ComfortMyPeople

They have been putting billionaires in jail for 2 years, 18 months and even longer.... when they come out, they find  their assets have been plundered or taken (corruption is a good excuse to get rid of those who criticize the government) because like a typical Mao communist, Xi is afraid of any strong corporations which do not belong to the central government.  Most large corporations are  owned by the state or military and CCP have the greatest shares. 
Have you seen what is going on in Hong Kong..?. that is what is coming to the rest of the world if Xi gets his way with the UN   The questions is this !  Did we really think the great tribulation will arrive without China also feeling it? 
The biggest corruption is Xi himself..... do you really believe his hands are clean from the blood of innocent conscientious objectors?  Yes - I failed to mention that the bank which failed is a property investment bank but guaranteed by NHBC - so this may have contagion in the West.   Millions of Chinese people have invested (and already paid for)  their apartments will NEVER move in.
This is part of the tribulation the bible speaks about.  And China is part of the beast and actually has become the model for the "Image of the beast" - the UN
What I have always said is that Communism is capitalism but for only the rich!   The top eshelons are more equal than the rest.  Just like the west has become an oligarchy of corporations which has captured the UN,,,,  China's central government are the people with all the money and the military.... But all Chinese must worship the state .
In the west we see Klaus Schwab with his  "stakeholder capitalism" - this is capitalism for only the stakeholders and all other lesser billionaires must give way - many banks will close and most will lose their businesses so that the top billionaires can take over in the stakeholder capitalism economy. The 150 richest corporations on earth.  They all have shares in each others corporations and are already like 10 kings behind the scenes of the UN. The UN itself is a corporation, FDA, CDC too! They have been captured by a few billionaires who have total immunity against all crimes - more than diplomats. Most head-offices are in Switzerland.  WHO has given one of these billionaires the  power of a nation state as he is authorized to negotiate with countries for the "sleevers" - predatory loans etc.
Most Western oligarchs are heavily invested in China as well and China owns many ports and other important assets in the world. I  read an article this week that they are managing one of the main ports of Israel.  So brilliant! They have inside information and could even stop Israeli war ships, cargo ships etc.
The world is complicated right now - but those who rule the world and want one world government are already in place and bringing their ONE world government and ONE world  morality etc They are setting the stage for their brand of Peace and security... so no more apologetics for China or the West... they are all part of the beast for me!
 

I think I do so too!  But 1 Tess 5:3 speaks of them calling out peace and security and a little further down it becomes interesting.  It also talks about " do not neglect prophecy" - something a lot of witnesses are afraid to do for fear of criticism.... or they just do not bother to study prophecy. 
One has to be totally unbias if one wants to evaluate what is really going on.... and see where it is heading in the current world ....and highly critical in evaluating sources and just keep focused on prophecy - that helps to keep one focused on one purpose and not deviate and inadvertently take sides in local political disputes. After all - the prophecies for our time mostly refer to global phenomena..... 
I foresee that banks could go down electronically and they will blame it on hackers - but this is intentional.  We will wait and see if I am on the right track and whether this will be by the end of the year or much later.   I think the powerful 10 kings who are now ruling with the UN, are people who are inadvertently pushing the goals of Satan and are now capable of anything! They have made gaslighting of the masses an art!  Our realities are created for us in this world at present and just like WW2 - too many people are too willing to say " I will lose my job" or  I was only following orders!.  It is after all an "image" from the beast they are projecting in front of us...and most are buying into it... Revelation 16:14 - 16 indicates that that propaganda will lead to Armageddon.
I lift my head up every time I see something happening that seems to be leading toards the final showdown.  I have health issues - so I hope to be around long enough to see these greedy people (for power, control and money) who bluff themselves that they are doing what they are doing for the "greater good" and sustainability - lose their billions and see everything fall apart that they so arrogantly have built for themselves.
So many of these billionaires have benefited in the last 19 months by the government handouts of trillions and have bought up land and all resources which will be valuable during the "great reset"  Their plans to save the earth is a big ruse!  They will still be mining rare earth minerals and rape the land while the ordinary folk will pay taxes on their "carbon use". 
I mentioned yesterday that the situation they have pushed China into may lead to war after the fall of the major bank and contagion in China and the world (HSBC is apparently heavily involved in bank guarantees in China). China may face financial collapse like Hitler did before WW2 when no-one bought anything from the national socialistic state which at the time was a manufacturing power house!   They face collapse or war! 
Taiwan is the perfect target to start hostilities.  How far this will go I do not know but Daniel 11 gives good indication.  Is the "flooding" merely the financial flooding which already has taken place or a war?  We wait and see... 

Thanks.
 I thought that Reslight's YouTube page that @NoisySrecko provided also was a likely candidate to help identify where some of the claims about Russell had come from. I had already looked at ResLight's sites like this, figuring that it had to be a place like Twitter or YouTube where Google doesn't index every comment.
(ResLight also complained that Google is deleting a lot of posts where he claims that Russell was not a JW. He seems to think that someone (or organization?) with authority has been able to influence Google to treat ResLight's claims about Russell's NON-association with JWs as fake news. It's hard for him to keep up with maintaining disappearing links, etc.)
ResLight did get back to me after some private messaging (PMs) but didn't respond about the website question, and had no info on the Canadian minister. I figure that if B.W.Schultz ever gets up to the 1914 era in his research on Russell he will likely attempt to make the identification. If I thought it was important enough, I'd ask on Schultz' blog. I've asked other questions there before and received answers from participants who are avid commentators on "all things Russell." Also, since I don't count the "Black Nation of Islam" as having a nearly close enough affinity to the teaching of Bible Students and/or Rutherforrd, I don't include them in any groups who actually taught like the Bible Students about 1914. And since all the groups listed in your previous post were apparently Bible_Student/Second_Advent "spin-offs" they don't count as independent groups with a similar teaching about 1914. @NoisySrecko correctly pointed out a few other "Russellite" and/or Bible Student groups who became independent of Russell's writings. And of course, it's true that there were factions of independence all along among the Bible Students groups, even those who appreciated Russell's teachings and were welcomed by Russell despite a measure of independence. Much of Russell's writing is actually addressed in a non-dogmatic manner that acknowledges this varied level of independence that Russell accepted.
In my posts/messages to ResLight, ( https://reslight.boards.net/thread/1114/alleged-failure-misrepresented-historical-claim  ) I wondered if the person he was addressing in his post was thinking primarily of the idea that Russell had (once) dropped 1914 and temporarily changed it to 1915 as the end of the Gentile Times. ResLight seemed unaware of this very short-lived teaching. But as I read some of the YouTube comments more closely, it turns out that one commenter might have had this in mind. But in a confused manner. Note:
The comments below that video include some by Jerry Jones (7 years ago) who cherry picks the same low-hanging fruit that most anti-Russell and anti-JW folks gather. He does include reference to changes from 1914 to 1915 in one comment, but seems to miss the most important point about them. For that matter, ResLight misses it too, and blames changes made in 1911 and 1915 on Bible Students who made unauthorized changes to the text while Russell was still alive and was still printing under his own Watch Tower Society banner. I believe that ResLight thinks they were unauthorized only because they created contradictions (and they were not all "admitted" in WT lists of errata) but I think there are clearer ways to show how and why Russell was able to purposely contradict himself slightly to minimize the wording changes. 
ResLight still thinks that the Great Pyramid supports 1914, and just that one example helps me understand how he is quite satisfied even with some fairly shallow defenses of Russell's foibles in other areas. 

I had not been able to find that blog post or "website" (as ResLight called it). You might know more about it since you were able to say that it was somehow connected with jwfacts.com.
I understand his fixation on defending CTR, as CTR produced an amazing amount of truth that has stood the test of time. But CTR also had a "thorn in the flesh" related to his own fixation on chronology. His first attempts of preaching and writing on his own (1876-1878) were years of great embarrassment, mostly because, as he admits, he was motivated to get the word out as quickly as possible about the predictions for the year 1878. It reminds me of Paul, who related his own "thorn in the flesh" as a counterbalance to the exaltation and pride that could have resulted from his own special revelations:
(2 Corinthians 12:6-9) . . .For even if I want to boast, I will not be unreasonable, for I would say the truth. But I refrain from doing so, in order that no one should give me more credit than what he sees in me or hears from me, 7 just because of receiving such extraordinary revelations. To keep me from becoming overly exalted, I was given a thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan, to keep slapping me, so that I might not be overly exalted. 8 Three times I begged the Lord about this, that it would depart from me. 9 But he said to me: “My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you, for my power is being made perfect in weakness.” . . .
But CTR was continually overly exalted by others, mostly, due to the weakness of men around him looking for a leader. CTR evidently gave in to that weakness himself and, within 20 years, considered himself alone to be the individual embodiment of the "faithful and wise servant" (faithful and discreet slave). In spite of the embarrassment of 1878, he began placing more importance on chronology than ever before. Most of the content of the 6 volumes of Studies in the Scriptures would concern the "chronological plan" of the ages. A "divine" chronology, as he believed.
 Defending his chronology today seems out of place. ResLight does a good job correcting the exaggerated and incorrect claims against CTR, but he also goes too far in trying to defend Russell on this same topic. Remaining Bible Student groups vary in their defense of Russell, but it's a common tendency to give too much exaltation to the man himself. Rutherford called it "worship" of Russell and it took until about 1931 to remove most of it. 
I have asked ResLight a couple of questions through one of his forums. Hopefully he will answer soon.

Hopefully, visitors will realize two things:
The first thing is that JWs like myself might have completely different opinions about our chronology doctrines, and therefore, as individuals, any one person's opinion must not be all that important. We can take an interest in varying views but come to our own conclusions about them. This hopefully leads to putting more faith in the Bible as Jehovah's Word, rather than men's words, and each of our own opinions.
The second thing is that it shows that JWs don't necessarily worship or blindly follow the GB and/or the Organization, but that we value the good things we learn and try to make sense of some of the things that don't make sense to us. We are always trying to make sure of all things, and hold fast to those things that are "fine."

I think I just happened to run across another post like the one you were speaking about above.
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/61369/was-the-1914-prophecy-derived-from-the-book-of-daniel-ever-mentioned-in-any-ne/81433
The responder to that question was @1982 and he also came up with nothing prior to 1914 by anyone except from those comments related to the WT.
Of course, there is still the question of the unnamed Canadian minister that C T Russell referred to in 1914. I haven't looked yet for more information about him. It may be that this was just one of those cases of someone declaring that "the end is nigh" and "it's going to happen before the end of this year or next at the latest."
Something like that was always happening somewhere for the majority of years after 1844. Probably, something like that is still happening somewhere in the world nearly every year, even now. This very forum gives evidence of that.

I am happy to hear from our brothers what is going on in Russia.  I have seen videos where they  stage the Russian raids  like theatre in Russia.  They go into the homes like the brothers are real terrorists (with guns) and everyone in the street gets this theatre so as to be frightened of our brothers. They know our brothers do not have guns or do not vote but they do this to make everyone hate us.
Why should we translate the court documents?  We can rather use our time to preach! 
Those who want that kind of research can have them translated. 
It is enough to know that the orthodox church (hate for Jehovah's name) and nationalism is behind this hate of JW's.  If you want to know more about this please investigate what alexander Dugan says about the orthodox church.  His Eurasian nationalism and love for the orthodox church has brought in this new philosophy of church to build a national identity!  Putin, all the Russian generals and leaders listen to his advice. 

Some urinate all over the precious truth as revealed by Jehovah to his people...... but jehovah will soon make their houses into privvy houses.  ... I recently read that scripture again somewhere.  .... Yes, we cannot talk against our own best interests by going against jehovah's wishes. 
 I often feel I am too outspoken and should tread more carefully too.... for in case someone gets the wrong impression about the Truth.  But as you say there is enough manure here that can colour the cleanest class of truth. 
I noticed recently the scripture you quoted said        " with" spirit and truth. I thought about it and realized that we must also be connected to jehovah by His holy spirit. If we are outside his approved presence here in the forecourt of his temple on earth then we will not walk by his Spirit.

But that's not all Jesus said about what we would know. Jesus added:
(Acts 1:7) . . .He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.
Being alert to the fact that the end can come at any moment is good. Always being on the watch that our conduct is proper and that our attitude is proper, and that we serve Jehovah for the right reasons and in good conscience. This is proper.
(1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night.
Also, if it were as simple as BroRando makes it out to be, don't you think at least one of the 100,000,000 angels would have figured it out from reading about "tree dream" which Daniel said was fulfilled through Nebuchadnezzar?
(Matthew 24:36) . . .neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.
What kind of hubris would make any of us think we could know better than the angels?
Speculation can be fun and entertaining, but if we try to limit the words of Jesus, we might end up actually rejecting those words. And we can end up giving too much credence to "meaningless talk."
(1 Timothy 1:4-6) . . .nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk.
 

CSE is well-indexed by Google, but the closest comment I could find in this regard was the following on CSE:
Baptist William Miller came up with calculations pointing to 1844 as the second coming of Christ Jesus. Seventh Day Adventists, along with members of the Bahai’ Faith, also point to October 1844 as being highly significant with regard to end-time prophecy. As far as I am aware, the only other group apart from Jehovah’s Witnesses who still cling to 1914 are the survivors of the original Bible Students who voted with their feet and left the organisation after the second President, Rutherford, introduced the name Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I think the real question is, if a person of good heart decided he wanted to become one of Jehovah’s Witness, do you have to really believe all these superfluous things that are of no consequence in order to be baptized as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Would you have to give lip service to these things which are in retrospect blatantly wrong?
Would you get a pass from the elders for things which in good conscious to you seem silly and stupid, if you firmly believed in all the core beliefs and wanted to dedicate your life to Jehovah God, through Christ?
……. what I am afraid of is that the travesty is, that we already know the answers to the above questions.
 
 

[edted to add: The question implies that there were Bible Students who believed that Christ became King in 1914. As far as I know none ever dd. Not even Russell and Rutherford.]
Remember, though, that most of the Bible Student groups broke off long before even the Bible Students under Russell and Rutherford believed that Christ became King in 1914. Russell believed that Jesus Christ became King in 1878, and he believed this right up until he died. Rutherford believed that Jesus became King in 1878, well into the 1920's. (Remember the famous "Advertise, Advertise, Advertise" speech at Cedar Point, Ohio in 1922?) It wasn't until Rutherford died in 1942, that Fred Franz could officially change Christ's presence from 1874 until 1914. This happened in the books "The Truth Shall Make You Free" (1943) and "The Kingdom Is At Hand" (1944). As jw.org says:
*** jv chap. 28 p. 632 Testing and Sifting From Within ***
Based on the premise that events of the first century might find parallels in related events later, they also concluded that if Jesus’ baptism and anointing in the autumn of 29 C.E. paralleled the beginning of an invisible presence in 1874, then his riding into Jerusalem as King in the spring of 33 C.E. would point to the spring of 1878 as the time when he would assume his power as heavenly King.
*** jv chap. 28 p. 632 Testing and Sifting From Within ***
That 1878 was a year of significance seemed to be fortified by reference to Jeremiah 16:18 (‘Jacob’s double,’ KJ) along with calculations indicating that 1,845 years had apparently elapsed from Jacob’s death down till 33 C.E., when natural Israel was cast off, and that the double, or duplicate, of this would extend from 33 C.E. down to 1878.
Extending the parallels further, it was stated that the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. (37 years after Jesus was hailed as king by his disciples when he rode into Jerusalem) might point to 1915 (37 years after 1878) for a culmination of anarchistic upheaval that they thought God would permit as a means for bringing existing institutions of the world to their end. This date appeared in reprints of Studies in the Scriptures.
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” it did away with the insertion of 100 years into the period of the Judges and went according to the oldest and most authentic reading of Acts 13:20, and accepted the spelled-out numbers of the Hebrew Scriptures. This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man’s existence into the decade of the 1970’s. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia. The millennium that was to be marked by the detaining of Satan the Devil enchained in the abyss and by the reign of the 144,000 joint heirs with Christ in heavenly glory was therefore yet in the future. What, then, about the parousia (presence) of Christ? Page 324 of the above book positively says: “The King’s presence or parousia began in 1914.” Also, in the Watchtower issue of July 15, 1949 (page 215, paragraph 22), the statement is made: “ . . . Messiah, the Son of man, came into Kingdom power A.D. 1914 and . . . this constitutes his second coming and the beginning of his second parousía or presence.”
Over the years Rutherford had made a few sometimes vague comments that the "kingdom" chronology was being adjusted, but he relied on it thoroughly for his 1925 predictions. Also, there were some more specific comments in a 1924 booklet written by Van Amburgh (not written by Rutherford) and in the Golden Age (edited by Woodworth) that made it pretty clear that this change from 1878 to 1914 was in the works. 
But the publications quoted on jw.org showed that the old 1874/1878 chronology was not completely removed until 1943. During those 60-some years from 1878 to 1943, all the Bible Student spin-offs and break-aways had already left. In fact most of them had left between 1917 and 1929, when apparently less than a quarter of the original Russellite Bible Students were still associated with the Watch Tower Society. Note these (generally factual) ideas from the resources quoted in the Wikipedia footnotes:
The Bible Student movement is a Millennialist[1]Restorationist Christian movement that emerged from the teachings and ministry of Charles Taze Russell, also known as Pastor Russell. Members of the movement have variously referred to themselves as Bible Students, International Bible Students, Associated Bible Students, or Independent Bible Students. The origins of the movement are associated with . . .Russell's teachings.
A number of schisms developed within the congregations of Bible Students associated with the Watch Tower Society between 1909 and 1932.[2][3] The most significant split began in 1917 following the election of Joseph Franklin Rutherford . . .
Thousands of members left congregations of Bible Students associated with the Watch Tower Society throughout the 1920s . . . . William Schnell, author and former Jehovah's Witness, claims that three quarters of the original Bible Students who had been associating with the Watch Tower Society in 1919 had left by 1931.[4][3][a] In 1930 Rutherford stated that "the total number of those who have withdrawn from the Society... is comparatively large."[5]
Between 1918 and 1929, several factions formed their own independent fellowships, including the Stand Fast Movement, the Pastoral Bible Institute, the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement founded by PSL Johnson, and the Dawn Bible Students Association. These groups range from conservative, claiming to be Russell's true followers, to more liberal, claiming that Russell's role is not as important as once believed.[6] Rutherford's faction of the movement retained control of the Watch Tower Society[6] and adopted the name Jehovah's witnesses in July 1931.[b]

Yes, we have discussed this on the forum before. I think this issue is taken to be viewed from the secular perspective only. They, the secular authorities, designate JW elders as having a clerical role as ministers (of religion). Therefore, under official circumstances, such as in a court of law, elders are viewed as "clergy". Whether they themselves, or the congregation view them as clergy in the traditional sense or not is irrelevant in these secular circumstances. (JWs view everyone who is baptized as minister, but obviously there is a distinction between roles and obligations, since elders also have the role of oversight and shepherding). I think in secular terms the word elder falls under the umbrella of clergy, despite the fact that our "clergy" do not hold matters confidential (as you and pudgy pointed out) to the same extent as a Catholic priest for example.

Legislators obviously have not made an exception to who exactly should be viewed as clergy. They have not, as far as I know, added a clause which says JW elders should not be viewed as clergy because they are not the same as Catholic priests and do not view confidential disclosure in the traditional sense. By law, they fall under the same umbrella regardless of differences of application by the particular religion.

If I remember right, the plaintiff in a recent lawsuit tried to use the difference of elders and clergy to his advantage by arguing that elders cannot be viewed as clergy because their brand of “confidentiality” includes a whole body of elders and the HQ. However, the judge deemed this irrelevant because he said it is a religions right of how they (JWs) apply their beliefs, and that it wasn't the courts business to tell a religion how to run their religious affairs, and then on that account make exceptions to secular rules. In the courts eyes an elder was clergy, period.

In saying this, I personally believe the org. should refuse the designation of clergy by secular authorities as applying to them. But I am not sure if this is possible legally? It might not be.
In any case, if it is possible, then I think they should do it. But law is so complex, rigid, and impersonal and doing something that is not according to the law can have bad repercussions down the road, even for an innocent party.

The JWs have been trying to, actually imploring, legislators to change the law and make ALL clergy mandatory reporters (all over the world). This is what all victims want too. Perhaps this is the real answer to solving the problem…. 
 
 
 
 
The law forbids him to use it.  
I don't think the WT org. has the right to publish it or give anyone else the right. These papers involve specific cases, most of which have not even been proven, but are allegations (and these allegations would have to be proved as fact in court). To publish anything like this....well I am sure you can see this would be very wrong. Zalkin is not interested in publishing, (against the law anyway) as much as he is interested in wining specific cases. But unless a victim asks him to do so, he cannot open a case. So he has no choice but to keep the files locked up.

Yes, we have discussed this on the forum before. I think this issue is taken to be viewed from the secular perspective only. They, the secular authorities, designate JW elders as having a clerical role as ministers (of religion). Therefore, under official circumstances, such as in a court of law, elders are viewed as "clergy". Whether they themselves, or the congregation view them as clergy in the traditional sense or not is irrelevant in these secular circumstances. (JWs view everyone who is baptized as minister, but obviously there is a distinction between roles and obligations, since elders also have the role of oversight and shepherding). I think in secular terms the word elder falls under the umbrella of clergy, despite the fact that our "clergy" do not hold matters confidential (as you and pudgy pointed out) to the same extent as a Catholic priest for example.

Legislators obviously have not made an exception to who exactly should be viewed as clergy. They have not, as far as I know, added a clause which says JW elders should not be viewed as clergy because they are not the same as Catholic priests and do not view confidential disclosure in the traditional sense. By law, they fall under the same umbrella regardless of differences of application by the particular religion.

If I remember right, the plaintiff in a recent lawsuit tried to use the difference of elders and clergy to his advantage by arguing that elders cannot be viewed as clergy because their brand of “confidentiality” includes a whole body of elders and the HQ. However, the judge deemed this irrelevant because he said it is a religions right of how they (JWs) apply their beliefs, and that it wasn't the courts business to tell a religion how to run their religious affairs, and then on that account make exceptions to secular rules. In the courts eyes an elder was clergy, period.

In saying this, I personally believe the org. should refuse the designation of clergy by secular authorities as applying to them. But I am not sure if this is possible legally? It might not be.
In any case, if it is possible, then I think they should do it. But law is so complex, rigid, and impersonal and doing something that is not according to the law can have bad repercussions down the road, even for an innocent party.

The JWs have been trying to, actually imploring, legislators to change the law and make ALL clergy mandatory reporters (all over the world). This is what all victims want too. Perhaps this is the real answer to solving the problem…. 
 
 
 
 
The law forbids him to use it.  
I don't think the WT org. has the right to publish it or give anyone else the right. These papers involve specific cases, most of which have not even been proven, but are allegations (and these allegations would have to be proved as fact in court). To publish anything like this....well I am sure you can see this would be very wrong. Zalkin is not interested in publishing, (against the law anyway) as much as he is interested in wining specific cases. But unless a victim asks him to do so, he cannot open a case. So he has no choice but to keep the files locked up.

I agree it is mostly accurate; a very informative article which fills in many details we don't usually get about the work there.  The outcome of the request for registration is not unexpected, knowing what happened in different eras and with Jesus himself.
I like the way the writer expresses her understanding of everything throughout the article, e.g. this statement:   "Apparently, a religious minority is a convenient target for slanders and distorted facts, as the Jews themselves know from their bitter experience.”
 
 

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-a-rare-glimpse-into-the-insular-world-of-israeli-jehovah-s-witnesses-1.5468604
I found it to be mostly accurate.

It's not the same, of course, but there is one surprising group that related themselves in a curious way to the Bible Students/JWs in the 1930s. But they were also very highly divergent in most ways. It was the [mostly African-American] Nation of Islam ("Black Muslim") teachings of Elijah Muhammed. Muhammed recommended to his followers that they listen to Rutherford's radio broadcasts, and he sometimes paraphrased what was in Rutherford's books. Now and then you hear some overlap in his teachings and those of the Rutherford, with a twist:
Elijah Muhammad believed that the white race was created by Yakub, a Black scientist, and that Allah had allowed this devilish race to hold power for 6,000 years. Their time was up in 1914, and the 20th century was to be the time for Black people to assert themselves. -- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nation-of-Islam
He even thought that the nation's [white] kings have had their day as of 1914, and that Allah would intervene in the mid-1970s. JSTOR has a few articles discussing the doctrinal similaritles of the Black Muslims, along with chronology similarities. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1384578

Actually it was very similar to the way Miller/Barbour/Russell calculated 1844/1874 and ultimately even 1914. The primary way of calculating 1914 was not the seven times of Leviticus 26 (which later became the 7 times of the Daniel 4 tree dream). That method was considered just a supportive but inferior method by Russell.
One of the original "better and clearer" methods made use of that 538 date as seen in the William Miller chart that @Space Merchant showed above. We might be forgiven if we see 538 and 606 in the chart and assume that these are BCE dates such the first year of Cyrus (which was 538 BCE) after he captured Babylon. But it's not. It's 538 A.D., aka, 538 C.E. (And, for Miller, 606 A.D. was the rise of Mohammedism.) 538 A.D. is the date that the Ostrogothic Empire was supposedly overthrown, about 500 years AFTER the time of Jesus, NOT BEFORE. (For Barbour, it was 538 AD + Daniel's 1,260 days to start  the "time of the end" in 1798 AD, and 538 + Daniel's 1,335 days (years) = 1873 AD, which failed for Barbour, so he had already adjusted it to 1874 when he convinced Russell. This is also why Russell started the time of the end in 1799, not 1798. (Evidenced by Papal rule being rejected then in the French Revolution.) Ultimately it was 539 AD + 1,335 + 40 years  = 1914. Russell's inherited methods finally had to be dropped under Rutherford. We dropped the "Israel's doubles" method, and dropped the Leviticus 26 "seven times" method, finally leaving us with only the inferior Daniel 4 method which also referred to seven times.
Newton, a brilliant man, but who also got involved in some of this nonsense, realized that people were just picking dates for the supposed beginning of Papal "political" rule, or the start of any particularly bad pope, in order to put a start date on a Babylonian Papal Antichrist and/or "Holy Roman Empire." They were picking dates just so that the end date (by adding 1260, for example) would land in their own generation. That 538/539 AD date for Miller/Barbour/Russell was considered to be useful for this kind of thing in the 1800's. But Newton said it should start in 756 AD or even 800 AD or perhaps some time in between: 756 +1260 = 2016; 772 + 1260 = 2032; 800 + 1260 = 2060.
Wikipedia has it pretty close here, I think:
Over the years, a large amount of media attention and public interest has circulated regarding largely unknown and unpublished documents, evidently written by Isaac Newton, that indicate he believed the world could end in 2060. While Newton also had many other possible dates (e.g. 2034),[39] he did not believe that the end of the world would take place specifically in 2060.[40]
Like most Protestant theologians of his time, Newton believed that the Papal Office and not any one particular Pope was the fulfillment of the Biblical predictions about Antichrist, whose rule was predicted to last for 1,260 years. They applied the day-year principle (in which a day represents a year in prophecy) to certain key verses in the books of Daniel[41] and Revelation[42] (also known as the Apocalypse), and looked for significant dates in the Papacy's rise to power to begin this timeline. Newton's calculation ending in 2060 is based on the 1,260-year timeline commencing in 800 AD when Charlemagne became the first Holy Roman Emperor and reconfirmed the earlier (756 AD) Donation of Pepin to the Papacy.[35]
2016 vs. 2060
Between the time he wrote his 2060 prediction (about 1704) until his death in 1727 Newton conversed, both first hand and by correspondence, with other famous theologians of his time. Those contemporaries who knew him during the remaining 23 years of his life appear to be in agreement that Newton, and the "best interpreters" including Jonathan Edwards, Robert Fleming, Moses Lowman, Phillip Doddridge, and Bishop Thomas Newton, were eventually "pretty well agreed" that the 1,260-year timeline should be calculated from the year 756 AD.[43]
F. A. Cox also confirmed that this was the view of Newton and others, including himself:
Thomas Williams stated that this timeline had become the predominant view among the leading Protestant theologians of his time:
In April of 756 AD, Pepin, King of France, accompanied by Pope Stephen II entered northern Italy, forcing the Lombard King Aistulf to lift his siege of Rome, and return to Pavia. Following Aistulf's capitulation, Pepin gave the newly conquered territories to the Papacy by means of the Donation of Pepin, thereby elevating the Pope from being a subject of the Byzantine Empire to head of state, with temporal power over the newly constituted Papal States.
The end of the timeline is based on Daniel 8:25 which reads "he shall be broken without hand" and is understood to mean that the end of the Papacy will not be caused by any human action.[46] Volcanic activity is described as the means by which Rome will be overthrown.[47]

The bible indicates that Satan knows that Jehovah exists and shudders - but he does not obey.  It is like a child that is on drugs and destroys his own life in front of a parent. 
Satan has seen the power of Jehovah - but it is rarely used destructively. Satan is the father of death and destruction, lies and deceit.  He knows that Jehovah is his creator but will spread lies to humankind about it.  Anything which takes away the honor from Jehovah whether it is atheism or false philosophy

The author is clearly responding to new evidence that Satan worships Hillary Clinton.

I agree with you 100% that it's possible to mix them up. In fact, "@Patiently. . ." was on the right track when he asked: 
Specifically, when Jesus said "the harvest is great" he seems to refer to the importance and urgency of the preaching work during any time in history. There was an urgency during the first century and there is an urgency now.
However, when Jesus said, "the harvest is the synteleia of the age" (NWT: "the harvest is a conclusion of the system of the things" this was specifically using the term "harvest" in the sense of a final gathering up of those "chosen" (the wheat) from among the "weeds."
As  you said, separate illustrations don't have to be referring to the exact same aspect of an idea, just because the subject appears to be the same.
I should have acknowledged @Patiently's original question more clearly rather than by just saying ". . . this 'harvest' (or perhaps,  'a harvest') . . . " 
To me, and you, there is no reason to mix the meanings of the general "preaching" harvest and the "end-times" gathering of the wheat and weeds (or the gathering/harvest of the chosen ones). But this doesn't mean there is no connection. In fact, even though we've had this conversation before where this separation between two harvests has already been made, I was still acknowledging that there is a logical connection, as the Watchtower publications have also claimed.
In the God's Kingdom Rules book for example, chapter 9 contains the following discussion, which also ties together these same verses (which you might claim was like mixing up Cinderella and Little Red Riding Hood).
*** kr chap. 9 pp. 88-95 pars. 5-21 Results of Preaching—“The Fields . . . Are White for Harvesting” ***
In a vision given to the apostle John, Jehovah reveals that he assigned Jesus to take the lead in a global harvest of people. (Read Revelation 14:14-16.) In this vision, Jesus is described as having a crown and a sickle. The “golden crown on [Jesus’] head” confirms his position as ruling King. The “sharp sickle in his hand” confirms his role as Harvester. By stating through an angel that “the harvest of the earth is fully ripe,” Jehovah emphasizes that the work is urgent. Indeed, “the hour has come to reap”—there is no time for delay! In response to God’s command “put your sickle in,” Jesus thrusts in his sickle, and the earth is reaped—that is, people of the earth are reaped. This exciting vision reminds us that again “the fields . . . are white for harvesting.” Does this vision help us to determine when this global harvest began? Yes!
6 Since John’s vision in Revelation chapter 14 shows Jesus, the Harvester, wearing a crown (verse 14), his appointment as King in 1914 had already taken place. (Dan. 7:13, 14) Sometime after that, Jesus is commanded to start the harvest (verse 15). The same order of events is seen in Jesus’ parable about the harvest of the wheat, where he states: “The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things.” Thus, the harvest season and the conclusion of this system of things began at the same time—in 1914. Later “in the harvest season,” the actual harvesting began. (Matt. 13:30, 39) [Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the harvest season, I will tell the reapers: First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up; then gather the wheat into my storehouse.’” . . . and the enemy who sowed them is the Devil. The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels.] Looking back from our vantage point in time, we can see that the harvest began some years after Jesus started ruling as King. First, from 1914 until the early part of 1919, Jesus carried out a cleansing work among his anointed followers. . . . Then, in 1919, “the harvest of the earth” began. Without delay, Jesus used the newly appointed faithful slave to help our brothers see the urgency of the preaching work. . . . Since 1919, zealous harvest workers have been gathered into the restored Christian congregation. . . .
20 In the first century, Jesus helped his apostles to see that the harvest work was urgent. From 1919 onward, Jesus has helped his modern-day disciples to grasp the same truth. In response, God’s people have intensified  their activities. In fact, the harvest work has proved to be unstoppable. As foretold by the prophet Malachi, the preaching work is being carried out today “from the rising of the sun to its setting.” (Mal. 1:11) Yes, from sunrise to sunset—from east to west, no matter where they are on earth—sowers and reapers work and rejoice together. And from sunrise to sunset—from morning till evening, or all day long—we work with a sense of urgency.
21 As we look back today over some 100 years and see how a small group of God’s servants has grown into “a mighty nation,” our heart does indeed “throb and overflow” with joy. (Isa. 60:5, 22) May that joy and our love for Jehovah, “the Master of the harvest,” impel each one of us to keep on doing our share in completing the greatest harvest of all time!—Luke 10:2. [Then he said to them: “Yes, the harvest is great, but the workers are few. Therefore, beg the Master of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.]
The chapter in "kr" also tried to deal with the problem of timing in order to date the harvest of the conclusion of the system of things beginning after Jesus becomes king, and showing that the harvest would begin some time later. The article times these two events at 1914 and 1919, of course.

I think you asked an excellent question here. Last year, I think, you were part of the conversation where the point was made that this verse seems like an exception to the more general idea in the Bible that the end, last day, his parousia, the synteleia, end of all things, his manifestation, his  appearance, his revelation, the day of the Lord, Jehovah's day, the harvest, trumpet call, judgment day, resurrection, etc. all refer (generally) to a single, great future apocalyptic event of unknown duration. While that entire apocalyptic event is still future, Christians are told to keep it in mind, and expect that it can occur suddenly, at any time, as if without warning. 
Yet, this verse in Matthew definitely refers to the harvest as if it can cover a long period of time. The disciples themselves were part of this "harvesting" work. The analogy here was not wheat (sheaves), but sheep, who would be gathered into the fold.
(Matthew 10:5-7) These 12 Jesus sent out, giving them these instructions: “Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter any Sa·marʹi·tan city; 6 but instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 As you go, preach, saying: ‘The Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.’
(Matthew 10:23) . . .for truly I say to you, you will by no means complete the circuit of the cities of Israel until the Son of man arrives.
It would not be time to begin gathering (or bringing in) other sheep until after Jesus died. (John 10)
This is just an idea, but I think the solution is related to what I said before on the issue of the kingdom, the last day, the conclusion/end (synteleia), etc. I doubt that I made the made the point very well in the post on the previous page (from 3 days ago). I'll try to make it again. Keep in mind that it will be a similar point that the Watchtower articles have grappled with when speaking about why, if Jesus came into his Kingdom in 1914, we should still pray for that Kingdom to come:
*** w07 9/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
When Jesus came into his Kingdom authority in 1914,
*** ws14 1/15 p. 26 par. 2 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
As Bible students, we know that God’s Kingdom came in 1914 when Jesus was made King in heaven.
*** w14 1/15 pp. 27-28 par. 2 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
As Bible students, we know that in one sense God’s Kingdom came in 1914 when Jesus was installed as King in heaven. But we know that more is involved in response to the prayer “Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth.” (Matt. 6:10) Clearly, that includes the end of the present wicked system. Only when that occurs can God’s will be done on earth as it is being done in heaven.
In fact, with all the renewed "anniversary" emphasis on 1914 in the year 2014, the WTS decided to add a new song to the songbook, manually, that most Witnesses printed out on paper from jw.org and carried with them to the KH. The song was clearly meant to face the potential contradiction head on.

As stated before, the problem is not just the "kingdom" or the "harvest." Note:
The kingdom is coming, but Jesus also said it was already in their midst:
(Luke 17:21) . . .For look! the Kingdom of God is in your midst.”
The early Christians were awaiting the time to become kings and priests but were already made a kingdom of priests:
(Revelation 1:6) 6 and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father. . .
(Ephesians 2:6) . . .Moreover, he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus,
We are awating Jesus' manifestation, yet Peter and Hebrews said he was already made manifest:
(1 Peter 1:20) .20 True, he was foreknown before the founding of the world, but he was made manifest at the end of the times for the sake of YOU
(Hebrews 9:26-27) . . .But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this a judgment,
We expect that Satan is not completely cast down until the final battle in heaven is complete, yet:
(John 12:31) . . .Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
(Luke 10:18) At that he said to them: “I see Satan already fallen like lightning from heaven. . .
The day of the Lord, the day of salvation was future, yet:
(2 Corinthians 6:2) . . .Look! Now is the day of salvation.
We are awaiting the last day, the last hour:
(John 6:54) . . .and I will resurrect him on the last day;
(John 12:48) . . .The word that I have spoken is what will judge him on the last day.
Yet, the "last hour" was already here in the first century:
(1 John 2:18) . . .Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour.
Last days:
(Acts 2:16, 17) . . .this is what was said through the prophet Joel: 17 ‘“And in the last days,” God says, “I will pour out some of my spirit . . .
Paul explained that it was because they were in the last days that Timothy was seeing critical times hard to deal with:
(2 Timothy 3:1-14) . . .But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, . . .  8 Now in the way that Janʹnes and Jamʹbres opposed Moses, so these also go on opposing the truth. . . . as it was with those two men. 10 But you have closely followed my teaching,. . . 13 But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled. 14 You, however, continue in the things that you learned and were persuaded to believe, knowing from whom you learned them
Hebrews 1:2, from the literal Greek, also says the same:
(Hebrews 1:2) 2 Now [in the last days] he has spoken to us by means of a Son,. . .
And it's similar with this harvest or gathering of the chosen ones, at the last trumpet:
(Matthew 24:31) . . .And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.
(1 Corinthians 15:51, 52) . . .we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we will be changed.
(1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds. . .
Yet, this "harvest" (or perhaps, "a harvest") or gathering can also be spoken of as going on all along since the first century:
(Matthew 9:37-10:1) . . .“Yes, the harvest is great, but the workers are few. 38 Therefore, beg the Master of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.” 10:1 So he summoned his 12 disciples and gave them authority . . .
(2 Corinthians 9:10) . . .Now the One who abundantly supplies seed to the sower and bread for eating will supply and multiply the seed for you to sow and will increase the harvest of your righteousness.)
The explanation, I think, although it might sound a bit strained, is simply that the word about the coming parousia, synteleia, kingdom, harvest, etc., is so sure that we see should see it as if being fulfilled now. It helps us to see --through faith-- and therefore we are better prepared for the potential troubles of this system, even those which may threaten and take our lives. We may die, yet still "happily" await the harvest, because the things we do (in faith) go right with us.
(Revelation 14:13-16) And I heard a voice out of heaven say, “Write: Happy are the dead who die in union with the Lord from this time onward. Yes, says the spirit, let them rest from their labors, for the things they did go right with them.” 14 Then I saw, and look! a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was someone like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. 15 Another angel emerged from the temple sanctuary, calling with a loud voice to the one seated on the cloud: “Put your sickle in and reap, because the hour has come to reap, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.” 16 And the one seated on the cloud thrust his sickle into the earth, and the earth was reaped.
It's about the sureness of the promise, and therefore keeping that day "close in mind."
(2 Peter 1:10-21) 10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and choosing sure for yourselves, for if you keep on doing these things, you will by no means ever fail. 11 In fact, in this way you will be richly granted entrance into the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.. . .16 No, it was not by following artfully contrived false stories that we made known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. . .19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, and you are doing well in paying attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place (until day dawns and a daystar rises) in your hearts.
(2 Peter 3:12)  as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah,. . .

Thanks for responding. As soon as I opened "6 screens" I knew I would have trust issues with the video, because I have known completely false information in the past to come from that site on the only other video I have watched from them so far. And then I noticed that this 'tl;dw' too long ; don't watch. But I might get to it another time.
I did watch 5 minutes and lost interest after the kinds of admissions made in those first few minutes.
An an early mistake caught my attention. It won't mean much unless there are other similar ones, which may or may not come up later. (It was the idea that the arrangement just before the elder arrangement was the "company servant." The actual sequence was "company servant" a very long time ago, before her birth, then for many years the "congregation servant," and then the "elder arrangement" (with the "presiding overseer" and more recently "chairman of the BOE"). It's possible evidence she's confused what she's read with what she's experienced.)
The potential of this resulting from CSA trauma also fits a couple of her descriptions and even a potential Freudian slip or two: For example:
When she accidentally uses the the word "insect" for "incense" (at 00:05:16) she just happens to use two words that could phonetically combine to "incest." And then she relates it to a "bunch of men" in the woods watching her in "her little blue robes" which might give away more than she thinks she is giving away. And her subsequent protest that this wasn't a CSA experience rings hollow.
This Freudian theory sounds like a stretch, I'm sure, but I don't know if you are aware that this exact same Freudian slip was already made to be the key to a 1995 movie about CSA called "ANGELS and INSECTS." Spoiler alert: In the move, the problem with the girl is discovered when the solver rearranges the word INSECT to spell INCEST, and the entomological and etymological conflation finally explains all her obsessions.  It's almost too much that she will then, you say, go on to make use of the title "ANGELS and WOMEN" in the same video. It smacks of being a test case for Bruno Bettelheim's famous 1976 book: "The Uses of Enchantment."
Anyway, as interesting as it might be, there is also the area of demon possession which I know nothing about, and don't intend to learn about either. This may mean that no matter how much I think I could learn from it, I will never wish to wrap my head around this type of experience. It just becomes a matter of prayer and supplication, and I can say no more.

I think that we are all adults here and it is not the Librarians duty to protect anyone. No one is master over our faith except we ourselves.
Is this the devils platform....or is it a platform for ones to state their opinions, and/or facts (which are up to us to verify). It would be sad if we were swayed by someone's mere opinions. It would be sad if we were swayed by someone stating something as truth or facts even before we checked whether what they were sayin was indeed true. I feel this platform gives me opportunity to keep an open mind, not be gullible, be more discerning  and actually make the truth my own.
I don't understand why you say these things about JWI, I don't seem to see anything about him being sly. As far as I know he has always been open about his beliefs, and always admitted that he could be wrong (all humans can be wrong). But it shouldn't matter to us what JWI thinks, or anyone else for that matter because in the end we are all accountable to God individually. If we are going to allow ourselves to be swayed by someone else's thinking besides God's, then it means we haven't learned much from the Bible. This forum is the least of my worries, honestly. But I accept you feel differently about it....

I assume you already know that I don't have any power to ban people from this forum. And I wouldn't ban anyone anyway, because I don't believe it's a good or useful thing to do. I think everyone comes to these forums for their own reasons. Mine are different from yours obviously. But I don't think I have any more right to be here than you do. I don't know the owner of the forum, and I'm not always happy with the way things go all the time, but it's not my forum, and he or she or they can run it as wished. I'm tired of it at times, but I still like to share what I learn, and learn if what I have shared has been thought about in a different way by others.
The most important thing for me is to share things in such a way that they might attract some others who are equally willing to discuss the same issues that have caused concern for me or other WItnesses, and who have found solutions or counterpoints to the specific issues raised.
I understand where you are coming from. And based on things you have said, I would agree that the easiest way to handle issues I have brought up (when you disagree) is to simply think of me as an apostate, or think of me as dishonest, or badly motivated. It's not possible for you to think of me as a brother, and I admit that it stings a bit, but I understand that I have no reason to take it personally on a forum, where I am not here in person. And I would not be able to be so honest if I were here in person, anyway. But this in no way keeps me from thinking of you as a sister, and understanding the predicament. If an apostate said any of the things I am saying, you would not need to be the least bit concerned with giving any kind of answer or response. You could merely ignore it, or simply state that you disagree. And you might even want to spit a bit of venom my way. It's probably natural.
I understand that it is my own fault if I create discomfort for some, in the same way that these questions once created discomfort for me. Some still do create a lot of discomfort for me, but I will still be honest about these issues, especially if I am going to find someone else who has found a solution that works for them, and might also work better for me.
The way I have come to see it is this: that in order to provoke an honest response I sometimes need to state the issue as honestly as I think it's possible to state it. There are many examples right here under this same topic. In a previous post here, I could have said, for example:
I don't think that Russell should be seen as having a special part in the fulfillment of Malachi 3 because I think it's possible he lied in court and it's possible he showed himself to be hypocritical and it's possible he was presumptuous and it's possible he was dishonest in other ways.
That might be a bit provocative but it would not be likely to elicit a real thought-out defense of why Russell should have a part in fulfilling Malachi 3. It just makes it more likely that someone will simply respond:
OK maybe Russell did some of those things, and maybe he didn't, so let's just give him the benefit of the doubt, and go with the WTS publications that involve Russell's work in the fulfillment of Malachi 3.
It's not that claim would have been dishonest, because I do believe "it's possible" when I spoke about those things I believed were possible. But it would be more honest if I stated my more honest belief that it's not only possible, but very true that Russell lied in court, for example. This way, I might elicit a solution from someone who actually also knows that it is true. Or a responder might show that they are just as concerned with the Bible issue in Malachi by asking for the reference about Russell. And if If they don't believe it, but also don't show any interest in the evidence, then I already know that they probably don't really care about the Bible problem involved, and have probably misunderstood it to be a sly way to take a "dig" at Russell, or relay some embarrassing history. And this will tell me something right away about the level of seriousness the person has about the Biblical issue.
And some will be expected to simply give a downvote to the very idea, or make a judgment about me that implies bringing up an issue (honestly) makes me apostate or demon-possessed. That's another way to handle the discomfort, and I can't judge them for it. It's the same way I tried to handle the same discomfort for a while. I can't take it personally for that reason. It's my own doing, since I am not trying to couch everything in easy terms here as I would do in my congregation.
And perhaps it's merely that I am the wrong kind of person to ask about such issues. Using another more common example, we would allow, or even expect an apostate to ask about the "overlapping lifespans" making up the latest definition of the generation. But if a Witness herself asks, it is considered possible evidence of apostasy, depending on how seriously they feel they need to present the question. If someone were to say, "Hey, I don't really have much of a problem with it, and I can see it going either way, but I am still a bit concerned," then we give them a pass, and say that they are probably not apostate. But what if that same person, to be more honest with others, will say, "Hey, I can't see this at all! I've looked up the Scriptures, and I think the explanation is wrong!" Now, that Witness is suspected of being or becoming an apostate merely because they are being more honest, or want their faith in things unseen to be based on evidence.
And I'm not saying that any Witness needs to respond to her question about the generation, even if they might find it necessary to down-vote her, or make a simple statement to say that it makes sense to them. For certain issues, that might even seem an appropriate response. It may be all we can do.