Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

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

The Hebrew word used means cultivated food bearing plants, the Hebrew is what was inspired.

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.

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?

Scripture is very clear that everyone who is supposed to hear the gospel will hear the gospel.

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.

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

*cringes at the misuse of Occam’s Razor.

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.

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?

You’d have to demonstrate that 40 some authors cooporating over a period of roughly 1500 years to forge the best preserved and most influential book of antiquity is a simpler explanation than the fact that it is what it claims to be, the word of God. Good luck.

Seriously?

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

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

So you're going the "Yahweh can't reveal himself because that would violate free will" route?

I was also pointing that you claim to have knowledge about a God (Nature’s God) who has not revealed anything to man, which is an absurd claim.

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?

Well they were logically reconciled, I demonstrated that they were nothing even close to an actual logical contradiction, a demonstration you have done nothing to refute.

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

Well one obvious problem with that is you are then unnecessarily multiplying your assumptions, you’d have to axiomatically assume the laws of logic exist plus laws of morality, uniformity in nature, reliability of senses, and the reliability of memory, all of which can be accounted for by the Christian God. Ryft may have some more to address on this question though.

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. 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?