BillyTheKid46

LOL. I saw that coming as soon as I asked the question:
In what sense do you believe that there are two periods of 1,260 that make up the 2,520?
Nearly the same thing happened when I asked Allen that question.
You haven't shown where. A proposition given without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I know you made that claim. But without evidence. The problem with your theory is that when Russell and Barbour continued the Herald, it was still very much an Adventist publication. That didn't change. The book "Three Worlds" that they published in 1877 was steeped in Millerite Adventism, so much so that you see the way they concluded it with a defense of Miller in the section on "William Miller's Dream" above. It even copied the "seventh month" movement. But it was a date-adjusted Adventism with very similar interpretations of the same time periods. With Barbour's MINOR adjustments to make Miller's end dates move 30 to 45 years further into the future, Russell kept these very similar time period interpretations throughout the entire series of Studies in the Scriptures, and these doctrines were generally kept until 1927, with a few of them remaining until 1943. Even before Russell influenced him, Barbour, still a full-fledged Second Adventist, had already moved Miller's start date for the 2,520 years from 677 BC to 606 BC (based on Bowen/Elliott/etc). This made the period nearly the same as John Aquila Brown's use of the 2,520 years.
Your theory that Barbour was done with Second Adventism apparently has no evidence, unless you know of some that you are not sharing. But there is plenty of evidence that indicates your theory is not true. I actually agree with you that Russell's ongoing work in the Watch Tower was based on "new light" that progressed further and further toward clearer truth, and further away from Barbour's influence and the influence that other Second Adventists had on Russell. But this couldn't happen completely until 1927 (to about 1933) when the WTS was finally finished selling off the remaining stocks of Studies in the Scriptures.
It seems likely that you are able to keep your claim alive only by changing the definition of Adventism to a special definition that works for you. If this is the case, then you are only arguing semantics. It's probably another one of those cases where anyone else is a liar "with Satan in their head" if they use a word the way a dictionary or Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, uses it, instead of a way that you need them to use it to fit your own ideology.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Adventism
I don't point to that article to say they are right about "Jehovah's Witnesses" but to give you an idea of the "definition" of "Adventism" and "Second Adventism."

LOL! I saw that coming as soon as I asked you that question:
In what sense do you believe that there are two periods of 1,260 that make up the 2,520?
And not just Barbour and Paton, as we have seen. It was MOST of the persons Russell spoke about and mentioned in the Watchtower publications during those early years.  Also, Russell was definitely NOT clear on how far he wanted to distance himself from the entire Second Adventist movement until a few years later. When Russell first chose to financially support and contribute to Barbour's Adventist "Herald" journal and "Three Worlds" publication, he gave every evidence of being fully in support of Barbour's Second Adventist teachings, and not just on chronology. Russell, of course, tended toward the "Age to Come" beliefs which differed from many (but not all) Second Adventists. (Joseph Marsh, mentioned above, is now considered the first major promoter of the Age to Come movement, but he was closely associated with Adventists in the Second Adventist tradition.) Many Adventists, including Barbour, had waited for the "Bonfire" instead of a true "Age to Come" where the earth is restored to Edenic paradise by the end of the "Thousand Years." (Age to Come believers also did not generally accept the Trinity, Immortal Soul or Hellfire doctrines. The "Advent Christian Church" diverged from "Age to Come" by reverting to the  Trinity doctrine.)
Russell accepted only the "major" Age to Come beliefs, but Russell also accepted non-A2C teachings, since he taught that Jesus had a prehuman existence, the Devil was a real person, and the higher-called Christians will rule directly from heaven rather than just from the earth.
In 1881, just 19 months after starting Zion's Watch Tower, Russell looks back on where his associates were in 1871, and recognizes that so many of the Watchtower associates were then Second Adventists. (ZWT Feb 1881) This makes sense, since Russell built his subscription lists primarily from Barbour's Herald, and Rice's recently defunct paper. In 1879, Russell accepted the Second Adventist contributors to Barbour's Herald as Watchtower contributors, including B W Keith, Paton, and Rice among the new set of Watchtower contributors. All of them had been associated with the Millerite movement, and all of them were evidently accepting of "Age to Come" beliefs, except that Paton leaned toward Trinity, and Barbour was a late-comer to Age to Come ideas about a "broad" salvation. And of course, Barbour, Storrs, Stetson and Wendell had also been connected with the Millerite movement.
You say that these facts don't mean anything, but it seems possible that Russell's own actions and admissions in 1876 might mean just as much, or more, than some of his statements in hindsight from years later. Recall that, 1876, Russell claims his special interest was chronology, saying: " It was about January 1876 that my attention was specially drawn to the subject of prophetic time. . . " His first published article by July 1876 was an "Adventist" piece on chronology in Storrs' Adventist journal. And also in 1876, Russell becomes an Assistant Editor of Barbour's "Herald." Russell's speaks of getting "Three Worlds" published as his major accomplishment with Barbour. It was being made ready in 1876 to be published in 1877. Early Watch Tower publications gave Russell credit for this book, although it's clear now that he didn't write it, but had reviewed all its contents.
The book (Three Worlds) concludes with "WIlliam Miller's Dream." I quote:
We publish the following because it has been so perfectly fulfilled. Every position
on the prophecies held by Bro. Miller has been attacked during the "tarrying of
the Bridegroom," and while the "virgins all slumbered and slept." And yet every
one of those applications have of necessity again been incorporated in these
present arguments, and the casket, enlarged and rearranged, does indeed "shine
brighter than before":
WM. MILLER'S DREAM
"I dreamed that God, by an unseen hand, sent me a curiously wrought casket,
about ten inches long by six square, made of ebony and pearls curiously inlaid. To
the casket there was a key attached. I immediately took the key and opened the
casket, when, to my wonder and surprise, I found it filled with all sorts and sizes
of jewels, diamonds, precious stones, and gold and silver coin of every dimension
and value, beautifully arranged in their several places in the casket; and thus
arranged, they reflected a light and glory equaled only by the sun." (These jewels
are the beautiful truths the open casket unfolded to his sight.)
While Russell was never a Second Adventist, he was still an adventist who leaned much closer to Age to Come teachings. But like Storrs, a kind of Adventist mentor, he didn't want to focus on denominations, and he especially didn't want to be directly associated with previous failures of the Millerites and other Second Adventists. In this way he was like many other Adventists of his time, who often claimed that they never really had that much interest in previous date setting, and that they came to their current date-setting chronology through a purer path, and never got their hands dirty with previous failed prophecies or disappointments.
And of course, you already know the "Proclaimers" book admits Russell's "indebtedness" to Adventists under the heading "Influence of Others" https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200274967/0/2:
Russell referred quite openly to the assistance in Bible study he had received from others. Not only did he acknowledge his indebtedness to Second Adventist Jonas Wendell but he also spoke with affection about two other individuals who had aided him in Bible study. Russell said of these two men: "The study of the Word of God with these dear brethren led, step by step, into greener pastures." One, George W. Stetson, was an earnest student of the Bible and pastor of the Advent Christian Church in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. The other, George Storrs, was publisher of the magazine Bible Examiner, in Brooklyn, New York.
And, naturally, you have already added many other evidences of this same point in your post above, even if you often tend to disagree with your own posts. But you do admit, as I have said, his interest in Second Adventism was primarily chronology-driven.
Because it absolutely was a fallout due to Bible understanding. I think you already agree with me on this point, too, despite your ambiguous 'double-negative.'
Nothing to insinuate. Russell was actually pretty clear over time where his views differed from Barbour's. Some of those differences, such as the nature of the ransom, were spelled out very early in their relationship. Some were more clearly spelled out very soon afterward, i.e., the Age to Come / Abrahamic Faith related views (regarding the "Bonfire" of the earth, broad salvation, etc.), and it didn't take long before Russell spelled out the differences on Trinity between himself and Paton. I don't think there is much question, at least over time, where Russell differed from Barbour. Barbour even continued to criticize some of Russell's views, now and then, in the decades after they split.
I don't recall that quote. Do you have the source? I'm guessing that you are referring to this from the 7/15/1906 ZWT, but if you have a quote of what Barbour actually said, that would be interesting:
I inquired of Mr. Barbour as to what was being done by him and by the Herald. He replied that nothing was being done; that the readers of the Herald, being disappointed Adventists, had nearly all lost interest and stopped their subscriptions;--and that thus, with money exhausted, the Herald might be said to be practically suspended. I told him that instead of feeling discouraged and giving up the work since his newly found light on restitution (for when we first met, he had much to learn from me on the fulness of restitution based upon the sufficiency of the ransom given for all, as I had much to learn from him concerning time), he should rather feel that now he had some good tidings to preach, such as he never had before, and that his zeal should be correspondingly increased.

This might be a good time to explain again that this original topic was not about whether the Watchtower writers were being honest back in 1966 through 1975 about the expectations for the weeks, and months surrounding 1975. It was supposed to be about whether we are honest NOW in the way we defend those past expectations for the mid-1970's.
When this topic started it was back around a year ago when we were still discussing a video produced for the "Don't Give Up" 2017 Regional Convention.
That was part of the point. With all that was said and known and documented by those who lived through it, why did the WTS decide there was more to say about it in 2017? And, of course, was it honest?
I find it curious that, for some persons, if "person A" doesn't use a word in the same way "person B" needs it to be used in support of Person B's ideology, then Person B might become very sensitive to supposed "distortions." One of these same persons, like "Person B" can be so sensitive to the supposed distortions of others, but are still able to ignore the fact that the WTS was ACTUALLY distorting something. Here's what I mean:
Discussing the 1975 period, the video says:
“Back then, some were looking to a certain date as signifying the end of this old system of things.”
Notice that the expression is merely "some were looking to a certain date." It doesn't mention that the "some" were being directed to this particular time period surrounding 1975 by writers of the Watchtower publications, and by special talks given by District Overseers, and by parts given at circuit assemblies counting down the actual number of months to 1975. It doesn't mention that Witnesses were counseled if they did NOT think 1975 was significant. Among about 100 references to evidences in Watchtower publications from 1966 to at least 1974 regarding the importance of this period, we find counsel like this:
*** w75 5/1 p. 285 ***
Does this mean that we know exactly when God will destroy this old system and establish a new one? Franz showed that we do not, for we do not know how short was the time interval between Adam’s creation and the creation of Eve, at which point God’s rest day of seven thousand years began. (Heb. 4:3, 4) But, he pointed out, “we should not think that this year of 1975 is of no significance to us,” . . .
So was it honest or was it misleading to merely say "some" were looking to a certain date? The video implies that we are expected to believe that groups of Witnesses in all parts of the earth would come up with such speculation on their own and then spread it among the brothers, and expect them to accept it on their word.
Then the video says:
"A few went so far as selling their homes and quitting their jobs."
This implies again that these "some" Witnesses were even crazy enough to go so far as to sell their homes or quit their jobs. But again, who were the "some" involved in this craziness? Were they counseled that it would be a good thing to do, or were they ever counseled against it? We already know the answer:
*** km 5/74 p. 3 How Are You Using Your Life? ***
Yes, since the summer of 1973 there have been new peaks in pioneers every month. Now there are 20,394 regular and special pioneers in the United States, an all-time peak. That is 5,190 more than there were in February 1973! A 34-percent increase! Does that not warm our hearts? Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end.
The Watchtower publications also counseled that young ones would never complete a career in this system of things, they were even counseled not to start schooling for a professional career because it was so unlikely that this system would even be around any more in just a six or eight years. Remember that this was stated only 6 years before 1975:
*** Awake! 1969 May 22 p.15 ***
If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. Of the generation that observed the beginning of the "last days" in 1914, Jesus foretold: "This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur."-Matt. 24:34. Therefore, as a young person, you will never fulfill any career that this system offers. If you are in high school and thinking about a college education, it means at least four, perhaps even six or eight more years to graduate into a specialized career. But where will this system of things be by that time? It will be well on the way toward its finish, if not actually gone!
Then the video says:
"I admit, I was ready to see this old system go away too, but something just didn’t seem right. Both at meetings, and in my personal study, I was reminded of what Jesus said: 'No man knows the day or hour.' "
Again, what was the counsel at the time? It's true the scripture was sometimes brought up. But the counsel was to NOT use that scripture to downplay the reason we were supposed to be looking forward to 1975:
*** w68 8/15 pp. 499-501 pars. 30-35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
. . .
1975! . . . AND FAR BEYOND!
. . .
35 One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end.
I think we've seen this played out before. When 1925 came and went just 50 years earlier, Rutherford said he made an "ass" of himself. Brother Franz often quoted that as if it were some kind of humble apology. But did Rutherford ever admit this to the brothers and sisters in the congregation? Some accounts show that it was only to a small audience, not even all of Bethel at the time:
*** w84 10/1 p. 24 ‘Jehovah Has Dealt Rewardingly With Me’ ***
Regarding his misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he once confessed to us at Bethel, “I made an ass of myself.”
To the Watchtower readers, no one took any blame. There was disappointment, evidently because some had read too much into the "conclusive proofs" they had been given:
"There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah's faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1914, 1918, and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time. Later the faithful learned that these dates were definitely fixed in the Scriptures; and they also learned to quit fixing dates for the future and predicting what would come to pass on a certain date" (Vindication, Vol. 1, pp. 338-39).
In other words, the "apology" actually just claims that the dates were correct all along (definitely fixed in Scriptures) but that there was a measure of disappointment because things didn't work out as they had been "predicted," although they soon got over it, and learned to quit fixing dates.
This is a lot like the way that segment of the 2017 video ends regarding 1975:
"After that year came and went, most of those who had wrong expectations made the needed adjustments."
In fact, note the identical idea in the "Proclaimers" book, about 1925:
*** jv chap. 7 p. 78 Advertise the King and the Kingdom! (1919-1941) ***
The year 1925 came and went. Some abandoned their hope. But the vast majority of the Bible Students remained faithful.
It might also be noted that this "vast majority" who remained faithful is not reflected in the fact that the numbers increased greatly up to 1925 so that there were more than 90,000 memorial partakers recorded in 1925, which then dropped in 1926 and 1927 and was down to under 17,500 in 1928. That was clearly not just 1925, but it was certainly related to the fantastic growth seen in the years just prior to 1925, which was halted immediately by the end of that same year. (If we count the total effect of all doctrines and changes within those 24 to 36 months following 1925: 17,500 is not a vast majority of 90,000.)

Where? Nowhere. Because I never made any insinuations about you misspeaking about Russell's real ideology for 1914.
And I'm sure you already know that I have never held a conclusion that his view was about the literal "end of the world." Russell had always clearly explained that his view of 1914 was never about the literal end of the world, or even Armageddon specifically. He often chided those Adventists who believed it was a literal "burning of the world." Russell never believed that the "burning" was literal, or that it would even be half-baked, for that matter.
I don't see why you would want to take snippets and mislead the public. If you are going to use "snippets" just make sure they are either explained, if necessary, or that they are a good representation of Russell's general view.
I don't see a problem with it either. Just hadn't seen it from anyone else but Allen before (in the plural) as a kind of abbreviation for Adventists or Adventist ideology.
And, by the way, do you think you will ever be able to answer that question about how the two different periods of 1260 tie to the 2520?
In what sense do you believe that there are two periods of 1,260 that make up the 2,520?

Strange. This sounds like another echo of Hermanesque projection. I hope that's an indication that you understand this same point after several years of repetition.
George Storrs says he was influenced by Henry Grew's pamphlet against the doctrines of immortality of the soul and against hellfire. He resigned from his church in 1840 and as of 1843, per Wikipedia (and his own statements, of course):
Storrs became one of the leaders of the Second Advent movement and affiliated with William Miller and Joshua V. Himes. He began publication of his magazine Bible Examiner in 1843 and continued it until 1879 with a few breaks. After a considerable amount of study, Storrs preached to some Adventists on the condition and prospects for the dead. His book Six Sermons explained his conditionalist beliefs.
But why are you so concerned about whether Russell admitted to relying on Second Adventists for the chronology? Why not just take Russell's word for it? Russell said:
It was about January 1876 that my attention was specially drawn to the subject of prophetic time, as it relates to these doctrines and hopes. It came about in this way: I received a paper called The Herald of The Morning, sent by its editor, Mr. N. H. Barbour. When I opened it I at once identified it with Adventism from the picture . . . . I rejoiced to find others coming to the same advanced position, but was astonished to find a further statement very cautiously made, that the editor believed the prophecies to indicate that the Lord was already present in the world (unseen and invisible) and that the harvest work of gathering the wheat was already due.
Here was a new thought: Could it be that the time prophecies which I had so long despised, because of their misuse by Adventists, were really meant for us—to indicate when the Lord would be invisibly present to set up his Kingdom—a thing which we clearly saw could be known in no other way? . . .
I recalled certain arguments used by the Adventists to prove that 1873 would witness the burning of the world, etc.—the chronology of the world showing that the six thousand years from Adam ended with the beginning of 1873, and other arguments drawn from the Scriptures and supposed to coincide. Could it be that these, which we had passed by as unworthy of attention, really contained an important truth which they had misapplied?
Anxious to learn, from any quarter, whatever God had to teach, I at once wrote to Mr. Barbour, informing him of our harmony on other points and desiring to know particularly why, and upon what Scriptural evidences, he held that Christ's presence and the harvesting of the Gospel age dated from the Autumn of 1874.
The answer showed that my surmise had been correct, viz.: that the time arguments, chronology, etc., were the same as used by Second Adventists in 1873, and explained how Mr. Barbour and Mr. J. A. Paton of Michigan, a co-worker with him, had been regular Second Adventists up to that time, and that when the date 1874 had passed without the world being burned, and without their seeing Christ in the flesh, they were for a time dumb-founded. . . .  Not long after their 1874 disappointment, a reader of the Herald, who had a copy of the Diaglott, noticed something in it which he thought peculiar,—that in Matt. 24:27,37,39, the word which in our common version is rendered coming, is translated presence.
This was the clue, and following it, they had been led through prophetic time toward proper views regarding the object and manner of the Lord's return. We of Allegheny on the contrary were led first to proper views of the object and manner of our Lord's return and then to the examination of the time for these things, indicated in God's word. Thus God leads his children often from different starting points of truth; but where the heart is earnest and trustful, the result must be to draw all such together.
But there were no books or other publications setting forth the time-prophecies as then understood, so I paid Mr. Barbour's expenses to come to see me at Philadelphia (where I had business engagements during the summer of 1876), to show me fully and Scripturally, if he could, that the prophecies indicated 1874 as the date at which the Lord's presence and the harvest began. He came, and the evidences satisfied me.
I hadn't mentioned this before, but Russell admits that the scriptural support that Russell utilizes for the "presence/parousia" doctrine, was contributed by B.W.Keith, a Second Adventist supporter (contributor to Barbour's magazine, and speaker already associated with both Paton and Barbour). Keith, shortly after 1874, found the scriptural support through a copy of the Diaglott (produced by a Second Adventist associate, Benjamin Wilson). Wilson, a former Campbellite, founded what was (and is) known as the "Christadelphians" and "Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith." It is Wilson's close association with anti-Trinitarian Adventist, Joseph Marsh, that is emphasized as the reason for the actual founding of the latter church today. See the articles on both Wilson and Marsh to see the connection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Wilson_(biblical_scholar)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Marsh_(Adventist )
(In case TTH wants to make that all that money you spoke about,   note that most of these men, including Barbour, Marsh, Wilson, Campbell and Keith all spent a lot of time around Rochester.)
Back when Russell was involved with publishing "Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return" while still associated with Barbour, Russell writes:
But it is not my object in this pamphlet to call your attention more fully to the TIME of the second advent than I have above, in answering some of the chief objections to the investigation of it. (Those interested in knowing the evidences as to the time, I would refer to Dr. N. H. Barbour, editor of the "Herald of the Morning." Rochester, N. Y.) I simply add that I am deeply impressed and think not without good scriptural evidence . . .

This are beautiful attributes of personality. Soooo .... it is not important do you (or anyone else) in JWorg or not ?

What you have done here is so absolutely amazing that I took a picture of that portion of your above post, and copied it here. You have quoted a portion of what I said in purplish-colored text where I say that he ONLY relied on Second Adventism to the extent that he relied on them. A tautology. But then you offer the PERFECT quote in support of that statement. I would have used this exact quote myself, but you not only used it, you CORRECTLY HIGHLIGHTED exactly the portions that highlight the support for what I said. Almost as if this was some kind of Watchtower Study and you were asked to underline (highlight) the portions of Russell's quote that prove the statement in purple is correct. Thank you for doing this for me!

Russell is saying that a lot of people will contemptuously indicate that there is nothing good that comes out of Adventism. But he adds that if we are humble, and wise in God's sight, we will admit that Millerite Second Adventism was what started the CORRECT understanding of Daniel's visions. Not only that, but even the right time in which to start the prophecy, specifically of the 1260 days. Russell says that we even admit that Miller's correct view on this was the "KEY" that initiated the preaching of TRUTH on this matter.
Russell himself! In Volume 3 of Studies in the Scriptures, page 86, 87.
Then, you go on further in your post to makes some statements and ask some questions that indicate that you did not really understand what you just quoted, even though you highlighted all the correct portions. But you also leave out a very important point. It's that we do not even need to go back to Miller to show that Russell saw Second Adventism as the KEY to the truth about Daniel. If you have read the work of another Second Adventist named Nelson Barbour, you will see that Nelson Barbour was the person who had pointed this out, before Russell, exactly this same point about what Miller had done wrong, by starting the key dates of Daniel at different points to make them end on the same date, when Barbour showed that they should have started on the same date so that they ended on different dates. So it was the work of a Second Adventist that Russell admits to relying upon for the chronology correction.
In any case, Miller, Barbour and Russell all started these dates in the period of the decline of the "Holy Roman Empire" (Catholic secular rule) and all of them ended these dates in the period surrounding the 1800's (1799-1874, in Barbour/Russell). Russell, based on accepting Barbour's dates, ends the 1260 days in 1799, and the 1290 days in 1829. Russell goes on further in the same Volume III to say, beginning on page 305:
We have marked, too, the fixed dates to which the Prophet Daniel calls attention. The 2,300 days point to 1846 as the time when God's sanctuary would be cleansed of the defiling errors and principles of Papacy; and we have noted the cleansing there accomplished. We have noted the fulfilment of the 1,260 days, or the time, times and half a time, of Papacy's power to persecute, and the beginning there, in 1799, of the Time of the End. We have seen how the 1,290 days marked the beginning of an understanding of the mysteries of prophecy in the year 1829, culminating in the great movement of 1844 known as the Second Advent movement, when, according to the Lord's prediction, the wise virgins went forth to meet the Bridegroom, thirty years prior to his actual coming. We have seen the fulfilment of the predicted tarrying; and for fifteen years the midnight cry, "Behold the Bridegroom!" has gone forth. We have marked with special delight the 1,335 days, pointing, as they do, to 1874 as the exact date of our Lord's return; and we have since that time experienced the very blessedness promised—through the clearer unfoldings of the wonderful mysteries of the divine plan.
Guess who Russell is talking about here as the person behind the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy of the 1,290 days. The 1290 is MILLER time. Daniel pointed to MILLER's understanding. Granted that Miller was following in the steps of many before him. But who was promoting that understanding in the year predicted by God in Daniel 12:11. It was Russell's understanding that God specifically predicted 1829, through Daniel. Russell's writings as indexed in the EBC for Daniel 12:11 condenses it to one sentence:
[Daniel 12:11] Shall be 1290 days —1290 years, ending 1829 AD, at which time William Miller began to call attention to the time prophecies. C84, C87;R5565:5
Not at all. Barbour had been the most recent Second Adventist whom Russell had relied on for the 1260, 1290, 1335, 2300.
Probably this is even true of the 2,520 from Leviticus 26 and the Daniel 4 Tree Dream prophecy, too. Although that could have been both indirectly from Miller, Bishop Elliott, etc. (And Miller, Barbour, and even Elliott, could have been influenced from J.A.Brown, and others.)
However, when Russell had his very first article published, in 1876, it was in the publication of a leader of the Second Adventists, named George Storrs. Notice how closely, Russell's follows the order of Miller's thoughts. I assume you know Russell's version, and there are differences, so I'll just quote excerpts from Miller, 40 years prior to Russell ( http://the2520.com/william_miller_lec.htm )
On the Punishment of the People of God Seven Times for their Sins (1836)
LEVITICUS 26:23,24
And if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me, then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins. . . . We are very fond of throwing back upon the Jews what, upon the principle of equity and justice, would equally belong to us Gentiles. . . . Ezek. 12:27, "The vision that he seeth is for many days to come, and he prophesieth of the times that are far off." . . .
3. I shall now show what is meant by "seven times," in the text.

1st. "Seven times," in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, was fulfilled in seven years. Nebuchadnezzar,for his pride and arrogancy against God, was driven among the beasts of the field, and was made to eat grass as oxen, until seven times passed over him, and until he learned that the Most High ruled in the kingdoms of men, and gave it to whomsoever he would. This being a matter of history, and as an allegory or sample to the people of God for their pride and arrogancy, in refusing to be reformed by God, and claiming the power and will to do these things themselves, --they, too, like Nebuchadnezzar, must be driven among the beasts of the field, (meaning the kingdoms of the world,) until they learn the sovereignty of God, and that he dispenses his favors to whomsoever he will. That, being a matter of history, and a sample only, was fulfilled in seven years; but this, being a prophecy, will only be fulfilled in seven prophetic times, which will be 7 times 360 years, which will make 2520 years; for one half of 7 times, that is, 3 times and a half, is called, in Rev. 12:6, 1260 days, (fulfilled in so many years.) See also Rev. 12:14; 13:5. Forty-two months is the one half of 2520, for twice 1260 is 2520. Therefore the sum and substance of the whole is, that the people of God would be among the beasts, or kings of the earth, seven times, which is 2520 years, . . . And Ezekiel alludes to the same "seven times," Eze. 39:9,10, . . .
The proper question would now be, "When did those years begin?" I answer, They must have begun with the first captivity of the tribe of Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in Babylon; for all the prophets agree in this thing, that Babylon would be the kingdom which would carry the Jews into captivity. . . .
Then, if Babylon was the nation which was to scatter the people of God, and this, too, in the days of Manasseh, I ask, When was this captivity? I answer, In the year 677 before Christ; see 2 Chron. 33:9-13; see also the Bible chronology of that event; this being the first captivity of Judah in Babylon. Then take 677 years, which were before Christ, from 2520 years, which includes the whole "seven times," or "seven years," prophetic, and the remainder will be 1843 after Christ; showing that the people of God will be gathered from among all nations, and the kingdom and greatness of the kingdom will be given to the saints of the Most High; . . .
 
 

@BillyTheKid46 quotes:
"The Watchtower doesn’t directly claim clergy privilege, it’s automatically given by each State that has it in their legal binding. (I.e. laws)"
"Then, perhaps the above will be clearer as to who is advocating the “clergy” identity. It’s not the Watchtower, but the legal system by definition."
 
Indeed, the Watchtower has a “clergy”; albeit a counterfeit one, and they know it. 
“Representative”:
Adjective:  Typical; having the same properties or interest as a larger group.
                     Representing, showing a likeness 
 Noun:  One who may speak for another in a particular capacity, especially in negotiation.
“Representing the royal priesthood are appointed elders, who serve in positions of responsibility in congregations of Jehovah’s people around the earth. These men deserve our respect and wholehearted support, whether they are of the anointed or not. Why? Because, through his holy spirit, Jehovah has appointed the older men to their positions. 
In what way are elders appointed by holy spirit?
19 These older men meet the requirements that are set out in God’s Word, which is a product of God’s spirit. (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) Hence, their appointment can be said to be by holy spirit. (Acts 20:28)    W 02/8/1 p. 13,14
 
They flex this assumed role according to their advantage.  If it means disfellowshipping individuals, (including members of the “royal priesthood”) judging them as unsuitable to remain in their idolatrous “Zion”, the elder body must be recognized for their falsely given “priestly” authority.  After all, it can be said they were appointed by Holy Spirit, they say.  
In the court system, they will either defend their clergy-penitent privilege to their advantage; or deny it exists, because they have created their loophole, being “representatives” of the authentic priestly “clergy”.  In all cases, it is total hypocrisy.
2 Chron 13:9 - “You forced out the Lord’s priests who were Aaron’s descendants, and you forced out the Levites so that you could appoint your own priests, as the people in foreign countries do. Anyone who has a young bull and seven rams can be ordained as a priest of nonexistent gods.       
W 02/8/1 p. 13,14  “Rather than challenge their authority, we truly appreciate our hardworking elders! Their record of faithful service, often over many decades, inspires our trust.” 
 
“They (Korah and his men) came together to confront Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You’ve gone far enough! Everyone in the whole community is holy, and the Lord is among them. Why do you set yourselves above the Lord’s assembly?”
Moses also said to Korah, “Listen, you Levites! 9 Isn’t it enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the community of Israel? The Lord has brought you near himself to do the work for his tent and stand in front of the community to serve them. 10 He has brought you and all the other Levites near himself, but now you demand to be priests. 11 So you and all your followers have joined forces against the Lord! Who is Aaron that you should complain about him?”  Numbers, chapter 16
“Don’t let anyone deceive you about this in any way. That day cannot come unless a revolt takes place first, and the man of sin, the man of destruction, is revealed. He opposes every so-called god or anything that is worshiped and places himself above them, sitting in God’s temple (1 Pet 2:5,9; 1 Cor 3:16,17; 2 Cor 6:16; Rev 11:1-3) and claiming to be God.” 2 Thess 2:3,4
 
“Disgusting Thing Standing in the Holy Place” 4womaninthewilderness, Pearl Doxsey
 
 
 

In observing BillytheKid46's irrational and hateful posts, I have noticed a correlation between them and the Dilbert Cartoon of the day.  It seems that whatever Billy is talking about ... the cartoon of the day explains his perspective from the viewpoint of reality.  It's just AMAZING!
Of course, coincidence is NOT causality, but it sure is spooky how many times the Dilbert Cartoon of the day explains whatever it is Billy is talking about.
Of course, it may be a coincidence that there is no photograph of Ernest Borgnine, and Elizabeth Taylor in her later years, together ... some say it's the same person ... but that is one of those mysteries ... like how the Egyptians built the Pyramids.
Presented for your consideration ... is the Dilbert Cartoon for today.

I remember when Allen Smith said the same thing, and although his posts are gone, the same thought is still found under one of Allen's alternate accounts on this forum:
By coincidence, he (Allen) often used the same odd spelling "Advents" that you often use.
There is one other thing that Allen Smith said a few times, and I often asked him what he meant, but he never responded. Since you are apparently saying the same thing, and claim to be continuing the work of Allen Smith, perhaps you can at least tell me what you mean by it. It was Allen's idea that we need to believe that the 2,520 years is actually two back-to-back uses of the 1,260 period. Allen said we needed to understand that there were TWO different periods of 1,260.
What's confusing about this is that the Watchtower uses 2,520 to refer to a period OF YEARS that started in 607 BCE but it uses the 1,260 as a period of DAYS that started just a few days prior to January 1915 and ended in 1918. Yet, like Allen, you say:
You are aware, of course, that John Aquila Brown, among others, believed a version of this. Even William Miller believed a version of this as he explained in the same 1836 speech I quoted above. Miller said:
. . . for twice 1260 is 2520. Therefore the sum and substance of the whole is, that the people of God would be among the beasts, or kings of the earth, seven times, which is 2520 years, one half of which time they would be among be under literal Babylon, which means the ruling kings of the earth, viz. 1260 years; and the other half under mystical Babylon, the mother of harlots, the abomination of the whole earth, 1260 years; making in all 2520 years.
In what sense do you believe that there are two periods of 1,260 that make up the 2,520?

THAT ... is the one paragraph of damning hard evidence that explains it all ... EXCEPT ... that when the people sold their homes and businesses, cars and other assets ... THEY OFTEN CONTRIBUTED THE MONEY TO THE SOCIETY.
....and if there is one thing that the Society has an insatiable addiction for ... IT'S MONEY!
ps: This is HARD EVIDENCE BillytheKid46 .... it cannot be refuted, except by those with the agenda driven WDS infected mind of a child.

intellectual gymnastic :))

The very second he rebelled against God; he became a damaged angelic being. I believe, scripture stipulates how Satan tempted Jesus to become imperfect as Adam if he bowed down to Satan's will. Did Jesus lose his perfection? No!
I believe scripture also states, Satan will be destroyed at the end. One can compare the word "destroyed" to mean death, just like Adam meet his death by imperfection.
That goes for the angels who followed Satan. Therefore, this is a non-argument.

@BillyTheKid46 It may come down to how blood is removed from meat/poultry and how it is cleaned. For a majority of us outside of the US, and especially on the islands such as Cuba, Haiti, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, and some South American areas, when we clean meat, we do so thoroughly, with either vinegar and or lemon/lime being other items in the cleaning process which takes anywhere from 1-2 hours, and afterwards and again use either the same items we used to clean the meat and keep it chilled for several days after it is cleaned and after an X amount of days said meat can be used for whatever dish. What we also do during the cleaning process, granted that a majority of us reside in the US and or if outside have some meat products shipped to the countries, we before we undergo the cleaning process of blood, we clean out the chemicals - granted that some meat process is riddled with chemicals to preserve the meat products (one of the reasons a whole lot of us like grass fed meat products more). In the United States, there is a lot of people who cook their food without cleaning it, with either blood and or chemical still intact - one of my reasons I do not always like American BBQ spots, such as Famous Dave's, for I wouldn't get any beef or chicken there if need be.
As for consuming/giving blood, culturally, outside of even religion itself, some of us do not do, we must not do, even in the face of insult, more so, we do anything and everything to not be in alignment with a common enemy in said countries, others, who do not take or give due to superstition reasons. As far as Christendom goes, some do not accept blood, for the saying was this was only a JW thing, however, in a heated discussion with an SDA preacher who spoke of blood and the stance JWs had not realizing it isn't only them who uphold such, for a lot of Christians, both JW and not, had colorful things to say regarding blood.
That being said, for me, I cannot eat or take blood, not only due to what the Bible says, but also by means of strong cultural roots, in addition to what I consider the biggest enemy in my father's country, which has a way of traveling outside of the land. At the end of the day, what is said in regards to not take or give is there, but even though it is said, the decision is up to the person, for their decision is between them and God.

What?
Really?
Dialog?
........ never mind.

BTK46 :
I will give it a try, to summarize the dialect correctly .....

Your predilection for irrelevancy seems to have a New York, probably Eastern New Jersey flavor, tinged with a bit of Scottish Brogue, and a bouquet of Midwestern, but obviously fake woody attempt at John Waynism.
The Hollywood version, not the Texas version.
There is an overview of pronounced bluster that cannot be disguised, but it is clear you are not even trying, so that bespeaks a tinge of Masachusettsism, faintly reminiscent of Harvard Law School, or a very good imitation thereof. From the bouquet and aroma it hints of association with Warwick New York Lawyers.
Did I get that dialect right?
 

is it ok for a JW fireman to rescue people from a burning church?
This is how JW's constantly think..... get real folks...

It also looks like it’s proof that the Canadian lawyer for the Watchtower perjured himself as an officer of the court to their Supreme Court

Jehovah's Witness Organization Redefines Shunning to Falsely.mp4 Every JW visiting this page should MORALLY comment below and publicly state that this JW Lawyer is LYING through his teeth to the Canadian Supreme Court.
If you don't, YOU participate in this gross sin. Because you ALL KNOW this is a false statement.
Remember as well that this JW Lawyer is also an Officer of the Court.
What the courts do not know is that JW's consider outright lying in court a part of "theocratic warfare" just like Muslims do. So it is a virtue to them.

SMH.
Can you spell P-E-R-J-U-R-Y?

For a second, I thought you were praising the death of someone. Then I looked further.
Among all things, regardless of what anyone says, the Bible holds true to word of what will happen to the wicked. And it is going to be far worse of what we read of things in the Hebrew Old Testament.

....
 

Does wearing a badge determine if one is on the path of righteousness?  Do you remember the cross and crown on the early Watchtower magazines?  It is a Masonic symbol that can be worn as a pin.  Would wearing it show you were on the path of righteousness when it was used by the Watchtower; and, would you wear it today, or is it not acceptable jewelry  for those who desire to remain on the path of righteousness?  If not, who is the apostate?  Wouldn't the apostates be your brothers and sisters from years past, who treasured this symbol as representing their "organization"?
You say, "those who leave Jehovah's organization..."  Is God and the organization inseparably linked?   Isa 46:5

 

Because a debate does not end when the points and conclusions are made. What remains open ended are your horrendous claims. The fact you never been in a debate yet start one shows how foolish you truly are, depraved.
You speak of vocabulary and yet you cannot even say "Restorationist". lol Perhaps it is you who needs the dictionary far more than I.
Biblical Unitarians are not Restorationist, however, we take up the study of the Bible seriously, and we study religion, more so, Theological study and discussion is something we take up when it comes to learning about Jesus' church.
The study of religion as defined in short: Religious studies, also known as the study of religion, is an academic field devoted to research into religious beliefs, behaviors, and institutions. It describes, compares, interprets, and explains religion, emphasizing systematic, historically based, and cross-cultural perspectives.
I stated to you 4 times before I study religion even though I am a Biblical Unitarian, i.e. Islam, Judaism, etc.
It is funny because even the Christology of Restoraionist has been addressed 7 times to you, yet your ignorance and appeal to motive shows you to be a bigger fool than realized.
That being said, the debate does not end because you began the debate regarding baptism and now into preaching the gospel and second, the claims you made are still in demand of answer and or forfeit.
I agree with the teenager, you are perhaps quite idiotic when it comes to debate especially when you start one with a Christian who lives for debate - fool's errand on your part, simpleton. For his words hurt you because of your reaction to what he had said.
If you want to run from a debate you started, that is find with me.