Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Verification on Charles Taze Russell | Col 2:9 | Reformer Joe | 82769 | ||
Sure...Zion's Watchtower, January 15, 1892 http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbv5/r1354.htm The quote I previously gave came from this article, and so do these: "While it was an agreeable surprise to us (in view of the contrary sensational accounts so often published) to find the situation in Europe as we here describe it--in harmony with what the Scriptures had led us to expect--yet so great is our confidence in the Word of God and in the light of present truth shining upon it, that we could not have doubted its testimony whatever had been the appearances. The date of the close of that "battle" is definitely marked in Scripture as October, 1914. It is already in progress, its beginning dating from October, 1874. Thus far it has been chiefly a battle of words and a time of organizing forces --capital, labor, armies and secret societies. " So, according to the "view from the Tower," the end of this age began in 1874 and was to culminate in Armageddon in 1914. So in Russell's pre-1914 publications, 1914 marks the violent end (not the "beginning of the end," but the end itself) of the old order and the establishment of Paradise. He also said: "The Scriptures show also that the battle of the great day will begin with the Church of God, and that the overthrow of the great nominal church systems will precede the overthrow of the present civil powers; for the Lord is about to shake, not only the earth (the civil organization of society), but heaven (the ecclesiastical powers) also (Heb. 12:26), to the end that great "Babylon," falsely called Christendom --Christ's kingdom--may be completely destroyed. The great counterfeit kingdom of Christ, with all its allied civil and ecclesiastical powers, must go down as a great millstone into the sea, preparatory to the final establishment of the true Kingdom of Christ." So he understood the Bible to teach: 1. The last great battle would begin with the church. 2. The ecclesiastical representations of "Christendom" would be destroyed wholesale in this battle "as a great millstone into the sea." 3. This overthrowing of the church will precede the overthrow of the secular government. 4. This will happen as PREPARATION for Christ's Kingdom, which according to you was established in 1914. So was Russell right about a world-altering catastrophe culminating in 1914? Certainly people can be mistaken about interpretations of Scripture; however, since 1914 is such a crucial year in Russell's theological system, one would have to wonder what else he could have been wrong about he was wrong about the nature of the end of the age. If you have another way to explain this article in such a way that fits all of the date setting of specific events, I would gladly welcome it. --Joe! |
||||||
2 | Verification on Charles Taze Russell | Col 2:9 | RR144 | 82772 | ||
Actually the original quote you gave me is not the reference you now give above, but that's okay, I can live with that! As to 1914 being a crucial date? It may be to the Jehovah's Witnesses today, but it was not to Russell in his day. You see what Russell believed was to ccur what the Witnesses now believe occurred are apples and oranges. Did Russell make a mistake? Yes, not in his calculations but in the turn of events that were to happen and in what order. In his foreword to his study on chronology "The Time is at hand" he stated: "This Volume makes no claim to infallibility, and no claim of any direct inspiration from God in the interpretation of His Word. On the contrary, it does claim that the Divine Revelation is the Bible. Its endeavor has been to collate the Bible evidences and to offer suggestions in respect to their significance. "Dealing with subjects so difficult that they are rarely touched by others, it is not to be considered strange if some of the suggestions made in this Volume have not been fulfilled with absolute accuracy to the very letter. But the author, the publishers, and the thousands of readers of this Volume are not ashamed of its presentations, and are still handing it forth to all who have an interest in Bible study-- as most interesting and most helpful in an understanding of the Lord's Word." Continung on in his beliefs in regrads to the year 1914 he states: "This Volume sets forth, what its author has been preaching for over forty years, that the "Times of the Gentiles" chronologically ended in the fall of A.D. 1914. The expression, "Times of the Gentiles," in Bible usage signifies the years, or period of time, in which the Gentile nations of the world were to be permitted to have control, following the taking away of the typical kingdom from natural Israel, and filling the hiatus between that event and the establishment of God's Kingdom in the hands of Messiah-- "whose right it is." Ezekiel 21:27 "We could not, of course, know in 1889, whether the date 1914, so clearly marked in the Bible as the end of the Gentile lease of power or permission to rule the world, would mean that they would be fully out of power at that time, or whether, their lease expiring, their eviction would begin. The latter we perceive to be the Lord's program; and promptly in August, 1914, the Gentile kingdoms referred to in the prophecy began the present great struggle, which, according to the Bible, will culminate in the complete overthrow of all human government, opening the way for the full establishment of the Kingdom of God's dear Son." Today looking back that we can se that much of what Russell taught in that little volume and subsequent ones diod in deed have a fulfillment, most after his death? All of Christedom believe that someday the Kingdom of God will replace the kingdoms of this world, this is what the scriptures tell us as Messiah reigns. Was Russell a false prophet? Not at all, at least not by the scriptural definition, he did not prophecy, he simply attemptred to interpret prophecies already stated in scripture. he erred and recognized that and admitted as such. RR |
||||||
3 | Verification on Charles Taze Russell | Col 2:9 | Reformer Joe | 82784 | ||
"As to 1914 being a crucial date? It may be to the Jehovah's Witnesses today, but it was not to Russell in his day. You see what Russell believed was to ccur what the Witnesses now believe occurred are apples and oranges." I agree that the Watchtower radically changed its position on many things that Russell taught, but since Russell declared that 1914 was the end of this age and the establishment of a perfect paradise under the reign of the conquering Christ, how can you say that the year is not a crucial one? You also wrote: 'In his foreword to his study on chronology "The Time is at hand" he stated: '"This Volume makes no claim to infallibility, and no claim of any direct inspiration from God in the interpretation of His Word. On the contrary, it does claim that the Divine Revelation is the Bible. Its endeavor has been to collate the Bible evidences and to offer suggestions in respect to their significance. "' But what you fail to mention is that this "foreword" was actually written "afterward." At the writing of this introduction, on October 1, 1916, it was patently obvious that the "time at hand" was not two years prior. Regarding the quote you gave, he seemed pretty sure of it in 1892, referring to the dates as being "fixed" and clearly revealed in Scripture as being the end. According to Russell in 1892, 1914 was certainly the eviction date. In 1916, well, 1914 is certainly the BEGINNING of the eviction. Hindsight re-interpretation is not terribly impressive. "All of Christedom believe that someday the Kingdom of God will replace the kingdoms of this world, this is what the scriptures tell us as Messiah reigns." But none of us say that Jesus has already returned. "Was Russell a false prophet? Not at all, at least not by the scriptural definition, he did not prophecy, he simply attemptred to interpret prophecies already stated in scripture. he erred and recognized that and admitted as such." I don't see any admission of error, but rather an assertion that he never definitively took a stand on the timing of "the time at hand," which is clearly not true. --Joe! |
||||||
4 | Verification on Charles Taze Russell | Col 2:9 | RR144 | 82785 | ||
Perhaps you should keep digging, maybe you'll find such an admission. Until then, we can agree to disagree! | ||||||