Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
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 3:36 pm

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:)
 
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 3:39 pm

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)

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 3:51 pm

i'm not going to argue this post is about evolution and needs to stay that way.
 
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 3:55 pm

Well then don't start an argument. I didn't get off topic until you did. Goodbye.

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 4:01 pm

 
ht tp://bit.ly/VBVRUb

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 4:02 pm

lol leaf:)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 5:32 pm

Packerbacker:
 
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 :)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 5:33 pm

P.S.
 
The point of that excersise, btw, was to demonstrate the fallibility of the Bible by citing internal contradictions.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
contemplatorThis 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 5:43 pm

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?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 5:47 pm

Contemplator:
 
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 :)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
contemplatorThis 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 6:06 pm

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.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 6:11 pm

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

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 6:33 pm

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:
h.ttp://wiki.ironchariots.o.rg/index.php?title=Main_Page
 
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 :)

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 6:49 pm

wiki...you can't give me anything better...like a credible website?
 
 
Shalom Alechiem!

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 8:02 pm

Colin pretty much summed up my entire argument far more concisely and powerfully than I could to be honest.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CollinF replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 10:05 pm

to RedsFan23:
 
*Bows* Thank you, sir. You're too kind. :)
 
to Breece:
 
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.

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 10:11 pm

Amen brothah.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CollinF replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 10:17 pm

packerbacker:
 
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.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Imaginedangerous replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 11:52 pm

^ That's what I meant when I said the Bible can be fallible.
 
Once again, thank you Collin.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
Feb. 20, 2013 at 7:17 am

Collin:
 
I actually wasn't referring so much to little trivial grammatical or translation errors so much as I was referring to contradiction.  
 
Packerbacker:
 
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? :)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback