Pyramidologists: the Great Pyramid of Gizeh (page 2)

Ding

If you show this to most JWs, they will consider it persecution.

What Russell taught is nothing but "old light" to them anyway.

OUTLAW

It`s hard to tell where AliceInWonderland/Spade`s..

Cut and Paste ends and her words begin..

...................... ...OUTLAW

Prior to the publication of Jehovah's Witnesses -- Proclaimers of God's Kingdom in 1993, major internal works on church history were the 1955-1956 Watchtower, Jehovah's Witnesses In The Divine Purpose (1959) and the 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses.

These publications thoroughly whitewashed the doctrinal history of Jehovah's Witnesses. One of the more egregious claims is that Russell had discerned Christ's invisible presence ahead of time. The 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses actually reset the publication date of The Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return back four years to 1873 to lend credence to that claim. (The correct date is 1877) The 1930 - 1985 Watchtower Publications Index followed suit, listing the "New" publication date.

Proclaimers is more accurate on these doctrinal details, and that's a positive sign, but it is still a single publication among many others that make false and misleading statements."

The publication may have been written a few years before its publication was deemed official.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taze_Russell

With Russell's encouragement and financial backing, Barbour wrote an outline of their views in Three Worlds; or Plan of Redemption, published in 1877. A text Russell had written in 1874, The Object and Manner of our Lord's Return, was published the same year. Russell's desire to lead a Christian revival was evidenced by his calling two separate meetings of every Christian leader in Pittsburgh. Russell's ideas, particularly stressing the Rapture's imminence, were rejected both times.

TD

Alice,

Let's assume just for the sake of discussion that your reference from Wikipedia is correct and Russell wrote The Object And Manner of Our Lord's Return in 1874. How would that justify the claim that the booklet was actually published a year prior to this in 1873? We would still be dealing with a clear case of revisionism.

I have checked your Wikipedia citation and it does not appear to be correct. The cited source for the statement is the July 15, 1906 issue of Zion's Watch Tower and it does not name a specific year the booklet was written.

I can understand how a careless reader could draw that inference, but it is contradicted by the internal evidence from within the booklet itself. On page 62, for example, Russell makes a specific reference to Nelson Barbour's periodical, The Herald of the Morning which was not published until June of 1875. Barbour's earlier periodical, The Midnight Cry and Herald of the Morning ceased publication in October of 1874.

Also by Russell's own testimony in the July 15, 1906 issue of Zion's Watch Tower, he did not come across this publication or contact Barbour until January of 1876.

Russell also makes the statements "The Master is come" and "..the harvest is progressing." Again, by his own testimony, Russell did not become convinced that these events were already underway until after his meeting with Barbour in the early part of 1876.

Spade

The booklet was in response to the views of the Second Adventists.

"And we felt greatly grieved at the error of Second Adventists, who wore expecting Christ in the flesh. and teaching that the world and all in it except Second Adventists could be burned up in 1873 or 1874, whose time-settings and disappointments and crude ideas generally as to the object and manner of his coming brought more or less reproach upon us and upon all who longed for and proclaimed his coming kingdom.

These wrong views so generally held of both the object and manner of the Lord’s return led me to write a pamphlet - “The Object and Manner of The Lord’s Return, ”of which some 50,000 copies were published." Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1906, p. 230

It would have had to have been written prior to 1873, before the Second Adventists time-prophecies failed, to have prophetic meaning. At most, 1873 as the date for publication is a clerical error, not something to take issue with.

TD

It would have had to have been written prior to 1873, before the Second Adventists time-prophecies failed, to have prophetic meaning.

Barbour adopted the idea of an invisible presence very soon after the autumn of 1874 came and went without anything visible happening.

The value (Prescient or not) of an earlier publication date for Object and Manner would lie in the fact that it would constitute proof that Russell had at least one original idea of his own that Jehovah's Witnesses still accept today.

At most, 1873 as the date for publication is a clerical error, not something to take issue with.

In the days of lead plate printing, it would have taken more than a clerical error to change the Watchtower Publications Index.

Mary

Running low on glue eh Alice?

DaCheech

Mary, alice needs some fast................. she can't figure out how to make us look bad.

"time is enemy of the false prophet"

Pyramidologists: the Great Pyramid of Gizeh

Share this