Why I Like the "Proclaimers" Book

by t33ap80c 44 Replies latest jw friends

  • heathen

    Just as delusional as the " this generation", dogma . ding I don't know what a jw apologist is because I've never heard one apologize about anything .

  • Invetigator74

    I found a statement similar to what TD found concerning 1914 in the book "Delievrance" (1926) page 306 as follows;

    For many centuries Satan the enemy, as head, aided
    and abetted by his wicked angels, has constituted the
    heavens that have influcnccd and controlled the nations
    and peoples of earth. With the coming of Christ
    Jesus into power in 1914 Satan and his demon hosts
    have been cast out of heaven and onto the earth. (Ps.
    110 : 6; Rev. 12 : 9) The new heaven is therefore now
    an established fact. Christ is in control thereof.

  • moshe

    The legal department has done a good job of publishing enough disclaimers so that any JW who should cry about being misled, has no leg to stand on. When the WT stopped publishing their 1914 blurb on the inside cover of the Awake almost 20 years ago that was the WT's way of telling JWs that 1914 is defunct. They should have just left the KH then, but they didn't.

  • Leolaia

    Invetigator74....That statement is not similar to the ones TD posted. It refers to the ideas promulgated in the March 1, 1925 "Birth of a Nation" article concerning the war in heaven and the establishment of the Kingdom in 1914. As early as 1922, Rutherford had been claiming that Jesus began his reign in 1914. That is separate from the issue of when the parousia began, which is what the quotes by TD are concerned with.

  • t33ap80c

    Hello TD.

    You said, "I don't believe the footnote on page 133 of Proclaimers says anything about the change from 1874 to 1914 for the date of Christ's return."

    In my footnote #38 on page 22 of "Captives of a Concept" I am referring to that footnote on page 133 of the "Proclaimers" book...

    "The footnote refers to the 1943 book The Truth Shall Make You Free that changed the date of Jesus’ return from 1874 to 1914. Page 209 of God’s Kingdom of a Thousand YearsHas Approached refers to this same 1943 book where the Society’s new understanding of the end of six thousand years of man’s existence "did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of the return of the Lord Jesus Christ."

    While it is true that the footnote doesn't actually say "The date 1874 was changed to 1914 in 1943," isn't that what the footnote is saying without actually saying it? Isn't that what the footnote means?

    You said, " A careful reading of the sources cited in the footnote shows that they are only talking about the 100 year adjustment for the 7th millennium." But it was that adjustment in the 1943 bookThe Truth Shall Make You Free that "did away with the year 1874."

    That's what I see when I 'carefully read' the footnote on page 133 of the "Proclaimers" book.

    What about the reference you provided from the Watchtower December 1, 1933 p. 362) where it indicates the date of Jesus' return was changed to 1914 in 1933?

    In my same footnote #38 on page 22 I explained...

    "NOTE: There is some evidence that Rutherford first mentioned 1914 as the beginning of Christ’s Second Coming in the 1930s. But the Proclaimers book doesn’t mention any date prior to 1943. Either way it wouldn’t make any difference because the change of date was made long after Jesus’ examination (in 1918-1919) was over."

    The point I try to make in the book is that whether the change in date was made in 1943 or any time after Jesus' examination was over, it was too late. The time to pass an exam is when it is given not 14 years (1933) or 24 years (1943) after it is over. And according to the Society their food-at-the-proper-time exam was over in 1919. - "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Appproached" pp 349-355

    One of the things the 1933 date changes is that the Society had announced the wrong date of 1874 for 57 years instead of 67 years. Would that have made any difference to Jesus or his Father if they where making sure the Society had been faithfully and discreetly proving the right spiritual food at the proper time? I guess it is a judgement call. For me, I don't think it would have made any difference.

    I hope the above comments provide some answers to the issues you brought up.

    Don Cameron

  • Invetigator74

    I stand corrected... thanks Leolaia

  • St George of England
    St George of England
    The first clear, unambiguous statement that the parousia had commenced in 1914 instead of 1874 appeared in the 1932 booklet, What Is Truth

    ...Yet the July 15, 1943 Watchtower, Page 127 says regarding the evil slave class:

    "True, this class may claim to believe in Christ's invisible presence and that his presence or parousia, began at 1874 according to their understanding of chronology. But in their heart, and by their actions which are motivated by their heart condition, they deny the Lord's coming or presence."


    Sorry I do not have facilities to scan and post this.

  • heathen

    So you're saying they condemned anyone that refused the 1874 date just like they did any who argue on 1914?

  • TD

    Hey Don

    Since Proclaimers confidently states in its forward that, "Certainly no one knows their modern-day history better than they themselves do" I suppose it's fair after a fashion to take the statement in God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached at face value. I can understand were you're coming from because there's a certain poetic justice in hoisting them on their own petard

    But what do you do with statements in JW literature that are demonstrably wrong? Were dealing with two separate changes here:

    1. 1874 to 1914 as the start of the Parousia

    2. 1873 to 1975 as the start of the seventh millennium

    God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years was Freddy's second to last book and he was 80 years old at the time. He really appears to have been confused here because the Parousia had already been uncoupled from the timing of the seventh millennium for about a decade by 1943.

    Of all the original proofs for the timing of the Parousia, the only one that had been retained is the count of 2520 years from what is held to be the date Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians. In other words, the start of the seventh millennium was no longer an "Influence" on the date of the Parousia as it had been in Russell's time. If it were, then they would have had to move the Parousia clear up to the year 1975 because the correction that was made was a little more than 100 years, not 40.

    Here's the adjusted chronology from The Truth Shall Make You Free. If I've overlooked something, and this is relevant to the Parousia, feel free to whack me upside the head with a 2 x 4

    (If you had to put your finger at a point where the 1975 fiasco really started, this would be it.)

    St George: That's funny stuff. We both know that the "Evil Slave" in 1943 were the various Bible Student groups who broke with Rutherford and never abandoned the 1874 date as the Witnesses did.


    Just to be clear then, when I was told that they/russell pointed forward to 1914 some 30 or so years prior that is all bunko.

    Right. Russell never looked forward to the Parousia as a future event.

    And you would say that their is no way I would find in print the statement that 1914 was significant as early as 1885 or so?

    Not at all. I'm saying that the change from 1874 to 1914 occured in the early 1930's. This is still well after Russell's death

    The last clear, unambiguous statement that the Parousia commenced in 1874 appears in the 1929 book Prophecy on pages 65 & 66

  • bobld

    Thaks. They sure like to knock the R.C. and its history but the fail when it comes to their own history.


Share this