The error of ignoring alternative explanations means that “a specific interpretation is given to a biblical text or set of texts which could well be, and often have been, interpreted in quite a different fashion, but these alternatives are not considered.”[1]
Here are three examples from Watchtower publications: Continue reading
“Confused definition” means, “A biblical term is misunderstood in such a way that an essential biblical doctrine is distorted or rejected.”[1]
Let’s look at several Watchtower examples.
I won’t go into detail refuting each one. Rather, my goal will be to identify them so you will know the sort of thing to look out for. Continue reading
The Watchtower uses a relative handful of scriptures as proof texts for its teaching that when you’re dead you’re dead—that is, that there’s no part of human beings (soul or spirit) that survives physical death:
For them, this is the end of the discussion. Any other scriptures have to conform to the teaching that these verses appear to support. This error is called “selective citing”. Continue reading
“Saying but not citing” is an error in which “a writer says that the Bible says such and such but does not cite the specific text (which often indicates that there may be no such text at all).”[1]
The Watchtower commits this error frequently. This allows them to imply that they are just teaching what the Bible teaches, when in fact the Bible provides little or no support for their teaching.
Here are four examples from Watchtower literature: Continue reading
As I mentioned last week, the figurative fallacy means “either (1) mistaking literal language for figurative language or (2) mistaking figurative language for literal language.”[1]
There I looked at how the Watchtower, in its 1917 book, The Finished Mystery, made this error and came up with a now-abandoned teaching about there being four degrees of salvation, a doctrine which Jehovah’s Witnesses today would consider both wrong and fanciful.
Today, I want to look at how the Watchtower makes a similar mistake when interpreting Jesus’ account of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). Continue reading
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑
