Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
TeenInk.Moderator replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 11:28 am

Packerbacker:
Well, I'll take you up on that :)  
 
First of all, which version of the Bible do you use?  I'm going to assume King James Version since that is the most common.
 
It doesn't make much difference anyway, here's a fun little contradiction to explain to us, you can look it up in your own Bible of course :)
 
Who was Joseph's Father?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
 
Matthew says Jacob is the father, Luke says Heli is the father, who's correct?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
TeenInk.Moderator replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 11:34 am

LOL, I just looked up and answered my own question. Apparently Heli was Joseph's Father In Law. Kind of a stupid way to phrase that in the actual verse.

Oh wells: Round 2 (There's plenty of them :P)

How many times did Jesus predict Peter's betrayal:


MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.

MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.
LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.

LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.
JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

There's tons of little websites by ignorant people claiming contradictions in the Bible where there aren't any, I will admit that.

But I believe that some of them are true, I just have to weed out the false ones when I go searching for an example :P

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
TeenInk.Moderator replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 11:35 am

 
LOL, I just looked up and answered my own question. Apparently Heli was Joseph's Father In Law.  Kind of a stupid way to phrase that in the actual verse.
 
Oh wells:  Round 2 (There's plenty of them :P)
 
How many times did Jesus predict Peter's betrayal:
 
 
MAR 14:72 And the second time the c.ock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the c.ock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the c.ock crew. 

MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the c.ock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.
LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the c.ock crew. 

LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the co.ck crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The c.ock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.
JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the c.ock crew.
 
There's tons of little websites by ignorant people claiming contradictions in the Bible where there aren't any, I will admit that.
 
But I believe that some of them are true, I just have to w.eed out the false ones when I go he searching for an example :P
(It was also really annoying to go put little periods in the word "c.ock" because apparently it's a "bad word" lol

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
packerbacker12This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 11:50 am

i don't see the point your making here  he denied the messiah three times in every account of the gospels. and if you don't know each gospel is the writing og the time of the messiah written by 4 different people. there is no contridiction. please let me see your point.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
An-eloquent-leafThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 12:02 pm

Breece:
Haha for a moment I though you said Luke 3:23 said that Joseph was the son of Hell and I was very confused XD

packerbacker:
One famous example involves the Peppered Moth. You could look it up if you wanted, but I'll provide a brief summary:

Initially, this particular species had light-colored wings, which helped to camoflauge them against the light-colored trees in its environment.

However, as the Industrial Revolution came, the lichens began to die out and the trees instead became covered with black soot. As a result, many of the light-colored peppered moths died off due to predation (since they were now more visible to birds), and the dark-colored peppered moths, who could now hide more easily among the trees, flourished starting from around 1848.

I won't go into too much detail about alleles/locus/genes, but essentially the light-, dark-, as well as the intermediate- colored moths are of the same species. Their coloring is controlled by alleles of the same locus, which is the specific location of a gene on a chromosome. In other words, this change wasn't magic.

Back to the evolution of peppered moths. Then, as the environmental movement advanced and more people began to take aciton on pollution, the soot on the trees lessened and the lichens began to grow back. Thus, through natural selection again, the dark-colored moths became more visible and decreased in number while the light-colored moths became more common.

Another example of recent evolution is simply the artificial selection frequently used in animal breeding (i.e. cattle and dogs), plant breeding (i.e. farming the "best" plants to get the most food, requiring the least amount of water, et cetera), and so on.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
An-eloquent-leafThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 12:03 pm

 
Breece:
Haha for a moment I though you said Luke 3:23 said that Joseph was the son of H ell and I was very confused XD
 
packerbacker:
One famous example involves the Peppered Moth. You could look it up if you wanted, but I'll provide a brief summary:
 
Initially, this particular species had light-colored wings, which helped to camoflauge them against the light-colored trees in its environment. 
 
However, as the Industrial Revolution came, the lichens began to die out and the trees instead became covered with black soot. As a result, many of the light-colored peppered moths died off due to predation (since they were now more visible to birds), and the dark-colored peppered moths, who could now hide more easily among the trees, flourished starting from around 1848.
 
I won't go into too much detail about alleles/locus/genes, but essentially the light-, dark-, as well as the intermediate- colored moths are of the same species. Their coloring is controlled by alleles of the same locus, which is the specific location of a gene on a chromosome. In other words, this change wasn't magic.
 
Back to the evolution of peppered moths. Then, as  the environmental movement advanced and more people began to take aciton on pollution, the soot on the trees lessened and the lichens began to grow back. Thus, through natural selection again, the dark-colored moths became more visible and decreased in number while the light-colored moths became more common.
 
Another example of recent evolution is simply the artificial selection frequently used in animal breeding (i.e. cattle and dogs), plant breeding (i.e. farming the "best" plants to get the most food, requiring the least amount of water, et cetera), and so on. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
RedsFan23This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 12:57 pm

Wow, I thought I had a pretty moderate stance!
 
packerbacker: The Old Testament is largely a story of the Jewish people. I'm not Jewish, and while I obviously care about the Old Testament, the New Testament is far more important . Going into science class, I WILL be able to defend my religion by saying that evolution and Christianity aren't mutually exclusive. I don't have to defend young-earth creationism against someone that know far more science than I do. Even if evolutionary evidence advances to the point where almost everyone believes it, Christianity won't be discredited. Saying that evolution is 100% made up won't really be defending my beliefs and no one would believe me, no offense.
 
Contemplator: Exactly my point. An educated person will think the Bible is a fiction book compared to what he learns in school. If we teach that Genesis might be a parable, and that God still did create the world, though possibly through evolution, there would be no problem. Like I said before, I believe God created the universe, but it doesn't matter if it was in 6 days or 17 billion years. I think that message would be a lot more acceptable to the people we try to reach than refusing to accept even the possibility that evolution is largely true.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
packerbacker12This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 1:21 pm

leaf: the moth is still a moth is it not it never changed species therfor it is "micro-evolution which is variation within kinds altho "macro"-evolution cannot be proven here it is still a moth.
Red: the old testament is the laws of which we should follow. and you misunderstood me i'm saying you should get evidence supporting creation in order to defend your faith.
 
 
Shalom Alechiem

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CollinF replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 2:22 pm

1. I respect all those who oppose Darwinian evolution. It has contributed significantly to the arrogance of many scientists in believing a shallow scientism and has been used to justify horrible things with the "man is just an animal" excuse (though, one might argue, this has been due to a lack of religious Darwinists). It is also an extension of science into the past, involving things which cannot be experimented on. No matter how much evidence we gather, it'll always be speculation to some degree. That being said, I think that evidence was, for quite some time after Darwin, significantly lacking, thus opposition was justified. But the evidence seems to be growing steadily now (despite scams along the way), so I don't see any reason not to give Darwin the benefit of the doubt.
 
2. While I respect those who oppose Darwinism, I think the Evangelical response to it has been obnoxious. Many arguments are simply asenine, and everywhere kids are raised on the assumption that one's scientific leanings have a bearing on where they spend eternity. This has cheapened the Gospel and cut Conservative Christianity off from the American Academia, undoubtedly destroying our reputation to half the nation's population and losing millions of converts who will never experience Christ's Love.
 
3. The Big Bang Theory is perhaps the single greatest new piece of evidence for God's existence in a thousand years. Yet millions of Christians refuse to use this as a witnessing tool because they're in denial. Many hardline atheists were distraught when the discovery was first made, because they thought it would lead to a new resurgence of Christianity in both the everyday Joe and the universities. By now, I'm sure they've stopped worrying.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
RarelyJadedThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 2:25 pm

Packerbacker: I actually said quite clearly that I DON'T believe that humans evolved IN ANY WAY. What I said was that animals could have, but on that point I was undecided. And anyway, it doesn't matter because the questions of animals' souls aren't in question with evolution, and humans' are... So I'm with you:) sorry for the confusion.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CollinF replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 2:34 pm

In addition, when Galileo was tried for asserting his heliocentric theory, he said,
 
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
 
If the evidence points away from Young Earth Creationism, then it is God's will that we see its falsity.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
packerbacker12This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 2:45 pm

rarelyjaded: thanks for clearing that up and if you think animals elvoved(this could be my misinterpretation) how did we appear?
 
 
CollinF: what does #3. mean?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
RarelyJadedThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 2:52 pm

I don't really understand the question. If I don't think we evolved from monkeys (for time's sake that's how I'm phrasing it) then the only other option would be that god created us. I think I mentioned earlier my beliefs on that, but maybe I didn't. The bible says we were created in God's image, which is why I don't believe that we evolved. (Again--unless of course God is a monkey deity, which is very unlikely).

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
RarelyJadedThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 2:55 pm

I kind of phrased that weird. I don't think that evolution is necessarily separate from creation (my second sentence was jacked up), I meant that animals could have evolved but that humans were created in the form that we exist in right now... Does that make sense?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
packerbacker12This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 2:56 pm

RarelyJaded: ok sorry it was a misunderstanding. i forgot you said that a while back.
 
 
Shalom Alechiem!

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
RarelyJadedThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 3:08 pm

It's fine, this is actually kind of fun since I have nothing to be doing right now but arguing:) it seems we're both on at the same time, lol... Two arguments going on at once can be confusing (I believe you're also participating in the predestination thread)!

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
packerbacker12This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 3:10 pm

lol yes i am :) i'm in online school so i'm always on.
 
let me ask you were did animals come from?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
RarelyJadedThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 3:20 pm

Okay, good question...... I've been saying evolution COULD have occurred, mostly to appease any hard-core evolutionists here. But I'm actually very literal when it comes to the bible, I believe the earth was created in six days and that animals did not evolve. I'm merely recognizing the possibility.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
packerbacker12This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 3:23 pm

ok i see, basically two face to the evolutionists?
 
 
Shalom Alechiem!

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
RarelyJadedThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 3:31 pm

Oh, well thank you for that lovely accusation. No, I just prefer not to deal in absolutes unless it matters (to me). And I care more about what involves humanity, not animals. I though I believe in creationism, I also recognize the fact that I could be wrong. I would prefer if you didn't judge me personally when you don't even know me.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback