Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Statler Waldorf]

I don't speak Hebrew nor have I seen the original texts, so I can't debate you on this point. What you are saying is that all the translations I've seen are sloppy mistranslations that would lead me to believe the Bible contradicted itself on this point. Hence, your omniscience and omnipotent Yahweh goofed up by not watching the translators carefully and making sure his revelation was faithfully preserved.

It’s not the “bushes” or “shrubs” part that is important, it’s the “of the field” part that is. I couldn’t even find a translation that didn’t include “of the field” in Genesis 2, so I think the original meaning is quite well preserved for intellectually honest people.

Furthermore, since we don't have the original copies of Genesis, what's to say a similar goof didn't take place when the earliest copies we do have were created? If Yahweh didn't watch over the copyists and translators today, what's to say he did any better a job back then?

Argument from silence, you have any evidence to support this claim?

2nd Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

You really think it wise to turn this into a theological debate on the Wills of God? All is a contextually defined term, Peter 3 is clearly talking about why God does not bring the end of days, the answer given is because then there would be some of his sheep lost and he is patiently waiting for them all to be saved. Only after the last member of the elect is gathered the end will come.

1st Tim 2:4 [God] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Again, since “all” is a contextually defined term we have to look at the context of what Paul is saying, in verse two he is talking about offering prayers for all kinds of men, even kings and those in authority, etc. So contextually the “all” in verse 4 is stating that God wishes that all kinds and classes of men to be saved, it does not matter whether you are rich or poor, you can be saved. To suggest that Paul digresses off onto some tangential point about God’s will towards the salvation of all men who have lived and ever will live is pretty absurd really.

[quote
Perhaps you're right. Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation or the one with the fewest assumptions, is usually correct. The reason it doesn't apply here is Christianity has never put forth an explanation of any kind aside from "God works in mysterious ways" which surely you recognize isn't an explanation of any kind but an evasion tactic. [/quote]

Ridiculous straw man concerning the contributions Christianity has made. If you knew that occam’s Razor was not applicable here then why did you try and apply it? More intellectual dishonesty? It’s not applicable, but not for the reason you specified here, it’s not applicable because the two hypotheses are not equal in all other respects.

A rather simple explanation for why Yahweh's supposed revelations only arrived in one corner of the world and could only spread by human hands is that Yahweh is a human invention. You still need to explain why, if Yahweh intended a revelation for the world, there was no worldly revelation and that task was delegated to sinful, flawed humans?

Where does Yahweh say he intended His revelation for the World (every person who has lived and will live)?

You think "power of God" is a simpler explanation than "humans wrote it"?

Nope, but “it is the word of God” is far simpler than, “Men separated by thousands of years and thousands of miles somehow worked together to forge a document that would fool over a billion people into believing it was the inspired word of God just so they could be persecuted and martyred all the time knowing it was all just an elaborate forgery.” Conspiracy theories are fun, but only if they have an ounce of credibility.

What exactly is there about this collection of mythology that differentiates it from other mythology, never mind what about it defies any natural explanation?

Question begging epithet.

The is a red herring (or perhaps more specifically the ad hominem tu que) as we're discussing Christianity. Additionally, this is a strawman since I make no claim to have knowledge. If you wish to pursue this topic further, why not take up the gauntlet in the "deism vs. Christianity" debate?

Not a red herring at all, if you didn’t want Nature’s God to be addressed you should not have been the first one to address it.

Actually, you failed miserably and proved my point about flimsy rationalizations. If you've rested your case, I'm willing to rest as well.

I have not failed at all if we are using the actual definition of logical contradiction (x and not x at the same time and in the same relationship). I will show you again…

You claimed that God contradicted Himself when he said he created vegetation on day three and vegetation on day 6. This would only be a contradiction if God had said he ONLY created vegetation on day three AND created vegetation on day 6. This is never stated in the text, and in addition the two types of vegetation are obviously different in Genesis 1 and 2, so you actually have X and Y rather than X and not X, so it is not a contradiction.

You claimed that the use of the word “formed” in Genesis 2 was also a contradiction, however as I correctly pointed out this term can and should contextually be translated as “had formed”, thus harmonizing the two chapters of Genesis. So no contradiction there.

You then claimed that scripture stated Adam and Eve were created “together” and then separately, as I pointed out this is more of a precision issue and two events happening on the same day can definitely be said to happen “together”. So no contradiction there either.

So I am still waiting for you to point to something in the Bible that states something and it’s opposite at the same time and in the same relationship. Given your current track record though I have the feeling I will be waiting for awhile.

Actually, none of them are accounted for by any god, Christian or otherwise. I've discussed ad neuseum how "GodWillsIt" or "GodDidIt" does nothing to help our understanding of logic or morality.

Yes it does.

Among the other problems I've outlined, you're just creating an extra step. Further, you then claim that this step that justifies one belief doesn't itself need to be justified. Why demand justification for one and not the other?

God does not merely justify one belief as I pointed out, he justifies a whole host of beliefs, and the justification for the Triune God presupposition is that without Him we would not be able to prove anything to be true, so it’s justification through negation.

---

You gonna trust that godless sinner? For shame, you've made baby jesus angry.

Nope, I was just pointing out that you were going against one of your heros.

[The Grand Nudger]

You keep talking about all the things your fairly tale can do, but no one's ever seen it done.

[DeistPaladin]

It’s not the “bushes” or “shrubs” part that is important, it’s the “of the field” part that is. I couldn’t even find a translation that didn’t include “of the field” in Genesis 2, so I think the original meaning is quite well preserved for intellectually honest people.

You didn't look very hard. The NIV is a popular edition.
NIV GEN 2:5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground

Also, I note the lack of rain. That would also indicate the verse meant a lack of plant life, since ancient people surely knew rain was essential to plant growth.

Since you insist, let's dig a little deeper and look at these verses closely so we can see who has the more proper understanding of the author's intent:

KJV GEN 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food;

Are trees that are pleasant to the sight considered "plants of the field"?

and what did Yahweh create on Day 3 again?

KJV GEN 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

"Tree yielding fruit" sounds like something farmers might cultivate.

Now what was lacking before Yahweh created man?

KJV GEN 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:

So herbs yielding seed and trees yielding fruit were growing on day 3 (chapter 1), except that they weren't yet on day 6 (chapter 2)?

Does this satisfy your definition of a "contradiction"?

As for Day 6, even the chronological order is wrong. In chapter 1, we have first animals and then humans.

KJV GEN 1:24-27 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Seems pretty clear to me. "First, I'll make animals. I made the animals. And I'll make humans. I made the humans."

KJV GEN 2:18-19 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;

Also seems clear. "I made the man, but he's alone. I think I'll make animals."

And EVERY fowl of the air, huh? Would that include the birds made on the previous day?

KJV GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Any of these contradictions count as contradictions in your book?

Argument from silence, you have any evidence to support this claim?

Burden of proof is on you. You are the one claiming that the Bible is inerrant. When you find translation and copying errors today, you have cause to suspect translation and copying errors in ancient times.

2nd Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

You really think it wise to turn this into a theological debate on the Wills of God? All is a contextually defined term, Peter 3 is clearly talking about why God does not bring the end of days, the answer given is because then there would be some of his sheep lost and he is patiently waiting for them all to be saved. Only after the last member of the elect is gathered the end will come.

Actually, "Peter" was dealing with a serious problem that the promised return of Jesus didn't happen and he claimed that he works in thousands of years. Christians have been using that excuse since. He then says the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night and Christians ought to maintain their faith for the day that will be coming any time now. In that full context of the entire chapter, my interpretation seems valid. Go and convert all you can, everyone if possible, for the end times will come any day now. At the very least, your interpretation isn't "clear" to me.

Again, since “all” is a contextually defined term we have to look at the context of what Paul is saying, in verse two he is talking about offering prayers for all kinds of men, even kings and those in authority, etc.

Read the whole chapter and the one before that. Paul describes himself as the worst of sinners and yet Jesus showed him mercy and called him to preach to others. After my quoted verse, he goes on to say that Jesus died for ALL men.

Ridiculous straw man concerning the contributions Christianity has made.

What contributions? Aside from being the worst disaster humanity has ever suffered, from the destruction of classical civilization to the thousand years of ignorance to the road blocks to progress today.

If you knew that occam’s Razor was not applicable here then why did you try and apply it? More intellectual dishonesty?

It's called a sarcastic dig. "Oh, perhaps I was too generous to say Occam's Razor applies since you haven't explained anything".

You are quick to call me a liar. I've found people who make spurious accusations are often projecting but perhaps you have reasons you'd like to articulate.

Where does Yahweh say he intended His revelation for the World (every person who has lived and will live)?

See above for starters.

“Men separated by thousands of years and thousands of miles somehow worked together to forge a document that would fool over a billion people into believing it was the inspired word of God just so they could be persecuted and martyred all the time knowing it was all just an elaborate forgery.” Conspiracy theories are fun, but only if they have an ounce of credibility.

Can you prove that the disciples and apostles were persecuted? Can you prove that these people knew it was a forgery as they were being persecuted? And even if they were persecuted, what does that prove again?

David Koresh. Hale-Bopp (Heaven's Gate) cult. Jim Jones. There are many cultists who've died for their lies even today, in what should be a less superstitious time. Why does Christianity get special treatment over these cults? And why should we believe such a history of defiance and persecution, even if we could prove it more than folklore, defies any natural explanation?

Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

God does not merely justify one belief as I pointed out, he justifies a whole host of beliefs, and the justification for the Triune God presupposition is that without Him we would not be able to prove anything to be true, so it’s justification through negation.

Strange how science has done just fine in examining and proving things for the last few hundred years without any assumptions about God.

[Statler Waldorf]

You didn't look very hard. The NIV is a popular edition.
NIV GEN 2:5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground

The NIV is not a literal Bible translation.

Also, I note the lack of rain. That would also indicate the verse meant a lack of plant life, since ancient people surely knew rain was essential to plant growth.

Where in the text does it say the plants on the 3rd day grew any before the 6th day? All I see is that they were created.

KJV GEN 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food;
Are trees that are pleasant to the sight considered "plants of the field"?

The term “Plants of the field” is used in verse 5, these in verse 9 are food bearing trees specifically designed for Adam, I see no problem here.

and what did Yahweh create on Day 3 again?

KJV GEN 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

"Tree yielding fruit" sounds like something farmers might cultivate.

So now the onus is on you to please demonstrate how God creating fruit trees on day 3 and causing fruit trees to grow from the ground for Adam on day 6 is an actual logical contradiction (x and not x in the same relationship and at the same time). I am not seeing any contradiction there.

Now what was lacking before Yahweh created man?

So herbs yielding seed and trees yielding fruit were growing on day 3 (chapter 1), except that they weren't yet on day 6 (chapter 2)?

Huh? Where does it say in verse 9 of Chapter 2 that there were no fruit bearing trees on Earth before man?

Does this satisfy your definition of a "contradiction"?

It does not satisfy the real definition of a contradiction (x and not x at the same time and in the same relationship).

Seems pretty clear to me. "First, I'll make animals. I made the animals. And I'll make humans. I made the humans."

KJV GEN 2:18-19 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;

Also seems clear. "I made the man, but he's alone. I think I'll make animals."

Let me look at the verses and let me see if I see the same problems you seems to see…

24And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26Then God said, "Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;

Ok, so God made animals, and then Man, it also says that God made the birds on day 3 which I didn’t quote, I am with you so far…

18Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for[e] him." 19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed[f] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[g] there was not found a helper fit for him.

So it is clear that this verse says that even though God had created animals (before Adam) and birds (before Adam) and had brought them to Adam to be named there were none there suitable to be Adam’s companion, so God created woman. Oh shucks, it looks like this verse matches up with Chapter 1! I guess you will have to do better.

Any of these contradictions count as contradictions in your book?

They wouldn’t count as contradictions in any textbook on logic either.

Argument from silence, you have any evidence to support this claim?

You are the one claiming that the Bible is inerrant. When you find translation and copying errors today, you have cause to suspect translation and copying errors in ancient times.

Still an argument from silence, you are appealing to the existence of errors you have no evidence of ever occurring.

At the very least, your interpretation isn't "clear" to me.

I have plenty of commentaries on the book of Peter, and they are far better than your “interpretation” of the book thank you. Romans 1 will tell you why it is not clear to you. When Peter is talking to the elect and uses the word “all” it pertains to the elect because it is a word that’s scope is defined by context. You will have to do better.

Read the whole chapter and the one before that. Paul describes himself as the worst of sinners and yet Jesus showed him mercy and called him to preach to others. After my quoted verse, he goes on to say that Jesus died for ALL men.

Again, I have commentaries on the book that explain it in greater detail than you understand it.

Nope, Paul’s letter is to the elect, since all is a word whose scope is determined by context Jesus died for all of the elect who are taken from all types of men.

What contributions? Aside from being the worst disaster humanity has ever suffered, from the destruction of classical civilization to the thousand years of ignorance to the road blocks to progress today.

Yeah because modern science and democracy are terrible things aren’t they? Lay off the Kool Aid for once.

You are quick to call me a liar. I've found people who make spurious accusations are often projecting but perhaps you have reasons you'd like to articulate.

More of just an intellectual liar, you purposely ignoring the definition of “contradiction” gives me more than enough evidence.

See above for starters.

I didn’t see it there.

Can you prove that the disciples and apostles were persecuted?

It is a historically accepted fact that they were.

Can you prove that these people knew it was a forgery as they were being persecuted?

No, they knew it was true because they witnessed Christ’s miracles and Him walking the earth after His death, burial, and resurrection.

You are the one asserting that they made it all up and would therefore know it was all a lie as they were being executed for claiming to believe in it. Pretty farfetched really.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. If you keep just appealing to your own opinion I will keep just throwing mine back at you.

Strange how science has done just fine in examining and proving things for the last few hundred years without any assumptions about God.

That’s because scientists live in a world created and governed by the God of scripture and hold assumptions that could only be true in such a world. You don’t have to believe in the existence of air in order to breathe, but air has to exist in order to breathe.

[The Grand Nudger]

You realize that if you could manage to hack and slash your way through the text, excusing any internal inconsistency, you'd still be left with nothing. It would only be consistently incorrect.

[Statler Waldorf]

You realize that if you could manage to hack and slash your way through the text, excusing any internal inconsistency, you'd still be left with nothing. It would only be consistently incorrect.

There were claims made that the Bible has logical contradictions, I am merely refuting those claims.

[DeistPaladin]

Yeah because modern science and democracy are terrible things aren’t they? Lay off the Kool Aid for once.

Christianity didn't create science and democracy. These things came to be in spite of Christianity. Nearly every bit of scientific and sociological progress could be made only by dragging Christianity kicking and screaming the whole way. After all the kicking and screaming is done, Christianity brushes itself off and says, "This is what I said/wanted all along."

Can you prove that the disciples and apostles were persecuted?

It is a historically accepted fact that they were.

Really? Do tell then. What evidence has convinced the academic community that they (1) existed (2) were persecuted for their beliefs and (3) went to their deaths refusing to recant.

No, they knew it was true because they witnessed Christ’s miracles and Him walking the earth after His death, burial, and resurrection.

Prove it.

Yes it does.

No, it doesn't.

I haven't played this game since I was a kid. We'll just keep playing until you cough up something more substantial on how GodWillsIt tells us anything.

As for the rest, I think we've done enough on Genesis. How about Jesus? Was the stone of his empty tomb rolled away when Mary arrived with her spices?

[The Grand Nudger]

It does. Again, when you're done making excuses what will remain is a text that is consistently incorrect. You'd have to dump the whole thing and start from scratch to change that.

[Statler Waldorf]

Christianity didn't create science and democracy. These things came to be in spite of Christianity. Nearly every bit of scientific and sociological progress could be made only by dragging Christianity kicking and screaming the whole way. After all the kicking and screaming is done, Christianity brushes itself off and says, "This is what I said/wanted all along."

Utter garbage, it’s called Whitehead’s hypothesis, there is a historical consensus that the Christian Reformation directly lead to modern science. The form of Democratic Republic we are so familiar with today was created by John Calvin for church governments in the 16th century. You can believe your own deluded version of history if you’d like, but historians disagree with you.

Really? Do tell then. What evidence has convinced the academic community that they (1) existed (2) were persecuted for their beliefs and (3) went to their deaths refusing to recant.

The same evidence that has convinced the academic community that philosophers such as Aristotle and Socrates ever existed, we have their writings. The only problem for you is that the New Testament is far better preserved and we have far more manuscripts of it than anything we have written by Aristotle and Socrates. The Book of Acts written by Luke details many of the disciples’ persecution after Jesus’ ascension. Do you also deny that Aristotle and Socrates ever existed or do you only apply your skepticism to concepts you don’t like?

Prove it.

The books of Acts and Luke demonstrate this.

GodWillsIt tells us anything.

It tells us everything. The artist’s words about his creation are infinitely more insightful and instructive than anything the creation itself can tell us. What God reveals to us about His creation is no different.

How about Jesus? Was the stone of his empty tomb rolled away when Mary arrived with her spices?

The women went to see the tomb, but an angel had rolled the stone away from the tomb sometime prior to the women’s arrival at the tomb. The angel was sitting on the stone when the women arrived.

[frankiej]

The women went to see the tomb, but an angel had rolled the stone away from the tomb sometime prior to the women’s arrival at the tomb. The angel was sitting on the stone when the women arrived.

Or, they were all on a mental LSD trip.