Could the Old Testament Saints Have Used Presuppositional Apologetics?

If you put yourself in the position of an Old Testament saint who was arguing, trying to argue persuasively for the existence of God, who doesn't have a revelation to point to, would you be able to still do it with the apologetic method?

How could you say that an Old Testament saint wouldn't have a revelation to point to? You just said he's an Old Testament saint.

He has the Old Testament. A person living in the time before the

New Testament was written, just say during the time of Moses, but he's not living right with the people where God's there with the pillar of fire.

He's in Greece somewhere. The same defense that would be used by the New Testament saint would be used by the

Old Testament saint, and the extent of what they are defending as their worldview would change depending on increased revelation.

But the same approach to defending it would be there, yes. That isn't to say the New Testament's unnecessary then.

What's it to say is, as God gives further revelation, the same apologetic procedure applies. The Old Testament saint would end up defending, and he's at a disadvantage, he's defending his anticipation of God fulfilling the promise of a

Messiah coming. Because that's part of the Old Testament. Sure. Okay, so in a sense he's saying

God has never broken his word, I trust him, he has promised the following. The New Testament saint has more, and is in a different situation.

Now we're looking back and defending God kept his word and Jesus is the Messiah. Right, but you have no self -revelation of God necessarily to point to except for God came to this prophet that I know and told him.

The self -revelation of God in the Old Testament is exactly what we have, and the only thing

I think you would be talking about is the time it takes to have it recorded in writing. Right? Right, because isn't that part of our major fault there?

Because we have the Bible that's inspired, 100 % inspired, infallible, you cannot add to it, you cannot take away from it.

Yeah, but what I'm defending of course is the content of the Bible. I'm not just defending a book as a book, like it fell out of heaven.

It had the oracle edition. Yeah, well they had revelation in writing too. I mean, Jeremiah prophesied and it was written down.

Didn't God create himself only for the Jews to hand out his oracles? Well, no, actually

I think there was revelation outside, but for the most part the oracles of God were consigned to the

Jews. I think, for instance, Job was not a Jew. That's controversial, some people would disagree, but I think that's evidence of revelation of God outside of the chosen line.

Jonah went to Nineveh with a revelation of God. So there was a minimal revelation there. And of course, all men have the revelation of God through nature and history, totally apart from special revelation that is later recorded in writing.