Types and anti types

by Deltawave 38 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • The Searcher
    The Searcher

    Welcome DeltaWave - thank you for your summary.

    We never attend on any Sunday now, and it's wonderful!

    We simply couldn't stomach any more the indoctrination of "inspired expressions" - which most certainly don't originate with God!!

  • Xanthippe

    I think one day a few years from now they will quote these articles and say, but brothers we have said for a long time the Daniel prophecy only applied to Nebuchadnezzar. You brothers misunderstood that it had a second fulfillment. After all, they'll say, Jesus said nobody knows the day or the hour.

    Then they'll say what my brother said when I challenged him in 1994 about it being 80 years since 1914, 'we are not serving Jehovah to a specific date we are serving Jehovah forever'.

  • steve2

    The organization's writers are not focusing on readers who think too deeply - or independently. To the contrary, they are addresing the already "converted" so the blatant mental gymnastics and crafty wording do not matter.

    We perhaps over credit the average readership of the magaiznes as being thoughtful and reasonable-minded. We're so wrong about that!

    Besides, the types and antitypes article is not a main study article - so even fewer individuals will bother to read it. The modern-breed of JWs are not readers - or, more importantly, thinkers.

  • leaving_quietly
    1914 (the 2520 years part / Daniel 4) isn't part of a type/anti-type, but instead a dual-prophecy. I doubt this teaching will go away anytime soon.
  • Deltawave

    Thanks @The Searcher.

    Its good to be able to express myself without Been labelled an apostate aside been in the past. I mean it doesn't take much thinking to realise how thin all the teaching actually are! And today's watchtower just sealed it for me. Backed up everything I've been thinking years now!

  • Oubliette

    "... it has been found that some of the older explanations about types and antitypes are unduly difficult for many to grasp." - w2015 3/15, p. 10, paragraph 10

    Yeah, like mental midgets such as Stephen Lett!

    So let's dumb down the scriptures because a lot of people are uneducated and unintelligent.

  • Deltawave

    The whole of the 1914 paradigm is a type / anti type scenario. From Nebuchadnezzar been cut down like the symbolic tree, the days for years intervention and the restoration of Jerusalem. Without the type /antitypes the whole 1914 last days prophecy falls apart without a single scripture to back it up.

    Besides, even Jesus parables have been de-bunked as only stories to high light a specific principle so they can't even tie in Matthew 24 as having a grand fulfilment with the commencement of WWI. So the whole thing is a flop.

  • Finkelstein

    Its almost like the WTS. made up its own self assuming doctrines to attract attention to its literature, then intentionally exploited the bible to create viability toward those expressed doctrines.

    Its becomes further ironic when they were adamantly pointing their finger at other Christian based faiths as being false religions when they themselves were awashed in their own corruption proliferating their literature and religious identity..

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    Here's a challenge to all the posters:

    Quote me the phrase in this week's Watchtower study where they clearly admit that their type-antitype teachings were false. lol.

    Be very careful how you read Watchtower literature, lest they should continue to deceive you even after you're awake.

    It seems to me that Watchtower played a game of double-speak with this week's Watchtower study. The study article was carefully worded to on the one hand give the impression that they're humbly admitting that their type-antitype teachings were false ( But nowhere do they actually say this.) This impression appears to be targeted at those who might be disillusioned with the organization's past ridiculous antitype teachings. They're trying to placate these ones by giving them the impression that the org is correcting its mistakes. But on the other hand, for those who weren't disturbed by the type-antitype rubbish they're giving the impression that they're merely changing their teaching method and focus. They're not actually saying that their type antitype interpretations were false. All they're saying is that that method of instruction is a bit too deep and intellectual and is less preferable than the practical application approach.

    So should any awake JW raise the issue of the 1914 teaching still being valid despite the type-antitype method being abandoned as false, the elders can always say:

    "Where did you read that the type antitype teaching method is false? What I read is the society has moved away from that method of teaching for the sake of simplicity and emphasizing the practical benefit of bible accounts. I don't recall ever reading that those teachings were false. I also remember reading where they said we should be reluctant to - not that we should not ever - assign antitypical assignments to bible accounts when the bible does not clearly indicate that one exists. So the tree dream is one of those that are the exception . but we have indication in the bible that trees represent rulerships and that Jesus is the lowliest of mankind so the bible does indirectly point to the tree dream in Daniel having a greater antitypical fulfilmment"

    Behold the craftiness of Watchtower!

  • Magnum

    In my first post, I wrote "Daniel chap 7"; I should have written "Daniel chap 4."

    leaving_quietly: 1914 (the 2520 years part / Daniel 4) isn't part of a type/anti-type, but instead a dual-prophecy. I doubt this teaching will go away anytime soon.

    I agree with this, so I don't think the Daniel 4 / 2520 years should even be a part of this discussion about JW types/antitypes.

    As I mentioned earlier, I believe that types/antitypes come from narrative, not prophetic, accounts, whereas Daniel chap 4 is a prophecy with, as JWs teach, a dual fulfillment (as leaving_quietly mentioned).

    The Watchtower article says in par7: "If you have been serving Jehovah for decades, you may have noticed a gradual shift in the way our literature explains many of the narratives recorded in the Bible." So the Watchtower is referring to looking for prophetic drama in narrative accounts; it is not referring to material that is explicit prophecy.


    Island Man, I see you what you're saying, but I'm not sure what they mean.

    From the article:

    Can we conclude, though, that every character, event, and object described in the Bible foreshadows someone or something?

    They don't give a direct answer to that question, but it seems that "no" is the implied answer, and if it is, then they are admitting (in a not very direct way as usual) that they were wrong.

    Are they, for example, saying they were wrong about Naboth? It seems so to me, but maybe not. See the material below - especially the highlighted part.

    9 In the past, such an approach was often taken. Consider, for example, the account about Naboth, whose unjust trial and execution were arranged by wicked Queen Jezebel so that her husband, Ahab, could seize Naboth’s vineyard. (1 Ki. 21:1-16) Back in 1932, that account was explained as a prophetic drama. Ahab and Jezebel were said to picture Satan and his organization; Naboth pictured Jesus; Naboth’s death, then, was prophetic of Jesus’ execution. Decades later, though, in the book “Let Your Name Be Sanctified,” published in 1961, Naboth was said to picture the anointed, and Jezebel was Christendom. Hence, Naboth’s persecution at Jezebel’s hands pictured the persecution of the anointed during the last days. For many years, God’s people.found this approach to Bible accounts faith strengthening. Why, then, have things changed?

    10 As we might expect, over the years Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become steadily more discreet. Discretion has led to greater caution when it comes to calling a Bible account a prophetic drama unless there is a clear Scriptural basis for doing so. Additionally, it has been found that some of the older explanations about types and antitypes are unduly difficult for many to grasp. The details of such teachings—who pictures whom and why—can be hard to keep straight, to remember, and to apply. Of even greater concern, though, is that the moral and practical lessons of the Bible accounts under examination may be obscured or lost in all the scrutiny of possible antitypical fulfillments. Thus, we find that our literature today focuses more on the simple, practical lessons about faith, endurance, godly devotion, and other vital qualities that we learn about from Bible accounts.

    11 How, then, do we now understand the account about Naboth? In much clearer, simpler terms. That righteous man died, not because he was a prophetic type of Jesus or of the anointed, but because he was an integity keeper. He held to Jehovah’s Law in the face of horrific abuse of power. (Num. 36:7; 1 Ki. 21:3) His example thus speaks to us because any one of us may face persecution for similar reasons. (Read 2 Timothy 3:12.) People of all backgrounds can readily understand, remember, and apply such a faith-strengthening lesson.

    So again, it seems to me that they are saying that they were wrong about Naboth. however, the wording about him is ambiguous. They say he "died, not because he was a prophetic type of Jesus or of the anointed, but because he was an integrity keeper." That could mean that Naboth was not a prophetic type, but not necessarily.

    For example, suppose I say "Joe died, not because he was a diabetic, but because he had cancer." That sentence doesn't indicate whether Joe was a diabetic. It could mean that Joe was not a diabetic, but that he died from cancer. Or it could mean that Joe was a diabetic, but that diabetes didn't kill him; cancer did.

    I think they are saying they were wrong, but I'm not sure.

Share this