Jump to content
The World News Media

ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view


JW Insider

Recommended Posts

  • Member

@J.R. Ewing

Quote

Now according to some 19th century and early 20th century historians

Who? 

Quote

Belibni (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar l)

'Perceived' by whom? When? Reference please.   

Quote

Nabopolassar (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar ll) Book of Judith

The author misidentified the king in the apocryphal story.  

Quote

Nabopolassar ll ?

?

Quote

Nebuchadnezzar ll (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar lll) House of Igibi

Too little information to go on. Is there a tablet number? Do you have a specific publication in mind where this tablet is discussed.

Give us something more concrete about your alleged discrepancies and maybe we can help you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 44.3k
  • Replies 487
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Even before C.T.Russell was born, commentaries on Bible prophecy included  dozens of potential dates. Nearly 200 years ago, a couple of them even included 1914 as potentially significant time period.

WAITING… AND FIGHTING ARchiv@L, I appreciate your advice. Very laconic, but appropriate. Only to develop a little further my attitude, let me mention David example in, perhaps, the most difficult pa

(Luke 12:47, 48) . . .Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. But the one who did not understand and yet did t

Posted Images

  • Member
2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Deflecting, from a simple question by giving “ad hominem” answers.

Seriously, I would be happy to try to address your question. Just ask it! I might not know the answer but I am happy to learn, especially if it means I get the excuse to do some more research.

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

For one, I wasn’t referring to you defending COJ, but rather his findings, that by enlarge have been a focus by other scholarly intellects that you don't focus on since other scholars can come and have come to a different conclusion.

Still not sure why you appear to obsess about COJ's findings. If he found something, I'd rather go to the source of the evidence he found, not go second-hand through him. If you have a question about what other scholars have found, and their different conclusions, that might be interesting. Do you plan on being specific about any of this?

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

If no one knows of COJ’s work, then why do you persist in “applying” his ideology to your own.

I'm getting the impression that you must want people to think you are obsessed with COJ. Why be so concerned about him? This is exactly like having 1,000 persons tell you that World War II started in 1914, but you want to believe it started in 1894, so you'd obsess about the fact that just one of those 1,000 persons had rabies. Ignore COJ. I think the only reason a person would try to associate the Neo-Babylonian chronology with COJ is because it probably plays to an audience who don't realize that COJ had nothing to do with confirming or disconfirming the Neo-Babylonian timeline.

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

The QUESTION still stands. How can you justify this historical discrepancy of Nebuchadnezzar 1 with his son Belbini 440 years later, since you keep insisting the chronology mentioned in COJ’s book is FACT? I’m noting suggesting he mentioned Nebuchadnezzar 1. That’s the point, he only used evidence that would agree with his outcome, NOT ALL THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK! That's a start. I take back everything I said above. That's a real question. When I break it down, however, I see that you have disqualified it from being a sincere question by adding the phrase: "since you keep insisting the chronology mentioned in COJ's book is FACT." I have never insisted that the chronology mentioned in COJ's book is FACT. I don't know that it is FACT. You are the one who is always concerned about COJ. I don't need COJ to learn about what he discovered. This should be about evidence not a man called "COJ."

But I can try to remove the distractions from your question and see if I can understand what you really intended to ask. You can tell me if you think I am guessing correctly. I'll try to do this later though. Right now my full attention is being totally eclipsed by a separate distraction.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
31 minutes ago, bruceq said:

I would rather "PROMOTE"  the "foolish" Governing Body to feed us than you and Christendom's "wise" scholars. Why do you continue to promote the teachings of Babylon the Great? 1 Cor. 1:24-31.

You were suppose to "get OUT of her my people" not go BACK to her my people. Rev. 18:4.

You do realize that we got this doctrine from Christendom, right?

Quote

*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
The matter of Bible chronology had long been of great interest to Bible students. Commentators had set out a variety of views on Jesus’ prophecy about “the times of the Gentiles” and the prophet Daniel’s record of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream regarding the tree stump that was banded for “seven times.”—Luke 21:24, KJ; Dan. 4:10-17.
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected.
Then, in the August, September, and October 1875 issues of Herald of the Morning, N. H. Barbour helped to harmonize details that had been pointed out by others. Using chronology compiled by Christopher Bowen, a clergyman in England, and published by E. B. Elliott, Barbour identified the start of the Gentile Times with King Zedekiah’s removal from kingship as foretold at Ezekiel 21:25, 26, and he pointed to 1914 as marking the end of the Gentile Times.
Early in 1876, C. T. Russell received a copy of Herald of the Morning. He promptly wrote to Barbour and then spent time with him in Philadelphia during the summer, discussing, among other things, prophetic time periods.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You do realize that we got this doctrine from Christendom, right?

We? You promote Christendom's chronology. {And your constant complaining and disdain and bad attitude to those taking the lead in Jehovah's Organization}  I was just appointed a Ministerial Servant so I am not as experienced and as smart as you who is as you say an ex Bethelite but I know what Loyalty is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

As I said earlier - the ONLY secular date that is without question is when Cyrus sent the Jews back to Jerusalem.  Read the Persian dynasty regarding the kings, their dates; as well as the number of years they reigned. 

The organization's chronology makes sense as the kings and their number of years on the throne have to fit in with the beginning of the 70 weeks prophecy. ..... and we all know that Jesus came exactly oon time..... .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

By the next morning, I had learned that it was later on that same afternoon the previous day that they had learned they were all being disfellowshipped. 

I wouldn't like to have 'crossed' King David when he was ruling. These are things that are 'too high' for me.

Uriah will surely have a reality check when he discovers that David, not only had him killed, but had him carry his own order of execution to Joab. Moreover, Jehovah overlooked it, went on to bless David greatly, and blessed his son by his ex-wife even more. "What am I - chopped liver?" he will say.

And that is only because David had the hots for his wife. Imagine if he thought Uriah was messing with the kingdom!

There are some things you do not mess with and people of the last days are too stupid to know that. Reporters peer into the pants of leaders to tell of their soiled underwear and are dumbfounded that said leaders get mad.

As to the brothers back then, I won't attribute ill conduct to any of them. I will follow the counsel given somewhere that if a friend has consistently proven himself honorable, you do not turn upon him at the first questionable report. You think: "well, probably there are things I do not know about." Having said that, one can always revert to the remarks already made about David behaving unseemly.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But within hours, the rumor had surfaced that they must not have been just apostates but must have also been "swingers" who changed marriage partners, and that the men must have also been homosexuals. I was appalled by how fast those two rumors spread

That is the nature of rumors. You don't want to get caught in one. Most likely there was a grain of truth somewhere that someone built on and others blew it viral. Imagine what can be done, for example, with reports that men are sitting naked together in the sauna. It's why one must always be cautious about what they relate. I keep thinking of the scripture that tells how Jehovah feels about spreading contention among brothers.

I don't see any reason, per se, to vilify men like COJ. But neither do I want to sanctify him. There's a time to back off. Even if he felt maneuvered into a tight spot, he could have always clawed his way back, making whatever amends he had to.  Michael Jackson made the Thriller album and, to deal with the fallout, expressed regret over doing that type of music, which was woven into a magazine article on (then) questionable music, he being quoted anonymously. True, he later came to grumble about that 'discipline,' but it may have been better had he taken it to heart. His later years didn't really go that well for him, did they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 8/21/2017 at 4:35 PM, Nana Fofana said:

***There is no evidence whatsoever in support of the claim that Themistocles died in 471/70 BC. None of the sources referred to by the (WT) Society says so,.....***

........??The (WT) Society quotes Diodorus Siculus in support of the 471/70 date for the beginning of the defamation of Themistocles,?????

but avoids to mention Diodorus' statement that, on Themistocles' arrival in Asia Minor, Xerxes was still on the throne in Persia!  (Diodorus Siculus, XI:54-59)

This, of course, conflicts with Thucydides' statement that Themistocles' letter from Asia Minor was sent to Artaxerxes."

I can tell what happened here. Even though I wasn't familiar with this supposed controversy and had never read about it in COJ's book, it seemed obvious that you missed the actual point of the statement you quoted above, and which I highlighted in red. COJ did not word this statement very well, but you can catch his meaning perfectly from the context you provided. I'll add a little more context from that section of the book so you can see if this makes sense:

Quote

The Watch Tower Society argues that Themistocles died about 471/70 BC. . . . These arguments have a superficial strength, only because the Watch Tower Society leaves out some very important information. In proof of their claim that Themistocles met Artaxerxes after his arrival in Persia, they quote Plutarch’s information that "Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus relate that Xerxes was dead, and that it was his son Artaxerxes with whom Themistocles had his interview". But they left out the second part of Plutarch's statement, which says: " . . . but Ephorus and Dinon and Clitarchus and Heracleides and yet more besides have it that it was Xerxes to whom he came. With the chronological data Thucydides seems to me more in accord, although these are by no means securely established." The Watch Tower Society, then, conceals that Plutarch goes on to say that a number of ancient historians had written about this event, and that most of them stated that Xerxes, not Artaxerxes, was on the throne when Themistocles came to Persia. . . .

But even if Themistocles really may have met Artaxerxes, there is nothing to show that this occurred in the 470’s. There is no evidence whatsoever in support of the claim that Themistocles died in 471/70 BC. None of the sources referred to by the Society says so, and some of them, including Plutarch, clearly show that he died much later, in about 459 BC. (Plutarch's Lives, XXXI:2–5) A considerable time passed after the attempt to defame Themistocles in Athens in the archonship of Praxiergus (471/70 BC) until his interview with Artaxerxes (or Xerxes). It took several attempts before the enemies of Themistocles succeeded and forced him to flee, first from Athens and finally from Greece. Cambridge Ancient History (Vol. 5, pp. 62ff.) dates this flight to 569 BC. He first fled to some friends in Asia Minor, where he stayed for some time. The Society quotes Diodorus Siculus in support of the 471/70 date for the beginning of the defamation of Themistocles, but avoids to mention Diodorus’ statement that, on Themistocles’ arrival in Asia Minor, Xerxes was still on the throne in Persia! (Diodorus Siculus, XI:54–59) This, of course, conflicts with Thucydides’ statement that Themistocles’ letter from Asia Minor was sent to Artaxerxes.

So COJ has already explicitly stated that the Society does indeed argue that Thermistocles died about 471/70. (He also points out that it's an argument the Society gets, at least indirectly, through Christendom, originating with a Jesuit theologian and an archbishop in the 17th century.) COJ's point here is that the Watch Tower Society leaves out information which would show what the real point of the source material is. As you saw from a previous question you asked, the Society did exactly the same thing in another place in the "Insight" book when they claimed they were giving the "Jewish understanding" from Soncino, but left out just enough words to hide the fact that they were only pretending to give the Jewish understanding. In this case COJ is saying that although the WTS was quoting Diodorus Siculus in support of Thermistocles death in 471, they were actually quoting source material that never claimed anything about a death in 471, but another event in his life that must have happened well before he died anyway. So it should have been worded:

Quote

"The Society claims to quote Diodorus Siculus in support of Thermistocles death in 471, but they are really only quoting a source in support of 471 for the beginning of the defamation of Thermistocles."

I've learned that it doesn't take much to catch the Society in these bits of "scholastic dishonesty." It's hard to say whether it's incompetence or deliberate or they just read with a kind of "wishful thinking" that some secular sources might somehow be found to offer support. I didn't know this particular one at all, but I am very disappointed that it keeps happening. I'm not sure if COJ ever noticed the previous one we talked about (the "Jewish understanding") but I can see that COJ has seen several more of these examples, and I know I have seen several too that COJ probably never deals with in his book. 

On 8/21/2017 at 4:35 PM, Nana Fofana said:

[seems like deliberate confusion -sowing, or worse, by C. O. Jonsson]

It turns out, however, that COJ was right in this case, and the Watch Tower Society was wrong.

On 8/21/2017 at 5:20 PM, Nana Fofana said:

Should "series"  always be in quotes , when referring to these clay tabs of Babs?

This was from your post about Grayson's book. (Which is excellent, btw) The reason this book review uses the term "Series" like this is to avoid the repetition of the longer phrase, "Babylonian Chronicle Series." The book itself has some very good information about why 539 is no better a date to call "absolute" than any other date in the Neo-Babylonian chronology, and why the supposed break at 539 is arbitrary. The reviewer alludes to it, saying:

On 8/21/2017 at 5:20 PM, Nana Fofana said:

Although the Persian period clearly constitutes a break in the sequence,

In Grayson's book, what was meant by this is that there is a 50 year gap in the Series after 539, but excellent coverage in the 50+ years prior.  (The book review you mentioned takes exception to Grayson calling ALL of the chronicles the "Babylonian Chronicle Series" especially because she sees no real continuity between ALL the chronicles in this "Series" especially due to the long break in the eras covered.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
17 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Even if he felt maneuvered into a tight spot, he could have always clawed his way back, making whatever amends he had to.

I think this is usually true. If I were asked about my activity here, and it's bound to happen, I can say that I did what I thought was right at the time (which I do) but that I can do whatever it takes to make amends. I have seen this stuff go on for 40 years, and I am a very patient man . . .

I'm a very gentle man
Even-tempered and good-natured who you never hear complain 
Who has the milk of human kindness by the quart in every vein
A patient man am I, down to my fingertips
The sort who never would, never could
Let an insulting remark escape his lips 
A very gentle man

Of course, sometimes the brothers who have to do the questioning might have a completely different idea of motivations or reasonableness. Galileo could avoid disfellowshipping by just admitting that he was wrong, but it's hard to put all that stuff back in the telescope once it's been seen. It takes a lot of humility to recant when you think someone is asking you to: "Admit that 2+2=5, because Jehovah says so!!" You just have to be able to empathize, put yourself in their shoes, and remember that the roles could so easily have been reversed if they had had the same experiences you had, and you had the same experiences they had.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
47 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

I would say his deception was deliberate to get Raymond Franz to drive home the point, that 587/6BC had to be the starting point to align the Kings according to a Jewish timeline that would legitimize the Jewish wars of 1947 and 1967.

That’s why a simple question that was posted cannot be answered with the scrutiny it needs.

I had no idea that COJ was into legitimizing the Jewish wars of 1947 and 1967. Sounds pretty strange to me. And of course I had no idea that he was trying to deceive R.Franz into using the accepted timeline to get him to legitimize. I had no idea what you meant previously by saying that I had the same ideology as COJ. And of course, I didn't know that this was the reason that I hadn't answered your simple question yet.

Seriously, though, although I know that it's a common belief about Israel among Bible scholars and pretend Bible scholars, I did not know that COJ got into this, too. Where did you find this? In spite of @Nana Fofana's experience, I can't find anything about COJ when I look for his full name plus 1967 war, 1947 Palestine, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Watchtower was somehow associated with the “William Miller” Movement.

The Watchtower associated themselves with the "William Miller" movement by accepting the 1844 date as a date given in Bible prophecy. This does not mean that Russell was a Second Adventist, or even wanted to be associated with William Miller. He was embarrassed at their date failure, and was hesitant to admit that his fascination with the Second Adventists was primarily about their chronology. As he studied he found that he did not agree with the Adventists on a lot of things, but he always remained absorbed with their chronology. When Russell published Watch Towers that called William Miller "Father Miller" he was offering unnecessary respect to the man. But he claimed that the Millerites showed themselves to be foolish virgins whose lamps had run out of oil because they stopped setting dates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

True, but what I see off of COJ’s book aside from time errors, his insistence of wanting people to believe the Watchtower was somehow associated with the “William Miller” Movement.

I can't tell if you are just making up things as diversions. Should I assume this when you make statements that are not backed up with evidence? For example, I have COJ's book as a PDF and just searched through it for anything about Israel/Palestine/1946/1967 and it looks like there is no evidence for what you claimed previously. Do you have any evidence?

I mentioned this already, and rather than respond, you changed the subject to how COJ insists that people believe the Watchtower was associated with WIlliam Miller. So I look up every instance of William Miller in his book, and, as I've come to expect by now, there was nothing there that ties William Miller to the Watchtower. He merely mentions Miller in the list of persons and groups that are part of the history of various Gentile Times doctrines. So how can COJ be insisting on something that he doesn't even mention is connected with the Watchtower? Again, do you have any evidence? Or am I supposed to assume that you made this up?

I have found closer connections in our own publications, than in COJ's book about a relationship with the movement of William Miller:

  • *** jv chap. 4 p. 40 The Great Apostasy Develops ***
  • In the United States, William Miller predicted the return of Christ in visible form in 1843 or 1844. The German theologian J. A. Bengel set the date for 1836; . . . Such efforts to keep on the watch served to awaken many to the prospect of our Lord’s return.

Russell wrote some interesting things about Miller as I said. As I also said, he did not want to be associated directly with William Miller or tied in any way to the failure and disappointment of Miller. But he did speak of the work of Miller as being foreordained through prophecy, and therefore the references to various dates with respect to Miller as fulfilling Bible prophecy, such as 1829, 1844, and later 1859, too, although this date was dropped early because it had referred solely to the work of Barbour as the vehicle of the Midnight Cry in the parable of the 10 virgins. Here is some of what Russell wrote and published, among other things, about Miller, in Volume 3, Studies in the Scriptures, p.86,87:

Quote

A religious movement culminated in 1844, the participants in which were then, and since, generally known as "Second Adventists" and "Millerites," because they expected the second advent of the Lord to occur at that date, and because a Mr. William Miller was the leader and prime mover. The movement, which began about 1829, had before 1844 (when they expected the Lord's return) attracted the attention of all classes of Christian people, especially in the Eastern and Middle States where it amounted to an excitement. . . .   But, notwithstanding the disappointment, the movement had its designed effects--of awakening an interest in the subject of the Lord's coming, and of casting reproach upon the subject by reason of mistaken expectations. We say designed effects because without a doubt the hand of the Lord was in it. It not only did a work corresponding to that of the first advent movement, when our Lord was born, when the wise men came from the East and when "all men were in expectation of him", but it corresponded with it in time also, being just thirty years before the anointing of our Lord, at thirty years of age, at the beginning of his work as Messiah. That "Miller movement," as it is slightingly called, brought also an individual blessing to the "holy people" who participated in it: . . .  we recognize that movement as being in God's order, and as doing a very important work in the separating, purifying, refining, and thus making ready, of a waiting people prepared for the Lord. And not only did it do a purifying and testing work in its own day, but, by casting reproach upon the study of prophecy and upon the doctrine of the Lord's second advent, it has ever since served to test and prove the consecrated, regardless of any association with Mr. Miller's views and expectations. The very mention of the subject of prophecy, the Lord's coming and the Millennial Kingdom, now excites the contempt of the worldly-wise, especially in the nominal church. But the "Miller movement" was more than this; it ws the beginning of the right understanding of Daniel's visions, and at the right time to fit the prophecy. Mr. Miller's application of the three and a half times (1260 years) was practically the same as that we have just given, but he made the [C87] mistake of not starting the 1290 and 1335 periods at the same point. Had he done so he would have been right. On the contrary, he started them thirty years sooner--about 509 [A.D.] instead of 539 [A.D.], which ended the 1335 days in 1844, instead of 1874.* It was, nevertheless, the beginning of the right understanding of the prophecy; for, after all, the 1260 period, which he saw correctly, was the key; and the preaching of this truth (even though in combination with errors, and misapplications, and false inferences) had the effect of separating and purifying "many," and at the very time the Lord had foretold. . . . Thus it will be seen that the separating work of the "Miller movement" had its beginning at the time foretold-- at the end of the 1290 days, 1829.

The May 1883 Watchtower contained the portion you quoted, and some other points:

Quote

 

Father Miller, upon whom so much reproach has fallen (but who was a devoted Christian man of irreproachable Christian character), saw that there was an important, prophetic point in about 1843, . . .

That awakening set many Christians to examining the Word with extreme care, the result of which is that many interesting parallels between the Jewish and Gospel ages have been discovered, and it is now convincingly known that the first step toward the second advent did take place at or about that time, but not in the manner that Father Miller had expected. . . .

In 1833 "Father Miller" began to lecture upon the second coming of Christ, and premised that it would take place in the fall of 1843. In 1832 the electro-magnetic telegraph was conceived by Morse while on a transatlantic voyage, and it was born in 1835 . . . we would not be too slow to mark the striking coincidence of events which seem to indicate the fulfillment of prophecy.

 

The above article was written by J.C.Sunderlin, and only approved and published by Russell. But the most important connection to Millerism was what Russell himself  had described a couple years earlier. The article below is from October 1881, and was the very important announcement that the "door was shut." No more persons would be chosen for the 144,000 as of October 3rd, 1881.

 

Quote

 

"AND THE DOOR WAS SHUT."

For the sake of the many new readers of the WATCH TOWER, it may not be amiss to give a general review of the steps of faith by which the Lord has been leading us as a people, during the last seven years, and in a general sense during the preceding thirty-five years.

The parable of "The Ten Virgins" . . . "Then shall the kingdom of heaven (church) be likened unto ten virgins which took their lamps (Bibles) and went forth to meet the Bridegroom" (i.e.,)they went forth or separated themselves because of their belief that the Bridegroom, Jesus, was about to come.

While we are neither "Millerites" nor "Adventists," yet we believe that this much of this parable met its fulfillment in 1843 and 1844, when William Miller and others, Bible in hand, walked out by faith on its statements, expecting Jesus at that time. . . .  As a general arousing of the church to the investigation of God's Word had attended the preaching of Mr. Miller, and the Word was more studied than ever before, especially the Prophecies, so when his calculations seemed to end in such bitter disappointment, a spirit of drowsiness followed; some slumbered, some slept, and many vagaries—dreamings incidental to sleep soon sprung up.

The next important step of the parable (verse 6) is the midnight cry. The night of the parable was the time during which the disappointment lasted and the sleeping occurred, and was to end with joy in the morning, when, the tarrying being ended, the Bridegroom would be present.

As the former movement in the parable had been represented by Miller and others, so to this second movement we give a similar application. A brother, B__________ of Rochester, was, we believe, the chosen vessel of God through whom the "Midnight Cry" issued to the sleeping virgins of Christ, announcing a discrepancy of thirty years in some of Miller's calculations, and giving a rearrangement of the same argument (and some additional), proving that the night of the parable was thirty years long, and that the morning was in 1873, and the Bridegroom due in that morning in 1874.

. . . Bible chronology, first dug from Scripture by Bowen, of England, which shows clearly and positively that the 6,000 years from Adam ended in 1873, and consequently that there the morning of the Millennial day (the seventh thousand) began, in which a variety of things are due. The establishment of the kingdom of Christ, the binding of Satan, the restitution of all things, and the blessing of all the families of the earth, are all due. . . .

Bro. B__________ first began to preach the message, and soon started a paper, which he appropriately called "The Midnight Cry," the circulation of which soon ran up to 15,000 copies a month, and served to arouse many of the drowsy to a fresh examination and trimming of their lamps. . . . .

Some rejoiced in the midnight message that the Bridegroom was due in 1874, and were able to find the evidences in the light of their lamps; others admitted that though Scripture contained a great deal of "time," yet they were so fearful and prudent that their lamps would give no light. Thus they said: "Our lamps are gone out." Thus one separation took place. . . .

When this was seen it was apparent at once that the "time" element of the Scriptures was intended only for those who would walk very close to the Lord and feed on his Word, and not to scare the world into repentance. . . .

This increase of knowledge, led to still greater faith in the "time," for it was evident that the Lord was leading, and every item of light added increased brightness to others. It was the same light and the same oil shining more and more.

It was evident, then, that though the manner in which they had expected Jesus was in error, yet the time, as indicated by the "Midnight Cry," was correct, and that the Bridegroom came in the Autumn of 1874, and he appeared to the eyes of faith—seen by the light of the lamp—the Word. Afterward it was seen that the thirty years of tarrying between 1844 and 1874 was the exact parallel to the thirty years of tarrying at the first advent, from the time the wise men visited the babe until Jesus stood on Jordan and was anointed with the Holy Ghost for his work, at thirty years of age. (Acts 10:38.)

. . . As there were seven years of "favor" to the Jews from the time Jesus' ministry began (the 70th week of Daniel 9:27), followed by thirty-three years of trouble called fire, so here we see the parallel of seven years of favor to October 3d, 1881, to the Gospel church, to be followed by trouble called "fire," which will consume the dross of Babylon and purify those of God's children in and contaminated by her.

To return to the parable. If these movements were of God, and if Bros. Miller and B__________ were his instruments, then that "Midnight Cry," based on the prophetic and other statements and evidences, was correct, and the "Bridegroom came" in 1874. We believe that Midnight Cry was of God, and was fulfilled by the Bridegroom's coming, not because Bros. Miller and B__________ claimed it, but because the Word of God supports it. . . .

The seven years which ended October 3d, 1881, were years of favor during the presence, that of the living generation all of readiness of heart might become members of the little flock and enter into the joys of our Lord's presence. If our application of Scripture be correct, the favor has now ended, and in the language of the parable, "the door was shut"; and to those who have never fully consecrated and sacrificed self to God, we cannot any longer hold out the great prize of our high calling, viz.: to be members of the Bride of Christ, joint heirs of Glory, Honor and Immortality. . . .

 

So, evidently, the initial tie-in to Millerism was that Miller's movement was even more integral to the leading of God's people, and that these movements were of God. Miller and Barbour were both instruments for leading God's people. The midnight cry was made through Barbour, a Millerite from the beginning of that movement. The parable of the 10 virgins was not about an invitation to all persons, or even all Christians, but had a specific fulfillment from those "virgins" who were associated with the Millerite and Advent movements. And the difference was all in their response to Miller's and Barbour's chronology, nothing else. Foolish virgins were of the Millerite "class" who almost had it right but then gave up on the time element (chronology) out of fear of being disappointed again. And the prudent virgins were from that same class of Millerites, but who listened to Barbour about his chronology. (Initially, Russell accepted Barbour's chronology that claimed the "midnight cry" started going out in 1859 when Barbour first understood that this "midnight" was the halfway point between 1844 and 1874. Russell himself had not picked up on this midnight cry until he became associated with Barbour around 1877.)

Baptist preachers, like Miller, do not ever call themselves "Father" as a religious title. Neither do Second Adventists. Bible Students today agree that it was due to his being the "Father" of the Second Advent movement, so it was out of respect for his continued leadership of 50,000 or so Second Adventists even after the failure of 1843 and 1844.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,381

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,669
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.