French Correction, Final Part

Because of errors and changes thru interpretation and translations, it is obvious that the French document should not have been published or presented as Bro. Johnson’s own words in the Winter 2009 PT. It introduces many problems for the Executive Trustee and it doesn’t even prove his “present view” on the Youthful Worthies. Yet, in the end, the real issue is not this lapse in judgment or the use of the faulty article. The real issue is the Executive Trustee’s misread of the 3 sentences in E4, pages 375-376:

• “…and brought back with them a faithful class of unbegotten consecrated ones from 1878 on.”
  
• “…coming back into present Truth, and bringing unbegotten consecrated ones with them from 1878 to 1881.”
  
• “…for the Ruth class consecrating and coming into the Truth between 1878 and 1881.”

The instant you accept his view that they show unbegotten consecrated ones existing in 1878, 79, 80 or the first part of 81, then you also have to accept that Bro. Johnson was confused and contradicted himself WITHIN HIS OWN BOOK. Were all the consecrated from Pentecost to 1881 Spirit-begotten as he says on p.469? Could the deep things be seen only by New Creatures until 1881 on pages 440 & 462? Doesn’t the title of the book apply to both of its subjects? These are just a few examples of the problems introduced. We don’t know why the brethren would believe this of Bro. Johnson when the sentences are easily harmonized.

For historical events, we often use the current (perfected) condition of someone in the event before it is achieved because that condition is known and common to us. If asked about when you met your spouse, your response is always the first day you were introduced, not the day of your wedding. If a history professor tells his students that a distant trading company brought back with it new colonists from 1478 to 1481, it does not mean they were actual colonists when they left in 1478.

Bro. Johnson, like a good professor, is telling us this journey from the point of completion. The destination condition is our common understanding of both Naomi and Ruth. For the first sentence, he says Naomi BROUGHT BACK Ruth starting the journey in 1878. For the second, he says that Naomi was COMING BACK into the Truth and then shows the entire journey length for bringing back Ruth. The third sentence is very easy--it shows the 3 ½ year journey of consecrating and COMING INTO the Truth. In the end, either these 3 sentences work with the rest of the book, or you have to conclude that Bro. Johnson could not write a book. You choose.

For the last time, we make available a PDF of the original 31-page French work. Please click here to download.

French Correction, Part 4

Part of page 6 is the reason the Executive Trustee translated the discourse from French to English and printed it as if it was Bro. Johnson’s own words:
“Therefore, chronologically speaking, we can divide the Youthful Worthies into 3 groups: the first from 1878 to 1881; the second from 1881 to 1914 when there were many more consecrated ones than crowns and, the third: those who consecrated after 1914. All who became consecrated from 1878 to 1881 were Youthful Worthies because no crown fell from 1878 to 1881. The surplus of consecrated ones from 1881 to 1914 also became Youthful Worthies, and all those who consecrated, from 1914 until now, were also Youthful Worthies. Therefore, there are three groups of Youthful Worthies, and Ruth represents all the Youthful Worthies. From 1878 to 1881, she represents the first group; from 1881 to 1914, she represents the second group; and from 1914, she represents all those who became consecrated from this time onward.”

An interpretation to one language and then back should never be used in lieu of someone's own work. Yet, if we look through the text, it actually shows Bro. Johnson’s view and not the Executive Trustee’s changed view. The sister interpreted that the YWs can be divided into 3 groups, a term Bro. Johnson NEVER used in English. She does use his word class to define the three women, so group is more focused and is used to show a change of condition within the YWs. The first group is the 1878-1881 journey of the tentatively-justified Ruth class who became fully consecrated YWs in 1881, the second group is the surplus consecrators or individuals from 1881-1914, and the third group is all who consecrated after 1914 during the 40-year YW call.

How do we know this? Bro. Johnson shows two of the three conditions a few years later in PT April 1938, page 56 , "for the Youthful Worthies as individuals, from Oct., 1881, onward to Sept. 16, 1914, and as a class from Sept. 16, 1914." And we know from E4, page 469 (the very book where the Executive Trustee "found" his view) that all the consecrated until 1881 were Spirit begotten. That helps us understand the condition of the first group, which is the whole idea of the Ruth 1 picture...her journey to full consecration. Even the French document on pages 5-6 shows her full consecration at Ruth 1:16-17, near the end of the journey. Since the French-speaking brethren do not have E4, E15 offers them a competent translation and clearly shows the limit of 1881.

E15 Christ—Spirit—Covenants, p. 419: “Since the unconsecrated as the unbegotten cannot perceive, reason out and remember spiritual things (1 Cor. 2: 8, 9, 11, 14) and the Spirit-begotten man can (John 3: 3; 1 Cor. 2: 10-13, 15, 16), these powers must have been implanted into the mental brain organs by the begettal of the Spirit, which always until 1878 followed a true consecration. This rule was without exception until the general call ceased; the rule now does not apply against Youthful Worthies, who as consecrated ones understand spiritual things. Without the begettal the best of humans cannot desire spiritual as distinct from human things. This St. Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 2: 9, when he says that the spiritual things that God has prepared for those that love Him [the called according to His purpose (Rom. 8: 28) ] have not entered into the hearts [desires, affections] of the unbegotten; for during the general call to the High calling all the consecrated were Spirit-begotten.”

E15 Christ-L'Esprit-Les Alliance, 369-370: “Puisque les non-consacrés, comme les non-engendrés ne peuvent pas percevoir, raisonner et se rappeler des choses spirituelles (1 Cor. 2 : 8, 9, 11, 14) et que l'homme engendré de l'Esprit le peut (Jean 3 : 3; 1 Cor. 2: 10-13,15, 16), ces pouvoirs ont dû être implantés dans les organes cérébraux mentaux par l'engendrement de l'Esprit qui, jusqu'en 1878, suivait toujours une vraie consécration. Cette règle fut sans exception jusqu'à ce que cessât l'appel général ; la règle ne s'applique pas maintenant contre les Jeunes Dignes qui, en tant que consacrés, comprennent des choses spirituelles. Sans l'engendrement, le meilleur des êtres humains ne peut desirer des choses spirituelles distinctes des choses humaines. St. Paul nous le dit en 1 Cor. 2 : 9, quand il déclare que les choses spirituelles que Dieu a préparées pour ceux qui L'aiment, [ceux qui sont appelés selon son propos (Rom. 8 : 28)] ne sont pas entrées dans les coeurs [les désirs, les affections] des non-engendrés ; car durant l'appel general pour le Haut-Appel, tous les consacrés furent engendrés de l'Esprit.”

As before, we’ve made available a PDF of the original 31-page French work. Please click here to download.

French Correction, Part 3

We continue our discussion of the French interpreted/translated discourse that is now printed in the Winter 2009 PT. And we need to remind our readers that the Executive Trustee translated it back to English and published it as if it is Bro. Johnson's own text. He never mentions that it is two to three steps removed (through two languages) from Bro. Johnson's spoken words in 1933.

The paragraph shown above is the very first paragraph of the French discourse. It includes the title that has his name misspelled (as mentioned in our last post). The two highlighted areas are the dates that this UNKNOWN sister listed as the dates in the antitype for Ruth 1 and 2. THESE DATES ARE INCORRECT. In the original Ruth article that Bro. Johnson wrote in English just two months earlier, the correct dates are 1844 to 1881 for Ruth 1 and 1881 to 1916 for Ruth 2 (see PT June, 1933, page 84). The correct dates are also shown in E4 on page 376, published in 1938.

In the Winter 2009 PT, these errors are still in the translated document. This leaves the Executive Trustee with a dilemma. Had he fixed them, we would have caught this additional lie...beyond the fact that he did not indicate the questionable source. But by leaving them in the document, he now has to either correct them in a future PT and admit there are serious errors, or he has to come up with a "present view" to suggest that Bro. Johnson had two views on the antitypical dates for Ruth 1 and 2.

More to follow. As in the last post, we’ve made available a PDF of the original 31-page French work. Please click here to download.

French Correction, Part 2

In the summer of 2009, an appointee of the movement from the United States served in several European countries. During his time in France, the French representative gave him a copy of a three-part discourse given by Bro. Johnson in Monceau Sur Sambre, Belgium on August 8, 1933. This French language document was brought back for the Executive Trustee, translated into English and is now published in the Winter 2009 PT.

Apparently, the Executive Trustee feels that this discourse supports his “present view” on the dates of the Youthful Worthies and wants to use it as a proof. Yet, it is filled with obvious errors, does not actually prove his view, and its source is not presented truthfully in the PT. (Note: We initially dealt with this matter in reference to the French representative’s use of a couple of sentences in the Spring 2007 PT. See the original French Correction post in 2008.)

Error in Translation: A Poor Game of Telephone
The printed discourse came about due to the excellent efforts of an unknown French-speaking sister who, most likely, took shorthand notes while Bro. Johnson spoke at a podium. Later, these notes were typed into the final 31-page French text document. The potential for error to creep into her work is very high and we can easily show this from the very title of the discourse. It translates to: DISCOURSE INTERPRETED FROM BROTHER JONSHON AT MONCEAU SUR SAMBRE THE 8th AUGUST 1933.


His last name is incorrectly spelled as “JONSHON.” She did it the way it sounded to her in French. So, if his own name is inaccurate, what should that tell us about the rest of the document? We certainly don’t fault the efforts of this unknown sister, but it is rather shocking that the Executive Trustee would translate it back to English and present it as Brother Johnson’s own words. Nowhere in the Winter PT 2009 does he mention that the discourse is a recent translation of a very old French-language interpretation/translation of uncertain quality. And it is several steps removed from Bro. Johnson’s spoken words. Certainly, this is poor judgment on the part of the Executive Trustee and the appointee who brought it to him.

What are some significant errors in the document? What is different in the original as compared to Bro. Johnson’s actual work? Stay tuned for more in the next couple of posts. Also, we’ve made available a PDF of the original 31-page French work. Please click here to download.

Letters of General Interest - Auxiliary Pilgrim , Jamaica, WI

PT. 1960 pg. 79 C-1

...I was forced nearly forty years ago to make a choice between Bro. Russell and Judge Rutherford, and I chose Bro. Russell. In recent years I again had to choose between the two Laodicean Star members and the two would-be leaders from among the Youthful Worthies, and I have chosen the Star-members. Strange it is, in view of the siftings' multitudinous charges against you, that all the advancing Truth you have published up to now is in harmony with, based upon, and flows out of what we have already learned. Continue along this line, dear Brother, and all will be well - you shall have my full support. When I withdraw my support from you will be when you stray from or contradict the writings of God's two special Messengers.

One must wonder if this brother would have supported the "present view" since it is not in harmony with, based upon or flows out of what we have already learned. You will notice that this brother supported Bro. Jolly because he didn't stray from or contradict the writings of God's two special messengers.

Harvest Parallels

PT Feb. 1936, Page 28 (see also PT Feb. 1933, Page 22):
But in addition to the dispensations' parallels we have many other parallels in the Bible, e.g., the 2520 years' parallels, and also others, as shown in the Edgar chronology charts of the Berean Manual, page 12. To these many other parallels belong also the harvest parallels, from 29 to 69 A.D. and from 1874 to 1914, respectively...The facts as given in the Gospels and the Book of Acts show that these two sets of acts are in their five divisions 1845 years apart, which proves that the harvest parallels, as well as the dispensations' parallels, are 1845 years apart. The following tables show this of both sets of acts:

THE JEWISH HARVEST CALLS
Jesus, the Apostles, etc., in the first invitation call Israelites alone, Oct. 29 A.D. to June 36 A.D.

THE GOSPEL HARVEST CALLS
Jesus, Bro. Russell, etc., in the first invitation call church members, exclusively, Oct. 1874 to June, 1881.

With the current Executive Trustee's change to the date of the call of the Youthful Worthies (now 1878), apparently the first invitation call was not an exclusive event for church members.