JW Insider

Let me make it easy for you. In this post I will include every single word I have ever quoted from the jwfacts.com site, where it was not merely a quotation from a Watch Tower publication.
THIS TOPIC: ZERO (nothing under this topic was remotely related to jwfacts, not even a Watch Tower quotation!) The 1925/1975 TOPIC: ZERO (two posts; only using WT quotes from jwfacts, nothing except WT quotes) The Armageddon Predictions TOPIC: ZERO (in only one post, all quotes from jwfacts are only direct WT quotes) I admit that I also quoted a Watch Tower publication from his site (Trey Bundy's) about two years ago to show where his site was factually wrong about the timing of the transition from 1874/78 to 1914. This again was not anything he had written himself, but a quote from a Watch Tower publication.
After I have included the complete list of every word I quoted from jwfacts, you will have the opportunity to tell everyone what you thought was wrong with the Watch Tower quote. If a Watch Tower quote is wrong just because it was typed out on an apostate site, then all someone would have to is try to put ALL Watch Tower publications on an apostate site and you could never quote from hardly any Watch Tower publications again! In fact, I think "avoidJW" did that very thing.
So again, you should notice that I never quoted a word from his site that was not part of a direct quote from Watch Tower publications. The reason for this is that the Watchtower Library only takes Awake! magazines back to 1970, and only includes books that go back to the late 1970's, and I thought I might be quoting from 1966 thru 1968 Awakes and both the Truth book and the Life Everlasting book from 1968 and 1966, respectively. I also noticed while I was there that he had already retyped the Watch Tower's words from after the failures of 1925 and 1914.
======reference=======
FOR REFERENCE, here is everything that was quoted from the site jwfacts.com, repeated below. In each post where I took the Watch Tower quotes directly from his site, I referenced jwfacts, because he had done the work of formatting the Watch Tower reference publication title and page numbers, and in some cases he had included his own highlighting of specific words.
FROM THE "ARMAGEDDON PREDICTIONS" TOPIC:
The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah p. 216
"Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom." Watchtower 1984 Mar 1 pp.18-19
"Some of that "generation" could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that "the end" is much closer than that!" "Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981) p.102
But now in our 20th century, we have come to the time for harvest, "a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels"! Watchtower 1989 Jan 1 p.12
"He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century." There is also a quote from the 1966 Life Everlasting book and a 1968 Awake! where I picked up some of the Watch Tower's words from his site rather than retype them myself. The rest of the quotations from Watch Tower publications I quoted directly from looking them up in the Watchtower Library, except for the long quotes from 1881 Zion's Watch Tower which I picked up from a Bible Student site called agsconsulting.com. In both cases I ended up at jwfacts because I had typed: "Shortly within our twentieth century" in Google and jwfacts was the first choice, and when I typed "Zion's Watch Tower May 1881" into Google, the Bible Student site was the third choice.
FROM THE 1925/1975 . . . Why did so many people leave? TOPIC (found in two separate posts):

False. Everyone should deny falsehoods.
I agree that former Witnesses can be dishonest. I wouldn't judge them as the least honest people alive.  I have seen evidence of some dishonesty among some, but don't think any human even has a way to know if they are more or less honest than current Witnesses. My guess is that they would be about the same, on average -- less honest on some topics and more honest on some topics, depending on whether they are trying to promote or protect a specific ideology.
I don't defend the views of ex-Witnesses except where the evidence happens to coincide with their views, in which case we don't have much choice if we are honest. I'm opposed to dishonesty so I try not to deny evidence. If some of that evidence is found in their distorted publications, we should still be willing to look at the same evidence, even while identifying how they have distorted the use or conclusions made from it. This does NOT mean we will agree with their views, especially if they are distorting the evidence. Furthermore, we don't even need to look at their views to make a judgment on the accuracy and relevance of the evidence they present.
By "evidence" here, I'm referring specifically to quotations from Watch Tower publications. After checking a few hundred of these quotations found on many different sites, I get the impression that ex-Witnesses are even more careful than Witnesses when it comes to accuracy of the actual quotes. I've also seen some misquotes and misuse of context, mistakes, and outright dishonesty from some ex-Witnesses, too. But for the most part I think they realize that their argument is immediately lost, if a Witness were to find an inaccurate quote.

I don't want to state anything that is not true. Yes, I've seen former Witnesses distort the facts about 1975. I've heard claims that the Watch Tower publications actually predicted that Armageddon would be here by 1975. The people who claim that are not being honest. That was never said in the WTS publications. A couple years ago, on this forum (or jw-archive.org) I even pointed out that someone had tampered with a recording of Fred Franz to make it look like some things were said in a way that they were never said. That showed the depths of dishonesty that people will sink to. And there are very many more subtle ways that people show their lack of honesty, sometimes from opposers and sometimes from defenders.
Therefore, if any of us want to be able to honestly defend against these accusations, we should know exactly what's true and what isn't. We shouldn't just deny, deny, deny. But we should also be aware of what was said, and not just accept things out of context. We should get a full and comprehensive historical view of the issue so that we are not guilty of cherry-picking various quotes and examples and anecdotes out of context.
So if you believe I have distorted anything about the issue, please bring up the specific example and your evidence. We've seen so many examples of persons on all sides of this issue, who just like to state things without evidence, but this just means they are promoting distortion themselves.
Anyone who makes claims that are not backed up by evidence might just be showing a lack of care about truth and honesty. That's not necessarily dishonesty, and it might just be based on strong opinions or personal experiences, or believing what one thinks one must believe to keep small pieces of their world view (belief structures) from collapsing. But people who make claims that are contradicted by evidence and who cannot or will not try to present relevant evidence to support their claims, well, unfortunately, those people really are being dishonest, even if their motive is to hang on to an ideology or belief structure they know to be important.

I guess it depends on how seriously we consider "honesty" and "truth" to be in our teaching:
(1 Timothy 4:15, 16) 15 Ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, so that your advancement may be plainly seen by all people. 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you. (Philippians 4:-8) .5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men. The Lord is near. . . . 8 Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, . . . continue considering these things. (Proverbs 14:25) . . .A true witness saves lives,. . .
(2 Timothy 2:18) 18 These very [men] have deviated from the truth, . . .  and they are subverting the faith of some.
(James 3:1-5) 3 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment. . . . . 5 So, too, the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it makes great brags. See how small a fire it takes to set a great forest ablaze!
(John 4:22-24) . . .. 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.”
(John 14:15-17) . . .. 16 And I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever, 17 the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither sees it nor knows it. You know it, because it remains with you and is in you.
(Psalm 40:10, 11) . . .I do not hide your loyal love and your truth in the great congregation.” 11 O Jehovah, do not withhold your mercy from me. May your loyal love and your truth constantly safeguard me.
(Psalm 51:6)  6 Look! You find pleasure in truth in the inner person; Teach my innermost self true wisdom.
If a person is stating something that's untrue, then, yes, it's true that they might just be stating a falsehood that they believe to be true. But in that case what is the reason for the lack of care, the lack of attempted verification, the reason for the willingness to believe something false when it often would have been no trouble at all to make a true statement in its place. Is there a motive that tends to make someone blame others when they themselves are to blame? Is there a motive for a string of repeated falsehoods, even when the person believed each falsehood to be true at the time. Should we learn from our mistakes? Is it worse if the promoter of their own private interpretations of scripture is forced to defend against clear scriptural counsel in order to continue promoting a private interpretation of scripture.
If this type of dishonesty keeps happening, even though it requires kicking against the goads, then there is likely a problem worth looking into.
 

To most it just means that we have faith in the Slave that they will not ask us to do anything unreasonable, even though they have asked us to obey in the future even if it does seem unreasonable. I don't think they will ask us to do anything more unreasonable than some of the unreasonable requests on blood doctrine inconsistencies, organ transplants, divorce for "spiritual" adultery (but not for areas of immorality they have not yet defined under the scope of porneia), etc.
They will, evidently, ask us to believe things that are unreasonable or even patently untrue. Men in leadership positions can't usually go more than a few weeks without needing someone to believe something that isn't reasonable or true. That's also the nature of human leadership. That seems to get worse with committees as often as it gets better.

Russell himself said he was ashamed of Second Adventism with all its false predictions. He was embarrassed by the Adventists yet he took little else from them besides their chronology. From the start, he was drawn to their chronology system. He often claimed that he was not so interested in the chronology but focused on Christian character instead, yet he made belief in the updated Second Adventist chronology the single criteria that separated the Foolish Virgins from the Wise Virgins.
Here's an example of the kind of dishonesty I refer to that always seems to accompany the topic of chronology in every religion that focuses on it. It goes all the way back to the first few months of Watch Tower publications:
Here are some statements from the January 1881 Watch Tower magazine:
This is a question doubtless that many ask themselves, viz: "How soon will our change come?" This change many of us have looked forward to for years, and we yet with much pleasure, think of the time when we shall be gathered unto Jesus and see Him as he is. In the article concerning our change, in December paper, we expressed the opinion that it was nearer than many supposed, and while we would not attempt to prove our change at any particular time, yet we propose looking at some of the evidences which seem to show the translation or change from the natural to the spiritual condition, due this side or by the fall of our year 1881. The evidence that our change will be by that time, increases since we have seen that the change to spiritual bodies is not the marriage. While we thought the marriage to be the change, and knowing there was three and a half years of special favor to the Nominal Church (now left desolate) from 1878, we could not expect any translation this side of 1881, or during this three and a half years. But since we recognize that going into the marriage is not only being made ready (by recognizing His presence) for the change, but also, that going in includes the change itself, then the evidences that we go in (or will be changed) inside of the time mentioned are strong, and commend themselves to all interested as worthy of investigation. Aside from any direct proof that our change is near, the fact that the manner of the change can now be understood, is evidence that we are near the time of the change, for truth is "meat in due season," and understood only as due. It will be remembered that after the spring of 1878, (when we understand Jesus was due as King) that the subject of holiness or the wedding garment, was very much agitated. And aside from the parallel to the end of the Jewish age, and favor at that time being shown to the Jewish nation, which implied the presence of the King, the consideration of the wedding garment, was also proof of the correctness of the application, for "the King had come in to see the guests," [Matt. 22:11] and hence all were interested in knowing how they stood before Him. Now as the inspection of guests is the last thing prior to our change, which precedes the marriage and we are all now considering the change. It would seem that the time for it, is nigh. We shall now present what we adduce from the types and prophetic points as seeming to indicate the translation of the saints and closing of the door to the high calling by 1881. . . . [skipping a large portion on these evidences, some of which were considered "proofs" of 1874 that evidenced the correctness of 1881.] If this be a correct application (and it seems harmonious) and the time of building is seven years, then we would expect our change by or before the fall of 1881, as from 1874 to then would be the time given for building. . . .  by coming into a knowledge of the Bridegroom's presence, etc., during the seven years harvest [from 1874 to 1881] . . . and as the seven years are about complete, that we will soon follow by being changed. Matt. 25 and the parallelism of the Jewish and Gospel ages, seem to teach that the wise of the virgins "who are alive and remain" must all come in, to a knowledge of the bridegroom's presence, by the fall of 1881, when the door—opportunity to become a member of the bride—will close. . . . We suggest as quite possible, that the change may come to some prepared before that time. . . .  "Yet seven days [years] and I will cause it to rain upon the earth," should be significant, because we have expected trouble, in a special sense, about 1881, and, according to the type, we must enter in by that time. . . . We used to think it would be in the midst of a great trouble that we would be changed, but now we do not. . . .  If the three years mentioned in connection with Aaron has any bearing, then it would teach our change as coming this side of 1881, as three years from 1878 would bring us inside of that time. . . .  We now have taken prophetic measurements and allegories together, [R182 : page 5] five different points seeming to teach the resurrection of the dead in Christ and change of the living between the fall of 1874 and 1881. Two or more witnesses are enough to prove any case, as a rule, and certainly God has given us abundant evidence. We are also glad to notice that all these things only corroborate previous truths, thus proving to a certainty each application as correct and causing the old jewels to shine brighter. The five lines of argument briefly stated are these: 1st. The days of Daniel ending in 1874, at which time the resurrection commenced, and since which, the dead have been going in to the marriage. 2d. The end of the seven years from that time, as marked by the parallel, of the end of the "seventy weeks" in the Jewish age ending in our year 1881, at which time we all should be in and the door closed, being the end of time of special favor to the nominal church before commencement of trouble which follows our change. [skipping more, etc. etc. etc.]
There are some cautionary statements built into the article, and statements that this is not proof, just evidence. But note what is done with the evidence. Intelligently-minded people know what this evidence means. And spiritually-minded people know that the faithful and wise servant is providing "food at the proper time" [meat in due season] and that this is the proper time for wise virgins to distinguish themselves from foolish virgins. Also, all this evidence is only evidence on its own, but as it adds up, it becomes "proof" to those who appreciate that God is giving us this evidence in abundance, and that even two of these five lines of evidence should therefore constitute enough to "prove any case" as a rule.
Here are some statements from the May 1881 Watch Tower magazine, p.224, on the same topic, now that the time for hesitation was due:
The WATCH TOWER never claimed that the body of Christ will be changed to spiritual beings during this year. There is such a change due sometime. We have not attempted to say when, but have repeatedly said that it could not take place before the fall of 1881. This was a true statement. The Watch Tower had not claimed that the body of Christ will be changed in 1881, only that the evidence about 1881 should be seen as proof by intelligent and spiritually minded persons who have a true faith and appreciation for God's truths. From this point forward, after failure was obvious, it would be easy to cherry-pick quotes that showed that no one had specifically said it would happen by the fall of 1881  -- even though it was supposed to obvious that for some it would likely happen even before the fall of 1881. But even this is just technicalities and semantics. It's true that they hadn't said it would definitely happen.
Still, there is dishonesty in the attempt to sweep all the embarrassment away. It's in the phrase: "We have not attempted to say when . . ." Is this a true statement? Was there really no attempt to say when the change would take place? That previous article on the topic of when, in January 1881 --only four months earlier--  might as well have been called "When Will the Change Take Place?" It was nothing if not an attempt to say when!
The claim might be technically true. But is it honest?
 

In my own experience, I was born in '57, baptized 10 years later, and had to read the "Life Everlasting" book as one of the two books assigned for baptismal candidates, along with the "Lamp" book questions. I auxiliary pioneered for several months in 1972, and quit school to regular pioneer for 3.5 years from 1973 until leaving for Brooklyn Bethel, where I worked full-time for 4 years, and then part-time, on projects, for another two while going to college in NYC.
I give this portion of my "resume" only because I can speak to the experience of being baptized prior to 1975, and was part of the Bethel build-up from the influx of workers and financial contributions that Bethel received around 1975. I pioneered for several years both before and after 1975.
Your experience may vary, but I can still tell you pretty much what I was thinking just prior to 1975, because I had to clear my plans with my parents, my school, and two circuit overseers, since I quit school while I was still 15 to begin regular pioneering in 1973.

Several posts from some recent topics have veered into a discussion of 1975 (yet again). My personal concern about the topic is that, like others have just mentioned, I have also been seeing a lack of honesty about it from both JWs and ex-JWs/non-JWs. We shouldn't be as concerned about what others on the outside say, but perhaps we need to take another look at the accuracy of statements that we make ourselves, in our own defense.
To start, I would say that I agree that no Watchtower article or Watchtower publication ever said that the world was going to end in 1975.
But when we try to convince people today about what was really said back then, what is our purpose in only selectively choosing things that were said and printed in Watchtower publications? Is it possible to be dishonest by what we omit when we defend this topic?
*GA: The upvote is an artefact of this post when it was under another topic. You may wish to remove it from this topic.

@BillyTheKid46, I thought you mostly just employed @Foreigner for vote spamming. I see you are doing some of the dirty work under your own name. And I also see you are nowhere near done yet, because you have added several more just since I copied the two images below.
What's odd, however is that "both" of you have now voted down posts that contained nothing more than scriptures quoted from the NWT, and just above in this same topic, only 4 posts back, you (and Foreigner, of course) downvoted a post that does no more than introduce 3 Watchtower quotes about how long it took Adam to name the animals with surrounding context. Are you really that embarrassed by quotes from the Watchtower that you found it necessary to give two down votes to these Watchtower quotes????

I'd say you're right. Based on current rates, the peak publishers number should reach 9 million in 2021 and the average publishers should reach 9 million in 2022.

@BillyTheKid46, I thought you mostly just employed @Foreigner for vote spamming. I see you are doing some of the dirty work under your own name. And I also see you are nowhere near done yet, because you have added several more just since I copied the two images below.
What's odd, however is that "both" of you have now voted down posts that contained nothing more than scriptures quoted from the NWT, and just above in this same topic, only 4 posts back, you (and Foreigner, of course) downvoted a post that does no more than introduce 3 Watchtower quotes about how long it took Adam to name the animals with surrounding context. Are you really that embarrassed by quotes from the Watchtower that you found it necessary to give two down votes to these Watchtower quotes????

Because sometimes a body at rest . . . falls asleep.

"Never at Rest" by Richard Westfall is a biography of Newton that covers his "Observations upon the Prophecies" and contains the idea expressed earlier that he was clearly not asserting these dates, but just trying to put a stop to the rash conjectures. The scrap is evidently from a time later in his life, and the FOUR big mistakes in the last 12 words showed how much he cared, in my opinion. I think he was falling asleep around the last two lines.

...


One thing that Newton said that might be worth considering is his view on parts of Revelation, which rings true.

 

Just thought to point out that when most people see a sign on a building like "Ye Olde Tavern" or "Ye Olde Apple Store" they think of it as meaning "Your Old Tavern," etc. But the "Y" in this case is clearly a single letter representing the "TH" sound (like the Greek letter "Theta").
So, in the above, "ye Temple" means "the Temple" and "ye year" simply means "the year."

I had the impression that this was Newton's whole point. It was not that he was serious about actually predicting a date for the end of the world. I think it was to show contemporaries that the same "data" that "prophecy hounds" always made use of in order to prove something will happen within their own generation, could just as easily be used to point to something hundreds of years in the future.

No problem. Your secret is safe with me.

This is a good set of points. (I changed the bullets to numbers for discussion.)
Do you think that all of them have to be true at once? Or can 5 of the 7 bullets be true? Or only 2 of the 7?
Actually it appears that #1 through #6 are characteristic "ingredients" or features that will ultimately lead to #7 which is the actual cult product. That product becomes a support structure that can continue to support and enhance and defend the features of #1 through #6.
But there is also the question of a spectrum rather than black and white labeling. Within that spectrum there are variables for intention, motivation, flexibility, freedom, independent thinking, perceived spiritual value, etc.
I've kept an interest in this topic for years.
In fact, at Bethel I tried to study with some Moonies, who seemed receptive (they weren't). I did it mostly to get into their "community" warehouse, where they offered me crackers, milk, and fruit nectar (and more publications). Since then I've had a couple of LDS elders come by the house and make 4 return visits to try to study with me (I would point out things I found on anti-LDS sites, but woudn't study with them of course). And, working right near the NYC Scientology center in midtown I also took their little Bethel-like presentation tour a couple of times, and even met David Miscavige (from a short distance away) and heard him talk about how they helped 9/11 responders. On May 20, 2011, I spoke at length with a Harold Camping follower who gave me an entire CD/DVD full of proof that the rapture would be on May 21, 2011. I have a cousin who is a staunch Seventh Day Adventist, so I also studied as much of the early historical information about them as I could to try to convince her that the Witnesses had the more correct Adventist path. After trying to study them closely, I decided there was a little bit of "cult" in all of them. Of course, I mean in the pejorative sense that people use the term cult --based mostly on those bullet points you offered.
It's a stretch, but one could even defend or explain why one might call the Catholic Church a cult, because there are several of your bullet point features that are often seen in the lives and activities of some Catholics. The same might go for various political ideologies, even so broad as the United States Republican or Democrat parties, or various others  -- all in the pejorative sense.
But there are also nearly neutral or even nearly positive senses in which scholars use the term cult. Scholars can also look at the history of various religious groups and can speak of the cult of Yahweh in Israel, or the cult of John the Baptist, or the cult of primitive Christianity. This is not intended pejoratively. It's mostly used to help one realize the context in which a religious group survives and "cultivates" itself in a setting where they might be outnumbered by other larger religious groups surrounding them.

Yes. I know. I was more talking about myself. I went ahead and posed the question because I personally am only GUESSING that he is a JW. I also think that he is probably quite a bit younger than several of us here, and therefore does not have the personal experience that many of us experienced directly with those predictions for the 1970's and the expectations surrounding 1975. 
I have believed since the first set of posts I read from SM, that he is a JW and is using a kind of "lawyer's honesty" in focusing on the fact that he is a Unitarian, [Primitive Christianity] Restorationist, etc. If you read closely you will notice that these terms are exactly in line with his definition of JWs. JWs are, in fact, both unitarian and restorationist, and most of us should have no problem admitting this.
In fact, what do you think would happen if someone tried to point out some information from so-called "official" Unitarian sites and publications that sounded too different from what Witnesses teach? We shouldn't be surprised to see SM ridicule such sources as "stupid" and point out that he is a "Biblical Unitarian." In other words, one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Instead of just guessing, a person might be able to get closer to the answer just by asking @Space Merchant. Assuming SM responds at all, one can see whether a direct YES or a direct NO appears in the response @Space Merchant gives to the following question:
@Space Merchant, Are you now, or have you ever been, one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

[I'm separating this post from the one it was combined with above:]
Back in 1956, when Armstrong's "1975 in Prophecy!" magazine was written, the Watchtower was still teaching that 1976 was the end of the 6,000 years. Note the words highlighted in blue and red in the following three Watchtower articles, especially the part about how long it took Adam to name the animals.
The first link is to the Feb 1, 1955 Watchtower "Questions From Readers" on jw.org.  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1955089
According to Genesis 1:24-31 Adam was created during the last part of the sixth creative-day period of 7,000 years. Almost all independent chronologists assume incorrectly that, as soon as Adam was created, then began Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period of the creative week. Such then figure that from Adam’s creation, now thought to be the fall of 4025 B.C., why, six thousand years of God’s rest day would be ending in the fall of 1976. However, from our present chronology (which is admitted imperfect) at best the fall of the year 1976 would be the end of 6,000 years of human history for mankind, 6,000 years of man’s existence on the earth, not 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period. Why not? Because Adam lived some time after his creation in the latter part of Jehovah’s sixth creative period, before the seventh period, Jehovah’s sabbath, began.
Why, it must have taken Adam quite some time to name all the animals, as he was commissioned to do. . . .
The very fact that, as part of Jehovah’s secret, no one today is able to find out how much time Adam and later Eve lived during the closing days of the sixth creative period, so no one can now determine when six thousand years of Jehovah’s present rest day come to an end. Obviously, whatever amount of Adam’s 930 years was lived before the beginning of that seventh-day rest of Jehovah, that unknown amount would have to be added to the 1976 date.
When the 1955 article was updated in 1968, 13 years later, note how the line about the accuracy of the chronology remains the same (almost verbatim in blue) but the line about the animals (in red) has changed: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1968602#h=59
Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? . . .
This time between Adam’s creation and the beginning of the seventh day, the day of rest, let it be noted, need not have been a long time. It could have been a rather short one. The naming of the animals by Adam, and his discovery that there was no complement for himself, required no great length of time. The animals were in subjection to Adam; they were peaceful; they came under God’s leading; they were not needing to be chased down and caught. It took Noah only seven days to get the same kinds of animals, male and female, into the Ark. (Gen. 7:1-4) Eve’s creation was quickly accomplished, ‘while Adam was sleeping.’ (Gen. 2:21) So the lapse of time between Adam’s creation and the end of the sixth creative day, though unknown, was a comparatively short period of time.
By October 1, 1975, the Watchtower changed back to the 1956 style statements about Adam and how long it might have taken to name the animals: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1975720
During that time, God had Adam name the animals. Whether that period amounted to weeks or months or years, we do not know. So we do not know exactly when Jehovah’s great “rest day” began, nor do we know exactly when it will end. The same applies to the beginning of Christ’s millennial reign. The Bible provides us no way to fix the date, and so it does us no good to speculate when that date may be.—Gen. 2:18-25; Matt. 24:42, 44.
However, the Bible’s time clock does indicate to us that 6,000 years of human history end in this year 1975. Early in God’s “rest day” Adam became a rebel against God-rule. Thus, for the most part, the first 6,000 years of man’s history have been marked by man-rule.

Original version of 1975 in Prophecy!  (link to PDF)
Some good points there @BillyTheKid46, about Armstrong and Taylor. (I hadn't heard of Taylor back then.)
I remember hearing Witnesses talk about how closely Herbert W Armstrong sounded like the message of the Witnesses, and how elders from the platform had to mention that we don't listen to such programs even though there might be a lot of good information that draws us in.
Just like "The Plain Truth," this brochure "1975 In Prophecy!" from which I copied pieces above, speaks with similar language. The message had many differences, but it was styled much as our own teachings:
the 144,000 as spirit begotten ones. The 6,000 years of trying man's rule as a test of whether man can rule himself. It mentions the Great Tribulation, and Armageddon, and the New World (called The World Tomorrow). It speaks of those who know the "Truth" surviving During the millennium, those with the Truth will teach those others who come through the Great Tribulation. Matthew 24 was often used to point out the greater number of earthquakes, famines, pestilences, and wars. The fulfillment on Jerusalem in 70 was only the "typical" fulfillment. Authors and experts were quoted about 1975, just as the 1968 version of the "Truth" book had done. The repetition of phrases like "IT'S LATER THAN YOU THINK" and "Time is running out for this world," etc., were nearly identical to covers of the Awake! that put them in the form of a question: IS IT LATER THAN YOU THINK? Is Time Running Out For This World?" The pictures of destruction at Armageddon with buildings toppling and dead bodies are shown before pictures of a new world society of survivors building things new, and then a paradise completed by the end of the thousand years. Back in 1956, when the above magazine was written, the Watchtower was still teaching that the end of the 6,000 years of man's existence would be in 1976, not 1975.

I think it was one of the Laura Ingalls Wilder books that had the phrase:
If at first you don't fricassee, fry fry a hen.
Or was it:
Whistling girls and crowing hens, always come to some bad ends.
Maybe, it was both. I've never read them myself. Our teacher read them all to us when I was in a 2-room schoolhouse in Missouri -- when I was in the 5th and 6th grades. It was really a one room schoolhouse with a divider down the middle, and one teacher handled grades 1 - 4 on one side, and another teacher handled grades 5 - 8 on the other. When I got to grade 5, we were supposed to be doing our schoolwork while the teacher teacher taught the other grades. Very distracting, but you get used to it. At any rate, all 4 grades at once had to listen to L.I.Wilder's "Little House" series for an hour a day.

At least you understand the point that, as you say, "omitting a strong fact is another way of lying by them." I agree 100 percent, and it's really the ongoing theme here. The article you mention is exactly what I had in mind when I said:
Yes. We've also discussed this exact idea before. We've also discussed the typical life cycle of these predictions.
For example, Russell made a lot of predictions about October 1914, then the November 1913 Watch Tower began hedging because it just didn't look like everything that was supposed to happen still had time to happen. So Russell began writing and saying that it looks like he had been wrong -- that it might be another year or so, or that people might look back on this prediction 100 years from now and wonder what it was all about. Another article came out in early 1914 that also expressed Russell's strong doubts about 1914. It's almost as if he was prepared to think that people might look back and laugh about this 100 years later.
Similarly, there were a lot of expectations that F.W.Franz had regarding 1975, and he began to give talks in late 1974 that still created excitement, but also asked the question about whether all the things that might be expected to happen first could still happen in time. In one of Franz' talks you can tell he is trying to do the right thing, but he is being a bit ambiguous and the audience doesn't really get it. It's as if it's a little too late to dampen the excitement, and the audience responds as if they think he is being "slick" -- saying one thing but meaning another. I heard one of these 1975 talks in LA. The audience starts to laugh and snicker when he says: "And don't any of you go around saying . . . " He was beginning to hedge in 1974, and the summer assembly talk was a reflection of that. It was an October 15, 1974 Watchtower that reflected the talk from the 1974 convention. It was timely, and it finally admitted that it was IMPORTANT to start strongly considering why "no man knows the day or hour."
This is why I said that the scripture was sometimes brought up, but it was almost too little, too late. The genie couldn't be put back in the bottle until the expectations apparently fell through. After 1976, there was hardly another mention even of the "mid-70s" anymore. And this shows you how the Witnesses are not the type of persons to create speculation on their own -- because as the mid-70s started to close out, you would expect even more and more speculation that the time was now approaching so much closer. After all, it was about what the mid-70s would bring, not specifically 1975. Yet, when the Watchtower and representatives from Brooklyn stopped mentioning it, it died out at a time when you would expect it to gain even more momentum, if it had been a "grass roots" speculation. You can therefore tell it was a top-down speculation.

I don't know what a "hen" is, in this context, but as far as I can tell @ComfortMyPeople is from Spain, while I am in New York. I have never seen him or any of his research.
You show the idea that many Adventists gave up on dates after their expectations failed. What would you expect?
There are not many other options, when you are at the end of the possibilities that your particular date system allows.
A die-hard Second Adventist might just try to make some new adjustments to the "system" to figure out why the expectations might have been off by just a few months, or a few years, or even a matter of decades. They keep looking for a way to get the system to work because they can't give up after they invested so much in the beliefs. After Miller's failures, he himself decided against setting more dates, but thousands of people were ready to listen to the next predictions for the 1850's, 1860's, 1870's, etc. This makes the continuing date-setters even MORE of a die-hard Adventist. And these are the types of persons who influenced Russell to continue date-setting. Russell continued date-setting, and adjusting his date predictions from 1879 to 1915.  
Of course, there is one other solution, and that is to say that your date really was right all along -- that Jesus really did come to be present in 1874, but that it has been an invisible presence. This was the very solution that fit Russell's ideas, and it kept Barbour's adjusted dating system unchanged, except for that one detail. Russell expected the visible manifestation of Christ's kingdom to begin around 1914, and ultimately this was also changed to an invisible "manifestation," so that all those other dates 1874, 1878, 1881, 1914, etc., could remain unchanged. Of course, over time, 1881 was dropped, then 1874, then finally 1878 had no more prophetic significance (around 1961) and it was completely dropped, too. So that we only have 1914 remaining. (And I think this date, too, will be dropped in about 15 years barring any earthshattering changes.) But we still believe in the imminent manifestation of Jesus advent based on our interpretation of various prophetic time periods that we have tied to the present time period. Therefore we are still under some of the influence of adventists, in that general sense.
 

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