I was going over the type / anti-type articles that were released in last year's Watchtower articles and I've just realized how ironic it is that those very articles can serve to demolish some of the most fundamental JW teachings.
Take for instance the "Questions From Readers" section of the March 15, 2015 Watchtower. After mentioning some "far-fetched" interpretations that others have applied to bible events, they go on to say:
If such interpretations seem far-fetched, you can understand the dilemma. Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so.
(bold is mine)
Now, that got me thinking. How many accounts does the WT give a second bigger significance to, even where there is no "specific scriptural basis for doing so". For instance: Daniel 4. WT uses the vision the Babylonian king received to claim it was actually a phophecy that points to when the "end times" would arrive, specifically 1914. However, nowhere in that chapter -or for that matter elsewhere in the bible- is there a basis for giving this vision any secondary application or significance beyond that which is written, which is that the vision was purely a teaching lesson for the king himself.
Given the lack of scriptural support for this "secondary application" (and so many others), it seems to me they have incriminated themselves with these articles.
How could I have not seen this as I was originally reading it???? (I was still in back then)