Roger Pearse

I'm sure that you appreciate that rebutting a comment such as mine by demanding that the poster defend any and every portion of the book or site is neither rational nor (frankly) very polite.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

John Kesler

So you agree that Turkel contradicted himself in the space of a few sentences? I don't think that I was at all impolite to ask for your comment; for all I knew, you might have had an explanation which exonerated Turkel. And if politeness is of such a concern to you, why do you lend your support to one of the rudest, most impolite people on the Web?

GakuseiDon

I also think that Holding's research is often pretty good. His apologetics can be pretty adhoc at times, though often his detracters surprisingly misread him.

I don't see the problem, to be honest. The promises were made to "Abraham and his seed" and "Jacob and his descendents". Holding clearly has Joseph in mind here. What am I missing?

John Kesler

Turkel state that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years, but then claims that the 430-year period began with Yahweh's promise of Genesis 28, well before Jacob and his descendants entered Egypt. What else would "where the 430 years dates from" mean except that Genesis 28 is the starting point for the 430 years? Additional support that this is what Turkel meant is found by looking at his "Apologetics Bible Study: Galatians" article, in which Turkel copies and pastes the exact-same explication of Exodus 12:40 (complete with typographical error) when discussing Galatians 3:16-18, a passage which claims that the law came 430 years after the covenant. It appears that Turkel is claiming that the "covenant" was the Genesis-28 event, and thus the 430 year countdown began then.

Steven Avery

Hi John,

This is rather a nonsense question. JPH has some good stuff on his website (I tend to find that the third-party research is the best). If I send him something an acknowledgment would be proper. I sent him the Matthew 28:19 material because he was on the right side of the issue.

Would I prefer his tone were different at times ? Sure. Would I prefer that he has a tangible inerrancy view. Most assuredly. Have I seen him mishandle dialogs. At times.

However if I only shared information with those with whom I had 99.44% agreement .. nothing would be shared at all. And I would hope that others have a similar standard towards me. On occasion I have even found skeptics properly sharing and acknowledging information.

In fact, if JPH properly credited Roger that is a very good sign.
And I offer my thanks to Roger for his excellent scholarship contributions.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

John Kesler

That's a rather impolite thing to say. Anyway, no one says that you have to agree with everyone with whom you share information. However, Robert Turkel's stock-in-trade is being "impolite" (to put it mildly--very mildly), so for someone to chide me for alleged impoliteness while supporting the king of impoliteness seems a tad inconsistent to me.

Steven Avery

You are right. It wasn't nonsense and that was the wrong word for me to use.

However it had an easy answer and there is no aspersion on Roger whatsoever that JPH requested or used his scholarship and gave his reference. Roger is a potential extra-good influence on Tektonics and Tektonics readers (of whatever suasion).

I would rather stick with the substance than impolitely create impolitic impressions. Apologies for the 'nonsense' .

Shalom,
Steven

GakuseiDon

I took him to mean "Jacob and his descendents going to Egypt", which is why he highlights "Abraham and his seed" and Gen 28.15 (which is about leaving the promised land and coming back) and certainly matches his explicit statement "the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years". But you would need to check with him. If he is wrong, then fair enough to point that out. Personally Paul to me sounds like he means 430 years from Abraham to Moses, which is another contradiction.

Jayrok

An interesting tidbit about Holding , or Turkel if that's his name, is that he is a Preterist. He once told me that we are currently in the millenial reign of Christ. That Jesus bound Satan when he came in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. He believes Jesus meant AD 70 when he said "This generation will not pass..."

Sauron

Ah. I take it that you approve of his frequent research techniques of:


1. failing to link to the original argument of his opponent?

2. badly excerpting his opponent's position?

3. changing his published positions in the middle of a debate after his opponent points out the flaw? And then after the change, loudly crowing that the opponent hasn't correctly represented him? This particular tactic of his could only be defeated by copying his original argument to a local server and time/date stamping it to prevent him from backdoor trickery;

4. You're aware that Turkel defended Josh McDowell's scholarship in "Evidence that Demands a Verdict"?



Are these the research techniques you find to be "generally good"?

It seems that you are are willing to swallow huge character and integrity flaws, merely because Turkel is like-minded and has the same sacred cows that you have, Roger.