Land Ahoy! Part 2

Rebuttal to "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise": Second Phase James Patrick Holding

Key:

Initial argument by opponent
Our first response
**Response by our opponent (double star at beginning of section)
**Our second response (in same section)

Our opponent uses my real name; I will substitute my writing name for the sake of continuity. Find the reading tedious? We also offer a "95% fluff-free" version of this article here which we will challenge our opponent to examine, and prove that our editing in any way affects the substance of his arguments.

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

**Response

Not surprisinly, our opponent immediately does as I have predicted and embarks upon a spate of diversions completely unrelated to the issue of "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" thereby offering at once evidence of his inability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

[Holding] need not worry that I will evade his attempts to rebut my arguments in the article he attempted to reply to.

No worry is present. What I have offered is a pertinent clinical observation concerning our opponent's usual methodology in the face of issues where his knowledge and argumentative capability are severely taxed, and we see already that our opponent has proceeded in his usual fashion: i.e., using the word "attempted" to describe our reply in a manipulative way to instill doubt. As before we stress that it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

He will see that there are very specific replies to every one of his points, so he will get more “replying” from me than he wanted.

This is a very nice statement of our opponent's intentions, but as what matters is whether he fulfills the promise or not, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I have read through his attempt to show that Yahweh's land promises to the descendants of Abraham failed miserably, so why would I want to miss an opportunity to expose him as a would-be apologist who just doesn't have what it takes to defend biblical inerrancy?

It should be patently obvious that our opponent has read through our material, for otherwise he presumably would not have issued a response. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than, as is clear, he needs the distracting commentary ("miserably", "would-be apologist", "doesn't have what it takes") to shore up his case, which otherwise apparently would not stand on its own without decoration.

That is really no personal insult to him, because the fact is that biblical inerrancy is completely indefensible, so it isn't his intellectual level that is the problem but the ridiculous position that he attempts to defend.

The backhanded compliment is appreciated, but we nevertheless maintain that it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I wish I knew why people who are perfectly intelligent in most matters take complete leave of their senses when religious beliefs are involved.

This is a very nice expression of our opponent's personal sentiments, but it adds nothing to the discussion other than a transparent attempt to score debate points, and as such, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Before I proceed to rebut his counterarguments, I must first take the time to point out that [Holding] has already reneged on his promise to provide a link to my article that he was replying to.

As we predicted, our opponent engages in an irrelevant distraction. The presence of links is of no relevance to the issue of Yahweh's Land Promise, and as it is a transparent attempt to influence skeptical sentiments, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. However, that said, I told our opponent clearly that a link was made on the core page of our debate record and that I felt that this was sufficient for any reasonable, intelligent person to be able to find his material. I also agreed in turn to provide a link inside my response if he got the Secular Web to provide one TO my response. He promised to look into it, though now I would suppose the condition applies to a copy of his original article once it is on the new TSR website, and we shall anticipate news of that in time. At any rate, it is clear that our opponent does not think that most readers are intelligent and reasonable enough to find his material via that link, and I would make the further point that our opponent shows a remarkable lack of ability in terms of locating Web material. I noted very clearly in my initial response that the original item was titled "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise". In personal email our opponent asked how I expected anyone to find his original item. Apparently it is beyond our opponent's grasp that all one simply has to do is go to any search engine (Google, Altavista, Yahoo) and type in the phrase "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise," and the entry will be found with ease. "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" is a unique phrase and unlikely to have duplications that are not our opponent's material (or else references to it). This is simple common sense; if one wishes to read Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears, one searches for the title, The Sum of All Fears -- one does not search the subject index under "military thrillers". At any rate, that our opponent offered no reply to us on this point in personal correspondence, and that he makes such a critical error, speaks volumes we think of his general analytical capability.

All that he did was to note above that the article appeared in the first issue of The Skeptical Review in 1991, but that is hardly a link that would enable his readers to click and read exactly what I had said.

In addition to our notes about diversion above: This is a plain error, I noted the title of the article in the very first sentence. This is more than sufficient for an intelligent, reasonable reader (or even one not that intelligent) to find the material.

I sent an e-mail message to [Holding] and asked where his link was, and he wrote back to say that he had put it in another article on his site, so we can already see the game [Holding] is playing.

In addition to our notes about diversion above: There is no "game" here; our opponent is either lacking in cognizance (as suggested by his inability to conduct a fundamental search) or else is trying to score points with a skeptical readership, or both. In any event, I would like to hear from any skeptic or reader who was unable to find the original "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" if such indeed exists. I consider this nothing but an obfuscation and an irrelevancy, and a transparent attempt to elicit sympathy from a skeptical readership.

By putting a link to my original article somewhere else besides in what is supposed to be his reply, he increases the changes that some of his readers will see only his article and never notice the link to mine.

Once again, our opponent is simply not, apparently, possessed of enough congnizant flexibility to understand how to conduct a simple search; note that this is not a "computer" issue but a very basic issue of understanding how to locate information via standard "handles" like title and author, of the sort which all of us were taught in elementary school. I did not think it beyond our opponent's abilities to recognize this, but regrettably, I continue to overestimate him. At any rate, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

I suppose, then, that [Holding] will also refuse to put a link to this reply, or else he will put it somewhere on his site where some readers will be likely not to see it.

In addition to notes re diversions above: Since the core debate page is linked from our "What's New" page, and has been included in our newsletter, it seems entirely impossible that readers will not see it. Our opponent gives you, the reader, very little credit for the sake of scoring points with a skeptical readership, and I once again request that anyone having trouble finding any portion of this debate write me at jphold@earthlink.net as I will be glad to give you fundamental instruction in data searching that will greatly benefit you in other endeavors as well.

Hence, we are already seeing indications that he is not going to debate in an open forum but will continue to hide on his personal website and selectively quote what he wants his readers to see.

As noted, this objection is the result of our opponent's own lack of cognizance. Even so it still has no relation to "Yahweh's Land Promise," it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

I have said for years now that [Holding] is too cowardly to debate biblical inerrancy in an open forum where he will have to confront informed opposition, and his latest antics are confirming that I was right.

This still is based on our opponent's lack of ability, has no relation to "Yahweh's Land Promise," it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

The link to my original article is here, and it will be posted at when my replies to [Holding] are posted there.

I have taken the liberty of making the URL into a link for convenience. And what now of the tasty crow our opponent must eat, since I have willingly provided this link? What also of our exchange, apparently something our opponent wishes to be uninformed of, to post a link to my first reply on the infidels.org site? This still is based on our opponent's lack of ability, has no relation to "Yahweh's Land Promise," it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

If [Holding] does not put this link into his article and then give his readers a link to my reply, he will be reneging on a promise he made during the failed debating negations that everyone can read about in another article that will soon be posted on the new TSR website.

Since the link is there, we will be delivering several boxes of raw crow to an address in the Midwest. This still is based on our opponent's lack of ability, has no relation to "Yahweh's Land Promise," it covers up the actual tenor of our exchange and my link offer, and finally, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

This article will contain all of the private e-mails that he and I exchanged while I was trying to get him to agree to negotiate a written agreement, and the correspondence will show that he (1) refused to post our debate on his website, but (2) agreed that he would provide links to my articles and rebuttals.

Once again, as predicted, our opponent engages in a pointless diversion for the sake of scoring points, thereby suggesting a lamentable lack of ability to address the matters at hand. Yet again, this objection only demonstrates our opponent lack of cognizance in terms of doing a proper search; and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

Right at the very beginning of the debate, he has already reneged on one promise, so what will we see from him next?

Once again, since the link is here, just a few lines above, and another one in our title slot, we will be delivering several boxes of very tasty, prime cut, filet of raw crow to an address in the Midwest. This still is based on our opponent's lack of ability, has no relation to "Yahweh's Land Promise," it covers up the actual tenor of our exchange and my link offer, and finally, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

In an article about [Holding] that I published in the July/August 2002 issue of The Skeptical Review, I said that some skeptics call him [J. P.] “No Link” [Holding], so he is already living up to this name.

Once again, since the link is here, just a few lines above, and another one in our title slot, we will be delivering several boxes of very tasty, prime cut, filet of raw crow, with mustard, ketchup, and onions, to an address in the Midwest. This still is based on our opponent's lack of ability, has no relation to "Yahweh's Land Promise," it covers up the actual tenor of our exchange and my link offer, and finally, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

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

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

**Response

Admittedly, this was part of an introductory paragraph to my article, but why would he want to leave it out?

In making this admission, even once, our opponent completely emasculates his constant demands over the past several years that we quote EVERYTHING that he says. We would leave it out because it is not necessary to understand our opponent's position. Since it is apparent from our opponent's statement above that he admits it is not necessary to understand his position, he has answered his own question: We leave it out because it is unnecessary, superfluous, and adds nothing to keep, and our opponent loses nothing by its omission. Over the past several years our opponent has repeated a mantra to his skeptical readership charging us with leaving out, or quoting without context, pieces of his work. This charge is repeated time and time again, and never substantiated with examples. We offered a challenge here showing that we did no such selective quoting, which laid unanswered for years and is still unanswered. Reviews of literature are not required to quote EVERYTHING in their source. Nor is such a demand heard of in critiques elsewhere. Our opponent cannot have it both ways. He either admits that there are things that do not need to be quoted, things that can be left out without harming his argument, or else he makes the absurd demand that we quote EVERYTHING and then needs to justify it. The above contains no justification, merely a "why not" which is not a positive reason to quote the sentence.

Why not let the readers see it and determine for themselves whether it is deserving of consideration?

As above, this contains no justification, merely a "why not" which is not a positive reason to quote the sentence. Our opponent still has not explained why it is necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, and now he has two layers of such superfluous commentary to explain.

I suppose if we were engaged in an oral debate that was being recorded on audio tapes, [Holding] would think it appropriate to bleep out my comments that he thought were superfluous.

Yes, I would consider this appropriate. I do not care to hear about the drive our opponent had to the debate hall, or what he thought of the weather, and I would "bleep out" (is our opponent cursing?) readily, from my side or his, such superfluous commentary as we see here, and even in this sentence, of which, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

My point is that a debate is a debate, and audiences who read it should be entitled to see everything that both parties say.

We eagerly await some actual justification, not merely assertion, that explains to us what sort of "entitlement" exists -- is it found in civil rights legislation? -- that requires us to quote such superfluous commentary as we see here, and even in this sentence, of which, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. We do agree that the reader is entitled to read substantive commentary. We do not agree that an entitlement exists to see ALL commentary regardless of relevance.

The problem with [Holding]'s selective quoting on his private website is that he sets himself up as judge and jury of what his readers should and should not see.

If this is the case, our opponent needs to provide actual evidence that our judgment has been misleading to readers, not merely assert that it is. Until then, our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, as it is hard to see why what we have repeatedly identified as superfluous would, if omitted, represent an incompetent or errant judgment.

In my opinion, the “replies” that he has written to some of my articles have gutted arguments and counterarguments by cutting out material and justifying it on the grounds that it was “90% fluff.”

Again, if this is the case, our opponent needs to provide actual evidence that our judgment has been misleading to readers, not merely assert that it is. Until then, our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, as we do not see why what we have repeatedly identified as superfluous would, if omitted, represent an incompetent or errant judgment.

When a written debate is published in its entirety, however, neither participant can complain of unfair treatment, so I'll leave it to readers to decide which is the better policy.

This is a very touching appeal to the reader, but it is merely a manipulation based on an assumed premise (that our judgment in editing has been impaired) which remains unsubstantiated and unproven. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to illicitly appeal to the sympathy of the skeptical readership.

If I were replying to an article written by [Holding] that contained, in my opinion, superfluous material that I didn't agree with, I would let my readers see it and then issue a challenge for [Holding] to defend in another debate whatever superfluous claims he may have made if I thought they were worth debating.

It is of no interest to us that our oppponent does not have the necessary vision to accept that superfluous commentary (whether we "agree" with it or not is not at issue) is not something difficult to discern, and that he prefers burdening others with the need to quote EVERYTHING, without any exclusion or reservation. And as before, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, on the subject at hand ("Yahweh's Land Promise"), and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to illicitly appeal to the sympathy of the skeptical readership.

I wonder if he is willing to do the same.

I am not, and never have been, willing to burden the reader with quotations of superfluous commentary simply for the satisfaction of the original writer, and I begrudge no one the desire or wish to do the same, for in apparent contrast to my opponent, I am confident in my ability to determine when an opponent has misrepresented my position through selective quotation, and am willing to approach such matters as they arise, and not use them as a vague and non-specific bludgeons for the purpose of scoring debate points, or for avoiding debates altogether.

If he thinks that my introductory remarks in my article were just “set-up” statements, why doesn't he challenge me to defend those remarks in another debate?

In checking my uses of the words "set up" I find that in all four cases in the original text, they are used with reference to matters that both I and my opponent agree to (i.e., who the seven nations were), not to remarks by our opponent that we disagree with and that we would challenge to debate over. This would be a short debate:

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

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

TILL: Well, that's a relief! Now we can all go home! Only 11 debates to go!

We are compelled to ask how carefully our opponent has actually read what we have written, since he clearly did not know or recall that the "set up" comment was never used in regards to issues of debate, which we addressed by other means (more on this as we proceed).

If he should say, “Well, Till, if you think that biblical prophecy fulfillment cannot be defended, why don't we debate that subject after we have finished with the land-promise issue?”

As this comment is based on a misappraisal of what we called "set up" commentary we designate it as such with no further comment, other than that our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

If he should issue such a challenge, he will get an acceptance so fast, he will think that lightning has struck him, and all I would demand is that he publish links on his website so that his readers could see both sides of the issues.

As this comment is also based on a misappraisal of what we called "set up" commentary we designate it as such with no further comment, other than that our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. However, we note that we have agreed to a series of 12 debates, and have laid out two subjects already beyond this one which our opponent has previously dealt with in his newsletter and we assume he would be willing to defend his view on, and we shall add more as time progresses.

However, he isn't going to make any such challenge for reasons that I will soon explain.

Since, as noted, we have already advanced two such additional challenges, we will include this statement in print on the side of that tasty box of filet of crow, along with the point that this is still a diversion from the subject of "Yahweh's Land Promise," and that our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with a skeptical readership.

My attempt to negotiate a written agreement with him for this debate revealed that he is very skittish about trying to defend biblical prophecy claims.

As before our opponent resorts to reading of emotion into our work, for no other purpose than to score debate points with a skeptical readership. I could just as easily apply adjectives to our opponent, based on no more data than personal emails, such as frightened, peevish, and pokey. This is merely a distraction still, a diversion from the subject of "Yahweh's Land Promise," and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with a skeptical readership.

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

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

**Response

If any believers in biblical prophecy fulfillment want to see the Jackson-Till written debate, I will send them a copy and let them decide for themselves if what I said immediately below was not an accurate summary of Jackson's performance in that debate.

At issue here is not whether or not the statement made by Jackson is accurate or not, but whether it is necessary, and why it is necessary, for this to be quoted in a response. As it is, our opponent merely uses this to "sell" the debate, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand in this context ("Yahweh's Land Promise"), and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to use others as his personal "sales force" for other items.

I did exactly what I said above.

At issue here is not whether or not our opponent did what he said above, but whether it is necessary, and why it is necessary, for this to be quoted in a response. As it is, our opponent merely uses this to "sell" the debate, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand in this context ("Yahweh's Land Promise"), and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to use others as his personal "sales force" for other items.

When Jackson made his claim that “multiplied dozens of Old Testament prophetic utterances” were fulfilled “in minute detail in the New Testament,” I called his hand and defied him to prove it, and he evaded the challenge.

At issue here is not whether or not our opponent did what he says he did, but whether it is necessary, and why it is necessary, for this to be quoted in a response. As it is, our opponent merely uses this to "sell" the debate, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand in this context ("Yahweh's Land Promise"), and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to perhaps "twist the knife" against Bill Jackson, or to serve as a reminder (as if such reminder were necessary as a distraction from this failing effort by our opponent) to skeptical readers that our opponent believes he scored a victory in another context.

The article [Holding] is replying to was written shortly after that debate had been published.

We appreciate our opponent's desire to inform us of the most initimate chronological details of his life, but he still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I had distributed hundreds of copies of it to subscribers of The Skeptical Review, so I considered this an appropriate example to use in reference to the absurd claims that Bible believers make about prophecy fulfillment.

While we find no surprise or dispute in our opponent using this quote as a blurb, at issue here is whether it is necessary, and why it is necessary, for this to be quoted in a response by us. As it is, our opponent merely uses this to "sell" his newsletter, and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to use others as his personal "sales force" for other items.

[Holding] has an opportunity here to call my bluff.

That I do have, and have had, such opportunities, is manifest, and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Let him challenge me to defend what I said about prophecy claims in the introductory remarks of my article, and I will accept the challenge if he will agree to publish on his website links to my part of the exchanges.

As noted above, two such challenges are already in place, and we will see about further issues below. Depending on our opponent's response to what we cited as actual diversions, we will if appropriate add these points to our list here.

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

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

**Response

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

This is merely more setting of tone for gullible and skeptical readers, and does not answer the question of why it is necessary to quote it in a response. One may ask how it can be anything but a distraction (in the context of requiring it to be quoted) without engaging any specifics. Only specifics engaged or not engaged can clearly and arguably demonstrate "fear" -- as it is, this is merely our opponent yet again cheaply imputing emotion for the sake of scoring debate points with a skeptical readership.

Now I have a simple question for [Holding].

This obviously states our opponent's intentions, but we can simply quote the question if need be, and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent,

Why didn't he just quote this entire introductory paragraph to my article and then say after it that there was nothing in the paragraph the needed a reply, because it did not pertain to the issue of whether the land promise prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled as predicted.

Clearly, our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, as all he can offer is a suggestion that we simply quote the material and say nothing needed reply, because it did not pertain to the issue of whether the land promise prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled as predicted. If it did not pertain to the issue of whether the land promise prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled as predicted, and if it needed no reply, then it needed no quotation either, and our opponent has continued to prove that his demand that we quote EVERYTHING is a) absurd; b) merely an attempt to score debate points with a skeptical readership.

That way, his readers would have seen what I said, and I could not have complained that he had quoted me selectively.

As it stands, our opponent has yet to prove that any of his "complaints" (using his word) that he was quoted selectively, a challenge he was asked to meet over several years, and has never done, and it is apparent why he has not done. It is our contention that this has been a smokescreen to avoid reply to us from the very beginning, and we continue to maintain that our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

The obvious intention of the paragraph was to introduce the subject of biblical prophecy and to indicate the degree that some inerrantists will go to in order to claim that biblical prophecies have been fulfilled.

At issue here is not what the purpose of the paragraph is, but whether it is necessary, and why it is necessary, for this to be quoted in a response. As it is, our opponent essentially admits what we have charged all along in certain cases, that he demands quotation for no other purpose than to score debate points with his skeptical readership. This is not engaging in issues, but in distraction, as we have said all along and which our opponent finally admits.

To put me on the spot, [Holding] could then have challenged me to defend in another debate what I had said about biblical prophecy in my introductory paragraph, but, as I said above, [Holding] is obviously not willing to get too involved in defending biblical prophecy fulfillments, at least not in an open forum where his readers will see what his opponent says, because prophecy fulfillment was one of the sticking points in my attempt to negotiate an agreement with him.

We will see this more engaged in the comments below, however, as noted, we have already issued two other challenges and have room for nine more as of this juncture. Beyond that, we recommend our opponent try the dijon with the crow, as we are now in the very sort of "open forum" he demands, letting readers see EVERYTHING he says, no matter how irrelevant, pointless, or ridiculous it may be in context.

I proposed that we agree to debate 12 different propositions related to biblical inerrancy, and several of the propositions I proposed pertained to prophecy fulfillment.

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

I submitted these propositions to him.

This is also a true accounting of something our opponent did, but it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

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

I replied to our opponent that I did not have sufficient data to debate this issue, and I do not. At any rate, we should note that this and the list that follows has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise" and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

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

By my recollection I acknowledged this as a possible topic in corespondence, since it is one I have sufficient data to discuss. However, this has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise" and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

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

I would regard this as one that I also possess insufficient data to debate, and would add that it has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise" and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

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

[Holding] rejected all of these proposals except the one about Ezekiel’s Tyre prophecy.

Our opponent apparently has the same recollection we do, which is nice to know, but this still has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise" and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

When I asked him why he would defend Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre but not his prophecy against Egypt, [Holding] wrote back and said that there were “insufficient data.”

Again, our opponent apparently has the same recollection we do, which is nice to know, but this still has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise" and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

What he meant by that is anyone's guess, but I will serve notice to him here and now that if he is willing to defend the above proposition about Tyre, he has an opponent.

One is constrained to ask how it is our opponent has no cognizance of the very simple phrase, "insufficient data." It is not a difficult term to comprehend and would not warrant explanation to even an elementary school student. That said, apparently our opponent wishes to add Tyre to the list of 12 on the core page, and I have done so.

I'll be ready to begin it as soon as we finish the land-promise issue.

We have noted that we already have two issues after the Land Promise issue; Tyre we have entered in slot 4. At any rate, we would add that this still has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise" and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article, as well as provide a "pep rally" for skeptical readers.

All that I will demand is that he agree to put links to my articles in whatever he writes on the subject and publishes on his website.

As this is what we are doing now, we shall obviously do the same in the future.

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

As several readers have been, and are still doing this, and many have already been pleased to see our opponent "ground down to size" in such responses as we have posted, this is superfluous commentary, and our opponent still cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to use others as his personal "sales force" for other items.

As I said in the debate, the "prophecy fulfillments" that are invariably cited in support of this argument never actually "happened except in the fertile imaginations of a few religious mystics whose fanciful interpretations of certain events have been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by gullible people like our Mr. Jackson," (Jackson-Till Debate, p. 17).

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

**Response

If [Holding] thinks that what I said was just a “sound bite” that I was using for “the purpose of a distraction to set the tone for gullible readers,” then he should be eager to accept my proposal and agree to debate the prophecy-fulfillment propositions stated above.

Here our opponent has merely dodged the question, that is, why it necessary to quote this in a reply, and why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, and given a non-answer that distracts from the question, thus ensuring the his skeptical readership will be satisified in spite of the obvious dodge and non-reply.

I am ready to debate every one of them. Is he?

As this is a repeat of what has been said above, it is merely space filler, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

As for my claim in the Jackson-Till Debate that the prophecies that New Testament writers claimed were fulfilled were prophecies only in the fertile imaginations of the religious mystics who said that they were prophecies, I would like very much to debate this issue with [Holding].

As this is a repeat of what has been said above, and as we are already sufficiently aware of our opponent's desires, this is also merely space filler, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

I am fully prepared to show how numerous New Testament prophecy fulfillments were based on out-of-context interpretations and outright distortions of Old Testament statements that were never intended to refer to events in the New Testament.

As a whole, this is a repeat of what has been said above, and as we are already sufficiently aware of our opponent's desires, this is mainly space filler, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers. The one unique element is reference to "out-of-context interpretations and outright distortions." Our opponent is advised that should he wish to debate this issue we will present as our "positive" case the item written by Glenn Miller here, which with we agree in entirety.

Is [Holding] willing to accept this challenge?

As this is a repeat of what has been said above, this is also merely space filler, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

Well, I advise readers not to hold their breaths until these debates materialize, because I will insist that he agree to publish on his website links to all of my exchanges, and I don't think that he will be too eager to do that, especially not after he has read this rebuttal that I am now writing.

We once again move online to http://www.eatcrow.com to purchase a heaping helping of avian for our opponent. Our opponent is advised to not hold his own breath, because his eyes are bulging out of their sockets and it is becoming annoying.

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

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

**Response

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

This new response certainly serves to lay out our opponent's mission, but only those who have never heard his name would not know that he has issued such challenges. As this remark is merely a statement of purpose, and it contains no specifics, much less has it anything to do with "Yahweh's land Promise," it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, and our opponent now has two layers of superfluous commentary to explain.

I now pass that challenge along to [Holding].

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

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

**Response

I have explained above to the satisfaction of any reasonable person why a written debate should include everything that both sides say on the issue, and I have also explained what an apologist confident of his position would do when confronted with statements like those contained in the introductory paragraph of my article.

Our opponent has explained no such thing; beyond a few instances of admitting he only wished to be quoted for the purpose of scoring points, or giving a non-answer that amounts to, "Why not?", he has thus far evaded or given no worthwhile answer to the question of why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, giving no reason why it should be quoted if it does not require any response or would be sufficiently addressed with a mere token.

He would challenge the person who made the remarks to defend them in a separate debate.

We would not challenge any person to defend remarks about such things as what Bill Jackson said on a given date, or remarks about setup to which both parties agree, so as yet our opponent has given no worthwhile answer to the question of why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, giving no reason why it should be quoted if it does not require any response or would be sufficiently addressed with a mere token.

Why doesn't [Holding] challenge me to defend my position on biblical prophecy fulfillment?

Since we are in the process of this right now, this is also merely space filler, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

Now I will explain the difference in [Holding] and me.

This is merely a statement of our opponent's intent, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

If he should make such a statement in an article I was rebutting, I would say, “Okay, Bud, you're on.

That our opponent is reactionary enough to reply so quickly and so readily to such a non-specific "challenge" says volumes about his level of personal overconfidence, and suggests that he fits very well in the category of persons described here. However, it is nothing but a boast that demonstrates our opponent's own rashness, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

After we have debated the ‘successful prophecy’ that errantists never say much about, we will then go to the other ‘many genuine prophecy fulfillments that inerrantists can point to’ and debate them.”

That our opponent is reactionary enough to reply so quickly and so readily to such a non-specific "challenge," and that he supposes everyone else should be as reactionary as he is in such vases, says volumes about his level of personal overconfidence, and suggests that he fits very well in the category of persons described here. However, it is nothing but a boast that demonstrates our opponent's own rashness, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

[Holding] can consider this a formal challenge.

Unlike our opponent, we are not reactionary enough to reply so quickly and so readily to such a non-specific "challenge," and will issue and take our challenges with care and discretion that our opponent lacks as one who fits the profile outlined here. Beyond that, this is nothing but a boast that demonstrates our opponent's own rashness, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than to score debate points with gullible and/or skeptical readers.

All I will demand is that when we debate those many other genuine prophecy fulfillments, he will publish links to my articles on his website.

As this is what we are doing now, and as we have explained why our opponent's demands otherwise are rooted in a lack of cognizance of fundamental search principles, we have nothing to add to the above other than noting that this is yet more repetitive space-filler.

I will let him hide partially by refusing to put my articles on his site, but I will insist on links.

As we explained repeatedly to our opponent in email, and to which he had no reply in the end, having his material sitting on our site adds nothing to any person's ability to locate articles. Our opponent's demands are rooted in a lack of cognizance of fundamental search principles, we have nothing to add to the above other than noting that this is yet more repetitive space-filler.

If he will agree to provide them, he will have another opportunity to “grind me down to size.”

As this offers nothing that is not said by our opponent above, it is merely repetitious, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary, now offered twice, requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

For those who may not understand my references to this expression, I’ll point out that [Holding] boasted on his website that he was busy grinding me down to size.

No specific quote of me is offered, but I have stated on various occassions to various persons that I have been taking our opponent "down to size" (not necessarily those exact words). Even so, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary, now offered twice, requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

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

As this is what I am now doing, we once again move online to http://www.eatcrow.com to purchase a heaping helping of avian for our opponent. Beyond that, this is nothing but boasting, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to gain points with a skeptical readership. On the point of this not being an argument it is said:

No, it isn't, but it is an assertion that was made for introductory purposes.

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

If [Holding] made an assertion that I didn’t agree with, I would challenge him to defend it, and I have just challenged him to defend some of his beliefs about biblical prophecies.

The issue is not whether an assertion was made, but whether it is not necessary to quote this in a reply. As our opponent merely dodges the question, he has yet to explain why it is necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

In such a debate, I would assume the burden of proof on some of the prophecies, and by the time we had finished, our readers would be able to make their own decisions about whose position had prevailed.

The issue is not what our opponent would or would not do in a debate, but whether it is not necessary to quote this in a reply. As our opponent merely dodges the question, he has yet to explain why it is necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I'm willing to do this, but I doubt that [Holding] is.

The issue is not what our opponent would or would not be willing to do in a debate, but whether it is not necessary to quote this in a reply. As our opponent merely dodges the question, he has yet to explain why it is necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

[Holding] may be surprised how much time I have put into researching biblical prophecies.

Amount of time spent is not equal to quality and understanding. At any rate, the issue is not what time our opponent spends, but whether it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, or whether it is indeed just inserted for manipulative and polemical purposes to score points, and whether this is the only reason, as opposed to contextual fidelity concerning the primary argument ("Yahweh's Land Promise"), our opponent demands that we quote EVERYTHING he writes. As our opponent merely dodges the question, he has yet to explain why it is necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I'm confident enough of my position to present to him the challenges that I made above. Is he confident enough in his position to accept the challenges?

As this does no more than repeat what is said above, and further emphasizes our opponent as being one who fits the profile outlined here, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

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

The issue is not whether our opponent has managed all these issues in a five page article, which has never been argued or said, but whether it is not necessary to quote his claim to have discussed all such claims, in a reply on one particular claim. As our opponent merely dodges the question, he has yet to explain why it is necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, beyond a desire to score debate points with skeptical readers.

If [Holding] thinks there is no problem worth responding to in my introductory paragraph, then he should jump at the opportunity to debate several aspects of biblical prophecy fulfillment so that he can demonstrate to our readers just how wrong I am about biblical prophecies.

As this is what I am now doing, we once again move online to http://www.eatcrow.com to purchase a heaping helping of avian for our opponent. Beyond that, this is nothing but a repeat of what has been offered above, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to gain points with a skeptical readership.

Will he jump at this chance? Will he even crawl toward it? I predict that we won't even be able to drag him into a debate on the subject.

As this is still what I am now doing, we once again move online to http://www.eatcrow.com to purchase a heaping helping of avian for our opponent, whose house will now be overflowing with black feathers and noisy birdcalls. Beyond that, this is nothing but a repeat of what has been offered above, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to gain points with a skeptical readership.

What I have said above is sufficient to show that in a written debate, readers are entitled to see everything that both parties say.

As yet our opponent has provided no proof of any such "entitlement" as we have noted above.

My comments above will also show that [Holding] is skittish about debating the subject of prophecy fulfillment.

As this is still what I am now doing, our opponent had best build a new barn to store all of that incoming crow. Beyond that, this is nothing but a repeat of what has been offered above, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to gain points with a skeptical readership.

His performance in trying to rebut the rest of my article should tell readers why he isn't too enthusiastic about trying to defend biblical prophecies.

This is nought but pep-rallying. It is just as easy for me to say, "Our opponent's performance in trying to rebut the rest of my article should tell readers why he isn't too enthusiastic about trying to defend biblical prophecies." Is this an argument? No, it is a bald attempt to score points. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to gain points with a skeptical readership.

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

As it is our opponent who laid out the stricture that EVERYTHING be quoted, he has none to blame but himself for the length of his reply and mine. In any event, these are nothing but transitional statements, and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

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

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

**Response

It seems that just about everything I say is “setup” to [Holding].

Our opponent is merely exaggerating for polemical effect; I designated but four items as "setup" in the entirety of his essay. At the same time, this and what follows is an irrelevant diversion, and we will see, merely dodges the question of why a quotation is necessary.

If [Holding] had been in my college writing classes, I think he could have benefited. I would have taught him that good writing should have what he calls “setup.”

The issue here is not whether "good writing" requires such "setup"; the issue, which our opponent completely dodges, is why it is necessary to quote such setup in a reply. Since the question is dodged, we are left with no explanation as to why it is necessary to quote such setup in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Without proper introductory comments and transitional devices, writing will be truncated, incoherent, jerky, and uninteresting to read.

We do not deny that a written work without proper introductory comments and transitional devices, could indeed offer writing that is truncated, incoherent, jerky, and uninteresting to read. The issue here is not whether proper introductory comments and transitional devices and needed in such writing, but rather, the issue, which our opponent completely dodges, is why it is necessary to quote such introductory comments and transitional devices in a reply. Since the question is dodged, we are left with no explanation as to why it is necessary to quote such introductory comments and transitional devices in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

The proper thing to do in a written debate is to quote the “setups” and transitional devices to provide readers continuity and flow, and then go to the heart of the opposition's argument and rebut it.

We do not have any interest in what our opponent thinks, or what anyone else thinks, is the "proper" thing to do in terms of such quoting; what want to know why it is required, why it is "proper," and why we should be compelled to follow these strictures. As it is, this is merely an argument by authority, giving no logical or reasonable justification for such extraneous quotation, and we are left with no logical or reasonable explanation as to why it is necessary to quote introductory comments, transitional devices, or other contextually superfluous material in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

The “set-ups” and transitions need not be mentioned in the opponent’s rebuttal of key points.

If these need not be mentioned in a rebuttal, then logically, they also do not need to be quoted, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary can be ignored in a reply, while it also requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I think that after the first round of this debate has been posted, I will go through my article, cut out everything that [Holding] identified as “setup,” “fluff,” and “irrelevant distractions” so that everyone could see what a disconnected, incomprehensible mess would be left.

Whether a mess would be left is not at issue; the issue, stressed from the very beginning by our opponent in his continued insistence that we quote EVERYTHING he writes, is whether in so editing we remove material that affects his argument. As this is never proven, we are left with no explanation as to why such superfluous commentary needs to be quoted, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary can be ignored in a reply, while it also requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

[Holding] apparently has yet to learn that in a written debate, neither opponent has the right to decide what should and should not be left in the published text for readers to see.

As we are presented with no legal or other document showing that such "rights" exist, we are left only with the moral obligation to provide a fair and honest representation of an opponent's case, which we have always done, and which our opponent has never shown that we have failed to do. As these "rights" are not shown to exist, much less are they justified in their putative existence, we are left with no explanation as to why such superfluous commentary needs to be quoted, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary can be ignored in a reply, while it also requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

If a participant sees no argument of relevance to a statement made by his opponent, he can simply cut to the chase and respond to what he thinks is relevant.

If this is true, than a participant can cut to the chase even more efficiently by not quoting non-relevant material at all.

Readers who see everything that both participants wrote can then judge whether a participant who skips over something is evading it, and the opponent can point out what argument or relevance is in the part that was skipped over and then ask that it be answered.

Readers who suspect such evasion are quite capable of returning to the original document, and participants are quite capable of listing specific examples of evasion and of pointing out what argument or relevance is in the part that was skipped over and then asking that it be answered, without the necessity of quoting the superfluous portions. As our opponent has never proven such evasion on our part, nor explained why omission of any material so far noted as superfluous here would amount to such an evasion, we are left with no explanation as to why such superfluous commentary needs to be quoted, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary can be ignored in a reply, while it also requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

A debating manual or textbook would be a useful addition to [Holding]'s library.

We do not have any interest in what any debate handbook says or does not say; what want to know why superfluous quotation is required, and why we should be compelled to follow these strictures. As it is, this is merely an argument by authority, giving no logical or reasonable justification for such extraneous quotation, and we are left with no logical or reasonable explanation as to why it is necessary to quote introductory comments, transitional devices, or other contextually superfluous material in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

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

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

**Response

This is just a boring repetition of a complaint that [Holding] has already made about a dozen times in the short space of “replying” to my introductory paragraph.

If our opponent finds this process "boring" then he needs to relinquish his obssesion with the desire to have EVERYTHING quoted and simply admit that doing so, as I have stated, is superfluous and unnecessary. As it is, he has only inflicted this boredom upon himself, and has offered no reason why it is necessary to quote such material in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

When he says that “all parties would agree to” what I said, he shows a colossal ignorance of just how uninformed some people are in biblical matters.

This comment might have some worth if our opponent could give us a single example of a person who denies 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. As he offers no names of such persons, we are left asking who these "some people" are, why they deserve mention, and why it is necessary to quote this in a reply.

If he doesn't know that there are some people who know very little about biblical matters, then he needs more help than I can give him.

We are well aware that there are "some people who know very little about biblical matters," and that is not the issue. The issue is whether indeed there are there exists a single example of a person who denies 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. As we are still offered no names of such persons, we are left asking who these "some people" are, why they deserve mention, and why it is necessary to quote this in a reply.

I think he would profit from securing a writing textbook and studying what it says about “exposition” and “explication.”

Whether exposition and explication is needed within a well-constructed essay is not at issue; the issue, stressed from the very beginning by our opponent in his continued insistence that we quote EVERYTHING he writes, is whether in so editing we remove material that affects his argument. As this is never proven, we are left with no explanation as to why such superfluous commentary needs to be quoted, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary can be ignored in a reply, while it also requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I would also suggest that in reviewing the textbook, he take notice of what it says about the writer's duty never to assume that what he knows about a subject being explicated will also be known by the readers.

Since such information is aleady contained in our own quotation of the relevant Scriptural cites, the reader is already informed of this specific information and there is no need to repeat it, nor any reason to quote our opponent's repetitious summary of the matter.

That is a major flaw in technical writing today, especially in computer and software manuals.

This may or may not be true from our opponent's perspective, but it is an irrelevancy in context, since the information given is already related in Scriptural citations, and repetition is not necessary. We need not quote such material in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent when the same information has already been provided.

The writers, who obviously are knowledgeable in the subjects they are writing about, assume that readers will also have such knowledge, and the result has been confusing manuals that require hotlines so that users can call and ask for explanations of what should have been explained more clearly in the instruction manuals.

Our opponent perhaps speaks from personal experience; for our part we have never found the need to dial such hotlines, and we also find no reason to quote this observation in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent. One would ask whether the problem lies not in the manuals, but in the readers who do not take the time to learn and rather assume their own expertise, as described in the profile outlined here.

As for whether introductory and transitional statements should require a reply from a “respondent,” I have never said that they should.

Whether such statements require a reply is not at issue, and we have never said our opponent said that they do. The issue, stressed from the very beginning by our opponent in his continued insistence that we quote EVERYTHING he writes, is whether in so editing we remove material that affects his argument. As this is never proven, and as it is admitted here that no reply is required to such things, we are left with no explanation as to why such superfluous commentary needs to be quoted, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary can be ignored in a reply, while it also requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

However, in a written debate, both parties should have the right to have everything they wrote be seen by the audience.

This merely repeats what our opponent said earlier, which still does not explain why such superfluous commentary needs to be quoted, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

When one of the participants presumes the right to decide what is information that deserves to be seen and what is “set up” and “fluff,” he assumes a right that he isn't entitled to.

This merely repeats what our opponent said earlier, which still does not explain where such "entitlement" exists, nor why such superfluous commentary needs to be quoted, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

[Holding] could indeed profit from reading some debating textbooks.

Again, we do not have any interest in what any debate textbook says or does not say; what want to know why superfluous quotation is required, and why we should be compelled to follow these strictures. As it is, this is merely an argument by authority, giving no logical or reasonable justification for such extraneous quotation, and we are left with no logical or reasonable explanation as to why it is necessary to quote introductory comments, transitional devices, or other contextually superfluous material in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

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

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

**Response

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

Our opponent correctly understands that we use the "pretentious" first-person plural. Why this is a worthwhile to issue to note, rather than being a distraction intended to score debate points with a skeptical readership, is something our opponent needs to explain, as well as explain how this amounts to a "distraction" (i.e., establish that it is more distracting than not using it) or "fluff" (since it adds no words to the text whatsoever). As it is, this is merely a diversion of the sort we have predicted, which can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by putting forth snide remarks of no relevance.

There was no snideness in the comment.

Our opponent merely denies his effort at manipulation.

It was a simple statement about what biblicists assume.

If this is merely a "simple statement" then it requires no addition of the word "presumably" which (since it is recorded in the text, and no issue of textual doubt is brought out) is clearly intended to provide a diversionary swipe questioning the historicity of the promises. Our opponent is merely trying to evade our identification of his manipulative debate tactics.

When they read the Bible and see tales about the chats that the Hebrew god Yahweh routinely had with different biblical characters, they naively think that these communications actually happened.

Our opponent now offers yet another manipulation of the same nature by use of the word "naively" to score debate points.

Of course, if they were reading, say, the transcription on the Moabite Stone, they would probably chuckle at king Mesha's apparent belief that he had a hotline connection to his god Chemosh.

What such persons might think of Mesha's sentiments is of no relevance, and this is a useless appeal in context, in light of Chemosh's apparent disappearance from the scene thousands of years ago, showing that Chemosh, if he indeed existed, has been either rendered impotent or left. In any event, our opponent has still not shown that this comment referenced above was merely added in order to subtly instill doubt and take a swipe at the authors of the OT by suggesting that they simply made this word of Yahweh up out of thin air, this being a pertinent example of the sort of non-subject distraction we refer to -- i.e., the subject is no longer consistency of the Biblical record as has already been stated, but now, historical authenticity of the contents. Being that this is the case, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to insert the wedge of doubt on another issue which is of no relevance to the topic at hand, thereby attempting to gain debate points illicitly.

The article that [Holding] “replied to” was written when he was a 22-year-old kid.

This is an interesting chronological note, which is entirely true, but it is of no relevance in context, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I didn't write it with him in mind or with any other gullible believer in biblical inerrancy in mind.

Who was in mind when our opponent wrote this is not at issue; what is at issue is that our opponent has still not shown that this comment referenced above was not merely added in order to subtly instill doubt and take a swipe at the authors of the OT by suggesting that they simply made this word of Yahweh up out of thin air, this being a pertinent example of the sort of non-subject distraction we refer to -- i.e., the subject is no longer consistency of the Biblical record as has already been stated, but now, historical authenticity of the contents.

I discovered long ago that gullible Bible believers are beyond hope.

This is merely an ad hominem evaluation of "gullible Bible believers," and it is of no relevance in context, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership.

My article was written for the benefit of people whose minds have not yet rusted shut on the issue of biblical inerrancy, and such people would be open to the possibility that just because the Bible says, “Thus saith Yahweh of hosts,” that would not constitute any proof that a primitive war-god had actually said it or had even existed to say it.

This is also merely an ad hominem evaluation, and while we do not doubt that people in many religions, as well as in many political parties or social institutions, believe things merely upon such face value as described, it is of no relevance here since we have not stated that such constitutes proof in the way described, this is a distraction in context, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership.

I find it rather curious that [Holding] would bring up this issue, because right at the beginning of his reply, he said that the “historicity” of the conquest would be off limits.

I did not "bring up" this issue; our opponent "brought up" the issue by means of a snide remark which was clearly added, not because it was of relevance to the issue at hand, but merely in order to subtly instill doubt and take a swipe at the authors of the OT by suggesting that they simply made this word of Yahweh up out of thin air, this being a pertinent example of the sort of non-subject distraction we refer to -- i.e., the subject is no longer consistency of the Biblical record as has already been stated, but now, historical authenticity of the contents.

Here are his own words.

Our opponent quotes my initial paragraph above, which we trust the intelligent reader can find on their own, but in light of our opponent's insistence on quoting EVERYTHING, we reproduce anyway:

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

So after declaring “historicity” off limits, right away [Holding] brings up an issue that would require a discussion of the historicity of the statement attributed to the Hebrew god in Deuteronomy 7, so is historicity off limits or not?

Again, I did not "bring up" this issue; our opponent "brought up" the issue by means of a snide remark which was clearly added, not because it was of relevance to the issue at hand, but merely in order to subtly instill doubt and take a swipe at the authors of the OT by suggesting that they simply made this word of Yahweh up out of thin air, this being a pertinent example of the sort of non-subject distraction we refer to -- i.e., the subject is no longer consistency of the Biblical record as has already been stated, but now, historical authenticity of the contents. Our purpose was to expose our opponent's manipulative debate methods, and he has provided no response other than a bald, transparent, and unconvincing denial of intent.

I'd be very glad to present reasons why sensible people would seriously question the biblical claim that a god named Yahweh “chose” one nation from all nations on earth to be his “special people” and then routinely chatted for several centuries with their leaders.

Here again we merely have more ad hominem ("sensible people", implying that those holding the opposite position are not "sensible", even before any argument has been offered) and yet another distraction in context; i.e., the issue still is not "Yahweh's Land Promise" but now the choice of Israel and the veracity of divine communications. We do not doubt that our opponent would be "glad" to do these things, but at present they are nought but a manipulative distraction of the sort we have described.

I would be happy to quote ancient records where similar claims were made for other tribal gods.

One is sure our opponent would be "happy" to do this, but this is again a distraction in context; i.e., the issue still is not "Yahweh's Land Promise" but now the implicit parallels of other such gods making such promises. As such, it does not need to be brought up, this does not need to be quoted, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership.

In those cases, I don't think [Holding] would find fault with anyone who said that those texts contained records of incidents when ancient gods “presumably” spoke to whomever.

I have no opinion at this time as to whether any particular being or other describing itself as a "god" did or did not speak to "whomever." Unlike our opponent, I remain "agnostic" on such issues without sufficient data and do not presumptuously assume that any person who has indicated such communications are a sign of delusion and can be safely described in terms of something snidely and "presumably" done (beyond what I have noted above with regards to Chemosh).

Our opponent quotes the ASV thusly:

**Response

I hope everyone will take a good look at [Holding]'s inconsistency. After repeatedly wasting space to chant his mantra about my use of “irrelevant setup” statements, he then turned and said, “Our opponent quotes the ASV thusly,” so he recognizes that writing that communicates clear ideas will necessarily use expressions and statements at times that serve no purpose except transition and introduction of topic changes.

There is no "inconsistency" here for I maintain that one reason why it is irrelevant and superfluous to quote an opponent's transitional statements is that I am quite capable of providing the needed "transitions" in my own way, in my own writing, without engaging the absurd excess-demand that I also quote my opponent's transitional statements, which become superfluous in context.

He has made this issue into a straw man, I suppose, to make his readers think that he is really scoring points when he is actually doing nothing but trying to distract attention from the force of my arguments.

We remind the reader that it is, again, our opponent who originated the principle of distraction with the insistence that we quote EVERYTHING that he said, and that he has still failed to explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, beyond scoring debate points with a skeptical readership.

By attacking my sentence that introduced the text in Deuteronomy 7, he apparently hoped that he would make his readers think that the quoted passage following it was no more important than my “superfluous commentary” that had introduced it, so once again, I'll say that he is a fine one to talk about “distractions” in someone else's writing.

Our opponent is merely trying to escape the net we have thrown capturing him on the grounds of offering superfluous and manipulative commentary for the purpose of scoring debate points. In so identifying the phrase, we emasculate our opponent's own effort to distract, and now expose his transparent attempt to escape the charge by attempting to throw it back in our direction.

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

It is then said:

**Response:

“It is then said”? Such superfluous commentary doesn't require quotation or reference from a respondent.

We agree, and unlike our opponent, we do not and never have demanded that he quote such statements, and unlike our opponent, recognize that if no reply is needed, no quote is needed.

Why did [Holding] insert it into his reply?

It is inserted as a "bare bones" transition of the sort our opponent asserts is proper for good writing; however, this has nothing to do with the issue of whether it is necessary to quote such statements in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Why didn't he just go from my quotation of the text in Deuteronomy to my comments about it that immediately followed in my article? He cannot, and never will be able to, explain why he didn’t just quote my own article with the transitional introductory statements and the biblical quotations all together

As we are not the ones demanding that EVERYTHING be quoted, we have no explaining whatsoever to do. We have never demanded that our opponent quote our transitional statements; we have never demanded that he quote introductory statements; we have never demanded the he repeat every word as though it were nectar of the gods, and we never will demand such things. We ask for no more than a fair representation of our case, and that is what we have always given our opponent, despite repeated denials for which he has given no tangible support.

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

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

**Response:

Was it any worse of a “setup” than the ones that I have identified in [Holding]'s writing above, which he used throughout his “rebuttal”?

The "setup" was neither better nor worse, but the issue is that we have never demanded that our opponent quote such "setup" as he has demanded that we do.

My point has been made on this, so I will save time from now on and simply reply to this kind of quibbling with the term that it deserves--straw man.

Our opponent has little choice but to resort to this empty response, since he has utterly failed to show why it necessary to quote such statements in a reply, and cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

As for whether my statement was “a matter that all parties would agree to,” I will remind him of the general biblical ignorance of the American population.

As above, this comment might have some worth if our opponent could give us a single example of a person who denies, or does not figure out from Scriptual quotations cited, that the substance of this prophecy was repeated in such places as Exodus 23:20-33; Deut. 4:33-39, Deut. 7:1-2, and Deut. 31:1-8. As he offers no names of such persons, we are left asking who these people are, why they deserve mention, and why it is necessary to quote this in a reply.

To say that all parties would agree to what I said is ridiculous, because there are many parties who wouldn't know whether to agree with it or not, because they just don't know much about the Bible.

Again, we wish for an example of a person who disagrees that the substance of this prophecy was repeated in such places as Exodus 23:20-33; Deut. 4:33-39, Deut. 7:1-2, and Deut. 31:1-8, or for a person who would not be sufficiently informed by the cites themselves as I note them in my own words, and if I use my own words, why I need to quote or opponent's words.

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

This is merely a pointless and polemical repetition of what is offered above. Our opponent has little choice but to resort to this empty response, since he has utterly failed to show why it necessary to quote such statements in a reply, and cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

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

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

**Response:

Straw man!

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

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

**Response

Straw man!

Such superfluous commentary doesn't require quotation or reference from a respondent.

Unlike our opponent, we have never demanded quotation of such transitional statements.

Why did [Holding] insert it into his reply? Why didn't he just quote my transitional sentence and the quotation from Joshua 1:1-6 all together?

Again, we do not deny at all the need for such transitional statements in coherent writing; we do deny that it is necessary to quote such statements when offered by our opponent, and unlike our opponent, have never demanded that our statements of this sort be quoted.

As readers will see below, my quotation of the text included a parenthetical identification of the chapter and verses in Joshua and the version I was quoting from.

This is very nice, but within the context of my reply, it was determined that my trasitional statement was smoother than leaving our opponent's parenthetical identification. Even so, we have never demanded that our opponent quote such transitional statements, and he cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Hence, a composite quotation of both my transitional sentence and the biblical quotation that followed would have looked like this.

Such a composite quotation of both my opponent's transitional sentence and the biblical quotation that followed would have been unnecessary, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why we are required to repeat his transitional sentence and the biblical quotation that followed in the way he prefers, as opposed to the way we prefer; furthermore he cannot explain why it would make any difference in terms of giving his actual arguments a fair and honest treatment.

Our opponent then offers his composite quotation, which is not necessary to quote, but we will do so in light of the stricture to quote EVERYTHING:

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

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

So what game is [Holding] playing? He is fighting desperately to justify his flagrant snipping and skipping of my arguments in past articles where he gutted my materials down to nothing and called these “replies.”

What we are doing is, among other things, exposing our opponent's transparent excuse for not engaging in debate over the past few years, namely, that he would refuse to debate us unless we quoted EVERYTHING he wrote, with the added charge that in not doing so we misrepresented or distorted his arguments. As we have repeatedly shown, our editing never has, and never will, result in such misrepresentation or distortion.

Anyone who can see through a ladder should be able to recognize his flagrant quibbling.

This is a very charming descriptor, but it is not an argument, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with his skeptical readership.

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

And then:

**Response

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

The issue is not whether we used such an expression, but why, if we do use one, our opponent insists that it is necessary that we quote EVERYTHING that he writes, something he has not, and never will be able to, explain. Unlike our opponent we do not demand that he quote our own transitional statements (under the rubric of EVERYTHING) in his replies.

Just before crossing the Jordan, Joshua repeated the promise:

**Response

Here is the same straw man again, coming from someone whose writing demonstrates that he too recognizes the need to use transitional devices in clear writing.

The issue again is not whether our opponent, or we, should use such transitional statements in our writing, but whether we should be compelled to quote such transitional statements from our opponents when we are writing.

He cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such transitional devices could not have been quoted along with the text below.

As I have never demanded (unlike our opponent, under the rubric of EVERYTHING) that such transitional devices need to be quoted, I have nothing that needs to be explained here.

He is trying to give his readers some justification for having snipped and skipped materials from other articles of mine that he supposedly “replied to,” but I will be glad, in a separate debate, to show his readers some of my arguments that he evaded and then tried to justify the evasion by labeling it “fluff” or “distractions” or “irrelevant repetition.”

In that case, we eagerly await our opponent's examples of evaded arguments which we labeled fluff, distraction, or repetition, for this is a challenge we have extended for the past several years unanswered here. Shall this be debate #5?

If he accepts this challenge, he will have the opportunity to show his readers that what he snipped and skipped was comparable to the transitional sentences that he has made such an issue in this article.

We accept this challenge and eagerly await our opponent's examples of evaded arguments which we labeled fluff, distraction, or repetition, for this is a challenge we have extended for the past several years unanswered here, in which we clearly and indisputably showed that what was skipped and snipped was comparable (in the way described) to the transitional sentences, or was fluff, or repetition.

Of course, I would expect a guarantee that [Holding] would allow his readers to see my articles that expose his past snipping and skipping, but I suspect I have a better chance of winning the Mega Millions jackpot than ever getting an agreement from him to post my exposures on his website.

We have already allowed readers to see an example of a full article we "snipped and skipped" from at the link just above, with all words restored and words we quoted highlighted, so our opponent already has an example to work with. Our opponent may use those millions to buy several barns to store his supply of crow in.

My transitional sentence above contained only nine words: “Just before crossing the Jordan, Joshua repeated the promise.”

Since no one would argue that this sentence contains only nine words, there is no reason to bring the matter up, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

[Holding] made a straw-man issue over it and then saw the need to introduce my quoted passage with his own transitional sentence of eight words. Why didn't he just put my transitional sentence and the quotation from Joshua all together?

The issue is not whether our opponent, or we, should use such transitional statements in our writing, but whether we should be compelled to quote such transitional statements from our opponents ("EVERYTHING") when we are writing, if we provide our own.

Well, he's too busy quibbling to do the sensible thing.

We remind the reader the the "quibble" that has been repeated in our ears year after year for the past several years has been that WE have not quoted EVERYTHING and have thereby somehow misrepresented our opponent's arguments. Several years have seen no reply or specific examples of this alleged misrepresentation, so once again, we eagerly await our opponent's examples of evaded arguments which we labeled fluff, distraction, or repetition, for this is a challenge we have extended for the past several years unanswered here.

There is an old adage that says there is a difference in having something to say and in having to say something.

This is indeed an old adage, but it still has nothing to do with the issue of "Yahweh's Land Promise," and has been, as have been these past several sentences from our opponent, yet another example of an unrelated diversion posited to distract from our opponent's inability to address the issue at hand.

I think everyone has seen by now that [Holding] knows that he has to say something but doesn't really have anything to say.

By contrast, we have waited several years for our opponent to have "anything to say" to the challenge we have extended for the past several years unanswered here.

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

Then it is said:

**Response:

Such superfluous commentary doesn't require quotation or reference from a respondent. Why did [Holding] insert it into his reply?

Why didn't he just quote my transitional sentence and the quotation from Joshua 1:1-6 all together?

The issue is, again, whether we should be compelled to quote such transitional statements from our opponent when we are writing, if we provide our own, and as yet our opponent provides no reasonable, logical answer for this indefensible requirement that we quote EVERYTHING.

Has everyone noticed that we have gone this far, and [Holding] has not yet tried to answer anything.

Under this rubric, our opponent has essentially admitted that all of his commentary so far does not qualify as "anything," and by implication, is "nothing," and that it is not necessary to quote any of it in a reply, and that he cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary required quotation and/or reference from us, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics. Yet it is he who has insisted that we quote EVERYTHING, in spite of this admission now that in so doing, and replying, we are not answering "anything".

He has spent his time quibbling about my use of transitional and introductory sentences, and has then turned around and repeatedly used them himself.

We have spent no time at all quibbling about our opponent's use of transitional and introductory sentences. We have spent time highlighting the absurdity of our opponent's insistence that we quote EVERYTHING including transitional and introductory sentences and other things that do not need to be quoted.

I'm going to hammer away on this point so that his readers, who may think that he is a cracker-jack apologist, may finally realize that he spends more time in distractive quibbling than actually trying to answer his opponents’ arguments.

Intelligent readers have already recognized that our opponent's proclivities are towards the overwhelming use of fluff, blather, and repetition to make his case seem more substantive than it is, and that these tactic may be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject.

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

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

**Responses

To sentence 1:

The same old straw man!

Also to sentence 1:

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

We have not criticized our opponent's writing style, which overall is satisfactory if somewhat wooden and dull. Rather, we have criticized his obsessive insistence that we quote EVERYTHING that he writes, including introductory or transitional statements and irrelevant narrative of past events of no relation to the topic at hand, "Yahweh's Land Promise." We find it difficult to believe that our opponent has so soon forgotten, after just highlighting it recently, that we use the "pretentious" first-person plural. We suggest that vitamins may be of some use, or that this is merely a polemical comment intended to score points with a sympathetic skeptical readership. In any event, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

To sentence 2:

Straw man!

Maybe I should tell readers to be patient.

What our opponent chooses to tell his readers, upon whom he has himself inflicted whatever need for patience may exist by way of his obsessive requirement that we quote EVERYTHING he says, is his own matter of concern, and an irrelevancy in this context. It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

Eventually [Holding] does get around to trying to reply to my arguments.

This is a true statement, and should be patently obvious to anyone who has read my response, so it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

I can't wait till I get there. I enjoy shooting fish in a barrel.

While this is a fine expression of our opponent's self-inflicted bout with impatience, and also a charming expression of confidence for the sake of his loyalists, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

To sentence 3:

Hmm, I wonder why [Holding] uses special devices to emphasize expressions in his own writing. Even in his reply to my land-promise article, he used such emphasis.

I use such special devices when indeed they are necessary:

Here is just one example, which appears later in his article.

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

The phrase "is mine," in my view, does not have the expressive, emphatic nature in context of the portions our o