I think Russell got the idea for the invisible presence from Miller's followers (Barbour?), who did the same thing with the 1844 or 1874 failures. When the expected outcome did not occur (a visible rapture and establishment of a new kingdom) they updated their beliefs and claimed that they were 'expecting the right thing at the wrong time' or vice-versa. Russell would use the same reasoning, if I am not mistaken, adding that the mistake worked out for the best by keeping the faithful in expectation of the Lord's return.
Myth of 1914
by peacefulpete 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
waton
'expecting the right thing at the wrong time' or vice-versa.
wt writers are still at that. Now predicting that the generation (anointed) will pass (to heaven) at the outset of the Great Tribulation, while scriptures has it, that the generation (un-overlapped) will pass after all that has occurred.
The new 1914? 2075. -
Earnest
peacefulpete : Can anyone show the argument for adding 30 years to 1844 and then the 40 years to 1874? I recall it being a typology eisegesis on 30 years of Jesus, 40 years in the wilderness.
A diagram in The Time is at Hand (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. II), p.247 alludes to these parallels.
-
Earnest
TD : The Proclaimers book says the change was made in 1944 for some strange reason.
The Proclaimers book says (pp. 632, 633) :
Later on, during the years from 1935 through 1944, a review of the overall framework of Bible chronology revealed that a poor translation of Acts 13:19,20 in the King James Version, along with certain other factors, had thrown off the chronology by over a century. [Footnote] This later led to the idea - sometimes stated as a possibility, sometimes more firmly - that since the seventh millennium of human history would begin in 1975, events associated with the beginning of Christ's Millennial Reign might start to take place then.
[Footnote] See "The Truth Shall Make You Free," [1943,] chapter XI; "The Kingdom Is at Hand," [1944,] pages 171-5; also The Golden Age, March 27, 1935, pages 391, 412. In the light of these corrected tables of Blble chronology, it could be seen that previous use of the dates 1873 and 1878, as well as related dates derived from these on the basis of parallels with first-century events, were based on misunderstandings.
The significance of 1944 was the footnote on p.171 of The Kingdom is at Hand :
IMPORTANT: In the book "The Truth Shall Make You Free", published in 1943, the chronology on pages 150,151 concerning the kings of Jerusalem, from Solomon's successor to Zedekiah, is based on the book of 2 Chronicles, chapters 12 to 36. This appears to show the reigns of those kings as successive, end to end. Actually, however, this was not so, as is plainly shown in the books of 1 and 2 Kings, which books give us a countercheck on the successors of Solomon by a comparison of these kings of Judah with the neighbor kings of the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel. The chronological TABLE OF CONTEMPORARY KINGS AND PROPHETS AND RELATED EVENTS, on the next four pages, shows how the books of 1 and 2 Kings give a more accurate check on the reigns of the kings of Judah than does 2 Chronicles.
Measured by 2 Chronicles, the period of kings from Saul to Zedekiah was 513 years . Measured by the more precise and detailed books of Kings, the period was actually 511 years, or 2 years less . This fact affects the chronology as a whole and pulls man's creation 2 years closer to A .D. 1 and gives it the date 4026 B.C., not 4028 B.C.
The following chronology shows the date of Jerusalem's destruction as in the year 607 before Christ. This recognizes the fact that the ancient reckoning of the vulgar year began in the fall. In other words, the vulgar year 606 B.C. really began in the fall of 607 B.C. As stated on page 239 (para. 1) of "The Truth Shall Make You Free": ''Inasmuch as the count of the Gentile 'seven times' began its first year at the fall of 607 B.C., it is simple to calculate when they end. From the fall of 607 B.C. to the fall of B.C. 1 is exactly 606 years. . . Hence from the fall of B.C. 1 to the fall of A.D. 1914 is 1,914 years." -
-
Fisherman
TD
Second Coming and Second Presence were virtually interchangeable.
Not at all to JW. No second coming or second presence.Neither term second or coming applies to 1914. According to JW, Jesus returned invisibility in 1914, the beginning of his parausia, climaxing in the revelation of the Son of Man at the great tribulation. But to JW, Jesus did not “come” again.
Russell (according to himself) adopted the idea of an invisible presence around 1876.
I think WT reference Sir Isaac Newton sharing a similar belief.
-
TD
Well again, Russell's terminology should be evaluated in the context of his own usage
(I understand that JW usage is somewhat different today)
For example:
So short a time ago as 1870 we saw, in addition to the first principles of the Gospel, only the two bare facts--the Lord's second coming and the Restitution --and these but vaguely; for though we then saw restitution taught in Scripture, we were much in doubt as to its comprehensiveness, questioning often whether it would include all the billions of the dead whom the god of this world had in the present life blinded. And concerning the Lord's second coming, while we realized that he is no longer a man, but is now the new creature--the express image of the Father's person-- a quickening spirit, yet we failed somehow to make a proper application of this to his second coming, and unthinkingly and ignorantly, rather expected his coming to be as a glorified man, than as a spiritual being. It was not until about 1874 that these things became clearer, so that we realized that when Jesus should come, it would be as unobserved by human eyes as though an angel had come; and that it could be known only by some miracle, by some manifestation or demonstration....
Next our attention was drawn to the subject of the TIME of our Lord's coming. Before this we had strenuously ignored time, partly because of its being made so much of by "Second Adventists," and because of the frequent failures of their expectations. Moreover, the fact that they claimed the destruction of the world to be the impending event, and used the periods of time mentioned in Scripture to mark the time of that destruction, was another reason why we were disposed to ignore the subject of time. Their erroneous theory of the destruction of the world cast discredit on the time which they associated with it.
When, however, the manner of our Lord's coming was seen in the light of what he is--a spiritual, and no longer a human being--then we saw that our Father had provided TIME in the Bible, that thus we might know, or see with the eye of our understanding, what we could not see with our natural eyes-- viz., the Lord's presence. A careful study of times and seasons taught in Scripture convinced us that the Lord was due to be present in 1874, and other time teachings of the Word showed that in the spring of 1875 the restitution of all things was due to commence.
This conclusion was rather startling, and surprised us thoroughly. It would have seemed so much easier to believe had the prophecies pointed twenty years ahead and shown us that then Jesus would come--be present and do a separating work in the nominal Church, and during a time of trouble should so order the truth that it, as his word, would smite down evil and error of every form, including "the kingdoms of this world," under "the prince of this world." We re-examined every point carefully, and every part fitted to every other with a completeness that bore the stamp of truth, and with a strength which testified that the calculations came from and were the testimony of God's chronometer.
-
TD
Earnest:
-
peacefulpete
Earnest...thanks. I remember reading a very old WT that expanded upon that stuff when I was at Bethel. It appears that the 40 year addition was arrived at in that chart as 37 years from Jesus death to 70 plus 3 for something. It is complete gibberish. Do you understand the mental process involved in going from 1844 (Millerite date) to 1874 to 1914 so as to summarize it?
-
Jeffro
Fisherman:
Not at all to JW. No second coming or second presence.
They really are heavy on tedious semantics 😂. Of course, JWs do believe Jesus’ first coming/presence/parousia was in the first century (though they get the years of his birth, ministry and death wrong). So obviously their incorrect beliefs about his coming/presence/parousia in18741914 would be the second one. 🤦♂️