Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[Vance]

Paul was speaking ironically in 1 Corinthians 7:40.

By what authority to you make this claim?

[Rob Bowman]

By what authority to you make this claim?

By what authority do you ask?

[Hannah Rebekah]

Do you claim to be a Prophet?

[Vance]

By what authority do you ask?

Asking a question requires authority? Who knew?

[altersteve]

By what authority do you ask?

Avoiding the question. Vance does not need any authority to question the authority that you obviously claim to have.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

Avoiding the question. Vance does not need any authority to question the authority that you obviously claim to have.

I'm not avoiding the question. I've already answered it. Vance just doesn't like my answer.

As for my question to Vance, let me rephrase it this way: By what authority does Vance dispute the explanation that I have already given for what I mean when I say that I have authority from God?

[Rob Bowman]

Hannah Rebekah,

You asked:

Do you claim to be a Prophet?

Please define what you mean by a Prophet, and I'll tell you whether I claim to be one in the sense that you mean.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Hannah Rebekah,

You asked:

Please define what you mean by a Prophet, and I'll tell you whether I claim to be one in the sense that you mean.

Are you kidding me...how about we play...."I'll take what's behind door number 2?"

Why don't you define your answer using the sense that you mean?

[Vance]

Steve,

You wrote:

I'm not avoiding the question. I've already answered it. Vance just doesn't like my answer.

As for my question to Vance, let me rephrase it this way: By what authority does Vance dispute the explanation that I have already given for what I mean when I say that I have authority from God?

By the same or equal authority as you claim (as I meet the same qualifications as you claim).

And with this same or equal authority that you claim, I say that you are in error. Paul was not speaking sarcastically, but rather admitting that what he said was not driven by revelation from the Spirit, but rather that he felt that the Spirit was not opposed to his judgement in this case.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Vance

[Pahoran]

"I know what you are against; what are you for?" (Emile DeBecque, in South Pacific)

Seeing that quoted by a Protestant anti-Mormon is about the funniest thing I've seen in a very long time. I appreciate irony.

I could go on and on....

We know you could; you usually do.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

Hannah Rebekah,

Fine. I'll play the game your way. A prophet is someone specially inspired by God to deliver new revelations from him that carry the authority of the very word of God. By that definition, I am not a prophet.

Are you kidding me...how about we play...."I'll take what's behind door number 2?"

Why don't you define your answer using the sense that you mean?

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

What you don't appreciate is that my statement was not ironic. A great deal of what I have posted here, perhaps even the majority of what I have posted, has been explanations and defenses of evangelical beliefs. Dan, on the other hand, likes to post attacks on the evangelical view of Scripture but won't make any effort to show how what he says correlates with LDS doctrine, even when asked. He does this especially on CARM (when they let him), but he does it here, too. In fact, if you can be honest about it, by your own standard, Dan is an anti-evangelical.

Seeing that quoted by a Protestant anti-Mormon is about the funniest thing I've seen in a very long time. I appreciate irony.

We know you could; you usually do.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited October 25, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

What you don't appreciate is that my statement was not ironic.

You mean you didn't intend it to be; evidently it was ironic by accident.

A great deal of what I have posted here, perhaps even the majority of what I have posted, has been explanations and defenses of evangelical beliefs. Dan, on the other hand, likes to post attacks on the evangelical view of Scripture but won't make any effort to show how what he says correlates with LDS doctrine, even when asked. He does this especially on CARM (when they let him), but he does it here, too.

Yes, I've noticed that CARM is more tolerant of attacks on EV-ism than it is of defenses of the Restored Gospel. I guess that's because EV's are always attacking each other; after all, both Calvinists and Arminians call themselves EV's, so if they couldn't air their disputes, they wouldn't be able to discuss much at all.

Defending the truth, however, is much easier for them to censor.

In fact, if you can be honest about it, by your own standard, Dan is an anti-evangelical.

Really?

Has he started a business "ministry" that purports to do "religious research" but really only "researches" slick and spurious arguments against other peoples' beliefs?

Who knew?

Regards,

Pahoran

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

Naturally. Your consistent pattern in everything I have read from you since our first encounter is that you "take issue" with the evangelical view of Scripture but say little or nothing about your own view.

"I know what you are against; what are you for?" (Emile DeBecque, in South Pacific)

I take issue with the notion that the Evangelical view of scripture is anything other than a dogma. I reject the notion that it has a logical or empirical basis. It simply something people accept on faith, and if someone intends to argue otherwise I will take issue with it. I acknowledge that the LDS view of scripture is something that one must accept on faith.

You wrote:

Um...it's a confession. You know full well the Confession is not the basis for the authority of Scripture.

Fair enough, but what do you mean by "confession"? What purpose does it serve?

You wrote:

No. The Scriptures are authoritative and true because God speaks in them. God is the authority; the Scriptures, as his word, carry and express his authority. To put it another way, whatever God says is authoritative because God is the authority.

But what leads you to believe that the Bible constitutes what God says? What is your basis for this assertion? You can say either that it's because the Bible says so or that you simply accept it on faith. I don't believe you can honestly say anything more.

We must distinguish the question of why Scripture is true and authoritative from the question of how we come to recognize it as true and authoritative.

My question was intended to ask the latter. My apologies for being unclear.

These are two different questions. We must also distinguish these two questions from the question of how one who believes in the Scriptures might go about showing someone who doesn't that the belief in the Scriptures is reasonable. So those are three distinct questions.

So you did not come to know the scriptures are true by a means you can describe to me as reasonable?

You're reading the Confession ahistorically. The Confession is a text that originated in a specific historical context. Catholics and Protestants agreed that the Scriptures were the sole written word of God. The differences between them were over the Catholic Church's claim that it was the custodian of the authority and interpretation of the Scriptures because supposedly it was the Church that created the Scriptures. Against this false claim the Protestants argued, correctly, that Scripture's authority does not derive from any ecclesiastical institution. The Confession was not written to address liberal or modernist criticisms of the Bible.

But you seem to suggest that it is still valid in the face of liberal or modernist criticisms of the Bible, do you not?

You wrote:

The Confession is not claiming that people without the Bible commonly arrive through natural theology at a conception of deity consonant with the Bible's teaching. You are attacking a straw man.

Then please explain exactly what is meant by the statement. Please be as specific as possible.

As for the Confession's affirmation that the evidence of the natural world is sufficient to hold people accountable to God, your argument is not merely with the Reformed framers of the Confession but with the apostle Paul (Romans 1:18-25).

So?

You asked:

"God's each of apostles and prophets"? I don't understand what that means.

Wow, that was some serious dyslexia. "Where were each of God's apostles and prophets . . ." Sorry for the confusion.

To save time, let me refer you to a website that provides the Belgic Confession with Scripture references. The citations provided there do not exhaust the subject but provide some indication of the types of biblical support for the statements made in the Confession.

Exod 31:18 and 34:27 contain commands for Moses to write down the Torah. The rest of the commandments in Exodus have been done away with. Why is this commandment, which is explicitly addressed only to one person for only one text (some is reading the text "ahistorically," huh?), still valid? Psalm 102 references a single psalm, and is merely describing an action, not prescribing a requirement. Rev 1:11, 19 are also a specific commandment to a specific individual regarding a specific text. More ahistorical reading. Rev 1:2 is another descriptive statement regarding a specific event (and very few scriptural authors actually saw what they are composing with their own eyes). 2 Tim 3:16 has no bearing whatsoever on why someone writes a text that becomes scripture.

Your link has failed to provide any support for the notion that "God commanded His servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit His revealed Word to writing." At most it shows that the authors of Revelation and Exodus claim God commanded them to record their respective texts (although with Exodus it was just the law, not the narrative, and with Revelation it was just the vision, not the narrative leading up to it). Can you support the assertion scripturally?

You wrote:

I have observed that CFRs typically count for nothing when I as a non-Mormon issue them to Mormons -- and even when Mormons issue them to other Mormons regarding false accusations made against me.

I don't believe I've ever failed to respond to a CFR, and I don't believe that I am responsible for the negligence of others on this board.

Furthermore, I consider this CFR to be less than serious. You already are familiar enough with evangelical literature to know the kinds of evidence I would adduce.

So are you unwilling or unable to defend your evidence against my criticisms, or would you just like me to skip right to my criticisms? If the latter, the proofs can be divided into two categories: internal and external evidence. The internal evidence all requires one presuppose the texts are true, and the external evidence can never do anything more than show a few portions of the biblical texts are historically accurate (and this in spite of the mountains of evidence that more portions of the texts are inaccurate).

[maklelan]

You also know that the Belgic Confession specifically mentions the fulfillment of biblical prophecy as one such type of evidence. And you know that I know that you don't accept any such evidence.

If it refers to biblical prophecies fulfilled within the Bible itself, yes, I flatly reject that as actual evidence since it requires the presupposition that the biblical text is accurate both in the pronouncement of the prophecy and in its fulfillment. If it refers to post-biblical historical events that supposedly fulfill prophecies then I'd like to examine them. Many times such fulfillment is read into texts. Certainly you understand that it's hardly legitimate to insist that evidence exists but that you don't want to share it because I won't agree with it anyway.

So I feel that I would be well within my rights to ignore your CFR.

I disagree and I renew my CFR.

Here are some examples of the types of evidence that confirm the truth of the Bible:

The evidence from astronomy showing that the universe had a beginning, confirming Gen. 1:1, etc.

This idea is rather outdated. The notion that matter was created ex nihilo at the Big Bang is a remnant of early version of the theory. Quantum theory leaves little room for that conclusion these days (Copan and Craig's arguments notwithstanding). I recommend this book as a jumping-off point. Here's a bit from the conclusion:

The key message we hope to have transmitted to the reader in this book is that there are neither observational data nor incontrovertible theoretical arguments to support the belief that the Big Bang represents the beginning of the Universe, and that before the explosion there was “nothing”. On the contrary, there are solid motivations – based upon recent developments in theoretical physics – for thinking otherwise. There are also scientifically valid tools for tracing the history of the cosmos back to epochs preceding the Big Bang, providing ways of testing such investigations with a series of effective experimental observations that are already feasible, and with even better prospects in the near future.

Additionally, the creation account in Genesis 2 does not suggest an absolute beginning, and science flatly precludes the rest of both creation accounts.

The evidence from astronomy, physics, etc., showing that the universe is fine-tuned to provide a stable environment in which life can exist, confirming the Bible's teaching that an intelligent Being created the world (Gen. 1-2, etc.)

The Enuma Elish also teaches than an intelligent being created the world. This consideration hardly constitutes evidence that the Euma Elish is true.

The evidence from anthropology, psychology, etc., showing that human beings are qualitatively different from all other biological creatures on earth, confirming the Bible's teaching that human beings are unique in their relationship to God (Gen. 1:26-27, etc.)

The vast majority of scientists would flatly reject the notion that our biological uniqueness indicates anything about a special relationship that distinguishes us from other creatures. Additionally, many other religious texts teach the same idea.

The evidence from human behavior, good and bad, showing that human beings are not just animals doing what comes naturally but are creatures with an awareness of moral absolute values and yet in whom something has gone terribly wrong, confirming the biblical teaching of the Fall

The idea that something has gone terribly wrong is neither the logical end of the observation that humans do not perfectly conform to "moral absolute values" (that change with every generation) nor confirmation of anything in the Bible. These are just broad observations that could be the outcome

The evidence from the Ipuwer papyrus, for example, confirming portions of the Exodus account

It does absolutely no such thing. The closest it comes is stating that "the river is blood and one drinks from it," and that likely just has to do with the redness of the river during the flood season as a result of the soil it picks up. It's been argued by some that this may account for the plague, but this explanation only means what is described in Exodus is something that happened every year, and hardly means the Ipuwer papyrus specifically confirms the event described in Exodus. You also overlook the fact that the vast, vast majority of archaeological and textual evidence not only does not support the Exodus account, but flatly precludes it. There simply were never millions of Israelites marching across the Sinai. There were never even thousands of Israelites marching across the Sinai.

The evidence from archaeology that Jericho was destroyed in a manner closely matching the account in Joshua (though most archaeologists dispute the chronological match)

This is phenomenally outdated research. The collapse of the walls outward is perfectly in line with a natural disaster like an earthquake, which happened from time to time. Amos 1:1 mentions an earthquake, and we can roughly date the occurrence because we have found places where city walls fell outward. Why is this occurrence at Jericho 400 years too early significant. Additionally, there is not really dispute regarding the chronology. The site was uninhabited from the 16th century to the 9th century. Joshua would have come through between 1200 and 1100 BCE (a date around 1400 BCE relies too literally on a single stream of biblical tradition and is even less in agreement with the archaeological data).

The evidence from archaeology and extrabiblical texts confirming the existence of many of the biblical kings and other historical figures, and even specific events, such as the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, the rule and character of Herod the Great and of his sons, etc., etc.

So the Bible is roughly accurate when it comes to broad historical circumstances from around the 6th century and after? This would just happen to confirm the theories of many scholars that the majority of the biblical texts were gathered or written after the Iron Age.

The evidence from extrabiblical texts confirming the existence and some of the events involving such NT figures as John the Baptist, Jesus, and James, the famine in Judea mentioned in Acts, etc., etc.

Again, broad historical circumstances do not constitute evidence that the Bible is true. It just constitutes evidence that certain broad historical circumstances are roughly accurate. The same can be said of any number of ancient texts that make assertions about the gods.

[maklelan]

The evidence of fulfilled prophecy that at least those portions of the Bible were supernaturally inspired, e.g., the prophecy in Genesis 12:1-3 that peoples all over the earth would view Abraham as their spiritual father (not fulfilled until centuries after the Bible was completed),

No such prophecy is fund in Gen 12:1-3. This is what that text says:

Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

I don't see any claim that "peoples all over the world would view Abraham as their spiritual father." Abraham is also a rather marginalized figure within those religions connected by ostensible descendance from him.

the prophecy in Isaiah 11:11 that a second restoration of Jews to their Promised Land would take place (not fulfilled until 1948),

This refers specifically to return from the Babylonian exile, which is made perfectly clear by the rest of the prophecy, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with 1948:

He will raise a signal for the nations

and will assemble the banished of Israel,

and gather the dispersed of Judah

from the four corners of the earth.

¹³ The jealousy of Ephraim shall depart,

and those who harass Judah shall be cut off;

Ephraim shall not be jealous of Judah,

and Judah shall not harass Ephraim.

¹⁴ But they shall swoop down on the shoulder of the Philistines in the west,

and together they shall plunder the people of the east.

They shall put out their hand against Edom and Moab,

and the Ammonites shall obey them.

¹⁵And the LORD will utterly destroy

the tongue of the Sea of Egypt,

and will wave his hand over the River

with his scorching breath,

and strike it into seven channels,

and he will lead people across in sandals.

¹⁶And there will be a highway from Assyria

for the remnant that remains of his people,

as there was for Israel

when they came up from the land of Egypt.

the prophecy in Daniel 9:26 that a second temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed along with the city (fulfilled in AD 70, long after even a second-century BC date for the book of Daniel), etc.

Daniel 9 is actually an ex-eventu prophecy about Antiochus Epiphanes' desecration of the temple (שחת primarily means to spoil, corrupt, or ruin). That desecration was supposed to be immediately followed by eternal peace (which was what the author hoped would happen). That obviously it didn't happen, even if you insist it refers to 70 CE. Dan 10:30-31 shows the abomination of desolation that would desecrate the temple and end the sacrifices would be a Greek person who would collude with apostate Jews. This perfectly matches Antiochus' campaign.

The evidence from the past two millennia of Jewish and Christian history of the salutary wisdom and values of the Bible in stimulating the development of education, science, music, technology, the abolition of slavery, the elevation of women and children, etc., etc., etc.

This has nothing to do with evidence that confirms the truth of the Bible, but Christianity actually severely impeded the progress of education, science, and technology for several centuries in its campaign against non-Christian texts and education. It was Muslims who preserved early scientific and philosophical texts while Christians were burning "pagan" material and those who refused to convert. The abolition of slavery was actually achieved in spite of the best efforts of numerous Christian groups. The rest of your claim is equally debatable, but I'm not going to go into all of it.

The evidence from NT criticism that confirms, despite the often anti-supernaturalistic bias of many practitioners, the basic biographical facts of the life of Jesus (his childhood in Nazareth, his baptism by John in the Jordan, his gathering disciples around him, his reputation as a healer and teacher, the opposition of Sanhedrin leadership to Jesus' claims, his arrest in Gethsemane, his condemnation to crucifixion by Pilate).

NT criticism in no way confirms these biographical facts. NT criticism seeks to approximate the earliest form of the NT text, but that still puts us on the wrong side of the text to actually confirm the events themselves. Other kinds of scholarship has shown that the broad historical circumstances, like Jesus' reputation as a teacher and his death at the hands of Pilate, are not precluded or unlikely in light of the evidence, but there is absolutely no extant evidence in any corner of the universe that actually confirms any of these events.

The evidence from historical study of the NT that confirms the historicity of Jesus' death and resurrection

No, there is simply no evidence anywhere in this universe that at all confirms the historicity of Jesus' death and resurrection.

[maklelan]

And here are just a few of the books that I would recommend you read that support the points made above:

Apologetics Study Bible. Nashville: B&H, 2007. Excellent articles and study notes supporting and defending the factual accuracy of the Bible.

Archaeological Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. What the title indicates.

Archer, Gleason L. New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982. The best of several very good "Bible difficulties" reference works.

I've read the original Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, and academically speaking it's an utter abomination, and I do not use that term lightly. It is simply not scholarship at all. I doubt the "New International" version overcomes the numerous and egregious fundamental methodological errors of the earlier edition, but here's a not-brief-enough explanation of why I have concluded that Gleason Archer simply does not have the first clue what he's talking about:

Archer asks in an early portion, "What solid evidence is there for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch?" His answer is broken down into four sections: (1) Biblical Testimony to Mosaic Authorship, (2) Internal Evidence of Mosaic Composition, (3) Moses' Qualifications for Authorship of the Pentateuch, and (4) The Basic Fallacy Underlying the Documentary Hypothesis. There's nothing about external evidence, but all four of his sections are absolutely rife with fallacy, presupposition, and outright ignorance, and he cannot provide a single shred of legitimate evidence for Mosaic authorship. Section 1, in the broadest terms, demands we presuppose that the texts are inerrant. If we don't bother with that presupposition then the fact that the Bible says so really doesn't bear on the question. Additionally, it assumes that references to the writing of the Torah indicate the writing of the Pentateuch as a whole, which is silly. Archer asserts as much directly in the face of what the texts actually say. For instance, he states:

Other references to Moses' writing down the Pentateuch are found in Exodus 34:27, Numbers 33:1-2, and Deuteronomy 31:9, the last of which says, "And Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests." Two verses later it is made a standing requirement for the future that when "all Israel has come to appear before Yahweh, you shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing." This provision apparently comprises all of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and most of Deuteronomy (at least through chap. 30).

The reference to "this law," however, has reference to the statutes and judgments described between Deut 12:1 and Deut 30. Observe the statements from chapters 11 and 12:

Therefore you shall love Yahweh your God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments always. . . . Therefore you shall keep all the commandments which I command you this day . . . And it shall come to pass, if you shall hearken diligently to my commandments which I command you this day . . . For if you shall diligently keep all these commandments which I command you, to do them . . . A blessing, if you obey the commandments of Yahweh your God, which I command you this day . . . And you shall make sure to do all the statutes and judgments which I set before you this day . . . These are the statutes and judgments which you shall observe to do in the land . . . [chapter after chapter of apodictic and casuistic laws] And Moses went and spoke these words to all Israel. . . . And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel. . . .

Nowhere does the text indicate "this law" "apparently comprises all of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and most od Deuteronomy." That's just something Archer made up.

Next Archer insists:

Later on, after the death of Moses, the Lord gives these directions to Joshua, Moses' successor: "This book of the Law shall not depart from your Mouth, but you are to meditate in it day and night, in order that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it" (Josh. 1: . The denial of Mosaic authorship would mean that every one of

the above-cited verses is false and unworthy of acceptance.

Of course, all the texts he cited really only had to do with specific collections of laws, which only make up a portion of the entire Pentateuch. His claim that denial of Mosaic authorship would make every verse cited above "false and unworthy of acceptance" is not only entirely false, but appeals to the presupposition that such a horrifying thought could never be entertained. Even if I accepted the notion that Moses wrote the laws that the Pentateuch says he did, the theory of multiples sources for the Pentateuch isn't at all precluded. The person who originated the theory, after all, was a believing French scholar who did believe Moses wrote the laws.

Next Archer makes another ridiculous claim:

the author of these books and his readers must originally have lived in Egypt. Furthermore, these factors indicate that they had little or no firsthand acquaintance with Palestine and knew of it only by oral tradition from their forefathers. We cite the following evidences.

1. The climate and weather referred to in Exodus are typically Egyptian, not Palestinian

(cf. the reference to crop sequence in connection with the plague of hail, Exod. 9:31-32).

The text from Exodus, by the way, says the following (KJV):

And the flax and the barley was smitten: for the barley [was] in the ear, and the flax [was] bolled. But the wheat and the rie were not smitten: for they [were] not grown up.

There's nothing about these statements that indicates an Egyptian provenance for the text. Barley and flax were harvested before the wheat in Palestine as well. In fact, the Gezer Calendar, from Gezer (20 miles east of Jerusalem), attests to the very pattern observed in Exodus, with barley first, then flax, then wheat. Archer seems to be just making stuff up. He continues:

2. The trees and animals referred to in Exodus through Deuteronomy are all indigenous to Egypt or the Sinai Peninsula, but none of them are peculiar to Palestine. The shittim or acacia tree is native to Egypt and the Sinai, but it is hardly found in Canaan except around the Dead Sea. This tree furnished the wood for much of the tabernacle furniture. The skins for its outer covering were the hide of the tahas, or dugong, which is foreign to Palestine but is found in the seas adjacent to Egypt and the Sinai.

The fact that the acacia tree is only found in Palestine around the Dead Sea hardly indicates it is foreign to Israel, which included the area of and around the Dead Sea. The "dugong" is just a type of dolphin, but it is not only found in the seas adjacent to Egypt and the Sinai. It's also found along the Phoenician coasts, and the dolphin was used far more in Phoenician motifs than in Egyptian. Note too that the tabernacle follows Syro-Palestinian styles, and Solomon's temple was designed by Phoenicians. Why should we assume the motif in describing the tabernacle comes from Egypt? No one really thinks they actually used dolphin skin for the tabernacle, after all. It's just a touch of decadence as a literary flourish. Archer continues:

3. Even more conclusive are the geographical references that betray the perspective of one who is personally unfamiliar with Palestine but is well acquainted with Egypt. (1) In Genesis 13:10, where the author wishes to convey to his readers how verdant the vegetation of the Jordan Valley was, he compares it to a well-know locality in the eastern part of the Egyptian Delta region, lying near Mendes, between Busiris and Tanis. He states that the Jordan Valley was like "the land of Egypt, as you go toward Zoar." Nothing could be plainer from this casual reference than that the author was writing for a readership unfamiliar with the appearance of regions in Palestine but personally acquainted with the scenery of Lower Egypt.

Zoar is actually a city that existed somewhere east or southeast of Jerusalem. It's where Lot hides out after Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. Cf. Deut 34:1-3. It was not a "well-known locality in the eastern part of the Egyptian Delta." Archer is again just making stuff up. He goes on:

4. The atmosphere and setting of the desert prevails all through the narrative, from Exodus 16 to the end of Deuteronomy (though there are some agricultural references looking forward to settled conditions in the land that they were soon to conquer). The prominence accorded to a large tent or tabernacle as the central place of worship and assembly would hardly be relevant to a readership living in Palestine for over seven centuries and familiar only with the temple of Solomon or Zerubbabel as their central sanctuary.

He appears here to be confronting the notion that the Pentateuch was fully composed during the exile or shortly afterward, but the tradition of the tabernacle isn't usually dated that late. Irrespective, much of Syria-Palestine is desert, and a tent would be no more relevant to an Egyptian readership, which would have understood temples in even more grand and permanent terms than a Palestinian readership. There's more, though:

5. There are many evidences of a technical, linguistic nature that could be adduced to support an Egyptian background for the text of the Torah. Detailed examples of this may be found in my Survey of Old Testament Introduction (pp. 111-114). Suffice it to say that a far greater number of Egyptian names and loan words are found in the Pentateuch than in any other section of Scripture. This is just what we would expect from an author who was brought up in Egypt, writing for a people who were reared in the same setting as he.

It's also just what we would expect from a writer living during the height of Egyptian imperialism, which is what many proponents of JEDP suggest. Moving on to his declaration of JEDP's basic fallacy, Archer states:

[maklelan]

The most serious of the false assumptions underlying the Documentary Hypothesis and the form-critical approach (the former assumes that no part of the Torah found in written form until the mid-ninth century B.C., the latter defers all writing down of the received Hebrew text of the Pentateuch until the time of the Exile) is that the Israelites waited until many centuries after the foundation of their commonwealth before committing any part of it to written form. Such an assumption flies in the face of all the archaeological discoveries of the last eighty years, that all of Israel's neighbors kept written records relating to their history and religion from before the time of Moses.

This is just a stunningly asinine statement. First, it presupposes the Israelite commonwealth was established under Saul exactly as described in the biblical text, but the archaeological evidence at most supports a loose confederation resembling a nation around the time of David and a small nation around the time of Solomon. Hardly comparable to an Egypt or a Babylon, and we're already pretty close to the mid-ninth century BCE. Second, the nations of Egypt and Assyria-Babylon invented writing over 2000 years before Israel was ever a nation and had large scribal communities and schools. Israel had none of this, and the earliest attestation of a language we can confidently identify as Hebrew dates to around 1000 BCE, and is quite basic. Compare the following texts:

The first two were written 700-800 years before the third and fourth, and the third is the earliest indication we have of an Israelite administrative body, and it might not even be Hebrew! Do you see the difference in quality? Do you see the lack of precision and the inconsistency? It goes well beyond just the rudimentary look of the text, too. See the letter in the third text that looks like an upside down "A" in the upper-right hand corner? It's on its side on the left end of that line and it's flipped on the left side of the second line from the bottom. It's the same letter, the alphabet was just such a recent phenomenon that the direction of the letters had not yet solidified. Archer wants to point to the vast historical and religious corpora of Egypt and Babylon as pleading for analogous historical writing in Israel in the Bronze Age and early Iron Age? You might ask, what about Israelite stelae and inscriptions and royal dedications? Certainly those would have been more sophisticated and lengthy. Well, we have none. Archaeologists have not uncovered any. Certainly Archer isn't going to accuse the natural accident of preservation of the same "false assumption" as he does proponents of JEDP. Archer apparently never considered that there may be a good reason we date the composition of the Pentateuch to roughly the same time period that we find lengthier and more formal inscriptions and other texts popping up in Syria-Palestine. He would have to have a rudimentary grasp of biblical criticism and archaeology to recognize that, though, and he very obviously has neither. Guess how many years before the above text the following text was written:

1500 years. This is why Israel's neighbors could write history while Israel couldn't. They were richer, they had more slave labor, they had more natural resources, and they invented writing two thousand years before Hebrew existed. To insist that we must assume Israel was writing at the same pace is absolutely asinine.

Enough with his introduction, though. Let's see him deal with an actual difficulty. He addresses the question of who is referred to with the phrase "sons of God" in Gen 6:2:

Genesis 6:1-2 reads: "When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful,and they married any of them they chose: (NIV). The term "sons of God" (bene 'elohim) is used in the Old Testament of either angels or men who ware true believers, committed to the service of God. Passages that refer to angels as bene 'elohim include Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psalms 29:1; 89:6 (89:7 MT). The Masoretic text (MT) does not contain this phrase in Deuteronomy 32:43, but a fragment of a Hebrew text found in Qumran Cave Four reads: "Shout joyously, O heavens, with Him, and worship Him, O sons of God [bene 'elohim], and ascribe to Him might, all you sons of the mighty [bene 'elim]. Shout joyously, O nations, concerning His people, and accord strength to Him, all you angels of God [kol-mal'ake 'el]." This is considerably more expanded than the received Hebrew text (MT) of this verse, but it may possibly be the original wording. It was probably the passage quoted in Hebrews 1:6--though Psalm 97:7 may also be the source of that verse.

But the occurrences of bene 'elohim referring to men standing in covenant relationship to God are fully as numerous in the Old Testament as those referring to angels (cf. Deut. 14:1; 32:5; Ps. 73:15; Hos. 1:10 [MT=2:1]--and, we believe, Gen. 6:2 as well).

The errors in this text are numerous. First, there's no indication anywhere in the Old Testament that the bene elohim were considered angels. That tradition began in the Hellenistic period. The Bible never equates the two. Next, Archer's description of the Qumran text in question is completely wrong. He is providing an English translation (with made-up Hebrew glosses!) of a retroverted version of the Septuagint translation of this verse. His retroversion is wrong, as well. Simply put, his translation is not based on any manuscript in existence. I have no idea where it comes from. It appears that Archer simply took some conflated and confused English translation of the Septuagint mixed with some other text and guessed what the Hebrew would have said. This is what the Septuagint actually says:

Rejoice, O skies, with him, and let all the sons of God do obeisance to him. Be glad, O nations, with his people, and let all the angels of God prevail for him. For he will avenge the blood of his sons and take revenge and repay the enemies with a sentences; and he will repay those who hate, and the Lord shall cleanse the land of his people.

Bene elohim appears in no Hebrew manuscript attesting to this verse, nor does bene elim. While the former does appear in Greek in the Septuagint, the latter does not. "Sons of the mighty" is also an incorrect translation of bene elim. kol-malake el also does not appear in any Hebrew manuscript of which I am aware. This is the entirety of the Qumran fragment he references (4QDeut-q):

Rejoice, O heavens, with him, and let all the gods worship him; for the blood of his sons he will avenge, and he will exact vengeance on his enemies; and he will repay those who hate him, and cleanse the land of his people.

Here's a picture of it, so you can verify:

Next, Heb 1:6 alters the order a bit. Ps 97:7 probably doesn't mediate the two, but it appears also in Odes 42. Next, the phrase bene elohim never appears in reference to humans. None of the texts he cites actually contains the phrase bene elohim. Deut. 14:1 says "sons you are to Yahweh your God." Deut 32:5 has nothing to do with anything, but v. 6 refers to God as "your father." Ps. 73:15 just addresses God and refers to "your children." Hos. 1:10 comes the closest with the phrase "sons of the Living God" (בני אל חי). While these appeal to similar concepts, the phrase bene elohim is a technical phrase that appears even outside of Hebrew literature. It never refers to human beings. It exclusively denotes gods. Archer's assumptions are completely false.

Now here's the most flagrant display of anti-intellectualism and dogmatism on Archer's part (he is confronting the demonstrable fact that the Philistines didn't exist anywhere near Abraham's day):

But to conclude from the mere fact that the earliest extant reference to the Philistines in Egyptian records dates from the 1190s constitutes any objective proof that there were no Philistine immigrants from Crete there at any time previously is an irresponsible violation of logic.

The Hebrew Scriptures constitute the most trustworthy of all archaeological documents (since they are invested with a divine trustworthiness from beginning to end); and they state very clearly that Philistines lived in Philistia as early as the twenty-first century B.C. They also affirm that the Philistine fortresses that guarded the northern route from Egypt to Palestine were so formidable in the days of Moses (the 1440s B.C.) that a circuitous southern route remained the safest for the Israelites to use in their journey toward the Promised Land (Exod. 13:17). Obviously this record composed by Moses was centuries earlier than that of Ramses III, and there is no reason to assume that the earlier a record is the less trustworthy it must be.

In other words, it doesn't matter what other evidence says. What the Bible says is true, and the other evidence just needs to be understood in light of that.

Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998. Excellent defense of the reliability of the Gospel that modern scholars most often denigrate as history.

Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman Jr. 20 Compelling Evidences that God Exists: Discover Why Believing in God Makes So Much Sense. Colorado Springs: Victor, 2005. The points listed above constitute a quick (and incomplete) list of the evidences discussed in this book.

Brisco, Thomas V. Holman Bible Atlas. Nashville: B&H, 1997. One of several excellent Bible atlases that document the rich factual basis of the Bible in its geography and history.

Collins, C. John. Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? Wheaton: Crossway, 2003. One of the best surveys of the coherence of the Bible with modern science.

Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011. Discusses many of the objections people have to the Old Testament's portrayal of God.

I didn't find this book particularly insightful, but I did find it rather irresponsible with its sources. Thom Stark's review, while quite antagonistic in parts, cuts to the core of the problems with the book.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. I don't agree with Kitchen's date for the Exodus, but in general this book provides a wealth of information supporting the historical value and factual basis of much of the OT.

Kitchen's approach is obviously far more informed and methodological Archer's and I'm not going to commit a great deal of time to analyzing his arguments. I acknowledge that there is quite a bit of reliable history in the Hebrew Bible, but there's simply no evidence that suggests people like Moses or Abraham were historical.

Licona, Michael. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010. Rigorous historical case for the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Mangalwadi, Vishal. The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011. An absolute must-read for so many reasons.

I'll have to take a look at these last two.

The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & CommentaryI could go on and on....

But in the end you must always return to a simple presupposition. One must presuppose the Bible is true. Even if you could confirm the existence of David or the historicity of Sennacherib's failed siege of Jerusalem or the existence of Moses or Jesus (which you simply cannot), none of it would serve to "prove Scripture to be true." Confirming those events has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not David saw an angel or was chosen by God, on whether or not an angel killed 300,000 Assyrian soldiers, or on whether or not the Israelites had the Red Sea split before their eyes, or whether Jesus rose from the dead, and that's really all that matters when it comes to the Bible being true. You can point to sections of text here and there that can be shown to be plausible, which is all that the better publications listed above do, but that is limited to portions of the Bible that date to after 1000 BCE, and not a word of any of the texts you cited or evidence you brought up actually serves to at all "prove Scripture to be true." All it does is show that the Bible is in some sections on par with the other historical texts of the cultures that surrounded her, and I doubt that is the basis of anyone's notion of biblical inerrancy.

[diglot]

Ah, I remember the good old days of my youth when I thought that people like Gleason Archer, Josh McDowell, et al, represented the pinnacle of Christian scholarship. Now I can only LOL at such a thought.

Edited October 26, 2011 by diglot

[cdowis]

Christ answered the question:

Matt 7 [20] Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

[21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

[22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Not every person who professes by their mouth, but those who have been baptized, those who keep the commandments.

Faith (confessing with the mouth) without works is dead.

Edited October 26, 2011 by cdowis

[shalamabobbi]

Christ answered the question:

Matt 7 [20] Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

[21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

[22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Not every person who professes by their mouth, but those who have been baptized, those who keep the commandments.

Faith (confessing with the mouth) without works is dead.

Ah cdowis, before we can answer this from the Bible we have to resolve the following conundrum first.

Is it the Bible that is trustworthy, or is it Rob Bowman's metaphorical interpretation that is trustworthy?

[ERayR]

Ah cdowis, before we can answer this from the Bible we have to resolve the following conundrum first.

Is it the Bible that is trustworthy, or is it Rob Bowman's metaphorical interpretation that is trustworthy?

If we are voting I vote for the Bible. I am not yet ready to place my eternal destiny in Rob Bowman's hands.

[Rob Bowman]

diglot,

You wrote:

Ah, I remember the good old days of my youth when I thought that people like Gleason Archer, Josh McDowell, et al, represented the pinnacle of Christian scholarship. Now I can only LOL at such a thought.

Putting Archer and McDowell in the same league scholastically is bordering on the weird, as I'm sure even Josh would agree. Archer's educational credentials were irreproachable (PhD, Harvard University, and other degrees) and his academic work and knowledge quite impressive. He taught seven ancient languages and is reported to have spoken about thirty languages. A good bio of him is the notice of his passing in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (see here).

It is one thing to disagree with Archer's stance on biblical inerrancy or to differ with him on some matter of interpretation. But when someone like you dismisses a scholar like Archer in such a smarty-pants, condescending manner, the obvious question that comes to my mind is, Just who in blazes are you?

[maklelan]

Here's an example of how excluding Mormonism from Christianity and bandying about the word "cult" operate really only as emotive and disingenuous sectarian weapons. I've argued elsewhere that the insistence that Mormonism isn't Christian, but is a cult, is an attempt on the part of most fundamentalists to associated Mormonism with things like Jonestown and the Branch Davidians. The few fundamentalists who have interacted with me on these points have insisted that they're appealing to a different, more cuddly use of the word "cult," and that no such association is intended. Fortunately for my conclusion, Catherine Aurelia/Athanasius/The Kings Servant/Carol has recently offered to dispense with the rhetorical middleman by just making the association explicit. These are the opening sentences of a thread started on another board:

Joseph Smith, Jim Jones and David Koresh are three cult leaders who grew up in America and led many Americans into cultic bondage, sometimes ending in terrible deaths. They all did this by spiritual manipulation - a charismatic ability to attract masses of people to a central personality figure. People joined the cults because of the leader, not because of devotion to Jesus Christ. It's always the leader, the church, the people - these are the things attracting deluded followers - for Christians, it's conversion to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and a desire to join with others who are brothers and sisters in Christ, that leads into a Church.

Here's why I find these comments to be just astonishingly myopic: Put Christ in the place of Smith, Koresh, or Jones, and you really don't have to change anything else except the location. Look at the parallel Carol herself draws: "Cults" = leader, church, people. "Christianity" = Christ (leader), brothers and sisters (people), Church (church). And what about those terrible deaths? Is Carol not aware of the willingness of early Christians to be tortured and killed, even seeking it out when it was not forced upon them? And those that did not seek it out were obviously more concerned with standing up for their convictions than saving their lives. What's the difference between this and Koresh? The only answer that is ever given is that the early Christians were right and Koresh was wrong, which brings it all back to sectarianism. When I do it it's ok because my beliefs are right. When you do it it's not ok because your beliefs are wrong. In both sets of circumstances you have a group that is socially marginalized and opposed to the standing government. In expectation of the eschaton this group runs from, or stands to fight against that government, ultimately dying in battle or killing themselves before battle can happen. It describes the situation with the Jews at Qumran and Masada as well. I've said it many times, but there is no way to define Christianity so as to exclude Mormonism without either begging the question or also excluding the Christians of the first and second centuries CE.

[Vance]

When I do it it's ok because my beliefs are right. When you do it it's not ok because your beliefs are wrong.

That sounds like Bowman's claim to authority.

LOL!!!