JW Insider

Not that the majority are always right anyway, but I think that hardly any Bible scholars understand the "2520 concept" to be scriptural. I just looked up 10 online commentaries on Daniel 4 and NONE of them considered the number 2520. The number 2520 is not found in the Bible. Extrapolating 2520 days from 7 times is already a stretch, and turning those days to solar years is another stretch. Even this word iddan (time) that Daniel uses, just means a time period, which CAN be a year, but not always specifically a year. In fact, how long is this period in Dan 7:12? (below)
These verses represent the majority of the uses of iddan in Daniel outside Daniel 4, itself:
(Daniel 2:8, 9) . . .The king replied: “I am well-aware that you are trying to gain time [the time, iddan], for you realize what my final word is. 9 If you do not make the dream known to me, there is only one penalty for all of you. But you have agreed to tell me something false and deceitful until the situation [the time, iddan] changes. So tell me the dream, and I will know that you can explain its interpretation.”
(Daniel 2:20, 21) . . .“Let the name of God be praised for all eternity, For wisdom and mightiness are his alone. 21 He changes times [the times, iddan] and seasons, Removes kings and sets up kings,. . .
(Daniel 3:15) Now when [at the time, iddan] you hear the sound of the horn, the pipe, the zither, the triangular harp, the stringed instrument, the bagpipe, and all the other musical instruments, if you are ready to fall down and worship the image that I have made, fine.. . .
(Daniel 7:12) But as for the rest of the beasts, their rulerships were taken away, and their lives were prolonged for a time [time, iddan] and a season.
At least I can inconsequentially agree with you there.
Your quote from "The Christian Guardian" (February 1830) reports on Mr. Faber's interpretation of prophecy, and reminds me of what we spoke of earlier on these topics: that people will always look for a time period long enough to reach their own day. In the 1200's, people could easily reach their own day with a 1260 year period. In the 1400's one could always take a 1335 year period and tack it on to some event in Jesus' life. But when the 1800's rolled around, there were no 1800 year periods. They could start looking for events 2300 years earlier and even more, but that ended up nowhere. During these years Miller, among others, was forced to use a 2520 year period, never found in the Bible. So in the 1830's Miller had to use conjecture to attach a 2520 year period to attach to some event about Babylon from the book of Daniel.
The full context of your quote is here. https://books.google.com/books?id=Rg8EAAAAQAAJ  (p.41,42)  As you partly indicate, the person behind your 1830 quote above did something quite similar, doubling the 1260 year periods, for no other reason other than he thought that 3.5 seemed like it needed to be doubled since it was half of 7. Then he attaches that 2520 to a Daniel reference, in this case Nebuchadnezzar, the head of gold -- and he used his birth year, assumed to be about 657 BC. This was a means of reaching his own modern times, and therefore was able to falsely predict 1864 as the end of the gentile times.
But I don't know how impressed we should be that a person was able to make another false prediction for his own generation. Here's what the Watchtower said about such false alarms:
*** w53 11/1 p. 647 Christ’s Second Presence No False Alarm ***
Following Augustine’s time . . .  all were misinterpreted as “signs” foretelling the imminent return of Christ. Joachin of Floris determined that the 1,260 days mentioned in Revelation 12:6 could turn out to be the year A.D. 1260 when Christ would return. Militz of Kromeriz, a forerunner of John Huss, looked for the coming of Christ between the years 1365 and 1367. Wycliffe pointed to the power of the papacy and emphasized that the time of the return was at hand. John Napier predicted the coming end of evil and the return of Christ between the years 1688 and 1700. William Whiston first selected 1715, then 1734, and later 1866 as the date for the inauguration of the millennium.
In the early part of the nineteenth century Christoph Hoffman hurried from Germany to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple in preparation for Christ’s early return. William Miller predicted that Christ would make his appearance during the year 1843, but later postponed the day to October 22, 1844. When these speculations did not materialize, religious sects became a laughingstock, great divisions took place among them, the doctrine was scoffed at, the people who taught it were jeered, and as a whole the idea was pooh-poohed in religious and nonreligious circles alike. All, without exception, were false alarms.
It looks like God didn't make it known, except to make it known that the attempt is a waste of time, false stories leading to nothing. These mistakes are just examples of humans "flailing" because men's egos make them forget what Jesus said about the times and seasons being only in the Father's jurisdiction. Not even angels could figure out the times and seasons, but this didn't stop men from treading there.
If God had provided the evidence, surely these men including Russell and Barbour and Miller and Faber and Rutherford would have been able to predict something correct with that evidence. 100 percent of Russell's predictions for 1914 turned out to be false.
The evidence you provided here was that the first period of 1260 years ended in AD 604., in the time of Pope Gregory the Great, and the spread of Buddhism, etc., in the medieval period. The second period of 1260 was also to have started around this time. The Watchtower Society rejects both of these 1260's, too. For the WTS the 1260 periods from Daniel and Revelation are not even years, they are literal days starting just about 3 days after Christmas in 1914 and reaching up to the Summer Solstice of 1918.
Good! Something else I can agree with completely.
Very false! Complete nonsense. It is very rare that anyone calculates the Gentile Times with a period of 2520. After all, Revelation indicates that it should be calculated with a period of 42 months, or 1260 days. And nowhere does it say that this period is about 1260 years.
(Luke 21:24) . . .into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
(Revelation 11:2) . . .to the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months.
Nowhere do these two references to the Gentile Times refer to a second period of 1260 days, just one. Also, we can see from Jesus said in Luke 21, that these Gentile Times had NOT yet started, so it couldn't have reached back to Nebuchadnezzar anyway.

Maybe. But like I said, I would not be comfortable in an association that got involved in divisive politics and war either, and I think we're right on the idea of a paradise earth. Find me another church with approximately the same teachings and practices JWs have on war, politics, trinity and hell, and a future paradise on earth, and I will visit it with an open mind.
Shunning is a bit like what Jesus said regarding divorce. Even though it came from the perfect law of God, Jesus said it was just a concession that came from Moses out of regard for human hard-heartedness. We all have a lot to learn about love, but this doesn't mean we associate so freely with just anyone, either.
I can find it at almost any meeting, especially visible at the very largest of our conventions, but I also can see it from afar when I happen to drive near a group of Witnesses working a local suburban territory. I can wave and see all smiles, no matter what kind of a day they are having.  I have even run across Witnesses in Paris and other places and can get the same reaction. Yes, up to a point this is at least partly true of many clubs, associations, and even other religious groups. But I know what is driving that smile among Witnesses, and I like it.
Not all congregations have the same level of joy, love, "spirit" etc. Revelation 2 & 3 lets us know that this shouldn't be surprising.
Speaking of southern England, I was using a flight simulator just last night and took off out of London over satellite-imaged terrain to see if I could keep a purely visual course from Gatwick to Paris just by guessing when to adjust slightly over a SSE direction. I just watched the compass, and altitude, and crossed the Channel from Eastbourne to Dieppe to Paris. Did OK, but then I thought of "you" and turned around to see if I could find a house I thought you and your wife were working on, which I had found a year ago from satellite imagery and some Google help. Even at 400 mph it was going to take too long, and when I got closer I switched to a slow prop plane to get a better look at the ground. This time I couldn't find that house from memory, although I'd recognize the area from a few thousand feet.
Now it turns out you are in "southern England" a whole new spot no doubt.from the place I thought you were at. 😉

I believe I have already related the case of my own sister, 5 years younger than me, who was disfellowshipped for leaving a violent husband. He was a ministerial servant when I was at Bethel, and he hit her fairly often. She went to my father (an elder) who gave her the usual counsel about more study, more prayer, more field service. This was frustrating to her because she was already a full time pioneer and praying more than ever.
Her breaking point came when elders, including my father, told her she couldn't go to the hospital because they might ask her how it happened and this would bring reproach on Jehovah's organization. And she couldn't lie. She was told she should hide her bruises and cuts as well as she could. All the while he remained a ministerial servant. I called him from Bethel and threatened to beat him up if he laid a hand on my sister again. I expected a meeting with elders who would want to talk with me after I made a violent threat, but nothing came of it.
Long story short, my sister had her meeting with the elders, and she wanted to separate from her husband. Although this should have been allowed the elders were still adamant that this, too, would bring reproach. She insisted she would ignore their counsel, and that she would even try to get a divorce, so they formed a judicial committee from which my father had to recuse himself. She had not asked for a divorce, but this would be considered both unscriptural and bring additional reproach. In her mind, she should obtain a divorce, even if she wasn't thinking about remarriage. As long as she didn't commit adultery or remarry, (which would be the same as adultery) she thought a divorce was a stronger, more legally binding version of a separation, which would have been allowed (or at least should have been allowed).
Basically, she was disfellowshipped for defying the counsel of the elders, who were "only trying to avoid bringing reproach on the congregation." (To her they accused her of "bringing reproach on the marriage bed.") The circuit overseer agreed with them, and she remained df'd for a while. The circuit overseer also had her husband lose his "status" as a ministerial servant, and I think this lasted more than a year before he was reappointed, and later became an elder.
This was around 1978, when most elders had little experience, and there was a lot of patriarchal dominance in some of the midwest congregations like this one. Also, my sister was not really made aware of any appeal process. Now the information about the appeal is part of the process. Training in such matters is a little different today, and I certainly do not think this would happen again in any congregations I know about.

Very true! . . . . . But I don't get it.

You may, therefore, beat yourself with whips in lamentation.
.... don't overdo it!

Maybe. But like I said, I would not be comfortable in an association that got involved in divisive politics and war either, and I think we're right on the idea of a paradise earth. Find me another church with approximately the same teachings and practices JWs have on war, politics, trinity and hell, and a future paradise on earth, and I will visit it with an open mind.
Shunning is a bit like what Jesus said regarding divorce. Even though it came from the perfect law of God, Jesus said it was just a concession that came from Moses out of regard for human hard-heartedness. We all have a lot to learn about love, but this doesn't mean we associate so freely with just anyone, either.
I can find it at almost any meeting, especially visible at the very largest of our conventions, but I also can see it from afar when I happen to drive near a group of Witnesses working a local suburban territory. I can wave and see all smiles, no matter what kind of a day they are having.  I have even run across Witnesses in Paris and other places and can get the same reaction. Yes, up to a point this is at least partly true of many clubs, associations, and even other religious groups. But I know what is driving that smile among Witnesses, and I like it.
Not all congregations have the same level of joy, love, "spirit" etc. Revelation 2 & 3 lets us know that this shouldn't be surprising.
Speaking of southern England, I was using a flight simulator just last night and took off out of London over satellite-imaged terrain to see if I could keep a purely visual course from Gatwick to Paris just by guessing when to adjust slightly over a SSE direction. I just watched the compass, and altitude, and crossed the Channel from Eastbourne to Dieppe to Paris. Did OK, but then I thought of "you" and turned around to see if I could find a house I thought you and your wife were working on, which I had found a year ago from satellite imagery and some Google help. Even at 400 mph it was going to take too long, and when I got closer I switched to a slow prop plane to get a better look at the ground. This time I couldn't find that house from memory, although I'd recognize the area from a few thousand feet.
Now it turns out you are in "southern England" a whole new spot no doubt.from the place I thought you were at. 😉

Obviously we must be witnesses for Jehovah and Jesus. We would do this out of appreciation for what Jehovah has done for us, especially his purpose and kingdom through Jesus. No matter who we associated with, we would have to watch out for ourselves, and pay attention to our teaching, too. There are many churches, and all of them have problems from traditions and human leadership. Problems of an obsolete chronology are more common in the history of churches than you might think, too.
Perhaps, like TTH said, the "carrot and stick" of a chronology that gets us motivated at first is not a terrible thing, as long as we start serving for the right motivation.
I will still go back to how, if we are honest hearted Christians, we will be attracted to association with groups of Christians or wannabe Christians who try very hard to maintain a brotherhood that is marked by love for one another, who attempt to overcome national, political and racial divides. There are many imperfections and exceptions, but I see this in the brotherhood of Witnesses, much more often than not. Then I would personally only be attracted to a Christian association that speaks out against wars and warmongering. Who will not go to battle against another nation, especially because we have Christian brothers in those other nations too. I happen to think that our teachings on Trinity, Hell, Paradise in a New Earth, etc., are far more important than a chronology tradition we have been stuck with. It's about the same to me as if we were told that all our Kingdom Halls should have 4 windows and a light blue carpet. Maybe we'd be stuck with such a dumb rule for 100 years, but I couldn't care less about it. It would not be important to me, no matter how authoritative the demand to follow that rule sounded. Perhaps someone might even find scriptures that made it seem important, too. I could safely ignore it without feeling conflicted, and I could safely go along with it in the congregation itself, so as not to cause trouble. But then again I might find an outlet where I could safely speak my mind if I thought it went beyond the things written.

I would not call it “dumb” if I were you.
The four windows reminds us of the four angels on the four corners of the earth holding tight the four winds of the earth. The carpet covering the dirt of the floor reminds up of the love that is to cover the sins of others. The blue reminds us of heaven where those 4 angels hang out on a nice day.
”You were running well. Who hindered you from keeping on obeying the truth?”
 

Obviously we must be witnesses for Jehovah and Jesus. We would do this out of appreciation for what Jehovah has done for us, especially his purpose and kingdom through Jesus. No matter who we associated with, we would have to watch out for ourselves, and pay attention to our teaching, too. There are many churches, and all of them have problems from traditions and human leadership. Problems of an obsolete chronology are more common in the history of churches than you might think, too.
Perhaps, like TTH said, the "carrot and stick" of a chronology that gets us motivated at first is not a terrible thing, as long as we start serving for the right motivation.
I will still go back to how, if we are honest hearted Christians, we will be attracted to association with groups of Christians or wannabe Christians who try very hard to maintain a brotherhood that is marked by love for one another, who attempt to overcome national, political and racial divides. There are many imperfections and exceptions, but I see this in the brotherhood of Witnesses, much more often than not. Then I would personally only be attracted to a Christian association that speaks out against wars and warmongering. Who will not go to battle against another nation, especially because we have Christian brothers in those other nations too. I happen to think that our teachings on Trinity, Hell, Paradise in a New Earth, etc., are far more important than a chronology tradition we have been stuck with. It's about the same to me as if we were told that all our Kingdom Halls should have 4 windows and a light blue carpet. Maybe we'd be stuck with such a dumb rule for 100 years, but I couldn't care less about it. It would not be important to me, no matter how authoritative the demand to follow that rule sounded. Perhaps someone might even find scriptures that made it seem important, too. I could safely ignore it without feeling conflicted, and I could safely go along with it in the congregation itself, so as not to cause trouble. But then again I might find an outlet where I could safely speak my mind if I thought it went beyond the things written.

Of course! That is why I know that Trump is a slaveholder. Because George Washington was. Historians just try to top it off with a positive note on the end. They don’t fool me. Those abused slaves may not have been revealed, but I know that they’re there.
Think hard about THAT, Mr 4Jah2Me. You dope—if JWI was so concerned about “a positive note at the end,” he wouldn’t have given his negative note in the first place!

How it really WAS.
Or to be more specific, how it really, on occasion, was.
You have a way of zeroing in on just a single sentence without regard for ones just before and after. Did you overlook this one?
 

I believe how this is quite "normal and spiritual" advice, almost for every problem, until our days. :))
Male - female issue. Domination issue. Theocratic order issue.
In this what was said and what life give us to see, it is notable to understand how problems that are common to worldly society are visible as similar or same problem in spiritual society aka JW organization. Men want to be boss and women have to obey them. That is not issue itself, because every group give power to one person who making decisions. If wife decide to give this to husband than it is willingly. But if wife see things in other way, husband is not entitled to break her will with force, of any kind. 
Well, does Jesus' teachings giving all authority and power to husband for beating his wife and/or children?
If answer is NO, we can make sort of excuse or explanation with everything we want, but there is NO EXCUSE.
No matter of what period of time we speaking about and try to understand how looked practice of elders in specific part of the world in specific circumstances and moment,  WT Society is/was not acting under principles that giving love, justice and comfort to victims. Primarily (in cases like this or about CSA) they care about  look and about status that look have to bring in own eyes or eyes of people. This is not good.
This bad examples (past and nowadays) giving evidence, proof how they have problems in communication with holy spirit ....or Jesus' teachings.  

I believe that most Witnesses will seem frustrated that they are not able to defend the Watchtower's chronology on either secular grounds or scriptural grounds. I was surprised at this situation, but didn't have to go through a frustration phase, because my expectations were managed when Brother Dan Sydlik said that we ought to just get rid of all this chronology stuff and start from scratch. (He was specifically referring to the 1918/1919/1922 stuff at the time.) From a human perspective, a fleshly perspective, the Watchtower's chronology makes us feel good. As Brother Splane said, it might even send chills up and down our spine. But he admitted that this does not always mean that that such teachings (and I include this chronology) have been right. He indicated in his 2014 talk on types and antitypes that the Watchtower had been steeped in the traditions common to Catholicism, Protestantism, and especially those religions from whom the Bible Students had been recently associated. He spoke of how some of these traditions had been used by other religions to make the Bible appear to be talking about themselves and their own groups. He spoke of how the pyramidology that Russell promoted had become a strongly entrenched thing, with a strong emotional attachment to at least one brother (A. Smith, was the name he used in his example.)
Yet, over time, the Watchtower has dropped almost every date that Russell promoted, literally about a dozen such dates, with the exception of 1914. Since then the Watchtower has dropped another half-dozen prophetic instances that had been tied to the 1914 through 1935 era. Obviously, we had been steeped in long-standing traditions, some of which the Watchtower held for 120 years or more before dropping them. Some, like pyramidology, held for only about half a century, was finally identified as something raised up against the knowledge of God:
(2 Corinthians 10:3-5) . . .For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, . . .
(Mark 7:7). . .they teach commands of men as doctrines.’ 8 You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.”

(2 Peter 3:11, 12, 17) 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought YOU to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah,.  . . .YOU, therefore, beloved ones, having this advance knowledge, be on YOUR guard [i.e., watch] that YOU may not be led away with them by the error of the law-defying people and fall from YOUR own steadfastness.
We don't watch for signs. We watch out for ourselves, we watch out for false teachings, we watch out for our brothers and sisters in case they need help or encouragement -- because the days are wicked, because the Devil walks about like a roaring lion seeking to devour someone.
(Matthew 12:38, 39) 38 Then as an answer to him, some of the scribes and the Pharisees said: “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” 39 In reply he said to them: “A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah the prophet.
(Matthew 16:3-6) . . .’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but the signs of the times you cannot interpret. 4 A wicked and adulterous generation keeps seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah.” With that he went away, leaving them behind. 5 Now the disciples crossed to the other side and forgot to take bread along. 6 Jesus said to them: “Keep your eyes open and watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
(Matthew 24:42-44) 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.
We keep on the watch, not to figure out when the Lord is coming, because we'll never know. But if we watch ourselves (our conduct) then we will be ready at all times and the "night" won't overtake us.
Just like when Jesus told the disciples that they would not get an advance sign of the parousia (so that they should not be fooled by wars and earthquakes) he said something very similar to the Pharisees.
(Luke 17:20-24) . . .On being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God was coming, he answered them: “The Kingdom of God is not coming with striking observableness; 21 nor will people say, ‘See here!’ or, ‘There!’ For look! the Kingdom of God is in your midst.” 22 Then he said to the disciples: “Days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, but you will not see it. 23 And people will say to you, ‘See there!’ or, ‘See here!’ Do not go out or chase after them. 24 For just as lightning flashes from one part of heaven to another part of heaven, so the Son of man will be in his day.
The NWT makes it a bit difficult to get the sense of "striking observableness." This is because the Greek is better translated just "observableness." (μετά παρατηρήσεως, in such a manner that it can be watched with the eyes). Jesus said, the Kingdom of God is not coming with things you can observe. In other words, the Kingdom is not coming with visible signs. Other translations get the sense of the Greek a little better like this:
(Revised Standard) he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; (Luke 17:20)
(NASB) He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; (Luke 17:20)
(New English Translation) so he answered, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, (Luke 17:20)
(New Living Translation) Jesus replied, “The Kingdom of God can’t be detected by visible signs. (Luke 17:20)
So when Jesus' disciples also asked him for a sign, he said do not to be misled. No one would be able to say "see here" or "see there" because when the parousia did come it would be be like lightning flashing from one part of the heaven to another. No sign would appear in the heaven when it was too late. No signs could help them prepare for the Son of man in his day.

I believe that most Witnesses will seem frustrated that they are not able to defend the Watchtower's chronology on either secular grounds or scriptural grounds. I was surprised at this situation, but didn't have to go through a frustration phase, because my expectations were managed when Brother Dan Sydlik said that we ought to just get rid of all this chronology stuff and start from scratch. (He was specifically referring to the 1918/1919/1922 stuff at the time.) From a human perspective, a fleshly perspective, the Watchtower's chronology makes us feel good. As Brother Splane said, it might even send chills up and down our spine. But he admitted that this does not always mean that that such teachings (and I include this chronology) have been right. He indicated in his 2014 talk on types and antitypes that the Watchtower had been steeped in the traditions common to Catholicism, Protestantism, and especially those religions from whom the Bible Students had been recently associated. He spoke of how some of these traditions had been used by other religions to make the Bible appear to be talking about themselves and their own groups. He spoke of how the pyramidology that Russell promoted had become a strongly entrenched thing, with a strong emotional attachment to at least one brother (A. Smith, was the name he used in his example.)
Yet, over time, the Watchtower has dropped almost every date that Russell promoted, literally about a dozen such dates, with the exception of 1914. Since then the Watchtower has dropped another half-dozen prophetic instances that had been tied to the 1914 through 1935 era. Obviously, we had been steeped in long-standing traditions, some of which the Watchtower held for 120 years or more before dropping them. Some, like pyramidology, held for only about half a century, was finally identified as something raised up against the knowledge of God:
(2 Corinthians 10:3-5) . . .For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, . . .
(Mark 7:7). . .they teach commands of men as doctrines.’ 8 You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.”

(2 Peter 3:11, 12, 17) 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought YOU to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah,.  . . .YOU, therefore, beloved ones, having this advance knowledge, be on YOUR guard [i.e., watch] that YOU may not be led away with them by the error of the law-defying people and fall from YOUR own steadfastness.
We don't watch for signs. We watch out for ourselves, we watch out for false teachings, we watch out for our brothers and sisters in case they need help or encouragement -- because the days are wicked, because the Devil walks about like a roaring lion seeking to devour someone.
(Matthew 12:38, 39) 38 Then as an answer to him, some of the scribes and the Pharisees said: “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” 39 In reply he said to them: “A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah the prophet.
(Matthew 16:3-6) . . .’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but the signs of the times you cannot interpret. 4 A wicked and adulterous generation keeps seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah.” With that he went away, leaving them behind. 5 Now the disciples crossed to the other side and forgot to take bread along. 6 Jesus said to them: “Keep your eyes open and watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
(Matthew 24:42-44) 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.
We keep on the watch, not to figure out when the Lord is coming, because we'll never know. But if we watch ourselves (our conduct) then we will be ready at all times and the "night" won't overtake us.
Just like when Jesus told the disciples that they would not get an advance sign of the parousia (so that they should not be fooled by wars and earthquakes) he said something very similar to the Pharisees.
(Luke 17:20-24) . . .On being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God was coming, he answered them: “The Kingdom of God is not coming with striking observableness; 21 nor will people say, ‘See here!’ or, ‘There!’ For look! the Kingdom of God is in your midst.” 22 Then he said to the disciples: “Days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, but you will not see it. 23 And people will say to you, ‘See there!’ or, ‘See here!’ Do not go out or chase after them. 24 For just as lightning flashes from one part of heaven to another part of heaven, so the Son of man will be in his day.
The NWT makes it a bit difficult to get the sense of "striking observableness." This is because the Greek is better translated just "observableness." (μετά παρατηρήσεως, in such a manner that it can be watched with the eyes). Jesus said, the Kingdom of God is not coming with things you can observe. In other words, the Kingdom is not coming with visible signs. Other translations get the sense of the Greek a little better like this:
(Revised Standard) he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; (Luke 17:20)
(NASB) He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; (Luke 17:20)
(New English Translation) so he answered, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, (Luke 17:20)
(New Living Translation) Jesus replied, “The Kingdom of God can’t be detected by visible signs. (Luke 17:20)
So when Jesus' disciples also asked him for a sign, he said do not to be misled. No one would be able to say "see here" or "see there" because when the parousia did come it would be be like lightning flashing from one part of the heaven to another. No sign would appear in the heaven when it was too late. No signs could help them prepare for the Son of man in his day.

Whenever we see conflicts and contradictions, there is no need to feel conflicted. We can merely accept that the Bible makes sense a certain way that might be true, and that other explanations might also be true. For example, we can accept a new Watchtower doctrine when it changes, without needing to feel conflicted, just because we are now aware that we have held two different interpretations for the same verse. The Writing Department uses Bible commentaries like Matthew Henry, Barnes Notes, Keil and Delitzsch, etc., and these commentaries offer various possible explanations for difficult verses. But they are rarely dogmatic and each of them may offer various potential explanations. This is how a Bible commentary published about 314 years ago (Matthew Henry) has been able to remain relevant and valuable for these three centuries.
Most Witnesses have found no outlet to safely discuss these conflicts and contradictions between the Bible statements and the Watchtower doctrines. So it is difficult to tell if they actually feel conflicted. But with a less dogmatic attitude toward certain types of conjectural doctrines, there is no reason that they MUST feel conflicted. As you say, perhaps, "conflicted Witnesses" have already made up their minds, not to view prophecy as indicated in scripture by staying alert and keeping on the watch. If so, that's too bad, because it was the whole purpose of Jesus telling us not to be misled by wars and reports of wars, for example. If people think there will be various "signs" that show when the Great Tribulation is near, they will be less likely to truly keep on the watch, and less likely to watch their own conduct and attitude and what sort of persons they ought to be.
This is one of the problems with 1914 playing a prominent role in prophecy. The very role it most likely plays, in my opinion, is that it became a primary instance of proving Jesus right. He said not to be fooled by wars into thinking that the parousia was imminent. I believe that this prophecy has come true, not just in 1914, but in many wars over the past hundreds of years. People hear about wars, earthquakes, pestilence, famine, persecution, imprisonments, etc., and are easily misled into thinking they are seeing a sign of the parousia.
Misinterpretation and miscalculation and a need to rely on SECULAR dates have ALWAYS played a large role in the 1914 doctrine. When the doctrine was originally formulated, Barbour and Russell incorrectly thought Cyrus released the Jews in 536 BCE. This idea had forced the theory that the destruction of Jerusalem had to be moved to 606 BCE, and this left no room to build in much time for the Jews to pack and travel. Barbour had based this 536 date on "Ptolemy's Canon" -- he thought. When Russell published Three Worlds with Barbour, that publication stated that Ptolemy was accepted as accurate by all the scientific and literary world. But when Russell discovered that Ptolemy's Canon actually gives 538 for the first year of Cyrus and 587 for the destruction of Jerusalem using the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, then Russell began attacking this king list. He attacked Ptolemy too, because he also incorrectly thought that Ptolemy was the originator of Ptolemy's Canon (king list).
Then Russell, apparently not being completely honest, or at least being very sloppy, claimed that "ALL" students of chronology may be said to be agreed that the first year of Cyrus was 536. He had misunderstood that Bible chronologists like Isaac Newton and Bishop Ussher were not using Ptolemy's Canon here, but just using a Bible interpretation to try to fit Jeremiah's 70 years from Nebuchadnezzar's first year to Cyrus 1st year. The Canon had given 604 to 538 for the period, which is really only 66 years, shy by 4 years. But the Bible seemed to put Darius the Mede in there for a year or two before Cyrus first year. So that's why Ussher (and some others) guessed that it couldn't really be 538 but two years later, 536, adjusting the Canon by two years to allow for the book of Daniel. Since that only got them 2 of the extra 4 years, they also moved Nebuchadnezzar's first year back from 604 to 606. Unfortunately for Russell and Barbour, and for others who had relied on works by Ussher, thousands of tablets had been discovered that showed that Ptolemy's Canon was exactly correct all along. This meant that sooner or later they would recognize that the real date was 587 for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year (destruction of Jerusalem) and 538 for Cyrus 1st year. There was no admission by Barbour and Russell in their early publications that they had slipped Nebuchadnezzar's 18/19th year (destruction of Jerusalem) into the date that had actually been intended in the scholarly literature as the year Nebuchadnezzar first came to power (0th year to 1st regnal year).
Of course, Russell did discuss in a Watch Tower whether there had been a zero year, and dismissed the correct answer because it would have moved the 1914 date to 1915. Russell began using the 1915 date in place of 1914, especially when he surmised that it was not likely that everything he had expected still had enough time to happen. For a few months from late 1913 to early 1914 Russell twice discussed the possibility that the entire chronology had been wrong and that people might look back with interest on it 100 years from now (which would have been 2014).
When 1914 coincided with WWI, however, Russell never had to think about the zero year question again, and 1914 was used consistently rather than 1915 for the end of the Gentile Times. And so Russell never had to admit he had been wrong. Later, the Watchtower went back again to speaking of 1915 being the end of the Gentile Times, realizing that 1914 had failed to result in anything yet predicted for that year. But that didn't last long.
When Watchtower publications finally admitted they had been wrong about the zero year, it was 1943/1944, and the solution was to move back the destruction of Jerusalem from 606 to 607. By 1944 it was too late to move 1914 to 1915, and there was never any evidence for either 606 or 607, anyway. It was 587/586 all along, so sticking with 606 was neither here nor there.
But P.S.L.Johnson, who worked with Russell, had already noticed during Russell's lifetime that Cyrus' first year was actually 538, something we know today, but Russell still didn't want to accept. P.S.L.Johnson said he checked a dozen encyclopedias, and all of them said 538. (So much for Russell's claim that ALL students of chronology had said 536!)
In 1944, the Watchtower finally compromised by one of those two years towards Ptolemy's Canon, and used 537. Then finally in 1949, the Watchtower admitted that Cyrus first year was actually 538, the date that Ptolemy's Canon had indicated all along. This meant that we now had to explain a two year adjustment. The solution was to speculate that Cyrus decree had been near the end of his first year, and that it took well into the next year for the Jews to pack and travel and resettle.
That fixed one of the two adjusted years, and this was the actual time when the zero year problem was admitted, that provided the other adjusted year, when 606 was changed to 607. This way 1914 could remain intact, no matter what mistakes had to be readjusted from previous history.

I believe I have already related the case of my own sister, 5 years younger than me, who was disfellowshipped for leaving a violent husband. He was a ministerial servant when I was at Bethel, and he hit her fairly often. She went to my father (an elder) who gave her the usual counsel about more study, more prayer, more field service. This was frustrating to her because she was already a full time pioneer and praying more than ever.
Her breaking point came when elders, including my father, told her she couldn't go to the hospital because they might ask her how it happened and this would bring reproach on Jehovah's organization. And she couldn't lie. She was told she should hide her bruises and cuts as well as she could. All the while he remained a ministerial servant. I called him from Bethel and threatened to beat him up if he laid a hand on my sister again. I expected a meeting with elders who would want to talk with me after I made a violent threat, but nothing came of it.
Long story short, my sister had her meeting with the elders, and she wanted to separate from her husband. Although this should have been allowed the elders were still adamant that this, too, would bring reproach. She insisted she would ignore their counsel, and that she would even try to get a divorce, so they formed a judicial committee from which my father had to recuse himself. She had not asked for a divorce, but this would be considered both unscriptural and bring additional reproach. In her mind, she should obtain a divorce, even if she wasn't thinking about remarriage. As long as she didn't commit adultery or remarry, (which would be the same as adultery) she thought a divorce was a stronger, more legally binding version of a separation, which would have been allowed (or at least should have been allowed).
Basically, she was disfellowshipped for defying the counsel of the elders, who were "only trying to avoid bringing reproach on the congregation." (To her they accused her of "bringing reproach on the marriage bed.") The circuit overseer agreed with them, and she remained df'd for a while. The circuit overseer also had her husband lose his "status" as a ministerial servant, and I think this lasted more than a year before he was reappointed, and later became an elder.
This was around 1978, when most elders had little experience, and there was a lot of patriarchal dominance in some of the midwest congregations like this one. Also, my sister was not really made aware of any appeal process. Now the information about the appeal is part of the process. Training in such matters is a little different today, and I certainly do not think this would happen again in any congregations I know about.

I believe I have already related the case of my own sister, 5 years younger than me, who was disfellowshipped for leaving a violent husband. He was a ministerial servant when I was at Bethel, and he hit her fairly often. She went to my father (an elder) who gave her the usual counsel about more study, more prayer, more field service. This was frustrating to her because she was already a full time pioneer and praying more than ever.
Her breaking point came when elders, including my father, told her she couldn't go to the hospital because they might ask her how it happened and this would bring reproach on Jehovah's organization. And she couldn't lie. She was told she should hide her bruises and cuts as well as she could. All the while he remained a ministerial servant. I called him from Bethel and threatened to beat him up if he laid a hand on my sister again. I expected a meeting with elders who would want to talk with me after I made a violent threat, but nothing came of it.
Long story short, my sister had her meeting with the elders, and she wanted to separate from her husband. Although this should have been allowed the elders were still adamant that this, too, would bring reproach. She insisted she would ignore their counsel, and that she would even try to get a divorce, so they formed a judicial committee from which my father had to recuse himself. She had not asked for a divorce, but this would be considered both unscriptural and bring additional reproach. In her mind, she should obtain a divorce, even if she wasn't thinking about remarriage. As long as she didn't commit adultery or remarry, (which would be the same as adultery) she thought a divorce was a stronger, more legally binding version of a separation, which would have been allowed (or at least should have been allowed).
Basically, she was disfellowshipped for defying the counsel of the elders, who were "only trying to avoid bringing reproach on the congregation." (To her they accused her of "bringing reproach on the marriage bed.") The circuit overseer agreed with them, and she remained df'd for a while. The circuit overseer also had her husband lose his "status" as a ministerial servant, and I think this lasted more than a year before he was reappointed, and later became an elder.
This was around 1978, when most elders had little experience, and there was a lot of patriarchal dominance in some of the midwest congregations like this one. Also, my sister was not really made aware of any appeal process. Now the information about the appeal is part of the process. Training in such matters is a little different today, and I certainly do not think this would happen again in any congregations I know about.

Whenever we see conflicts and contradictions, there is no need to feel conflicted. We can merely accept that the Bible makes sense a certain way that might be true, and that other explanations might also be true. For example, we can accept a new Watchtower doctrine when it changes, without needing to feel conflicted, just because we are now aware that we have held two different interpretations for the same verse. The Writing Department uses Bible commentaries like Matthew Henry, Barnes Notes, Keil and Delitzsch, etc., and these commentaries offer various possible explanations for difficult verses. But they are rarely dogmatic and each of them may offer various potential explanations. This is how a Bible commentary published about 314 years ago (Matthew Henry) has been able to remain relevant and valuable for these three centuries.
Most Witnesses have found no outlet to safely discuss these conflicts and contradictions between the Bible statements and the Watchtower doctrines. So it is difficult to tell if they actually feel conflicted. But with a less dogmatic attitude toward certain types of conjectural doctrines, there is no reason that they MUST feel conflicted. As you say, perhaps, "conflicted Witnesses" have already made up their minds, not to view prophecy as indicated in scripture by staying alert and keeping on the watch. If so, that's too bad, because it was the whole purpose of Jesus telling us not to be misled by wars and reports of wars, for example. If people think there will be various "signs" that show when the Great Tribulation is near, they will be less likely to truly keep on the watch, and less likely to watch their own conduct and attitude and what sort of persons they ought to be.
This is one of the problems with 1914 playing a prominent role in prophecy. The very role it most likely plays, in my opinion, is that it became a primary instance of proving Jesus right. He said not to be fooled by wars into thinking that the parousia was imminent. I believe that this prophecy has come true, not just in 1914, but in many wars over the past hundreds of years. People hear about wars, earthquakes, pestilence, famine, persecution, imprisonments, etc., and are easily misled into thinking they are seeing a sign of the parousia.
Misinterpretation and miscalculation and a need to rely on SECULAR dates have ALWAYS played a large role in the 1914 doctrine. When the doctrine was originally formulated, Barbour and Russell incorrectly thought Cyrus released the Jews in 536 BCE. This idea had forced the theory that the destruction of Jerusalem had to be moved to 606 BCE, and this left no room to build in much time for the Jews to pack and travel. Barbour had based this 536 date on "Ptolemy's Canon" -- he thought. When Russell published Three Worlds with Barbour, that publication stated that Ptolemy was accepted as accurate by all the scientific and literary world. But when Russell discovered that Ptolemy's Canon actually gives 538 for the first year of Cyrus and 587 for the destruction of Jerusalem using the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, then Russell began attacking this king list. He attacked Ptolemy too, because he also incorrectly thought that Ptolemy was the originator of Ptolemy's Canon (king list).
Then Russell, apparently not being completely honest, or at least being very sloppy, claimed that "ALL" students of chronology may be said to be agreed that the first year of Cyrus was 536. He had misunderstood that Bible chronologists like Isaac Newton and Bishop Ussher were not using Ptolemy's Canon here, but just using a Bible interpretation to try to fit Jeremiah's 70 years from Nebuchadnezzar's first year to Cyrus 1st year. The Canon had given 604 to 538 for the period, which is really only 66 years, shy by 4 years. But the Bible seemed to put Darius the Mede in there for a year or two before Cyrus first year. So that's why Ussher (and some others) guessed that it couldn't really be 538 but two years later, 536, adjusting the Canon by two years to allow for the book of Daniel. Since that only got them 2 of the extra 4 years, they also moved Nebuchadnezzar's first year back from 604 to 606. Unfortunately for Russell and Barbour, and for others who had relied on works by Ussher, thousands of tablets had been discovered that showed that Ptolemy's Canon was exactly correct all along. This meant that sooner or later they would recognize that the real date was 587 for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year (destruction of Jerusalem) and 538 for Cyrus 1st year. There was no admission by Barbour and Russell in their early publications that they had slipped Nebuchadnezzar's 18/19th year (destruction of Jerusalem) into the date that had actually been intended in the scholarly literature as the year Nebuchadnezzar first came to power (0th year to 1st regnal year).
Of course, Russell did discuss in a Watch Tower whether there had been a zero year, and dismissed the correct answer because it would have moved the 1914 date to 1915. Russell began using the 1915 date in place of 1914, especially when he surmised that it was not likely that everything he had expected still had enough time to happen. For a few months from late 1913 to early 1914 Russell twice discussed the possibility that the entire chronology had been wrong and that people might look back with interest on it 100 years from now (which would have been 2014).
When 1914 coincided with WWI, however, Russell never had to think about the zero year question again, and 1914 was used consistently rather than 1915 for the end of the Gentile Times. And so Russell never had to admit he had been wrong. Later, the Watchtower went back again to speaking of 1915 being the end of the Gentile Times, realizing that 1914 had failed to result in anything yet predicted for that year. But that didn't last long.
When Watchtower publications finally admitted they had been wrong about the zero year, it was 1943/1944, and the solution was to move back the destruction of Jerusalem from 606 to 607. By 1944 it was too late to move 1914 to 1915, and there was never any evidence for either 606 or 607, anyway. It was 587/586 all along, so sticking with 606 was neither here nor there.
But P.S.L.Johnson, who worked with Russell, had already noticed during Russell's lifetime that Cyrus' first year was actually 538, something we know today, but Russell still didn't want to accept. P.S.L.Johnson said he checked a dozen encyclopedias, and all of them said 538. (So much for Russell's claim that ALL students of chronology had said 536!)
In 1944, the Watchtower finally compromised by one of those two years towards Ptolemy's Canon, and used 537. Then finally in 1949, the Watchtower admitted that Cyrus first year was actually 538, the date that Ptolemy's Canon had indicated all along. This meant that we now had to explain a two year adjustment. The solution was to speculate that Cyrus decree had been near the end of his first year, and that it took well into the next year for the Jews to pack and travel and resettle.
That fixed one of the two adjusted years, and this was the actual time when the zero year problem was admitted, that provided the other adjusted year, when 606 was changed to 607. This way 1914 could remain intact, no matter what mistakes had to be readjusted from previous history.

I believe I have already related the case of my own sister, 5 years younger than me, who was disfellowshipped for leaving a violent husband. He was a ministerial servant when I was at Bethel, and he hit her fairly often. She went to my father (an elder) who gave her the usual counsel about more study, more prayer, more field service. This was frustrating to her because she was already a full time pioneer and praying more than ever.
Her breaking point came when elders, including my father, told her she couldn't go to the hospital because they might ask her how it happened and this would bring reproach on Jehovah's organization. And she couldn't lie. She was told she should hide her bruises and cuts as well as she could. All the while he remained a ministerial servant. I called him from Bethel and threatened to beat him up if he laid a hand on my sister again. I expected a meeting with elders who would want to talk with me after I made a violent threat, but nothing came of it.
Long story short, my sister had her meeting with the elders, and she wanted to separate from her husband. Although this should have been allowed the elders were still adamant that this, too, would bring reproach. She insisted she would ignore their counsel, and that she would even try to get a divorce, so they formed a judicial committee from which my father had to recuse himself. She had not asked for a divorce, but this would be considered both unscriptural and bring additional reproach. In her mind, she should obtain a divorce, even if she wasn't thinking about remarriage. As long as she didn't commit adultery or remarry, (which would be the same as adultery) she thought a divorce was a stronger, more legally binding version of a separation, which would have been allowed (or at least should have been allowed).
Basically, she was disfellowshipped for defying the counsel of the elders, who were "only trying to avoid bringing reproach on the congregation." (To her they accused her of "bringing reproach on the marriage bed.") The circuit overseer agreed with them, and she remained df'd for a while. The circuit overseer also had her husband lose his "status" as a ministerial servant, and I think this lasted more than a year before he was reappointed, and later became an elder.
This was around 1978, when most elders had little experience, and there was a lot of patriarchal dominance in some of the midwest congregations like this one. Also, my sister was not really made aware of any appeal process. Now the information about the appeal is part of the process. Training in such matters is a little different today, and I certainly do not think this would happen again in any congregations I know about.

I believe I have already related the case of my own sister, 5 years younger than me, who was disfellowshipped for leaving a violent husband. He was a ministerial servant when I was at Bethel, and he hit her fairly often. She went to my father (an elder) who gave her the usual counsel about more study, more prayer, more field service. This was frustrating to her because she was already a full time pioneer and praying more than ever.
Her breaking point came when elders, including my father, told her she couldn't go to the hospital because they might ask her how it happened and this would bring reproach on Jehovah's organization. And she couldn't lie. She was told she should hide her bruises and cuts as well as she could. All the while he remained a ministerial servant. I called him from Bethel and threatened to beat him up if he laid a hand on my sister again. I expected a meeting with elders who would want to talk with me after I made a violent threat, but nothing came of it.
Long story short, my sister had her meeting with the elders, and she wanted to separate from her husband. Although this should have been allowed the elders were still adamant that this, too, would bring reproach. She insisted she would ignore their counsel, and that she would even try to get a divorce, so they formed a judicial committee from which my father had to recuse himself. She had not asked for a divorce, but this would be considered both unscriptural and bring additional reproach. In her mind, she should obtain a divorce, even if she wasn't thinking about remarriage. As long as she didn't commit adultery or remarry, (which would be the same as adultery) she thought a divorce was a stronger, more legally binding version of a separation, which would have been allowed (or at least should have been allowed).
Basically, she was disfellowshipped for defying the counsel of the elders, who were "only trying to avoid bringing reproach on the congregation." (To her they accused her of "bringing reproach on the marriage bed.") The circuit overseer agreed with them, and she remained df'd for a while. The circuit overseer also had her husband lose his "status" as a ministerial servant, and I think this lasted more than a year before he was reappointed, and later became an elder.
This was around 1978, when most elders had little experience, and there was a lot of patriarchal dominance in some of the midwest congregations like this one. Also, my sister was not really made aware of any appeal process. Now the information about the appeal is part of the process. Training in such matters is a little different today, and I certainly do not think this would happen again in any congregations I know about.

That's me in the picture:😉
I called in a favor and asked the Society to reduce my competition by running the following statement in the Watchtower:
*** w18 April p. 30 par. 2 Questions From Readers ***
Others have used material from our publications or our jw.org logo in advertisements, on products offered for sale, and in mobile device apps. By securing copyright and trademark protection, we have a legal basis to prevent such misuse. (Prov. 27:12) But if we knowingly allow people, even our brothers, to post our digital content on other sites or to use the jw.org trademark to sell merchandise, the courts may not support our efforts to deter opposers and commercial enterprises.
For non-JWs I also have a line of engraved plaques with some excellent engraved pictures around the edges. They say:
"Thou shalt not make any graven images."
Oh, and I also sell laminated copies of the April 2018 Question From Readers, quoted above.
 

That's me in the picture:😉
I called in a favor and asked the Society to reduce my competition by running the following statement in the Watchtower:
*** w18 April p. 30 par. 2 Questions From Readers ***
Others have used material from our publications or our jw.org logo in advertisements, on products offered for sale, and in mobile device apps. By securing copyright and trademark protection, we have a legal basis to prevent such misuse. (Prov. 27:12) But if we knowingly allow people, even our brothers, to post our digital content on other sites or to use the jw.org trademark to sell merchandise, the courts may not support our efforts to deter opposers and commercial enterprises.
For non-JWs I also have a line of engraved plaques with some excellent engraved pictures around the edges. They say:
"Thou shalt not make any graven images."
Oh, and I also sell laminated copies of the April 2018 Question From Readers, quoted above.
 

This is exactly the point made in Revelation, but it also matches what Paul says in 1 Cor 15 and 1 & 2 Thess, which matches Matthew 13. This is the explanation that causes no inconsistencies. Unfortunately the 1914 doctrine causes many inconsistencies in my opinion. Perhaps I'll write up a longer answer later, but I think your question could be further answered by just reviewing a couple of those other Bible passages that are related:
Some people in Paul's day were getting over-anxious about the timing of the parousia, and he had to remind them that this could be a ways off. If the Watchtower is right, Paul could have said, it can't happen yet, because Jesus is not even ruling as King yet!
But instead,
(2 Thessalonians 2:1-8) . . .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 is here. 3 Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. 4 He stands in opposition and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits down in the temple of God, publicly showing himself to be a god. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is acting as a restraint, so that he will be revealed in his own due time. 7 True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who is right now acting as a restraint is out of the way. 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.
(1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:2) . . .Moreover, brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who are sleeping in death, so that you may not sorrow as the rest do who have no hope. 14 For if we have faith that Jesus died and rose again, so too God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in death through Jesus. 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, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we will always be with the Lord. 18 So keep comforting one another with these words. 5 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.
First of all notice that the parousia is the same as the day of the Lord (Jehovah) in the 2 Thess 2. But also note that at the trumpet's call they all go together at the same time. This trumpet call is associated with a time that the Watchtower now admits to be future when it is mentioned here:
(Matthew 24:30, 31) . . ., 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 from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.
(Matthew 13:39-41,44) . . .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, and they will collect out from his Kingdom . . . At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.
Notice too the verses already quoted above from 1 Cor 15:23-27;50-52. We can already see problems with 1914. Notice that Paul writing in the first century gives an overview of the major events of the kingdom, that include those expected in the future.  
Christ is resurrected. Then those belong to Christ (anointed) are resurrected "at the parousia." Then the "end" when he hands the Kingdom back to his Father (Jehovah), after he has completely brought to nothing all governments and power and even Death, the last enemy, has also been brought to nothing. (In Revelation this is the same as saying that Death has been completely destroyed, "tossed into the lake of fire.") Notice anything missing in this sequence? Even if it were OK to translate "at the parousia" as "during his presence" we notice that this taking the reins of the Kingship is NOT considered an important event in the sequence.
And it's pretty obvious why. It's because Paul assumes that Jesus Christ is already reigning, (1 Cor 15:25) and already reigning in the midst of his enemies, and already beginning to show his power over those enemies by accepting "subjects" into the Kingdom who are already under his command, accepting that Jesus has already been given ALL AUTHORITY. So why would Jesus need to be declared King at some later point if he was already given all authority, and was already commanding his subjects?
(Matthew 28:18-20) . . .Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”
(Jesus also declared that his "presence" had already begun: "I am with you." Also, if the conclusion began in 1914, Jesus would only be with them until 1914.)
There's another instance of this idea that showed up in one of the Watchtower quotes above:
*** w98 2/1 p. 17 pars. 18-19 Greater Blessings Through the New Covenant ***
Then Daniel saw that “the holy ones took possession of the kingdom itself.” Jesus is the one “like a son of man” who, in 1914, received the heavenly Kingdom from Jehovah God. His spirit-anointed disciples are “the holy ones” who share with him in that Kingdom. (1 Thessalonians 2:12)
The Watchtower quoted 1 Thess 2:12 to indicate that this starts in 1914, but Paul wrote 1 Thess in the first century and indicated that it was ALREADY begun.
(1 Thessalonians 2:12) 12 so that you would go on walking worthily of God, who is calling you to his Kingdom and glory.