Posts by reslight2

77

I told my daughter I was leaving "the truth" this weekend.

by whathappened in

jw
friends

last week, i told you i was going to tell my daughter that i was leaving the truth this weekend and you all gave me sound advice.

but, i cannot keep a secret this heavy from the person i love most on this earth, my only daughter, who is beautiful inside and out.. well, i have always had an open and honest relationship with my daughter, and i guess it paid off.

this weekend i visited my daughter (who lives in another state) and i told her i was leaving "the truth.

reslight2

In the binder on the first page was a photo of CTRussel's headstone, with the Laodecian Messenger on it.

Charles Taze Russell never himself claimed to have been the "Laodicean Messenger."

The next page was the pyramid monument, the one with Watchtower B&T S on it.

Rutherford's pyramid monument was built several years after Russell died. Although it was claimed that Russell approved that monument, I highly doubt that he would have approved such extravagance. Other than it deemed an extravagance misuse of money, I have no objection to the monument, representing God's stone witness in Egypt.

http://gp.reslight.net

The next page was another view of it. The next page was the old Watchtower from 1906 with the cross and crown and the knights on it.

Russell used the cross and crown symbol to represent Biblical terminology; likewise with the armor of righteousness symbol. -- Romans 13:12; 2 Corinthians 6:7; Ephesians 6:11-18.

Regarding the cross and crown:

http://ctr.reslight.net/?feed=rss2&cat=168

She is a college educated history major and particularly loves world and ancient history. She knew right away something was wrong. The next page was a print out of the Masonic symbols, taken from the freemason's own website, showing the cross and crown.

One has to use their imagination to suppose that artwork of a cross and crown is, of itself, a Masonic symbol. (See the previous link). There was no Masonic symbols in artwork of Russell's Watch Tower magazine.

She was visably upset. She had tears in her eyes. The next photo was of the Finished Mystery book with the winged disk on it.

The winged sun artwork was used to symbolize many scriptures, but especially Malachi 4:2; the artwork had nothiing to do with either the Masons or any form of spiritistic occultism.

See:
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=322

She seemed incredibly uncomfortable, the significance was apparent to her immediately. I asked, "How could Jehovah allow these symbols to be used by his earthy visible organization?"
I then turned back to the headstone and said "Isn't it strange, Jehovah waited until the perfect man, Jesus, was 30 years old to annoint him, but Charles Taze Russell was only in his mid twenties when he started this religion.

Russell did not "start" any religion at all; he certainly never started a the "Jehovah's Witnesses" religion. He was a non-sectarian who did not believe in such religious organizations, and even preached against any such kind of organization. Not only that, Russell did not believe in the message preached by "Jehovah's Witnesses"; indeed he preached against such kind of message. It is not fair to Russell to attribute him with starting that which he did not believe in, and against which he preached. After Russell died, Joseph Rutherford "started" that organization, and introduced his new good news of woe of eternal destruction for most of the people. Most of the earlier Bible Students, however, rejected Rutherford's new organization, as well as Rutherford's new "good news."

Regarding Russell and organization:
http://ctr.reslight.net/?feed=rss2&cat=64

Regarding Russell and the good news:
http://ctr.reslight.net/?feed=rss2&cat=530

Regarding Russell and Armageddon:
http://ctr.reslight.net/?feed=rss2&cat=119

Does that make any sense?" Then I turned the next page to some Watchtower publication quotes about Jehovah living on a star, the Pyramid of Giza being Jehovah's stone witness, how he used the distances inside the pyramid to arrive at the date 1874.

The date 1874 was arrived at, not from God's stone witness (the Great Pyramid), but rather from study of Bible prophecy. The Great Pyramid confirms that date, but the date is not based on the Great Pyramid.

I showed her the quote in the Finished Mystery book about how Russell was still directing the organization after his death.

Russell, of course, had no control over what claims were made concerning him after his death; although the concept of "organization" was already being promoted by Rutherford, that concept did not correspond to Russell's beliefs.

Then we went over the quotes about 1874, 1914, 1925 and 1975.

Russell, as well as I and many Bible Students, believe that Christ returned in 1874, and that the time of trouble began in 1914. Russell, of course, had nothing to do with the date 1925 or the date 1975. Indeed, the latter date (1975) is flatly in contradiction to what Russell believed.

She has heard us talk about 1975 all her life. I had actual Kingdom Ministry articles and Watchtower articles.
Next in the binder was the whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing...asked her if this was really "new light, "or was this total reversal.

Bible Students, of course, in general do not believe in this kind of "new light". They pointed out long ago how the Rutherford's limiting of the "ransom for all" denies the very basis of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus.

See what I have written on this at:
http://jws.reslight.net/?p=19

http://atonement.reslight.net/archives/167.html

http://hereafter.reslight.net/archives/152.html

Some things written by other Bible Students:

http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/2010/09/does-the-bible-support-a-governing-body/

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/a%20message%20for%20jw%27s.htm

http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/2010/05/will-the-wicked-get-an-opportunity-to-repent/

Christian love,

Ronald

26

Probably going to be DFed for "apostasy" soon

by WontLeave in

i've been doing a lot of research lately and decided i'm not going to allow the losers in cheap suits to order me around like their dog.

they are not masters of my faith and have no authority to 'lord it over' me.. all the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in him, but because of the pharisees they would not confess [him], in order not to be expelled from the synagogue; for they loved the glory of men more than even the glory of god.

- john 12:42-43 .

reslight2

"There was nothing wrong with Stoner's Miracle Wheat, "
It was not a miracle, was it?

I would suppose that this depends on what one would consider a "miracle" to be.

At any rate, none of the Bible Students gave the wheat the name "Miracle Wheat." Evidently to either Stoner or one of his associates thought that the wheat was like a miracle, and thus it was called "Miracle Wheat"; Stoner and his associates were not Bible Students. Russell simply quoted the name "Miracle Wheat" from the newspaper articles; it was NOT Russell who came up with the name "Miracle Wheat" or the wheat itself, as some have falsely assumed.

The original Miracle Wheat died out as farmers became lax in following the instructions for keeping the strain pure. The "miracle wheat" that is distributed today is that developed by Norman Bourlaug. Neither Stoner or Bourlaug were associated with the Bible Students, nor are any of the Bible Students responsible for naming the wheat "Miracle Wheat."

Regarding Bourlaug's "Miracle Wheat" that exists today:

http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=629

Regading Stoner's "Miracle Wheat" and Russell's statements concerning that wheat.

http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=122

http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=873

26

Probably going to be DFed for "apostasy" soon

by WontLeave in

i've been doing a lot of research lately and decided i'm not going to allow the losers in cheap suits to order me around like their dog.

they are not masters of my faith and have no authority to 'lord it over' me.. all the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in him, but because of the pharisees they would not confess [him], in order not to be expelled from the synagogue; for they loved the glory of men more than even the glory of god.

- john 12:42-43 .

reslight2

" I do not believe that there is anything wrong with Biblical pyramidology."
Well, I do, because it is based on conjecture...

I would say that it is certainly much less conjecture than what many add to the scriptures to sustain their trinity dogma; however, I would not wish to be understood as trying to force what I believe in this matter on others. God allows each to understand according to His will. One can be a Christian without accepting the Great Pyramid as God's stone witness in Egypt.

Nevertheless, have you studied the Edgars' work on the Great Pyramid so as to definitely say it is based on conjecture, so much so that it is not worthy of acceptance?

Works of Morton and John Edgar online

26

Probably going to be DFed for "apostasy" soon

by WontLeave in

i've been doing a lot of research lately and decided i'm not going to allow the losers in cheap suits to order me around like their dog.

they are not masters of my faith and have no authority to 'lord it over' me.. all the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in him, but because of the pharisees they would not confess [him], in order not to be expelled from the synagogue; for they loved the glory of men more than even the glory of god.

- john 12:42-43 .

reslight2

As far as I am concerned, there is no "Bible Student" group, anymore.

So you deny that there are thousands of Bible Students and their congregations that do, in fact, exist? Of course, they do not believe in an organization such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, but Russell himself did not believe in such an organization. Yes, there is definitely a "Bible Students" movement still in existence.

26

Probably going to be DFed for "apostasy" soon

by WontLeave in

i've been doing a lot of research lately and decided i'm not going to allow the losers in cheap suits to order me around like their dog.

they are not masters of my faith and have no authority to 'lord it over' me.. all the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in him, but because of the pharisees they would not confess [him], in order not to be expelled from the synagogue; for they loved the glory of men more than even the glory of god.

- john 12:42-43 .

reslight2

I looked at their website and the misspellings and grammatical errors are off-putting, to say the least.

Which website are you referring to? There are many, many websites of the Bible Students.

This is probably the most comprehensive listing, although this still does not include all:

http://www.octaman.com/comments/biblesites.html

My own listings (which I am in the process of updating):

http://bstudents.reslight.net

I you are referring to my websites, I do make mistakes and typos; if you have found any, please let me know so that I may correct them.

26

Probably going to be DFed for "apostasy" soon

by WontLeave in

i've been doing a lot of research lately and decided i'm not going to allow the losers in cheap suits to order me around like their dog.

they are not masters of my faith and have no authority to 'lord it over' me.. all the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in him, but because of the pharisees they would not confess [him], in order not to be expelled from the synagogue; for they loved the glory of men more than even the glory of god.

- john 12:42-43 .

reslight2

Not to derail the topic but Russell, like most people, tried to have too many things both ways.
You can find quotes from him trying to be humble and no one special and you can find quotes from him claiming to be the Faithful and Discreet Slave.

I do not defend Brother Russell in everything he said; however, I do not know of anytime that Russell ever made a claim of being the faithful and wise servant. He did repeat the claims of others, but he seemed reluctant to state anything definite in application of the "faithful and wise servant."

See my own studies:

Parable of the Four Servants
The Faithful and Wise Servant and Other Servants

You can find quotes from him saying the Bible is the most important book and you can find quotes from him saying that Studies in the Scriptures could put someone "in the light" even if that one never saw a Bible.

Brother Russell stated many times the former and only once the latter. From the perspective under which he stated the latter, both statements were true. Nevertheless, Russell's latter statement should not be taken out of context and placed in the context of JWs' later claims, or even under the manner of speaking that is often presented by most denominational leaders.

However, if anyone depends only on Russell's Studies for light due to be understood, he will be in relative darkness regarding things that can be understood better today; this does not mean that they do not belong to Christ, as all who belong to Christ are in varying degrees of understanding. I believe that most -- if not all -- Christians living today will not understand the full truth until they have been exalted in heaven as joint-heirs with Jesus or until after Satan has been abyssed when Jesus will lead them to the waters of life. -- Revelation 7:15-17.

See:

Is Reading of "Scripture Studies" Bible Study?
Russell's Quotes Concerning the Bible

Russell on "Only Authority"

You can find quotes from him trying not to be dogmatic about his date scheme and you can find quotes from him saying that the dates he prophesied are God's dates, not man's.

What Russell actually stated: "They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours." Russell, using an editoral "we" -- stated his "belief" -- his "opinion" -- that they are God's dates, and he was firm in stating his belief; he was not being dogmatic. He was not saying that everyone had to accept what he believed, nor was he claiming that he knew for a fact that what he believed was beyond error. Indeed, in the context of those words, he stated, "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. We see no reason for changing from our opinion expressed in the View presented in the WATCH TOWER of Jan. 15, '92." (Watch Tower, July 15, 1894) Note that he used the words "opinion" and "view".

His statement here regarding 1914 being the date for the end of the time of trouble is stated because there were some of the Bible Students who were saying that they believed that the time of trouble was to begin -- not end -- in 1914. Russell had accepted Barbour's view that the time of trouble was to end in 1914, and for many years he did not seem to understand why some of the Bible Students were thinking otherwise. However, evidently after much discussion, in 1904 (ten years before 1914) Russell changed his "view" from that he had held to earlier, and which he expressed in 1894 in the article referenced, and came to accept that 1914 was to see the beginning -- not the end -- of the time of trouble. Thus, from 1904 up to 1914, Russell held to the view that the time of trouble was to begin in 1914, and he believed until he died in 1916 that the time of trouble did begin in 1914. However, to get the proper perspective of all of this, one has to take Russell out of the context of the organization concept of the JWs, or out of the context that many present him as being a prophet, and realize that he was did not regarding himself as the dictator of any such organization, and certainly not as a prophet.

There were several different viewpoints amongst the Bible Students when Russell was living, and Russell never considered himself as one to demand his view on all the Bible Students. Indeed, he many times presented differing viewpoints in the pages of the Watch Tower.

Nevertheless, I can also firmly say that I believe that they are God's dates; I do not mean that to be dogmatic. I admit that what I believe in this regard may be wrong, even though I firmly believe it to be correct; I can only say that God will reveal to all whatever is in error in His own due time.

Charles Taze Russell may have meant well; certainly he meant better than that opportunist, Rutherford. But what it comes down to is that they were both pretty much wrong about everything they preached.

I can definitely say that Russell certainly had much, much, much, more correct than he had wrong. I certainly believe that he had the basis of atonment correct, which he considered to be the central Biblical doctrine that glorifies God. I have proven this doctrine to be true to myself from the Bible. As related to this central doctrine to the glorification of the heavenly Father, the claims of man's self-proclaimed orthodoxy are wrong, such as the trinity, immortality of the human soul/spirit, eternal conscious suffering of the wicked, etc., all which end up in contradiction to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, and which, in effect, end up making God appear to be unjust. For instance, if the trinity is true, then rather than condemning sin the flesh, Jesus actually justified sin in the flesh, proving that for Adam to have obeyed the Most High, Adam would have needed to have been the Most High.

See what I have written on the Atonement, Life Now and Hereafter, and Jesus and His God

Nothing Biblically significant happened in 1799, 1874, 1879, 1914, 1925, or any other time in the past several centuries.

I suppose this would depend on what one considers significant. Many claim that the birth of Jesus was not significant; many claim that Jesus' baptism was not significant; many claim that the Jesus' death was not significant; and so on. Indeed, even from the standpoint of most of Israel in the first century, those events held no significance. To this day, many claim that the resurrection and ascension of Jesus is not significant since they do not believe that those events actually happened.

For a few major points regarding the dates:

1799 - The 1260 years of Papal supremacy, which began 539 and prophetically came to an end in 1799. The "saints were delivered out of his hand" as Papacy's power to put them to death waned.

The temporal sovereignty of the Pope ended during the French Revolution when the French army captured Rome in 1798. The French had demanded that the pope relinquish his temporal sovereignty and withdraw all of his edicts against the revolution since 1791, but he refused. Because of this, the French had dethroned, exiled, and imprisoned him.
On the night of February 20, 1798, under constant guard of French dragoons Pius VI was first transferred to Sienna. Since he was still in the heart of Italy, the French decided to move him elsewhere. They transferred the pope to Florence, then on to Parma and Turin. The French finally moved the pope to the French fortress of Valence, in Dauphiny, on July 17, 1799. He died on July 25, 1799.
http://www.history1700s.com/articles/article1076.shtml

1874 - End of Daniel's prophecy of 1335 days; great jubilee began; Christ's parousia begins while the people are not aware, as foretold in Matthew 24:37-39 and Luke 17:26. Benjamin Disraeli, a non-practicing Jew, also known as Lord Beaconsfield, became prime minister of England in 1874, and was able to influence matters favorably for the Jewish people.

1878 - I assume 1879 is meant to be 1878, or assuming that 1879 started around October of 1878? Many, including myself, believe the time for the beginning of the raising of the sleeping saints had come in that year; Israel's "double" time of disfavor came to an end; the Berlin Congress of Nations met in 1878 and passed the "Berlin Treaty of 1878" which removed some of the barriers on the Israelites’ return to and stay in Palestine.

1914 - I believe that the lease to Gentile rulership came to end; the time of trouble began with the outbreak of World War, which parallels Israel's destruction from 69 to 73 (1914-1918); after the war ended in 1918, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 allowed Jews to return to Israel. I believe that in 1914, Jesus officially assumed his authority as King of the Jews and of all nations of the earth, which has led to trouble amongst all nations, and that trouble still exists. The nations are still blinded by Satan, and once Satan (as depicted in Revelation 20) has been abyssed, then the nations -- all the heathen -- of the earth will be enabled to gradually come into the light of Christ without the deceptions that are now prevalent upon the earth. -- Isaiah 2:2-4.

1925 - Irrelevant, as far as Russell and the Bible Students (including myself) are concerned.

I do not, however, say that one has to believe what I have accepted regarding any of the dates in order to belong to Christ, nor did Brother Russell ever make such a claim.

26

Probably going to be DFed for "apostasy" soon

by WontLeave in

i've been doing a lot of research lately and decided i'm not going to allow the losers in cheap suits to order me around like their dog.

they are not masters of my faith and have no authority to 'lord it over' me.. all the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in him, but because of the pharisees they would not confess [him], in order not to be expelled from the synagogue; for they loved the glory of men more than even the glory of god.

- john 12:42-43 .

reslight2

WontLeave:

While it is good to see that you are awakening to the fact that the JW leadership is not "chosen" by God's holy spirit,

Regarding Charles Taze Russell:

Russell did not start the Jehovah's Witnesses. Russell did not believe in such an authoritarian organization, nor did he believe in the message that is preached by the organization. Indeed, the message preached by the Jehovah's Witnesses is almost the opposite of the "good news of great joy that will be for all the people" that Russell taught and in which he believed as central to the glorification of God. Rutherford rejected the "ransom for all" and replaced it with his "organization" doctrine and the threat of the "second death" for practically anyone who disagreed with Rutherford.

See:
Russell and the Founder of the JWs
Russell and Church Organization

I do not believe that there is anything wrong with Biblical pyramidology.

See:
Russell and Pyramidology

Russell had nothing to do with Spiritistic Numerology

See:
Russell and Numerology

There was nothing wrong with Stoner's Miracle Wheat, nor did Russell do anything wrong related to those who were selling the Miracle Wheat.

See:
Russell and Miracle Wheat

While Russell did not consider his studies on chronology and dates to be on the same par as his studies on the ransom for all and related doctrine, I do not know that the dates are "failed dates." They are failed dates only if God himself never meant those dates to be used. From the JWs' perspective, they would be "failed dates", since Rutherford rejected almost all of Russell's studies on those dates; however, if Barbour was correct on the dates, they are not failed dates. I believe the dates are not "failed dates", although many things expected on those dates may have been "failed expectations." Nevertheless, God is determiner on this, and he will make all known to all in due time. Russell's conclusion was the the prophecies will be fulfilled, whether he had it right or not as in his expectations. Regarding the "time of trouble" that he was expecting to begin 1914, Russell stated: "We believe the Bible teaches October, 1914, as the time. If that is incorrect for a year, or five, or one hundred years, no matter, it is coming some time, whether we have it right or not." (1912 Convention Report) Russell, however, died in 1916 with the belief that the time of trouble had begun in 1914; I also believe that it did begin in 1914 and we are still living in the time of trouble which is disciplining the nations in preparation for the kingdom rule of peace.

See
Russell and 1874
Russell and 1914

As far as "erroneous doctrines," I can see how this could be said from the standpoint of those who accepted Rutherford's new organization and its doctrines, which doctrines are in contradiction to the central teachings of Russell. By 1930, the Bible Students movement (as whole -- represented by the majority) had rejected Rutherford's new organization, as well as his new alleged "gospel" that millions of people of the world would be eternally destroyed without any benefit from the ransom for all. It is any wonder that the majority of the Bible Students refused to preach this new alleged gospel of the kingdom, which is almost the opposite of what they had been preaching for decades? The JWs statement that the former "Bible Students" simply took the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" is misleading, since the Bible Students as as whole (as represented by the majority) did not accept Rutherford's new organization, did not accept Rutherford's new gospel, and did not accept the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" for themselves in the sense that Rutherford applied it to his his new organization.

At any rate, I do not know of any "Christian" author's writings since the apostles time that is fully free from error. Russell made some errors, but I believe he certainly had a lot more correct than that in which he made errors. I do not accept all that Russell taught simply because he taught it, and I do believe he was in error on many relatively minor points. Russell never presented his teachings, however, as though they were representing an organization such the "Jehovah's Witnesses". He allowed any to accept or not accept all his conclusions without seeking reprisal against any who did not accept all he taught. He certainly had no thought of sending representatives around to disfellowship all who disagreed with him, as did Rutherford. He sought no control over the local congregations as did Rutherford. Thus, what he wrote and the emphasis to be placed on what he wrote fall into a different category than that of the JW organization's writings and claims, and his writings should not be judged by the later claims of the JW leadership, as so many often do.

See:
Russell and salvation
Russell and the Good News

7

Brooklyn Daily Eagle 1909 and before pdf articles relating to Russell

by bereanbiblestudent in

here is a pdf that has articles and advertisements about and by russell.. .

it is searchable and bookmarked.. .

http://www.sendspace.com/file/wuwoed .

reslight2

I finally got the file to download, although I still don't know why the player page kept coming up in my earlier tries.

7

Brooklyn Daily Eagle 1909 and before pdf articles relating to Russell

by bereanbiblestudent in

here is a pdf that has articles and advertisements about and by russell.. .

it is searchable and bookmarked.. .

http://www.sendspace.com/file/wuwoed .

reslight2

I unable to get the pdf file at:

http://www.sendspace.com/file/wuwoed

to download. Some kind of player appears in the browser and the the download gets about half way through and stops.

Anyway, I have all the articles that appeared in the Watch Tower in the days of Russell concerning Miracle Wheat (as well as some related material0 in the files beginning at:

http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=122

38

Watchtower BREAKDOWN on the highway to Paradise

by Terry in

jw
friends

all of us at one time or another have owned a automobile that was a real lemon!.

the car may have been shiny, stylish and totally cool-looking....the only problem was it was a piece of crap.. repair after repair after repair in a never ending spiral of maintenance kept it in the shop more than it was on the road!.

you may have really loved that car--it might have been a classic---but--it proved to be totally useless for basic transportation because:.

reslight2

Terry : Much of what you stated is true, some of it is false, or misleading.

Pastor Charles Taze Russell used very specific language in his writings about the destination and arrival time for Armageddon and the 1,000 year reign's beginning.

Russell earlier adopted Barbour's view that Armageddon had begun in 1874, and that it would be end in 1914. In 1904, ten years before 1914, Russell, having had further study on the prophecies of the Bible presented to him, rejected his earlier view and saw that the ending of the Gentile Times would see the beginning, not the end, of the "time of trouble," as he had thought before.

Russell never believed the JW-type of Armageddon at all.

Russell was indeed clear that the 1,000 years began in 1874.

Terry: "God's dates--not ours!" the passengers were assured in no uncertain terms.

What Russell actually stated: "They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours." -- The Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, page 226.

He was stating this as HIS belief. He was not stating that all the Bible Students had to so believe (many of them did not agree with Russell.) I also believe that these dates are "God's dates."

Russell expressed in the same short article: "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. We see no reason for changing from our opinion expressed in the View presented in the WATCH TOWER of Jan. 15, '92." It seems that some of the Bible Students were suggesting at that time that the time of trouble would not be until after 1914. Russell at that time felt that they were wrong, but in 1904 -- ten years before 1914, after further study, he actually adopted the view that 1914 was to see the beginning, not the end, of the time of trouble.

Terry: Jesus had already arrived in 1874 and was now ready to slay his enemies and reward his followers with Paradise!

This seems to be retroactively attributing the teachings of Rutherford to Russell. While Russell believed that many deaths would result from the time of trouble (Armageddon), overall, he viewed the time of trouble as a chastising of the nations, in which Jesus would be preparing "his enemies" to be blessed by the seed of Abraham; Russell certainly did not believe that Armageddon was eternally destroy the enemies of Jesus, nor that Jesus' followers' would be rewarded with an earthly Paradise in 1914.

Terry: But, the bus broke down in WWI and repairs began along with new assurances given.
1914 changed from the End to the Beginning of the End. REPAIR ACCOMPLISHED!

This statement is misleading. Russell presented his conclusions in 1904 -- ten years before 1914 -- that the time of trouble was to begin, not end in 1914. As to the "beginning of the end", Russell stated in 1915:

The great war now raging in Europe seems to be the beginning of the end of Gentile Times. Instead of feeling ashamed or discouraged, we feel the reverse. -- Watch Tower, November 1, 1915, page 328.

To Russell, however, "the beginning of the end of Gentile Times" was exactly what he had been expecting in 1914. He was NOT stating something new or different, as though he needed to "repair" a former view.

This is only time I have found that Russell used the expression "the beginning of the end" as related to 1914. In a more broader sense, I could say that some things he stated could be interpreted to mean that the "beginning of the end" began when Jesus came at his first appearing; in another sense I could say that some the things he stated could be interpreted to mean that the "beginning of the end" began in 1799. It depends on the relationship of what is being spoken of. As related to "the beginning of the end of the Gentile Times," however, this was a view that he had held to since about 1876, although in 1904, he did change his view concerning the "time of trouble" as related to the end of the Gentile Times.

See:

CTR's Expectations Concerning 1914