JW Insider

I know the feeling. For me that scripture is sometimes:
(Zephaniah 2:3) . . .Seek Jehovah, all you meek ones of the earth, Who observe his righteous decrees. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably you will be concealed on the day of Jehovah’s anger.
How often has that word "probably" been emphasized to us so that we always feel like maybe we will be doing all we can and trying so hard to be the right kind of person and then it's still "probably" we might survive Armageddon.
It's a bit like last Sunday's Watchtower lesson which said that, like the sister named Amanda, "I tend to equate giving Jehovah my best with the constant need to do more." 
The best counterbalance to that Scripture in Zeph above is to read the context and see that a more specific great day of Jehovah's anger is being spoken of, not necessarily related to Armageddon. The very next line is:
(Zephaniah 2:4) For Gazʹa will be an abandoned
It includes the desolation of Gaza, and we know that this is not about our own day but something specific in the long past. Oh wait! Gaza? Just got scared again. LOL.
For me, that leaves the best counterbalancing Scripture, here:
(Matthew 11:28-30) 28  Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh you. 29  Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and you will find refreshment for yourselves. 30  For my yoke is kindly, and my load is light.”
 

I have always felt guilty and scared when I read that scripture…in nearly 45 years that feeling has never changed………same feelings happen when I open the door to someone just about to knock the door down with their harsh knocking and find the police standing there…….the first thing they say is ..don’t worry you have havent done  anything wrong ( there had been break ins at our neighbours)
hope you pick another scripture that puts a smile on my face or makes me laugh 😆 

Anyone who embraced COJ's book was misguided when there was so much evidence to look at without being biased one way or another by what one man had to say. The question is an archaeological and astronomical one. COJ never claimed to be an expert in either one of those things. But he quoted persons who were. It was better to go directly to the archaeological evidence and astronomical evidence, and forget the claims of people like you, who kept obsessing over COJ's book.
That said, I doubt there is much of anything wrong with COJ's book. So far everything you or George88 or others claimed to be wrong in the book turned out to be correct, so based on things you have said, I have a lot of respect for COJ's book. But it's still not the right kind of resource for me. It's just not the right kind of source for someone who wants to make sure of all things.

Adam Rutherford rejects the current Watchtower chronology. He places the destruction of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year at about 585 BCE.

Also he uses the Harran inscription to show that the lengths of all these kings' reigns are exactly in accord with Ptolemy's regnal lengths. Therefore he also accepts that the number of years between Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year and Cyrus' first year is about 49 years. Same as me. Same as Wiseman. Same as Gadd. Same as Jonsson. Same as 99.99% of all people who have run the astronomy programs for themselves. He agrees with Carl Olof Jonsson in this regard and in the idea of beginning the 70 years of desolation with the fall of Assyria and rise of Babylon. I also agree with him on those points. The fact that he must ignore most of the astronomy to keep his chronology 2 years off doesn't bother me. I've always said that one or two years one way or another doesn't make enough difference to the understanding of the Bible's record of that time period.
The WTS claims that we need some pivotal of absolute secular dates for this period. I'd say that we don't need ANY secular chronology to understand the Bible's record of this period. (2 Tim 3:16,17)

Yes. He confidently says that the received date, 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon to Cyrus must be lowered by 2 years 

Unfortunately for him, the Watchtower chronology is exactly correct through this period and matches the tablets and the secular scholars readings, too. 
True. A lot of people don't want to think for themselves. Taking Carl Olof Jonsson's word for something that is so simple to check out for oneself is a stupid mistake. A person should "make sure of all things," not just take man's word for it. 
The exact date of the siege and fall of Jerusalem around the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar isn't important to me. The claim that a false chronology must be correct just because we've used most of it to hang onto a date that Barbour and Russell once published is a false premise. If we stand for truth, then we can't just make claims without evidence and tell the world that we are right and the astronomy is wrong. It would be one thing if we said that we know the chronology is wrong and have rejected it, but we hypocritically claim that the chronology is correct when it gives us 539 BCE, which we can use. But then we claim it is incorrect when it gives us 587 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. Both of those dates are backed consistently by all the astronomical evidence. And even if we didn't trust any of the astronomical evidence, we have all the archaeological evidence telling us that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is exactly 49 years from the first year of Cyrus over Babylon. So it's a matter of presenting ourselves as upright and honest to the public that concerns me. We can believe whatever we want, but we can't be dishonest and pretend we have scholarly evidence for it, or that we are superior somehow because we can base our chronology on a lack of evidence. We look haughty when we present these alternatives to anyone who has looked into the matter for themselves, as everyone should. 
And just to make the point even clearer, recall that you have never and probably will never answer simple questions: 
What astronomical evidence do you use to get the date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign? What year did it give you?
You have never been able to give a straightforward answer to such simple questions under any of your accounts.
 That's correct. Thank you.
A discussion talks about the merits of the evidence. A fight is when both sides look to attack the person, and call names. What often happens here is that one person is willing to discuss the merits of the evidence, and the other person gets angry and starts calling him an apostate, or a liar, or a deceiver. It seems like that person wants a fight, but can't really get one because the other person still wants to discuss the merits of the evidence. At least, that's been my experience here for many years.
 

I can't imagine why anyone interested in astronomy-backed chronology would find any good reason to quote him. He adds nothing to what the available research already says about them. He is a secondary source who relies on the same scholars and scientists and archaeologists and linguists and astronomers who continue to extensively study and research and re-check those tablets. 
When I say he "adds" nothing, I should add that he does subtract a couple of years so that he can be in agreement with Russell's use of 536 BCE as the first year of Cyrus, and 537 BCE as the fall of Babylon. There is no good reason to do this and it requires conjecturing about a two year co-reign without good evidence. [And he also keeps the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology off by a year or two as a result.] Watchtower chronology has already corrected Russell's 2 year mistake and placed the fall of Babylon "absolutely" in 539 BCE, not 537 BCE. The WTS derives the 2 extra years (to reach 537) by ending the 70 years, not at the first opportunity for the edict of Cyrus, but after a conjectured delay for the edict and then another delay for the Jews to get back to their homeland.
At least he understands that he has to accept the "no zero year" between AD and BC (CE and BCE). Per a WT article, Russell wouldn't really accept it even after it was pointed out to him.

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

They almost all do it in today’s world of theology.
Long ago, in answer to the question of where did we originate our explanation of suffering & evil, you pointed to a Great Courses lecture series by a Professor Hall. Our theodicy was there, you had heard, and the prof said it was the only theodicy that made sense.
In fact, it is only the fact that the theodicy involves Satan that makes it logical from his point of view. All other theodicies he considers do not. He confines his entire exploration, save for this renegade theology, to what he calls ‘ethical monotheism’—that is, one God unopposed. Since he himself comes from an evangelical Lutheran background, it surprised me that he has shoved Satan into such a tiny footnote, a player only in his last theodicy considered.
I think he has done it to join the world of contemporary scholars, who are thoroughly embarrassed by the thought of a Devil. It makes all their progressive efforts to repair the world and improve mankind pointless if there is a devil you can pin all the bad things to. Several times in his lecture, Hall points out this theodicy involving the devil is extremely unpopular today, to the point where he seems to assume that his audience may not even have heard of it! 
Consistent with this modern understanding from the scholars, the Book of Job is separated into 1) an ancient Jewish ‘fable’ consisting of chapters 1,2, and 42, and the poetic portion, consisting of all that remains. Frankly, I think the intellectual appeal of this approach is that, by separating the book into two portions, it puts you into position to understand neither, thus ensuring modern theologians will have a job till the end of time. You can debate the meaning of the poetic portion forever, with no one able to call your bluff. But the moment you integrate the ‘fable,’ it all resolves fairly quickly. But it resolves in a way repugnant to today’s theologians, so they don’t go there.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seeing there is a lot of energy here, let me mention a translation issue. Still working on a commentary of Job here, and by extension, all theodicies. 
The last chapter of Job reads, “All his brothers and sisters and all his former friends came to him and ate a meal with him in his house. They sympathized with him and comforted him over all the calamity that Jehovah had allowed to come upon him. Each of them gave him a piece of money and a gold ring.”
Only the NWT, so far as I can see, says Jehovah allowed the calamity. Every other one I see says that he brought it about. I have no problem with us believing he allowed it. Job 1 & 2 all but demands that interpretation, but the final verse says it differently. Anyone with insight as to where this unique translation comes from?
No problem here if JWI shuffles this away to some other category. But if he bans me for bringing it up, it will be truly sad, indeed puzzling, and he will miss the crucial fact that I can respond with the words of Paul to Elymas, “O man full of every sort of fraud and every sort of villainy . . .  you enemy of everything righteous, will you not quit distorting [my] right ways?" It is essential that he realize this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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