Order Free Book – Charles Taze Russell is not the Founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses


Quoting form author Kenneth Rawson, in his book, Pastor Russell the Founder of the Bible Students, not the Jehovah’s Witnesses (2nd Edition), we read the following:

With all the Internet exchange of information, Jehovah’s Witnesses are beginning to realize that the image of Judge Rutherford is a liability and they are out to minimize his stature and fictionalize a relationship between Pastor Russell and Jehovah’s Witnesses that never existed.

Additionally, there are thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses and ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses who are dissatisfied with the current operation of the Watch Tower and the history of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Unfortunately, many have become mentally depressed.

Both my parents were Bible Students before Judge Rutherford gained control of the Watch Tower.  From a young age I have vivid memories of discussions my parents had with other Bible Students from Pastor Russell’s day concerning the takeover of the Watch Tower by Judge Rutherford and the direction he pursued.

 Also, my situation in the Bible Student movement during the 1940s through the 1960s enabled me to have discussions with more close associates of Pastor Russell than other Bible Students. This history has been invaluable to me.

 I learned from these associates of Pastor Russell that in 1926 Judge Rutherford discarded the basic Scriptural teaching of character development. Galatians 5:18-25 and 2 Peter 1:4-11.  He said we are characters and can’t change.  They felt this was to justify some of his questionable actions.  Actually, this was the beginning of the end of many Bible Students’ relationship to the Watch Tower. Why?

 Pastor Russell’s Bible Students cherished the teaching of character development.  They believed that the 144,000 were to share with Jesus in the Kingdom, as sympathetic priests (1 Peter 2:9) who would nurture, develop in love and judge the world of mankind.  To qualify for this work they must now develop the character likeness of the Heavenly Father.  2 Corinthians 3:18.

The writer published some of this material in the 1950s, 1970s and most of it in the 1990s, but the need is now greater than ever.  The information goes forth with the prayer that by our Heavenly Father’s grace it will give Scriptural direction to those who love Jehovah.

To read more, click on this link:  C.T. Russell Not Founder of JWs

235 comments to Order Free Book – Charles Taze Russell is not the Founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses

  • Domenic Pappalardo

    Anonymous, you asked:

    May 5, 2014 at 8:05 am · Reply
    “Are these the original writings? And if yes when do they date to?”

    I don’t have a clue. I have no way of testing, or dating them.
    This I can do; I can look at this earth, things on it, and things around it…None of this came into its own without an Intelligent power. To me simple things are proof enough. I believe in the world flood, not for what man says, but from what man has found. Did you know several whales have been found in the layers of earth. Science makes the claim each layer shows thousands, even millions of years of earths history. Yet they can not explain why these whales are standing vertical through many layers.
    Do I believe the bible is Gods written word? Yes. Did the early Christians have a Bible? No. Did the early Christians believe in God (YHWH) because they needed one? Maybe, I have no idea. Why do I believe in YHWH? Many reasons…even the smallest of reasons…the Atom. All we see in the universe is made from this tiny marvel. Man can split it, but man can not create one single Atom. If YHWH was not real, and thrown into a void…I would jump into the void with him…because without him, nothing is real, and nothing would have a reason to exist.

  • Anonymous

    Are these the original writings? And if yes when do they date to?

  • Domenic Pappalardo

    Jacqueline, You are correct, the scriptures say the event took place in a tent…on dry land. But it does say it took place. The Noah things was an example of how scriptures are not taken apart. If you wish to believe nothing in the Bible has been changed…you are also free to make your stand on that position.

    • C F Maly

      Domenic, I have found your posts interesting and insightful. You seem to have made up your mind on certain subjects. As for the Scriptures (our Holy Bible) having been changed, I believe as we find older copies of our scriptures they must be looked at. What has been found that is not included in our Bible has been omitted for a reason known only by our Lord. Some may have truth but if there is even a small bit of falsity contained within them they are not to be considered because we do not know what part is false. I do believe the different translations of our Bible have been swayed by doctrinal beliefs. Understanding the original language they were written in is very important. I may not believe all that you have put forth here in your posts due to my understanding of our Scriptures but I do find your ideas interesting and do enjoy hearing them. Take care and keep the ideas flowing.

      • Domenic Pappalardo

        Thank you C F Maly.

        It is not hard to spot something out of place. It is not hard to spot something who’s color is different from that around it. Many things are easy to spot…with the exception of the bible.
        Many will not challenge a scripture for fear of what others may say. Some will avoid Bible issues for fear they may displease God…others are just lazy, and let others do the learning for them. Here is what our God says;

        1 John 4:1 “Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see if they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.”

        This is not a request from our Father, it is a command. God did not say this just to hear himself talk. He would not have given this command if he knew nothing in his written word would be changes, or left out.

        Which brings up a question: “Have you tested what I have posted, or just pass it off with a yes, or no.? We are commanded to test what we believe, not just those things we doubt.

  • Domenic Pappalardo

    We can not take scriptures as what they say without backing them with other scriptures: Here is an example of what I have been trying to show on other post: In Genesis 9. Ham saw his fathers (Noah) nakedness. many would take this as meaning, Noah was naked, and his son Ham saw him naked. A simple scripture, or is it?
    Here are three scriptures which tell a different story:
    Leviticus 18:8
    Leviticus 20:11
    Leviticus 20:20-21

    These three scriptures explain Noah’s nakedness in Genesis 9.
    Ham, Noah’s son, had intercourse with his mother (Noah’s wife.)
    This event took place on the ark as it floated on the waters.
    After the flood Noah lived for 400 more years, but had no more children. It would appear Noah was very upset with his wife, and son.
    Nimrod came from the seed of Ham…this also shows Ham’s seed was not from Adam.

    Other little facts;

    Eve is called the mother of all living. (humans.) Adam was the one with seed, why was he not called the father of all living?
    Because there was a second seed not from Adam…Can you find the scriptures that prove this? They are there.

    • Jacqueline

      Hi Domenic, I noticed in one of your comments that you mentioned not wanting to be silenced or not be able to speak your thoughts. You may have noticed we don’t have a problem, however we may also reserve the right not to respond to a comment when there is no scriptural response. You used the scriptures in Leviticus to show what knowing one means in scripture. Now it can also mean that Ham or Canaan did get to know Noah in some homosexual way, not being restricted to knowing a woman or his wife. Also might I ask, wasn’t they off the Ark when this happened? You say Noah didn’t have more children in the next few hundred years or the bible doesn’t mention it? You attribute a motive to Noah without proof. These are your thoughts but how does this benefit us in a larger picture? or in our relationship with God. To just throw stuff out there without bringing it to a head defeats the purpose of your statement. One should test any inspired expression as you quoted from the bible but test it against what? The bible itself as you said. But who decides or picks and chooses the scripture to test? If you don’t like it or don’t understand it at this time? I personally accept the Bible as the word of God. You say he let it be corrupted to reveal to true servants other scriptures, I say he protected it from corruption. Now, just a different way of looking at it changes the perspective. So we could go on and on but I chose to let the Bible speak and accept “ALL” of it as the word of God. He is strong and can protect 66 books or letters. There are many holy writings that didn’t make the cut so I trust him. He isn’t trying to trip us up with the Bible, it leads us to Christ. Satan and his allies are the ones that makes it difficult. Not somebody that gave his Son up for us. Just my thoughts, no proof.

  • Domenic Pappalardo

    Peter K

    Your post on this forum bear out you believe Taze Russell started a group of people, (Bible Students) to get a clear understanding of the scriptures. You defend Taze Russell on all avenues of thought. I am confused as to your real stand on the matter? This confusion started with your comment to my post that, “Eve had intercourse with other than Adam, and bore Cain.” You replied, “Adam knew his wife, and she bore Cain.” You sited this scripture as proof, Adam was the Father of Cain. You took that scripture in such a manner that stated, “That’s what the scripture says, so that’s what it means.”
    Taze Russell would not have made such a reply. He would have said, “Let us (meaning him, and others as a group) examine all the scriptures on the subject, and see if Adam was the father of Cain, or is there more to the story?”
    Here is a truth you can take to the bank. There have been many women who have given birth to twins, each of the twines (meaning born at the same time, or within hours of each other) having different fathers. Eve could have been pregnant by both Satan, and Adam at the same time.
    If Eve was pregnant by both, Satan, and Adam…it would give different meaning to the scripture, “Adam knew his wife, and she bore Cain.” Note, it does not say when Able was born. It could have been within a few hours. There are other scriptures that tend to lead to Cain, and Able being the same age.
    Back to my confusion. How do you follow, and defend Taze Russell if you do not do as he did, which was to examine scripture with others, rather than make a stand…”This is what it says, so this is what it means.” If Taze Russell felt that way, he would have had no reason to have started the Bible Students…to find what the scriptures are truly saying.

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Domenici – You seem very certain of your interpretations regarding Cain, Eve and Satan.  Thanks for sharing your views and research.  You are welcome to do so here.  Your ideas are quite thought provoking.

      For myself, I do my best to harmonize all the scriptures on a topic.  Hopefully, if I have any wrong conclusions, I can learn from you or others who may understand better than I.

      I defend people, like Russell, if I feel they have been misrepresented or unfairly slandered.  I would do the same for you.  I follow Jesus and God’s Word.  I find Russell to be very insightful and helpful in that effort.  I am not ashamed to state what I believe the Bible teaches, nor do I apologize for doing so.  I hope that I have the honesty and humility to accept correction when I am shown from scripture to be wrong.

      Thanks again for sharing your views and research.

  • Domenic Pappalardo

    David Fuhrmann,

    Today I had a conversation with a member of this group. He, and seven others are going to start a study of Genesis. He was inviting me to join the group in this study. In our conversation I came to understand he believe in the scriptures, word, for word. Since leaving the JW’s 18 years ago, I also have learned more about the Bible…much more. I know some scriptures have been changed. The Catholic Bible is not at all like the King James. The Mormons added a complete book onto the Bible. The JW;s have made changes to the Bible. Even the King James has been changed from the Scrolls it was taken from.
    Man can make changes to Gods word. But God has put within his written word scriptures not found by those who have made changes…scriptures that replace what God knew man would change. It is this reason I follow 1 John 4:1 “Do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expression to see if they originated with God.” This warning is in Gods word because God knew Satan would have men makes changes. Look at the religions…they are all false, and their leaders read much of the truth from Gods written word mixed with false teaching. Man can, and has made changes to the Bible. But God has also hidden his truth for his people to find.
    I do not pretend there are no changes in the Bible, nor will I listen to those who proclaim the Bible is error free, and none of it has been changed. That is not Gods way…1 John 4:1 is Gods way.
    I am not here to have the freedom to say anything I want…I had that freedom before I came here. I came here seeking people who like myself are seeking Gods truth. If I have to pretend none of the scriptures have been changed, and put a zipper on my lips…I will leave in a heart beat.

  • I believe all who believe in God, and his written word should watch this; Warning. Some have lost faith after watching all 8 of these, and others gaining greater faith, and understanding of how our God works.

    Bible Secrets (1/8) – Archeological findings of Israelites …

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfzslZ8tFNw Cached

    Part one of the NOVA’s ” Bible’s Buried Secrets” which I’ve edited so it’ll be as short as possible without leaving out any important stuff. (Please note …

  • Peter,
    When the Jews were in Babylon they started compiling scrolls they had taken into captivity. Before this time the Jews worshiped one God, but also worshiped many false Gods. Archeology has proven this with findings. In Babylon, Egypt, and Jerusalem. It was here in Babylon the true Nation of Israel came together . Before this time the people followed only sections of scrolls they liked, along with other Gods. The scrolls that were compiled in Babylon also incorporated the ten commandments. It was at this time the Jews understood they had to obey their one God, of suffer. The compiling of these scrolls became the Bible. This Bible did not yet include the New Testament.
    Peter, many people seek the magic one scripture to gain truth from the Bible. It does not work that way. God made sure that when men changed section of the Bible, the truth could be found with other scriptures. (more than one.)
    I have posted many scriptures that prove Cain was not the son of Adam. Have you not read my post, and checked the scriptures I quoted?
    You are sticking to, “And Adam knew his wife, and she bore Cain,” like many religions claim Jesus and the father are the same person with, “The Father, and I are one.”
    Try this peter, “Prove with scripture that Cain is Adams son.” If it is so, you should be able to do it.

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Domenic – What do you think of Dupin’s answer” the Targum of Jonathan, which is more of a rendering of what the author thought was meant… The actual Hebrew text doesn’t have the word angel in it. However, the text isn’t precise and can be rendered several different ways.” So the word “angel” is not even in the Hebrew and the Targum of Jonathan is not the Bible, rather editorial comments.

      Dupin also brought out a good point saying, “Adam “knew,” a euphemism for having marital relations.” Notice that Adam again “knew” Eve:

      Ge 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.”

      In Gen 4:25, does not the expression “Adam knew” show him to be the father of Seth? By the same reasoning, is he then not the father of Cain?

      Back to your scriptural evidence that Cain was the Son of Satan from your 4/28 email.

      Gen 5:3 “And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.”

      Cain and Able are not ignored here. The passage is providing the Genealogy to Noah. That line was originated by Seth, not Cain or Able. So I disagree that there is indirect evidence here to support the idea that Satan was father of Cain.

      The Genesis 6 passage shows angels intermarried with human woman and produced hybrid human giants. However, this was long after the Cains birth and possibly after his death of old age that this occurred.

      I appreciate your intelligence and study in carefully considering so many points and I respect your right and Christian liberty to your interpretation. I am simply stating my opinion.

      I don’t have time to respond to the rest of your comments now from that date. On my way to our Sunday meeting. God bless. Thanks for contributing. I hope you appreciate the freedom you have here to share your views even if in some areas we disagree.

  • Hank,
    Since you think my post are funny on the subject of Cain, and Able,, perhaps you should read the following;

    1 John, ch. 3 v. xii it also states, “Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother.”

    Two Seedline Taught In Dead Sea Scrolls
    Should you desire more insight on the Scriptures, I highly recommend you investigate the Dead Sea Scrolls. You should first study the history of how and when they were discovered. This can be done by reading the introductions of several books that have been published on this subject. One such book I suggest for this is Understanding The Dead Sea Scrolls edited by Hershel Shanks © 1992, published by Random House, NY. Though Shanks is a “Jew”, the book is a collection from several Dead Sea Scroll authors. It is also necessary to understand who wrote them and copied most of the books of that pre-New Testament period including many of the books we now have in our present Bibles. Additionally, we must analyze the text and context of the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves. Wherever they already agree with our present Bibles, we must be thankful, but where there are discrepancies, we must resolve them. One such discrepancy is found in 1 Samuel 11:1-3. The scroll in question is designated 4QSama, and was found in cave #4. The following represents an omission at the beginning of that chapter. Please get your Bible and turn to 1 Samuel 11; then read the following in italics; then continue reading in your Bible from verses 1-10, omitting the word “Then” in verse 1:
    “[Na]hash, king of the children of Ammon, sorely oppressed the children of Gad and the children of Reuben, and he gouged out a[ll] their right eyes and struck ter[ror and dread] in Israel. There was not left one among the children of Israel bey[ond the Jordan who]se right eye was no[t put o]ut by Naha[sh king] of the children of Ammon; except that seven thousand men [fled from] the children of [A]mmon and entered [J]abesh-Gilead. About a month later …” (Now read verses 1-10, and also check Josephus’ Antiquities 6:5:1):
    For many of you this newly discovered evidence will pique your interest. Before you are aware of it you will be deep in research on the Dead Sea Scrolls while others will shun this testimony, fearing it will undermine their mental equilibrium. Unfortunately, new insight is not for everyone, and we will always have people among us who will fight anything they cannot comprehend, or who are impervious to new discoveries of old data. Many suchlike are among the anti-seedliners.
    When new evidence was brought forth from the Aramiac Targums confirming an omission in Genesis 4:1 (similar to that of 1 Samuel 11 in the Dead Sea Scrolls), Ted R. Weiland, a caustic and unyielding antichrist anti-seedliner, pronounced all such evidence as “Babylonian influenced.” When the Targum evidence is added to Genesis 4:1 in italics it would read thusly:
    “And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael [Satan], and she conceived and bare Cain, and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly beings, and she said, I have gotten a man from the angel of the Lord.”
    The antichrist anti-seedliners point to 2 Corinthians 11:3, and by taking that verse out of context will claim she was only “mentally seduced.” Genesis 3:13 asks the question: “What is this that thou hast done?” Had it been a mental crime the question would have been, “What is this that thou hast thought?” The word “done” in that verse is #6213, and in both Strong’s and Gesenius’ has nothing to with anything mental, but everything to do with “to produce or create.” In fact, Gesenius’ includes a definition with sexual connotations:
    “Piel, to work, or to press immodestly the breasts of a woman, i. q. … Ezek. 23:3, 8, and in Kal [Ezek. 23:] verse 21 … So Gr. ποιεῖν, and Lat. facere, perficere, conficere mulierem, as a euphemism for sexual intercourse, see Fesselii Advers. Sacra, lib. ii. cap. 23.” [Emphasis mine]
    Hebrew scholars have been aware for years that there is a problem with Genesis 4:1. The Interpreter’s Bible, a twelve volume collaborative work of 36 “consulting editors” plus 124 other “contributors”, makes the following observation on this verse, vol. 1, page 517:
    “Cain seems originally to have been the ancestor of the Kenites … The meaning of the name is ‘metalworker’ or ‘smith’; here, however, it is represented as a derivation of a word meaning ‘acquire’, ‘get’ — one of the popular etymologies frequent in Genesis — hence the mother’s words I have gotten a man. ↔From the Lord (KJV) is a rendering, following the LXX and Vulg., of ’eth Yahweh, which is literally, ‘with Yahweh’, and so unintelligible here ↔([the words] ‘the help of’ [RSV] is not in the Hebrew). It seems probable that ’eth should be ’oth — so, ‘the mark of Yahweh’ — and that the words are a gloss …”

  • Hank,

    The Bible was taken from Bereshit Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls match the Bereshit Scrolls. Much of both Scrolls is not in the Bible. You can buy a copy of the scrolls in English for about $70.USD

    Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen). Dead sea scrolls

    Bereshit, Bereishit, Bereishis, B’reshith, Beresheet, or Bereishees (בְּרֵאשִׁית — Hebrew for “in beginning,” the first word in the parashah) is the first weekly Torah portion (פָּרָשָׁה, parashah) in the annual Jewish cycle of Torah reading. The parashah consists of Genesis 1:1–6:8. The parashah is made up of 7,235 Hebrew letters, 1,931 Hebrew words, and 146 verses, and can occupy about 241 lines in a Torah Scroll (סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה, Sefer Torah).

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>