JW Insider

I'm LOL too at that one. But I try to temper what I hear from anywhere with actual visits to countries and I never stay only in the tourist areas. I've got plenty of stories where this has caused some close calls, but my wife and I love to travel. 5 continents so far and two to go, and almost always with someone who speaks the language. I almost always seek out the poorest congregations in any country we visit, too. When it comes to getting news, you and I are very much alike. One of the most interesting collections of "news" sources is actually one that I know you are very familiar with. It currently has 781 favorites, and 73 videos saved under docs [documentaries], and a music collection, too, of course. I have a non-Witness cousin who has been a producer for 60 Minutes for several years, and who recently began producing for PBS Frontline. (He's been the primary producer of several Frontline shows already.) I have respect for him, but also know that both of these networks have fallen off tremendously in terms of credibility. At times they are only slightly better than CNN. Finding credible news sources is very difficult. Finding ones that go into any depth is even harder. We have been in contact with some brothers we know who were terribly affected by the last earthquakes in Haiti (Les Cayes and Baraderes), but did you notice that CNN barely updated that story after a couple of days? Finding unbiased sources of news on Twitter is difficult, and the more honest they get, the more likely they are to lose their accounts. There are also radio station apps on the net (and my phone) that can easily provide literally thousands of local small stations from all over the world. My father was a ham radio operator and always encouraged us as kids to seek out far-away (DX) stations on short-wave and ham and ship-to-shore. We'd spend some Saturday nights as kids learning quite a bit about other places from actual local voices. A lot of care must be taken not to take any one voice too seriously. I always look for voices willing to criticize or even condemn local problems, not just praise them. Also look for more than just two sides to any issue. Look for contradictions. Look for what things persons who hold one view are willing to concede from those who hold varying views. I probably take getting news a little too seriously, but no one else should take me that seriously. It's a tough, arduous process, and there is never enough time to do it right. So, another tactic is also to spout off one's most controversial opinions on an internet forum and see who has evidence that can push back or redirect them with additional evidence.

By the way, the garbled opening statements in the video you posted made it pretty clear that the presenter himself was confused about what he was reading, where he at first indicated that the building would be in NYC, and might have ended up with mixed messages about whether the Pope or the Grand Iman were themselves in favor of the project. He mistakenly indicates that they, or at least the Pope, supposedly "decreed" this project. But here's what I meant about the relationship to "We Love Trump" style media outlets. This image is from the opening minute of the video you posted. They also appear to have re-used content from We Love Trump, and even imply that they are related to affiliate partners making money for "We Love Trump:"

Thanks. I thought that Reslight's YouTube page that @NoisySrecko provided also was a likely candidate to help identify where some of the claims about Russell had come from. I had already looked at ResLight's sites like this, figuring that it had to be a place like Twitter or YouTube where Google doesn't index every comment. (ResLight also complained that Google is deleting a lot of posts where he claims that Russell was not a JW. He seems to think that someone (or organization?) with authority has been able to influence Google to treat ResLight's claims about Russell's NON-association with JWs as fake news. It's hard for him to keep up with maintaining disappearing links, etc.) ResLight did get back to me after some private messaging (PMs) but didn't respond about the website question, and had no info on the Canadian minister. I figure that if B.W.Schultz ever gets up to the 1914 era in his research on Russell he will likely attempt to make the identification. If I thought it was important enough, I'd ask on Schultz' blog. I've asked other questions there before and received answers from participants who are avid commentators on "all things Russell." Also, since I don't count the "Black Nation of Islam" as having a nearly close enough affinity to the teaching of Bible Students and/or Rutherforrd, I don't include them in any groups who actually taught like the Bible Students about 1914. And since all the groups listed in your previous post were apparently Bible_Student/Second_Advent "spin-offs" they don't count as independent groups with a similar teaching about 1914. @NoisySrecko correctly pointed out a few other "Russellite" and/or Bible Student groups who became independent of Russell's writings. And of course, it's true that there were factions of independence all along among the Bible Students groups, even those who appreciated Russell's teachings and were welcomed by Russell despite a measure of independence. Much of Russell's writing is actually addressed in a non-dogmatic manner that acknowledges this varied level of independence that Russell accepted. In my posts/messages to ResLight, ( https://reslight.boards.net/thread/1114/alleged-failure-misrepresented-historical-claim ) I wondered if the person he was addressing in his post was thinking primarily of the idea that Russell had (once) dropped 1914 and temporarily changed it to 1915 as the end of the Gentile Times. ResLight seemed unaware of this very short-lived teaching. But as I read some of the YouTube comments more closely, it turns out that one commenter might have had this in mind. But in a confused manner. Note: The comments below that video include some by Jerry Jones (7 years ago) who cherry picks the same low-hanging fruit that most anti-Russell and anti-JW folks gather. He does include reference to changes from 1914 to 1915 in one comment, but seems to miss the most important point about them. For that matter, ResLight misses it too, and blames changes made in 1911 and 1915 on Bible Students who made unauthorized changes to the text while Russell was still alive and was still printing under his own Watch Tower Society banner. I believe that ResLight thinks they were unauthorized only because they created contradictions (and they were not all "admitted" in WT lists of errata) but I think there are clearer ways to show how and why Russell was able to purposely contradict himself slightly to minimize the wording changes. ResLight still thinks that the Great Pyramid supports 1914, and just that one example helps me understand how he is quite satisfied even with some fairly shallow defenses of Russell's foibles in other areas.

I didn't mean to get into all the details of your claims. I only wanted to point out that the document signed by Pope Francis and Grand Imam Ahmed Al-Tayeb does not promote any kind of building projects or facilities. I noticed that point from the video you provided. It said that the building project was "the embodiment" of the document. I thought: --Hmmm, that sounds intriguing but doesn't sound like the signed document is necessarily concerned directly with any building projects. So I went to the site promoting the project https://www.forhumanfraternity.org/abrahamic-family-house/ It gave the same impression saying only that: "The vision for the Abrahamic Family House originated after the signing of the Document on Human Fraternity by Pope Francis and Grand Imam Ahmed Al-Tayeb in February 2019." So if the idea originated only after the signing of the document, then it probably was not directly related. So I decided to look at the document and read what I could find of any translations available. The document itself concludes with no promotion of any kind of building projects. You can see this from the discussion of the document on the same site: https://www.forhumanfraternity.org/document-on-human-fraternity/ The full text is evidently at this Vatican news link, where I read the entire document in English: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-02/pope-francis-uae-declaration-with-al-azhar-grand-imam.html If you find any documentation that's different from this, I'm interested of course. But hopefully not just from sources who get their news from the "I Love Trump" style media, like the video you shared. It should be based on the actual documentation and claims, not merely someone's commentary and opinions about what's in the document. This is what you did with the 2030 Agenda material, too, if you recall. You merely repeated what some commentators said about the document and then claimed that what they said was in the document. What they were claiming was not in that document either. People should always be careful about what they conclude from what they read and hear. I agree that something like this can be worrisome, and it is great fodder for speculation of the type we have been taught for decades as Witnesses. But we should be careful to distinguish between speculation and claims of fact. Personally, I'm always suspicious when grand-standing organizations make grand claims, and make grand plans for multi-million dollars buildings. The latest construction picture I have seen on Vatican News shows it's about 20% complete, and scheduled to be fully completed in 2022. Judging by other projects of this size, I expect it to be a couple of years late. From what I can tell, the Document became ready for some fanfare signing in February 2019. The Pope and the head of the Al-Azhar University and Mosque (Cairo) met in Abu Dhabi to sign it in February 2019. By August 2019 the sleazy political leader of Abu Dhabi and the UAE, Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ), had the idea to use the fanfare surrounding the signing as leverage to promote a better reputation for himself in the world. After "consolidating" a large part of the trillions of dollars that is spread throughout his family, he'd give the land and commission the plans for the symbolic set of buildings. Then a typical large but "empty" organization was formed with a board of religious leaders, university presidents, egotists and marketing promoters (TV presenter/writer/producer) got involved. So it was also in August 2019 that they created an organization for themselves to share some credit for what MBZ was doing. Likely MBZ was behind this organzation as a way of giving it (and himself) credibility. They needed a Jewish leader to join and got one from the United States. Even the most famous leaders among Jews and Muslims are not typically recognized equally throughout the world, so the marketing guy, the TV producer, formed something called a Council of Muslim Elders to give the appearance of international recognition (also in August 2019). This organization, HCHF, copied a lot of their promotional tactics and means of giving "titles" from United Nations practices. Also, very typically, they will offer the grand-sounding "Award for Human Fraternity" with pomp and ceremony to the Pope and the "Grand Imam" (and others) to try to get photo opportunities with them. This makes it look like everyone of note is smiling with them and "their" project even if people like the Pope will actually be quoted only as saying they are "monitoring the project" which often means "eyeing it suspiciously." Then they can distance themselves from it if it goes "south" or use it to make themselves look better if it succeeds.

To be a little clearer, the fluffy document about hoping for peace between major religions had nothing to do with building any kind of facility in Abu Dhabi or anywhere else in the world.

@NoisySrecko Thanks for pointing out ResLight's YouTube channel. I had no problem finding Reslight's sites and blogs and social media. What I was looking for was the website that Reslight is responding to, not his own sites. ResLight apparently quotes someone verbatim from a website. SM says it's a site related to jwfacts.com. But if you search any of the words that ResLight quotes, the only site that comes up is the ResLight's response. I can't find where he is quoting from, or who he is quoting. Maybe it's on Twitter, or some place like that where Google doesn't index everything ever written. I messaged ResLight, but he hasn't gotten back to me yet.

(Matthew 24:36) 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.

Reminds me of a Texan who ran for president about 5 years ago. Theodore-something-or-other.

I had not been able to find that blog post or "website" (as ResLight called it). You might know more about it since you were able to say that it was somehow connected with jwfacts.com. I understand his fixation on defending CTR, as CTR produced an amazing amount of truth that has stood the test of time. But CTR also had a "thorn in the flesh" related to his own fixation on chronology. His first attempts of preaching and writing on his own (1876-1878) were years of great embarrassment, mostly because, as he admits, he was motivated to get the word out as quickly as possible about the predictions for the year 1878. It reminds me of Paul, who related his own "thorn in the flesh" as a counterbalance to the exaltation and pride that could have resulted from his own special revelations: (2 Corinthians 12:6-9) . . .For even if I want to boast, I will not be unreasonable, for I would say the truth. But I refrain from doing so, in order that no one should give me more credit than what he sees in me or hears from me, 7 just because of receiving such extraordinary revelations. To keep me from becoming overly exalted, I was given a thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan, to keep slapping me, so that I might not be overly exalted. 8 Three times I begged the Lord about this, that it would depart from me. 9 But he said to me: “My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you, for my power is being made perfect in weakness.” . . . But CTR was continually overly exalted by others, mostly, due to the weakness of men around him looking for a leader. CTR evidently gave in to that weakness himself and, within 20 years, considered himself alone to be the individual embodiment of the "faithful and wise servant" (faithful and discreet slave). In spite of the embarrassment of 1878, he began placing more importance on chronology than ever before. Most of the content of the 6 volumes of Studies in the Scriptures would concern the "chronological plan" of the ages. A "divine" chronology, as he believed. Defending his chronology today seems out of place. ResLight does a good job correcting the exaggerated and incorrect claims against CTR, but he also goes too far in trying to defend Russell on this same topic. Remaining Bible Student groups vary in their defense of Russell, but it's a common tendency to give too much exaltation to the man himself. Rutherford called it "worship" of Russell and it took until about 1931 to remove most of it. I have asked ResLight a couple of questions through one of his forums. Hopefully he will answer soon.

Hopefully, visitors will realize two things: The first thing is that JWs like myself might have completely different opinions about our chronology doctrines, and therefore, as individuals, any one person's opinion must not be all that important. We can take an interest in varying views but come to our own conclusions about them. This hopefully leads to putting more faith in the Bible as Jehovah's Word, rather than men's words, and each of our own opinions. The second thing is that it shows that JWs don't necessarily worship or blindly follow the GB and/or the Organization, but that we value the good things we learn and try to make sense of some of the things that don't make sense to us. We are always trying to make sure of all things, and hold fast to those things that are "fine."

Then you appear to disagree with the Watchtower publications on this point, where the 1,335 days end in the "happy" year: 1926. *** w51 7/15 pp. 437-438 par. 16 The 1,290 and 1,335 Days of Daniel’s Prophecy *** blessed is the one who comes to the 1,335 days. So reckoning this period on from the termination of the 1,290 days would mean from September, 1922, to May, 1926,—three years, eight and one-half months—at which time a large international convention of Jehovah’s people was in session at London, England. It was a season most blessed, And from 1977: *** go chap. 8 pp. 146-147 par. 57 Marked Days During the “Time of the End” *** Truly the year 1926 deserved to be marked as the happy climax of the close of the 1,335 days. Those of Daniel’s “people” who kept in expectation and reached the end of the 1,335 days were launched off into a happiness that has not diminished, And even more recently: *** w00 5/15 p. 14 par. 28 Pay Attention to God’s Prophetic Word for Our Day *** The 2,300 days of Daniel chapter 8 as well as the 1,290 and the 1,335 days of chapter 12 are all past—behind us in the stream of time. Of course, the "evidence on the ground" was quite different. The Yearbook (below) describes this period as one of the unhappiest times in WT history. The brothers and sisters were still reeling from the heartbreaking stumbling of so many brothers due to the failure of the 1925 prophecies from the "Millions" campaign and the failed predictions from the book The Harp of God, and the continuing departure of followers under Rutherford's direction. There were the additional failures of the expectations promoted in the book Comfort for the Jews, which had just come out in 1925 (rescinded in 1930/31), etc. 1926 also saw the beginning of heated arguments with Rutherford over why he still called for campaigns to sell Russell's "Studies in the Scriptures" to the public (from 1926-1931) even though Rutherford had begun to reject the majority of the content of those books. *** yb75 p. 146 Part 2—United States of America *** A. D. Schroeder states: “It was thought that then the remnant of Christ’s anointed followers would go to heaven to be part of the Kingdom and that the faithful men of old, such as Abraham, David and others, would be resurrected as princes to take over the government of the earth as part of God’s kingdom.” The year 1925 came and went. Jesus’ anointed followers were still on earth as a class. The faithful men of old times—Abraham, David and others—had not been resurrected to become princes in the earth. (Ps. 45:16) So, as Anna MacDonald recalls: “1925 was a sad year for many brothers. Some of them were stumbled; their hopes were dashed.

I think I just happened to run across another post like the one you were speaking about above. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/61369/was-the-1914-prophecy-derived-from-the-book-of-daniel-ever-mentioned-in-any-ne/81433 The responder to that question was @1982 and he also came up with nothing prior to 1914 by anyone except from those comments related to the WT. Of course, there is still the question of the unnamed Canadian minister that C T Russell referred to in 1914. I haven't looked yet for more information about him. It may be that this was just one of those cases of someone declaring that "the end is nigh" and "it's going to happen before the end of this year or next at the latest." Something like that was always happening somewhere for the majority of years after 1844. Probably, something like that is still happening somewhere in the world nearly every year, even now. This very forum gives evidence of that.

And because I am also BillyTheKid, that's how I knew BroRando wasn't. 😎

You are going to confuse BroRando. I'd say that he is not BTK, despite any similarities you see.

But that's not all Jesus said about what we would know. Jesus added: (Acts 1:7) . . .He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction. Being alert to the fact that the end can come at any moment is good. Always being on the watch that our conduct is proper and that our attitude is proper, and that we serve Jehovah for the right reasons and in good conscience. This is proper. (1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. Also, if it were as simple as BroRando makes it out to be, don't you think at least one of the 100,000,000 angels would have figured it out from reading about "tree dream" which Daniel said was fulfilled through Nebuchadnezzar? (Matthew 24:36) . . .neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. What kind of hubris would make any of us think we could know better than the angels? Speculation can be fun and entertaining, but if we try to limit the words of Jesus, we might end up actually rejecting those words. And we can end up giving too much credence to "meaningless talk." (1 Timothy 1:4-6) . . .nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk.

CSE is well-indexed by Google, but the closest comment I could find in this regard was the following on CSE: Baptist William Miller came up with calculations pointing to 1844 as the second coming of Christ Jesus. Seventh Day Adventists, along with members of the Bahai’ Faith, also point to October 1844 as being highly significant with regard to end-time prophecy. As far as I am aware, the only other group apart from Jehovah’s Witnesses who still cling to 1914 are the survivors of the original Bible Students who voted with their feet and left the organisation after the second President, Rutherford, introduced the name Jehovah’s Witnesses.

[edted to add: The question implies that there were Bible Students who believed that Christ became King in 1914. As far as I know none ever dd. Not even Russell and Rutherford.] Remember, though, that most of the Bible Student groups broke off long before even the Bible Students under Russell and Rutherford believed that Christ became King in 1914. Russell believed that Jesus Christ became King in 1878, and he believed this right up until he died. Rutherford believed that Jesus became King in 1878, well into the 1920's. (Remember the famous "Advertise, Advertise, Advertise" speech at Cedar Point, Ohio in 1922?) It wasn't until Rutherford died in 1942, that Fred Franz could officially change Christ's presence from 1874 until 1914. This happened in the books "The Truth Shall Make You Free" (1943) and "The Kingdom Is At Hand" (1944). As jw.org says: *** jv chap. 28 p. 632 Testing and Sifting From Within *** Based on the premise that events of the first century might find parallels in related events later, they also concluded that if Jesus’ baptism and anointing in the autumn of 29 C.E. paralleled the beginning of an invisible presence in 1874, then his riding into Jerusalem as King in the spring of 33 C.E. would point to the spring of 1878 as the time when he would assume his power as heavenly King. *** jv chap. 28 p. 632 Testing and Sifting From Within *** That 1878 was a year of significance seemed to be fortified by reference to Jeremiah 16:18 (‘Jacob’s double,’ KJ) along with calculations indicating that 1,845 years had apparently elapsed from Jacob’s death down till 33 C.E., when natural Israel was cast off, and that the double, or duplicate, of this would extend from 33 C.E. down to 1878. Extending the parallels further, it was stated that the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. (37 years after Jesus was hailed as king by his disciples when he rode into Jerusalem) might point to 1915 (37 years after 1878) for a culmination of anarchistic upheaval that they thought God would permit as a means for bringing existing institutions of the world to their end. This date appeared in reprints of Studies in the Scriptures. *** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” *** In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” it did away with the insertion of 100 years into the period of the Judges and went according to the oldest and most authentic reading of Acts 13:20, and accepted the spelled-out numbers of the Hebrew Scriptures. This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man’s existence into the decade of the 1970’s. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia. The millennium that was to be marked by the detaining of Satan the Devil enchained in the abyss and by the reign of the 144,000 joint heirs with Christ in heavenly glory was therefore yet in the future. What, then, about the parousia (presence) of Christ? Page 324 of the above book positively says: “The King’s presence or parousia began in 1914.” Also, in the Watchtower issue of July 15, 1949 (page 215, paragraph 22), the statement is made: “ . . . Messiah, the Son of man, came into Kingdom power A.D. 1914 and . . . this constitutes his second coming and the beginning of his second parousía or presence.” Over the years Rutherford had made a few sometimes vague comments that the "kingdom" chronology was being adjusted, but he relied on it thoroughly for his 1925 predictions. Also, there were some more specific comments in a 1924 booklet written by Van Amburgh (not written by Rutherford) and in the Golden Age (edited by Woodworth) that made it pretty clear that this change from 1878 to 1914 was in the works. But the publications quoted on jw.org showed that the old 1874/1878 chronology was not completely removed until 1943. During those 60-some years from 1878 to 1943, all the Bible Student spin-offs and break-aways had already left. In fact most of them had left between 1917 and 1929, when apparently less than a quarter of the original Russellite Bible Students were still associated with the Watch Tower Society. Note these (generally factual) ideas from the resources quoted in the Wikipedia footnotes: The Bible Student movement is a Millennialist[1]Restorationist Christian movement that emerged from the teachings and ministry of Charles Taze Russell, also known as Pastor Russell. Members of the movement have variously referred to themselves as Bible Students, International Bible Students, Associated Bible Students, or Independent Bible Students. The origins of the movement are associated with . . .Russell's teachings. A number of schisms developed within the congregations of Bible Students associated with the Watch Tower Society between 1909 and 1932.[2][3] The most significant split began in 1917 following the election of Joseph Franklin Rutherford . . . Thousands of members left congregations of Bible Students associated with the Watch Tower Society throughout the 1920s . . . . William Schnell, author and former Jehovah's Witness, claims that three quarters of the original Bible Students who had been associating with the Watch Tower Society in 1919 had left by 1931.[4][3][a] In 1930 Rutherford stated that "the total number of those who have withdrawn from the Society... is comparatively large."[5] Between 1918 and 1929, several factions formed their own independent fellowships, including the Stand Fast Movement, the Pastoral Bible Institute, the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement founded by PSL Johnson, and the Dawn Bible Students Association. These groups range from conservative, claiming to be Russell's true followers, to more liberal, claiming that Russell's role is not as important as once believed.[6] Rutherford's faction of the movement retained control of the Watch Tower Society[6] and adopted the name Jehovah's witnesses in July 1931.[b]

It will have to be "Others." I don't have a satisfactory answer. I don't know. Perhaps @bruceq has come up with something.

The choice of the woolly mammoth on the cover is appropriate, as they were considered to have become mostly extinct at least 10,000 to 15,000 years ago, but nearly all scientists admit that a few survived up until about 4,000 years ago: Most woolly mammoths went extinct roughly 10,000 years ago amid a warming climate and widespread human hunting. But isolated populations survived for thousands of years after that on St. Paul Island in the Bering Sea and Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean. The Wrangel Island population was the last, disappearing roughly 4,000 years ago. -- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-mammoths/the-bitter-end-last-woolly-mammoths-plagued-by-genetic-defects-idUSKBN20200I 4,000 is much closer to the Bible's apparent timeline for Noah. And our publications have also mentioned the mammoths in the context of the Flood.

I don't think anyone is supposed to believe that this is just a coincidence. Another book sitting on the shelf in the picture in Bruce's original post is "How To Be Invisible" by J J Luna, a book on protecting one's identity (among other things). It made me curious as to whether Bruce Quimby was a real name or a pen name. I've ordered items from the same ebay seller Bruce has consistently mentioned in previous posts a couple of years ago, and again in the original post above. So it is likely that I have his real name and he has mine. Also note that his other recent post sells another book by Bruce Quimby on the Trinity, which features BruceQ's avatar logo on the cover of that book: compare the two: I don't think he's trying to hide much, just trying not to call too much attention to the fact. There is a curious coincidence I noticed, which I believe must be a true coincidence and that is the fact that several other books by a Witness researcher were a collaboration between a Bruce and a Rachael: Bruce W. Schulz and Rachael De Vienne [deceased]. This struck me as odd when I learned that the above book "Progenitor" was also a collaboration between a Bruce and a Rachael: Bruce Quimby (Author), Rachael Mahaffey (Illustrator). However, I read the first several pages of the above book, and these are definitely not the same two Bruces.

Thanks for posting this. On this forum one might even forget that the Catholics have a problem. Also, I've seen statistics that are surprisingly detailed for some religious organizations, reminding me that JWs aren't the only ones who keep records on such issues, including from among their congregants/laymen/parishioners.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-a-rare-glimpse-into-the-insular-world-of-israeli-jehovah-s-witnesses-1.5468604 I found it to be mostly accurate.

It's not the same, of course, but there is one surprising group that related themselves in a curious way to the Bible Students/JWs in the 1930s. But they were also very highly divergent in most ways. It was the [mostly African-American] Nation of Islam ("Black Muslim") teachings of Elijah Muhammed. Muhammed recommended to his followers that they listen to Rutherford's radio broadcasts, and he sometimes paraphrased what was in Rutherford's books. Now and then you hear some overlap in his teachings and those of the Rutherford, with a twist: Elijah Muhammad believed that the white race was created by Yakub, a Black scientist, and that Allah had allowed this devilish race to hold power for 6,000 years. Their time was up in 1914, and the 20th century was to be the time for Black people to assert themselves. -- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nation-of-Islam He even thought that the nation's [white] kings have had their day as of 1914, and that Allah would intervene in the mid-1970s. JSTOR has a few articles discussing the doctrinal similaritles of the Black Muslims, along with chronology similarities. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1384578

Actually it was very similar to the way Miller/Barbour/Russell calculated 1844/1874 and ultimately even 1914. The primary way of calculating 1914 was not the seven times of Leviticus 26 (which later became the 7 times of the Daniel 4 tree dream). That method was considered just a supportive but inferior method by Russell. One of the original "better and clearer" methods made use of that 538 date as seen in the William Miller chart that @Space Merchant showed above. We might be forgiven if we see 538 and 606 in the chart and assume that these are BCE dates such the first year of Cyrus (which was 538 BCE) after he captured Babylon. But it's not. It's 538 A.D., aka, 538 C.E. (And, for Miller, 606 A.D. was the rise of Mohammedism.) 538 A.D. is the date that the Ostrogothic Empire was supposedly overthrown, about 500 years AFTER the time of Jesus, NOT BEFORE. (For Barbour, it was 538 AD + Daniel's 1,260 days to start the "time of the end" in 1798 AD, and 538 + Daniel's 1,335 days (years) = 1873 AD, which failed for Barbour, so he had already adjusted it to 1874 when he convinced Russell. This is also why Russell started the time of the end in 1799, not 1798. (Evidenced by Papal rule being rejected then in the French Revolution.) Ultimately it was 539 AD + 1,335 + 40 years = 1914. Russell's inherited methods finally had to be dropped under Rutherford. We dropped the "Israel's doubles" method, and dropped the Leviticus 26 "seven times" method, finally leaving us with only the inferior Daniel 4 method which also referred to seven times. Newton, a brilliant man, but who also got involved in some of this nonsense, realized that people were just picking dates for the supposed beginning of Papal "political" rule, or the start of any particularly bad pope, in order to put a start date on a Babylonian Papal Antichrist and/or "Holy Roman Empire." They were picking dates just so that the end date (by adding 1260, for example) would land in their own generation. That 538/539 AD date for Miller/Barbour/Russell was considered to be useful for this kind of thing in the 1800's. But Newton said it should start in 756 AD or even 800 AD or perhaps some time in between: 756 +1260 = 2016; 772 + 1260 = 2032; 800 + 1260 = 2060. Wikipedia has it pretty close here, I think: Over the years, a large amount of media attention and public interest has circulated regarding largely unknown and unpublished documents, evidently written by Isaac Newton, that indicate he believed the world could end in 2060. While Newton also had many other possible dates (e.g. 2034),[39] he did not believe that the end of the world would take place specifically in 2060.[40] Like most Protestant theologians of his time, Newton believed that the Papal Office and not any one particular Pope was the fulfillment of the Biblical predictions about Antichrist, whose rule was predicted to last for 1,260 years. They applied the day-year principle (in which a day represents a year in prophecy) to certain key verses in the books of Daniel[41] and Revelation[42] (also known as the Apocalypse), and looked for significant dates in the Papacy's rise to power to begin this timeline. Newton's calculation ending in 2060 is based on the 1,260-year timeline commencing in 800 AD when Charlemagne became the first Holy Roman Emperor and reconfirmed the earlier (756 AD) Donation of Pepin to the Papacy.[35] 2016 vs. 2060 Between the time he wrote his 2060 prediction (about 1704) until his death in 1727 Newton conversed, both first hand and by correspondence, with other famous theologians of his time. Those contemporaries who knew him during the remaining 23 years of his life appear to be in agreement that Newton, and the "best interpreters" including Jonathan Edwards, Robert Fleming, Moses Lowman, Phillip Doddridge, and Bishop Thomas Newton, were eventually "pretty well agreed" that the 1,260-year timeline should be calculated from the year 756 AD.[43] F. A. Cox also confirmed that this was the view of Newton and others, including himself: Thomas Williams stated that this timeline had become the predominant view among the leading Protestant theologians of his time: In April of 756 AD, Pepin, King of France, accompanied by Pope Stephen II entered northern Italy, forcing the Lombard King Aistulf to lift his siege of Rome, and return to Pavia. Following Aistulf's capitulation, Pepin gave the newly conquered territories to the Papacy by means of the Donation of Pepin, thereby elevating the Pope from being a subject of the Byzantine Empire to head of state, with temporal power over the newly constituted Papal States. The end of the timeline is based on Daniel 8:25 which reads "he shall be broken without hand" and is understood to mean that the end of the Papacy will not be caused by any human action.[46] Volcanic activity is described as the means by which Rome will be overthrown.[47]

People keep making this claim, but no one has ever seemed to come up with the evidence. Every one I have seen has always been a spin-off of Second Adventists (after William Miller) or the Bible Students (after Barbour/Russell).