Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[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.