The word "pyramidology" basically means study of a pyramid. Russell never used the word "pyramidology", but he did present a Biblical study in which he presented his belief that the Great Pyramid in Egypt is God's Witness in Egypt. I believe the evidence is overwhelming that it is indeed God's Witness in Egypt. There are thousands of Christians today who believe, based on the evidence, that the Great Pyramid is indeed God's Witness in Egypt.
My own website related to God's Witness in Egypt:
https://gpwit.blogspot.com/p/on-this-site.html
Russell's study of God's Witness, however, was not at all the "foundation" for what he believed; indeed, it was simply a method of corroboration of the Bible. His lifetime work overwhelmingly shows that he believed the only foundation for belief is the Bible itself. For some of his own statements regarding this, one might see:
http://rlctr.blogspot.com/2016/11/thebible.html
Russell, however, was never a member of the JW organization. He preached against such sectarian authoritarianism. Unlike the JW leadership, Russell never claimed any authority over fellow believers, and he never demanded that anyone had to accept his conclusions in order to be a Christian. He did not believe in any central authority other than Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets, in the writings of the Bible itself.
http://rlctr.blogspot.com/2016/11/onlyauth.html
For what Russell believed regarding "organization" and his Watch Tower, one might see:
http://rlctr.blogspot.com/2016/10/wtorg.html
Russell's Pyramidology Originated In Edinburgh Scotland
by cofty 83 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
reslight2
-
Finkelstein
What one can see by looking back at the history of the WTS and that of the JWS that it was founded from pseudo bible theology, a fictitiously inaccurate Gospel which was utilized toward the continuing proliferation of literature, exploiting hapless unfortunate believers.
-
reslight2
Either by accident or design Russell actually changed one of Smyth's measurements from 3461 inches to 3416 inches when he used it to calculate the date 1874 for the "beginning of the period of trouble". When 'The End' failed to materialise Russell changed the measurement in 1910 to 3457 inches and announced a new date of 1914. Not only had Russell now corrected his transposition of earlier he also removed four inches from Smyth's measurements in order to back up his revised chronology.
The above appears to be referring to the change Russell made to his third volume in 1905 (not 1910). If so, this change was pertaining to only the floor of the lower part of the descending passageway. It was not a change to Smythe's measurement, since Smythe was unable to measure that lower part due to debris; the attempt was to take Smythe's measure of the ceiling of the passageway and try to project it to the floor. Thus there was already some uncertainty concerning the measurement. Nevertheless, evidently the original projection to the floor of the lower passageway was done by Nelson Barbour.
The details surrounding how the change took place in 1905 is not presented in any records I have been able to find. Evidently, Russell or one of his associates began to question the measurement provided, and a new projection was made, This had nothing to do, however, with any alleged failure of "the end", whatever that is supposed to mean. Nor did the change in the third volume announce a new date. 1914 had already been viewed by many Christians as being the end of the Gentile Times based in Bible prophecies. As best as I can determine, the first person to present 1914 as possible end of the times of the Gentiles was E. B. Elliott in 1844. Russell accepted this believe in 1876, and he announced his acceptance of that date in that same year. Russell presented several lines of Biblical proofs of that date in his second and third volumes of this Studies in the Scriptures. Thus, the change in the third volume in 1905 did not create "a new date", and most definitely the change was not because "the end failed to materialise", whatever that is supposed to mean.
I have more regarding this change on my website:
http://rlctr.blogspot.com/2017/01/changes-gp.html
Russell spent his life and his fortune defending the basic teaching of the atonement by means of Jesus Christ. -
vienne
argumentum ad populum is not a convincing argument; it is a major logic flaw. What others believe is not proof of anything.
Some few thousand believe the earth is flat based on what they see as convincing argument.
-
Ruby456
Hi Vienne - nice talking to you . I have one of your books but I disagree that argumentum ad poplum is not a convincing argument in the context of this discussion as the question here is about when pyramidology became popular enough that Charles Taze Russell became acquainted with it.
Other than the above context the pyramids have always been of interest throughout antiquity, the middle ages and the renaissance and amongst lots of ancient cultures that had contact with Egypt. But most of these sources linked the pyramids to the afterlife and to political power. Closer to our own day even Newton was very interested in the pyramids but they had not caught public imagination yet particularly in connection with measurements and what they could mean..
-
vienne
Thanks Ruby. You're not replying to my statement. You are saying that public interest is an important part of this history. argumentum ad populum is a log flaw that suggests something is true because others believe it to be true. Reslight used that technique when he said thousands believed it. What you're saying is that it is important to note that many, including historical figures, examined the issue. That's historical fact and worth noting.
-
vienne
oops. not 'log flaw' but logic flaw
-
Ruby456
thanks for explaining vienne
-
sparrowdown
Vienne- and what is the aurgument exactly?
-
vienne
sparrow, I'm not certain I understand your question. But ... in formal logic an "argument" is a form of statement, an assertion. It may be well reasoned and sound or it may be in the form of a 'logic flaw' or fault.
Argumentum ad populum is a common logic flaw. It asserts something is true because many believe it. "The earth is flat. Thousands of people believe it is flat. So it must be flat." In logic 'argument' is a form of statement. It's not a knock-down, drag-out fight.