UPDATE:
Last night we talked a little more about this stuff.
She was looking up stuff on "stauros" (stake) on the computer and showed me a page that had lots of quotes that "stauros" never meant a cross. I looked at the page and had been there before. It is a JW apologist site:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/stauros.htm
I told her I had been to that site and it is a site ran by a Witness. That didn't seem to phase her. I pointed out how I had showed her just the day before that whenever there is a "..." there is a likely possibility something is missing. She then pointed out a couple of quotes where there were no "...". I reminded her how I showed her quotes yesterday where the paragraphs before or after also had statements that usually qualified the quote in question with more information.
I told her that one thing I learned during my researching is that you can sit there and play the "quotes" game all day. I can show a dozen snippets to support one side of an argument ... and she could grab a dozen snippets supporting the other side. I told her I don't really support snippets unless I can either find the actual book or if I can at least get a scan of the full page or chapter in question. Even then you still need to learn about the author and find out what his bias likely is. She nodded in agreement.
I explained to her about a certain bible translation the Society often quotes from in support of John 1:1 and in support of Jesus' being a created being. I told her that "bible" the Society quotes is actually a Unitarian bible, and that Unitarians are considered a cult and not only believe that Jesus was created, but also that he wasn't even an angel. I said this is really deceptive on the Society's part to use that Bible as proof when it is obviously biased. I wanted to point out that Muslims like to use this bible as proof of Jesus not being of divine origin ... but our 4-year-old interrupted us.
I said that it is really hard with the Society's books because they rarely tell you where they quote from. They quote things "anonymously" quite often. Sometimes I take quotes from the literature and do a Google search on it and can actually find the newspaper article it comes from. I told her that I conservatively estimate that 85-90% of the time there is something the Society is hiding.
I told her - also the early church fathers stated that Jesus died on a cross. That is pretty unshakeable testimony.
She said, "well I thought that was because the early church fathers were melding pagan influences with Christianity."
I told her Justin Martyr and others from his era were the ones that put the bible together and even the Society agrees they must have been directed by Holy Spirit in putting together the NT canon. Logically, if the Bible is truly the Word of God they would have to be.
She asked, "Well, then what is the Society's position on the church fathers?"
I simply said, "They quote the early church fathers where they agree with the JW's. Otherwise they don't say anything about them."
A few moments later we were sitting in the kitchen. She was sort of staring off into space and said, "What really bothers me is the stuff on dates, like 1914,1925,1941,1975,2000. They said 1914 was a sure thing for Armageddon, then after 1914 they said 'We did not say it would DEFINITELY be so."
She paused for a moment and said, "But they actually DID say it was definite."
I said, "Yes, they did. And they also said their prediction was more definite than the flood of Noah's day and they could not change the chronology even if they wanted to, because they were GOD'S dates ... not theirs."
She then rationalized that maybe it was just one prideful arrogant brother saying they never said it would DEFINITELY happen. She mentioned how it was a long time ago and that was old information. I told her they still maintain that position today, as evidenced by WT articles even from the 90's that give the impression they never definitely predicted Armageddon. I told her some of those books I read on cults stated that one of the main identifying traits of cults is that they are ambigous and misleading on their origins.
She started crying again and said she felt like she was turning her back on Jehovah. She said she wishes someone would come up and tell her we are just mistaken. She said again it just feels like a bad dream she can't wake up from.
I held her hand again and we went through some of the same stuff we went through earlier that day.
I told her that when I visited ex-Mormon websites, many of them had the same kinds of reactions. There were many that said they were losing their whole social structure, they said they felt like they were turning their back on God and not showing true appreciation for what they had been raised with. I admitted there is a certain comfort being a JW and the instant network of friends that comes with it.
Somehow we ended up on the 607 thing again. She mentioned something about, well then how do you account for the 70 years?
I admitted how hard it was for me after pretty conclusively realizing that it was 586 that the Society was wrong, because even then the Society simply says, "Even in the face of this seeming evidence, there is simply no other way the 70 years could be applied."
I told her that meant I needed to research the 70 years. And I did.
So I grabbed my bible and read Jeremiah 25:11,12 with her. I read it and then asked her what she thought "these nations" meant. She said it must mean Israel and Judah. I pointed out the scriptures later in the chapter that actually list all the nations and point out these are all "these nations" under Babylon as a world power. I also asked her when it said the 70 years would end. She said, according to the scripture - when Babylon fell.
I then pointed out the verse where it mentions Tyre as a nation under Babylon and cross-referenced it with Isaiah 23:15 where it mentions Tyre being under that "one king" for seventy years. I conveniently had a scan of the Isaiah book in the front of my bible and pulled it out and read how the Society interpreted the 70 years - as Babylonian domination. I said, "So here the Society is supporting the fact that Babylon was a world power for seventy years and apply the seventy years to THAT.
We then went back and forth a little bit on dates, and it turns out even she was a little unclear on what the Society's ACTUAL stand on the seventy years was. So I explained the Society's position according to the latest info (Insight book, etc). I then explained to her that SCRIPTURALLY there is no evidence the 70 years have ANYTHING to do with captivity, but that the Society says it HAS to be "captivity" so they can make the modern-day application of true worship supposedly being "restored" by the "Bible Students" in 1914, and then the inspection and selection in 1919.
I then showed her the scriptures where it says the Jews actually had a CHOICE in the matter. They had a choice to lose their temple for the 70 years ... or they could keep it and remain standing if they remained SUBJECT to Babylon for those 70 years. But they didn't and they were destroyed. So the 70 years would have happened whether they lost the temple or not. They still would have been subject to Babylon.
She seemed to be in agreement so I took a risk.
I went to the scripture in Jeremiah about "70 years AT Babylon" and pointed out that this is the main scripture the Society uses to support their notion of "captivity". Because the verbiage seems to place them IN A LOCATION (namely ... AT Babylon). I explained to her that out of the 25 translations I was able to check - only the New World Translation and the King James (and others that are based on the KJV) translated it "AT Babylon". Everyone else translates it as "FOR Babylon". And in this respect it matches the context of the surrounding scriptures and other mentions of 70 years. I admitted to her the original Hebrew word can accurately be translated both ways, but in the context of scripture "FOR" seems to fit with everything else. But I said, of course the Society is going to stick with the one that fits their doctrine.
She sat there for a bit and we held hands. She said, "I don't know. I guess this is where my FAITH is supposed to come in? I mean, they are imperfect men and everything."
I said, "I agree, they are just imperfect men. And some of them are actually very genuine and believe they are doing good. I am convinced of that myself because I was in the same congregation as several of them. But I believe a line is crossed when deliberate deception is used to cling to authority."
She nodded and agreed.
I also mentioned how a brother in the Writing Department once told me why they released a new Creator book so soon after the Creation book, and he said, "Well, you didn't hear it from me, but there were many Scientists threatening the Society with lawsuits because of how they were misrepresented in the book."
Luckily, I had told her that information many years ago, so it wasn't new information.
She is getting closer to the edge now. I can sense some more apprehension coming up though. There is a little disconnect that wasn't there from our afternoon conversation.
I dropped the ball last night though. She had to ask ME if we would pray together.
(Oops! Dammit!)
I said of course we could, so I prayed - and didn't use the name Jehovah. I just said, "loving heavenly Father" and prayed for guidance and that this was a momentous and very critical time and to direct us in the way we should go, and to be reasonable and have the mind of Christ."
So I tried to salvage my screw-up and I asked her to pray as well. She didn't ask for a head-covering or anything. She mentioned Jehovah's name. It was a nice prayer.
This morning she said she finally had a good night's sleep after praying together. I still feel bad I didn't offer to pray, and SHE had to bring it up. But I did tell her we could read the Bible together tonight and that if it was okay I would love to read from one of Paul's books or something that dealt with day-to-day Christian life. She said that would be fine.
And now I am at work writing this entry.
I guess, as I have been writing this stuff out, I think my strategy really is for her to notice - instead of specific technicalities - the recurring patterns of deception and false reasoning. For instance, when she asked me about what the Society's position is on the early church fathers, I could have gone to the WT CD-ROM and started pulling quotes - but instead just saying, "The Society quotes from them when they support a JW position" establishes the pattern for her to identify - as opposed to me just barraging her with facts and appearing like I am faultfinding. This way as she reads the literature she can identify the pattern herself - hopefully. I can tell she still has a problem with me perhaps just nitpicking.
Of course it remains to be seen if this strategy ultimately works. It is a constant balancing act to not get too general that I appear ignorant of what the WT's position is - and the other extreme of presenting too much information at once.
Couple Questions:
#1
First night of Bible Reading. What do you think would be a good set of chapters to read? I agree with everyone on the Pauline stuff - or the Gospel of John. Any suggestions on anything more specific in those books? I would like to lessen the void that appears to be developing by tonight.
#2
I would like some URLs or scriptural basis for Christians and "war" and stuff. I know the account of Cornelius the Roman Army Officer never indicates that he had to cease being in the army. Are there any other good NT indicators for Christians that I am missing?
-ithinkisee