you're bringing on yourself. you can't start your paragraph heated and tell me not to get heated. that's called hypocrasy and i was actually not giving you an insult. it's a good way to get evolutionist to listen to you so in a way it was actually a complement. and i did not Judge you for there is only one who can judge:)
How did I start my reply heated?? Because I didn't. And there's not just one person who can judge, there's just one who can judge your SOUL. :) smiley face not sarcastic (thought I'd mention that)
i'm not going to argue this post is about evolution and needs to stay that way.
Well then don't start an argument. I didn't get off topic until you did. Goodbye.
Sigh, I amaze myself with how stupid I can be.
I messed up again, I meant to say not "how many times did Jesus predict Peter's denial", but rather,
"How many times did Jesus predict the c.ock will crow?".
If you'll revisit those verses and Mark 14:30 (I'm not sure if I posted that one) you'll see that between them all the rooster is predicted to have crown once, twice, and thrice.
How many times did it crow :)
The point of that excersise, btw, was to demonstrate the fallibility of the Bible by citing internal contradictions.
Breece6: Elaborate more on the explanation for the exercises? If you remember, I've done these things alot when the credibility of the Bible was brought up. People would just cite a site with a list of 'contradictions'. I would show how some of the contradictions can't really cut it (the 'who's Jesus Grandpa' contradiction is more popular than you'd believe).
Anywho, elaborate more on the point of these exercises. Please?
If you'll go back a page or two, you'll see an entire post by me where I cited several verses concerning the amount of times the c.ock was predicted to crow before Peter's third denial.
The verses in question contradict each other, have at it yourself, if you will :)
STUPID Why does TeeinInk filter words on a P&T forum?!?!?!
Anyway, long post short (it wasn't long to begin with) there is no contradiction. Only one verse (that you quoted) said anything about the amount of times the rooster would crow. The rest of the the verses (that you quoted) just said that the rooster did crow, or will crow.
Well if you'll see in the post above that I originally replied to packerbacker with you'll see that I mentioned I might not have cited Mark 14:30, which does concern the number :)
You might wanna look that one up and re-evaluate the situation :P
Hmm, I suppose I can't find the one where it says the c.ock was predicted to crow 3 times. Perhaps I imagined that one (CRAZY).
However there is a very distinct lapse within.
In addition to all this fun stuff, I'd like to give you an interesting website to read:
It is a conglomeration of counter-apologetics. A Christian's worst nightmare :)
The name itself is based on Judges 1:19, where it says God is incapable of driving out a particular people because of their "Iron Chariots". This verse pretty much contradicts the assumption that God is omnipotent.
Have at that one if you will :)
wiki...you can't give me anything better...like a credible website?
Colin pretty much summed up my entire argument far more concisely and powerfully than I could to be honest.
*Bows* Thank you, sir. You're too kind. :)
Just as a side, belief in Biblical innerancy doesn't necessarily coincide with believing that the Bible you've got on your nightstand has 0 errors. Most Conservative scholars stick with the idea that the original revelation to the original authors was infallible, but that the millions of individuals who've been involved in the copy/translation process since weren't. For instance, there's a certain verse in 1 John that even the most Conservative Bible scholars recognize as a sham inserted centuries after the original manuscripts.
However, the copy/translation process was, in reality, very efficient, so the eroors are bound to be few, and not ubiquitous. Also, one must be careful not to use this concept to simply read into scripture whatever one wants to believe, hacking out all verses one doesn't like with the "mistranslation" excuse. When I read the Bible, I generally take it as a rule of thumb that if me and it disagree, I'm probably the one at fault.
Sorry about that. The Big Bang theory isn't really inextricably linked to Darwinian Evolution (there are some who believe in one and not the other), but Conservatives who oppose Evolutionary theory usually have a lot of negative things to say about the Big Bang Theory.
Anyways, prior to the 20th century 99.999% of atheists believed the universe was eternal. If the universe never began to exist, then it didn't need a creator. The Discovery of evidence pointing to the fact that the universe actually began in a massive explosion billions of years ago (the "Big Bang") essentially demolished the atheist position. They had been wrong all along.
Efforts have been made to create Cosmological models that bend time into extra dimensions or make room for a multiverse which extends spacially indefinitely, but the most respectable current cosmological model is, as I said, perhaps the greatest piece of scientific evidence for God's existence and interaction with our world . . . well, ever, really.
^ That's what I meant when I said the Bible can be fallible.
Once again, thank you Collin.
I actually wasn't referring so much to little trivial grammatical or translation errors so much as I was referring to contradiction.
Most of the stuff on the wiki uses Bible verses or sources that you can find at the bottom of the page.
What do you think about Judges 1:19? :)