Hi there TD - Are you employing a little bit of your own theocratic warfare in your cut and pastes? Yet, as you are full aware of, cut and pastes can be very deceiving. I did some investigation into the first quote. It was quoted accurately.
Let me help you out here:
"In 1879, however, it became clear which “second coming” voice was being chosen by Jehovah to speak the pure language as his Witnesses. By then a small Bible-study group led by Charles Taze Russell was meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. They had become certain that Jesus’ second coming would begin his invisible presence, that a time of world distress was ahead, and that this would be followed by the Thousand Year Reign of Christ that would restore Paradise on earth, with eternal life for obedient humans."
(The Watchtower May 1, 1991 p. 17 emphasis mine)
By his own testimony in the July 1906 issue of Zion's Watch Tower, Charles Taze Russell first came across Nelson Barbour's work in January of 1876. He was so intrigued with Barbour's time calculations that he paid Barbour's expenses to come to Philidelphia and meet with him. Nelson Barbour convinced Russell that Christ's invisible presence had commenced in the fall of 1874 and was already underway.
The May, 1881 issue of Zion's Watch Tower states on page 5:
"We would like to correct this misapprehension once for all, by stating that we do not expect Jesus to come this year, nor any other year, for we believe that all time prophecies (bearing upon Jesus' coming) ended at and before the fall of 1874 and that He came there and the second advent is now in progress and will continue during the entire Millennial age."
Russell accepted the 1874 date for the rest of his life and it was taught well into the Rutherford Presidency after Russell's death. For example, 41 years later, the November 1, 1922 edtion of The Watch Tower stated on page 333
"Bible prophecy shows that the Lord was due to appear for the second time in the year 1874. Fulfilled prophecy shows beyond a doubt that he did appear in 1874. Fulfilled prophecy is otherwise designated the physical facts; and these facts are indisputable."
Russell and the Bible Students never at any point regarded the parousia as a future event. Therefore it is incorrect to say that, "They had become certain that Jesus’ second coming would begin his invisible presence..." as it amounts to an assertion that the parousia was a future event relative to the Bible Students in 1879, which is utter nonsense and completely untrue.
But the idea behind your quote was that the WT was lying that Russell believed that Jesus would return invisibly. In reading some of the early Watchtower articles [link], it appears that Russell believed that Jesus was already present on the Earth, but invisible. He did teach that Jesus' presence would be invisible.
In the absence of a distinct anchor point, it is true that the future tense in English is not always indicative of posteriority. However that is clearly not the case in the examples I gave which deal with specific persons and groups prior to 1914 and therefore have clear temporal relationships vis a vis the event(s) described in the future tense.
With this in mind, perhaps you can spot the problems in the other examples I provided?
Let's take the second example:
"As for the time of Christ’s second presence, Daniel’s prophecy is again the one that gives the chronology for it. (Dan. 4:16) It was figured out as pointing to A.D. 1914, and The Watchtower called notice to the significance of 1914 in the year 1879." (The Watchtower November 1, 1952 p. 658)
This breaks down into three assertions:
a. Daniel's prophecy gives the chronology for Christ's second presence
b. It was figured out as pointing to 1914
c. The Watchtwoer called notice to the significance of 1914 in 1879
All Jehovah's Witnesses accept statement 'a' as true. Statement 'b' is also true in JW theology, but it did not become true until the early 1930's when the 1874 date was discarded and therefore by the time the significance of the chronology was understood it was pointing backward rather than forward. Statement 'c' is also true, but both the 19th century time frame as well as the meaning assigned to the "significance of 1914" are not the same as that of statement 'b'.
Simply put, the "significance of 1914 in the year 1879" had absolutely nothing to do with "the time of Christ's second presence." This is a time worn technique of misdirection called implication through ambiguity and ocurrs when a number of statments that the target audience accepts as true are strung together in an equivocal manner.
Hopefully, I think I can forestall any quibblilng by simply providing a more direct example:
"Today, Jehovah's Witnesses point to the "sign" given by Jesus and look back upon 1914 as the year when his invisible presence in Kingdom power became a reality. But how could they have had advance knowledge of such a momentous event?" Not because of extraordinary human wisdom. No, but because they have prayerfully studied the Scriptures, heeded God's prophetic word and paid more than the usual attention to what God's Son foretold." (The Watchtower April 1, 1984 p. 16 emphasis mine)
The 19th century Bible Students had no such advance knowledge since they looked upon the Christ's invisible presence in Kingdom power as a past, not a future event. Statments like this abound in the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Hi again TD - Wish you would have given references. Too much to ask?
Not at all.
Russell believed and taught that the "Time of the End" began in 1799 when the Pope was deposed from the Papal states. This was taught up until 1927 (Last clear reference to 1799 as the "Time of the End" occured in the 1927 book, Creation on page 293)
Russell believed and taught that the Parousia commenced in 1874. This was taught up until 1932 (Last clear reference to 1874 as the start of the parousia ocurred in the 1929 book Prophecy. First clear reference to 1914 as the start of this event in The Watchtower ocurred in the December 1, 1933 issue. Less clear references ocurred in 1932)
Russell believed and taught that Christ received kingly power to rule in 1878. This was taught up until 1925 (The 1878 date was explained on page 239 of Millennial Dawn Volume II. It was modified in the July 1, 1920 issue of The Watch Tower on page 196. In 1925, Rutherford specfically applied Revelation 12 to that event in the March 1st Watchtower article, 'Birth of a Nation', which was a major milepost in the doctrinal history of Jehovah's Witnesses that is still pointed to today.)
Russell believed and taught that 1914 was the end point of a 40 year long "Time of Trouble" and harvest work starting in 1874. 1914 was the farthest point of the rule of imperfect men and the point when Christ's reign actively began on earth. (This was explained in Millennial Dawn Volume II - The Time is at Hand. Specific pages of interest would include 98 - 101)
Sorry Change-name. Maybe changed-pants would be more accurate for your next pseudonym. You just theologically fell asleep at the helm and crapped your pantalones..