SixofNine: great suggestion, make them think about it and explain the article and its sources, the training of the Watchtower is for it's "ministers" to put others on the defensive, make them defend what they are saying instead of just throwing an article at you.
So... I got the 607 defense articles sent to me...
by i_drank_the_wine 21 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Indian Larry
Keep it very simple with them. Most witnesses are so used to simply accepting the societies explanition of things that they have lost the ability to research and understand. If they do see something that does not seem right they assume they are the ones that are wrong. Even when faced with overwhelming evidence in the form of the thousands of business tablets, the astronomical data, the historical data and so on, if someone is "God's channel of communication" that trumps all opposing views. The once chance you have is to stick with very simple scriptures straight from the Bible. Many times even the most mind controlled Witness will still put the inspired word of God above the FDS.
With that in mind remind them that both the society and secular historians agree that Babylon fell in October of 539bc. Then have them read the following scripture:
(Jeremiah25:12) . . .“‘And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah. . .
The king of Babylon is was dead in 539. Why does the society say the 70 years ended two years later? How could Jehovah "call into account" a nation that had already fallen and a king that was already dead?
Let them know that you feel you have to believe "the utterance of Jehovah" above anything that man says. After all "It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step". You might also remind them what the prophet Daniel was inspired to write in Daniel 5:26 regarding the death of Belshazzar and the fall of Babylon:
(Daniel5:26)26 “This is the interpretation of the word: ME′NE, God has numbered [the days of] your kingdom and has finished it.
The bible could not be any more clear about when the 70 years ended. The society insists that the 70 years ended two years later, with ZERO scriptural proof. They simply need to prop up 1914 because it is the basis for the authority they have assumed over the organization. If they want to keep the power they have over nearly seven million people the MUST keep 1914. Let them know that is why the "generation" keeps changing, who knows maybe you will plant a small seed of truth that will grow in the future.
PS. Ask them to do the following search on their CD: "when seventy years have been fulfilled"
Ask them why that has only been quoted in two articles over the past 60 years and why even those articles don't explain why they disagree with the word of Jehovah God in Jeremiah and Daniel.
-
White Dove
I'm going through this exact same thing with my dad and hesitate to check my snailbox.
I answered his answer to my refutation of 607 BCE with scholarly references on it found through Google.
It's so easy to find!
He said all he could find when he checked Google was apostate sites.
He only checked the first page of sources.
There were about 10 to 20 pages.
So, I sent the sites along with their quotes as stated above.
His answer was that the WTS goes by anchor dates and it conclusively proves 607.
WTH are anchor dates?
I thought that either an event happened on a date or it didn't.
That term makes it sound like the WTS is anchored to certain dates and won't let go.
I answered him with: I gave you what you asked for as to proof that 607 BCE is not factual, but it seems that you already had your answer before you asked and just want to argue and debate it with me.
I told you time and again that I don't debate religion or politics, so please stop it.
That was last week and I haven't heard from him on e-mail since.
-
MrFreeze
Yeah my mom and stepdad gave me both articles. I haven't read them since I read the critique on here. I already know they are wrong. I can't debate it with them though because nothing I say will make any difference. It's a waste of time.
-
steve2
On the plus side, looks like at least some of your family members are still trying to reach you - which is a damn sight more than many JW families who wipe their hands of the family member as soon as they smell the charge of apostasy. Just as they possibly hold out hope that you'll be persuaded by the literature they've sent you, never lose hope that someday they will be willing to head the "other" side.
-
Indian Larry
Greenland, the society considers the fall of Babylon in 539 to be an anchor date. Use that with your father per my right above your post.
-
Ding
I'm really not sure why the 1914 date is all that important to JWs any more.
The overlapping generation teaching has made "the 1914 generation" meaningless.
Moreover, as others have documented, the nonsense the WTS was teaching in 1918-1919 doesn't dissuade JWs from believing that Jesus selected the organization to be the faithful and discreet slave upon his supposed inspection at that time. In other words, JWs don't believe in the WTS because of what supposedly happened from 1914-1919.
-
jws
White Dove, so-called "anchor dates" are dates they can firmly fix via astronomical measurements. They use 539 BCE as an example. They obviously ignore a bunch of others fixed by the same methods.
Indian Larry makes the point I always try to make with them. Ignore all the secular evidence. You don't need it to show them something's fishy. The Bible says the 70 years ends when the king of Babylon is punished. That happened when Cyrus invaded and the Babylonian king was killed. The JWs agree this was in 539 BCE. So why do they end it 2 years later?
The whole history of it goes back to before Russell. Back then, they did end it when Cyrus invaded. But they thought that was in 536 BCE back in the mid-1800's. So, 536 BCE - 70 years = 606 BCE. Thinking 606 BCE was equivalent to -606 (ignoring the no year 0 thing), -606 + 2520 = 1914.
Then with both new light on the date of Cyrus' invasion and the realization that there was no year 0, somehow the end date of 1914 remained the same. They worked the problem backwards from the end date of 1914. 1914 - 2520 years (with no year 0) gives you 607 BCE. 70 years later gives you 537 BCE. And by now, the date of Cyrus' invasion was known to be in 539 BCE. What to do? Invent this idea that the 70 years didn't end until the Jews returned - contrary to the Bible's statement that they would end when the king of Babylon was punished. Unless the JWs suddenly believe in an afterlife where the king was punished 2 years after his death, the king was punished in 539 BCE.
When my dad was alive, I brought the difference with the Bible up to him. That the end had to be in 539 BCE because that's when the king was punished, as the Bible says. I asked him to look it up. The next time I spoke to him, I asked him about it. And I think he realized I had a point. he said something about scripture being able to be twisted and dropped the whole subject.
-
jonathan dough
I'm really not sure why the 1914 date is all that important to JWs any more.
Without 1914 they have no religion, they are proven false prophets, and other critical dates tied to it fall by the wayside. Their doctrine collapses though they don't see that.
http://144000.110mb.com/607/index.html#C
With respect to 1914, the Jehovah’s Witnesses regard this year, and the method by which they arrive there, as prophecy. If, however, Jerusalem did not fall in 607 B.C.E. and if it fell in 587/6 B.C.E. their prophetic date is off by twenty years, and false, and would cause other critical dates in their belief structure to fail. The Jehovah's Witnesses regard this enthronement of Christ to be the long-awaited Second Coming of Christ, whereas mainstream Christians believe the Second Coming and His parousia (presence) are in the future as heralded at Matthew 24:30,31 and Mark 13:24-32. The fact that the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Second Coming and parousia have already occurred is cause for serious reflection and concern.
-
snare&racket
I assure you they have not read them.. so why write to them about it? Simply give them a reference to a history book and encourage THEM to read the material they sent you and ask them if they can see why you have an issue....
If they read them and say no i see no issue... they never will (at the moment) if they read it all and say.." i can kinda see where you are coming from but.." you have got them thinking. The best way to get a JW to think is to get them to actually look at what they believe, nevermind worldly or 'apostate' sources. Tell them to read the bible! Get them to read the articles! The problem is after years of JW lingo and writing style, it is hard to critically appraise it, hence I suggest you send them one or two ACADEMIC historical references, so they can compare a real historian who will have facts, against the JW's obvious crowbarring of doctrines and facts.
Much love and hope it goes well X