Post by ResLight on May 21, 2023 10:05:25 GMT -5
This is in response to a post that appears on the "JWfacts" titled: "1914 : Failed Watchtower Prophecy".
Much of this I reproducing from what I posted some time ago in the Facebook group: Charles Taze Russell - Examining the Facts.
Some of the article referred to above is correct. The Jehovah's Witnesses' authors have at times misrepresented what Russell taught about 1914 and many other things. However, it fails to note that from 1904 onward Russell was expecting the time of trouble to begin in 1914. Nevertheless, the statement that "The Watchtower has consistently presented evidence to honesthearted students of Bible prophecy that Jesus’ presence in heavenly Kingdom power began in 1914." is definitely false.
his is what Brother Russell said in 1894:
"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. Zion's Watch Tower 1894 Jul 15 p.226.
This is quoted from the JWs' Awake magazine:
"Jehovah's witnesses pointed to the year 1914, decades in advance, as marking the start of "the conclusion of the system of things." Awake! 1973 Jan 22 p.8.
The Awake magazine is obviously wrong. In 1876, Brother Russell accepted Barbour's conclusion that the end of the age began in 1874, and at that time it was thought that it was to last for 40 years, from 1874 to 1914. Barbour believed that Armageddon, the time of trouble, had begun in 1874 and that it was to last for 40 years, until 1914. Russell believed this up until 1904, when he realized that the time of trouble is after the end of the times of the Gentiles.
ransomforall.blogspot.com/2023/01/t-of-t.htmll
Russell died in 1914, still holding to the belief that the time of trouble had begun in 1914. Thus, Russell did believe, before 1914 had arrived, that the time of trouble was to begin in 1914 (or shortly thereafter). It would be misleading, however, to say that expecting the start of "the conclusion of the system of things" in 1914. In 1876, he accepted that the end of the age or system of things had begun in 1874. As best as I can determine, he died in 1916, still holding to this belief. In 1904, Russell did not change his belief about the beginning of end of the age, but he did change his belief about the beginning of the time of trouble.
A statement is given in the article from Samuel Herd of JWs' Governing Body:
"At the kingdom's birth in 1914, the Bible Students were not exactly sure what was going to happen, but they knew it would be a pivotal year."
In Russell's day, the Bible Students were not under any central authority here on earth as the Jehovah's Witnesses are with their "governing body". Additionally, the Bible Students today do not have a central authority governing all their affairs. Not all the Bible Students before 1914 were expecting the same things to happen in 1914; indeed, some did not even believe that the Gentile Times were to end in 1914.
Russell himself was expecting the end of the Gentile Times in 1914, and he was expecting the time of trouble to begin in 1914 or shortly thereafter, as well as many other things. And yet Russell sometimes presented scenarios in which what he was expecting may not happen as or when he expected them to happen. For instance, Russell cautioned that one's consecration is not to 1914, and he sometimes spoke of the possibility that all the saints may not be glorified in 1914. Nevertheless, it appears that there may have been a large segment among the Bible Students who were totally convinced that they would be taken to heaven in October of 1914, despite Russell's cautions.
In 1912, Brother Russell stated: "Many disposed to cavil at every statement of faith respecting the time and ending of this Age and the dawning of the New Age are very positive in their assertions. Some of them declare that surely the end of this Age cannot come for fifty thousand years yet. Others, with equal positiveness, declare that it may happen at any moment. Neither one gives any Scriptural proof. Then why should either of them criticize us for merely presenting the Scripture testimonies and our opinions respecting the signification of them, with the request that others investigate and form each his own opinion?" -- "The Ending of the Gentile Times" Watch Tower, December 1, 1912, page 378.
Also in 1912, Russell stated concerning the coming of the time of trouble in 1914, "it is coming some time, whether we have it right or not." -- "Pastor Russell's Reply to Professor Moorehead" (1912).
References:
Russell on Organization and Authority
ransomforall.blogspot.com/p/authority.html
Russell regarding 1914:
ransomforall.blogspot.com/p/1914.html
Pastor Russell's Reply to Professor Moorehead
tinyurl.com/mhf-moorehead
www.mostholyfaith.com/beta/bible/CRS/1912b.asp#CR288:8
The Ending of the Gentile Times
tinyurl.com/12-1912-gentile-times
www.mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/Reprints/r.asp?file=audio1212.txt#Z377:1
Russell, however, never presented his expectations as being "prophecies". Russell consistently denied being a prophet, or that his expectations were prophecies. Although he was convinced that his expectations were correct, and stated his expectations in a very positive manner, he still was not dogmatic about his expectations. He assumed no authority to tell others that anyone had to accept his expectations to be saved, to be a Christian, or be accepted in fellowship. Not all the Bible Students agreed with all of Russell's expectations, and Russell at times even presented in the pages of the Watch Tower views held by others. For more related to this, see the links at:
ransomforall.blogspot.com/p/prophet.html
The article linked to in the JWfacts article claims that "expectations for 1914 were forcefully presented as fact," and thus it is claimed that Russell was being dogmatic about his expectations. One of the "examples" given is part of a sentence presented in Thy Kingdom Come, page 228.
"the deliverance of the saints must take place some time before 1914 is manifest".
It woould take too much to quote all in the chapter wherein Brother Russell presented the evidence for this conclusion. Nevertheless, this expresses Brother Russell's conclusion at the time it was written in 1891. Russell, however, was not assuming authority to forcefully present this conclusion with dogmatism.
The full paragraph reads:
I will first note that this is exactly the same as found in the first edition of 1891, and thus does not reflect Russell's later thoughts, especially after 1904. In 1904, Russell rejected some of his expectations for 1914 as expressed above, but he still believed -- without being dogmatic about it -- that all the saints could be glorified before the time of trouble began.
The Watch Tower, March 1, 1915, page 66, shows that Brother Russell had two lines changed on page 228:
Vol. III., page 228, line 11, "some time before 1914," reads "very soon after 1914."
Vol. III., page 228, line 15, "just how long before," reads "just how long after."
Russell, however, never endeavored to update every statement in his books to reflect his view of the time of trouble from 1904 onward. The editions being published by most of the Bible Students today are as Russell left them when he died, with updates in some places, but without updates in most places, which actually makes some places appear to self-contradictory.
Russell did forcefully state his expectations as he was firmly convinced that this is what the prophecies of the Bible pointed to. Did Russell, however, present his conclusions as being dogma that everyone had to accept? Russell, himself, did not consider his statements of be dogmatic, but rather simply his conclusions based on his studies of the Bible. Unlike the JW leadership, Russell never assumed authority to demand that fellow-believers had to accept his conclusions. He admonished all to make up his own mind.
In 1893, Russell stated: "Neither must you lean upon the DAWN and the TOWER as infallible teachers.... Their author claims no inspiration." -- Watch Tower, June 1893.
This does not sound like he viewed what he presented in the Studies (called the DAWN above) as being dogmatic.
In the Watch Tower, December 15, 1896, page 305, we find:
Early in 1914, Russell stated:
There are more things I could point out that are not entirely correct in the article. I may come back later and add more to this.
Much of this I reproducing from what I posted some time ago in the Facebook group: Charles Taze Russell - Examining the Facts.
Some of the article referred to above is correct. The Jehovah's Witnesses' authors have at times misrepresented what Russell taught about 1914 and many other things. However, it fails to note that from 1904 onward Russell was expecting the time of trouble to begin in 1914. Nevertheless, the statement that "The Watchtower has consistently presented evidence to honesthearted students of Bible prophecy that Jesus’ presence in heavenly Kingdom power began in 1914." is definitely false.
his is what Brother Russell said in 1894:
"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. Zion's Watch Tower 1894 Jul 15 p.226.
This is quoted from the JWs' Awake magazine:
"Jehovah's witnesses pointed to the year 1914, decades in advance, as marking the start of "the conclusion of the system of things." Awake! 1973 Jan 22 p.8.
The Awake magazine is obviously wrong. In 1876, Brother Russell accepted Barbour's conclusion that the end of the age began in 1874, and at that time it was thought that it was to last for 40 years, from 1874 to 1914. Barbour believed that Armageddon, the time of trouble, had begun in 1874 and that it was to last for 40 years, until 1914. Russell believed this up until 1904, when he realized that the time of trouble is after the end of the times of the Gentiles.
ransomforall.blogspot.com/2023/01/t-of-t.htmll
Russell died in 1914, still holding to the belief that the time of trouble had begun in 1914. Thus, Russell did believe, before 1914 had arrived, that the time of trouble was to begin in 1914 (or shortly thereafter). It would be misleading, however, to say that expecting the start of "the conclusion of the system of things" in 1914. In 1876, he accepted that the end of the age or system of things had begun in 1874. As best as I can determine, he died in 1916, still holding to this belief. In 1904, Russell did not change his belief about the beginning of end of the age, but he did change his belief about the beginning of the time of trouble.
A statement is given in the article from Samuel Herd of JWs' Governing Body:
"At the kingdom's birth in 1914, the Bible Students were not exactly sure what was going to happen, but they knew it would be a pivotal year."
In Russell's day, the Bible Students were not under any central authority here on earth as the Jehovah's Witnesses are with their "governing body". Additionally, the Bible Students today do not have a central authority governing all their affairs. Not all the Bible Students before 1914 were expecting the same things to happen in 1914; indeed, some did not even believe that the Gentile Times were to end in 1914.
Russell himself was expecting the end of the Gentile Times in 1914, and he was expecting the time of trouble to begin in 1914 or shortly thereafter, as well as many other things. And yet Russell sometimes presented scenarios in which what he was expecting may not happen as or when he expected them to happen. For instance, Russell cautioned that one's consecration is not to 1914, and he sometimes spoke of the possibility that all the saints may not be glorified in 1914. Nevertheless, it appears that there may have been a large segment among the Bible Students who were totally convinced that they would be taken to heaven in October of 1914, despite Russell's cautions.
In 1912, Brother Russell stated: "Many disposed to cavil at every statement of faith respecting the time and ending of this Age and the dawning of the New Age are very positive in their assertions. Some of them declare that surely the end of this Age cannot come for fifty thousand years yet. Others, with equal positiveness, declare that it may happen at any moment. Neither one gives any Scriptural proof. Then why should either of them criticize us for merely presenting the Scripture testimonies and our opinions respecting the signification of them, with the request that others investigate and form each his own opinion?" -- "The Ending of the Gentile Times" Watch Tower, December 1, 1912, page 378.
Also in 1912, Russell stated concerning the coming of the time of trouble in 1914, "it is coming some time, whether we have it right or not." -- "Pastor Russell's Reply to Professor Moorehead" (1912).
References:
Russell on Organization and Authority
ransomforall.blogspot.com/p/authority.html
Russell regarding 1914:
ransomforall.blogspot.com/p/1914.html
Pastor Russell's Reply to Professor Moorehead
tinyurl.com/mhf-moorehead
www.mostholyfaith.com/beta/bible/CRS/1912b.asp#CR288:8
The Ending of the Gentile Times
tinyurl.com/12-1912-gentile-times
www.mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/Reprints/r.asp?file=audio1212.txt#Z377:1
Russell, however, never presented his expectations as being "prophecies". Russell consistently denied being a prophet, or that his expectations were prophecies. Although he was convinced that his expectations were correct, and stated his expectations in a very positive manner, he still was not dogmatic about his expectations. He assumed no authority to tell others that anyone had to accept his expectations to be saved, to be a Christian, or be accepted in fellowship. Not all the Bible Students agreed with all of Russell's expectations, and Russell at times even presented in the pages of the Watch Tower views held by others. For more related to this, see the links at:
ransomforall.blogspot.com/p/prophet.html
The article linked to in the JWfacts article claims that "expectations for 1914 were forcefully presented as fact," and thus it is claimed that Russell was being dogmatic about his expectations. One of the "examples" given is part of a sentence presented in Thy Kingdom Come, page 228.
"the deliverance of the saints must take place some time before 1914 is manifest".
It woould take too much to quote all in the chapter wherein Brother Russell presented the evidence for this conclusion. Nevertheless, this expresses Brother Russell's conclusion at the time it was written in 1891. Russell, however, was not assuming authority to forcefully present this conclusion with dogmatism.
The full paragraph reads:
That the deliverance of the saints must take place some time before 1914 is manifest, since the deliverance of fleshly Israel, as we shall see, is appointed to take place at that time, and the angry nations will then be authoritatively commanded to be still, and will be made to recognize the power of Jehovah's Anointed. Just how long before 1914 the last living members of the body of Christ will be glorified, we are not directly informed; but it certainly will not be until their work in the flesh is done; nor can we reason ably presume that they will long remain after that work is accomplished. With these two thoughts in mind, we can approximate the time of the deliverance.
I will first note that this is exactly the same as found in the first edition of 1891, and thus does not reflect Russell's later thoughts, especially after 1904. In 1904, Russell rejected some of his expectations for 1914 as expressed above, but he still believed -- without being dogmatic about it -- that all the saints could be glorified before the time of trouble began.
The Watch Tower, March 1, 1915, page 66, shows that Brother Russell had two lines changed on page 228:
Vol. III., page 228, line 11, "some time before 1914," reads "very soon after 1914."
Vol. III., page 228, line 15, "just how long before," reads "just how long after."
Russell, however, never endeavored to update every statement in his books to reflect his view of the time of trouble from 1904 onward. The editions being published by most of the Bible Students today are as Russell left them when he died, with updates in some places, but without updates in most places, which actually makes some places appear to self-contradictory.
Russell did forcefully state his expectations as he was firmly convinced that this is what the prophecies of the Bible pointed to. Did Russell, however, present his conclusions as being dogma that everyone had to accept? Russell, himself, did not consider his statements of be dogmatic, but rather simply his conclusions based on his studies of the Bible. Unlike the JW leadership, Russell never assumed authority to demand that fellow-believers had to accept his conclusions. He admonished all to make up his own mind.
In 1893, Russell stated: "Neither must you lean upon the DAWN and the TOWER as infallible teachers.... Their author claims no inspiration." -- Watch Tower, June 1893.
This does not sound like he viewed what he presented in the Studies (called the DAWN above) as being dogmatic.
In the Watch Tower, December 15, 1896, page 305, we find:
The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is, that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else.
Early in 1914, Russell stated:
We think there is strong reason for believing that the Gentile Times will end in October, 1914. We give it as our opinion, and set before you the Scriptural reason. Some may believe and some not. This is our thought and if it is correct, about that time, or shortly thereafter, a great time of trouble will come upon the world." (What Pastor Russell Said, Q313:2, 1914)
There are more things I could point out that are not entirely correct in the article. I may come back later and add more to this.
