You are here:

Jehovah`s Witness/Rando, You Are Truly "The Gift That Keeps On Giving"


Rando, I wanted to take some time and thank you for your wonderful post.

This one…..

It could not have come at a more appropriate time.  You have single-handedly, in one post, destroyed the entire premise that JWs know more about their own religion than anyone else, and that only currently practicing JWs should be answering questions about it.    

Had Rando posted this, say, 6 months ago, it would have still been easy to refute…But not nearly doing the damage to his cause, that posting it now, has done.

Because in just one post, Rando has clearly knocked the legs out from under his fellow Witnesses, who have been claiming that non-JW experts have no business here answering questions, because we supposedly “misrepresent” and “lie” about the Watchtower, and therefore, only true practicing JWs should be here answering questions.  In fact, Rando himself has argued this very point, even writing a post about being a “Critic in Denial”, which he posts for us every few months.  So in effect, Rando has destroyed his OWN argument, as well.

We have all read a lot here lately, about the so-called non-Witnesses in this forum.  We are lovingly called such things as “liar”, “apostate”, “charlatan”, “impostor”, “demon”, “deceiver”, and the list goes on.

But one thing is for certain, if you listen to a few of the JWs here, that is….We should NOT be here answering questions.  And WHY should we not be here?  The answer is simple…again, if you are listen to these select JW’s, that is…  But here are the reasons we are given, that non-Witness experts should not be here...

1.  We lie and misrepresent.  I assume this means that we give INACCURATE information about the Watchtower.  Of course, we do not, but that is the constant claim that they make.

2.  We are not qualified to answer questions on this religion, because we do not currently belong to it, or we have never belonged to it, whatever the case may be with the individual expert.

3.  It is immoral for us to be here.  Now, this one is never explained very well.  Granted, it would be immoral if we were POSING as a JW and trying to mislead people into thinking we are JWs, when we in fact, are not.  But no one here is doing that.  And not being a practicing JW, has nothing at all to do with whether we have the knowledge to accurately answer questions about the religion.

Now, that being said, I want to simply say some things about the above-mentioned reasons, that are repeatedly given by these select JWs.

First, we do not misrepresent the facts.  I will show in just a moment, just WHO misrepresents and distorts the facts.  And it isn’t us.  If the readers will remember, I have made several references here lately, to the Witnesses giving “sanitized” answers about their religion.  What I mean by this, is that they will often leave out damaging information, and only give information that is favorable to the religion, in an attempt to give the readers a false impression.  

Secondly, in many cases, the non-Witnesses here, are more qualified to answer questions about this religion, than SOME of the practicing Witnesses are.  More qualified than these select few, that is.  That is not to say that there are not competent Witnesses here…there are.  But its not the ones who are doing the most complaining about the non-Witnesses.

Thirdly, what is “immoral”, is for a Witness to LIE and give false information to readers, in an attempt to make their religion have a favorable image.  And this is precisely what is done on a regular basis, even to the point of misrepresenting OUR beliefs, in an attempt to make theirs look better.

If there are facts which are TRUE and easily documented, then those facts should be shared with anyone who asks….Not hidden, and blamed on another religions group, as Rando did in the above link.

That link provides us with one of the most blatant examples of what I am talking about….Trying to distort the true facts, in order to give the WT a “sanitized“ image.

In a recent post, by the expert known as “Brother Rando”, we find not only a DENIAL from Rando that the WT ever taught the 1874 date, but also an accusation towards me of “LYING“, for saying they did.  We shall let the facts speak for themselves.

Personally, when I read Rando’s public denial of this fact, I could just see in my mind, the collective “cringe” from his fellow Witnesses, knowing that he had made a huge mistake.  And he did.  

Now, its interesting that these others (Rando’s pals), speak quite loudly (Eddie, please research the difference between “quite” and “quiet”.  It will help you) about how wrong it is to give false information about the JW religion, yet when Rando did this in a most obvious and dishonest manner, NOT ONE of these so-called other JW “experts”, corrected him, or called him out.  Although I know they were embarrassed, they said nothing.  

Why?  Is it acceptable to lie FOR the Organization, just not AGAINST it?  Is it because they really don’t mind if the Watchtower’s teachings are misrepresented….as long as its done in their FAVOR, and not to their detriment?  

Why did neither Sister T (who has, to her credit, decided not to continue in the arguments), nor Eddie, call Rando out, when he DENIED that the WT once taught that Jesus “returned/became present” invisibly, in 1874?  They know full well that this was taught,  so why did they sit by and say nothing?

I thought Eddie was going to stand against any misrepresentation of this Organization that he belongs to.  I thought he was concerned with readers being told the truth?  So, what gives?

What follows in the “Response” section, will be statements from Rando, which prove beyond all doubt that he either does not KNOW the history of his religion (in which case, he shouldn’t be answering about it), or, he is lying about it (in which case, he shouldn’t be answering about it).

I realize that Richard already typed an excellent reply to this topic of the Watchtower and 1874 last week, but since I was gone and unable to type a response then, and since I was called out in Rando's post as a "liar", then I felt a reply was also in order.  This is one that I have been wanting to address for over a week now, and I will now do so.

Now, what Rando tried to do in his post, was pretty weak.  Maybe he thought he was being clever…who knows?  But he made a big mistake.  He tried to imply that I said the Watchtower was PREDICTING that Jesus WOULD “come invisibly” in 1874, as if they were looking toward the future.  That isn’t what I said…I said they TAUGHT that 1874 was the year that He CAME invisibly.  

And it was also quite foolish of Rando to claim that 1874 was a “teaching from the Second Adventists, NOT a Watchtower teaching” .

Here is what he neglects to tell the readers….Charles Russell, the founder of the Watchtower, got his teachings and ideas about Christ's "coming", FROM the Adventists.  In fact, he was heavily influenced in his life, by more than one Adventist preacher….N.H. Barbour, Jonas Wendell, George Stetson, George Storrs, etc.  While ultimately disagreeing with them on various teachings, he retained some of their teachings, as well.  Most notably, the teaching on Christ's "invisible coming", propagated by N. H. Barbour.  

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.  I will provide plenty of documentation for this in a moment, but let’s first discuss some of his attempts to mislead the readers, and his attacks against me, for stating the truth of the Watchtower‘s teaching on this matter….

I quote him, from the link given in the “Question” section….

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

Now, this statement made by Rando, brings a major question to the forefront….

WHO is more qualified to answer questions about this religion, in this forum….

A.  A NON-Witness, who may not be practicing the religion, but will at least take the time to give a factually correct answer….


B.  A currently practicing Witness that, either doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about, OR, is lying to the readers about the history of his own religion, so that he can give it a “sanitized” image?

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"“

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

See comments below the next quote.

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.

This tactic is precisely the same one that we have been seeing Eddie use, with his attempt to take a comment of mine out of context.  It is the same tactic used by another "expert" here, when she claimed that I said they believe the "Organization brings salvation", when that was not what was said.  Watch for them to alter one or two words, which completely change the meaning of the statement.  Its a tactic they use all the time.  Its dishonest, but its what they do.

Here is the fact of the matter....  

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”.

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“.  

Yes, it was taught…It was taught by the Watchtower‘s founder, it was taught in the Watchtower‘s pages, and it was taught in the Watchtower Organization‘s publications.  

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.  

He is not being truthful with the readers, when he claims it is a “lie” to say that the WT taught that Christ would return in 1874, when what was really said, was that the Watchtower once taught that Jesus had "returned" in 1874.

This is another one of those examples where they alter the original statement to make it say something it didn’t, in order to give a false impression.  Rando’s problem is, he’s not even GOOD at it.  His lies are easy to pinpoint.

But since we (the non-Witnesses) are the ones constantly accused of lying and twisting, while they are the ones doing it, let’s just prove it here and now.  Rando’s own comments incriminate him.    

Please compare Rando’s following statements already quoted….

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

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

RANDO:  “The "1874" fiasco, was a teaching from the Second Adventists, NOT a Watchtower teaching as Apostates claim.”

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

with what I ACTUALLY said…

“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.”

Now, we have an obvious example here, of what Rando loves to do….Alter, twist, distort, and lie.  There was nothing in any comment of mine, that implies that the WT existed PRIOR to 1874, and was predicting a FUTURE “invisible” return of Christ.  The idea of an “invisible” coming, didn’t even occur to Barbour, until after the predictions of His PHYSICAL coming, all failed.  Initially, the prediction was for a PHYSICAL coming of Christ.  But when this failed to transpire, and after the disappointments of 1843 and 1844, the Adventists could hardly experience another failed prediction in 1874.  

So, Barbour came up with the idea that Jesus really DID come in 1874 after all....only, He was "invisible".  Russell was intrigued by this teaching of Barbour’s, and embraced it, and YES, he taught it himself in the pages of the Watch Tower.  

Then why does Rando change the wording, and claim that I said they existed prior to 1874, and were PREDICTING a FUTURE coming?  No, the statement was simply that the Watchtower TAUGHT that the year of Christ’s invisible “coming”, was 1874.  Its founder, C.T. Russell, had embraced this teaching, and taught it in the magazine that he started, and through the Organization that he was the first president of.

Just like the WT today teaches that Jesus "came" in 1914 (a PAST date, by my calculations), they taught then that Jesus "came" in 1874 (also a past date, since their origin was in 1879).  So, we see that Rando blatantly distorted the quote, and lied....again.

Readers deserve better than what Rando gave them, in regards to facts.

In fact, if anyone is interested in reading about the history of the Watchtower movement, then I suggest this link….

Now, let’s get to the heart of this issue…


I say “yes”, and Rando says “no”.  But what do the Watchtower publications themselves, say?

"Our belief that the Kingdom began to be set up, or brought into power, in Apr, 1878, be it observed, rests on exactly the same foundation as our belief that the Lord became present in October, 1874, and that the harvest began at that time." Studies in the Scriptures - Thy Kingdom Come p.235

“As late as 1930, the Watchtower was still referring to 1874 as the start of Jesus presence.

"… from the beginning of the Lord’s presence in 1874 the Devil used the Papal system as the chief opposing instrument of God’s kingdom …" Watchtower 1930 p.275

“Charles Taze Russell's Studies and Scriptures (volume 4) states, "Our Lord the appointed King, is now present since October 1874 A.D”

“The Scriptural proof is that the second presence of the Lord Jesus Christ began in 1874 A.D. This proof is specifically set out in the booklet entitled
Our Lord's Return.” (Prophecy 1929 pp. 65-66.)

“Surely there is not the slightest room for doubt...that the Lord Jesus is present and has been since 1874.”(WT 1924 January 1 p. 5.)

“ ...the Bridegroom came in the Autumn of 1874, and he appeared to the eyes of faith-seen by the light of the lamp-the Word.”(Zion’s Watch Tower Reprints October/November 1881 p. 289)

“Our Lord’s presence as Bridegroom and Reaper was recognized during the first three and a half years, from A.D. 1874 to A.D. 1878. Since that time it has been emphatically manifest that the time had come in A.D. 1878 when kingly judgment should begin at the house of God.” (Studies in the Scriptures Vol. II 1889 p. 239)

“…he [Jesus] would in reality assume the kingly office, power, etc.; viz., in the spring of 1878, three and a half years after his second advent at the beginning of the harvest period, in the fall of 1874.” (Studies in the Scriptures Volume III 1891 p. 234)

“Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present since October 1874, A.D., according to the testimony of the prophets, to those who have ears to hear it: and the formal inauguration of his kingly office dates from April 1878, A.D.“(Studies in Scriptures Vol. IV 1897 p. 621)

“Pastor Russell...believed and taught that we are living in the time of the second presence of our Lord, and that his presence dates from 1874...”(WT December 1, 1916 p. 5998)

“The time of the Lord’s second presence dates from 1874...”(The Harp of God 1921 p. 231)

“The Scriptures show that the second presence (of the Lord) was due in 1874... This proof shows that the Lord has been present since 1874...”(WT March 1, 1923 p. 67)

“Surely there is not the slightest room for doubt that in the mind of a truly consecrated child of God that the Lord Jesus Christ is present and has been since 1874.” (WT January 1, 1924 p. 5)

“The second coming of the Lord therefore began in 1874...”(Creation 1927 pp. 289, 291, 297, 298, 318)

“The Scriptural proof is that the second presence of the Lord Jesus Christ began in 1874 A.D.”(Prophecy 1929 p. 65)

Even the fairly recent 1993 Proclaimers book admits....

"Based on the premise that events of the first century might find parallels in related events later, they also concluded that if Jesus’ baptism and anointing in the autumn of 29 C.E. paralleled the beginning of an invisible presence in 1874, then his riding into Jerusalem as King in the spring of 33 C.E. would point to the spring of 1878 as the time when he would assume his power as heavenly King." Proclaimers p.632

In conclusion, I have one question for JW "expert", Brother Rando….

Rando, will you now come on here, and TELL THE TRUTH for a change, and admit that your religion most certainly DID originally teach that Jesus’ “invisible return” occurred in 1874, or will you simply move on to another set of lies, as you normally do?  

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.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]