CJD

B.H. Manners, hello. Thanks for your thoughtful response. As you can see, this thread has been a bit one-sided.

Before I respond in detail, since I have posted two other responses to the debate that have either explained further or emended some of my previous points, I would really enjoy your engaging them, too.

*********

It will benefit others if I just post my primary example here. The location of the others I had in mind are not before me (mentally) right now. So as they come, I will post.

Consider the following from the "Treaty Between Ashurnirari V of Assyria and Mati'ilu of Arpad" (ANET, 532). This, by the way, is from an 8th century Assyrian text from North Syria: "This head is not the head of a lamb, it is the head of Mati'lu [his sons, officials and people]. If Mati'lu sins against this treaty, so may, just as the head of this spring lamb is torn off, . . . the head of the Mati'lu be torn off, and his sons."

Once the animal was killed, the one making the covenant could expect the same fate as the animal if he broke the covenant. The sacrifice is thus an enactment of the oath. Note that ktr, usually rendered "made" (cf. 15:18), literally means "cut."

*********

The parallel is a "perhaps"—not a definite. The imagery of smoke and fire, however, is pretty straightforward. Folks like myself who see the work of a brilliant later editor of the Tanak also tend to see purposeful unity and parallels throughout.

*********

I think some of your other questions might be answered in my other posts? For the sake of clarity, I would add that God's walking alone between the animal halves in Gen. 15 does indeed show us that the covenant is based on Abe's past faithfulness (cf. 6:18, and the parallels therein). This does not preclude, however (as I have noted previously), the possiblity that the promise gets re-defined as the charges thereof proceed down through the generations. Maybe the following will further clarify the position:

Abe, through his obedience fulfilled the righteous requirements of God's law and its blessing for his seed (cf. 26:5). Till rightly sees this. What he doesn't see is how the text clearly states throughout that only those who keep God's law will remain secure in that covenant. Those who do not abide will be cut off (cf. 17:14). This is where the idea of remnant comes in—made plain during the time of the prophets. This is also right about the point where Xian theology comes in, too.

Thus, there are two levels here:

1) Abe's obedience led to God's enactment of the unconditional covenant,

2) which, on an individual basis, is conditional depending on one's obedience.

What follows from this? When you have wholesale corruption, you end up with wholesale exile (this would explain God's leaving certain peoples in the Promised Land to test the Israelites—Judges 2:20–23; as well as the invasions of Assyria, Babylon, et al.).

Regards,

CJD

KnightWhoSaysNi

I'm just bumping up this peanut gallery to remind people that there will always be a link to this thread in the first post of the formal debate thread. This will save you the trouble from searching for the peanut gallery if nobody posted in it for a while.

Right now we're about to enter round 8 and it's Jason Gastrich's turn.

Jason

JoeWallack

TILL:
When did Yahweh ever stipulate to Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob that their descendants would receive the land only if they were obedient?

JASON:
I’ll explain why this “re-posted” question is irrelevant.

JW:
The issue is whether the land promise is conditional so it would be impossible for a question regarding conditions to be irrelevant. Comically Till's question above is exactly what Jason's primary argument has been all along. That the land promise was conditional on obedience. Till is merely asking Jason for textual support for Jason's position. Instead of Ignoring by saying it's irrelevant Jason instead needs to Explain either through Explicit text, Implication from Text and/or Common Sense that the land promise was conditional. Jason's use of "irrelevant" here makes it sound like he forgot what the primary focus of the debate was about during his absence.


Joseph

PROPERTY, n.
Any material thing, having no particular value, that may be held by A against the cupidity of B. Whatever gratifies the passion for possession in one and disappoints it in all others. The object of man's brief rapacity and long indifference.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/

Dadvocate

“I will ignore off-topic things. You have mastered the art of rabbit trails and red herrings. Therefore, expect for off-topic things to be ignored. When I agreed to responding point-by-point, I wasn’t referring to irrelevant nonsense.”

In other words, he reserves the right to maintain his monopoly on “irrelevant nonsense.”

A more apt analogy for what is happening here would be an ostrich sticking its head in the ground…The one very big difference, of course, is that Gastrich is the one hiding from all those scary details.

What a coward!

To proclaim something irrelevant in this fashion without any attempt at illustrating the irrelevancy is a blatant error in any debate. You’d think someone in a debate would be frothing at the mouth to pinpoint just how woefully their opponent is relying on irrelevant information. This is certainly something Till has no qualms about doing. How Gastrich can take as long as he has to get this reply out only to start off with this garbage is beyond me. Does he honestly think that this left-handed dismissal stops his position from hemorrhaging as openly as it does?

Apparently he does not hold the readership in serious enough regard to warrant explicating anything he submits. All we get are nifty opening platitudes about how nice it is to have us reading along.

Additionally, if Gastrich is on record as having agreed with everything Clarke says, how is it that this information is irrelevant? Does he deny that he agrees with everything Clarke says? That much is at least relevant if he doesn’t want his position to be considered as similar to Clarke’s. After further reading, it seems that he indeed agrees with him, at least in part. If that is the case, then he’s got some explanations to offer, irrelevant though they may be to his vision within the safety of his hole.

And the little charge that Till has levied against Gastrich that he is not considering the consequences of the positions he takes in these matters on inerrancy. Is that irrelevant as well?

“Till uses ad hoc exegesis to grab two verses of his choice and tell (sic) us that they are the definitive verses on the land promise. And then he wonders why I don’t answer his nonsense point-by-point.”

This one is amazing! He just gets finished telling us that Jos 21:43 is not relevant to his position, after Till illustrates just how badly Gastrich reads the context of the verse and thus his dismissal of it as irrelevant. Now he is accusing Till of picking out this and that verse to support his case. The problem is that Till just got finished pounding out just why it is that Gastrich is doing the exact same thing he now accuses Till of doing. Man, the denial one must have to muster up to simply turn around and essentially say “No I am not but you are” is a thing to behold. This when it is on record that Till shows HOW Gastrich is doing this, whereas Gastrich simply waves his wand in the hopes that we will simply follow along like lemmings.

I think it also pretty sad that he continues to tell the readers that we should go back and read his assertions again, as if the memory of their utter failure will go away on a second visitation. He seems in a hurry to get to his summation as well. No doubt because he knows how terribly he has done in supporting his case.

He is getting schooled in textbook fashion!

rainbow walking

I, too, get the impression Till is loading the concept of "possession" with unwarrented assumptions. A nation with the controlling authority over a land possesses it, even if other tribes, with far less authority still occupy certain regions within it.

CJD

Thanks for seeing this point and describing it with clarity, rainbow walking. While Till has shown himself to be a slightly better exegete (thus far) than Gastrich, his exegesis is at times far too static—as were the terms of the debate.

Till's major fault to date is the same as mine and everyone else's in biblical criticism: He has more to learn about socio-grammatico exegetical methodology. Taking into account the implied audience of this portion of Scripture (as I did in an earlier post) would also help us to better understand the passages in question.

Regards,

CJD

KnightWhoSaysNi

The formal debate between Jason Gastrich and J.F. Till is now complete. The debaters may participate in this thread now if they wish to.

Jason