Jump to content

JW Insider

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

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

JW Insider -
The Librarian -
185
4272

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

However, by your statement here. You must think the cycle of 6000 years accrues when?

Read more carefully what i wrote, please. I didn't connect "6000 years cycle" with cyclical events of any sort. Science can tell us more about "cycles" in nature, on Earth or in Space.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why  bring yourself to their level if they insult you, that`s what the world does not Jehovah`s people we don`t go down to their level 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Pastor Russell never referenced Armageddon in 1914.

All of this issue goes away when we understand the way the terms were used in Russell's writings. We merely need to look at when Russell referenced the "great tribulation," rather than "Armageddon."

Armageddon was to be a battle between "capitalists and workers." A kind of worldwide socialist revolution between the forces with money (including religion) and those who felt the economic antagonism, those who would fight and "strike" to be treated fairly, or get what they want --especially "labor." Here is a picture of Armageddon from the 1914 Photo Drama of Creation. These would be the first "battles" of Armageddon, until "crushed" by God's Kingdom within a matter of months after 1914.

image.png

The most general view throughout most of the early Watchtower publications had been that the "great tribulation" would be in 1914. Then it became the few years leading up to 1914 and ending in 1914. Then, when they considered that the harvest (ending in 1914) should not be interrupted until the end of the harvest, they began teaching (in 1904) that the rest of the Bride/144,000 would expect to receive their heavenly reward in 1914, while the rest of the world fell into chaos and anarchy in the few months following October 1914, with no human institutions ruling anywhere in the world (except in Israel). As 1914 approached, there was more focus on 1915, and the months that followed -- or even a consideration (mostly dismissed) that 607 BCE (called 606 at the time) had been wrong and that it could be the more historically accurate date of 587/6 (called 588 below):

Note the following from IBSA Expanded Biblical Comments [on Daniel] -- quoting Russell's writings:

The impact is prominently noted throughout the Scriptures as a "time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation." (Dan. 12:1) OV83:T The little period of 40 years between 1874 and 1914 is, in the Scriptures, called the "Day of Vengeance," the smiting time preparatory to the inauguration of the Kingdom of righteousness.

    Hello guest!
We expect this smiting in 1915, not 1914. Q96:4 If Zedekiah's dethronement should be dated BC 588, it would make the date 1932. My conviction, however, favors 1914. SM480:T This smiting, we believe, is near at hand (1915 comment) . . .

Of course, the "Battle of Armageddon" is always associated with the "Great Tribulation," but the exact meaning behind this vocabulary has changed over the years. The following is from Russell's book "Thy Kingdom Come" (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol 3):

The Scriptural time-proofs which we have considered show that this trouble was due to date from the time of Christ's second advent (October, 1874), when the judging of the nations would commence, under the enlightening influences of the Day of the Lord. This is shown in the Great Pyramid thus:

The "Descending Passage," from the entrance of the Great Pyramid, leading to the "Pit" or "Subterranean Chamber," represents the course of the world in general (under the prince of this world), into the great time of trouble (the "Pit"), in which evil shall be brought to an end.. . . Then measuring down the "Entrance Passage" from that point, to find the distance to the entrance of the "Pit," representing the great trouble and destruction with which this age is to close, when evil will be overthrown from power, we find it to be 3457 inches, symbolizing 3457 years from the above date, B.C. 1542. This calculation shows A.D. 1915 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble; for 1542 years B.C. plus 1915 years A.D. equals 3457 years. Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1914 will be the beginning of the time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation—no, nor ever shall be afterward. And thus it will be noted that this "Witness" fully corroborates the Bible testimony on this subject, as shown by the "Parallel Dispensations" in Scripture Studies, Vol. II, Chap. VII.

Nor should any doubt the fact that the forty years of "harvest" began in the fall of 1874 because the trouble has not yet reached so portentous and unendurable a stage; and because, in some respects, the "harvest" period since that date has been one of great advancement in knowledge. . . .

Besides, we should remember that the Word of the Lord clearly shows that the judgments of this time of trouble will begin with the nominal Church, preparatory to its overthrow, and in the strife of selfishness between capital and labor, both of which are now organizing for the culminating trouble.

To be even more pedantic, the "great tribulation" and the "time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation" were not always exactly the same thing either, since the "great tribulation" was seen a bit differently, depending on how it was to come upon each different class (Bride class, great company, the world). However, it's a simple matter to find at least a dozen specific references by Russell to the "great tribulation" starting in 1914. The Watchtower even held onto a version of this same view until fairly recently (last clarified in 2013), teaching that the "Great Tribulation" started in 1914 and had been cut short on account of the chosen ones back around 1918 to be started up again just prior to Armageddon.

*** w13 7/15 pp. 3-4 par. 3 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
For a number of years, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 with World War I and that “those days were cut short” by Jehovah in 1918 when the war ended so that the remnant would have the opportunity to preach the good news to all nations. (Matt. 24:21, 22) After the completion of that preaching work, Satan’s empire would be destroyed. Thus, the great tribulation was thought to have three phases: There would be a beginning (1914-1918), the tribulation would be interrupted (from 1918 onward), and it would conclude at Armageddon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I have provided plenty of proof that you are a liar.

No. I've told the truth. Just because you oppose the truth, this does not make me a liar. Not once have you ever provided even a shred of evidence. Yet, I've probably made several mistakes over these last few years here. I would welcome any correction of any kind, and you've had 2.5 years under the name BillyTheKid46 to provide something.  It's rare that you have even made an attempt. Usually it's just bluster of the sort that claims you disagree and therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be a liar.

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

However, the worst hypocrite is JWinsider because he "claims" to come from BETHEL.

LOL. I don't claim to come from Bethel. I come from California, Missouri, and New York, mostly. I happened to work at Bethel in Brooklyn, NY from 1976 to 1982. It's even on my old work resume. Telling the truth doesn't make me a liar and a hypocrite.

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore, I have no problem bringing myself to their level.

Then you should think about it. It might be a refreshing change of pace. I think there would be a lot less haughtiness, dishonesty, pretentiousness and contentiousness.

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

JWinsider has his comments redirected to an apostate site

My comments can be used anywhere anyone wants to use them, with or without attribution. Several people have asked, and I've always said Yes. You can try to make a book out of these comments and sell it, for all I care. I've been requoted on a couple of apostate sites, and Witness pages, too. Jesus said to give to anyone who asks of you, and not turn away anyone who would borrow from you.

And by the way, you claim that this site is an apostate site, and yet you directly contribute to it.

10 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Meantime, if you don't like me showing people your manipulations and distortion of watchtower literature, TOUGH! That's exactly what I will continue to do, at every turn.

Actually I would love for you to start showing people where I have manipulated or distorted Watchtower publications. I don't believe I have, but I'd be happy to discuss any places where you believe this has been the case, and I will gladly admit the mistakes and make the corrections wherever I was wrong. I should add, of course, that your own use of the literature appears to be blatantly manipulated and distorted. Even under this very topic you have made statements that appear to contradict the Watchtower's teachings, while evidently pretending that you agree with them or understand them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Now ask yourself. Do I really need to show you your own falsehoods when they are plain to see by others?

Yes. If you claim I presented falsehoods you do have to show them, not just claim they are plain to see.

And especially not to just provide numerous examples that merely support exactly what I already said. It's as if you think you are playing to audience of stupid people who will be fooled into thinking that just because you offered some documentary evidence, and pretended that it doesn't support exactly what I said, that they will believe there is some kind of disagreement between what I said above and the evidence you showed. Instead you should try to show where this evidence differs from what I already said. Otherwise you will still appear to be highly dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Another thing you are NOT taking into account. Not All the Bible Student Association, independent churches adhered completely to Pastor Russell’s teachings.

This is true, and this is why I took it into account by explaining that this was the "general view" of those who closely followed Russell's own writings.

You have cherry-picked several of Russell's statements by the way, and then made false claims about what else he must have believed or not believed. Instead, you should be aware of everthing that he wrote about a subject before making such sweeping (false) claims. (example: " Therefore, the ONLY expectation Charles Taze Russell had for the year AD1914 was the conclusion of the “gentile times” that’s it.") I'm sure you are aware that anyone could open almost any of Watchtower volume from 1879 to 1914 and see 100 examples proving this statement false.

You have also taken some statements about Russellism and in defense of Russellism, and falsely claimed that these are my views.

28 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Now what have you accused the Bible Student association and Pastor Russell of being? Advents on many of your past posts. A false comparison if ever I saw one.

He only relied on Second Adventism to the extent that he admits to it, and to the extent that he relied on their teachings and made them such an important part of his own. From what he admits to alone, he ended up being deeply "indebted" to the Second Adventist, but for the most part he only borrowed their chronology. Most of the other Watchtower doctrines had been originally initiated by other religious groups, with some possible coincidental overlap with the Second Adventists, but not necessarily from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Word salad!

Yes. I remember when someone, I think it was Anne O'maly, once called your gibberish a "word salad." Evidently because you misunderstood the meaning of the term, I have seen you try to pin that label on the words of others several times since then. This is a small example of what I meant at one time when I spoke of the evidence for your "grudge echolalia." (Not a real psychological term, as far as I know.)

25 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

What I just showed is the difference between defending falsehoods that you claim with actual truth. The fact you present yourself as a Watchtower expert is diminished by your actions and post.

Just another empty claim. You never showed that anything I wrote was wrong. I already summarized what you did in the previous posts. In fact you provided some evidence that completely agreed with what I said. Also, I do not claim to be a Watchtower expert; I have an strong interest in our history, just as you evidently do. Our history contains many things to be proud of, and we can also learn how to avoid repeating some of the mistakes, so it seems a worthwhile pursuit.

In the next post, I'd like to get back to the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Once again, this just shows more of your lack of understanding about the Bible Student association.

Again, you take something I said about Russell's support for Second Adventism, claim it shows a lack of understanding, and then go on to only give evidence that what I said was correct. At least that's what it looks like on my first read of itI'm sure I could learn more about this topic, and if we discussed it, I'm sure you might even present some interesting details I could learn from. I appreciate this. But when you tell someone that "this just shows more of [my] lack of understanding" you shouldn't just provide material that shows I was right. If I'm going to learn anything from this, you have to provide something that makes a point that differs from what I said.

I was just about to return to the actual topic of how we currently defend 1975, but I do appreciate that you focused on one particular point where you say I was wrong. Since this is a point you seem sure about, I will go ahead and look at this point more closely and see if there might be something you have said that shows where I went wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

One: the Watchtower was referencing the completion of a “prophetic cycle” in 1975.

Do you suggest, how WT can calculate and predict future events because of "prophetic cycles" ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Once again, this just shows more of your lack of understanding about the Bible Student association.

OK, I'll give you one more chance. You never know. The thousandth try might be a charm, for you.

So, you claim that the following things I said show this lack of understanding:

He only relied on Second Adventism to the extent that he admits to it, and to the extent that he relied on their teachings and made them such an important part of his own. From what he admits to alone, he ended up being deeply "indebted" to the Second Adventist, but for the most part he only borrowed their chronology. Most of the other Watchtower doctrines had been originally initiated by other religious groups, with some possible coincidental overlap with the Second Adventists, but not necessarily from them.

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Anyone who had a different view from the Vatican was welcomed by the association. That doesn’t mean they accepted their doctrine but rather they found something in common with that different church.

Your claim here in no way contradicts what I said above. Clearly, as we know, Russell never belonged to a Second Adventist church. We also know that what he found acceptable among the Adventists came from his own study of the Bible, listening to preachers of several faiths, and of course reading and studying the writings of several faiths. As I said above, some of the overlap in doctrines with other faiths could have been coincidental, and this could even be true of overlap with prior doctrines of the Second Adventists. 

Perhaps you object to the idea that Russell felt indebted to the Second Adventists, but that's not from me, that's from Russell's own words. He credits a Second Adventist with rekindling his faith. He joined a Second Adventist to begin publishing works written by Second Adventists. He taught that the "midnight cry" from Matthew 25 was a cry made by Second Adventists just prior to 1874.  In "The Time is at Hand" Russell taught that Luke 3:15 had a modern fulfillment among the persons led by William Miller (whom he said was the leader of those who would take the name "Adventists"). In fact, to Russell, the difference between the "foolish virgins" and the "wise virgins" was specifically the fact that most of the original "Millerite" Adventists had a chronology based on the exact same starting dates as Russell, but that they ended their dates prior to 1874, while Russell (due to accepting Barbour's chronology theories) extended them to 1874 to meet the Bridegroom. So Russell and his followers saw themselves as the wise virgins who had walked with the Adventists with continuing light (oil in their lamps) while so many of the other virgins who had light, had let their lamp oil run out. Russell admits that he got the chronology that he accepted directly from Barbour, a Second Adventist.

But this does not discount the idea that many of Russell's other teachings did not match the Adventists, and some of the others that did may have matched only by coincidence, as I said above. Some of those other teachings would have come from his own study, and some clearly had been previously initiated by other religions before Russell came to accept them, whether directly, indirectly or purely through his own study. For example, no one doubts that Russell accepted pseudo-religious pyramidology from Joseph Seiss, for example. Just because a few Second Adventists also accepted pyramidology, this does not make it an Adventist doctrine.

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

PEYTON G. BOWMAN.

You quote the Bowman letter as if it shows something different from what I said, but it too is in perfect agreement with what I wrote. Thanks for quoting it, as it provides good support for the idea I was presenting. Bowman was probably (according to B W Schultz blog) a former Methodist who had become a [Second] Adventist preacher:

Thanks for your quick comments on Bowman. Bowman is also mentioned in one of the Advent Christian history books, I don't recall, but it must be the Advent Christian History. I remember there is a photograph of him. He was one of their preachers. Also Bowman is mentioned in the history book of the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, "Historical Waymarks of the Church of God", on p.14, and he is in a group photo on p. 15.

Adventists often were known to have a strong overlap of doctrines with "the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith" and this also happened to be true of Barbour and Russell.

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

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. They were composed like all other earthly companies of two or more classes; one class had the Spirit in their hearts as well as its light in the Word (oil in their vessels and in their lamps) others had only the light of the Word (oil in the lamp).

Yes, thanks for including the above, too. It's what I said here and also what I said several months ago in this same topic on an earlier page.

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

So, no! I’m not showing thing's that agree with your distorted argument. I’m showing the contradiction you pose against the Watchtower.

You may not agree, on purpose, but the only evidence you found agrees perfectly with what I said. Wishing a thing rarely makes it true.

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore, Russell WAS NOT A SUPPORTER OF ADVENTISM as you speculate and insist he was by the publications that come from various brethren within the association.

Exactly. This is why you and I still agree that Russell was not a supporter of Second Adventism. He indicates that he was terribly embarrassed for them, and wished not to be associated with their 'great disappointment.' But he accepted their chronology, and accepted --and promoted-- the adjustment to that chronology from a Second Adventist named Nelson Barbour. But I agree completely that he did not support Second Adventism. If you speak of "adventism" in general, however, not the religion, then Russell was actually a very strong supporter of adventism. But I believe you already acknowledge this with your statement:

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Russell is referring to the two advents.

The first and second advents of the world's Redeemer and Lord, and the important matters associated therewith.

So, as far as I can tell, all your evidence is in complete agreement with the statements I made that you were hoping to oppose.

Edited to add: I just noticed the more recent posts, just above this one. Along with some of the obligatory false claims you make about me, you also provide some quotes as evidence from Russell. Thanks again. These are also exactly as I have already presented above. You will notice that Russell makes it clear that he never was a Second Adventist, just as I have always said here for years. Hopefully that puts the matter to rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

1.    Are you honestly implying the Watchtower is the only organization to reference the 6000 years of human existence?

 

2.    Are you making an argument between creation and evolution?

 

3.    Are you suggesting the Watchtower does not receive God’s Holy Spirit?

 

1) I don't think how WT is only who believe in 6000 years of human existence.

2) It is personal decision on what individual find reasonable to believe.

3) I don't think how any Structure (Institution, Organization, Religion, Company, Corporation) receiving HS. Only thing to believe as possible is, how person as individual, or as group of people are in position to receive HS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you have done here is so absolutely amazing that I took a picture of that portion of your above post, and copied it here. You have quoted a portion of what I said in purplish-colored text where I say that he ONLY relied on Second Adventism to the extent that he relied on them. A tautology. But then you offer the PERFECT quote in support of that statement. I would have used this exact quote myself, but you not only used it, you CORRECTLY HIGHLIGHTED exactly the portions that highlight the support for what I said. Almost as if this was some kind of Watchtower Study and you were asked to underline (highlight) the portions of Russell's quote that prove the statement in purple is correct. Thank you for doing this for me!

image.png

Russell is saying that a lot of people will contemptuously indicate that there is nothing good that comes out of Adventism. But he adds that if we are humble, and wise in God's sight, we will admit that Millerite Second Adventism was what started the CORRECT understanding of Daniel's visions. Not only that, but even the right time in which to start the prophecy, specifically of the 1260 days. Russell says that we even admit that Miller's correct view on this was the "KEY" that initiated the preaching of TRUTH on this matter.

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Who wrote that article?

Russell himself! In Volume 3 of Studies in the Scriptures, page 86, 87.

Then, you go on further in your post to makes some statements and ask some questions that indicate that you did not really understand what you just quoted, even though you highlighted all the correct portions. But you also leave out a very important point. It's that we do not even need to go back to Miller to show that Russell saw Second Adventism as the KEY to the truth about Daniel. If you have read the work of another Second Adventist named Nelson Barbour, you will see that Nelson Barbour was the person who had pointed this out, before Russell, exactly this same point about what Miller had done wrong, by starting the key dates of Daniel at different points to make them end on the same date, when Barbour showed that they should have started on the same date so that they ended on different dates. So it was the work of a Second Adventist that Russell admits to relying upon for the chronology correction.

In any case, Miller, Barbour and Russell all started these dates in the period of the decline of the "Holy Roman Empire" (Catholic secular rule) and all of them ended these dates in the period surrounding the 1800's (1799-1874, in Barbour/Russell). Russell, based on accepting Barbour's dates, ends the 1260 days in 1799, and the 1290 days in 1829. Russell goes on further in the same Volume III to say, beginning on page 305:

We have marked, too, the fixed dates to which the Prophet Daniel calls attention. The 2,300 days point to 1846 as the time when God's sanctuary would be cleansed of the defiling errors and principles of Papacy; and we have noted the cleansing there accomplished. We have noted the fulfilment of the 1,260 days, or the time, times and half a time, of Papacy's power to persecute, and the beginning there, in 1799, of the Time of the End. We have seen how the 1,290 days marked the beginning of an understanding of the mysteries of prophecy in the year 1829, culminating in the great movement of 1844 known as the Second Advent movement, when, according to the Lord's prediction, the wise virgins went forth to meet the Bridegroom, thirty years prior to his actual coming. We have seen the fulfilment of the predicted tarrying; and for fifteen years the midnight cry, "Behold the Bridegroom!" has gone forth. We have marked with special delight the 1,335 days, pointing, as they do, to 1874 as the exact date of our Lord's return; and we have since that time experienced the very blessedness promised—through the clearer unfoldings of the wonderful mysteries of the divine plan.

Guess who Russell is talking about here as the person behind the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy of the 1,290 days. The 1290 is MILLER time. Daniel pointed to MILLER's understanding. Granted that Miller was following in the steps of many before him. But who was promoting that understanding in the year predicted by God in Daniel 12:11. It was Russell's understanding that God specifically predicted 1829, through Daniel. Russell's writings as indexed in the EBC for Daniel 12:11 condenses it to one sentence:

[Daniel 12:11] Shall be 1290 days —1290 years, ending 1829 AD, at which time William Miller began to call attention to the time prophecies.

    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Russell chose Miller because he happened to be the most “recent” person to speak about time prophecy that he could relate to about the 1260 period.

Not at all. Barbour had been the most recent Second Adventist whom Russell had relied on for the 1260, 1290, 1335, 2300.

Probably this is even true of the 2,520 from Leviticus 26 and the Daniel 4 Tree Dream prophecy, too. Although that could have been both indirectly from Miller, Bishop Elliott, etc. (And Miller, Barbour, and even Elliott, could have been influenced from J.A.Brown, and others.)

However, when Russell had his very first article published, in 1876, it was in the publication of a leader of the Second Adventists, named George Storrs. Notice how closely, Russell's follows the order of Miller's thoughts. I assume you know Russell's version, and there are differences, so I'll just quote excerpts from Miller, 40 years prior to Russell (

    Hello guest!
)

On the Punishment of the People of God Seven Times for their Sins (1836)

LEVITICUS 26:23,24

And if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me, then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins. . . . We are very fond of throwing back upon the Jews what, upon the principle of equity and justice, would equally belong to us Gentiles. . . . Ezek. 12:27, "The vision that he seeth is for many days to come, and he prophesieth of the times that are far off." . . .

3. I shall now show what is meant by "seven times," in the text.

1st. "Seven times," in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, was fulfilled in seven years. Nebuchadnezzar,for his pride and arrogancy against God, was driven among the beasts of the field, and was made to eat grass as oxen, until seven times passed over him, and until he learned that the Most High ruled in the kingdoms of men, and gave it to whomsoever he would. This being a matter of history, and as an allegory or sample to the people of God for their pride and arrogancy, in refusing to be reformed by God, and claiming the power and will to do these things themselves, --they, too, like Nebuchadnezzar, must be driven among the beasts of the field, (meaning the kingdoms of the world,) until they learn the sovereignty of God, and that he dispenses his favors to whomsoever he will. That, being a matter of history, and a sample only, was fulfilled in seven years; but this, being a prophecy, will only be fulfilled in seven prophetic times, which will be 7 times 360 years, which will make 2520 years; for one half of 7 times, that is, 3 times and a half, is called, in Rev. 12:6, 1260 days, (fulfilled in so many years.) See also Rev. 12:14; 13:5. Forty-two months is the one half of 2520, for twice 1260 is 2520. Therefore the sum and substance of the whole is, that the people of God would be among the beasts, or kings of the earth, seven times, which is 2520 years, . . . And Ezekiel alludes to the same "seven times," Eze. 39:9,10, . . .

The proper question would now be, "When did those years begin?" I answer, They must have begun with the first captivity of the tribe of Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in Babylon; for all the prophets agree in this thing, that Babylon would be the kingdom which would carry the Jews into captivity. . . .

Then, if Babylon was the nation which was to scatter the people of God, and this, too, in the days of Manasseh, I ask, When was this captivity? I answer, In the year 677 before Christ; see 2 Chron. 33:9-13; see also the Bible chronology of that event; this being the first captivity of Judah in Babylon. Then take 677 years, which were before Christ, from 2520 years, which includes the whole "seven times," or "seven years," prophetic, and the remainder will be 1843 after Christ; showing that the people of God will be gathered from among all nations, and the kingdom and greatness of the kingdom will be given to the saints of the Most High; . . .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore, that writer to an extent, exaggerated the relation between second Adventism and Russell. Barbour and others to an extent believed Russell’s works, but then turned away from his teachings to reengage their ideology of second Adventism.

I remember when Allen Smith said the same thing, and although his posts are gone, the same thought is still found under one of Allen's alternate accounts on this forum:

On 7/6/2018 at 11:34 PM, DefenderOTT said:

Even though some of those Advents like Barbour, Storr, and others that quite couldn’t agree with Miller, did find themselves seeking, further, answer in which they found Russell as eager to learn scripture wholeheartedly, then, what they had been taught. . . . . Barbour, Storr, and others returned to their original understanding of Adventism that Russell was unable to agree with.

By coincidence, he (Allen) often used the same odd spelling "Advents" that you often use.

There is one other thing that Allen Smith said a few times, and I often asked him what he meant, but he never responded. Since you are apparently saying the same thing, and claim to be continuing the work of Allen Smith, perhaps you can at least tell me what you mean by it. It was Allen's idea that we need to believe that the 2,520 years is actually two back-to-back uses of the 1,260 period. Allen said we needed to understand that there were TWO different periods of 1,260.

What's confusing about this is that the Watchtower uses 2,520 to refer to a period OF YEARS that started in 607 BCE but it uses the 1,260 as a period of DAYS that started just a few days prior to January 1915 and ended in 1918. Yet, like Allen, you say:

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

What’s your excuse in “only” believing the bible, only mentions (1) 1260 period when in “fact” it shows (2)? 2520!

You are aware, of course, that John Aquila Brown, among others, believed a version of this. Even William Miller believed a version of this as he explained in the same 1836 speech I quoted above. Miller said:

. . . for twice 1260 is 2520. Therefore the sum and substance of the whole is, that the people of God would be among the beasts, or kings of the earth, seven times, which is 2520 years, one half of which time they would be among be under literal Babylon, which means the ruling kings of the earth, viz. 1260 years; and the other half under mystical Babylon, the mother of harlots, the abomination of the whole earth, 1260 years; making in all 2520 years.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore, only the meek and righteous will inherit the earth.

This are beautiful attributes of personality. Soooo .... it is not important do you (or anyone else) in JWorg or not ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

dt190825.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

    Hello guest!
and affiliated with
    Hello guest!
and
    Hello guest!
. 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
    Hello guest!
on the
    Hello guest!
. 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?

    Hello guest!

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:

    Hello guest!
 
    Hello guest!

(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 . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By Jack Ryan
      Jehovah's Witnesses in a 1968 interview _Armageddon and 1975_ London Watchtower rep speaks to BBC.mp4
    • By JW Insider
      Because this post was moved away from its original context, a response to a post about Armstrong's promotion of 1975, I will edit the post below to contain all of @AllenSmith's original material, here. I'm moving his images outside the quote, so that they can be more easiliy seen as relevant to the discussion of H.W.Armstrong, as Allen intended.
       

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  
      And, don't forget that, in 1956, Herbert W Armstrong supposedly stole the idea from the February 1, 1955 Watchtower, which put the end of 6,000 years within one year of 1976:
      *** w55 2/1 p. 95 Questions From Readers ***
      In 1953 in preparing the chart that appears in the book “New Heavens and a New Earth” a one-year error was brought to light. By the aid of the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures the difference between the two numbers appearing at Genesis 7:6 and Genesis 7:11 became apparent, especially since there are two different Hebrew words here maintaining a distinct difference. At Genesis 7:6 the number 600 referring to Noah’s age means 600 full years, being what is generally termed a cardinal number. Whereas at Genesis 7:11 the number “600th,” an ordinal number, means 599 full years plus a portion of another year. . . .  Inasmuch as previously our chronology considered Noah as 600 full years old when he entered the ark, instead of the actual 599 years and some months, as we now see, this has meant that the preflood dates must be shrunk by one year, this bringing Adam’s creation for the fall of 4025 B.C. Incidentally, Jesus, who became the second or “last Adam,” was born in the fall of the year around the first of October.—1 Cor. 15:45, NW. It is well to understand that all Bible chronology dates for events prior to 539 B.C. must be figured backward from the Absolute date of 539 B.C. In the sure date of 607 B.C. for the fall of Jerusalem we have an anchor for the chronology establishment of the important year of 1914. By an overwhelming number of physical facts occurring since 1914, this great turning-point year in man’s history, 1914, has been abundantly confirmed. According to Genesis 1:24-31 Adam was created during the last part of the sixth creative-day period of 7,000 years. Almost all independent chronologists assume incorrectly that, as soon as Adam was created, then began Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period of the creative week. Such then figure that from Adam’s creation, now thought to be the fall of 4025 B.C., why, six thousand years of God’s rest day would be ending in the fall of 1976. However, from our present chronology (which is admitted imperfect) at best the fall of the year 1976 would be the end of 6,000 years of human history for mankind, 6,000 years of man’s existence on the earth, not 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period. Why not? Because Adam lived some time after his creation in the latter part of Jehovah’s sixth creative period, before the seventh period, Jehovah’s sabbath, began. . . . The very fact that, as part of Jehovah’s secret, no one today is able to find out how much time Adam and later Eve lived during the closing days of the sixth creative period, so no one can now determine when six thousand years of Jehovah’s present rest day come to an end. Obviously, whatever amount of Adam’s 930 years was lived before the beginning of that seventh-day rest of Jehovah, that unknown amount would have to be added to the 1976 date. Of course, just a decade or so later, the Watchtower began minimizing the amount of time it would have taken for a perfect man to name all the animals if Jehovah brought them to him in a steady stream. The flaw in this reasoning was that angels would surely know that amount of time that Jehovah had kept a secret, so they would be aware of the day and the hour "when 6,000 years of Jehovah's present rest day come to an end."
      There is also evidence that Fred W. Franz, who wrote the article above, in 1955, began recalculating in the early 1970's and wanted to begin publishing October 1974 as the date for the end of the 6,000 years of human history. F.W.Franz, I am told, thought this would have strengthened the 1975 argument. But this was supposedly one of the few times when N.Knorr put his foot down and told him he had caused enough trouble with 1975, and that Knorr thought that this vacillation would actually weaken the faith that people put in the Watchtower.
      You probably already know this, but to your point, many Witnesses had to be counseled not to listen to Armstrong's radio program, especially in the late 1960's and early 1970's when many Witnesses claimed that he sounded exactly like the Watchtower.
    • By Jesus.defender
      ("They lost roughly three-quarters of the movement between 1925 and 1928, then suffered huge losses after 1975, when the end didn't come as they had implied over and over again," said Jim Penton, an ex-Witness who writes entries on Jehovah's Witnesses for the Encyclopedia Americana.)
       
    • By The Librarian
      by Fredrick William Franz
      Time In Which We Are Now Interested
      Los Angeles Sports Arena, Feb 5 1975
      I no longer have the version above....
      Although here is a version from Australia:
      Franz Fred - Time In Which We Are Now Interested Australia.mp3

      Agape!
       
       
    • By Aaron Gallegos
      The Governing Body claims to speak for God. They claim that they are spirit directed. Jesus warned us about false prophets making such claims at Matthew 24: 4, 5 & 7:15.
      The Governing Body showed a video on the first day of the 2017 regional convention where they place blame on the rank and file members for believing that 1975 would Mark the end of this system. This is a blatant lie. Here are quotes from their own publications to prove otherwise.
      01.) Life everlasting and freedom of the sons of God p.29,30.
      02.) 1970 July kingdom ministry under announcements. The public talk for the Circuit Assembly that service year is "Who will conquer the world in the 1970's?". Even a lapel card was printed for the members to wear.
      03.) 1968 Aug 15 Watchtower- Study article "Why are you looking  forward to 1975?". Members were told to ignore Jesus warning about no one knowing the day or hour.
      04.) 1968 Awake October 8
      05.) 1969 Awake May 22- Youths were told that they would NEVER GROW OLD in this system and it's useless to go to college because the system would not be here anymore.
      06.) May 1974 Kingdom Ministry- Members that sold their homes to and moved to serve as pioneers were COMMENDED as its the best way to use the rest of the time left in this system.
      What's very upsetting is that the Governing Body placed the blame on the members for believing the end would come in 1975. It was them and not the members that came up with This! They deliberately lie and hide evidence.

  • Forum Statistics

    60,864
    Total Topics
    110,886
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,345
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    samuellopez15
    Newest Member
    samuellopez15
    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.