Thanks so much. I will copy it and read it later. I skimmed through it and noticed the name Taylor. That is the one I was saying had come up with the idea about the pyramids and the bible prior to Russell teaching it. So thanks again, Lilly
1874 a date the Lord chose?
by lovelylil 97 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Justin
This is for those who wish an explanation of the 1874 date on historical grounds, irrespective of the truthfulness of the claims made for that date. Historically the early Adventists, Miller, Barbour, Russell - and even commentators of Christendom - had arrived at a method of interpretting the books of Daniel and Revelation known as the historicist approach. Using the day-for-a-year principle, periods of "days" were understood to refer to long periods of years - and the problem was to determine when any particular period began and ended.
Toward the end of his book, Daniel had been instructed: "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." (12:4) In the time of the end, when the book would be unsealed, its understanding would be due to the providence of God - and any significant date arrived at by the proper method could be understood to be "God's date."
William Miller was on a boat ride, and a group of clergy on their way to a conference confronted him, wanting to know how it was possible to calculate the date for the return of Christ. Miller quoted the very last verse of Daniel: "But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days." (12:13) He asked if that referred to the Second Coming. Yes, they answered, for Daniel's resurrection was expected to occur then. But when would "the days" end? Miller quoted the previous verse: "Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days," (12:12) that is, 1,335 days. Well, came the reply, that's all well and good - but how do we know when the 1,335 days began? That gave Brother Miller an opportunity to explain.
The vision of Daniel 7 concerns four great beasts, or empires, commonly understood to refer to Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. The fourth beast had ten horns (understood to be the remnants into which the Roman Empire was broken - the nations of Europe), and a little horn rose up after them and subdued three. This little horn has been understood by older Protestant commentators to be the Papacy. Concerning this horn it was stated: "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end." (7:25-26) The three and a half times are described in Revelation 12:6 and 14 as being 1,260 days. If we convert these into years, when did they begin and when did they end? A generation prior to Miller, something startling had occurred with regard to the Papacy. Napoleon had risen to power and his general had taken the Pope prisoner in 1798, the death of that pope occurring the next year, 1799. Thereafter, Papacy ceased to have the political power which it had previously held in Europe. Now it was a simple matter of counting backwards to arrive at the beginning of the 1,260 years.
Here, we must leave Miller behind and take up the chronology of Barbour/Russell, as our concern is with arriving at the 1874 date rather than Miller's conclusions. But, Miller got us off on the right track. We find that Barbour/Russell counted back from the year 1799 and arrived at 539 C.E. - the date that the Byzantine emperor Justinan had been reconquering the western territories of the Roman Empire and his decree went into effect that the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) be considered the chief bishop or head of the Catholic Church.
But the 1,260 years (days) are understood to be only a part of a longer period. The 1,260 day-years may have ended in 1799 (thus beginning the time of the end), but one of the angelic figures in Daniel's final chapter asks the question, "How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?" (12:6) The answer given by another figure was: "from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days," that is, 1,290 days. (12:11) The abomination that causes desolation is understood to have gone into effect in 539 C.E. with the ascension of Papacy. But further along the time line is the 1,335 days, another extension of the original 1,260 days: "Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days." (12:12) That brings us 75 years beyond 1799, or 1874.
But Miller's original argument was that the end of the 1,335 days would bring the resurrection of Daniel, and would therefore involve the Second Coming of Christ. With the new theology that there are two classes, a heavenly and an earthly, and Daniel belonging to the earthly class would be raised sometime after Armageddon, this seems to fall apart. But if Daniel, as other Old Testament prophets, represented the Kingdom class, then those whom Daniel represented were invisibly resurrected shortly after the end of the 1,335 days. And so we have an explantion of the date 1874 as marking the invisible return of Jesus. For those who believe it is "God's date."
-
johnny cip
YOU KNOW WHAT . I COULD KEEP THIS THREAD RUNNING FOR 6 MONTHS AND WASTE 6 MONTHS of my TIME , DOING HEAVY RESEARCH ( which i DID 7 YEARS AGO) mostly at the 42 nd' street library in nyc, on russell and ruthfraud. and i could come back here every day and post some facts i found, only to have some bible student of russell side tract me and make me look up some other 150 year old bullshit. been there done that, i'm finished argueing about miller, storrs, j.a. brown, barbour, and any other FRUIT CAKE. from the 1800's all of them were SPRITUAL DRUNKARDS. AND RUSSELL FELL FOR MOST IF NOT ALL OF THEIR CRAP. TIME HAS PROVEN ALL THESE SO CALLED BIBLE SCHOLARS AS COMPLETE IDIOTS. there is really not much more to say. so i'll leave it there. and i'll be damed if i waste 5 more minutes of my life , looking up SHIT I KNOW IS FALSE. John
-
lovelylil
Justin,
Thanks for taking the time to give us all that information. Its very interesting isn't it. At the end of it though (like Johnny alluded to), none of what they thought would happen did.
Most Christians today await the return of Christ and understand that when Jesus said "it is not for you to know the times my father has in his jurisdiction" that this simply meant - we will not know when he will arrive but should be ready.
The whole illustration of Jesus coming "as a thief in the night" seems to verify that he would come when we are not expecting him. So if any were awaiting his arrival in 1874 - we can't say he came as a thief in the night now can we?
Also the Lord warns us in Matthew 24 not to listen when people say he arrived in some secretive manner. When he does come the bible says "all eyes shall see him".
I've found that usually those groups that claim to have the only truth and to be the only true Christians are the ones who say Jesus came but only their group was made aware of it. For they have some "special" knowledge no other Christian group has. (i.e. JW's & BS). How nice for them huh? Lilly
P.S. Thanks all for wieghing in on this topic.
-
james_woods
Well, Lil - your words here:
I've found that usually those groups that claim to have the only truth and to be the only true Christians are the ones who say Jesus came but only their group was made aware of it. For they have some "special" knowledge no other Christian group has. (i.e. JW's & BS). How nice for them huh? Lilly
are well worth a reply - so, let me just say (like the old kung-fu monk to weedhopper): It would seem you have reached enlightenment. Good for you to drag this mess out from under it's ugly rock.
to Justin: that was excellent research work. And no type-oh-ohs to be found, as far as my eye can see.
to our B.S friends - get over it, get a life, seek some help, etc....
It still Didn't Happen.
-
lovelylil
Good morning James,
I guess we won't be getting those 45 chronological points from steam then?
-
james_woods
He seems to be all "out of Steam".
Quite a shame -
But, we can take reconcile by saying - "I told you so, I told you so, I told you so..."
-
freyd
I find this Volume 2 quote interesting. "But what are the reasonable conclusions from these Bible teachings? Let us consider what must follow, from the standpoint of reason, and then see if any other scriptures will either warrant or contradict those conclusions. First, we infer that when the "Times of Restitution" are due to begin, the presence of the GREAT RESTORER is also due. This would be a very reasonable inference, but it amounts to much more than inference when it is endorsed by the Apostle's positive inspired statement, that "When the [appointed] times of refreshing shall come from the <PAGE 188> presence* of the Lord [Jehovah],...he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you, whom the heaven must retain until THE TIMES OF RESTITUTION OF ALL THINGS, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." `Acts 3:19-21`" THere are several things that have to be harmonized. Psalms 110:1-2 "Sit at my right hand until I........Go subduing." Who is the Great Restorer?
-
lovelylil
Freyd,
Another newbie from RR's bible student forum - welcome my friend. Say, do you have any proof that the Lord chose the date 1874 that is not found in any of Russell's studies in the scriptures? The reason I ask is Russell was a little biased as to that date, don't you think? Also since we are all ex-JW's here, we have alread done that quoting from a man made book thing. And we know we were totally wrong. So you can understand why we do not want to go back to old ways can't you?
Steam said there were 45 chronological points that prove that date? Maybe you can list them here or tell us where we can find those points. That is the information we are waiting for.
BTW: if you read the past posts RR has already proved that Russell borrowed the date 1874 from Barbour so he has already answered the question as to whether or not the Lord Jesus chose that date. The answer is of course NO.
Gee - you guys must miss me over at the BS forum. Maybe I should rejoin my membership and post over there again? Lilly
-
lovelylil
By the way Freyd just so that no one on this forum gets the wrong idea that you and steam have come on here just to try to interfere with my threads, you may want to introduce yourselves to the forum as you are both newbies. We already know you are both BS from RR's forum. What else can you tell us about yourselves? Lilly