Another Lie/Revisionist History in todays WT study!!

by BU2B 78 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  leaving_quietly

  This article was written in 1876; it was in that same year that Russell accepted Barbour's conclusion that Jesus had returned in 1874, that the time of trouble had already begun since 1874, and that the Gentile Times would end in 1914.

  The 1876 articles states (scroll down to the second page in the scan):

  "If the Gentile Times end in 1914, (and there are many other and clearer evidences pointing to the same time) and we are told that it shall be with fury poured out; a time of trouble such as never was before, nor ever shall be; a day of wrath, etc., how long before does the church escape?"

  Now that I re-read this, and along with all your other posts, I am going to amend my original and subsequent statements (hey... I make mistakes, and I'm sorry... I am not a prophet, nor inspired, nor spirit-directed, nor God's mouthpiece... LOL!)

  My original statement said that the 1876 article agrees with the quote in the WT that "the world would enter into an unequaled period of trouble". On re-reading the 1876 article, the pertinent part quoted above, it doesn't say that the time of trouble would start in 1914. It also doesn't say it would end in 1914. It simply says that the Gentile Times would end in 1914 and that it would be "a time of trouble". Thus, we're down to only two parts agreeing with the 2/15 article: (1) Decades before (1876 qualifies) and (2) the Gentile Times (aka "the appointed times of the nations") would end in 1914. As for the third part... my bad. Doesn't say what my eyes told me it said originally.

  THANK YOU ALL for pointing this out. Deceptive, very deceptive on the part of the Society to do this.
• 

  reslight2

  *: "In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914." (The Time Is At Hand, 1902 edition, p. 99)

  * note change in the 1915 edition below when 1914 failed

  1915: "In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the kingdom of God, will be accomplished near the end of A.D. 1915. (The Time Is At Hand, 1915 edition, p. 99)

  The "change" spoke of above evidently actually took place in 1911 edition, not the 1915 edition as being reported above. In other words, this change was not made in 1915 (or 1916), as stated above; this change appeared in the Volume II as early as 1911. I have found no report, however, of such an change being made in the pages of the Watch Tower, and, thus, it has been speculated that the change may have been made without Russell’s authorization.
  
  Indeed, the change to 1914 to 1915 in the context does not really make sense, although taken out of context, one could conclude that Russell may have changed this to correspond with John Edgar’s thought that the time of trouble was to end in 1915; that is, Edgard suggested that the the “time of trouble” was to last for one year, from October of 1914 to October of 1915. Russell, however, although he presented Edgar’s, as well as U. G. Lee’s, conclusions in the pages of the Watch Tower in 1905, did not fully adopt either of these conclusions. He maintained that we do not know how long the time of trouble was to last, although he stated that it probably would not last for more than a year.

  See:

  Beginning of the Time of Trouble – Quotes From Russell

  At any rate, whoever made the change may have thought it would reflect Edgar’s view that the time of trouble was to end in 1915, a view that many Bible Students, long before 1914, held in high regard.
  
  in context, it would appear that the 1911 edition would, by this one sentence, have the Times of the Gentiles to end in 1915, which, however, from the context, we know that this was not what is meant. If Russell authorized this change, he evidently did so with Edgar’s parallel in mind, which seemed to indicate that the time of trouble was to begin in around October of 1914 and end around October of 1915. We highly doubt that Russell would have authorized such a change that would be so much out of context, however.

  We will also note that this sentence in the LHMM edition of 1937 reads:

  In view of this strong evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the overthrow of the kingdoms of this world begin in 1914, preparatory to the establishment of the Kingdom of God.

  This latter edition actually more accurately reflects Russell’s view that he adopted in 1904, ten years before 1914. P. S. L. Johnson, who edited the LHMM edition of the Studies, had worked closely with Russell as Russell’s personal secretary.

  Nevertheless, I do not know for a certainty as to why such a change was made in the way that it was made in the 1911 edition. I can only state that the LHMM edition actually is more correct in expressing the view that Russell adopted in the year 1904, ten years before 1914. It may have been that when changes were made that someone somehow, either by accident, or on purpose, also changed the wording on page 99 from 1914 to 1915. I do know, however, that it was not Russell’s thought that the end of the Gentiles should be changed to one year later. His overwhelming testimony throughout the pages of Watch Tower attest to this. Indeed, his writings show that he died in 1914 still holding to the belief that the Gentile Times had ended in 1914 (not 1915).

  John 14:6 World English:

  Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, but by me.” — Not by means of Russell, nor of an organization, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Reslight2,

  Also, I love the talk, Are we really Bible Students? Someone directed me to a Bible Student Website once, there were all kinds of recorded talks. Being raised a JW, I found many of the talks to be extremely spiritually refreshing. To me it was proof that God can use any sincere person to feed his sheep. Also, no one religion has absolute truth.

  Peace be with you,

  DD
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  reslight said: Indeed, his writings show that he died in 1914 still holding to the belief that the Gentile Times had ended in 1914 (not 1915).

  ADCMS: You really need to check your facts before commenting. The change in thought from 1902 to 1915 edition of "The Time Is At Hand" is accurate. Your speculations include a lot of "if", "may", "evidently", "would appear", "we highly doubt", "somehow", "I do not know", etc. Speculations and opinion on your part do not equate to fact.

  Since Russell died in 1916, not 1914 as you erroneously assert, then your speculations that WT writings were changed posthumously are unfounded. Since Russell was the final authority as to WT content, and was the author of most of the articles, it is unreasonable to conclude he had no idea the changes were made without his knowledge. The paper trail left in WT publications is beyond dispute that major revisions were made both while Russell was alive and after his death as to what WT was expecting Re: 1914.

  *** jv chap. 6 p. 63 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***

  On October 16, 1916, Brother Russell and his secretary Menta Sturgeon departed on a previously arranged lecture tour of western and southwestern parts of the United States. Russell, though, was seriously ill at the time. The tour took them first to Detroit, Michigan, by way of Canada. Then, after stops in Illinois, Kansas, and Texas, the two men arrived in California, where Russell delivered his last talk on Sunday, October 29, in Los Angeles. Two days later, in the early afternoon of Tuesday, October 31, 64-year-old Charles Taze Russell died on a train at Pampa, Texas. Notice of his death appeared in The Watch Tower of November 15, 1916.
• 

  Wulf

  Wow it's quite interesting to read a Bible Student well versed in Russell etc (@reslight2). Never thought I would be doing that! It's interesting to see the diversity from which the JWs sprang. This is a great little website.
• 

  Emery

  reslight2, thanks for some clarifications. This has been a little cloudy for me as I have read conflicting information with regards to Russell's definition of Armageddon. I have to agree with AndDontCallMeShirley that you have used a lot of speculative words for arguing what Russell had in mind with chronology. He was the Faithful Slave and The Watchtower when he was alive. Everything published up until October 31, 1916 were his direct words and ideas.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  reslight2 said: everything that Russell stated, especially regard non-essentials such as chronology and time prophecy, was, as he said, his 'own surmissings'.

  Occasionally Russell admitted he was "surmising", but more often than not, he was very dogmatic about his views and the certainty of them. Your statement that Russell considered chronology and "time prophecy" as "non-essential" is completely absurd, as the quotes below illustrate. Russell based everything on chronology! He went so far as the travel to the Great Pyramid of Giza twice to measure it's inner dimensions to "prove" his date of 1914. It was hardly "non-essential" to him.

  The date of the close of that 'battle' is definitely marked in Scripture as October, 1914. It is already in progress, its beginning dating from October, 1874.
  Zion's Watch Tower, 15 January 1892, page 1355

  We see no reason for changing the figures--nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble.
  Zion's Watch Tower, 15 July 1894, page 1677

  "In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914." (The Time Is At Hand, 1902 edition, p. 99)

  reslight2 said:

  Many world leaders and military officers anticipated a major war starting in Europe prior to 1914. It was a matter of "when", not "if" it would happen.

  I am not sure what this is based on. I learned in college that in 1913, the general consensus of most people was that there was NOT going to be any more wars.

  ADCMS: Then you need to read more reslight2!! In fact, 40 years before the outbreak of WW 1, many saw it coming. I'm not going to give you my documentation or sources for this. If you care to know the answer, go look it up, just as I did!! I did not refer to "the general consensus of most people" as you do- I stated that political and military officials, persons actually aware of developing circumstances, were noting an impending major war. The "general consensus" is generally unaware and uninformed, so of course they thought everything was wonderful. Experts in-the-know thought differently.

  wulf said: Wow it's quite interesting to read a Bible Student well versed in Russell etc (@reslight2).

  ADCMS: REALLY ?!!!

  A few reslight quotes:

  The "change" spoke of above evidently actually took place in 1911 edition

  it has been speculated that the change may have been made without Russell’s authorization

  one could conclude that Russell may have changed this

  it would appear

  I can only assume

  The thought under speculation

  Nevertheless, I do not know for a certainty

  he died in 1914

  It may have been that when changes were made that someone somehow, either by accident, or on purpose

  I am not sure what this is based on

  evidently Russell did not wish to go into the details at that time

  Neverthleless, there may have been

  There were evidently

  one could say
• 

  reslight2

  In Russell's time, they thought they were living in terrible times and the world couldn't possibly survive beyond 1914. So their interpretation of "an unequaled period of trouble" beginning in 1914 would mean the rapture of WT Bible Students and global mass murder among humankind.

  Russell, in his earier years, used the word "rapture" at least once in reference to the change of the saints. After he began publishing the Watch Tower magazine, he never used the word "rapture" when speaking of the change of the saints to spirit bodies. I can only assume that since his earlier reference to "rapture" was misunderstood as accepting the Catholic "rapture" view held by many churches, that he felt it better not use that word. At any rate, Russell believed that the first resurrection began in 1878, and since then, each of the joint-heirs who died would be instantly changed to spirit beings.

  The thought under speculation was when would last of the 144,000 be changed? Russell several times stated that he did not know when such would take place, but several dates were considered (before 1914), including 1910, 1911, 1914, 1915 (Edgar's parallels), and 1920 (Lee's parallels). I wish emphasize, however, that all of these dates were being discussed BEFORE 1914. 1914 was just one date; many of the Bible Students were putting a lot emphasis on being changed in October of 1914, but before 1914 had arrived Russell cautioned that there was no direct statement of prophecy that shows this, and thus, since it is matter of speculation, he cautioned on being "consecrated" to a date.
• 

  reslight2

  AndDontCallMeShirley stated:

  You really need to check your facts before commenting. The change in thought from 1902 to 1915 edition of "The Time Is At Hand" is accurate. Your speculations include a lot of "if", "may", "evidently", "would appear", "we highly doubt", "somehow", "I do not know", etc. Speculations and opinion on your part do not equate to fact.

  Actually, it is simply historic fact that the change on page 99 of The Time is At Hand can be found before 1914, as early as the 1911 edition. It is also a matter historic fact that Russell did indeed change his view concerning the time of trouble in 1904, ten years before 1914. I am not sure what is meant by "from 1902 to 1915 edition", not unless this meant to say that there was no change until the 1915 edition? If so, that is false.

  Since Russell died in 1916, not 1914 as you erroneously assert, then your speculations that WT writings were changed posthumously are unfounded.

  Obviously, I made a typo in typing 1914, rather than 1916. It does not change the fact that Russell did indeed die in 1916, still holding to belief that the Gentile Times had ended in 1914. He never ever once spoke of the Gentile Times as ending in 1915, except when he presented the idea that some of the Bible Students thought that the Gentile Times should end in October of 1915, not October of 1914, which thought he rejected. However, that consideration was several years before 1914, not after 1914. I am not sure what is meant by "my speculations that WT writings were changed posthumouly". I did present one of Johnson's edits, which, as I said, does accurately reflect what Russell was teaching in 1911. No speculation here; simply a statement of fact.

  Since Russell was the final authority as to WT content, and was the author of most of the articles, it is unreasonable to conclude he had no idea the changes were made without his knowledge.

  Russell was not God; he was not all-knowing, nor did he personally supervise absolutely everything that was going on.
  
  As I said, however, the change that appears in the 1911 edition contradicts not only the context, but also what Russell was stating in the pages of the Watch Tower and elsewhere. That is simply fact; not at all speculation. The speculation comes in as to who made the change in 1911 and why. Nevertheless, the fact is that the change on page 99 was made several years before 1914, and NOT AFTER 1914, which is also simply fact, not at all speculation.

  The paper trail left in WT publications is beyond dispute that major revisions were made both while Russell was alive and after his death as to what WT was expecting Re: 1914.

  I have no dispute with this statement as it stands; it is exactly what I have stated here, on my websites and elsewhere.
  
  http://www.rlbible.com/ctr/?p=692
  
  Christian love,
  Ronald
• 

  reslight2

  He was the Faithful Slave and The Watchtower when he was alive. Everything published up until October 31, 1916 were his direct words and ideas.

  Russell, himself, never claimed to be the "faithful and wise servant". Nor is it true that "everything published" in time "were his direct words and ideas".

  (1) Russell endeavored to stay out of the "faithful and wise servant" discussions, and this, I believe, led him to not actually study the parable closely. Nevertheless, he did state that he did not see himself in the Bible, although many others claimed to see him there, and he warned against this.

  See:

  The Faithful and Wise Servant and Other Servants

  Parable of the Four Servants

  (2) Although most of what appeared in the WT magazine were indeed Russell's words (after all, it was HIS magazine), Russell did present differing views, especially concerning chronology and time prophecies, in the pages of the Watch Tower. For instance, in he June 15, 1905 issue of the WT, Russell presented both John Edgar’s and U. G. Lee’s parallels. Edgar pointed to the year 1915 as a possible year of Christendom’s destruction (the end of the time of trouble). Lee’s chart pointed to the year 1920. Russell also presented many things being said by denominational church leaders and others, although he may not have agreed with all that was being said. Some, evidently believing that everything in the WT in the days of Russell was indeed the words of Russell, have misapplied things said by others as being the words of Russell, when they were not.