DJ Eggnog said: "If you do not have an answer or you feel uncomfortable answering this question, then you should not do so."
I already answered this question you numbskull! Read my last post! Peacedog summed it up so that even you could understand it. Everyone else understands it. You're trying to compare two things which are unrelated. The modern JW teaching regarding 1914 is exactly like Russell's teaching for 1874 but NOTHING like Russell's prediction for 1914. You can't compare the two because they are unrelated.
You've been given endless quotes showing Russell was absolutely adamant in predicting what would happen in 1914 and only began to lose his nerve slightly as the year grew very near. If we find a few quotes where he is tentative and many others where he insists events would definitely happen, that only proves that he was contradictory and duplicitous, as well as grossly presumptuous (as False Prophets tend to be according to the Bible Deut. 18:22).
First of all, you continue to use the post-1915 altered version of the "At Hand" book and lying claim "This is what Time is at Hand actually says". You know it doesn't, you know this is a 'cover up' version. Yet you still try to peddle this lie.
And let's look at your attempt to pretend that his "if" in the "At Hand" book is significant - which would be in stark contrast to his other bold and unqualified predictions to 1914. You claim that it is significant and key that Russell said:
" if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures," the operative word there being "if," in case you missed it, then "it will prove Firstly..., Secondly..., Thirdly...," and so forth. Russell writes "if" because we isn't able to predict what will occur when the Gentile Times had come to an end, but if what he had said "is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures," then blah, blah, blah. I the English language, the word "if" introduces a hypothetic clause conditioned on the conditions expressed being true. Get it?"
I get that you're trying to deceive, again, yes.
By omitting what Russell said just before this and by focusing on this "If" you're trying to claim that Russell was basically just saying "I'm not sure about this folks, but if this can be proven, then it might be the case that X, Y and Z may possibly happen in 1914" But that's just a lie isn't it?
Let's look at what Russell actually said and in what order:
"In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the Times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of the their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914 and that that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scripture, it will prove - Firstly... Secondly... Thirdly..."
Only after three unqualified, absolute statements of certainty, only then, does he says that "if" this is proven then it also proves, X, Y, Z. There is an obvious and vast difference which does not allow for the meaning you try to give it. He starts by claiming something as already proven. There is no indication of doubt or room for uncertainty. It's proven as far as Russell is concerned and he's simply saying "I can and will prove this categorically, and when I have done that, you will see that this will necessarily also prove x, y, and z."
I encourage all to read page 76 and 77 of this book and see if they can honestly see the same meaning is his words as you try to claim. A statement saying "if" something is established, after you have already said it is definitely established and is fully proven and certain to occur, proves that "if" cannot convey uncertainty or allow room for doubt. The meaning is rendered closer to "When I prove this". This is fully confirmed by comparing this passage with countless other comments of Russell's regarding 1914 - even those in the same book as you quote from - such as:
"We consider it an established fact that the final end of the kingdoms of this world and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914. Then, the prayer of the Church, ever since her Lord took departure - "Thy Kingdom Come" - will be answered" - (The Time Is At Hand, 1902 edition, p. 99)
I could post more quotes like this proving the point, again, and again, and again, as I and others already have, but what's the point, DJ? You don't have the honesty to acknowledge them. I also note that you've switched from (insanely) denying Russell made any predictions to attempting to claim (falsely) that his claims were just tentative "maybes", but you don't have the honesty to admit that you are changing your claims. No matter, these new claims are also false, just less ridiculous.
Regarding Russell, I really don't care why Russell made such catastrophic errors, only that he did. So I'm not interested in your excuse making on his behalf. You haven't even successfully excused yourself yet. Why should we listen to apologetics on behalf of an obvious False Prophet from an established liar? The issue, the purpose of this thread - which I should know seeing as I created it - is to show that you are a liar who makes repeated false historical claims in defense of the Society - in this case that Russell predicted nothing for 1914 and specifically no coming of Christ, in any capacity, visible or invisible - and that you have no regard for the facts and neither the honesty nor humility to admit that you are spectacularly and totally wrong. This purpose has been fully accomplished.
The rest of your cheerleading on behalf of the Jehovah's Witnesses is an irrelevant distraction from the topic of this thread and is also quite wasted on me because, if I recall correctly, I was a JW for rather longer than yourself and so am well aware of what they teach and who they really are and that the Society is deeply fraudulent and deceptive, as are it's apologists.
