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.