DespicableME

You were using the term "honesty is a two-way street" as if it were an excuse to explain why you made a false claim. In a "debate" you don't get to make false claims and then make excuses for it. You should be honest no matter what you think of the other person's evidence.
There is no gap in the NB evidence. You don't create a gap in another set of evidence by simply making a claim that one exists:
Let's say that I have a coin collection of all the different types of United States coins made during World War 1: a 1914 penny, nickel, dime, quarter, half-dollar, silver dollar, gold quarter-eagle, gold half-eagle, etc., etc., from each of the applicable locations where coins are officially minted. Let's say that  I have an entire set not just from 1914, but also from 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918. Now you come along and tell me that there is a three-year gap in my WW1 coin collection. But that doesn't create a gap in my collection. It does not create a gap in the evidence for when WW1 started and ended. It just creates a gap in your credibility.
If I ask you where this supposed three-year gap might be placed, you could say that the extra three years should be placed between 1916 and 1917. Again, this claim is only a gap in your own credibility and it has no effect on the evidence for what coins were made during World War 1 and it has no effect on the evidence for the actual years of World War 1. It's just a claim. Even if it came from your beloved grandfather who has never told a lie before, it still doesn't mean that the start of World War 1 must now be reset to 1911 instead of 1914.
You could insist that there must be a three-year gap because your grandfather actually told you that World War 1 started in 1911. He is so sure of it that he has also pushed back the beginning of the U.S. Civil war to 1858 instead of 1861, and the U.S. Declaration of Independence from Britain to July 4, 1773 instead of 1776. But this would only mean that you (and your grandfather) have a gap. It does not produce any gap in United States chronology or coinage.
We are certainly not discussing any gap in the NB evidence itself, but a gap in someone else's claim about it. We are discussing the idea that you believe there is a gap somewhere in the NB, but you still don't even know exactly where that gap should be placed. We are in exactly the same type situation that would be created if you and your grandfather were claiming that World War 1 started in 1911 instead of 1914, assuming that you agreed that it ended in 1918, but that WW1 covered parts of 8 different years (1911-1918) instead of parts of 5 different years (1914-1918). But you still don't know where the current evidence for WW1 from 1914 to 1918 went wrong. Perhaps the three years of information you need to add should be inserted between the current evidence for 1916 and 1917. Or between the current evidence for 1917 and 1918. Or perhaps the three years should be added between February 3, 1915 and February 4, 1915.
The history of these Watchtower dates that you are relying on is fuzzy. The reasons the Watchtower has needed them to be fuzzy becomes sharp and clear when you study the history of the Watchtower's chronology claims more closely. And you don't even need the older publications because the CURRENT "Insight" book admits that the two year difference between 539 and 537 is based on something that "is very probable." Current publications put the third year of Cyrus at 536, but the first year of Cyrus is pushed as closely as possible toward the spring of 537. Obviously, the WTS does this, even though Cyrus had the authority to release captives in 539 and 538, but we just don't want any Jews coming back in 539 or 538,  as that would throw off 1914 by throwing off 607 by a year or two. In the past, we allowed them to come back in 536 because we thought that was the first year of Cyrus (and therefore put Jerusalem's destruction in 606). If we were arguing for the same two-year-plus delay that we argue for now in the WTS publications, then the Jews might not be back home until 534 or even 533. The fuzziness has worked in favor of the WTS to keep 1914 afloat.
The WTS was always willing to re-adjust the old dates, although to be fair, the solution for a while was to change 1914 to 1915. Both Russell and Rutherford began using 1915 as the new end of the Gentile Times even until a few years after 1914.
During the time of trouble, closing this age, they will be exalted to power, but their "reign" of righteousness over the world could not precede A.D. 1915—when the Times of the Gentiles have expired. (The Time Is At Hand, p.81.) the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1915, with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. (ibid, p.101)
Here's what we the WTS said when they were first learning about the "zero year" problem in the Watch Tower from December 1912. By 1914 the WTS "discerned" that there WAS a zero year, but still kept referring to October 1915 as the end of the Gentile Times when it looked like 1914 wasn't working out. Apparently, they misunderstood the quote in the Encylopedia Britannica, below, referring to a common misunderstanding that is still made today by amateur astronomers. Then in 1943, the WTS "discerned" that there was NO zero year.:
---------quote from Watch Tower, December 1912, p. 377 [new paragraphs shown as bullet points]---------------
Whether Dionysius began his A.D. period January 1st, A.D. 1, or whether he began it January 1st, A.D. 0, we may not be sure; neither may we feel too certain whether he began the B.C. dates December 31st, B.C. 0, or December 31st, B.C. 1. For all ordinary purposes this question would be rather immaterial. But it has a very important bearing on our calculation of Gentile Times. . . . Coming now to a very critical examination of the date 536 B.C., there is an open question: Shall we call it 536 full years to A.D., or 434 [sic] full years? The difference in time between October 1st and January 1st would be the fourth of a year; hence our query is respecting 536-1/4 or 535-1/4 years B.C. What is the proper method of calculation, is in dispute. If we count the first year B.C. as 0, then the date 536-1/4 B.C. is the proper one for the end of the seventy years of captivity. But if we begin to reckon it by counting the first year before the Christian era as B.C. 1, then evidently the desolation ended 535-1/4 years B.C. As to the methods of counting, Encyclopaedia Britannica says, "Astronomers denote the year which preceded the first of our era as 0 and the year previous to that as B.C. 1--the previous year B.C. 2, and so on." Whichever of these ways we undertake to calculate the matter the difference between the results is one year. The seventy years of Jewish captivity ended October, 536 B.C., and if there were 536-1/4 years B.C., then to complete the 2,520 years' cycle of the Times of the Gentiles would require 1913-3/4 years of A.D., or to October, 1914. But if the other way of reckoning were used, then there were but 535-1/4 years of the period B.C., and the remainder of the 2,520 years would reach to A.D., 1914-3/4 years, otherwise October, 1915.  

JW Insider.
Now I am off the throne and in a relieved state I am ready for battle.. 
Nebuchadnezzer reigned for 43 years and not 63 years as shown by NB Chronology.Methodology allows one to insert 20 years into the scheme in order to harmonize NB Chronology with Biblical history via the seventy years of Jeremiah unaccounted for in NB Chronology..i have suggested that in Neb's 18th regnal years which of course would expand the the NB Period by 20 years. Now , I hear a very loud voice of protest about such an intrusion but that is not my problem it a problem for those scholars or scribes who compiled the list of reigns in the first place. they should have exercised greater diligence and not been sloppy or careless. They were very naughty.
Your claim that our theory is impossible is unclear to me because we accept the 43 years of Neb' s reign and have well described how this synchronizes with the reigns of the last Kings of Judah according to the biblical data. If it does not fit certain data from the NB Chronology then that is not my problem. Just make the required adjustment based only on trusted biblical facts . If you have found a problem then why not try to solve it? DO YOU WANT ME TO SOLVE IT FOR YOU. Already, there are other problems in connection with Jehoiakim's reign such as the 'third year of his kingship' in Dan. 1:1. and this is explained in the Insight article under 'Jehoiakim'. You will find the chart for the Reigns of Judah and Israel published in the Aid  book most helpful.
If you want me to solve your problem then present your question simply and clearly. Just present the facts, skip the references. Chronology is complex enough so simplicity works for me. You got it?  When I get a problem I usually get the solution even though it can be hard work.
scholar JW
 

JW Insider.
Honesty is a two-way street required by both sides in a debate therefore no need for any ;theocratic war strategy..
If the Gap does not exist then how do you account for the 20 year difference between 586/587 BCE and 607 BCE for the same event? No need for circular reasoning here.
Chronology is personal because most if not all schemes of Chronology are written up by individuals beginning with James Ussher also such is based on Methodology, personally selected and Interpretation again personally selected.
If there is no Gap then why or what are we discussing?
You talk honesty but your following comments replete with many references to earlier WT Publications finally concluding that some dates were or are fuzzy! Yet you begin your diatribe with the astonishing statement that the Babylonian Empire began in 609 BCE. What nonsense for nothing of any historical significance occurred in 609 BCE. Carl Jonsson in the 2nd edn of his Gentile Times Reconsidered produced a Chart on p.235. This Chart presents a' fuzzy' statement that the 70 years began with the Assyria crushed with no historical data in support to support this assertion.
Chronology is not an exact science for it is always a 'work in progress' and is simply a scheme or device that relates history into our modern  day calendation. It is based on  Methodology and Interpretation for these are the 'tools' of the Chronologist and explains why our dates in the past have been adjusted, a feature common to all modern-day chronologies. You only have to compare the different Chronologies for the Divided Monarchy and to examine the conflict over whether Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587 BEC.
One thing can be said about our wondrous Bible Chronology there is no room for 'fuzziness' or dogmatism.
scholar JW
 

Again, I will quote from a source that attempts to support the Bible, but evidently with no particular stake, one way or another, in the Watchtower's version. Below I am quoting two paragraphs from http://bibletruthsandprophecies.com/index.php?title=Jeconiah
Jeconiah is of course the same as Jehoiachin:
 
-------------- start of quote from website ---------------
Reign
Jeconiah reigned three months and ten days, from December 9, 598 to March 15/16, 597 BC. He succeeded Jehoiakim as king of Judah[2Ki.24:6] in December 598, after raiders from surrounding lands invaded Jerusalem[2Ki.24:2] and killed his father. It is likely that the king of Babylon was behind this effort, as a response to Jehoiakim's revolt, starting sometime after 601 BC. Three months and ten days after Jeconiah became king, the armies of Nebuchadnezzar II seized Jerusalem. The intention was to take high class Judahite captives and assimilate them into Babylonian society. On March 15/16th, 597 BC,[5]:217 Jeconiah, his entire household and three thousand Jews, were exiled to Babylon.
Release from captivity
According to 2 Kings 25:27, Jeconiah was released from prison "in the 37th year of the exile", in the year that Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) came to the throne. Babylonian records show that Amel-Marduk began his reign in October 562 BC.[8] According to 2 Kings 25:27, Jeconiah was released from prison "on the 27th day of the twelfth month", during March of 561 BC. This indicates the first year of captivity to be 598/597 BC, according to Judah's Tishri-based calendar. The 37th year of captivity was thus, by Judean reckoning, the year that began in Tishri of 562, consistent with the synchronism to the accession year of Amel-Marduk given in Babylonian records.
------------- end of quote from website --------------------

Well, I'll look into how dutifully the problem has been corrected. Let's hope it's duty-free, considering where you've been.
So, you are saying that the 20 years can be inserted altogether in one piece starting in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, which was also the same point as King Zedekiah's 11th year. This would, of course, mean that Nebuchadnezzar did not just rule for 43 years, but for 63 years. This is where those 10,000 tablets could really help out your theory. There are plenty of tablets representing every year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign from his first to his 43rd, but you have absolutely zero for every one of these extra 20 years.
The evidence from thousands of tablets is actually definitive enough. But you would also have an  bigger problem, the Bible itself:
Notice that if your dates were correct then Jehoiachin would have surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 597 which you would call 617, assuming this 20-year gap theory was correct. This is admitted in the "Insight" book:
*** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin ***
It appears that Jehoiakim died during this siege and Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah. His rule ended, however, a mere three months and ten days later, when he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 617 B.C.E.  . . .  In fulfillment of Jehovah’s word through Jeremiah, he was taken into Babylonian exile. (Jer 22:24-27; 24:1; 27:19, 20; 29:1, 2) Other members of the royal household, court officials, craftsmen, and warriors were also exiled.—2Ki 24:14-16;
(2 Kings 25:27) 27 And in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoi?a·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 27th day of the month, King E?vil-mer?o·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, released King Je·hoi?a·chin of Judah from prison. *** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin ***
In the fifth year of Jehoiachin’s exile, Ezekiel began his prophetic work. (Eze 1:2) About 32 years later, evidently in 580 B.C.E., Jehoiachin was released from prison by Nebuchadnezzar’s successor Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk) and given a position of favor above all the other captive kings. Thereafter he ate at Evil-merodach’s table and received a daily allowance.—2Ki 25:27-30; Jer 52:31-34. In other words, the Bible shows that your theory is impossible because the Bible confirms that the secular tablets are correct in giving Nebuchadnezzar only 43 years. You can't squeeze out more than 43 years in his reign, if Evil-Merodach became king in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile. The Bible also, therefore, agrees with "Ptolemy's Canon" and the evidence from all the astronomical tablets here, too.

Ann
Sitting on the throne gives time to review  another's foolishness and to refute nonsense.
At least we agree on one thing-It is impressive.
scholar JW
 
 
 
scholar JW

No. Honesty is NOT a two-way street. I hope you are not thinking of "theocratic war strategy" when you consider it OK to be dishonest if you consider someone to be an enemy or not entitled to honesty.
*** w57 5/1 p. 286 Use Theocratic War Strategy ***
So in time of spiritual warfare it is proper to misdirect the enemy by hiding the truth. *** it-2 p. 244 Lie ***
". . . saying something false to a person who is entitled to know the truth . . ." This is misdirection through circular reasoning.
If Bob says 20+30=70, and Jim says 20+50=70, Bob can't say Jim is dishonest because Jim is ignoring Bob's 20-integer Gap.
No. Chronology is not "personal."
This is part of the false, circular reasoning. I find no Gap, and yet I choose NOT to ignore the historical reality of the 70 years. I find all 70 years perfectly accounted for.
I have already stated my acceptance of making the insertion point of the 70 years of Babylonian "empire" from 609 to 539. But I am not against someone accepting a "fuzzy" beginning or end to this period -- within reason. I know, for example, that the Watchtower teaches a "fuzzy end" of this period that admits that the Babylonian empire ended in 539 but also admits that we are only guessing when we say that the Jews returned to end this period in 537. I am not concerned about the 2 years of the Watchtower's "fuzziness" as you would call it. There was a time when the Watchtower accepted 536 as the first year of Cyrus - and not only the first year, but the year of the Edict itself. If there were good reasons to accept that this "70-year period" was shorter, or longer by a few years, or even symbolic, I'd have no problem with it, and I therefore have no problem with a date near 537 as the end of the period. (And I'd have no problem with a date like 607 as the beginning of the 70 years.) But you will see why I consider "honesty" to be an integral part of the discussion when we look more closely at how the Watch Tower publications have "toyed" with this time period.
*** it-1 p. 458 Chronology ***
During Cyrus’ first year his decree releasing the Jews from exile was given. And, as considered in the article on CYRUS, it is very probable that the decree was made by the winter of 538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E. This would permit the Jews time to make necessary preparations, effect the four-month journey to Jerusalem, and still arrive there by the seventh month (Tishri, or about October 1) of 537 B.C.E. *** w07 9/1 p. 19 par. 9 Highlights From the Book of Daniel ***
The year is now 539 B.C.E. Babylon has fallen, and Darius the Mede has become ruler over the kingdom of the Chaldeans *** w05 5/1 p. 12 par. 18 The Resurrection—A Teaching That Affects You ***
he received a vision in 536 B.C.E., the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia. (Daniel 1:1; 10:1) Some time during that third year of Cyrus, Daniel received a vision of the march of world powers So Babylon fell in 539, and Cyrus therefore had the power and authority to declare Babylon's captives to be free immediately: in 539. In fact, one Biblical meaning of "first year" as you know (and as you yourself have pointed out previously) can refer to the accession year, which in this case would be 539. But notice that the "Insight" book, in the first of the three quotes above, pushes his "first-year" decree all the way out into 537 or "toward" 537, but in the last quote his third year is 536.
Older Watchtower publications placed Cyrus first year in 536, or even his accession year when Babylon was destroyed, in 536. So in Watchtower terms, both his first year and his third year have, at times, been stated to be 536.
*** Watch Tower, 6/1/1905, p.183
In accordance with the Edict of Cyrus (536 B.C.) many of the Israelites returned from Babylon and laid the foundations of the Temple. Ezra 4:24, however, states that the work then "ceased unto the 2nd year of the reign of Darius, king of Persia." The length of time from the Edict of Cyrus in 536 B.C. . . . Throughout all of the earlier publications the statements were always consistent with these examples below:
All students of chronology may be said to be agreed, that the first year of Cyrus was the year 536 before the beginning of our Anno Domini era. (Watch Tower, 5/1896, p.113) With these facts before us, we readily find the date for the beginning of the Gentile Times of dominion; for the first year of the reign of Cyrus is a very clearly fixed date--both secular and religious histories with marked unanimity agreeing with Ptolemy's Canon, which places it B.C. 536. (The Time Is At Hand, p.79-80) So the THREE YEARS of "fuzziness" in the Watchtower's explanations of this date have all been necessary in order to keep 1914 afloat. At first, it could have been that the Jews began returning in the year of the Edict, 536, back when all students of chronology supposedly agreed that the first year of Cyrus was 536. Then, when all students of chronology must have supposedly realized that "Ptolemy's Canon" actually would have placed the destruction of Babylon by Cyrus in 539, that's when some scrambling began. The solution was to try to push the Edict as close to 537 as possible (see "Insight," above) nearly two years after Cyrus had destroyed Babylon.
Then we still needed an extra year for 1914 to work, so we thought there would have to be a few months of preparation time, and then about 4 more months of travel. Perfect!! We resolved the three years of fuzziness with some conjecture.
You already know that something very similar happened when it was discovered that "all students of chronology" realized that there was no ZERO year. The destruction of Jerusalem had to be moved from 606 to 607 in order for 1914 to work. So it was a "fuzzy" date anyway, and moving it just one year was not a problem.
Therefore in Watchtower chronology, BOTH ends of this period were considered very fuzzy and flexible.

Ah ha. That explains the subsequent bout of verbal ... um ... outpourings.
Yes, it is impressive ... but for all the wrong reasons.
 

Ann OMaly
An update on Jer.25:11: I do not withdraw my comment that nowhere in the OT does the seventy years refers to the nation's servitude to Babylon and in the context of all of the seventy years of Jeremiah's corpus for this applies to Judah alone. However, Jer. 25:11 can be interpreted as it is read so in accordance with the insightful comment in Keil & Delitzch's Commentary On the Old Testament, Vol.8.p.374 it offers this interesting observation on 'these nations'. In short, these peop[es or nations which surrounded Judah would also be desolated and along with Judah would have to serve Babylon. So it could well be argued at the time of Judah' servitude, desolation and exile other nations also experienced that same fury whether at that time or later is unknown so the Babylonish intervention during that time may well have  extended beyond the borders of Judah which raise some additional questions of research. The text in view has a number of interpretations regarding its application to 'these nation's.in the context of the entire chapter. Rolf Furuli has discussed the linguistics of this verse with alternative translations.
Another interpretation concerns these nations viewed metaphorically or theologically namely with the downfall of Jehovah;s kingship at Jerusalem with the end of the Davidic Monarchy it could be said that all other nations were now subject to Babylonian sovereignty. These are just short comments but nothing obscures the simple fact that Judah served Babylon for 70 years whilst exiled at Babylon leaving behind a devastated and depopulated land of Judah and perhaps beyond its borders. It is amazing how one simple expression opens many other doors for further reflection and research and I thank you for quoting that text.
scholar JW
 
 
 
 
 

Ann O Maly
I brought Rainer Albertz up because his view on the timing and nature of the Exile agrees with us in many respects but not all
 
. He begins the Exile not from 609 BCE the choice of many scholars but from the Fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 BCE but differs from us in that he ends the Exile in 539 BCE with the Fall of Babylon.  In that same paragraph on p.2 He begins the Exilic Era from that same event, the Fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 and ends it in 520 BCE which is OK with me. Also, he dates the seventy years from 587 BCE until 517 and not 609 BCE which supports our view but differs on the endpoint based on his interpretation of the two texts in Zechariah.
I repeat nothing of any historical significance occurred in 609 according to NB Chronology. If there is something then state it but remember it must be of such significance that warrants the beginning of the 70 years.  
 
Jere. 25;11 is problematic for all exegetes because ' these nations are not identified. This could refer to the inhabitants of Judah or it could refer to the peoples of the Babylonian Empire. There are a number of linguistic possibilities and the immediate context which targets Judah alone is the determinant factor.
No  I have not checked Furuli's hypothesis as to its validity but others have and it has been subject to Peer Review. But boy it is impressive don't you think?
scholar JW

JW Insider
After I had made a post to you this morning I was sitting on the throne whereupon much inspiration and meditation can be entered into for knows how great minds have constructed ideas which have altered the course of history or civilization. I thought of you and your need for some insertion regarding the 20 years Babylonian Gap. So, I propose that in view of the fact that NB Chronology is silent regarding Neb's 18th year when he destroyed Jerusalem and King Zedekiah's 11 th year that it should be at that time and event the 20 years could be inserted thus altering the traditional 587 or 586 BCE to 607 BCE.
See, I have most dutifully corrected the problem.
scholar JW

Where did you get that from? From year to year, the Brooklyn Heights neighborhood has continued to be built up and get better and be made cleaner and more expensive than most other parts of Brooklyn for the last 100 years. The Watchtower Society was not the only entity that had been building up and investing in this area of Brooklyn. But the Watchtower kept its buildings and factories very clean and well-maintained, and made it a point to obtain empty lots for new buildings and to purchase buildings in need of renovation. The WTS generally had a very positive effect on the prices of Brooklyn Heights property, even though it produced a loss of tax revenue that the city would have obtained if those buildings had been owned by for-profit corporations. Then again, for profit corporations had a higher rate of failure and building abandonment during several periods economic depression and recession over the last 100 years -- so all in all, Brooklyn Heights was made much better for the time we spent there.
I have a feeling your numbers are a bit high from a true outside perspective. The real estate numbers might be correct, or they might be too high, but the value of the "commercial operations" is in an industry (primarily pre-press, printing, binding, shipping) which is not a function of the percent of the real estate owned. There is a value in non-depreciated equipment (laundry, printing presses, bindery equipment, computers, tractors, trucks). But its value must be measured on a case-by-case basis in each individual market. The range given above indicates that this portion could be anywhere from $75 to $300 billion [25% of $300B up to 50% of $600B]. My guess is that competitive valuations of these particular global assets could not total more than 1 to 2 billion, $US.

I read this book several years ago. An excellent explanation of the JEPD Documentary Hypothesis. At least it showed why a lot of people believe the theory.

Lol!
I've always liked what one father said to his daughter (quoted in one WT): "plan ahead as if Armageddon won't come in your lifetime, but live your life as if it will come tomorrow"
I apologise to those who have heard me say this numerous times before.

LOL!!! Cyberbullying and multiple accounts that everyone is guilty of.

 
 
 
 

LOL!!! I have a question. What is infringement, and what is fair use? Public domain material isn’t included.

In my opinion, this outlook would be demonstrative with this factoid. The use of Watchtower Literature without the expressed consent of the Watchtower. WouldnÂ’t that be a blatant disregard of copyright law?

 

Other than a certain dead horse involving an entire thread that I have beaten until the flesh has fallen off the bone and should certainly desist from by now and will unless I see an advantage in bringing it up again, I am not aware of this happening. Has it?
There was something odd about Allen, but I gave up trying to figure what was what. The Librarian said he had been booted for rudeness, but I thought that was long ago. Now he apparently cloned himself and I see several manifestations of himself. Let no one say  @AllenSmith is not an enigma. 
Has he ever been rude? Probably. But there are no end of people here who have been nearly as rude, and countless ones who are deliberately offensive, attributing evil motive to Witness headship when they have no basis whatsoever for doing so. Besides, as long as we are quoting Greek on this thread, let us quote Aristotle: No great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness. Cut him slack. He brings legal decisions to the table that nobody else thinks of.
Or maybe there are other examples I do not know about. It's is hard to keep up, especially when the Librarian redirects comments into new threads like some great anti-typical shell game.

True. I should have used a few of the other sources that pointed to 1999/2000. Remember that the 1970's were pointed to since 1956 or even before. Then more strongly in 1966 building up to a maximum around 1968 to 1971. The particular quote I used may have been using the term "shortly, within our twentieth century . . . [Armageddon will take place]" to  loosen the prediction away from the 1970's and allow an extra 20 years at the most. Or it could have just been intended to be a book that strengthened the parallel discussion of the 1970's without ever mentioning the 1970's . The main point of the book was that the nations would know that a prophet had been among them since the 1919 period, so there may have been some hesitance to point out in the very same book that this prophet had been pointing to the 1970's as the appropriate time for God to act on their behalf.
After the 1970's were over, then we could say that any references to 1999/2000 from that point on would be using the end of the twentieth century as a true terminus ad quem (the latest possible date of an event). So when 1980 rolled around this was published:
*** w80 10/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
What, then, is the “generation” that “will by no means pass away until all these things occur”? It does not refer to a period of time, which some have tried to interpret as 30, 40, 70 or even 120 years, but, rather, it refers to people, the people living at the “beginning of pangs of distress” for this condemned world system. It is the generation of people who saw the catastrophic events that broke forth in connection with World War I from 1914 onward. As indicated by an article on page 56 of U.S. News & World Report of January 14, 1980, “If you assume that 10 is the age at which an event creates a lasting impression on a person’s memory,” then there are today more than 13 million Americans who have a “recollection of World War I.” And if the wicked system of this world survived until the turn of the century, which is highly improbable in view of world trends and the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, there would still be survivors of the World War I generation. However, the fact that their number is dwindling is one more indication that “the conclusion of the system of things” is moving fast toward its end. This does not count as breaking the Biblical rules of date-setting, because the assumptions are built in. It only shows that the writer was thinking about the end of the 20th century as a possible "terminus ad quem." At that moment, the implied age of understanding the events in 1914 was being reduced to 10 rather than 15 as stated before, (and it would soon have to be reduced again to include 1-day-old babies). The word "if" saves this quote even if the spirit of the quote was to break the rule.
This next one comes a little closer to breaking the letter of the rule, not just the spirit:
*** w84 3/1 pp. 18-19 par. 12 Kingdom Unity a Reality Today ***
And Jesus has told us to rejoice at seeing the dark storm clouds of Armageddon gathering since that time. He has told us that the “generation” of 1914—the year that the sign began to be fulfilled—“will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Matthew 24:34) Some of that “generation” could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that “the end” is much closer than that! In a court of law, juxtaposing the 1980 quote and the 1984 quote, it is easy to see that the second one is trying to close the gap allowed by the first one. The first one allows that the generation could technically go on past 2000, defined by the number of 96 years olds and older who might still be alive that year. The second reminds us that "the end" need not wait until the end of the century, and there is much evidence that it's not just a little closer than the end of the century, but "much closer." Still, a good lawyer might convince a judge or jury that no "terminus ad quem" was defined here, technically.
In the next quote, however, the "letter of the rule" was broken here, not just the "spirit of the rule:"
*** w89 1/1 p. 12 par. 8 “The Hand of Jehovah Was With Them” ***
The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our twentieth century. There we have the undeniable "terminus ad quem" which someone questioned later that same year so that a correction was made through a QFR and finally an adjustment was made to the bound volume and subsequent electronic copies.
*** w89 10/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
We have ample reasons to expect that this preaching will be completed in our time. Does that mean before the turn of a new month, a new year, a new decade, a new century? No human knows, for Jesus said that ‘even the angels of the heavens’ did not know that. (Matthew 24:36) There was no time to fix the error in the original issue, of course, but it was changed to this very idea in the bound volume.
It's more informative to plot breaks in the "spirit" of Jesus; words at Matthew 24:36 and combined with Luke 21:8:
(Luke 21:8) 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. Obviously we can still be encouraged that this system will not go on forever, and that man has already proven that he cannot even attempt to take the place of God's kingdom. Therefore we can be encouraged that the end is ever closer, and pray that Jehovah's will be done with reference to the time when that Kingdom comes and God's will is done in heaven and on earth. But we are always breaking the spirit of Jesus words if we point to a specific time period, or specific signs seen during this time period, and say this is evidence that the DUE TIME for the end has now approached. On that count, I would have to admit, as we all would, that these words of Jesus are ignored several times a year. So the "plot" only thickens, every time we think we have figured a way to define "that generation."

LOL!!!!
https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/1800s.php

LOL!!! I got the info from an opposing site. I would have to say, that those who oppose this church do a lot of speculating. But what is interesting to me, that some information is not in agreement with the discussion being made.

LOL!!!
1880
By 1880 all the signs of the end were said to have started, great earthquakes, war, pestilence, bad behaviour of people and so forth.
The exact opposite is now stated. You Can Live Forever In Paradise on Earth claims that the time before 1914 was a period of peace, and it was not until 1914 that all these signs of the last days started to be fulfilled.

Forgive me for blowing it off. Now that I can see it has actually been published on a website, I am much more impressed.

Not according to that Awake 1968, page 13/14 Quote:  "One way is by noting what Jesus said when he gave his great prophesy about the "last days". After he listed the many events that would mark this period, he also stated: " Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur Matt 24:34. Jesus was obviously speaking about those who were old enough to witness with understanding what took place when the "last days" began.  Jesus was saying that some of those persons who were alive at the appearance of the 'sign of the last days' would still be alive when God brought this system to its end. Even if we presume that youngsters 15vyears of age would be perceptive enough to realize the import of what happened in 1914, it would still make the youngest of "this generation" nearly 70 years old today (in 1968) So the great majority of the generation to what Jesus was referring has already passed away in death. the remaining ones are approaching old age. "And remember Jesus said that the end of this wicked world would come before that generation passed away in death". end of quote
So this is the first group, and like you said, the first group is dead

Maybe we could all explore that VIDEO too. Was that really what it was about, or was there another reason for it?  (I have the convention downloaded on my PC, but I don't know how to cut out just the video part....or is it somewhere on the website now?)

Ooooh, second paragraph; "It's a murder epidemic" declared a Negro student in Atlanta".
LOL
Some things have changed, yet others haven't. It's like reading today's news. No wonder some say " Why,.......... all things are continuing exactly as they were......."
Page 12/13/14: "A crucial question now arises: Is there any indication in God's timetable as to how much time there is left before this system of things comes to its end? Can we know how many more years remain for this violent system of things? The fact that fifty-four years of the period called the "last days" have already gone is highly significant. It means that only a few years, at most, remain before the corrupt system of things dominating the earth is destroyed by God. How can we be so certain of this? (ouch). One way is by noting what Jesus said when he gave his great prophesy about the "last days". After he listed the many events that would mark this period, he also stated: " Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur Matt 24:34. Jesus was obviously (ouch) speaking about those who were old enough to witness with understanding what took place when the "last days" began."  And then it goes into calculating that a 15 year old in 1914 would now be nearly 70 years old. "And remember Jesus said that the end of this wicked world would come before that generation passed away in death. This of itself, tells us that the years left before the foretold end comes cannot be many" Then it goes into calculating the 6000/1975 years etc.  "does this mean that the above evidence positively points to 1975 as the time for the complete and of this system of things? Since the Bible does not specifically state this, no man can say. However, of this we can be sure: the 1970's will certainly see the most critical times mankind has yet known..........If the 1970's should see the intervention by Jehovah God to bring an end to a corrupt world drifting towards ultimate disintegration, that should surely not surprise us"