshua 10-12. I will reinsert that part so that my opponent can skip it again.


My Opponent:
It is here that Goofy tries to fudge his way out of an embarrassing geographical gaffe:

Till:
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 Main 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.”

My Opponent:
This is false. None of the indicated territory overlaps with that specified as "not yet taken" in Joshua 13.

Till:
Oh, it doesn't? Well, let's just see. First, I'll have to point out that my opponent is "spot quoting" again. The section that he quoted above came from a larger context that I quoted in which some of the very places that Joshua 12 said had not yet been taken were identified as places that the Israelites had conquered. A juxtaposition of the passages that my opponent skipped with parallels in Joshua 13 will show that my opponent has put his foot into his mouth again. In the context from which my opponent cut and pasted the passage above, for example, I quoted Joshua 11:16-17.

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; 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 [Joshua] took, and smote them, and slew them.

Mount Halak was in the extreme southern limits of Joshua's invasion of Canaan, and the valley of Lebanon and mount Hermon were in the extreme northern limits. Hence, this passage was obviously saying that Joshua had taken all the land from the extreme southern part of Canaan to the extreme north. It was sort of like the expression "from Dan to Beersheeba," which was often used in the OT to convey the idea of all the land of Israel, since Dan was in the extreme north and Beersheeba the extreme south. So now I'll juxtapose Joshua 13:2-5 to show that some of the very places that were listed as conquests in Joshua 10-12 were listed in Joshua 13 as places that had not yet been conquered.

Joshua 13:1b You [Joshua] are old, advanced in years, and there remains yet very much land to be possessed. This is the land that still remains... 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. I will myself drive them out from before the Israelites; only allot the land to Israel for an inheritance, as I have commanded you.

Notice that this "not-yet-taken" text listed in verse 5 all Lebanon as part of the land that remained to be possessed, but Joshua 12, which my opponent has omitted from his reply but which was quoted in my article, clearly said that Joshua's campaign had swept up into Lebanon as far as "the valley of Lebanon" at Mount Halak.

Joshua 12:7 The following are the kings of the land whom Joshua and the Israelites defeated on the west side of the Jordan, from Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, that rises toward Seir (and Joshua gave their land to the tribes of Israel as a possession according to their allotments....

So this text says that the Israelites defeated kings on the west side of the Jordan from Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, but the "not yet taken" text in the very next chapter said that all Lebanon, toward the east, from Baal-gad below Mount Hermon had not yet been taken. Hence, my opponent is not only wrong in saying that there was no "overlap" in the lands mentioned in Joshua's conquests and the lands listed as those that had not yet been taken, but he is confronted with another P and ~P statement.

P: Joshua smote the kings from Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon even unto Mount Halak and gave it as a possession to the Israelites (Josh. 12:7).

~ P: All Lebanon from Baal-gad under Mount Hermon to the entrance of Hamath remained to be possessed.

There is a clear "overlap" here and a P and ~P problem for my opponent to solve.

I have also shown that Joshua 10:41 requires the understanding that Joshua captured Gaza in his southern campaign, which would make the land of the "Gazites" in Joshua 13:2-3, listed as territory yet to be possessed, but my opponent is still wrestling to harmonize his "unto Gaza" claim with the realities of the biblical text as they have been repeatedly explicated. At any rate, I have shown above one "overlap" in the lands first claimed as conquests and the lands listed as "not yet taken" in another text. Hence, I have shown that my opponent is wrong in claiming that there was no overlap.

I will now ask my opponent to tell us why the two land areas below do not "overlap." First, the land that was conquered in Joshua 12:7 included...

(F)rom Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, that rises toward Seir....

Then the land that had not yet been taken in Joshua 13...

(A)nd all Lebanon, toward the east, from Baal-gad below Mount Hermon to Lebo-hamath...

The one verse says that Baal-gad and land in the valley of Lebanon had been captured, whereas the "not-yet-taken" said that all Lebanon from below Mount Hermon remained to be possessed. That isn't an overlapping? If not, why not?

For some reason, my opponent is claiming that Joshua 12 can't be considered, even though it is a chapter that detailed the capture of land. To eliminate this quibble, I will just substitute Joshua 11:16-17 for the passage from chapter 12.

Here is land that was captured according to Joshua 11. Notice the places that are highlighted.


16 So Joshua took all that land: the hill country and all the Negeb and all the land of Goshen and the lowland and the Arabah and the hill country of Israel and its lowland, 17 from Mount Halak, which rises toward Seir, as far as Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon. He took all their kings, struck them down, and put them to death.

Now let's juxtapose the highlighted section of verse 17 with highlighted sections of the "not-yet-taken" text in chapter 13.

Land that was taken in 11:17: "(F)rom Mount Halak, which rises toward Seir, as far as Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon."

Land that remained to be possessed in 13:5: " (A)ll Lebanon, toward the east, from Baal-gad below Mount Hermon."

Is my opponent actually going to argue that land "as far as Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon" would not "overlap" land in "all Lebanon from Baal-gad below Mount Hermon"? If he still contends that there is no overlapping here, I will have to question his honesty.

So that he won't have an excuse to cut "fluff," I'm going to post this by itself and reply to the rest of his quibbles separately. There is only one issue in this post. Did land "as far as Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon" overlap land in "all Lebanon from Baal-gad below Mount Hermon"?

Yes or no?

Let's see if he will answer an argument. Of course, I will have to wait until he "answers" this before I can continue my reply to the rest of his post. I could use his tactic and just declare it "fluff" and let it go, but that isn't my style.

[Farrell Till]

My Opponent:

Once again FTill plays the same game of posting distractions to keep from facing up to his gaffes. I have now moved primary attention to Gaffe Thread 2:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sh...=&threadid=3938

My opponent started the "gaffe" threads by claiming that I had erred in saying that he had switched horses in our land-promise debate by first saying that the promise was conditional but later saying that the "giving" part of the promise was unconditional but the "keeping" part was conditional. He claimed that his position from the very beginning was that the promise was unconditional, and so I had misrepresented him. In reply to this, I posted the following quotation from his very first article on the subject.


My Opponent:
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.

I have lost count of the number of times I have asked him why he said this in his very first article if indeed his position from the beginning was that the land promise was unconditional, but he has repeatedly refused to answer this question. After having evaded this umpteen times, he started "Farrell's Goofy Gaffe" thread to divert attention from his inability to show where I had gaffed in the matter above. Now after apparently becoming tired of being embarrassed by his inability to reply to my rebuttals in his claim of a "Goofy Gaffe #1," my opponent has posted a second one. He doesn't answer my rebuttals, but I guess he expects me to answer his. I will gladly reply to his "Gaffe #2" when he answers the following rebuttals that he has repeatedly evaded in the other "gaffe" threads.


Till:
I am the one who has kept track of who said what and when. If as you claimed, in your switch of positions, that the giving of the land was unconditional, then that would have necessarily made the retention part unconditional too, because Genesis 17:8 attached an “everlasting” provision to the giving part.

“Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

However, you have failed miserably to show that the “everlasting possession” factor was fulfilled, because, as I showed in my rebuttals of your article, the Israelites never at any time received all of the land within the clearly defined borders in the original promise.

Genesis 15:18 On the same day Yahweh made a covenant with Abram, saying: “To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates—19 the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

Exodus 23:31 And I will set your bounds from the Red Sea to the sea, Philistia, and from the desert to the River. For I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you.

Deuteronomy 1:6 “Yahweh our God spoke to us in Horeb, saying: ‘You have dwelt long enough at this mountain. 7 Turn and take your journey, and go to the mountains of the Amorites, to all the neighboring places in the plain, in the mountains and in the lowland, in the South and on the seacoast, to the land of the Canaanites and to Lebanon, as far as the great river, the River Euphrates. 8 See, I have set the land before you; go in and possess the land which Yahweh swore to your fathers—to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—to give to them and their descendants after them.’”

Joshua 1:3 Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given you, as I said to Moses. 4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the River Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your territory. 5 No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life; as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave you nor forsake you.

I repeatedly challenged you to show where and when the Israelites ever possessed all the land within these borders, and you couldn’t do it. You quibbled that they didn’t possess all of the land because only the giving part was unconditional, but I showed that that was clearly not so. The promise was made because of Abraham’s fidelity (Gen. 26:4-5), and this statement was made to Isaac after Abraham was dead, so if at that time, the land promise was made because of Abraham’s fidelity, the conditions were sealed forever.

Genesis 17:8 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8 Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

Genesis 22:15 Then the Angel of Yahweh called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, 16 and said: “By Myself I have sworn, says Yahweh, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son—17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. 18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

Genesis 26:3 Dwell in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. 4 And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.”

A complete explication of these texts can be found in Part 9 <http://www.theskepticalreview.com/landprom/where9.html> of my second round land-promise rebuttals. The 24K limit will allow me only to summarize what I said. The original land promise consisted of two parts. The first part was an unconditional promise that the land would be given to Abraham's descendants because of Abraham‘s fidelity. The second part was that it would be given to them as an everlasting possession. Because of the dual nature of the promise, you cannot argue that the Israelites rode into the promised land on Abraham's coattails as an "act of unmerited grace" but that keeping the land after this was conditional to their behavior, because just as the promise to give Abraham's descendants the land was unconditional so was the promise to give the land to them as an everlasting possession. Actually, we can say that there was also a third part to the promise: the land promised to Abraham's seed, because of his fidelity, would be contained within defined borders from the River of Egypt to Lebanon and from the River Euphrates to the Great Sea [Mediterranean]. So you need to explain why number 1 was unconditional so that the Israelites could ride into Canaan on Abraham's coattails, but numbers 2 and 3 were conditional to the behavior of the Israelites after they had gotten their free ride into Canaan. If Abraham's fidelity made part 1 [the giving] unconditional, then the same fidelity would have made parts 2 and 3 of the promise unconditional. If not, why not?

You won't forget to answer that last question, will you?

Needless to say, my opponent did "forget" to answer that question as well as the others asked in this quoted section, so I will ask them again.

1. If Yahweh's land promise was made to Abraham because of his fidelity and renewed to Isaac after Abraham was dead, then how could the promise have been conditional to the behavior of Abraham's descendants?

2. If Yahweh promised the land to Abraham's descendants, because of Abraham's fidelity, as an everlasting possession, then how could the keeping of the land have been conditional?

3. When did the Israelites ever possess all of the land within the boundaries defined in the passages quoted above?

These questions and rebuttals my opponent has ignored so many times I wouldn't even try to estimate the number of his evasions.

He has also refused to answer my P and ~ P argument.


Till in first round:
First, the Israelites were given all the land and everything Yahweh had promised them, and then [it said that] they were not given all of the land. X and not X cannot both be true.

My Opponent in second round:
We have shown that the formula is not "X" versus "not X", but "X plus Y" (giving land plus fulfilling conditions) versus "X plus Z" (giving land plus not fulfilling conditions).

Till:
My opponent has shown no such thing. He can't even recognize the difference in apples and oranges. When I say that the Bible says X and not X (or P and ~P), I'm not talking about what was said in the original land promise but what the books of Joshua and Judges said about the fulfillment of the promise. First, Joshua claimed that the Israelites had been given [b]all the land that Yahweh had promised.

[i]Joshua 21:43 So Yahweh gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and DWELT in it. 44 Yahweh gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand. 45 Not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.

This passage is clear enough that even My opponent should be able to understand it. The passage flatly says that Yahweh had given to Israel all the land that he had sworn to their fathers to give to them.and that they took possession of it and DWELT in it. It even explicitly says that "not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel." It then went on to say that "all came to pass."

Yet we read something entirely different in another passage.

Joshua 13:1 Now Joshua was old, advanced in years. And Yahweh said to him: "You are old, advanced in years, and there remains very much land yet to be possessed...."

My opponent will probably try to argue that the statement in Joshua 13:1 was made before the one in Joshua 21, and so at the time of Joshua 13, the Israelites had not taken all of the land but had done so in Joshua 21. Notice, however, that 13:1 was said when Joshua was "old, advanced in years." What we have, then, is a typical problem of inconsistencies that resulted from the patchwork method that was used in putting the hexateuch together from different documents and/or traditions. That this is the explanation for why a text about Joshua's "advanced" years would have preceded one about his earlier years is evident from a statement in chapter 21. The chapters following Joshua 13 recorded the dividing of the land among the tribes, and it was in this context that the claim was made that "Yahweh gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers," but after two more chapters that described the division of the land, this statement was made about Joshua's age.

Joshua 23:1 Now it came to pass, a long time after Yahweh had given rest to Israel from all their enemies round about, that Joshua was old, advanced in age. 2 And Joshua called for all Israel, for their elders, for their heads, for their judges, and for their officers, and said to them: "I am old, advanced in age...."

The text in Joshua 21, which said that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had sworn to their father to give to them, also said that "Yahweh gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers" (v:44), so after the time that it was claimed that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised them, it was said two chapters later that "a long time after Yahweh had given rest to Israel" Joshua was "old, advanced in age," so at the time of the claim in Joshua 21:43 that Yahweh had given all the land promised to the Israelites, Joshua was younger but later became old and advanced in years. Hence, the reference in 13:1 to the "much land" that remained to be possessed could not have chronologically preceded the claim in 21:43 that all of the land promised had been given to the Israelites, because in 13:1 Joshua was old and advanced in age, but in 21:43, he wasn't yet old and advanced in years but became so "a long time after" this. In 21:43, however, before Joshua was old and advanced in years, it was said that Yahweh gave to the Israelites all the land he had promised to their fathers and that they possessed it and DWELT in it.

Clearly, then, we have a case of X and not X (or P and ~P), because one text says X (Yahweh gave the Israelites all the land he had promised them) but another text says not X (Yahweh did not give the Israelites all the land he had promised them). So this is not a matter of X (giving the land) plus Y (keeping the land), as my opponent is trying to claim, but both X and not X (P and ~P) pertain to the giving of the land and not to the keeping of it. One text says that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised, and that they possessed it and dwelt in it, and the other text says that all the land had not been given to the Israelites. This is a clear case of X and not X (P and ~P), so my opponent has not explained this contradiction.

In case my opponent still wants to quibble that Joshua 13 1 (the not X text) was written before 21:43 (the X text), I will point out that even if he could establish this, he would still have the same X and not X problem, because the book of Judges claimed that the Israelites could not take all of the land.

Judges 1:19 And Yahweh was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron.

Furthermore, Joshua 21:44 said that "there stood not a man of all their enemies before them," and the next verse says that "not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel" but that "all came to pass." One of the good things that Yahweh promised was that the Israelites would drive out all the nations in Canaan (Deut. 7:1-2; 9:20-24), but Judges is filled with examples of where the Israelites had been unable to drive out the original inhabitants of the land.

Joshua 15:63 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 to this day.

Judges 1:21 But the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who inhabited Jerusalem; so the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day.

Judges 1:27 However, 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; for the Canaanites were determined to dwell in that land.

Judges 3:1-3 Now these are the nations which Yahweh left, that He might test Israel by them, that is, all who had not known any of the wars in Canaan 2 (this was only so that the generations of the children of Israel might be taught to know war, at least those who had not formerly known it), 3namely, five lords of the Philistines, all the Canaanites, the Sidonians, and the Hivites who dwelt in Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal Hermon to the entrance of Hamath. 4 And they were left, that He might test Israel by them, to know whether they would obey the commandments of Yahweh, which He had commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses.

We see a lot of retrospective rationalization in the last passage, but these texts clearly contradict Joshua 21:43ff, which claimed that everything Yahweh had promised to the Israelites had been fulfilled at that time, but one of Yahweh's promises was that he would drive out all of the nations in Canaan and that not a man would be able to stand against them. Judges 3:1-3 claims that this didn't happen. Some nations did stand against the Israelites.

This too becomes an X and not X problem that my opponent must solve to resolve the inconsistency problem. He does not solve it by saying that it was a matter of X [getting the land] plus Y [keeping the land], because the scriptures cited above all pertained to getting the land. Some texts say X [the Israelites got all the land promised to them and dwelt in it], but other texts say not X [the Israelites did not get all the land promised to them].

The P and ~P problem has posed certain questions that I have repeatedly asked my opponent, and all he has done is dismiss them as irrelevant to the discussion, so I will ask them again. If he wants me to reply to his "Goofy Gaffe #2," I will gladly do so, but he must first reply to my rebuttals that he has repeatedly evaded.

The P and ~P problem explained above makes the questions below, which my opponent has yet to answer, very relevant to the land-promise issue.


Are the following statements true or false?

1. The Israelites received ALL the land Yahweh promised them, and they possessed it and dwelt in it.

2. Not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel.

3. All that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel came to pass.

4. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said that not a man of all their enemies would stand against them.

5. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said he would drive out the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Hivites, Hittites, and Jebusites.

Now it is time for yes or no questions.

1. Was any man of all the enemies of the Israelites able to stand against them?

2. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Canaanites?

3. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Jebusites?

4. Did everything that Yahweh had promised the Israelites come to pass?

If my opponent wants me to reply to his "Goofy Gaffe #2," I will gladly do so, but first he must demonstrate his willingness to debate by answering the rebuttals and questions above that he has so far evaded in a thread that he himself started.

Post Length Considerations

The maximum post length is 24K characters. Please keep the points concise. Please limit the number of major points made in a debate/discussion to 1 or 2 per post max as this encourages discourse. Rebuttal posts get undesirably lengthy when addressing many points. Additionally, please allow the other person to respond to your post before making additional substantive posts and points directed towards that person. Multiple posts back-to-back responses to a single poster is not allowed. There are progress bars below the reply boxes to assist you. When making a reply or referring to multiple replies please make use of the Link, Quote and Multi-Quote features. Breaking of posts or multiple posts to post an article is not allowed, if you wish to post an article or such that will exceed the post limit please contact a moderator to get your article posted in the appropriate Bulletin Board section where you may then make a link to in the thread you wish to create for discussion regarding the article. Discussion will not take place in the Bulletin Board sections only articles are posted there. Discussion will take place in the proper forum for the context of the article. If you need assistance with this please do not hesitate to contact a moderator or administrator about this.

[jpholding]

Once again FTill can't seem to stick to the issues of overlap between Josh. 10, 11 and 13 and has to insert mountains of fluff, diversions, and off topic paraphenalia. We will ignore all the usual fluff and repetition and get straight to the points that actually raise something germane to the point:

I will now ask my opponent to tell us why the two land areas below do not "overlap." First, the land that was conquered in Joshua 12:7 included...

(F)rom Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, that rises toward Seir....

Then the land that had not yet been taken in Joshua 13...

(A)nd all Lebanon, toward the east, from Baal-gad below Mount Hermon to Lebo-hamath...

The one verse says that Baal-gad and land in the valley of Lebanon had been captured, whereas the "not-yet-taken" said that all Lebanon from below Mount Hermon remained to be possessed. That isn't an overlapping? If not, why not?

Um, well, aside from the alleged overlap of Baalgad, where exactly is the overlap? My Bible atlas tells me that the valley of Lebanon's south terminus is at Mt. Hermon. Baalgad was at the foot of Mt. Hermon. So the only overlap if any exists is Baalgad, and we're still quibbling over whether "unto" (or "as far as" or "from") X city MUST mean "inside" that city. In other words, it's the same old argument restated in new terms.

FTill once again violates the rules with multiple posts. As already noted he should move himself to Gaffe thread 2 if he wants those questions answered, because my reply to them is rooted in issues discussed there. If I am wrong in Gaffe Thread 2, then he won't even need to ask the questions. Once again it is obvious that he is evading.

[Farrell Till]

My Opponent:
Message to all:

It's time for a reminder of what this thread was started for, and to show that MFPB is playing his usual game of obfuscation and manipulation by repeatedly posting the same irrelevant questions.

My opponent is claiming that I committed a “gaffe” by accusing him of having switched horses after the land-promise debate began. I have rebutted this “gaffe” claim so many times that I wouldn’t even try to estimate them now. I have asked him to explain why he made the following statement if indeed his position “from the beginning” of the debate was that the promise was unconditional.


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.

Every time I have asked him to reconcile this statement with his claim that his position from the beginning was that the land promise was unconditional, he has refused to answer it, yet he has the gall to accuse me of playing my “usual game of obfuscation.”

Now let’s suppose that I did misrepresent my opponent and that his position from the beginning was that the land promise was conditional? That is not the case, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that it was. How would that explain the numerous inconsistencies that I have identified in the various land-promise texts? How would it, for example, explain the P and ~P problem that I have surely posted a dozen times now?


Till in first round
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.

My Opponent in second round
We have shown that the formula is not "X" versus "not X", but "X plus Y" (giving land plus fulfilling conditions) versus "X plus Z" (giving land plus not fulfilling conditions).

Till
My opponent has shown no such thing. He can't even recognize the difference in apples and oranges. When I say that the Bible says X and not X (or P and ~P), I'm not talking about what was said in the original land promise but what the books of Joshua and Judges said about the fulfillment of the promise. First, Joshua claimed that the Israelites had been given [b]all the land that Yahweh had promised.

[i]Joshua 2143 So Yahweh gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and DWELT in it. 44 Yahweh gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand. 45 Not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.

This passage is clear enough that even My opponent should be able to understand it. The passage flatly says that Yahweh had given to Israel all the land that he had sworn to their fathers to give to them.and that they took possession of it and DWELT in it. It even explicitly says that "not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel." It then went on to say that "all came to pass."

Yet we read something entirely different in another passage.

Joshua 131 Now Joshua was old, advanced in years. And Yahweh said to him "You are old, advanced in years, and there remains very much land yet to be possessed...."

My opponent will probably try to argue that the statement in Joshua 131 was made before the one in Joshua 21, and so at the time of Joshua 13, the Israelites had not taken all of the land but had done so in Joshua 21. Notice, however, that 131 was said when Joshua was "old, advanced in years." What we have, then, is a typical problem of inconsistencies that resulted from the patchwork method that was used in putting the hexateuch together from different documents and/or traditions. That this is the explanation for why a text about Joshua's "advanced" years would have preceded one about his earlier years is evident from a statement in chapter 21. The chapters following Joshua 13 recorded the dividing of the land among the tribes, and it was in this context that the claim was made that "Yahweh gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers," but after two more chapters that described the division of the land, this statement was made about Joshua's age.

Joshua 231 Now it came to pass, a long time after Yahweh had given rest to Israel from all their enemies round about, that Joshua was old, advanced in age. 2 And Joshua called for all Israel, for their elders, for their heads, for their judges, and for their officers, and said to them "I am old, advanced in age...."

The text in Joshua 21, which said that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had sworn to their father to give to them, also said that "Yahweh gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers" (v44), so after the time that it was claimed that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised them, it was said two chapters later that "a long time after Yahweh had given rest to Israel" Joshua was "old, advanced in age," so at the time of the claim in Joshua 2143 that Yahweh had given all the land promised to the Israelites, Joshua was younger but later became old and advanced in years. Hence, the reference in 131 to the "much land" that remained to be possessed could not have chronologically preceded the claim in 2143 that all of the land promised had been given to the Israelites, because in 131 Joshua was old and advanced in age, but in 2143, he wasn't yet old and advanced in years but became so "a long time after" this. In 2143, however, before Joshua was old and advanced in years, it was said that Yahweh gave to the Israelites all the land he had promised to their fathers and that they possessed it and DWELT in it.

Clearly, then, we have a case of X and not X (or P and ~P), because one text says X (Yahweh gave the Israelites all the land he had promised them) but another text says not X (Yahweh did not give the Israelites all the land he had promised them). So this is not a matter of X (giving the land) plus Y (keeping the land), as my opponent is trying to claim, but both X and not X (P and ~P) pertain to the giving of the land and not to the keeping of it. One text says that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised, and that they possessed it and dwelt in it, and the other text says that all the land had not been given to the Israelites. This is a clear case of X and not X (P and ~P), so my opponent has not explained this contradiction.

There was much more to my original rebuttal argument, but I have abbreviated it so that my opponent can’t accuse me of posting “fluff.” If I post too much at one time, my opponent will accuse me of “fluff and excess verbiage,” so I am going to post just this one rebuttal argument and ask my opponent to explain why his arguing from the beginning--as he falsely claims--that the land promise was unconditional would explain the P and ~P contradiction explicated above.

His argument seems to be this: Till wrongly accused me of saying that the land promise made to Abraham was conditional; therefore, his P and ~P argument must be false.


It's his way of avoiding the main subject and getting out of answering for a huge error that he doesn't want to admit to.

As I just noted above, even if I did made “a huge error” by wrongly representing his position on the conditionality of the land promise, how would that explain any of the inconsistencies and contradictions I have identified in the various land-promise texts? If he will agree to reply to my rebuttals that he has evaded, I will cheerfully give him the satisfaction of hearing me say that I made the “huge error” he has accused me of. I would gladly lie to try to get him to debate.

He can begin by replying to my P and ~ P rebuttal above.

NOTE: Once again the censors have come to my opponent's rescue by not allowing my answer (#122) to one of his posts. Bless their hearts; they are trying to spare him as much embarrassment as possible, but I am not going to go away. I will wait until he posts something here, and then I will repost my censored reply so that I will not have <gasp> two consecutive posts.

[Farrell Till]

05-05-2003 @ 01:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87939#post87939)
Richard Romano:

Farrell Till:

Well, of course, I trust you understand that I see no reason at all to think that any god exists to bless me.

Romano:
Dear Mr. Till,

Thanks, but no thanks. I don't see us getting anywhere when you're [sic] attitude towards biblical things is so inimical.

Of course, your attitude toward the possibility that the Bible is errant, isn't inimical, is it? I will repeat something that I posted elsewhere. I attended two Bible colleges and spent 12 years as a fundamentalist preacher and foreign missionary. I was an adamant believer in biblical inerrancy, but when I saw clear evidence that I had been falsely indoctrinated, I renounced that belief and resigned from my profession. This part of my life shows that I have a willingness to abandoned deeply held emotional beliefs when I see evidence that those beliefs are wrong.

What can you point to in your life that would show that you have a comparable willingness?


We know from the past many have tried to refute the Bible for some apparent contradiction...only until other evidences corroberated the particular difficulty.

If I begin a new thread with a post that gives detailed evidence of a biblical discrepancy, will you agree to reply to it point by point? If you will agree to do this, I will take the time to post it, but if you are just going to ignore it or dismiss it as "fluff," I see no need to take the time to post it. Enough evasion is taking place here already.


Unless you have an open mind, then nothing will ever satisfy you...the task at refutation would be endless.

Of course, your mind is open, isn't it? I just posted above evidence that I have a willingness to abandon deeply held beliefs when I see good reasons to think that those beliefs are wrong. One has to have an open mind to consider even the possibility that what he was religiously indoctrinated in his childhood is wrong. I have demonstrated that I have that willingness.

What can you point to that would indicate that you have the same willingness?


I think that jp has handled you decisively on several occasions, so I see no need to argue further.

Well, this gives me an idea of just how open your mind is. Anyone who can read the exchanges between my opponent and me and then say that he has handled me "decisively" does not have an open mind. I'll make an offer to you that I made to him. Let's send our exchanges to a panel of professors who teach logic and debating on the college level. They would be professors who know neither of us nor my opponent. To get them to take the time to read and analyze those exchanges, we would surely have to pay each person a stipend. Maybe $500 would be sufficient to get some to agree to read and evaluate those exchanges. For each one who says that my opponent has handled these issues "decisively," I will pay the $500 stipend. For each one who says that I did the better job of defending my position, you will pay the $500 stipend.

Are you willing to accept this offer? I am willing to accept the risk.


God bless you Mr. Till, I won't let your rejection of God affect the way I treat you...you have a right to an opinion and I respect the fact that you have chosen not to believe. But, I do believe and leave God's blessings with you...regardless if you accept that or not.

Well, of course, I can understand why you have "chosen to believe," although I suspect that it wasn't a matter of choice but merely something you were indoctrinated in. I suspect that you are quite young, possibly only in high school or perhaps college or not much older than the college level. Am I right? If so, I wouldn't be surprised to hear--if I live that long--that later in your life, you will have modified your belief and probably even rejected your present belief in biblical inerrancy.

Your position is doomed to failure. Belief in biblical inerrancy is declining rather rapidly. I have statistics if you are interested in them. I suspect that you aren't.

[Lizard]

Yesterday @ 10:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89476#post89476)
Farrell Till:

My opponent is claiming that I committed a “gaffe” by accusing him of having switched horses after the land-promise debate began. I have rebutted this “gaffe” claim so many times that I wouldn’t even try to estimate them now. I have asked him to explain why he made the following statement if indeed his position “from the beginning” of the debate was that the promise was unconditional.

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.

Every time I have asked him to reconcile this statement with his claim that his position from the beginning was that the land promise was unconditional, he has refused to answer it, yet he has the gall to accuse me of playing my “usual game of obfuscation.”



Did JP really refuse to answer "every time" it was asked?

I recall JP answering this question on more than one occasion. If I recall correctly, JP claimed that his position from the beginning was that the entry into the land was unconditional but the possession of the land was conditional. So saying that "Every time" you asked JP to reconcile this statement he refused is just a tad bit misleading. He may not have answered to your liking, but he did not "refuse" "every time"

And just to make sure that my memory was not failing me, I found some places where JP did not refuse to address this issue:

No, Goofy, you didn't. You repeated Deut. 9 over 867,386,837 times is what you did, oblivious to that it was right in line with free entry, conditional occupation, eternal possession regardless of occupation. [emphasis added]

Found here. (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=77687#post77687)


Till

Why did you say that if you thought from the beginning that the land promise was conditional? Are you going to answer that question this time, or will you just skip it again?

(The above is repeated 1,755,386 times in the remainder of Goofy's responses and will be replied to only once, here.)

The answer is in the articles already; the summation is that you fail to distinguish between entry and occupation


Found here. (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=76584#post76584)

AND

Oh, I took a "new track", did I? New with reference to what? The specific phrases "unmerited grace" and "Abraham's coattails" that FTill quotes do appear in the second-level article he was addressing here, but they and the arguments associated with them first appeared in my very first article on this subject at http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_WRE.html. I stated from the very beginning that entry into the land by the post-Exodus generation was without conditions, based on the Abrahamic promise, which amounted to a "by grace" entry from the perspective of the Conquest-era Israelites. Now how in the world can I "take a new track" while I am still riding on the first one? No position was "modified" here; I from the very beginning stated that retention (though I used the word "possession") of the land was conditional. I said clearly that the land was reserved for the Israelites to use even as they were in Exile: "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.

Found here. (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=60540#post60540)

And just to make sure that JP wasn't making all of this up, I checked his website. I looked at what I believe is the first article he wrote on this issue.

I found these two quotes:

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

Which indicates to me that JP was saying that entering the land is unconditional.

And

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:

Here JP seems to indicate that possession of the land is conditional

See. Just like JP said. And these quotes are from the same article that can be found here. (http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_WRE.html)

I have no doubt that when you said:

Every time I have asked him to reconcile this statement with his claim that his position from the beginning was that the land promise was unconditional, he has refused to answer it

it was just an oversight on your part.

No need to thank me.

[jpholding]

Once more FTill dodges, evades, and diverts from the issue as much as possible, inserts reams of blather, and stays as far away from the topic of this thread as he can.

If he will agree to reply to my rebuttals that he has evaded, I will cheerfully give him the satisfaction of hearing me say that I made the “huge error” he has accused me of. I would gladly lie to try to get him to debate.

Lies are not acceptable.

As already noted "umpteen times" Gaffe Thread 2 offers the background for what answer I would give to the other issues. FTill can save himself effort in one of two ways:

1) Honestly admitting he was wrong on the subject on Gaffe Thread 2.
2) Refuting me on the subject of Gaffe Thread 2.

The thread again is at:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3938

So why is FTill wasting time here?

NOTE: Once again the censors have come to my opponent's rescue by not allowing my answer (#122) to one of his posts.

That is correct. Try editing your rants more effectively. If the mods were on the take then you will also be censored when you repost. Yet that did not happen previously.

Cut the :bawl: and cut to the chase.

[Richard Romano]

Dear Mr. Till, please excuse the late, late respone. I was quite busy the past few weeks and was not able to get onto Tweb. Since I don't know how to quote using the system here, your comments appear in my own quotes, with my comments preceeded by arrows >>.


"Of course, your attitude toward the possibility that the Bible is errant, isn't inimical, is it? I will repeat something that I posted elsewhere. I attended two Bible colleges and spent 12 years as a fundamentalist preacher and foreign missionary. I was an adamant believer in biblical inerrancy, but when I saw clear evidence that I had been falsely indoctrinated, I renounced that belief and resigned from my profession. This part of my life shows that I have a willingness to abandoned deeply held emotional beliefs when I see evidence that those beliefs are wrong."

>>You are not suggesting that you have a comprehensive handle on entire evidences that suggest that the Bible is wrong, and to the point that Jesus is not God and the Resurrection is a hoax? If so, you will be confirming the self-righteous character of the militant skeptic. The fact that you mention you were a "fundamentalist" preacher means that you regard the Christian faith with such disdain that it taints your logic (fundamentalist has taken on a legalistic/intolerant significance and is no longer representative of the true sense of the term). You even mention in another post that you do believe that much of the Bible has historical merit, so how wrong have you found it that it was enough to make you lose your faith? Why do you think that being a former preacher and missionary automatically substantiates your skepticism? We have biblical warrant for classifying people who claim to be Christian as having either a "said" faith, and those that have a "real" one. Judas Iscariot is a case in point. It is obvious to me, and to all here, that you did not have a real faith and hence abandoned the Christian life when certain circumstances in your life arose.

"What can you point to in your life that would show that you have a comparable willingness?"

>>I wasn't a Christian for most of my life. Ever since I became a Christian, I was willing to abandon the sinful life I lived in exchange for the joyous relationship I share with Jesus Christ. So, I do have a "comparable willingness," obviously opposite to yours.

"If I begin a new thread with a post that gives detailed evidence of a biblical discrepancy, will you agree to reply to it point by point? If you will agree to do this, I will take the time to post it, but if you are just going to ignore it or dismiss it as "fluff," I see no need to take the time to post it. Enough evasion is taking place here already."

>>So if I say no, am I guilty of evasion? It's hard to take this challenge seriously when you previously name the game and define the rules from which we have to play in order to be deemed by you as non-evasive. I have seen these kinds of "evidences" that you speak of, none of these have proved compelling, with most of them being either unfair treatments of Biblical passages or naturalist interpretations of reality that preclude any supernatural intervention in history. This line of reasoning further skews archaeological findings and other evidences that can only be understood by seeing a supernatural quality in them. It is, in reality, you that has a closed mind since you feel convinced that a material outlook is the most acceptable...when you know full well that absolute knowledge of the workings of our universie is impossible.

"Of course, your mind is open, isn't it? I just posted above evidence that I have a willingness to abandon deeply held beliefs when I see good reasons to think that those beliefs are wrong. One has to have an open mind to consider even the possibility that what he was religiously indoctrinated in his childhood is wrong. I have demonstrated that I have that willingness."

>>Yes, my mind is open. I have already iterated that I was not always a Christian, and that I did look for ways to discredit the Bible's moral authority so that I could continue on living the way I was. Sir, have you entertained the possibility that it is you that have been indoctrinated? Why is it that only religious people are susceptible to indoctrination and atheists are not? I have to ask why the double standard? You can't have it both ways; atheists have proved over and over the lengths they will go to, or stoop, to ensure that their hostility to Biblical matters can continue...including the philosophical justification for materialism that skeptics find in evolution.

"Well, this gives me an idea of just how open your mind is. Anyone who can read the exchanges between my opponent and me and then say that he has handled me "decisively" does not have an open mind. I'll make an offer to you that I made to him. Let's send our exchanges to a panel of professors who teach logic and debating on the college level. They would be professors who know neither of us nor my opponent. To get them to take the time to read and analyze those exchanges, we would surely have to pay each person a stipend. Maybe $500 would be sufficient to get some to agree to read and evaluate those exchanges. For each one who says that my opponent has handled these issues "decisively," I will pay the $500 stipend. For each one who says that I did the better job of defending my position, you will pay the $500 stipend."


>>So you are not guilty of your own evasions? This challenge of your is interesting, since you wish to gather around you teachers who are more inclined to your skepticism than belief. Logic simply isn't enough when looking at the veridicality of the scriptures; these professors must also be Bible
scholars or they will be capable of wrong conclusions that stems from a rigid stand on logic. Having said this, are you implying that secularist professors are more capable to define truth from error, illogical arguments from logical ones? I'll tell you what, why don't you send your posts to Christian universities as well? Including philosophers who are believers...say Peter Kreeft and William Lane Craig? No way, that would prove to risky even for you, wouldn't it Mr. Till?

"Well, of course, I can understand why you have "chosen to believe," although I suspect that it wasn't a matter of choice but merely something you were indoctrinated in. I suspect that you are quite young, possibly only in high school or perhaps college or not much older than the college level. Am I right? If so, I wouldn't be surprised to hear--if I live that long--that later in your life, you will have modified your belief and probably even rejected your present belief in biblical inerrancy."

>>Sir, I am trying very hard to remain respectful to you, but you are making it more and more difficult with these kinds of rather silly statments that attempt prescience. Again, I have to ask, I have been indoctrinated but you have not? You are now an avowed atheist and hence you're automatically rational and I am not? I'm just an indoctrinated young child who doesn't know why he believes? I am a graduate student in English and in my late 20's. I guess that qualifies me to be irrational and foolish, so I better wait until I am older and give up my faith and then I'll truly be a rational human being! Come on, do you seriously believe your own rhetoric?

"Your position is doomed to failure. Belief in biblical inerrancy is declining rather rapidly. I have statistics if you are interested in them. I suspect that you aren't."

As if your position isn't already doomed. I have seen the debates you have had with others, and your stances are based on pure speculation and on an inherrent hostility that makes your arguments unsound; your argument, for example, that Jesus' sacrifice was a sanction of human sacrifice, was, in all intents and purposes, ludicrous. It seems to be that you are out to de-convert people so as to justify your existence...rather than be angry with you, I actually feel sorry for you Sir.

I am willing to see this list of those who do not believe in biblical inerrancy, but I warn you that I'll completely disregard them if they contain these pseudo-theologians who are more than happy to concoct their own theories and pass them off on unsuspecting people as more reliable than the Gospels themselves. If you think men like John Dominic Crossan are the rule rather than the exception, than you will further demonstrate how you cannot be taken seriously.

God bless you Mr. Till (if this upsets you, tough bananas)

regards,

Richard Romano.
p.s Christian love is what holds this world together my dear Sir. No skeptic foundations have ever founded hospitals or given their lives to help others. Put that in your skeptical pipe and smoke it!

[Joseph Alward]

RICHARD ROMANO
Christian love is what holds this world together.

JOE ALWARD
You mean, together with the love in Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and the other few dozen religions, don't you?