Questions to ask from Bible Teach Ch 8

by InterestedOne 32 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  InterestedOne

  Hey Chris (Black Sheep) - I've almost finished "The Gentile Times Reconsidered." It has been a good read to get some perspective. I want you to know that my experience with the JW's has been exactly as you described, and I have changed my approach with them since I started the study several months ago. Some of the things I had brought up to my conductor, like 587 or even Rutherford's Cadillacs (I only posted that recently b/c I was personally wondering about it), were things I brought up a long time ago when I was more naive & didn't understand the JW's mentality. My current approach is to stick with your advice. I'm not planning to show him anything I am reading because I have already made that mistake & have seen how he reacts. With that in mind, we are going to have our next study in a few days to discuss 1914. Here is what I am thinking, and a concern I was wondering if you could comment on:

  1. As you suggested, I can ask him to show me what is wrong with the historical evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's reign beginning in 605.

  2. Here is my fear. I am afraid he will say that since the "Bible clearly teaches" the WT "70 years" interpretation, we must choose which takes precedence: "God's word" or the potentially fallible historical reckoning of men - even if the evidence is overwhelming, there is always the slight possibility that men are misunderstanding the evidence, or something could be uncovered that debunks the current understanding.

  3. Of course, "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" addresses the fact that the "70 years" in the Bible could be interpreted differently from how the WT interprets it, so there may not be any conflict between "God's word" and the historical record. However, by that point we will have have strayed. We will have shifted from him checking the evidence for himself and entered a discussion of "interpretation" of the "70 years" which could be a disaster - mainly because of the exhausting, slippery bullying tactics the JW's are good at when it comes to "interpretation."

  Can you offer some advice? Should I tell him I am aware of other possible interpretations of the 70 years, or could that be too distracting or trigger the "opposer of WT" sensitivity?
• 

  sherah

  The scriptures that he will show will not conclusively prove the correctness of the WT 70 year interpretation, you can simply state that his evidence is not enough. That can perhaps open the door to him doing 'secular' research to prove his point.
• 

  InterestedOne

  Hi Sherah - If I say his evidence is not enough, I could see him saying, "what don't you understand about it?" and we'd be stuck in an argument about how to interpret the 70-years verses & whether or not they are inconclusive. I have had this problem before where an interpretation of a verse is inconclusive to me, but to the JW the interpretation is "obviously" the WT interpretation and I'm just being a "debater."

  To make matters worse, in the "The Gentile Times Reconsidered," the author shows how the WT has provided a response to some of the historical evidence but leaves out important information, and the information they do provide is presented in a misleading way. Basically, they make it sound like the evidence is open to debate, when it really isn't. Like the Proclaimers book, it is an example of "immunization" using only -some- of the information to give loyal JW's a feeling that they have done their homework. If my conductor comes back with the WT pseudo-response to the evidence, it will put me in the position of having to "teach" him by providing additional information, which then causes another wall to go up in his mind. I'm not sure how make him aware of the additional information without appearing like I'm "teaching" him.

  Perhaps I'm being overly worried & might just have to play this by ear, trying to stick to the evidence.