Thanks Old Goat. I always view you as our resident expert on history.
did Russell come up with 1914 via the pyramid or just confirm it via pyramid
by Crazyguy 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
wha happened?
talk about a secret right in front of the avg JW's eyes. A religion who's basis in prophecy is the Pagan Egyptian religion of long ago. And yet whenever I bring it up, everyone has this look on their face like so what. From the same people who don't celebrate birthdays.
-
Separation of Powers
The great stone witness cannot lie. However, it can deceive. Afterall, does the first step count as a step or does it not? what about the step before the first step, that would be considered a step if one were ascending the steps. The last step, then, would also be considered a step. what about the small resting platform half-way down the descending staircase, is that considered a step, or maybe it's two because whoever descends would have to step twice before reaching another step.....
-
Bungi Bill
Russell was not by any means the originator of the 1914 date. Rather, this was borrowed from a group known as the Second Adventists, a fact readily acknowledged by the late N.H. Knorr (as quoted in Raymond Fraqnz's Crisis of Conscience). Led by one Nelson Barbour, the Second Adventists was one of a number of groups that emerged from the wreckage of William Miller's 1844 debacle. As others here have noted, Barbour finally settled on 1914 after his prophecies about 1873 and 1874, failed to eventuate.
Incredible as it may now seem, Pyramidology was taken quite seriously during those years of the mid to late 19th Century. (Many persons, it would seem, were very taken in by an 1864 book on this subject by a Professor Smythe). Charles Russell went on to use this pseudo-science to back up his 1914 date, probably deluding himself into believing that Pyramidolgy actually "confirmed" what he had said all along about 1914.
One of the morals of this story is that if two dates line up, it means nothing at all!
Bill.
-
jgnat
Once in a while a man gets it in his head that he can find hidden truths between the words of ancient texts. This is my inner picture of such men:
This is what I think a genuine explorer looks like:
-
Old Goat
Bung,
That's nonsense. The 1914 date came from a couple of Anglicans who speculated on prophecy. E. B. Elliot and Christopher Bowen formulated a date system from which Barbour borrowed. Period. The 2520 year count's first known publication was from an American Calvinist preacher. Repeating discredited claims does we "apostates" no good and much harm.
Russell's doctrine wasn't Second Adventist. It was Age-to-Come, specifically One Faith, a small group of about 4000 gathered around the newspaper The Restitution. They are by outsiders sometimes characterized as Age-to-Come adventists, but in point of fact were antagonistic to Adventists. There was mutual ill will.
By the time Russell met him, Storrs had been long separated from Millerite Adventism, and was, in fact, shunned by many Millerite Adventists. This is not all that hard to discover. Stetson had once been associated with Advent Christians. By 1870 he was writing for the Resititution and the British journal Rainbow. Neither of these journals, nor Stetson was then teaching Adventist doctrine.
Somewhere on this forum is a rather stupid post saying that Russell called Miller "father miller." That's false. The article in question was by John Corbin Sunderlin, an associate of Russell's. Neither men endorsed Miller's doctrine. Russell tells what his relationship to Miller and his doctrine is in Studies in the Scriptures. Parroting wrong statements because they appeal to you is rather stupid. Almost no one on this forum checks on the validity of what they write about Russell.
Was he a fruitcake? Sometimes. Is most of what's said on this forum accurate? Almost never. Do some original research. Read the original source material. Skip wikipedia which is largely wrong. Almost all of the original source material is available online or with moderate difficulty elsewhere.
If we want to make valid points, we should be accurate. The book on N. Barbour I mentioned in a previous content is a good starting point. The authors plan to release volume one of their next book early next year. I've read most of it in rough draft. Buy it when it comes out. It shines lights in places no one has looked before, and does it from original source material, including letters and papers I did not know existed. But by all means check your statements before you make them, because most of what you've read here and elsewhere is just wrong.
Read this blog on a regular basis. You will benefit: http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/
-
Old Goat
Okay, so this old man isn't done. The idea of an invisilble parousia did not come for the Whites or SDA teachers. The idea is found in 17th century Anglican and Separatist writers, except back then they didn't call it an invisible presence, but a "virtual" presence as distinguished from a "real" presence. After the 1844 dissapointment John B. Cook and some of his associates (not SDA) suggested that Christ had indeed arrived, but invisibly.
Non-Adventists such as Shimeall and Seiss (Presbyterian and Lutheran) and many other prominent clergy taught a two-stage intially invisible presence. That was Russell and Barbour's doctrine. Russell believed that until 1881 when he postulated a totally invisible presence. Russell's pyramid beliefs have lost their context for most who post here. When Smyth published his book in 1864, many serious scholars, including the great archaeologist Flinders Petrie were taken with it. Petrie had the good sense to check the data and pronounced it nonsense, but he did believe it for a while.
Pyramidology was widely believed when Russell was introduced to it. Clarence Larkin, the Baptist expositor, believed it. Joseph Seiss, still well respected for his commentary on Revelation, believed it. Thomas de Witt Talmage believed it. No one notices that. Russell was not exceptional in this. He was a man of his times. If we see it as supersititon now, it was not then. The problem is that he didn't follow Petrie and examine it up close and personally. Even a trip to the pyramid didn't change his mind.
-
Crazyguy
Old Goat , where did John A. Brown fit into all this, did he start the whole chronological thing in Daniel or someone else?
-
Old Goat
John Aquila Brown was a silver and gold smith, and apparently an Anglican. He was a Literalist. That is, he believed in the plain sence of the scriptures rather than a spiritualizing sense. Schulz and de Vienne explain the Literalist influences on Russell in their new, forth coming book. This is an entire area that was new to me, as far as Russell is concerned. When Barbour stopped at the British Library in 1859, and later at the Astor Library in NYC, he consulted books on prophecy. The one he mentions is Elliott's Horae. But Isaac Wellcome says Barbour used Brown too. This is probable. A brief bio of J. A. Brown is found in Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet.
Chronological speculation extends back to the medieval era. Some of it is very detailed, some not. A good general history of last days speculation is L. E. Froom's Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers. Be aware that Froom was a die-hard SDA professor. He tries to make some who would have soundly rejected his doctrine into predecessors of the SDA faith. But it is a good introduction to the subject. Isaac Newton, William Whiston, the German Lutheran expositors such as Piscator all dabbled in it. Millerites were late comers. So was Brown.
-
mP
It wouldnt surprise me, but i think that Russel knew that Judaism was a copy of egyptian religion with a jewish touch. Given the importance of the heavens and SUn, he knew the pyramid was a holy site for Egyptian beliefs and by extension belief in the Bible.
