1975 was in the past. Are we HONEST about it TODAY?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

In observing BillytheKid46's irrational and hateful posts, I have noticed a correlation between them and the Dilbert Cartoon of the day.  It seems that whatever Billy is talking about ... the cartoon of the day explains his perspective from the viewpoint of reality.  It's just AMAZING!

Of course, coincidence is NOT causality, but it sure is spooky how many times the Dilbert Cartoon of the day explains whatever it is Billy is talking about.

Of course, it may be a coincidence that there is no photograph of Ernest Borgnine, and Elizabeth Taylor in her later years, together ... some say it's the same person ... but that is one of those mysteries ... like how the Egyptians built the Pyramids.

Presented for your consideration ... is the Dilbert Cartoon for today.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Now you're beginning to understand what he was admitting to, rather than you false snippet of information that you attempted to insinuate about Russell and Adventism.

Strange. This sounds like another echo of Hermanesque projection. I hope that's an indication that you understand this same point after several years of repetition.

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

once again, trying to link Russell with Advents through others. Storr just like Barbour at one point defected from adventism and took part of accepting Russell's ideology.

George Storrs says he was influenced by Henry Grew's pamphlet against the doctrines of immortality of the soul and against hellfire. He resigned from his church in 1840 and as of 1843, per Wikipedia (and his own statements, of course):

Storrs became one of the leaders of the Second Advent movement and affiliated with William Miller and Joshua V. Himes. He began publication of his magazine Bible Examiner in 1843 and continued it until 1879 with a few breaks. After a considerable amount of study, Storrs preached to some Adventists on the condition and prospects for the dead. His book Six Sermons explained his conditionalist beliefs.

But why are you so concerned about whether Russell admitted to relying on Second Adventists for the chronology? Why not just take Russell's word for it? Russell said:

It was about January 1876 that my attention was specially drawn to the subject of prophetic time, as it relates to these doctrines and hopes. It came about in this way: I received a paper called The Herald of The Morning, sent by its editor, Mr. N. H. Barbour. When I opened it I at once identified it with Adventism from the picture . . . . I rejoiced to find others coming to the same advanced position, but was astonished to find a further statement very cautiously made, that the editor believed the prophecies to indicate that the Lord was already present in the world (unseen and invisible) and that the harvest work of gathering the wheat was already due.

Here was a new thought: Could it be that the time prophecies which I had so long despised, because of their misuse by Adventists, were really meant for us—to indicate when the Lord would be invisibly present to set up his Kingdom—a thing which we clearly saw could be known in no other way? . . .

I recalled certain arguments used by the Adventists to prove that 1873 would witness the burning of the world, etc.—the chronology of the world showing that the six thousand years from Adam ended with the beginning of 1873, and other arguments drawn from the Scriptures and supposed to coincide. Could it be that these, which we had passed by as unworthy of attention, really contained an important truth which they had misapplied?

Anxious to learn, from any quarter, whatever God had to teach, I at once wrote to Mr. Barbour, informing him of our harmony on other points and desiring to know particularly why, and upon what Scriptural evidences, he held that Christ's presence and the harvesting of the Gospel age dated from the Autumn of 1874.

The answer showed that my surmise had been correct, viz.: that the time arguments, chronology, etc., were the same as used by Second Adventists in 1873, and explained how Mr. Barbour and Mr. J. A. Paton of Michigan, a co-worker with him, had been regular Second Adventists up to that time, and that when the date 1874 had passed without the world being burned, and without their seeing Christ in the flesh, they were for a time dumb-founded. . . .  Not long after their 1874 disappointment, a reader of the Herald, who had a copy of the Diaglott, noticed something in it which he thought peculiar,—that in Matt. 24:27,37,39, the word which in our common version is rendered coming, is translated presence.

This was the clue, and following it, they had been led through prophetic time toward proper views regarding the object and manner of the Lord's return. We of Allegheny on the contrary were led first to proper views of the object and manner of our Lord's return and then to the examination of the time for these things, indicated in God's word. Thus God leads his children often from different starting points of truth; but where the heart is earnest and trustful, the result must be to draw all such together.

But there were no books or other publications setting forth the time-prophecies as then understood, so I paid Mr. Barbour's expenses to come to see me at Philadelphia (where I had business engagements during the summer of 1876), to show me fully and Scripturally, if he could, that the prophecies indicated 1874 as the date at which the Lord's presence and the harvest began. He came, and the evidences satisfied me.

I hadn't mentioned this before, but Russell admits that the scriptural support that Russell utilizes for the "presence/parousia" doctrine, was contributed by B.W.Keith, a Second Adventist supporter (contributor to Barbour's magazine, and speaker already associated with both Paton and Barbour). Keith, shortly after 1874, found the scriptural support through a copy of the Diaglott (produced by a Second Adventist associate, Benjamin Wilson). Wilson, a former Campbellite, founded what was (and is) known as the "Christadelphians" and "Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith." It is Wilson's close association with anti-Trinitarian Adventist, Joseph Marsh, that is emphasized as the reason for the actual founding of the latter church today. See the articles on both Wilson and Marsh to see the connection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Wilson_(biblical_scholar)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Marsh_(Adventist )

(In case TTH wants to make that all that money you spoke about,   note that most of these men, including Barbour, Marsh, Wilson, Campbell and Keith all spent a lot of time around Rochester.)

Back when Russell was involved with publishing "Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return" while still associated with Barbour, Russell writes:

But it is not my object in this pamphlet to call your attention more fully to the TIME of the second advent than I have above, in answering some of the chief objections to the investigation of it. (Those interested in knowing the evidences as to the time, I would refer to Dr. N. H. Barbour, editor of the "Herald of the Morning." Rochester, N. Y.) I simply add that I am deeply impressed and think not without good scriptural evidence . . .

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Where's the fact that you insinuated that I misspoke about Russell's real ideology for 1914 was the end of the gentile times, and not you half-baked conclusion that his view was about the end of the world. I to can take snippets of information and mislead the public.

Where? Nowhere. Because I never made any insinuations about you misspeaking about Russell's real ideology for 1914.

And I'm sure you already know that I have never held a conclusion that his view was about the literal "end of the world." Russell had always clearly explained that his view of 1914 was never about the literal end of the world, or even Armageddon specifically. He often chided those Adventists who believed it was a literal "burning of the world." Russell never believed that the "burning" was literal, or that it would even be half-baked, for that matter.

I don't see why you would want to take snippets and mislead the public. If you are going to use "snippets" just make sure they are either explained, if necessary, or that they are a good representation of Russell's general view.

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

If Allen Smith used “Advent” to shorten the ideology behind the second coming of Christ as the SDA, then I don’t see any problem with the word Advent, in a singular or plural way.

I don't see a problem with it either. Just hadn't seen it from anyone else but Allen before (in the plural) as a kind of abbreviation for Adventists or Adventist ideology.

And, by the way, do you think you will ever be able to answer that question about how the two different periods of 1260 tie to the 2520?

In what sense do you believe that there are two periods of 1,260 that make up the 2,520?

[JW Insider]

This might be a good time to explain again that this original topic was not about whether the Watchtower writers were being honest back in 1966 through 1975 about the expectations for the weeks, and months surrounding 1975. It was supposed to be about whether we are honest NOW in the way we defend those past expectations for the mid-1970's.

When this topic started it was back around a year ago when we were still discussing a video produced for the "Don't Give Up" 2017 Regional Convention.

On 8/19/2019 at 7:35 AM, BillyTheKid46 said:

What can be said about 1975 that hasn’t been said about 1975? . . . Therefore, the word “HONESTY” should be applied to the ones that want to continue to corrupt their minds with wishful thinking.

That was part of the point. With all that was said and known and documented by those who lived through it, why did the WTS decide there was more to say about it in 2017? And, of course, was it honest?

I find it curious that, for some persons, if "person A" doesn't use a word in the same way "person B" needs it to be used in support of Person B's ideology, then Person B might become very sensitive to supposed "distortions." One of these same persons, like "Person B" can be so sensitive to the supposed distortions of others, but are still able to ignore the fact that the WTS was ACTUALLY distorting something. Here's what I mean:

Discussing the 1975 period, the video says:

“Back then, some were looking to a certain date as signifying the end of this old system of things.”

Notice that the expression is merely "some were looking to a certain date." It doesn't mention that the "some" were being directed to this particular time period surrounding 1975 by writers of the Watchtower publications, and by special talks given by District Overseers, and by parts given at circuit assemblies counting down the actual number of months to 1975. It doesn't mention that Witnesses were counseled if they did NOT think 1975 was significant. Among about 100 references to evidences in Watchtower publications from 1966 to at least 1974 regarding the importance of this period, we find counsel like this:

*** w75 5/1 p. 285 ***
Does this mean that we know exactly when God will destroy this old system and establish a new one? Franz showed that we do not, for we do not know how short was the time interval between Adam’s creation and the creation of Eve, at which point God’s rest day of seven thousand years began. (Heb. 4:3, 4) But, he pointed out, “we should not think that this year of 1975 is of no significance to us,” . . .

So was it honest or was it misleading to merely say "some" were looking to a certain date? The video implies that we are expected to believe that groups of Witnesses in all parts of the earth would come up with such speculation on their own and then spread it among the brothers, and expect them to accept it on their word.

Then the video says:

"A few went so far as selling their homes and quitting their jobs."

This implies again that these "some" Witnesses were even crazy enough to go so far as to sell their homes or quit their jobs. But again, who were the "some" involved in this craziness? Were they counseled that it would be a good thing to do, or were they ever counseled against it? We already know the answer:

*** km 5/74 p. 3 How Are You Using Your Life? ***
Yes, since the summer of 1973 there have been new peaks in pioneers every month. Now there are 20,394 regular and special pioneers in the United States, an all-time peak. That is 5,190 more than there were in February 1973! A 34-percent increase! Does that not warm our hearts? Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end.

The Watchtower publications also counseled that young ones would never complete a career in this system of things, they were even counseled not to start schooling for a professional career because it was so unlikely that this system would even be around any more in just a six or eight years. Remember that this was stated only 6 years before 1975:

*** Awake! 1969 May 22 p.15 ***
If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. Of the generation that observed the beginning of the "last days" in 1914, Jesus foretold: "This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur."-Matt. 24:34. Therefore, as a young person, you will never fulfill any career that this system offers. If you are in high school and thinking about a college education, it means at least four, perhaps even six or eight more years to graduate into a specialized career. But where will this system of things be by that time? It will be well on the way toward its finish, if not actually gone!

Then the video says:

"I admit, I was ready to see this old system go away too, but something just didn’t seem right. Both at meetings, and in my personal study, I was reminded of what Jesus said: 'No man knows the day or hour.' "

Again, what was the counsel at the time? It's true the scripture was sometimes brought up. But the counsel was to NOT use that scripture to downplay the reason we were supposed to be looking forward to 1975:

*** w68 8/15 pp. 499-501 pars. 30-35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
. . .
1975! . . . AND FAR BEYOND!
. . .
35 One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end.

I think we've seen this played out before. When 1925 came and went just 50 years earlier, Rutherford said he made an "ass" of himself. Brother Franz often quoted that as if it were some kind of humble apology. But did Rutherford ever admit this to the brothers and sisters in the congregation? Some accounts show that it was only to a small audience, not even all of Bethel at the time:

*** w84 10/1 p. 24 ‘Jehovah Has Dealt Rewardingly With Me’ ***
Regarding his misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he once confessed to us at Bethel, “I made an ass of myself.”

To the Watchtower readers, no one took any blame. There was disappointment, evidently because some had read too much into the "conclusive proofs" they had been given:

*** Watch Tower Aug 1, 1926 p.232 ***
Some anticipated that the work would end in 1925, but the Lord did not so state."

*** yb75 p. 146 Part 2—United States of America ***
The year 1925 came and went. . . . Instead of its being considered a ‘probability,’ they read into it that it was a ‘certainty . . . .

"There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah's faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1914, 1918, and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time. Later the faithful learned that these dates were definitely fixed in the Scriptures; and they also learned to quit fixing dates for the future and predicting what would come to pass on a certain date" (Vindication, Vol. 1, pp. 338-39).

In other words, the "apology" actually just claims that the dates were correct all along (definitely fixed in Scriptures) but that there was a measure of disappointment because things didn't work out as they had been "predicted," although they soon got over it, and learned to quit fixing dates.

This is a lot like the way that segment of the 2017 video ends regarding 1975:

"After that year came and went, most of those who had wrong expectations made the needed adjustments."

In fact, note the identical idea in the "Proclaimers" book, about 1925:

*** jv chap. 7 p. 78 Advertise the King and the Kingdom! (1919-1941) ***
The year 1925 came and went. Some abandoned their hope. But the vast majority of the Bible Students remained faithful.

It might also be noted that this "vast majority" who remained faithful is not reflected in the fact that the numbers increased greatly up to 1925 so that there were more than 90,000 memorial partakers recorded in 1925, which then dropped in 1926 and 1927 and was down to under 17,500 in 1928. That was clearly not just 1925, but it was certainly related to the fantastic growth seen in the years just prior to 1925, which was halted immediately by the end of that same year. (If we count the total effect of all doctrines and changes within those 24 to 36 months following 1925: 17,500 is not a vast majority of 90,000.)

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

You bore me now!

LOL! I saw that coming as soon as I asked you that question:

In what sense do you believe that there are two periods of 1,260 that make up the 2,520?

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

When Pastor Russell started talking to Nelson H. Barbour. Barbour was a Second Adventists just like Paton a co-worker to Barbour. That doesn’t mean anything since Russell was clear on how he viewed the Second Adventist movement.

And not just Barbour and Paton, as we have seen. It was MOST of the persons Russell spoke about and mentioned in the Watchtower publications during those early years.  Also, Russell was definitely NOT clear on how far he wanted to distance himself from the entire Second Adventist movement until a few years later. When Russell first chose to financially support and contribute to Barbour's Adventist "Herald" journal and "Three Worlds" publication, he gave every evidence of being fully in support of Barbour's Second Adventist teachings, and not just on chronology. Russell, of course, tended toward the "Age to Come" beliefs which differed from many (but not all) Second Adventists. (Joseph Marsh, mentioned above, is now considered the first major promoter of the Age to Come movement, but he was closely associated with Adventists in the Second Adventist tradition.) Many Adventists, including Barbour, had waited for the "Bonfire" instead of a true "Age to Come" where the earth is restored to Edenic paradise by the end of the "Thousand Years." (Age to Come believers also did not generally accept the Trinity, Immortal Soul or Hellfire doctrines. The "Advent Christian Church" diverged from "Age to Come" by reverting to the  Trinity doctrine.)

Russell accepted only the "major" Age to Come beliefs, but Russell also accepted non-A2C teachings, since he taught that Jesus had a prehuman existence, the Devil was a real person, and the higher-called Christians will rule directly from heaven rather than just from the earth.

In 1881, just 19 months after starting Zion's Watch Tower, Russell looks back on where his associates were in 1871, and recognizes that so many of the Watchtower associates were then Second Adventists. (ZWT Feb 1881) This makes sense, since Russell built his subscription lists primarily from Barbour's Herald, and Rice's recently defunct paper. In 1879, Russell accepted the Second Adventist contributors to Barbour's Herald as Watchtower contributors, including B W Keith, Paton, and Rice among the new set of Watchtower contributors. All of them had been associated with the Millerite movement, and all of them were evidently accepting of "Age to Come" beliefs, except that Paton leaned toward Trinity, and Barbour was a late-comer to Age to Come ideas about a "broad" salvation. And of course, Barbour, Storrs, Stetson and Wendell had also been connected with the Millerite movement.

You say that these facts don't mean anything, but it seems possible that Russell's own actions and admissions in 1876 might mean just as much, or more, than some of his statements in hindsight from years later. Recall that, 1876, Russell claims his special interest was chronology, saying: " It was about January 1876 that my attention was specially drawn to the subject of prophetic time. . . " His first published article by July 1876 was an "Adventist" piece on chronology in Storrs' Adventist journal. And also in 1876, Russell becomes an Assistant Editor of Barbour's "Herald." Russell's speaks of getting "Three Worlds" published as his major accomplishment with Barbour. It was being made ready in 1876 to be published in 1877. Early Watch Tower publications gave Russell credit for this book, although it's clear now that he didn't write it, but had reviewed all its contents.

The book (Three Worlds) concludes with "WIlliam Miller's Dream." I quote:

We publish the following because it has been so perfectly fulfilled. Every position
on the prophecies held by Bro. Miller has been attacked during the "tarrying of
the Bridegroom," and while the "virgins all slumbered and slept." And yet every
one of those applications have of necessity again been incorporated in these
present arguments, and the casket, enlarged and rearranged, does indeed "shine
brighter than before":

WM. MILLER'S DREAM
"I dreamed that God, by an unseen hand, sent me a curiously wrought casket,
about ten inches long by six square, made of ebony and pearls curiously inlaid. To
the casket there was a key attached. I immediately took the key and opened the
casket, when, to my wonder and surprise, I found it filled with all sorts and sizes
of jewels, diamonds, precious stones, and gold and silver coin of every dimension
and value, beautifully arranged in their several places in the casket; and thus
arranged, they reflected a light and glory equaled only by the sun." (These jewels
are the beautiful truths the open casket unfolded to his sight.)

While Russell was never a Second Adventist, he was still an adventist who leaned much closer to Age to Come teachings. But like Storrs, a kind of Adventist mentor, he didn't want to focus on denominations, and he especially didn't want to be directly associated with previous failures of the Millerites and other Second Adventists. In this way he was like many other Adventists of his time, who often claimed that they never really had that much interest in previous date setting, and that they came to their current date-setting chronology through a purer path, and never got their hands dirty with previous failed prophecies or disappointments.

And of course, you already know the "Proclaimers" book admits Russell's "indebtedness" to Adventists under the heading "Influence of Others" https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200274967/0/2:

Russell referred quite openly to the assistance in Bible study he had received from others. Not only did he acknowledge his indebtedness to Second Adventist Jonas Wendell but he also spoke with affection about two other individuals who had aided him in Bible study. Russell said of these two men: "The study of the Word of God with these dear brethren led, step by step, into greener pastures." One, George W. Stetson, was an earnest student of the Bible and pastor of the Advent Christian Church in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. The other, George Storrs, was publisher of the magazine Bible Examiner, in Brooklyn, New York.

And, naturally, you have already added many other evidences of this same point in your post above, even if you often tend to disagree with your own posts. But you do admit, as I have said, his interest in Second Adventism was primarily chronology-driven.

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

So why do you continue to DENY there wasn’t a fallout due to Bible understanding.

Because it absolutely was a fallout due to Bible understanding. I think you already agree with me on this point, too, despite your ambiguous 'double-negative.'

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

You want to insinuate that this was Russell’s views when they were actually Barbour’s.

Nothing to insinuate. Russell was actually pretty clear over time where his views differed from Barbour's. Some of those differences, such as the nature of the ransom, were spelled out very early in their relationship. Some were more clearly spelled out very soon afterward, i.e., the Age to Come / Abrahamic Faith related views (regarding the "Bonfire" of the earth, broad salvation, etc.), and it didn't take long before Russell spelled out the differences on Trinity between himself and Paton. I don't think there is much question, at least over time, where Russell differed from Barbour. Barbour even continued to criticize some of Russell's views, now and then, in the decades after they split.

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Barbour said no second Adventist had any use for it, so a new partnership ensued.

I don't recall that quote. Do you have the source? I'm guessing that you are referring to this from the 7/15/1906 ZWT, but if you have a quote of what Barbour actually said, that would be interesting:

I inquired of Mr. Barbour as to what was being done by him and by the Herald. He replied that nothing was being done; that the readers of the Herald, being disappointed Adventists, had nearly all lost interest and stopped their subscriptions;--and that thus, with money exhausted, the Herald might be said to be practically suspended. I told him that instead of feeling discouraged and giving up the work since his newly found light on restitution (for when we first met, he had much to learn from me on the fulness of restitution based upon the sufficiency of the ransom given for all, as I had much to learn from him concerning time), he should rather feel that now he had some good tidings to preach, such as he never had before, and that his zeal should be correspondingly increased.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I won't continue on the rest, your stupidity bores me now!

LOL. I saw that coming as soon as I asked the question:

In what sense do you believe that there are two periods of 1,260 that make up the 2,520?

Nearly the same thing happened when I asked Allen that question.

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Once again, you contradict yourself so many times, it's pathetic.

You haven't shown where. A proposition given without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Barbour if you bothered to read my post was done with Second Adventism when Russell and Barbour continued the Herald. I can't believe how much Satan is in your head. Therefore, those publications were inspired by new light, not old light, NOT Advent light, that you continue to falsely claim.

I know you made that claim. But without evidence. The problem with your theory is that when Russell and Barbour continued the Herald, it was still very much an Adventist publication. That didn't change. The book "Three Worlds" that they published in 1877 was steeped in Millerite Adventism, so much so that you see the way they concluded it with a defense of Miller in the section on "William Miller's Dream" above. It even copied the "seventh month" movement. But it was a date-adjusted Adventism with very similar interpretations of the same time periods. With Barbour's MINOR adjustments to make Miller's end dates move 30 to 45 years further into the future, Russell kept these very similar time period interpretations throughout the entire series of Studies in the Scriptures, and these doctrines were generally kept until 1927, with a few of them remaining until 1943. Even before Russell influenced him, Barbour, still a full-fledged Second Adventist, had already moved Miller's start date for the 2,520 years from 677 BC to 606 BC (based on Bowen/Elliott/etc). This made the period nearly the same as John Aquila Brown's use of the 2,520 years.

Your theory that Barbour was done with Second Adventism apparently has no evidence, unless you know of some that you are not sharing. But there is plenty of evidence that indicates your theory is not true. I actually agree with you that Russell's ongoing work in the Watch Tower was based on "new light" that progressed further and further toward clearer truth, and further away from Barbour's influence and the influence that other Second Adventists had on Russell. But this couldn't happen completely until 1927 (to about 1933) when the WTS was finally finished selling off the remaining stocks of Studies in the Scriptures.

It seems likely that you are able to keep your claim alive only by changing the definition of Adventism to a special definition that works for you. If this is the case, then you are only arguing semantics. It's probably another one of those cases where anyone else is a liar "with Satan in their head" if they use a word the way a dictionary or Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, uses it, instead of a way that you need them to use it to fit your own ideology.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Adventism

I don't point to that article to say they are right about "Jehovah's Witnesses" but to give you an idea of the "definition" of "Adventism" and "Second Adventism."

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I am not going to do the research for you. Maybe you can get your personal “hen” to do that for you.

I believe that person goes by “comfortmypeople”.

I don't know what a "hen" is, in this context, but as far as I can tell @ComfortMyPeople is from Spain, while I am in New York. I have never seen him or any of his research.

You show the idea that many Adventists gave up on dates after their expectations failed. What would you expect?

There are not many other options, when you are at the end of the possibilities that your particular date system allows.

A die-hard Second Adventist might just try to make some new adjustments to the "system" to figure out why the expectations might have been off by just a few months, or a few years, or even a matter of decades. They keep looking for a way to get the system to work because they can't give up after they invested so much in the beliefs. After Miller's failures, he himself decided against setting more dates, but thousands of people were ready to listen to the next predictions for the 1850's, 1860's, 1870's, etc. This makes the continuing date-setters even MORE of a die-hard Adventist. And these are the types of persons who influenced Russell to continue date-setting. Russell continued date-setting, and adjusting his date predictions from 1879 to 1915.  

Of course, there is one other solution, and that is to say that your date really was right all along -- that Jesus really did come to be present in 1874, but that it has been an invisible presence. This was the very solution that fit Russell's ideas, and it kept Barbour's adjusted dating system unchanged, except for that one detail. Russell expected the visible manifestation of Christ's kingdom to begin around 1914, and ultimately this was also changed to an invisible "manifestation," so that all those other dates 1874, 1878, 1881, 1914, etc., could remain unchanged. Of course, over time, 1881 was dropped, then 1874, then finally 1878 had no more prophetic significance (around 1961) and it was completely dropped, too. So that we only have 1914 remaining. (And I think this date, too, will be dropped in about 15 years barring any earthshattering changes.) But we still believe in the imminent manifestation of Jesus advent based on our interpretation of various prophetic time periods that we have tied to the present time period. Therefore we are still under some of the influence of adventists, in that general sense.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

On 8/25/2019 at 6:02 PM, JW Insider said:

*** w68 8/15 pp. 499-501 pars. 30-35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.

This came to my stupid head while reading again about terminology: "6000 years of human creation".

This is very close to wording - Birthday. Birth of Adam and Eve. In that "day" 4026 BCE Adam was "Born".

Timeline

“In the beginning . . .”

4026 B.C.E. Adam’s creation - source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102009479

Well, it seems to me how WT Society was "involved" in sort of "celebration for Adam Birthday". Why to bring so much attention on Adam Birthday. This is pagan custom. Even to mention when your birthday is/was (only for administrative reasons) may be to understand as promoting idolatry :))))))) 

[Srecko Sostar]

9 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Hey, you just solved your first word puzzle, Congrats!! This came to my stupid head 😂🤣

Ohh, do not worry, this is just for public fun and entertainment. :)))

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Perhaps this will shed some light of me being tired of ignorance by those professing to be witnesses. Omitting a strong fact is another way of lying by them.

At least you understand the point that, as you say, "omitting a strong fact is another way of lying by them." I agree 100 percent, and it's really the ongoing theme here. The article you mention is exactly what I had in mind when I said:

On 8/25/2019 at 12:02 PM, JW Insider said:

Both at meetings, and in my personal study, I was reminded of what Jesus said: 'No man knows the day or hour.' "

Again, what was the counsel at the time? It's true the scripture was sometimes brought up.

Yes. We've also discussed this exact idea before. We've also discussed the typical life cycle of these predictions.

For example, Russell made a lot of predictions about October 1914, then the November 1913 Watch Tower began hedging because it just didn't look like everything that was supposed to happen still had time to happen. So Russell began writing and saying that it looks like he had been wrong -- that it might be another year or so, or that people might look back on this prediction 100 years from now and wonder what it was all about. Another article came out in early 1914 that also expressed Russell's strong doubts about 1914. It's almost as if he was prepared to think that people might look back and laugh about this 100 years later.

Similarly, there were a lot of expectations that F.W.Franz had regarding 1975, and he began to give talks in late 1974 that still created excitement, but also asked the question about whether all the things that might be expected to happen first could still happen in time. In one of Franz' talks you can tell he is trying to do the right thing, but he is being a bit ambiguous and the audience doesn't really get it. It's as if it's a little too late to dampen the excitement, and the audience responds as if they think he is being "slick" -- saying one thing but meaning another. I heard one of these 1975 talks in LA. The audience starts to laugh and snicker when he says: "And don't any of you go around saying . . . " He was beginning to hedge in 1974, and the summer assembly talk was a reflection of that. It was an October 15, 1974 Watchtower that reflected the talk from the 1974 convention. It was timely, and it finally admitted that it was IMPORTANT to start strongly considering why "no man knows the day or hour."

This is why I said that the scripture was sometimes brought up, but it was almost too little, too late. The genie couldn't be put back in the bottle until the expectations apparently fell through. After 1976, there was hardly another mention even of the "mid-70s" anymore. And this shows you how the Witnesses are not the type of persons to create speculation on their own -- because as the mid-70s started to close out, you would expect even more and more speculation that the time was now approaching so much closer. After all, it was about what the mid-70s would bring, not specifically 1975. Yet, when the Watchtower and representatives from Brooklyn stopped mentioning it, it died out at a time when you would expect it to gain even more momentum, if it had been a "grass roots" speculation. You can therefore tell it was a top-down speculation.

[ComfortMyPeople]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I don't know what a "hen" is, in this context, but as far as I can tell @ComfortMyPeople is from Spain, while I am in New York. I have never seen him or any of his research.

You show the idea that many Adventists gave up on dates after their expectations failed. What would you expect.

There are not many other options, when you are at the end of the possibilities that your particular date system allows.

A die-hard Second Adventist might just try to make some new adjustments to the "system" to figure out why the expectations might have been off by just a few months, or a few years, or even a matter of decades. They keep looking for a way to get the system to work because they can't give up after they invested so much in the beliefs. After Miller's failures, he himself decided against setting more dates, but thousands of people were ready to listen to the next predictions for the 1850's, 1860's, 1870's, etc. This makes the continuing date-setters even MORE of a die-hard Adventist. And these are the types of persons who influenced Russell to continue date-setting. Russell continued date-setting, and adjusting his date predictions from 1879 to 1915.  

Of course, there is one other solution, and that is to say that your date really was right all along -- that Jesus really did come to be present in 1874, but that it has been an invisible presence. This was the very solution that fit Russell's ideas, and it kept Barbour's adjusted dating system unchanged, except for that one detail. Russell expected the visible manifestation of Christ's kingdom to begin around 1914, and ultimately this was also changed to an invisible "manifestation," so that all those other dates 1874, 1878, 1881, 1914, etc., could remain unchanged. Of course, over time, 1881 was dropped, then 1874, then finally 1878 had no more prophetic significance (around 1961) and it was completely dropped, too. So that we only have 1914 remaining. (And I think this date, too, will be dropped in about 15 years barring any earthshattering changes.) But we still believe in the imminent manifestation of Jesus advent based on our interpretation of various prophetic time periods that we have tied to the present time period. Therefore we are still under some of the influence of adventists, in that general sense.

 

Well, regarding the "hen" expression,  be sure, it's not spanish. And I have no idea about the use billythekid is trying

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Well, regarding the "hen" expression,  be sure, it's not spanish. And I have no idea about the use billythekid is trying

I suppose that now is not the proper time to point out that I never refer to the Librarian without appending “that old hen.”