JW Insider

What Jesus said bears repeating:
(Luke 21:8) . . .He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them.
 

[sarcasm] It's too bad there was no pure worship during the time of Jesus and during the lives of the apostles. Otherwise the true Christian faith could have been built upon the foundation of Jesus and the apostles. [/sarcasm]

The foundation you gave for your question indicates that you missed the point about special definitions. You have mixed up  interpretations with definitions. What this topic was about was how using unlikely definitions of certain words has contributed to the interpretation. 
Here's an example. Suppose you tell me the following phrase, which I just picked from one of your posts in this thread:
This is a sentiment that should be easy to understand, and it's one I agree with whole-heartedly. But let's say that I start using the least likely meanings of the words you used, and it becomes the basis of a completely different interpretation. For example:
Bruceq refers to the sins of Babylon the Great, which obviously refers to the current problems of the city council in the town of Babylon, New York. And we know that just as in the expression "Greater Boston area" ( Greater Boston - Wikipedia ) this refers to not just the area within the city limits of Babylon, New York, but the other suburban areas that come under the jurisdiction of the "Town of Babylon."
Bruceq says he wants to share in the mistakes of Jehovah's people. Well, we know that Jehovah's people were the Jews in the Hebrew Scriptures, and so what were those mistakes he wants to share in?
(1 Corinthians 10:6-11) 6 Now these things became our examples, for us not to be persons desiring injurious things, even as they desired them. 7 Neither become idolaters, as some of them did; just as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink, and they got up to have a good time.” 8 Neither let us practice fornication, as some of them committed fornication, only to fall, twenty-three thousand [of them] in one day. 9 Neither let us put Jehovah to the test, as some of them put [him] to the test, only to perish by the serpents. 10 Neither be murmurers, just as some of them murmured, only to perish by the destroyer. 11 Now these things went on befalling them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have arrived.
Even less likely, I could assume that you were referring specifically, to the idea of perishing by serpents, which I highlighted above. So I therefore interpret your phrase to mean the following:
"But I would rather perish by serpents than join the Town Council of the town of Babylon, New York."
And I could even defend my special interpretation by pointing out that the "correct" interpretation must always be the least likely because persons in Christendom would have more likely understood it to mean exactly what you intended. Obviously, what most people thought you meant must be wrong, because people in Christendom would agree with it.
Similarly, we have formed the foundation of the invisible parousia interpretation by accepting the least likely meanings of words and terms like "lightning" "shine" "observableness" "parousia" "synteleia" "sign" "generation" "appointed times of the nations." The most important of these special interpretations were inherited from the "private interpretations" of Nelson Barbour. And they therefore came to us as long-standing traditions that started back around 1875. 

Several literal renderings went out the window, and I miss them. I see why they had to go - for the sake of clarification, especially to cultures not attuned to Hebrew thinking, but I miss them nonetheless.
No longer do the grousers grouse that God's way is 'not adjusted right' and Jehovah turns the tables on them by asking 'is not your way not adjusted right?' Now they simply call each other 'wrong.' (Ezekiel 33)
No longer do faces sharpen one another. That's too bad. There are faces here that you could shave with.
Yikes! Alexa declines to even rate my website - tomsheepandgoats who? it says. I have to register. To be sure, I would have been blown away had I appeared in the top 10,000,000. But I did't think they would deign to acknowledge it's existence. Surely they are in cahoots with @The Librarian
 

Yes, I believe the true faith is a minority too. The scriptures tell us so. We don't believe in the trinity, immortality of the soul and no Jehovah in NT do we?  Why include that in the mix with visible parousia and king in 33 C.E. though? Does that make it wrong just because the majority believe that? The majority also believe other things that we as JWs believe also.
Just as a side issue, I noticed that in the new 2013 NWT there are several instances where we changed the wording to be more in line  with other (Christendom's) translations.  You know the saying,  truth is truth no matter who says it

By the way is the kind of comment that lands people who make it, out of the truth. May you never be stumbled.
 I hope one day the faithful slave is not going to change their understanding of 1914, to one similar to what is presented here by JWI. If they do, it won't make me think any less of them. What is it going to do to you though? And don't say it will never happen, because it HAS happened on many occasions where they taught one thing, and then "refined" their understanding. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against refining our understanding, or even changing our understanding. We should never dogmatically insist on something, and as far as I can see, change is proof that the FDS have not dogmatically insisted on something when further evidence came to light. So why should WE be dogmatic? Is it wrong to say that there are some interesting scriptural arguments being brought forward? Why insist on something "just" because for the present this is what the FDS teach? At least THAT should NOT be the argument. The argument should be a well presented scriptural counter argument. So far I have not really seen this on this thread, or on the other one. The majority has just been diversions, and attacks on the person and their motive.
What if I was to call into question your person and motive? Are you perhaps scared if 1914 is wrong, where will that leave a lot of our beliefs? Where would that leave you? Are you afraid this could delay the end?  Is that why you are sidestepping the issue and diverting attention from the "message" to the person? What are you afraid of?
So, how did that feel.

Seems like nobody knows so make your own decision. 
Continue to have the family worship/study that is four to five hours a month.  You should endeavour also to study with persons outside your family not just your family. That is probably where the suggestion/rule that limits to about 4 hours, 4 return visits, etc., comes in.  It is an encouragement not to just rely on your family (captive audience) for your field service time.
But your children are your most important disciples.
I agree that it is your responsibility to study with your children and not that of other people in the congregation. This was brought to our attention several times in past study material.
The important thing is to reach the children  and teach them while they are malleable and you have the energy.  They will leave the nest before you get around to doing everything you wish to do for them.  Each child is an individual and will have unique challenges. You might even have different material for each of them. While you have the energy  (yes, it is hard work) be generous with your time, you will be happy later on knowing you did your best for each one and you were not inconsistent or careless.   Bro Joyce quoted a scripture that applies – dare to die (make a sacrifice) for a good person – your children are worth it. Paul said he poured out himself as a drink offering for the congregation, which he frequently referred to as his children.
But I think it is your conscience that would tell you what time you report.  As your service is to Jehovah, he expects an accurate report.  
Jesus said not to bind up many rules on people.  Whenever you can’t find a rule, make your own decision. Use your conscience. Sometimes policy is also unwritten. One person says one thing, the other says something else. It is not important so you make your own decision.
 The suggestion below in the footnote of the w15 11/15 shows that there is nothing wrong with studying with the children individually, as each child might be at a different level of spirituality and development.
Work before “the night comes when no man can work”. Children will grow up to make their own decisions and will not always accept the disciplining of Jehovah (Eph 6:4).Do your utmost to help them and give Jehovah something to bless by working hard to reach their hearts.
"HOW TO STUDY WITH YOUR CHILDREN
*** w15 11/15 Train Your Child to Serve Jehovah ***
Your Most Important Bible Students
ON MOST Bible studies, we use the book What Does the Bible Really Teach? to help students come to know Jehovah and learn Scriptural truths. We study the book “Keep Yourselves in God’s Love” to help Bible students come to love Jehovah and his standards.
  The most important Bible studies you will ever have are those you conduct with your children. They need to learn about Jehovah and to grow in love for him and his righteous principles. Therefore, even if you are the only believing parent in your family, we urge you to study the Bible Teach and “God’s Love” books with your children. (Prov. 6:20) If possible, use the study guides on jw.org to help your young ones reason on the material in the Bible Teach book so that it reaches their heart.—Look under BIBLE TEACHINGS > TEENAGERS.
[Footnote]
Parents may decide to have one parent study these books with a child apart from the regular Family Worship sessions."
See  also September 1, 2007, Watchtower - Teach Your Children to Love Jehovah
NB: Underscoring - mine
 

Exactly! That's even better!
I know we've discussed the other points here already under their own topic heading.

On everything important, I agree.
 
I'm not claiming that we need to interpret it. After all the Bible already gave the interpretation. As you said before: "No need for another interpretation but thanks anyway." [Emphasis added.]
If the Bible says that it already gave us the interpretation, don't we risk adding to or taking away from the words of the scroll if we decide that we need another interpretation? And it can also lead to all kinds of scriptural problems and inconsistencies, which so far no one has responded to with scripture. (Changing the topic isn't the same thing, and, fwiw, I don't celebrate Christmas.) A mere claim that "the Governing Body" has all interpretational authority is probably fine for most of us. But when the scriptures demand that we search them and not accept "a letter as though from us" on the topic of the parousia, but suggests that we use "reason" my own conscience tells me that I have a responsibility to follow the Bible as best I can and follow the lead of the Governing Body as best I can, too. Wherever there might be a difference, however, I think we know who we should obey.
(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . 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. (Luke 21:8) . . .He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, . . . ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. . . (Galatians 1:10) 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave.
(Acts 5:29) . . .: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.
 

BIBLICAL REASONS NOT TO TIE REVELATION CHAPTER TWELVE TO THE YEAR 1914
There are a few more obvious Biblical reasons that many have noticed already.
One is the fact that the woman who is ostensibly about to give birth to the kingdom is depicted as very vulnerable, needing to be hidden away, hiding from a much more powerful dragon.
*** re chap. 27 p. 177 par. 3 God’s Kingdom Is Born! ***
The woman John here sees is . . . . Jehovah’s universal organization of spirit creatures . . . . Jehovah’s magnificent heavenly organization!
If this woman is God's ENTIRE heavenly organization, then was there ever a time when God's ENTIRE heavenly organization was so vulnerable that it had to be hidden away so that Satan could not devour it? Remember that this is after Jesus had been make King of kings and Lord of lords back in 33 CE according to the Bible, and after all authority had been given him, and after he had been made to sit at the right hand of Majesty, and after he had been raised up in power back to the position he had before the creation of the systems of things. (Heb 1:3) This Jesus, was now the reflection of God's glory, and as of 33 CE, according to the verse in Hebrews, he "sustains all things by the word of his power."
So are we saying that this Jesus who is part of God's entire heavenly organization in 1914 was so vulnerable that he had to be hidden along with the rest of Jehovah's universal organization of spirit creatures? Did Satan drag a third of the angels down and cast them down to the earth in 1914?
*** re chap. 27 p. 179 par. 9 God’s Kingdom Is Born! ***
Mention of “a third” would emphasize that a considerable number of angels have been misled by Satan.
Of course, we place this event back at the time of the Flood. (So much for the claim that the events depicted as happening in this chapter of Revelation cannot possibly have occurred in the past):
*** re chap. 27 p. 179 par. 9 God’s Kingdom Is Born! ***
Satan also cast them down to the earth. This no doubt refers to Noah’s day before the Flood, when Satan induced the disobedient sons of God to go down to earth and cohabit with the daughters of men. As a punishment, these “angels that sinned” have been thrown by God into the prisonlike condition called Tartarus.
So, Satan is here depicted as casting down a third of the angels and standing before the woman ready to devour her. If we are right that this is Jehovah's entire heavenly organization, then this one dragon, Satan, is now ready to devour Jesus, and at least two-thirds of the remaining angels. And now he has to do it alone because he just cast down that third of his "misled" angels to the earth. If he had only remembered to keep his new minions up there in heaven with him! At any rate, he is outnumbered at least ...
(Revelation 5:11) 11 And I saw, and I heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads [footnote: 10,000 times 10,000] and thousands of thousands.
So 10,000 x 10,000 is 100 Million!!  If myriads, plural, is at least 20,000, then Satan is outnumbered 20,000x20,000, or at least 400,000,000 to one. But of course, these angels on Satan's side are here battling with him. Tartarus must have very porous borders!
That was purposely ridiculous to show that our current explanation doesn't make any sense.
And yet, it makes perfect sense if we consider the one time when the woman, Jehovah's bride, was Israel. The most vulnerable time for the outworking of Jehovah's purpose through his Son was when his Son was made flesh, and born of a woman, the offspring of David, BEFORE he was with POWER declared God's Son by means of resurrection from the dead.

(Romans 1: 1-4) . . . God’s good news, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who came to be from the offspring of David according to the flesh, 4 but who with power was declared God’s Son according to the spirit of holiness by means of resurrection from the dead—yes, Jesus Christ our Lord.
We know that Satan was behind the extra demonic activity on earth at the time of Jesus' ministry. We also know that Israel itself is depicted as God's woman, and even the symbol of the sun, moon and 12 stars were already a part of that symbolism:
(Genesis 37:9, 10) . . .This time the sun and the moon and 11 stars were bowing down to me.” 10 Then he related it to his father as well as his brothers, and his father rebuked him and said to him: “What is the meaning of this dream of yours? Am I as well as your mother and your brothers really going to come and bow down to the earth to you?. . .
Satan did try to devour Jesus at the most vulnerable time: BEFORE he was given even more power and authority than what he had before he was born as a human on earth.
(Matthew 2:13) 13 After they had departed, look! Jehovah’s angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying: “Get up, take the young child and his mother and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I give you word, for Herod is about to search for the young child to kill him.. . .
(Matthew 4:1) . . .Then Jesus was led by the spirit up into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil. . . . Then the Devil left him, and look! angels came and began to minister to him.
Also, if this explanation is possible, it would be Israel that was fed for three and one-half years (1,260 days) which turns out to be exactly the amount of time that we believe Jesus went to feed the lost house of Israel in the time of his ministry. Not that this is the explanation either, but what would be the reason that God's universal organization of angels needed to be fed in the wilderness? And why would they need to flee after Jesus had already been snatched away to God's throne? Was the kingdom in heaven still so weak in 1914?
(Revelation 12:5-6) 5 And she gave birth to a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was snatched away to God and to his throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God and where they would feed her for 1,260 days.
Another point I have heard (although I don't think it's very valid or relevant) is that the woman is in birth pangs because she is about to give birth to the Kingdom in 1914. Yet the scriptural references about the birth pangs we use elsewhere (Matthew 24, 1 Thess 5) are always used in order to speak of the time after the birth of the kingdom in 1914, and a time closer to the final end judgment event. It's as if the child is born and the birth pains come after that event and not before.

In Daniel 4, Daniel said he did know the interpretation of the dream and gave it to the king. Do you not believe him?
'Times' (iddan) do not necessarily mean years. Cp. Dan. 2:8; 3:5, 15; 7:12. But why could these 'times' not be merely contemporaneous with the historical period? Is there a Scriptural basis for concluding otherwise?
Jesus indicated nothing about the '7 times' and made no link with Dan. 4.
'It must be the same.' A mere assertion. Where in Scripture has this conclusion sprung from? Besides, Jesus was speaking in the future tense  - "will be trampled" - i.e. at the time he spoke, what he had in mind hadn't happened yet.
Whoa. We have several knight-jump eisegetical leaps, there. Where is the Scriptural link between the '7 times' of Daniel 4, which Daniel specifically applied to the period of Nebuchadnezzar's madness, and Revelation's '3.5 times' relating to an entirely different apocalyptic vision given about 5 centuries later? And then a random 'day-for-a-year' formula lobbed into the interpretive cauldron - where in Daniel does it say we have to use this for the tree dream?
So to recap:
Daniel knew the interpretation of the tree dream - it wasn't sealed information 'Times' may not mean 'years' anyway, given the word's other usage within the book of Daniel There is no Scriptural prophetic connection between Luke 21:24 and Dan. 4 There is no Scriptural basis for applying some 'day-for-a-year' formula to Dan. 4 And to add to that, the Org has dispensed with typologies that are not explicit in Scripture!
"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." - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015204
Therefore, as no specific Scriptural basis can be found for interpreting the 'immense tree' in Nebuchadnezzar's dream as the antitype for God's rulership, then we should rightly reject such an application.
 

And here I thought I had at least two-thirds of the angels, too.

This was already covered previously in this thread, but I'll be happy to answer this again, too. Although I know that Ann also knows the Bible's answer to this topic, and it's always great to see anyone take the side of the Bible's advocate, here.
Yes we agree that Jesus knew more than Daniel did. And Jesus actually gives us the ACTUAL length of the "appointed times of the nations."
Here's a quote from the NWT of Luke 21:24, where Jesus spoke of the appointed times of the nations to trample Jerusalem, followed by a place where Jesus attached a specific length of time to these "appointed times of the nations."
(Luke 21:24) 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. In case anyone missed the connection, let's try a paraphrase of both of them:
(Luke 21:24) 24  . . . .into all the nations; and Jerusalem, the holy city, will be trampled underfoot by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. (Revelation 11:2) . . .to the nations, and Jerusalem, the holy city, will be trampled underfoot by the nations until 42 months, 1260 days, are fulfilled. Of course, you could argue that one said "Jerusalem would be trampled underfoot by the nations"  and the other one said "the holy city would be trampled underfoot by the nations."
(Nehemiah 11:1) . . .to live in Jerusalem, the holy city, . . (Isaiah 52:1) . . .Clothe yourself with strength, O Zion! Put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city!. . . (Daniel 9:16) . . .may your anger and wrath turn away from your city Jerusalem, your holy mountain; . . Of course, you could argue that one said the city would be "trampled on by the nations" and the other said the city would be "trampled underfoot by the nations."
But the Watch Tower's Kingdom Interlinear Translation puts that argument to sleep. It's the exact same word. For ease of lookup I'll include the Strong's Dictionary reference for each
Luke 21:24 -- g3961   πατέω pateō  : to trample, crush with the feet Rev. 11:2   --  g3961   πατέω pateō  : to trample, crush with the feet In fact, the NWT prior to 2013 prided itself on always using a consistent English word or term to translate specific Greek words wherever they came up, but not here. There is not even a cross reference here, and no explanation in any Watch Tower publication about why this verse in Revelation 11:2 echoes Luke 21:24.    Revelation 11:2,3 is also an excellent citation for showing how 3.5 times = 42 months = 1,260 days, which could have been used in the "Bible Teach" book that was just quoted. But notice how this verse is always avoided for making that point. And Revelation 12:6,14 is used instead.
So one of the verses says there will be appointed times for the Gentiles trampling the holy city, and the other says that those appointed times were 42 months, or 1,260 days. The Watchtower must avoid this verse for any purpose except to apply it to a time from December 1914 as literal days so that they end in the spring of 1918. And what do we say happened in December 1914? Good question. Nothing! It just happens to be where 1,260 days lands if we work backwards from the spring of 1918!
 
 

On everything important, I agree.
 
I'm not claiming that we need to interpret it. After all the Bible already gave the interpretation. As you said before: "No need for another interpretation but thanks anyway." [Emphasis added.]
If the Bible says that it already gave us the interpretation, don't we risk adding to or taking away from the words of the scroll if we decide that we need another interpretation? And it can also lead to all kinds of scriptural problems and inconsistencies, which so far no one has responded to with scripture. (Changing the topic isn't the same thing, and, fwiw, I don't celebrate Christmas.) A mere claim that "the Governing Body" has all interpretational authority is probably fine for most of us. But when the scriptures demand that we search them and not accept "a letter as though from us" on the topic of the parousia, but suggests that we use "reason" my own conscience tells me that I have a responsibility to follow the Bible as best I can and follow the lead of the Governing Body as best I can, too. Wherever there might be a difference, however, I think we know who we should obey.
(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . 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. (Luke 21:8) . . .He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, . . . ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. . . (Galatians 1:10) 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave.
(Acts 5:29) . . .: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.
 

On everything important, I agree.
 
I'm not claiming that we need to interpret it. After all the Bible already gave the interpretation. As you said before: "No need for another interpretation but thanks anyway." [Emphasis added.]
If the Bible says that it already gave us the interpretation, don't we risk adding to or taking away from the words of the scroll if we decide that we need another interpretation? And it can also lead to all kinds of scriptural problems and inconsistencies, which so far no one has responded to with scripture. (Changing the topic isn't the same thing, and, fwiw, I don't celebrate Christmas.) A mere claim that "the Governing Body" has all interpretational authority is probably fine for most of us. But when the scriptures demand that we search them and not accept "a letter as though from us" on the topic of the parousia, but suggests that we use "reason" my own conscience tells me that I have a responsibility to follow the Bible as best I can and follow the lead of the Governing Body as best I can, too. Wherever there might be a difference, however, I think we know who we should obey.
(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . 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. (Luke 21:8) . . .He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, . . . ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. . . (Galatians 1:10) 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave.
(Acts 5:29) . . .: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.
 

This was already covered previously in this thread, but I'll be happy to answer this again, too. Although I know that Ann also knows the Bible's answer to this topic, and it's always great to see anyone take the side of the Bible's advocate, here.
Yes we agree that Jesus knew more than Daniel did. And Jesus actually gives us the ACTUAL length of the "appointed times of the nations."
Here's a quote from the NWT of Luke 21:24, where Jesus spoke of the appointed times of the nations to trample Jerusalem, followed by a place where Jesus attached a specific length of time to these "appointed times of the nations."
(Luke 21:24) 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. In case anyone missed the connection, let's try a paraphrase of both of them:
(Luke 21:24) 24  . . . .into all the nations; and Jerusalem, the holy city, will be trampled underfoot by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. (Revelation 11:2) . . .to the nations, and Jerusalem, the holy city, will be trampled underfoot by the nations until 42 months, 1260 days, are fulfilled. Of course, you could argue that one said "Jerusalem would be trampled underfoot by the nations"  and the other one said "the holy city would be trampled underfoot by the nations."
(Nehemiah 11:1) . . .to live in Jerusalem, the holy city, . . (Isaiah 52:1) . . .Clothe yourself with strength, O Zion! Put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city!. . . (Daniel 9:16) . . .may your anger and wrath turn away from your city Jerusalem, your holy mountain; . . Of course, you could argue that one said the city would be "trampled on by the nations" and the other said the city would be "trampled underfoot by the nations."
But the Watch Tower's Kingdom Interlinear Translation puts that argument to sleep. It's the exact same word. For ease of lookup I'll include the Strong's Dictionary reference for each
Luke 21:24 -- g3961   πατέω pateō  : to trample, crush with the feet Rev. 11:2   --  g3961   πατέω pateō  : to trample, crush with the feet In fact, the NWT prior to 2013 prided itself on always using a consistent English word or term to translate specific Greek words wherever they came up, but not here. There is not even a cross reference here, and no explanation in any Watch Tower publication about why this verse in Revelation 11:2 echoes Luke 21:24.    Revelation 11:2,3 is also an excellent citation for showing how 3.5 times = 42 months = 1,260 days, which could have been used in the "Bible Teach" book that was just quoted. But notice how this verse is always avoided for making that point. And Revelation 12:6,14 is used instead.
So one of the verses says there will be appointed times for the Gentiles trampling the holy city, and the other says that those appointed times were 42 months, or 1,260 days. The Watchtower must avoid this verse for any purpose except to apply it to a time from December 1914 as literal days so that they end in the spring of 1918. And what do we say happened in December 1914? Good question. Nothing! It just happens to be where 1,260 days lands if we work backwards from the spring of 1918!
 
 

It's not a mystery to a lot of people. You saw it in the Insight book, so it's not a mystery to the persons who put that book together. I'd wager that even AllenSmith hasn't changed his mind about this particular idea. I'm pretty sure you won't find a lot of support for this idea even among your own congregation.

Not inconsistent at all. This dream did have a future fulfillment. The Bible said it would. The the Bible said that it did! The Bible says it was fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar. What's inconsistent is that every dream and prophecy in Daniel has ONE fulfillment, but the Watchtower needed this one to have TWO fulfillments to support a tradition.
Besides, I'm the one who believes it has a FUTURE fulfillment, just like the Bible says. But the Watchtower tradition indicates that it could have a PAST fulfillment. Jerusalem is clearly already destroyed at this point, as Nebuchadnezzar is already proudly and haughtily upon upon the vast great "world" empire that he himself has built. So if this dream happens AFTER Jerusalem is destroyed, then it is a prophecy about a time in the past when Nebuchadnezzar already destroyed Jerusalem. Furthermore, if the Watchtower claims that it was fulfilled in 607, and if they truly believe that 539 was an assured, secular, pivotal year, then 607 MUST be a time 2 years before Nebuchadnezzar even became king of Babylon. 

We're not saying the Bible is incorrect for giving rounded numbers. Rounded numbers are easier to remember. The fact however remains that, astronomically if the Hebrews had a lunar-based calendar, their months would run from "new moon to new moon" as indicated in Isa. 66:23*. New moon to new moon averages at 29.5 days. As @JW Insider said, the month lengths had to alternate (although not necessarily in a strict 30-29-30-29 pattern).
Problems arise with regard to people's interpretations of prophetic numbers - especially when they want to convert rounded or schematic months and days into solar years, in which case, a 360-day schematic year is magically converted into 360 solar years of 365.24219 days each! The method is inconsistent and there is no scriptural warrant to convert '7 times' into 2,520 years in the first place.
* Also see Isa. 1:13,14 and Amos 8:5 which show the importance of new moon festivals in ancient Hebrew culture.
It was formalized in Exodus.

Let's focus on the Bible's own interpretation instead, hey?
Who did God (through Daniel) apply the fall and regrowth of the tree to? (Read Dan. 4:22, 24, 28, 33).
 

Then you know the interpretation Daniel gave of the tree dream, and you know that it applied to Nebuchadnezzar and his kingship - no one else. The question is,
Do you believe Daniel's divinely-inspired interpretation here? http://www.livius.org/pictures/israel/gezer/the-gezer-calendar/
His two months are harvest
His two month are planting
His two months are late planting
His month is hoeing up of flax
His month is harvest of barley
His month is harvest and feasting
His two months are vine-tending
His month is summer fruit.
Translation by W.F. Albright

As @Ann O'Maly already said, none of this proves the Bible to be incorrect. As you say, the Bible gives a rounded number of 30 days, whenever it speaks of a range of dates. We don't know the exact reason. Probably for the same reason that anyone uses rounded numbers, for simplicity, for ease of calculations. I can't think of too many reasons that the Hebrews would need to calculate the exact number of days over a long period. Perhaps you can.
Thinking about a farmer, as your did, if experience tells you that barley takes about 105 days from planting to harvest, you could easily translate that to 3.5 months. If you planted on the new moon, you could expect to harvest at the full moon (always on the 14th or 15th). If someone tells you that wheat takes 120 days, then you could translate that to 4 months, and if you do all your planting at the same time, then you could expect to plant on the same new moon with the barley and expect to harvest on the first new moon after the earlier barley harvest. (Oats, if they had them, might take 115 days to ripen.) It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable that you might want to know these number of days if you were hiring laborers, or for planning, but it also seems reasonable that a quick, close estimate was all that was needed, and thus there was no need to worry about the fact that a time period of 3 months might have 88 days in some cases or 89 days in some cases. (29+30+29) or (30+29+30).
What we DO know is that if a previous month had 30 days, the next month is going to be closer to 29. If you try to call 2 months in a row with 30 days, the next new moon is going to show up about 28 or 29 days later. Ann is right that this was not always in a strict alternating pattern (which is why I said that the farmer would never be more than one day off).
It is true that some Jews experimented with 364 day calendars, to be a little more in line with a solar calendar, but even these could also not be used for very long periods without adjustments. The Dead Sea Scrolls shows that they tried months of 30+30+31 days for each quarter of the year, for a total of 364. There is a possibility that Daniel was referring to such a calendar, but we don't know.
I am sure you already know that Insight book says the following:
*** it-1 pp. 389-390 Calendar ***
Early calendars were mainly lunar calendars, that is, the months of the year were counted by complete cycles of the moon, as, for example, from one new moon to the next new moon. On the average, such lunation takes about 29 days, 12 hours, and 44 minutes. The months were usually counted as of either 29 or 30 days, but in the Bible record the term “month” generally means 30 days. . . .
Hebrew Calendar. The Israelites used such a lunisolar, or bound solar, calendar. This is evident from the fact that Jehovah God established the beginning of their sacred year with the month Abib in the spring and specified the celebration of certain festivals on fixed dates, festivals that were related to harvest seasons. For these dates to have coincided with the particular harvests, there had to be a calendar arrangement that would synchronize with the seasons by compensating for the difference between the lunar and solar years.—Ex 12:1-14; 23:15, 16; Le 23:4-16. . . . 
The Jewish months ran from new moon to new moon. (Isa 66:23) Thus, one Hebrew word, choʹdhesh, rendered “month” (Ge 7:11) or “new moon” (1Sa 20:27), is related to cha·dhashʹ, meaning “new.” Another word for month, yeʹrach, is rendered “lunar month.” (1Ki 6:38) In later periods, fire signals were used or messengers were dispatched to advise the people of the beginning of the new month.
*** it-1 p. 392 Calendar ***
In postexilic times the names of the months used in Babylon were employed by the Israelites, and seven of these are mentioned: Nisan, the 1st month, replacing Abib (Es 3:7); Sivan, the 3rd month (Es 8:9); Elul, the 6th (Ne 6:15); Chislev, the 9th (Zec 7:1); Tebeth, the 10th (Es 2:16); Shebat, the 11th (Zec 1:7); and Adar, the 12th (Ezr 6:15).
The postexilic names of the remaining five months appear in the Jewish Talmud and other works. They are Iyyar, the 2nd month; Tammuz, the 4th; Ab, the 5th; Tishri, the 7th; and Heshvan, the 8th. The 13th month, which was intercalated periodically, was named Veadar, or the second Adar.
Eventually the length of most of the months was fixed as having a specific number of days. Nisan (Abib), Sivan, Ab, Tishri (Ethanim), and Shebat regularly had 30 days each; Iyyar (Ziv), Tammuz, Elul, and Tebeth regularly had 29 days each. Heshvan (Bul), Chislev, and Adar, however, could have either 29 or 30 days. The variations in these latter months served to make necessary adjustments with the lunar calendar but also were used to prevent certain festivals from occurring on days viewed as prohibited by later Jewish religious leaders.
We don't have any evidence of the standard Hebrew calendar ever just adding a few days in a year, but there is plenty of evidence that the Jews lived under a calendar in Babylon that added a full month to every leap year, 7 times in a 19 year period. We know that even in Bible times the Hebrew calendar had already adopted the Babylonian names for the months. We also know that only about 250 years after Revelation was written that the Jews had already documented a formal a system that also added 7 full months at various places within every 19 year period. (One difference between them was that the Babylonians would use either the 6th or the 12th month for the intercalary month, and the Hebrew calendar settled on just adding it at the 12th month for each of those seven different times.)
But we don't have to go to the Talmud or later Jewish writings to know that the Biblical month was from "new moon" to "new moon."
(Isaiah 66:23, NWT 2013) 23 “And from new moon to new moon and from sabbath to sabbath, All flesh will come in to bow down before me,” says Jehovah.
(1 Kings 6:37, 38, NWT 1984) 37 In the fourth year the house of Jehovah had its foundation laid, in the lunar month of Ziv; 38 and in the eleventh year, in the lunar month of Bul, that is, the eighth month, the house was finished as regards all its details and all its plan; so that he was seven years at building it.

I forgot to respond to this last portion you wrote:
The Bible does not speak of the month as only thirty days. As already shown, the Bible, speaks of the measurement of months as lunar, from new moon to new moon. The Bible contains several places where numbers representing time and chronology were rounded off. Sometimes this rounding might have been done to make large numbers easier to remember, time periods easier to remember, or easier to calculate. We'd only be speculating if said we knew exactly why the Bible often appears to round the numbers.
For example, Jesus may have been in the grave for as few as 29 hours? So if it was just a few hours more than one full day, why do we call it 3 days. Why was it called 3 days and 3 nights? Our solution is to say it was PARTS of three days. Because of the book of Jonah, perhaps this was the easiest way to remember that it was part of Friday (from afternoon until sundown which was the start of Saturday), all of Saturday, and part of Sunday (already raised before sunrise). In this case it's possible that "Parts" of three days were rounded off to three days. Another example, why does Matthew say it was 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the deportation, and 14 from the deportation to Christ? If you count the generations listed here, or even the variations in the Hebrew Scriptures, or the LXX, or what's listed in Luke, you still don't get 14 for each of those. (Matthew 1:17) . . .All the generations, then, from Abraham until David were 14 generations; from David until the deportation to Babylon, 14 generations; from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ, 14 generations.
*** it-1 pp. 915-916 Genealogy of Jesus Christ ***
This division may have been made as a memory aid. However, in counting the names we find that they total 41, rather than 42.
When the Bible says that 4,000 men were struck down (1 Sam 4:2) then 30,000 foot soldiers fell (1 Sam 4:10) do we always believe that it could not have been 3,998 or 30,002, respectively? Large populations are always rounded off to numbers like 5,000, 18,000 or even 500,000, 600,000, 800,000 etc. (2 Sam 24:9) Joʹab now gave to the king the number of the people who were registered. Israel amounted to 800,000 warriors armed with swords, and the men of Judah were 500,000.
Note this from the Chronology article in Insight on page 461: the beginning of         1077 B.C.E.           40 years
David’s reign
to
the beginning of         1037 B.C.E.           40 years
Solomon’s reign
to
the division of the       997 B.C.E.           40 years
kingdom
Deuteronomy 2:7; 29:5; Acts 13:21; 2 Samuel 5:4; 1 Kings 11:42, 43; 12:1-20
*** it-1 p. 461 Chronology ***
. . . the . . . three periods all may have included fractional figures. Thus, David’s reign is shown to have actually lasted for 40 1⁄2 years, according to 2 Samuel 5:5. If, as seems to have been the practice, regnal years of these kings were counted on a Nisan-to-Nisan basis, this could mean that King Saul’s reign lasted only 39 1⁄2 years . . .
 
 
But there is another point you made above, if a month is only to have thirty days and this is for consistency in working out prophecies, then why do we not use 30-day months when deciding to translate these time periods into so-called modern day fulfillments? A year of 12 30-day months is only 360 days, so these supposed 2,520 years would be 360-day years. Yet the Watchtower uses 365.25 day years, and the Watchtower uses an average of 30.4375 days in a month for the fulfillment. So what's all the fuss about consistency if the Watchtower isn't concerned about it?
[Edited to add:] And if as you say "it was to have consistency when we work out the prophecies," then why do we make a "day for a year" in the 7 times of Daniel, but do NOT make a day for a year in the three-and-one-half times in Revelation, and why do we NOT USE EITHER days or years, when Revelation 11:9,11 says "three and one half days"?
 
 

I forgot to respond to this last portion you wrote:
The Bible does not speak of the month as only thirty days. As already shown, the Bible, speaks of the measurement of months as lunar, from new moon to new moon. The Bible contains several places where numbers representing time and chronology were rounded off. Sometimes this rounding might have been done to make large numbers easier to remember, time periods easier to remember, or easier to calculate. We'd only be speculating if said we knew exactly why the Bible often appears to round the numbers.
For example, Jesus may have been in the grave for as few as 29 hours? So if it was just a few hours more than one full day, why do we call it 3 days. Why was it called 3 days and 3 nights? Our solution is to say it was PARTS of three days. Because of the book of Jonah, perhaps this was the easiest way to remember that it was part of Friday (from afternoon until sundown which was the start of Saturday), all of Saturday, and part of Sunday (already raised before sunrise). In this case it's possible that "Parts" of three days were rounded off to three days. Another example, why does Matthew say it was 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the deportation, and 14 from the deportation to Christ? If you count the generations listed here, or even the variations in the Hebrew Scriptures, or the LXX, or what's listed in Luke, you still don't get 14 for each of those. (Matthew 1:17) . . .All the generations, then, from Abraham until David were 14 generations; from David until the deportation to Babylon, 14 generations; from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ, 14 generations.
*** it-1 pp. 915-916 Genealogy of Jesus Christ ***
This division may have been made as a memory aid. However, in counting the names we find that they total 41, rather than 42.
When the Bible says that 4,000 men were struck down (1 Sam 4:2) then 30,000 foot soldiers fell (1 Sam 4:10) do we always believe that it could not have been 3,998 or 30,002, respectively? Large populations are always rounded off to numbers like 5,000, 18,000 or even 500,000, 600,000, 800,000 etc. (2 Sam 24:9) Joʹab now gave to the king the number of the people who were registered. Israel amounted to 800,000 warriors armed with swords, and the men of Judah were 500,000.
Note this from the Chronology article in Insight on page 461: the beginning of         1077 B.C.E.           40 years
David’s reign
to
the beginning of         1037 B.C.E.           40 years
Solomon’s reign
to
the division of the       997 B.C.E.           40 years
kingdom
Deuteronomy 2:7; 29:5; Acts 13:21; 2 Samuel 5:4; 1 Kings 11:42, 43; 12:1-20
*** it-1 p. 461 Chronology ***
. . . the . . . three periods all may have included fractional figures. Thus, David’s reign is shown to have actually lasted for 40 1⁄2 years, according to 2 Samuel 5:5. If, as seems to have been the practice, regnal years of these kings were counted on a Nisan-to-Nisan basis, this could mean that King Saul’s reign lasted only 39 1⁄2 years . . .
 
 
But there is another point you made above, if a month is only to have thirty days and this is for consistency in working out prophecies, then why do we not use 30-day months when deciding to translate these time periods into so-called modern day fulfillments? A year of 12 30-day months is only 360 days, so these supposed 2,520 years would be 360-day years. Yet the Watchtower uses 365.25 day years, and the Watchtower uses an average of 30.4375 days in a month for the fulfillment. So what's all the fuss about consistency if the Watchtower isn't concerned about it?
[Edited to add:] And if as you say "it was to have consistency when we work out the prophecies," then why do we make a "day for a year" in the 7 times of Daniel, but do NOT make a day for a year in the three-and-one-half times in Revelation, and why do we NOT USE EITHER days or years, when Revelation 11:9,11 says "three and one half days"?
 
 

As @Ann O'Maly already said, none of this proves the Bible to be incorrect. As you say, the Bible gives a rounded number of 30 days, whenever it speaks of a range of dates. We don't know the exact reason. Probably for the same reason that anyone uses rounded numbers, for simplicity, for ease of calculations. I can't think of too many reasons that the Hebrews would need to calculate the exact number of days over a long period. Perhaps you can.
Thinking about a farmer, as your did, if experience tells you that barley takes about 105 days from planting to harvest, you could easily translate that to 3.5 months. If you planted on the new moon, you could expect to harvest at the full moon (always on the 14th or 15th). If someone tells you that wheat takes 120 days, then you could translate that to 4 months, and if you do all your planting at the same time, then you could expect to plant on the same new moon with the barley and expect to harvest on the first new moon after the earlier barley harvest. (Oats, if they had them, might take 115 days to ripen.) It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable that you might want to know these number of days if you were hiring laborers, or for planning, but it also seems reasonable that a quick, close estimate was all that was needed, and thus there was no need to worry about the fact that a time period of 3 months might have 88 days in some cases or 89 days in some cases. (29+30+29) or (30+29+30).
What we DO know is that if a previous month had 30 days, the next month is going to be closer to 29. If you try to call 2 months in a row with 30 days, the next new moon is going to show up about 28 or 29 days later. Ann is right that this was not always in a strict alternating pattern (which is why I said that the farmer would never be more than one day off).
It is true that some Jews experimented with 364 day calendars, to be a little more in line with a solar calendar, but even these could also not be used for very long periods without adjustments. The Dead Sea Scrolls shows that they tried months of 30+30+31 days for each quarter of the year, for a total of 364. There is a possibility that Daniel was referring to such a calendar, but we don't know.
I am sure you already know that Insight book says the following:
*** it-1 pp. 389-390 Calendar ***
Early calendars were mainly lunar calendars, that is, the months of the year were counted by complete cycles of the moon, as, for example, from one new moon to the next new moon. On the average, such lunation takes about 29 days, 12 hours, and 44 minutes. The months were usually counted as of either 29 or 30 days, but in the Bible record the term “month” generally means 30 days. . . .
Hebrew Calendar. The Israelites used such a lunisolar, or bound solar, calendar. This is evident from the fact that Jehovah God established the beginning of their sacred year with the month Abib in the spring and specified the celebration of certain festivals on fixed dates, festivals that were related to harvest seasons. For these dates to have coincided with the particular harvests, there had to be a calendar arrangement that would synchronize with the seasons by compensating for the difference between the lunar and solar years.—Ex 12:1-14; 23:15, 16; Le 23:4-16. . . . 
The Jewish months ran from new moon to new moon. (Isa 66:23) Thus, one Hebrew word, choʹdhesh, rendered “month” (Ge 7:11) or “new moon” (1Sa 20:27), is related to cha·dhashʹ, meaning “new.” Another word for month, yeʹrach, is rendered “lunar month.” (1Ki 6:38) In later periods, fire signals were used or messengers were dispatched to advise the people of the beginning of the new month.
*** it-1 p. 392 Calendar ***
In postexilic times the names of the months used in Babylon were employed by the Israelites, and seven of these are mentioned: Nisan, the 1st month, replacing Abib (Es 3:7); Sivan, the 3rd month (Es 8:9); Elul, the 6th (Ne 6:15); Chislev, the 9th (Zec 7:1); Tebeth, the 10th (Es 2:16); Shebat, the 11th (Zec 1:7); and Adar, the 12th (Ezr 6:15).
The postexilic names of the remaining five months appear in the Jewish Talmud and other works. They are Iyyar, the 2nd month; Tammuz, the 4th; Ab, the 5th; Tishri, the 7th; and Heshvan, the 8th. The 13th month, which was intercalated periodically, was named Veadar, or the second Adar.
Eventually the length of most of the months was fixed as having a specific number of days. Nisan (Abib), Sivan, Ab, Tishri (Ethanim), and Shebat regularly had 30 days each; Iyyar (Ziv), Tammuz, Elul, and Tebeth regularly had 29 days each. Heshvan (Bul), Chislev, and Adar, however, could have either 29 or 30 days. The variations in these latter months served to make necessary adjustments with the lunar calendar but also were used to prevent certain festivals from occurring on days viewed as prohibited by later Jewish religious leaders.
We don't have any evidence of the standard Hebrew calendar ever just adding a few days in a year, but there is plenty of evidence that the Jews lived under a calendar in Babylon that added a full month to every leap year, 7 times in a 19 year period. We know that even in Bible times the Hebrew calendar had already adopted the Babylonian names for the months. We also know that only about 250 years after Revelation was written that the Jews had already documented a formal a system that also added 7 full months at various places within every 19 year period. (One difference between them was that the Babylonians would use either the 6th or the 12th month for the intercalary month, and the Hebrew calendar settled on just adding it at the 12th month for each of those seven different times.)
But we don't have to go to the Talmud or later Jewish writings to know that the Biblical month was from "new moon" to "new moon."
(Isaiah 66:23, NWT 2013) 23 “And from new moon to new moon and from sabbath to sabbath, All flesh will come in to bow down before me,” says Jehovah.
(1 Kings 6:37, 38, NWT 1984) 37 In the fourth year the house of Jehovah had its foundation laid, in the lunar month of Ziv; 38 and in the eleventh year, in the lunar month of Bul, that is, the eighth month, the house was finished as regards all its details and all its plan; so that he was seven years at building it.