Bridge of Reason

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that “the times of the gentiles” is a time period of 2,520 years, beginning in 607BC and ending in AD1914. According to their doctrine, Jesus was enthroned as King in AD1914 when the “gentile times” ended. 1. Only one verse in scripture mentions “the times of the gentiles”: 'They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.'  Luke 21:24 NIV. The Jehovah's Witness organisation has linked this one verse with other prophetic passages to calculate the supposed length of these “gentile times”, notably a time period which began hundreds of years before the incarnation and ended over 1900 years after it. 2. Simple examination of the text of Luke 21 reveals what Jesus was referring to when he used the phrase “the times of the gentiles”. Let's look at the passage together and distil this into four points which you may...

You have left a cult, or you are helping someone come out; so what comes next? The apostle Paul wrote to the church in Corinth: 'But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it.' 1 Cor.3:1,2 There is a process of growth every Christian needs if they are to come to full maturity in Christ. The same is true for Christians coming out of cults. What are stages of this growth? How might we think about, and identify where people are in this process of sanctification? How are we to help them move on and grow further, from the milk to the meat? Recorded at the Reachout Trust Conference, September, 2024.  

  Should You Believe in The Trinity? is a booklet published in 1989 by the Watchtower Society to challenge Trinitarian doctrine. Always good for an eye-catching book title, Doug came up with Why Should You Believe? Should You Believe in The Trinity? He did a great job of demonstrating the mendacity of the Watchtower Society in their publication. I am in the process of updating and reformatting Doug’s work. You can still find the JW title  on their website. I want to share some of Doug’s work with you, along with a simple example of how Doug more than competently handles the defence they offer when you challenge their selective quoting. When it is republished I will be sure to let you know. Doug writes: ‘ When you show that a particular quote is selective many Jehovah’s Witnesses will say, “Well the writer does say these words and therefore we are not misquoting them.” The answer I give to this is to quote John 3:16 & 17 from the New World Translation, as follows: ‘ For...

  The following is a contribution from Barry Amor, one of our team here at Reachout central: I have spent many hours debating with Jehovah’s Witnesses, online, via email, and face-to-face on the carts or over a table. I t is understand able how easy it can be to become disappointed with the seeming lack of effect of this time spent with them. They promise to go away and research what you have said and get back to you and yet they rarely do. The Scriptures you show them and the arguments you present seem to wash over them with no apparent effect and you go away discouraged. By way of encouragement, though, I think an alternative look at the parable of the sower from Matthew 13: 1-23 has much to help us. There are two ways of looking at the parable in this context: F irstly, the sower seems to accept the fact that some of the seed that he is sowing will have little or no result by way of fruit, yet he keeps sowing. Some seed will undoubtedly be wasted, but there will be a har...

  Jehovah's Witnesses struggle with the idea of one God in three person's. Who doesn’t? How do they resolve this to their own satisfaction? They reason: 'The statement “the Word was with God” indicates that two separate persons are discussed in the verse. It is not possible for the Word to be “with God” and at the same time be God Almighty. The context also confirms that the Word is not Almighty God. John 1:18 states that “no man has seen God at any time.” However, people did see the Word, Jesus, for John 1:14 states that “the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory.” Is there a difference between 'God' and 'Almighty God,' as they insist? If 'no man has seen God at any time' how is it possible for Jesus to be seen and be God? Revelation 3:14 I ended my last post without addressing the question, ‘Is the NWT accurate and reliable when it translates Revelation 3:14, 'the beginning of the creation by God'?’ I w...

  Jehovah's Witnesses insist Jesus is a created being, the first to be created, the one who created 'all other things.' Of the opening verses of John's gospel they write : 'The “beginning” referred to in this verse cannot mean “the beginning” of God, because God had no beginning. Jehovah God is “from everlasting to everlasting.” (Psalm 90:1, 2) However, the Word, Jesus Christ, did have a beginning. He is “the beginning of the creation by God.”—Revelation 3:14.' What is 'the beginning' referring to in John 1:1? Did Jesus Christ have a beginning? Is the NWT accurate and reliable when it translates Revelation 3:14, 'the beginning of the creation by God'? In the beginning was [ εἰμ ί ( eimi) , Gk. ‘to be’] the Word – Genesis is in mind here, Jehovah’s Witnesses say as much when they teach God made Jesus and Jesus made ‘all other things,’ as Colossians 2 doesn’t say, but does in their NWT. Note, Jesus ‘was’ in the beginning; he didn’t begin to be....

  Jehovah's Witnesses are known for denying the Deity of Christ. They explain on their website: 'While many Bible translators render the verse this way, others see the need to render it differently. In the original-language text, the two occurrences of “God” (Greek, the·osʹ) at John 1:1 are grammatically different. In the first occurrence, the word “God” is preceded by the Greek definite article, while the article does not appear before the second occurrence. Many scholars note that the absence of the definite article before the second the·osʹ is significant. For example, The Translator’s New Testament says regarding this absence of the article: “In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means ‘The Word was divine.’” Other scholars and Bible translations point to this same distinction.—See “ John 1:1 From Additional Translations.” Is Jesus 'a god' with a lower case 'g'? Does translating the Greek as 'divi...