by Marvin Shilmer 63 Replies latest jw friends
Alan:
As we all know, every specific prediction Russell made about 1914 and what "the Gentile times" would bring failed.
Yes, and anyone with a halfway decent library of Russell's works can see what the general and specific expectations were, and anyone with a halfway decent library of Rutherford's works can see the lengths to which they went to try and salvage those unfulfilled expectations; only then, as an act of desperation, to abandon them.
Marvin, good to see ya back!
Craig
scholar,
Come back again real soon now, ya hear? You are so much fun to play with, y'all.
Farkel
onacruse
Hey come on! I simply responded to a question from Marvin Shilmer and I did not present my reply as definitive proof. It is simply fact that in the nineteenth century many sincere Bible have long recognized the significance of the Gentile Times and some applied chronology to determine its significance and it was determined by some that it would expire in 1914 which saw the Great War. Now it is up to all individuals themselves to accept or reject but I cannot change the developments of Church history. Russell and his associates took up the challenge and correctly discerned the significance of the Gentile Times and the Parousia. If you are a a non believer or an athiest then such matters are of no consequence and frankly whether you choose to believe or disbelieve is immaterial to me.and I cannot be bothered in trying to convince you otherwise.
scholar
Hey come on!
OK
I simply responded to a question from Marvin Shilmer and I did not present my reply as definitive proof.
And no, it wasn't, which is why I took exception: since that's what he asked for ("definitive"), and I was hoping you'd reply in kind.
It is simply fact that in the nineteenth century many sincere Bible have long recognized the significance of the Gentile Times and some applied chronology to determine its significance and it was determined by some that it would expire in 1914 which saw the Great War.
Agreed. Some did, many didn't...which is why I took exception to your assertion that "some" did as any kind of definitive proof.
Now it is up to all individuals themselves to accept or reject but I cannot change the developments of Church history.
Interesting remark. Care to expand on your perception of "church history"?
Russell and his associates took up the challenge and correctly discerned the significance of the Gentile Times and the Parousia.
I disagree about "took up the challenge" (the SDA's and Mormons and numerous other religious groups, had taken it up long before Russell)...this is nothing new. How far have your studies taken you into the philosophy and sociology of religion? I'm curious.
If you are a a non believer or an athiest then such matters are of no consequence and frankly whether you choose to believe or disbelieve is immaterial to me.and I cannot be bothered in trying to convince you otherwise.
I'm not a non-believer (as far as I understand your use of the term), nor am I an atheist (as I've openly posted on this board, numerous times, and to which others can attest.)
So let's just deal with the facts, eh?
Russell and his associates took up the challenge and correctly discerned the significance of the Gentile Times and the Parousia
Brother Russell did nothing of the kind. As I and others already posted, the Gentile Times began in 70 CE, not in 607 BCE. Therefore, the whole 2,540 days/years becomes completely irrelavant. AND, Brother Russell did not "correctly discern" anything about 1914. He stated that Jesus had "returned" in 1874, that the Last Days began in 1799 and that the end of the world would come in 1914 with all of them being raptured up to heaven. Absolutely nothing that he predicted would happen, actually happened. It wasn't until the late 1920s that Judge Rutherford even changed the date for Christ's Return from 1874 to 1914. Therefore, in 1914, none of them believed that Jesus returned invisibly that year. How is it then, that they apply the scripture "every eye will see Him", to themselves meaning that they 'saw with their figurative eye', His Return??
Scholar's argumentive ways and lack of intelligent responses sounds very similar to another troll who used to post here by the name of Fred Hall. I sincerely doubt that Scholar has any degree in anything, because as a good Witness, he wouldn't be going to university and he certainly wouldn't be taking any courses in Religious Studies.
scholar,
you wrote:
The end of the Gentile Times in 1914 was eagerly awaited by many expositors in the nineteenth century and even some of the clergy of Christendom in England agreed that the Gentile Times had expired avvording to their published Manifesto.
I remember how the Society touted this Manifesto as back up and worldy reinforcement for their assertion that the Gentile Times ended in 1914. I would suggest that you do a search on the Manifesto and its history. You will learn that most of its signatories later revised their opinion and recanted their theory.
I did this a couple of years ago, and frankly am too lazy to do it anew in an attempt to prove anything to you, because you seem to want to staunchly defend the WT interpretation at all costs. But when you are interested in knowing the TRUTH and in how SOME religious leaders are not too proud to say "We were wrong about this," and how that relates to WT false prophecy, doing the search yourself might be beneficial.
outnfree
Scholar writes:
Are you stupid? I answered your question. The end of the Gentile Times in 1914 was eagerly awaited by many expositors in the nineteenth century and even some of the clergy of Christendom in England agreed that the Gentile Times had expired avvording to their published Manifesto.
I do not believe I am stupid, in answer to your question. Whether I'm actually stupid is for others to determine, as they will.
My question asked you to name something accurate and significant about 1914 that was taught by the Watchtower Society or Charles Russell prior to 1914. You replied, "End of Gentile Times." So prior to 1914 what did the Watchtower Society or Charles Russell teach about the "End of Gentile Times" that was accurate about 1914? What?
Marvin Shilmer
Scholar,
Are you stupid? I answered your question. The end of the Gentile Times in 1914 was eagerly awaited by many expositors in the nineteenth century and even some of the clergy of Christendom in England agreed that the Gentile Times had expired avvording to their published Manifesto
LOL....Are you serious. Please provide evidence of these 'many expositors' outside of the WTS who were specifically looking for the end of the Gentile Times and announcing such prior to 1914 and not after the event, and who specifically named 1914 as this supposed future event.
And you dare call Marvin Shilmer stupid.... Any JW lurkers reading your posts and recognizing that this is the very best of WTS 'scholarship' in action, should be seriously re-thinking their theological position after your recent posts on this and other subjects.
You are not giving a very succesful 'witness' here Scholar. Perhaps you should get back to doing what you are best at, that is, tying Rolf Furuli to the top of a Maypole and skipping round with your little ribbon, declaring your sycophantic praise for his "Olso Chronology".
Best regards - HS
In a similar vein to what Mary said early...many "sincere" bible "students" also believed that the day 1914 ended...1915 would begin. Who knew?
Here's the gist of the conversation so far:
Mervin Shill: What did Russell teach was going to happen in 1914 that proved accurate?
Anti-scholar: NVKPEADYREAYDUH.
Mervin Shill: You didn't answer my question. Let's try a little different tack: Name something specific that Russell said was going to happen with NVKPEADYREAYDUH in 1914. Was he accurate?
Anti-scholar: Are you stupid? I answered your question. NVKPEADYREAYDUH in 1914 was eagerly awaited by many expositors in the nineteenth century and even some of the clergy of Christendom in England agreed that NVKPEADYREAYDUH occurred.
Mervin Shill: My question asked you to name something specific and accurate that Russell taught about NVKPEADYREAYDUH prior to 1914. You replied, "NVKPEADYREAYDUH." Let's try a third time: Prior to 1914, what did Russell teach about "NVKPEADYREAYDUH" that was accurate? What?
We await further enlightenment from our resident Anti-scholar.
A parallel conversation:
Cruisin for Bruisin: You consider the opinions of a few expositors to be accurate and definitive proof of NVKPEADYREAYDUH in 1914?
Anti-scholar: Hey come on! I simply responded to a question from Mervin Shill and, as is my modus operandi, I did not present my reply as definitive proof. It is simply fact that in the nineteenth century many sincere Bible have long recognized the significance of NVKPEADYREAYDUH and some applied chronology to determine its significance and it was determined by some that it would expire in 1914 which saw the Great War. Now it is up to all individuals themselves to accept or reject but I cannot change the developments of Church history. Russell and his associates took up the challenge and correctly discerned the significance of NVKPEADYREAYDUH. If you are a a non believer or an athiest then such matters are of no consequence and frankly whether you choose to believe or disbelieve is immaterial to me.and I cannot be bothered in trying to convince you otherwise.
Since Anti-scholar is quite unable to explain exactly what NVKPEADYREAYDUH is, or to say anything significant about it, or tell us anything specific and accurate that Russell taught about NVKPEADYREAYDUH, it's obvious that his responses are pure Gobble-de-Goop. You can't get gold out of Gobble-de-Goop. And you can't get truth out of the Watchtower organization about its history of spewing Gobble-de-Goop.
AlanF
