Don,
But is it less than accurate to conclude that the footnote on page 133 of the Proclaimers book is acknowledging that the date of 1874 was changed to 1914 in 1943?
Without any tangible evidence from the period literature showing that the timing of the Parousia was changed in 1943, I think we're discussing the presence (Or absence) of a mistaken claim in the Proclaimers book as opposed to an acknowledgment.
And since no such claim is explicitly stated, we would have to look for an implicit claim, perhaps through a cause and effect relationship. In 1943, would the change described below have been relavant to the timing of the Parousia?
From Mr. Barbour, editor of that publication, Russell also came to be persuaded that Christ’s invisible presence had begun in 1874*
This was influenced by the belief that the seventh millennium of human history had begun in 1873 and that a period of divine disfavor (of equal length to a former period considered to be one of favor) upon natural Israel would end in 1878. The chronology was flawed because of relying on an inaccurate rendering of Acts 13:20 in the King James Version,belief that there was a transcription error at 1 Kings 6:1, and failure to take into account Biblical synchronisms in the dating of reigns of the kings of Judah and of Israel. A clearer understanding of Biblical chronology was published in 1943, in the book The Truth Shall Make You Free, and it was then refined the following year in the book "The Kingdom Is at Hand," as well as in later publications.
By 1943, the timing of the Parousia was no longer resting upon the chronology that in 1876, convinced Russell of the 1874 date. It was resting upon the calculation for the expiration of the Gentile Times, and therefore would have been unaffected by the change described above. It was no longer relevant to the timing of the Parousia.
Did the writer or writers of Proclaimers mistakenly believe that reworking the start of the 7th millennium would have affected the timing of the Parousia? Were they parroting the statement from God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years? I understand how the inference could be made, but Proclaimers does not actually repeat the offending statement. So I don't know how we could positively attribute that thought to them as tempting as it may be.
My comments on this thread have been strictly in relation to the original post. Until today I had not read your book and did not understand your further comments:
What about my related footnote where I said, "There is some evidence that Rutherford first mentioned 1914 as the beginning of Christ’s Second Coming in the 1930s." From what you pointed out, that statement is accurate.
Is there any other evidence? Besides finding the point were they quit saying the Parousia started in 1874 and began saying it started in 1914, I don't know what other evidence there would be (?)
And finally I concluded: Either way it wouldn’t make any difference (if the date was changed in the 1930s or 1943) because the change of date was made long after Jesus’ (food-at-the-proper-time) examination was over." That is accurate.
Exactly --Which is why I said "A ten year difference doesn't detract in the least from the point you've made."
Will such an explanation above make any difference to a Witness who is not yet ready to face the truth about the Watchtower Society? My experience is that it will not make any difference even if they cannot see anything that is not accurate
That I don't honestly know. I do know that a JW will flail around like a drowning person, looking for any excuse to dismiss an argument as "Apostate lies."
