...TURKEL
"Conclusion" > Till closes one section of his diatribe with the
>remark that he expected my reply to him to pose "perhaps
>still another solution to this problem." As we have
>seen, the solutions previously offered remain standing,
>unbattered by Till's dilettante exegesis. There is no
>need for new explanations.TILL
Well, the facts in this matter tell a different story. If I said that I have completely demolished or pulverized Turkel's defense of inerrancy in the matter of Jehu's massacre at Jezreel, that would certainly not be an overstatement. Here is a list of Turkel's failures in this debate.1. He tried to present himself as an expert in Hebrew who is able to recognize "nuances" in the original biblical languages that escape ordinary readers, but I have certainly exposed this as a myth that exists only in Turkel's mind. To assign Turkel's opinion of his linguistic talents to the trash heap on which it belongs, I have digressed from time to time in the debate to point out that Turkel the Hebrew linguist doesn't even understand many elementary facts about his own native English language.
2. In his pseudolinguistic approach to explaining the problem of Jehu's massacre, Turkel alleged that the Hebrew word "paqad" was used in so many senses in the OT that its meaning in Hosea 1:4 could not be determined, but I showed by analyzing the contexts of other passages where the word was used both in Hosea and other OT books that this is a claim that cannot be sustained.
3. He quibbled at length about "nuances" in the words "reya" and "yada," but these attempts failed when I showed that these words were used interchangeably in the OT and that he had only selectively quoted passages to leave the impression that these words had meanings limited to what he is claiming in his response. This turned out to be easily refutable.
4. He has relied heavily on constant slurs and insults as if ad hominem attacks prove anything.
5. His approach also relied on frequent references to what Jones, McComiskey, Hobbs, Provan, and an array of other "scholars" think about this problem, as if their opinions are authoritative enough to settle anything. As I have pointed out repeatedly in my series of responses, finding books and articles that agree with one's religious position is simple to do, so in this respect Turkel has done nothing that a Mormon couldn't do in defense of the Book of Mormon or that a Catholic couldn't do in defense of papal infallibility or that a Seventh-Day Adventist could not do in defense of his position on observance of the sabbath, etc., etc., etc. Turkel may think that this is "scholarship," but an examination of his article will show that he rarely used logical argumentation to support the claims made by his sources. He simply cited them, frequently in very fragmented quotations, and went on to something else, as if the mere citation of the reference was sufficient to make his case.
By coincidence, something happened recently to show Turkel's colossal hypocrisy in this matter. On the errancy list, a subscriber from England had run into repeated difficulties in his efforts to defend biblical inerrancy, and so he formed a special list called CCBE (I have forgotten the meaning of the letters), limited it to Christians only, and undertook to put their collective heads together to formulate responses to postings that were appearing on the errancy list. I found out that none other than Robert Turkel became one of the subscribers to this list. When the group was discussing a problem that I posted to the list, i.e., how the magicians of Egypt could have done "in like manner with their enchantments" after that Moses and Aaron had changed ALL of the water throughout ALL the land of Egypt into blood. Their answer was that the magicians went to the river, dug along the bank, found ground water, filled some pots, and changed that into blood. In reply to this, I pointed out that they are reading into the text something that is not stated, and then I quoted the 1st century Jewish writer Philo Judaeus, who stated the following about the plague of blood:
> "The brother of Moses, by the divine command, smote with his rod upon the
>river, and immediately, throughout its whole course, from Ethiopia down to the
> sea, it is changed into blood and simultaneously with its change, ALL the lakes,
>and ditches, and fountains, and wells, and spring, AND EVERY PARTICLE OF
>WATER IN ALL EGYPT, was changed into blood, so that, for want of drink, they
>digged round about the banks of the river, but the streams that came up were like
>veins of the body in a hemorrhage, and spurted up channels of blood like springs,
>no transparent water being seen ANYWHERE" (*The Complete Works of Philo,*
> Hendrickson: Peabody, MA, 1993, p. 468, emphasis added).It turned out that Turkel sent the CCBE list a response to this in which he said the following: >That's nice, but Philo is simply reading into the text what is not there.
>So if I find a Jewish commentator of equal worth that says the opposite, is
>it a draw? If I find two, do I win? Remember that Philo is trying to promote
>Moses and Aaron here and would maximize their feat to the greatest extent
>possible.First, it's rather ironic that Turkel would accuse Philo of reading into the text what is not there, when Turkel is reading into the text that the magicians dug for water along the banks of the river, when clearly there is nothing in the text that even implies that this happened. I suppose that in Turkel's opinion the validity of what one reads into a text depends upon whether the person agrees with biblical inerrancy. At any rate, the latter part of his statement is what I wanted to focus on. Turkel wondered if he could tie or win by finding one or two Jewish commentators of "equal worth" who took the opposite opinion of Philo's. Well, first of all, let him find other Jewish commentators of equal worth to Philo who expressed an opposite view, and then we can talk about it. The primary thing in this statement, however, is Turkel's own recognition that what writers think doesn't settle anything. If this is true of Philo, then why wouldn't it be true of Provan, McComiskey, Jones, et al whom Turkel has quoted throughout his article? If I can find an equal number of writers who disagree with their position, does the discussion about the blood of Jezreel turn into a draw? If I can find more writers who disagree with Turkel's sources, do I win? I predict that Turkel will regret the day that he ever made this statement, because he has chopped off at the knees one of his primary methods of "argumentation," i.e., the citation of writers who agree with him. It is a very amateurish method of argumentation, but now Turkel doesn't even have that. TURKEL
> We close with a recounting of a reflection passed on
>to me, one that purportedly originated with one of Till's
>many admirers, but is now deliciously ironic:
> This is the first time Holding directly responded toTILL
>Farrell Till. I think Holding has put his foot in a
>wrong mouth this time. :-) Farrell Till never ignores
>any response to him. I have seen Till debate on the
>mailing lists many, many times. He responds so quickly
>that the opponent thinks, as Till says, "lightening (sic)
>had struck him." When it comes to the debating skill
>(sic), none (either skeptic or theist) equals Farrell
>Till...
I don't know who said this about me, but I appreciate the vote of confidence. My delay in responding to Turkel happened only because of a pressing schedule that keeps me busy about 12 to 14 hours in my office each day, weekends included. TURKEL> "Holding" is on his way down the hill. Trust me, ITILL
>know what I am talking about.
It would now appear that with the exception of my quickness in responding to Turkel, this person accurately predicted the outcome of Turkel's encounter with me. To say that I have sent "Holding" sliding downhill would be an understatement. He has been thoroughly exposed as an amateurish "apologist" who talks a good game but fails to deliver on the field. My personal opinion of Turkel is that he is the weakest debating opponent I have ever faced with the exception of Norman Geisler, and I doubt if I will ever encounter his equal.As for Turkel's downhill descent, I don't really follow his activities, but I understand from comments that are going around that Turkel has fallen out of favor with some of his former admirers to the extent that his webpage was moved to another site.
TURKEL
> A few comments here:
>
> First, this writer is in error:TILL
If I am, Turkel has certainly failed to establish it. Every counterargument he presented in his article has been taken and replied to point by point. In so doing, I have exposed colossal flaws and false assertions in his articles. TURKEL
>I have previously
>responded directly to Till in AJINOD Chapter 5, regarding
>his article on Mara Bar-Serapion (which included Till's
>ludicrous suggestion that Mara was referring not to
>Jesus, but to the Essene "Teacher of Righteousness"). As
>yet, that has not been responded to, but I do not doubt
>that it soon will be, since I have deigned to bring it
>once again to attention.TILL
Turkel knows that when his response to my article was posted, he did it anonymously under his "Holding" pseudonym. Turkel presented an absolutely ridiculous justification for his anonymity, which in a nutshell amounted to a claim that he worked in a prison and feared for his life if he should make his real identity known. Yeah, right! Prisons are filled with Christians, and non-Christian prisoners are constantly bombarded with conversion efforts by prison "ministries," yet for some reason, Turkel thought that his life would be in jeopardy if he should write pro-Christian articles under his own name when pro-Christian activities probably go on each day in the prison where he works (if indeed he does work in a prison). At the time that Turkel's response to the Mara Bar-Serapion article appeared, I was teaching at a college that provided educational services for a local prison, and I knew from this experience that none on the staff considered their lives in jeopardy. I rejected Turkel's excuse for anonymity and offered him free publishing space in my bimonthly paper *The Skeptical Review* on the condition that he would publish under his real name. He refused to do it, and if he denies that this happened, he is a liar. His memory just can't be that bad.TURKEL
> Second, and more consequential, this: Till is
>lauded here for his "debating skill" and prompt rejoinder
>intervals.TILL
Turkel's Christian cronies, whose knowledge of the Bible is even less than his, also laud him for his debating skill, but after they see my responses to his trivial quibbles, they may want to reevaluate their opinion of him. TURKEL
>I do not suspect his deftness in this domain.
>The arena of informal debate by all means favors those
>with the most thunderous and the swiftest riposte,
>notwithstanding the circumstance and/or measure of their
>erudition. However, it has become quite plain that
>Till's "lightening" reflexes are of no service to him
>when it comes to the minutia of a particular issue. Till
>manifestly has neither the forbearance nor the restraint
>to check his work thoroughly. Arguments are shot from
>the hip, and thrown down like beef on a BBQ grill;
>accusations of collusion and conspiracy are bandied about
>with the frequency of an Erich von Daniken monograph.TILL
This is rather humorous coming from one who claimed to know so much about Hebrew "nuances," a claim that has now been shot down. (So that he won't forget it, I will renew my challenge for him to submit to a test administered by someone who is knowledgeable in Hebrew so that we can determine just how accurate his claim is.) He tried to put a very limited meaning on the Hebrew word "reya" and claimed that it connoted very close personal friendships, but his claim was shot full of holes when I showed that it was sometimes used in the OT in reference to those who were opponents in physical combat and that it was even used once in reference to pieces of dead meat that Abraham had laid on an altar. So to dump his insult back into his lap, "Turkel manifestly has neither the forbearance nor the restraint to check his work thoroughly." Superficiality pervaded Turkel's work, and that was why it was so easy to demolish. In all probability, his Superficiality resulted from a naive confidence that he has in the books of authors who have written in defense of biblical accuracy. Perhaps his experience in this exchange has taught Turkel a lesson he will remember. TURKEL
>This kind of dialogue may serve to instill awe in the
>skeptical masses, but the strategy becomes rather diluted
>when challenged by diligence and brute fact.TILL
In reply to this, I will say only that Turkel's kind of dialogue may serve to instill awe in the gullible Christian masses, but the strategy become rather diluted when challenged by diligence and brute fact. And the brute fact in this case is that Turkel has utterly failed to show that the writers of 2 Kings 10:30 and Hosea 1:4 were not in disagreement over the moral acceptability of Jehu's massacre at Jezreel. The former clearly said that Jehu had done according to ALL that was in Yahweh's heart concerning the house of Ahab; the latter said that Yahweh would avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu. These are hardly statements that show a perfect unity in the Bible, as McDowell claimed in the chapter of ETDAV that I responded to....
back to apologist e-mail