Did God give Miller a false message on purpose?

[RC_NewProtestants]

Ah, but she was there. She could hear the tone in their voice and heard far more from them than we will ever hear.
====
From Arasola's dissertation, pg. 13:

"Within nineteenth century North American Protestantism an interest in last things was not a fringe phenomenon. There was intense millenarian speculation by some of the leading theologians(37) as well as by many popular preachers.(38) Several ventured to calculate the time of the eschaton."

(37) Apocalyptic speculation was promoted by e.g. U. Ogden (rector of Trinity Episcopal Church, Newark NJ), S. Langdom (president of Harvard), Timothy White (president of Yale), O. Elsbree (professor at Buckland), E. Nott (president of Union College), Lyman Beecher (president of Lane Theological Seminary), etc. See PFF IV, 56-133. [PFF=Prophetic Faith of our Fathers]

(38) E.g. S. M'Corkle (Presbyterian pastor), Father John Thayer, Jedidah Morse, .... [One source given was PFF IV, 56-133. I'll get the rest later.]

Was she actually present to hear these people or is this from articles that were printed. The assumption that she could hear it in their voice is questionable and not just because you are assuming that she heard it in their voice but because such interpretations are frequently wrong when people listen to others. As the article you quote says nothing about her hearing it in their voice just that Apocalyticism was common in the 1800's which was also true of some of the earlier centuries and even more common in the 1900's.

 

[Jon0388g]

We have only a claim by someone who was deeply invested in Miller's movement, and who along with him, eventually bought into a specific day and hour of Jesus coming.

False.


Please show your evidence that Miller 'bought into' a specific day and hour for Christ's second coming.



Jon

 

[tall73]

False.


Please show your evidence that Miller 'bought into' a specific day and hour for Christ's second coming.



Jon

Just a reference to the Scriptural term. Miller bought into the day, and by the last hour, I am sure he was banking on that one

But he was again disappointed.


http://www.whiteestate.org/pathways/wmiller.asp

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif, Century Gothic]Miller began preaching in small towns at first, and then, with the help of Joshua Himes, moved to the larger cities, bringing his second advent message to many thousands. Hundreds of ministers and laymen joined in preaching the message. By the expected time for Christ's return, Miller had between 50,000 to 100,000 followers, commonly known as Millerites. He did not set a specific date for the second advent. At first he said only that it would be "about 1843." He finally set an ultimate time in the spring of 1844. Others picked the more precise date of October 22, 1844, which Miller and many of the leaders of the first movement accepted shortly before the date arrived.




[/FONT] "' I therefore had no fellowship with that movement until about two or three weeks previous to the 22d of October, when, seeing it had obtained such prevalence, and considering it was at a probable point of time, I was persuaded that it was a work of God, and felt that, if it should pass by, I should be more disappointed than I was in my first published time. "'But that time passed, and I was again disappointed. The movement was of such a character that, for a time, it was very mysterious to me; and the results following it were so unaccountable that I supposed our work might be completed, and that a few weeks only might elapse between that time and the appearing of Christ. However that might be, I regarded my own work completed, and that what was to be done for the extension of these views must be done by younger brethren, except an occasional discourse from myself.
Memoirs of William Miller, page 330.
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif, Century Gothic]
[/FONT]Now why did Miller think it was alright to pick a particular day?

 

[djconklin]

The assumption that she could hear it in their voice is questionable and not just because you are assuming that she heard it in their voice but because such interpretations are frequently wrong when people listen to others.

It is a possibility that she heard them. There is no evidence that she did not. The testimony of someone who lived at the time is more important and valuable to any researcher than the words of someone who is far removed in space and time. Where is the evidence that the interpretation of one from that time was "frequently wrong"?

As the article you quote says nothing about her hearing it in their voice just that Apocalyticism was common in the 1800's which was also true of some of the earlier centuries and even more common in the 1900's.

I didn't say that the article said anything about "hearing it in their own voice"--note the "===" that separated the two remarks.

 

[djconklin]

Miller bought into the day, and by the last hour,

He might have done so. Has any evidence been produced that he did? Arasola specifically notes that it was not Miller who came up with a specific day. I don't know of anyone who pinpointed a specific hour.

 

[Jon0388g]

Just a reference to the Scriptural term. Miller bought into the day, and by the last hour, I am sure he was banking on that one

But he was again disappointed.


http://www.whiteestate.org/pathways/wmiller.asp

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif, Century Gothic]Miller began preaching in small towns at first, and then, with the help of Joshua Himes, moved to the larger cities, bringing his second advent message to many thousands. Hundreds of ministers and laymen joined in preaching the message. By the expected time for Christ's return, Miller had between 50,000 to 100,000 followers, commonly known as Millerites. He did not set a specific date for the second advent. At first he said only that it would be "about 1843." He finally set an ultimate time in the spring of 1844. Others picked the more precise date of October 22, 1844, which Miller and many of the leaders of the first movement accepted shortly before the date arrived.[/FONT]

1. The source nowhere indicates Miller set a specific date for the Second Advent.

2. Miller never 'accepted' the October 22 1844.


"'If Christ does not come within twenty or twenty-five days, I shall feel twice the disappointment I did in the spring.' " Midnight Cry October 12 issue, 1844


Does this quote suggest Miller 'bought into' the specific October 22 date? I think not.

"' I therefore had no fellowship with that movement until about two or three weeks previous to the 22d of October, when, seeing it had obtained such prevalence, and considering it was at a probable point of time, I was persuaded that it was a work of God, and felt that, if it should pass by, I should be more disappointed than I was in my first published time. "'But that time passed, and I was again disappointed. The movement was of such a character that, for a time, it was very mysterious to me; and the results following it were so unaccountable that I supposed our work might be completed, and that a few weeks only might elapse between that time and the appearing of Christ. However that might be, I regarded my own work completed, and that what was to be done for the extension of these views must be done by younger brethren, except an occasional discourse from myself.
Memoirs of William Miller, page 330.

Now why did Miller think it was alright to pick a particular day?

Where does your source say Miller thought it was alright to pick a particular day? I must have missed it.


1. Miller says 'considering it was a probable point of time'. That does not sound specific to me.

2. The Karaite reckoning of the DOA was what persuaded Miller October was a significant month.

3. You obviously have not seen where Miller wrote:


"The ninth day [of the seventh month (October 21)] was very remarkable. . . . In the evening I told some of my [brethren] Christ would not come on the morrow. Why not? said they. Because he cannot come in an hour they think not, nor as a snare." Letter to J. O. Orr of Toronto, Canada West, on December 13, 1844,


So again I ask you to provide evidence that suggests Miller set a specific day and hour for Christ's coming.




Jon

 

[tall73]

[/color]

1. The source nowhere indicates Miller set a specific date for the Second Advent.

2. Miller never 'accepted' the October 22 1844.


"'If Christ does not come within twenty or twenty-five days, I shall feel twice the disappointment I did in the spring.' " Midnight Cry October 12 issue, 1844


Does this quote suggest Miller 'bought into' the specific October 22 date? I think not.



Where does your source say Miller thought it was alright to pick a particular day? I must have missed it.


1. Miller says 'considering it was a probable point of time'. That does not sound specific to me.

2. The Karaite reckoning of the DOA was what persuaded Miller October was a significant month.

3. You obviously have not seen where Miller wrote:


"The ninth day [of the seventh month (October 21)] was very remarkable. . . . In the evening I told some of my [brethren] Christ would not come on the morrow. Why not? said they. Because he cannot come in an hour they think not, nor as a snare." Letter to J. O. Orr of Toronto, Canada West, on December 13, 1844,



So again I ask you to provide evidence that suggests Miller set a specific day and hour for Christ's coming.




Jon

Which quote was his final word on it?

Both of the ones you quoted were before. The one he wrote later was after. See again what he said:



I therefore had no fellowship with that movement until about two or three weeks previous to the 22d of October, when, seeing it had obtained such prevalence, and considering it was at a probable point of time, I was persuaded that it was a work of God, and felt that, if it should pass by, I should be more disappointed than I was in my first published time.

He did in the end feel it was the work of God, by his own admission. And indeed he was disappointed when it passed by.

Now, let's look at the real issue--had he truly applied the words from the one quote the night before --that Jesus will come at an hour you do not expect--then he would never have gotten into this whole mess from the beginning ,because his whole movement was a denial of that scripture.

Whether you say 1843, or 1844, or a month in October, or Oct. 22 ,they are all speculation about the timing of Christ's coming, and they are all a denial of the text that Jesus is going to come at an hour you don't expect. That was the message of those rejecting Miller's time setting.

Everyone who bought into Ellen's "test" had to again and again ignore that simple truth.

 

[djconklin]

dup post

 

[djconklin]

Now, let's look at the real issue--had he truly applied the words from the one quote the night before --that Jesus will come at an hour you do not expect--then he would never have gotten into this whole mess from the beginning ,because his whole movement was a denial of that scripture.

The whole movement was NOT a denial of Scripture because the dating was based on Scripture. They got the date right, the event wrong.

 

[tall73]

The whole movement was NOT a denial of Scripture because the dating was based on Scripture. They got the date right, the event wrong.

Conklin the message was the test. And the message LINKED the event--second coming, and the date. That is why it was rejected, as time setting for the second coming.

 

[djconklin]

Conklin the message was the test. And the message LINKED the event--second coming, and the date.

I disagree with the linkage.

 

[Jon0388g]

Which quote was his final word on it?

Both of the ones you quoted were before.

No Tall, one was before, one was after. Both said that he did not formulate or support the specific day Oct 22.

The one he wrote later was after. See again what he said:



I therefore had no fellowship with that movement until about two or three weeks previous to the 22d of October, when, seeing it had obtained such prevalence, and considering it was at a probable point of time, I was persuaded that it was a work of God, and felt that, if it should pass by, I should be more disappointed than I was in my first published time.

He did in the end feel it was the work of God, by his own admission. And indeed he was disappointed when it passed by.

Why are you reading into the quote what you want to see?

and considering it was at a probable point of time, I was persuaded that it was a work of God.

"Probable" point of time. Not "that is the exact day Christ will return".

Now, let's look at the real issue--had he truly applied the words from the one quote the night before --that Jesus will come at an hour you do not expect--then he would never have gotten into this whole mess from the beginning ,because his whole movement was a denial of that scripture.

No Tall, it has been conclusively shown that his movement was in fact a careful consideration of that Scripture. He never once predicted the day or hour of Christ's return. He predicted the year - based on the time prophecies - which showed Christ was near, 'even at the doors'.

Whether you say 1843, or 1844, or a month in October, or Oct. 22 ,they are all speculation about the timing of Christ's coming, and they are all a denial of the text that Jesus is going to come at an hour you don't expect. That was the message of those rejecting Miller's time setting.

Everyone who bought into Ellen's "test" had to again and again ignore that simple truth.

Rather, it seems as those who are desperate to deny the Great Disappointment and its significance will not acknowledge any reasoning, no matter how sound.


For the last time (in light of the changes around here), I will state:

• Christ said He will come, and no man knoweth the day nor the hour.
• Miller never predicted a day, nor an hour for Christ's Coming.
• Miller calculated based on the prophecy that Christ's judgment would come in 1843, interpretating the judgment as His Second coming. A year is not equivalent to an hour, nor a day.
• This miscalculation was then amended to 1844.
• He repeatedly refuted his critics that were using the passage of Scripture 'no man knoweth' with the message that Christ's coming was near, sometime during 1844.

Jon

 

[djconklin]

never mind