DJeggnog, I have a question that I'd like you to answer prompted by your ridiculously long and (for reasons which I'll soon explain) pointless post above. Please abide by the request in the OP and don't write such long posts again. Please read carefully as most of your errors appear to come from ignorance of what others wrote. And you say I have trouble with reading comprehension?
Why are you wrongly referring to my supposedly mistaking the "presence" and "coming"? This is not so. Please correct this. Read my post after Heaven's on page 1, where I myself correct her on this. . DJ, I am not referencing any "presence" but the "COMING". I am using YOUR belief structure to prove that Russell predicted Christ's "COMING" for 1914. The evidence I presented is exclusively about Russell predicting this "COMING". I have already explained this to you over half a dozen times now. This is the central error of your post and makes all your subsequent ramblings pointless.
There are only two issues here, both of which you miss:
1) I am not talking about Jesus "presence" - I proved to YOU that Russell always taught Jesus presence began in 1874, which you were ignorant of, so obviously I know it - I am exclusively referring to Jesus "COMING" and proving that Russell predicted this for 1914.
2) Russell predicted Christ's "COMING" for 1914, because he also predicted that the height of the Tribulation would be passed in 1914 and that Armageddon would be over by the end of 1914. Christ must "COME" after the Tribulation and at or just before Armageddon, as you yourself said, so Russell was necessarily predicting Christ's "COMING" for 1914.
Finally, you say:
Dj said: "I have made no such claim. It is you that is raising this strawman about the end of the tribulation, the destruction of Christendom and of all governments, Armageddon, and God's Kingdom being "in complete and direct control of the earth "all by late 1914," but none of this is what The Time is at Hand book says, is it? You made all of this up, didn't you? Why? To mislead me or to perhaps mislead the gullible or those that may not quite comprehend your flawed arguments here? Or is it that you think me to be a fool? Stupid? Ignorant? Crazy?"
Give.... me.... strength. You are at the very least deceived.
DJ, do you realize that if you read edited reprints of Russell's books, which were changed near or after Russell's predictions had failed and the dates had past, you will never know what he actually predicted before those dates? Your source material is not original and has been significantly altered.
You are using books which have had their original text changed after the dates to which they referred had passed? Are you the only JW here who doesn't know that or have the wits to realize it's significance? This is common knowledge here. You need to use the originals to know what the Society said before it rewrote history. Russell said everything I quoted him as saying - it was just changed later when these predictions failed and when his views changed.
1. Research this.
2. Get back to me.
3. Retract your claims.
4. Apologize.