by stillstuckcruz 25 Replies latest jw friends
I would seriously consider not discussing doctrine.
Even if you convince him that 607 is bogus, 'Where else could he go?'.
It's not a problem of facts, it's a problem of authority. He believes that only the WT has the authority to interpret Scripture.
One of the main point the book GTR makes is that the 70 years applies to how long Babylon would be allowed to rule and that it applied to Babylon's domination of "these nationS' not just Jerusalem. If you get the book in time for the
discussion, just look at the summeries and you can get a good argument to present to your father.
Our good friend Black Sheep always advocates that you make them do the work, don't present an argument or treatise to them, one slip in there and they will throw the whole thing out.
Tell him to prove 607 using nothing from the WT. If it is a historically accurate and accepted date, that should not be too hard should it ?
Tell him you will check the sources he uses, I have had crafty Dubs use stuff off the net that is not WT but supports the nonsense, the "Expert" must be credible. For instance, Rolf Furulli may seem well qualified and to support 607, it is not his field of academic expertise, his opinion is worth no more than mine.
Make him do the work, he will believe it that way, you will be doing the kindest thing for him.
Even if as is probable, he rationalises his position, something along the lines of "I am sure Jehovah will bring forth proof in the future" or some such, you will have shown him that his belief is simply that, a belief, i.e "holding that something is true without proof", and he must in future give more respect to your views, which are not just beliefs, but provable facts.
It all depends on your goal.
Is it to convince him that 607 is wrong?
Or is it to make him understand why you think 607 is wrong?
They may seem like the same thing, but they're not.
If it's just to show him why you think it's wrong, then YOU get to lay the ground rules. You can tell him what kind of evidence you'll accept and what kind you won't accept. You can say: "I don't trust the watchtower not to lie, so I would accept their articles as a source."
On the other hand, if your goal is to convince him that 607 is wrong, then you need to follow HIS rules, you need to ask your dad: "What kind of evidence will you accept? Will you assume that every non watchtower source is lying if they disagree with 607? Or will you accept archaeological evidence if it's different from the what the watchtower says?" in other words: "What would it take to convince you that the watchtower is wrong about this?" and if the answer is: "Nothing could possibly convince me" then you're off the hook and can spend the rest of the evening talking about something more fun, like toenail clippings for example.
First off, I agree with LeavingWT. Facts mean nothing to a JW. The power of belief will outweigh the power of fact.
But if you insist on discussing it with him......ask him to show YOU....using material not published by the Watchtower....that Jerusalem fell in 607. If he insists on using WT material that is still ok because you can start by agreeing on one major thing. That Babylon fell in 539BC. Once you two agree on that:
1) Insight Book - Vol 2 - p458 "Nabonidus is believed to have ruled some 17 years.....Nabonidus' ascension to the throne followed the assassination of Labashi Marduk."
2) WT 1/1/65 p29 - "Neriglissar, who reigned 4 years"......"his underage son, Labashi Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him and was assassinated within 9 months"
3) WT 1/1/65 p29 - "Evil Merocach reigned 2 years and was murdered by his brother in law, Neriglissar, who reigned 4 years".
4) Insight Book - Vol 1 - p773 "The Babylonian King who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar to the throne" (this is under the heading of "Evil Merodach")
5) Daniel Book p 50 "Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned for 43 years...."
*So....
Nabonidus - 556BC-539BC (17 years)
Labashi Marduk - 556 BC (nine months)
Neriglissar - 560-556 BC (4 years)
Evil Merdach - 562-560 BC (2 years)
Nebuchadnezzar - 605-562 BC (43 years)
**According to the Insight Book - Vol 2 - p481 "in the 11th year of Zedekiah (which was Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year of reign including his accession year/18th actual REGNAL year), a breach was made in Jerusalem's wall.
***If Nebuchadnezzar began ruling in 605 and you subtract 18 years....you come to 587BC
All of this....using ONLY WT material
This would be hard to show him but is great for you to chew on I suspect.
Hi
This is just my two cents worth, but I would at all costs avoid that particular discussion. At least for the moment. I think the most important question is whether or not the WTS was actually appointed by God. A close look at their track record will easily prove otherwise to someone that is man enough to accept the facts. You don't have to leave WT literature to make this point. The old light/new light nonsense will not work hear so any self honest person will be forced to admit that the WTS is self appointed. In a nutshell here is my argument.
The WTS has boldly claimed to be God's sole end time prophet and mouth piece. This is undeniable and any JW would have to concede this point as it is mentioned numerous times in their publications. The fact that the WTS identify themselves as Jehovah's prophet is critical and must be established for this line of reasoning to be effective. Shortly after their supposed choosing in 1918/19 they began a huge campaign ( "Millions Now Living") that centered around their prediction of the end coming in 1925 and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth. This prediction was obviously an utter failure. One only has to ask any honest hearted JW one question regarding this colossal fiasco. Do they really think that God's end time prophet would be announced to the world with a failed prediction of this magnitude. A quick read of Deuteronomy 18 will answer all questions about the identity of a true prophet verses a false one. The bible has no examples of God's true prophets who have only a string of failed predictions to establish their credibility. Only the WTS has this distinction. I hope you are able to convince your father of your position.
FW Franz
An angle I would use is that of the Egyptian kings who lived during this time (26th dynasty- I think) Hophra is mentioned in the bible, and this separate chronology lines up perfectly with 587, not 607.
All good advice but somewhat conflicted. I've tried doing this myself and I've been tripped up by their craftiness. I think JW Facts said it best, in my opinion. Keep us posted on how it goes.
Anyway, in a week,maybe less, he wants to discuss that date and why I don't support it. Keep in mind that my dad is an elder(one of the more reasonable ones) and is also a math wiz. So is there anything I can use that will show him that it can't be correct? I want to keep it simple as too much info will help no one. lol.
He's a math whiz so I would try AlleyMom's angle as suggested by AnnOMaly. Just work out the numbers using only the Watchtower material referenced.
His defense was the typical JW responce...that JW's rely only on the bible and not worldly historians, who don't have a love of the scriptures bla bla bla.
There are no dates given in the Bible, so how in the world can anyone determine what the date is if one relied only on the Bible? That question should open his mind as he needs to figure out how any of the dates are determined.
He also said that non-JW sources rely on the Gregorian calender while JW's rely on the lunar calendar or some other nonsense.
But the date, 539 B.C.E. is given in terms of the Gregorian calendar. Even down to the month that it was suppose to happen (October?). How could the witnesses rely on the lunar calendar without converting it over to the Gregorian calendar? Wouldn't it make sense that the non-witness sources did the same thing.
I wouldn't bother.
Chances are, even if you win, you lose.
My father is an elder that I considered reasonable. Very intelligent and observant.
What I learned from my conversation with him is that the Witness belief structure is not based on reason or logic, so those rarely work in arguments. It's coming up on six years since I had that conversation without contact.
They don't even see shunning me as their decision. I am forcing them to shun me by not blindly accepting their religion.
You can't win on facts unless they are prepared to see the truth. Sadly, most aren't.
