Ann O'Maly

Again, you a disputing the historical facts. As you well know, Russell predicted, among other things, the end of earth's rulers in 1914 and the end of the 'world' as people knew it.
A few years after 1914, and despite none of Russell's predictions coming to pass, Rutherford proclaimed in true 'Emperor's New Clothes' fashion: 

"The World Has Ended! The Golden Age Is Here! Millions Now Living Will Never Die: This Means What It Says - It Is A Fact"
Um, what?
Lolol! Dear oh dear. You're using ex-JW Gordon Ritchie's "Lord's Witnesses" site for your information!  He sees codes everywhere in the Bible and uses them to prophesy end times events, which invariably fail and have to be revised.
Incorrect (apart from the circle having 360 degrees part). Instead of relying on Ritchie's webpage or Keith Hunter's Illuminati Numerology ideas or a reputedly error-ridden book (Parise), try being more judicious about your sources, hey?
E.g. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Calendar.html
 

The big picture in Jesus words, the over-arching message, was that the end, the parousia, comes unannounced the way a "thief in the night" arrives. The thief doesn't give you signs and warnings, and even if he did, we couldn't see them very well, because it's in the night. But when it finally did arrive, we would know it, and we shouldn't be that surprised because Jesus warned us to always be ready.
Jesus also said that we shouldn't believe anyone who tells us that the Christ has already arrived but we just can't see him, he's just not visible right now, because he is over here or over there or in some inner chambers. Why? Because when the parousia arrives it will be like "lightning." Lightning is not invisible. It is unmistakable.
Here's another example of what happens when people start nit-picking the words of Jesus looking for "signs" of the parousia, without getting the overall big picture. They see that Jesus answered the question about the sign by starting out, in effect, 'Don't get misled about wars and reports of wars and earthquakes. Yes these things will happen [in this generation between 33 and 70] but they are not signs of the end. You will not get signs of the end because it has to happen like a thief. The parousia will be like the days of Noah when people were just carrying on as if things were normal, peaceful and secure, getting married, etc., right up until the day the Flood came and swept them all away."
Now if we don't get the big picture, we would look at what Jesus said about the Flood and imply that Jesus forgot to add the part about Noah warning them, and Noah's implicit message to them through the building of a big ark that must have gotten everyone's attention. Because we want the message of Jesus to be about a full generation filled with signs and warnings, while Jesus, on the other hand, only focused on the way most people were caught by surprise on the day the Flood swept them all away. Two people could be sitting and working on the same mundane, peaceful activity, when one is taken away and one remains.
(Matthew 24:41, 42) 41 Two women will be grinding at the hand mill; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. The same thing happens when Paul says that as to the times and seasons we need nothing to be written to us, because [just like in the days of Noah] when people thought they had 'peace and security' [to continue eating and drinking and marrying] the day would catch them by surprise like a thief in the night.
If we get the big picture, we will see that Paul meant the same thing Jesus meant when he said:
 (1 Thessalonians 4:15, 16; 5:1-4) 15 For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet,. .. . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. 3 Whenever it is that they are saying, “Peace and security!” then sudden destruction is to be instantly on them, just like birth pains on a pregnant woman, and they will by no means escape. 4 But you, brothers, you are not in darkness, so that the day should overtake you as it would thieves, 5 for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We belong neither to night nor to darkness.
(Matthew 24:36-44) 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 41 Two women will be grinding at the hand mill; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it.
Have you noticed that some people will do exactly the opposite of what Paul said and try to turn even the cry of "Peace and Security" into another "sign"? He was clearly referring to the lack of a sign. He said we need "nothing" to be written to us about the chronology of the parousia, because that parousia -- the day of the Lord -- comes without warning.
Notice that Jesus, too, calls the parousia, the day of the Lord, when he says that "they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the parousia of the Son of man will be . . . Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming." Paul indicates the same thing (quoted above in 1 Thess 4:15,16) when he says that the "parousia" of the Lord is the time when the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet.
(1 Thessalonians 2:19) 19 For what is our hope or joy or crown of exultation before our Lord Jesus at his presence?. . .
(1 Thessalonians 3:13) 13 so that he may make your hearts firm, blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the presence of our Lord Jesus with all his holy ones.
(1 Thessalonians 5:23) . . .be preserved blameless at the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. . .
(1 Corinthians 1:6-8) . . ., 7 so that you do not lack in any gift at all, while you are eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 8 He will also make you firm to the end so that you may be open to no accusation in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
There is a consistency in the big picture that is lost when we try to impose a different meaning on a few scriptures and then not realize that we have produced contradictions in other scriptures. Note:
(2 Thessalonians 2:1-8) 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence 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 is here. . . . 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.
The problem with trying to turn the parousia into an extended presence has even made some people in our day claim that the parousia, or the day of Jehovah is already here, even before the lawless one has been brought to nothing by the manifestation of his parousia.
Notice that the parousia is a "revelation" and a "manifestation," a time of "glory" and "shining brightly" like "lightning" and that the Bible no where speaks of its invisibility:
(2 Thessalonians 1:9, 10) . . .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 . . .
Some will even then turn 1 Thess 4 and 5 on its head by claiming that the resurrection has already occurred. Some will say this is not important any more, but it's an issue that we should be very careful with, according to Paul.
(2 Timothy 2:18) 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some.
Paul went to a lot of trouble in 1 Thessalonians 4 to show how we would know that the resurrection had not already occurred, because Christians would "at the same time" meet the Lord in the air. We discussed earlier how this verse was once given a meaning that we no longer give it. The current meaning makes it impossible, however, to solve the contradiction of "at the same time."
(1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) 15 . . . we the living who survive to the [parousia] of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep [in death]; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, [at the same time] with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with [the] Lord. [NWT Reference Bible]
You will notice that we had to change "at the same time" to "together" to avoid the contradiction. Altogether, however, the "big picture" tells us that this is the parousia, the time when the resurrection actually does occur -- and this is why there would be no advance sign of that day, because the only sign will be on that very day when the event is unmistakable. You will also note that clouds are not associated with invisibility, but with "seeing."
(Matthew 24:30, 31) 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together. . .
You may also note that we have adjusted parts of this same imagery that once applied to the time since 1914 only to the "end" in spite of the translation of "synteleia" as "conclusion."
(Matthew 13:39-43) . . .The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things. 41 The Son of man will send his angels,. . .  43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.. . .
This is because the term we translate "conclusion" can also be translated "end" or more specifically the "end of all things" together. 1 Peter uses a similar expression with the word "telos" [ending] rather than syn-telos [ending together]:
(1 Peter 4:7) 7 But the end of all things has drawn close. . . .
(1 Peter 1:13) 13 So brace up your minds for activity; keep your senses completely; set your hope on the undeserved kindness that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.  
So, to me, the "big picture" is when we consider the whole entire gamut. It's true that it's made up of hundreds of little pictures, but these must all fit consistently into the big picture.
 

Also:
*** ka chap. 16 p. 296 par. 7 Completion of the Foretold “Sign” Nears ***

"Counted from the year of Jesus’ prophecy on the subject, the Jewish system of things had thirty-seven years yet to go, less than a generation with a life-span of forty years." 
 
*** it-1 p. 540 Wilderness Wanderings of Israel ***

"This brought Jehovah’s swift judgment: Forty years would pass before the nation would enter the Promised Land. By then, the faithless members of that generation would have died off."
So the questions are, 
Could there be a flaw in the Org's eschatology? If so, what is it? Could there be more than one flaw? This would be a fruitful research project for you, Sarah. 
 

The Insight book gives a lot more space to the Neo-Babylonian period than any other. This is because our publications put very little specific importance on any chronological dates except 607 BCE and 1914 CE. (455 BCE is also considered specifically important.) We use other dates like 4026 BCE, 2370 BCE, 1513 BCE, 740 BCE, 2 BC, 29 CE, 33 CE and 70 CE, only as reference points for important events, not because those specific dates make a difference. If we consistently used 4006 BCE as the date of creation, 2350 BCE for the flood, 1493 BCE for the law covenant, etc., etc., then we would merely get used to those dates and nothing would change for us doctrinally.
Evidence of this is the number of times that the numbers matching these dates are used in our publications. Here are the number of times the Watchtower has used the following "dates" since as early as 1950, including all Watchtower and book references, as indicated by the 2015 WT LIB CD
4026   -- 35 times 2370  --  66 times 1513 -- 288 times 740  --  184  times 607 --  1,241 times [541 --   54 times] 539  --   384 times 537  --   609 times 455  --   187 times [1912 -- 217 times] 1914 -- 5,442 times To see how many of these 1914 (and other) references might just be random page numbers or coincidental uses of the date, we can check similar dates like 1913 (219 times) and 1912 (217 times). At any rate, we can see that 607 and 1914 are the most important dates of all in the Watchtower publications, and this is the same reason that 539 and 537 get higher than usual numbers, too. Note that the unrelated and uneventful 541 is only used 54 times. One might get the impression that the most important reason to include a chronology section in the Insight book is in support of 607.
Since there is not time, space, and I assume, very little interest in seeing me rehash the dozens of problems with the 607 date, I will only summarize. Besides this subject has been handled by others who know a lot more than I do about the subject
I have looked at all the related secular sources that were quoted by the Insight book, however, and these were fascinating and revealing. But again, I'll hold back from getting into details. I'll just mention some of the quotes I found most interesting:
*** it-1 p. 448 Chronology ***     Bible Chronology and Secular History.   Concern is often expressed over the need to try to “harmonize” or “reconcile” the Biblical account with the chronology found in ancient secular records This is a true statement in general. And sometimes secular history and chronology is worthless, even purposely inaccurate. Although in the study of 587 vs 607, both of these dates are SECULAR DATES, just like 539. Yet one of them is a better match to harmonize with both the secular and the Biblical records, and that is 587 BCE, not 607 (for the destruction of Jerusalem). I've given some of the Biblical reasons elsewhere, so I won't repeat them. In fact there is so much evidence for this date, and it harmonizes so well with the Biblical history, that it's one of those cases where we would normally use it to show how accurate the Bible account is, just as we would do for archaeological finds supporting the fall of Jericho, or Jeremiah's scribe, Baruch, etc. This is probably the only case where the Bible and secular archaeology and chronology harmonize with so much evidence where we spend our time denigrating the secular evidence instead of using it to promote faith in the Bible's accuracy.
And sadly, we can't make good use of it, because we have an inherited tradition that requires us to dismiss literally THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence. I know it sounds harsh, but our methods of dismissal are often so ridiculous that we get caught by readers who have no interest one way or another in the "controversy" but who immediately notice what must appear to be the same as "dishonesty." They probably don't realize that our willingness to grasp at straws and specious reasoning is because it has been set up as a battle between the Bible's accuracy and secular history. Most Witnesses have never looked at the details because when we do, we can no longer honestly see it in that same light. It becomes a simple matter of trying to maintain a tradition that won't fit the Bible evidence, and secondarily, won't fit the secular evidence either, because both sources agree in this case. 
*** it-1 pp. 448-449 Chronology ***  What is known from secular sources of these ancient nations has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information obtained from monuments and tablets or from the later writings of the so-called classical historiographers of the Greek and Roman period. While archaeologists have recovered tens of thousands of clay tablets bearing Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, as well as large numbers of papyrus scrolls from Egypt, the vast majority of these are religious texts or business documents consisting of contracts, bills of sale, deeds, and similar matter. The considerably smaller number of historical writings of the pagan nations, preserved either in the form of tablets, cylinders, steles, or monumental inscriptions, consist chiefly of material glorifying their emperors and recounting their military campaigns in grandiose terms. The highlighted sentence leaves out the fact that these tens of thousands of clay tablets from the era of the Neo-Babylonian period in question are DATED documents. They give us a complete picture of the period of Neo-Babylonian kings from before Nebuchadnezzar until after Cyrus. On average, there are over 100 documents for each and every year. The Watchtower publications claim that there must be 20 years not represented, in order for 607 to be right and 587 to be wrong. But we have no idea what years would be missing. The claim of 20 "missing years" is worthless, however, because we also have documents for the beginning and ending years of each of the kings, along with documents that cut across the time from one king to the next. You can even figure out, not just the year, but exactly which month most of the kings died and the next king took over. And the "banking" documents also provide a line of "bank presidents" that perfectly interlocks and is matched against the same kings of Babylon as an independent method of double-checking them. In addition, there are other cylinders, tablets, astronomical diaries and contemporary inscriptions that independently confirm the accuracy of the secular banking and contract records. And then there is the fact that "king lists" were kept for many years throughout this era so that one could accurately point to specific dates across periods of hundreds of years. This would be the only way that the astronomers and astrologers could have learned to predict eclipses, and planetary movements, and certain solar/lunar cycles. These lists had to be kept accurately or else those attempts would have failed. Yet, they were very successful -- especially through this Neo-Babylonian period. And the most well-known of those "king lists" -- even the ones repeated and copied and known from hundreds of years later -- are now found to exactly match the more recently discovered tablets that confirm them.
Most of the Chronology article in Insight is geared toward dismissing the accuracy of the secular documents, especially those related to the Neo-Babylonian period. This is of course a necessary point to try to dismiss the fact that all of the evidence points to 587 and none of it points to 607. Yet, it is not even necessary to discuss these various issues because it doesn't matter. The Watchtower accepts these same sources, because otherwise we could not get to the 539 accepted secular date which is then used as a key to create the 607 date from a specious interpretation (which is therefore both non-secular, and non-Biblical). Everything said, which is intended to dismiss and denigrate the record for 587, is exactly the same evidence that would force the Watchtower publications to dismiss the 539 date. But the 539 date is still accepted by the Watchtower publications, and therefore all the talk against the secular dating issues and problems are meaningless to the argument. Here's an example:
*** it-1 pp. 449-450 Chronology ***   Anyone approaching the study of ancient history for the first time must be impressed by the positive way modern historians date events which took place thousands of years ago. In the course of further study this wonder will, if anything, increase. For as we examine the sources of ancient history we see how scanty, inaccurate, or downright false, the records were even at the time they were first written. And poor as they originally were, they are poorer still as they have come down to us: half destroyed by the tooth of time or by the carelessness and rough usage of men.” He further describes the framework of chronological history as “a purely hypothetical structure, and one which threatens to come apart at every joint.”—The Secret of the Hittites, 1956, pp. 133, 134. What is left out of the Insight book here is the fact that even the writers who make such statements about portions of ancient historical records, are well aware -- and admit -- that the Neo-Babylonian period is in a completely different category. It's not clear, therefore, that the writers of the Insight book really wanted you to look up the original sources they used for some of these quotes. Their own sources would have undermined the point that was being made by using very selective quotes that avoided the admission that we have excellent documentation and evidence for period of time that we are supposed to question.
More than that, however, the primary point of the above quote from 1956, is to dismiss the "positive way" that dates are presented as if unquestioned and unquestionable. But most historical books actually admit where such dates are questionable. The Watchtower publications are quite different, however, in that they are one of the worst offenders in the use of dates (like 607 BCE) that never include a caveat that this date is questioned, questionable, and that there is no secular or Biblical evidence for the date. Most Witnesses are not aware that we also arbitrarily add 20 years to the dates of the Judean and Israelite kings without explaining that we do this in order for 1914 to work.
It's easy to understand why some of the comments in response to the problems of 607 and 1914 will focus on the idea of "independent thinking" and "ego" or "pride." It's sad, but there isn't a lot I can do about that and still give what I believe is a clear defense of the Bible. I think we have a responsibility to give a defense of our faith and hope, and for me, this is part of it. I honestly believe that we inherited the whole idea of our chronology from the independent thinking of Nelson Barbour and some of the prior chronologists who came out of the Millerite Second Advent movement (primarily). This doesn't mean that Russell was a Second Adventist, by the way, but this particular influence did come from them, and Russell readily admitted that it ultimately came from "Father Miller" (which is how Russell sometimes published William Miller's name in the Watch Tower.)
Some of the issues related to false claims and honesty also give me the impression that pride is bound up in the continual repetition of some of the claims that have been "called out" and reported back to the Watchtower as false as early as the 1950's and 1960's. "COJ" was not the first person to point out the flaws and false claims in our chronology doctrines. 

Exactly! If the Bible says Jesus was king in 33 CE then we could see it in the same light as we understand Jehovah's kingship. Jesus was clearly said to be king, and even had the title "King of Kings" and "Ruler of the Kings of the Earth."
(1 Timothy 6:15) . . . He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords (Revelation 1:4, 5)  John to the seven congregations that are in the province of Asia: May you have undeserved kindness and peace from . . . from Jesus Christ, . . . “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.” (Acts 17:7) . . .All these men act in opposition to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king, Jesus.. . . Can we rightly say that Jesus stopped being this King for a while? It would still be true that at some future point after 33 CE, Jesus could "become king" in a special sense when he would express that Kingship in a new way of take some special action. It is in the same way that when Jehovah puts his sovereignty on display or takes some special action, we could say that he "became king" in a special sense. I would agree 100% that if Jesus was a "king of those who rule as kings" in 33 CE, then he could not stop being King any more than the proverbial leopard can change its spots!
I agree. There was therefore no reason to say Jesus stopped being King, either. When he expresses his rulership in some special way and takes some special action with respect to that Kingdom.
You seem to imply that Jesus would have to wait 40 days after his resurrection to ascend to the throne. But the focus is not on his ascension, but his resurrection. Jesus' kingship has nothing to do whether he, a spirit creature, is physically sitting or standing or "appears" on a physical throne, a physical cloud, or standing on the physical earth. The scriptures give us the timeline. It was at his resurrection to the highest position of power in the universe next to his Father himself. It's true that Hebrews focuses on his "death" as a sacrifice before he  "sat down at the right hand of the throne of Majesty." Also the scripture from 1 Peter, below, implies that it was at his ascension, but the idea is that this was the period during which "all things were made subject" to him. A king has subjects. None of them say he would wait nearly 2,000 years before actually becoming King.
(Acts 2:29-35) . . . David, . . . knew that God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one of his offspring on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in the Grave nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 35 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”’
(Romans 8:34) 34 Who will condemn them? Christ Jesus is the one who died, yes, more than that the one who was raised up, who is at the right hand of God and who also pleads for us.
(Ephesians 1:19-21) . . .It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, 20 which he exercised toward Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named, not only in this system of things but also in that to come.
(Hebrews 12:2) . . .he endured a torture stake, despising shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (also, Hebrews10:12) But this man offered one sacrifice for sins for all time and sat down at the right hand of God, (also, Hebrews 8:1) . . .and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens. . .
(1 Peter 3:21, 22) . . .through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 22 He is at God’s right hand, for he went to heaven, and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.
(Romans 1:3, 4) 3 concerning his Son, who came to be from the offspring of David according to the flesh, 4 but who with power was declared God’s Son according to the spirit of holiness by means of resurrection from the dead—yes, Jesus Christ our Lord.
The publications have several times discussed the amazing power of God that was behind the resurrection of Jesus to make him the second-most powerful person in the universe in that instant.
(1 Corinthians 15:43-45) . . . it is raised up in power. 44 It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body. If. . . 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Of course, if it waited 40 days to the ascension, as 1 Peter implies, then this was still in the year 33 CE, not 1914 CE.
Not at all. And when Jesus takes on early subjects of his kingdom through the congregation beginning in 33 CE he is no less a king. When he commands them to go forth 'marching like soldiers' into the world as evangelists, he is no less a king.
Absolutely! This is my point. If there had been some major expression or action taken by God's Kingdom in 1914 then this is absolutely right! Jesus and Jehovah could both be said to have "become king" sometime during the year 1914.
Who noticed it? No one at the Watch Tower Society noticed it. If they did, they said nothing about it until many years later. You really think it's enough that they simply continued to make a statement using a phrase that no one knew the meaning of? This is not very believable to me. Here's why:
Let's say that I told you 100 times in advance of 1914 that the "End of the Gentile Times" means the end of a great day of wrath and time of trouble and chaos. I also say that we know such a "day of wrath" would be finished by1914 because it's the "End of the Gentile Times" and the "nations" would no longer rule after that date. Then 1914 comes along and becomes the start of a time of trouble. You are saying it's OK, as long as I still used the phrase "End of the Gentile Times"
What if I tried to sell you a car that I called a luxury, black Mercedes Benz that I said was brand new with no miles on it, but I delivered to you a smashed and burned orange Mercedes Benz? This would be OK as long as I used the term "Mercedes Benz"?  Remember, that with 1914, the Watchtower got no details about 1914 right. Not even one.
And according to the book of Revelation they even got the length of the Gentile Times wrong. So in my analogy, it's more like it was a smashed and burned, orange "Volkswagen" when you were expecting a Mercedes Benz.
 
 

Allen - thanks - I have not seen that kind of calculation before.  I studied the moon cycles quite some time ago....and frankly I am lazy to look up calculations for people who do not really take the time to consider what one is saying.
But to add to what you said about the lunar month.   Jehovah gave the moon and stars for us to: "  let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years."  The pagans also watched the seasons for planting but were steeped in fertility worship and the occult.  They used the moon and stars for spiritism in  worship - just about everything was recorded as an omen and according to the liver of a sacrificed animal and the star positions, they predicted events. They were extremely superstitious and daily looked for omens before the made any decisions.  They were avid star watchers and their math calculations very advanced (.001) . They created the zodiac - the cult of which spread thru-out the earth (zodiac comes from the first Babylonian empire - Nebuchadnezzar was a king of  the Neo-Babylonian empire). This Babylonian empire was founded on the Sumerian culture and the latest secular  information is that they were Hamites (from Ham).   Well, Nimrod was a descendant of Ham and so was Mizriam.
Mizriam - one of the great grand children of Noah-  went to Egypt and today Egyptians still call themselves Mizru (in Arabic - and arabic is the closest language to ancient Akkadian - which was the diplomatic language until 7th century BCE).. Egypt was founded not long after the first Babylonian Empire because there are similarities in the building of the towers and the practice of magic and spells.
Israel watched the moon for planting purposes (it is an easy sign for the season) and also to remind them of the special days of worship when they had to go down to Jerusalem.  Jehovah warned them against idolatry and to blow a kiss to the moon - this would be constituted idol worship - Job 31: 26 - 28.  Moses recorded this so they were not to fall into the trap of the other nations.  I use this scripture often to show Muslims that worship can be such a small thing as a kiss to the moon. I became interested in Islam when I realized that Ur (the city of Abraham, Haran) and several cities in Arabia were all moon-god cities. ... and most Islamic countries have the crescent moon and the stars as part of their flags etc. from moon worship (also the satanic verses in Qur'an - refer to Allah and his three daughters (stars) which do not appear in translated Qur'an because of the controversy.   
There is also as scripture which shows that we are not to worship stone (symbol of Baal - male fertility god)...... Muslims kiss the black stone during the Hajj.    Muslims say that Westerners are idolaters - so they are quite surprised when I show them what idolatry is....and the ancient Israelites and Jehovah's people today do not give anything else our worship...  Just thought I will mention these interesting facts....the moon calendar is very old.  

And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/360-day_calendar adds:
"It is a simplification to a 360-day year, consisting of 12 months of 30 days each."
Yet, a year of 360 days is neither a lunar year nor a solar year. Yes, simple and fascinating.  

OK, here's the second half of comments about the subject of "Gentile Times" and "1914" from the Appendix of the book "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" Excerpts quoted from the book are put in bold:
In the Bible, trees are sometimes used to represent rulership. (Ezekiel 17:22-24; 31:2-5) So the chopping down of the symbolic tree represents how God’s rulership, as expressed through the kings at Jerusalem, would be interrupted. However, the vision served notice that this ‘trampling of Jerusalem’ would be temporary—a period of “seven times.” How long a period is that? True, trees sometimes represent rulership, although in this case, Daniel 4 says it represented the King himself, and therefore also his rulership. It does not say that there is some kind of a second fulfillment of any kind, but points several times to the fact that it was fulfilled in the person of Nebuchadnezzar himself.
So, while we can't completely discount the possibility of a second fulfillment, the chopping down of the tree does not directly represent God's rulership for the following reasons. The fulfillment includes a generic truth, which would apply to Jehovah's sovereignty over even the wicked rulers of the earth. Nothing in that general truth points specifically to "God's kingdom" or the "Messianic Kingdom" even if they can be included. Also, Nebuchadnezzar was a Gentile, so it's odd that his interrupted Gentile rulership would represent the interruption of the Messianic rulership. It's odd that his restoration to power would somehow represent the time when Jesus Christ was restored to the Messianic kingdom. Also, of course, he was a vicious, beastly ruler, and an enemy of God's kingdom, and he was punished with insanity -- brought low -- for his haughtiness. Jesus was neither vicious, beastly, or an enemy of God's kingdom, and Jesus was never punished with insanity for his haughtiness.
Creating a correspondence between Jesus and Nebuchadnezzar is therefore much the same as if we took a narrative about Judas Iscariot and said that it had application to Jesus Christ because both hanged from a tree, and both had the number "30" surrounding an important event of their lives:  30 pieces of silver, the price of a slave (Exodus 21:32), and Jesus was 30 years of age at baptism when he gave humbled himself as a "slave" of his Father. The numbers are coincidental, but even if the numbers could be construed into some schematic doctrine, we should still reject any prophetic correspondence between Jesus and Judas Iscariot.
Revelation 12:6, 14 indicates that three and a half times equal “1,260 days.” “Seven times” would therefore last twice as long, or 2,520 days. But the Gentile nations did not stop ‘trampling’ on God’s rulership a mere 2,520 days after Jerusalem’s fall. Evidently, then, this prophecy covers a much longer period of time. On the basis of Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6, which speak of “a day for a year,” the “seven times” would cover 2,520 years. Note that the same point made in Revelation 12:6,14 can be made from Revelation 11:2,3. We can be pretty sure, however, that the Watchtower will never allow the juxtaposition of Luke 21:24 and Revelation 11:2,3 in the same article. (For reasons pointed out in the first half of the comments on the "Bible Teach" Appendix.)
But it should still be noted that the Watchtower is not consistent when the article says that the time period of the 7 times would be twice as long as the time period for 3 and 1/2 times. Those 3.5 times are actually considered to be a literal 1,260 days, while the 7 times are considered to be about 920,430 days. (7 x 360 x 365.25) So Daniel's time period is not just twice as long as Revelation's; it's 730.5 times longer. 
Also note that there is no reason to use a day-for-a-year here. The Watchtower doesn't do it with the 1,260 days in any of the places that this period is mentioned in Revelation -- even though one of the those places is identified in Revelation itself as the length of the Gentile Times. The Watchtower does not even use the 1,260 days from Daniel 12 to mean years, nor the 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11, etc. The day-for-a-year formula is not really a Bible rule anyway. It's used in a couple places when the Bible says it is being used. There is no reason to use it if the Bible doesn't say to use it. If it were really some kind of a rule, then why wouldn't the Watchtower use it for the 1,260 days? In fact, there are other similar formulaic rules that are also used. Daniel was elsewhere asked to use a multiple of 7 years for every year when he turned Jeremiah's 70 years into 70 weeks of years. In other types of measurements (justice, forgiveness, forbearance) multiples of 7 and 11 and 2 are also used. (e.g. not 7 times, but 77 times; i.e., 7x11=77)
The 2,520 years began in October 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and the Davidic king was taken off his throne. The period ended in October 1914. At that time, “the appointed times of the nations” ended, and Jesus Christ was installed as God’s heavenly King.—Psalm 2:1-6; Daniel 7:13, 14. Not only did Jerusalem not fall in 607 BCE, it was not even in October. And this is admitted in the book Insight on the Scriptures:
*** it-1 p. 812 Fast ***    “The fast of the fourth month” apparently commemorated the breaching of Jerusalem’s walls by the Babylonians on Tammuz 9, 607 B.C.E. (2Ki 25:2-4; Jer 52:5-7) (2) It was in the fifth Jewish month Ab that the temple was destroyed, and evidently “the fast of the fifth month” was held as a reminder of this event. (2Ki 25:8, 9; Jer 52:12, 13) The fifth month is typically mid-July to mid-August. So it's not just off by 20 years, it's also off by an extra two months for good measure.
And more than that, Jesus said the Gentile Times would start after 33 CE. If they started with the events of 66 CE, as Jesus indicated when he spoke of Jerusalem being surrounded by encamped armies and the people being trampled then these events would run up to about 70 CE when Jesus said: "They will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you." This fits better with the statement in Revelation 11:2,3 that these Gentile Times would run for 1,260 days or 42 months. (3 and 1/2 times).
Just as Jesus predicted, his “presence” as heavenly King has been marked by dramatic world developments—war, famine, earthquakes, pestilences. (Matthew 24:3-8; Luke 21:11) Such developments bear powerful testimony to the fact that 1914 indeed marked the birth of God’s heavenly Kingdom and the beginning of “the last days” of this present wicked system of things.—2 Timothy 3:1-5. Jesus actually said almost the opposite. He predicted that if people used wars and rumors of wars and famines and earthquakes as "the sign" that they would be misled, because these were not signs of the end. They were just things that must continue to take place, but cannot be thought of as signs. It's the idea of the whole chapter that they could not figure out the parousia (presence) with a sign, because it would come as a surprise at any time. Wars and earthquakes would happen, but these events would mislead people if they didn't listen to Jesus' words. Note:
(Matthew 24:3-8) . . .what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?” 4 In answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads you, 5 for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6 You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for these things must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 “For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. 8 All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress.
If these were NOT the sign, then what was? Simple The sign of his presence comes after the tribulation of those days. There is no warning sign before the tribulation. That's why they needed to stay alert, that's why the presence would be a surprise, just as when the flood surprised people in the days of Noah who were living their day-to-day lives as if there was "peace and security." This fits all the other scriptures in the Bible about that presence.
(Matthew 24:29,30) “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven,
2 Timothy 3:1-5 shows that Paul understood that the last days had already begun in the first century CE. The same idea is made in Acts, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, and Jude. This is another way in which the Bible contradicts the claims about 1914.
There is plenty more on the subject, but that's the end of the commentary critiquing the Appendix article in the Bible Teach book.
 

I'm still stepping through some of what Arauna has said in defense of the 1914 doctrine. The appendix in the Bible Teach book is fairly short, so I think I'll comment on that first. To make it easy to distinguish comments from the original, I'll "bold" the Bible Teach book content:
APPENDIX 1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy This has now been moved to the Appendix at the back of the book, after several years in the main content section. 
DECADES in advance, Bible students proclaimed that there would be significant developments in 1914. What were these, and what evidence points to 1914 as such an important year? Technically, it's true they proclaimed significant developments, but all of them failed. Although the book never claims that any of the proclaimed developments came true, it implies it asking about them with the term "these" and then implying that "these" were evidences that 1914 was an important year. In past years, we blatantly claimed that the "parousia" (presence),  or "Christ's enthronement," or at least "the time of trouble" was predicted in advance. Although we have stopped doing that, the above is about the closest we can get to implying that we did, without being dishonest.
As recorded at Luke 21:24, Jesus said: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations [“the times of the Gentiles,” King James Version] are fulfilled.” Jerusalem had been the capital city of the Jewish nation—the seat of rulership of the line of kings from the house of King David. (Psalm 48:1, 2) However, these kings were unique among national leaders. They sat on “Jehovah’s throne” as representatives of God himself. (1 Chronicles 29:23) Jerusalem was thus a symbol of Jehovah’s rulership. 100% true.
How and when, though, did God’s rulership begin to be “trampled on by the nations”? This happened in 607 B.C.E. when Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians. “Jehovah’s throne” became vacant, and the line of kings who descended from David was interrupted. (2 Kings 25:1-26) False, in about 3 different ways.
#1. Jerusalem is not a symbol; it's the physical city being punished
Although Jerusalem had been a symbol of God's rulership, this doesn't mean that it always was a symbol in every context. In fact, what Jesus said was clearly NOT about Jerusalem as a symbol but was about the physical city of Jerusalem. That is clear from the context of the same verse in Luke. If we take the entire paragraph from which Luke 21:24 is taken we see it clearly:
(Luke 21:20-24) 20 “However, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains, let those in the midst of her leave, and let those in the countryside not enter into her, 22 because these are days for meting out justice in order that all the things written may be fulfilled. 23 Woe to the pregnant women and those nursing a baby in those days! For there will be great distress on the land and wrath against this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. If Jerusalem were a symbol of "God's rulership" in this context, then why would "God's rulership" be surrounded by encamped armies and people be asked to flee from God's rulership. It was the physical city of Jerusalem being punished here, not "God's rulership" being punished. Matthew introduces the "Olivet Sermon" in Matthew 24 in a similar manner. These are the final verses of Matthew 23 introducing the context for Matthew 24:
(Matthew 23:37-39) 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!’” If Jerusalem were a symbol of God's rulership in this context it would mean that God's kingdom is being punished and abandoned for being a killer of the prophets.
#2  - The trampling of Jerusalem started in the future, not in the past
The trampling of Jerusalem spoken of in Luke 21:24 could not have begun in 607 BCE because it was to take place in the future. Jesus said that this time "draws near," that they "WILL fall by the edge of the sword," and that  Jerusalem "WILL be trampled." He didn't say that this has been ongoing, but that it is an event that will begin in the near future. The NWT even links it to a parallel verse in Luke 19:
(Luke 19:41-44) 41 And when he got nearby, he viewed the city and wept over it, 42 saying: “If you, even you, had discerned on this day the things having to do with peace—but now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43 Because the days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification of pointed stakes and will encircle you and besiege you from every side. 44 They will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, So they will be trampled in the near future. Nothing is said of this being something that started 600 years earlier.
This of course happened closer to 66 CE according to the video found on jw.org. That date is correct: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/#mediaitems/VODMoviesBibleTimes/pub-ivwf_E_x_VIDEO
#3 Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 BCE.
Nebuchadnezzar had not even begun his first year of ruling yet, and Jerusalem was destroyed in his 19th year counting from his first regnal year. The publications assume that 539 BCE is a correct year to begin counting from, but if that date is true (and all evidence says it is) then Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE, not 607 BCE by the same evidence. There is no 539 without 587 and vice versa. Today, 607 (aka 606) as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem is easily traced as an error that made it to Russell from Barbour.
Would this ‘trampling’ go on forever? No, for the prophecy of Ezekiel said regarding Jerusalem’s last king, Zedekiah: “Remove the turban, and take off the crown. . . . It will not belong to anyone until the one who has the legal right comes, and I will give it to him.” (Ezekiel 21:26, 27) “The one who has the legal right” to the Davidic crown is Christ Jesus. (Luke 1:32, 33) So the ‘trampling’ would end when Jesus became King. The verse in Ezekiel is used as the key to Luke 21:24 about trampling, but Ezekiel is speaking of the past event (587 BCE) which contradicts Jesus own words that this is about a future event. Ezekiel is definitely talking about the coming Messiah, Christ Jesus as the one who has the legal right. But the verse in Luke is not related to the trampling that started in 587 BCE.
Such trampling, since it started in 66 CE and Jesus became King in 33 CE, would not therefore end when Jesus became King. Jesus sat on the throne, reigning as king, as soon as he was raised to the right hand of God. (1 Cor 15:25) The Bible already calls Jesus "King of Kings", and says he had all authority in heaven and on earth at this time. Any claim that he waited another 1,881 years to get more authority contradicts at least 10 clear scriptures to the contrary.
When would that grand event occur? Jesus showed that the Gentiles would rule for a fixed period of time. The account in Daniel chapter 4 holds the key to knowing how long that period would last. It relates a prophetic dream experienced by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. He saw a tree of enormous height that was chopped down. Its stump could not grow because it was banded with iron and copper. An angel declared: “Let seven times pass over it.”—Daniel 4:10-16. Jesus did not show that the Gentiles would rule for a fixed period of time in Luke 21, or Matthew 24, etc. However, Jesus did give the apostle John a Revelation where Jesus referenced this very verse in Luke 21:24 and there he did give it a fixed period of time: 42 months, or 1,260 days. Since Jesus said in Luke that he was referring to the future trampling of Jerusalem which we know lasted from about 66 CE to 70 CE, which could be the very reason he referred to it as a 3.5 year, 1,260 day, or 42 month period.
The Watchtower claims that this period of Gentile Times mentioned in Revelation when gentiles nations trampled Jerusalem underfoot was a literal 1,260 days (although not exactly 1,260 days). They say it was not a day-for-a-year, but that it lasted from 1914 to 1919. Note:
*** w14 11/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***   . . . So in the fulfillment of Revelation chapter 11, the anointed brothers who took the lead at the time of the establishment of God’s Kingdom in heaven in 1914 preached “in sackcloth” for three and a half years. At the end of their preaching in sackcloth, these anointed ones were symbolically killed when they were thrown into prison for a comparatively shorter period of time, a symbolic three and a half days. . . . . Not only were these anointed ones released from prison but those who remained faithful received a special appointment from God through their Lord, Jesus Christ. In 1919 they were among those who were appointed to serve as a “faithful and discreet slave” . . .  Interestingly, Revelation 11:1, 2 links these events to a time when the spiritual temple would be measured, or evaluated. . . .  How long did this inspection and cleansing work take? It extended from 1914 to the early part of 1919. *** re chap. 25 p. 162 par. 7 Reviving the Two Witnesses *** "Christians. As we shall see, the reference here is to the literal 42 months extending from December 1914 to June 1918, when all professing Christians were put to a severe test." What is strange is that the Watchtower doesn't attempt to link Luke 21:24 to Revelation 11:2,3.
(Revelation 11:2,3) . . .the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months. . . 1,260 days . . . . (Luke 21:24) . . .the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. There must be a good reason why there is no cross-reference between Luke 21:24 and the only other verse in the Bible that references it this directly. They both mention the Gentile Times, and one of them actually puts a time period on it: 3.5 times, or 1,260 days, or 42 months.
After the Bible goes to the trouble to put a time period on the "Gentile Times" the Watchtower makes a different claim, saying it is the account in Daniel 4 that puts a time period on it. Yet Daniel 4 says nothing about 3.5 times, or 1,260 days, or 42 months. Daniel 4 doesn't even mention the Gentile Times. It does mention that Nebuchadnezzar would be punished for his haughtiness for 7 "times" which we assume means 7 "years", but there is nothing in this particular passage that says that this is what it means here. But in Daniel 4 it is Nebuchadnezzar himself who is removed from the throne and then put back on his throne after he has learned his lesson in humility. It creates difficulties and even contradictions to claim that Nebuchadnezzar's return to the throne means the return of the Messianic kingdom here.
That's about half way. I'll stop for now and do the second half later.
 

Holy scripture wasn't completed in the 3rd - 1st centuries BCE when Jubilees and Enoch were written. The NT hadn't yet been composed, had it? Regardless of whether the two books are now considered holy scripture or not (interestingly, Jude's epistle quoted Enoch so it must have been well known), they provide an insight into Jewish thinking and calendrical practices at the time, and therefore are pertinent to the discussion about a supposed 360-day year that JWs and some other Adventist groups have used in their prophetic time calculations. Just because a person questions or disagrees with your views of biblical passages, and puts forward helpful, relevant information suggesting another perspective, it doesn't follow that the person 'doesn't believe the Bible.' Neither does it follow that a person believes the Bible to be 'inconsistent' because s/he sees inconsistencies in your interpretations of it.
Yes, that's pretty much what I said and expanded on in my previous post. 
So a 360-day year is neither a lunar nor solar year. You would have to explain how a 360-day 'prophetic' year could be counted as a 365.25-day solar year, when every day matters in JWs' end-times calculation. There also remains the other question of whether the Aramaic word for 'times' in Dan. 4 necessarily refers to literal years. If there are flaws with either of these components in the formula (and this is without discussing the validity of the start date), the end-times calculation falls apart ... quite simply. 

Do you disagree with the GB's conclusion about the date of "that invisible coming," then?
  On 9/2/2016 at 2:57 AM, AllenSmith said: Man’s Salvation [chap. 16 pp. 286-287 pars. 11-12] ...
 
12 ... However, events on earth since the end of the “appointed times of the [Gentile] nations” have been fulfilling Bible prophecy and prove that the promised “presence” or parousia of Christ in Kingdom power began first about October 4/5, 1914 C.E. Only since then has it been correct to speak of the invisible, royal “presence” of Christ as being in effect. We older folks of seventy or eighty years of age have seen come to reality practically all the things predicted by Jesus Christ in answer to the question submitted to him by his apostles:
[Bold emphasis mine; underlining Allen's]

The lunar year is 12 x 29.5 day months = 354 days. This means an intercalary (leap) month of either 29 or 30 days long had to be added every 2 or 3 years to re-calibrate with the solar year (thereby becoming a luni-solar system). An intercalary month would lengthen that year to 383 or 384 days long.
The 360-day year is neither a lunar nor solar year, but is a schematic one of 12 x 30 day months which then have to have the 4 epagomenal days (2 equinoxes and 2 solstices) added to make 364 days and better align with the solar year. The 364-day year divides neatly into 52 weeks of 7 days. (See Book of Jubilees, ch. 6 and information on the Book of Enoch's 'Astronomical Book').
But several leaps in assumption have to be made to arrive at the 'simple' conclusion. E.g. Why are 7 (360 day) years of 2,520 days stretched to 2,520 (365.25 day) years? Does the Aramaic word for 'times' in Dan. 4 necessarily mean literal years anyway?

You mean you believe Russell thought Christ only assumed dominion over his Church in 1878? I can't find any evidence for that. It would suggest that Christ's Church has been without a Head from 33 CE to 1878. You surely don't think Russell believed that, do you?
Russell had no concept of a temple inspection in 1918 or an appointment of a GB in 1919 - even before his death in 1916. This is where it would benefit you to learn something about Watchtower history.
Thanks for this quote. The part I've colored in red supports what I've been saying - that for a person to be present, that person has to first come/arrive. 
How do your other quotes negate my previous points?
One ideology derived from the other. 
As I said, JWs make an assertion nobody else does. It is up to them to provide evidence. Anyway, you may have missed this from the first page of the thread:
"The 1st century Christians believed Jesus was already ruling amidst his enemies in their day, from as soon as Jesus ascended to heaven and sat down at his Father's right hand. - Acts 2:34-37; Eph. 1:20, 21; Heb. 10:12, 13; Rev. 3:21."
JW Insider also provided scriptural reasoning on why it couldn't have been 1914.
You have yet to produce any amongst all that word salad.

This is not the only way to read Revelation 12. Through the centuries, Bible commentators have been able to see another way that isn't obvious until we begin to tie in all the other scriptures that touch upon the same subjects as Revelation 12. Again, I'm not saying that the following idea is right, or that it is the only other option besides the one we currently teach, but I'll provide the possible alternative only because Revelation 12 is so often tied into our teachings about 1914.
First, a revelation does not necessarily refer only to the future. Revelation itself says:
(Revelation 1:19) 19 So write down the things you saw, and the things that are, and the things that will take place after these. . . Recall that the Revelation of Micaiah (1 Kings; 2 Chron) revealed a recent prior, past event. The revelation of what had gone on behind the scenes (in heaven) in the book of Job was a recent and current situation in heaven that explained the events on earth. Even "revelations" in Daniel often refer to the current time of the kings of Babylon. So there should be no reason that the book of Revelation could not also be revealing things that were, are, and are yet to come.
With that in mind, note that this is the most common way outside of our teachings to understand Revelation 12. The symbols are the same ones that refer Biblically to how Jesus was born of a God's woman, Israel, yet Satan gathered up forces to try to defeat him, at his physical birth and at the birth of the kingdom, just prior to his death, to keep him from sitting at God's right hand. (Also called, "the right hand of the throne of Majesty." Remember that Paul shows that this "sitting at God's right hand" can be paraphrased as "ruling as king" in 1 Cor 15:25:
(1 Corinthians 15:25)  For he must rule as king [sit at God's right hand] until God has put all enemies under his feet. Jesus has indeed therefore been ruling invisibly from the time he sat at God's right hand. One of the first things he said after his resurrection is "all authority has been given me in heaven and on earth." Paul and John both refer to him as "King of Kings." So there was not necessarily any waiting while Jesus SAT on a kingly throne at the right hand of the majesty. A king does not have to stand up to rule. A king is still a king while he sits on the throne.
As far as the other idea that Satan was angry because he was just thrown out of heaven, well, this is correct. But Jesus said it happened in his day.
(Luke 10:18) 18 At that he said to them: “I see Satan already fallen like lightning from heaven. (1 Peter 5:8) . . .Your adversary, the Devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone. (Luke 22:31) 31 “Simon, Simon, look! Satan has demanded to have all of you to sift you as wheat. (John 12:30-33) . . .. 31 Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all sorts of men to myself.” 33 This he was really saying to indicate what sort of death he was about to die. (John 16:10, 11) . . .because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 then concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. (Hebrews 2:14) . . .so that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil, It's true that there are more enemies that have not yet been brought to nothing, but Jesus rules during this entire period, he waits for the proper time to accomplish these phases of his kingship, but it doesn't mean that he wasn't already above all the kingships and rulerships and principalities back at the time the Bible said that this happened -- from the time he sat at God's right hand. We already have a king-priest after the order of Melchizedek, both king and priest since 33 C.E.
 

Another thought here. Russell understood the great crowd to be a large group of professed Christians who were anointed and who would go to heaven after suffering through the months or even years of chaos brought about by the Great Tribulation. One of the problems with the timeline was that Russell expected the great crowd to go through many more months of tribulation prior to 1914, because they needed to undergo more suffering and discipline as they had not quite reached the "high calling."
Those of the "high calling," (the 144,000; Russell included) had proved themselves through a combination of their character development and the fact that they had understood the timeline. This is how important the "timeline" was to Russell and his readers. You could not be of the high calling unless you adhered to the timeline because only the "wise" virgins understood the timeline to keep their lamps burning.  According to Russell, those who didn't realize that the "midnight call" to the Lamb's wedding feast had already gone out in 1859 (halfway between 1844 and 1874) could not be of the high calling. Those who didn't accept the timeline, the foolish virgins, were the Christians who had completely given up on chronology and therefore let their lamps die out. Russell became less concerned about the 1844 and 1859 dates but he believed these foolish virgins would include the "great company"/ "great crowd"/ "great multitude". This ultimately became all the rest of the anointed Christians who would go to heaven AFTER suffering through the great tribulation. (For quite a time it was thought that the tribulations should have started in 1910 to allow for such events to occur in time for 1914.)
Interesting that A H MacMillan (GB/FDS) gave talks starting in 1915 that blamed the great crowd for the fact that those of the "high calling" didn't go to heaven in 1914. The "great crowd" were still given a bad reputation as materialistic and unconsecrated which explains insults made about them (in the Watchtower) even after they were identified as an earthly group in the early-to-mid 1930's. It was only the rest of currently non-Christian mankind who would make up the earthly class prior to about 1932.

Jesus has a right to a Messianic, non-Gentile throne, and Nebuchadnezzar was given permission to take a pagan, Gentile throne. These are two different things. It is true, as you say, that Jehovah can use anything or anyone to do his bidding, and serve him. He used Nebuchadnezzar as the obvious punishment to the Jews. Jeremiah speaks of him as a servant in this manner. And similarly, as you said, Cyrus, became his servant in the similar words of Isaiah.
But these kingdoms are still - and always - two different things. You are confusing them. The Gentiles are not being presented as beastly in this verse, it's the Messianic Kingdom ultimately given to Christ Jesus which is supposed to be acting beastly. Nebuchadnezzar's Kingdom is given to others who rule "sanely" in his stead, while HE becomes beastly. Remember it's the seven times when the Messianic rule is out of commission that is pictured here. It is therefore the 7 times (ostensibly 2,520 years) when the Messianic rulership is debased and therefore "beastly" and humiliated in our teaching.
Nebuchadnezzar is not allowed to rule during this beastly time, which is why his kingdom was given to non-beastly persons. It was given back to him when he was no longer beastly. In our explanation, Jesus' kingdom was therefore given to him when that Messianic rulership was no longer debased and humiliated.
This is one of the problems with switching the Gentile Times with the non-Gentile Times.
 

I believe the same thing. But I also believe that when Jehovah says what the purpose was that we would be presumptuous if we turned around and said that this wasn't the only purpose, and that there was a more important purpose. It's as if we are saying that it wasn't good enough that Jehovah's word said 'It is you, Nebuchadnezzar' and that 'ALL of this was fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar.'
In fact, if you recall, Daniel (Belteshazzar) said he wished it could apply to someone besides Nebuchadnezzar:
(Daniel 4:19-37) 19 “At that time Daniel, whose name is Bel·te·shazʹzar, was alarmed for a moment, and his thoughts began to frighten him. “The king said, ‘O Bel·te·shazʹzar, do not let the dream and the interpretation frighten you.’ “Bel·te·shazʹzar answered, ‘O my lord, may the dream apply to those hating you, and its interpretation to your enemies. . . . [however] . . . 22 it is you, O king, because you have grown great and become strong, and your grandeur has grown and reached to the heavens, and your rulership to the ends of the earth. . . . 24 This is the interpretation, O king; it is the decree of the Most High that must befall my lord the king. 25 You will be driven away from among men, and your dwelling will be with the beasts of the field, and you will be given vegetation to eat just like bulls; and you will become wet with the dew of the heavens, and seven times will pass over you, until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he grants it to whomever he wants. 26 “‘But because they said to leave the stump of the tree with its roots, your kingdom will be yours again after you come to know that the heavens are ruling. . . . 28 All of this befell King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. . . .“To you it is being said, O King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, ‘The kingdom has gone away from you, 32 and from mankind you are being driven away. With the beasts of the field your dwelling will be, . . . . . . I was restored to my kingdom, and even more greatness was added to me. 37 “Now I, Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, am praising and exalting and glorifying the King of the heavens, because all his works are truth and his ways are just, and because he is able to humiliate those who are walking in pride.” At any rate, those things you said about other Bible passages are stated in the Bible itself to have the added meanings you mentioned. The March 15, 2015 Watchtower indicates that we would be presumptuous to take it upon ourselves to decide that every narrative or parable has these kinds of specific additional meanings that we can add to the Bible ourselves. For me, it is enough that Daniel 4 fits the entire theme of the Bible about the kingdoms of men: that they really only rule by Jehovah's permission and that the ultimate control of the fate of these kingdoms is still in Jehovah's hands.
The actual story was about how even a king who was so powerful that his rulership extended to the ends of the known world, was haughty and didn't realize that he only ruled due to the permission of a God that he barely recognized as even existing. He didn't even grant his great power to his own God's, but to his self alone. He needed to be humbled. He was too haughty and presumptuous.
This was related, as all Bible events are, but it was not the same lesson that Christ's Messianic kingdom learned in 587 BCE. Jesus didn't have to apologize for a lesson learned in order to take back the Messianic kingship. Jesus already knew that Jehovah was the Most High.
If we try to take some pieces of various narratives and parables and experiences of Bible characters and make them mean specific things that teach a good lesson then that's probably not a dangerous thing. But what if we make that decision just because we want to say that we are the only group of people who have insight into the times and seasons that we are not supposed to concern ourselves with. What would be the purpose in doing that? Why do the one thing we have recently counseled ourselves against doing, just so that we can also go against what Jesus said about the times and seasons being in the Father's jurisdiction. Remember, not in our own jurisdiction, not the Son's, and not even the angels. This is surely like treading where angels fear to tread.
And if you have watched closely the way some Witnesses discuss this, it's as if this great insight is the "proof" that we can also reach up into the heavens and claim to be the greatest and most privileged of God's people, because "Jehovah never does anything without first revealing it to his own prophets."
 

I'm sure others have picked up on the fact that Russell, never, in his entire life ever believed that Jesus would start ruling in heaven in 1914. He understood that Jesus had become King in 33 C.E., but also that he had turned his attention toward earth's affairs during his presence, and shortly after coming into his invisible presence and took his great power and authority to become King in 1878.
This gets to the problem I mentioned before about honesty. You are not dishonest in believing what you believed about Russell. But you probably never picked up on the very careful wording the Watchtower has employed to "imply" that Russell believed this about 1914 without actually saying it. This updated, careful wording shows that the Watchtower writers are very well aware that Russell did not understand even this one point that we currently teach about 1914.
Before the Internet became a place where such things were "caught" and discussed, the practice of the Watchtower was generally to just claim that what you said above was true. I have found about 10 examples prior to 1998 that make the same false claim, very similar to this one:
*** w98 9/15 p. 15 par. 1 Waiting in “Eager Expectation” *** Similarly, a prophecy providentially caused sincere 19th-century Bible students to be in expectation. By linking the “seven times” of Daniel 4:25 with “the times of the Gentiles,” they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914. O course, it's a false claim, and has been corrected more recently by re-wording it, as the Bible Teach book does:
*** bh p. 215 par. 3 1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy ***DECADES in advance, Bible students proclaimed that there would be significant developments in 1914. *** bh chap. 8 p. 84 par. 23 What Is God’s Kingdom? *** During the 19th and 20th centuries, sincere Bible students progressively discerned that the waiting period would end in 1914. And the Watchtower, too:
*** w14 1/15 p. 12 par. 3 100 Years of Kingdom Rule—How Does It Affect You? *** Toward the end of the 19th century, light began to shine on a 2,500-year-old prophecy recorded by Daniel: “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed.” (Dan. 2:44) The Bible Students spent decades pointing out that the year 1914 would be significant. The implication is still there, of course, and unfortunately, it fools many Witnesses into thinking that the earlier claims were true, when it was stated in a way that was demonstrably false:
*** w54 6/15 p. 370 par. 4 The Revelation of Jesus Christ *** 4 Why, then, do the nations not realize and accept the approach of this climax of judgment? It is because they have not heeded the world-wide advertising of Christ’s return and his second presence. Since long before World War I Jehovah’s witnesses pointed to 1914 as the time for this great event to occur. Technically, ideas about changing Christ's presence from 1874 to 1914 were being floated as early as the 1920's, and most of relevant changes happened between 1929 and 1931, but it wasn't until 1943 that we officially dropped 1874 as the time when this great event (Christ's presence) occurred. This is at odds with the idea that Jesus' presence was like "lightning that lit up the entire sky from one horizon to the other horizon" and therefore we assume that at least one person must have had their spiritual "eyes of understanding" open to see that his presence had begun in 1914. Part of this problem is also in that same claim that  Russell and Rutherford and the other Bible Students understood that the "Gentile Times" ended in 1914. But as I mentioned above, the entire concept of what the Gentile Times meant was quite different from what we mean by that phrase today. Today it is OK for the Gentile kings to continue ruling uninterrupted, only saying that 1914 was a year when their lease ran out, although they can continue on for at least a century (so far) and this shouldn't concern us.
A problem with it from a Biblical perspective, however, is that it appears very insulting to Jesus himself, making him look like a "lame duck" ruler whose rule in say, 1961, was no more effective in keeping the nations from trampling God's chosen ones, than if we had claimed that this same rule had started in 1878. The claim makes Jesus look very ineffective with respect to the times of the Gentiles. There are now more nations ruling without any respect for Christ Jesus than there ever were in the past!

If you are referring to Daniel 4, the "great tree dream" prophecy, that is a good subject in its own right. In effect, we must make the rule of this vicious and presumptuous, haughty Gentile represent the rule of the Messianic kingdom through Jesus Christ, a non-Gentile, by the way. Fortunately, the passage itself does not even imply this sacrilege, because it says only that the prophecy was fulfilled in the person of Nebuchadnezzar and says nothing of a second fulfillment or a greater fulfillment. Of course, there was a time when we would have looked for a greater fulfillment of the "three Hebrew children" thrown into the fiery furnace. In fact, we used to publish the idea explicitly that "Nebuchadnezzar pictured Jesus Christ."  (We changed this, but continue to say about the same thing when we say the seven "Gentile Times" of Nebuchadnezzar pictures the seven non-Gentile times of Christ's kingdom.)
The other problems with using the passage include the problem of assuming that these particular "times" are years, assuming that these years must be turned into 360-day years, assuming that we should multiply 7 x 360 to get 2,520 years, and assuming that these 2,520 years should be years containing 365.25 days each.
The biggest problem however is the fact that the Bible itself references the same Gentile Times of Luke 21:24 and does apply a number of Biblical times to them. This is in Revelation:
(Revelation 11:2-3) . . . the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months. . . . 1,260 days . . . Is there any doubt, then, that these are the same Gentile Times that Jesus spoke of when he said?
(Luke 21:24) . . . the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.  

After giving this subject a lot of prayerful thought, and with a lot of guidance from several of the persons I worked with at Bethel, I personally cannot put faith in this doctrine. I don't mean to say that you should not or that anyone else should change their mind about it. Of course, I would LOVE to believe it because that would make things so much easier with the majority of my friends, relatives, and spiritual brothers and sisters.
In my own name, I must always be careful about what I say on the subject so that I personally do not offend or needlessly stumble anyone. But on forums such as this, and the Internet in general, where the subject has already come up 100's of times, I do believe it's a place where I can (and therefore should) honestly defend my faith.
My posts are generally "tldr" which is probably a good thing for those who don't wish to deal with the subject. But for this post all I wanted to say was that the scriptures that Holly quoted are, for me, a big part of my faith and the hope that is in me. For me, it could not see myself as a true Christian Witness of Jehovah if I denied what Jesus said here and tried to make those verses mean something other than what seems obvious to me. I also think they get to the very core of our Christianity which is why I also feel under an obligation to find ways to defend my faith, including my faith in Jesus' words from Matthew, Mark and Acts, quoted above:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, . . . I am also concerned that, when it comes to anything related to chronology, we are at risk of making false statements to others. This does not reflect well on our organization and brings shame even to Jehovah. While I am not asking for anyone to agree with me, I do think that in defending 1914, we should avoid statements that are false. Making false statements is not the same as making dishonest statements, and that's why I would like to respond to some of your statements. I believe they come out of a completely honest heart and mind, and I like the way you think about things from a deeper and wider perspective.
Before I get into much detail, I would like to make a few statements about where I agree:
We are living in the last days, and the critical times and world conditions provide the evidence and context for what we are to expect during these last days. Jesus is present and has turned his attention toward the rulers of this world Satan is angry and active like a roaring lion knowing his time is short The final manifestation, or coming of Jesus can happen at any time now, and is much closer now than ever We should be using this time period to preach the good news and help everyone we can to know the truth Jesus is king, not just over his congregation, but he is enthroned as King of Kings over all the powers of heaven and earth -- he has taken his power and begun ruling as king during this same period when Satan steps up his attacks We have been blessed as an organization and as a worldwide brotherhood with the ability and willingness to spread the good news, and we should appreciate the value and responsibility and realize the good we can continue to do with such an organization as a foundation to efficiently accomplish this ministry For me, 1914 is not a necessary component to any of the points just made above. But, for me, it is also a very important point that neither 1914, nor any chronology of any kind, should be made a part of the expectations surrounding either the presence or the coming of Jesus Christ in kingly power. For me, that is clearly what Jesus meant when he said what he said about not trying to use chronology. (I'll stop saying "for me" but it should be understood that I am merely defending the thoughts based on my own prayerful and conscientious concerns about the doctrine, which is also based on the leadership of elders whose guidance I have respected, including some who continue to hold positions of responsibility in the organization. They, like me, are also concerned about their inability to speak out clearly on the subject without fear of repercussions.)
So now, just three specific points:
1. I am concerned about issues of falsehood, and honesty based on the manner in which so many Witnesses defend the 1914 doctrine through apparent evasion, misdirection and false statements instead of being concerned with actual truth
2. I am concerned with adding to and taking away from the truth of the Bible, which is also an issue of 'faithfulness and discretion.' One of the first things I was shown that disturbed me a bit was when a Bethel elder (in Writing) showed me an old Bible commentary that made the statement that it is the height of presumptuousness for Christians to continue to believe that it is only specifically their own generation that Jesus is referencing. Since then I have been concerned with the level of presumptuousness apparent in the writings of so many religions who have found "Biblical" ways to determine almost every every generation since 1260 C.E. to be the "final generation" or "the end of the Gentile Times."  In fact, I think that Jesus was giving us a warning to be humble and realize that we are trying to put ourselves in the place of God if we believe that we can work out a chronology to determine the times and seasons. I remember how haughty it sounded when one of our own "Governing Body" members (F.W.Franz) would defend his speculation and promotion of the year 1975 against those who would point out that Jesus said no one knew the day and hour. If you remember or know of people who honestly remember that time period, you will know that many Witnesses used to say: "Well Jesus said we wouldn't know the day or the hour, but he didn't say we wouldn't know the year!" Brother Franz himself would imply that 1975-naysayers were only amateurs who didn't know how to use Jesus'  words, and were just playing with them as with a toy.
*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** 35 One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. 3. You make a common claim above that Brother Russell had "some" things right about 1914. This is very misleading. In fact, Russell had NOTHING right about 1914, not a single thing. The closest we can come to making this claim is that he said it would mark the "end of the Gentile Times" but even here he meant something completely different about the meaning of the "end of the Gentile Times." He thought it meant that the Gentile Times, their kingships and rulerships and political organizations would disintegrate in a time of trouble that would END in 1914 and they would therefore witness the collapse of all world organizations into a chaos that would prove total within a year. He used the expression to mean that there would be no more Gentiles ruling within a few months of 1914. That Gentiles could no longer trample on the chosen ones. Saying that he was right all along about the "end of the Gentile Times" is disingenuous. We can't change the whole meaning of the expression "Gentile Times" just so we can say that Russell got ONE thing right about 1914. Yet, outside of that ONE thing, the use of a term "Gentile Times" he got NOTHING else right, and yet we still say that he got "SOME THINGS" right. That only shows that we have a "desire" to believe in things that were not true.
 
 

I am addressing Allen's misconceptions about Russell's beliefs. That is why I am reproducing Watchtower quotations, properly referenced so that anyone can read the surrounding material and check for themselves what was being taught. You will find that Allen makes erroneous statements that are corrected by the historical literature.
Please do not confuse trolling with having an open discussion, which is what Holly and I are trying to do here. Challenging a view is not trolling. If you really want to see examples of troll-like behavior, you only need to read through Allen's posts. 
So what? Well, Holly's thread is titled, 'The timing of Jesus' 2nd coming' and her OP asks whether that 2nd coming can be calculated through Bible chronology. Seeing as the Organization has a Bible-derived chronological scheme to calculate Jesus' 2nd coming or presence which was partly inherited from Russell and his friend Barbour, a discussion of Russell's beliefs are relevant to this wider topic.
Allen asserted the same and I asked him to provide that 'proof.' He has yet to do so. Maybe you can give it a shot instead? 

That's not quite what he said in the excerpt. He said that Christ's presence will become revealed to people's 'eyes of understanding' over the next few decades, just like Christ's presence has been already been revealed to Russell and his fellow Bible Students living in 1881.
Correct. If you read the context of the excerpt (that is why I gave a full reference so you can look it up), you will see that the Watch Tower was addressing the Second Advent Church's and others' expectations, based on Mother Shipton's prediction that Jesus would visibly come back in 1881.
YES! Holly has already reproduced Russell's predictions.
But regarding Christ's second coming or presence, my excerpt shows he rejected others' calculations about an impending second coming because he (really Barbour) had already calculated that the Lord's second coming or presence had happened invisibly 7 years earlier.
He felt that Christ had been enthroned in 1878.
"It will be remembered that after the spring of 1878, (when we understand Jesus was due as King) that the subject of holiness or the wedding garment, was very much agitated." - ZWT, January 1881, p. 4 [R180]

As I say, learn your Watchtower history.
 

Are you saying that a person can be present without coming? It's nonsense. You have to first arrive/come and, as a result of that, you are then present.
Imagine a roll call in a classroom.
The teacher calls, "Allen Smith?" No answer.
The teacher calls again. Nothing. "I'll note him down as absent ..."
A fellow student says, "Excuse me sir, Allen is present. He's here." The teacher looks around then quizzically at the student. The student continues, "He is present, it's just that he's not arrived at school yet."
Teacher and class go 
Besides ...

So you can see the words 'coming,' 'second advent' and 'presence' are used synonymously by Russell to refer to the same event that had been calculated to have occurred in 1874.
No, the WTS thought Christ's enthronement was in 1878, which date was discarded back in the days of Rutherford and replaced with 1914.
Learn some Watchtower history, Allen, for Pete's sake. 

I don't know who you were addressing, but can you tell me what the tangible difference is between the words 'present' (as in somebody being in another's presence) and 'coming'? Can somebody 'come' and not be 'present'?
And I discussed that the NWT rendering 'took no note' was literally 'knew not' in the original Greek, which puts a whole new light on it, does it not?
Another thread.
Another thread.
Jerusalem's trampling could only begin in Jesus' future - "will be trampled" and not "continue to be trampled."
Another thread.
Are you one of them?
How about addressing Holly's Scriptures in the OP? What do you think? Based on the Bible texts, can the timing of Jesus' Second coming, or Presence, be calculated through Bible chronology? 
 

Are you saying that a person can be present without coming? It's nonsense. You have to first arrive/come and, as a result of that, you are then present.
Imagine a roll call in a classroom.
The teacher calls, "Allen Smith?" No answer.
The teacher calls again. Nothing. "I'll note him down as absent ..."
A fellow student says, "Excuse me sir, Allen is present. He's here." The teacher looks around then quizzically at the student. The student continues, "He is present, it's just that he's not arrived at school yet."
Teacher and class go 
Besides ...

So you can see the words 'coming,' 'second advent' and 'presence' are used synonymously by Russell to refer to the same event that had been calculated to have occurred in 1874.
No, the WTS thought Christ's enthronement was in 1878, which date was discarded back in the days of Rutherford and replaced with 1914.
Learn some Watchtower history, Allen, for Pete's sake.