God's Kingdom Rules

[HollyW]

42 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

To be fair, I am pretty sure that if this comment was published in 1930, then the thought would have been around a lot earlier. The quote in question says "began to discern" in 1914. The word "discern" means "to distinguish with difficulty by sight or with the other senses " 

Clear discernment obviously takes time and may well be difficult.

Despite the erroneous view that Christ's presence started in 1874, there are enough references in the literature earlier than 1930 associating the events of 1914 and onwards as evidences of Christ's continuing presence. Enough for me to accept that discernment about what those events signified had it's beginnings at that time. 

Eoin, you've been shown the truth, so how would you reword this statement to change it from being a lie to being the truth?

"In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence."

[Evacuated]

54 minutes ago, HollyW said:

Eoin, you've been shown the truth, so how would you reword this statement to change it from being a lie to being the truth?

"In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence."

Hi. @HollyW.

I have indeed been shown the truth. BUT...no rewording required on the basis of what you have submitted so far.

I think it's probably fair to conclude that you do not actually know what the Bible Students began to discern in 1914.

[Ann O'Maly]

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

To be fair, I am pretty sure that if this comment was published in 1930, then the thought would have been around a lot earlier. The quote in question says "began to discern" in 1914. The word "discern" means "to distinguish with difficulty by sight or with the other senses " 

Clear discernment obviously takes time and may well be difficult.

Despite the erroneous view that Christ's presence started in 1874, there are enough references in the literature earlier than 1930 associating the events of 1914 and onwards as evidences of Christ's continuing presence. Enough for me to accept that discernment about what those events signified had it's beginnings at that time. 

I'm sorry, Eoin, but this is very weaselly worded - whether you intend it to be so or not.

The Bible Students simply did not 'begin to discern' or 'distinguish with difficulty by sight or with the other senses' in 1914 or in 1915 or in 1922* etc. that Jesus' presence started in 1914 because, as Holly has already pointed out to you, the Bible Students had already discerned that Jesus' presence had started in 1874. Bible Students 'began to discern' (or rethink the 1874 presence idea) long after 1914 

* The 1922 Cedar Point, Ohio convention and the famous call to 'advertise, advertise, advertise the King and his kingdom' re-establishes the Bible Students' firm belief that it was a fact Jesus' presence began in 1874. 

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

And indeed, with the "Advent Testimony" given wide attestation and distribution at least from late 1917 onwards, it appears that the Bible Students were not the only ones seeing divine significance in these events.  

The 'Advent Testimony Manifesto' was a) in 1917 - not 1914, and b) the reasoning behind their thinking that Christ's return was imminent was down to the Balfour Declaration and the move to re-establish Palestine as the Jewish homeland which was understood as fulfilling prophecy about the restoration of Israel, the rapture of the church, and Jesus' physically taking his kingship in Jerusalem! Is this in any way representative of JWs' version of 1914's significance? 

[Evacuated]

30 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

but this is very weaselly worded - whether you intend it to be so or not.

This is just insulting. It isn't possible to weaselly word unintentionally. You must be struggling here for some reason to use this sort of strategy.

33 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

The Bible Students simply did not....etc

You or (@Holly) just cannot know exactly what Bible Students did or did not begin to discern in 1914 or at any other time by selectively quoting from old publications no matter how interesting they are. You are at best surmising to support your own views.

However, I do note that your copied extract of the Cedar Point report reflects a discernment of Christ being "present" in 1922, despite the rather premature starting point of 1874. That is a little earlier than 1930, the date of the earlier (earliest) quote from the Golden Age. So that's 8 years knocked off the 16 previously referenced in one go. We'll be back to 1914 in no time at all at this rate! 

You are entitled to your own views of course. But I personally have no compelling reason to reject the current testimony (as I understand it) on the basis of these statements. The contrary, in fact.

42 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Is this in any way representative of JWs' version of 1914's significance?

Thanks for confirming the fascinating Advent Testimony's appearance in 1917. I was particularly impressed by:

Point 1. The present crisis points to the close of the Times of the Gentiles.

Point 5. That all human schemes of reconstruction must be subsidiary to the Second Coming of the Lord, because all nations will then be subject to His rule.

And this from non-Bible Students? Amazing indeed!

As discussed elsewhere, it is of no consequence to me what views or "versions" regarding the significance 1914 (or the general period since) are represented in statements, doctorines, manifestos, disputes, interpretations or whatever other debating feature they generate, save that they do. Even those who dispute the significance of this period only serve to draw further attention to it. To my mind that is, of course. 

I see all the events associated with that year, and the period since that time to the present, as adequately fulfilling features described at Rev 12:7-12; Rev 6:1-8; The Synoptic renditions of the Olivet discourse; 2Tim.3:1-6, 2Pet. 3:3-4 to cite but a few passages.

And, so far, although I have gained some terrific insights into late 19th and early 20th Century history, particularly in connection with Bible Students,  I have not seen anything here to dissuade me of that view, yet. 

[HollyW]

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Hi. @HollyW.

I have indeed been shown the truth. BUT...no rewording required on the basis of what you have submitted so far.

I think it's probably fair to conclude that you do not actually know what the Bible Students began to discern in 1914.

I have taken what the current book is saying and researching it from the older publications.

The letter from the GB said to picture yourself there in 1914 when Charles Russell announced that the Gentile Times had ended. I researched Russell's writings and found out what his announcement meant to his audience.  Isn't that the logical place to go to in order to find out why his audience greet this news with such enthusiasm?

The current book says, "In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence." That couldn't be true because in 1914 they had already discerned the sign of Christ's presence from 1874.  Where else would you look except in what they were publishing back then?

The current books says, "Long before 1914, the Bible Students said that a time of trouble would begin in that marked year." I went to what the Bible Students were saying long before 1914, and it was that it would END in 1914, not BEGIN.

Please research these things for yourself, and do that with ALL the references throughout this book.  

[Evacuated]

43 minutes ago, HollyW said:

Please research these things for yourself, and do that with ALL the references throughout this book.

Certainly will. But probably will be more objective than you seem to be. I'm not looking for faults. And I'm not solely looking at Bible Students. I'm looking at the overall picture.

[HollyW]

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Certainly will. But probably will be more objective than you seem to be. I'm not looking for faults. And I'm not solely looking at Bible Students. I'm looking at the overall picture.

Believe me, I was not looking for faults when I started my research.  If ever asked, I wanted to be able to answer the question prompted by the Greatest Man book. "Who were those faithful followers who observed Christ's return in 1914?"  Using only WT publications, I found out there weren't any because in 1914 the WTS was teaching that Christ had already returned, in 1874.  What I found myself looking at was a falsehood about WTS history. It wasn't a mistaken belief nor an incorrect expectation.  It was a lie, no less than the two I've just shared with you from "God's Kingdom Rules."  It happens more often than I'm sure you'd care to know.

May our Lord and God bless you in your research and efforts to find the truth.

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

However, I do note that your copied extract of the Cedar Point report reflects a discernment of Christ being "present" in 1922, despite the rather premature starting point of 1874. That is a little earlier than 1930, the date of the earlier (earliest) quote from the Golden Age. So that's 8 years knocked off the 16 previously referenced in one go. We'll be back to 1914 in no time at all at this rate!

Eoin, I'd like to answer this point you made to Ann, but I first wanted to weigh in on the specific question about whether the caption of the picture is a "lie." I started addressing my response to Holly, but will address it to you because I agree with most of what you say about it. My first reaction was that this caption wording was actually quite an improvement over many previously published versions of this same idea. It's because I agree with your reasoning, however, that I can't agree completely with your conclusion.

I wouldn't call it a "lie" even though it might be misleading. I agree with you that you cannot know exactly what Bible Students were discerning with respect to 1914 and the sign of Christ's presence. But for that same reason, since we cannot know what they began to discern in 1914, we also should not claim that the caption is necessarily true.

But the overall picture of what the book is trying to convey is very important, which is something you have also said. To get a better idea, we should really read the caption of that picture along with the paragraph it was meant to support. Putting them together we have this:

*** kr chap. 2 p. 22 par. 29 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
[In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ’s invisible presence.] Long before 1914, the Bible Students said that a time of trouble would begin in that marked year. But even they could not have imagined how accurate that prediction would turn out to be. As John’s vision revealed, Satan would then begin to have an even greater impact on human society: “Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing that he has a short period of time.” (Rev. 12:12) In 1914, the first world war broke out and the sign of Christ’s presence in kingly power began to see global fulfillment. The “last days” of this system of things had begun.—2 Tim. 3:1.  [In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ’s invisible presence.]

So the basic foundation of the idea is that they had supposedly said that a time of trouble would begin in that marked year. (kr)

This part is definitely not true, since the beginning of the time of trouble was supposed to begin up to a few years before 1914 and end in 1914. At some point earlier in the 1900's Russell began publishing that "the year 1914" would start in October of 1914 and end in October 1915. 

Building on this same false foundation is the idea that this supposed prediction was somehow proved to be even more accurate than they had imagined. (kr)

This added idea is definitely not true, since what was to be expected in 1914 was predicted to be thousands of times worse than what happened in 1914. In fact, 100% of all the expectations were complete failures. After August 1914, the World War was considered to be a possible start of this day of wrath, but they didn't understand why it could start so late in the timeline. By November 11, 1918, they would be forced to discern that this World War could never turn into what they had been expecting, but for as long as it raged, it kept them distracted from updating their expectations because it appeared for many months that it still could be the close of the day of wrath that was supposed to have ended in 1914, but could be also defined to be as late as the close of 1915. The War actually lulled Russell into thinking that all of what they had expected in terms of the timeline would still come true according to the original 1874 timeline, but that they had to admit only that they had not discerned the reason that the 1914 expectations had failed so far, and assumed only a short delay for reasons they couldn't yet explain. But they also indicated that the War was just enough of an event so that there was no reason to re-assess the timeline.

All of what I just said in that last paragraph is not speculation, it is based on what was said and believed by Bible Students between 1914 and 1916, referring to what Russell said in his sermons, what he consistently published in the Watch Tower, and what was being disseminated to other Bible Students in conventions talks.

You might think that under normal circumstances the Bible Students might have look at the failure of all 7 enumerated expectations for 1914 and quickly re-evaluate. We might have expected them to think: 'Well these all expectations for 1914 failed, so it's time we revisited the timeline.' We might have expected them to think: 'This delay of the beginning of the day of wrath that should have started a few years ago, will now have to be compressed into a far shorter period of time, so maybe this is a sign of something we hadn't considered yet.'

But instead of discerning that they might have had the sign of the Christ's presence wrong  for 1874, they already had a method that would allow for them to not think about it until October 1915 approached. If the dining room event of October 1st, 2nd or 4th actually happened pretty much as described, then it would most likely have been Russell's reassurance that there was no need to get upset about the timeline. That's what the Watch Towers of this time period indicate, too. While Russell never thought to mention the 'dining room' event in the Watch Tower after it happened, he did use subsequent Watch Towers to say that there was no need to re-evaluate the 1874 chronology. Even after he died and Rutherford had taken over, the Watch Tower under Rutherford's direction made the same points about not dropping the 1874, 1878, 1881, and 1914 dates. And he added new expectations for 1918, 1919 and 1925.

This is a two-edged argument however. If Russell and Rutherford thought it prudent to tell the Bible Students that there was nothing more to discern from the events that marked the current failure of the 1914 expectations, but that the Lord must have delayed them for reasons that should become clearer in the near future, then this also means that they were, in fact, discerning something about the 1914 date. Putting ourselves in their place, it would be difficult to imagine how anyone could start believing something in his early twenties, publish thousands of pages about those expectations, continue expecting them for the next 12 months after October 1914, watch them all fail, and not begin rethinking that some other possible meaning was behind these events. At least by October 1915 I think it would be impossible not to "go back to the drawing board."

The only problem is that we have no indication that they ever did this with respect to Christ's invisible presence either in 1914 or 1915 or 1916. But there is some evidence that if they had discerned anything, they specifically "discerned" that it was not necessary to rethink that World War One was a sign of Christ's invisible presence. But how long could that lack of discernment last? 

The only way, then, that this claim could make any sense is through that sentence in the paragraph that says:

*** kr chap. 2 p. 22 par. 29 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
In 1914, the first world war broke out and the sign of Christ’s presence in kingly power began to see global fulfillment.

As you mentioned earlier, this is what everyone saw, a world war break out. But this didn't take any discernment. It would have probably been more accurate for the caption to have read: "In 1914, although the Bible Students could not discern that this was a sign of Christ’s invisible presence, they nevertheless began to see indications that were later discerned to be a beginning of that sign."

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

However, I do note that your copied extract of the Cedar Point report reflects a discernment of Christ being "present" in 1922, despite the rather premature starting point of 1874. That is a little earlier than 1930, the date of the earlier (earliest) quote from the Golden Age. So that's 8 years knocked off the 16 previously referenced in one go. We'll be back to 1914 in no time at all at this rate! 

I figured that by the time I tried to respond to this Ann would have already responded, and I hope I am not jumping in where I'm not supposed to. To save time, I'll re-quote something I said earlier in the thread, although I'll put "[...]" in a few places to cut it down a bit:

On 9/21/2016 at 6:11 PM, JW Insider said:

This has been stated in the Watch Tower publications, but it might also be slightly misleading:

*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society . . .  did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia.

. . . Those particular meanings that had been attached to 1874 were already assigned to 1914 before 1943, although not all of the significance attached to 1874 had been completely removed. The Watchtower apparently avoided any publicity about these changes so this happens to be the only specific mention of when this doctrine was changed. However, some of the changes were mentioned in 1925, and perhaps even a hint in 1922, but seemed not to "stick" until 1930/1.

When I had referred to 1922, I was thinking of the Cedar Point convention, too. But not because there were any changes to the 1874 chronology at that time. The "hint" was that one of the events, Jesus' kingship, was evidently being considered as starting in 1914 instead of 1878 even though nothing at all changed about his "presence" starting in 1874. (There is a possible mixed message here, since he also calls Jesus the "king of glory" present since 1874. The sense in which Jesus "becomes king" again in 1914 was likely a matter of "taking up his great power" in a new way at that time.)

If anything, this is an indication that Rutherford had just pro-actively dismissed an opportunity to discern the events of 1914 as a sign of his presence. Then again, he still might not have ever considered it yet, even as late as 1922. Nothing in the Cedar Point report says that he had even considered it yet, but even if he had then it means that he had obviously discerned 1914 NOT to be the beginning of the sign of Christ's presence. If there had been any "discernment" about Christ's presence in 1914 by then, then why not move Jesus' presence to 1914 if you thought enough about it to start to move the kingship from 1878 to 1914? Instead, as Ann points out, Rutherford explicitly keeps 1874 as the start of that presence.

Your argument seems to be that because he was still discerned to be present in 1922, that this could very well take us all the way back to 1914 at this rate. Well, this argument actually does take you back to 1914, because that's exactly what they believed in 1914 -- that Christ was still present in 1914 because he had been present since 1874. In fact, it obviously also takes you back to, say, 1899. But if it takes you back to 1899 in the same way it takes you back to 1914, and 1922, then it means that nothing special was discerned in 1914.

[JW Insider]

53 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Perhaps it’s time you people started talking to actual bible students to get your facts straight. It embarrassing to see you time and time again make fools of yourselves and a mockery of attempting to sway people to accept false history to win an argument.

Pastor Russell thought Christ spiritual presence started in 1874 with the “harvest” work up until 1914. Get that through your insidious minds. The older Barbour was the one still eminent in seeing 1874 as the rapture date, which Pastor Russell disagreed with.

Allen,

Just point out what was said that you believed was wrong. No one is going to understand what your point is if you keep telling people they don't have their facts straight, and then, when you can provide any evidence at all, the source of that evidence invariably shows that what people have concluded was correct, and that you were making a false argument.

It's as if you are saying:

"Hey! You are all insidious and embarrassing fools if you don't accept that 2+2=5. I even have proof from an expert who knows it's true. I'll quote him here: "2+2=4" [Mathematical Society Quarterly, p.267]. See there! 2+2=5!!!"

If your words that I quoted from you at the top of this post were directed at me, please stop making general accusations that I am wrong, and then copying and pasting evidence* that indicates that I am right. I can't see any reason that anyone would do that!

*When I say "evidence" I mean the many sources you have quoted which are generally correct. I am not referring to any of the comments that you have often interspersed between them, because more often than not, most sentences of yours contains factual errors. Even your quote above mentions that Barbour was still eminent in seeing 1874 as the rapture date while Russell was teaching that Christ's spiritual presence would last from 1874 to 1914. This is, of course, untrue. It was Barbour who came up with 1874 as the start of an invisible, spiritual presence (via B W Keith after failed expectations of a rapture in 1874) and Russell later agreed with this. Barbour was not still teaching 1874 as the rapture date, but by the summer of 1875 had already moved on to 1878 as the date for the rapture. 1878 was also the end of the Gentile Times for a while in Barbour's view. 

[Ann O'Maly]

15 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

It isn't possible to weaselly word unintentionally.

That's a pity. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. 

15 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

You or (@Holly) just cannot know exactly what Bible Students did or did not begin to discern in 1914 or at any other time by selectively quoting from old publications no matter how interesting they are. You are at best surmising to support your own views.

We can know what Bible Students did or did not discern in 1914 or at other times because their writings from those times are available to read. If you can find a Bible Student publication from 1914 or the years following that specifically connects the year 1914 with the start of Christ's presence, then please post it here. Otherwise, we have to conclude that the 'Kingdom Rules' book has made an erroneous and misleading statement.

15 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

However, I do note that your copied extract of the Cedar Point report reflects a discernment of Christ being "present" in 1922, despite the rather premature starting point of 1874. That is a little earlier than 1930, the date of the earlier (earliest) quote from the Golden Age. So that's 8 years knocked off the 16 previously referenced in one go. We'll be back to 1914 in no time at all at this rate! 

 You cannot wriggle around it, Eoin. The BSs believed Christ's presence began in 1874 and, yes, that it was continuing through 1922 and beyond (duh). But this isn't what the 'Kingdom Rules' book claimed, is it? It claimed: "In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence" and not "In 1914, the Bible Students continued to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence that began in 1874."

16 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Thanks for confirming the fascinating Advent Testimony's appearance in 1917. I was particularly impressed by:

Point 1. The present crisis points to the close of the Times of the Gentiles.

Point 5. That all human schemes of reconstruction must be subsidiary to the Second Coming of the Lord, because all nations will then be subject to His rule.

And this from non-Bible Students? Amazing indeed!

This is like using Armstrong's WWCG beliefs about what would happen in 1975 to validate the old JWs' beliefs about 1975. It's truly amazing that non-JWs also came to the conclusion that 1975 would be the end of the system of things, is it not? 

Anyway, the Bible Students were not looking forward to the Lord's Second Coming, because they thought he had already done so invisibly 40 years earlier. The Advent Testimony Manifesto also didn't have a year in mind for the close of the Gentile times - only that it would occur once Israel had been restored and converted. 

As for you being unpersuaded by what's written in Watchtower's period literature about what was taught and believed, well, 'a man convinced against his will ...' 

 

[Evacuated]

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Christ was still present in 1914 because he had been present since 1874.

That is my point. And for me, the fact that the understanding has since developed into a clearer discernment of the significance of 1914 events (including the discarding of the 1874 nonsense), means I am quite happy with the statement that they "began to discern" in connection with 1914. They did not know much about what they were discerning I will grant you, but looking back it all makes sense. To me anyway.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Building on this same false foundation is the idea that this supposed prediction was somehow proved to be even more accurate than they had imagined.

This is really a bit of an understatement because the expectation of the Bible Students of a time of trouble after the end of the Gentile Times bears no comparison to what has really happened in the period from Ocober 1914 down to the present day.

As for the expectation of a time of trouble beginning in 1914, I agree with you absolutely that there is a clear indication in the many issues of the ZWT of the 19th and early 20th Centuries that 1874 to 1914 would encompasss a time of trouble ending in the Gentile Times.

However, a ZWT article of Feb 1 1904 is entitled Universal Anarchy - Just Before or After Oct. 1914.

And a quote from ZWT Nov 1 1904 commenting on a newspaper article states:

"The above clipping, we believe, is from The Saturday Evening Post. We print it not for its own sake as an item merely, but also because it so closely coincides with our expectations, based on the divine Word - regarding the ending of “Gentile Times” in October, 1914, when will follow the time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation;“-the anarchous period which will in divine providence be followed by the kingdom rule of everlasting righteousness."

Later in Dec 1 1904, after some gobbledegook about Israel's restoration, the WT mentions:

"It is to be accomplished in the day of trouble, shortly after October, 1914, we believe."

I do not care much about the context of these articles which is, frankly, often indecipherable. However, without any further trawling, I have to submit that there was definitely a view that "a (particular) time of trouble would begin in that marked year" (1914). I am not going to argue about the clarity of that view, but on the basis of these quotations I cannot agree with the following statement regarding 1914:

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

they had supposedly said that a time of trouble would begin in that marked year. (kr)

This part is definitely not true, (My bold)

Given that, I can see that the view in hindsight, which enables selection and prioritising of ideas, gives us an advantage not enjoyed at the time.

I enjoy the detailed information and background you provide. It interests, stimulates discussion and careful evaluation. But I think I'll let the inimitable Glen Baxter have the last word about keeping it all in context.