ComfortMyPeople

In the last book, Josephus wrote on the subject, he said that the time from the destruction of Jerusalem up to the release of the Jews from Babylon was 50 years not 70. But no one is relying on Josephus for the final say on this. He was not a contemporary even if he had access to some of the contemporary records. There is far too much evidence on the ground. We don't need Josephus even though he also ended up agreeing with the Biblical and secular evidence about this period.
You should expect a lot of polemical material as Judaism saw itself  competing with Christianity during the periods in which the Talmud was written. I agree about the Kabbalah and Zohar. In fact, most religious Jews would agree, too. Parts of it remind me of the Pyramidology which was gaining widespread popularity in Russell's day. Rutherford finally associated Pyramidology with Satanism (saying that Satan was behind the building of the Great Pyramid in order to fool Jehovah's people).
I believe that all three of these ideas are mistaken. There are different forms of Judaism, but I have never known even one to call the Talmud the 'holy book.' The kabbalah is most definitely not thought of as the "most holy book" by religious Jews. I took 7 semesters of Hebrew in college and most of them were taught by reformed rabbis. All of them dismissed the kabbalah as foolishness. I hired an orthodox rabbi for six months as a programmer and we often spoke about these topics. He says that no one in his branch of Judaism pays any attention to the kabbalah.
If you look up 'holy books' 'Judaism' on Google the Talmud does not show up in the lists on all the major Judaism sites. If you look up 'most holy book' 'kabbalah' you will find a few books antagonistic to Judaism that make this fake claim. The closest you might get is the idea that the Zohar is considered the most holy book of some who believe in Kabbalah as a kind of religion. But it's a study of mysticism that most Jews reject, or at least don't take seriously.
It's a lot like saying that most Christians believe that their daily horoscope is the most holy book of the Christian religion.
Yes, and usually it's a quick rebuff, but not always. My brother went to a Brooklyn congregation while at Bethel, and they do not even try to work their Jewish territories the way you seem to work seriously with persons of Muslim faith. It is usually just a matter of looking for non-Jews. But some are very receptive. I personally have never been able to do more than just talk, but I have even seen experiences of more than one who have become Witnesses.
The Soncino commentaries are in the Bethel Library and were the favorite of people in the Writing Department who had tried to study some Hebrew. Different authors were responsible for different translations and commentaries, a bit like the Anchor Bible commentaries. Of course, the writers are only interested in their take on the Torah and Haftorahs, not any of the other books that Soncino commentaries can cover.

Good question.
It reminds me of when a letter was written to Russell about the fact that there was no zero year. Russell answered the question and decided that we don't really know, but he would rather believe that there must have been one because if you count from 606 and other BC dates, this is how you reach 1874 and 1914, for example. It's kind of an embarrassing answer to have put in the Watch Tower for 100 years of posterity to look at. Of course, since then we discovered that the "questioner" was correct all along, and Russell was wrong, so we ultimately had to change the destruction date from 606 to 607. It took us until about 1943 to finally admit it, decades after it was pointed out and rejected.
The problem is that Russell pretended he was wise in a fleshly way rather than humbly looking into the evidence. It's fine to be foolish in the sense of being humble and accepting that we don't NEED such worldly knowledge, and we therefore never get puffed up with our supposed knowledge. But when you base half your doctrines on secular dates, as Russell did, you are stuck in a trap of trying to show that you are wise in a fleshly way. Russell tried this and ended up "boasting" in knowledge that turned out not even to be true.
If you would like to read the way Jonsson frames it, you can see below that I just grabbed this from a pdf version of his book. He claims he was a pioneer who was challenged by one of his Bible studies. The actual typewritten manuscript was collecting dust on a shelf in an office just outside the Bethel Library for a couple years.  In 1978, I heard it referred to as "that treatise from the elder in Sweden." This next long quote is from his book:
It was in 1968 that the present study began. At the time, I was a “pioneer” or full-time evangelist for Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the course of my ministry, a man with whom I was conducting a Bible study challenged me to prove the date the Watch Tower Society had chosen for the desolation of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, that is 607 B.C.E. He pointed out that all historians marked that event as having occurred about twenty years later, in either 587 or 586 B.C.E. I was well aware of this, but the man wanted to know the reasons why historians preferred the latter date. I indicated that their dating surely was nothing but a guess, based on defective ancient sources and records. Like other Witnesses, I assumed that the Society’s dating of the desolation of Jerusalem to 607 B.C.E. was based on the Bible and therefore could not be upset by those secular sources. However, I promised the man I would look into the matter. As a result, I undertook a research that turned out to be far more extensive and thoroughgoing than I had expected. It continued periodically for several years, from 1968 until the end of 1975. By then the growing burden of evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date forced me reluctantly to conclude that the Watch Tower Society was wrong. Thereafter, for some time after 1975, the evidence was discussed with a few close, research-minded friends. Since none of them could refute the evidence demonstrated by the data I had collected, I decided to develop a systematically composed treatise on the whole question which I determined to send to the headquarters of the Watch Tower Society at Brooklyn, New York. That treatise was prepared and sent to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1977. The present work, which is based on that document, was revised and expanded during 1981 and then published in a first edition in 1983. During the years that have passed since 1983, many new finds and observations relevant to the subject have been made, and the most important of these have been incorporated in the last two editions. The seven lines of evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date presented in the first edition, for example, have now been more than doubled.

Well, this is something new and refreshing. Someone appears to be willing to discuss the actual issues at hand. Unfortunately nearly all these issues had been brought up before by a certain @AllenSmith , and the answers are still the same as were given before.
I would say that of course, yes, the historical assigned dates CAN be compromised by historian's writings, or mistaken. This is one of the reasons you look for several different independent lines of evidence. In this case all the different independent lines of contemporary evidence all point to the same thing: 587/586 BCE for Jerusalem's destruction. The evidence is just as powerful, and in some ways more powerful, than the evidence for 539, which the Watchtower has called "absolute" and "assured." That's the problem with trying to punch holes in half-a-dozen independent lines of evidence. It's the same as saying that the evidence for 539 is potentially compromised or mistaken, except that we need that date in order to have a starting point to manipulate the earlier date. So we're kind of trapped: all the evidence that we are accepting is the same as the evidence that destroys our theory. The best we could ever hope for is that no one would have ever noticed the evidence. And for the most part, that has worked just fine, because very few Witnesses will look into this kind of research, even when -- or especially when -- it becomes evident that it creates conflicts with our strongly entrenched traditions.
You are talking about Nebuchadnezzar I, II, III, and IV. These are well understood. Also, any kings that ruled less than a year have no effect on the timeline. That's the beauty of having half-a-dozen independent lines of evidence that also interact smoothly and support each other. It turns out that ALL the evidence still creates only one timeline that fits. There aren't even like two or three top choices. One of the Nebuchadnezzars you speak of was not even part of the Neo-Bablonian timeline. He reigned hundreds of years outside of the timeline we are concerned about. And the other two are outside the part of the timeline we care about (and reigned only a few months each). Besides, the Watchtower already accepts the Neo-Babylonian timeline if they ever mention that the date 539 is accurate. If it's accurate, then it's because we are admitting that the Neo-Babylonian timelline is accurate. If we say that 587/6 is NOT accurate, then we are saying that 539 is not accurate. The argument you are making could be made about anything. Why question if there were only four Nebuchadnezzars? Why not propose that 2,000 different tablets that mention Nebuchadnezzars refer to 2,000 different kings named Nebuchanezzar? If all of them referred to a different Nebuchadnezzar, you would have to ADD all the regnal years from every tablet in such a case. This would also mean that (since year 20 is the average regnal year on these tablets) the Neo-Babylonian timeline was about 20 x 2000 or 40,000 years long. From your vantage point, as an opposer of the evidence, you could surmise anything you wanted about the evidence.
The other points you enumerated are not valid because you have no right to use any BCE dates for comparison if you don't accept the dates of the Neo-Babylonian period. You should never even use the date 539 or 538, if you don't really accept the chronology evidence that got you there. Just throwing out some questions, and claiming things are "perceived" when they really aren't perceived the way you say is a good way to try to poke holes. But it's meaningless unless you have an alternative theory that fits ALL the evidence, or at least tries to fit all the evidence. Then, to really test if that theory works with ALL the evidence, you put it out there and see if someone can find any contradictions in your proposal. I'm sure you have heard the expression "blowing smoke." It refers to the tactic of just throwing anything out there and hoping that it will stick. [It's not really a mixed metaphor, it just looks like one.] It's done without a concern about what it does to the rest of the evidence, or if it creates impossible contradictions. That's why you haven't really poked holes until you can hypothesize what it would mean as an alternative.

And worst of all, assuming honest mistakes (Hahahahahaa),
there is NEVER an apology ... just MORE clouds, MORE smoke, and mirrors.
... and of course ... blaming the uninvolved.

It was with sadness that I read a certain comment above. In the end - if Jehovah is truly a reality - then he is the one who will dispense  justice and will judge those who use their positions of trust for in-fighting etc.  Has there been injustices perpetrated ? I do not doubt it at all! -  but some things we cannot resolve now.  Let it go,    
Jehovah will compensate all people for whatever they lost.  Will some of the anointed beat up their brothers? - Yes!  Jesus predicted the possibility.  Can worldly courts sort this out?  NO.
Some CEOs (even of Fortune500 companies) mess up a company and then quickly leave with a golden handshake and then move on to the next company to go and mess it up too!  I have seen this in the world and yes - I knew a soft-spoken elder who did this.....and got away with it -  it happens- rarely - but it does happen.
I am fortunately a sister so I do not have to deal with male egos but I am savvy enough to know that a definite sign of the spirit of the world or Satan is a love to control others - not necessarily openly.... but subtly.  I am very aware that not all have left their egos behind (as instructed by scripture) and hence to not handle all matters in kindness and love.......
Jehovah will take all mitigating factors into account. Jehovah deeply cares for victims of injustice.....  I personally think injustice does hurt any victim very deeply.  
 

Of course. The first thing to remember is that any time the Watchtower tries to defend a chronology that is not based on Biblical or secular evidence, you should start by looking at the words that the Watchtower has left out when a quote is made. In other words, the resources that the Watchtower uses are often well-respected resources, such as the Soncino commentary. When the topic is chronology, you can just assume that a respected commentary doesn't actually say what the Watchtower is trying to make you think that it says.
So, without even looking you will know that these commentaries have probably been misused, misquoted, or selectively quoted. This way it will give the appearance that respected scholarship supports the Watchtower view, when of course, it doesn't. Here's the full Soncino quote from Insight, but with the Soncino chronology added back in where the Watchtower left it out:
*** it-1 p. 462 Chronology ***
The Jewish understanding of this prophecy, as presented in the Soncino Books of the Bible (commentary on Ezekiel, pp. 20, 21) is: “The guilt of the Northern Kingdom extended over a period of 390 years ([according to the] Seder Olam [the earliest postexilic chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language], [and Rabbis] Rashi and Ibn Ezra). Abarbanel, quoted by Malbim, reckons the period of Samaria’s guilt from the time when the schism took place under Rehoboam (c. 932 BCE). . . until the fall of Jerusalem. [*footnote] . . . The right [side, on which Ezekiel lay] indicates the south, i.e. the Kingdom of Judah which lay to the south or right. . . . Judah’s corruption lasted forty years beginning soon after Samaria’s fall. According to Malbim, the time is reckoned from the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah (c. 626 BCE). . . when Jeremiah began his ministry. (Jer. i. 2).”—Edited by A. Cohen, London, 1950.
*[footnote] The entire Soncino Ezekiel commentary is consistent at dating the destruction of the Temple in 586 BCE, as is the Soncino commentary on Jeremiah, etc.
The Watch Tower publications follow the very unethical practice of tacking on an extra 20 years to the prior dates before 607, without any explanation. This is why it isn't just 587/6 that they invariably leave out of scholarly quotations, but they must leave out most other dates related to the period. But in this case, they not only left out the dates, they also completely left out the "Jewish understanding of the prophecy." To save space I didn't include those explanations in the two other places where words were left out. The Jewish understanding, per Soncino, is that Ezekiel meant what he said: 390 years PLUS 40 years. The Watchtower completely disagrees saying:
*** w72 5/15 pp. 310-311 Do Not Try God’s Patience Too Far ***
However, in the actual fulfillment upon ancient Jerusalem, the forty days for the “error” of the “house of Judah” would run concurrently with the last forty days of the three hundred and ninety days for the “error” of the “house of Israel.” The unit of time measurement that Jehovah gave to Ezekiel was, “a day for a year,” made emphatic by being repeated. Accordingly, the forty years for the “error” of the “house of Judah” were to run concurrently with the last forty years of the 390-year period for the “error” of “the house of Israel.” The last forty years of that time period began in the year 647 B.C.E. Both time periods, the longer one and the shorter one, had to converge on the same date, for ancient Jerusalem was destroyed only once, namely, in 607 B.C.E.
You see what they did? They pretended they were giving the "Jewish understanding of this prophecy, as presented in the Soncino Books of the Bible." Yet, they not only left out the chronology of the Jewish understanding, they completely left out the "Jewish understanding," too.
And of course the Watchtower added about 20 years to the thirteenth year of Josiah to change 626 to 647. If you did this in any scholarly setting, it would be considered devious. It's called "academic dishonesty."
 

I've mentioned this before on the forum, but I was traveling with Brother Schroeder (along with Charlotte and Judah) in 1978 where we visited several countries in Europe together (England, France, Spain, Italy) but I had to do work for about a week in the Athens branch and didn't catch up to him again when he went to Innsbruck, Bern, Wiesbaden, Hamburg, Copenhagen, and a couple other places for meetings specifically about Carl Olof Jonsson. I knew in early 1978 that Jonsson had sent his manuscript a few months earlier, and had asked for comment, but no researchers at Bethel would touch it. I saw a photocopied portion of it in 1978, but actually never saw the entire manuscript until Brother Rusk had it in 1980. (Rusk and I were going over logistics for my upcoming wedding, but I asked him about it when he had it across his desk, and was making some notes.) He never responded to the manuscript either. One brother in Writing told me that no one even wanted it on their desk because they knew it was the same information, basically, that they had already come across in researching the Aid book. Similar information had come in from two different sources in the 1960's, too. None of the research projects that Brother Schroeder assigned to me were directly related to it, and I was not aware of Schroeder's specific actions he was taking with reference to Jonsson, until I read about it decades later.
But Jonsson has put copies of his correspondence with the Society up on a website:
http://kristenfrihet.se/english/corr.htm
Jonsson admits to making at least one mistake in this correspondence, but the Society does appear to be the one "playing dirty." I would love to say that I don't believe it, but I was working even more closely with Schroeder back when he showed all the same "qualities" in his campaign to get rid of R.Franz from late in 1979 right up into the 1980's when he was finally successful. It was not something that a squeamish person (like me) wanted to see.
I don't really know what kind of a person Jonsson was, but I suspect that he is mostly right in the claims he makes about how he was treated. Also, I can just imagine even some of the personalities that show up on this forum and imagine what they would be like if they thought they had the actual power to cast someone into Gehenna, for example.

"Spring of 1918" is no longer considered the definitive time for the first resurrection, and the temple inspection is no longer dated to 1918, either. That's because these were both based on time parallels and type-antitype utilization that were not specifically sanctioned by Scripture. Therefore "spring of 1918" as the time of the first resurrection, was turned into just "an interesting possibility."
*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 12 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
Jesus Christ was anointed as the future King of God’s Kingdom in the fall of 29 C.E. Three and a half years later, in the spring of 33 C.E., he was resurrected as a mighty spirit person. Could it, then, be reasoned that since Jesus was enthroned in the fall of 1914, the resurrection of his faithful anointed followers began three and a half years later, in the spring of 1918? That is an interesting possibility. Although this cannot be directly confirmed in the Bible
However, the marking of dates in 1918 has not been rejected for the 1,260 days interpretation. These are considered to be almost literal days from December 28, 1914 up until June 21, 1918. The "World Government" book came out while I was at Bethel, and when it was pointed out that the number of days is wrong, future references to this interpretation stopped using the specific days and just rounded off to the nearest month.
*** go chap. 8 pp. 128-129 pars. 16-18 Marked Days During the “Time of the End” ***
16 The “finishing of the dashing of the power of the holy people to pieces” evidently occurred on June 21, 1918. On that day the American federal court sentenced the president and the secretary-treasurer of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and five of their headquarters associates to long prison terms, amounting to a total of 140 years. It is true that it was on May 7, 1918, that these officers of the Society and their prominent companions were arrested by federal officers, but they yet had to stand trial and be sentenced, without benefit of bail. So the close of World War I on November 11, 1918, found these seven leading representatives of the International Bible Students, and a close co-worker, in the federal penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A., to which they had been shipped from Brooklyn, New York, on July 4, 1918. Thus a high court of the Anglo-American Dual World Power did deliver a shattering blow to Jehovah’s “holy people” on June 21, 1918.
17 When, therefore, did the three years and a half, which were to be climaxed by that shattering action against dedicated, baptized Christians, begin? How was that beginning marked?
18 Well, June 21, 1918, fell, according to the Biblical lunar calendar, on Tammuz 11, 1918. Three lunar years back from that, or Tammuz 11, 1915, fell on June 23, 1915. Then the half of a lunar year, or six lunar months, back from that would be Tebeth 11, 1914, which coincided with December 28, 1914.—See The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, under the heading “Jewish Calendar for 200 Years,” pages 634-639.
The last paragraph is little more than a sleight-of-hand trick. The actual number of days is 1,271 here, not 1,260. Counting back from June 21, 1918 actually only reaches to January 8, 1915. That doesn't change at all by invoking a Jewish calendar. But the writer, Fred Franz, was pretty good at these things, and found a way, through obfuscation, to make the range reach back into the year 1914, which was his obvious goal. He was only able to get it to include the last 4 days of 1914, but at least it included the all-important year.
When I was baptized (1967) the 1,260 days were the 1,277 days from November 7, 1914 to May 7, 1918. When I was born (1957)  however the 1,260 days were the 1,278 days from about October 1, 1914 to about April 1, 1918. Just 2 years later (1959) the 1,260 days were the 1,233 (min) to 1,247 (max) days from the first half of November 1914 until April 1, 1918. And while at Bethel, the 1,260 days were the 1,271 days from December 28, 1914 to June 21, 1918. The problem with all of these dates is that if you give it an actual event in 1918 then you can't reach any significant event in 1914, and if you give a significant event in 1914, you can't reach any significant date in 1918.

LOL.  Poetry got me through my husband's sudden death and a daughter with cancer..... so it had its function...... and I had to go back to work to keep food on the table...and in the process I learnt a few more lessons about life. Particularly - when to let go.  There is a time for everything.... also to let go.
We all have ego's and want to be heard  but I honestly believe that if you have been through severe problems where you only are grateful to have a life.... you realize how precious your gift of life is ..... to have an opinion, to be seen and heard or have influence -  all that other jazz -is just the trimmings. The substance of your life is what is in yourself and what is between you and Jehovah.
We will soon face the most dire threats to our lives.   We are now facing the beginning of the escalation of anarchy.  Our lives is the only precious thing we have and this is all that Jehovah promised us - our lives.
So let GO of the unimportant grievances, unimportant hurt feelings and all the unimportant ideas. Let GO of the ego and the traps and snares it brings to our lives.  Time is running out.  Like the illustration of the 10 virgins - make sure you are one of those who have enough oil to shine your lamp while waiting for the groom to arrive.

That article from 1951 does indeed indicate that the Watchtower had been teaching that from the death of Jesus (until 1931) all Christians were only allowed to be in line for the heavenly gift, the heavenly calling. Note this from 1965:
*** w65 3/1 p. 148 pars. 18-20 Part Two ***
However, down till recently, the Fine Shepherd Jesus Christ was not calling out and gathering his “other sheep” in hope of everlasting life on earth.—John 10:16.
19 The inspired Scriptures show that God set a definite time for himself to gather together the “other sheep” for whom he reserves everlasting salvation on the Paradise earth under the kingdom of his dear Son. God’s provision for such “other sheep” is not a sort of safety net to catch all those whom he calls to the heavenly inheritance but who do not meet the requirements for it by a Christian course faithful to the death. Christians who have the heavenly inheritance reserved for themselves must either prove worthy of entering into it or else fail altogether without any other life prospects to fall back on. . . .
20 According to the historical facts, the gathering of the “great crowd” of other sheep began not before 1931 C.E., but particularly from 1935 C.E. forward.
So the 1951 and the 1965 articles said that the heavenly hope to be one of the 144,000 was the only hope open to Christians during those centuries following Christ's death [up until 1931].
*** w52 1/15 p. 62 Questions From Readers ***
. . .  the Scriptural limitation of 144,000 placed on the number being in Christ’s body, and which position was the only one open to Christians during those centuries?
The answer to that "Question From Readers" implied that most of these ones must have been only "professed Christians" and "not in line for the high [heavenly] calling." The reader might assume therefore that they could have been in line for an earthly calling, the "other sheep." But we were still teaching even in 1965 that there was no other calling between 33 CE and 1931.**[see footnote]
**footnote: Actually, for a time, up until the 1950's and 1960's, it was taught that the group identified in 1935, had not only been called since 1931, but since 1919, and we just hadn't recognized it yet. The reasoning, if I remember right, is that John saw them come out of the Great Tribulation, and we believed (at the time) that the Great Tribulation was still in effect up until 1919, before a break in the tribulation (on account of the chosen ones). I'll find the reference if anyone is interested.
I asked Brother Fred Franz about this, and he said that many of these 100's of thousands of Christian martyrs must be in Gehenna. He said even if they were just swept up in the Christian movement, they must have had a taste of the heavenly gift. 
(Hebrews 6:4-6) 4 For as regards those who were once enlightened and who have tasted the heavenly free gift and who have become partakers of holy spirit 5 and who have tasted the fine word of God and powers of the coming system of things, 6 but have fallen away, it is impossible to revive them again to repentance,. . .
This idea (that hundreds of thousands of persons who were willing to die for their Christian faith ended up in Gehenna) didn't sound right to my wife, who asked Brother Rusk about it. Brother Rusk was the Watchtower's Editor at the time, and he also was the brother who performed our wedding ceremony. He implied that all these reported numbers of  martyrs were just too high, so that these reports were all probably exaggerations in the first place, and so not to worry about it. If you knew the two men, you might have easily guessed that Franz would be judgmental, but Rusk would be more flexible with the Gehenna idea. At least Rusk never made the same claim that we could judge them to Gehenna, but he wouldn't deny it either. I wanted to believe, of course, that if they had not made it to full Christian maturity, then Hebrews 6 didn't apply. After all, the verses leading up to Hebrews 6:4 are these:
(Hebrews 5:12-6:2) 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong. 6 Therefore, now that we have moved beyond the primary doctrine about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying a foundation again, namely, repentance from dead works and faith in God, 2 the teaching on baptisms and the laying on of the hands, the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment.
JUST ONE LITTLE PROBLEM . . .
Of course, as ex-JWs will often point out, since upwards of 56,000 were partaking around 1931-1935, and there are something like 19,000 partaking now, this would mean that more than half the 144,000 are already accounted for among Jehovah's Witnesses. That would mean that in those 1,898 years (between 33 and 1931) that only about 69,000 Christians existed on earth. That works out to be about 36 new Christians every year. But we also know that there were at least 10,000 Christians in the very first century. Leaving us with 59,000 in about the same number of years, or 31 new Christians every year. It would almost look like the Gates of Gehenna had overpowered Christianity.

His 'discovery' was, in fact, what had long been already known and established in ANE and biblical scholarship. His downfall was believing that the Society was interested in the truth of the matter. Unfortunately, the responses from HQ were inadequate, rehashing what had already been questioned or rebutted, and they repeated platitudes and promises to address the evidence - which they didn't do. Instead, they urged him to keep quiet and instigated a nasty smear campaign against him. This is what alienated COJ from the org and caused him so much frustration and hurt.
'In the end the truth will eventually always come out'? The truth had already come out - several times before COJ's treatise. The truth had been flagged up in Russell's day, in Rutherford's day, and many times since, by those inside the org and by never-been-JWs. Even now, had COJ 'waited on Jehovah' to change matters, he would still be waiting - 40 years later. The ones who first alerted Russell to the errors are long dead now. Could it be that Jehovah has been nudging and jabbing the leaders of His people to make corrections all along, but they've been ignoring Him?

Thanks Anna for reaching out to me.  I believe in freedom of thought and freedom of speech. My character is also known for being a free spirit...but not too free!  I am extremely friendly, always smiling and always caring and helpful - at least that is what I strive to be.  There is always something that is crazy happening around me... I like to stimulate people and get feedback (in field service - we usually have a blast!)  I like organized chaos - the artistic side of me. 
I did not grow up as a Witness but in a home with two smart parents (I was exposed to extreme freedom of thought) but life was also extremely organized.  Everything took place by the clock ...like a smooth running business. 
I was not a difficult child but inside I rebelled against any form of rigidity.  So I understand the idea of breaking out and being free and looking at new ideas or new ways of doing things.   I am always ready to read about new things going on in the world and undercurrents most people are not aware of - but I am careful to stick to limits. There are barriers I do not pass. I studied Islam - the dark sinister part of it - but realized that I must not delve too deep into satanic things.... 
Usually, when people (even brothers) do or say stupid things I do not take it seriously - people are just people and they can come up with some wild ideas or be too rigid.  I will even give it a thought........ BUT I do not dwell on bad things ...and try to stay away from things that I perceive to be disruptive, counter productive, unkind or misleading.  I usually speak my mind.... no hypocrisy! 
I also believe there are lines one does not cross - self-control very important to serve Jehovah successfully!  
When I worked for the newspaper - the best thing I learnt was to edit my own writings and cut out the ideas I liked the most....I often had to re-write....  I also wrote poetry and songs.... and this teaches one to cut unnecessary flowery ideas/words - 'self-control' in art. 
What this taught me is:  many people self-indulge in a passion with no self-control and then cannot understand why it is not presentable to others. Self-indulgence in anything is usually not good. One can go on and on.....with it - it will bring personal satisfaction - but in the end it is not perfect because it does not "share" well with others.  This is why I now prefer to study some thoughts I can share with others or say something to stimulate others - especially in the Truth. 
I often teach Muslims that the law of Jesus is more powerful than the 'Sharia' - (law of Moses or the law in islam). How?  Self-control.   Jews and Muslims just have to obey the law and there is not much thinking involved.   Jesus made us personally responsible to think about everything -before we do it.  We have to think how to apply the principles.  We have to think things through, before we do.  Looking at a women too much is adultery in the heart....self-control.
I usually feel sorry for people who seriously overstep any boundaries.... they have not learnt the lessons which I call Social Studies 101.    Jehovah created us to live together as social animals.... there are boundaries one does not cross if you want to live and work together in peace and harmony..... because one infringes on the happiness and freedoms of others.  
This why I must mention here that I have respect for some of the people on this blog - who really kept their cool when I was criticizing them.  Thanks for that!   I do sometimes test boundaries.   I go on field service and say something to test my Muslim friends to see what their boundaries are.  When I see that their minds are very closed - I work with what I have available to me....
So - I never talk about others - only if it is positive!  Yes, some kinds of people are sometimes uncomfortable around me when I push the boundaries...... but I am watchful for body language and immediately have self-control when I see it makes another uncomfortable.
I err as well and I do sometimes come across as rigid in my writing.  I do. But I think that Adam was thinking too much about a 'new idea' and should have curbed it - before it got out of hand.
I believe in personal freedom curbed by personal self-control and social responsibility.
However, the level of personal censorship now being promoted in the world is closer to fascist ideas (in some places one can now be jailed for saying of even 'thinking' something) which is going to lead to totalitarian states.
In future, to curb the extreme ideologies floating around (which is threatening the "security" of the people and the state) - they will come down hard freedom of thought. Especially on JWs because we have learnt to think differently to the rest of mankind.  We obey the governments but stay neutral to politics and refuse all interfaith.  We are also loyal to Jehovah's government and will not refrain from preaching.

Yes, what Arauna said is true, humans LOVE to share their bits of knowledge, and if it’s something they’ve discovered themselves, so much more so. But it’s natural for us to do it and it’s not always bad, and nor are the motives behind it always bad.  I believe when Carl Olof Jonsson first “discovered” what he did when he researched the Gentile times, he had no bad motives. He obviously believed he had found the truth regarding that subject, and believed the WT didn’t realize they were in error. Put yourself in his shoes. Imagine how you would have felt if your “exciting” discovery was met with reservations almost bordering on indifference. His downfall was not the research, nor his discovery, nor his writing to the society about it, but his hurt ego, and pride that HIS discovery was not recognized.  We all want to be recognized for the effort we put into something, and he had put a lot of effort into it. It doesn’t feel good if someone tells you “you leave the thinking to us and you go and play in the sand”. However if someone tells you that they do not accept your opinion, that they see things differently, then humility should move us to let it go. No point in arguing or forcing our opinion on others. In the end the truth will eventually always come out.  But unfortunately he (COJ) was “trapped by his own cleverness”.
I like what one GB member said, that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that we should respect that. We do it in FS all the time. Don’t we just love it when someone gives us the opportunity to explain some aspect of the Bible to them, but don’t we also just have to accept that it may not change their previously held opinion? It happens all the time, and we just have to move on.  Just think the many times you reasoned with someone on the trinity, and showed them the many scriptures to refute it. But we don’t stand there browbeating them until they see things our way do we?
Similarly in our brotherhood,  we are not all cookie cutter the same. We don’t all have the same opinion on everything. We may even have differing views on some aspects of the Truth. A very good friend of mine, a very spiritual and zealous sister, who doesn’t just talk the truth but she walks it too, does not believe in the new interpretation of the generation. She doesn’t go around trying tell others why not, I only know about it because we are very close. She doesn’t make a big deal out of it, it’s just her opinion after all, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I am sure there are many who do not believe in the overlapping generation and I am sure there are quite a few who are not convinced about 1914 either. Does that make them a “bad” Witness?  @Arauna if we were in the same congregation, and you knew me from here, would you avoid me? I am sure FS would be lovely with you, would you let me go with you, or would you say no, because I have my own opinion on the generation and 1914? I would really be interested to know your answer because your answer will show whether it really matters what I (and by extension others) believe regarding these subjects or not.

These are the worldwide percentages of Jehovah´s Witnesses and where they live. A whopping 50% live in the Americas, and a whopping 35% live in the US, or Mexico, or Brazil. (The percentages shown on the right pie graph are of the worldwide total, so if it says 15% for the US it means that 15% of all JW´s worldwide live in the US, not 15% of the ones that live in the Americas).

For example the data below is from the 2017 Year Book, pages 47 to 76 - "Preaching and Teaching Earth Wide" 

Learn more about Jehovah's Witnesses

What Jesus said bears repeating:
(Luke 21:8) . . .He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them.
 

[sarcasm] It's too bad there was no pure worship during the time of Jesus and during the lives of the apostles. Otherwise the true Christian faith could have been built upon the foundation of Jesus and the apostles. [/sarcasm]

Some signs are CLEARER than others .... Do you REALLY think Jesus
would make signs less clear than the average small town mayor's signs?

The foundation you gave for your question indicates that you missed the point about special definitions. You have mixed up  interpretations with definitions. What this topic was about was how using unlikely definitions of certain words has contributed to the interpretation. 
Here's an example. Suppose you tell me the following phrase, which I just picked from one of your posts in this thread:
This is a sentiment that should be easy to understand, and it's one I agree with whole-heartedly. But let's say that I start using the least likely meanings of the words you used, and it becomes the basis of a completely different interpretation. For example:
Bruceq refers to the sins of Babylon the Great, which obviously refers to the current problems of the city council in the town of Babylon, New York. And we know that just as in the expression "Greater Boston area" ( Greater Boston - Wikipedia ) this refers to not just the area within the city limits of Babylon, New York, but the other suburban areas that come under the jurisdiction of the "Town of Babylon."
Bruceq says he wants to share in the mistakes of Jehovah's people. Well, we know that Jehovah's people were the Jews in the Hebrew Scriptures, and so what were those mistakes he wants to share in?
(1 Corinthians 10:6-11) 6 Now these things became our examples, for us not to be persons desiring injurious things, even as they desired them. 7 Neither become idolaters, as some of them did; just as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink, and they got up to have a good time.” 8 Neither let us practice fornication, as some of them committed fornication, only to fall, twenty-three thousand [of them] in one day. 9 Neither let us put Jehovah to the test, as some of them put [him] to the test, only to perish by the serpents. 10 Neither be murmurers, just as some of them murmured, only to perish by the destroyer. 11 Now these things went on befalling them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have arrived.
Even less likely, I could assume that you were referring specifically, to the idea of perishing by serpents, which I highlighted above. So I therefore interpret your phrase to mean the following:
"But I would rather perish by serpents than join the Town Council of the town of Babylon, New York."
And I could even defend my special interpretation by pointing out that the "correct" interpretation must always be the least likely because persons in Christendom would have more likely understood it to mean exactly what you intended. Obviously, what most people thought you meant must be wrong, because people in Christendom would agree with it.
Similarly, we have formed the foundation of the invisible parousia interpretation by accepting the least likely meanings of words and terms like "lightning" "shine" "observableness" "parousia" "synteleia" "sign" "generation" "appointed times of the nations." The most important of these special interpretations were inherited from the "private interpretations" of Nelson Barbour. And they therefore came to us as long-standing traditions that started back around 1875. 

Yes, I believe the true faith is a minority too. The scriptures tell us so. We don't believe in the trinity, immortality of the soul and no Jehovah in NT do we?  Why include that in the mix with visible parousia and king in 33 C.E. though? Does that make it wrong just because the majority believe that? The majority also believe other things that we as JWs believe also.
Just as a side issue, I noticed that in the new 2013 NWT there are several instances where we changed the wording to be more in line  with other (Christendom's) translations.  You know the saying,  truth is truth no matter who says it

My previous comment was neither opposed to putting faith in Jehovah and the FDS, nor respecting and being loyal to Jehovah and the ones taking the lead. It was also not opposed to being obedient to those taking the lead and being submissive.  And also not opposed to the idea that Jehovah has his organization in complete control.
So what was your point?
 Exactly. So why worry about 1914?

By the way is the kind of comment that lands people who make it, out of the truth. May you never be stumbled.
 I hope one day the faithful slave is not going to change their understanding of 1914, to one similar to what is presented here by JWI. If they do, it won't make me think any less of them. What is it going to do to you though? And don't say it will never happen, because it HAS happened on many occasions where they taught one thing, and then "refined" their understanding. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against refining our understanding, or even changing our understanding. We should never dogmatically insist on something, and as far as I can see, change is proof that the FDS have not dogmatically insisted on something when further evidence came to light. So why should WE be dogmatic? Is it wrong to say that there are some interesting scriptural arguments being brought forward? Why insist on something "just" because for the present this is what the FDS teach? At least THAT should NOT be the argument. The argument should be a well presented scriptural counter argument. So far I have not really seen this on this thread, or on the other one. The majority has just been diversions, and attacks on the person and their motive.
What if I was to call into question your person and motive? Are you perhaps scared if 1914 is wrong, where will that leave a lot of our beliefs? Where would that leave you? Are you afraid this could delay the end?  Is that why you are sidestepping the issue and diverting attention from the "message" to the person? What are you afraid of?
So, how did that feel.

In Daniel 4, Daniel said he did know the interpretation of the dream and gave it to the king. Do you not believe him?
'Times' (iddan) do not necessarily mean years. Cp. Dan. 2:8; 3:5, 15; 7:12. But why could these 'times' not be merely contemporaneous with the historical period? Is there a Scriptural basis for concluding otherwise?
Jesus indicated nothing about the '7 times' and made no link with Dan. 4.
'It must be the same.' A mere assertion. Where in Scripture has this conclusion sprung from? Besides, Jesus was speaking in the future tense  - "will be trampled" - i.e. at the time he spoke, what he had in mind hadn't happened yet.
Whoa. We have several knight-jump eisegetical leaps, there. Where is the Scriptural link between the '7 times' of Daniel 4, which Daniel specifically applied to the period of Nebuchadnezzar's madness, and Revelation's '3.5 times' relating to an entirely different apocalyptic vision given about 5 centuries later? And then a random 'day-for-a-year' formula lobbed into the interpretive cauldron - where in Daniel does it say we have to use this for the tree dream?
So to recap:
Daniel knew the interpretation of the tree dream - it wasn't sealed information 'Times' may not mean 'years' anyway, given the word's other usage within the book of Daniel There is no Scriptural prophetic connection between Luke 21:24 and Dan. 4 There is no Scriptural basis for applying some 'day-for-a-year' formula to Dan. 4 And to add to that, the Org has dispensed with typologies that are not explicit in Scripture!
"Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so." - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015204
Therefore, as no specific Scriptural basis can be found for interpreting the 'immense tree' in Nebuchadnezzar's dream as the antitype for God's rulership, then we should rightly reject such an application.
 

On everything important, I agree.
 
I'm not claiming that we need to interpret it. After all the Bible already gave the interpretation. As you said before: "No need for another interpretation but thanks anyway." [Emphasis added.]
If the Bible says that it already gave us the interpretation, don't we risk adding to or taking away from the words of the scroll if we decide that we need another interpretation? And it can also lead to all kinds of scriptural problems and inconsistencies, which so far no one has responded to with scripture. (Changing the topic isn't the same thing, and, fwiw, I don't celebrate Christmas.) A mere claim that "the Governing Body" has all interpretational authority is probably fine for most of us. But when the scriptures demand that we search them and not accept "a letter as though from us" on the topic of the parousia, but suggests that we use "reason" my own conscience tells me that I have a responsibility to follow the Bible as best I can and follow the lead of the Governing Body as best I can, too. Wherever there might be a difference, however, I think we know who we should obey.
(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. (Luke 21:8) . . .He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, . . . ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. . . (Galatians 1:10) 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave.
(Acts 5:29) . . .: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.
 

This was already covered previously in this thread, but I'll be happy to answer this again, too. Although I know that Ann also knows the Bible's answer to this topic, and it's always great to see anyone take the side of the Bible's advocate, here.
Yes we agree that Jesus knew more than Daniel did. And Jesus actually gives us the ACTUAL length of the "appointed times of the nations."
Here's a quote from the NWT of Luke 21:24, where Jesus spoke of the appointed times of the nations to trample Jerusalem, followed by a place where Jesus attached a specific length of time to these "appointed times of the nations."
(Luke 21:24) 24  . . . .into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. (Revelation 11:2) . . .to the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months. In case anyone missed the connection, let's try a paraphrase of both of them:
(Luke 21:24) 24  . . . .into all the nations; and Jerusalem, the holy city, will be trampled underfoot by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. (Revelation 11:2) . . .to the nations, and Jerusalem, the holy city, will be trampled underfoot by the nations until 42 months, 1260 days, are fulfilled. Of course, you could argue that one said "Jerusalem would be trampled underfoot by the nations"  and the other one said "the holy city would be trampled underfoot by the nations."
(Nehemiah 11:1) . . .to live in Jerusalem, the holy city, . . (Isaiah 52:1) . . .Clothe yourself with strength, O Zion! Put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city!. . . (Daniel 9:16) . . .may your anger and wrath turn away from your city Jerusalem, your holy mountain; . . Of course, you could argue that one said the city would be "trampled on by the nations" and the other said the city would be "trampled underfoot by the nations."
But the Watch Tower's Kingdom Interlinear Translation puts that argument to sleep. It's the exact same word. For ease of lookup I'll include the Strong's Dictionary reference for each
Luke 21:24 -- g3961   πατέω pateō  : to trample, crush with the feet Rev. 11:2   --  g3961   πατέω pateō  : to trample, crush with the feet In fact, the NWT prior to 2013 prided itself on always using a consistent English word or term to translate specific Greek words wherever they came up, but not here. There is not even a cross reference here, and no explanation in any Watch Tower publication about why this verse in Revelation 11:2 echoes Luke 21:24.    Revelation 11:2,3 is also an excellent citation for showing how 3.5 times = 42 months = 1,260 days, which could have been used in the "Bible Teach" book that was just quoted. But notice how this verse is always avoided for making that point. And Revelation 12:6,14 is used instead.
So one of the verses says there will be appointed times for the Gentiles trampling the holy city, and the other says that those appointed times were 42 months, or 1,260 days. The Watchtower must avoid this verse for any purpose except to apply it to a time from December 1914 as literal days so that they end in the spring of 1918. And what do we say happened in December 1914? Good question. Nothing! It just happens to be where 1,260 days lands if we work backwards from the spring of 1918!
 
 

I forgot to respond to this last portion you wrote:
The Bible does not speak of the month as only thirty days. As already shown, the Bible, speaks of the measurement of months as lunar, from new moon to new moon. The Bible contains several places where numbers representing time and chronology were rounded off. Sometimes this rounding might have been done to make large numbers easier to remember, time periods easier to remember, or easier to calculate. We'd only be speculating if said we knew exactly why the Bible often appears to round the numbers.
For example, Jesus may have been in the grave for as few as 29 hours? So if it was just a few hours more than one full day, why do we call it 3 days. Why was it called 3 days and 3 nights? Our solution is to say it was PARTS of three days. Because of the book of Jonah, perhaps this was the easiest way to remember that it was part of Friday (from afternoon until sundown which was the start of Saturday), all of Saturday, and part of Sunday (already raised before sunrise). In this case it's possible that "Parts" of three days were rounded off to three days. Another example, why does Matthew say it was 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the deportation, and 14 from the deportation to Christ? If you count the generations listed here, or even the variations in the Hebrew Scriptures, or the LXX, or what's listed in Luke, you still don't get 14 for each of those. (Matthew 1:17) . . .All the generations, then, from Abraham until David were 14 generations; from David until the deportation to Babylon, 14 generations; from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ, 14 generations.
*** it-1 pp. 915-916 Genealogy of Jesus Christ ***
This division may have been made as a memory aid. However, in counting the names we find that they total 41, rather than 42.
When the Bible says that 4,000 men were struck down (1 Sam 4:2) then 30,000 foot soldiers fell (1 Sam 4:10) do we always believe that it could not have been 3,998 or 30,002, respectively? Large populations are always rounded off to numbers like 5,000, 18,000 or even 500,000, 600,000, 800,000 etc. (2 Sam 24:9) Joʹab now gave to the king the number of the people who were registered. Israel amounted to 800,000 warriors armed with swords, and the men of Judah were 500,000.
Note this from the Chronology article in Insight on page 461: the beginning of         1077 B.C.E.           40 years
David’s reign
to
the beginning of         1037 B.C.E.           40 years
Solomon’s reign
to
the division of the       997 B.C.E.           40 years
kingdom
Deuteronomy 2:7; 29:5; Acts 13:21; 2 Samuel 5:4; 1 Kings 11:42, 43; 12:1-20
*** it-1 p. 461 Chronology ***
. . . the . . . three periods all may have included fractional figures. Thus, David’s reign is shown to have actually lasted for 40 1⁄2 years, according to 2 Samuel 5:5. If, as seems to have been the practice, regnal years of these kings were counted on a Nisan-to-Nisan basis, this could mean that King Saul’s reign lasted only 39 1⁄2 years . . .
 
 
But there is another point you made above, if a month is only to have thirty days and this is for consistency in working out prophecies, then why do we not use 30-day months when deciding to translate these time periods into so-called modern day fulfillments? A year of 12 30-day months is only 360 days, so these supposed 2,520 years would be 360-day years. Yet the Watchtower uses 365.25 day years, and the Watchtower uses an average of 30.4375 days in a month for the fulfillment. So what's all the fuss about consistency if the Watchtower isn't concerned about it?
[Edited to add:] And if as you say "it was to have consistency when we work out the prophecies," then why do we make a "day for a year" in the 7 times of Daniel, but do NOT make a day for a year in the three-and-one-half times in Revelation, and why do we NOT USE EITHER days or years, when Revelation 11:9,11 says "three and one half days"?