@peacedog:
I know it's been awhile since we were both posting to the same thread, only this one has gotten a bit silly, IMO. Let's take a look at what you quoted regarding what you are calling "pre-1914" and "post-1914" quotes from The Time is at Hand book:
This quote contains what you have here referred to as "pre-1914" from the book:
The original (pre-1914) printing of The Time is at Hand reads: "...the full end of 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." (pg 76-66)
And this quote contains what you have here referred to as "post-1914" from the book:
Later (post-1914) printings of The Time is at Hand read: "...the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that that date will see the disintegration of the rule of imperfect men." (pg 76-66)
"In this chapter we will present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men...Firstly,That at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, "Thy Kingdom come,"will obtain full, universal control, and that it will then be "set up," or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions. Secondly, It will prove that he whose right it is thus to take the domination will then be present as earth’s new Ruler..." - The Time Is at Hand (SS-2), 1907 ed., p. 76-78
@Essan indicates that he was quoting from the original release of this publication, but from the 1907 edition of the Time is at Hand book, and notice that he merges the text from two successive paragraphs together and that the words he underscores are "will then be present," ok?
Now the following quote is from both of these paragraphs:
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 their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D.: 1914; and that that date will see the disintegration of the rule of imperfect men.
And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures, it will prove Firstly, That at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, "Thy Kingdom come," will begin to assume control, and that it will then shortly be "set up," or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions.
Secondly, It will prove that he whose right it is thus to take the dominion
will then be present as earth's new Ruler; and not only so, but it will also prove that he will be present for a considerable period before that date; because the overthrow of these Gentile governments is directly caused by his dashing them to pieces as a potter's vessel (Psa. 2:9; Rev. 2:27), and establishing in their stead his own righteous government.will then be present as earth's new Ruler; and not only so, but it will also prove that he will be present for a considerable period before that date; because the overthrow of these Gentile governments is directly caused by his dashing them to pieces as a potter's vessel (Psa. 2:9; Rev. 2:27), and establishing in their stead his own righteous government.Focusing just on that portion of the quote from which @Essan quoted in his post indicated above in blue, which comes from the bottom of page 76 and the top of page 77 of the Time is at Hand book, do you see in either of these two quotes that you provided in your post anything to suggest that Russell was teaching that Jesus would come in 1914? Would you conclude from reading the words "will then be present" indicated above in green that Russell is referring to Jesus' presence or to Jesus' coming? IOW, assuming, arguendo, that what @Essan says is true about a "pre-1914" printing and a "post-1914" printing, is there anything here that you can see in either version of this quote that supports @Essan's contention that Russell is talking about Jesus' coming?
If you should be of the belief that Russell is referring to "Jesus' presence," then please explain your reasons for so concluding to @Essan, but if you should instead be of the belief that Russell is referring to "Jesus' coming," then please explain your reasons for so concluding to me, for this is how I responded to the first of Essan's questions:
@Essan wrote quote:
DJ, Would you have us believe that Russell taught that the long prayed for "Kingdom would come" in 1914, in [its] fullest possible sense, in the earth, but that Jesus would somehow not have "come"?
@djeggnog wrote wrote:
But Russell didn't teach that "[God's] Kingdom would come" in 1914, and nothing you quoted in your post from The Time is at Hand book even suggested such a thing. What Russell actually stated was that "the full end of the times of the Gentiles ... will be reached in AD: 1914" after which the rule of imperfect men would begin to disintegrate. He didn't predict that 1914 would be the end of the Gospel age, which would culminate in Armageddon, followed by the beginning of the Millennial age and Christ's rule, did he?
Russell says nothing to suggest that he was predicting Jesus' coming in 1914, which is what @Essan quoted this text from The Time is at Hand book to prove. But where is the proof? Do you see it? I do not.
@djeggnog also wrote quote:
Russell then goes on to say as to the end of the Gentile times in 1914 that "if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures," then it would prove that the kingdom would "shortly be "set up," in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions," and that "he whose right it is" -- referring to the Lord Jesus Christ -- "will then be present as earth's new Ruler; and ... that he will be present for a considerable period before that date".
@Essan quoted this text from The Time is at Hand book as proof that "Russell must have predicted and proclaimed 1914 to be the year of Christ's 'Coming,'" but what he quoted doesn't even come close to proving his contention? What do you think, @peacedog? What Russell did teach though was that in 1914, Jesus "will then be present as earth's new Ruler," and now that we know, according to the Bible at 1 Timothy 6:16, that Jesus "dwells in [an] unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see," his presence would have to be an invisible one.
@djeggnog
