Leaderboard

It's really a twisted straw man argument of sorts. We all know you can't actually change the factual realities of what has already taken place. We can't dispute that point. So, because they know you can't dispute that, (whether consciously or not) they intend to divert your attention from acknowledging and learning from the past and from changing your perception of the past. They make the argument about "change" when really it's about acknowledgement, etc. It's used as a type of rationalization.

My issue with the REV is that it is basically a vanity book. It is non-peer reviewed for accuracy, and since accuracy is the hallmark of STFI, then it should be happy to be picked apart by people who are smarter - provided that JS believes such a person, much less persons exist. I have actually had a conversation with JS over this issue, and was immediately cut off with a look of utter revulsion that I would suggest such a thing as this being over his ability as a researcher. At one time there was something written on the STFI online site that said he reworked the NT to support STF doctrine. At least he's honest. But the reality is that he always taught that minds should be changed to align with "the word" and not the other way around. JS is no Bart Ehrman when it comes to education and overall scholarship, and not even he (Bart) has attempted such a feat. But if you want to read it for entertainment purposes only, then fabulous. If you want to actually study the bible, then get a NRSV and learn Greek.