William Miller (page 6)

Pete Zahut

You, however, are a hypocrite as your degeneration into insult, the very thing for which you scold me, shows. I see no reason to take you seriously, no matter how much you rant.

Wow...after all I've said, there you go with the names again. You don't even know me but you resort to calling names. You now say that I'm a hypocrite because I dared to call you out on your rudeness earlier. Before that you accused me of not wanting to hear anything controversial. Which is it? I'm a rude and controversial hypocrite or I am I afraid of hearing controversy?

I see no reason to take you seriously, no matter how much you rant. You want to talk history, I'm here. Otherwise, you're whistling in the wind.

Not surprising...you probably never take anyone who disagrees with you seriously and you it appears that you view anyone who does so in a logical way, as ranting. I'll just have pick up the shattered pieces of my life and somehow go on. Ha !

No rant here....sorry if you're having a rough time. I'm just sitting by the water with the family staying cool and enjoying the day. I'm happy to talk history but would prefer not to hear the information or ideas you might have to present, punctuated by insults and name calling.

As far as me whistling in the wind and focusing on secondary issues, you're obviously reading my every word and getting the message, hence your agitated tone. Rather than apologize for your original rudeness (which I could forgive) you continue to side step my original comment about you having called us "a bunch of uninformed posters" based upon one persons comment that you disagreed with. You continue dragging in red herring after red herring in an attempt to cover your tracks. You keep bringing up secondary issues and then accuse me of it.

Again, you're not as clever as you've been led to believe.

JoenB75

Ok thanks for the sources. I guess in this epoch, a lot of larger hope books were written. Most were universalist but there were also some that said people would get a "first real chance to be saved in favorable conditions on earth". I can see why some people would arrive at this as a favorable conclusion but it is equally clear that it all depends on Russell being the special divinely appointed messenger of Jehovah in effect bringing us new scripture. The Bible says nothing about this particular scenario. Russell/JW teachings depend on the leadership being God's mouthpiece although they have always been coy about it. The followers imagined he saw things in Scripture others did not, few imagined he wrote new scripture .

cofty

PZ - The topic is interesting. Your ranting is not.

vienne

Joen,

Admiration for Russell and his supposed status as the Faithful and Wise Servant were factors later. But when the Allegheny believers adopted what some called "Fair Chance" doctrine, no one saw Russell that way. They were convinced by the various arguments presented in sympathetic publications, most notably Storrs' A Vindication of the Government of God over the Children of Men, Or “The Promise and Oath of God to Abraham,” published in 1871. [ https://www.harvestherald.com/vindication-1.html ]

They believed the arguments put forward by Storrs and others who wrote similarly were scriptural. Well ... they certainly cited scriptures.

Russell was frequently accused of teaching Universalism. But his doctrine wasn’t that. Paton, his sometime associate, called it a “wide view of salvation.” It was their settle doctrine before they elected Russell their pastor in 1876.

Mr.Finkelstein

Russell/JW teachings depend on the leadership being God's mouthpiece although they have always been coy about it.

Maybe that's because him and the men who followed him running the WTS. (Rutherford) weren't a faithful slave to Jesus and his instructions in preaching his Gospel but faithful to their agenda of literature proliferation.

Russell propagated other men's theologies including Pyramidology

These men and others proved the return of Christ is a valuable and saleable commodity.

JoenB75

vienne,

I read the first volume of Russell's studies years ago. I think in order for a teaching to be scriptural, it has to be expressed in scripture. It seems to me we have verses that support universalism as an outcome, whereas second chance theology is argued from verses that speak of universal resurrection and judgment, the verses used to argue universalism is also used but interpreted to mean a temporary version, God's prophetic blessings especially to israel and then a strong appeal to freewill belief and "it would be unfair if". Anyway thanks for the link to the Storr's writing, I will look through it .

JoenB75

Finkelstein,

They certainly had their success and imagine if they had taught tithing

Terry

The end did not come in 1844 (in connection with William Miller's Adventist predictions.

C.T. Russell "explained" this failure in a most peculiar manner!

He never once questioned the ACCURACY of Miller or his predictions!
Miller was wrong however, the fact of being wrong was invisible to Russell!

C.T. Russell framed the failure of 1844 to bring what Miller had predicted in an entirely different context!!

It is stunning to read Russell's words:

"But, notwithstanding the disappointment, (Miller's) movement had its DESIGNED EFFECTS of awakening an interest in the subject of the Lord's coming, and of casting reproach upon the subject by reason of mistaken expectations. We say designed effects because without a doubt the hand of the Lord was in it."

Did you read that??

(Thy Kingdom Come 1891) Read on..........

"...we recognize that movement as being in God's order and as doing a very important work in the separating, purifying, refining, and thus making ready, of a waiting people prepared for the Lord."

"...it has ever since served to test and prove the consecrated...it was the beginning of the right understanding of Daniel's visions, and at the right time to fit the prophecy."

Are you able to swallow that reasoning by Pastor Russell? Many did.

1.Miller was wrong about the facts and details and it brought reproach on the entire subject of end times prophecy. BUT THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT IT DREW ATTENTION to end times prophecy and that is a good thing! This is the most extreme example of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen.

~~A bad thing really is a GOOD thing!~~

2.God designed his Kingdom coming to be made public BY MEANS OF FALSE PROPHECY in the following way:

A. Miller would get people's attention by incorrectly predicting the event.

B. The consecrated (true)Christian would have his faith tested by believing and being disappointed in the false prediction

C. It would call attention to the fact that a genuine prophecy needed to be discovered in an accurate manner.

D. The right prediction would be made and come to pass as a result of all the above.

Wow!

If you have ever doubted the sanity of C.T.Russell it is now the time to contemplate that fact.

Earnest

Annie : Barbour tells us that he got his chronology from a table drawn up by Christopher Bowen to fit the work of E. B. Elliott. Both of these men were Anglican Clergy, never Adventists.

You are, of course, correct in what you have said above but Barbour actually derived the 1873 date before reading Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae. He recounts in Evidences for the Coming of the Lord in 1873; or the Midnight Cry, 2nd ed. (Rochester, 1871), pp.32,33:

The midnight cry, or coming of the Lord in 1873, began on the sea...The vessel left Australia with an advent brother on board [i.e. Barbour], who had lost his religion, and been for many years in total darkness. To wile away the monotony of a long sea voyage, the English chaplain proposed a systematic reading of the prophecies, to which the brother readily assented; for, having been a Millerite in former years, he knew right well there were arguments it would puzzle the chaplain to answer, even though the time had passed.
When they came to the 12th of Daniel, the brother saw what he had never seen before, though he had read it a hundred times. "From the time the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days." In our explanation of this in 1843, why did we begin the thousand years thirty years before the abomination was set up? Here is our mistake; and it is one of thirty years. The days end in '73, not '43. All this came in a moment. From that hour, says the brother, the whole truth of our position was made clear.
On arriving in London, he went to the library of the British Museum, and among many other extensive works on the prophecies, found Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae, which at that time, 1860, was a standard work; advocating 1866 as the time for the coming of the Lord. There the chronology was found as now given in these pages, with some slight additional proof.

So, I think it would be correct to say, as far as Barbour was concerned, that he initially derived 1873 as the year of Christ's coming from the prophetic periods that Miller had used in his calculations, and this was subsequently confirmed by Elliott's chronology which ended 6,000 years in 1873.

Many others pointed to 1873 but Barbour reached the date simply by reading Daniel together with his background knowledge as a Millerite of the prophetic periods. When nothing happened in 1873, Barbour also independently proposed 1874 as the target year in an article entitled The 1873 Time in the Advent Christian Times of November 11, 1873.

It should also be noted that although Elliott suggested 1914 as a possible date for the end of the Gentile Times, he reckoned the 2,520 years from Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, which he dated to 606 B.C.E. However, Barbour reckoned the 2,520 years from the desolation of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year, which he dated to 606 B.C.E. and so calculated 1914 by a different chronology. As far as I know it was only Barbour who had dated Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year as 606 B.C.E. at that time.

Mr.Finkelstein

Goes to show what a bit of emotionally hyped up sensationalism combined with ignorance can do to people.

It just takes one or two individuals who personally strives to make themselves into a public notable figure by propagating appealing ideas and you can create a following of people .

C T Russell in all of ignorance and personal endeavors created a following of 8 million mentally seduced subjective slaves created by him and the adjoined followers of him by their writings drawn out by the writings of ancient mythology within the bible.

One might say JWS today are going through the Great Disappointment as Miller's followers once did.

William Miller

Share this