Another Lie/Revisionist History in todays WT study!!

by BU2B 78 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  reslight2

  DATA-DOG stated:

  For the sake of accuracy, would it be fair to say that the WTBTS has never had a consistent teaching about 1914?

  "The Watchtower has consistently presented evidence to honesthearted students of Bible prophecy that Jesus' presence in heavenly Kingdom power began in 1914." Watchtower1993 Jan 15 p.5 "

  The only thing that has remained consistent, as far the WTBTS is concerned, is that the Gentile Times end in 1914 and the application of Daniel 7 to those Gentile Times; outside of that, the WTS teachings have changed a lot in respect to 1914. Barbour adopted earlier views about the Gentile Times, except that he reasoned that that if the beginning of the Jewish year 586 BC marked the end of the 70 years desolation, then the destruction, and since Jerusalem did not actually become desolate until it was destroyed by Nebuchanezzar's armies, he concluded that the beginning of the 70 years desolation had to have begun in they Jewish year beginning 606 BC (Actually October of 607 BC, according to our calendar). Counting 2520 whole years from 606 BC brings us to the beginning of the Jewish year 1915 AD (Actually October of 1914 AD). Barbour, however, presented several different methods of arriving at the year 1914 that the WTS today no longer recognizes. In Volumes 2 and 3, Russell presented and adapted Barbour's conclusions. From Barbour's and Russell's standpoint, there was a tremendous amount of evidence pointing to 1914 as the end of the Gentile Times; today, the JWs only use that of Daniel 4, which makes the argument for 1914 appear to be very weak as compared to the much stronger arguments presented by Barbour and Russell.
  
  No, the Watchtower has NOT consistently presesent "evidence" that Jesus' "presence in heavenly Kingdom power began in 1914." I do not know of any of the Bible Students associated with the WT in Russell's day that believed that 1914 was to see Jesus' presence. Most of them believed that Christ had returned in 1874 -- they were not looking for his presence to begin in 1914. Indeed, for a while during the latter part of the 1920s, Rutherford seemed to present both views, that Christ returned in 1874, and also that Christ returned in 1914, until finally he quietly without offering rebuttal simply dropped 1874 from the picture. I surmize that he desired to use the time prophecies to promote his "Jehovah's visible organization" dogma, and thus he quietly stopped applying them to 1799, 1844, 1874, 1878, 1881, etc.
• 

  reslight2

  DATA-DOG stated:

  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.

  For those who might like to view the talk mentioned, it may be found at:
  
  http://reslight.boards.net/thread/154/bible-students-video
• 

  reslight2

  AndDontCallMeShirley stated:

  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.

  Dogma means:

  1. an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church. Synonyms: doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy.

  2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption; the recently defined dogma of papal infallibility. Synonyms: tenet, canon, law.

  3. prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group: the difficulty of resisting political dogma.

  4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle: the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation. Synonyms: conviction, certainty.

  Russell certainly never proclaimed his conclusions as being "doctrine authoritatively laid down" by himself as a central authority of a "church", or to be accepted by any group as being "unquestionably true". He did not take any measure to disfellowship anyone for disagreeing with his conclusions concerning chronology and/or time prophecies.

  Regarding the Watch Tower magazine, Russell wrote:

  THIS journal is set for the defence of the only true foundation of the Christian's hope now being so generally repudiated,--Redemption through the precious blood of "the man Christ Jesus who gave himself a ransom [a corresponding price, a substitute] for all." (1 Pet. 1:19; 1 Tim. 2:6.) Building up on this sure foundation the gold, silver and precious stones (1 Cor. 3:11-15; 2 Pet. 1:5-11) of the Word of God, its further mission is to--"Make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery which...has been hid in God,...to the intent that now might be made known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God"--"which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed."--Eph. 3:5-9,10.

  It stands free from all parties, sects and creeds of men, while it seeks more and more to bring its every utterance into fullest subjection to the will of God in Christ, as expressed in the Holy Scriptures. It is thus free to declare boldly whatsoever the Lord hath spoken;--according to the divine wisdom granted unto us, to understand. Its attitude is not dogmatical, but confident; for we know whereof we affirm, treading with implicit faith upon the sure promises of God. It is held as a trust, to be used only in his service; hence our decisions relative to what may and what may not appear in its columns must be according to our judgment of his good pleasure, the teaching of his Word, for the upbuilding of his people in grace and knowledge. And we not only invite but urge our readers to prove all its utterances by the infallible Word to which reference is constantly made, to facilitate such testing.

  http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/reprints/Z1900DEC.asp
• 

  reslight2

  AndDontCallMeShirley stated:

  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!

  Russell's works, when printed in hardcopy, would amount to tens of thousands of pages -- possibly more than 100,000 pages, depending on the size of the pages. Out that tremendous amount of work, comparitively. we find very little about chronology. Many, however, who like to discredit Russell, like to focus on chronology, or the Great Pyramid, etc., and make it appear that one of both these were the center of Russell's teachings, when, in reality, they were not.

  http://www.rlbible.com/ctr/?page_id=1397
• 

  reslight2

  AndDontCallMeShirley stated:

  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.

  You are partly correct. Russell did indeed go to Egypt to see God's Witness in Egypt, and, although he posed for a picture with a measuring rod in his hand, I have found no evidence that Russell himself did any actual measuring of the Great Pyramid passages. The date, 1914, is proved from the Bible; the measurements of God's Witness confirms that date, as well as AD 29, AD 33, AD 1799, AD 1874, and many other dates related to the Bible and Bible prophecies.

  Russell never used the word pyramidology; that word, however, as it would apply to the work of Russell, Smyth, Barbour, and the Edgars, however, has nothing to do with astrology, spiritism, heathen occultism, etc.
  http://www.rlbible.com/ctr/?cat=33
• 

  reslight2

  AndDontCallMeShirley stated:

  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

  Yes, before 1904, Russell was indeed wrongly convinced that close of the battle of Armageddon would in 1914; in 1904, he admitted he had been wrong, not in the fact that 1914 is definitely marked, but rather in his expectation that the battle would be over in 1914. At the time of the above quote, however, Russell still held to Barbour's belief that Armageddon had begun in 1874 and that it would end in 1914.

  AndDontCallMeShirley stated:

  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

  Yes, Russell was firmly convinced in his belief tthat the dates are "God's dates". He was not, by that statement, saying that everyone had to agree with him or else be excommunicated; he certainly wasn't saying that everyone had to agree with him or else they will be eternally destroyed. I also, believe that those dates are "God's dates". I would not, however, be dogmatic as to tell everyone else that they have to believe such, or else that they are not Christian, etc. The scriptural evidence that they are God's dates is so overwhelming that I would not be true to my conscience if I were to think that they were not God's dates.

  The latter statement, however, that the time of trouble was to end, not begin, in 1914, he later, in 1904, came to realize is not true.

  AndDontCallMeShirley stated:

  "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)

  At the time of the writing of this, Russell was indeed convinced that the Bible evidence demonstrating that the Gentile Times would end in 1914 also meant the "final end of the kingdoms of this world". Thus, he "considered" it to be "an established truth". This was based on Barbour's conclusion that the time of trouble began in 1874 and that it would end in 1914. This latter thought, however, Russell rejected in the year 1904, when he concluded that the prophecies actually indicate that the time of trouble would not begin until the Gentile Times ended. See:

  The JW Organization, Armageddon, 1914, and Russell
  http://www.rlbible.com/ctr/?p=1556
• 

  reslight2

  AndDontCallMeShirley stated:

  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.

  Can you show me where I can find the documentation for the above? There may have been political and military officials some 40 years before the outbreak of WW 1 who were expecting an impending major war; indeed, if I remember correctly, many treaties were being signed to prevent such from happening.

  To virtually anybody alive in the vibrant early years of the 20th century, nothing would have seemed further away than war.

  http://www.theglobalist.com/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=4290

  It is ironic that statements before the war foresaw a time of lasting peace, perpetual advancement and an unceasing march toward utopia. Europe believed it lived a charmed life. War was a thing of the past. The new technological advances would usher in a period of unequalled prosperity.

  http://www.jewishhistory.org/coming-of-the-great-war/

  Moreover, as Europe had enjoyed nearly three decades without a major war, there was a widespread belief that war was a thing of the past, not of the future.

  http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/industrial-slaughter-and-war-the-march-of-progress/

  This conforms to what I was taught in college; that the European and many other world leaders thought that all their treaties and trade agreements made war unthinkable, and thus, near to impossible.
• 

  reslight2

  AndDontCallMeShirley stated:

  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

  Yes, since I do not have an 1908, 1909, or 1910 edition, and I do have a 1911 edition, I cannot be certain that the change did not happen before 1911, thus, I say "evidently". By saying "evidently", I do not mean that I do know that the change is shown in the 1911 edition; that is a verifiable fact, since a scan of the 1911 edition is available from archive.org. Not having seen any 1908, 1909 or 1910 editions (if there were such), I cannot say for a certainty that the change did not take place before 1911, thus I say "evidently."

  AndDontCallMeShirley stated:

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

  Which does not do away with the fact that the change did appear in 1911 edition, and that it does indeed not correspond with Russell's statements in the context, and that it does not agree with Russell's statements in the pages of the WT and elsewhere in 1911.

  AndDontCallMeShirley stated:

  one could conclude that Russell may have changed this

  I does not matter about this; this does not do away with the FACT that the change is in the 1911 edition; it does not do away with the FACT that the change does NOT agree with the context; it does not do away with the fact that the change does not agree with what Russell was saying in the pages of the WT and elsewhere in 1911.

  None of the short statements quoted of me changes the facts -- they appear to be given simply to turn attention away from the facts; the change appears in the 1911 edition, and thus the change was not because of any alleged failure of 1914. Indeed, Russell was in September of 1916, a few months before he died, still affirming his belief that the Gentile Times ended in 1914, not 1915.

  It still seems clear to us that the prophetic period known as the Times of the Gentiles ended chronologically in October, 1914. The fact that the Great Day of Wrath upon the nations began there marks a good fulfilment of our expectations.... We see no reason for doubting, therefore, that the Times of the Gentiles ended in October, 1914.

  http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/reprints/Z1916SEP.asp#Z264:2

  It should be self-evident, that regardless of how or who or what caused the change in the 1911 edition of The Time Is At Hand, Russell never stopped believing and teaching that the Gentile Times ended in 1914; he never changed his teachings to say that instead of the Gentile ending in 1914, that they will end in 1915.

  he died in 1914

  Proves I am not perfect and can hit the wrong key.

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

  Russell, at that time was taking 'the back seat' to Barbour; Barbour did go into the details in showing that the time of trouble, according to his understanding, had begun in 1874. Russell later presented some of those details; at first, he accepted Barbour's conclusion that the time of trouble had begun in 1874; later, he came to the conclusion that time of trouble had not yet begun, but that it would come sometime before 1914; and finally, in 1904, he became convinced that the time of trouble could not begin until the Gentile Times had ended.

  Nevertheless, had Barbour never rejected the scriptural basis for the ransom, Russell would never have felt the need to start another magazine. Indeed, the biggest reason that Russell started The Watch Tower was to defend the atonement, the substitute, that Christ provided to pay the debt of sin and the wages of sin -- death.
• 

  Wulf

  @reslight2

  Bismarck said everything was going to hell in a handbasket after he died, and he was the architect of realpolitik (all those secret treaties).
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  reslight-

  I've provided many quotes and article citations which show your claims are not as tenable as you think they are. You've provided none. You make claims without substantiation. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, saying the same things over and over ad nauseum, does not make it true.

  I have many more quotes that debunk your various positions, but decided against posting them as it would do no good.

  You are entitled to your opinions, I respect that, and I have no real need to convince you of anything.

  I'll conclude with a quote that is very apropos to this discussion:

  "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."- Carl Sagan