Posts by stev

49

Charles Taze Russell & His Secret Mission To S. California That Killed Him

by West70 in

the last 5 months of charles taze russell's life was quite hectic, and according to reports in the watch tower magazine, russell's health was declining throughout.

in september, 1916, russell went on a convention train tour which lasted nearly the entire month.

this train tour included stops in several southern california locations around the 8th through the 12th.

stev

Most of the names of the "murder suspects" can be found in WT Dec. 1916 issue, that contains the C. T. Russell's memorial service, funeral service, and account of last days. Below is a list of the Editorial Committee found in the issue, and these appear among the "murder suspects". Johnson, Macmillan, Woodworth, and Sturgeon, whose names are "murder suspects", gave discourses that appeared in that Dec. 1916 issue. The name(s) "Czeslaw, Rasprzykoski" does not appear in that issue, but looks like a Polish name. "Morton Edgar" does not appear, but is the brother of John Edgar. "Bracia Edgar", I think means "Brother Edgar". There was no other prominent Edgar besides Morton and John.

One telling sign that the "murder suspect list" was not made by a contemporary or one intimated acquainted with the early BIble Students is the inclusion of the name John Edgar and Morton Edgar. The Edgars lived in the British Isles, not in Brooklyn, and John Edgar died in 1910. His name appeared among the names for the Editorial Committee, and this could be why his name appears in the "murder suspect list". But someone living at that time of Russell's death would not have included his name.

I place very little credence in this rumor.

Steve

::R5999 : page 358::

The names of the Editorial Committee are as follows:
WILLIAM E. PAGE,
WILLIAM E. VAN AMBURGH,
HENRY CLAY ROCKWELL,
E. W. BRENNEISEN,
F. H. ROBISON.

The names of the five whom I suggest as possibly amongst the most suitable from which to fill vacancies in the Editorial Committee are as follows: A. E. Burgess, Robert Hirsh, Isaac Hoskins, Geo. H. Fisher (Scranton), J. F. Rutherford, Dr. John Edgar.

49

Charles Taze Russell & His Secret Mission To S. California That Killed Him

by West70 in

the last 5 months of charles taze russell's life was quite hectic, and according to reports in the watch tower magazine, russell's health was declining throughout.

in september, 1916, russell went on a convention train tour which lasted nearly the entire month.

this train tour included stops in several southern california locations around the 8th through the 12th.

stev

The quote above "Did CTR go mad?" is from the Bible Student forum, where there is a thread on this poisoning rumor:

http://www.biblestudents.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=521

49

Charles Taze Russell & His Secret Mission To S. California That Killed Him

by West70 in

the last 5 months of charles taze russell's life was quite hectic, and according to reports in the watch tower magazine, russell's health was declining throughout.

in september, 1916, russell went on a convention train tour which lasted nearly the entire month.

this train tour included stops in several southern california locations around the 8th through the 12th.

stev

Thanks for posting this letter.

The information is lacking that enable us to trace the source of this story. The English translation is dated in the year 1984, which is 68 years after the death. The "Letter to Christians" is dated in the year 1983, which is 67 years after the death. The letter originates in Poland. It is not explained how if the murder in place in the United States in 1916, that this rumor originates in a foreign country of Poland. How did the story get there?

It is not explained the connection between Mr. Stanley and the original letter. It is not explained why Mr. Stanley would be interested in this story. The letter states fragments of his letter appear, but unfortunately there are no quotation marks, and the reader is not informed which parts come from Stanley and which the writer. The names of Mr. Stanley's parents, the source of this story, is not given. It is not told when his parents told him this story. It is not told how parents knew this information.

The body could be exhumed, but I hope before anyone goes to this trouble, that this letter could be checked out.

Steve

167

Of Late Many Here Seem To Be Preaching Aethiesm..

by Qcmbr in

jw
friends

when i first came here a while back there was plenty of discussion around and about jw topics and general chit chat but of late i've felt quite a sharp increase in posts that are: .

1/ preaching aethism (as opposed to putting it forward in a respectful way as an alternate viewpoint.

2/ vitriolic attacks on those who dare have another view ('damn those stupid heretical believers') .

stev

We might not have control over what other people say - if they want to insult and ridicule others, that is their responsibility. But we can use critical thinking, and recognize it for what it is -a rhetorical ploy, and refuse to buy into their game.

In the book "The Art of Reasoning" by David Kelley, pages 120-123, the fallacy of the ad hominem argument is discussed:

"An ad hominem argument rejects or dismisses another person's statement by attacking the person rather than the statement itself...But the goal is always to escape the responsibility of dealing with a statement logically, and the method is always to try to discredit the speaker. The ad hominem argument has the form: (X says p) + (X is a bad person)/ ---> p is false. This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a statement, or the strength of an argument for it, has nothing to do with the character, motives, or any other trait of the person who makes the statement or argument....In its crudest form, the fallacy involves nothing more than insults - calling one's opponent an idiot, slob, lowlife, airhead, fascist, pinko, nerd, fairy, bleeding heart, wimp, Neanderthal, and so on through the rich vocabulary of abuse our language offers. "

Steve

13

ONCE MORE for STEV and others who espouse historical-grammatical method

by Nate Merit in

use that brain of yours stev.

they didnt interpret the bible that way stev.

"i think those are good questions to ask no matter what book is being read.".

stev

Narkissos

Thanks for your reply here to my post.

The expression "allegorical method" is imprecise. Probably the H-G method would explain it as finding a spiritual, additional meaning other than what was intended. The H-G method would distinguish between interpreting an allegorical text intended as allegory (which, although figurative, would be the "literal" sense), and an arbitrary allegorizing of a text not intended as allegory.

The word "allegory" is imprecise. The problem could be that of dividing literature into either allegorical or nonallegorical, when actually it is more of a continuum. This is suggested by Northrup Frye in his "Anatomy of Criticism", pp. 89-92. On one end of the continuum is the continuous allegory, such as Pilgrim's Progress, where every detail has a symbolic meaning. Frye places various types of literature along the continuum, such as the free-style allegory, Milton's epics, Shakespeare, metaphysical poetry, a central emblematic image in a work such as the Melville's "white whale", and then finally the other side of continuum with realistic reportage with minimal symbolism.

Frye also mentions that there are indirect techniques such as "symbolism not intended to be fully understood." C. S. Lewis said that "every metaphor is an allegory in little."

The H-G method might not be complex enough to handle all the types of literature along the continuum. Most likely much of the Bible does have more than one sense. Frye in his books on the Bible, explains how archetypes are repeated throughout the Bible. Some of these archetypes and literary patterns could be found in the text, whether the writer intended it or not, so that there could be several layers of meaning. Some literary criticism of the Bible gives complex chiasmic structures. I wonder whether the writer intended the structure or not. Some claim that is how the ancient writer structured his text. I don't know. There are also many passages that could have been intended to be ambiguous, and suggestive, lending an air of mystery and paradox, so that it is not clear whether there is another meaning or not.

Flexibility needs to be exercised, and hard-fast rules should be avoided.

Steve

9

More On The 'Historical-Grammatical' Method

by Nate Merit in

although protestants, evangelicals and fundamentalists use and defend the historical-grammatical method of bible interpretation, they need to realize it has a fundamental (pun intended) flaw.

matthew 1:22,23 and isaiah 7:14. .

matthew 2:15 and hosea 11:1. .

stev

Narkissos

I have noted your reply to my post, and I am in general agreement.

Steve

13

ONCE MORE for STEV and others who espouse historical-grammatical method

by Nate Merit in

use that brain of yours stev.

they didnt interpret the bible that way stev.

"i think those are good questions to ask no matter what book is being read.".

stev

The historical-grammatical method and the allegorical method are not necessarily contradictory or mutually exclusive. There are interpreters that have used both. In the Middle Ages, it was common to interpret the Bible in multiple senses. The proposition that either the historical-grammatical method is valid or the allegorical method is valid, is a false dilemma. Both could be valid. Proving one valid does not prove the other invalid. It is certainly possible that there are even more methods that are also valid, so these are not necessarily the only alternatives.
Jesus interpreted his own parables as allegories, and the miracles of the Gospel of John were certainly intended to have a symbolic meaning. But assuming that Jesus and the apostles used the allegorical method, this would not prove its universal and exclusive use. In order to establish their use of allegorical method, the H-G method is used to interpret the OT passages to compare with their use, so the H-G method is already presupposed. Jesus and the apostles were already familiar with the text, unlike present-day first-time readers. Those reading the Bible for the first time would not know yet how they used the Bible, so their example would be as yet of little use to them. Not everyone would accept that Jesus and the apostles were necessarily authorities or experts themselves in interpreting the Bible, and could be mistaken, so they would not necessarily accept them as examples to follow. The H-G method, reading as the author and audience would have understood it, is a good way to start, but not necessarily the only way to understand the Bible.
The H-G method is not the unique province of Fundamentalists. Many in the past who practiced it were Rationalists, who wished to read the Bible like they would any other book. The H-G method can also be used to extreme by an overliteralism. Certainly the Bible contains symbols, images, figures, types, allegories. It is true that those that used the H-G method have used it for harm to others, and though regrettable, it is not unique to this method. The allegorical method can be overused and abused also. It has been used to justify power, to justify propaganda, and to justify harmful notions by citing the Bible as an authority. It needs to be used with caution, and the views promoted examined on its own merits.

Steve

13

ONCE MORE for STEV and others who espouse historical-grammatical method

by Nate Merit in

use that brain of yours stev.

they didnt interpret the bible that way stev.

"i think those are good questions to ask no matter what book is being read.".

stev

Nate

This is a Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum, and not a Fundamentalist one. The Jehovah's Witness use to great excess the allegorical method that you are espousing. The JWs are not to be confused with the Fundamentalists, for they do not interpret the Bible the same way. Instead they spiritualize many prophecies and stories in the Bible and apply them to the organization, using "types and antitypes", or give it a meaning the original author or audience would not have understood. They spiritualize other scriptures as well. Since the average reader of the Bible would not be able to discern this spiritual meaning for himself/herself, the Watchtower organization justifies its authority to interpret the Bible. Rather than leading to spiritual maturity and independence, it is used to foster spiritual abuse and oppression. Instead of promoting the reading of the Bible and understanding the plain meaning of the text, the Watchtower promotes the reading of its own literature with its esoteric interpretations that could never be discerned without their help. You are attacking groups that are not relevant to the JWs, and at the same time promoting a method of enslavement and confusion from which others are trying to free themselves.

9

More On The 'Historical-Grammatical' Method

by Nate Merit in

although protestants, evangelicals and fundamentalists use and defend the historical-grammatical method of bible interpretation, they need to realize it has a fundamental (pun intended) flaw.

matthew 1:22,23 and isaiah 7:14. .

matthew 2:15 and hosea 11:1. .

stev

I am not able to address how the NT writers use the OT. There are books by authors who are expert in this field, which I am not.
It is apparent that people on this list have different views on religion and the Bible, and therefore it is not likely that there will be agreement on how to interpret the Bible.

But I think the historical-grammatical method is a good place to start for anyone in interpreting the Bible.
What did the author intend to mean,
and what would the original audience have understood?
I think those are good questions to ask no matter what book is being read.

There are dangers to the allegorical method, and it is best to use with caution.
Otherwise it can lead to excess. It can lead to flights of fancy and speculation, idiosyncratic notions, where there is no limit or control on what the interpreter can see in the Bible.
The BIble can become silly puddy in the hands of an allegorist. The Bible can be made to say what ever the interpreter wants it to say.
It is not so bad if the person is honest and knows that this is what they are doing, that they are attaching a private meaning different than the intended meaning of the author.
It can be harmful when a preacher does it frequently, and thinks God intended it to have that meaning, and the his followers think that this intepretation is inspired by God. Then it could lead to spiritual abuse and error.
On the other hand, it is likely that there is more than one sense or meaning to the Bible, and that it can be read at different levels, and has different layers of meaning.
Northrop Frye, who was a literary critic, wrote books on the Bible, and how the Bible has literary archetypes and repeated themes such fall-redemption. Other great works of literature have archetypes and symbols and themes, and it would be surprising if the Bible did not have this as well.
I have a book called "Dictionary of Biblical Imagery" which analyzes and explains these archetypes, and I would recommend to anyone.
C. T. Russell and the early Bible students, to their credit, made much use of imagery, symbols, and types in the Bible. Because of this the early Watch Towers often are written with beautiful prose, often even poetic, and appealing to the emotions. However, they also took this to excess. Russell interpreted prophecies allegorically and expected them to be fulfilled in his own day. They saw the Bible in the Great Pyramid. Stories were interpreted as types and antitypes, and applied to their own group. The JWs have taken this to an extreme where practically the whole BIble is an antitype of the JWs. This is a good example of the allegorical method leading people astray.

Steve

8

Where in Watchtower literature are beards frowned upon?

by Kenneson in

jw
friends

.

is there anyone here who can direct me to a publication that specifically discourages witnesses from having beards?

one witness i am debating claims it is not frowned on.

stev

Charles T. Russell had a beard. Many of his pilgrims had beards. I recall reading in Schnell's "Watchtower Slave" book that many of the Bible Students wore beards to emulate Russell, and Rutherford as President didn't like them emulating Russell, and ordered one brother to shave his beard.

Steve