[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ] Response to AF Part Three

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Greg Stafford [GregStafford] on November 02, 1999 at 11:43:30 {.c1iAaocfM/CPYT8orz2XxZ4XktaQ.}:

SECOND RESPONSE TO AF, PART THREE

: Posted by AF [AF] on October 18, 1999 at 00:00:25 {VmAHMooXmo1EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}: Start of Part 3 :: AF :: (8) Can a person or group that deliberately promulgates one or more falsehoods be or remain Jehovah's representative? : GREG : Possibly, but only for a short time, unless they repent.

ALAN_2 ::How short is "short"?

GREG_2 As I said, it depends on God's tolerance level for the particular error, and other circumstances that inform His decision on such matters.

ALAN_2 :: In the general sense that all JWs claim to be God's representatives, the Society ensures that "short" is on the order of days via the mechanism of disfellowshiping. However, as you are no doubt aware, my question was oriented towards those "representatives" who see themselves as leaders of the JWs. In that case, history shows that falsehoods have been promulgated for decades. The falsehood about 1914 has been promulgated for 120 years. Isn't that a bit long?

GREG_2 Of course, you here fail to properly characterize their confident but non-dogmatic claims concerning 1914. If God is displeased about any misgivings and misinformation they have spread among the brothers during the past 100 years of so, then I am sure He will deal with it as He sees fit. It is, after all, only a matter of interpreting Bible prophecy, which is hardly the same as promoting the worship of false gods, which God has tolerated for longer periods of time, with His people in times past.

: GREG : If their sinful or selfish human tendencies temporarily get in the way of their dedication to truth, then Jehovah will hold them accountable as He deems fit. But He will also readily forgive them if they turn around and show that such actions were not the result of a hardened heart, but of a weakened one.

ALAN_2 :: That's a reasonable response. Now, in the case of a person who is badly hurt by the actions of JW leaders, what should he do? Quit and find something else to do? Stay with the organization and work for change? Work for change from the outside? Of course, personalities will differ as to what is comfortable for them, as you've seen on the H2O forum, but I want to know your view and I want to know what you think the Society's official position on this is. Or do they even have an official position?

GREG_2 I don't believe my view of such things is necessarily related to the key issue of whether or not the Society DELIVERATELY attempted to deceive people, which is what you originally set out to prove. Yes, I have a view on this, but, as you state, views on this subject are bound to differ, so I prefer to keep mine to myself, not wanting to influence anyone else one way or the other, on this particular subject.

:: AF :: (9) Can a person or group that has made honest but serious mistakes while claiming to represent Jehovah, but which refuses to correct those mistakes even when they are made aware of them, be or remain Jehovah's representative? :GREG : I defer to my answer to question #8. Here again, it would depend on Jehovah's "level of tolerance" and the extent to which the truth was suppressed, and the motivation behind any such suppression.

ALAN_2 :: Ok, but I want you to provide some specific answers. So far you've given generalities that don't say much of anything.

GREG_2 What are you talking about? I was very specific in referencing my discussion about Jehovah's level of tolerance and "the extent to which the truth was suppressed, and the motivation behind any such suppression." These things cannot be gauged more specifically than I have done. If you believe they can, then put forth your biblical arguments and let's see what they are about. But do not ask me for something more than what I have given, on a topic where nothing else can rightly be said. I base what I say on the actions of God toward His representatives in the Bible, and the qualities that He has revealed in His Word. It is YOU who have not said "much of anything."

:: AF :: I've claimed that the Society has deliberately published false information. The following two examples are based on material published in the book Revelation-Its Grand Climax At Hand! :GREG : Okay, then in my consideration of the material you give in support of your allegation, I will focus primarily on whether or not you have PROVEN a DELIBERATE intent on the part of the Society, to publish false information. Of course, my answers to questions 8 and 9 may cause you to rethink this presentation, and perhaps try to prove that God would not tolerate temporary periods of sinful behavior on the part of His representatives.

ALAN_2 :: I have no cause to rethink my position.

GREG_2 Excellent. Then I will expect that you can PROVE that 1) the Society DELIBERATELY published false information in an attempt to deceive people, and 2) that "God would not tolerate temporary periods of sinful behavior on the part of His representatives." For, even if you prove 1) to be true, and you have not yet done so by any means, it has no force behind it unless you can also prove 2) to be true.

ALAN_2 :: I believe that letting an issue like what I described stand for some 56 years is way over any reasonable limit.

GREG_2 What YOU think is irrelevant. I and others are concerned with what GOD believes is reasonable. After all, this issue relates to whether or not Jehovah's Witnesses are God's representatives, so you are going to have to demonstrate that what we accept as God's Word disqualifies the Governing Body from being His representatives, even during temporary periods of sinful behavior. If you are here simply trying to communicate what YOU believe is reasonable, we might as well stop the conversation here and now, for I could really care less whether or not you believe Jehovah's Witnesses are God's people, His organization on earth today.

ALAN_2 ::As I know you're aware, I can also provide extensive documentation on other falsehoods that the Society has promulgated and refuses to correct. Any single incident, or even a small number of such incidents, wouldn't bother most people much, but the sheer overwhelming number of instances of misrepresentations in WTS literature leaves me with no choice but to conclude that WTS leaders and many staff people are intellectually dishonest, and are not going to change short of a revolution.

GREG_2 The "other falsehoods" of which you speak are irrelevant to this conversation, UNLESS you are prepared to abandon your original claim, supported by your original two examples. Let's try to stay focussed here, Alan, and not get even more sidetracked. You made a charge, I have challenged that charge and your examples, and until these issues have been exhausted there is no point in going further. Now, to the heart of the matter:

:: AF :: Example 1: :: On page 105 the Revelation Climax book states: From the mid-1870's, Jehovah's people had been anticipating that catastrophic events would start in 1914 and would mark the end of the Gentile Times. This is the period of "seven times" (2,520 years) running from the overthrow of the Davidic kingdom in Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. to Jesus' enthronement in heavenly Jerusalem in 1914 C.E.-Daniel 4:24, 25; Luke 21:24, King James Version. Thus, when C. T. Russell, first president of the Watch Tower Society, appeared for morning worship with the Brooklyn, New York, Bethel family on the morning of October 2, 1914, he made the dramatic announcement: "The Gentile Times have ended; their kings have had their day." Indeed, the worldwide upheaval that began in 1914 was so far-reaching that many long-standing monarchies disappeared. :: This material along with the accompanying boxed text on page 105 gives the impression that the "upheaval that began in 1914", namely, World War I and its aftermath, was clearly foreseen by C. T. Russell and the Bible Students. : GREG : Not really.

ALAN_2 :: Yes, really.

GREG_2 No, not really.

ALAN_2 :: I'll go over the material line by line and show you.

GREG_2 Good. You provide the 'lines,' and I will do the showing. Remember, unless you can conclusively demonstrate "that the 'upheaval that began in 1914', namely, World War I and its aftermath, was clearly foreseen by C. T. Russell and the Bible Students," you have failed.

: GREG : You notice that your quote of paragraph 5 only has Russell speaking in reference to the end of the "Gentile Times."

ALAN_2 :: That's right. However, the context of his speech is the rest of paragraph 5 and also paragraph 4. Paragraph 4 says that "Jehovah's people had been anticipating that catastrophic events would start in 1914 and would mark the end of the Gentile Times." Here, "Jehovah's people" is an obvious reference to Russell, and "catastrophic events" that "would start in 1914" is an obvious reference to "the worldwide upheaval that began in 1914". Paragraph 5 then connects what it is about to say with what paragraph 4 has just said, using the linking word "Thus": "Thus, when C. T. Russell ... The word "thus" means "in this or that manner, to this degree or extent, because of this or that, hence, consequently, as an example". In other words, paragraph 5 is written to support what paragraph 4 said by supplying additional supporting information. Paragraph 5 itself connects Russell's October 2 announcement that "the Gentile Times have ended: their kings have had their day" with "the worldwide upheaval that began in 1914" by using the linking word "indeed". Also note that the expression "the kings have had their day" is similarly connected with "the worldwide upheaval". Finally note that in these paragraphs "the worldwide upheaval that began in 1914" and the "catastrophic events" that "would start in 1914" certainly include "World War I and its aftermath". I hope you're not claiming that the Society is not referring to WWI in these phrases. With these point in mind, note the flow of thought: From the mid-1870's, Jehovah's people had been anticipating that catastrophic events would start in 1914 and would mark the end of the Gentile Times. . . Thus, . . . C. T. Russell . . . made the dramatic announcement: "The Gentile Times have ended; their kings have had their day." Indeed, the worldwide upheaval that began in 1914 was so far-reaching . . . Now compare this quoted material with what I said: This material . . . gives the impression that the "upheaval that began in 1914", namely, World War I and its aftermath, was clearly foreseen by C. T. Russell and the Bible Students. Do you still see any problems with my statement?

GREG_2 More than ever before! No matter how much indenting, bolding, italicizing and other methods of highlighting you use, there is absolutely nothing anywhere on page 105 of the Revelation book that in any way implies that Russell foresaw the events that ACTUALLY occurred with respect to WWI and the events that followed. From the beginning of par. 4, to the quotation of Russell's words in par. 5, namely, "The Gentile Times have ended; their kings have had their day," everything is indeed tied together, in reference to what the early Bible students from the "mid1870s" had anticipated, which is specifically said to have been "catastrophic events WOULD START IN 1914 and would MARK THE END OF the Gentile Times"! Can you now see that these "catastrophic events" are NOT "the worldwide upheaval that BEGAN in 1914," but events that "would mark the END OF the Gentile Times"? The use of "indeed" in par. 5 is an emphatic connector that most certainly does relate to what Russell said, but goes BEYOND it. Consider the following as representative of what is said in pars. 4-5 of the Revelation book:

WORLD WIDE UPHEAVAL BEGINS (and continues) 1914 "Catastrophic Events" Start End of Gentile Times ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

GREG_2 What you do not seem to understand is that what is said in par. 5 regarding the "worldwide upheaval" is linked with what Brother Russell foresaw as "catastrophic events [that] would mark the end of the Gentile Times," and then moves beyond what he understood to what actually happened, and the significance of it for our current view of things. There is absolutely nothing at all in these two paragraphs, grammatically or semantically, that implies, let alone proves, that the Society deliberately tried to deceive anyone by allegedly claiming that "World War I and its aftermath, was clearly foreseen by C. T. Russell and the Bible Students."

: GREG : Additionally, the box on page 105 says "1914 Foreseen," not 'the worldwide upheaval and events following 1914 foreseen.'

ALAN_2 :: That's silly on the face of it.

GERG_2 What's silly is your calling it "silly," when it is quite relevant for disproving your inaccurate view of things. But since you cannot very well alter what is in the text, I guess calling it "silly" just might lead others to think that you somehow overcame an objection. You did not. But if you are in the mood for something really "silly," consider what you actually wrote next:

ALAN_2 :: Taking your implication to its logical conclusion results in the trivial case: the literal year 1914 was forseen. This is trivial because, for example, calendar makers "foresee" every year - in this sense every year is "foreseen" by being marked on a calendar.

GREG_2 You are not focussed at all on your own arguments, let alone those I am offering to you. REFOCUS: You are claiming that page 105 of the Revelation book deliberately deceives people by claiming that "World War I and its aftermath, was clearly foreseen by C. T. Russell and the Bible Students." You make this charge with direct reference to the statement in par. 5, namely, "Indeed, the worldwide upheaval that began in 1914 was so far-reaching that many longstanding monarchies disappeared." Then reference is made to "the overthrow of czardom" in 1917, and other politically unstable situations that have since followed. My response to you was, in part, to redirect you attention to page 105, where the box above pars. 4 and 5 makes it quite clear that Russell foresaw the year 1914 as one where the Gentile Times would end, which would be marked by certain "catastrophic events." You are confusing these events with the "worldwide upheaval" that not only began in 1914 (which is parallel to Russell's view), but that continued after it, as the book goes on to discuss. So, since it is very clear indeed that the Revelation book rightly portrays Russell's view as one where "catastrophic events would start in 1914 and would mark the end of the Gentile Times," then if it can be shown that this was in fact Russell's view, you have failed to prove your point, for absolutely nothing is said about Russell having foreseen that what BEGAN in 1914, and what would mark "the end of the Gentile Times," continued long after 1914, affecting various monarchies such as czardom. It rather easy to show that Russell, at various times and in various publications leading up to 1914, spoke about "catastrophic events" that would mark the end of the Gentile Times, as I am sure you know. True, he changed his views here and there because he was dealing with admittedly uncertain events. But that is not the point at issue, here.

When Russell saw the political chain-reaction that began in 1914, that is what prompted him to make his announcement at Bethel, and the Society recognizes his acceptance that catastrophic events did indeed begin in that year, but they nowhere imply that Russell foresaw WWI as such, though his reference to "world-wide reign of anarchy" is not very far from the mark! Neither did they imply that the "aftermath" of WWI was foreseen by Russell. Still, Russell said: "So when October, 1914, comes, or October, 1915, or some other date (the Lord knoweth) and the Gentile times terminate, it does not follow that there will be an outburst that will revolutionize the world, all in a day. But we believe that it will do so not very long thereafter." --- "Resume of the Ending of the Times of the Gentiles," WT (1913), reprint page 5328. Russell knew the world would be 'revolutionized' by the events that he believed marked the end of the Gentile Times; he just did not fully understand what kind of 'revolution' would take place, nor did he fully understand the aftermath of this 'revolution.'

ALAN_2 :: The point is that if you aren't writing something trivial and meaningless, then if you write "1914 Foreseen" it must refer to some events that were foreseen to occur in 1914. What events were these? Well, what is the purpose of a box of text in a book? It is to support or give additional information about the main text near it. If it didn't, there would be no point to including it.

GREG_2 Yes, indeed: it gives support for their reference of Russell's view that "catastrophic events would start in 1914 and would mark the end of the Gentile Times."

ALAN_2 :: Therefore, unless we want to attribute incompetence to the Society's writer, we must conclude that the box is there to support the text on page 105, and that is what I have said. Therefore, the phrase "1914 Foreseen" must refer to the events described in paragraphs 4 and 5, as well as to the material in the box itself. According to all of this text, therefore, "1914 Foreseen" must refer to the "catastrophic events" that "would start in 1914 and would mark the end of the Gentile Times", to the end of the Gentile Times when "their kings have had their day", to "the worldwide upheaval that began in 1914", and to "`the terrific war outbreak in Europe" that "has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy' ".

GREG_2 Wrong. The box gives support only for what is said in par. 4. My point about the title of the box is that it is limited to what happened in the year 1914, not the events that occurred AFTER 1914, which are discussed in pars. 5-9. Again, it is "1914 Foreseen."

: GREG : Furthermore, the two quotes from Russell in the box, again, speak only in reference to his view of the Gentile Times ending.

ALAN_2 :: It appears that your point is that the quotes from Russell himself don't refer to the "upheaval that began in 1914". That's irrelevant since, as shown above, the main text makes an explicit connection, and the 4th quote in the text box makes an explicit connection among "the terrific war outbreak in Europe", "the Day of Wrath" and 1914.

GREG_2 My point is and has been quite clear all along. There is absolutely no such connection in the main text between what Russell foresaw with respect to 1914 and the events discussed in pars. 5-9. They quote Russell at the start of par. 5 because they are creating a bridge between what he foresaw and believed concerning 1914 and what actually transpired, and how they now view it. They are very clear in saying, in par. 3 of the box, which you have no reasonable answer for below, that Russell and his fellow Bible students DID NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS WOULD MEAN! They further state, very clearly I might add, that "they were convinced that 1914 was going to be a pivotal date in world history, AND THEY WERE RIGHT." This shows PRECISELY what it is they are connecting with in pars. 4-5, namely, Russell's view of 1914 as a pivotal date wherein the Gentiles Times would end. "INDEED," they write in par. 5, "the worldwide upheaval was so far-reaching that many long-standing monarchies disappeared." They are not saying that Russell knew this, but that his view of 1914 was correct in that "catastrophic events" marked the end of the Gentile Times, and, INDEED, the upheaval and aftermath of what actually happened had a significant impact on various political powers. So, what you do not understand is that there is most certainly a connection between what Russell is EXPLICITLY said to have foreseen and what they go one to discuss, but there is no EQUATION of the two; in fact, there is not even an implication that such is the case, for they make it ever so clear precisely what it was that Russell foresaw in the box and in par. 4.

ALAN_2 :: Are you saying that the Revelation Climax book makes no connection between these events? I hope not, since it's pretty obvious that it is.

GREG_2 As I have said, of course there is a CONNECTION, in that there is an acceptance of what Russell foresaw with respect the beginning of "catastrophic events" and the end of the Gentile Times. But there is no equation of their discussion of the political upheaval that actually occurred with Russell's understanding. In fact, as I said, and which we will discuss again in a moment, the third par. in the box is quite clear in saying that Russell did not "fully understand" what would happen, and they also make it clear jus what it is that he foresaw.

ALAN_2 :: As for Russell, after 1904, because events had not panned out according to his expectations, he changed and toned down some of his opinions. In particular he now taught that Armageddon did not begin in 1874, but would begin in 1914. The July 1, 1904 Watch Tower said, under the title "Universal Anarchy - Just Before or After October, 1914 A.D." (p. 3389 Reprints): What seems at first glance the veriest trifle and wholly unrelated to the matter, has changed our conviction respecting the time when universal anarchy may be expected in accord with the prophetic numbers. We now expect that the anarchistic culmination of the great time of trouble which will precede the Millenial blessings will be after October, 1914, A.D. -- very speedily thereafter, in our opinion -- "in one hour," "suddenly," because "our forty years" harvest, ending October, 1914 A.D., should not be expected to include the awful period of anarchy which the Scriptures point out to be the fate of Christendom. Right up through 1914 Russell stuck more or less with his predictions, although he also waffled.

GREG_2 What you call 'waffling' is actually a cautious approach to a difficult subject, one of which he frequently and frankly admitted not having total assurance. Your characterization is way off target, and the above in no way helps you case which is founded upon a mishandling of the data on page 105 of the Revelation book.

ALAN_2 :: For example, The Watch Tower, of May 1, 1914, said (p. 5450 Reprints): There is absolutely no ground for Bible students to question that the consummation of this gospel age is now even at the door, and that it will end as the Scriptures foretell in a great time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation. We see the participants in this great crisis banding themselves together . . . The great crisis, the great clash, symbolically represented as a fire, that will consume the ecclesiastical heavens and the social earth, is very near. Note that the above quotations show that Russell did not predict a World War in 1914, since that would be a large war but one that would end with peace among the combatants, but general anarchy that would lead directly to the complete destruction of all nations of the earth and the establishment of God's Kingdom on earth. When World War I broke out, he claimed that it fulfilled these predictions.

GREG_2 Of course he did not understand what WWI would entail! The Revelation book does not imply anything to the contrary. As for your claim that "When World War I broke out, he claimed that it fulfilled these predictions," by predictions you obviously mean what you previously stated, namely, "general anarchy that would lead directly to the complete destruction of all nations of the earth and the establishment of God's Kingdom on earth." Here is what Russell claimed in the November 1, 1914 issue of the WT, on the reprint page 5566 of the article, "Making Ready for the Reign of Righteousness": "September 20 of this year, 1914, PROBABLY marked the end of the Gentile times. If so, what we are witnessing now amongst the nations is a conflict to their finish."

Nowhere in the Revelation book or elsewhere in the Society's literature does they ever claim that Russell foresaw the actual outcome of WWI. It is stated that he foresaw that "catastrophic events" would mark the end of the Gentile times. This is consistent with the Society's view of things, and so they use his announcement at the Bethel table in par. 5 on page 105 of the Revelation book, as a point from which they explain their view of things. This is all said in a context where they specifically state that Russell did not fully understand what the end of the Gentile Times would mean, and that they agreed with Russell about 1914 being a "pivotal date." It is this agreement that is used as a point of departure, for explaining the "aftermath" of 1914 from their current perspective.

ALAN_2 :: The Society is (or should be) aware that Russell himself continued to state his belief about the outbreak of the War. Russell announced in the September 1, 1916 Watch Tower, (pp. 5950-1, Reprints) that Armageddon had already started: It still seems clear to us that the prophetic period known as the Times of the Gentiles ended chronologically in October, 1914. The fact that the great day of wrath upon the nations began there marks a good fulfilment of our expectations. The Gentile nations were guaranteed a certain amount of possession and control for a certain period of time. That time having expired, dispossession proceedings are now in process. The winds of strife, winds of war, are let loose with great damage to the whole world, weakening the kingdoms of Europe . . . We see no reasons for doubting, therefore, that the Times of the Gentiles ended in October, 1914; and that a few more years will witness their utter collapse and the full establishment of God's kingdom in the hands of Messiah. . . . our eyes of understanding should discern clearly the Battle of the Great Day of God Almighty now in progress. After Russell died the Society continued with his teaching for awhile. In 1917 they published Pastor Russell's Sermons, which said on page 676: "The present great war in Europe is the beginning of the Armageddon of the Scriptures."

GREG_2 Of course they are aware of these things, but these are not points of agreement on which they are building in the Revelation book! Obviously, they would classify such teachings as part of those things Russell did not "fully understand." Your referencing this issue has no place in this discussion about the meaning and INTENT of what is said on page 105 of the Revelation book. It certainly does nothing to support your claims.

: GREG : The third paragraph in the box frankly admits that Russell and the Bible students did not "fully understand what this would mean," but that they knew it would be "a pivotal date in world history."

ALAN_2 :: That's right, and I explained in my previous post why this is weaseling.

GREG_2 You explained no such thing. There is no "weaseling" at all. It is quite easy to understand, in fact. You simply refuse to accept what is plainly stated, for obvious reasons. A good example of "weaseling" is coming up, though.

ALAN_2 :: Russell predicted a lot of things for 1914, each of which could be described as "a pivotal event in world history". Unfortunately not a single observable event that he predicted came to pass in the way he predicted. Not one.

GREG_2 That is not the issue, here. The Society believes he WAS RIGHT about the events that marked the end of the Gentile Times, and THAT is the issue.

ALAN_2 :: What the Society has done here is to generalize a bunch of specific but false predictions about major events and lump them in the large category of "pivotal events and dates in world history", a category that contains real and imagined events and dates. Imagined events and dates would include Christ's return in 1844, Christ's return in 1874, and Christ's return in 1914. Real ones would include the outbreak of World War I in 1914. It should be obvious that it is wrong to claim that a bunch of false and unfulfilled predictions about pivotal dates and events is equivalent to a bunch of true and fulfilled ones. Therefore it is weaseling to claim that a person who got every detail wrong about a set of predictions that can be called "pivotal events" that were to occur by a particular "pivotal date" knew that the predicted date was going to be "pivotal". The fact that some other "pivotal event" occurred shows only that coincidences occur.

GREG_2 A coincidence TO YOU, not to them. Try to understand the difference. As I said, before, nowhere in the Revelation book or elsewhere in the Society's literature does they ever claim that Russell foresaw the actual outcome of WWI. It is stated that he foresaw that "catastrophic events" would mark the end of the Gentile times. This is consistent with the Society's view of things, and so they use his announcement at the Bethel table in par. 5 on page 105 of the Revelation book, as a point from which they explain their view of things. This is all said in a context where they specifically state that Russell did not fully understand what the end of the Gentile Times would mean, and that they agreed with Russell about 1914 being a "pivotal date." It is this agreement that is used as a point of departure, for explaining the "aftermath" of 1914 from their current perspective.

ALAN_2 :: To illustrate: suppose Greg predicts that Alan will die in 2005. That year passes and Alan suffers a stroke, incapacitating him. Did Greg predict Alan's sorry state? Of course not. He'd be lying if he went around boasting to his friends, "I foresaw trouble for Alan".

GREG_2 False analogies do not work here, Alan. A better analogy would have been: Greg predicts Alan will have health troubles in 2005 and as a result of those troubles, Alan will die. The year 2005 arrives, and Alan has a stroke, but does not die. Would friend of mine be lying if they said, "Greg foresaw health troubles for Alan, but he did not fully understand how things would end up"? Of course not. Russell predicated more than just one thing for 1914, and the Society believes he got the part about the end of the Gentiles right, all the while making it clear that he got other things wrong. So, please, do not waste my time with these terrible analogies, when you know full well they do not accurately capture the essence of what we are SUPPOSED to be discussing.

: GREG : In fact, they even quote a newspaper article that reports on their message, a message that proclaimed "the Day of Wrath" in 1914.

ALAN_2 ::Correct, and as I've shown above, this proves your argument wrong. This was quoted in support of the Rev Cli writer's contention that Russell foresaw World War I and its aftermath. The "Day of Wrath" was certainly the same thing as "Armageddon", according to Russell's teachings of 1914, and that was certainly an upheaval that was to begin in 1914 according to Russell.

GREG_2 It does not prove me wrong at all. They are here making it clear that Russell foresaw events for 1914, some of which were wrong, and some of which they believe were right. The quotation of the secular newspaper is used to show that they were know for their claims about 1914, that is all. Since my argument is that what is said on page 105 of the Revelation book is meant to agree with Russell only on the matter of the end of the Gentile Times, then how, Alan, does that disprove my argument? The writer of the Revelation book does not say anything about Russell foreseeing WWI and its aftermath. As I have explained above, you are reading this into the book, all the while ignoring key information that disproves your view. Again, the box where the newspaper quote is found is titled, "1914 Foreseen," not "World War I and its Aftermath Foreseen." The events that were acknowledged to have been foreseen by Russell and which are accepted in par. 5, are those that relate to the end of the Gentile Times.

ALAN_2 :: The April 1, 1984 Watchtower describes the situation (pp. 5-6). Note how "Mary" is quoted to support the notion that the start of World War I was foreseen by the Bible Students: 1914 a Marked Year-Why? WHERE were you in the year 1914? Would you answer: 'I was not born'? But a few million people today can still remember the year 1914. In 1914 Mary was completing her last year in high school . . . an assassin's bullet cut short the life of an Austrian archduke. It sparked the explosion of World War I. When news of the war reached Mary, she thought: 'It has come true! Just what the Bible Students were saying has come true; 1914 is going to be a marked year!' Mary was not the only one who felt that way about world events. On August 30, 1914, the arresting headline "End of All Kingdoms in 1914" blazed across page 4 of the Sunday magazine section of The World, a leading New York newspaper. "The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy," stated this feature article. "For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the 'International Bible Students [Jehovah's Witnesses],' best known as 'Millennial Dawners,' have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914. 'Look out for 1914!' has been the cry of the hundreds of traveling evangelists who, representing this strange creed, have gone up and down the country enunciating the doctrine that 'the Kingdom of God is at hand.'" Additional proof that the Society's traditional interpretation of the quote from The World (August 30, 1914) is as I said comes from the 1959 book Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose. On pages 54-5 this book sets forth a much more extensive quotation from The World than appeared in the box on page 105 of the Rev Cli book. I here set out this quote verbatim, except that I've added bolding in appropriate places: According to the Calculation of Rev. Russell's "International Bible Students," This Is the "Time of Trouble" Spoken of by the Prophet Daniel, the Year 1914 Predicted in the Book "The Time Is at Hand," of Which Four Million Copies Have Been Sold, as the Date of the Downfall of the Kingdoms of Earth.

The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the "International Bible Students," best known as "Millennial Dawners," have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914. "Look out for 1914!" has been the cry of the hundreds of traveling evangelists who, representing this strange creed, have gone up and down the country enunciating the doctrine that "the Kingdom of God is at hand." . . .

Although millions of people must have listened to these evangelists, . . . and although their propaganda has been carried on through the religious publications and a secular press service involving hundreds of country newspapers, as well as through lectures, debates, study classes, and even moving pictures, the average man does not know that such a movement as the "Millennial Dawn" exists. . . .

Rev. Charles T. Russell is the man who has been propounding this interpretation of the Scriptures since 1874. . . . "In view of the strong Bible evidence," Rev. Russell wrote in 1889, "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." . . .

But to say that the trouble must culminate in 1914 - that was peculiar. For some strange reason, perhaps because Rev. Russell has a very calm, higher-mathematics style of writing instead of flamboyant soap box manners, the world in general has scarcely taken him into account. The students over in his "Brooklyn Tabernacle" say that this was to be expected, that the world never did listen to divine warnings and never will, until after the day of trouble is past. . . .

And in 1914 comes war, the war which everybody dreaded but which everybody thought could not really happen. Rev. Russell is not saying "I told you so"; and he is not revising the prophecies to suit the current history. He and his students are content to wait - to await until October, which they figure to be the real end of 1914. Since the Society used this quotation to prove its contention that Russell predicted World War I, it is obvious that its writers agree with the statements. The bolded statements show that Russell claimed that his statement in the 1889 book The Time Is At Hand was being fulfilled by the outbreak of war in 1914.

GREG_2 It is hard to believe that you have traveled so far off the mark. I am not now nor have I ever contested that the outbreak of war in 1914 was seen as fulfillment of what Russell foresaw. Of course we believe that! But what is accepted is that the outbreak of war fulfilled his view of the end of the Gentile Times. There is absolutely nothing in the above quotes or anywhere else that even implies that Russell rightly understood what the OUTCOME of WWI would be, or its aftermath. In fact, as I have stated several times, it is clearly stated on page 105 of the Revelation book that he did NOT fully understand what the end of the Gentiles would mean. Again, nowhere does the Society claim that Russell rightly understood the full significance of the outcome of WWI, or its aftermath. They do, however, claim that he rightly discerned 1914 to be a pivotal date, and one that would see the end of the Gentile Times, proof of which Russell saw in the outbreak of war, in that year. On this, the Society is in agreement with Russell. How you have so badly misunderstood my contentions and the date on page 105 of the Revelation book, so that you would think it helpful for your argument to quote the above publications, is indeed discouraging.

: GREG : I see absolutely nothing that would give "the impression that the 'upheaval that began in 1914', namely, World War I and its aftermath, was clearly foreseen by C. T. Russell and the Bible Students." Indeed, the information provided quite clearly contradicts this view.

ALAN_2 :: I suggest that you go over the arguments again. The information provided fully supports the view I expressed. End of Part 3 AF

GREG_2 I did, and it does not. Your views are in error, as is clear from the above.

END OF MY PART THREE