tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post7231853824965784365..comments2024-03-29T06:55:34.699-07:00Comments on Winging It: A JW ProblemStanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-63528283587290338072017-02-07T11:51:27.371-07:002017-02-07T11:51:27.371-07:00It is pure nonsense that believing anything in the...It is pure nonsense that believing anything in the Bible is true is faith without evidence. I explained further that belief in the Bible is reasonable if belief in God is reasonable (and I've offered evidence for that).<br /><br />I also said that was the end of it. You ignore what I said (and Glenn said) about the nonsense that the sole source of evidence is the encyclopedia. I will also ignore your requirement that the only possible source of proof is the encyclopedia -- that you will only allow evidence and answers in your specified format and no others. I'm sorry that you are Anti-Christ. I <i>will</i> pray for you. I'm afraid, given your "one-way" approach where everything must be answered in your format and all other responses, regardless of their value or validity, are ignored, that this is the end of it. Unless you have something of value to offer readers, I'll not be posting any more of your comments. I'm sorry you opted to be so narrow-minded on this.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-3347544312898129512017-02-07T11:31:42.766-07:002017-02-07T11:31:42.766-07:00Hi Stan - You wrote, "Pure nonsense and you i...Hi Stan - You wrote, "Pure nonsense and you ignore everything that disagrees with you. If it there are reasons to believe..."<br /><br />I have no idea what you're refering to by "pure nonsence." Furthermore, "if" is a qualifier. It's not a fact. And speaking of facts, you didn't produce one piece of encyclopedic evidence for any of my ten specific questions to you. Does that mean that there isn't any? <br /><br />You wrote, "There is evidence for Creation..."<br /><br />I'll have to assume you mean Christian's creation story and not Hindu's creation story, or Mormon's creation story, or Scientolgy's creation story, or Native American's creation story, etc and etc. Well let's look at that...<br /><br />Thinking about the biblical creation hypothesis, what online encyclopedia will I find the evidence…<br /><br />01. That the earth was created before the sun<br /><br />02. That the earth was created before the stars<br /><br />03. That, “God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night,” even though there's only one "light" source in our entire solar system.<br /><br />04. That, “God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it.” You know, that firmament thingy that has “floodgates.” Where is that firm thing?<br /><br />05. And where are the waters that are supposidly “above” that vault/dome/firmament thing?<br /><br />06. That a fully-formed, first man popped into existence.<br /><br />07. That a fully-formed, first woman was made from the first man's rib?<br /><br />08. That a garden of Eden existed complete with two magical trees<br /><br />09. That serpents can talk.<br /><br />10. That, “In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth” as he twice unambiguously asserted.<br /><br />11. Where will I find the encyclopedic evidence that confirms the biblical creation hypothesis?<br /><br />12. And if there isn't any, then what does that mean?<br />Antichristnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-56777655655417120472017-02-07T10:08:57.828-07:002017-02-07T10:08:57.828-07:00Hi Bob - You wrote, "I love to watch people t...Hi Bob - You wrote, "I love to watch people try to prove the negative."<br /><br />Such as? It's awfully hard to reply to someone when no specifics have been given.<br /><br />By the way, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative like gods, unicorns, satyrs, leprechauns, bigfoot, etc. And it will always be empirically impossible.Antichristnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-28792116650951957502017-02-07T09:52:53.721-07:002017-02-07T09:52:53.721-07:00Last one, Antichrist. Pure nonsense and you ignore...Last one, Antichrist. Pure nonsense and you ignore everything that disagrees with you. If it there are reasons to believe that there is a God and there are reasons to believe that the Bible is true, then that would be evidence that those stories are equally true. The position that "These things can't be true because I've never seen them" requires an <i>a priori</i> position that everything is material and the supernatural cannot exist. That is, "I refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary." I've offered evidence for God. You refuse to look at it or acknowledge that there <b>is</b> evidence even if you simply refuse to accept it. We're done here.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-23948602603690143742017-02-07T09:45:23.041-07:002017-02-07T09:45:23.041-07:00Hi Glenn - You wrote, "So if something isn...Hi Glenn - You wrote, "So if something isn't published in an encyclopedia, that means it isn't true?!?!? Wow, when one determines truth by an encyclopedia, they've really, really limited themselves."<br /><br />Let me tell you a little about the bible. The bible has a serpent that talks, a donkey that talks, a man going to heaven in a flaming chariot, a man whose hair gives him strength, a man’s bones raising a dead man, a man being fed twice by birds, a man who lives three days in a big fish, a sun that stops moving in the sky, magical fruit, nine hundred year old men, a six day creation, forty years of food falling from the sky, waters magically parting (more than once), water magically coming from rocks, a magical pole that cures snake bites, being magically burned to death for using the wrong incense, a replenishing bowl of flour, the four winds of the earth, curses that actually work, a forty year moving pillar of fire, Seraphim, a firmament in the sky that has "floodgates," and an invisible heavenly kingdom. And that's just for starters. There's plenty more.”<br /><br />There is no evidence for ANY of those things. But if there were, then we could find that evidence in any reputable, modern, online encyclopedia.<br /><br />Bottom line - If you believe any of that biblical stuff I just listed, then your faith is belief without evidence.<br /><br />Antichristnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-81755872476174050192017-02-07T09:20:13.988-07:002017-02-07T09:20:13.988-07:00Bob, that "You don't understand" com...Bob, that "You don't understand" comment was at "Antichrist", not you.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-9057436356743635512017-02-07T09:17:49.298-07:002017-02-07T09:17:49.298-07:00You don't understand the point. (I hope to hel...You don't understand the point. (I hope to <i>help</i> JW's, not prove they're wrong or eliminate religion.) You will ignore what I've said. (No response at all to the actual evidence.) It is highly likely that I will cease publishing your comments. Feel free to stop any time.<br /><br />You've offered me evidence that there are those who don't believe the Bible is true. Color me surprised. Recently there was a spate ("<a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/spate" rel="nofollow">a large number of similar things or events appearing or occurring in quick succession</a>") of "proofs" offered in recent years that the world is flat, not round. You've ignored the evidence. Apparently real-world evidence is irrelevant to your beliefs. And, of course, that would be ridiculous. No, real-world evidence is <i>not</i> irrelevant. But your upstanding Wikipedia sources are not some sacrosanct proof. There is <a href="http://www.icr.org/evidence/" rel="nofollow">evidence for Creation</a> that you will duly ignore along with <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533" rel="nofollow">the Flood</a> (more <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/sep/14/internationalnews.archaeology" rel="nofollow">more</a> than <a href="https://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/wheres-the-evidence-for-noahs-flood/" rel="nofollow">a little</a>), and <a href="http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm" rel="nofollow">the Exodus</a>. You will choose to set it aside just as I choose to assume that those who begin with the premise that the Bible can't be true will set aside the evidence to the contrary as well. It is considered normal to weigh evidence and determine which best fits the situation. You do it. So do I. Yours is a logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority", as if Wikipedia is an authority and anyone who disagrees is wrong. It is considered a fallacy, not a proof.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-68076268529507662872017-02-07T08:44:25.736-07:002017-02-07T08:44:25.736-07:00I love to watch people try to prove the negative. ...I love to watch people try to prove the negative. have they considered the enormity of the challenge?<br /> if i held the belief that there is no such thing as hell, angles, or God. i am required to have a knowledge that supersedes and extends beyond the boundaries of this proposition.<br />if i believe that space does not exist beyond the limits of our galaxy, i must have knowledge of what actually does exist beyond this boundary. if i believe that there is no such thing as a purple stone, i must have an account of all stones in existence, to make such a determination. this why with all logical arguments we treat unknowns as such, pending new information. any definitive statement concerning the non-existence of a thing, is flawed from the start. <br />Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-91818700690679757132017-02-07T08:18:21.601-07:002017-02-07T08:18:21.601-07:00Hi Stan - In #2, you wrote, "The claim that &...Hi Stan - In #2, you wrote, "The claim that 'Real-world evidence is irrelevant to their religious beliefs' is a claim, not a fact. "<br /><br />Really? Are you sure? Have you taken that Wikipedia list to any Jehovah's Witnesses? You might be amazed at their religious pigheadedness towards multiple actual facts. But enough about them. The following two paragraphs are from the conclusion of Wikipedia’s entry on Noah's Ark…<br /><br />"Flood geology is the religiously inspired interpretation of the geological history of the Earth in terms of the global flood described in Genesis 6–9. Similar views played a part in the early development of the science of geology, even after the biblical chronology had been rejected by geologists in favour of an ancient Earth. Flood geology is an activity within creation science, which is a part of young Earth creationism.[46][47]<br /><br />"Modern geology and its sub-disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology and paleontology, as well as that in related disciplines such as chemistry, physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, geophysics and stratigraphy.[48][49][50] There is an absence of evidence for any of the effects proposed by flood geologists, and their claims concerning phenomena such as fossil layering are not taken seriously by scientists.[51] More generally, the key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis,[48] and it is considered to be pseudoscience within the scientific community.[52]"<br /><br />In other words, it’s pure myth. Even though the bible said it happened, it didn't.<br /><br />-----<br /><br />The following are two short excerpts from the first paragraph of Wikipedia’s entry on “The Exodus”…<br /><br />“The Exodus ('going out') is the founding myth of Israel…"<br /><br />That's part of the first sentence. Please notice the word, "myth." Now here's a little more...<br /><br />“The historicity of the exodus continues to attract popular attention, but most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider information about it recoverable or even relevant to the story of Israel's emergence. The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus and most archaeologists have therefore abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as ‘a fruitless pursuit.’”<br /><br />Wikipedia (and others) proclaim it's a "myth." But they wouldn't if there was evidence to the contrary. And since there's no tangible physical evidence for over 2.5 million people wandering around a small area for forty years, then all they can logically do is to call it a myth.<br /><br />Please feel free to double-check all this information at other online encyclopedias.<br /><br />So, is real-world evidence irrelevant to your religious beliefs?Antichristnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-23071925229074775852017-02-07T07:29:28.847-07:002017-02-07T07:29:28.847-07:00So if something isn't published in an encyclop...So if something isn't published in an encyclopedia, that means it isn't true?!?!?<br /><br />Wow, when one determines truth by an encyclopedia, they've really, really limited themselves.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-86316941866172775992017-02-07T06:52:21.667-07:002017-02-07T06:52:21.667-07:00Oh, for definition purposes, from Wikipedia, "...Oh, for definition purposes, from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a>, "In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement." Nothing to do with "differing opinions" which, if you <i>did</i> look at my blog, you would find all over the place. I am always glad to discuss ideas with people. I'm never interested in the ire that too often accompanies it.<br /><br />And my purpose for writing the post was not like yours here, to prove that all JW's are losers. It was to use their Bible to help them see that their direction is mistaken <b>and point them to something better</b>.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-61239456128754436752017-02-07T06:44:12.947-07:002017-02-07T06:44:12.947-07:00There is evidence for God. Because you don't a...There <b>is</b> evidence for God. Because you don't accept it doesn't mean it doesn't exist (the evidence, I mean). In fact, that was your original accusation, wasn't it? We ignore evidence? I've written on the topic on <a href="http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2008/02/evidence-for-existence-of-god.html" rel="nofollow">more</a> than <a href="http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2011/01/evidence-for-existence-of-god.html" rel="nofollow">one</a> occasion. (That last reference includes other references, too.) I've written on <a href="http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2007/09/science-vs-religion.html" rel="nofollow">Science vs Religion</a> before. Further, the word translated "faith" in the New Testament means literally "to be convinced by argument or evidence." <a href="http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2016/03/faith-and-reason.html" rel="nofollow">Faith and reason</a> are not in opposition in biblical terms.<br /><br />I'm amazed that you only allow as true that which can be quantified by natural standards. You reject, then, the existence of love, for instance. Can't be measured ... doesn't exist. Consider the <a href="http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2011/01/no-evidence.html" rel="nofollow">rationale</a>. If you're measuring sound, you can't use a voltmeter. If you're measuring light, an oscilloscope won't help. And if you're measuring the <i>super</i>natural, you can't expect to do it with natural means. I mean, really ... "hell's actual physical size"? And you're thinking that should be in Wikipedia if it's real.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-29562988132501278512017-02-06T23:57:42.732-07:002017-02-06T23:57:42.732-07:00Hi Stan - In #2, you wrote, "The claim that &...Hi Stan - In #2, you wrote, "The claim that 'Real-world evidence is irrelevant to their religious beliefs' is a claim, not a fact. "<br /><br />Really? Are you sure? Have you taken that Wikipedia list to any Jehovah's Witnesses? You might be amazed at their religious pigheadedness towards multiple actual facts. But enough about them. The following two paragraphs are from the conclusion of Wikipedia’s entry on Noah's Ark…<br /><br />"Flood geology is the religiously inspired interpretation of the geological history of the Earth in terms of the global flood described in Genesis 6–9. Similar views played a part in the early development of the science of geology, even after the biblical chronology had been rejected by geologists in favour of an ancient Earth. Flood geology is an activity within creation science, which is a part of young Earth creationism.[46][47]<br /><br />"Modern geology and its sub-disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology and paleontology, as well as that in related disciplines such as chemistry, physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, geophysics and stratigraphy.[48][49][50] There is an absence of evidence for any of the effects proposed by flood geologists, and their claims concerning phenomena such as fossil layering are not taken seriously by scientists.[51] More generally, the key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis,[48] and it is considered to be pseudoscience within the scientific community.[52]"<br /><br />In other words, it’s pure myth. Even though the bible said it happened, it didn't.<br /><br />-----<br /><br />The following are two short excerpts from the first paragraph of Wikipedia’s entry on “The Exodus”…<br /><br />“The Exodus ('going out') is the founding myth of Israel…"<br /><br />That's part of the first sentence. Please notice the word, "myth." Now here's a little more...<br /><br />“The historicity of the exodus continues to attract popular attention, but most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider information about it recoverable or even relevant to the story of Israel's emergence. The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus and most archaeologists have therefore abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as ‘a fruitless pursuit.’”<br /><br />Wikipedia (and others) proclaim it's a "myth." But they wouldn't if there was evidence to the contrary. And since there's no tangible physical evidence for over 2.5 million people wandering around a small area for forty years, then all they can logically do is to call it a myth.<br /><br />Please feel free to double-check all this information at other online encyclopedias.<br /><br />So is real-world evidence irrelevant to your religious beliefs?Antichristnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-14807479335266702072017-02-06T23:55:37.801-07:002017-02-06T23:55:37.801-07:00Hi Stan - I'm disappointed. Let me show you ho...Hi Stan - I'm disappointed. Let me show you how I would have handled the first part.<br /><br />Hi Antichrist - Thanks for that list. Now everybody on this thread can put that online information under any Jehovah's Witness' nose and prove that their religion has been wrong over and over again, year after year after year. Thanks a lot.<br /><br />But no. Instead you imply that I'm a troll. So what is a troll? Is it somebody with a different or opposing opinion?<br /><br />As for the rest of your reply, I'll probably have to split it up.<br /><br />1. You DO believe things without evidence. In fact, someone could put a gun to your head right now and you couldn't prove even one of your religious beliefs. That's because there isn't any. That's why it's called faith.<br /><br />But don't feel bad. I can say the same to any Judean, Christian, Islamist, Hinduist, Buddhist, Mormon, Scientologist, Wiccan, etc, and not be proven wrong. I can overgeneralize with complete abandon. So let's try it with you.<br /><br />You wrote, "I believe that biblical faith is faith based on evidence."<br /><br />There are many modern online encyclopedias to choose from, like Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica, the World Book Encyclopedia, Columbia's Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Smithsonian, Scholarpedia, etc. Now let's get to that evidence. <br /><br />01. Which encyclopedias state that gods actually exist?<br /><br />02. Which encyclopedias state that only one singular god actually exists?<br /><br />03. Which encyclopedias state that a specifically named, singular god actually exists?<br /><br />04. Which encyclopedias state that YOUR god actually exists?<br /><br />05. Which encyclopedias state that ANY gods actually created anything?<br /><br />06. Which encyclopedias state that angels actually exist?<br /><br />07. Which encyclopedias state that Satan actually exists?<br /><br />08. Which encyclopedias state that a still-living, biblical Jesus actually exists?<br /><br />09. Which encyclopedias state that a place called heaven actually exists?<br /><br />10. Which encyclopedias state that a place called hell actually exists?<br /><br />And a subset of questions accompanies each one of the above, such as...<br /> <br /> 10 a. Which encyclopedias pinpoint hell’s specific address or location?<br /><br /> 10 b. Which encyclopedias state hell's actual physical size?<br /><br /> 10 c. Which encyclopedias state hell’s semi-current population? Etc.<br /><br /><br />The ball is firmly in your court, so I'll split this here.<br />Antichristnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-66530758697090960282017-02-06T08:00:28.477-07:002017-02-06T08:00:28.477-07:00Antichrist, I've posted your comments ... all ...Antichrist, I've posted your comments ... all of them. It looks a <b>lot</b> like mere trolling. But, hey, we get all kinds.<br /><br />I do need to point out that:<br /><br />1. I don't believe in faith without evidence (let alone against the evidence). Faith without evidence is called "credulity". I believe that biblical faith is faith <i>based on</i> evidence. Just for your benefit, you might want to be careful about overgeneralization on your truth claims.<br /><br />2. The claim that "Real-world evidence is irrelevant to their religious beliefs" is a claim, not a fact. The accusation that anti-theists equally ignore real-world evidence to support their beliefs is an equally valid claim.<br /><br />3. You ended your comments with "Peace". I don't know exactly what you mean by that, given your certainty that all who believe in God are deluded and your real truth is that there is no hope, no meaning to life beyond what you make of it, no genuine purpose to existence. But you go with that.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-389895707349878172017-02-06T02:53:51.867-07:002017-02-06T02:53:51.867-07:00Hi guys - Here's something that you can point ...Hi guys - Here's something that you can point out to Jehovah's Witnesses, not that it'll matter.<br /><br />Look up "Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses" on Wikipedia and start reading them their many failed prophecies.<br /><br />By the way, when you fail to persuade them, remember this lesson. Faith is not only belief without evidence, but it's belief IN SPITE of the evidence. And that's the way it is with all religious folks. Real-world evidence is irrelevant to their religious beliefs.<br /><br />Peace.Antichristnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-81972445076143317292017-02-03T07:22:21.795-07:002017-02-03T07:22:21.795-07:00You'll have to answer to God for yourself on t...You'll have to answer to God for yourself on that one.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-89360792923442318012017-02-02T17:31:09.014-07:002017-02-02T17:31:09.014-07:00Is it bad that I chuckled at that one?Is it bad that I chuckled at that one?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08443810898475961105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-67174594166375832822017-02-02T12:56:01.615-07:002017-02-02T12:56:01.615-07:00i have to admit that my post was a little fatalist...i have to admit that my post was a little fatalistic. i have demonstrated a very short sighted view. surely God can save anyone no matter the background. i stand corrected. thank you. <br /><br />God promised the Jehovah's witness that there would be converts found on at all four corners of the world. then he made the earth round.... and he laughed and laughed and laughed. <br /><br />ok only kidding... just had to get that out of my system. sorry. Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-18612948942236079182017-02-02T11:55:21.124-07:002017-02-02T11:55:21.124-07:00Stan,
What you said...😀Stan,<br /><br />What you said...😀Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-71480302095045708162017-02-02T09:33:05.624-07:002017-02-02T09:33:05.624-07:00Yes, indeed, Hebrews is another big time "Jes...Yes, indeed, Hebrews is another big time "Jesus is God" text. Any light in the darkness is good.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-82966793987284935832017-02-02T09:26:15.162-07:002017-02-02T09:26:15.162-07:00You need to get them thinking outside of the JW bo...You need to get them thinking outside of the JW box. I like to have them read Hebrews 1, and then tell me that Jesus is an angel as they claim.<br /><br />Just a little seed will often set them thinking and researching. I was a Mormon, and the little seed that got me thinking and searching was when I learned that their god had sex with Mary for Jesus to be conceived. That mean Mary couldn't be a virgin and that bothered me. I was told that she was still a virgin to mortal man, but "God" is an immortal man. My rejoinder was, it doesn't matter what kind of a man, if she's had sex she can't be a virgin.<br /><br />Just seeds is all we need to plant if they are thinking people.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-26516620841695393682017-02-02T08:28:43.102-07:002017-02-02T08:28:43.102-07:00You're right, Craig. I think it can be found m...You're right, Craig. I think it can be found most places in Christianity ... even you and I sometimes. We have a prior commitment to a position and bend Scripture to meet it. It's only when the tension breaks it up that we can move on. My prayer for me is that I won't be that kind of Christian, bending Scripture to my will.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-28429505021907921372017-02-02T08:26:10.225-07:002017-02-02T08:26:10.225-07:00Yes, Bob, I don't imagine the right set of wor...Yes, Bob, I don't imagine the right set of words will wake up a JW. But if Scripture says, "How are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard?" (Rom 10:14), then I can pray that God will use the truth to introduce them to Him of whom they haven't yet heard.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-58967331100597783642017-02-02T07:51:24.438-07:002017-02-02T07:51:24.438-07:00There are an increasing number of "Christians...There are an increasing number of "Christians" who are taking a similar approach to scripture. It's all about insisting on an interpretive approach that ignores the reality of thousands of years of scholarship in favor of someone's uninformed opinion. Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.com