JW Insider

Did it happen "in the big inning"?

I guess that Zalkin would be happy to get a repeat of those daily fines imposed from California's courts for non-compliance. Aren't those monies owed to the state, however, rather than Zalkin getting a big share?

That's some amazing restraint on the part of the police. The protesters have actually engaged in terrorism (blowing up buildings) to try to get a stronger police response. The restraint is obviously because the Chinese government knows very well that the entire point of these protests is to try to invoke a response that's so violent that the Chinese government can be seen on video doing something so reprehensible that the international community holds them directly accountable. The United States (through Pompeo, especially) has denied involvement, but has previously admitted to funding anti-Beijing protesters through many different organizations, NGOs, even getting congressional funding, especially since 2014. This has been in the same way that "Arab Spring" type protests also got organized and weaponized from the United States (and Britain). I haven't located it again yet, but I understand that a Fox News reporter interviewed an ex State Department person to get them to explain why China blames the protests on organization and funding from the United States when it's obviously not true. He said it actually is true to an extent since we are there [giving them backing and training] through "Center for Democracy" and several other similar organizations. (Of course, the UK is doing the same thing, and many of the protesters are even carrying the British flag.) I don't doubt that the US will sooner-or-later get the kind of exposure on this that often gets leaked, as it has in the past. https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-now-admits-funding-occupy-central-hong-kong/5405680 Note how even the Washington Post has "leaked" this (between the lines, sometimes) in recent years: The campaign aims to insulate China from subversive Western ideas such as democracy and freedom of expression, and from the influence, specifically, of U.S. groups that may be trying to promote those values here, experts say. That campaign is long-standing, but it has been prosecuted with renewed vigor under President Xi Jinping, especially after the overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych following months of street demonstrations in Kiev that were viewed here as explicitly backed by the West. ... Congressionally funded with the explicit goal of promoting democracy abroad, NED has long been viewed with suspicion or hostility by the authorities here. But the net of suspicion has widened to encompass such U.S. groups as the Ford Foundation, the International Republican Institute, the Carter Center and the Asia Foundation. The New York Times also admitted more than Pompeo would have liked earlier in this decade: “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings” A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington. . . . The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. The problem is that the United States has attacked dozens of of nations claiming that it was to promote democracy when the real reason proved to be "regime change" and "economic turmoil" to facilitate regime change. The perspective from Beijing (and also Syria and Russia and Libya, and Egypt and Venezuela, for that matter) can be seen in the following belief about the West, as the article in the link above concludes: Considering the overt foreign-funded nature of not only the “Arab Spring,” but now “Occupy Central,” and considering the chaos, death, destabilization, and collapse suffered by victims of previous US subversion, “Occupy Central” can be painted in a new light – a mob of dupes being used to destroy their own home – all while abusing the principles of “democracy” behind which is couched an insidious, diametrically opposed foreign imposed tyranny driven by immense, global spanning corporate-financier interests that fear and actively destroy competition. In particular, this global hegemon seeks to suppress the reemergence of Russia as a global power, and prevent the rise of China itself upon the world’s stage. The regressive agenda of “Occupy Central’s” US-backed leadership, and their shameless exploitation of the good intentions of the many young people ensnared by their gimmicks, poses a threat in reality every bit as dangerous as the “threat” they claim Beijing poses to the island of Hong Kong and its people. Hopefully the people of China, and the many people around the world looking on as “Occupy Central” unfolds, will realize this foreign-driven gambit and stop it before it exacts the heavy toll it has on nations that have fallen victim to it before – Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Egypt, and many others.

I like it.

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: *** Watch Tower Aug 1, 1926 p.232 *** Some anticipated that the work would end in 1925, but the Lord did not so state." *** yb75 p. 146 Part 2—United States of America *** The year 1925 came and went. . . . Instead of its being considered a ‘probability,’ they read into it that it was a ‘certainty . . . . "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 . . .

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?

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; . . .

Excellent talk through and through (100 percent).

OK, I'll give you one more chance. You never know. The thousandth try might be a charm, for you. So, you claim that the following things I said show this lack of understanding: He only relied on Second Adventism to the extent that he admits to it, and to the extent that he relied on their teachings and made them such an important part of his own. From what he admits to alone, he ended up being deeply "indebted" to the Second Adventist, but for the most part he only borrowed their chronology. Most of the other Watchtower doctrines had been originally initiated by other religious groups, with some possible coincidental overlap with the Second Adventists, but not necessarily from them. Your claim here in no way contradicts what I said above. Clearly, as we know, Russell never belonged to a Second Adventist church. We also know that what he found acceptable among the Adventists came from his own study of the Bible, listening to preachers of several faiths, and of course reading and studying the writings of several faiths. As I said above, some of the overlap in doctrines with other faiths could have been coincidental, and this could even be true of overlap with prior doctrines of the Second Adventists. Perhaps you object to the idea that Russell felt indebted to the Second Adventists, but that's not from me, that's from Russell's own words. He credits a Second Adventist with rekindling his faith. He joined a Second Adventist to begin publishing works written by Second Adventists. He taught that the "midnight cry" from Matthew 25 was a cry made by Second Adventists just prior to 1874. In "The Time is at Hand" Russell taught that Luke 3:15 had a modern fulfillment among the persons led by William Miller (whom he said was the leader of those who would take the name "Adventists"). In fact, to Russell, the difference between the "foolish virgins" and the "wise virgins" was specifically the fact that most of the original "Millerite" Adventists had a chronology based on the exact same starting dates as Russell, but that they ended their dates prior to 1874, while Russell (due to accepting Barbour's chronology theories) extended them to 1874 to meet the Bridegroom. So Russell and his followers saw themselves as the wise virgins who had walked with the Adventists with continuing light (oil in their lamps) while so many of the other virgins who had light, had let their lamp oil run out. Russell admits that he got the chronology that he accepted directly from Barbour, a Second Adventist. But this does not discount the idea that many of Russell's other teachings did not match the Adventists, and some of the others that did may have matched only by coincidence, as I said above. Some of those other teachings would have come from his own study, and some clearly had been previously initiated by other religions before Russell came to accept them, whether directly, indirectly or purely through his own study. For example, no one doubts that Russell accepted pseudo-religious pyramidology from Joseph Seiss, for example. Just because a few Second Adventists also accepted pyramidology, this does not make it an Adventist doctrine. You quote the Bowman letter as if it shows something different from what I said, but it too is in perfect agreement with what I wrote. Thanks for quoting it, as it provides good support for the idea I was presenting. Bowman was probably (according to B W Schultz blog) a former Methodist who had become a [Second] Adventist preacher: Thanks for your quick comments on Bowman. Bowman is also mentioned in one of the Advent Christian history books, I don't recall, but it must be the Advent Christian History. I remember there is a photograph of him. He was one of their preachers. Also Bowman is mentioned in the history book of the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, "Historical Waymarks of the Church of God", on p.14, and he is in a group photo on p. 15. Adventists often were known to have a strong overlap of doctrines with "the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith" and this also happened to be true of Barbour and Russell. Yes, thanks for including the above, too. It's what I said here and also what I said several months ago in this same topic on an earlier page. You may not agree, on purpose, but the only evidence you found agrees perfectly with what I said. Wishing a thing rarely makes it true. Exactly. This is why you and I still agree that Russell was not a supporter of Second Adventism. He indicates that he was terribly embarrassed for them, and wished not to be associated with their 'great disappointment.' But he accepted their chronology, and accepted --and promoted-- the adjustment to that chronology from a Second Adventist named Nelson Barbour. But I agree completely that he did not support Second Adventism. If you speak of "adventism" in general, however, not the religion, then Russell was actually a very strong supporter of adventism. But I believe you already acknowledge this with your statement: So, as far as I can tell, all your evidence is in complete agreement with the statements I made that you were hoping to oppose. Edited to add: I just noticed the more recent posts, just above this one. Along with some of the obligatory false claims you make about me, you also provide some quotes as evidence from Russell. Thanks again. These are also exactly as I have already presented above. You will notice that Russell makes it clear that he never was a Second Adventist, just as I have always said here for years. Hopefully that puts the matter to rest.

Again, you take something I said about Russell's support for Second Adventism, claim it shows a lack of understanding, and then go on to only give evidence that what I said was correct. At least that's what it looks like on my first read of itI'm sure I could learn more about this topic, and if we discussed it, I'm sure you might even present some interesting details I could learn from. I appreciate this. But when you tell someone that "this just shows more of [my] lack of understanding" you shouldn't just provide material that shows I was right. If I'm going to learn anything from this, you have to provide something that makes a point that differs from what I said. I was just about to return to the actual topic of how we currently defend 1975, but I do appreciate that you focused on one particular point where you say I was wrong. Since this is a point you seem sure about, I will go ahead and look at this point more closely and see if there might be something you have said that shows where I went wrong.

Yes. I remember when someone, I think it was Anne O'maly, once called your gibberish a "word salad." Evidently because you misunderstood the meaning of the term, I have seen you try to pin that label on the words of others several times since then. This is a small example of what I meant at one time when I spoke of the evidence for your "grudge echolalia." (Not a real psychological term, as far as I know.) Just another empty claim. You never showed that anything I wrote was wrong. I already summarized what you did in the previous posts. In fact you provided some evidence that completely agreed with what I said. Also, I do not claim to be a Watchtower expert; I have an strong interest in our history, just as you evidently do. Our history contains many things to be proud of, and we can also learn how to avoid repeating some of the mistakes, so it seems a worthwhile pursuit. In the next post, I'd like to get back to the topic.

This is true, and this is why I took it into account by explaining that this was the "general view" of those who closely followed Russell's own writings. You have cherry-picked several of Russell's statements by the way, and then made false claims about what else he must have believed or not believed. Instead, you should be aware of everthing that he wrote about a subject before making such sweeping (false) claims. (example: " Therefore, the ONLY expectation Charles Taze Russell had for the year AD1914 was the conclusion of the “gentile times” that’s it.") I'm sure you are aware that anyone could open almost any of Watchtower volume from 1879 to 1914 and see 100 examples proving this statement false. You have also taken some statements about Russellism and in defense of Russellism, and falsely claimed that these are my views. He only relied on Second Adventism to the extent that he admits to it, and to the extent that he relied on their teachings and made them such an important part of his own. From what he admits to alone, he ended up being deeply "indebted" to the Second Adventist, but for the most part he only borrowed their chronology. Most of the other Watchtower doctrines had been originally initiated by other religious groups, with some possible coincidental overlap with the Second Adventists, but not necessarily from them.

Yes. If you claim I presented falsehoods you do have to show them, not just claim they are plain to see. And especially not to just provide numerous examples that merely support exactly what I already said. It's as if you think you are playing to audience of stupid people who will be fooled into thinking that just because you offered some documentary evidence, and pretended that it doesn't support exactly what I said, that they will believe there is some kind of disagreement between what I said above and the evidence you showed. Instead you should try to show where this evidence differs from what I already said. Otherwise you will still appear to be highly dishonest.

No. I've told the truth. Just because you oppose the truth, this does not make me a liar. Not once have you ever provided even a shred of evidence. Yet, I've probably made several mistakes over these last few years here. I would welcome any correction of any kind, and you've had 2.5 years under the name BillyTheKid46 to provide something. It's rare that you have even made an attempt. Usually it's just bluster of the sort that claims you disagree and therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be a liar. LOL. I don't claim to come from Bethel. I come from California, Missouri, and New York, mostly. I happened to work at Bethel in Brooklyn, NY from 1976 to 1982. It's even on my old work resume. Telling the truth doesn't make me a liar and a hypocrite. Then you should think about it. It might be a refreshing change of pace. I think there would be a lot less haughtiness, dishonesty, pretentiousness and contentiousness. My comments can be used anywhere anyone wants to use them, with or without attribution. Several people have asked, and I've always said Yes. You can try to make a book out of these comments and sell it, for all I care. I've been requoted on a couple of apostate sites, and Witness pages, too. Jesus said to give to anyone who asks of you, and not turn away anyone who would borrow from you. And by the way, you claim that this site is an apostate site, and yet you directly contribute to it. Actually I would love for you to start showing people where I have manipulated or distorted Watchtower publications. I don't believe I have, but I'd be happy to discuss any places where you believe this has been the case, and I will gladly admit the mistakes and make the corrections wherever I was wrong. I should add, of course, that your own use of the literature appears to be blatantly manipulated and distorted. Even under this very topic you have made statements that appear to contradict the Watchtower's teachings, while evidently pretending that you agree with them or understand them.

All of this issue goes away when we understand the way the terms were used in Russell's writings. We merely need to look at when Russell referenced the "great tribulation," rather than "Armageddon." Armageddon was to be a battle between "capitalists and workers." A kind of worldwide socialist revolution between the forces with money (including religion) and those who felt the economic antagonism, those who would fight and "strike" to be treated fairly, or get what they want --especially "labor." Here is a picture of Armageddon from the 1914 Photo Drama of Creation. These would be the first "battles" of Armageddon, until "crushed" by God's Kingdom within a matter of months after 1914. The most general view throughout most of the early Watchtower publications had been that the "great tribulation" would be in 1914. Then it became the few years leading up to 1914 and ending in 1914. Then, when they considered that the harvest (ending in 1914) should not be interrupted until the end of the harvest, they began teaching (in 1904) that the rest of the Bride/144,000 would expect to receive their heavenly reward in 1914, while the rest of the world fell into chaos and anarchy in the few months following October 1914, with no human institutions ruling anywhere in the world (except in Israel). As 1914 approached, there was more focus on 1915, and the months that followed -- or even a consideration (mostly dismissed) that 607 BCE (called 606 at the time) had been wrong and that it could be the more historically accurate date of 587/6 (called 588 below): Note the following from IBSA Expanded Biblical Comments [on Daniel] -- quoting Russell's writings: The impact is prominently noted throughout the Scriptures as a "time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation." (Dan. 12:1) OV83:T The little period of 40 years between 1874 and 1914 is, in the Scriptures, called the "Day of Vengeance," the smiting time preparatory to the inauguration of the Kingdom of righteousness. R1874:5 We expect this smiting in 1915, not 1914. Q96:4 If Zedekiah's dethronement should be dated BC 588, it would make the date 1932. My conviction, however, favors 1914. SM480:T This smiting, we believe, is near at hand (1915 comment) . . . Of course, the "Battle of Armageddon" is always associated with the "Great Tribulation," but the exact meaning behind this vocabulary has changed over the years. The following is from Russell's book "Thy Kingdom Come" (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol 3): The Scriptural time-proofs which we have considered show that this trouble was due to date from the time of Christ's second advent (October, 1874), when the judging of the nations would commence, under the enlightening influences of the Day of the Lord. This is shown in the Great Pyramid thus: The "Descending Passage," from the entrance of the Great Pyramid, leading to the "Pit" or "Subterranean Chamber," represents the course of the world in general (under the prince of this world), into the great time of trouble (the "Pit"), in which evil shall be brought to an end.. . . Then measuring down the "Entrance Passage" from that point, to find the distance to the entrance of the "Pit," representing the great trouble and destruction with which this age is to close, when evil will be overthrown from power, we find it to be 3457 inches, symbolizing 3457 years from the above date, B.C. 1542. This calculation shows A.D. 1915 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble; for 1542 years B.C. plus 1915 years A.D. equals 3457 years. Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1914 will be the beginning of the time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation—no, nor ever shall be afterward. And thus it will be noted that this "Witness" fully corroborates the Bible testimony on this subject, as shown by the "Parallel Dispensations" in Scripture Studies, Vol. II, Chap. VII. Nor should any doubt the fact that the forty years of "harvest" began in the fall of 1874 because the trouble has not yet reached so portentous and unendurable a stage; and because, in some respects, the "harvest" period since that date has been one of great advancement in knowledge. . . . Besides, we should remember that the Word of the Lord clearly shows that the judgments of this time of trouble will begin with the nominal Church, preparatory to its overthrow, and in the strife of selfishness between capital and labor, both of which are now organizing for the culminating trouble. To be even more pedantic, the "great tribulation" and the "time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation" were not always exactly the same thing either, since the "great tribulation" was seen a bit differently, depending on how it was to come upon each different class (Bride class, great company, the world). However, it's a simple matter to find at least a dozen specific references by Russell to the "great tribulation" starting in 1914. The Watchtower even held onto a version of this same view until fairly recently (last clarified in 2013), teaching that the "Great Tribulation" started in 1914 and had been cut short on account of the chosen ones back around 1918 to be started up again just prior to Armageddon. *** w13 7/15 pp. 3-4 par. 3 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” *** For a number of years, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 with World War I and that “those days were cut short” by Jehovah in 1918 when the war ended so that the remnant would have the opportunity to preach the good news to all nations. (Matt. 24:21, 22) After the completion of that preaching work, Satan’s empire would be destroyed. Thus, the great tribulation was thought to have three phases: There would be a beginning (1914-1918), the tribulation would be interrupted (from 1918 onward), and it would conclude at Armageddon.

@BillyTheKid46, I guess that after you have called me and others a lot of terrible names, and after making a lot of false claims about me and others, that I should probably respond in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15, especially since I made this thread at least partly about "honesty." Since you have provided no evidence, except for some evidence that helps my case, and hurts your own, I really don't need to do anything more than just let you know that your opinions are mostly wrong and misleading. I know absolutely that nearly all your claims about me are wrong. And I think some of those claims are also dishonest, but I don't know enough about you to judge that for sure. Also, for those many times when you appear to be the most disingenuous, you simultaneously give evidence that you cannot help but project onto others any of the negative things that your mind tells you might be true of yourself. For this reason, I do not consider you dishonest in many cases, since this is just a reflex in some people. For reference, I'll give a definition of this kind of projection from Google: Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. You may not know this about yourself, but you sometimes make the projection obvious by even repeating portions of the exact vocabulary that disturbed you. A couple of times you have even devolved to the simplest kind of projection, reminiscent of the PeeWee-Hermanesque retort: "I know you are but what am I?" For this reason I'm not at all insulted by your insults, but I feel sad for how well it explains your reflexive thinking. It makes me think that, at least subconsciously, every false thing you have said about me is something you are concerned might be true about yourself. To me, therefore, you are only insulting yourself.

This might often true, but it might not be our part to judge the majority so harshly. I have been on many a call to those who have left and in my experience the most common issues that get brought up are things that I would file under "Euodia-Syntyche Syndrome." I don't know if there is a specific reason common to the majority. However, the complaints I have heard most often are that they are just burned out trying to maneuver through a perceived lack of love, coldness, pettiness, jealousy, suspicions, contentions, competition for good brothers to marry, being judged as materialistic or haughty if they have a good job, house, car, education, etc. (Most of these are also issues for brothers, even if this looks to some like a "sisters-only" list.) When encouraged to come back and the assurance that Jehovah has not forgotten the love they have shown for his name, etc., they often say that surely Jehovah will understand that it's just not worth the toll on their health: depression, anxiety, stress, loss of sleep, etc. When reminded of the importance of sacred service and good association and other "useful habits" and then warned of the temptations of the world and the higher likelihood that bad associations can pull them into worldly thinking, they sometimes reply sadly or even tearfully that this was never a problem, and that the desire to associate with others of good morals was what attracted them to the Witnesses in the first place. I have encouraged them to speak again with Witnesses who they knew well as friends, Witness relatives, to attend the next assembly, and even consider another congregation to associate with. I find that it is most often plain old discouragement, and one of the more successful methods for getting persons to try and come back has been to ask them to think of someone in the congregation they know who is in worse straits and needs encouragement, with the appeal that often the best way of finding encouragement ourselves is to provide it for someone who needs it worse than we do. There is more happiness in giving than receiving.

Don't remember if this Watchtower discussion was added to the topic, but this is one of the major ones that explains the point about what should be expected to happen within months, not years, from 1975: You don't need the Watchtower Library because it's on jw.org: Remember that it's not specifically about Armageddon, but about the end of 6,000 years. But we need to pay more than the usual attention to how even THAT date, the date ending the 6,000 years since since Adam/Eve is supposed to drive lively discussions among "serious students of the Bible." It is "such an important date." No matter what it stands for, it should answer the question as to "why are we looking forward to 1975." https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1968602 Why are you looking forward to 1975? WHAT about all this talk concerning the year 1975? Lively discussions, some based on speculation, have burst into flame during recent months among serious students of the Bible. . . . The nearness of such an important date indeed fires the imagination and presents unlimited possibilities for discussion. . . . How do we know their calculations are correct? . . . Does the one Book that can be implicitly trusted for its truthful historical accuracy, namely, the Inspired Word of Jehovah, the Holy Bible, give support and credence to such a conclusion? . . . Already with the help supplied by the Bible we have accurately measured back from the spring of this year 1968 C.E. to the spring of 1513 B.C.E., a total of 3,480 years. With the continued faithful memory and accurate historical record of Jehovah’s Holy Word we can penetrate even deeper into the past . . . Since the affliction of Israel ended in 1513 B.C.E., it must have begun in 1913 [B.C.E.], 400 years earlier. . . . It is now only a matter of adding up the years of a few generations to date the Flood correctly. The figures are given in Genesis, chapters 11 and 12 . . . Adding this figure 1,656 to 2,370 gives 4026 B.C.E., the Gregorian calendar year in which Adam was created. Thus, through a careful independent study by dedicated Bible scholars who have pursued the subject for a number of years, and who have not blindly followed some traditional chronological calculations of Christendom, we have arrived at a date for Adam’s creation that is 22 years more distant in the past than Ussher’s figure. This means time is running out two decades sooner than traditional chronology anticipates. . . . of what benefit is this information to us today? Is it not all dead history, as uninteresting and profitless . . . Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. . . . It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” 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. 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. Make no mistake, it is sufficient that the Father himself knows both the “day and hour”! 36 Even if one cannot see beyond 1975, is this any reason to be less active? One might wonder how persons were then "toying with the words of Jesus" in a way that drew away from the idea that 1975 proved that the end of this system was rapidly coming to its violent end. In other words, all this talk of 1975 somehow proved that Armageddon was rapidly coming. Perhaps persons were "toying with" the words of Jesus in the way that someone might be "toying with" immoraility?

You may disagree, but I agree with @BillyTheKid46 on the point that the WTS never actually predicted that Armageddon would come in 1975. You are right that they "projected" it by very strongly implying that the appropriate time period should end within a few months, not years, from 1975. The WTS definitely led people to believe that Armageddon would come in 1975, but this was through a series of misleading and misguided statements. They never predicted outright that Armageddon would come in 1975. As BTK, Space Merchant (and I) have said, they only directly predicted that the end of 6,000 years of man's existence would end within a few months, not years, from 1975. I recall the most careful readers of the Watchtower making that point clear to others. I even remember several specifics from a conversation on January 2, 1975 between my father and one of his employees, who was an overly excited elder and recently returned Gilead Student, whose wife had become pregnant on their assignment. I was spending the day in my father's lab, and the brother (who worked afternoons) loudly and proudly announced his excitement about having reached his last year in this wicked system. My father had another employee there, and two graduate students (who did work-study for credit) were also there in the lab. I knew my father was a bit embarrassed for the non-JW onlookers. But he decided to deal with the issue in front of the others because this brother brought it up in front of the others. I know that my father's opinion on this was very different from the more outspoken people in the congregation, and it was definitely different from our District Overseer and two Circuit Overseers we had in the period from 1972 to 1974. In fact, he got counseled by the District Overseer for adding Matthew 24:36 to a talk he gave at a circuit assembly just before that. My mother took the side of the District and Circuit Overseers, and therefore believed that Armageddon would have to come between 1974 and 1976. She specifically thought it was less likely to happen in 1975 only because most all JWs (in the general opinion around us) believed that this is when it would happen, and it had to happen at a time when we did not think to be it. But I also know that my father was not alone in his "negative thinking" about 1975 and I knew he could defend it well from the publications. My father believed that it could be any time, and thought it just as likely to be 1973 as it would be in 1993. Part of his reason to say this was to convince me to get a High School education, and a job, before I started pioneering. For me, this meant that I had to quit school when I was still 15, but got the GED High School equivalency instead. Anyway, if you look very closely at all the official statements in the publications surrounding 1975, you can see that there is no prediction of Armageddon in 1975. The problem was the way these statements led people to believe that the end would most likely come either in 1975, or within a matter of months. Usually this was in the context of "What will the 1970's bring?" or "Who will conquer the world in the 1970's?" By the 1980's the prediction about Armageddon itself had become much more clear: that it would come before the end of the century, as you already pointed out. You are right that the Watchtower publications definitely HINTED at Armageddon coming in 1975. It's easy to say, as Space Merchant said, that we never taught that the end would come in 1975, but we did teach that the end SHOULD be expected to come within a matter of months, not years, from 1975. Therefore it's wrong to say that "nothing of the sort was ever mentioned." Space Merchant may not know any better, but for those who do, this is what I mean by dishonesty when it comes to how our teaching on the subject is defended.

"Millions now living will never die!" (WT publications: 1918-1925) "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." (WT publication: Awake! 5/22/1969) These two prophecies are nearly equivalent, and were both made for very similar reasons, although under different circumstances.

We are all presumably looking forward to it, but if we are participating in service activities or increasing our service activity because of a belief that it will happen in a specific century, then we are also serving with a date in mind. Back to this point again for a minute. This is similar to saying: It doesn't matter that we were teaching a falsehood, at least a lot of these little ones were stumbled. Do we really thing that God wanted to test us with false doctrines? 13 When under trial,+ let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone.

Actually, it probably did not. The emphasis on the years surrounding 1975 came especially from Fred Franz, the primary source of that emphasis. He was not cleansed from the organization, and with Knorr's failing health in 1976, Franz even became the President of the WTS. Recall that Franz joined the WTS way back just before 1914, when the emphasis on serving for a date was at its peak. The WTS even printed cards so followers could count down their last year on earth, by checking off every single day until October 1, 1914. Then when that failed, the next big thing was to promote the dates 1915, then 1918, then 1925. After that the organization claimed that it learned to stop setting dates. “Ever since the 1870's, Bible Students had been serving with a date in mind - first 1914, then 1925. Now they realized that they must serve for as long as Jehovah wishes.” Watchtower 1993 Nov 1 p.12 Those who were not looking for a date included the portion of the Writing Department who had worked on the Aid Book, the first major publication that admitted that our chronology was not based on facts but only on assumptions. All of those brothers on the Aid Book team were dismissed from the Writing Department, two of them disfellowshipped, and another disfellowshipped later. Two major contributors (besides R.Franz) were sent back to their congregations with only an offer of a special pioneer stipend. There were others in the Writing Department and Governing Body who questioned our beliefs surrounding 1914, including Schroeder, Swingle, Chitty and Sydlik. Sydlik also knew my own belief about 1914, and told me that now would be a good time to "watch our tongue." Schroeder didn't get into trouble because he was the head Inquisitor to root out "apostasy" where one of his major questions was about whether one questioned 1914. (Even though he himself questioned 1914.) Although some members of the Writing Department and one member of the Service Department knew that I also questioned 1914, I never admitted this to Brother Schroeder, even though I saw him nearly every day.) But the persons who were taking the most prominent lead in promoting the period surrounding 1975 were F.W.Franz and two persons in Writing who hitched themselves closely and loyally to F.W.Franz. As far as I can tell it included NO ONE ELSE ON THE GOVERNING BODY, even those who called F.W.Franz, the Oracle. The next more prominent persons promoting the idea that we should be serving more and more with a date in mind were the leading members of the Service Department (including Correspondence). These were also the ones who promoted the talks by District Overseers on the topic of 1975 because their "job" was to "effect a greater urgency and increase in the service activities: placements, studies, hours.) They watched the numbers from month to month, and were guided by what types of appeals, encouragement, goals, requirements, reasoning, etc., appeared to have the most effect on those numbers: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/201974163 Should we not today be imitating his example, especially since we have such a short time left now in which to complete the Kingdom-preaching? Yes, the end of this system is so very near! Is that not reason to increase our activity? . . . 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. This is the definition of "serving with a date in mind." These brothers, including the infamous Charles Sunutko, were guided by this thinking that came out of the Service Department which came out of F.W.Franz. These were the loyal ones, serving with a date in mind. These were NOT the ones who were punished in any way, precisely because they did NOT question.