Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[Subduction Zone]

Example?

Look above.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where? Misquoting scripture is in the area of expertise of atheistic anti-theists.

I guess one could recognize their schooling of error, but that's hardly acceptable for those who embrace scriptural truths.

How did I misquote? The fact that it does not agree with your interpretation of the Bible does not mean that it was misquoted.

 

[justlookinla]

Look above.

This...

""If you know your Bible well enough you would know that Jesus also said that not one jot or tittle of the law would change."​

Ain't this....

"Mat 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
"​

Or in the KJV.....

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

[justlookinla]

How did I misquote? The fact that it does not agree with your interpretation of the Bible does not mean that it was misquoted.

Compare the two. You misquoted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This...

""If you know your Bible well enough you would know that Jesus also said that not one jot or tittle of the law would change."​

Ain't this....

"Mat 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
"​

Or in the KJV.....

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

How is that a misquote? Be specific. The verse supported my claim, and you have to look at my quote in context. Did you follow the conversation up to that point?

It looks like justlook is only going to offer mountains full of nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Compare the two. You misquoted.

Nope, the first statement was not a quote. It was a paraphrase. When I quote I give the verse and use quotation marks. There were no quotation marks, it was obviously a paraphrase.

 

[justlookinla]

How is that a misquote? Be specific. The verse supported my claim, and you have to look at my quote in context. Did you follow the conversation up to that point?

It looks like justlook is only going to offer mountains full of nothing.

Jesus didn't say that 'not one jot or tittle of the law would change'. It's as simple as that. You're not familiar enough with spiritual things, including scripture, to discuss them.

Now, do your usual bucketfuls of nothing you've been serving for several weeks now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus didn't say that 'not one jot or tittle of the law would change'. It's as simple as that. You're not familiar enough with spiritual things, including scripture, to discuss them.

Now, do your usual bucketfuls of nothing you've been serving for several weeks now.

It was close enough. It got the meaning across.

And please, don't fool yourself. Most atheists know the Bible better than most Christians. Since you have shown yourself to be amazingly ignorant in all manners you are not one to say who can or can't interpret the Bible.

And once again you end with what you know to be a falsehood.

 

[justlookinla]

Nope, the first statement was not a quote. It was a paraphrase. When I quote I give the verse and use quotation marks. There were no quotation marks, it was obviously a paraphrase.

Honestly, you need to stop, take a few days, and study punctuation and the proper way to quote, or paraphrase, someone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

justlook here is a serious question: Can you show any difference in meaning between my paraphrase and the quote?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Honestly, you need to stop, take a few days, and study punctuation and the proper way to quote, or paraphrase, someone.

My paraphrase was perfect. You could not find a flaw in it. My punctuation may have flaws, but no more than yours.

I tell you what, why don't you take a few days off and learn how to debate. Answer the questions given to you. Don't try to change meanings of words or terms to support your failed arguments.

 

[Skaloop]

Honestly, you need to stop, take a few days, and study punctuation and the proper way to quote, or paraphrase, someone.

'Quote' and 'paraphrase' are entirely different things. Almost mutually exclusive, in that a paraphrase specifically means that the statement isn't a direct quote.

 

[justlookinla]

justlook here is a serious question: Can you show any difference in meaning between my paraphrase and the quote?

Sure. The context wasn't that the law would never change as your post claimed, the context is that the law will never change until certain criteria is met. Your post claimed that the law would never change, period. It's a huge difference.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you know your Bible well enough you would know that Jesus also said that not one jot or tittle of the law would change.

Acts 10:9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

 

[Skaloop]

Sure. The context wasn't that the law would never change as your post claimed, the context is that the law will never change until certain criteria is met. Your post claimed that the law would never change, period. It's a huge difference.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

OK, now we're moving forward. What then, was fulfilled, that allowed the jots and tittles to pass from the law?

 

[justlookinla]

My paraphrase was perfect. You could not find a flaw in it. My punctuation may have flaws, but no more than yours.

I tell you what, why don't you take a few days off and learn how to debate. Answer the questions given to you. Don't try to change meanings of words or terms to support your failed arguments.

Your paraphrase missed the point of the scripture entirely and changed it into something it wasn't saying. Your paraphrase skills are just as lacking as your punctuation skills.

Especially concentrate on single and double quotes and their meanings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure. The context wasn't that the law would never change as your post claimed, the context is that the law will never change until certain criteria is met. Your post claimed that the law would never change, period. It's a huge difference.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Wrong that was not the context. Try again. I will give you one more chance and then quote to show you what the context was.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your paraphrase missed the point of the scripture entirely and changed it into something it wasn't saying. Your paraphrase skills are just as lacking as your punctuation skills.

Especially concentrate on single and double quotes and their meanings.

Prove it. What specifically was the scripture saying. And again, you have not shown one error in my punctuation skills.

It took me a while to figure out what you were complaining about yesterday. I had a typo, not a punctuation error and instead of typing "quote" I typed in "quoite" and that threw the quotation function off here.

This is at least the second time I have asked you to be specific with what was wrong with my quote and so far you have only offered buckets full of nothing.

 

[justlookinla]

'Quote' and 'paraphrase' are entirely different things. Almost mutually exclusive, in that a paraphrase specifically means that the statement isn't a direct quote.

I agree. There was no mention of a paraphrase either in the statement or by punchtuation until the error was pointed out. Then the scramble was on to deny the error.

Here's what was said (notice the quotes)....

"If you know your Bible well enough you would know that Jesus also said that not one jot or tittle of the law would change."​

Now, did Jesus say that? Nope, Jesus did not say that.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK, now we're moving forward. That then, was fulfilled, that allowed the jots and tittles to pass from the law?

Right off the top of my head, I would say the dispensation itself.

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

The dispensation of Law ended when the veil of the Temple was rent.

That's then the dispensation of Law ended, and the dispensation of Grace (or Church Age) started.