ComfortMyPeople

I thought of another means by which I think the Watchtower shows that "saving face" is important. When 1914 "failed" Russell evidently made a big splash of facing the day on October 2 with a full-throated announcement to the Bethel family and traveling convention "delegates."  Russell said: THE GENTILE TIMES HAVE ENDED!
No one apparently thought to say anything about this until the 1920's when Rutherford published in the WT that something like this happened on October 1st. Then MacMillan wrote a paper preparing for the book, Faith on the March, claiming it happened on October 4th. Then the book changed it to October 2nd, and this is now the official date.
To me, this is an announcement that, as of now, even though we see that all the expectations did not come true, that they were now going to face this problem head on by claiming that it really was so: that it was not a mistake.
This doesn't quite match the evidence in Watchtower articles of the time that appear to start backpeddling on 1914, with claims that the Gentile Times ended in 1915. And then there was Rutherford's new teaching that the harvest had no longer been 1874 to 1914, but that it was now 1878 to 1918.
In 1918, when this failed again. Rutherford tried something that was very similar to what Russell had evidently done. He created a motto:
"THE WORLD HAS ENDED -- Millions Now Living Will Never Die!"
This again seemed like a way to say, yes the expectations failed, but let's double-down, kick in our heels, and claim, in 1918, that "THE WORLD HAS ENDED."
And the new time period 1878 to 1918 as a kind of "harvest" remained for many years in our publications. This teaching still remained even in the 1960's or beyond. An echo of it is seen even in this 1990 article:
*** w90 3/15 p. 14 par. 19 ‘The Faithful Slave’ and Its Governing Body ***
In its issue of November 1, 1944, The Watchtower stated: “In 1878, forty years before the Lord’s coming to the temple in 1918
[A 12/15/1966 WT article explained this incorrectly as a way to highlight supposed discernment in 1922, but the footnote in that same article proves the main article to be incorrect. Will discuss if any interest.]
But this 1878 date remained as prophetically significant for over 100 years before it was dropped. Why hang onto it for so long?
It's also fairly well-known that until 1943, the official Watchtower date for Christ's presence (parousia) was still 1874. The Watchtower held to this date for nearly 65 years. Long after hints and discussions had changed the emphasis to a possibility that Christ's presence could move to 1914 or 1918. (Rutherford for many years began stating that Christ's "presence" and "coming" was dated to 1918, but did not try to directly contradict Russell's 1874 date for the parousia.)
Similarly, for years the Watchtower taught the general idea that the "last days" had begun in 1799. Echoes of this 1799 teaching were still being mentioned in prophetic fulfillments related to Daniel's prophecies, even as they have been in the lifetimes of some of us here:
One curious explanation that could concern why we should no longer think of 1799 as related to the time of the end or 'last days' used, not the Watchtower's own former view, but a parallel view of others who had seen 1799 as an end time "millennial" date.
*** w67 4/15 p. 234 par. 20 Mankind’s Millennium Under God’s Kingdom—Why Literally So ***
the Holy Roman Empire, to 1799 C.E., when Pope Pius VI, already deposed by Napoleon Bonaparte, was taken as a prisoner from the Vatican on February 20, and deported to Valence, France, where he died on August 29, 1799. The trouble that followed upon the Roman Catholic Church was viewed as marking the “little time” during which Satan the Devil was to be loosed at the millennium’s end. (Rev. 20:1-3, 7, Dy) However, it is now 168 years since the year 1799. That is not a “little time” for the Devil to be loosed; and yet the troubles on the Roman Catholic Papacy are worsening. And now the destruction of Babylon the Great, of which the Papacy is the most powerful member, threatens that religious empire in the near future.
This was repeated again:
*** w89 9/1 p. 12 par. 6 Organizing Now for the Thousand Years to Come ***
Some Roman Catholics have claimed that Jesus Christ’s Thousand Year Reign ended in 1799 when French armies captured Rome and deposed the pope as its ruler, so that he was deported as a prisoner to France, where he died. The Catholic clergy have said that Satan and his demons were then released from “the bottomless pit,” or “the abyss,” to renew their deceptive work for “a little time.” (Revelation 20:1-3, Catholic Douay Version) If that were true, it would mean that the “little time” has already continued for 190 years, with no end in sight.
Notice that the first major defense against this view was that no one could call 168 years a "little time."
How does that square with our explanation of Revelation 12 where we start Satan's "short period of time" in 1914 and claim that this short period of time has already gone on for 106 years?

That doesn't make sense. I repeat what I'm having for dinner at least every month. Doesn't make it rubbish. Just means that it was still useful. Besides, I think he meant that some of it was from his unpublished files, which is why he thought it was curious, but not in a bad way.
Look at the old Bible Commentaries and Bible Dictionaries by Gesenius, Strong, Elliott, Albert Barnes, Matthew Henry, Vine, Thayer, etc. Now look at how many pages these men must have produced per hour to finish some of these works in their lifetime. Are you saying that anyone who could produce 24 paragraphs in two hours must be doing it wrong? Was it the fact that the supporting scriptures were so well remembered that they got the citations exactly right without having to double-check them? Imagine trying to write a thorough concordance of the Bible in the days before there were any computers or automation to help you out.
Who says they weren't true anointed? All of the persons I referred to claimed to be anointed.

OK, I can't help myself. Before I try to wean myself off the discussion of the "Old Watch Tower Chronology" that included 1799, 1874, 1878, I just wanted to point out a couple of things that might relate to something Anna just said about "saving face."
I don't think of the Organization as "fraudulent" because we all know that each one of us was "handed down" our chronology in a way so that we couldn't help but believe it. Same goes for how it was handed down to the GB, Helpers, and Writing Department. It tied 1914 in with Bible prophecy; it "proved" the Bible right; it "proved" that Witnesses (Bible Students) understood some esoteric prophecies of the Bible in a way that no one else could have "deciphered" without a measure of holy spirit. Even for members of the Writing Department and researchers to go back and look at what had actually been predicted, there was just too much "confirmation bias" to dismiss all of it. So even the old chronology was seen as a kind of preparatory framework that made it possible to accept 1914 as the End of the Gentile Times.
But here's where the heart of wisdom saving of face comes in. At first, 1914 was seen as a failure, and the new date for the End of the Gentile Times became 1915, then fulfillments were moved to 1918. But over time, it was seen that the Watch Tower could keep 1914, if it just changed the definition of the phrase "End of the Gentile Times." Nothing else predicted for 1914 had come true, except "a time of trouble." But the problem with the "time of trouble" prediction was that it had been long predicted that 1914 would be the END of that time of trouble, not the beginning. It's true that for the 10 years leading up to 1914, this idea had changed to a time of trouble STARTING in 1914 with several months of chaos, expected to reach into the year 1915, as all gentile kingdoms, governments and institutions lost their power. And they would then have to realize that the only kingdom to acknowledge was the one to be led, in 1914, by Jews in Palestine. So they couldn't really point to the Watch Tower's own predictions.
A quick definition of the original phrase "end of the gentile times" is seen here (quoting an older Zion's Watch Tower) at wol.jw.org:
*** w52 5/1 p. 260 par. 3 1914 a Marked Year! *** https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1952321
“It has often been shown that this is the basis and key of the Times of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24), or the duration of Gentile rule over Jerusalem.
That same article shows what was done in order to save face. They couldn't use the Watchtower's own publications to prove that the WTS had been predicting this date for several decades, so they use a magazine that the 1952 Watchtower called "The New World" magazine. (That was not its name, even though Brother Anthony Morris uses that same name when he holds up the magazine at the 2018 Annual Meeting.) Neither Russell himself nor the Bible Students had made use of this magazine, probably because they were more familiar with the great differences between what this magazine said and what Russell himself and the Watch Tower had said. The magazine was dated August 20, 1914, --still early-- so the things that the magazine quoted correctly would merely make Russell and the "Millennial Dawners" look like false prophets. "Russell's prophecy" was quoted so incorrectly that even though they made it sound as if it was coming true, any Bible Student would know differently.
But I wanted to point out just how Brother Morris used the article in a way that showed his own "subtext" was about saving face.
It's very long and I'll try to end the post with it, chopping out some pieces to try to shorten it, but since it's so long I wanted to put a shorter idea of saving face in front of it. It's from the Watch Tower publications in 1924: (g24 2/13)
It is not at all true that our expectations concerning this date [1914] failed of realization. Others now admit for that date all that we ever claimed for it.
Of course, there were no citations for those others, but the one that gets the most repetition in the WT publications is the one that Morris held up at the Annual Meeting. Notice how he will turn this into a point about how only the Organization will actually be able to point out when something "IS IT!":
I think that all of you would agree how much we enjoyed the museum video and hearing Brother Fred Franz —his voice— talking about after the assassination of the archduke that the brothers said, ‘Aha! There it is! There it is! What we’ve been waiting for.’
Well, that’s very stirring, and then we would have critics saying, ‘Yeah, but you people had other expectations that were not realized,’ and etcetera, you know. But it’s amazing that even the world recognized that this was unique—1914. In fact, I’ve had this for many years. I want to show it to you. It’s The New World Magazine. And it was widely read at the time, and I guess about 1931 they went out of business. But here, “End of All Kingdoms in 1914 — ‘Millennial Dawners’ 25 Year Prophecy,” widely read; other newspapers covered it. They made comments here about:
“The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students,’ best known as ‘Millennial Dawners,’ have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914. ‘Look out for 1914!’ has been the cry of the hundreds of traveling evangelists.”
And I appreciate very much how the Yearbook in 1975 considering our modern-day history made this beautiful quote:
“Disappointments about going to heaven in 1914 really were very minor, compared with the great expectations realized in connection with that year.”
And it’s amazing. During the first six months of 1914, nothing happened. They were being ridiculed. And then the archduke is assassinated. This one was particularly released on August 30, 1914. Millions dying in World War I.
So it’s Brother Franz’s statement that really gave the idea for the theme here: “This Is It!”
The question arises, Will we have one or more times—in the future or even now—when we can say, “This is it” and have that same exciting fervor because of Bible prophecy?
Well, let’s begin with this one here. Find Daniel chapter 11. And we’re going to read here verse 40, or half of it:
“In the time of the end the king of the south (here at Daniel 11:40) will engage with him in a pushing.”
So the Governing Body has been prayerfully considering recent events. And we know that in 1991, the Soviet Union came to an end. So who is “the king of the north”?
Well, after prayerfully considering it and the matter of the pushing, we’re assuring you that what we see, after prayerfully considering it, is that it’s Russia and its allies—the king of the north. . . .
So this is it! At this point, we’re confident to share with you that Russia and its allies are the king of the north, and they’re engaged in this pushing. In fact, last month, they had the largest war games—Russia did—since the Soviet Union was in existence way back in the ’80’s. And they had their allies with them in the war game. So we’re confident this is it. This is the king of the north, and that’s what’s involved at this time with the pushing—locking horns with each other.
So is there going to be another time related to Bible prophecy where the faithful slave will be able to say to you, “This is it”? Well, one that we’re all very familiar with—. . . Whenever it is that they are saying, “Peace and security!” then sudden destruction is to be instantly on them,. . .
So here’s the question, and it’s understood that it would be asked, will the faithful slave be able to at a certain time say to the brotherhood: “This is it! “This is what we’ve been waiting for. This is the ‘peace and security’ prophecy”? . . .. But just consider (especially those of you here, many of you are aged, and you’ll remember, many of you who were in the truth at the time) what about the year 1986?
The United Nations was proclaiming prior to January of 1986 that, you know, ‘Get ready.’ They wanted the governments to put their arms down for at least a year, the International Year of Peace. Whoa!
See if you were in the truth back then, you were like, “OK.” . . .  Well, how did the faithful slave handle all that? So this honors Jehovah’s faithful slave serving at that time.
Here’s what was published in the ’85 Watchtower, October 1, page 18. Now, this is some months before that all started in 1986. Here’s what was stated:
“Christians cannot say in advance exactly when the great tribulation will strike. Period. Jehovah has not revealed ‘that day or the hour.’ Thus when, for example, the United Nations “declares the year 1986 an ‘International Year of Peace,’ Christians watch the event with interest. But they cannot say in advance whether this will prove to be the fulfillment of Paul’s words.”
Nonetheless, we kept on the watch, but God’s spirit was guiding his people, particularly the faithful slave. They were not only faithful, they were discreet. And they did not say: “This is it! “This is the fulfillment of 1 Thessalonians chapter 5.” No. But if you are still there, go back to 1 Thessalonians chapter 5—just something to keep in mind here—sometimes we’ll read verses 2 and 3 and leave out verse 4. He writes:
“But you, brothers, you are not in darkness, so that the day should overtake you as it would thieves.”
So thieves are doing their thievery when it’s dark, but we’re sons of light. So that’s not going to catch us, the faithful ones worshipping the true God, obedient to this earthly part of his organization. So the question comes up—If you go back to that quote from the 2004 Watchtower—‘Prophecies are only fully understood only after they are fulfilled.’ But we also said: ‘or are in the process of fulfillment.’
So will the faithful slave be able to say in the process of the fulfillment of this prophecy from 1 Thessalonians: “This is it! That’s what we’ve been waiting for”? We’ll have to wait and see.
So there’s a word of caution here we want to pass on to you because we’re all human. We must keep on the watch, but please, just don’t be gullible. You hear a world leader say something about peace. And then you start e-mailing or something else with a social network. “This is it!” Leave the channel to handle such matters. If the faithful slave is moved by God’s spirit to say that to the brotherhood, and that’s His will, fine. But please don’t be gullible. Stick with the way Jehovah wants this to operate, and he’ll bless your obedience.
Reading his words carefully it is clear that the Governing Body believe that they NEED to be able to say things in advance as a kind of proof that "the faithful slave is moved by God's spirit." They should be the ones to say it before any of the regular Witnesses might start emailing or using a social network.
The main point here is that the 1914 predictions, even though they turned out to be completely false, must still be "spun" as proof of Jehovah's spirit on the faithful and discreet slave. Even if we have to turn to a sensationalist, racist, secular magazine of the time that was more like "The National Enquirer," and even though it got most of it wrong, this can still be used as evidence of God's spirit:
*** w71 8/1 p. 468 pars. 6-7 Making Known God’s Prophetic Truths ***
But Jehovah’s witnesses did expect such things, and others acknowledged that they did. On August 30, 1914, the New York World said: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914. ‘Look out for 1914!’ has been the cry of the . . . evangelists.”
7 How could Jehovah’s witnesses have known so far in advance what world leaders themselves did not know? Only by God’s holy spirit making such prophetic truths known to them.
*** w73 7/1 p. 402 par. 5 Praise Jehovah with His People ***
This 2,520-year period began with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Babylonians in the late seventh century B.C.E. For example, Zion’s Watch Tower of March 1880 had declared: “‘The Times of the Gentiles’ extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then.” Only God by his holy spirit could have revealed this to those early Bible students so far in advance.

I look forward to reading your thoughts on the matter ... as long as it is in short paragraphs, a decent type size, and does NOT mention Gog of Magog.

When I say that I am tired of talking so much about dates, I do not mean that I do not find everything related to our background that has led to the birth, development and death of our numerical doctrines very interesting. It is part of the history of my religion, that is, it is part of the history of my life. And I am especially grateful to the explanations that  @JW Insider  has been happy to share with us. I have learned a lot from his knowledge, both from these spheres and from other plots in which he has exploded. Now that I think, I think he knows a lot of everything. I envy him.
Before anyone thinks that I am a kind of idolater or flatterer of JWI, I want to say that I often learn from the comments of children and anyone. Everyone can enrich our life and spirituality. With how much more reason who has had so many experiences and contacts within our organization.
Now, what I wanted to say with my comment that I would like to give this subject another approach (1914) is that I would like to share in the forum related portions of the Bible that address certain eschatological issues.
This doctrine (1914) I think that sooner or later it will fall like ripe fruit. In the meantime, I find myself like those Students of the Bible of the 20s who might have been very disillusioned with the Pyramid theory and its influence on our religion. At the moment these teachings were part of the official teaching. Less and less was mentioned, but it was still part of the doctrine. I suppose that these Christians would not make the Pyramid their great teaching focus, their great concern. They would not waste time showing interest in something they saw was nonsense. When Rutherford said that instead of being an instrument of Jehovah to teach, it was simply a funerary monument with demonic influence, they would not be disappointed, but relieved.
Well, it's the same with 1914
So, in the following posts, I would like to bring up approaches on Daniel 7 and 11, Revelation 6, 11 and 12 among others and may be enlightening about what we are discussing. I hope

When I say that I am tired of talking so much about dates, I do not mean that I do not find everything related to our background that has led to the birth, development and death of our numerical doctrines very interesting. It is part of the history of my religion, that is, it is part of the history of my life. And I am especially grateful to the explanations that  @JW Insider  has been happy to share with us. I have learned a lot from his knowledge, both from these spheres and from other plots in which he has exploded. Now that I think, I think he knows a lot of everything. I envy him.
Before anyone thinks that I am a kind of idolater or flatterer of JWI, I want to say that I often learn from the comments of children and anyone. Everyone can enrich our life and spirituality. With how much more reason who has had so many experiences and contacts within our organization.
Now, what I wanted to say with my comment that I would like to give this subject another approach (1914) is that I would like to share in the forum related portions of the Bible that address certain eschatological issues.
This doctrine (1914) I think that sooner or later it will fall like ripe fruit. In the meantime, I find myself like those Students of the Bible of the 20s who might have been very disillusioned with the Pyramid theory and its influence on our religion. At the moment these teachings were part of the official teaching. Less and less was mentioned, but it was still part of the doctrine. I suppose that these Christians would not make the Pyramid their great teaching focus, their great concern. They would not waste time showing interest in something they saw was nonsense. When Rutherford said that instead of being an instrument of Jehovah to teach, it was simply a funerary monument with demonic influence, they would not be disappointed, but relieved.
Well, it's the same with 1914
So, in the following posts, I would like to bring up approaches on Daniel 7 and 11, Revelation 6, 11 and 12 among others and may be enlightening about what we are discussing. I hope

True, you said everything important in just that one post. We could even use those same points again, I hope. I know I get a little carried away with discussing the specific chronology systems we have followed in the past, and I hope to keep that to a minimum.
For myself, enough has been said about the old Babylonian chronology recently. So perhaps we leave out any arguments here (for or against) the supposed 2,520 years from the fall of Jerusalem to 1914. Although, if anyone wants to participate in such a defense or discussion, I'm happy to join.
Enough has been said about the Watch Tower's old chronology system that brought us supposed prophetic fulfillments for 1799, 1844, 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, along with 1914/1915, too. And I don't think this should be a date-bashing exercise where we simply try to show up the potential embarrassment we might feel about predictions for 1918, 1925, or the mid-1970's.
Perhaps enough has been said about the two overlapping groups within the the generation that would see all these things occur.
Naturally, people can talk about anything they want, but for myself I had hoped to limit this to a general discussion of the Biblical counsel about chronology, and what Matthew 24 might mean, if not the generation from WWI.  Or even whether Revelation chapter 6 or chapter 12 can make any sense if it doesn't mean something related to 1914 or the final generation that would see the end.

I started getting interested in the Truth about 1961, and I remember that huge number chart, as big as a 4x8 foot piece of plywood.  No one ever walked me up to it and explained it to me, and I figured it was "quotas", although at the time I did not even understand that.
 

Yes, I want to address this issue, but from another perspective. I get desperate and tired of talking about a date, how contrary to the spirit of the Bible and the warnings of Jesus!
While I prepare what I would like to say (remember that it is very difficult for me to express myself in English), I attach this link that although somewhat old, I think it is relevant.
 
 

Yes, I want to address this issue, but from another perspective. I get desperate and tired of talking about a date, how contrary to the spirit of the Bible and the warnings of Jesus!
While I prepare what I would like to say (remember that it is very difficult for me to express myself in English), I attach this link that although somewhat old, I think it is relevant.
 
 

You'll notice that I spoke, not of his weakness, but of the strength of Satan to cause persecutions that resulted in millions of deaths through the centuries. Satan and the spirit of the world that he embodies, has been at the heart of centuries of wars and persecutions. You will never see me complaining of his weakness.
I won't get into any of the nit-picky anachronisms here, but yes, there was the pressure for young men to join the war. There is the same pressure today in many lands, but pressure to join in doing something wrong is not normally considered persecution. Some might feel pressure to avoid a lot of things the world would want us to join. But this is not the kind of "persecution" I was speaking about.
Rutherford himself gave into the "pressure" to speak of the League of Nations as if it were some kind of awesome political expression on earth of what God's kingdom offers from the heavens. Does this mean that Rutherford could claim he was persecuted to do this, and that's what pressured him to say pretty much the same thing that the World Council of Churches was saying?
The point I was trying to make is that, from 1914 to 1917, we are still talking about Russell's version of what preaching meant, not Rutherford's later versions. Rutherford, even up until 1919, had added only a couple of new elements to the Bible Students by that point in time: a much (better) stronger view against participation in war, stronger involvement in wordly politics, and a book called the "Finished Mystery" which was literally full of ludicrous "apostate" explanations of prophecy and false predictions which we would be embarrassed to read today. Probably the best pages in the whole book were the pages that Rutherford offered to rip out of every copy in 1918 so that the book could still be sold.
It was already minimal from 1914 to 1934, but even if we maximized it, it still pales in comparison to the Biblical imagery of Revelation 12. Give it a quick look again as a reminder:
(Revelation 12:3-17) Another sign was seen in heaven. Look! A great fiery-colored dragon, with seven heads and ten horns and on its heads seven diadems; and its tail drags a third of the stars of heaven, and it hurled them down to the earth. And the dragon kept standing before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she did give birth, it might devour her child. . . .  And the woman fled into the wilderness, . . . And war broke out in heaven: Miʹcha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. . . .  the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! 11 And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death. . . . Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing that he has a short period of time.”  Now when the dragon saw that it had been hurled down to the earth, it persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. . . . 15 And the serpent spewed out water like a river from its mouth after the woman, to cause her to be drowned by the river. 16 But the earth came to the woman’s help, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the river that the dragon spewed out from its mouth. 17 So the dragon became enraged at the woman and went off to wage war with the remaining ones of her offspring, who observe the commandments of God and have the work of bearing witness concerning Jesus.
Now, I'm sure that a lot of religious groups have seen this as being fulfilled upon themselves through the centuries. No harm done. That's just the way we egocentric humans have always been. And many of them had situations where they actually faced literal death. But in our case we say it was some legal maneuverings that resulted in the 9-month removal of 7 or 8 replaceable men of a specific organization that had already spent all its money on the Photo-Drama with the expectation that, after October 1914, no money would be needed for further preaching by any of them in 1915. The false expectations for 1914 had already resulted in the loss of many adherents. The autocratic nature of Rutherford, and the worldly, political infighting within the Society (over how it should be controlled in the wake of Russell's death) resulted in the loss of many more. The book, "Finished Mystery" caused a further controversy that resulted in the loss of even more Bible Students. The core adherents to the Watch Tower Society were fewer and fewer, even before the war had much impact. Rutherford began touting false expectations for 1918 and then 1925, and by the end of that decade, he had dropped pyramidology, the explanation for the End of the Gentile Times, and most of the the Russell/Barbour chronology.
Rutherford's actions from 1914 to 1931 resulted in the loss of MOST of the Bible Students. (For mostly good reasons, however.) Satan's actions during the same period were nothing like what Revelation 12 would have led Bible Students to expect. And yet we know that Satan is not weak. Look at WWII, and the holocaust, for example. Where was this "war with the remaining ones of her offspring"? Where was this rage against the woman between 1914 and 1934? You have already guessed that maybe Satan diverted his attention to the overall long-term terrible effects of the war for a few years. That's possible. But reading Revelation 12 doesn't fit the idea of making excuses for Satan.
Nothing to minimize about the war itself. It really was terrible and really was a change to an era. Of course, we already have minimized the "end of the gentile times." Rutherford completely changed its meaning by about 1931. It no longer meant the complete dissolving of all non-Jewish institutions over a course of a few months starting in October 1914, while natural, physical Jews in Jerusalem (Palestine) simultaneously proved themselves (starting in 1914) to be the only government that had Jehovah's backing and blessing.
Again, we are forced to guess why he acted less like the Biblical Satan at the very time he was supposedly more angry, and had dragged a third of the stars of heaven down with him. Perhaps you are saying that Satan is less powerful after 1915 than he was in 1913? Or did this change in his power happen sometime closer to the time of Nero? (37 CE to 68 CE.)
I would say that Jehovah's Witnesses are doing this. Sounds like you might agree.
Just to be a little more careful here, when Jesus taught them to go 2 by 2, he clearly told them NOT to go "door after door."
(Luke 10:1-7) . . .After these things the Lord designated 70 others and sent them out by twos ahead of him into every city and place where he himself was to go.. . .  Do not keep transferring from house to house.
The method was announcing themselves in public and then only going to persons' houses where they were invited.
But our current method of going from house to house has worked well, too. I have nothing against it, and have used it to excellent advantage in starting studies and making disciples.
Just one person's opinion here, but If we were to be given a hailstone message to warn others with before the actual end is upon as (as a surprise) then Jesus must have been lying when he said it would come upon ALL of us as a surprise. Jesus said the parousia would be like a flash of lightning that suddenly flashes from one end of the horizon over to the other end. Hardly even a split second should remain to start a hailstone message. Of course, there will always be people who think they know better than Jesus.

Yes, true. I was referring to the fact that there was no wave of persecution, as one might expect if Satan had just been hurled down, having great anger, knowing he had a short period of time. In the days of the apostles and especially by the time of Nero, there were reports of literally thousands of Christians persecuted, even with torture and death. In the next two centuries there were reports of hundreds of thousands of Christians put to death. So I'm comparing what Satan was capable of doing when Christianity was just a "babe" compared to the relatively peaceful opposition to the Watchtower that was reported from 1914 to about 1934. It was as if Satan was not even angry during that time period, or that he did not know he had a short period of time.
Recall that the Society still had only a few thousand members worldwide, and except for some colporteurs and speakers, most Bible Students were relatively inactive when it came to preaching. Most of the Bible Students who were regular readers of the Watchtower understood that Russell suggested never speaking out against the draft/conscription in any country, but that Bible Students could allow themselves to be drafted, and if they couldn't get non-combat alternatives, that they should just shoot over the heads of the enemy (per Watch Tower recommendations given by Russell himself).
This is false. There were many more Catholics and Baptists arrested than the Bible Students. I know of at least one case of a Baptist preacher who was investigated and arrested for exact same stated reasons that the Bible Students were.
The United States did not get into the war until April 1917. The Espionage (Sedition Act) was not passed until June 1917. It was used against HUNDREDS of persons in the United States, and many of those convicted remained in jail for up to 5 years. The dozen or so Bible Students (including the 7 directors) were a very small part of the total. Almost all of the HUNDREDS of OTHER activists, socialists, suspected immigrants, and religious publishers were released within 3 or 4 years on appeal, or on commuted sentences. When the war hysteria was over, almost everyone else got released with treatment very similar to the Watch Tower directors.
Several brothers joined the war, but this did not result in any wave of persecution. There were a few imprisoned brothers in the US, Canada, the UK and a couple of other European countries at the time, but reports of beatings and violence were very relatively rare. Also a few reports of brothers who could not avoid conscription tried to get alternative work, such as hospital work, and were still told to choose either combat or the brig. So this resulted in a couple more short imprisonments at army camps, especially training camps.
(For the United States, the war lasted only about 18 months, from April 1917 to November 1918.)
The first rage of persecution against us started in the 1930's, in Germany. In the 1940's that war hysteria hit the United States. There were very close to ZERO reported deaths of Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States, and hundreds in Germany, with thousands incarcerated in the 1940's, many in the worst possible situations, even in concentration camps. Since then, there have been several hot spots off and on where persecution of Witnesses has resulted in violence and death. (Overall, the numbers of deaths have been very small when compared with persecution of other religious groups in this century.)
Interesting possibility. But you would think there would be much more evidence than just interesting possibilities for why Satan delayed turning to the leadership of the Watch Tower, if Revelation 12 really refers to the time immediately after 1914.

getfvid_10000000_2497173233651376_8665371102998521299_n.mp4

The problem with suggesting that the "elders are under Jesus' full control, power and direction," is that people can get a skewed idea. Imperfect, uninspired men can become "masters of our faith" rather than "good-for-nothing slaves that are doing what they should." Of course, we respect the "arrangement" God has in place for pure worship and give "double honour" to those taking the lead. But that is a far cry from handing all of our personal thinking, choices and decisions over to imperfect men, thinking they are "fully controlled" by Jesus and anything but is being disobedient to him. Jesus and Jehovah have provided direction in his Word as guidelines for how the congregation should be run. But sometimes men in authority go "beyond what is written" and we should use our "clear thinking faculties" to be able to discern the difference. The fact is, that if one is too lazy to study and read God's Word or are gullible, you can start acting like you are in a cult - even when you are not. Child molesters (yes some have been "elders") get away with their actions for decades - not because Jesus is controlling them to do that, but because children are confused or awed by the authority they have. Even otherwise, at times, men in authority in the organization have assumed too much authority and used that authority in a way they are not authorized scripturally to do. People need to know the difference. "Whole-souled devotion" to Jehovah does not mean whole-souled devotion to imperfect men - even when we respect what authority they have as part of Jehovah's arrangement and offer scriptural obedience. Why? One reason is that some of these men are not who they appear to be (whether they be "wolves in sheep's clothing," "wicked men and imposters," "rocks hidden below the surface..." There is no level of authority within the organization where such men have not been found.) Should we be obedient to them? We need to know the difference when such men (i.e.. apostates or immoral men) direct things not in harmony with Jesus' direction as recorded in the Bible. Also, that way we won't be stumbled when Jesus apparently gets dates and teachings wrong and has to back-track on what he directed/controlled before. No, the reality is that we still have to use our brains. 

Pretty good answer

The word "control" comes up because of what was stated in the workbook for the week of November 18-24: "In Jesus' right hand: The stars are under Jesus' full control, power and direction. If someone on a body of elders needs correction, Jesus will see to it that this is done in his own time and way." One of the WT references for Rev. 1:20 in the Study Bible adds: "the 'stars' are in Jesus' right hand - within his power, control, favour, and protection. Therefore they are "accountable" to him. By heeding his words to each of the seven congregations, present-day elders see how they can handle similar situations."
So, if Jesus controls all the elders like some sort of spiritual remote control by means of holy spirit, (as some may think), then everything that takes place within the organization should be perfect, because Jesus is perfect and would use holy spirit in a perfect way. Why is that of interest? Because too many things happen within the organization (even the early Christian congregation), that are clearly not "controlled" by Jesus - unless he is deliberately controlling them to do bad things. I won't get into detail, but things happen that shouldn't happen and even very unscriptural things happen. My description of the factors that come into play regarding that interplay, attempted to explain the discrepancies that clearly exist if you are not living in a "snow globe." I had mentioned 1 Tim. 5:24 because it plays an important role in helping to understand why bad things can go on within the congregation for decades. All one has to do is look at the way that scripture is true historically to get a better understanding of how it applies today. The fact that elders have a measure of autonomy is hinted at by the phrase: "By heeding his words to each of the seven congregations, present-day elders see how they can handle similar situations." So elders make their decision based on "heeding his words" which are contained where? In the Bible - and so are accountable to Jesus as to how they use the authority he gives them. They aren't mindless robots on remote control that can never make mistakes (I know that is an extreme description, but the fact is, that some - too many - people have a mindset that is very close to that. 
To illustrate the difference, consider how Jehovah and Jesus deal with humans. When Jehovah directed Adam to name the animals, he gave him the authority to name them and Adam used his personal discretion as to what to call them. Of course, there would be limits or boundaries to the authority granted Adam (for instance he wouldn't be allowed to call every animal "Jehovah" - right?) But Jehovah didn't control his freedom of choice - even when Adam decided to be disobedient. Or to illustrate further: CONTROL: mom tells Junior to buy everything on a predetermined shopping list. One pound of this, 5 ounces of that...only get the potatoes on sale, bring back a receipt and the change, be back in an hour. AUTONOMOUS AUTHORITY: mom tells junior to buy what he would like for supper and she will make it. (Boundary): Just make it healthy and include the main food groups. 
So Jesus and Jehovah give us laws, principles and boundaries. But they don't remote control our/elders' decisions by means of holy spirit. And as stated earlier, holy spirit can at times be hard to quantify. It played a strong influence in the anointing process, but there were still things early Christians - even miraculously inspired Christians - didn't understand, disagreed with each other about and got wrong. Nothing has changed that way. Not everything Bible writers wrote was included in the Bible canon either. In fact, one of the "gifts" described at 1 Corinthians 1:10, is the ability to miraculously "discern inspired expressions." As the Study Bible comments: "Christians also needed guidance to discern which letters and writings should be circulated among the congregations and to discern which would become part of the Bible canon."
As for your statement: "If Jesus doesn't want to control human behaviour and decisions...why do you think elders have that right?" Answer: They don't have that right. Elders don't have the right to make people's decisions for them. Their role is to encourage people to make decisions that are in harmony with what is directed in God's Word. And to keep the congregation without spot and blemish - even if that means disfellowshipping unrepentant individuals. If Jehovah and Jesus never took away freedom of choice from even Satan and Adam, what makes you think he would direct elders to do that?  Jehovah wants people to serve him willingly out of love. Not because they are remote-controlled robots. However, his servants were always warned that with freedom of choice, comes responsibility and accountability. The "blessing or the malediction."

No persecution broke out against anyone associated with the Watchtower in 1914, or 1915, or 1916. Does this mean that it took Jesus a very long time to battle with Satan before he could finally throw him out of heaven? I don't think that was the issue at all!
Brother Russell died just two months shy of 1917, and so there was only a very short time before the next election. As the Watch Tower's and Brother Russell's attorney since 1907, Brother Rutherford had made himself the most prominent, and he was the most active in trying to make sure that the Watchtower didn't end up in the hands of the persons that Russell had picked. This was probably a good thing, because those persons whom Russell had picked were not immediately active in trying to pick up the reins of the Watchtower, because it made more sense that "the Lord" was about to act on their behalf, and that they should just go on doing things the way Russell had wanted by following his "last will and testament" and expecting things to just work out for the best. Especially because it appeared that the expected "END" was now more than 24 months overdue. They expected that Russell, whom they saw as a "SAINT" was still actively running the Society from heaven. 
But Rutherford was quite different, and he had just completed a work in 1915 that showed that, as Russell's attorney, he knew all the potential scandals that Russell had been associated with. He would not have had the attitude that things will just work out because "SAINT" Russell was still running things from the other side of the veil. He was many times more practical, and used the opportunity to gain control of the Watchtower. It looked like the Watchtower would have completely flailed into oblivion without Rutherford at the head. He brought things to a head by the middle of 1917 with the release of "The Finished Mystery" in July, at the same time that Russell dismissed a majority of the 7 directors.
It was this point that brought some measure of persecution to the doors of the Watchtower. The majority of the directors felt that Rutherford was persecuting the Watch Tower Society, by becoming autocratic and not following Russell's "last will," and by going against the articles of incorporation of the Watch Tower Society. But again, this majority "turned the other cheek" instead of standing up for themselves, probably with the same idea that the Lord would provide, and that Russell, although he had died, had been immediately resurrected and would actively run things from the other side of the veil.
Of course, Rutherford, and the two directors that stayed with him, felt that it was the four ousted directors who were persecuting them, and when Rutherford replaced those four with persons loyal to him, this became the only way to look at it. Their persecution failed to touch Rutherford though, and Rutherford had won. So except for some legal maneuvering, there was really no persecution on anyone even in 1916 and most of 1917.
But the book that Fisher and Woodworth had written, the Finished Mystery, had gone much further than Russell ever did in speaking out against war and speaking out against the religions that supported war. This got them in trouble in Canada first where religious leaders felt especially "persecuted" by the book, so they got behind some legal maneuvering to get the book banned. With war hysteria high, it was the perfect time to get some action that might not have otherwise been taken against the Bible Students there.
By 1918 the United States Justice Dept with it's Bureau of Investigation was already arresting people and preachers and activists who were speaking out against the draft, and therefore the people behind the Finished Mystery were already in the sights of the government. The book was banned and several brothers all around the United States were arrested and some served jail terms. When the Society itself was investigated, the Society was found to have also been peripherally involved in helping persons try to avoid the draft, but in a way that was careful enough to probably not have resulted in a win against the Society after appeal. But they were arrested for trial and lost the first trial which dealt mostly with the Finished Mystery, but they were not allowed bail during the appeal process so that the directors had to spend several months in Federal Prison while waiting for the appeal.
This was pretty much the entire persecution! It was a very low level of persecution when we consider what kind of religious persecution had been going on in various countries between Catholics and Protestants, "Christians" and Jews, "Christians" and Native Americans, "Christians" and colonial non-Christians, a few other relgiously motivated persecutions around the world.
It also seemed like an extremely low level of persecution when we consider what Satan has been able to accomplish since then among other peoples, where religious differences have provoked war and persecution that ended up killing literally millions.
What it did do that seemed significant was nearly put the Bible Students and the Watchtower Society out of business. But the Watchtower continued to be published during this period. Also after the President of the WTS got out of prison in May 1919, the trial was discontinued because the US prosecution was pretty sure it could not win such a trial outside of wartime. Rutherford immediately started up the campaign for the predictions due in 1925. This campaign was called "Millions Now Living Will Never Die." That campaign kept the Watch Tower Society alive and motivated, although its failure, along with the removal of the unique doctrines of Russell resulted in the decimation of the numbers of Bible Students from 1926 through the end of that decade.

It finally appears that we are winding down and I like that @b4ucuhear has already tried to reduce this conversation to only the most important points. However, there is still a chance that someone will read what @César Chávez said, and begin to believe that there are now some new scholars that agree with the Watchtower chronology, which Cesar claims 'has been correct all along.'
Let's just make this simple in case others might look at what was written here and get confused. You are pretending that the Watchtower has been "correct all along" and your evidence is supposed to be found among these six "new" sources. From what I have found so far, the folowing is more accurate:
"New Chronology" Scholar Agrees w/ WTS for Jerusalem destruction - Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year as 607-606 Agrees with COJ, Wiseman, Grayson - Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year as 587-586 Jonathan Stokl Disagrees with Watchtower dates Agrees with COJ, Wiseman, etc. Caroline Waerzeggers Disagrees with Watchtower dates Agrees with COJ, Wiseman, etc. Gary Knoppers Disagrees with Watchtower dates Agrees with COJ, Wiseman, etc.  Peter Ackroyd Disagrees with Watchtower dates Agrees with COJ, Wiseman, etc. Lester Grabbe Disagrees with Watchtower dates Agrees with COJ, Wiseman, etc. Deirdre Fulton Disagrees with Watchtower dates Agrees with COJ, Wiseman, etc. Of course, now you are telling me that I am putting too much emphasis on the word destruction, as if the Watchtower doctrine doesn't emphasize the destruction of Jerusalem.
But here are just a few of the Watchtower references, using only articles from the last 10 years, and some samples from just a few of the books. Who is it, you think, who is fixated on this word destruction?
*** w18 February p. 3 par. 2 Imitate the Faith and Obedience of Noah, Daniel, and Job ***
Apostate Jerusalem was nearing its foretold destruction, which occurred in 607 B.C.E.
*** w16 June p. 16 Questions From Readers ***
apostate Jerusalem prior to its destruction in 607 B.C.E.
*** ws14 7/15 p. 18 par. 9 “You Are My Witnesses” ***
After that, Jehovah continued warning his people until the year 607 before Christ, when Jerusalem was destroyed.
*** w14 7/15 p. 25 par. 9 “You Are My Witnesses” ***
That was 125 years before Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E.
*** w11 3/15 p. 31 par. 14 Keep Awake, as Jeremiah Did ***
Some Jews as well as non-Israelites survived Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E.
*** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
the year of Jerusalem’s destruction. Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses say that it was 607 B.C.E.?
*** w11 10/1 p. 29 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
But if the evidence from the inspired Scriptures clearly points to 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction, why do many authorities hold to the date 587 B.C.E.?
*** w11 10/1 p. 31 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
Counting back from that year would place Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E
*** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
then his 18th year would be 607 B.C.E.—the very year indicated by the Bible’s chronology for the destruction of Jerusalem!
*** w11 11/1 p. 27 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
This, therefore, supports the date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction—just as the Bible indicates.
*** w11 11/1 p. 27 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
Those statements strongly indicate that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. As the above evidence shows, that conclusion has some secular support.
*** w09 3/15 p. 14 par. 14 Keep Your Eyes on the Prize ***
In time, the entire nation turned apostate, resulting in its destruction in 607 B.C.E.
*** g 1/11 p. 11 A Book You Can Trust—Part 3 ***
In 607 B.C.E., Babylonian armies destroyed Jerusalem and took the survivors off to Babylon, where they were treated cruelly.
*** g 5/09 p. 11 A Receipt That Corroborates the Bible Record ***
Nebo-sarsechim was one of King Nebuchadnezzar’s commanders at the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.,
*** rr chap. 6 p. 67 par. 13 “The End Is Now Upon You” ***
Thus, both time periods would end in 607 B.C.E., the exact year in which Jerusalem fell and was destroyed, just as Jehovah had foretold.
*** rr chap. 7 p. 74 par. 8 The Nations “Will Have to Know That I Am Jehovah” ***
from the time of the Exodus to the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.
*** rr chap. 8 p. 89 par. 14 “I Will Raise Up One Shepherd” ***
In 607 B.C.E., with the destruction of Jerusalem, the “high” kingdom of Judah centered in Jerusalem was brought low
*** rr chap. 11 p. 126 par. 17 “I Have Appointed You as a Watchman” ***
who spoke to God’s people in the period surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.
*** rr chap. 16 p. 175 par. 9 “Put a Mark on the Foreheads” ***
Ezekiel’s prophecy was fulfilled in 607 B.C.E. when the Babylonian army destroyed Jerusalem and its temple.
*** rr chap. 16 p. 178 par. 17 “Put a Mark on the Foreheads” ***
As we saw earlier, those who survived Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E.
*** dp chap. 4 p. 50 par. 8 The Rise and Fall of an Immense Image ***
These words applied to Nebuchadnezzar after Jehovah had used him to destroy Jerusalem, in 607 B.C.E.
*** cl chap. 8 p. 78 par. 5 Restorative Power—Jehovah Is “Making All Things New” ***
Just imagine how faithful Jews felt in 607 B.C.E. when Jerusalem was destroyed.
*** dp chap. 6 p. 96 par. 27 Unraveling the Mystery of the Great Tree ***
If we were to count 2,520 literal days from Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E.,
*** po chap. 2 p. 20 par. 27 The Immortal Possessor of the “Eternal Purpose” ***
God’s protection through the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the armies of Babylon in the year 607 B.C.E.
*** po chap. 14 p. 173 par. 11 Triumph for the “Eternal Purpose” ***
Before the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.
*** jr chap. 15 p. 188 par. 13 “I Cannot Keep Silent” ***
True worshippers were affected by the appalling conditions that prevailed before Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E
So you seem to be conflicted over this fixation the Watchtower has with the word "destruction." But you know you can't admit a conflict with the Watchtower itself, and therefore you "project" that conflictedness onto me. I'm willing to do what I can to help you work through this. I've seen it before with others on unrelated topics. What you might need to do as a start, is to spell out exactly what you think the right solution is. You might not be ready to be definitive, and that's OK, but you should start with what you think is probably correct, and how you think the Watchtower should change their wording so that they don't appear to be "fixated" on this word "destruction." How do you think they should have worded it instead?
If you try to answer that question, I'll know you are serious about researching this issue. If you won't even try, then I'll have to consider the next most likely assumption about your motives. 

Well said. The sooner we stop "going beyond the things written" and stick to our Christian mandates the better. The fact that we have been totally wrong about numerous other dates (every other date?) should give anyone legitimate pause for concern and to be skeptical that not only might the hallowed date of 1914 be wrong (including the fact that certain expectations regarding that date never materialized) but whether Jehovah even blesses that presumptuousness. We have lots of more important things to accomplish than to pin our hopes on the prognostications of well-meaning, but uninspired, imperfect men who sometimes go beyond what they have been authorized to do. Making predictions is not part of our mandate. Proclaiming what Jehovah and Jesus actually tell us in his Word are. Yes, I believe Jehovah is using his organization and the GB is doing an admirable job in organizing his people to accomplish many great things. But since it is (generally) forward-moving, it should not surprise us or cause us to get too excited about discarding things we may have held dear - as in the past - and may need to let go of now. Maybe 1914 is one of those things. Although we each individually may have "core" truths we adopt as proof this is the right organization, I personally don't believe 1914 should be included in those core truths - or any artificial, man-inspired date for that matter. Maybe we need to put 1914 on the "date pile" along with the others promoted as being significant. Even if per some unexpected chance the date turns out to be right, should our relationship and dedication to God be based on a date anyway - or either way? I think too much focus has been place on dates anyway. Stuff will happen when Jehovah says it should happen. We should be more concerned with whether we will be ready for it.

More "projection." I enjoy puns, but you are the one playing word games to dodge questions, repeat false claims, use innuendo, avoid explanations, etc.
Actually I offered several items of evidence, which you have ignored and distracted from, so far. Calling that my bluster is "Projection 101."
Evidence of what? You didn't say, except for that one diversion (out of the blue) about Nebuchadnezzar surviving some rough travel itineraries with the help of Nebo/Nabu.
Are you going to point out where I have done this, or should I just expect more bluster?
I had a feeling you might go with bluster!
I see that defensive "echolalia" again, whenever I apparently touch a nerve. I said "sockpuppet" so you worked the word "puppet" into an attempted insult to some COJ-duped professionals. Sounds like you are all upset that actual professionals sided with COJ. Yet again, why are you so obsessed with him? COJ is completely unnecessary to this entire charade of yours.
Feel free to point out anything you wish about COJ, I really don't care. He is (or was?) just one man out of thousands who have access to the same evidence that ends up embarrassing the Watchtower Society on this topic.
No doubt, if history is prologue, you will now show me some "evidence" from a writer/scholar who will somehow show us that the Watchtower is incorrect about the dates the WT gives for the exiles and the destruction of Jerusalem in 607. You will no doubt try to imply that this evidence against the Watchtower is actually evidence that the Watchtower has been correct all along. (And "correct all along" is a very odd choice of words considering the number of times the Watchtower has changed the endpoints and milestones of the chronology.)
Thanks for providing the reference.
As usual, you found another reference that hurts the Watchtower's tradition about 607 and 1914.
First of all, Eric Meyers, the author, of this chapter (10) is expressing appreciation for the findings and work of Peter Ackroyd who wrote "Exile and Restoration" and then later wrote a followup: "Israel under Babylon and Persia." I don't believe you read what he said, or else you must have completely misunderstood it, and only copied it here because he used the familiar range "607 to 537" for the 70 year period mentioned in Jeremiah/Daniel.
Second, when Meyers says that Ackroyd was "prescient" for reflecting on the artificiality of the term exile and restoration, he is asking us to agree with them both in their view that the Bible is wrong. The Bible you might recall says that the land was totally desolate and uninhabited. Ackroyd claimed this was artificial language because "only a portion of the population was exiled." On page 167, the very paragraph following your quote says: ". . .his strong textual sensitivity allowed him to see . . . that  perhaps the text in 2 Kings was in error."
Third, the Watchtower says the exiles were primarily in the two groups taken in 617 and 607. Note that these are the only two Judean exile events mentioned in the Insight book under the article on "EXILE:"
*** it-1 p. 775 Exile ***
Judah. In 617 B.C.E., King Nebuchadnezzar took the royal court and the foremost men of Judah into exile at Babylon. (2Ki 24:11-16) About ten years later, in 607 B.C.E., at the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon, Nebuzaradan, the chief of the Babylonian bodyguard, took most of the remaining ones and deserters of the Jews with him to Babylon, from which exile only a mere remnant returned 70 years later.—2Ki 25:11; Jer 39:9; Isa 10:21, 22; see CAPTIVITY.
A third exile would have been put in 602/601 since Jeremiah indicates it was about 5 years later (23-18=5):
(Jeremiah 52:28-30) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews. 29 In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. 30 In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile.
So if this source of yours thinks the Watchtower is right, they will include those two exiles in those years: 617 & 607.
If this source thinks that COJ and all current Neo-Babylonian scholars are right, then we'd expect to see: 597 & 587.
Your source, says that there was no simple exile and return, because the exile happened in several pieces (and using the numbers in the Bible, only amounted to a small number of exiles each time). But what are the dates of those various exiles?
He (1970:1) also noted that hardly one date could be assigned to the beginning of the exile (597,587,581 BCE, etc.) let alone a time for the return, which only began in 538–537 BCE.
So, you found a resource that agrees with COJ's dates for the destruction of Jerusalem, and the associated series of exiles. It disagrees with the Watchtower's dates for those events. As usual. In fact the primary difference between COJ and your source is that one of COJ's objectives was to show that the Bible is correct and your source preferred to see the Bible as incorrect in some of the claims about the totality of the exile.
These authors are also telling us that there was no single year that we could point to as the "Return"/"Restoration." They will say it only just started in 538/537, but plenty of evidence shows that it was a trickling of Jews coming back home to Judea over many years, and of course, this also matches some Biblical evidence that shows that many didn't want to leave Babylon at all. We already knew from many Jewish writings that were written in Babylon that healthy Jewish communities lasted for several centuries thereafter.
Your "proof" of the time period merely proves that the Watchtower's chronology is completely wrong. Since you have correctly admitted that 607 was in Nabopolassar's reign, it then follows that Nebuchadnezzar had not even begun his full first year until 604 BCE. So Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year could not be the same as Nabopolassars 18th year. How could he be in the 18th or 19th year of his kingship if he had NOT even started his first year of kingship?
As for the fact that the chapter mentions the familiar range of 70 years, I thought you might go here, which is why I already had mentioned this before your post:
As you probably remember, I have never had any problem with this same range for the 70 years of Jeremiah/Daniel. At most it's only a couple years off, and I've often said on this forum that it may even be correct. After all Jeremiah says that Babylon would be given 70 years of domination as a power over the surrounding nations, and this is a pretty good estimate of the timing of that power. Basically the idea is that the Babylonian world power could be identified as the 70 years between the Assyrian world power and the Medo-Persian world power. I can still admit that the 70 years can be identified with those same years. And if you are admitting the same, then you are also claiming that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon about 587/586 BCE.
As I've already said, I was pretty sure you actually agreed already with COJ and thousands of other scholars for the date of Jerusalem's destruction.
I think you've now passed Projection 101, 201, 202, 203, and 301. We can now project that you will graduate with this as your major.

César Chávez:
You are either certifiably insane, or a Democrat Congresswierdo.
...merely my opinion, however.
I believe you would stand in quicksand and deny it, even as you drowned.

Projection again. You were the one who wanted to claim the COJ book as my source. Since I know it is not, I would have never brought it up as if it was.
I'm not too concerned because I'm pretty sure he already knew that they were NOT falsehoods. I mentioned it mostly to do you the favor of reminding you that it's a lot easier to identify a "sockpuppet" account than you evidently think it is.
Also, it's a common habit seen on forums and other social media where people often know deep down that something is true, but they need to show their disapproval because they WISH it weren't true. Therefore they know that they don't really have a valid or relevant response. So what's left is to create chaos with meaningless repetitive but empty claims, create diversions, create confusion with irrelevant sources, trying to create work for the person they oppose, attack the messenger, etc. It's partly because they don't want others to see the strength of the evidence against the position they have represented. It's probably even more because they have invested themselves in representing the wrong position and their ego kicks in so that they need to "appear" right even when they know they are not. Most people won't do this if it's just a small item, but if they think it reflects on a larger ideology, then they can rationalize that they were wrong, but there is no need to admit it because they are still on the right side overall.
(Examples may include women who have been caught defending Bill Clinton's promiscuity, but denouncing Trump's. They think it's OK even though deep down they know it's wrong, because they feel they are still on the right side of the larger ideology. They seem to rationalize that admitting they are wrong would reflect poorly on an otherwise correct "democratic" ideology.)
This is actually one of the reasons I continue to bring up the 1914 problems. (The Biblical ones more often than the secular ones.) People evidently tend to think it's one of those issues about which it's OK to be deceptive, because otherwise it would reflect poorly, they think, on the entire Witness ideology. This is like one of the issues that drove coverups and deception in the world of CSA, and it ended up getting exposed at the ARC, for example. But the exposure drove the WTS to make more definitive CSA processing changes. What's more, it has now been made clear that a CSA predator does NOT bring reproach on the CCJW, WTS, or congregation (or even the victim) -- he brings reproach on himself. Using the same principle, it will be easier for the WTS to finally change the 1914 doctrine, and we can blame the doctrine, not the overall Witness ideology, the Bible, the congregation, or ourselves. It's not nearly the same thing, of course, but from the perspective of reasonableness and paying close attention to our teaching, the 1914 doctrine really does bring reproach, but not on all the other doctrines.
And, yes, I'm saying that I believe you have already given a lot of evidence that you know the details of the Watchtower chronology for 1914 must be incorrect. You have many times offered evidence that 607 was not the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. You have implied that it might be some other "Nebuchadnezzar-related" event around 607 that might still salvage the overall doctrine. But this is still an admission that the Watchtower position is weak, if not altogether wrong.
I never observed that there is no scholar to agree with 607. All scholars agree that things happened in 607, and all of them would agree that 607 is 70 years prior to 537, among other things. What I observed is that all these persons you have quoted from that you say are "established scholars and historians" would agree that 607 is a false date for the destruction of Jerusalem.
But I definitely implied it, I admit, when I said that every single scholar of Neo-Babylonian chronology, with no exceptions, is a source of evidence that hurts the Watchtower's 1914 tradition. (Since that tradition includes the idea that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607.) And of course, I am referring to living scholars, not those who were forced to make guesses in the 1800's when a lot of this information was just then coming out for the first time, Akkadian was not well understood, and misinformation was still rampant.
If you still think it's disingenuous, try to find one. And please don't try to pretend that Rolf Furuli was a Neo-Babylonian scholar. At least he admits that he is not one.
 

You put too much focus on who upvotes a person's posts. It's probably what drives you to constantly create additional accounts so that you can upvote and downvote people. When "Little Joe" made himself available to downvote my sister's experience, along with a couple of posts from others, I was pretty sure that we would soon see @Little Joe come over to this thread and start downvoting several of my posts on chronology. Sure enough, that was just about all Little Joe was good for up to that point, but quite predictable, of course. And by the way, you probably didn't mean Arauna, because she would normally side with the Watchtower on this topic, unless she's been studying it more deeply as of late.

Are you kidding? I've always discussed the possibility of a deportation in or around 605 or so. That's close enough, right? Most historians don't think this one specifically concerned Palestine or Judeans, but some believe the evidence for it is in Daniel, because it might have included Daniel. It's also possible that Daniel is using an alternate dating system to refer to the one in 597. Ezekiel uses a dating system where nearly everything is now based on 597 as a pivotal year.
You are wrong. And you probably know that it's dishonest to claim that COJ is the source of the evidence that hurts the Watchtower's 1914 tradition. You would like to pretend that it's just one person's claims. Turns out it is every single scholar of Neo-Babylonian chronology. No exceptions! And it's clear that you don't want people to see that your OWN sources hurt the Watchtower's theories and traditions.
All of these established scholars and historians of yours agree that 607 is a false date for the destruction of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. All of them would put that year in either 587 or 586. There is no question about this any more because just as your own source "Exile and Return" says: 
"During the Neo-Babylon and Persian periods, the time of the Exile, Babylonia produced extraordinarily rich deposits of cuneiform texts, making it one of the very best documented epochs of ancient Mesopotamian history."
This is what dozens of others say about the ease with which the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology is reconstructed, year by year, king by king:
I never ever said or even implied that he did. So who is trying to muddy the waters, as usual? The "projection" is still strong with you.

I hoped you meant that "Math is a subject as e to the pi (eπi)." Which, coincidentally, as a function of the number "e" produces a sine of the times. (especially  π times i ) So we've now come full circle back to the topic, and back to square one at the same time. [Get it? "square one"? Because i is the square root of -1]
But the best part of this is that you can resolve it all to eπi = -1 which proves, in effect, that two wrongs can make a right. (Similar to a thing that F.W. "Time Parallels" Franz started to prove in 1944, when he finally accepted the proof that "1 minus -1 = 1" where two eras made an error.) More specifically, it can prove, as Euler did, that two irrationals (e and π) can make a rational (-1). But the devil is in the derivatives, as you implied in an earlier post.
And there has already been a post of unknown derivation that came close to this topic but never touched it.
I know we're just plane around in this space, but diversions are beside the point and that's where I draw the line. 🙄