I almost always post about watch tower history, and if you've read my previous comments you know I follow the truth history blog. Dr. de Vienne posted a long, explosive rant based on a blog comment. Along with it (Someone really set her off!) she's posted parts of their research you've not seen on the public blog. Give it a read. I'm interested in your thoughts too. I like this. She "calls a spade a spade" while making her points. You have no idea how much she reminds me of my youngest granddaughter.
A Historian's Rant
by Old Goat 7 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Sapphy
Interesting, but a definite 'rant':
"Some of you insist Russell was an Adventist because he believed in Christ’s return. Do you have any idea how stupid that is? Did you bother to read one – just one – year’s worth of Bible Examiner?"
I didn't know there was a controversy! I always thought Charles T was a presbytarian/congregationalist with 2nd adventist sympathies - as well as an idea plageriser... Although some would argue he was a freemason first and foremost.
Whatever he was, he is on my list of 'The world would be better if they had never been born'.
-
Old Goat
Schulz and de Vienne trace Russell's connections with One Faith belief. Ever heard of it? Me either ... until i started reading their work. One Faith emphasied the near return of christ, but to restore paradise to the earth. Sound familiar? They're the anticedent group behind the abrahamic faith and blessed hope congregations. And they weren't adventists at all. I've found and read some of their early material. It's a new concept to me, but I believe S and d V are right on this. I'm not sure what set her off. Some comment on one of the posts that I missed, I suppose.
If you ask me, the creep factor falls more on Rutherford than Russell. But I have on open mind on that. I'm certain I wouldn't go to lunch with either.
I've read all the Russell era Watch Towers. He wasn't a plagerizer within the meaning of that word. He was a cherry picker. In one of their posts on their invitation only blog Mr. Schulz calls him a "Cut and paste" bible student. That seems about right.
-
cofty
I love this stuff. There are too many lazy assumptions made about the early days, it's great to see some detailed research even if some of the distinctions seem trivial from our end of history.
-
slimboyfat
Reminds me of the observation that debates within academia are so heated because the stakes are so small.
-
Phizzy
Thanks for posting Old Goat. If ever I get in to a discussion about Russell, which I doubt actually, but if I do, I am now bettere informed as to where he got his ideas from.
"Cherry picker" or "cut and paste" theologian, whichever you prefer, it is certain he did not hardly have one original idea.
-
slimboyfat
If de Vienne is arguing Russell and the early Bible Students were literalists in contrast to Adventists, then what about Russell's adoption of the "day for a year" idea - doesn't sound very literal.
-
Old Goat
Dear Slimb,
I emailed her and asked, since I have no easy answer. Here's what I got back:
Dear ---.
Now that’s an interesting question, and I can’t answer it. I don’t know why Literalists accepted the year-day theory. As a principle of prophetic interpretation, it goes back to the 4 th century. Russell knew this. We don’t know where he picked up that tidbit, but we know he came across the fact. Personally, (and it’s just a guess) I think he found it in a book entitled Prophetic History.
Literalists accepted the idea. It was an Adventist who rejected it, though most of them accepted it too. I suppose they accepted it so easily because of the verse in Ezekiel that contains the phrase, “a day shall be for a year.” That gave them license to see it as a God-authorized concept.
I’ll have to research that. Thanks for the interesting, puzzling question.
R