JW Insider

If that kind of comparison were intended to create a representative analogy, then the Devil represents "glorious" congregation elders in Jude, where, according to one interpretation, we shouldn't speak abusively of "glorious" elders in the congregation just as Jesus/Michael wouldn't speak abusively of "glorious" Satan when arguing over Moses' body. 😎 (Note: I still don't believe this was the intent of the comparison at all.)

Sounds like you disagree with what Brother Splane said when he admitted that over 100 teachings that had turned Bible parables and Bible historical narratives into specific prophecies were examples of going beyond the things written.
But if you think about it, almost every single past error where the Watchtower has made an interpretation that was later changed was also a matter of going beyond the things written. Whenever there was a changed teaching where the Watchtower had said "this is what it means" instead of "this is what it might mean" was a matter of going beyond the things written.
Therefore, there are hundreds of additional examples. And we should be very happy for this kind of progress.
Yes. You've said this same thing previously, and I questioned you about it. Thanks for repeating it so I know it wasn't a mistake. You have compared the current Governing Body as a group much closer to modern-day Apostles than merely a modern-day version of the Council of Elders in Jerusalem. I still think this is a dangerous mistake, no matter how much we appreciate their work for the world-wide congregation. It sounds like you might disagree specifically with recent humble remarks made by Brother Herd. Sounds like you believe this was only "mock humility."
No, it merely means that I have seen what the Watchtower has said (and admitted) about this topic, and you apparently do not wish to accept what they have said on the topic..
That would be quite an accusation against the Watchtower, since the point made was about the desire of the GB to make corrections for us in the Watchtower. Obviously you don't believe this as can be seen in the sentence you wrote right after that one. If their passion is to correct, I see this as a very good thing, not trying to be equal to Christ (or the apostles, for that matter).
I believe the Watchtower is misrepresenting a couple of issues, but these have not become an obstacle to my faith. I was fortunate enough to be given some heads up and preparation for things that would have otherwise been painful to discover on my own. I was happy to know that others had already discovered these things and still wanted to continue associating and encouraging their brothers and sisters to accept our situation and navigate through it with faith intact. And I think that exposure of such issues has had a very positive impact on the doctrinal changes we have seen in the last couple of decades especially.
I skimmed over what JTR and TTH said about contacting the Watchtower directly. I have done this several times myself with surprisingly good answers at times. It's nothing to make light of in my opinion.
 

@JW Insider and there's your 15 minutes of fame!

Probably depends on the book or article and the particular writer assigned. For example, 1914 is mentioned in Chapter 8 but the whole big section on 1914 with charts and diagrams in "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" were moved to the Appendix, whereas they had previously been in the main text.
The 2018 Watchtower Study edition never mentioned 1914 once. The 2018 Watchtower Public edition only mentioned 1914 once.* The 2019 Watchtower Public editions never mentioned 1914 once. *And only as a fulfillment for Jesus' prophecy about wars and reports of wars, NOT as a fulfillment related to Christ's enthronement.
Compare this to 76 mentions in the Watchtower for 2014.
This is not enough to measure a trend yet, but it's something to watch for.
*** w79 9/15 p. 23 par. 8 The “Cup” That All Nations Must Drink at God’s Hand ***
Why did Jehovah call King Nebuchadnezzar “my servant”? Because He used him to punish the people of Judah for their refusal to listen to His prophets. Punishment through this king of Babylon also extended to the neighboring countries that maliciously exploited Jehovah’s people out of contempt for Him. This does not mean, however, that Nebuchadnezzar was a type of Jesus Christ, who worshiped Jehovah alone as God. Rather, it is the executional work that Nebuchadnezzar performed for Jehovah upon the guilty nations that is typical. It prefigures the world-conquering work that Jesus Christ as Jehovah’s Chief Executional Officer carries out during the approaching “great tribulation,” in which all the enemy nations will be reduced to dust under the feet of Jehovah’s topmost Servant.
*** w50 11/15 p. 444 par. 17 Subjection to the Higher Powers ***
So it must be remembered that both Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus were used as types. In destroying Jerusalem in 607 B.C. and taking the Jews captive to Babylon Nebuchadnezzar was being used as Jehovah’s executioner against the unfaithful Jewish nation. For this reason Jehovah spoke of him as “my servant” and gave him the domination over other nations of this world. In this capacity Nebuchadnezzar was a type of Jesus Christ.
The 100 plus teachings that would be impacted by the October 2014 Annual Meeting talk, and the subsequent Watchtower in March 15, 2015 would include these 42 from the book "You May Survive Armageddon into God's New World":

80 more of these were included in a 1981 Watchtower:
*** w81 3/1 p. 27 Do You Appreciate the “Faithful and Discreet Slave”? ***
OVERWHELMING CREDENTIALS
The “faithful and discreet slave” has abundant credentials. Following is a partial list of Scriptural and prophetic designations applying to or being represented in the remnant of Jesus Christ’s anointed followers since the notable year 1919:
(1) Noah’s wife, Gen. 7:7; (2) angels sent to Lot, Gen. 19:15; (3) Rebekah, Gen. 24:64; (4) Joseph and Benjamin, Gen. 45:14; (5) gleanings left behind, Lev. 19:9; (6) two spies to Rahab, Josh. 2:4; (7) Barak, Judg. 4:14; (8) Jephthah, Judg. 11:34; (9) Naomi and Ruth, Ruth 2:2; (10) David’s Israelite warriors, 2 Sam. 18:1; (11) Jehu, 2 Ki. 10:11, 15; (12) Mordecai and Esther, Esther 4:13; (13) Job, Job 42:10, 13; (14) King’s daughter, Ps. 45:13; (15) men of loving-kindness, Ps. 50:5; (16) intimate group, Ps. 89:7; (17) Shear-jashub, Isa. 7:3; (18) light of the nations, Isa. 60:3; (19) big trees of righteousness, Isa. 61:3; (20) ministers of our God, Isa. 61:6; (21) cluster preserved, Isa. 65:8; (22) servants called by another name, Isa. 65:15; (23) men trembling at God’s word, Isa. 66:5; (24) new nation born, Isa. 66:8; (25) Jeremiah, Jer. 1:10; (26) Jehovah’s people in the new covenant, Jer. 31:33; (27) enduring watchman, Ezek. 3:16-27; (28) man in linen, Ezek. 9:2; (29) cleansed people, Ezek. 36:29-32; (30) dwellers in center of earth, Ezek. 38:12; (31) the host of heaven, Dan. 8:10; (32) sanctuary restored (cleansed), Dan. 8:14; (33) they that are wise, Dan. 11:33; (34) the happy one who is keeping in expectation, Dan. 12:12; (35) all flesh receiving the spirit, Joel 2:28; (36) Jonah, Jon. 3:1-3; (37) apple of Jehovah’s eye, Zech. 2:8; (38) liberated remnant, Zech. 2:7; (39) a Jew, Zech. 8:23; (40) sons of Levi, Mal. 3:3; (41) wheat, Matt. 13:25; (42) sons of the kingdom, Matt. 13:38; (43) workers for the vineyard, Matt. 20:1; (44) those invited to marriage feast, Matt. 22:3-14; (45) chosen ones, Matt. 24:22; (46) eagles, Matt. 24:28; (47) faithful and discreet slave, Matt. 24:45; (48) discreet virgins, Matt. 25:2; (49) brothers of the king, Matt. 25:40; (50) little flock of sheep, Luke 12:32; (51) beggar Lazarus, Luke 16:20; (52) sheep in “this fold,” John 10:1-16; (53) branches of the vine, John 15:4; (54) royal palace of David, Acts 15:16; (55) heirs with Christ, Rom. 8:17; (56) the remnant, Rom. 11:5; (57) branches in the olive tree, Rom. 11:24; (58) holy ones or saints, 1 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 16:6; (59) temple, 1 Cor. 6:19; (60) new creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; (61) ambassadors for Christ, 2 Cor. 5:20; (62) congregation of God, Gal. 1:13; (63) part of Abraham’s seed, Gal. 3:29; (64) Israel of God, Gal. 6:16; (65) body of Christ, Eph. 1:22, 23; (66) soldiers of Christ Jesus, 2 Tim. 2:3; (67) house under Christ, Heb. 3:6; (68) holy priesthood, 1 Pet. 2:5; (69) holy nation, 1 Pet. 2:9; (70) association of brothers, 1 Pet. 2:17; (71) seven congregations, Rev. 1:20; (72) twenty-four persons of advanced age, Rev. 4:4; (73) spiritual Israel, Rev. 7:4; (74) locusts, Rev. 9:3; (75) two witnesses, Rev. 11:3; (76) two olive trees, Rev. 11:4; (77) seed of the woman, Rev. 12:17; (78) New Jerusalem, Rev. 21:2; (79) the bride of Christ, Rev. 22:17; 19:7; (80) Jehovah’s witnesses, Isa. 43:10.

It was Splane's "historic" (they called it) Annual Meeting talk in October 2014, especially when he referred to how Brother Bert Schroeder had counseled exactly this, many years earlier. Schroeder's statement was kind of a "motto" that Brother Splane repeated as the primary takeaway for this new way of looking at these portions of Scripture.
That point was rewritten in the March 15, 2015 Watchtower, p.18 as follows:
“Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so.”
The original video is now here: https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODPgmEvtAnnMtg/pub-jwbam_201410_1_VIDEO "Types and Antitypes." It starts at about 2 hours:8 minutes into the video. At 2h:13m:07s he says:
"Now we know that these [ones spoken of by Jesus and Paul] are genuine types because the word of God says they are. But here is the question: Who is to decide if a person or an event is a type, if the word of God doesn't say anything about it? Who is qualified to do that? Our answer? We can do no better than to quote our beloved Brother Albert Schroeder who said, 'We need to exercise great care when applying accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures as prophetic patterns or types if these accounts are not applied in the Scriptures themselves." Wasn't that a beautiful statement! We agree with it.
After giving several examples of this "typology" (as he called it) from several different religions, including religions the Bible Students had been part of. And these religions often applied these types to themselves, just as the Watchtower applied many of them to Bible Students and Witnesses in modern times.  Brother Splane repeats that the most important problem with them is that these applications were not found in the Scriptures themselves. He even asks, "If the study of a certain subject makes chills run up and down your spine, could it possibly be mistaken?' And the answer was YES!" Then at 2h:19m:22s he repeats this idea again, and says:
"Well, in recent years the trend in our publications has been to look for the practical application of Bible events and not for types where the scripture themselves do not identify them as such. We simply cannot go beyond what is written!"
There's a funny thing Splane does in the video where he almost makes it look like the Pyramid idea came from a Brother A. Smith who wrote the Society from time to time to tell them his ideas about how the Pyramid told of God's purpose. He gives the impression that Russell only mentioned it once, but that this brother was so "emotionally" involved with the idea that he wrote to the Society about it several times. You can compare this to the actual things that Russell and Rutherford said about the Pyramid, and draw your own conclusion as to what Brother Splane is doing here. I also think it's curious that Albert Schroeder had died many years before, and this particular idea had been first expressed by others and finally by Brother Schroeder, too, several years before he died. Evidently not enough members of the Governing Body agreed with it at the time. But, even though it was now several years later, Brother Splane in 2014 can say it was a beautiful statement, and that 'we agree with it.'

I have not noticed 1914 diminishing in importance. It gets aired anytime there is a reference to the times of the end, and its closeness (in publications, convention talks and Broadcasting). But you are right, there seems to be a certain hesitancy in directly including 1914 as being part of our "core doctrines". At least in the above mentioned days text. There is also no reference to it in the questions for baptism. Under Christian beliefs, Question 19 asks: How do you know that Kingdom blessings will soon be here? The answers are references to Matthew 24 and 2 Timothy (last days critical times..). IF 1914 was to be mentioned, what scripture references would be used? We can all see it would get very complicated, hence as you rightly called it, it is a difficult doctrine. But the irony is, it is a very fundamental doctrine, so it should be explained (with all the dozens of scriptures) and be a part of the questions for baptism, strictly speaking. So I wonder, why is it not there? 
 
That's fine with direct and obvious scriptures and Bible books. But how would you explain (interpret) books such as Revelation, Ezekiel, Daniel etc?
And I thought we already established that no one would any longer be inspired after the last of the apostles died.

Because wicked persons can become Jehovah's executioner, persons like Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, and Cyrus could be considered to be Jehovah's "servants." But we have really had to stretch ideas in the tree parable. In the past we said that Nebuchadnezzar represented Christ, but the Watchtower has now explicitly stated that this is not the type of parallel. Still, we have tried to explain that Nebuchadnezzar's low beastly state of insanity somehow parallels the fact that Jesus was "low" in the sense of being humble, born as a human [in a manger], etc. I haven't seen that negated, but it hasn't been used in quite a while.

No one needs to read a word of what Carl Olof Jonsson wrote. For the most part all he did was corroborate what the majority of the most well-grounded researchers already had said well before he agreed with it. If there was any added value in what Jonsson wrote, it was that he showed how neo-Babylonian archaeology supports the Bible record.

The old method of handling this was to use the expression "present truth." Many adventists including Seventh Day still use the expression. It's based on a mistranslation of 2 Peter 1:12 where the KJV said:
Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.
The tendency among 19th century Adventists was to see a "chronology" element or "time" element in the English expression that did not exist in the original Greek. Therefore, the idea was that: even when in the midst of learning or teaching falsehood, it was still "present truth" at the time, and what is now "present truth" could turn out to be false in the future, but it will always have been "present truth" because it's always the best we had at the time.
From the Greek, this is better translated as "the truth that is present in you" (American Standard and NWT). 
A similar rush to see a time element in the English translation was done by Barbour and Russell and others who had been associated with Adventists. Here's an example from Leviticus:
(Leviticus 26:28) 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins.
This was originally the primary source for Russell's 7 times = 2,520 years, and the 7 times of Nebuchadnezzar's dream about his own insanity was only a secondary source. But we have since learned that Leviticus here didn't refer to chronological "times" but the sense was "7 times as much" as in "I will hit you twice as hard, or three times as hard, or seven times as hard." This was already in the context, but chronologists and numerologists rarely notice the context until they have already formed a time related doctrine.
(Leviticus 26:18-21) . . .“‘If even this does not make you listen to me, I will have to chastise you seven times as much for your sins. . . . 21 “‘But if you keep walking in opposition to me and refuse to listen to me, I will then have to strike you seven times as much, according to your sins.
Now that we have noticed this, we have been stuck with using Nebuchadnezzar as if his wicked Gentile kingdom somehow represented Christ's Messianic non-Gentile kingdom. (Another contradiction between 1914 and the Bible.)
We still tend to make a "chronology word" out of things having to do with time when we translate the Greek word for time as "appointed time" instead of what might better be translated as "opportune time."
Note that it's the exact same word "time" in these two verses:
(Ephesians 5:16) 16 buying out the opportune time for yourselves, because the days are wicked.
(Luke 21:24) . . .and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
Neither the word opportune nor appointed is found in the Greek, only the word time. But the more typical meaning is "opportunity" as in:
Will you find the opportunity to do this? Will you find the time to do this? Not:
Will you find the appointed day and hour to do this? We have added a more specific chronological sense that usually isn't necessary in the Greek.
 

(Genesis 6:5-7) 5 Consequently, Jehovah saw that man’s wickedness was great on the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. 6 Jehovah regretted that he had made men on the earth, and his heart was saddened. 7 So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, man together with domestic animals, creeping animals, and flying creatures of the heavens, for I regret that I have made them.. . .
If we have faith like that of Abraham, then we will ask questions about this. Just as we have asked questions about what Jesus meant when he spoke of a resurrection on Judgment Day for those who were destroyed in Sodom. Abraham asked:
(Genesis 18:22-33) . . .Then the men left from there and went toward Sodʹom, but Jehovah remained with Abraham. 23 Then Abraham approached and said: “Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there are 50 righteous men within the city. Will you, then, sweep them away and not pardon the place for the sake of the 50 righteous who are inside it? 25 It is unthinkable that you would act in this manner by putting the righteous man to death with the wicked one so that the outcome for the righteous man and the wicked is the same! It is unthinkable of you. Will the Judge of all the earth not do what is right?” 26 Then Jehovah said: “If I find in Sodʹom 50 righteous men in the city, I will pardon the whole place for their sake.” 27 But Abraham again responded: “Please, here I have presumed to speak to Jehovah, whereas I am dust and ashes. 28 Suppose the 50 righteous should lack five. Because of the five will you destroy the whole city?” To this he said: “I will not destroy it if I find there 45.” 29 But yet again he spoke to him and said: “Suppose 40 are found there.” He answered: “I will not do it for the sake of the 40.” 30 But he continued: “Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me go on speaking: Suppose only 30 are found there.” He answered: “I will not do it if I find 30 there.” 31 But he continued: “Please, here I have presumed to speak to Jehovah: Suppose only 20 are found there.” He answered: “I will not destroy it for the sake of the 20.” 32 Finally he said: “Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me speak just once more: Suppose only ten are found there.” He answered: “I will not destroy it for the sake of the ten.” 33 When Jehovah finished speaking to Abraham, he went his way and Abraham returned to his place.
In Christian parlance, even Abraham and Noah were NOT intrinsically righteous, but they were counted as if righteous due to their faith. Jehovah as the Giver of LIfe has a right to destroy everyone. He may also save persons, or bring them back from the dead. And we were made to ask questions in order to understand Jehovah better.
It is clear to me that you have never had a five-month old son or daughter, or grand-son or grand-daughter. We can accept that Jehovah knew what would become of those babies in their circumstances of the time. But Jehovah also knows that only those with haughtiness and no natural affection will stop questioning and stop investigating.
(Psalm 10:4) . . .In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation;. . .
Just an aside, but that reminds me of how the psalmist almost turns the judgment imagery of the Flood "on its head" in these poetic lines:
(Psalm 36:5-8) . . .O Jehovah, your loyal love reaches to the heavens, Your faithfulness up to the clouds.  6 Your righteousness is like majestic mountains; Your judgments are like vast, deep waters. Man and beast you preserve, O Jehovah.  7 How precious your loyal love is, O God! In the shadow of your wings, the sons of men take refuge.  8 They drink their fill of the rich bounty of your house, And you cause them to drink of the torrent of your delights.
Like Noah, we are in effect "deluged" with the watery depths of Jehovah's bounteous delights and judgments.
But by blaming the young babies, don't you end up losing the natural meaning of Jesus' words about the innocence and humility of children, or what Paul meant when he said:
(1 Corinthians 14:20) . . .but be young children as to badness; . . .

No one needs to read a word of what Carl Olof Jonsson wrote. For the most part all he did was corroborate what the majority of the most well-grounded researchers already had said well before he agreed with it. If there was any added value in what Jonsson wrote, it was that he showed how neo-Babylonian archaeology supports the Bible record.

I was referring to natural babies. The Bible says that in the days before the Flood, men were marrying, and women were being given in marriage. A natural outcome of such natural marriages includes natural children.
Every Christian should let their reasonableness be known:
(Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . .
If a doctrine produces a contradiction then it is reasonable to question that doctrine. It is unreasonable not to question it.
There is no need to claim uniqueness, or to make an unreasonable claim that prophecy was relayed directly from God to any individual who notices the contradictions. And there is no need to pretend that noticing the 1914 problems is something unusual. I'm sure that THOUSANDS of Witnesses have seen these contradictions. I'm hoping that more of those thousands will be able to freely question because it is our Christian duty as Witnesses, to show our reasonableness, be noble-minded, keep testing, keep proving, and to make sure of the more important things, and hold fast to what is fine.
Exactly! And when we understand it, we can see where he made such far-reaching mistakes when it comes to his published chronology, almost ALL of which we have now abandoned. This is why the Watchtower has abandoned the very groundwork for the faulty system that Barbour laid out for Russell to accept. The basic groundwork was the "double" (Hebrew, "mishneh") found in Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah, etc. It was understood that this referred to a duplication of time:
Thus understood, the Prophet's declaration is, that from the time of their being cast off from all favor until the time of their return to favor would be a repetition, or duplication in time, of their previous history, during which time they had enjoyed divine favor. (Studies in the Scriptures, V.2, p.218)
In this now-abandoned scheme, natural Israel had received favor for 1,845 years, from 1813 BC to AD 33. Events in this period would exactly parallel events from the new dispensation for another 1,845 years from AD 33 to AD 1878. Adding the 37 years from Jesus death to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, meant that Russell could add 37 years from 1878 and reach 1914/1915, as the farthest extent of man-made rule by the nations.
As shown in the accompanying diagram, the period of their favor, from the commencement of their national existence at the death of Jacob, down to the end of that favor at the death of Christ, A.D. 33, was eighteen hundred and forty-five (1845) years; and there their "double" (mishneh) —the repetition or duplication of the same length of time, eighteen hundred and forty-five (1845) years, without favor —began. Eighteen hundred and forty-five years since A.D. 33 shows A.D. 1878 to be the end of their period of disfavor. A.D. 33 plus 1845 = A.D. 1878. (p.218)
.  . until the Times of the Gentiles be fulfilled," and hence, though favor was due and began in A.D. 1878, the Jew will not be received back into full favor until after 1915. Thus their rise again to favor will be gradual, as was their fall from it. It is remarkable, too, that these two periods of their falling and rising are of exactly the same length—the falling was gradual, with increasing momentum, for thirty-seven years, from A.D. 33, where their national favor ceased, to A.D. 70, where their national existence ended, the land was desolated and Jerusalem totally destroyed. History thus marks the beginning and ending of their fall, while prophecy marks both ends of their rising—1878 and 1915 —showing an exact parallel of thirty-seven years. (p.221)
So, yes, it was "meticulous" but it was meticulously false, which is why we now consider it to be just a lot of numerology for the trash heap.
I agree. No Watchtower writers nor Governing Body members, nor any other Witnesses, should have ever projected their independent understanding of prophecy when they are not given that power of prophecy by God. Well-phrased. That would have saved much embarrassment over all the failed dates, failed explanations and failed predictions for 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, etc. 
If Jesus being enthroned was so different than when he took (or takes) control, then when does Jesus take control? If you are saying it wasn't in 1914, then when do you say it was? Or will be?

Russell obviously cared for it deeply enough to write many articles and chapters about it. He visited Egypt to see it in 1892 and 1910. He NEVER rejected it, but kept referring to it from his very first books, especially Volume 3, right up until the year he died.
In fact, in the year he died he updated Volume 3 with the following dated ONE MONTH before his death:
"The Great Pyramid of Egypt discussed in this Volume has not lost any of its interest to the author. . . . We . . . still believe that the structure of this Pyramid . .. was designed of the Lord and intended to be a Pyramid and a witness in the midst and on the border of Egypt (Isaiah 19:19.) . . . It's wonderful corroboration of the Divine Plan of the Ages is astonishing to everybody who really grasps it."
And of course, it turned out to be a lie that it had ever endorsed even ONE date in Russell's "established" chronology -- which has now been "established" to be false anyway, of course.
When you say Russell didn't care for the Pyramid scheme you seem to ignore some of the things that Russell said about it. Russell said that Christians don't build their faith around it of course, but that it's purpose was to make believers out of non-Christians by leading them to the truth of God's plan of the ages through a "rational" means. Therefore Russell could say things like the following in several different places (references available upon request):
"It has well been called 'A Miracle in Stone,' and it commends itself to us a work of God and not planned by men, for it seems in every respect to be in perfect accord with God's plan as we are finding it written in His Word; and this it is, that causes our respect for it."
"The Pyramid corroborates scripture ... "
"The ancient structure being thus repeatedly referred to in the Scriptures, we cannot doubt that, if questioned, this 'Witness' of the Lord in the land of Egypt will bear such testimony as will honor Jehovah, and fully correspond with his written Word."
"[God] placed the Great Pyramid 'in the midst and in the border of Egypt,' for a sign . . ."
"So striking and clear are its teachings that some of the foremost astronomers of the world have unhesitatingly pronounced it to be of Divine origin."
It doesn't pay to try to rewrite, twist and spin historical facts, because Russell already documented his thinking in many different places.

Wouldn't a core doctrine be one in which we put "unwavering" faith. This is the whole reason I mention "core" or "key" doctrines. If we were to be killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine.
I would not be willing to die over my certainty that Jesus was only using hyperbole when he said that the men of Sodom would do better in a resurrection of the unrighteous on Judgment Day, than persons in towns that rejected Jesus during his earthly ministry. (Only the most diabolical of inquisitors would ask such a question anyway. I think I would go for "theocratic war strategy. 😉 )

I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary.
Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again. 
Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though. 
There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support. 
On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is:
Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE.
That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture.
From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death. 
The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand.
I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching.
True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here:
(1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet.

Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around.
By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet.
(1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.

Because wicked persons can become Jehovah's executioner, persons like Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, and Cyrus could be considered to be Jehovah's "servants." But we have really had to stretch ideas in the tree parable. In the past we said that Nebuchadnezzar represented Christ, but the Watchtower has now explicitly stated that this is not the type of parallel. Still, we have tried to explain that Nebuchadnezzar's low beastly state of insanity somehow parallels the fact that Jesus was "low" in the sense of being humble, born as a human [in a manger], etc. I haven't seen that negated, but it hasn't been used in quite a while.

This is quite strange. Russell didn't dismiss the Edgar pyramid scheme. He dismissed Russell's pyramid scheme that Russell had mostly plagiarized from Joseph Seiss. If you think Russell used it as a comparison and nothing more then you probably have not read all the things Russell said about the Great Pyramid. He even called it "Jehovah's Witness" (with a capital "W" no less).
Obviously not! If he had started from scratch, he would not have simply copied the dates that Barbour had published. These were not plagiarized, because Russell ADMITTED clearly where he copied them from. Barbour ADMITTED that he based his dates on a readjustment of William Miller's dates. The primary events of the time that Russell was influenced by were "New England's Dark Day of 1780, and a spectacular meteor shower in 1833." The meteor shower was considered by Russell (and Adventists) to be the "stars falling." Russell admitted this in the Watch Tower, and in Studies in the Scriptures.
I'm not sure why the particular mistake that Russell and Rutherford made concerning the Jewish nation is still so important to you. Rutherford corrected this mistake around 1930.
This is false.
This is false.

If that kind of comparison were intended to create a representative analogy, then the Devil represents "glorious" congregation elders in Jude, where, according to one interpretation, we shouldn't speak abusively of "glorious" elders in the congregation just as Jesus/Michael wouldn't speak abusively of "glorious" Satan when arguing over Moses' body. 😎 (Note: I still don't believe this was the intent of the comparison at all.)

Because wicked persons can become Jehovah's executioner, persons like Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, and Cyrus could be considered to be Jehovah's "servants." But we have really had to stretch ideas in the tree parable. In the past we said that Nebuchadnezzar represented Christ, but the Watchtower has now explicitly stated that this is not the type of parallel. Still, we have tried to explain that Nebuchadnezzar's low beastly state of insanity somehow parallels the fact that Jesus was "low" in the sense of being humble, born as a human [in a manger], etc. I haven't seen that negated, but it hasn't been used in quite a while.

Yes, that is true. I can't think right now, but are there any other instances where we have used someone, or something wicked to represent something good?
In any case, now that you bring it up, it does sound odd. But I never looked at it from that angle before, I was always just focusing on the timeline only. (Although I did wonder what Christ had do with Neb, who was forced to acknowledge the true God. Where was there a parallel to that?)
-----------------------------------------
"The tree that you beheld, that grew great and became strong . . . , it is you, O king, because you have grown great and become strong, and your grandeur has grown great and reached to the heavens, and your rulership to the extremity of the earth.” (Dan 4:18-22)
WT comment: "Like the immense tree of his dream, Nebuchadnezzar had “grown great and become strong” as the head of a world power. But “rulership to the extremity of the earth,” involving the whole kingdom of mankind, is represented by the great tree. It therefore symbolizes Jehovah’s universal sovereignty, particularly in its relationship to the earth".—Daniel 4:17. (Pay attention to Daniels prophesy ch6, pp 82-97)
A little bit of a stretch to say what the tree symbolizes when Daniel already clearly says it symbolizes Nebuchadnezzar rulership. But I guess if we did try to stretch it as far as it would go then we could say that because ultimately everything belongs to God, then the rulership was God's too. But is it what the bible book of Daniel meant....?
 
Do you have a reference for that?

The old method of handling this was to use the expression "present truth." Many adventists including Seventh Day still use the expression. It's based on a mistranslation of 2 Peter 1:12 where the KJV said:
Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.
The tendency among 19th century Adventists was to see a "chronology" element or "time" element in the English expression that did not exist in the original Greek. Therefore, the idea was that: even when in the midst of learning or teaching falsehood, it was still "present truth" at the time, and what is now "present truth" could turn out to be false in the future, but it will always have been "present truth" because it's always the best we had at the time.
From the Greek, this is better translated as "the truth that is present in you" (American Standard and NWT). 
A similar rush to see a time element in the English translation was done by Barbour and Russell and others who had been associated with Adventists. Here's an example from Leviticus:
(Leviticus 26:28) 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins.
This was originally the primary source for Russell's 7 times = 2,520 years, and the 7 times of Nebuchadnezzar's dream about his own insanity was only a secondary source. But we have since learned that Leviticus here didn't refer to chronological "times" but the sense was "7 times as much" as in "I will hit you twice as hard, or three times as hard, or seven times as hard." This was already in the context, but chronologists and numerologists rarely notice the context until they have already formed a time related doctrine.
(Leviticus 26:18-21) . . .“‘If even this does not make you listen to me, I will have to chastise you seven times as much for your sins. . . . 21 “‘But if you keep walking in opposition to me and refuse to listen to me, I will then have to strike you seven times as much, according to your sins.
Now that we have noticed this, we have been stuck with using Nebuchadnezzar as if his wicked Gentile kingdom somehow represented Christ's Messianic non-Gentile kingdom. (Another contradiction between 1914 and the Bible.)
We still tend to make a "chronology word" out of things having to do with time when we translate the Greek word for time as "appointed time" instead of what might better be translated as "opportune time."
Note that it's the exact same word "time" in these two verses:
(Ephesians 5:16) 16 buying out the opportune time for yourselves, because the days are wicked.
(Luke 21:24) . . .and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
Neither the word opportune nor appointed is found in the Greek, only the word time. But the more typical meaning is "opportunity" as in:
Will you find the opportunity to do this? Will you find the time to do this? Not:
Will you find the appointed day and hour to do this? We have added a more specific chronological sense that usually isn't necessary in the Greek.
 

I think that's exactly correct. But we know that as Christians we are still under under a duty to question, reflect, test, prove, meditate, and "make sure of all things." We must do this even if it were an angel out of heaven giving us the interpretation, according to Galatians 1 and 2. And Paul specifically applied that thought to the way the Galatian congregation(s) should have tested and made sure of the incorrect counsel coming from council of elders at Jerusalem, because evidently some were too quick to accept that counsel just because it came from those who seemed to be pillars in the congregation. To Paul, he said, it didn't matter who those men were, or what they seemed to be, and he even included Peter, James and John in that idea of who to question. John himself later wrote that we should test the inspired utterances (1 John 4:1).
I have. And the Watchtower has also claimed to have found MANY previous misinterpretations of prophecy which interpretations they said came from God, and yet warranted a redefinition of that interpretation. In fact I quoted you one of several places where the Watchtower has admitted exactly what you say you have not found:
*** ws17 June p. 13 par. 16 Set Your Heart on Spiritual Treasures ***
At times, our understanding of a Bible prophecy or a scripture may be adjusted. When that happens, it is important to take the time to study the adjustment and meditate on it. (Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:15) We not only need to understand the main differences between the old understanding and the new one, but we also need to pay attention to the details of the new understanding.
I've seen you accuse others here of blasphemy, when they defended the Bible, and yet you are able to make a statement such as that!
Yes, certain Bible Student congregations continued to follow the Barbour/Russell advent timeline, which included Rutherford and the Watchtower editorial board, up until about 1927, with some intermediate adjustments over time to what Russell had said about 1914, and 1915, and with some brand new ideas about 1918, and 1925.
Russell's concerted effort to "finally understand his own chronology" barely changed a thing, except for a few changes to some Great Pyramid measurements, and some vacillations between 1914 and 1915, and a change around 1904 to push the period of tribulation to the few months after 1914 instead of the few months (or years) before 1914.
I would agree that Edgar's pyramid scheme hardly influenced Russell. That's because Edgar only wanted to get even more details on the subject, and completed most of this work after Russell had already published all he had to say on the Pyramid. Also, Russell was already satisfied enough with the details he had borrowed from Joseph Seiss.
You say: "Perhaps, that is where the confusion lies" but there is no need for any confusion at all. Russell's works include all the necessary details, and they are all easy to find. If we wish to discuss Russell's own published views, we don't need to worry about the many other groups that sprung from Barbour's and Russell's teachings.
I think I know what you are talking about. I think the admins or moderators here consider it spamming when someone overuses a long string of a dozen or more dislike emojis at the rate of one per minute on the posts of people they dislike, and a string of a dozen or more "like" emojis at the rate of about one per minute on their own accounts of different names. I think once a person is caught doing this once, it's dangerous to keep doing this with even with a smaller string of up-votes and down-votes. Sometimes the give-away to the game is when the down-vote is simply a negative response to a Scripture or a direct quote from the Watchtower.

An interesting take with a lot to say for it.
When Jude mentions these "rocks beneath the surface" for example, it always reminds me of the first time I read "Paul and Thecla" while at Bethel, but at the NYPL, via a book about Christian widows in Early Christianity. Paul and Thecla is an early Christian short story or novella with Thecla, not Paul, as the hero. It's one of a few stories of this type, probably written by and for women in the early Christian congregations. The antagonists of some of these stories are the 2nd century "circuit overseers" who would go from congregation to congregation saying all the right things from the "platform" but then they would also quietly worm their way into the houses of well-meaning sisters and widows, and try to take advantage of them sexually.
I was quite surprised when the Watchtower last year mentioned Paul and Thecla for the second time in nearly 100 years, and was again surprisingly supportive of the work as containing possible reflections of true traditions believed in the 2nd century:
*** w18 March p. 13 par. 3 Questions From Readers ***
The Acts of Paul and Thecla was highly regarded in early centuries, as confirmed by the fact that 80 Greek manuscripts of it exist, as well as versions in other languages. Thus, our artistic presentations are in line with some ancient indications of what the apostle looked like.
I personally have never experienced a "bad" circuit overseer. All of them have been exemplary and I have always looked forward to their visits, especially when hearing a new one for the first time. But I think all of us old-timers have had experience with congregational drifters, and we often look at them with the same kinds of suspicions. Sometimes it's a young brother who is very vague about his last congregation and who quickly latches on to an association with another eligible sister. Sometimes it's a more elderly brother, perhaps even a special pioneer, looking for an alternate congregation, hoping the trouble he caused in the last congregation won't get reported in too much detail. (Speaking from a real example, this elderly brother also latched onto a "relationship," and place to stay, with a family of sisters: a sister with an unbelieving and ailing husband, and a couple of daughters. It was a recipe for disaster.) The younger brother caused some heart-ache by getting engaged to a sister, and the engagement was later broken off. 
It's hard for me not to imagine such cases when I read Jude. So, at first, it was hard for me to see them as drifters into forums like this one to cause other kinds of trouble, but I can definitely see a similarity now.  

Sounds like you disagree with what Brother Splane said when he admitted that over 100 teachings that had turned Bible parables and Bible historical narratives into specific prophecies were examples of going beyond the things written.
But if you think about it, almost every single past error where the Watchtower has made an interpretation that was later changed was also a matter of going beyond the things written. Whenever there was a changed teaching where the Watchtower had said "this is what it means" instead of "this is what it might mean" was a matter of going beyond the things written.
Therefore, there are hundreds of additional examples. And we should be very happy for this kind of progress.
Yes. You've said this same thing previously, and I questioned you about it. Thanks for repeating it so I know it wasn't a mistake. You have compared the current Governing Body as a group much closer to modern-day Apostles than merely a modern-day version of the Council of Elders in Jerusalem. I still think this is a dangerous mistake, no matter how much we appreciate their work for the world-wide congregation. It sounds like you might disagree specifically with recent humble remarks made by Brother Herd. Sounds like you believe this was only "mock humility."
No, it merely means that I have seen what the Watchtower has said (and admitted) about this topic, and you apparently do not wish to accept what they have said on the topic..
That would be quite an accusation against the Watchtower, since the point made was about the desire of the GB to make corrections for us in the Watchtower. Obviously you don't believe this as can be seen in the sentence you wrote right after that one. If their passion is to correct, I see this as a very good thing, not trying to be equal to Christ (or the apostles, for that matter).
I believe the Watchtower is misrepresenting a couple of issues, but these have not become an obstacle to my faith. I was fortunate enough to be given some heads up and preparation for things that would have otherwise been painful to discover on my own. I was happy to know that others had already discovered these things and still wanted to continue associating and encouraging their brothers and sisters to accept our situation and navigate through it with faith intact. And I think that exposure of such issues has had a very positive impact on the doctrinal changes we have seen in the last couple of decades especially.
I skimmed over what JTR and TTH said about contacting the Watchtower directly. I have done this several times myself with surprisingly good answers at times. It's nothing to make light of in my opinion.
 

Maybe this was in the sense of these "bad elders" rejecting the counsel given by "good elders" who were quoting Bible books and the Mosaic Law (as transmitted through angels), or these "bad elders" were speaking out against sayings of Jesus and inspired writings of the apostles, as if they held no value to this time they were in, so many decades after Jesus originally spoke them. Also (less likely) Jude quotes the book of Enoch, specifically a part about the judgment of angels, and he appears to refer to another book about the "Assumption of Moses." We don't know how much more of those books were accepted other than the portions referenced, but these books were part of a genre that gave names to dozens of angels and referenced many more hierachies of thousands of angels.
Good point!
I doubt it. There are too many scriptures, and too much context that shows what Paul was up against in trying to get the congregations to accept and understand the concept of "grace" or "undeserved kindness." (Along with "law" "legalism" "works" "righteousness" "sin" "conscience" etc.) Paul had to write chapters, nearly whole long letters, on the subject, and it even put him for a short while at odds with the Jerusalem council.
Probably it is sometimes. But I'd guess there are some exceptions, too. For example, the whistleblowing of the CSA cases all over the world has drawn attention to a lot of things that go on in the world where the abused victims felt powerless. In many institutions, including once-hostile work environments, this is actually changing for the better. The threat of monetary sanctions has made even rich men who could once get away with anything (as Trump claimed), think twice. It has definitely helped in some suburban schools and even corporations I once worked for. I suspect that many priests and elders who once thought they would get away with anything are now more apt to think again before abusing persons.