It was a false statement by you against me because I have never ever stated that there is only one meaning of 'world' in John's Gospel. Thus your statement about my one meaning of 'world' was an invention.On what basis did I know that it was a false statement? It sure seemed true when I said it. You are free to refute it. When you do, however, please explain why you needed me to provide definitions.
It was a false statement by you against me because I have never ever stated that there is only one meaning of 'world' in John's Gospel. Thus your statement about my one meaning of 'world' was an invention.
You need to provide definitions because so far you have only made assertions that 'world' has 10+ meanings in John's Gospel. You have not demonstrated this to be true. Please provide the evidence that I have asked.
This.
When will you quit your goading me with your repetition of a false statement about my view of 'world' in John's Gospel?If you honestly believe that John only uses one definition for "world" in his writings, I'll provide you a link to the various examples.
You were the one who made the statement about 10+ meanings of 'world' in John's Gospel but you have provided ZERO evidence to back up your claim. That's why I'm asking for your definitions. It's a basic and reasonable request.I still would like to know why they want definitions if they know them.
When will you quit your goading me with your repetition of a false statement about my view of 'world' in John's Gospel?
Red herring fallacy.