You are here:

Jehovah`s Witness/Eddie's Evasion, Regarding 1874....


After asking Eddie 3 times, to comment on the WT's false teaching regarding 1874, Eddie told me in his final rejection,  to...

"Read my post tomorrow".

And after reading it, I can see why he didn't want to answer Scott's question..."Who was right...Rando, or Holland?"

In fact, his post was just more typical Eddie G dancing around and dodging the question. In fact, he answered what was NOT asked, but failed to answer what WAS asked.

Furthermore, his post attempted to set up more straw men, and distortion of facts....all in an unsuccessful effort to help his lying friend out of the hole he had dug. I guess Eddie thinks that's preferable to just telling the truth. However, his post only repeated points that were already addressed, and refuted, over a week ago.

I have pointed out several things about Eddie and Rando, as to their predictable behavior.  And they are kind enough to reinforce those things, in each and every post.  Eddie’s latest attempt to twist and lie today, was no exception.  Unfortunately for him, he simply is reduced to saying the same things over and over.  How regrettable that Eddie has chosen to join Rando in his lying, rather than do as the Scripture teaches, and separate himself from it.  But since that’s his choice…..

It is a mystery why Eddie thinks posting outright distortions of my comments, is ever going to work.  In fact, the latest post of his only leaves one shaking their heads, and asking the question….“Are these guys just this dense, or are they just this dishonest”?

Given that we are talking about Eddie and Rando, it’s both.  Dense, in that they completely fail to comprehend a plain statement right in front of them, and instead, completely distort its meaning.  Dishonest, in that after this is pointed out to them, they come back and simply repeat the same lie over and over, about the same statement.  

Being dense and dishonest, is a deadly combination, when you are attempting to have debate about Bible doctrine.  

I will now deal with Eddie’s latest post, which was a very weak attempt to answer the question….“Who was right….Rando, or Holland, in regards to 1874” .  This question was asked by Scott, and like a craven coward, Eddie rejected his question.  I asked Eddie basically the same question, and Eddie rejected it 2 times.   

Eddie apparently did not like being asked to contradict Rando, so he tried the predictable tactic of lying, and trying to insult the readers here by telling them that Richard and I are in contradiction with each other.  I guess that's his way of retaliating, for my asking him to give an HONEST answer, which would have automatically put him at odds with Rando's DISHONEST answer.

Again, sort of childish.  But hey, Eddie writes in a pretty childish manner anyway….

“in a tizzy”
“hurting my tummy”
“liar liar pants on fire”

Its nice to see that the WT has such champions here, embracing the call and rising to its defense.  Sort of makes you wonder if he is typing these posts during “nap time” at school, when he‘s supposed to be sleeping…  So, we‘re not exactly dealing with a great deal of intelligence, or maturity, here.

But so that Eddie doesn’t think I’m “in a tizzy”, let’s go ahead and just look at his own statements, and point out the dishonesty and distortions in them.  After this, Eddie is likely to have a “tummy ache”.

I asked Eddie if he would support Rando’s lies about 1874, slandering me about being a racist/predator, and if he was okay with Rando using “Landover Baptist” as an authentic Baptist site.  Well, he ignored all the others, and instead, focused on 1874.  That was his mistake.

This writing will now deal with Eddie’s continued lies, and support of a liar.

From Eddie's post today.....

ED:  “Yes indeed!”

Now, he’s only 2 words into his response, and he’s already lying, and giving credence to a lie from Rando, the questioner.  This “yes indeed” , is a response to this statement, found in the “question”….

“This exposes Holland that the Watchtower taught that Jesus was coming in "1874". I bet Holland is look for a rock to crawl under. I wonder why these JW Critics never knew Jehovah's Witness were name in 1931!!’

Now, why would Eddie type “yes indeed” , to a claim that I said that the WT taught that Jesus WAS COMING in 1874, when it has already been clearly shown that I said that the WT taught that Jesus DID “come” in 1874?  Why didn’t Eddie correct his questioner, and say, “You know, I realize we don’t like Holland, but we need to be careful to get the quote correct.  And Holland didn’t say we predicted Jesus would come then, but that we taught that He HAD come then.”

It would pay these guys to get some sort of education, because they evidently do not understand TENSES…Past, present, and future.  Plus, they love to change a word or two in a quote (something else I pointed out before), to alter the meaning of it.  By changing “had come invisibly” (past tense) to WAS COMING” (a grammatically poor mixture of both past and future tense) , it willfully attempts to give the readers a false impression that a statement was made that the WT PREDICTED Jesus WOULD come (future tense) in 1874.  And on the basis of this straw man invention, Rando used it as a springboard, to claim “The WT didn’t even exist in 1874!!  Grrr!!!”

Nobody said it did, Dipstick.  We said they taught that Jesus HAD RETURNED invisibly, in 1874.  That was the statement all along.  Provide one example to the contrary.  They can’t, and they won’t.

And THAT is the question these cowards will not answer.  Just watch….

Again, RANDO AND EDDIE….Did the WT teach that Jesus had returned “invisibly” in 1874?  Rando says “no”, and I say “yes”.  And Eddie jumps around all over the place.

How about a straight answer this time, Ed?  If I were a betting man, I'd place the entire farm on this one....Eddie will NOT answer this question.

And this was a classic statement, that ranks high on the list of insulting the reader’s intelligence….

“I wonder why these JW Critics never knew Jehovah's Witness were name in 1931!!’

I knew that one was coming, and frankly, I’m surprised it took this long.  That is why I have been careful to state the WATCHTOWER taught this.  True, they did change their name at a convention in the 1930s….But it was still the same group.  Just like if you change your name, you’re still the same person.  That little diversion, proves absolutely nothing.  They did not become a brand new group, with the name change at the Convention.  Still the same group, same magazine, same beliefs….Just a different name, to separate themselves from the many splinter groups.

Again, shaking my head at how anyone could type that, without embarrassment.

But hey, it all plays right into what I have been saying all along….They create silly diversions, to keep from answering straight questions.

Again, Rando and Eddie….Did the Watchtower ever teach that Jesus had “come” in 1874.  That is the question you have been asked numerous times, and still have not answered.

Why answer things that were never asked, and argue against things that were never said?  Is what WAS said, just too tough for you?  To uncomfortable?  Too exposing of your religion’s history, for your liking?  Scared the readers might learn something here that you never would’ve told them?  Is that why you guys keep lying and distorting?

But after only 2 words into his response, Eddie is already on record, that he will lie and support Rando’s lying, any way that he has to.  I knew this would be his reaction, and that is why I have been writing questions to him incessantly…I knew he would reject them, but would also be forced into writing a statement, while at the same time, trying to dance around like a man standing in the middle of a campfire.  And predictable Eddie, is doing just that.

ED:  “It's quite fascinating how these two (Richard and DH) don't realized that they are contradicting each other. We see it, but sadly they don't see it. “

This illustrates something else I have pointed out about ole’ Eddie….He sees what is not there.  

Now, I’m amused that Eddie sees a contradiction between my statement about the WT, and Richard’s statement about the Second Adventists, when we were talking about 2 completely different groups.  That is one of the funniest comments yet.  

Regarding Second Adventists, Richard wrote…“The Second Advent focus began adding in the belief that Jesus was coming in 1874.”

Regarding the Watchtower, I wrote….“Barbour’s group managed to remain together, because of a new interpretation of Christ’s coming. Instead of just admitting the latest prediction of an 1874 literal coming was a failure, it was taught that Jesus did indeed return after all…Only, He was “invisible”. It was Barbour‘s teaching regarding an “INVISIBLE return/presence“ of Christ, that resonated with C.T. Russell.

And despite Rando‘s claim, this WAS the Watchtower‘s stance until it was later changed to 1914.”

It’s a testimony to these guy’s intelligence, that they “see” a contradiction in 2 statements, that are not even talking about the same group.  

That’s about as brilliant as if Richard said that “They won the game” , and I say “They lost the game” , and these guys start hollering “CONTRADICTION!!” .  Thing is, I was talking about my son’s baseball game, and Richard was talking about his nephew’s football game.

Brilliant, guys.

Anyway, these first 2 paragraphs set the stage for the lies and the nonsense, that would make up the rest of Eddie’s post.  I mean, its pretty odd that they can’t even keep the first 2 paragraphs honest.

But no, there was no contradiction in the least.  Richard was talking about the Second Adventist, who DID exist prior to 1874, predicting that Jesus WOULD come then, and I was referring to the Watch Tower, which came into being in 1879, teaching Barbour’s notion that Jesus HAD COME “invisibly”, in 1874.

Again, doing a little study on tenses (past, present, and future), would be of great benefit to these clowns.  Why anyone would want to look so stupid, is beyond me.

In fact, let’s go a step further, since they wanted to make the foolish mistake of going down that road, of trying to make Richard and I contradict.

The fact is, Richard actually VERIFIED my statement that the Watchtower did, in fact, teach Jesus had come in 1874.  I quote….

“I also agree with him that the teaching that 1874 would be the end of the world was propagated by the Adventists.”

“However, in 1876, after reading Herald of the Morning by Nelson Barbour, Russell bought into the idea that 1874 was the second advent of Jesus Christ …..I disagree with Rando that the Watchtower didn't refer to 1874 as the second advent of Jesus Christ. They did, over and over.”

Also, I already had verified Richard’s statement, that the Second Adventists were the ones PREDICTING 1874 as the FUTURE return of Christ, but that after this prediction failed, N. H. Barbour “adjusted” the teaching to an “invisible coming”, and taught that Jesus HAD, in fact, “returned” after all…Just invisibly.  I quote….

“When the first Watch Tower was published in 1879, its publisher, Charles Taze Russell, whole-heartedly subscribed to N.H. Barbour’s teaching that 1874 had marked the year of Christ’s “invisible return”….So yes, it WAS a Watchtower teaching, which its founder, C.T. Russell, had derived from the Adventists.

But at any rate, we see Rando’s deceptive nature, in trying to change what was said, by altering the tense of the wording, and also trying to “pass the buck“ to the Adventists, as if the Watchtower itself never taught this.

They did teach it, and Rando didn‘t tell the truth...Its just that simple.”

Well, that “contradiction” just went up in smoke, huh?  Who’s “chuckling” now, Eddie?  But I gotta stop, before my tummy starts hurting.

But hey, thank you for once again, showing this board just how desperate you two clowns really are.

ED:  “In fact the truth is, they will never be united like we are because they don't have this:

We have "one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:5, 6)”

What Richard and I both have, is a love for the truth of God’s Word, and enough of these kind of facts, to make your life miserable, in your endeavor to pass along false information to the readers of this board.  What you and Rando have, is a “unity”, yes….But a unity of lying ,and covering each other’s back, in those lies.  There is nothing virtuous about that.

And I’d be real careful about attaching Scripture, and making reference to God, in the context of your unity of “lies”.  There are some lines you just don’t want to get near.  

That being said, you guys have still not answered the question….DID the WT ever teach that Jesus had “returned” in 1874?

Oh, and Eddie…I couldn’t help but notice that neither you nor Rando, addressed even one of those quotes I gave from your own literature, proving that this was the case.  My count, is that I gave 16 quotes, that clearly show this.  And there are more where those came from, except that you still haven’t even addressed those yet.

So, how about it?

ED:  “Why I'm chuckling almost to point hurting my tummy?

(Not sure why that was a “question”…)

Because of what Derrick Holland was accusing our dear Brother of - lying.”

Aw, did I accuse poor “Dear Brother Rando” of lying?  Uhm, yep.  

RANDO:  ““Why do you lie and teach that the Watchtower taught that Christ would return in "1874" when the Watchtower was establish in "1881"?”

I believe I was actually accused of lying here, while his claim of what I supposedly said, was a lie.  I never said that they taught Jesus “would return” in 1874.  I said they taught He HAD returned in 1874.

So, that was a lie, Ed.

RANDO:  “However, this Apostate exclaims we taught the second coming in "1874"?

That what I really said, Ed?  That in 1874, the WT was teaching the 2nd coming? Or, did I say that 1874 was the year that they taught for His “coming”?  

RANDO:  ““Don't believe the Apostate that claims the Watchtower taught Christ would Return in "1874", when the Watchtower never existed until "1881"

"WOULD RETURN"?  Is that really what I said, Ed?  Did I say the WT taught that Jesus "WOULD RETURN"?  Now, Rando claims I did.  So, did I?  If so, then please provide where this was said.

So Ed, did I really falsely accuse “Dear Brother Rando” of lying, or did “Dear Brother Rando” actually lie?

Right there are his statements….What are you gonna do with that?

Now, let’s just talk for a moment, about how this entire discussion got started.  Rando came on here with a lie, and a false accusation.  This one….

RANDO:  “The Watchtower didn't exist until "1881". However, this Apostate exclaims we taught the second coming in "1874"? It's an outright deceptive lie because he has an axe to grind and is looking for heads to chop off….The "1874" fiasco, was a teaching from the Second Adventists, NOT a Watchtower teaching as Apostates claim.”

This lie came from a passing remark I had made in a thread about an entirely different topic, when I stated this….

ME:  “We have a clear promise that Jesus will return for His followers, and when this happens, He will "receive us unto Himself". That's a promise we can take to the bank. The way we know that Jesus did not come "invisibly" in 1874 (the original year that the WT taught for His return), or 1914 (the current year taught), is that the things that are supposed to accompany His coming, have not happened.”

This post of mine was actually about Benyamin Grunbaum’s notion about the “end” coming in October of this year.  But it was this one passing reference to the FACT that the WT originally taught that Christ had “come” in 1874, before changing it to 1914, that got Rando, shall I say it….”in a tizzy”.

So, from that statement, came Rando’s lie and twisting of what was actually said.  Not once did I say, as the liar claims, that the WT existed prior to 1874 and was making some future prediction.  The WT was first published in 1879, and its founder, C.T. Russell was espousing Barbour’s teaching that Jesus had returned “invisibly” in 1874.

Just as their CURRENT teaching is looking to a PAST year, 1914, so was their ORIGINAL teaching looking to a PAST year, 1874.    

My original comment was completely factual, as every comment on this topic since that time, has been factual.  And Eddie’s entire rant this morning was a waste of time, as he did NOTHING to answer the questions asked about this issue.

Again, Eddie and Rando…DID the WT ever teach that Jesus had “returned” invisibly in 1874?

ED:  “But what did Bro. Rando do”

Simple…He lied, and misquoted me…Something that real Christians don’t do.

Do you still want to try and claim he didn’t lie, Ed?  Really now, let’s just see you do it.  The comments are right there, in black and white.

Then, Eddie proceeds to quote me several times, and my “accusations” against “Dear Brother Lyin’ Rando”.  I was amazed that he would shoot himself in the foot, by actually using these quotes of mine….

“DH: You should apologize to the readers, and retract your statement. The Watchtower DID teach that Jesus "came invisibly" in 1874. You looked sort of silly, trying to deny that."

I believe this quote from me, clearly refers to the WT teaching in the PAST tense, doesn’t it Eddie?  That they “DID TEACH” that Jesus “CAME invisibly”…not “WILL COME”?

Seriously Man, I know English is not your best language.  But is that really the best you can do?

And this one….

“Do you still maintain that the Watchtower never taught that Jesus had “come” in 1874, or do you now wish to just apologize to the readers for your ignorance? We shall be looking for your post tomorrow.”

Again, clearly PAST tense…Jesus HAD “come”, not “They predicted He WILL come”.  Which is what Rando CLAIMED I had said.

And this one….“DH: But as you pointed out, not everyone comes here for an answer from a JW, from their biased perspective. If they did, nobody would learn that they really did claim that Jesus had "come" in 1874. “

Now, does Eddie seriously not understand the various tenses, in the English language?  It is difficult to see what point he is even trying to make here.  He wants to support Rando in his lie, but then stupidly quotes me, were I clearly say the WT taught that Jesus “HAD come”….Which was THE POINT ALL ALONG.

And Eddie, another thing…I know you quoted all those statements from me, to “document” that I had accused “Dear Brother Rando” of lying.  Well, there was no need for you to do that.  Let me just make it easy on you for future reference….Rando did lie, Rando does lie, and Rando will continue to lie.  His claims about “Landover Baptist Church”, and his claiming that I said the WT was making predictions 5 years before the WT was published, prove that he’s a liar.  And your support of him, proves that you are, too.

So, I thought I’d make it easy to document for you, that I said Rando is a liar.

Well, ole’ Ed is getting even more ridiculous, as his post goes on…..

ED:  “Here's what he said:

BRando: ""The Watchtower" has never claimed that the end of the world would come in "1874".

The Watchtower didn't exist until "1881". However, this Apostate exclaims we taught the second coming in "1874"?

BRando: Don't believe the Apostate that claims the Watchtower taught Christ would Return in "1874", when the Watchtower never existed until "1881". This type of individual slithers to and fro looking to swallow you whole. Before Armageddon can take place, the man of wickedness must first be revealed which makes up the composite Body of The Antichrist. That revealing is now coming to it's conclusion without the "wicked ones" knowing it. Want to see the Three Parts of their Trinity?? READ (Rev 16:13-14) After reading that, try (Isaiah 14:12-14)

Which totally different from what he is being accused of.

So NOW, who is 'the liar liar pants on fire'?

Yes Eddie, you and Rando are still “liar, liar pants on fire”…lol.  Simply put, here’s why….

You foolishly quoted the part of his words, which prove that he’s a liar, because you quoted the part where he falsely accused me of saying that “the Apostate claims the Watchtower taught Christ would return in 1874”

Look Ed, if you’re going to try to get him out of a lie, then don’t be so foolish as to QUOTE one of the statements from him, where the lie was contained!  Goodness, Man!   He is being accused of LYING, because of his CLAIM over what he SAYS I said, which was not said.  Ding, ding, ding….Is anyone home?

Oh, and because he then claimed that the WT never taught about 1874, which they did….Only after they borrowed it from the Adventist, N.H. Barbour.  So, that too, was a lie.

And your refusal to answer Scott’s question, but cowardly rejecting him, and me, only proves that you KNOW Rando lied.

So, tell the readers once and for all….Since you are obviously not here to tell the truth and give real facts, and since you will stoop to befriending and supporting a proven liar, then what viable purpose do YOU serve on this board?  Instead of worrying about me so much and why I’m here, tell us what business you have here, lying and helping to propagate the lies told by others?  

I’m sure there are many who would like an answer to that.

ED:  “Yup, you got it, the liar is Derrick Holland as he is contradicted once again by his buddy Richard when he said:

"The Second Advent focus began adding in the belief that Jesus was coming in 1874."

And the contradiction was, again…..?

Finally, in Eddie’s last gasp and futile attempt to deceive the readers into thinking the WT had no part of the 1874 “fiasco”, he then attempts to quote statements from WT literature.  It was almost amusing to the point of hilarity.  Enough to make one’s tummy hurt.  

For in these very quotes that he uses from his own literature, he unknowingly proves OUR point (mine and Richard’s).  Let’s look….

ED:  “In fact noticed what our publication said about this very topic 1874:

"*** w55 1/1 p. 6 Part 1—Early Voices (1870-1878) ***
Amid these rumblings of industrial, commercial, social and religious changes early voices of small religious groups were heard in their efforts to read the signs of the times and predict the imminent second coming of Jesus, Jehovah’s Christ. Various adventist groups were busy in the United States and Europe, proclaiming a visible return of Christ for 1873 or 1874, even though the American founder of their movement, William Miller, had acknowledged his error and disappointment as to the former set dates of 1843 and 1844 .… ”But all these widely proclaimed predictions came to complete disappointment because they were not based on accurate Biblical knowledge of Jehovah’s prophecies. Christ’s return was destined to be, not a physical manifestation as they had assumed, but rather, as the Scriptures now clearly indicate, an invisible presence of glory and power to provoke the greatest crisis ever experienced by man on earth.”

I’m amazed (but not really), that Eddie would even be so foolish as to quote this.  Did he just MISS the phrase “VISIBLE RETURN” , in reference to the Adventists?  Its right there…in his very own quote.  

This is perfectly in harmony with what I pointed out all along….That the Adventists were mostly predicting a VISIBLE coming, but when 1874 passed without incident, that Barbour had reinterpreted it as an “invisible” coming.  Nothing in the above quote, that contradicts one thing I said.  In fact, it verifies it perfectly.

Only one thing missing in this quote….An acknowledgement that C.T. Russell too, had latched onto this teaching of an "invisible coming", and it was proclaimed in the Watchtower for about 50 years, until finally (sometime in the 1930s) being changed to 1914 as the date for Christ's "coming".  Which is what I have been saying all along….

Then, Ed gives us this quote….

“Still other voices were heard, but these began to proclaim an impending invisible return of the Messiah. One of these groups was led by George Storrs of Brooklyn, New York. He and his associates after 1870 published a magazine entitled The Bible Examiner, setting forth their views that Christ’s return would be an invisible one. Another group headed by H. B. Rice of Oakland, California, published a magazine called The Last Trump, heralding an invisible return as occurring in the 1870’s. A third group comes to our attention, this time of disappointed Second Adventists who forsook that movement because of the failure of the Lord to return in 1873 as the Adventists had further predicted. This group was led by N. H. Barbour. They radiated their activities from Rochester, New York, performing a preaching service by sending out speakers to whatever churches would open their doors to them. They also published a monthly, The Herald of the Morning. One of this group came into possession of B. Wilson’s Diaglott translation of the “New Testament," noticing in it that, at Matthew 24:27, 37, 39, the word the King James Version rendered coming is translated presence. This was the clue that led this group to advocate an invisible presence of Christ, claiming it began in the fall of 1874."

Thank you for this one, Eddie…this quote once again verifies exactly what I said, about Barbour advancing the idea that Jesus had come “invisibly” in 1874.

Again, never said the Adventists didn’t originate the idea.  What I pointed out was, that Russell adopted the idea, published the WT in 1879, and promoted this idea for the rest of his life, and that the WT CONTINUED advancing this idea up until the 1930s.  

Why didn’t your quote mention that little detail?

No matter….You have already been shown 16 quotes, from your OWN LITERATURE, which prove that Richard and I are right, and you and Rando are wrong, and trying to deceive the good readers of this board.  

And we’re just not going to let you do that.

Next quote….

ED:  “We felt greatly grieved at the error of Second Adventists who were expecting Christ in the flesh, and teaching that the world and all in it except Second Adventists would be burned up in 1873 or 1874, whose time-settings and disappointments and crude ideas generally of the object and manner of his coming brought more or less reproach upon us and upon all who longed for and proclaimed his coming Kingdom. These wrong views so generally held of both the object and manner of the Lord’s return led me to write a pamphlet—The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return, of which some 50,000 copies were published."

Again, it said:

Various adventist groups were busy in the United States and Europe, proclaiming a visible return of Christ for 1873 or 1874, even though the American founder of their movement, William Miller, had acknowledged his error and disappointment as to the former set dates of 1843 and 1844.”

We felt greatly grieved at the error of Second Adventists who were expecting Christ in the flesh, and teaching that the world and all in it except Second Adventists would be burned up in 1873 or 1874”

Then, Eddie foolishly asks….

“So who is owed an apology here?”

We are.  Richard, Myself, Kevin, Scott, and the readers of this board, who are sick of your nonsensical lies and distortions.  

Every one of your quotes from your own publications, prove OUR point…not yours.  This is easy, Eddie…Just look at what you quoted here.

It clearly says the Adventist groups were predicting a VISIBLE return.  And it clearly says that the WT teaches that Christ’s coming would NOT be “in the flesh”, but “invisible”.

That is PRECISELY what we have said….several times now.  Nothing here even remotely contradicts what Richard and I have pointed out.  

I said that over a week ago….

ME:  “While many of the Adventist groups had suffered much disappointment due to the failed predictions of Jesus’ coming in 1843, and then in 1844, and most of those who followed William Miller's predictions simply went back to their own churches, Barbour’s group managed to remain together, because of a new interpretation of Christ’s coming. Instead of just admitting the latest prediction of an 1874 literal coming was a failure, it was taught that Jesus did indeed return after all… Only, He was “invisible”. It was Barbour‘s teaching regarding an “INVISIBLE return/presence“ of Christ, that resonated with C.T. Russell.

And despite Rando‘s claim, this WAS the Watchtower‘s stance until it was later changed to 1914.”

And I was called a liar by that loon, for saying the same thing found in the quotes you just provided.  You guys aren’t too sharp, are you?

So, when do we see YOUR apology, Eddie?  For your lies, distortions, and attempts to cover Rando’s lie…Like we’re gonna let that happen.

And finally, Eddie writes….

ED:  “Side note to further clarify this statement and to prevent Mr. Holland from twisting it also:

BR: "The Watchtower didn't exist until "1881".

*** w50 7/15 p. 212 par. 1 Organized Testimony to the New World ***

IN JULY of 1879 the first issue of what is now The Watchtower came off the press and began to be circulated from 101 Fifth St., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U. S. A.

*** w50 7/15 p. 214 par. 9 Organized Testimony to the New World ***

Besides The Watchtower other spiritual food was provided through the pen of Brother Russell. This was regularly spread to all hungry ones by the then available means of distribution. To keep pace with Jehovah’s blessing upon the work Brother Russell organized the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, at Pittsburgh, Pa., in 1881 (The Watchtower, April, 1881) , and three years later, in 1884, this was incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania.”

Unfortunately for Ed, this too was entirely unnecessary, as it also was addressed in my post of over a week ago….

ME:  “ First off, Rando was wrong on 2 counts, in the above statement that he made. First, in his claim of WHEN the Watchtower came into being. Of course, this depends if he’s talking about the Watchtower, as in the ORGANIZATION, or the Watch Tower, as in the MAGAZINE. Either way, it really makes no difference, but let’s just get the facts correct. Rando just says the Watchtower didn't exist until 1881, which gives a false impression, that there was no "Watchtower" until then. There was.… The magazine known as "Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's PRESENCE" (notice the name and reference to Christ already being "present" ), was published in 1879.”

Why would the magazine be "heralding Christ's presence" in 1879, unless it was espousing the teaching that Christ already WAS "present"?

But Rando says…

RANDO: “The Watchtower didn't exist until "1881"


ME:  “RANDO: “Don't believe the Apostate that claims the Watchtower taught Christ would Return in "1874", when the Watchtower never existed until "1881"

Notice how he deceptively changes the TENSE of the wording, here? Nobody said they claimed that Jesus WOULD return (future) in 1874. I said they taught that Jesus DID return (past tense), in 1874

“Rando wants to make a big deal over when the Watchtower ORGANIZATION came into being….That makes no difference. The same guy who first published the Watch Tower MAGAZINE in 1879, Charles T. Russell, was also the first PRESIDENT of the Watchtower ORGANIZATION, and CONTINUED teaching the 1874 “fiasco” (as Rando calls it), LONG after the Watchtower ORGANIZATION itself came on the scene. About 50 years after, in fact.”

And Rando....the Watch Tower was actually first printed in 1879, not 1881. Check it out.

Now, while it is true that the Watchtower ORGANIZATION was formed in 1881, and incorporated in 1884, the Watch Tower MAGAZINE was already in publication, being first published in 1879, and even after the Organization itself was founded, CONTINUED to teach what Rando now calls the “1874 fiasco“.

So as you can see, Eddie, that little point was completely unnecessary.  Its already been dealt with.  You’re way behind.

You really should’ve taken the time to READ that link of mine, before attempting to respond to it, and make completely useless points.

Now, in closing….You have answered nothing, and wasted a lot of time trying to rescue Rando out of a hole, but instead, you only succeeded in falling into it with him.  Now, you’re both stuck.

So in closing, I will ask you AGAIN….


You have avoided and evaded this question long enough.   I think a lot of people here, would like to see you answer it….once and for all.

Your reply?  

Jehovah`s Witness

All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts


Derrick Holland


I was raised in the religion known as Jehovah`s Witnesses for 13 years. Since becoming a born-again Christian, I have researched extensively this religion, especially their doctrines and their history. I can answer questions about their doctrines from the perspective of Biblical Christianity. To be clear: Jehovahs Witnesses is the religion of my upbringing, though I myself was never baptized into the religion, nor have I ever been considered as a Jehovahs Witness.


29 years of Biblical research into the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, and how they differ from the teachings of the Watchtower.

I would advise each questioner to this forum, to carefully READ the profiles of the various volunteers. There are several such as myself, who are not practicing JWs, but will provide you with an accurate and honest answer, regarding JW teaching. If we don't know the answer, we will try to research and get it for you. There are also some excellent practicing JWs here, who also endeavor to give you a factual and honest answer, based on their point of view. I believe by getting both points of view, the questioner can weigh the evidence for themselves, and make an informed decision. Unfortunately, there are also 3 here who claim to be JWs, but do NOT give honest, or well-researched answers. They will tell you only what they want you to believe, and they often hide facts about the history of their religion, as well as print untruths about other people's beliefs. This is done in an attempt to deceive the unsuspecting reader. It can be easily seen who these 3 are, simply by reading the public posts and "answers" which they write. Their posts will normally be filled with personal attacks, and if you question them about some teaching or aspect of the Watchtower that makes them uncomfortable, they will often reject your question, question your motives for asking it, tell you that you have been reading "apostate" sites, or turn the conversation into an attack on another expert. These ones are better avoided, as there is nothing to be gained by way of positive discussion, as they are not interested in intelligent conversation, or honest dialogue. If after reading the forum, you still have any questions as to who they are, just ask me, and I will be happy to tell you. And I can also provide documentation of their willful dishonesty. One thing is for a forum where people from both sides claim to be "Christians", there should never be any willful lying. Such ones only create a distraction in the forum, and provide nothing of any real value.

High School, some college. Studies of God's Word, the Bible, and how it compares to JW theology. I have found my own personal study and experiences to be far more valuable than any formal education or training. The Bible message is clear...Salvation is ONLY through and by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, and no religious organization has a thing to do with it. While attendance at a Bible-preaching, Bible-believing church is a must for spiritual growth and fellowship, no church can grant salvation to its members. Nor is joining a particular group a prerequisite for being saved.

©2017 All rights reserved.