by BU2B 78 Replies latest jw friends
Reslight
Have you seen the Creation Drama slides ? The Egyptians named/worshipped Adam as the first Pharoah ( I didn't know this ) then russel was there researching it.
1874 + 40 = 1914
(somebody above mentioned the war was in the pipelin for 40 yrs before the outbreak . then I realised, combined 1914, not sure if it relevent.)
regards lost
*lost* said:
Reslight
Have you seen the Creation Drama slides ? The Egyptians named/worshipped Adam as the first Pharoah ( I didn't know this ) then russel was there researching it.
1874 + 40 = 1914
(somebody above mentioned the war was in the pipelin for 40 yrs before the outbreak . then I realised, combined 1914, not sure if it relevent.)
ADCMS: lost- it wouldn't matter if reslight knows that already or not. He asserted earlier in this thread that Russell considered chronology and time prophecies as "non-essential" and really didn't talk about it that much in WT literature. Reslight totally dismissed the quotes I posted earlier plainly showing that Russell was very definite about his chronologies and viewed them as "god's dates". Reslight instead presented a Straw Man argument, and said at least Russell didn't force anyone to accept his views. I'm fully aware of this...and I never brought it up. Reslight uses diversionary tactics to avoid answering questions and acknowledging information he's uncomfortable with.
Reslight2 also stated that he doesn't really believe Russell actually measured the pyramid at Giza, even though Russell travelled to Egypt twice and wrote a book about it- a book, incidentally, that discussed chronology and time prophecies in great detail. But, don't think about that too much- reslight2 doesn't either. Reslight believes Russell spent a lot of time and money travelling to Egypt just to have a photo taken of himself holding a big stick in his hand.
Reslight confuses his beliefs as fact, and you'll not make a dent with him.
AndDontCallMeShirley
reslight-
I've provided many quotes and article citations which show your claims are not as tenable as you think they are. You've provided none. You make claims without substantiation. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, saying the same things over and over ad nauseum, does not make it true.
I have many more quotes that debunk your various positions, but decided against posting them as it would do no good.
Although I have seen many things asserted, as yet, I have seen no response that addresses the facts I presented and/or provided links for. All I have seen is methods used to ignore what I have presented. Nevertheless, since the above is non-specific, I am not sure what to reply to. It would seem to imply that I am wrong about something, but it does not say what that is, and it certainly does not address any of the facts I presented.
AndDontCallMeShirley
You are entitled to your opinions, I respect that, and I have no real need to convince you of anything.
I'll conclude with a quote that is very apropos to this discussion:
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."
- Carl Sagan
That's quite a good quote; many will tenaciously hold to what they wish to be correct, and will ignore all facts to the contrary.
Should one still believe that Russell changed the ending of the Gentile Times to October of 1915, despite the facts that show that he did not?
http://www.rlbible.com/ctr/?p=139
Should one still believe that the change on page 99 of The Time Is At Hand took place in 1915, as a result of an alleged failure of 1914, rather than either in 1911 or before, even though the facts show that it was there at in the 1911 edition?
http://www.rlbible.com/ctr/?p=1556
Should one still believe that Russell presented his conclusions concerning Bible chronology as "dogma" that was mandatory that all Bible Students should believe, even though his own writings show that he did not do this?
http://ctrussell.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/infallibility/
Yes, one can present many statements wherein he affirms his firm belief in the chronology and the dates, but one can also find many statements wherein he states something like:
The Apostle John shows us that this matter of distinguishing as between brethren that are to be esteemed and brethren that are to be warned, appertains not merely to conduct but also to doctrinal matters. Yet we may be sure that he does not mean that we are to disfellowship a brother merely because of some differences of view on non-essential questions. We may be sure that he does mean his words to apply strictly and only to the fundamentals of the doctrine of Christ: for instance, faith in God; faith in Jesus as our Redeemer; faith in the promises of the divine Word. These will be marks of a "brother," if supported by Christian conduct, walking after the spirit of the truth;--even tho the brother might have other views which would differ from ours in respect to certain features of the plan of God not so clearly and specifically set forth in the Scriptures. But for those whom we recognize as being doctrinally astray from the foundation principles of Christ, the Apostle intimates that very drastic measures are appropriate;--not persecutions, nor railing; not bitter and acrimonious disputes; not hatred, either open or secret; but a proper showing of our disfellowship with the false doctrines held and taught by them; a proper protection, so that our influence shall not be in any manner or degree used to uphold his denial of the fundamentals of the Gospel. This drastic course is outlined by the Apostle in these words: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine [confessing Christ to have come into the world, in the flesh, to redeem our race, etc.] receive him not into your house, neither bid him God-speed; for he that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds." --2 John 10,11. -- Watch Tower, July 1, 1902, page 199.
And,
Those who cannot receive this interpretation are entirely welcome to have as their own any better interpretation, or none at all, as they see fit. Indeed, we might remark that this is true of all that we write. Hence, should any cease to see eye to eye with us, they have full right to their own opinion, without any need for a quarrel with us. If they find new and better light our sentiment towards them is, God bless you. We are glad if you have something that will do you more good than that which we present. -- Watch Tower, July 15, 1909, page 219.
And,
We answer, as we have frequently done before in the DAWNS and TOWERS and orally and by letter, that we have never claimed our calculations to be infallibly correct; we have never claimed that they were knowledge, nor based upon indisputable evidence, facts, knowledge; our claim has always been that they are based on faith. We have set forth the evidences as plainly as possible and stated the conclusions of faith we draw from them, and have invited others to accept as much or as little of them as their hearts and heads could endorse. Many have examined these evidences and have accepted them; others equally bright do not endorse them. Those who have been able to accept them by faith seem to have received special blessings, not merely along the line of prophetic harmonies, but along all other lines of grace and truth. We have not condemned those who could not see, but have rejoiced with those whose exercise of faith has brought them special blessings--"Blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear."
Possibly some who have read the DAWNS have presented our conclusions more strongly than we; but if so that is their own responsibility. We have urged and still urge that the dear children of God read studiously what we have presented;--the Scriptures, the applications and interpretations--and then form their own judgments. We neither urge nor insist upon our views as infallible, nor do we smite or abuse those who disagree; but regard as "Brethren" all sanctified believers in the precious blood.
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/reprints/Z1907OCT.asp#Z294:9
May God bless. In due time, the truth will prevail before all, and all will know the truth, but not as long as Satan is still allowed to deceive.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/250786/4/Another-Lie-Revisionist-History-in-todays-WT-study *lost* stated:
Reslight
Have you seen the Creation Drama slides ? The Egyptians named/worshipped Adam as the first Pharoah ( I didn't know this ) then russel was there researching it.
Yes, I am aware that Russell presented many things such as the above that corroborate the Bible record, and that shows that all races have a common origin.
1874 + 40 = 1914
(somebody above mentioned the war was in the pipelin for 40 yrs before the outbreak . then I realised, combined 1914, not sure if it relevent.)
regards lost
I don't know of anything that would be relevant in this. May God bless.
ADCMS: lost- it wouldn't matter if reslight knows that already or not. He asserted earlier in this thread that Russell considered chronology and time prophecies as "non-essential" and really didn't talk about it that much in WT literature. Reslight totally dismissed the quotes I posted earlier plainly showing that Russell was very definite about his chronologies and viewed them as "god's dates". Reslight instead presented a Straw Man argument, and said at least Russell didn't force anyone to accept his views. I'm fully aware of this...and I never brought it up. Reslight uses diversionary tactics to avoid answering questions and acknowledging information he's uncomfortable with.
Again, this does not address any of the facts I have presented, and continues to elude actually acknowledging the facts. I did not "dismiss" any of the quotes, but showed that none of them were actually "dogmatic", but rather were expressions of Russell's own firm convictions; and yes, Russell did indeed definitely believe in the chronology and his conclusions regarding time prophecies. I also definitely believe in them, but if anyone else cannot receive this chronology and/or the conclusions concerning the time prophecies, like Russell, I will not be dogmatic as to judge that person as not being a Christian, or that such a person should disfellowshiped, or otherwise condemned. The fact is that Russell stated that he was not " dogmatic " in his views.
Russell, himself, showed what he considered "essential", and he did not include acceptance his study of chronology and time prophecies to be "essential".
The Scriptural idea of unity is upon the foundation principles of the Gospel. (1) Our redemption through the precious blood, and our justification by demonstrated faith therein. (2) Our sanctification, setting apart to the Lord, the Truth and their service--including the service of the brethren. (3) Aside from these essentials, upon which unity must be demanded, there can be no Scriptural fellowship; upon every other point fullest liberty is to be accorded, with, however, a desire to see, and to help others to see, the divine plan in its every feature and detail. -- — The New Creation, page 240.
AndDontCallMeShirley stated:
Reslight2 also stated that he doesn't really believe Russell actually measured the pyramid at Giza, even though Russell travelled to Egypt twice and wrote a book about it- a book, incidentally, that discussed chronology and time prophecies in great detail. But, don't think about that too much- reslight2 doesn't either. Reslight believes Russell spent a lot of time and money travelling to Egypt just to have a photo taken of himself holding a big stick in his hand.
I could not verify that Russell visited Egypt twice; I could verify that he visited Egypt in his Around the World Tour of 1912. Russell did not just visit Egypt and/or the Great Pyramid; he visited many other countries around the world. Russell's entire report of that trip to the Great Pyramid made be found at: http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/CRS/1912a.asp#CR258:7
Russell did not write a book about the Great Pyramid itself; he did write one chapter in one book -- Thy Kingdom Come -- about the God's witness in Egypt. Most of the information contained in that chapter had already presented by Nelson Barbour long before Russell wrote THY KINGDOM COME in 1890. Barbour based his study on the measurements provided by Piazzi Smyth. Russell wrote two books on time prophecy, but only one of them has one chapter on the Great Pyramid.
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/volumes/index.asp#vol2
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/volumes/index.asp#vol3
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/barbour%20pyramid.htm
Nevertheless, Russell's trip to Egypt took place AFTER he had written the chapter in the book in 1890; the measurements given in the book were based on measurements taken by Piazza Smyth, as Russell stated in the chapter itself. The chapter from the book, Thy Kingdom Come, was also put in a limited edition of The Divine Plan of the Ages, but Russell never wrote a entire book devoted to the Great Pyramid.
http://archive.org/details/TheDivinePlanOfTheAgesAndTheGreatPyramid
The Edgar brothers (John and Morton), on the other hand, did go to Egypt and took many measurements of their own and published several books on their work regarding the Great Pyramid. Again, this was after Russell had written his book that has a chapter on the Great Pyramid, and after the change made in the 1905 edition of that book related to the floor of the descending passageway, which no one had actually measured until the Edgars cleared the debris so that it could be measured.
http://www.rlbible.com/binfo/?p=328
http://www.rlbible.com/ctr/?p=48
AndDontCallMeShirley stated:
Reslight confuses his beliefs as fact, and you'll not make a dent with him.
And still, the verifiable facts I have presented have not been addressed, but rather they have again been evaded.
DATA-DOG: For the sake of accuracy, would it be fair to say that the WTBTS has never had a consistent teaching about 1914?
Good question! I'd like to comment on the WT excerpt you quoted:
"The Watchtower has consistently presented evidence to honesthearted students of Bible prophecy that Jesus' presence in heavenly Kingdom power began in 1914." Watchtower1993 Jan 15 p.5 "
Don't confuse the fact that they have "consistently presented evidence" (yuck, I hate they way they misuse that word "evidence") with the notion that they have presented "consistent evidence" or "consistent teachings."
The Watchtower has been continuously published since 18xx whenever it was. What they publish changes all the time.
reslight2,
I would like to suggest that when it comes to commenting: less is more.
Think about it.
Oubliette
The WT has always had on hand enough self contradictory information to be able to cherry pick
its own writings to 'prove' whatever current take it has on any given subject.
Oz
That i sooooooooo true. That is what drives you crazy.
That is why we need facts such as what DontCallMeShirley presents.
Looking up all of those quotes takes so much time.
This is valuable. Thank you, DCMS!
Someone earlier asked, "Why go over this stuff all the time?"
If I recall correctly, that person was never a witness....
Here is the reason:
Sincere people could be reading this. They may be disturbed by what they read.
They may not be able to put it all together, because of the "cherry picking."
They may not have the time, the resources, the "search the internet" ability
and may be very appreciative of this effort.
I certainly do notlike being lied to, and believe that yes, indeed, the WTBTS lies.
I don't like them using people's lives, resources and time for their benefit.
I cried when I read about "prophecy fulfilled" the in the old Finished Mystery book, page 230
Why? I saw they could make anything work, any time.
I never had a chance to see this idiocracy.... lunacy...
Last year, I told my friend that the WTBS would soon be rewriting history,
simply waiting for people who knew what had realllllly happend to die,
just like they have done in the past, then writing something new...
and they are...... they are...
Here is the shell game they play... they play, with your lives:
By the space of a thousand and [six] TWO hundred furtongs.—
This can not be interpreted to refer to the 21(H) mile battle line of the world war. A furlong or stadium is
not a mile and this is without the city whereas the battle line is within the city. See Rotherham's translation.
A stadium is 606% English f t ; 1200 stadli are, mi.. 137J The work on this volume was done In
Scranton, Fa. As fast as It was completed it was sent to the Bethel. Half of the work was done at an average distance
of 5 blocks from the Lackawanna station, and the other half at a distance of 26 blocks. Blocks in Scranton are 10
to the mile. Hence the average distance to the station is 15 blocks, or 1.5 ml.
The mileage from Scranton to Hoboken Terminal Is shown in time tables as 143.8
and this is the mileage charged to passengers, but in 1911, at an expense of
$12,000,000, the Lackawanna Railroad completed its famous cut-off, saving 11
miles of the distance. From the day the cut-off was completed the trainmen have
been allowed 11 miles less than the time table shows, or a net distance of 132.8 "
loboken Ferry to Barclay Street Perry, jew York, is 2.6 "
Barclay Street Perry to Fulton Perry, New York, is 4,800 feet or 0.9 " Fulton Ferry, New York ,to Fulton
Ferry, Brooklyn, is 2,000 feet or 0.4 " Fulton Ferry, Brooklyn, to Bethel, Is 1,485 feet or 0.3
-
Shortest distance from place where the —— winepress was trodden by the Feet Members
of the Lord, Whose guidance and help alone made this volume possible.
•.John 6:60. 61; Matt. 20:11.) mL, 1871
Witnesses who are disturbed by this "new light" just might need this,
it may be their first glimpse into reality...
