JW Insider

Sorry, this is going to be completely off the topic of Russel, but as you know I'm watching "The family" and the guy used the example of David for quite a sinister cause. He asked his "recruits" why did they think that after all the bad stuff David did, (he especially mentioned the adultery and manslaughter surrounding Bathsheba) God still not only forgave him, but kept him in his role as king and as representative of the future Messiah. One of the students answered pretty much as we would; because David was repentant and tried hard to do the right thing (or something like that). This was apparently the wrong answer. The right answer was because he was chosen. Which according to the guy in a nutshell meant that if you are chosen by God, it doesn't matter what you do. He convinced candidates that God chooses people in government today, to essentially be representatives of his Kingdom on earth.
I had no idea that such an idea existed. I mean I know that politicians in the US tend to be religious (Christians), but I didn't know that they believe they are God appointed for that role. It was like a comparison to the anointed, except these were high ranking politicians. (So in a way this is kind of on topic). It was interesting because it was almost like a parallel to our (JW) Organization. It's almost like there is a false "God's organization' and a true "God's organization". In this respect it's easy to see the future conflict of these two "organizations" and some of the puzzle pieces are falling into place for me....from a different angle. @Araunawhere are you?
...Ok, I agree, this should be in a new thread....
 

Blamed? Why do you think anyone is blaming Russell. Russell must have sincerely thought that he had personally been appointed to an awesome responsibility. And yet, he would only admit it privately, and never try to push others to accept it.
Still, he said he considered that it was a very important responsibility for only one individual, and he said that modesty made him reluctant to have to claim that the parable of "that servant" pointed to only one man. Would modesty make him reluctant to admit that some other person held the title? The way he managed this sincere belief so well makes him a rather more endearing person in my mind than for example, someone like J.F.Rutherford who gave himself the title "JUDGE" and printed it on his handbills and posters and billboards, yet he was never appointed as a judge, but was only asked to substitute at least once in a country courthouse in Missouri.
I have always thought of Russell's personality as displaying about the right mix of both modesty and conviction. I think of him as kind of an "ideal" gentleman Christian for his era. There are etiquette books for gentlemen from his era which give advice on such things, and which mix them with Christian values, like not trying to seat yourself at the head of the table, but allowing others to make that place for you. Speakers would not give their credentials in their own speeches, but would allow themselves to be introduced with their titles of honor and designations. I hate it when I see so many speakers today try to slyly work in their own resume and accomplishments when it's not appropriate to the theme of their speech.
I just read in one of those etiquette books (on Google) from 1876 that the right way for a gentleman to end a letter, in many cases, was to sign it: "Your obedient servant" even though you knew you were not really that person's servant. 
I believe that Russell did avoid personally and publicly the claim to this title, but he definitely believed that he was the one person who needed modesty because he was the one appointed with that title. He accepted the title from others, and there is no evidence that he ever would counsel them or try to stop them from using that title when referring to him. Since he believed it himself, why would he? It would seem dishonest. The best he could do is deflect a bit. And I believe there were times when he must have done that. I'm sure he knew the scripture where Jesus was called "good teacher" and Jesus said "Why do you call me good?"
I agree that others applied that term to him. He admits as much in the same Watch Tower article when he speaks of his reluctance to publish the understanding that he must now say "that servant" no longer applies to individuals, plural, but to a single individual.
You might also be thinking of what A. H. MacMillan said about how Russell would answer the direct question:


That was from MacMillan's Faith on the March, p. 126-127.
Rutherford was not yet even one of the Society's officers. And Russell's will had not even appointed him to the initial 5 person Editorial Committee of the Watchtower. So I suspect that it could have been MacMillan himself, or one of the others on the committee. They all needed to approve what went into the December 1, 1916 Watch Tower, dated only 31 days after Russell had died. But MacMillan elsewhere says that Russell would also respond that he was "the servant," but not above others (rather than "a servant," but not above others). I don't think that was just a typo because MacMillan says it twice in the same book.
Exactly!!
I'm not finding fault, just giving my opinion about whether (and why) he claimed to be God's spokesman, and claimed to represent the one channel of truth, and accepted the title "the faithful and wise servant". This has a lot to do, I think, with why Russell could be hesitant or undogmatic about an idea, and yet, the other brothers around him would think that it was "an angel" who had given unerring truth. That's what this original topic is about. Russell didn't think that being individually appointed as the "faithful slave" made him unerring in speaking truth, or a prophet. Yes, he made errors, and was a sinful person. He lied (perjured himself) on the stand in court when asked about his business interests, and was forced to correct his perjury in a following court session. He was manipulative and dishonest in his divorce proceedings. I agree that this is completely forgivable when we consider his sincerity in publishing some of the most important Bible truths. Of course, we are thankful for that. But we must never put a man, or group of men, on a pedestal because it tends to create an idolatrous cult (per our own publications). Yesterday, I found a person on YouTube, for example, who calls Russell "an angel."
It's my opinion that I am sowing seeds of truth about Russell, by telling the truth according to Russell's own words and those who knew him. I don't see where "doubt" comes in. It's not like we are supposed to have "faith" in Russell, is it?
Trying to get to know a man's thinking and personality a little better through his own writings is not the same as condemning him. And much of this, to be sure, is just an opinion formed about him. Just as the others around him formed opinions about him in his time. We still teach that Jesus himself formed an opinion about him, and this is a "current teaching" about Russell, not some relic of our past history. So I don't think it's wrong for us to keep learning more about this very intriguing and spiritually influential man.
As an example, we still learn about King David, and sometimes wonder about his great sins, and Jehovah's continued love for him. But it doesn't mean that learning about David's sins is a sign that we are not humble or that we are condemning the man for admitting things David said and did.

Blamed? Why do you think anyone is blaming Russell. Russell must have sincerely thought that he had personally been appointed to an awesome responsibility. And yet, he would only admit it privately, and never try to push others to accept it.
Still, he said he considered that it was a very important responsibility for only one individual, and he said that modesty made him reluctant to have to claim that the parable of "that servant" pointed to only one man. Would modesty make him reluctant to admit that some other person held the title? The way he managed this sincere belief so well makes him a rather more endearing person in my mind than for example, someone like J.F.Rutherford who gave himself the title "JUDGE" and printed it on his handbills and posters and billboards, yet he was never appointed as a judge, but was only asked to substitute at least once in a country courthouse in Missouri.
I have always thought of Russell's personality as displaying about the right mix of both modesty and conviction. I think of him as kind of an "ideal" gentleman Christian for his era. There are etiquette books for gentlemen from his era which give advice on such things, and which mix them with Christian values, like not trying to seat yourself at the head of the table, but allowing others to make that place for you. Speakers would not give their credentials in their own speeches, but would allow themselves to be introduced with their titles of honor and designations. I hate it when I see so many speakers today try to slyly work in their own resume and accomplishments when it's not appropriate to the theme of their speech.
I just read in one of those etiquette books (on Google) from 1876 that the right way for a gentleman to end a letter, in many cases, was to sign it: "Your obedient servant" even though you knew you were not really that person's servant. 
I believe that Russell did avoid personally and publicly the claim to this title, but he definitely believed that he was the one person who needed modesty because he was the one appointed with that title. He accepted the title from others, and there is no evidence that he ever would counsel them or try to stop them from using that title when referring to him. Since he believed it himself, why would he? It would seem dishonest. The best he could do is deflect a bit. And I believe there were times when he must have done that. I'm sure he knew the scripture where Jesus was called "good teacher" and Jesus said "Why do you call me good?"
I agree that others applied that term to him. He admits as much in the same Watch Tower article when he speaks of his reluctance to publish the understanding that he must now say "that servant" no longer applies to individuals, plural, but to a single individual.
You might also be thinking of what A. H. MacMillan said about how Russell would answer the direct question:


That was from MacMillan's Faith on the March, p. 126-127.
Rutherford was not yet even one of the Society's officers. And Russell's will had not even appointed him to the initial 5 person Editorial Committee of the Watchtower. So I suspect that it could have been MacMillan himself, or one of the others on the committee. They all needed to approve what went into the December 1, 1916 Watch Tower, dated only 31 days after Russell had died. But MacMillan elsewhere says that Russell would also respond that he was "the servant," but not above others (rather than "a servant," but not above others). I don't think that was just a typo because MacMillan says it twice in the same book.
Exactly!!
I'm not finding fault, just giving my opinion about whether (and why) he claimed to be God's spokesman, and claimed to represent the one channel of truth, and accepted the title "the faithful and wise servant". This has a lot to do, I think, with why Russell could be hesitant or undogmatic about an idea, and yet, the other brothers around him would think that it was "an angel" who had given unerring truth. That's what this original topic is about. Russell didn't think that being individually appointed as the "faithful slave" made him unerring in speaking truth, or a prophet. Yes, he made errors, and was a sinful person. He lied (perjured himself) on the stand in court when asked about his business interests, and was forced to correct his perjury in a following court session. He was manipulative and dishonest in his divorce proceedings. I agree that this is completely forgivable when we consider his sincerity in publishing some of the most important Bible truths. Of course, we are thankful for that. But we must never put a man, or group of men, on a pedestal because it tends to create an idolatrous cult (per our own publications). Yesterday, I found a person on YouTube, for example, who calls Russell "an angel."
It's my opinion that I am sowing seeds of truth about Russell, by telling the truth according to Russell's own words and those who knew him. I don't see where "doubt" comes in. It's not like we are supposed to have "faith" in Russell, is it?
Trying to get to know a man's thinking and personality a little better through his own writings is not the same as condemning him. And much of this, to be sure, is just an opinion formed about him. Just as the others around him formed opinions about him in his time. We still teach that Jesus himself formed an opinion about him, and this is a "current teaching" about Russell, not some relic of our past history. So I don't think it's wrong for us to keep learning more about this very intriguing and spiritually influential man.
As an example, we still learn about King David, and sometimes wonder about his great sins, and Jehovah's continued love for him. But it doesn't mean that learning about David's sins is a sign that we are not humble or that we are condemning the man for admitting things David said and did.

Inasmuch as he can be ‘the messenger preparing the way,’ preparing the ground for a great building project—well, the first thing you do in preparing the ground for any project is to cart out the trash, in this case hellfire and trinity.
That’s why I always find it puzzling when individuals go on and on about how the Bible disproves these doctrines. A little bit, yes, but—it’s trash. Why would you obsess over it?

Oh, I stopped worrying about that ages ago.  

Remember, there was a time when Rutherford hated even the term "religion" because by it he meant "organized" religion. It wasn't until Covington started arguing with him that they needed to use the term religion in order to get legal recognition in other countries that he softened a bit. In the booklet that Covington wrote, even as late as 1950, he had to explain to other Witnesses why it was going to be OK to use the term religion. Reminds me a bit of how L. Ron Hubbard also distanced himself from religion until his lawyers realized the tax trouble they were in. They even put a cross like symbol on their buildings now. Hubbard would be rolling over on his planet.
But, of course, Rutherford made us more organized than ever from a hierarchical top-down perspective. Can't hardly see how we'd function without such a high level of organization, with so many millions of us, so much coordinated activity, so many publications, so many updates (even new songs before the next songbook is printed), etc.

No, I don't agree with that. The December 1, 1916 Watchtower says this with respect to the belief already held by thousands:
"that he filled the office of 'that faithful and wise servant' and that his great work was giving to the household of faith meat in due season. His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation." 
So, was the Watchtower telling the truth when it said that Russell had admitted that he filled the office of that faithful and wise servant?
(Proverbs 27:2)  Let someone else praise you, and not your own mouth; Others, and not your own lips.
I think it's pretty easy to see that Russell had "staked the claim" to being the 'faithful and wise servant' by allowing others to make the claim publicly. This would start with his wife making the claim for him, beginning in 1895. Until then, Russell had taught that it was all Christians in the entire household of faith who needed to follow the example of such a faithful servant. But then in 1896, he said he was now changing that belief because the Scriptures gave him no choice. It was now no longer applied to individuals (plural), but just ONE individual man who would be providing spiritual food at the proper time ("meat in due season"). But notice that he added that he could not let modesty get in the way of making this doctrinal change.
"it would be wrong to allow modesty or any other consideration, good or bad, to warp our judgment in the exposition of [Matthew 24:45] . . . to which proposition we agree." -- March 1, 1896 Watch Tower
This explains why Russell claimed in the April 15, 1904 Watch Tower that the Lord would
"specially use one member of his church as the channel or instrument through which he would send the appropriate messages, spiritual nourishment appropriate at that time."
In 1906, Russell would claim that:
"the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece . . . were ... revealed . . . especially since 1870 and particularly since 1880. . . . and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out." -- July 15, 1906 Watch Tower
In 1911, Russell spoke at the Convention, where other speakers would say things like the following, and which the Watch Tower Society published in the 1911 Convention Report.
"... the Lord . . . has placed Pastor Russell in charge of the work. . . . We are glad therefore to recognize him as 'that servant,' spoken by the Lord . . . doing ... the work the Lord appointed him to do.
Russell also published letters in multiple issues of the Watch Tower which addressed him as "that Servant" and acknowledged that he was the one faithful servant providing "meat in due season" for the household of faith.

No, I don't agree with that. The December 1, 1916 Watchtower says this with respect to the belief already held by thousands:
"that he filled the office of 'that faithful and wise servant' and that his great work was giving to the household of faith meat in due season. His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation." 
So, was the Watchtower telling the truth when it said that Russell had admitted that he filled the office of that faithful and wise servant?
(Proverbs 27:2)  Let someone else praise you, and not your own mouth; Others, and not your own lips.
I think it's pretty easy to see that Russell had "staked the claim" to being the 'faithful and wise servant' by allowing others to make the claim publicly. This would start with his wife making the claim for him, beginning in 1895. Until then, Russell had taught that it was all Christians in the entire household of faith who needed to follow the example of such a faithful servant. But then in 1896, he said he was now changing that belief because the Scriptures gave him no choice. It was now no longer applied to individuals (plural), but just ONE individual man who would be providing spiritual food at the proper time ("meat in due season"). But notice that he added that he could not let modesty get in the way of making this doctrinal change.
"it would be wrong to allow modesty or any other consideration, good or bad, to warp our judgment in the exposition of [Matthew 24:45] . . . to which proposition we agree." -- March 1, 1896 Watch Tower
This explains why Russell claimed in the April 15, 1904 Watch Tower that the Lord would
"specially use one member of his church as the channel or instrument through which he would send the appropriate messages, spiritual nourishment appropriate at that time."
In 1906, Russell would claim that:
"the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece . . . were ... revealed . . . especially since 1870 and particularly since 1880. . . . and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out." -- July 15, 1906 Watch Tower
In 1911, Russell spoke at the Convention, where other speakers would say things like the following, and which the Watch Tower Society published in the 1911 Convention Report.
"... the Lord . . . has placed Pastor Russell in charge of the work. . . . We are glad therefore to recognize him as 'that servant,' spoken by the Lord . . . doing ... the work the Lord appointed him to do.
Russell also published letters in multiple issues of the Watch Tower which addressed him as "that Servant" and acknowledged that he was the one faithful servant providing "meat in due season" for the household of faith.

Inspired by other current events (like Anne's designation of me as "prophet" 🤣) I decided to jump out of a fishing boat and walk on water. The water was so shallow that I couldn't decide whether to "row versus wade."

I feel a draft, from fore to aft.
[I'm about to keel over laughing.]

Inspired by other current events (like Anne's designation of me as "prophet" 🤣) I decided to jump out of a fishing boat and walk on water. The water was so shallow that I couldn't decide whether to "row versus wade."

Is that the smell of "Musk"? I smell a muskrat.

Remember, there was a time when Rutherford hated even the term "religion" because by it he meant "organized" religion. It wasn't until Covington started arguing with him that they needed to use the term religion in order to get legal recognition in other countries that he softened a bit. In the booklet that Covington wrote, even as late as 1950, he had to explain to other Witnesses why it was going to be OK to use the term religion. Reminds me a bit of how L. Ron Hubbard also distanced himself from religion until his lawyers realized the tax trouble they were in. They even put a cross like symbol on their buildings now. Hubbard would be rolling over on his planet.
But, of course, Rutherford made us more organized than ever from a hierarchical top-down perspective. Can't hardly see how we'd function without such a high level of organization, with so many millions of us, so much coordinated activity, so many publications, so many updates (even new songs before the next songbook is printed), etc.

Remember, there was a time when Rutherford hated even the term "religion" because by it he meant "organized" religion. It wasn't until Covington started arguing with him that they needed to use the term religion in order to get legal recognition in other countries that he softened a bit. In the booklet that Covington wrote, even as late as 1950, he had to explain to other Witnesses why it was going to be OK to use the term religion. Reminds me a bit of how L. Ron Hubbard also distanced himself from religion until his lawyers realized the tax trouble they were in. They even put a cross like symbol on their buildings now. Hubbard would be rolling over on his planet.
But, of course, Rutherford made us more organized than ever from a hierarchical top-down perspective. Can't hardly see how we'd function without such a high level of organization, with so many millions of us, so much coordinated activity, so many publications, so many updates (even new songs before the next songbook is printed), etc.

Inspired by other current events (like Anne's designation of me as "prophet" 🤣) I decided to jump out of a fishing boat and walk on water. The water was so shallow that I couldn't decide whether to "row versus wade."

I feel a draft, from fore to aft.
[I'm about to keel over laughing.]

@Pudgy, since no one is really all that interested in the specifics of the 1914/1915 angle of the original post here, I thought I would take note of something I found interesting in one of your posts. (And also acknowledge again how clever I found your leak/draft pun. Works on so many levels.)
What I found interesting is that potassium peroxide (K2O2) made a CAMEO* appearance in your cartoon. ( https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/1374 )

At one time, I was intrigued by how some chemical reactions made liquids change their color. (In fact, one experiment we did in Earth Science when I was in Jr.High actually took two fairly clear liquids and mixed to change instantly into a bright yellow solid.) The three items on that chalkboard reminded me an experiment that could detect tiny levels of iodine in salt. In fact, if you mix those exact same 3 chemicals listed on the chalkboard, and add a splash of laundry starch, you can detect whether the salt (NaCl) was iodized or not. The iodized salt will turn the entire batch very dark (sometimes blue-black) while non-iodized salt will just continue to look like milky-white saltwater. You can add a crushed vitamin C tablet (ascorbic acid) to the mix and, because it's an anti-oxidant, the blue-black mixture turns milky white again.
* CAMEO is a database of dangerous chemicals and substances provided by the US Office of Emergency Management

I thought as much after I deliberated over it for a few days.
It was an interesting experiment. It made me realize that rather than the actual content, which I merely skimmed over like Tom, I was more concerned with the reputation or status of the person who wrote it. This was interesting because I see this mentality today. It's not only that we want to protect our belief system, but it goes deeper than that.  It highlighted that many times it's not what is said but who says it. Perhaps this explains why some of us embrace some beliefs which we don't really understand fully, (or cannot explain ourselves) without bothering to really understand them because ... ahem.....because we trust those who put forward these explanations. If 1914 had been explained by an Indian Guru, I doubt anyone of JWs would be interested. Or perhaps it would be adopted, but its origins would be buried, just like John Aquila Brown and others who made 1914 calculations.
So I hesitated, (although my instinct told me otherwise) because I know you like to dig deep but of late you also try not to stir the pot. My instincts told me you are trying to illustrate a point. The point that if we try hard enough, we can pick a few scriptures and make them fit something that we want support for. And if you have already built a certain reputation, especially trustworthiness, it will most likely convince others too. That just seems to be the rule as you say with people in general.
Tom was more on the ball, being suspicious that you would make a 180 turn. And Pudgy the old dog realist heard a ring of the "cat thesis" (which I did too actually, and I do know you have a wicked sense of humour).
My hubby and me have finished the one docu series and now we have started another Netflix one called the Family, this time about a Christian group (you've probably seen that too). It's amazing what people are capable of doing and believing. Of course when watching these documentaries I always compare our belief system, not so much the content but more the way we apply it, and thankfully, I always see how superior our application is to even so called Christians.
One thing that struck me and gave me an idea, although this is off topic here but I don't think it matters now because we have all veered off since your "experiment" is over.  Anyway, most will know that I am skeptical about Governments turning on religion, especially in the United States where it plays such an integral part of society and the constitution. Something that was said in the Family made me think of another angle. The journalist whose story this is, overhears Doug Coe, one of the leaders of the Family, saying to another member that "putting labels on religions such as "Muslim", "Christian" gets in the way of your prayers to Jesus .....organized religion detracts from Jesus...we've got to take Jesus out of the religious wrapping". This is IT! It's not that religion per say will be destroyed, but organized religion will be. One of the episodes is called One World Order. Arauna would be proud of me.
 

@JW Insider Where did the extra 2 years come from? 1943+100=2043. 2043-3960=1917 (adjusted no zero is 1916)

Rutherford, as he did many times in the years 1916 to 1929, had to carefully acknowledge that Russell alone had been the one and only faithful and wise servant (faithful and discreet slave), and therefore the sole distributor of spiritual truths up until his death in 1916. Since Russell and/or the Watchtower was the one and only channel of truth in the minds of Watchtower readers, Rutherford had to be very careful when explaining how and why Russell got things wrong.
But it was all too obvious that Abraham had not inherited the land in 1915. Russell himself had already hinted that 1915 might be the new 1914. And after 1914, the Watchtower even began saying that the "end of the Gentile Times" was 1915, not 1914. After Russell's death in 1916, Rutherford even began emphasizing the "presence" of Jesus to a 40 year period that went, not from 1874 to 1914, but from 1878 to 1918, when Jesus would be fully "present" in his Temple. And by 1917, Rutherford had already gone ahead and started promoting a new date of 1925 for the "realized" end of the Gentile Times, i.e., when the Jewish (Hebrew) "ancient worthies" like Abraham would begin to rule, initially over fellow Jews who had migrated to Palestine. 
He very cleverly keeps the 3,960 years of the Genesis 15 "prophecy" intact, but he changes the starting date from 2045 BCE to 2035 BCE, ten years later. He uses the mention of something that appeared to happen 10 years later in Genesis 16:3 and says that this showed that the actual sacrifice of the animals had happened 10 years later, even though the context makes it appear that this had happened 10 years earlier. If Rutherford can redate the promise (covenant) to 10 years later, then this moves the 1915 date to 1925. Note especially the last two paragraphs below from the entire 1917 article on the topic.
 

No moderator added this. It's an artifact of your own editing. You evidently started out "i smell" when you were writing "i smell a troll . . ." But when you were editing your post to change the "i" to "I" and use highlighting and color, you had moved that original line too far down in the editing window, and forgot to edit it back out, because you probably couldn't see it.
I think I can edit people's posts, but I won't do it. I know I can delete a post entirely. Although, in the past, instead of deleting posts (when I have no request to delete) I merely move them to a new topic. But I think you would prefer this gets deleted. So, unless you say otherwise in the next few minutes, I will try to delete the whole post. To clean it all up, I think I should then clean up a few of the other remarks that were part of this, including one from Anna and perhaps others.
I think that most people who post here regularly are already aware that you ARE the same person behind the accounts: Allen Smith, Billy The Kid, NoisySrecko, Dmitar, Leander H McNeely, etc., etc., etc. There is no real question about that for many of us. But that fact has already been brought up elsewhere.

Not exactly a joke, TTH, and, yes, Anna, it was something a little more akin to an experiment. Not so much about gullibility, but about human nature and the way we protect our belief systems. But I think this "experiment" was inadvertently conducted already, especially between 1907 and 1917:
In 1917 Rutherford wrote the following in the October 15, 1917 Watchtower, p.317:


So, this was not my personal opinion, but was supposed to have once been an interpretation of prophecy handed down to Rutherford through the Holy Spirit -- or "made known to us by the Spirit" as the article says. I merely copied the same idea and numbers that the Watchtower used:
When you multiply the 11 years by 360, you get 3,960. 2045 BCE + 3,960 years brings us to the year 1915.
Although the Bible doesn't say both birds were young, the Spirit evidently made J.F.Rutherford assume both were one year old. It was actually C.T.Russell who printed this idea first in 1907, considering it credible, of course, but not trying to present it as absolute "inspired" truth. Here are some snippets from the March 1, 1907 Watchtower which included:



But even if Russell only published this idea presented as a "remarkable coincidence" it still took on a life of its own. If something got printed in the Watchtower and, of course, because C.T.Russell considered himself and the Watchtower as "God's mouthpiece" it was still taken very seriously. In fact, Brother Woodworth (co-author of The Finished Mystery) immediately (in 1907) added this idea to the Berean Bible Teachers' Manual as one of the: "Twenty Time Proofs -- That the Reign of Evil Will Cease and the Earthly Phase of the Kingdom of God Be Established in 1914-1915."   So it was there in time to bind into the KJV Bibles that the Watchtower Society produced in 1907 and the 1908 edition, too. According to the current Proclaimers book, p.606: ( https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993037 )
Four years later, in 1907, the Bible Students Edition of the King James Version was published. The “Berean Bible Teachers’ Manual” was bound with it, as an appendix. This included concise comments on verses from all parts of the Bible, along with references to Watch Tower publications for fuller explanation.
These already contained Genesis 15:9 as one of those "PROOFS" of 1914/1915.
 

So here in Genesis 15 we have a verse of the Bible, which in context is about the Abrahamic Covenant and is also a very clear discussion of chronology. It points out the time, the actual number of years, when the heirs of Abraham would inherit the land promised to him and his seed. It not only speaks to the chronology in years, but mentions the number of generations that would overlap until the time had reached its full measure!
Note first of all that the number of years of age of each animal is mentioned, so it must be important. 3 years + 3 years + 3 years. The age of the birds is not so specified, but the word "young" is mentioned indicating that they are about 1 year old each. So we have 3 + 3 + 3 + 1 + 1 = 11 years of age total. 11 times 360 prophetic days in each year is a total of 3,960 days, therefore 3,960 years.
So when did this covenant with Abraham's go into effect? The Insight book gives us the starting point:
*** it-1 p. 29 Abraham ***
Sojourn in Canaan. Now 75 years old, Abraham began to move his household out of Haran to the land of Canaan, where he lived out the remaining hundred years of his life in tents as an alien and migratory resident. (Ge 12:4) It was following the death of his father Terah that Abraham went out from Haran in 1943 B.C.E. and crossed the Euphrates River, evidently on the 14th day of the month that later became known as Nisan. (Ge 11:32; Ex 12:40-43, LXX) It was at that time that the covenant between Jehovah and Abraham went into effect, and the 430-year period of temporary residence until the making of the Law covenant with Israel began.—Ex 12:40-42; Ga 3:17.
So we start with the year 1943 BCE. But we also make a necessary adjustment, the same one made by C.T.Russell, as mentioned in our book "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years - Has Approached!" (ka):
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 206-208 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
THE CORRECTING OF A MISUNDERSTANDING
…  The above chronology followed the suggestion that was made in Wilson’s The Emphatic Diaglott, in its footnote on Acts 13:20, which verse read: “And after these things, he gave Judges about four hundred and fifty years, till Samuel the prophet.” The footnote on this reading of the verse said:
A difficulty occurs here which has very much puzzled Biblical chronologists. The date given here is at variance with the statement found in 1 Kings 6:1. There have been many solutions offered, but only one which seems entirely satisfactory, i.e., that the text in 1 Kings 6:1 has been corrupted, by substituting the Hebrew character daleth (4) for hay (5) which is very similar in form. This would make 580 years (instead of 480) from the exode to the building of the temple, and exactly agree with Paul’s chronology.
51 Accordingly, on page 53 of the book entitled “The Time Is at Hand,” author C. T. Russell wrote, referring to 1 Kings 6:1:
It evidently should read the five-hundred-and-eightieth year, and was possibly an error in transcribing; for if to Solomon’s four years we add David’s forty, and Saul’s space of forty, and the forty-six years from leaving Egypt to the division of the land, we have one hundred and thirty years, which deducted from four hundred and eighty would leave only three hundred and fifty years for the period of the Judges, instead of the four hundred and fifty years mentioned in the Book of Judges, and by Paul, as heretofore shown. The Hebrew character “daleth” (4) very much resembles the character “hay” (5), and it is supposed that in this way the error has occurred, possibly the mistake of a transcriber. I Kings 6:1, then, should read five hundred and eighty, and thus be in perfect harmony with the other statements.
Thus, by inserting 100 years into the Bible chronology during the period of the Judges, man’s creation was pushed back 100 years . . .
So there we have it: 1945 BCE + 100 years = 2045 BCE. 3,960 years from 2045 = 1915 and since there was no zero year, that brings us exactly to 1914.
Please let me know what you think. Let me know if I have made any mistakes or false assumptions.

Not exactly a joke, TTH, and, yes, Anna, it was something a little more akin to an experiment. Not so much about gullibility, but about human nature and the way we protect our belief systems. But I think this "experiment" was inadvertently conducted already, especially between 1907 and 1917:
In 1917 Rutherford wrote the following in the October 15, 1917 Watchtower, p.317:


So, this was not my personal opinion, but was supposed to have once been an interpretation of prophecy handed down to Rutherford through the Holy Spirit -- or "made known to us by the Spirit" as the article says. I merely copied the same idea and numbers that the Watchtower used:
When you multiply the 11 years by 360, you get 3,960. 2045 BCE + 3,960 years brings us to the year 1915.
Although the Bible doesn't say both birds were young, the Spirit evidently made J.F.Rutherford assume both were one year old. It was actually C.T.Russell who printed this idea first in 1907, considering it credible, of course, but not trying to present it as absolute "inspired" truth. Here are some snippets from the March 1, 1907 Watchtower which included:



But even if Russell only published this idea presented as a "remarkable coincidence" it still took on a life of its own. If something got printed in the Watchtower and, of course, because C.T.Russell considered himself and the Watchtower as "God's mouthpiece" it was still taken very seriously. In fact, Brother Woodworth (co-author of The Finished Mystery) immediately (in 1907) added this idea to the Berean Bible Teachers' Manual as one of the: "Twenty Time Proofs -- That the Reign of Evil Will Cease and the Earthly Phase of the Kingdom of God Be Established in 1914-1915."   So it was there in time to bind into the KJV Bibles that the Watchtower Society produced in 1907 and the 1908 edition, too. According to the current Proclaimers book, p.606: ( https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993037 )
Four years later, in 1907, the Bible Students Edition of the King James Version was published. The “Berean Bible Teachers’ Manual” was bound with it, as an appendix. This included concise comments on verses from all parts of the Bible, along with references to Watch Tower publications for fuller explanation.
These already contained Genesis 15:9 as one of those "PROOFS" of 1914/1915.