Where did Enoch go

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Evolution of Apologetics and Concepts of God

John Loftus has posted a video making a provocative comparison between Elijah's Apologetic methodology recounted in 1 Kings 17 and 18 with the Apologetic argument used often by William Lane Craig. The video misrepresents what the Bible says happened on Mt Carmel in some fundamental ways. The video also is also unfair to the arguments that Dr William Lane Craig uses. I think it is amazing how successful Dr Craig's arguments are in debates despite their flaws. I'm not going to spend much time on Dr Craig's approach but I think a good apologetic approach shares the characteristics that Elijah's approach had. I'd describe it as presuppositional and evidential. Here is the video and I think a discussion afterward of what Elijah's approach is in order.  The video's producer obviously missed understanding Elijah and missing William Lane Craig. 



From the videos description

Published on Jun 29, 2012 by DarkMatter2525

How the mighty have fallen. Perhaps it has something to do with no longer being allowed to kill the opposition. The story of Elijah on Mt. Carmel is such obvious bunk, probably ancient propaganda, and clearly opposed to Moses' and Jesus' sentiments of not testing God. I thought it would be funny to juxtapose it with a William Lane Craig-style debate. I guess somehow it wouldn't be as convincing for God to show up during one of Billy Craig's debates, with cameras rolling and a few billion potential viewers. Nope. A few hundred ancient desert people atop a drought-stricken Mt. Carmel are obviously much more important than the rest of the world. In fact, they're literally called God's "chosen people". Imagine if someone like the president had a "chosen" race of people he went out of his way to support above and against all other races. I'd dare say people would call him a racist. God is a racist according to the bible.

Obviously DarkMatter2525 has several presuppositions that  have many problems. Here is a start, I'm going to focus on these

1. Nothing happened on top of Mt Carmel.
2. The Bible tells us that we should not test God but that Elijah tested God.
3. Deuteronomy 6:16; Matthew 4:7; Luke 4:12 are in conflict with the story
4. That if God moved in a similar powerful way today (recorded with modern technology) it would carry more weight and more people will believe.
5. God choosing Israel as his chosen people means that God does not care about non Jews.

There is more that can be said but we'll stick to these five for now. The attempt here is to try to make an argument against the Bible and Christianity by using the Bible.  In this case, the attack falls apart if the Bible does not say what it is being accused of advocating. 

1. The argument concedes that we should look at what the Bible says happened. We should also consider that Israel just wasn't in a random  three year drought. It was in response to the sin and wickedness of King Ahab and Israel. 

 ³³ Ahab also made an Asherah pole and did more to arouse the anger of the Lord, the God of Israel, than did all the kings of Israel before him. - 1 Kings 16:33

Now Elijah the Tishbite, from Tishbe^[a] in Gilead, said to Ahab, “As the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word.” - 1 Kings 17:1

Elijah was on the run all that time - the whole three years. We must also keep in mind that Elijah did not confront Ahab or issue this challenge on his own. God sent him. Just like God told Elijah about the drought, God told Elijah when he was going to send rain.
'
After a long time, in the third year, the word of the Lord came to Elijah: “Go and present yourself to Ahab, and I will send rain on the land.” ² So Elijah went to present himself to Ahab.
Now the famine was severe in Samaria, - 1 Kings 18:1

Elijah challenged the people's presuppositions. He challenged them to make a choice.

²⁰ So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets on Mount Carmel. ²¹ Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.” - 1 Kings 18:20-21

Then he challenged his opponents with evidence. 

²² Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the Lord’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. ²³ Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. ²⁴ Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord. The god who answers by fire—he is God.” Then all the people said, “What you say is good.” - 1 Kings 18:22-24

Elijah gave them his opponents first choice on their bull and he poured water on his sacrifice to make it clear that it was not luck or a trick when his sacrifice was burned. This could not have been just ordinary lightning. Not only was the bull consumed, but the altar and the water was too. 

Points 2 and 3 really suck. Deuteronomy 6:16; Matthew 4:7; Luke 4:12 do not conflict with Elijah. 

¹⁶ Do not put the Lord your God to the test as you did at Massah - Deuteronomy 6:16

So what happened at Massah? Anything similar to what Elijah did on Mt Carmel. 

And he called the place Massah and Meribah because the Israelites quarreled and because they tested the LORD saying, “Is the LORD among us or not?” - Exodus 17:7

At Massah and Meribah, the Israelites tested God in the way of  an attitude of  thumbing their noses at God from an unbelieving  mindset. Their attitude was one of rebellion. They tried to call God down to the carpet. This was not Elijah's attitude at all. So did Elijah sin like his ancestors at Massah? "Massah" means "testing" and "Meribah" means "quarreling". They testing God in the was a petulant two year-old defies his parents.  No parallel there with Elijah, but a good one with John Loftus and DarkMatter2525.

When  Satan tried to trip up Jesus, Jesus quotes part of Deuteronomy 6:16. 

⁵ Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. ⁶ “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
    and they will lift you up in their hands,
    so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’^[a]”

⁷ Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’^[b]” - Matthew 4:5-7

We know that Jesus was not just quoting the words but referring to the same context. Again Elijah was not in that context but Satan tried to get Jesus to fall into the same attitude as the people at Massah.

⁹ The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down from here. ¹⁰ For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you
    to guard you carefully;
¹¹ they will lift you up in their hands,
    so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’^[a]”

¹² Jesus answered, “It is said: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’^[b]” - Luke 4:9-12

As anyone can plainly see that Matt 4:7, Luke 4:12, and Deuteronomy 6:16 are all referring to the same thing and it's not against what Elijah did at Mt Carmel!

Fourth point. I'm not convinced at all that something like what Elijah experienced on Mt Carmel would make a difference on a lot of people. I have witnessed God acting on a person's behalf and they recognized that it was not them but they still refused to turn to God. God knows what it takes and has put each of us in the exact place and with with the best circumstances, on an individual basis, to best find Him. 

²⁶ From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. ²⁷ God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. - Acts 17:26-27

Point 5. There is no reason at all to think that God does not care about Gentiles. What did God choose the Jewish people for? It was not to be his special project and hate everyone else. It is through the Jewish people that God has blessed the entire Human race.

The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

² “I will make you into a great nation,
    and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
    and you will be a blessing.^[a]
3 I will bless those who bless you,
    and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
    will be blessed through you.”^[b] - Genesis 12:1-3

There is no way God could be accused of being racist - that is if you are looking at the Bible. I don't think there is a problem for opponents of Christianity to try to use the Bible for their arguments. God welcomes it because it more than stands up to scrutiny. Just if you are going to engage is such folly bring your "A" game. Because if this was the best shot, we really have nothing to be worried about. Also if you are going to reject the Bible at least get what it says correct! One more suggestion: Don't forget that William Lane Craig is not the "end all" and "be all" of Christian Apologetics,  Jesus is.

Debunking Christianity: The Evolution of Apologetics and Concepts of God

Calvinistic Cartoons: Provoking Thought

Eddie Eddings has posted a provoking short essay by John W. Robbins called "The Virtue of Name-Calling". A real interesting posts!


Calvinistic Cartoons: Provoking Thought

FacePalm of the Day - #99 - Debunking Christianity: Harry McCall: Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch is Unfounded

Several weeks ago, John Loftus recently posted the following quote from Harry McCall. McCall makes quite a few claims. It doesn't hold up.

 The belief that either Moses wrote the Pentateuch or that it predates the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy – II Kings) is unfounded by the Biblical facts themselves:

I'm going to grant that Deuteronomistic History as a fact because most scholars seem to agree to it even though I'm not completely sold  on it. Instead let's look at  McCall's claims that Moses did not write Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, or Numbers.

(Yet it is clear that Jesus thought Moses gave Israel the Law: “Did not Moses give you the Law,…” John 7: 19). Thus, if the modern critical view of the Bible is correct, then Jesus himself is subject to error.)

I'm glad that McCall is willing to grant the John 7:19 accurately recounts  Jesus' words. It's nice to have a point of agreement to start with. I don't agree with the modern view  but this post is about McCalls' alleged contradiction which he says show that Moses did not write those first books of the New Testament.

Point A: Why do latter books of the Bible totally ignore early Mosaic Laws - such as when Elijah is commanded by God to eat what unclean ravens brought (1 Kings 17:6) - especially when the Law clearly forbids eating that which has been torn by beasts?

 The latter books of the Bible do not ignore the Mosaic Laws.  Now a few important points: 

1. Who said that the ravens brought Elijah brought meat that had been torn by beasts?

2.  Does McCall really think that no one else has thought of this question?

3.  There is a long tradition offering alternatives other that what McCall suggests. For Example.

1. "You shall be holy men to Me, therefore you shall not eat any flesh torn to pieces in the field; you shall throw it to the dogs." Exodus 22: 31

2. "Also the fat of an animal which dies and the fat of an animal torn by beasts may be put to any other use, but you must certainly not eat it." Lev. 7: 24

3. "He shall not eat an animal which dies or is torn by beasts, becoming unclean by it; I am the LORD." Lev 22: 8)

These three examples actually misrepresents what the Bible says. 

1. Doesn't conflict with the raven because the Bible does not say that the meat came  from torn animals.

2. Fat and Meat are not necessarily the same thing. The Hebrew words used for "flesh" in Exodus 22:31 and "fat" in Lev 7:24; 22:8 are not the same words at all. Again, it doesn't conflict with ravens bringing Elijah food wither.

3. Leviticus 22:8 is in context of the Levitcal priesthood. Which would have applied to Elijah. But not in context with the raven because of the aforementioned reasons.

Some more Biblcial[sic] proofs of the LATE creation of the “Mosaic Law” (Pentateuch) is listed below:

Let's see if  McCall's arguments improve.

Point B: Why did Samuel hesitate to anoint a king over Israel (1 Samuel 8) when Samuel already had Deuteronomy 17: 15?

No improvement here.  We just agreed that Deuteronomy may not have been written by Moses. I'll save that for another post. The passage is clear for why Samuel did not think there should be a king.

Point C: Why did Elijah build an altar to Yahweh away from the legitimate central sanctuary?

Where does the Torah say that it's wrong to build an altar away from the central sanctuary. A reference would have been nice. At the time the Torah came down there was only the Tabernacle and no Temple.  There is a tradition that was certainly around in Jesus' time that Jerusalem was the only legitimate place to worship God, but Jerusalem did not come under Jewish control until David's time and we know they were worshiping Yahweh way before that. And Jesus shot down this idea in John 4.

Point D: Why can Hezekiah quote no “Mosaic Law” for his reform, whereas Josiah does (2 Chronicles 31 to 2 Kings 23)?

Who said Hezekiah couldn't? Hezekiah's reforms were in line with the Mosaic Law, just because the passages does not quote the Law doesn't mean they didn't have it.Also keep in mind that a  lost book was found in the temple during Josiah reign. If the Law had not been written down, what were they reading? See

 ⁸ Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD.” He gave it to Shaphan, who read it. ⁹ Then Shaphan the secretary went to the king and reported to him: “Your officials have paid out the money that was in the temple of the LORD and have entrusted it to the workers and supervisors at the temple.” ¹⁰ Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king.

 ¹¹ When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. ¹² He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Akbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king’s attendant: ¹³ “Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD’s anger that burns against us because those who have gone before us have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.” - 2 Kings 22:8-13

Point E: Why does Deuteronomy permit Levites to come to the altar where as Leviticus does not? Link.

Again, after McCall says he's dealing with the books before Deuteronomy, he brings up another conflict between Deuteronomy and Leviticus. So again his  further arguments deteriorate. 

Harry McCall even further posted the following anecdote.

Twenty-three years ago (while I was president of our humanistic discussion group here in Greenville The Lion‘s Den) I debated a young ministerial student over the truth of the Bible (one of a number of debates I did back in the 80’s). This nice young ministerial student published very well written a monthly apologetic newspaper he entitled: The Bible Trumpet.


With regard to our debate, he asked me if his wife could help in defending his conservative position on Biblical truth... one point being that Moses wrote Pentateuch. I told him I would welcome her input, however the debate did not fare well for them and they left disappointed.


A year later, he excitedly told me that he was going to attend an Apologetic Bible conference where the famed Late Gleason Archer, PhD; ThD; the renowned conservative Old Testament scholar and the editor of “The International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties” along with the conservative Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser would be leading a major conference on the defense of the Bible.


Dr. Archer's topic was: What Proof Do We have That Moses Wrote the
Pentateuch?

Dr. Walter Kaiser’s topic was: The J E D P Documentary Hypothesis Exploded

(I still have the audio tape somewhere in my library.)


After both apologetic lectures, Drs. Archer and Kaiser would then debate several Moslem scholars in order to exposed the Qu’ran as a false historical record (A debate I thought was like the pot calling the kettle black!).


My young friend told me he had been in touch with Dr. Archer who challenged him to have me write down any facts which I felt proved Moses did not write the Pentateuch. My friend said he would personally give them to Dr. Archer at the conference and claimed that Dr. Archer “…would put me in my place”.


My young ministerial friend told me that he was very excited about Dr. Archer’s challenge to me and he could not wait to give me my irrefutable apologetic proofs that Moses did write the Pentateuch. So I wrote down five hard facts which I felt proved Moses did, in fact, not write the Pentateuch.


A week later my ministerial friend returned, but seemed very disappointed. After all, he had used his short vacation time off from his night job (as he was a full time college Bible student during the day), plus he paid all his expenses to and at the conference with his credit card.


When I asked him what irrefutable evidence Dr. Archer provided so as to prove my facts wrong, he told me he didn’t know what had happened.

He said he gave Dr. Archer my questions, who studied them for a short time, then Archer threw them on the conference table and exclaimed: “Whose this nut?” before walking off.


That’s right! Yours truly has been declared an official declared a “nut” by the editor / author of The International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (sounds a lot like JP Holding).


However, I had the last laugh since (the funny thing is) it only took a “nut” to stump the great Gleason Archer!

I found this anecdote extremely sad. McCall seems to be willing to think that Dr Archer calling him a "nut" and not even dignifying his silly ideas with a rebuttal is the same as not being able to offer counter arguments. Further it's interesting how atheists are more than willing to see Richard Dawkins' dismissal of Christians as a "win" but think that if a Christian scholar does the same of arguments that they think are not worth their time equates to the Christian "loosing". Why would McCall think that Archer was stumped. I think Archer just didn't want to waste his time. I mean he couldn't just let McCall think he had worthy arguments.I mean that is what Dawkins says.  Total fail here.

Debunking Christianity: Harry McCall: Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch is Unfounded

Related articles

• Israeli Software Aims to Shed Light on the Bible (frstephensmuts.wordpress.com)
• I'm reading through The Meaning of the Pentateuch... (banannery.com)
• Biblical Archaeology (visayanatheists.wordpress.com)
• Discuss the documentary hypothesis as advocated by Julius Wellhausen during 1844-1918 (wiki.answers.com)