JW Insider

According to an article on the Bible Student site HERALDMAG.ORG [ http://www.heraldmag.org/2004_history/04history_7.htm ] Adam Rutherford was a Bble Student This is fairly obvious from several passages in the 4 volumes, especially the first which paraphrases Joseph Seiss and C.T.Russell quotes, often nearly verbatim. Also he references Morton and John Edgar who were Bible Students in Russell's time and who went on to publish two extensive volumes on the Great Pyramid. In fact, one page of Volume 1 of Adam Rutherford's book (122) is nearly a full page quote from Russell's "Divine Plan of the Ages" (191-192). A.Rutherford even calls it the Bible in Stone several times, just as Russell (and Seiss and others) did. And he also calls it the blueprint of the Divine Plan of the Ages. He uses all the same scriptural references that Russell used in support of the supposed prophetic importance of the Pyramid. But he has also adjusted a few of the dates, ignoring most of the pre-1914 dates that Russell made note of, and makes much use of the 2,520 number, starting it not with the destruction of the Temple (which he would put around 587 BCE) but with the beginning of the Babylonian Empire at the final destruction of the Assyrian Empire, which he places in 607 BCE. He uses the astronomy-backed dates instead of the Barbour/Russell date that the Watchtower still uses today. He also counts from the exact beginning of the Babylonian Empire's incursions against Judea in 604 BCE (first official year of Nebuchadnezzar) to show that they (2520) end with the Balfour Declaration in 1917. But the future dates he focuses on would have put the start of the Millennium in AD 1994 and the end of the Millennium in AD 2994.

test

Indirectly, at least, by allowing it, God "incited" David. Because Jehovah is the Universal Sovereign and can intercede if he chooses to, his allowance of anything is by his own purpose and will. But just because I happen to suggest an explanation, don't be so trigger-happy to counter it that you end up criticizing the explanation of the Governing Body, only because you didn't realize that I was simply agreeing with the Governing Body's explanation. *** it-1 p. 219 Attitudes and Gestures *** Satan is described as standing up against Israel when he incited David to take a census of them.—1Ch 21:1. *** it-1 p. 445 Chronicles, the Books of *** David is incited by Satan to take a census of Israel; 70,000 die *** it-1 p. 590 David *** Another instance when David humbly confessed his sins was when Satan incited him to take a census of the men qualified for the military forces. *** it-2 p. 79 Joab *** At another time David was incited by Satan to take an illegal census of the people. Joab remonstrated with David, to no avail. A more complete explanation that includes the ideas alluded to previously is here: *** it-2 p. 765 Registration *** David’s Calamitous Registration. A registration taken toward the end of King David’s reign is also recorded, one that brought calamity. The account at 2 Samuel 24:1 reads: “And again the anger of Jehovah came to be hot against Israel, when one incited David against them, saying: ‘Go, take a count of Israel and Judah.’” The “one” who did the inciting is not there identified. Was it some human counselor? Was it Satan? Or even God? First Chronicles 21:1 helps to answer the question, saying: “Satan proceeded to stand up against Israel and to incite David to number Israel.” That rendering in the New World Translation agrees with the Hebrew text and with translations into Greek, Syriac, and Latin. It is also consistent with the renderings in other translations.—AT, NE, RS, JB, Mo. However, as the footnote at 1 Chronicles 21:1 points out, the Hebrew word sa·tanʹ can also be rendered “a resister.” Byington translates it “a Satan”; Young’s translation reads, “an adversary.” So it is possible that the “one” moving David to decide on the calamitous course was a bad human counselor. Interestingly, a footnote at 2 Samuel 24:1 shows that this text could be rendered: “And again the anger of Jehovah came to be hot against Israel, when he incited David against them.” The translation in The Bible in Basic English reads: “Again the wrath of the Lord was burning against Israel, and moving David against them, he said, Go, take the number of Israel and Judah.” Hence, some commentators consider that the “one” or “he” who incited David to take the census was Jehovah. His ‘anger against Israel,’ according to this view, predated the census and was due to their recent rebellions against Jehovah and his appointed king, David, when they followed first ambitious Absalom and then the good-for-nothing Sheba, the son of Bichri, in opposition to David. (2Sa 15:10-12; 20:1, 2) Such a viewpoint could be harmonized with the view that Satan or some bad human counselor incited David if the incitement is viewed as something that Jehovah purposely allowed, as by removing his protection or restraining hand.

That would be nice to avoid an unnecessary conflict, but I still stand for truth, and when I have time, might continue to respond when you say that something I said is a lie intended to mask deceit. Why should I care whether you are Tom or Juan or Srecko support me? I happen to know that YOU support some of what I have said here, and that Tom, Juan, Srecko, etc., do NOT support much of what I have said. If I say something here, it doesn't matter who reads it, or how they want to respond to it. Anything I write can be taken and reused by anyone without crediting me, or blaming me. It's just meant to get people to think about "making sure of all things." If they ignore it, that's fine, too. If they have something to respond with that shows I was wrong, then I will immediately change my view. So far, I have even changed my view every time you showed me that I was wrong.

I might just shuffle this away to another topic because it is a very interesting one. And a huge topic, imo. There are literally dozens of examples in the Hebrew Scriptures that touch on the topic. And some of them are related to a progressive understanding of Satan himself within the Hebrew Scriptures. I would start with this: [all taken from Watchtower Online Library] (1 Chronicles 21:1) 21 Then Satan stood up against Israel and incited David to number Israel. (2 Samuel 24:1, Byington) 24 And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah. (2 Samuel 24:1, Rotherham) 24 And again was the anger of Yahweh kindled against Israel,—so that he suffered David to be moved against them, saying, Go, count Israel and Judah. (2 Samuel 24:1, King James) 24 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. The NWT gets rid of the apparent contradiction by changing "he" (Jehovah) to "one" to try to make it align with 1 Chronicles. It might work here, but does not work for other cases that are similar. (2 Samuel 24:1, NWT) 24 The anger of Jehovah again blazed against Israel when one incited David against them, saying: “Go, take a count of Israel and Judah.” ... (2 Samuel 24:15, 16) 15 Then Jehovah sent a pestilence on Israel from the morning until the designated time, so that 70,000 of the people from Dan to Beʹer-sheʹba died. 16 When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, Jehovah felt regret over the calamity, and he said to the angel bringing destruction among the people: “It is enough! Now let your hand drop.” Jehovah’s angel was close to the threshing floor of A·rauʹnah the Jebʹu·site. In fact, there have been persons who treat the opening two chapters of Job as a later addition just to explain away that very ending. Personally I don't think this is necessary. And there have been some attempts to differentiate passages that can attribute certain anthropomorphic characteristics when God is referred to as Jehovah but not when he is referred to as El or Elohim in the original language. (Such as "regret" etc.) The full discussion should take many pages.

What I did with George was EXACTLY what I did with you, Tom, Juan, and myself. Which, of course, was absolutely nothing, in spite of your constant whining that makes you sound like a paranoid victim. You say "It's not fair to act impartial . . ." whatever that means. You say that I get angry, which clearly comes across as another laughable projection from an angry person. It's true that I am not happy that you give other Witnesses a bad reputation with your style of contentiousness. But I was very happy with George88 and am still happy with your responses to my point of view on certain controversial doctrinal topics. I think you mean well, and you think you are doing the right thing, but your responses are usually filled with hate and anger and spite and so void of anything substantive. They end up highlighting the strength of the point of view that I hope others will think about as they try to make sure of all things. I don't think you realize just how indirectly supportive you have been. And more often than you apparently realize, you have been directly supportive by inadvertently providing material that directly supports what I was saying, even though you apparently think that it doesn't. There is a good reason, therefore, that I do not want to see you banned, and I do not want to see your responses disappear.

I have moved several posts that veered off on the topic Russell/1914/chronology to a new topic: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/91077-watchtowers-1914-chronology-ad-nauseum/

Yes. LOL!!! The only reason you have survived here through hundreds of posts and George88 survived here for over 1,000 posts is because both of you continued to pay homage to me all that time. Thanks for the homage, both of you; it's so important. In fact, in some topics, I was referenced as JWI, JWInsider, or less edifying epithets by George and you in over 100 of the posts found in a single topic. All I need is to see my account name or some other reference to me in "print" and I bask in all that homage that you and George have paid to me all these months. Now it's just a matter of trying to figure out what I can buy with all that homage you guys have paid to me.

Russell's words ARE exactly my argument about what Russell was teaching. Read them again. The beastly organizations of this world would be destroyed in 1914, including the Papacy, which would also be slain along with all governments by October 1914. October 1914 would also mark the end of the times of Jewish disfavor. Imagine, nearly ZERO antisemitism after October 1914 because there would now never again be Gentile kings. Those Gentile kings had their day, and now it was time for Zionism to reign supreme and begin establishment over the entire earth beginning in Palestine. Russell's words did not refute Russell's teachings. The events of WW1 refuted Russell's teachings about October 1914. Then I thank you for sharing additional passages supporting the point.

I never use the phrase "the end of the world" to refer to 1914 and 1975. I do point out that Russell was using a kind of available wordplay to backtrack on the idea that he had in fact been teaching the end of the "world" in 1914 and sometimes 1915. Only it was the definition of the word "world" which was effectively "the social order." In fact it is about the same definition the Watchtower has always used. I never believed that the Watchtower taught or claimed that the end of the world (the system of things) would happen in 1975. There was a time when the Watchtower taught that it would be in the 1970's, and if not 1975, then within a few months following 1975, but NOT years following 1975. (Based on the faulty and unbiblical 6,000 years premise.) To Russell's credit, he admitted shortly after October 1914 that it would likely be just a few short months, but that it COULD be years before the transition from this Age to the next. Russell taught that the social order would end in 1914. That the final battle would end in 1914, sometimes 1915. Here are some samples from 1894 included the 1894 reference to 1892 -------------------------------- CAN IT BE DELAYED UNTIL 1914? We see no reason for changing the figures— nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. We see no reason for changing from our opinion expressed in the View presented in the WATCH TOWER of Jan. 15, '92. We advise that it be read again. ------------------------------ The Scriptures give unmistakable testimony to those who have full faith in its records, that there is a great time of trouble ahead of the present comparative calm in the world— a trouble which will embroil all nations, overthrow all existing institutions, civil, social and religious, bring about a universal reign of anarchy and terror, and prostrate humanity in the very dust of despair, thus to make them ready to appreciate the power that will bring order out of that confusion and institute the new rule of righteousness. All this, the Scriptures show us, is to come to pass before the year 1915 (See MILLENNIAL DAWN, Vol. II., Chapter IV.) --------------------------- 1892: That the overthrow of the present nominal ecclesiastical systems ... the overthrow of the civil powers is thus indicated— ... until A.D. 1914. ... The Editor expects from Rev. 19:20 that the final overthrow of present governments will be at the same time as the fall of ecclesiasticism and will be followed by from five to seven years of socialism and anarchy, to end with 19 14 by the establishment of Christ's Millennial government ---------------------------- All this remains to be accomplished before the trouble upon the world can reach its crisis; for . . . we can readily see what the results will be -- viz., a sudden and terrible overthrow, as the Scriptures predict. . . . This culmination we do not expect, however, before about 1905, as the events predicted will require about that time, notwithstanding the rapid progress in these directions now possible. ----------------------- 1894: This latter part of the commission was not due until the harvest or end of the age; . . . — the latter part must of necessity be declared by those members of the body living in the last times —the harvest or end of the age, from A.D. 1874 to A.D. 1915. It is upon this generation that "the days of vengeance" are coming; and it is this generation therefore, that should hear the voice of warning. It is in the midst of the great afflictions of the now impending time of trouble "such as never was since there was a nation,"... Thus in due time— the end of the harvest and time of trouble— "all that mourn" will be "comforted." Then the whole world will have learned to be still and to know that the Lord's reign of righteousness is begun —the Kingdom of God established in the earth.-Psa. 46:10.

I also wondered why you brought this up seemingly out of nowhere when you said: I assumed, that you had your own reasons to bring up the "controversy" portion by adding "not the end of the world as claimed by former members." I had to assume that you knew good and well that Russell understood the "Gentile times" to mean something quite different from what we now believe and that therefore Russell's Gentile Times did not end in 1914. I figured you thought I would know the truth about that partially false statement and might try to correct it. This would provide you an opportunity to say: See, JWI is a deceiver, because all true Scotsmen Witnesses agree that the Gentile Times ended in 1914. But I didn't bother with that point. The bigger non sequitur in your question was intriguing so I went with that: "Can you refute WW1?" I'm sure it was for the same purpose because you knew I might tell the truth about how WW1 demolished Russell's predictions about never coming out of that war until the crumbling of ALL human institutions, kingdoms, and organizations (with the exception of an ever-expanding Zionist rule from Jerusalem that would finally fill the earth). I was sure you knew the truth, that WW1 refuted Russell. But you also knew that if I told the truth, this would play well to an angle you have promoted about how correct Russell was about Zionism. Oddly, however, your promotion of Russell's false prediction as "correct" flies in the face of later publications in Rutherford's book, Light I, II in 1930. Your take on it, ironically, is a criticism of the Governing Body's take on it. And then of course, the piece of "bait" you were most hoping I would take, evidently. Then confirmed when you "triumphantly?" (I'm guessing) brought out the January 1914 Bible Students Monthly. It was obvious that was what you had in mind all along, because you had recently tried to involve someone else with that same point. But for anyone who knew the context and timing of this Canadian claim about Russell and the "end of the world" it would have been obvious to them that this came out at the time when Russell admitted that his faith in the 1914 date was faltering (mostly between November 1913 and May 1914). Russell knew good and well that he had been using the term translated from "aionos" (world, system of things, age) and had even defined "cosmos/kosmos" (world, system of things, national and international institutions) to be able to speak of the "end of the world" but then show that his definition, even of "kosmos" referred not to the planet itself but all the kingdoms and institutions of the world which would be dissolved through the time of trouble starting in 1914 and the following months, most likely. When the warmongering nations began to be vocal Russell's wavering faith in 1914 was strengthened again: There is absolutely no ground for Bible students to question that the consummation of this Gospel age is now even at the door, and that it will end as the Scriptures foretell in a great time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation. We see the participants in this great crisis banding themselves together [...] The great crisis, the great clash [...] that will consume the ecclesiastical heavens and the social earth, is very near. - "Now Is Our Salvation Nearer", The Watch Tower, May 1, 1914.

A better question is: what motivated nearly ZERO brothers that we know about to stand up for the Bible's view? What motivated brothers after they began following Russell, to study the pyramids and write extensively, even visiting the Great Pyramid and writing books about it, in full support of faulty mathematics, and faulty astronomy? What made them so gullible? What motivated The Bible Students Monthly (in the issue just prior to the one you showed earlier) to make exorbitant claims that this pyramid was the ORACLE of Jehovah? Why did no one seem to question it at all until the very day that Rutherford came out in the Watchtower and said it was from Satan?

None. That's my point. If someone is just about to come into the truth, and they ask their study conductor if it's true that this or that controversy really happened, or if it was true that when Brother Jackson testified at the Australian Royal Commission on CSA really said that Proverbs isn't really talk about corporal punishment. Then what happens when the study conductor says, "No, Brother Jackson was never asked to testify, or we would have heard about it in the Watchtower or on JW.ORG." (This supposedly actually happened, although the original question was only about whether he testified at the ARC, not about corporal punishment.) Now, who is spreading disinformation??? The likelihood of "stumbling" a new one may be even stronger when we outright deny something through ignorance of controversial issues. That person who asked the study conductor about something, and the study conductor spread disinformation in response. Now we have a possibility that the one studied with can just easily pull up the video, and he will begin thinking that JWs are some kind of cult who will deny reality. And the study conductor may begin wondering "why such important information was hidden from us." Now we have TWO persons potentially stumbled, when just being aware of the situation could have easily resolved the whole thing, and Brother Jackson's words could be better defended in context. When we are so quick to deny anything negative out of ignorance, we not only look bad, we can easily cause others to stumble, especially when we consider how easy it is for people to find controversial information online. I think there will come a time very soon when any question can be asked of an AI LLM and it will quickly spit out ALL sides of the answer to a question, pro and con. We shouldn't be so arrogant as to suppose that only OUR own preferred side of a controversy will be available to interested persons.

Yes. But as I said, if there is a good answer to anything controversial that you or I or others bring up here, then that answer appears right here, online, where the original controversial point has probably been rehashed in other places with or without an answer. Also, if there is no viable answer to the controversy, then the issue has been brought up and persons who are interested in truth ("making sure of all things") will know that there is no answer to it (yet). That's also good information to have so that we don't go around deceiving people inadvertently. For example, let's say that someone claims that "Pyramidology" was presented as truth to householders as late 1933, nearly 5 years after it was declared "from the Devil" and two years after most Bible Student associations and individuals began identifying themselves as "Jehovah's witnesses." This point was brought up to me once (by a Bethel sister, who was a proofreader, no less) and I was asked to question the writer about making a small change in the "ka" book which referenced this point of organizational history incorrectly. This book ("ka") was about to be reprinted for the mid-week Book Study. I claimed to her that her statement was false. But she showed me the 1928 through 1933 "Informants" which she had copies of. This was something controversial to her and she knew it, and she wanted someone else to pass the question back to the writer. To be sure, she was skewing the emphasis on pyramidology to make the point more memorable. The "ka" book reference never mentioned pyramidology, only the date when the Society stopped selling the Studies in the Scriptures series. Should we all have ignored the issue? This book was going out to the public. I placed several copies of this book myself. Interested persons would attend the Book Study. In the end, it was decided that the sentence would not be corrected. But does this mean no one should have questioned? Should no one have tried to "make sure of all things"? But I also learned that the people who get angry over such things, when the answer is not in favor of their interests, are the ones who KNOW there is no answer, or don't want to admit the answer. That's why I'm not concerned about bringing up controversial things publicly. There is nothing secret that will not be made known. And I've found that online the anger is most often from those who, deep down, realize that they don't like the truth. But I always remember Proverbs 6:17; Psalm 26:3; Psalm 31:5: ". . . Jehovah, the God of truth."

By "refuses" I think you meant that I was the first one to link his spoof accounts to him. Of course, it was easy for a moderator to look up the IP address and see that he wasn't hiding anything. They all came from the same IP address from the same account and same location that his regular account came from. A moderator can also see where a person gets the email address associated with their account(s). He didn't even try to hide his account sources via a VPN service as some people do. An astute moderator can even watch the IP addresses which come from various VPN services, and although the locations are not really where the person is located, you can tell when several accounts have used the same VPN service which usually only offer a limited set of VPN servers. To avoid detection if one wishes to use multiple accounts as sock puppets to "enhance" their reputation, or downgrade others they should do the following: Pay for a premium VPN service that doesn't give itself away by naming their VPN/IP servers or chooses from just two or three "free" servers when the premium can randomly choose from dozens. Mix up the email service providers that are used in order to produce the separate accounts, and make the same sound legitimately associated with the account name, rather than random characters. Keep your own spreadsheet or database or document to keep clear which account speaks with a different voice, has different quirks, different levels of education/knowledge/specialties, different levels of attention to grammar/punctuation/spelling, different "accent," different personalities, age, location, etc. On that last point, there have been several cases where the new account starts off doing this very well for 10 or 20 posts, then gets lazy and reverts back to the original personality. Of course, I'm not really recommending that anyone create multiple accounts. But I doubt that anyone has ever been banned here over the practice. This forum includes a lot of "entertainment" content, and I think that most people find the use of multiple accounts either entertaining or psychologically revealing. Either way, that's a form of entertainment for me. I happen to like puzzles, too. TTH , for example, clearly created the separate accounts for entertainment purposes, including satirizing some who took their separate accounts a little too seriously. But so what? No one cares about the separate accounts unless they are clearly used as a means to create contention. And even when this happened, it might be a small annoyance to some persons, but no one has been banned for having multiple accounts as far as I know.

I couldn't agree more, Kimball. (Proverbs 6:16-19) 16 There are six things that Jehovah hates; Yes, seven things that he detests: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart plotting wicked schemes, and feet that run quickly to evil, 19 A false witness who lies with every breath, And anyone sowing contentions among brothers. Haughty eyes: Most of us have failed at times in thinking more of ourselves than we ought to think. But there are several accounts on this forum that quickly come to mind when most of us think of haughtiness: persons who constantly boast that they are the only true Witness here and who spend most of their time denigrating others, sometimes even indicating that there is only one sincere individual on the entire forum, and the weighty responsibility that this one person has taken on. A lying tongue is harder to judge from a distance. Except for certain claims that have appeared to be ridiculous, or which have been later contradicted by the same person (sometimes under a different account name), no one can tell whether a person is "lying" or just has issues where reality gets mixed up and overridden through an obsession with their own ulterior motives. You can often suspect when a person is plotting to manipulate or using wordplay and technicalities to deceive, but we can't always judge whether the motive was defending something they don't themselves understand, grasping at straws and strawmen and logical fallacies, but without the true willful motivation of lying. We leave this one in Jehovah's hands. Hands that shed innocent blood. Fortunately, on a forum like this few will physically murder anyone. Some will take on personas like B.T.K. or Billy The Kid, known for shedding innocent blood, but this is just their own form of fantasy gunplay. There is a concern that is sometimes brought up that if someone brings up a controversial doctrine here (like chronology date setting related to the times and seasons, or "overlapping generations" or "pyramidology") that this alone will stumble persons and they will no longer respect the Watchtower or the Governing Body, which in turn can lead to their falling away and losing eternal life. That's a valid concern, but this can be taken so far as to be the equivalent of a claim that no one should read books, or read the old Watch Tower publications, or Russell-related court documents, or newspapers, or use Google or Bing. When all the same controversial information is available from Mr. Google, what does it matter if another person brings it up here? If there's a good answer to the controversy, then where else but to bring it up online, where the controversy can exist side-by-side with the truth about it. A person would only likely be upset about this if they want to continue to believe a perspective that they cannot defend. And anyone sowing contentions among brothers. I skipped a couple to get right to the big one. It's interesting to me that this is the one that ends the list, giving it special emphasis as if it tops off all the rest and somehow becomes tantamount to shedding innocent blood. When it comes to this forum, I believe that most persons only think of ONE person, and that person's DOZENS of accounts over that last 10 years. The person might mean well. They might even think they are a vigilante appointed by God to be a Wyatt Earp, N.K.Boswell, Walter Prescott, Moise Racette style lawman in a Wild Wild West World Wide Web. But it's worth considering why God would even want someone so prone to contentiousness to be his one and only spokesman of truth on a backwater no-account forum like this.

Sounds like you are angry that I wouldn't get angry. "Fiery coals on the head" syndrome I guess. The 1914 Bible Students Monthly has already been discussed at length, so I won't belabor it again here under this topic. Best if people do their own research as you say. The easiest way is to get the ZWT database that was once available for free from Bible Student websites. Look up: "end of the age" "end of the world" "consummation of the age" "cosmos" "Matthew 24:3" "Matthew 28:20" etc., and especially pay attention to the previous years of Bible Students Monthly. Then of course, one could go and see Rutherford using the same exact definition of the word "world" when he repeatedly announced: "The World Has Ended - Millions Now Living May Never Die!" *** w84 2/1 p. 24 par. 11 ‘Oneness of Spirit’ in a Rapidly Growing Flock *** Thus in 1918 the president of the Watch Tower Society delivered a talk in Los Angeles, California, on a subject later to be repeated by hundreds more speakers, under the title “The World Has Ended, Millions Now Living May Never Die.”

@"Hammer" Rubi @"Hammer" Urabi @Dr. Adhominem @Dr. Adhominum No. My guess is that when the software for the forum has to be reloaded now and then for maintenance issues, there were a couple of yours that got lost during updates due to attempts to include too many items of special characters and punctuation. Also you can see the attempts to create near duplicates as in the ones I listed above which might sooner or later get flagged by software as superfluous. Or maybe I imagined that they were being rude to me or insulting me, or worse yet, downvoted me, and I just banned them without telling you. More power to the moderators!!

@BTK59 Curiously, I just checked the Profile views going back several years for Alphonse, ComfortMyPeople and JW Insider and although many others have visited, your account shows up on none of them. That would normally indicate that you never clicked on any of the links above, or never visited any of the pages you are making claims about. Perhaps something is wrong:

No. They are all still there. I just checked, although those ones are now 4 hours old. No one changed anything. Take a screenshot yourself from the link I gave and if you get something different, I'm sure you can post it. If not, I assume you already know that no one made any changes and you can stop claiming otherwise. Here are a few from that period.

Funny you should mention that. About 45 minutes earlier, 9 of my posts in this topic were upvoted by Comfortmypeople. I immediately thought: "Uh-oh, that has always made you react. I wonder if it will be a slew of downvotes for me or a slew of upvotes for you." This has happened so many times before that it was quite predictable. That's why I watched for it. I didn't remove anything though. I went to the Alphonse profile to see the Alphonse activity. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/20363-alphonse/ You can still go to the comfortmypeople profile to see his activity: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/10944-comfortmypeople/ Nothing was ever removed. But voting activity disappears from the profile after a short time. I don't know for how long those links will display voting activity, but they will always show regular posting activity. BTW, the unfounded and false claim that I had conveniently removed something was insulting. Downvotes without an explanation are also intended to be insulting. I don't feel insulted however because the lack of an explanation just shows that the downvoter likely has no real reasons to back up the negative criticism. Many people will see that the lack of reasons for a downvote is effectively a form of ad-hominem attack which usually strengthens the point being downvoted rather than weakening it. So rather than be insulted, I can just thank Alphonse for strengthening the point I was making.

And speaking of insults and negative criticism, you have always shown a keen interest in who upvotes and who downvotes others. Even in this very thread you have brought it up more than once. So, I'm sure you are aware that when a person adds a critical downvote with no explanation (no constructive criticism) that this is intended as a not-so-subtle insult. I don't think anyone here really has any remaining doubt about who controls a certain account which once only interacted positively with you and George88, and which only interacted negatively with accounts you and George88 also interacted with negatively. Watch how that account still spams upvotes and downvotes: These are just the last 10 in a row. As is typical, 100% of the downvotes are unexplained downvotes of my posts, and 100% of the upvotes are for you, BTK59. Previously, as expected, all the upvotes were shared between BTK59 and George88.

I think Christ's negative criticism of the Pharisees was beneficial for others to consider. Sure. The answer to your question would be that Russell never really challenged this particular belief derived in large part from these "reverends" of Christendom. He claimed not to have had for himself a very good understanding of the chronology and admitted that he had just pretty much accepted Barbour's numbers that Barbour had partially derived from other leaders of Christendom. But we have no choice but to bring up some of the Bible Student issues that were still accepted long after many Bible Student individuals and groups began to go by the new name, Jehovah's Witnesses. Some of these doctrines partly derived from Christendom are still accepted today by most of us. Some see it as Barbour refusing to return to his Adventist views, and ultimately giving up on any version of Adventist chronology while Russell went on to state that the Adventists were instrumental (from God) in giving us a workable God-ordained chronology but that persons like Barbour were like the foolish virgins who let their lamps go out just because the advent appeared to be delayed. Russell specifically accused those who stopped believing in Barbour's 1874 date as "foolish virgins." Russell many times claimed that the end of the world would occur in 1914, and then later offered a possibility of 1915, and later he said it could be within a few months, or even maybe a few years of 1914. What he didn't believe in was the burning of the world, one of the original Adventist views he rejected. But for many years he preached that 1914 would see the complete and final end of this world, meaning all the world's systems and governments and institutions. I don't refute WW1, but WW1 certainly refutes Russell.

You just indicated that speaking the truth should not be considered insulting. Yet, now when I speak the truth about something you said, you seem to consider it insulting. That's what I meant about a double-standard. You only mean that when you claim another person is not telling the truth, you say it's not insulting to them. But when I know for a fact that what you are saying isn't true, and I state that true fact, you feel insulted. That's the other thing to consider about your claim. You can only guess at something and it turns out your guess was wrong. But you claim it's a fact, that you will never believe anything else, and yet you can never and therefore will never be able to provide even a tiny bit of evidence for your false claim. I'm the one who knows for a fact that I am not the Librarian, have never asked the Librarian or anyone else to ban anyone, have never asked Tom to ban anyone (and I doubt he could, the old rooster). And I have never banned anyone and don't even know if I could even if I tried. And I still have no intention of ever trying, except that you did get me curious about whether I have the ability or not. But I guess I'd rather not know so that I can't ever be accused of using such a function. See what I mean? You think me telling the truth is insulting even if subtle. Sounds OK. By the way, I never meant to imply that I haven't made others feel insulted. I was only pointing out the ridiculousness of a claim you made about making zero insults and waiting for others to join Anna to be first in some kind of insulting laughter. I was counting your own insults but didn't mean to imply that mine would always remain at zero, only that mine were still zero by the time you had already racked up a few against me. I know it's true that I can be insulting. Sometimes it feels like the appropriate response to a barrage of insults, and sometimes I feel like it's OK to counter a barrage of insults with just one or two subtle ones. But I'll take that as a mild rebuke. I will try to avoid even the slight ones. Starting now. I hope it doesn't take all the fun out of the forum for me. True. I tend to only speak about GB members who made a reputation for themselves, left a history of their words and actions, and are no longer alive on earth to be actually physically rebuked by any criticism. But letting the Bible rebuke their actions or their claims should still be a legitimate form of criticism. I agree. That doesn't make sense to me. Did you say it the way you meant to? You say that persons who are part of the problem are hesitant to make corrections of others? I have no problem trying to make corrections of others. But I'd guess that it can work both ways: persons who are part of the problem might also be too quick to make corrections of others. Are you really saying you think that you personally have no possession of the spiritual qualifications to be able to criticize an elder? Or did you mean no one else does? I've heard criticism from you of elders who have been on this forum: one on the forum in the past, one or two in the present. From what I can tell, I think that this question is unrelated to the point or to anything either of us previously said. The closest is probably Luke 16:8,9 but I don't think it applies.

This topic was created from posts moved from https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90947-forum-participants-we-have-known/ When the topic of proofreading and mistakes and typos came up, I posted the following statement, which triggered a longer discussion about Russell/1914/Chronology and the like. Mostly true. But what if Reverend E. B. Elliott made use of Reverend Christopher Bowen's chronology typo and it happened to fit Nelson Barbour's 1874 to 1914 chronology, and Russell, and Rutherford and Fred Franz all accepted it, not realizing it was based on a typo? Should anyone have pointed out to them that it started with a typo?