Monday, November 28, 2016

Russell Quotes Concerning the Bible

Many pride themselves as believers in the Bible as being the inspired Word of God. At the same, most of these view the holy writings only through the eyes of human dogma, opinions of men set forth as essential doctrine for salvation. Athanasius, who promoted the false doctrine of the trinity, stated: "The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare truth." And yet at the same time, he proceeded to present a tremendous amount of human imagination, assumptions, opinions, etc., which he added to, and read into, the holy scriptures so as to make it appear that the Bible upheld his teachings. Sadly, trinitarians today do the same, evidently without realizing how much they have to imagine and assume beyond what is written and which they have to add to and read into the scriptures to make the scriptures appear to support the trinitarian dogma.


But we are not at this time concerned with discussing the trinity, but rather with the many false claims being made about Brother Russell, especially as related to the Bible.

Usually, the claims are associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses; indeed, it is often claimed that Russell was the  founder of the "cult" known as Jehovah's Witnesses, and many of the organizational teachings of the leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses are often attributed to Russell, when, in reality, he never have taught such things. In some major teachings, Russell actually taught the opposite (or nearly so) to what the JWs teach. Russell was not the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, nor was he the founder of any sect. Recognizing the term "cult" as generic in itself as applying to any form of worship, we can say that he only believed in the true cult that was founded by Jesus and the apostles. The work he did was in service to the only true church founded by Jesus and the apostles, whose members are enrolled in heaven, not by being members of various religious organizations created by man here on earth. In doing this, however, he did find that, since many of the doctrines that were later added by the apostate church leaders were not in the Bible, that the teachings of Jesus and the apostles were not in harmony with those doctrines. Some, believing that Bible does teach the doctrines of men, claim Russell was teaching contrary to the Bible since he did not teach such doctrines of men such as the trinity, the inherent immortality of the human soul, eternal conscious torment of all who do not accept Christ, etc. Such have looked a some quotes of Russell taken out of context, and claimed something we are sure Brother Russell never intended, that is, that he placed his own writings as being above the Bible.

At the same, one needs to distinguish between opinion and what the Bible actually states. Much Russell presented was opinion, although his opinions were based on the Bible. Russell did not consider his opinions and conclusions to be doctrine that should be forced on fellow believers. If anyone's opinions are thought to be some kind of standard for accepting fellow believers, such becomes sectarianism. 

Nevertheless, we present below some quotes from Russell pertaining to how he viewed the Bible, some of which also show how he viewed the Bible in relation to his own writings. We should note that many things that appeared in the Watch Tower may have not been actually written by Russell, but, being the editor, Russell was responsible for what was printed. There could be many more quotes added, and we may add more as God permits.

*********(We are working to arrange the comments in chornological order and add comments)

It is a great mistake to affirm that the Bible is the product of the Church; and those who make this claim do not know where to look for the Church. The Scriptures declare that Jesus Christ was the head and forerunner of  the Church; and if he was the forerunner it is plain that none of the members of the Church preceded him, and, therefore, that the Old Testament Scriptures -- which Paul says "were written aforetime (before Christ's advent) for our instruction that we through patience and the consolation of the Scriptures might possess the hope" (of the gospel -- Rom. 15:4) -- were not the product of the Church. And if, as we have shown, the writings of the Apostles were divinely inspired, then the New Testament Scriptures are not the product of the Church. But consecrated human agencies were used in both cases as God's honored instruments. The word of the Lord through the Apostles is not the product of the Church, but of divine revelation. And never since those inspired apostles fell asleep has the church been able to add one iota to the heavenly wisdom revealed through them; and to whatever extent she has wandered from their teachings, she has manifested her folly by vain philosophies which expose her ignorance and egotism. -- The Watch Tower, October 1, 1893, page 292.


"The Child Samuel", Watch Tower, October 15, 1895

As stated, the above would mean that if anything Russell himself presented should be found to not be fully in harmony with the Bible, that the Bible itself is the final arbiter, not his writings and statements. 

 ********

 In The Watch Tower, December, 1902, page 377, we find the following statement:

The BIBLE is our text book, the DAWNS and TOWERS are our comments, explanations, etc., and our mail department enables us to point out and emphasize misunderstood parts of the instruction.

Here Brother Russell refers to the Bible as being the "text book". Evidently, he using this term to mean the book that forms the basis for study of who God is and what is plans are for mankind. In other words, the Bible is foundation for truth, whereas the DAWNs (later called Studies in the Scriptures) and the Watch Tower simply provide comments and explanations.  It may be that in practice, many of the Bible Students had begun to, in fact, look upon the Watch Tower publications as being "the authority", but that is not the way Brother Russell expressed it.

Never forget that the Bible is our Standard and that however God-given our helps may be they are "helps" and not substitutes for the Bible. -- "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society's Report", Watch Tower, December 15, 1909.

This certainly shows that in 1909, Russell was not teaching that his own writings in any way should be thought to replace the Bible. He still believe that the Bible is standard for truth.

We will next examine some statements made by Brother Russell as found in his sermon, DIVINE OMNISCIENCE AND ALMIGHTY POWERSt. Paul Enterprise, December 11, 1917, as reprinted in Harvest Gleanings, Volume 3 (begins on page 140).

What Christendom needs today is a return to the Bible, an investigation of its teachings and, correspondingly, a rejection of all human creeds, which are admittedly more or less defective. Let us "stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free." Let us accept the Bible as the only standard. Let us study it and understand it to the extent of our ability. Let us rejoice in every degree of harmony we all attain in the correct understanding o f it. Let us fellowship as Christians all who acknowledge its Divine authenticity and who, in harmony with its presentation, are trusting in Jesus as their redeemer; and who, in acceptance of His invitation, have forsaken all to be His footstep followers.
These are the real Christians, with whatever sect or party they may have become identified, through the supposition that they were doing the will of God. These alone are the saints; these alone are running in the race course; these alone have the opportunity of making their "calling and election sure." 

We could not find the actual date that this sermon was delivered, but it was probably sometime in 1916, or perhaps 1915. One should note that he was still declaring the Bible "as the only standard". He also notes that we should have fellowshp with all Christians who believe it the Bible's divine authencity and thus put their trust in Jesus as their savior, not matter sect or party they may be affiliated with. This is certainly a lot different from what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach. Indeed, having fellowship with any of others who do not accept the teachings of their leadership is highly discrcouraged, to say the least. 



Now that we are ready and fully equipped for Bible study, we are handicapped, trammeled by wrong doctrines which have become lodged and fastened in memory. Some of these came from the creeds, some of them from hymn books, some of them from preaching and some from tracts. As a result, we are filled with misunderstandings and inconsistencies which cause the Bible to appear to be self-contradictory. So much is this the case that it is counted a fashionable thing in our day for intelligent people to laugh at the Bible and to deny its Divine inspiration. But the Bible is consistent with itself, and is thoroughly opposed to the doctrines of the creeds. These facts, however, need to be thoroughly learned before we can have full confidence in the Bible and fully appreciate it. These blessings are the portion of the Lord's people more and more, especially during the last thirty-five years. -- The Watch Tower, December 1, 1913 , page 366.
In a word, the work of our Society is conducted on the belief that the Bible is Divinely inspired, and that we are now living in the wonderful Day, mentioned by the Prophets, when "the wise shall understand," when they shall receive "meat in due season" from God's wonderful Book. By the "wise" we mean, of course, those who are wise toward God, not the worldly-wise. -- The Watch Tower, October 15, 1916, page 308.
We as Bible students are coming more and more to appreciate the fact that the Divine Plan presented in the Bible is wonderful in its simplicity and its comprehensiveness. More and more we are coming to see that our error in the past has been that we studied not the Bible, but the creeds -- and correspondingly had darkness instead of light. -- The Watch Tower, August 15, 1914, page 264.
You cannot well say too much for the book, as one that will show in interesting style that the Bible is a self-interpreter and its teachings grandly harmonious, when viewed in the light of sanctified reason and common sense. You can surely say, too, that the book is not dry musty reading, but truly "meat in due season" to the truth-hungry; and (in the language of a sister) that the light, which this precious volume reflects, has made the Bible a new book, a treasure, a mine of wealth to many as well as to yourself. -- The Watch Tower, May 1887, page 1.
Chapters two and three [of the The Divine Plan of the Ages] I must tell you about; they are so helpful, especially if you have young friends inclined to be skeptical. The one gives evidences, aside from the Bible, that there is an all-wise Creator; the other thoroughly answers "higher criticism" and infidelity by the internal proofs that the Bible is inspired. These chapters alone are worth many times the cost of the entire set of books. As one reader has well said, "These helping hands to Bible study are worth more dollars than they cost in cents." -- The Watch Tower, August 15, 1904, page 246
Neither must you lean upon the DAWN (later called Studies in the Scriptures) and the TOWER as infallible teachers. If it was proper for the early Christians to prove what they received from the apostles, who were and who claimed to be inspired, how much more important it is that you fully satisfy yourself that these teachings keep closely within their outline instructions and those of our Lord;-- since their author claims no inspiration, but merely the guidance of the Lord, as one used of him in feeding his flock. -- The Watch Tower, June 1, 1893, page 168.
Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a par with the holy Scriptures. The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is, that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else. It is to this end, to enable the student to trace the subject in the divinely inspired Record, that we so freely intersperse both quotations and citations of the Scriptures upon which to build. -- Watch Tower, December 15, 1896, page 305

We preach not ourself but Christ. We substantiate nothing except by his Word. We make no laws, formulate no creed, deprive no sheep of his full liberty in Christ; but merely on every question quote the Word of the Lord, through the apostles and prophets. We boast nothing, claim nothing of ourself. We are content to serve the Lord and his flock to the best of our ability--exacting no tithes, no "honor of men," no confession of authority, no compensation; hoping merely for the love of the Lord and of those who are his children and have his Spirit.
So far from forming or desiring to form a new sect, we ignore all sectarian systems and their claimed authority; we recognize only the "one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism" of the Scriptures and fellowship as a "brother" every person of decent morals who confesses faith in the "redemption through the blood of Christ," and especially all of this class who profess a full consecration to the Lord's will and service,-- whatever sect they may be in, or outside of all. -- The Watch Tower, January 15, 1904, page 20.
More directly regarding his Studies in the Scriptures, Russell wrote:
The six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are not intended to supplant the Bible. There are various methods to be pursued in the study of the Bible and these aids to Bible study are in such form that they, of themselves, contain the important elements of the Bible as well as the comments or elucidations of those Bible statements.... It is for each one to think for himself, however, and to guide his conduct in every way accordingly....
If these books are to be of any value to us it must be because we see in them loyalty to the Word of God, and as far as our judgment goes, see them to be in full harmony with the Word and not antagonistic to it. Therefore, in reading them the first time, and perhaps the second time, and before we would accept anything as being our own personal faith and conviction, we should say, “I will not take it because these studies say so; I wish to see what the Bible says.” And so we would study the Scriptures in the light of these SCRIPTURE STUDIES; we would prove every point, or disprove it, as the case might be. We would be satisfied with nothing less than a thorough investigation of the Bible from this standpoint....
If, at the same time, in any future reading, we should come to a place where something did not seem clear to us and we thought of some Scripture which seemed not as harmonious with it as we had previously thought, we would think it our duty to refer at once to the Scriptures, because the Scriptures are the standard, and in that reference to the Scripture it would be with a view to discerning whether or not we had been mistaken in our previous examinations....
This is not, therefore, putting the SCRIPTURE STUDIES as a substitute for the Bible, because so far as substituting for the Bible, the STUDIES, on the contrary, continually refer to the Bible; and if one has any doubt as to a reference or if one’s recollection should lapse in any degree, one should refresh his memory, and, in fact, should see that his every thought is in harmony with the Bible –not merely in accord with the SCRIPTURE STUDIES, but in accord with the Bible. -- The Watch Tower, September 15, 1910, pages 298, 299.

Everything Russell presented in the Watch Tower of 1910 is in full harmony with his earlier statements regarding the Bible and his writings. 

See also: Did Russell Claim His Writings to be Superior to the Bible?

**
Updated: 2/20/2009; 3/13/2014; 10/12/2018; 12/31/2020.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Russell Acknowledges Jesus as "Channel"

I am giving below some quotes from Brother Russell that shows that he believed Jesus to be the channel between God and man.

It was quite proper that these disciples did not follow the course that some are inclined to follow today, viz., to seek to learn of the Master all that he would communicate, and then go forth and pose as wise ones amongst their friends, giving them the information they had received in driblets, and avoiding the mention of Jesus as the Father's channel of communication of the truth to them. -- "We Have Found Him! Eureka!", Watch Tower, February 1, 1900.

None have life in a legal sense except those who have obtained it from God through His provided channel Christ Jesus. -- "From Death to Life in Christ", Harvest Gleanings III.

All resolutions against sin and in favor of righteous thinking and living are commendable and helpful. But I recommend a comprehensive resolution; namely, to get right with God through His appointed Channel, the Lord Jesus Christ, and through the instructions of His Word, the Bible. -- "A New Epoch Starts", Harvest Gleanings III.

God purposed to allow sin to demonstrate for six thousand years its awful fruitage, and then to bring in a great Sabbath Day, the great Millennial Sabbath of a thousand years, and in that time to do a work for mankind which they cannot do for themselves. He is to do this work through Jesus, His appointed Channel. -- "New Creatures Perfect in Holiness", Harvest Gleanings III.

Only as the Heavenly Father shall grant His blessing may fruits to our labors be expected. It is written, "As many as the Lord your God shall call," and "No man can come unto Me except the Father who sent Me draw him." (Acts 2:39; John 6:44) Hence we see that our present appreciation of Divine goodness implies three gifts: (1) The Divine provision of eternal life, (2) Christ the Channel, and (3) the knowledge by which we are enabled to appreciate both the Gift and the Channel. -- "Christ Our Propitiation", Watch Tower, December, 1882.

The channel of all of God's Mercy is Christ Jesus, who declared, "No man cometh unto the Father but by Me." Of Him also St. Peter said, "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under Heaven given amongst men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12.)  -- "Hope for the Sodomites", Watch Tower, February 1, 1913.

If anyone finds more that could be placed here, please respond in the comments below.

Related:

Who Did Russell Believe to be the "Only Authority" of the Church?

What Did Russell Teach About "Organization" as Related to the Watch Tower Society?


Wednesday, November 23, 2016

The JW Organization, Armageddon, 1914, and Russell (moved)

Moved to:

https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/2023/08/jw-arm.html

Russell and the Alleged Occult Connection

I have been asked to look at what Doug Shields presented regarding Charles Taze Russell and the occult. In doing so, we have decided to respond here.
Shields begins by talking about Sir Isaac Newton. Shields claims that Newton was "under the delusion that he was one of the few men given the ability to interpret the bible and related prophecy, specifically biblical chronology." No reference is given. Newton did write a lot about the Bible; we don't know, however, that he actually ever presented himself in the manner described by Shields. If he did, it would seem that he would have published his writings on the Bible so as to get the message out, but he never did.
Shields states that there is "a striking similarity" between Newton and Russell, so much so he says that certain people think that Russell studied Newton's writings and lifted Newton's ideas and presented them as his own. In reality, we highly doubt that Russell ever studied much of Newton's religious writings, most of which had not even been published. Russell mentions Newton a few times, so we are at least aware that Newton thought the disputed clause in 1 John 5:7 is spurious. On the other hand, Russell was more influenced by later writers which he wrote about, some of whom he actually studied with, such as Henry Dunn, George Storrs, Henry Grew, George Stetson, and Nelson Barbour.
Like many others, Shields presents Charles Taze Russell as being the "founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses". As we have shown many times, Russell did not believe in such an organization as the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, nor did he believe the Armageddon teachings of that organization. He was certainly not the founder of that which he preached against.
Shields asks his readers if they know that Newton was a member of the Rosicrucians. We know that many have claimed that he was a member of the Rosicrucians. He evidently did have friends who were members of the Rosicrucians that existed in his day; we cannot say that he either was or was not a member of the Rosicrucians. Newton certainly did not seem to agree with much that the Rosicrucians believe, such as the Rosicrucian trinity, who Jesus is, or the immortality and transmigration of the soul.
Some Rosicrucians claim that Newton was a Rosicrucian, but they also make the same claim that Plato, Jesus and many others were Rosicrucian. The claim that Newton was a member of Rosicrucian order of his day appears to be partly based on some of his writings that appear to be alchemist in nature. Additionally, it was stated that when he died, he left over 160 books in his library on alchemy. We present below a quote from a book presented by the Wikimedia Foundation entitled: Sir Isaac Newton - His Life and Inluence
Newton's ownership of these materials [books on alchemy] by no means denotes membership within the early Rosicrucian order. Furthermore, considering that his personal alchemical investigations were focused upon discovering materials which the Rosicrucians professed to already be in possession of long before he was born, would seem to exclude Newton from their membership. During his own life, Newton was openly accused of being a Rosicrucian, as were many members of The Royal Society. Though it is not know for sure if Isaac Newton was in fact a Rosicrucian, and he never publicly identified himself as one, from his writings it does appear that he may have shared many of their sentiments and beliefs.
The Sun of Righteousness Illustration
At any rate, Shields next states that "they [evidently referring to the Rosicrucians] put a lot of stock into Egyptian gods (check the winged globe on the cover of any copy of Studies In The Scriptures and you’ll be looking at an image of the sun god Ra)." Actually, if you look on the cover of Brother Russell's Studies in the Scriptures, you'll be looking at an illustration of the "sun of righteousness" as found in the Bible at Malachi 4:2. The sun of righteousness symbolism that Malachi presented is in contrast with the present sun of vanity and unrighteousness. (Genesis 3:18,19; Ecclesiastes 1:14; 3:16; Romans 8:20,21,22) Fritz Springmeier insinuates that the words of Yahweh recorded by Malachi 4:2 was influenced by Malachi's contact with pagans. Russell, however, certainly did not believe in any of the Egyptians gods.
We read concerning Egypt: "Yahweh has mixed a spirit of perverseness in the midst of her; and they have caused Egypt to go astray in every work of it, as a drunken man staggers in his vomit." (Isaiah 19:14) Thus, it is no wonder that Egypt would pervert God's symbolism for the purposes of idolatry. They did it with the sun, moon, stars, trees, and many of the animals that God created. Their perversion of God's work does not make God's work itself perverted.
Shields insinutates a connection between Russell and the Rosicrucians since some Rosicrucain authors quote Piazzi Smyth. Yes, Nelson Barbour made use of the Smyth's measurements of the Great Pyramid, and quoted from Smyth, and so did Charles Taze Russell. So far, the greatest thing objectionable we have found regarding the works of Piazzi Smyth was his belief in the Anglo-Israelite theory, a theory that Russell did not accept. At any rate, Shields presents how the Roscricucians quote Smyth and Shields evidently wants his readers to imagine dots connecting Russell with the Rosicrucians since he also quoted Smyth.
Shields then presents a picture of Piazzi Smyth's grave and a picture that he mistakenly purports to be "the gravestone of Charles Taze Russell." We have not found much concerning the pyramid constructed over Piazzi Smyth's grave; evidently, his wife had it constructed. Smyth was convinced that the Great Pyramid is the "witness" that God said he had put in Egypt. (Isaiah 19:19,20) We share this belief with Smyth, as the evidence is overwhelming that the Great Pyramid was indeed constructed under the direction of Yahweh.
The picture that Shields presents as the "gravestone of Charles Taze Russell" is actually a pyramid monument that Joseph Rutherford authorized to be constructed several years after Russell died. It was constructed to honor God's Witness in Egypt; it is not Russell's "gravestone". It was intended to be a memorial especially to various ones associated with the Watch Tower Society, and there are many blank spaces left for many names to be inscribed on that replica of God's witness in Egypt. Within just a few years, however, Rutherford did a total turnabout when he claimed that Satan had the Great Pyramid constructed in Egypt. The manner in which he did this, however, would have meant that Satan knew a lot about the Bible before the Bible was written. Nevertheless, due to Rutherford's change concerning the Great Pyramid, the spaces on the replica remained blank.
Except perhaps for the extravagant use of funds, however, we find nothing wrong about that replica of God's Witness in Egypt, nor do we find anything wrong with the pyramid that was built on Smyth's grave.
Shields states: "I can understand his mistakes in thinking the pyramid was a mystical symbol and communication from God. I get that!" By the way that this is worded, we highly doubt that Shields does "get" the meaning of God's witness in Egypt. So far we are not sure what Shields means by the pyramid as being "mystical symbol" as this would relate to Brother Russell's writings; as far as we have been able to determine, Russell never spoke of the Great Pyramid as a "mystical symbol" nor did he view the Great Pyramid as a means to gain any kind of special "communication with God" other than corroboration of the Bible.
Shields further states: "What I don’t get is the significance of having this by his grave! What possible reason would he have unless he thought (as well as the Watchtower leadership) that this would give him some advantage in the 'afterlife'." We do not know that Russell ever actually approved that this monument should be constructed. Rutherford and his associates indicated that Russell did approve of that monument. Regardless, its purpose is to honor God's witness in Egypt; it was not constructed to give Russell or anyone else "some advantage in the 'afterlife'. Nevertheless, the manner in which Shields makes his statements appear to be an attempt to leave the reader with the thought that Brother Russell was connected to some form of heathen occultism.
Shields wonders why Piazzi Smyth's and "Russell’s pyramid" are so similar, and he wonders why Russell was was so interested in Smyth's work. Our response is that both pyramids are replicas of the same witness in Egypt; why should they not be similar? It should be obvious as to why Russell was interested in Smyth's work, since they both shared similar views concerning God's witness in Egypt. Of course, Shields' purpose in asking these questions appear to be based on some kind of idea that, since the Rosicrucians have some teachings regarding the Great Pyramid, that anyone who believes that the Great Pyramid as God's witness in Egypt must have something with heathen occultism, etc., and his imagination is that there is a link between the Rosicrucians and Russell because both made references to the Great Pyramid.
Then Shields asks why would Newton have a similar pyramid over his grave? Isaac Newton also realized that the Great Pyramid is God's witness in Egypt, so why would it be strange for there to a pyramid over his grave? As far as I can tell, Newton's interest, like Russell's, in the Great Pyramid, was strictly Biblical and Scientific, and had nothing to do with practicing any heathen occultism.
Shields states: "The Rosicrucians as well as Piazzi, Newton and Russell all thought that the great pyramid was a key to understanding the hidden code of prophecy in certain books of the bible." I am not certain about the Rosicrucians; Russell never mentions any "hidden code" -- period. He does refer to the mysteries, secrets, of the Bible that are revealed only to the saints. He also refers to the "secrets" of the Great Pyramid, which may understood through the holy spirit in light of the Bible. As far as Newton and Smyth, we would have to see where they speak of any such "hidden code" in the Bible, and see what exactly is being referred to, if they indeed ever do mention any such hidden code. Shields' effort, however, is evidently to continue draw an imaginaray parallel between what the Rosicrucians taught and what Newton, Smyth and and Russell believed. We know Newton rejected many of the teachings of the Rosicrucians, and most definitely we know that Russell rejected the teachings of the Rosicrucians. Of course, the Rosicrucians claim to be Christian, thus there may some parallels between them and anyone else who professes to be Christian. Brother Russell, rather briefly in book, Thy Kingdom Come, demonstrated the following:
The Great Pyramid, however, proves to be a storehouse of important truth--scientific, historic and prophetic--and its testimony is found to be in perfect accord with the Bible, expressing the prominent features of its truths in beautiful and fitting symbols. It is by no means an addition to the written revelation: that revelation is complete and perfect, and needs no addition. But it is a strong corroborative witness to God's plan; and few students can carefully examine it, marking the harmony of its testimony with that of the written Word, without feeling impressed that its construction was planned and directed by the same divine wisdom, and that it is the pillar of witness referred to by the prophet in the above quotation. -- Thy Kingdom Come, pages 314,315.
An extensive demonstration of the testimony of God's Witness in Egypt was given by the Edgar brothers, John and Morton.
Russell did not view the Great Pyramid as "key" to understanding Bible prophecy; he did view the Great Pyramid to be corroborative of the Bible, including its prophecies.
Shields claims that Russell was an "avid student of Pyramidology." This may be misleading, since the word pyramidology, as it used today, often refers to things that Russell did not believe in. Russell never spoke of pyramidology, and probably would never have thought himself as a "pyramidologist." Nevertheless, the early usage of the word "pyramidology" simply refers to the study of the Great Pyramid as God's witness in Egypt. It has nothing at all to do with heathen occultism, practice of astrology, spiritism, pyramid power, etc.
Shields claims that Russell "sought to validate his predicted dates of the end times by using the Great Pyramid as a 'proof'." The Great Pyramid does indeed corroborate the time features that can be seen from the Bible, and that is what Russell presented. Nothing wrong with that. However, Russell never wrote anything about "end times". He did write about the time of the end, which he believed had begun in 1799.
Shields evidently finds fault with Russell's reference to the Great Pyramid as God's Stone Witness". Since it is made of stone, and since the evidence is overwhelming that it is God's witness in Egypt, as spoken of in the Bible, yes, it is God's Stone Witness in Egypt.
Shields cites the alleged the similarities "of belief, writings, as well as the references to Smyth’s work by both the Rosicrucians and Charles Taze Russell" and indication of a "hidden relationship" with the Rosicrucians. By this same, method, since Rosicrucians quote a lot from the Bible, and since all professed Christian churches quote a lot from the Bible, then, consistent with the reasoning given, anyone who professes Christianity must have some ties to the Rosicrucians, for certainly it could not be a coincidence that they would both quote from the same book. (We say this only to show that this method of reasoning is actually unreasonable.) In reality, the writings and teachings, especially of both Newton and Russell, show a great difference in belief from what the Rosicrucians teach.
Shields proclaims that The Watchtower certainly acts like a mystical order. In reference to The Watchtower of today, on this to some extent we agree. Russell's Watch Tower, however, never advocated -- and even spoke against -- such a hierarchy as now exists amonst the JWs. Russell did not believe in any body of men one earth who should serve as a "governing body", nor did he claim such authority for himself. Indeed, he disclaimed any such authority. He never said anything to the effect that one must accept his conclusions concerning chronology, time prophecies, or the great pyramid in order to be Christian, and certainly he never claimed that one had to become associated with the International Bible Students Association or else be eternally destroyed in Armageddon.
Shields again creates an imagined connection between a drawing presented as being a drawing of Rosicrucian temple and the cover of Russell's Watch Tower magazine. He seems think the tetragrammton is a "old" Hebrew word for "God". It is not; it is the eternal Holy Name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob never told anyone to change His eternal Holy Name to something else. -- Exodus 3:14,15; Deuteronomy 18:15-19.
Shields states that there is a winged globe around the Holy Name at the top of the Rosicrucian picture. This would not fit what Russell taught, for this would imply that Yahweh himself is "sun of rightoeusness". Russell did not believe such. Nevertheless, again, the Rosicrucians, professing to be Christian, may have some similarities with what any Christian group may present; such similarities do not mean that we should supply an imaginary connection between them.
Contrary to Shields' conclusion that what he has presented is "overwhelming evidence of a hidden collaboration", those who are truly familiar with what Russell taught, if they should read very much of the teachings of the Rosicrucians, would note, not an overwhelming agreement with them, but an overwhelming disagreement with them. In reality, all Shields provides for "evidence" is what is being imagined and assumed.

Was Russell Expecting History to End in 1914, 1918 or 1925? (moved0

Friday, November 18, 2016

Cross and Crown References

This page presents some links to the works of Charles Taze Russell which demonstrate his usage of the cross and crown symbolism. We have included excerpts for many of the links. To read the entire articles, click on the title of the articles provided. We do not necessarily agree with all of the conclusions presented.

The cross represents our faith in the death of Christ and our desire to walk in His steps; the crown represents the reward of glory, honor and immortality; and the wreath around the cross and crown represents the Restitution blessings coming to the world of mankind.
The above statement is most succinct in revealing exactly what the cross and crown meant to Brother Russell. All of this is in harmony with the Bible, and very directly shows that this was used as an illustration of what appears in the Bible itself. -- Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:6-9; Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23; Acts 3:21; Romans 3:20-22; 5:6,8,10; 1 Corinthians 15:3,21,22; Galatians 2:16; Philippians 2:8; 3:9; 2 Timothy 4:8; James 1:12; 1 Peter 5:4; Revelation 2:10.

Self-Denial and Cross-Bearing Conditions
Cross-bearing is closely related to self-denial, and yet a distinction between them may be noted....  We exhort,... [that] they may learn the full meaning of self-consecration and immolation which our Lord's words signify: and that they be not content with the wearing of a cross as an ornament, but grasp fully and clearly the purport of the Master's words respecting the true cross-bearing, that in due time they may also attain to the crown-bearing promised as a reward to the faithful.
Brother Russell in the article linked to shows that he connects the cross with the Christian's bearing sufferings and reproach for Christ so that he may attain the crown, evidently referring to joint-heirship with Christ. Very few of those called will attain that prize.

Our point here is, however, that this usage of the cross and crown symbolism is simply Biblical; it symbolizes suffering with Christ if one wishes to receive the crown of joint-heirship with Christ. Such usage is not related to the Knights Templar and definitely offers no reason to imagine and assume that Russell's usage of the cross and crown has to mean that he was a member of an organization (Knights Templar) that teach almost the opposite doctrine from what Brother Russell presented. Many may not realize that in order to be a member of the Knights Templar, one has to accept the traditional trinitarian creeds. The message that Russell spent nearly his entire life preaching and defending is definitely not in harmony with those creeds.

Brother Russell's usage of the Biblical cross and crown illustration definitely has nothing at all to do with promoting heathen occultism, mysticism, spiritism, etc.

Excerpt: WAS there ever a nobler soldier of the Cross than St. Paul – the Redeemer alone excepted? ... St. Paul, copying his Master, laid down his life for Jew and Gentile, bond and free, male and female, to assist in gathering the "elect" to be the Bride of Christ – that ultimately through the glorified King and his glorified Bride, all the families of the earth may receive the blessing which God waits to give to "all the families of the earth, through Abraham's Seed." – Galatian 3:29.
We should note that the Bible does not speak of being a soldier of the cross, but it does speak of being a soldier for Jesus.  -- 2 Timothy 2:3. 

Nevertheless, again, in this article, the use of the cross symbolism has nothing to do with heathenism, nor is the symbolism taken from the Freemasons or Knights Templar, but rather it is Biblical, being used as a symbol of service to God and Jesus. 

Christ Within (poem)
O WHAT, if we are Christ's,
Is earthly shame or loss?
Bright shall the crown of glory be
When we have borne the cross.
Brother Russell had this poem put in the book Poems of the Millennial Dawn, and it was also published in the pages of the Watch Tower. Evidently, he believed this to be a good use of the Biblical symbolism of the cross and crown. We do not know who wrote this poem, but it is obviously written only with the idea of bearing the suffering for Christ and finally receiving the reward of the crown, which is what the cross and crown symbolism represents.

The poem, however, shows the scriptural meaning behind that cross (bearing our cross) with the hope of obtaining the crown of glory. Again, this has nothing at all to do with the Knights Templar, except that they might have made use of similar Biblical symbolism. There usage of the Biblical cross and crown, however, offers no reason to imagine and assume that the usage of that symbolism by anyone else must mean usage of a "Knights Templar" symbol. It certainly doesn't offer reason to imagine and assume that such usage of a Biblical cross and crown means that we need to imagine and assume that anyone who makes use of such a Biblical illustration must be a member of the Knights Templar.

No Cross, No Crown (Poem)
Thou canst not hope to wear the Crown,
If thou refuse the Cross!"
The poem linked to above was written by Gertrude Woodcock Siebert.. Again, however, we find no hint in any of her poems that she used the cross and crown in any other setting than that of Biblical symbolism.

It should be obvious, however, that Brother Russell allowed this to be published in the Watch Tower, because he felt it expressed the Biblical usage of the cross and crown, not because of any similar usage by the Knights Templar.

St. Paul's Last Words
Excerpt: The crown mentioned, the Apostle had seen for many years with the eye of his faith as a part of the Lord's promise.... That crown had been his cause of rejoicing for many years, not because of pride or ambition, but because of love and benevolence. He would love to receive that crown because it would be the mark of Divine appreciation and love for him; and a mark of his faithfulness.

Again, in the article linked to, we find that the cross and symbolism is simply shown to be Biblical. Paul certainly provides an example of bearing one's cross in order to receive the crown of becoming joint-heirs with Christ. 

The New Creature's Resurrection Begun
Except: Some of us wear what is known as a Cross and Crown Pin. The cross represents our faith in the death of Christ and our desire to walk in His steps; the crown represents the reward of glory, honor and immortality; and the wreath around the cross and crown represents the Restitution blessings coming to the world of mankind.  -- Harvest Gleanings, Vol. 3, page 721.

Comments: These few words directly refer to the Biblical cross and crown symbolism, and Brother Russell gives a clear statement as to what this symbolism means, all of which is in harmony with the Bible. Nothing in it is referring to any Masonic rituals, the Knights Templar, nor any form of Satanism, heathenism, etc. 

The Refiner's Fire (Poem)
Excerpt: 

Ah, no! but He saw thro' the present cross
The bliss of eternal gain.

Indirectly, this poem also illustrates the Biblical usage of the cross and crown.

The Word Was Made Flesh  

When Crown is Ours

====================
The above is only a small sampling of articles and other material in Brother Russell's publications that in some way show Brother Russell's usage of the Biblical cross and crown.  Anyone truly familiar with the work of Brother Russell would know that it is simply nonsensical to think that Brother Russell made use of the Biblical cross and crown symbol because of any supposed ties with the Freemasons or the Knight Templar. From the above and many other statements in the publications of Brother Russell, it should be obvious that his usage of the cross and crown symbolism is strictly Biblical. We cannot produce all his references to the Biblical cross or crown, but the above is a small sample. Nevertheless, his usage of these Biblical symbols has nothing to do with any kind of heathen or spiritistic occultism; nor does such usage come from the Knights Templar, as many like to claim.

Other Research:

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Did Russell Change the End of the Gentile Times to 1915?

By Ronald R. Day, Sr. (needs to be edited)
Russell wrote an article which was published in The Watch Tower of December 1912, entitled, "The Ending of the Gentile Times". In that article Russell discussed the idea that some of the Bible Students had that the Gentile Times were to end in 1915, not 1914; Russell presented the arguments used for this conclusion. Some quote portions of this article as proof that Russell had changed the ending of the Gentiles from 1914 to 1915. Actually, Russell had discussed this theory long before 1912; it was not something new in 1912. Although he presented this theory, and he allowed for the possibility that this theory could be right, he never adopted this theory as being correct. We know that he continued to believe that the Gentile Times were to end in 1914.
First, we should note that Brother Russell discussed 1915 from at least three different standpoints:
1) That the Jewish year 1915 began in October of 1914. Thus, throughout writings before 1914, one can find references to the Gentile Times ending in 1915, but he explained this as meaning the beginning of  the Jewish year 1915, which was actually October of 1914.
2) The second way Russell sometimes referred to 1915 was related to the view that some held to that the time of trouble begins in October of 1914 and that it last for one year, that is, from October of 1914 to 1915. Russell discussed this view several times, but he never actually condoned it. His statement regarding this view in 1904 was:
We find that some have concluded that because anarchy destroyed the Jewish nation in the one year following their "harvest," therefore we should expect that the one year, from October 1914 to October 1915, following the Gospel age "harvest," would measure the period of universal anarchy coming. We cannot agree to this conclusion, because the type or parallel goes no further than the end of the forty years' "harvest" in both cases -- October 69, where the year A.D. 70 began, and October 1914, where the year 1915 A.D. will begin (Jewish reckoning). The anarchy period lies entirely outside of any dates or reckonings furnished us. It may be one year or more. -- The Watch Tower, August 1, 1904, page 230.
3) The third way was related to the view that some of the Bible Students held that the Gentile Times would end in October of 1915, not October of 1914. This is the view that Russell was discussing in the article quoted from The Watch Tower of December 1912.
However, it is often claimed by many that because of the alleged failure of 1914, Russell changed the ending of the Gentile Times to 1915. Did Russell, after 1914, change the ending of Gentile Times to 1915, as some have claimed (often misusing some quotes taken from the Scripture Studies and claiming that the changes were made due to an alleged failure of 1914)? We have discussed this matter in some earlier research related to Russell's "changes" in the Studies in the Scriptures.
What we are presenting here are quotes from Russell that prove that he had not changed 1914 to 1915. He continued to regard 1914 as being the end of the Gentile Times until he died in 1916.
Quotes taken from the pages of the Watch Tower:
Watch Tower, February 15, 1915, page 53:
For a wise purpose He permits this reign of lawlessness, this condition which evokes universal odium. Our thought is that we should look for still further evidences day by day that the Gentile Times have ended, and that God's Kingdom has begun its work.
Watch Tower, February 15, 1915, page 53:
We believe that the Times of the Gentiles ended just on time, as shown in Volume II. of STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES.
Watch Tower, February 15, 1915, page 55:
The Times of the Gentiles have ended, and the nations are now disintegrating.
Russell certainly believed, in February of 1915, that the Gentile Times had already ended. He had not changed the date to October of 1915. Russell, however, by his various statements from 1911 to 1916, seemed to be unaware of the changes that had appeared in the 1911 editions of his STUDIES. This provides evidence that he was never aware that the dates had been changed in the 1911 editions of his books.
Watch Tower April 15, 1915, page 127:
We believe that the dates have proven to be quite right. We believe that Gentile Times have ended, and that God is now allowing the Gentile Governments to destroy themselves, in order to prepare the way for Messiah's Kingdom.
Rather than saying that 1914 was the wrong date, Russell states that he still believed that the dates had proven to be quite correct. Thus, in April of 1915, Russell had not changed the date 1914 to 1915.
Watch Tower June 1, 1915, page 166:
We do not think that the Gospel Age fully ended in September 1914, but merely the Times of the Gentiles.
Again, this shows that in June of 1915, Russell still believed that the Gentile Times had already ended in 1914; he was not looking for them to end in October of 1915.
Watch Tower, July 15, 1915, page 215:
As we leave here today, we do so with the thought that we may meet again as a Convention, or perhaps we may not meet again. It is not for you or for me to be dictatorial. The Bible indicates that the Gentile Times have ended. Their kings have had their day.
The above was taken from a discourse that Russell gave in Oakland in June of 1915. It shows that in June of 1915 he was still holding to the belief that the Gentile Times had already ended. It also shows that he had not set forth any date for the time of trouble to end.
Watch Tower September 1, 1915, page 286:
Many Bible students are thoroughly convinced that the 2520 years from Zedekiah's day to October, 1914, ended there-that that date marked the end of God's lease of world power to the Gentile nations.
In September of 1915 Russell was still pointing to 1914 as the end of the Gentiles; he did not mention any expectation that they were to end a month later.
Watch Tower January 1, 1916, page 4
We have seen, too, that when Elijah's time for translation came, he was sent from Gilgal to Bethel, from Bethel to Jericho and from Jericho to Jordan; and that these different points were measurably disappointing; yet that Elijah and Elisha were not discouraged, but went on-Jordan representing the end of the Times of the Gentiles, 1915.
Here Russell does refer to the end of the Time of the Gentiles as being 1915. Does this mean that he had changed his view, and that he was saying that the Gentile Times had not ended in 1914? No, because his usage of 1915 is the same as found in the very first editions of his STUDIES, as referring to the Jewish year corresponding to 1915 as beginning in October of 1914. See the first edition of The Time Is At Hand (1889) page 232, where he spoke of A.D. 1915 as "the closing of the Gentile Times." The chronology that Russell used was "whole years" or "full years" running from October to October, thus the end of 1914 A.D. in October would be the beginning of 1915 A.D. Indeed, he often referred to the Gentile Times as ending in 1915 as meaning the beginning of the Jewish year in October of 1914.
Watch Tower February 1, 1916, page 38.
Did the Times of the Gentiles end by October 1st, 1914? It certainly looks very much as if they did.
Russell, in February 1916, was still holding to the belief that the Gentile Times had ended in October of 1914. He had not changed 1914 to 1915.
Watch Tower September 1, 1916, page 264.
It still seems clear to us that the prophetic period known as the Times of the Gentiles ended chronologically in October, 1914.
In September of 1916, just before his death, he was still holding to the belief that the Gentile Times had ended in 1914. He still had not changed it to 1915.
Just before his death, Brother Russell presented new Author Forewards for the Studies in the Scriptures. Surely, if he had changed the ending of the Gentile Times to 1915, he would have stated such in those forewards. But what did he state?
In the Author's Foreward of "The Time is At Hand", he made no mention of 1915, but he did state:
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.
The above reflects bascially the same view he had held from 1904, that the Armageddon struggle was to begin in 1914 when the Gentile Times end. We believe that the Armageddon struggle did begin in 1914, and that it still continues to this day.
Some claim that he changed 1914 to 1915 a few years before 1914; is this true? What is the evidence from what Russell said in the years before 1914? Evidence that Russell, from 1911 to 1914, was still teaching that the Gentile Times would end in 1914" from the pages of the Watch Tower:
May 15, 1911, page 156:
Our readers know that for some years we have been expecting this Age to close with an awful time of trouble, and we expect it to break out with suddenness and force not long after October, 1914, which, so far as we can understand the Scriptures, is the date at which the Times of the Gentiles -- the lease of earth's dominions to the Gentiles -- will expire.
August 1, 1911, page 238:
In other words, during the same period that Israel would be having "seven times" of tribulation and subjection, the Gentiles would be having "seven times" of prosperity, and both will terminate at the same time -- in 2,520 years from B.C. 606 -- October, A.D. 1914, the close of the Gentile Times.
July 1, 1912, page 223:
Many know our expectations respecting October, 1914 -- that thereabouts the Time of Trouble will gain full headway and sweep the social structure as a besom of destruction.
October 15, 1912, page 327:
We fully believe that the year 1914 will see the end of the Gentile Times, for we cannot find even one flaw in our Bible chronology.
January 15, 1913, page 27:
We fully believe, however, that it will be filled before the close of "the Times of the Gentiles," which we think will end with October, 1914.
June 1, 1913, page 167:
We understand that the Gentile Times will close in October 1914.
November 15, 1913, page 342:
We do not see where any mistake has been made in calculating the Seven Times of the Gentiles as expiring about October 1, 1914.
January 1, 1914, page 3:
The Year 1914 is the last one of what the Bible terms "Gentile Times" -- the period in which God has allowed the nations of the earth to do their best to rule the world.
November 1, 1914, page 327:
This leads us to expect that the remaining prophetic periods will have a similar fulfilment, and that September 20 of this year, 1914, probably marked the end of the Gentile Times.
We are given the following quote, evidently with the thought that in some unexplained way this proves that Russell had changed 1914 to 1915 some time before 1914:
We remind the readers, however, that nothing in the Scriptures says definitely that the trouble upon the Gentiles will be accomplished before the close of the Times of the Gentiles, whether that be October, 1914, or October, 1915. -- Watch Tower, December 1, 1912, pp. 377.
This quote actually corroborates what we have said elsewhere, and is in harmony with Russell's change of view of 1904, that is, that the time of trouble was to begin, not end, when times of the Gentiles end. However, this is one of the places that Brother Russell acknowledges the theory of some who believed that the Gentile Times would end in October of 1915 rather than October of 1914. It is quoted from the same article referenced before, that "The Ending of the Gentile Times".
This article is online at:
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/reprints/Z1912DEC.asp#Z377:1
As best as we can determine, Russell first presented this idea in 1904, in the sermon entitled, "Times of the Gentiles Nearly Run Out." This sermon was given before Russell had changed his viewpoint concerning the "time of trouble" (which change of view was presented a few months later, in the July 1, 1904, issue of the Watch Tower), and thus it does not reflect that change of viewpoint. In that sermon he, evidently laying aside his usual reasoning of "whole years", reasoned that 606 would really be 605 1/4 years BC and that 2520 years later 1914 3/4 years later which would be October of 1915. This was the argument that some Bible Students were using, evidently with the claim that 606 BC to 1914 AD would have to add a year "zero" between BC 1 to AD 1 to make it 2520 years. Their argument, however, disregarded the fact that the chronology used was desginated in whole years from October to October, thus, from the beginning of 606 BC to the end of 1914 AD and the beginning of 1915 AD would be 2520 whole years
Actually as P. S. L. Johnson pointed out in a letter to Russell in 1916 just before Russell died, the whole year chronology that Russell had been using (which had been adopted from Barbour) would make the October beginning of 606 to be 606 1/4 years BC (actually 607 BC); 2520 years later would be 1913 3/4 years AD, with is actually October of 1914. Russell died before he had chance to respond to Johnson's letter. That letter is found in Appendix Note 1 of the LHMM edition of "The Time Is At Hand", beginning on page 367.
See this sermon "Times of the Gentiles Nearly Run Out" online at:
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/newspaper_sermons/NS01.asp#NS24:2
Did Russell, by his sermon in 1904, change the date 1914 to 1915? Evidently, he was simply offering that as a suggestion, not that he was changing the date of the end of the Gentile Times to 1915. This can be seen in his many statements regarding 1914 between the years of 1904 up to an including 1914, including the article in which he announced his change of viewpoint concerning the "time of trouble" as beginning, not ending, in 1914, in the July 1, 1904 issue of the Watch Tower.
In November of 1904, Russell quote a newspaper article, and wrote as related to that article, wherein Russell shows that he had NOT CHANGED the ending of the Gentile Times to 1915:
It so closely coincides with our expectations, based on the divine Word -- regarding the ending of "Gentile Times" in October, 1914, when will follow the "time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation;" -- the anarchous period which will in divine providence be followed by the Kingdom rule of everlasting righteousness." -- Watch Tower, November 1, 1904, page 324.
In October 1904, Brother Russell wrote in response to a letter regarding the article that had appeared in the June 1, 1904 issue of the Watch Tower, in which he again plainly shows that he HAD NOT changed the ending of the Gentile Times to 1915:
The brother errs in supposing that we have changed our view of "Gentile Times." Those "times" or years are 2520, with a definite beginning in B.C. 606, and a definite ending, A.D. 1914. We know of no reason for changing a figure: to do so would spoil the harmonies and parallels so conspicuous between the Jewish and Gospel ages. -- Watch Tower, October 1, 1904, page 296.
This shows that he had not, by his earlier statements in his sermon, meant that to be viewed as changing 1914 to 1915.
In 1906, Russell further showed that he had not changed in the ending of the Gentile Times to 1915:
Thus, in their due time, matters are shaping around for the termination of Gentile rule in anarchy by the appointed time -- by October, 1914, when their lease or permit will expire. -- Watch Tower, December 1, 1906, page 371.
In 1909, Russell, in response to a question put before, definitely states that he had not changed his view that the Gentile Times would end in 1915 rather than 1914:
QUESTION (1909)--5--If the "Times of the Gentiles" began in October, 606 B.C., will they not end in October, 1915, instead of October, 1914? [Q76]
ANSWER.--We think not. If the brother or sister who wrote the question will go over the chronology, they will find that these Times will end in October, 1914. You should remember that in figuring chronology you count backward from A.D. for the 606, and forward from A.D. for the 1914.-- What Pastor Russell Said, pages 75,76.
This shows that Brother Russell had not, in 1909, replaced 1914 with 1915. Russell's answer above, however, assumes whole years counted from October to October and does not add any "year zero" between BC 1 and AD 1.
One can find many more quotes between 1904 up to 1912 in which Russell continues to speak of the Gentile Times as ending in October of 1914, thus he, himself, had not meant his statement in 1904 to be viewed as changing when the Gentile Times were to end.
Thus, the overwhelming evidence (despite some changes found in the 1911 editions) is that from 1904 on up to his death in October of 1916, Russell never changed the ending of the Gentile Times to 1915, although he did acknowledge a few times that those who held this view could be right.
Please note that in none of Russell's statements was Russell claiming to be a prophet, or as having authority over the church, etc. He did not demand that everyone had to agree with his conclusions as does the JW leadership.

Other Research Related to the Idea that Russell Changed 1914 to 1915:

For quotes regarding the time of trouble beginning -- not ending -- in 1914, see:
Beginning of the Time of Trouble – Quotes From Russell
The JW Organization, Armageddon, 1914, and Russell -- Discusses some of the "changes" found in the 1912 edition of the Studies in the Scriptures.
Russell’s Changes to the Scripture Studies -- Discusses general changes known to be authorized by Russell as well as some changes that he may not have authorized.
==============
Originally published May 31, 2014; updated and republished June 13, 2014; June 15, 2014.