Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[justlookinla]

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.

I posted the actual scripture, not some cockeyed supposition as you have done.

If you wish to quote scripture, quote scripture.

You're in way over your head.

 

[Skaloop]

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.

"Punchtuation" error, huh?

The paraphrase was indeed implied by the context as well as the lack of quotation marks. One need not specifically identify a statement as a paraphrase in order for it to be a paraphrase.

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.

I see that the quotation marks surround his statement, and also that there are no quotation marks around anything he says Jesus said. Hence, he's not quoting Jesus and should instead be considered to be paraphrasing Him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Statements from Jesus are thought to be superior to hallucinations of disciples.

 

[justlookinla]

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

You said that Jesus said something which He didn't say. That's your first error. If you claim you're quoting someone, the proper method is to place the claimed quote in double quotes. If you're paraphrasing, enclose it in single quotes.

This is basic stuff.

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.

Nope, you've once again failed to understand your lacking in punctuation skills. It wasn't about that at all.

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.

I copied and pasted the scripture with the reference to book, chapter and verse. The scripture did not say what you claimed Jesus said at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Statements from Jesus are thought to be superior to hallucinations of disciples.

Is that what that was? an hallucination?

 

[justlookinla]

"Punchtuation" error, huh?

The paraphrase was indeed implied by the context as well as the lack of quotation marks. One need not specifically identify a statement as a paraphrase in order for it to be a paraphrase.

"Jesus also said" isn't suggesting a paraphrase but a verbatim quote.

I see that the quotation marks surround his statement, and also that there are no quotation marks around anything he says Jesus said. Hence, he's not quoting Jesus and should instead be considered to be paraphrasing Him.

If He's not quoting Jesus he shouldn't claim he's quoting Jesus by posting "Jesus also said".

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said that Jesus said something which He didn't say. That's your first error. If you claim you're quoting someone, the proper method is to place the claimed quote in double quotes. If you're paraphrasing, enclose it in single quotes.

What? No, a paraphrase has no quotation marks at all. Single quotation mars only means that you are English. I have never heard of using quote marks of any sort for paraphrasing.

This is basic stuff.

Yes it is, and you are amazingly wrong.

Nope, you've once again failed to understand your lacking in punctuation skills. It wasn't about that at all.

Seeing how you have no clue about the rules of punctuation then I don't know what you were complaining about at all.

I copied and pasted the scripture with the reference to book, chapter and verse. The scripture did not say what you claimed Jesus said at all.

And again, I dd that before you did. Look back at the record. I can't change that. Neither can you, unless you edit a post, but then that will show up at the bottom of the post.

 

[justlookinla]

hallucinations of disciples.

Prove they were hallucinations. They may have been interacting with natural law that we don't know about yet.

 

[Skaloop]

You said that Jesus said something which He didn't say. That's your first error. If you claim you're quoting someone, the proper method is to place the claimed quote in double quotes. If you're paraphrasing, enclose it in single quotes.

False. Sorry. Paraphrasing does not require any quotation marks. Example:

"...you should always let your audience know when you are citing a source directly (using the exact words of the author) or paraphrasing your source (putting someone else’s ideas into your own words). The following is an example of the same passage from Strunk and White but paraphrased rather than quoted directly. Notice that the speaker still acknowledges the source.

Ex. As Strunk and White see it, writers should always check sentences for passive voice and consider revising them to use active voice. The active voice, in their opinion, is preferable because of its strength and clarity."

Subduction acknowledged his source (Jesus) without specifying it as a direct quote, which is perfectly fine for a paraphrase.

Additionally:

"Paraphrasing is better than using direct quotations when a quote’s wording is too difficult for listeners to understand quickly or uses technical language or jargon. It’s also better to paraphrase if a quote is longer than two or three sentences."

Since the Matthew passage is written in odd English (relative to modern English) is does make sense to paraphrase it.

This is basic stuff.

Apparently not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is that what that was? an hallucination?

You mean "a hallucination" since we are nitpicking about English. You only use "an" before words with a silent "h" such as "honor".

And yes, it seemed to be a hallucination.

 

[justlookinla]

What? No, a paraphrase has no quotation marks at all. Single quotation mars only means that you are English. I have never heard of using quote marks of any sort for paraphrasing.



Yes it is, and you are amazingly wrong.




Seeing how you have no clue about the rules of punctuation then I don't know what you were complaining about at all.




And again, I dd that before you did. Look back at the record. I can't change that. Neither can you, unless you edit a post, but then that will show up at the bottom of the post.

Bottom line, you misquoted Jesus. You cannot find Mat 5:18 which says what you claim.

 

[justlookinla]

You mean "a hallucination" since we are nitpicking about English. You only use "an" before words with a silent "h" such as "honor".

And yes, it seemed to be a hallucination.

Why couldn't it have been natural laws involved which we don't know about yet?

 

[46AND2]

I think some of you came down a little hard on steve about not reading his Bible. What may seem an important point to you in the Bible may not have much meaning to him, and he doesn't claim to be a scholar, so requiring him to know everything about the Bible is a bit unfair.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bottom line, you misquoted Jesus. You cannot find Mat 5:18 which says what you claim.

Bottom line I didn't. It was a paraphrase, pure and simple. See Skaloop's previous post.

As you said this is basic stuff.


Oh look!! Another paraphrase. The punctuation and capitalization is not the same.

 

[justlookinla]

I think some of you came down a little hard on steve about not reading his Bible. What may seem an important point to you in the Bible may not have much meaning to him, and he doesn't claim to be a scholar, so requiring him to know everything about the Bible is a bit unfair.

A simple search of scripture and a copy and paste would suffice.

 

[justlookinla]

Bottom line I didn't. It was a paraphrase, pure and simple. See Skaloop's previous post.

As you said this is basic stuff.


Oh look!! Another paraphrase. The punctuation and capitalization is not the same.

Hopefully you've learned from this and will actually take about 15 seconds to copy and paste the actual scripture instead something of your own concoction. You'll of course continue to be called out when you misquote scripture in the future.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hopefully you've learned from this and will actually take about 15 seconds to copy and paste the actual scripture instead something of your own concoction. You'll of course continue to be called out when you misquote scripture in the future.

But I did not misquote. My paraphrase still got the message across.

And you better only quote scripture directly from now on. I don't need to quote directly since that is not my standard, but you do since it is your standard. If you break your own rules that would make you a hypocrite.

If I need to I will quote directly, I have in the past and I will in the future. But I will not quote directly to please you. There are times that a paraphrase is good enough.

ETA: What is really amazing is that even after Skaloop found, quoted and linked a source that agreed with me on the use of paraphrasing is that justlook still has not admitted that he was wrong.

 

[Skaloop]

Hopefully you've learned from this and will actually take about 15 seconds to copy and paste the actual scripture instead something of your own concoction. You'll of course continue to be called out when you misquote scripture in the future.

He didn't quote anything, so it can't be a misquote!

Maybe these examples will help:

Justlookinla said "Hopefully you've learned to paste scripture instead of your own concoction."

That would be a misquote because it is a quote, as indicated by the quotation marks, that does not match the original text.

Justlookinla said that he hopes Subduction can develop and take some time to use proper scripture.

That would be a paraphrase rather than a misquote because it is not a quote, as indicated by the lack of quotation marks, and therefore need not match the original text.

Subduction used a paraphrase.

 

[justlookinla]

But I did not misquote. My paraphrase still got the message across.

And you better only quote scripture directly from now on. I don't need to quote directly since that is not my standard, but you do since it is your standard. If you break your own rules that would make you a hypocrite.

If I need to I will quote directly, I have in the past and I will in the future. But I will not quote directly to please you. There are times that a paraphrase is good enough.

Make up whatever scripture you wish, that seems to be your standard. It's going to be pointed out when you misquote though.

 

[46AND2]

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.

He never said never, fwiw.

That said, a question for you: It would appear that all being fulfilled will be commensurate with heaven and earth passing.

For all intents and purposes, would it not be reasonable to say that Jesus said that not one jot or tittle will change, with the obvious exception of life on earth ceasing to exist? Would it not, further, be reasonable to drop the conditional "unless earthly life ceases to exist," since it is rather obvious?