[quote]
I don't get it. You say he made errors and leave it at that. What are these mistakes and misquotings you're accusing him of? Do you know anything about Hebrew grammar with which to correct Turke's error? Let's get specific here.
[quote]

Here are some of the errors in Neal's position (Neal is Turkel's source, FYI). For example, he says:

ITEM 1
However, when the pronoun shifts, the identity of an item or the action verb itself changes ... and, in Hebrew literature, relative to verbs, this is *always* an indicator that the principles involved have changed.

PROBLEM WITH ITEM 1
Unfortunately, What Dr. Neal has described here also applies to every other language in the world besides Hebrew. His comment is true of the Spanish language. Or Gaelic. Or Russian. Even in English literature, when the pronoun changes, so do the actors and agents. That's the function of pronouns, for pete's sake: to cue the listener when the subject of the action is changing. He is trying to make something stupendous, out of a normal feature of grammar.


ITEM 2
The pronoun "they" is a suffix attached to the verb "shall destroy," thus indicating a relationship with "nations." The nations shall do this.

PROBLEM WITH ITEM 2
In Semitic languages, the pronouns are always verbal suffixes; i.e., part of the verbs themselves. It's like in Spanish, where you can conjugate a verb and leave out the pronoun. Verbal suffixes are the default for Hebrew, Arabic, etc. Again: Neal is trying to make something amazing out of ordinary grammar.

ITEM 3
Neal attempts to use this pronoun shift as proof that the word "they" in the passage of Ezekiel 26:12 has to refer to waves of future invasions that will wreck Tyre. Dr. Neal (and Turkel, by extension) seem to pin their hopes for rescuing Ezekiel's Tyre prophecy on these neat verbal suffixes. In their minds, that kind of grammatical construction prevents a Hebrew text from ever becoming confused about a pronoun and which antecedent noun it refers to. But that simply isn't the case. The noun-antecedent confusion is caused by the introduction of multiple plural nouns into the conversation, and is not prevented by any feature of Hebrew grammar.

[quote]
Again, the vague generalizations just keep jumping out at me.
[quote]

Only because you jumped the gun and responded before reading the text where I give a specific example (Darius the Mede).

[quote]
Where are your specific examples?
[quote]

Holding's defense of Darius the Mede as a real historical character.

[quote]
(Notice "examples" is plural.)
[quote]


I think you have enough to work with right now. If you work through Darius the Mede, I can give several other examples.

[quote]
For instance, what are these "abysmal sources" and what makes them so "abysmal"?
[quote]

Holding uses John Whitcomb as a source for this claim. But what kind of person is Whitcomb, and what does he really know about the subject of Achamaenid Persia? What kind of a scholar is he?

For starters:

1. Go to the www.talkorigins.org site and do a search on his name.

2. Then check out Whitcomb's resume at: Whitcomb’s resume can be found at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...j_whitcomb.asp

3. Whitcomb co-authored "The Genesis Flood" with Henry Morris. Ever read it? It's the book where they turn geology, chemistry, and biology upside down in an attempt to prove that the world is 6000 years old and that there really was a Noah's ark loaded with animals.

4. Did you know that the craters on the moon and Mercury were formed during Noah's flood? That's what Whitcomb says. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

5. Of course his co-author, Henry Morris, said the craters were formed by war between Satan and the archangel Michael. http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm

[quote]
That's irrelevant--especially considering the fact that most people know his real name is Robert Turkel anyway.
[quote]

No, it is not irrelevant. It goes to the question of Turkel's truthfulness and sincerity.

When dealing with someone who wants to discuss apologetics, it's vital that you have faith in the other person's sincerity. You may not agree with them, but you absolutely MUST establish that they are not intentionally deceitful. Otherwise, no real learning or communication can take place, because there is no trust - the opponent might be lying, making things up, or quibbling a point just to keep from losing an argument.

Turkel's excuse for using the pseudonym is not truthful.

[quote]
The reason I read on his site for using the psuedonym is that he used to do it for protection from the ex-cons he was with while working in the prison and since leaving there, he's seen no reason to change his whole website around just to change a name on it.
[quote]

I know what his website says. However, the reasoning does not wash. My father was a prison guard; he did not have to change his name to protect himself (or our family) from ex-cons. Other people who contribute to the Infidels site have similar family stories; yet none of them have changed their family names. Besides, what exactly is Turkel afraid would happen? How many ex-cons have a blood vengeance against the prison librarian, for pete's sake? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
And finally, would Paul or Peter have preached the gospel and then try to hide themselves? "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ...." recognize those words?

Turkel's excuse is lame, and does no credit to his (alleged) faith.


[quote]
The name someone goes by is completely irrelevent in dealing with the material he/she presents to you.
[quote]

As I indicated above, you are incorrect. Turkel's reason for a pseudonym is not accurate; it is an affectation that he wears like a colored sash.

[quote]
Omnedon1, you seem to believe you have Turkel pretty well figured out. Why don't you try taking up his "Chicken Challenge" and refuting some of his "lame," "any-way-out," "outlandish," "abysmal" work? I'm sure he'd be interested in hearing from you.
[quote]

Because as I have said before: Turkel has already been refuted. Farrell Till has refuted him. Jeffrey Lowder has refuted him. As have others.

The fact that Turkel continues to post after being refuted does not change things. An excellent example of this is the discussion on "Is ETDAV an Apologetic?" It is abundantly clear from the available evidence that McDowell intended that book to be an apologetic volume. Yet Turkel will insist to his grave that this is not the case.

quote]
Omnedon1, you seem to believe you have Turkel pretty well figured out. Why don't you try taking up his "Chicken Challenge" and refuting some of his "lame," "any-way-out," "outlandish," "abysmal" work? I'm sure he'd be interested in hearing from you.
[quote]

One more item that I couldn't help but notice. You (and Turkel) both issue statements for skeptics to take up the "Chicken Challenge".

But what of Turkel?

During his exchanges with Farrell Till (which you gave the URLs for), he posted his responses to Till on his Tekton website. But he edited out portions of Farrell's responses, so that there were changes in meaning or context. Or, important points that Till made about Turkel's claims were totally left out.

In other words, Turkel's readers did not get the benefit of the full, uncensored exchange. Why do you think that is so?

Till did not edit anything out; he put the entire exchange in his replies. Why didn't Turkel do the same?

Till has invited Turkel to debate in an open forum, where both questions and answers are uncensored and not editable. This would enforce honesty and remove the ability for either party to back away from a question or hide behind a weak position:


**************
So I am presenting another challenge to Turkel, and that challenge is that he and I debate the Jehu matter on internet sites like Errancy or alt.bible.errancy, which has a format that will allow readers to see everything that he posts and everything that I post. (I would expect the Christian side to provide a site too so that the debate will be seen by more than just primarily a skeptical audience.) We could agree on a point-by-point format, which would limit both of us to the posting of a single point or argument (with proper supporting details, of course) and the opponent's reply to that point.
*************

Turkel has not accepted the invitation. Why do you think that is so?

Remember what I said about establishing the other person's sincerity in a discussion about apologetics. What kind of honesty and sincerity can exist, when the opponent only shows selective parts of the debate to his readership?

SO REW:
If you're looking for a "Chicken" to challenge, I'd suggest you start with Turkel.

I have spoken with Till about Robert Turkel, and he is in fact quite peturbed that Turkel, while being arrogant and condescending on his webpage, refuses to either link to pages that refute his arguments or misrepresents other's arguments. Apparently, this is a problem Till constantly has with Christian apologists--they always do something so that skeptics can't have a full and fair reply.

[quote]
I have spoken with Till about Robert Turkel, and he is in fact quite peturbed that Turkel, while being arrogant and condescending on his webpage, refuses to either link to pages that refute his arguments or misrepresents other's arguments. Apparently, this is a problem Till constantly has with Christian apologists--they always do something so that skeptics can't have a full and fair reply.
[quote]


I can certainly understand Till's point of view. Linking to someone else's web page (in order to provide the audience with access to the full argument) is not just accepted practice in a debate; it is just plain common courtesy. Miller does this, as does William Lane Craig. If Turkel is aspiring to be an apologist, then he might want to model his behavior after some of the more scholarly ones out there.

Turkel's refusal to give his viewers access to his opponent's arguments makes Turkel look like he is afraid to let his audience see the opposition's point of view. As if he felt he could not defend his position in front of them. And (as I said before) it goes straight to the question of honesty and sincerity, without which no honest debate can really take place. Turkel does not behave like he is investigating these questions in order to find out the truth. Instead, he behaves like he launched his website primarily to blow his own horn and play to an "adoring audience".

What I can't understand are Christians who defend and/or listen to what Turkel has to say, *knowing full well* that they are only getting one side of the debate. Is their faith so weak that they feel better *avoiding* what the other side has to say?

I guess I never understood the mind-set that deliberately avoided listening to both sides. How would they ever know if they were mistaken about something? Seems like that uncertainty would always gnaw at them a little bit.....

Regarding Holding's usage of the Psuedonymn. Holding actually worked within a prison system and didn't want his name broadcasted all over the internet so that prisoners (upon release) could possibly track him down. So he used the name "James Patrick Holding". Was he being dishonest? Not really, he used his real name in his e-mails when communicating personally with people.

Is it That unreasonable of a request? He doesn't even go by the name "Turkel" on his website, so why was it important to vomit it up all over the secular web where anyone can find his name and track him down?

Is it okay to put people in danger simply because you don't like them?

And the rediculous Excuse that I read all the time was "Well, he put his real name in his e-mail, so I don't see what the big deal is"---the difference is, you can't find personal e-mail conversations by using a search engine.

Ah well, that's Humanism for ya.

Are you aware that Holding already adressed these accusations?

For Example, Till writes:
For example, in my refutation of his analysis of the word "reya," in which he attempted to show that it had the limited meaning of a close, personal friend, he cut out chunks of what I had said. He didn't mention, for example, the section where I showed that, contrary to his claim, "reya" was sometimes used in reference to those engaged in physical combat with each other and even once to pieces of dead meat lying on a sacrificial altar.

Holding Responds:

Actually, I made quite clear that Till had found an alternate meaning for reya - one that shows that it means "one another" (like the people next to "one another" fighting - which I did indeed cite - and the pieces of meat lying next to "one another" on the altar) in a general sense. I also showed that it had no relevance whatsoever to any passage in Kings. What does Till wish to assert is the significance of this allegedly important point? That Zimri killed all of Baasha's pieces of meat lying on the altar?

Till writes again:

He gutted the section of my reply in which I showed that "reya" and "yada" were used interchangeably and replied only to part of the examples that I gave.

To which Holding Replies:

That's all that is said about the subject; no specifics are given, nor does Till tell his thralls how it is that any specific omission affected his arguments. I referred to or quoted each attempt by Till to show this alleged "interchangeability", and they were all either not relevant or soundly rebutted. What we have here, in fact, is no more than Till's monstrous ego - which sees in his own mind the need to repeat and "rebut" every word that is said against him - thinking that his every word is so precious and relevant as to deserve a response. (There is a more frightening possibility, of course: That Till is so insensate to the basic rules of logic that he actually DOES believe that in eliminating the "junk", some important arguments were omitted!)

That said, I will certainly not be repeating a "Fish Bubbles" essay with Till's latest material.

*Anyone wishing to see the response Till made in its entirety may write to me and arrange for the sending of the relevant files, which I will keep a copy of*.

(Emphasis Mine)

My Gosh! Such dishonesty!

He Continues


But now to the challenge, and our counter. As I have pointed out, Till's allegation that I have professed some sort of special expertise in Hebrew is a straw man - a lot of self-serving Baloney. Till claims to have "exposed" my "phoniness"; what he has exposed is nothing at all, for there was nothing to expose to begin with. I made this point quite clear in my response, but Till says not a word in reply to this

You can Read More at this URL:

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

Just Scroll down to "Missed Material"




[This message has been edited by Magnus (edited February 17, 2001).]

How many ex-cons have a blood vengeance against the prison librarian

Hmm, a Prison librarian whose had to break up fights, had to testify against people in order to lengthen their sentence, etc. etc.

Don't you think that Holding knows about his situation better than you do? Or is it somehow fair and honest now to tell someone about the precautions that they should take based on _your_ experiance?


would Paul or Peter have preached the gospel and then try to hide themselves? "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ...." recognize those words?


Is Holding hiding his real name because he's ashamed of preaching the Gospel? Has he indicated that is the reason? Or does it have to do with his experiances with prison inmates?