Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[justlookinla]

No, I was simply pointing out that you are a very poor loser.

Now what more recent paraphrase are you talking about? I thought you were only spouting more rhetoric.

I requested that you reconcile the scripture you paraphrased with the actual scripture. Please try to keep up.

 

[46AND2]

It was more a result of being amazed at not only his ignorance, but juvie's too. Both of them were unaware of that O.T. law. steve got caught in the backwash from two Christians, one a seasoned debater, not knowing a fairly wide known Biblical law.

If juvie had not said that he did not know this I don't think there would have been nearly the reaction to steve's statement.

It's widely known to atheists, simply because many of the old laws seem outlandish to us...however, for Christians, they are fairly insignificant portions of the Bible. And it is not as if they haven't read them, they just don't see them as particularly memorable as we do.

Frankly, concerning the shellfish, I don't think it's a big deal. So what if a God told you what you could or could not eat? It's entirely reasonable that in those days the "unclean" animals SHOULD have been avoided, simply because they were likely to cause sickness. People who make a big deal about those "silly" laws are incorrectly equating our culture to that of many generations ago. Of course they seem silly to us now, but at the time, there may have been good reason for it...

Now, don't get me wrong, I obviously don't think the food laws actually came from God, but from the men writing the Bible who were speaking out against things that had been observe to be harmful to their culture.

There is a limit to my old law acquiescence, however. Things which I think are obviously immoral, such as slavery, will get no defense from me. Yes, it was a part of their culture...doesn't make it ok.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I requested that you reconcile the scripture you paraphrased with the actual scripture. Please try to keep up.

There was no significant difference. At least not in the context of the discussion. Or did you forget how you failed at that. You had one more chance to say what the context was and then I was going to quote to show you what the actual context of the conversation. You did not even try. I took that as an admission of defeat. If you don't want to admit defeat then try one more time to state the context.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's widely known to atheists, simply because many of the old laws seem outlandish to us...however, for Christians, they are fairly insignificant portions of the Bible. And it is not as if they haven't read them, they just don't see them as particularly memorable as we do.

Frankly, concerning the shellfish, I don't think it's a big deal. So what if a God told you what you could or could not eat? It's entirely reasonable that in those days the "unclean" animals SHOULD have been avoided, simply because they were likely to cause sickness. People who make a big deal about those "silly" laws are incorrectly equating our culture to that of many generations ago. Of course they seem silly to us now, but at the time, there may have been good reason for it...

Now, don't get me wrong, I obviously don't think the food laws actually came from God, but from the men writing the Bible who were speaking out against things that had been observe to be harmful to their culture.

There is a limit to my old law acquiescence, however. Things which I think are obviously immoral, such as slavery, will get no defense from me. Yes, it was a part of their culture...doesn't make it ok.

I only use that verse as a weapon against literalists. For those who can see that at that time it was good practical advice I have no problem. Creationists tend to be literalists and therefore are weak when it comes to this particular verse.

ETA: That being said I very well may have been too rough on steve. I do not know if he is a literalist like juvies is.

 

[Skaloop]

I requested that you reconcile the scripture you paraphrased with the actual scripture. Please try to keep up.

Well, Jesus did say that not one jot nor tittle would pass. He added other stuff, too, but that doesn't change that He did say it.

And the actual scripture is the scripture he paraphrased; that's what a paraphrase is, a rewording of the source text. He reworded Matthew 5:18. He doesn't need to include all of Matthew 5:18 in his paraphrase of it.

 

[justlookinla]

There was no significant difference. At least not in the context of the discussion. Or did you forget how you failed at that. You had one more chance to say what the context was and then I was going to quote to show you what the actual context of the conversation. You did not even try. I took that as an admission of defeat. If you don't want to admit defeat then try one more time to state the context.

Once more, Jesus did not say that not one jot or tittle of the law would change. Jesus said just the opposite, He said that it would change. Your attempt to quote out of context is what's causing your error.

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.​

 

[stevevw]

It was more a result of being amazed at not only his ignorance, but juvie's too. Both of them were unaware of that O.T. law. steve got caught in the backwash from two Christians, one a seasoned debater, not knowing a fairly wide known Biblical law.

If juvie had not said that he did not know this I don't think there would have been nearly the reaction to steve's statement.

I knew of the laws or rituals about not eating certain foods but I thought it was some other bible verse he was alluding to that was something to do with not eating sea food because it affected the environment and was a prophesy of some sort at first. I am not a seasoned christian so I still have some learning to do.

 

[justlookinla]

Well, Jesus did say that not one jot nor tittle would pass. He added other stuff, too, but that doesn't change that He did say it.

Yes, He added other stuff which placed the statement in context.

And the actual scripture is the scripture he paraphrased; that's what a paraphrase is, a rewording of the source text. He reworded Matthew 5:18. He doesn't need to include all of Matthew 5:18 in his paraphrase of it.

No, he did not correctly paraphrase this passage for it doesn't say what he claims....

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.

 

[Skaloop]

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.​

Whether any jots or tittles will pass later doesn't matter since heaven and earth have not passed, so as Jesus said, not one jot or tittle has passed from the law. So people living now are still under the law. That was Subduction's original point, I believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once more, Jesus did not say that not one jot or tittle of the law would change. Jesus said just the opposite, He said that it would change. Your attempt to quote out of context is what's causing your error.

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.​

What? Don't tell me that you do not understand that verse?

Do you really need me to translate it for you?

He said that as long as heaven and Earth are here that "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law". Do you understand what that means. If the Earth is here we are still under the old laws. After they are gone there will be changes but we were talking about the laws of the Bible now. Not some time in the future.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whether any jots or tittles will pass later doesn't matter since heaven and earth have not passed, so as Jesus said, not one jot or tittle has passed from the law. So people living now are still under the law. That was Subduction's original point, I believe.

Yup, and it seemed fairly clear. Especially when I did the snarky look outside to see if the Earth was still here.

I guess that went right over justlook's head.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I knew of the laws or rituals about not eating certain foods but I thought it was some other bible verse he was alluding to that was something to do with not eating sea food because it affected the environment and was a prophesy of some sort at first. I am not a seasoned christian so I still have some learning to do.

That is fine. And since you are a relatively new Christian it is understandable.

Sorry if I cam on too strong.

Of course no apologies to juvie or justlook.

 

[stevevw]

Whether any jots or tittles will pass later doesn't matter since heaven and earth have not passed, so as Jesus said, not one jot or tittle has passed from the law. So people living now are still under the law. That was Subduction's original point, I believe.

But if you read the bible it says we are not under the law now.

• Rom. 6:14, "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace."
• Gal. 5:18, "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law."

Jesus said that He hadn't come to change the law but to fulfill the law. So the law is still there. Its that we are not subject to its power and condemnation over us. By accepting Jesus we are transformed and then live according to the spirit of God which wants to do good before God. So its a new person who is empowered by Jesus to keep the laws anyway.
http://carm.org/are-christians-under-the-law

 

[rockytopva]

I cannot imagine a plant seed evolving.

 

[justlookinla]

Yup, and it seemed fairly clear. Especially when I did the snarky look outside to see if the Earth was still here.

I guess that went right over justlook's head.

The plain teaching of scripture that the jot and tittle will change completely escaped you. That's understandable for you're carnal attempting to discuss spiritual truth.

 

[Skaloop]

But if you read the bible it says we are not under the law now.

• Rom. 6:14, "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace."
• Gal. 5:18, "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law."

So which is it, then? Will the laws not pass until the heavens and earth pass, or have they passed before the heavens and earth passed?

Also, Matthew is a direct quote of what Jesus said. Romans and Galatians are people who are not Jesus saying things. Why would Romans and Galatians, things regular people said, over-rule what Jesus Himself said?

 

[Skaloop]

The plain teaching of scripture that the jot and tittle will change completely escaped you. That's understandable for you're carnal attempting to discuss spiritual truth.

Will change, but hasn't yet, according to Matthew. That's the point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But if you read the bible it says we are not under the law now.

• Rom. 6:14, "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace."
• Gal. 5:18, "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law."

Jesus said that He hadn't come to change the law but to fulfill the law. So the law is still there. Its that we are not subject to its power and condemnation over us. By accepting Jesus we are transformed and then live according to the spirit of God which wants to do good before God. So its a new person who is empowered by Jesus to keep the laws anyway.
Are Christians under the Law? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

I know, the Bible contradicts itself hundreds of times. By ignoring the contradiction you can support any claim.

Actually, I take that back. There are plenty of pro-slavery verses in the Bible. It tells you who you can buy slaves from. How hard you can beat them. How slaves should be willing servants. Even how you can trick your fellow Hebrews, who are supposed to be immune to lifelong slavery into that. But there are no anti- slavery verse that I know of.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The plain teaching of scripture that the jot and tittle will change completely escaped you. That's understandable for you're carnal attempting to discuss spiritual truth.

Yes, will change. The point was that they have not changed. Is the Earth still here or not?

And you have failed to show that there is such a thing as "spiritual truth".

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, will change. The point was that they have not changed. Is the Earth still here or not?

And you have failed to show that there is such a thing as "spiritual truth".

The bible is full of spiritual truths. Being carnal and, according to scripture, an antichrist, you cannot understand spiritual truths.