Ann O'Maly

The verse itself does not say explicitly that it means more than just the generation that included Joseph and his brothers, the "family-stage" version of generation --  and this is the way that Brother Splane uses it. I have thought that this use of the verse is "self-debunking" but at the very least I can give it the benefit of the doubt, because the context could still allow us to include the currently living contemporaries of subsequent "family-stage" generations. This allows us to legitimately expand on the the idea of the single family-stage version of generation, because it could imply that the "generation" could have included any of Joseph's nephews, and even grand-nephews who had already been born. If it does include that, it's a Biblical usage that gets a little closer to what Brother Splane is trying to present. It would seem to mix the "family-stage" definition and the "living contemporaries" definition.
I think that's playing a bit loose with the idea here, because the Bible text refers to a generation dying out. There is nothing in the Bible text that tells us that the term "generation" includes people dying out that hadn't even been born yet. And if it could include not just living contemporaries, but unborn future contemporaries, then who is to say that it means to only include those who would, at some point in the future, live as contemporaries of Joseph? Why not include those who might be born at some point in the future who would become contemporaries of a one or more of Joseph's brothers who might outlive him? And, of course,if you admit that it can include persons who had not yet been born, then why not allow it to include those who would be born at future time that overlapped some portion of the life of any of those nephews or grand-nephews who may have already been alive at the point in time when Moses considers that 70 of Jacob's descendants were alive at a certain point when Joseph was already in Egypt?
Even if this sounds ridiculous, it approximates the way the Watch Tower publications explain a "1914 version" of the phrase in Matthew 24:34. It says that there was a point in time when young and old persons readily discerned the sign in 1914. According to the Watchtower publications of the time period, some "saw the sign" but no one readily "discerned" it until years later, and some of them evidently may not have readily "discerned" it until 30-some years had passed by. The publications are currently only pretending that it was readily discerned, as we have already discussed in another thread. Recall that the Watchtower from October 1, 1930, p.291 was only one of several articles that gave this idea:
"The Revelation which God gave to Jesus Christ to show to his "servant" began to be disclosed particularly from 1914 forward, but none of God's children on earth had an understanding thereof for fifteen years or more thereafter. They did see the evidence of things coming to pass which mark a fulfilment of Revelation, but they did not discern the meaning thereof."
My main point is that we have no place in the Bible where such a definition of "generation" is required to make sense of the text.  I think that the explanation that the Watchtower Society has promoted is the most exceptional definition anyone has ever come up with. It appears in no Bible dictionaries, or Bible language dictionaries, as far as I know. It's just a new interpretation that has become necessary because the previous definition of generation has failed, even though that previous definition was more likely, and this new definition is unlikely.
Most importantly, even if the term generation really did have multiple possible meanings in various contexts in other parts of the Bible, we need to see what makes the best sense in the context of the way Jesus used it in Matthew, Mark and Luke.
The lives of those who Jesus spoke about as included in 'a generation that would not die out' would definitely overlap with persons who had not been born yet, or join with them later, just as they overlapped with persons who had died before Jesus ever mentioned this generation that would not pass away. That fact is not relevant. It doesn't make either the previously overlapping persons or the subsequent overlapping persons a part of the the generation that would not pass away.
The primary reason for this can easily be determined by meditating on the passage and asking if the Bible itself answers for us the question about "Why" Jesus said that "this generation would by no means pass away." How would the disciples have understood it? If they would have had a question about it, were those questions answered in the context of Jesus' words. Clearly they were answered. Jesus said that his reason was to assure them that something significant was going to happen within the lifetime of the people who heard him. Some might die that same day, that week, that year, and some in every year right up until 70 CE. But the generation would NOT die out until that significant thing happened. Some would get a special glimpse or preview of the Kingdom at the Transfiguration, but that generation would get a special glimpse of a Judgment Day exactly as predicted by Jesus. Because of the accuracy of the prophecy there could be no doubt that this was part of the proof of Jehovah's sovereignty and proof of the fact that "he who comes in Jehovah's name" was "blessed" as the King of that Kingdom that showed a glimpse of its power even to those who had rejected and killed him. 
(Matthew 23:34-39) 34 For this reason, I am sending to you prophets and wise men and public instructors. Some of them you will kill and execute on stakes, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood spilled on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zech·a·riʹah son of Bar·a·chiʹah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. 37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you. 39 For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’”
You asked why I had included the verse about the Transfiguration. It's because of this same theme, that the Kingdom was being made more real to those who were listening to Jesus. Some were blessed with a glimpse of the glorious power of that Kingdom while Jesus was with them on earth, and some would be terrified with a glimpse into the outworking of that Kingdom as Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled. Even those who might have been terrified, need not be, because Jesus gave a warning and instructions for those who would listen closely.
Note the parallels among some of these passages:
(Matthew 10:16-23) . . .“Look! I am sending you out as sheep among wolves; so prove yourselves cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard against men, for they will hand you over to local courts and they will scourge you in their synagogues. 18 And you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a witness to them and the nations. 19 However, when they hand you over, do not become anxious about how or what you are to speak, for what you are to speak will be given you in that hour; 20 for the ones speaking are not just you, but it is the spirit of your Father that speaks by you. 21 Further, brother will hand brother over to death, and a father his child, and children will rise up against parents and will have them put to death. 22 And you will be hated by all people on account of my name, but the one who has endured to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one city, flee to another; for truly I say to you, you will by no means complete the circuit of the cities of Israel until the Son of man arrives.
Obviously, there is a sense in which the Son of man arrived in 70 CE. But notice, how this same context of Matt 10 gets partially repeated in Matthew 23 & 24, Mark 13 and Luke 17 & 21. Yet, they will still be in the process of fulfilling the directive "This good news of the kingdom will be preached" when the Son of man "arrives." In other words, some of them will still be alive at that time.
(Matthew 16:27, 28) 27 For the Son of man is to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will repay each one according to his behavior. 28 Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.”
The verse was fulfilled for some of the disciples (in a glorious and positive way) who evidently would die prior to 70 C.E. But 70 was also a time when he would begin to repay some according to their behavior through the judgment upon the Jewish religious system. Note again the parallels to Matthew 23:1-39. (The entire chapter is useful here, because it's about how the entire Jewish religious system had corrupted the seat of Moses and used it to "shut up the Kingdom of the heavens.")
Because it's pretty clear that Jesus was promising the closeness of the significant event, that it would be specious for the meaning to be skewed by maneuvering it to mean that it might not come in their own lifetime, but possibly in the lifetime of people who hadn't been born yet. And of course, Jesus was not playing a trick on them. He really was referring to something that would occur within the lifetime of most of them. The fulfillment of "these things" would start in only 33 to 37 years into the future . . . well within the standard two meanings of generation, but most appropriately used with the meaning: "you and your currently living contemporaries will not die out before all these things occur." If the significant event predicted (the destruction of the temple) had not occurred within the lifetime of many of the people who heard Jesus warnings (before he was rejected by the same generation) then Jesus would have been considered a false prophet.
 
 
 
 

Estimation based on logic and data.

As I explained in a previous post:
"... they simply 'did not know' when the Flood was coming until it was upon them and took them by surprise (this is the whole point of the illustration - like the Flood, Jesus' Parousia will be unpredictable). 
The NWT poorly renders the Greek as 'took no note' in this verse. As a sidebar, compare the changed rendering in the rNWT with that in the older NWT at John 17:3. The same word ginōskō used there is also used in Jesus' illustration, but in the latter instance, the antediluvians did not 'know' or 'come to know.'"
God told Noah to build an ark because He was going to wipe everyone out; He didn't tell him when the Deluge would be until a week before. Not only that but, if you believe the Flood was global, 99% of the world's inhabitants would have been completely oblivious to what was going on in some plain in Mesopotamia.

How would you know? Are you familiar with his daily habits, deeds, his beliefs?
 

It was pretty funny, as long as you can pretend it was some other religion she was talking about.
One line hit a little too close for comfort at about 14min40sec.
[Brought to you by "New Light"!!]
"New Light! If you can't change what you say, change what 'what you say' means."
This is exactly what happened with the phrase "The Gentile Times have ended..."

Precisely! When I was looking at the Bible's teaching about Jesus' Return/Parousia/Coming with fresh eyes all those years ago, it was a 'slap head' moment being scripturally led to the same conclusions as you have outlined in your past few posts. You've explained it so well. 

My "next post" was going to be tomorrow with specific reference to Jesus' statement that the parousia would be like the days of Noah. But this is the same basic question. Again, I don't expect that these opinions, on their own, should convince anyone one way or another. I'm trying to present a case for why it is easier to understand Matthew 24 and everything about the parousia in a way that appears more consistent with all the Bible references in context, and why our current doctrine produces some difficulties and contradictions. So here goes:
There are NO Bible references to the "parousia" that are not directly related to Jesus' coming to execute judgment. In other words, ALL Bible references to the "parousia" refer to the judgment events that we associate with the "great tribulation" and Armageddon.
In fact the 2013 Watchtower you quoted in a separate post moved several teachings from the beginning of the "1914 generation" to the end that we once assigned to the beginning of the generation. I'll highlight a few portions:
*** w13 7/15 pp. 7-8 pars. 14-19 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
Does a further consideration of Jesus’ prophecy reveal that our understanding of the timing of other significant events needs to be adjusted? . . . Jesus focuses primarily on what will happen during these last days and during the coming great tribulation. There, Jesus makes eight references to his “coming,” or arrival. . . .  (Matt. 24:30, 42, 44; 25:31) Each of these four references applies to Christ’s future coming as Judge. Where in Jesus’ prophecy do we find the remaining four references?
16 Regarding the faithful and discreet slave. . . (Matt. 24:46; 25:10, 19, 27) To what time do these four instances of Jesus’ coming refer?
17 In the past, we have stated in our publications that these last four references apply to Jesus’ arriving, or coming, in 1918. As an example, take Jesus’ statement about “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Read Matthew 24:45-47.) . . .
18In the verses that lead up to Matthew 24:46, the word “coming” refers consistently to the time when Jesus comes to pronounce and execute judgment during the great tribulation. (Matt. 24:30, 42, 44) Also, as we considered in paragraph 12, Jesus’ ‘arriving’ mentioned at Matthew 25:31 refers to that same future time of judgment. So it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus’ arrival to appoint the faithful slave over all his belongings, mentioned at Matthew 24:46, 47, also applies to his future coming, during the great tribulation. Indeed, a consideration of Jesus’ prophecy in its entirety makes it clear that each of these eight references to his coming applies to the future time of judgment during the great tribulation.
19 . . . So, then, all three “whens” apply to the same future time period—the great tribulation. How does this adjusted view further affect our understanding of the illustration of the faithful slave? Also, how does it affect our understanding of other parables, or illustrations, of Jesus that are being fulfilled during this time of the end? These important questions will be considered in the following articles.
This had to be done, because several contradictions were being produced by our former explanations of various prophecies and parables (and also "prophetic dramas" that we were still deriving from Bible narratives at the time of this article). But this didn't get rid of all of the contradictions.
In fact, the "1914 doctrine" no longer serves any purpose except to point to a time when we assume that Satan was cast out of heaven in October, which vaguely explains the war that broke out earlier in July and which the Watchtower had said was easily predicted from the political tensions and build-up for several years prior to 1914. Casting him out is also supposed to explain Satan's anger at his short period of time, explaining his wrath in the WWI period, and which we should assume is now even a shorter period of time than it was in 1914. But the "1914 doctrine" does nothing to explain why the Gentile nations got much stronger, more numerous, and more effective after 1914 now that their "times had ended" and their kings had already "had their day." Somehow, this explained how Jesus had come into Kingly power in 1914.
In fact, related to that last point, note that the article points out that 1914 was no longer even the time when Jesus "sat down" on his glorious throne as we had always explained Matthew 25:31. There was a recent discussion on this forum about the "sit then stand then sit again" sequence, which has also changed a few times over the years. 
11 In the mid-1990’s, The Watchtower reexamined Matthew 25:31, which states: “When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne.” It was noted that Jesus became King of God’s Kingdom in 1914, but he did not “sit down on his glorious throne” as Judge of “all the nations.”
But it turns out that all these issues go away, and we no longer have to create special or "less likely" translations of various Greek words, if we just take notice of the fact that ALL the references to the parousia are about the final time of tribulation and judgment.
The reference to 2 Peter 3:12 is just one of many verses that highlights this same point. Note that this is about the "parousia of the Lord." (The NWT uses the term Jehovah here, and it might not be as clear therefore that the Greek refers to the same Parousia of Jesus.) I'll temporarily change it back to the Greek manuscript "Lord", and change "presence" to "parousia" and I think it will be clearer. 
(2 Peter 3:3-12) 3 First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come . . . saying: “Where is this promised PAROUSIA of his? . . . 5 For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago. . . the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people. . . . 10 But the Lord's day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, . . . consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the PAROUSIA of the day of the Lord, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat!
In fact, our publications do not usually associate this particular "parousia" with Christ's parousia starting in 1914, but to the "end" (except that we contradict this by always using verses 3 and 4 to point to the duration from 1914 through the end). Notice this particular explanation:
*** it-1 p. 595 Day of Jehovah ***
That “day of Jehovah” came in 70 C.E., when, in fulfillment of his Word, Jehovah caused the armies of Rome to execute divine judgment upon the nation that had rejected the Son of God and defiantly shouted: “We have no king but Caesar.”—Joh 19:15; Da 9:24-27.
However, the Scriptures point forward to yet another “day of Jehovah.” After the restoration of the Jews to Jerusalem following the Babylonian exile, Jehovah caused his prophet Zechariah (14:1-3) to foretell “a day . . . belonging to Jehovah” when he would gather not merely one nation but “all the nations against Jerusalem,” at the climax of which day “Jehovah will certainly go forth and war against those nations,” bringing them to their end. The apostle Paul, under inspiration, associated the coming “day of Jehovah” with the presence of Christ. (2Th 2:1, 2) And Peter spoke of it in connection with the establishment of ‘new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness is to dwell.’—2Pe 3:10-13.
This gives context, again, to the verses referenced from 2 Thessalonians 2:1,2 where the Parousia is not a drawn-out time period of 100 to 150 or even 200 years, but a specific time of judgment.
(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence [PAROUSIA] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, 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 [day of the Lord] is here.
The "day of the Lord" is equated with the "parousia of the Lord." And Paul goes on to explain why: because the apostasy would come first and the Parousia would be the time of judgment against that apostasy:
(2 Thessalonians 2:8) 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence [Gk: GLORIOUS EPIPHANY of his PAROUSIA].
We could look at every reference to Christ's parousia, and notice that it makes much more sense to translate it as an EVENT related to the judgment. When referring to Jesus' "parousia" it is always a reference to a bright, visible, unexpected event using a term that would also remind the first Greek-speaking audience of the famous parade-like event, the "royal visitation" of an emperor:
*** Rbi8 p. 1577 5B Christ’s Presence (Parousia) ***
pa·rou·siʹa “became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp[ecially] of kings and emperors visiting a province.”
It is never necessary, Biblically, to think of it as a drawn-out "presence."

Precisely! When I was looking at the Bible's teaching about Jesus' Return/Parousia/Coming with fresh eyes all those years ago, it was a 'slap head' moment being scripturally led to the same conclusions as you have outlined in your past few posts. You've explained it so well. 

The suggestion is that, for Jesus, the parousia appears to come at the END of the generation, not the BEGINNING.
I think that Matthew 24:37-39 not only 'sits well' with this suggestion, it offers additional evidence for it. But I also think it depends on whether we are willing to interpret Jesus' words in a consistent manner, or a contradictory manner. If we are willing to accept contradictions, then we could make Matthew 24 say anything we want. I prefer to see if there is a way to read Matthew 24 without so many serious contradictions.
For example, go back to some verses just leading up to these verses:
(Matthew 24:23-27) . . .“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will perform great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. 25 Look! I have forewarned you. 26 Therefore, if people say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For just as the lightning comes out of the east and shines over to the west, so the presence [parousia] of the Son of man will be.
Why is it that Jesus said not to believe anyone who claims that "The Christ is here!"?
Yet, many religions, including our own, have based their core message since 1878 on this specific claim that "The Christ is here!"
The reason Jesus said that this could not be claimed is that it would imply that they thought they had seen a sign or evidence prior to the actual event. This would, of course, be impossible because the actual parousia would be as unmistakable as lightning that flashes from one end of the horizon all the way to the other end.
So is it possible that this great event, "the parousia of the Son of man," could be invisible? Is it possible that Christ is here, but we just can't see him from where we are? Jesus covered this claim as well when he predicted that some might even claim that he was in the wilderness, or in the inner rooms. Jesus said: "Do not believe it!" Jesus perfectly covered the idea that people might claim falsely that "Christ is present, but he's invisible." How, would we know they were wrong? Because Matthew 24:27 explains that the parousia of the Son of man will be as visible as lightning.
In other words, his parousia should be compared to the most obviously visible event we can think of. More proof that it is an appearance, a manifestation is found by looking at the context of ALL the other mentions of Jesus' presence. A couple of them are included below:
(2 Thessalonians 2:8) 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence [parousia].
(2 Timothy 4:1) 4 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his manifestation and his Kingdom:
(2 Thessalonians 1:7-10) 7 . . . relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, . . . from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder . . .
(1 John 2:28) 28 So now, little children, remain in union with him, so that when he is made manifest we may have freeness of speech and not shrink away from him in shame at his presence [parousia].
Note especially that the word "parousia" is sometimes replaced, paralled, and modified with a word that means "glorious epiphany" in the Bible. In Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the definition includes the following:
ἐπιφάνεια, ἐπιφανείας, ἡ (ἐπιφανής), an appearing, appearance : often used by the Greeks of a glorious manifestation of the gods, . . .  not only that which has already taken place and by which his presence and power appear in the saving light he has shed upon mankind, 2 Timothy 1:10 (note the word φωτίσαντος in this passage); but also that illustrious return from heaven to earth hereafter to occur: 1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13 . . . ἡ ἐπιφάνεια (i. e. the breaking forth) τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, 2 Thessalonians 2:8.
 
(2 Thessalonians 2:8) 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence [parousia]. (NWT)
the brightness of his coming: (KJV)
the splendor of his coming. (NLV)
(Titus 2:13) while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ, (NWT)


Taking a cue from the new "Kingdom" book, we could therefore speak of the beginning of the parousia as "the greatest event" (p.13). The parousia is indeed the "epiphany of his presence," the "glorious manifestation," the "brightness," the "lightning," the "revelation," the time of "flaming fire."
That is of course the background for answering the question about Matthew 24:37-39. (Next post)
 
 

Of course. And I think that many of us have used this very reasoning by way of explanation for past (and even current) Watchtower predictions. But Jesus specifically said to "keep on the watch" because we cannot know the chronology in advance. The "contradiction" is summed up in the words from a recent Watchtower indicated by the words: "On the other hand" at the beginning of paragraph 8 below:
*** w15 8/15 pp. 15-16 pars. 7-8 Keep in Expectation! ***
However, Jesus said that most people would take “no note” of his presence, carrying on with life’s normal activities until it is too late. (Read Matthew 24:37-39.) Thus, the Scriptures indicate that world conditions during the last days would not become so extreme that people would be forced to believe that the end is near.—Luke 17:20; 2 Pet. 3:3, 4.
8On the other hand, for the composite sign to serve its purpose, the fulfillment of it would have to be obvious enough to command the attention of those who have been obeying Jesus’ counsel to “keep on the watch.” (Matt. 24:27, 42) And that has been the case since 1914.
Jesus' illustrations at the end of Matthew chapter 24 and into chapter 25 match what 2 Peter says about how we should "keep on the watch." It's about watching the sort of person we ought to be. That's how we prepare and keep it close in mind.
On the other hand Jesus' apostles had asked Jesus what they should watch out for in order to be able to predict the time: When will these things happen to Jerusalem's Temple and buildings?
The very first thing Jesus said was "Do not be misled!" He didn't say it's inevitable that you will be misled out of feverish expectation. He gave them very specific instructions NOT to watch for signs of the time. Yes, the Temple would fall in their own generation, but whether early or late in that generation, he wouldn't say, and said he didn't know himself, anyway! He warned them specifically about watching out for signs that are related to great wars, or great earthquakes or great famines, pestilences, etc.
Yet, every single generation since Jesus said these words tries to find signs of the times in wars, earthquakes, pestilences, famines, etc.
 

2 Peter is especially comparing two different groups:
1. those who are keeping that day close in mind by preparing for the parousia by growing into the type of person they ought to be when that day arrives and appreciating that it will occur as a surprise at any time whether today or 1,000 years from now.
2. those who continue to live as they desire because it appears to them that parousia is never going to happen due to the delay of their expectations.
I was referring to persons who actually attempt a chronological prediction instead of humbly accepting that Jehovah may have his own timetable that does not belong to us. In fact, even from 2 Peter, it is still difficult to come to any other conclusion outside of arrogance and presumptuousness as the reasons that anyone would ignore the idea that, chronologically speaking, it will come as a surprise.

I did show the Daniel portion. Perhaps you missed it. It said that the 1,260 days, which represented the Gentile Times, were predicted by Daniel as the "time, times and half a time" or 1,260 days (or years).
The latest quote that you just included makes the same point about Daniel that matches the quote I provided. I had intended to include the same quote you just presented, because it also provides evidence that John Aquila Brown saw Revelation 11:2 as the correct verse to cross-reference Luke 21:24. Thanks again, for showing how the book references "Daniel and Revelation in its proper context."
But saying that it "then surmises it with the 2520 view" does not appear honest now that you have seen two places where it shows that he thought the Gentile Times should be "surmised with the 1260 view." You found one of them yourself.
As I've said before, this doesn't really surprise me any more, because I just pointed out a few posts ago that you have often said that I was lying or spinning and you then provided your evidence. But your evidence often just shows that the original claim was accurate and that you were wrong to try to spin it another way. You are doing that again here.
It's one thing to do this once or twice, but I've seen it a dozen times with you. I think this might be why Witnesses on these forums have suspected that you were some kind of apostate trying to make Witnesses look bad. The only reason I'm convinced you are a real Witness, is that I've seen other Witnesses do the exact same thing.
Telling the truth is not "disingenuous." Correctly representing something is not "misrepresenting."
The reason for quoting the Proclaimers book is to show that this idea about connecting the Gentile Times with 1260 rather than 2520 is not a new idea. Anyone who had decided to look up the original sources from the Proclaimers book would have already noticed that J A Brown would have considered a 2520-year Gentile Times to be a mistake. 
 

Not sure what you mean by "canonical." However, I agree with everything in the paragraph you quoted. But you will notice that there is only one point that is relevant to the discussion:
The only thing I said about Brown is that he never equated the 2,520 years with the "Gentile Times" but that he equated 1,260 years with the "Gentile Times." Allen believes this isn't true, but your quote is 100% in agreement with his book "Even-Tide."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were not being dishonest when you presented a clipping from Even Tide as "proof." But even if not dishonest you are still perpetrating a falsehood, and when this is done recklessly, it still borders on dishonesty.
The page you offered says nothing about John Aquila Brown tying the 2,520 years to the Gentile Times of Luke 21. Here is one place where the point is made in the very beginning of Even Tide. Notice especially the words:
"... that "Jerusalem should be trodden down of the Gentiles till the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled," . . . The precise period or duration of those mysterious times, that divinely inspired prophet has defined as being twelve hundred and sixty days . . . twelve hundred and sixty years." (Even Tide, p.vii)
 

My assessment is purely based on what you have presented in answer to my question. Nothing more.
Then how could Russell and Rutherford have been misled about Christ's presence, if they were also, not only part of His people, but claimed chosen leaders of His people? The attempts to mislead Russell were successful, since he died believing the wrong thing about Jesus' presence.
If you are arguing that wrong beliefs don't separate a true and sincere believer from God's love, then surely the same standard would apply to other Christian churches and their mistaken beliefs, would it not?
That's an assertion. What evidence do you have that this occurred in 1914?
Alternative explanations center on social and political upheavals rather than invisible super-human causes. Regarding solutions, until there is a cataclysmic extra-terrestrial/super-human intervention, humans in the here-and-now will have to muddle through and find solutions of their own.
How do you know what Satan thinks about publicity or if it aligns with Oscar Wilde's view? 

My assessment is purely based on what you have presented in answer to my question. Nothing more.
Then how could Russell and Rutherford have been misled about Christ's presence, if they were also, not only part of His people, but claimed chosen leaders of His people? The attempts to mislead Russell were successful, since he died believing the wrong thing about Jesus' presence.
If you are arguing that wrong beliefs don't separate a true and sincere believer from God's love, then surely the same standard would apply to other Christian churches and their mistaken beliefs, would it not?
That's an assertion. What evidence do you have that this occurred in 1914?
Alternative explanations center on social and political upheavals rather than invisible super-human causes. Regarding solutions, until there is a cataclysmic extra-terrestrial/super-human intervention, humans in the here-and-now will have to muddle through and find solutions of their own.
How do you know what Satan thinks about publicity or if it aligns with Oscar Wilde's view? 

When did Pope Francis do this? Which Catholic conference was it? As will become apparent, Pope Francis did no such thing. 
Alan Murdock has pointed out that this is old news. The catholicsay article goes on to copy much of the March 22, 1987 Awake! article verbatim.
Given how old the information is, the 10,000 figure attributed to La Republica will reflect peak numbers of converts in the 1970s and '80s. If anyone's that interested, they can access Yearbooks from that period online to check the numbers being baptized. But it has to be said that firstly, not all who were baptized would have been Catholics (e.g. what about all the homegrown JW children?) and secondly, there have only been about 4,000 or 5,000 baptisms per year in more recent times.
The Awake! provides a more specific reference ...
In an editorial dealing specifically with Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Jesuit magazine La Civiltá Cattolica of February 18, 1984, wrote: [etc.]
[bold emphasis mine]
 
... and here is the original online, for any Italian speakers here - scroll to pp. 313f.
La Civiltà cattolica, Issues 3205-3210, 1984, 'I Testimoni di Geova'
 
 
 

I don't think they are meaningful lyrics but vocal sounds and syllables.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEheh1BH34Q&feature=youtu.be
 
 

The music is from 'epic music' producers 'audiomachine' who do tracks for movie trailers. The track the Org used for its 'Paradise video' is called 'Eternal Flame' and it's from audiomachine's 2012 'Epica' album.
 

"They recognized that Jesus would become king in a special sense sometime in 1914."
Since Jesus was present in heaven since 1874 and even as "king over the kings of the earth" since 1878, and the purpose was to turn his attention to the earth in order to "prepare the way" for both literal Jews and Christians (especially his Church/Bride), then all expected events along the way were times when it could be recognized that Jesus had "become king" in a special sense. So, yes, it is true that even before 1914 they expected events in 1878, 1881, 1914, and 3-4 years prior to 1914, that could all show that Jesus had become king in a special sense. They also interpreted events related to the Zionist movement as events proving the efficacy of his kingship. They also interpreted the great progress in science and invention to be proofs of the efficacy of his kingship.
But there are still a few problems with this whole point about Jesus' kingship.
1. The topic is Jesus "presence" not his kingship. This discussion is strictly about whether it is honest or misleading to imply that Bible Students began to "discern" Christ's invisible presence at some point during the year 1914. And we must assume that this means it was discerned (in some way) in October, November or December of 1914.
2. Jesus' kingship was a separate thing that was already "discerned" to have started at a different time. You say you are only interested in the "reality" of the situation, which is another way of saying that false discernment doesn't count towards the discernment in question. In this way, you can dismiss the fact that they were already giving a separate date of 1874 to the invisible presence and 1878 to the date of Jesus holding the position of "king over the kings of the earth." Those false assumptions didn't count as discernment and therefore cannot discount the assumption that any type of significance they gave to 1914, right or wrong, did count as discernment. 
3. The quote from 1904 says nothing about the kingship of Jesus or Jehovah. It only mentions that it was no longer going to be assumed that human power would play such a large "natural" role (through social unrest, war, revolution, political turmoil, labor agitation, socialism, etc.). The events causing turmoil and tribulation that were to start in 1910 or 1911 were going to be exacerbated through an economic depression that would have to start as early as 1908. This was changed in 1904, so that a tribulation could still come upon Christians in general prior to 1914 although the Bride would escape this tribulation because they were being taken at some point earlier. But the new idea was that this no longer needed to be a long drawn out tribulation that could span the time from 1908 to 1914. That would have interfered with the length of the Gentile Times, and the length of the harvest.
The basic idea of the change probably further explains the reason there was no discernment that the "war" was a fulfillment of either Christ's kingship or his presence in 1914, and why such discernment would have to wait until the war was over. It's because the war was seen as developing from human causes. Even into 1915, Russell talked about how the War was already seen to be progressing for years in advance, came as no surprise, and was easily predicted by anyone who had been watching world politics. (This is a different angle than the one we use in the "Out of Darkness" video, where we focus only on its unpredictability and surprise.)
In fact, your quote above from the July 1, 1904 Watch Tower, p. 198 included the following where the bracketed material appears in the original:
. . . it would seem but a reasonable interpretation that divine for the overthrow of the kingdoms of this world would  not be exercised to their dethronement until after the time allotted for their reign had ended—October, 1914. True, it was to be in the times of these kings that the God of heaven would take from the mountain, without hands [not by human power], the little stone which should eventually smite the image in its feet. True, also, it was to be in the days of these last kings—represented in the toes of the image-- that the God of heaven should set up his Kingdom, which should break in pieces and consume all, but the setting up of that Kingdom we understand has been in progress throughout this harvest time, especially since 1878, since which time we believe that all the overcomers of the Church who die faithful are . . . immediately constituted members of the set-up Kingdom on the Other side the veil. Quite probably this setting up will consume nearly or quite all of the forty years of harvest time apportioned to it; but in any event, the time for the smiting of the image in its feet will not come until October, 1914 A.D., however much trouble and distress of nations may result from the prior awakening of their peoples under the enlightening influences of the dawning of the Millennial morning. Already such distress or perplexity is felt in quarters national, financial and religious. Our previous expectation was that the anarchistic period would last some three or four years, and in our mental calculations of the opportunities for harvest work, we naturally cutoff those years, and the time thus appeared shorter to us. Now, however, we see clearly that for some of the Church there probably remain fully ten years of experience, opportunities, testings, victories, joys and sorrows.
The December 1, 1904 Watch Tower, p. 363 also comes close to the point you are trying to make, but, again it may serve more as an explanation of why they could NOT discern even his kingship in 1914. It's because it was so obvious that they expected divine intervention, but all that 1914 showed them was human intervention. Babylon hadn't fallen in October. The Jewish nation had not been restored just prior to October or even in the following few months. There might have been every expectation that Jesus might use this particular time of turmoil to strike the nations with iron, but instead they continued striking each other.
*** Watch Tower, December 1, 1904, p. 363 ***
Similarly, at the time for the removal of the typical diadem from Israel, God's providences favored the exaltation of Nebuchadnezzar as a world emperor, the head, the first of a series of universal empires whose united reigns he foreshowed would constitute the "times of the Gentiles," the beginning and ending of which times are clearly marked. Evidently divine power had to do with the beginning of these times of the Gentiles and will have even more to do with their closing, at which time Immanuel shall take the reigns of government, the result being the dashing to pieces of the nations by the iron rod of his authority —-Rev. 2:27.  *** end of quote ***
[Note the possibility of using Neb's first regnal year to start the Gentile Times. The 20-year difference had come up in 1904.]
 
This is a perfectly slippery position to hold. But the evidence might result in another difficulty.
The dates from the old "1874 chronology" included accepted prophetic fulfillments in A.D. 539, 1799, 1829, 1844, 1859, 1874, 1878, 1881, and 1914. By 1927, Rutherford had begun to dismantle several of the foundations for these. By 1929, Rutherford could review them in the December 15, 1929 Watchtower, p. 376,377 saying that:
[T]here does not seem to have been anything that came to pass in 1799 to fulfil this prophecy. The facts do
show, however, that many things have come to pass from 1914 onward in fulfilment thereof. Seeing that the 1260 days . . . does not seem to be . . . in 1799 . . . in fulfilment of this prophecy. . . . there appears to be nothing that came to pass in 1829 that fulfilled this prophecy. But the facts, as above stated, do show many things in fulfilment thereof from 1919 to 1922. Seeing that the 1335-day period must end with a blessed time to the poeple of God, it does not appear that anything came to pass to show a fulfilment thereof in 1874, even though the latter date marks the beginning of the Lord's presence and the beginning of his work in preparing the way before Jehovah. The time of blessedness could not come until after the purifying took place, when the Lord came to his temple; and that did not occur until 1918. But when we understand from the Scriptures and the physical facts that the "time of the end" was a definitely fixed time and must come when God places his King upon his throne, and that this occurred in 1914, then the other prophecies and the facts fit exactly as herein stated. Briefly, then, these prophecies and the dates of their fulfilment are as follows, to wit:
The fixed "time of the end" is October 1, 1914 A.D.
The 1260-day period ended in April, 1918.
The 1290-day period ended September, 1922.
The 1335-day period of blessedness began May,
1926, and goes on for ever.
. . . Since 1918, when the Lord began judgment at
his temple . . .
It's odd that all these dates were considered, or "discerned" while 1874 even had some former prophetic application taken away from it. Yet it was still (incorrectly) "discerned" to be Christ's invisible presence. 
Not only that, Rutherford apparently did re-consider the date for Christ's presence. Throughout 1930 he never uses the date 1874, but adjusts it to "about 1875." This might be confusing for anyone who has seen 1930 mentioned as a specific year when 1874 was still in use. It's in the September 15, 1930 Watchtower.  But notice the context:
Bible Students, having no better interpretation, have accepted the identification of the "man of sin" as the Papal system and have understood that power which had withheld, let or hindered its complete development to be the Pagan Rome empire and that when Pagan Rome was taken over by being overthrown by Papal Rome, then the Papal system or hierarchy was recognized as the "man of sin". In support of this interpretation it has been said that the Papacy was organized as a hierarchy about A.D. 300 and advanced to the zenith of its power about A.D. 800; that its decline began in A.D. 1400; that it was bereft of its temporal power in A.D. 1870; and that from the beginning of the Lord 's presence in 1874 the Devil used the Papal system as the chief opposing instrument of God's kingdom and that the Papal system will meet its final destruction at the beginning of the reign of Christ. -SS Vol. B, pp. 267-361.
Rutherford (as President & Editor) is only quoting a book (SIS, V2) that he had wanted to officially stop promoting in 1927. For financial reasons they kept up several campaigns to sell the remaining stocks (of many thousands) of these books (to the public) well into the early 1930's, and the "Kingdom Ministry" would announce when the last copies of "Studies in the Scriptures" were finally out of stock (for personal libraries) into the 1960's. I mention this because, due to doctrinal changes, there was a rather awkward relationship with these books during this period, as campaigns to sell the books were causing arguments and push-back against Rutherford about why they were asked to sell books wherein most of the doctrines had been discarded. (It was more than just dates and chronology, but several of the dates, too, had already been officially discarded.) And Rutherford was, at the exact same time, complaining that those old-timers who still believed in these books were the "evil slave."
But, in spite of all the changes, especially those starting in 1927, Rutherford had still not completely dropped the "1874 chronology." What I find interesting is that with all the discernment that went into re-thinking the dates of Christ's presence, and the changing of a couple of dozen doctrines that had been taught since Russell's time, he still couldn't look back on 1914 and see it as the beginning of the invisible presence.
Rutherford changed it more specifically from 1874 to "about 1875." He had also shifted away from speaking about a 40 year harvest to, instead, the "day of preparation" that ran from "1878 to 1918," and often "1875 to 1918." The September 1, 1930 Watchtower issue says this on pages 201, 202:
"With the beginning of the second presence of the Lord, approximately A. D. 1875, there was a change in the work. . . .  The evidence seems quite conclusive that the gathering of these members of the body into the temple is almost complete, if not entirely so. The evidence shows that a great separating work has been going on since 1918 and that probably that separating work is not entirely completed, . . . .
The October 15, 1930 Watchtower, p.308 said:
The second advent of the Lord Jesus Christ dates from about A. D. 1875,
The idea was barely mentioned for a couple of years, and then in the June 1, 1933 Watchtower (p.174), it goes back to 1874, again:
The second and invisible presence of Christ dates from about eighteen hundred and seventy-four.
 
This 1875 wasn't really much of a change because the reason was that, in 1928, the entire matter was considered carefully and studiously and published in "Our Lord's Return." But it shows that discernment in the sense of serious reconsideration was going on through these years, and yet, 1874 was determined to be OK even after re-considering the dates related to it, and one of the last remaining foundations for it: 539 A.D.
The proof set forth in the booklet, Our Lord's Return, shows that 539 A. D. is the day from which the prophetic days of Daniel the prophet are counted. . . . These symbolic 1335 days represent that many actual years. That period . . . from and after 539 A. D. ended with the end of 1874 A. D., in the autumn season, or approximately the beginning of 1875. . . . About the beginning of 1875 the facts show that the light began gradually to come to the minds of the faithful ones, telling them that it is his due time for the Lord's presence.
It seems that this same idea of discernment as 'gradual light' was was already understood. They had reconsidered 539 A.D. to be true in 1928, then false in 1929, but continued to keep 1874, even though they had just knocked out the rest of the original foundation for it. This is an indication that there was no room for doubt about 1874.
I think that's all I'm going say on the idea that they were supposedly beginning to discern that 1914 was the beginning of Christ's presence all the back in the year 1914. Anything is possible, but it still doesn't ring true for me. 

Be careful, here Eoin. You have just said that "Jesus would exercise his kingship in 1914" and "acknowledging the event in 1914" is, for you, the beginning of discerning that fact.
The supposed "event" about exercising his kingship was still assigned to 1878 as far as they could discern in 1914. You mention elsewhere that a special indication of his kingship in 1914 was acknowledged as early as 1922. That's true, but it actually goes back no earlier than 1918. So it was not really "discerned" in 1914 that Jesus had become king. If he was exercising his kingship in 1914 it was not so different than he had been exercising it since 1878, and hardly different even from the way he had exercised his kingship since 33 CE, for that matter.
I know this is easy to dismiss, and, as far as I'm concerned, this horse has already been beaten into hamburger. But there is something very interesting about the context of Rutherford's statements about 1918, and, for me, it actually helps us understand the mindset of the Bible Students in general when they considered the events of 1914. So it's relevant to the original question. First a quote from 1931 (same one I just repeated to HollyW):
*** Watchtower, November 1, 1931, p. 376 ***
Who on earth understood prior to 1918 that Zion is God's organization and gives birth to the kingdom and to her children? The fact that no one on earth did so understand prior to the Lord's coming to his temple is proof that it was not God's due time for them to understand. Who understood prior thereto about Satan's organization, the battle in heaven, and the casting of Satan out of heaven?  Manifestly no one could understand these things until the temple of God was open.
*** end of quote ***
Looking back, it might seem obvious that the teaching should have been that Zedekiah lost the throne 2,520 years prior to 1914, and Jesus would therefore take up the throne in 1914. Why would they continue to teach that 1878 was the date when Jesus began to rule as "king over the kings of the earth"?
There are several reasons they would have missed this opportunity to "discern." The main reason, of course, is the flexibility that began to be built into the fact that 1914 was to be an end to the time of trouble not the beginning. This had never meant that the chaos and tumult would be over instantly, even if sometimes implied. The fall of all human and religious institutions in October 1914 would likely take several months to resolve. It was often spoken of as lasting from 'October 1914 to October 1915,' and sometimes 'up until the end of 1915.'
A lot of times people will think that the "1915 idea" was added only after the failure of 1914. It's true that many references from 1914 were changed to 1915, during the beginning of that same year (and the March 1, 1915 Watch Tower referenced a more than a dozen changes to a couple of the Studies in the Scriptures books). Most of them were similar to these, quoted from that issue:
Vol. II., page 81, line 9, "can date only from A.D. 1914," reads "could not precede A.D. 1915."  . . .  Vol. III., page 228, line 11, "some time before 1914," reads "very soon after 1914." Vol. III., page 228, line 15, "just how long before," reads "just how long after." Vol. III., page 362, line 11, "some time before," reads "some time near." But 1915 was already a part of the discussion much earlier, due to the impracticality of believing that something could be so drastic in October 1914 and not require months of clean-up. But the clean-up timeline was still considered limited, (worked out by the end of 1915), because, after all, Jesus was in charge of these changes from heaven and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would be in charge from Jerusalem in Israel [Palestine]:
*** Watch Tower, December 1, 1902 [Reprints p. 3133. Brackets in original.] ***
Those who have studied the plan of the ages and its times and seasons know that this is due to be accomplished by the year 1915—only 12 or 13 years from the present time. Then will the words of this prophecy [Psalm 24:1-4] be fulfilled—The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein; for he hath founded it upon [instead of] the seas, and established it upon [in place of] the floods'—Verses 1, 2 . . . . That is, the present earth, or social organization, and the present heavens, or ruling powers, will have passed away, and the new earth will be established upon the ruins of the old" *** end of quote ***
*** Watch Tower, October 1, 1903 [Reprints p. 3249] ***
"It will be vain for Zionists to hope to establish an independent government in Palestine.... Palestine will be 'trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be filled full'—viz., October, 1914, A.D. By that time the heavenly kingdom will be in power and the ancient worthies—Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the holy prophets—will be resurrected and constitute the earthly representatives of the spiritual and invisible kingdom of Christ and his Gospel church." *** end of quote ***
That's the most direct reason that they didn't have to think about it until at least October 1915 or perhaps the end of 1915, at the latest. 1915 was already part of the equation. Russell had even said that the same "Jewish year" already included the time through October 1915. And Russell had also mentioned 1915 in the context of the entire 1874-1914 chronology system not being flexible by more than one year, but also invoking the idea a few times that it could be as much as one year off. So, having already waited through the raging of the World War for 13 to 16 months by the end of 2015, then there would be no real urgency to change anything. Just hold tight, because the Great War itself was proof enough that the timeline was back on track. Every month showed their their timeline was a little off, but only one incremental month at a time. The only time that these increments became impossible to continue accepting, would be on 11/11/1918 (Armistice Day) when the War was over. Rutherford and friends were in jail at that time, and it this of course would be a likely time when Rutherford himself would start "discerning" that something was very wrong with the 1874 timeline. (But we can see that even he still didn't do what we might expect with the date of Christ's presence -- I'll get to that if this doesn't get too long.) 
A less direct reason for not discerning 1914, in 1914, might have been just as important. It's the fact that the 1874 timeline required a 40-year harvest until 1914. And several years (perhaps 3 and 1/2 years?) of upheaval and tribulation during this harvest period at the end. The "day or wrath" was inside this 40 year time period, parallel with it, not outside of it -- not after it. This meant that they expected a great tribulation of sorts to break out in 1910 or 1911. The "one-year-off" idea was also invoked here so that 1912 was also later mentioned as a possibility.  
*** Watch Tower, February 1, 1903 [Reprints p. 3141] ***
So far as the Scriptures guide us, we expect the climax of the great time of anarchous trouble in  October, 1914. Our opinion is that so great a trouble would necessarily last in violent form at least three or four years before reaching that climax. Hence, we expect strenuous times by or before October, 1910.  Reasoning backward from 1910 A.D. we are bound to assume that the conditions leading up to such violence as we then expect would include great financial depression, which probably would last some years before reaching so disheartening a stage. We could not, therefore, expect that depression to begin later than, say, 1908." *** end of quote ***
 
The "annihilating of human institutions" was timed to the end of the Gentile Times and readers were wondering and speculating on whether that meant that the worst of it would be over by October 1914 or could there be several months that would be even worse than the years leading up to October 1914?
The chaos would still end in 1914 even if it lasted until near the end of 1915. Therefore even in 1904 through 1911 Russell could still make statements that matched what he had said in 1896:
*** Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, p. 226 ***
"Now, in view of recent labor troubles and threatened anarchy, our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They do not see how present conditions can hold out so long under the strain. We see no reason for changing the figures - nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble."  *** end of quote ***
In 1911, the full completion of the anarchy was still going to be October 1914. Revelation had said that "in one hour" her judgment will be upon her. That one hour could still last the entire year, but the focus was still on the month of October. This is from the Watchtower, June 15, 1911:
"October, 1914, will witness the full end of Babylon, "as a great millstone cast into the sea," utterly destroyed as a system." (p.190)
The new understanding in 1904 was that there would still be a specific, perhaps even violent tribulation that many Christians (and chosen ones) could come through prior to 1914. But it was now seen that some of the references to a time of worldwide anarchy, such as the world had never seen before, would obviously result from the fall of the human and religious institutions in 1914. In spite of that change, Russell only felt it necessary to focus on 1915 as the outside date instead of 1914. Prior to 1904, the teaching gave the same 3 to 4 year length of the tribulation to the generally parallel time of great anarchy. In moving the time of anarchy to after October 1914 instead of before, I don't think Russell ever repeated the idea that this anarchy would last for 3 to 4 years. He focused on the quickness instead. Matching the 1915 changes to the Studies in the Scriptures (focusing only on 1915 as the updated date), the Watch Tower also only mentions 1915 with reference to the anarchy or "climax of trouble."
*** Watch Tower, June 1, 1906 [Reprints p. 3784] ***
"The thief-like work of taking the church is already in progress; by and by it will be all completed, and shortly thereafter -- 1915 -- the kingdoms of this world, with all of their associated institutions, will go down in a climax of trouble such as the world has never known, because after gathering his bride class the Lord will execute judgments upon Babylon".   *** end of quote ***
*** Watch Tower, July 1, 1904 [Reprints p. 3389] ***
We now expect that the anarchistic culmination of the great time of trouble which will precede the Millennial blessings will be  after October, 1914, A.D.—very speedily thereafter, in our opinion—in one hour,' 'suddenly' . . . Our forty years' harvest, ending October, 1914 A.D., should not be expected to include the awful period of anarchy which the Scriptures point out to be the fate of Christendom".
However, since those 3 to 4 years of tribulation (and anarchy) didn't happen before 1914, and after waiting until near the end of 1915 it must have became easier (my opinion) to wait and see if this period of anarchy might last 3 to 4 years before culminating in a full fulfillment. That is probably another good reason that Rutherford could say that no one could start to discern new light about Russell's teachings until after 1918.
 

Eoin, the key is for the WTS to tell the truth about when it was that they began to discern the sign of Christ's presence in 1914.  That way you'll finally believe what several of us now have already told you: i.e. it was not in 1914 that they began to discern the sign of Christ's presence in 1914.  It wasn't until long after 1914 that they began to discern the sign of his presence in 1914.
You're absolutely correct that they could not have discerned something that was not there, yet that is exactly what they said they were doing from 1876 to long after 1914.

You still keep missing the point.  It was NOT in 1914 that they "began to discern".  The statement in the book shows, at best, ignorance of the WTS history. At worst, it is an outright lie, just as the one on page 22 is.
If it's because of the former, whoever wrote it should not be allowed to do write anything more until he or she has thoroughly researched it so they know what they're talking about.  But then, how did it get past the men on the GB? 
It it's because of the latter, every JW should be thoroughly researching this without fail, as you have begun to do.
But, again, look at what you keep calling what you say Jehovah and Jesus found to be "food in due season."

This is not new. See the Awake of March 22, 1987, page 5.