Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[justlookinla]

He didn't quote anything, so it can't be a misquote![/QUTOE]

He said that Jesus said something He didn't say.

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.

Well, now it's a paraphrase because the error was exposed. The thing is, the paraphrase is incorrect for the reasons already shown.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

So the verse of Scripture that lets us eat shellfish happens to be a hallucination?

If the Law is still in effect, should the Jews still be sacrificing animals for peace offerings, trespass offerings, sin offerings, wave offerings and meat offerings?

 

[Skaloop]

Well, now it's a paraphrase because the error was exposed. The thing is, the paraphrase is incorrect for the reasons already shown.

No, it was always a paraphrase because he was paraphrasing Jesus. Whether you think the meaning portrayed by his paraphrasing is incorrect relative to the original quote, that's one thing, but it was and is a paraphrase, which means it is in his words (rather than His words) and therefore cannot be wrong. It may be incomplete, but it's not wrong.

 

[46AND2]

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

Sorry, this was not in reference to your conversation with subduction zone. I was referring to earlier in the thread when people were giving steve a hard time for not reading his Bible because he wasn't familiar with the shellfish law of the OT. That particular needling was a bit unfair and over the top, imo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He didn't quote anything, so it can't be a misquote![/QUTOE]

He said that Jesus said something He didn't say.



Well, now it's a paraphrase because the error was exposed. The thing is, the paraphrase is incorrect for the reasons already shown.

There was no error. The meaning was clear. I did not change the meaning of the verse and that is what a paraphrase does. It is not word for word and you can see that someone is using a paraphrase by the lack of quotation marks.

Did you see any quotation marks?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, this was not in reference to your conversation with subduction zone. I was referring to earlier in the thread when people were giving steve a hard time for not reading his Bible because he wasn't familiar with the shellfish law of the OT. That particular needling was a bit unfair and over the top, imo.

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.

 

[justlookinla]

No, it was always a paraphrase because he was paraphrasing Jesus. Whether you think the meaning portrayed by his paraphrasing is incorrect relative to the original quote, that's one thing, but it was and is a paraphrase, which means it is in his words (rather than His words) and therefore cannot be wrong. It may be incomplete, but it's not wrong.

Of course it's wrong. Here, let me give you an example.

You said he was paraphrasing Obama.

 

[justlookinla]

Sorry, this was not in reference to your conversation with subduction zone. I was referring to earlier in the thread when people were giving steve a hard time for not reading his Bible because he wasn't familiar with the shellfish law of the OT. That particular needling was a bit unfair and over the top, imo.

Oh, ok.

 

[rockytopva]

How does the atheist think how the seed evolved

 

[justlookinla]

There was no error. The meaning was clear. I did not change the meaning of the verse and that is what a paraphrase does. It is not word for word and you can see that someone is using a paraphrase by the lack of quotation marks.

Did you see any quotation marks?

I see you attempting to justify your misquote of Jesus. Jesus did not say what you claimed He said.

 

[Skaloop]

Of course it's wrong. Here, let me give you an example.

You said he was paraphrasing Obama.

You think Obama is Jesus? As in, the second coming? Interesting...

 

[justlookinla]

You think Obama is Jesus? As in, the second coming? Interesting...

It was a paraphrase therefore could mean anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see you attempting to justify your misquote of Jesus. Jesus did not say what you claimed He said.

It was not a misquote since it was not a quote.

Here is one simple question for you. Did you see quotation marks? If the answer is no then it was a paraphrase.

Why does everyone understand this except for you? Skaloop quoted and linked a site that supported me. I can find a site that supports me, do you want more quotes and links to ignore?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was a paraphrase therefore could mean anything.

No, a paraphrase must have the same meaning as the actual quote.

Go back and read the site that Skaloop quoted and linked.

 

[justlookinla]

It was not a misquote since it was not a quote.

Here is one simple question for you. Did you see quotation marks? If the answer is no then it was a paraphrase.

Why does everyone understand this except for you? Skaloop quoted and linked a site that supported me. I can find a site that supports me, do you want more quotes and links to ignore?

Are you paraphrasing?

 

[justlookinla]

No, a paraphrase must have the same meaning as the actual quote.

Go back and read the site that Skaloop quoted and linked.

Go back and read the scripture you now claim you paraphrased. Reconcile the scripture with your now recent paraphrase.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you paraphrasing?

Was their even an implication that I was using someone else's ideas?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go back and read the scripture you now claim you paraphrased. Reconcile the scripture with your now recent paraphrase.

I just love a bad loser.

 

[justlookinla]

I just love a bad loser.

This means you aren't going to do it. I'm not stunned.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This means you aren't going to do it. I'm not stunned.

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.