Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

I'm no expert in farming but are "bushes" and "shrubs" considered to be "plants of the field"?

Not sure what you are getting at there.

Because some of the verses translations specify "bushes" and "shrubs". You can rationalize all you like but I read what's there.

Ought/Is Fallacy. The way you think God ought to have done something has no bearing on the way He really did it.

It's a question of which is more likely and drawing attention to the strange motivations of your deity. Sure, a deity who wants universal love and adoration from people all over the world might have published his revelation only in one corner of the world and then it could only be spread by human hands but the simpler explanation is that this religion is man-made.

The reason it appears to be man-made is because that's what it is. Occam's Razor.

Grace obligated is by definition not grace. Believing in a God that has revealed nothing to man is a bit absurd.

So you're going the "Yahweh can't reveal himself because that would violate free will" route? So how come the overt miracles and magic of the Biblical times weren't a violation of this rule. Seems a bit inconsistent to me. Perhaps the reason your god has become so quiet all of a sudden in the modern age is because he was never there at all? Much like how the nasty monster under the 6 year old's bed goes away when the light is turned on and mom and dad are looking. Again, the simpler explanation indicates your religion and supposed revelation are bs.

That’s a meaningless claim, it is impossible to determine what is “more plausible” in such matters.

Oh, I think it is possible. Asking "which is more likely" and then going with the indications of Occam's Razor is not only valid reasoning but commonly applied. Many a criminal investigation is decided by it.

Translation errors are still errors.

They are not errors in inspiration though like you originally claimed existed but seemed to have backed off of now.

I haven't backed off anything as the two Genesis accounts on page 1 have yet to be reconciled.

I'm just saying "translation error" or "you have to use my favorite translation" doesn't give you an out. If Yahweh wrote a book to communicate with humanity but then failed to make sure the translations faithfully preserved this message, then the who practice is rendered rather moot, wouldn't you say?

One more thing:

I'm curious how you would respond to my earlier question paraphrasing Carl Sagan, which relates to the OP. If you feel you don't need to logically justify the existence of a god who justifies your use of reason, why not save a step and say we don't need to logically justify the use of reason?