JW Insider

You must be Allen Smith then

I wouldn't have more than some anecdotal evidence for just a few.
But there was an expression I heard a couple of times at Bethel, that people should just suffer through their last couple of years to get their four years in, because after that you can "write your own ticket" back home. Even my first roommate who stole the $200 from me used that expression, 'you can write your own ticket.' After sending him a few letters requesting my money back, I sent a letter to the body of elders in his congregation, who wrote back and said they would talk to him, and I'd get the money back. I got it back through them -- and I have always hoped it didn't just come out of their own pocket. So there's a chance that this particular brother lost his ticket.
But I'm guessing that most probably they just became elders in their local congregations back home, and the "adulation" given to them after what they considered 4  years of humiliation helped them get over their old attitudes and put on a new personality.
(Not necessarily related, but there was an expression I heard a later roommate say: "He gave some as bindery workers, some as janitors, some as laundrymen, some as dishwashers . . . .' There were variations of course, but they always focused on the menial, factory work, housekeeping work, etc.
 

I'm hoping that the purpose of posting isn't just to expose organizational flaws - it isn't in my case anyway. It's not fair for members of a family just to air dirty laundry. It seems apparent that Jay Witness has a bad agenda and as one poster mentioned in effect, we shouldn't believe everything opposers say.  It is more to get us thinking about our own attitudes toward wrongdoing we may face from within the organization. Some seem to have a culture of "see no evil, hear no evil" as if considering anything "negative" from within is somehow being disloyal or disobedient. "Only draw attention to good things; ignore anything bad/negative so as not to be discouraging." Question: Is that the example Jehovah set for us? Do you get the impression from reading his Word that in his organization (both heavenly and earthly) nothing bad ever happened? What about Jesus? Did he pretend badness/flaws didn't exist both in Jehovah's organization at the time (the Jews) or even among his followers? Or what about later when the Christian congregation was established...? Or what about the information published by the F&DS today? (i.e. chapter 28 of the Proclaimers Book: Testing and Sifting from Within). Can this all be just "airing dirty laundry?"  But yet, some feel if we consider these realities, it's somehow bad. To be clear: No one is suggesting a steady diet of negative experiences, so why consider them at all? To use your illustration: "...when you shine a bright light upon cockroaches...they don't stop being cockroaches...they just go somewhere else." When is that true? Whenever you look the other way and pretend they don't exist. Usually, when people go to the trouble of shining a light on something it is to do something about it. Otherwise, they just continue to exist - as you have correctly mentioned - and even proliferate. So, of course, we have a scriptural system in place whereby we don't just look the other way when we encounter wrongdoing. We report it and even when justice may take years, decades or even lifetimes, we leave matters in Jehovah's hands since we have fulfilled our personal obligation and not take matters into our own hands.I don't see anyone suggesting a mutiny for the organization to change here. Is that the end of the story though? What about in the meantime when we see people being stumbled or deeply troubled by something, THEN what is our obligation? Pretend it doesn't exist? Or apply God's counsel to us at 2 Corinthians 1:3, 4: "Praised by the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of tender mercies and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all out trials so that WE MAY BE ABLE TO COMFORT OTHERS IN ANY SORT OF TRIAL WITH THE COMFORT THAT WE RECEIVE FROM GOD." Some of us have seen and experienced things that would assuredly stumble others (I don't even tell elders or Circuit Overseers because the problem is not whether they would even believe me anyway ((they wouldn't)), but rather, what if they DID believe me? (I wouldn't go around blabbing about this stuff anyway). They would possibly be stumbled - even though they may THINK they have "seen everything." Some of these things are WAY outside the box. Things people wouldn't even think would exist or call to mind as a possibility. That is why those specifics are not being mentioned here. The fact is, none of these things as bad as they may be should stumble anyone - they haven't stumbled us and we have survived. But often what makes these things (although rare) survivable is the kindness, understanding, validation, acceptance and love of those who really have been there. Who can understand and help one make sense of things they thought could never happen because "angels would cull out whatever would stumble anyone." (they misunderstand the import of that verse in Matthew and so have unrealistic expectations of what should happen.) One of Jehovah's provisions to help us, is the support we get from our brotherhood. They can be a personal lifesaver and comfort that you wouldn't normally get from a magazine or public talk 
 

Yes, I was about to go straight to the word PAROUSIA as the next term to discuss, and to me this is an easy one. But it is so ingrained as the basis for related teachings that I will save it for later. So, instead:
GENTILE TIMES
The NWT and WT now refer to this term as "Appointed Times of the Nations." based on Luke 21:24. Comparing the KJV and the NWT, the verse read as follows:
Luke 21:24 King James Version (KJV)
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
NWT (Luke 21:24) 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
This discussion probably won't deal so much with Daniel 4 directly, however, there are numerous Biblical problems with using a type/antitype fulfillment that uses a wicked, pagan, Gentile king Nebuchadnezzar and has him stand in for the Jewish Messianic kingdom under Jesus Christ. The beast-like humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar as a lesson for his haughtiness lasts for "seven times" until he is restored to his throne. That moment when he is restored after seven times is supposed to represent how Jesus restored the Messianic kingdom by sitting back down on the throne after seven times. Of course, the beast-like humiliation of a pagan Gentile king as a lesson for haughtiness makes no sense when applied to Jesus' Messianic kingdom. 
But the 1874 chronology that included a 40 year harvest ending in 1914 had failed. For a while the emphasis shifted to a 40 year harvest from 1878 to 1918, but that was not to last either. The Watch Tower Society finally dropped every vestige of the 1874 chronology and went back to this secondary method of reaching the date 1914. They simply noticed that if you work backwards and count 2,520 years from 1914 you will reach 606 BC, so this date 606 became the new date for the fall of the Jewish Messianic kingdom. It didn't matter that there was absolutely ZERO evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in that year, but it appeared to be only about 20 years off, so that was considered close enough. It had already been one of the evidences that Barbour had used prior to Russell, although both of them considered other evidence to be better. In 1876, Russell had used Leviticus as the primary scripture for claiming the Gentiles would chastise the Jews for seven times, and he tied the mention of 7 times in Daniel 4 as a support of the scripture in Leviticus:
(Leviticus 26:28) . . .and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins. . .
Later it was noticed that this verse in Leviticus wasn't really about seven periods of time, so the WTS now pinned everything on Daniel 4 (without Leviticus) and it became the new primary support for 1914. We simply said that the 7 times means 7 years, and that 7 years are made up of 2,520 "prophetic" days using 360 days to a year, and 2,520 "prophetic" days must  be thought of as 2,520 solar years (of 365.25 days each). We then say Nebuchadnezzar represented the Messianic kingdom. And, of course, we also needed to start a pseudo-chronology that pretended it was possible to move Jerusalem's destruction by Nebuchadnezzar back 20 years from where all the evidence pointed, so that 2,520 years would land on 1914.
The WTS once claimed that there were about 10 different threads of evidence that all pointed to 1914, and all but one of these came through the date 1874 and added 40 years. The date 1914 now hangs by only this one single thread now based solely on a dream about Nebuchadnezzar's 7 time periods of insanity.
------------
The above is worded truthfully, but clearly in a way that makes it seem unlikely to have been correct. But I'm not trying to say it is impossible. This is just an exercise to see if we have assigned the most likely meaning to it. So is there any way to check ourselves against other scriptures and see if we picked the most likely time period?
Turns out there are at least two scriptures to help here.
One is the verse itself. Note that Luke 21:24 says that they "WILL FALL by the edge of the sword and Jerusalem WILL BE TRAMPLED on by the nations UNTIL the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled."
Note that this action of Jerusalem falling by the edge of the sword is is in the future, and it is directly connected to the trampling that is also placed in the future. We know from history that Jerusalem fell by the edge of the sword in 70 CE, and that Jerusalem was therefore and thereby trampled on by the nations.
The Watch Tower publications have a different view of this scripture. It is understood by the WTS to mean that Jerusalem will continue to be trampled on by the nations from 676 years prior to 70 CE and for another 1844 years after 70 (until 1914). But, if that was true --and important-- why didn't Jesus use the proper tense. Both Aramaic and koine Greek have tenses that cover ongoing action as opposed to simple future action.
Discussions of specific language and tense cannot be definitive, however. There may always be more than one way to read something, and our only goal here is to find evidence for what is likely.
There is another verse however that gives us an indication of an actual time period to attach to these "appointed times of the nations."
When Jesus said "and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled" it would have been nice if he replaced those "times" with an actual amount of time. That would surely get us on the right track. In other words what if Jesus had said
: "the nations, they will trample on Jerusalem until seven times are fulfilled."
or since "seven times" are the same as "seven years" and therefore 2,520 days, we would even accept:
"the nations, they will trample on Jerusalem, the holy city, until 2,520 days are fulfilled"
Or since 2520 days is the same as 84 months of 30 days each, we would accept:
"the nations, they will trample on the holy city for 84 months."
Well, as most of already know, Jesus actually did say something like that when he gave the Revelation to John, and this should clear up why we attach a length of "seven times" to the "times of the nations." In Revelation 11:2, Jesus says:

(Revelation 11:2) . . .the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months.
Imagine the joy that the Watchtower Society must have felt when it was discovered that Jesus himself had attached a time period to the Gentile Times, and thus cleared up any question about the whether or not it was "likely" that the Gentile Times were actually 84 months long as the Watchtower claims! (84 x 30 = 2520)
In fact, this scripture was the basis for so many Bible chronologists attaching a length of 42 months, or 1,260 days to the Gentile Times. Many of those commentators, especially the ones in the 19th century, therefore attached a period of 1,260 years to the Gentile Times. This included John Aquila Brown, about whom the Watch Tower publications said the following:
*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected.
These statements contain some misleading and false ideas buried within them. For example, John Aquila Brown did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it ended. Did Russell clearly discern the beginning and end dates of the period? Russell vacillated between 606 and 607 and finally decided it must be 606 for the beginning --- even though he was about 20 years off from the evidence. Russell vacillated between 1914 and 1915 for the end date, then even indicated that he was willing to dismiss the whole chronology as potentially laughable for a time, and finally came back to 1914 and 1915 after he saw the Great War begin in 1914.
The Proclaimer's book also says that "He [Brown] did, however, connect these "seven times" with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24."
That statement is absolutely false. Brown always denied any connection between the "seven times" of Daniel with the "Gentile Times" of Luke 21:24. And that's at least partially based on the fact that he knew that Revelation 11:2 had already attached a different time period to the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.
There are a lot of other funny or ironic claims and ideas to look into from this section of the book. This happens whenever someone tries to present a partially cleaned up history of their own chronology beliefs that already failed in the past.
Even the very definition given to the term "Gentile Times" failed in 1914. And that's the main point of what this discussion is looking for. It was the very meaning that the Watch Tower publications had given to the term Gentile Times that was tied to all the expectations that 1914 and 1915 would bring. All 100% of those expectations failed, and therefore the definition given to term "Gentile Times" must also be considered unlikely.

QUICK REVIEW
So, we have these six words or terms from Matthew 24 (Mark 13 & Luke 21) for which we are trying to evaluate whether we have chosen a more likely meaning of the term, or a less likely meaning in order to arrive at the INVISIBLE PAROUSIA doctrine. It might even be possible to trace how some of the terms were apparently forced into their special meaning after the decision was made to declare that the PAROUSIA had indeed already begun.
BACKGROUND
Most of the persons who set dates for the visible return of Christ in the 19th century just stopped setting them as soon as a date didn't pan out. But some had invested so much time and effort into it that this was apparently impossible. Hundreds of thousands paid close attention to the 1843 date set initially by William Miller. When it failed another 1843 date was set, then an 1844 date, and Miller quit setting dates. (Russell would later claim that this showed that Miller was one of the 'foolish virgins whose lamp ran out of oil,' because Miller had given up on setting dates.)
But others who had invested their life and reputation on it waited right up to the last day of 1844. Then, of course, new "adjustments" were discovered that put Jesus return in the 1850's, then the 1860's. But by now there were only tens of thousands paying attention. The typical thing to do was to show your faith by focusing on the very next date, but N H Barbour, after some study and decisions in 1859, decided to skip all those expectations for the mid-1860's and go straight to his 1873 date. (He did not settle on 1874 until 1873 failed.) 
This means that when the 1860's dates failed, Barbour was already set to gain a following for the 1873 date. Less people were setting dates, there were less to choose from that were still based on the Millerite foundation. (Miller himself had mentioned the possibility of the 1870's date, half a century earlier.) When it failed in 1873, Barbour had spent as much of his life as Miller had on these dates. He changed it to 1874, and when that failed he was truly depressed. One of his contributors, B W Keith, went back to some teachings that had been promoted in the 1820's about a two-stage parousia. The first stage would be invisible, and Benjamin Wilson who also believed in a two-stage parousia had published the "Diaglott" as an aid to supporting this idea. (Later the Watch Tower Society--Russell--bought the rights to reprint Benjamin Wilson's Diaglott so that most available copies today have the Watch Tower's name in them.)
Barbour credited Keith with the two-stage idea in his tract ("magazine") and it got Barbour back on track. Barbour spoke about possibly picking up an extra 5,000 of the Second Adventists each month as new subscribers. He fully expected at least 20,000 of the current number of Second Adventists to subscribe. In 1877, Barbour convinced Russell of the urgency of this chronology, because just 3.5 years after the presence had begun, they expected Christ's bride to be changed and to have gone up to heaven in 1878 while "lesser" Christians awaited heaven at a later date. So the Russells sold off most of the assets of their largest company so that Barbour could distribute his tracts and booklets more widely.
When 1878 failed, subscribers dropped, and trouble also broke out between Barbour and Russell. Barbour blamed it on disagreements with Russell about money. Russell blamed it on a doctrinal disagreement. (Russell had "crazy" views about the ransom that are no longer considered valid, and Barbour had his own "crazy" view.)
By mid-1879 Russell had convinced three major contributors to Barbour to come over to his own new magazine. Russell also sent out an offer to all the Barbour subscribers to switch over to the Watch Tower. And it was also timed to pick up the current subscribers of a Second Adventist magazine from California as that magazine was just running out of money and discontinuing. So Russell printed up 8,000 copies of the first July 1879 issue. In 1879, there was still an urgency again for the next major date, because Russell expected the Bride of Christ to be changed in October 1881. (3.5 years plus 3.5 years from October 1874.) Lesser Christians would remain on earth until around 1914, when the Harvest would be complete.
Because of the failure of 1881, the number of subscribers remained low. (8,000 had been an overestimate.) But the book series, Divine Plan of the Ages (1886), The Time is at Hand (1889), and Thy Kingdom Come (1891), were extremely popular, "proving" the 1874 chronology with charts containing pyramids and diagrams, and pointing to great expectations between then and up to 1914.
Everything was invested into this idea of a two-stage parousia that started invisibly in 1874 and would manifest itself most visibly in the years just prior to 1914 (later adjusted to the year and months just following 1914).
----------------
Most people here are probably already generally aware of this background information, but it is difficult to understand why parts of the 1874 chronology lasted nearly 70 years -- until 1943/1944 without this background. (My father remembers believing in 1874, but says they were mostly calling it 1878 just before he was baptized.) It also can help explain why it was easy to just transfer the explanation of Matthew 24 from an 1874 chronology over to a 1914 chronology when that became necessary. It still remained a "two-stage Parousia" in every case.
Will pick up on another one of the terms in the next post.

So true. It's hard to imagine what kind of "spirituality" can live alongside certain kinds of sin and certain kinds of personalities.
Most people go into the various Bethel branches, at about age 19 and 20, rather naively, and usually just a few short years after their baptism and with an average of more than a year of pioneering.  The statistics favored those who were 'raised in the truth' rather than recent converts. One of the first things we were told, jokingly by Brother Couch and Brother Sydlik in the "welcome speech' is that Bethelites were divided into two groups, "Newbies" and "BAs" (those with a "Bad Attitude). Then we were reminded that this wasn't a joke by Bethelites who had already been there a year or two. The direct implication was that it didn't take long before we would all become jaded.
I went in on the cusp of a changeover from a 4-year commitment to just a 1-year commitment. Those who were serving out the last year or so of a 4-year commitment were supposed to be the worst BAs (although with the changeover, there was no stigma to a 2 or 3 year Bethelite leaving early, as there had been previously). If you went home early prior to that, it was considered the same as a dishonorable discharge from the army. And worse than that, there had just been a dismissal of 50 or more (all at one time) who had been accused of homosexuality. It was right after that that the 1-year commitment was offered, but no one wanted to leave early in the midst of that, for fear of what the congregation back home might think.
On the first day I got to Bethel, my temporary roommate stole a couple hundred dollars from me, as he was just going back home after 4 years. On my last day of Bethel, I discovered that my storage locker, unused for several years, had been broken into and my valuables had been stolen. I never thought to check my storage locker even though Brother Knorr made at least a weekly announcement of Bethelites dismissed for theft over a period of several months.
But all this was very easy to ignore, by just putting your nose to the grindstone and staying busy. As TTH reminds us, it's dirt among diamonds. I found diamonds by the dozen, and would have never focused on the dirt. And of course every diamond itself has imperfections, too. I could not have asked for better assignments at Bethel. I didn't deserve any of them, and I loved it every single day. Even those dark days of 1980 that seemed surreal, didn't change my resolve to continue to just try to be the kind of person who was like those whom I liked to be around. 
As I got a little older I realized that part of helping others stay grounded is to stop keeping everything to myself, and just admit the faults we've lived through. And I think that we can help others even by admitting the specifics (up to a point). The reason is that others who have gone through something unexpected might never guess that others have gone through something similar. It might give them a bit of relief that they are not going crazy or being singled out for mistreatment or just to know that others really can sympathize.
There is always an element of concern over the fact that some are stumbled by dirty laundry, but that's why I've mentioned before that a semi-anonymous discussion forum (for me) is a much better choice than trying to sympathize in the congregation setting. Many of those who are hurt by mistreatment from those they trusted have clearly turned to discussion forums like this one. (Actually, I saw several of that sort on a bigger discussion forum and was terrified for them that they were being eaten alive by a a lot of unruly ex-JWs, proud to call themselves "apostates.")
Rather than fight the noise on that larger forum, I ran across this one, and think, so far, that it has a fair balance, and that even ex-JW and non-JW "opposing" voices are fairly good at self-moderating here. Someday, this forum will probably no longer meet the same standards it meets now and I'll either go back to silence, or go looking around for another outlet. Many won't agree, but I think that sharing openly and honestly is a loving thing to do for those who might be looking for a sympathetic or empathetic ear. That goes for those concerned about issues of justice and issues of doctrine and healthful teaching. I think this is why the Bible reveals the flaws, even of people at the highest levels of responsibility. (Noah, Moses, Jephthah, Saul, David, Solomon, . . . Paul, Peter, James, and John).
I'm sure some are annoyed that not everyone here spends 100% of their time encouraging loyalty to all the long-standing traditions, and bureaucratic processes. Some apparently only want to encourage complete obedience to any and all suggestions from the Governing Body and apparently think anything less is some kind of apostasy. We have congregations for that kind of encouragement. We have meetings where we specifically study the current thinking of the Governing Body and support it through prepared questions and answers and reading of published material. The congregation is no place for open questioning of current doctrines and procedures.
Well put! 

Unfortunately, that wasn't just true back in the '80's. I have seen the same thing and so have others - and it's not just true of NY Bethel. The trick for those of us who have lived through and seen these lying machinations is not only to stay faithful to our dedication and respect for the authority of our organization (while being more than aware of things that might destroy the faith of our brothers and sisters), but to help them to stay grounded despite the faith-testing/destroying machinations of men who have something to hide, and who will lie, plot and scheme to protect themselves. To try to help our friends have faith that overall, we are a spiritual organization, not just the political entity proud ambitious men would turn it into.We expect this behaviour in the world, but when men in authority ("angels in Jesus' right hand") act as if they are in Satan's right hand, then most would have a hard time to rationalize what they may see or even experience within the context of their faith - it's just too "out there." But prophetic warnings in Gods Word make clear that this type of stuff will happen - (not just could happen).. It's just that people think it's "negative talk" or something that "allegedly" happens to someone else until it happens to them.  
I have a lot of respect for mature, battle-hardened/wisened Christians who in a spiritual sense, are like the valiant mighty men of old who faced dangers from outside and within in defence of pure worship. Although I love also my "weaker" in faith brothers and sisters who would rather act as if these things can't/don't exist or even acknowledge it, I wouldn't want to be like that - in "pretend world." I have always wanted to know the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" - even when it is uncomfortable - at least it's real and I know who/what I am dealing with. We can easily accept there will be wickedness from Satans system. Not so easy when it's from within "Jehovah's organization." But those who have this "tested quality of our faith" are a living testimony that these things are survivable, doable, and they can even maintain their joy in serving Jehovah stronger and wiser than before. 

So true. It's hard to imagine what kind of "spirituality" can live alongside certain kinds of sin and certain kinds of personalities.
Most people go into the various Bethel branches, at about age 19 and 20, rather naively, and usually just a few short years after their baptism and with an average of more than a year of pioneering.  The statistics favored those who were 'raised in the truth' rather than recent converts. One of the first things we were told, jokingly by Brother Couch and Brother Sydlik in the "welcome speech' is that Bethelites were divided into two groups, "Newbies" and "BAs" (those with a "Bad Attitude). Then we were reminded that this wasn't a joke by Bethelites who had already been there a year or two. The direct implication was that it didn't take long before we would all become jaded.
I went in on the cusp of a changeover from a 4-year commitment to just a 1-year commitment. Those who were serving out the last year or so of a 4-year commitment were supposed to be the worst BAs (although with the changeover, there was no stigma to a 2 or 3 year Bethelite leaving early, as there had been previously). If you went home early prior to that, it was considered the same as a dishonorable discharge from the army. And worse than that, there had just been a dismissal of 50 or more (all at one time) who had been accused of homosexuality. It was right after that that the 1-year commitment was offered, but no one wanted to leave early in the midst of that, for fear of what the congregation back home might think.
On the first day I got to Bethel, my temporary roommate stole a couple hundred dollars from me, as he was just going back home after 4 years. On my last day of Bethel, I discovered that my storage locker, unused for several years, had been broken into and my valuables had been stolen. I never thought to check my storage locker even though Brother Knorr made at least a weekly announcement of Bethelites dismissed for theft over a period of several months.
But all this was very easy to ignore, by just putting your nose to the grindstone and staying busy. As TTH reminds us, it's dirt among diamonds. I found diamonds by the dozen, and would have never focused on the dirt. And of course every diamond itself has imperfections, too. I could not have asked for better assignments at Bethel. I didn't deserve any of them, and I loved it every single day. Even those dark days of 1980 that seemed surreal, didn't change my resolve to continue to just try to be the kind of person who was like those whom I liked to be around. 
As I got a little older I realized that part of helping others stay grounded is to stop keeping everything to myself, and just admit the faults we've lived through. And I think that we can help others even by admitting the specifics (up to a point). The reason is that others who have gone through something unexpected might never guess that others have gone through something similar. It might give them a bit of relief that they are not going crazy or being singled out for mistreatment or just to know that others really can sympathize.
There is always an element of concern over the fact that some are stumbled by dirty laundry, but that's why I've mentioned before that a semi-anonymous discussion forum (for me) is a much better choice than trying to sympathize in the congregation setting. Many of those who are hurt by mistreatment from those they trusted have clearly turned to discussion forums like this one. (Actually, I saw several of that sort on a bigger discussion forum and was terrified for them that they were being eaten alive by a a lot of unruly ex-JWs, proud to call themselves "apostates.")
Rather than fight the noise on that larger forum, I ran across this one, and think, so far, that it has a fair balance, and that even ex-JW and non-JW "opposing" voices are fairly good at self-moderating here. Someday, this forum will probably no longer meet the same standards it meets now and I'll either go back to silence, or go looking around for another outlet. Many won't agree, but I think that sharing openly and honestly is a loving thing to do for those who might be looking for a sympathetic or empathetic ear. That goes for those concerned about issues of justice and issues of doctrine and healthful teaching. I think this is why the Bible reveals the flaws, even of people at the highest levels of responsibility. (Noah, Moses, Jephthah, Saul, David, Solomon, . . . Paul, Peter, James, and John).
I'm sure some are annoyed that not everyone here spends 100% of their time encouraging loyalty to all the long-standing traditions, and bureaucratic processes. Some apparently only want to encourage complete obedience to any and all suggestions from the Governing Body and apparently think anything less is some kind of apostasy. We have congregations for that kind of encouragement. We have meetings where we specifically study the current thinking of the Governing Body and support it through prepared questions and answers and reading of published material. The congregation is no place for open questioning of current doctrines and procedures.
Well put! 

So true. It's hard to imagine what kind of "spirituality" can live alongside certain kinds of sin and certain kinds of personalities.
Most people go into the various Bethel branches, at about age 19 and 20, rather naively, and usually just a few short years after their baptism and with an average of more than a year of pioneering.  The statistics favored those who were 'raised in the truth' rather than recent converts. One of the first things we were told, jokingly by Brother Couch and Brother Sydlik in the "welcome speech' is that Bethelites were divided into two groups, "Newbies" and "BAs" (those with a "Bad Attitude). Then we were reminded that this wasn't a joke by Bethelites who had already been there a year or two. The direct implication was that it didn't take long before we would all become jaded.
I went in on the cusp of a changeover from a 4-year commitment to just a 1-year commitment. Those who were serving out the last year or so of a 4-year commitment were supposed to be the worst BAs (although with the changeover, there was no stigma to a 2 or 3 year Bethelite leaving early, as there had been previously). If you went home early prior to that, it was considered the same as a dishonorable discharge from the army. And worse than that, there had just been a dismissal of 50 or more (all at one time) who had been accused of homosexuality. It was right after that that the 1-year commitment was offered, but no one wanted to leave early in the midst of that, for fear of what the congregation back home might think.
On the first day I got to Bethel, my temporary roommate stole a couple hundred dollars from me, as he was just going back home after 4 years. On my last day of Bethel, I discovered that my storage locker, unused for several years, had been broken into and my valuables had been stolen. I never thought to check my storage locker even though Brother Knorr made at least a weekly announcement of Bethelites dismissed for theft over a period of several months.
But all this was very easy to ignore, by just putting your nose to the grindstone and staying busy. As TTH reminds us, it's dirt among diamonds. I found diamonds by the dozen, and would have never focused on the dirt. And of course every diamond itself has imperfections, too. I could not have asked for better assignments at Bethel. I didn't deserve any of them, and I loved it every single day. Even those dark days of 1980 that seemed surreal, didn't change my resolve to continue to just try to be the kind of person who was like those whom I liked to be around. 
As I got a little older I realized that part of helping others stay grounded is to stop keeping everything to myself, and just admit the faults we've lived through. And I think that we can help others even by admitting the specifics (up to a point). The reason is that others who have gone through something unexpected might never guess that others have gone through something similar. It might give them a bit of relief that they are not going crazy or being singled out for mistreatment or just to know that others really can sympathize.
There is always an element of concern over the fact that some are stumbled by dirty laundry, but that's why I've mentioned before that a semi-anonymous discussion forum (for me) is a much better choice than trying to sympathize in the congregation setting. Many of those who are hurt by mistreatment from those they trusted have clearly turned to discussion forums like this one. (Actually, I saw several of that sort on a bigger discussion forum and was terrified for them that they were being eaten alive by a a lot of unruly ex-JWs, proud to call themselves "apostates.")
Rather than fight the noise on that larger forum, I ran across this one, and think, so far, that it has a fair balance, and that even ex-JW and non-JW "opposing" voices are fairly good at self-moderating here. Someday, this forum will probably no longer meet the same standards it meets now and I'll either go back to silence, or go looking around for another outlet. Many won't agree, but I think that sharing openly and honestly is a loving thing to do for those who might be looking for a sympathetic or empathetic ear. That goes for those concerned about issues of justice and issues of doctrine and healthful teaching. I think this is why the Bible reveals the flaws, even of people at the highest levels of responsibility. (Noah, Moses, Jephthah, Saul, David, Solomon, . . . Paul, Peter, James, and John).
I'm sure some are annoyed that not everyone here spends 100% of their time encouraging loyalty to all the long-standing traditions, and bureaucratic processes. Some apparently only want to encourage complete obedience to any and all suggestions from the Governing Body and apparently think anything less is some kind of apostasy. We have congregations for that kind of encouragement. We have meetings where we specifically study the current thinking of the Governing Body and support it through prepared questions and answers and reading of published material. The congregation is no place for open questioning of current doctrines and procedures.
Well put! 

So true. It's hard to imagine what kind of "spirituality" can live alongside certain kinds of sin and certain kinds of personalities.
Most people go into the various Bethel branches, at about age 19 and 20, rather naively, and usually just a few short years after their baptism and with an average of more than a year of pioneering.  The statistics favored those who were 'raised in the truth' rather than recent converts. One of the first things we were told, jokingly by Brother Couch and Brother Sydlik in the "welcome speech' is that Bethelites were divided into two groups, "Newbies" and "BAs" (those with a "Bad Attitude). Then we were reminded that this wasn't a joke by Bethelites who had already been there a year or two. The direct implication was that it didn't take long before we would all become jaded.
I went in on the cusp of a changeover from a 4-year commitment to just a 1-year commitment. Those who were serving out the last year or so of a 4-year commitment were supposed to be the worst BAs (although with the changeover, there was no stigma to a 2 or 3 year Bethelite leaving early, as there had been previously). If you went home early prior to that, it was considered the same as a dishonorable discharge from the army. And worse than that, there had just been a dismissal of 50 or more (all at one time) who had been accused of homosexuality. It was right after that that the 1-year commitment was offered, but no one wanted to leave early in the midst of that, for fear of what the congregation back home might think.
On the first day I got to Bethel, my temporary roommate stole a couple hundred dollars from me, as he was just going back home after 4 years. On my last day of Bethel, I discovered that my storage locker, unused for several years, had been broken into and my valuables had been stolen. I never thought to check my storage locker even though Brother Knorr made at least a weekly announcement of Bethelites dismissed for theft over a period of several months.
But all this was very easy to ignore, by just putting your nose to the grindstone and staying busy. As TTH reminds us, it's dirt among diamonds. I found diamonds by the dozen, and would have never focused on the dirt. And of course every diamond itself has imperfections, too. I could not have asked for better assignments at Bethel. I didn't deserve any of them, and I loved it every single day. Even those dark days of 1980 that seemed surreal, didn't change my resolve to continue to just try to be the kind of person who was like those whom I liked to be around. 
As I got a little older I realized that part of helping others stay grounded is to stop keeping everything to myself, and just admit the faults we've lived through. And I think that we can help others even by admitting the specifics (up to a point). The reason is that others who have gone through something unexpected might never guess that others have gone through something similar. It might give them a bit of relief that they are not going crazy or being singled out for mistreatment or just to know that others really can sympathize.
There is always an element of concern over the fact that some are stumbled by dirty laundry, but that's why I've mentioned before that a semi-anonymous discussion forum (for me) is a much better choice than trying to sympathize in the congregation setting. Many of those who are hurt by mistreatment from those they trusted have clearly turned to discussion forums like this one. (Actually, I saw several of that sort on a bigger discussion forum and was terrified for them that they were being eaten alive by a a lot of unruly ex-JWs, proud to call themselves "apostates.")
Rather than fight the noise on that larger forum, I ran across this one, and think, so far, that it has a fair balance, and that even ex-JW and non-JW "opposing" voices are fairly good at self-moderating here. Someday, this forum will probably no longer meet the same standards it meets now and I'll either go back to silence, or go looking around for another outlet. Many won't agree, but I think that sharing openly and honestly is a loving thing to do for those who might be looking for a sympathetic or empathetic ear. That goes for those concerned about issues of justice and issues of doctrine and healthful teaching. I think this is why the Bible reveals the flaws, even of people at the highest levels of responsibility. (Noah, Moses, Jephthah, Saul, David, Solomon, . . . Paul, Peter, James, and John).
I'm sure some are annoyed that not everyone here spends 100% of their time encouraging loyalty to all the long-standing traditions, and bureaucratic processes. Some apparently only want to encourage complete obedience to any and all suggestions from the Governing Body and apparently think anything less is some kind of apostasy. We have congregations for that kind of encouragement. We have meetings where we specifically study the current thinking of the Governing Body and support it through prepared questions and answers and reading of published material. The congregation is no place for open questioning of current doctrines and procedures.
Well put! 

So true. It's hard to imagine what kind of "spirituality" can live alongside certain kinds of sin and certain kinds of personalities.
Most people go into the various Bethel branches, at about age 19 and 20, rather naively, and usually just a few short years after their baptism and with an average of more than a year of pioneering.  The statistics favored those who were 'raised in the truth' rather than recent converts. One of the first things we were told, jokingly by Brother Couch and Brother Sydlik in the "welcome speech' is that Bethelites were divided into two groups, "Newbies" and "BAs" (those with a "Bad Attitude). Then we were reminded that this wasn't a joke by Bethelites who had already been there a year or two. The direct implication was that it didn't take long before we would all become jaded.
I went in on the cusp of a changeover from a 4-year commitment to just a 1-year commitment. Those who were serving out the last year or so of a 4-year commitment were supposed to be the worst BAs (although with the changeover, there was no stigma to a 2 or 3 year Bethelite leaving early, as there had been previously). If you went home early prior to that, it was considered the same as a dishonorable discharge from the army. And worse than that, there had just been a dismissal of 50 or more (all at one time) who had been accused of homosexuality. It was right after that that the 1-year commitment was offered, but no one wanted to leave early in the midst of that, for fear of what the congregation back home might think.
On the first day I got to Bethel, my temporary roommate stole a couple hundred dollars from me, as he was just going back home after 4 years. On my last day of Bethel, I discovered that my storage locker, unused for several years, had been broken into and my valuables had been stolen. I never thought to check my storage locker even though Brother Knorr made at least a weekly announcement of Bethelites dismissed for theft over a period of several months.
But all this was very easy to ignore, by just putting your nose to the grindstone and staying busy. As TTH reminds us, it's dirt among diamonds. I found diamonds by the dozen, and would have never focused on the dirt. And of course every diamond itself has imperfections, too. I could not have asked for better assignments at Bethel. I didn't deserve any of them, and I loved it every single day. Even those dark days of 1980 that seemed surreal, didn't change my resolve to continue to just try to be the kind of person who was like those whom I liked to be around. 
As I got a little older I realized that part of helping others stay grounded is to stop keeping everything to myself, and just admit the faults we've lived through. And I think that we can help others even by admitting the specifics (up to a point). The reason is that others who have gone through something unexpected might never guess that others have gone through something similar. It might give them a bit of relief that they are not going crazy or being singled out for mistreatment or just to know that others really can sympathize.
There is always an element of concern over the fact that some are stumbled by dirty laundry, but that's why I've mentioned before that a semi-anonymous discussion forum (for me) is a much better choice than trying to sympathize in the congregation setting. Many of those who are hurt by mistreatment from those they trusted have clearly turned to discussion forums like this one. (Actually, I saw several of that sort on a bigger discussion forum and was terrified for them that they were being eaten alive by a a lot of unruly ex-JWs, proud to call themselves "apostates.")
Rather than fight the noise on that larger forum, I ran across this one, and think, so far, that it has a fair balance, and that even ex-JW and non-JW "opposing" voices are fairly good at self-moderating here. Someday, this forum will probably no longer meet the same standards it meets now and I'll either go back to silence, or go looking around for another outlet. Many won't agree, but I think that sharing openly and honestly is a loving thing to do for those who might be looking for a sympathetic or empathetic ear. That goes for those concerned about issues of justice and issues of doctrine and healthful teaching. I think this is why the Bible reveals the flaws, even of people at the highest levels of responsibility. (Noah, Moses, Jephthah, Saul, David, Solomon, . . . Paul, Peter, James, and John).
I'm sure some are annoyed that not everyone here spends 100% of their time encouraging loyalty to all the long-standing traditions, and bureaucratic processes. Some apparently only want to encourage complete obedience to any and all suggestions from the Governing Body and apparently think anything less is some kind of apostasy. We have congregations for that kind of encouragement. We have meetings where we specifically study the current thinking of the Governing Body and support it through prepared questions and answers and reading of published material. The congregation is no place for open questioning of current doctrines and procedures.
Well put! 

@Jay Witness
Didn't notice this until now. What a terrible tragedy. I didn't listen to the report, because I started a couple of others first and realized that they are a little too negative for my taste. I still have a few long-time friends at Bethel, and a couple of them will talk to me about anything. Some of what I get from them is a bit too gossipy but they are firm believers in the idea that 'what you hear in the darkness you should shout from the rooftops.'
I don't know if they knew this sister but there was a definite lack of communication and lack of openness since the middle of last year with one of my friends. I wondered if there was something going on similar to what happened in  late 1979 and early 1980. If they are back to talking openly about anything, maybe they will tell me more about what this sister was doing.
From a Biblical perspective, I don't think an organization like ours has any right to secrecy. I think everything we do, we should be proud to preach about, and humble enough to let others evaluate it, too. And if we do things we are not proud of, these should be shouted from the rooftops so that all of us, even the world, can evaluate it. I'm angry that such a thing could happen. Reminds me of how Scaramucci went flailing and embarrassing himself yesterday because he thought his loyalty to the US president gave him a mandate to just wildly accuse people and it obviously clouded his judgment. I saw the same kind of flailing back in 1979-1982 and I saw good friends lied to back in 1980 as a way to get them to try to turn in their friends, and I saw political scheming behind the scenes that would have even scared off a lot of good Bethelites if they had been able to see what was going on in closed doors right around them.
The open court system of Jewish towns and cities mentioned in the Mosaic Law is a much better precedent for Society and congregation decisions than the secrecy we encounter (and are expected to adhere to)  today. The only problem I see is privacy concerns for certain types of cases, yet justice would always have a better chance of prevailing if everyone could be aware of the decision making processes. They say that sausage and apple-cider taste great, but you just don't want to go behind the scenes to see how they are made. I would add religion to the list, until we can learn to be humble enough to expose our processes to scrutiny and proud enough to allow the world to see why we are proud to be Jehovah's Witnesses.

So true. It's hard to imagine what kind of "spirituality" can live alongside certain kinds of sin and certain kinds of personalities.
Most people go into the various Bethel branches, at about age 19 and 20, rather naively, and usually just a few short years after their baptism and with an average of more than a year of pioneering.  The statistics favored those who were 'raised in the truth' rather than recent converts. One of the first things we were told, jokingly by Brother Couch and Brother Sydlik in the "welcome speech' is that Bethelites were divided into two groups, "Newbies" and "BAs" (those with a "Bad Attitude). Then we were reminded that this wasn't a joke by Bethelites who had already been there a year or two. The direct implication was that it didn't take long before we would all become jaded.
I went in on the cusp of a changeover from a 4-year commitment to just a 1-year commitment. Those who were serving out the last year or so of a 4-year commitment were supposed to be the worst BAs (although with the changeover, there was no stigma to a 2 or 3 year Bethelite leaving early, as there had been previously). If you went home early prior to that, it was considered the same as a dishonorable discharge from the army. And worse than that, there had just been a dismissal of 50 or more (all at one time) who had been accused of homosexuality. It was right after that that the 1-year commitment was offered, but no one wanted to leave early in the midst of that, for fear of what the congregation back home might think.
On the first day I got to Bethel, my temporary roommate stole a couple hundred dollars from me, as he was just going back home after 4 years. On my last day of Bethel, I discovered that my storage locker, unused for several years, had been broken into and my valuables had been stolen. I never thought to check my storage locker even though Brother Knorr made at least a weekly announcement of Bethelites dismissed for theft over a period of several months.
But all this was very easy to ignore, by just putting your nose to the grindstone and staying busy. As TTH reminds us, it's dirt among diamonds. I found diamonds by the dozen, and would have never focused on the dirt. And of course every diamond itself has imperfections, too. I could not have asked for better assignments at Bethel. I didn't deserve any of them, and I loved it every single day. Even those dark days of 1980 that seemed surreal, didn't change my resolve to continue to just try to be the kind of person who was like those whom I liked to be around. 
As I got a little older I realized that part of helping others stay grounded is to stop keeping everything to myself, and just admit the faults we've lived through. And I think that we can help others even by admitting the specifics (up to a point). The reason is that others who have gone through something unexpected might never guess that others have gone through something similar. It might give them a bit of relief that they are not going crazy or being singled out for mistreatment or just to know that others really can sympathize.
There is always an element of concern over the fact that some are stumbled by dirty laundry, but that's why I've mentioned before that a semi-anonymous discussion forum (for me) is a much better choice than trying to sympathize in the congregation setting. Many of those who are hurt by mistreatment from those they trusted have clearly turned to discussion forums like this one. (Actually, I saw several of that sort on a bigger discussion forum and was terrified for them that they were being eaten alive by a a lot of unruly ex-JWs, proud to call themselves "apostates.")
Rather than fight the noise on that larger forum, I ran across this one, and think, so far, that it has a fair balance, and that even ex-JW and non-JW "opposing" voices are fairly good at self-moderating here. Someday, this forum will probably no longer meet the same standards it meets now and I'll either go back to silence, or go looking around for another outlet. Many won't agree, but I think that sharing openly and honestly is a loving thing to do for those who might be looking for a sympathetic or empathetic ear. That goes for those concerned about issues of justice and issues of doctrine and healthful teaching. I think this is why the Bible reveals the flaws, even of people at the highest levels of responsibility. (Noah, Moses, Jephthah, Saul, David, Solomon, . . . Paul, Peter, James, and John).
I'm sure some are annoyed that not everyone here spends 100% of their time encouraging loyalty to all the long-standing traditions, and bureaucratic processes. Some apparently only want to encourage complete obedience to any and all suggestions from the Governing Body and apparently think anything less is some kind of apostasy. We have congregations for that kind of encouragement. We have meetings where we specifically study the current thinking of the Governing Body and support it through prepared questions and answers and reading of published material. The congregation is no place for open questioning of current doctrines and procedures.
Well put! 

I was trying to say similar, but I think you have expressed it better. 2 Corinthians 1:4 applies here. But those who need comfort won't get it if everyone pretends it doesn't exist - and it really doesn't for most people. Who in the congregation would even believe you, or even want to? The answer is: nobody - unless they have seen and been through it themselves. Fortunately for me, I knew very strong and zealous brothers of many years who shared their experiences with me which was of great encouragement because as you correctly stated it provided "relief I wasn't going crazy."  But they wouldn't go talking about these things just to anybody in the congregation. It's too outside the realm of experience for most. We are encouraged to overlook the "imperfections" of others, which is scripturally loving and appropriate. But what we are alluding to is much more than some garden variety imperfection. These are often disfellowshipping offences and other forms of badness. 
I wouldn't think everyone reading this would believe/agree with this thread. But for those of us who have had to come to terms with some pretty hairy stuff, your expressions above ring true - spot on in fact. 

@Jay Witness
Didn't notice this until now. What a terrible tragedy. I didn't listen to the report, because I started a couple of others first and realized that they are a little too negative for my taste. I still have a few long-time friends at Bethel, and a couple of them will talk to me about anything. Some of what I get from them is a bit too gossipy but they are firm believers in the idea that 'what you hear in the darkness you should shout from the rooftops.'
I don't know if they knew this sister but there was a definite lack of communication and lack of openness since the middle of last year with one of my friends. I wondered if there was something going on similar to what happened in  late 1979 and early 1980. If they are back to talking openly about anything, maybe they will tell me more about what this sister was doing.
From a Biblical perspective, I don't think an organization like ours has any right to secrecy. I think everything we do, we should be proud to preach about, and humble enough to let others evaluate it, too. And if we do things we are not proud of, these should be shouted from the rooftops so that all of us, even the world, can evaluate it. I'm angry that such a thing could happen. Reminds me of how Scaramucci went flailing and embarrassing himself yesterday because he thought his loyalty to the US president gave him a mandate to just wildly accuse people and it obviously clouded his judgment. I saw the same kind of flailing back in 1979-1982 and I saw good friends lied to back in 1980 as a way to get them to try to turn in their friends, and I saw political scheming behind the scenes that would have even scared off a lot of good Bethelites if they had been able to see what was going on in closed doors right around them.
The open court system of Jewish towns and cities mentioned in the Mosaic Law is a much better precedent for Society and congregation decisions than the secrecy we encounter (and are expected to adhere to)  today. The only problem I see is privacy concerns for certain types of cases, yet justice would always have a better chance of prevailing if everyone could be aware of the decision making processes. They say that sausage and apple-cider taste great, but you just don't want to go behind the scenes to see how they are made. I would add religion to the list, until we can learn to be humble enough to expose our processes to scrutiny and proud enough to allow the world to see why we are proud to be Jehovah's Witnesses.

Yes, I was about to go straight to the word PAROUSIA as the next term to discuss, and to me this is an easy one. But it is so ingrained as the basis for related teachings that I will save it for later. So, instead:
GENTILE TIMES
The NWT and WT now refer to this term as "Appointed Times of the Nations." based on Luke 21:24. Comparing the KJV and the NWT, the verse read as follows:
Luke 21:24 King James Version (KJV)
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
NWT (Luke 21:24) 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
This discussion probably won't deal so much with Daniel 4 directly, however, there are numerous Biblical problems with using a type/antitype fulfillment that uses a wicked, pagan, Gentile king Nebuchadnezzar and has him stand in for the Jewish Messianic kingdom under Jesus Christ. The beast-like humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar as a lesson for his haughtiness lasts for "seven times" until he is restored to his throne. That moment when he is restored after seven times is supposed to represent how Jesus restored the Messianic kingdom by sitting back down on the throne after seven times. Of course, the beast-like humiliation of a pagan Gentile king as a lesson for haughtiness makes no sense when applied to Jesus' Messianic kingdom. 
But the 1874 chronology that included a 40 year harvest ending in 1914 had failed. For a while the emphasis shifted to a 40 year harvest from 1878 to 1918, but that was not to last either. The Watch Tower Society finally dropped every vestige of the 1874 chronology and went back to this secondary method of reaching the date 1914. They simply noticed that if you work backwards and count 2,520 years from 1914 you will reach 606 BC, so this date 606 became the new date for the fall of the Jewish Messianic kingdom. It didn't matter that there was absolutely ZERO evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in that year, but it appeared to be only about 20 years off, so that was considered close enough. It had already been one of the evidences that Barbour had used prior to Russell, although both of them considered other evidence to be better. In 1876, Russell had used Leviticus as the primary scripture for claiming the Gentiles would chastise the Jews for seven times, and he tied the mention of 7 times in Daniel 4 as a support of the scripture in Leviticus:
(Leviticus 26:28) . . .and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins. . .
Later it was noticed that this verse in Leviticus wasn't really about seven periods of time, so the WTS now pinned everything on Daniel 4 (without Leviticus) and it became the new primary support for 1914. We simply said that the 7 times means 7 years, and that 7 years are made up of 2,520 "prophetic" days using 360 days to a year, and 2,520 "prophetic" days must  be thought of as 2,520 solar years (of 365.25 days each). We then say Nebuchadnezzar represented the Messianic kingdom. And, of course, we also needed to start a pseudo-chronology that pretended it was possible to move Jerusalem's destruction by Nebuchadnezzar back 20 years from where all the evidence pointed, so that 2,520 years would land on 1914.
The WTS once claimed that there were about 10 different threads of evidence that all pointed to 1914, and all but one of these came through the date 1874 and added 40 years. The date 1914 now hangs by only this one single thread now based solely on a dream about Nebuchadnezzar's 7 time periods of insanity.
------------
The above is worded truthfully, but clearly in a way that makes it seem unlikely to have been correct. But I'm not trying to say it is impossible. This is just an exercise to see if we have assigned the most likely meaning to it. So is there any way to check ourselves against other scriptures and see if we picked the most likely time period?
Turns out there are at least two scriptures to help here.
One is the verse itself. Note that Luke 21:24 says that they "WILL FALL by the edge of the sword and Jerusalem WILL BE TRAMPLED on by the nations UNTIL the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled."
Note that this action of Jerusalem falling by the edge of the sword is is in the future, and it is directly connected to the trampling that is also placed in the future. We know from history that Jerusalem fell by the edge of the sword in 70 CE, and that Jerusalem was therefore and thereby trampled on by the nations.
The Watch Tower publications have a different view of this scripture. It is understood by the WTS to mean that Jerusalem will continue to be trampled on by the nations from 676 years prior to 70 CE and for another 1844 years after 70 (until 1914). But, if that was true --and important-- why didn't Jesus use the proper tense. Both Aramaic and koine Greek have tenses that cover ongoing action as opposed to simple future action.
Discussions of specific language and tense cannot be definitive, however. There may always be more than one way to read something, and our only goal here is to find evidence for what is likely.
There is another verse however that gives us an indication of an actual time period to attach to these "appointed times of the nations."
When Jesus said "and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled" it would have been nice if he replaced those "times" with an actual amount of time. That would surely get us on the right track. In other words what if Jesus had said
: "the nations, they will trample on Jerusalem until seven times are fulfilled."
or since "seven times" are the same as "seven years" and therefore 2,520 days, we would even accept:
"the nations, they will trample on Jerusalem, the holy city, until 2,520 days are fulfilled"
Or since 2520 days is the same as 84 months of 30 days each, we would accept:
"the nations, they will trample on the holy city for 84 months."
Well, as most of already know, Jesus actually did say something like that when he gave the Revelation to John, and this should clear up why we attach a length of "seven times" to the "times of the nations." In Revelation 11:2, Jesus says:

(Revelation 11:2) . . .the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months.
Imagine the joy that the Watchtower Society must have felt when it was discovered that Jesus himself had attached a time period to the Gentile Times, and thus cleared up any question about the whether or not it was "likely" that the Gentile Times were actually 84 months long as the Watchtower claims! (84 x 30 = 2520)
In fact, this scripture was the basis for so many Bible chronologists attaching a length of 42 months, or 1,260 days to the Gentile Times. Many of those commentators, especially the ones in the 19th century, therefore attached a period of 1,260 years to the Gentile Times. This included John Aquila Brown, about whom the Watch Tower publications said the following:
*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected.
These statements contain some misleading and false ideas buried within them. For example, John Aquila Brown did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it ended. Did Russell clearly discern the beginning and end dates of the period? Russell vacillated between 606 and 607 and finally decided it must be 606 for the beginning --- even though he was about 20 years off from the evidence. Russell vacillated between 1914 and 1915 for the end date, then even indicated that he was willing to dismiss the whole chronology as potentially laughable for a time, and finally came back to 1914 and 1915 after he saw the Great War begin in 1914.
The Proclaimer's book also says that "He [Brown] did, however, connect these "seven times" with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24."
That statement is absolutely false. Brown always denied any connection between the "seven times" of Daniel with the "Gentile Times" of Luke 21:24. And that's at least partially based on the fact that he knew that Revelation 11:2 had already attached a different time period to the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.
There are a lot of other funny or ironic claims and ideas to look into from this section of the book. This happens whenever someone tries to present a partially cleaned up history of their own chronology beliefs that already failed in the past.
Even the very definition given to the term "Gentile Times" failed in 1914. And that's the main point of what this discussion is looking for. It was the very meaning that the Watch Tower publications had given to the term Gentile Times that was tied to all the expectations that 1914 and 1915 would bring. All 100% of those expectations failed, and therefore the definition given to term "Gentile Times" must also be considered unlikely.

I agree that it makes sense and we can (and should) find lessons in the account for our own conduct, actions, and motivations. I probably sound like a curmudgeon of some sort to point this out, but it's often too easy to ALSO create a lesson that isn't really there. Or mix up one lesson for one context with a lesson that belongs in another context. These are not bad things, it's just that we should realize when we are speculating when we declare that these lessons must be the same lessons that all of us should see.
Jehovah had the right to save or destroy his creation because he is the creator. The potter can throw away a vessel fit for destruction and start over.
In response to your comments about Lot and Abraham and Noah, there were really NONE who were intrinsically righteous. Just as the scriptures in another one of your posts said: Noah's faith moved Jehovah to "count" him as righteous. Even those declared "righteous" are still intrinsically "ungodly." We are all ungodly.
(Romans 4:3-5) 3 For what does the scripture say? “Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the man who works, his pay is not counted as an undeserved kindness but as something owed to him. 5 On the other hand, to the man who does not work but puts faith in the One who declares the ungodly one righteous, his faith is counted as righteousness.
And by the way, there is no scripture that says that his wife or three sons and their wives were ever even counted as righteous. In fact, the Bible says it was Noah's righteousness that saved them, similar to how children of a Christian parent could be "saved," or unbelieving wives, or sisters whose only "service" at times must be the full-time raising of their family.
(1 Timothy 2:15) 15 However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, provided she continues in faith and love and holiness along with soundness of mind.
(1 Corinthians 7:14) 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.
 
 

Nothing wrong with believing that Noah "most likely" warned his neighbors, or even "undoubtedly" warned his neighbors. I think it's a matter of being able to carefully read all the ways that writers say "we don't really know for sure." I was very surprised to learn from several people in the Watchtower's Writing Department that the expression "undoubtedly" and even "without a doubt" really means that there still is some level of doubt, even if it's something that makes a lot of sense, or we really WANT to believe it.
One way to show that we don't really know something for sure is to use the words "without doubt" as when the Watchtower says: in
I know this doesn't make a lot of sense to some people. It's much easier to see the point when the expression is more like "quite likely" as in:
Personally, I didn't see it at first, until it was explained with some examples. In the most common usage of language we don't need an expression like "undoubtedly" if we are dealing with known facts. You would say, "Two plus two is four" not "two plus two is undoubtedly four." When you are dealing with the most likely meanings that fit our way of thinking and interpretation, we use a slightly different vocabulary. We like to use the most sure language possible even though we know that "interpretation" is always subject to change. Even when we are trying to use the words like "without a doubt" or "without doubt" to sound as sure as possible, the context will often force the writer to admit that small opening of doubt. There are hundreds, if not thousands of examples in the Watchtower itself:
*** w63 1/15 p. 41 par. 3 The Challenge of the “Good News” ***
Without doubt it is your wish to live under that best of kingdoms and eternally enjoy its blessings. If this is your sincere desire . . .
Note that even though the premise is "without doubt" the next phrase must still start out with "if."
*** w72 6/15 p. 360 God Respects the Family Arrangement ***
There can be no doubt about it: Children brought up in the wrong way are almost sure to practice bad things . . .
Even though there can be no doubt, the premise is "almost" sure.
This doesn't mean that the expression is not sometimes used in the normal way, to mean it's a fact. But we have to be careful when the phrases like this refer to interpretation. For example:
*** w06 8/15 p. 17 Baruch—Jeremiah’s Faithful Secretary ***
Baruch was without doubt a sincere worshipper of Jehovah, and he “proceeded to do according to all that Jeremiah the prophet had commanded him.”
In the above example, this should immediately tell us that we have no scripture telling us that Baruch was sincere. We know it's an assumption precisely because the words "without doubt" were used here. It means that it makes sense, and it's something we would like to believe about him -- because we are giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Please don't misunderstand and think I'm saying that it's definitely not true. I'm only saying that the scriptures don't say that Noah gave a warning, and if we say that he did we should admit that we are only speculating. One way the Watchtower shows they are speculating is to use terms like "most likely," or "undoubtedly." So it's more proper to say that "most likely" Noah preached a warning.
But even if we believe this wholeheartedly, we shouldn't imply that Jesus said anything about Noah giving a warning. Jesus was making a point about how people were going on with their lives, without a care, and the judgement event came upon them suddenly and without warning. That's why Jesus said that the parousia (judgment event) would be like a thief who does not give you any warning.
(Matthew 24:43, 44) . . .If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it.
The Bible doesn't say that Noah gave a warning, and the Watchtower articles you quoted admit that it may have only been through the action of building an ark that he "preached." The Watchtower does quote a "worldly" source whom we often disagree with to show that some non-biblical Jewish traditions have added the idea that Noah gave a warning, and we would like to believe that this is true.
 
 
 
 

Although we can be sure that Noah would have been required to explain to many persons why he was building such a huge boat, we shouldn't try to make Jesus say something in Matthew 24 that Jesus never said. Jesus never said that Noah warned anyone about the coming flood. The Bible never says that he warned people about a coming flood. So why do we add the idea that Noah WARNED them? 
It's true that some people might get the idea from the way in which the NWT adds the words "took no note:"
(Matthew 24:39) and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.
But these words are not in the original Greek, so we shouldn't try to make them imply something that the Bible doesn't say. Below are all the translations, for example, that are provided at blueletterbible.org: https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mat/24/36/t_bibles_953039
So even if there was some preaching about God's righteousness (2 Peter 2:5), which could have been through Noah's example (as implied in Hebrews 11:7), rather than any kind of warning campaign, Jesus was not making any point about a warning, because he had just spent the entire previous part of the chapter saying that there would be no warning. The disciples wanted a warning sign about the judgment event on Jerusalem and Jesus said that there would be no advance warning sign, otherwise how could the parousia come as a thief in the night. So what Jesus says about Noah, should fit what he says about the way the parousia (judgment event) came upon the generation of Noah's day.
KJV And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. © Info
NKJV “and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. © Info
NLT People didn’t realize what was going to happen until the flood came and swept them all away. That is the way it will be when the Son of Man comes. © Info
NIV and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. © Info
ESV and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. © Info
HCSB They didn’t know until the flood came and swept them all away. So this is the way the coming of the Son of Man will be:
© Info
RVR60 y no entendieron hasta que vino el diluvio y se los llevó a todos, así será también la venida del Hijo del Hombre. © Info
NASB and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. © Info
NET And they knew nothing until the flood came and took them all away. It will be the same at the coming of the Son of Man. © Info
RSV and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man. © Info
ASV and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man. © Info
YLT and they did not know till the flood came and took all away; so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man. © Info
DBY and they knew not till the flood came and took all away; thus also shall be the coming of the Son of man. © Info
WEB And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away: so also will be the coming of the Son of man. © Info
HNV and they didn't know until the flood came, and took them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. © Info

@Jay Witness
Didn't notice this until now. What a terrible tragedy. I didn't listen to the report, because I started a couple of others first and realized that they are a little too negative for my taste. I still have a few long-time friends at Bethel, and a couple of them will talk to me about anything. Some of what I get from them is a bit too gossipy but they are firm believers in the idea that 'what you hear in the darkness you should shout from the rooftops.'
I don't know if they knew this sister but there was a definite lack of communication and lack of openness since the middle of last year with one of my friends. I wondered if there was something going on similar to what happened in  late 1979 and early 1980. If they are back to talking openly about anything, maybe they will tell me more about what this sister was doing.
From a Biblical perspective, I don't think an organization like ours has any right to secrecy. I think everything we do, we should be proud to preach about, and humble enough to let others evaluate it, too. And if we do things we are not proud of, these should be shouted from the rooftops so that all of us, even the world, can evaluate it. I'm angry that such a thing could happen. Reminds me of how Scaramucci went flailing and embarrassing himself yesterday because he thought his loyalty to the US president gave him a mandate to just wildly accuse people and it obviously clouded his judgment. I saw the same kind of flailing back in 1979-1982 and I saw good friends lied to back in 1980 as a way to get them to try to turn in their friends, and I saw political scheming behind the scenes that would have even scared off a lot of good Bethelites if they had been able to see what was going on in closed doors right around them.
The open court system of Jewish towns and cities mentioned in the Mosaic Law is a much better precedent for Society and congregation decisions than the secrecy we encounter (and are expected to adhere to)  today. The only problem I see is privacy concerns for certain types of cases, yet justice would always have a better chance of prevailing if everyone could be aware of the decision making processes. They say that sausage and apple-cider taste great, but you just don't want to go behind the scenes to see how they are made. I would add religion to the list, until we can learn to be humble enough to expose our processes to scrutiny and proud enough to allow the world to see why we are proud to be Jehovah's Witnesses.

@Jay Witness
Didn't notice this until now. What a terrible tragedy. I didn't listen to the report, because I started a couple of others first and realized that they are a little too negative for my taste. I still have a few long-time friends at Bethel, and a couple of them will talk to me about anything. Some of what I get from them is a bit too gossipy but they are firm believers in the idea that 'what you hear in the darkness you should shout from the rooftops.'
I don't know if they knew this sister but there was a definite lack of communication and lack of openness since the middle of last year with one of my friends. I wondered if there was something going on similar to what happened in  late 1979 and early 1980. If they are back to talking openly about anything, maybe they will tell me more about what this sister was doing.
From a Biblical perspective, I don't think an organization like ours has any right to secrecy. I think everything we do, we should be proud to preach about, and humble enough to let others evaluate it, too. And if we do things we are not proud of, these should be shouted from the rooftops so that all of us, even the world, can evaluate it. I'm angry that such a thing could happen. Reminds me of how Scaramucci went flailing and embarrassing himself yesterday because he thought his loyalty to the US president gave him a mandate to just wildly accuse people and it obviously clouded his judgment. I saw the same kind of flailing back in 1979-1982 and I saw good friends lied to back in 1980 as a way to get them to try to turn in their friends, and I saw political scheming behind the scenes that would have even scared off a lot of good Bethelites if they had been able to see what was going on in closed doors right around them.
The open court system of Jewish towns and cities mentioned in the Mosaic Law is a much better precedent for Society and congregation decisions than the secrecy we encounter (and are expected to adhere to)  today. The only problem I see is privacy concerns for certain types of cases, yet justice would always have a better chance of prevailing if everyone could be aware of the decision making processes. They say that sausage and apple-cider taste great, but you just don't want to go behind the scenes to see how they are made. I would add religion to the list, until we can learn to be humble enough to expose our processes to scrutiny and proud enough to allow the world to see why we are proud to be Jehovah's Witnesses.

QUICK REVIEW
So, we have these six words or terms from Matthew 24 (Mark 13 & Luke 21) for which we are trying to evaluate whether we have chosen a more likely meaning of the term, or a less likely meaning in order to arrive at the INVISIBLE PAROUSIA doctrine. It might even be possible to trace how some of the terms were apparently forced into their special meaning after the decision was made to declare that the PAROUSIA had indeed already begun.
BACKGROUND
Most of the persons who set dates for the visible return of Christ in the 19th century just stopped setting them as soon as a date didn't pan out. But some had invested so much time and effort into it that this was apparently impossible. Hundreds of thousands paid close attention to the 1843 date set initially by William Miller. When it failed another 1843 date was set, then an 1844 date, and Miller quit setting dates. (Russell would later claim that this showed that Miller was one of the 'foolish virgins whose lamp ran out of oil,' because Miller had given up on setting dates.)
But others who had invested their life and reputation on it waited right up to the last day of 1844. Then, of course, new "adjustments" were discovered that put Jesus return in the 1850's, then the 1860's. But by now there were only tens of thousands paying attention. The typical thing to do was to show your faith by focusing on the very next date, but N H Barbour, after some study and decisions in 1859, decided to skip all those expectations for the mid-1860's and go straight to his 1873 date. (He did not settle on 1874 until 1873 failed.) 
This means that when the 1860's dates failed, Barbour was already set to gain a following for the 1873 date. Less people were setting dates, there were less to choose from that were still based on the Millerite foundation. (Miller himself had mentioned the possibility of the 1870's date, half a century earlier.) When it failed in 1873, Barbour had spent as much of his life as Miller had on these dates. He changed it to 1874, and when that failed he was truly depressed. One of his contributors, B W Keith, went back to some teachings that had been promoted in the 1820's about a two-stage parousia. The first stage would be invisible, and Benjamin Wilson who also believed in a two-stage parousia had published the "Diaglott" as an aid to supporting this idea. (Later the Watch Tower Society--Russell--bought the rights to reprint Benjamin Wilson's Diaglott so that most available copies today have the Watch Tower's name in them.)
Barbour credited Keith with the two-stage idea in his tract ("magazine") and it got Barbour back on track. Barbour spoke about possibly picking up an extra 5,000 of the Second Adventists each month as new subscribers. He fully expected at least 20,000 of the current number of Second Adventists to subscribe. In 1877, Barbour convinced Russell of the urgency of this chronology, because just 3.5 years after the presence had begun, they expected Christ's bride to be changed and to have gone up to heaven in 1878 while "lesser" Christians awaited heaven at a later date. So the Russells sold off most of the assets of their largest company so that Barbour could distribute his tracts and booklets more widely.
When 1878 failed, subscribers dropped, and trouble also broke out between Barbour and Russell. Barbour blamed it on disagreements with Russell about money. Russell blamed it on a doctrinal disagreement. (Russell had "crazy" views about the ransom that are no longer considered valid, and Barbour had his own "crazy" view.)
By mid-1879 Russell had convinced three major contributors to Barbour to come over to his own new magazine. Russell also sent out an offer to all the Barbour subscribers to switch over to the Watch Tower. And it was also timed to pick up the current subscribers of a Second Adventist magazine from California as that magazine was just running out of money and discontinuing. So Russell printed up 8,000 copies of the first July 1879 issue. In 1879, there was still an urgency again for the next major date, because Russell expected the Bride of Christ to be changed in October 1881. (3.5 years plus 3.5 years from October 1874.) Lesser Christians would remain on earth until around 1914, when the Harvest would be complete.
Because of the failure of 1881, the number of subscribers remained low. (8,000 had been an overestimate.) But the book series, Divine Plan of the Ages (1886), The Time is at Hand (1889), and Thy Kingdom Come (1891), were extremely popular, "proving" the 1874 chronology with charts containing pyramids and diagrams, and pointing to great expectations between then and up to 1914.
Everything was invested into this idea of a two-stage parousia that started invisibly in 1874 and would manifest itself most visibly in the years just prior to 1914 (later adjusted to the year and months just following 1914).
----------------
Most people here are probably already generally aware of this background information, but it is difficult to understand why parts of the 1874 chronology lasted nearly 70 years -- until 1943/1944 without this background. (My father remembers believing in 1874, but says they were mostly calling it 1878 just before he was baptized.) It also can help explain why it was easy to just transfer the explanation of Matthew 24 from an 1874 chronology over to a 1914 chronology when that became necessary. It still remained a "two-stage Parousia" in every case.
Will pick up on another one of the terms in the next post.

Yes, I was about to go straight to the word PAROUSIA as the next term to discuss, and to me this is an easy one. But it is so ingrained as the basis for related teachings that I will save it for later. So, instead:
GENTILE TIMES
The NWT and WT now refer to this term as "Appointed Times of the Nations." based on Luke 21:24. Comparing the KJV and the NWT, the verse read as follows:
Luke 21:24 King James Version (KJV)
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
NWT (Luke 21:24) 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
This discussion probably won't deal so much with Daniel 4 directly, however, there are numerous Biblical problems with using a type/antitype fulfillment that uses a wicked, pagan, Gentile king Nebuchadnezzar and has him stand in for the Jewish Messianic kingdom under Jesus Christ. The beast-like humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar as a lesson for his haughtiness lasts for "seven times" until he is restored to his throne. That moment when he is restored after seven times is supposed to represent how Jesus restored the Messianic kingdom by sitting back down on the throne after seven times. Of course, the beast-like humiliation of a pagan Gentile king as a lesson for haughtiness makes no sense when applied to Jesus' Messianic kingdom. 
But the 1874 chronology that included a 40 year harvest ending in 1914 had failed. For a while the emphasis shifted to a 40 year harvest from 1878 to 1918, but that was not to last either. The Watch Tower Society finally dropped every vestige of the 1874 chronology and went back to this secondary method of reaching the date 1914. They simply noticed that if you work backwards and count 2,520 years from 1914 you will reach 606 BC, so this date 606 became the new date for the fall of the Jewish Messianic kingdom. It didn't matter that there was absolutely ZERO evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in that year, but it appeared to be only about 20 years off, so that was considered close enough. It had already been one of the evidences that Barbour had used prior to Russell, although both of them considered other evidence to be better. In 1876, Russell had used Leviticus as the primary scripture for claiming the Gentiles would chastise the Jews for seven times, and he tied the mention of 7 times in Daniel 4 as a support of the scripture in Leviticus:
(Leviticus 26:28) . . .and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins. . .
Later it was noticed that this verse in Leviticus wasn't really about seven periods of time, so the WTS now pinned everything on Daniel 4 (without Leviticus) and it became the new primary support for 1914. We simply said that the 7 times means 7 years, and that 7 years are made up of 2,520 "prophetic" days using 360 days to a year, and 2,520 "prophetic" days must  be thought of as 2,520 solar years (of 365.25 days each). We then say Nebuchadnezzar represented the Messianic kingdom. And, of course, we also needed to start a pseudo-chronology that pretended it was possible to move Jerusalem's destruction by Nebuchadnezzar back 20 years from where all the evidence pointed, so that 2,520 years would land on 1914.
The WTS once claimed that there were about 10 different threads of evidence that all pointed to 1914, and all but one of these came through the date 1874 and added 40 years. The date 1914 now hangs by only this one single thread now based solely on a dream about Nebuchadnezzar's 7 time periods of insanity.
------------
The above is worded truthfully, but clearly in a way that makes it seem unlikely to have been correct. But I'm not trying to say it is impossible. This is just an exercise to see if we have assigned the most likely meaning to it. So is there any way to check ourselves against other scriptures and see if we picked the most likely time period?
Turns out there are at least two scriptures to help here.
One is the verse itself. Note that Luke 21:24 says that they "WILL FALL by the edge of the sword and Jerusalem WILL BE TRAMPLED on by the nations UNTIL the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled."
Note that this action of Jerusalem falling by the edge of the sword is is in the future, and it is directly connected to the trampling that is also placed in the future. We know from history that Jerusalem fell by the edge of the sword in 70 CE, and that Jerusalem was therefore and thereby trampled on by the nations.
The Watch Tower publications have a different view of this scripture. It is understood by the WTS to mean that Jerusalem will continue to be trampled on by the nations from 676 years prior to 70 CE and for another 1844 years after 70 (until 1914). But, if that was true --and important-- why didn't Jesus use the proper tense. Both Aramaic and koine Greek have tenses that cover ongoing action as opposed to simple future action.
Discussions of specific language and tense cannot be definitive, however. There may always be more than one way to read something, and our only goal here is to find evidence for what is likely.
There is another verse however that gives us an indication of an actual time period to attach to these "appointed times of the nations."
When Jesus said "and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled" it would have been nice if he replaced those "times" with an actual amount of time. That would surely get us on the right track. In other words what if Jesus had said
: "the nations, they will trample on Jerusalem until seven times are fulfilled."
or since "seven times" are the same as "seven years" and therefore 2,520 days, we would even accept:
"the nations, they will trample on Jerusalem, the holy city, until 2,520 days are fulfilled"
Or since 2520 days is the same as 84 months of 30 days each, we would accept:
"the nations, they will trample on the holy city for 84 months."
Well, as most of already know, Jesus actually did say something like that when he gave the Revelation to John, and this should clear up why we attach a length of "seven times" to the "times of the nations." In Revelation 11:2, Jesus says:

(Revelation 11:2) . . .the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months.
Imagine the joy that the Watchtower Society must have felt when it was discovered that Jesus himself had attached a time period to the Gentile Times, and thus cleared up any question about the whether or not it was "likely" that the Gentile Times were actually 84 months long as the Watchtower claims! (84 x 30 = 2520)
In fact, this scripture was the basis for so many Bible chronologists attaching a length of 42 months, or 1,260 days to the Gentile Times. Many of those commentators, especially the ones in the 19th century, therefore attached a period of 1,260 years to the Gentile Times. This included John Aquila Brown, about whom the Watch Tower publications said the following:
*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected.
These statements contain some misleading and false ideas buried within them. For example, John Aquila Brown did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it ended. Did Russell clearly discern the beginning and end dates of the period? Russell vacillated between 606 and 607 and finally decided it must be 606 for the beginning --- even though he was about 20 years off from the evidence. Russell vacillated between 1914 and 1915 for the end date, then even indicated that he was willing to dismiss the whole chronology as potentially laughable for a time, and finally came back to 1914 and 1915 after he saw the Great War begin in 1914.
The Proclaimer's book also says that "He [Brown] did, however, connect these "seven times" with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24."
That statement is absolutely false. Brown always denied any connection between the "seven times" of Daniel with the "Gentile Times" of Luke 21:24. And that's at least partially based on the fact that he knew that Revelation 11:2 had already attached a different time period to the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.
There are a lot of other funny or ironic claims and ideas to look into from this section of the book. This happens whenever someone tries to present a partially cleaned up history of their own chronology beliefs that already failed in the past.
Even the very definition given to the term "Gentile Times" failed in 1914. And that's the main point of what this discussion is looking for. It was the very meaning that the Watch Tower publications had given to the term Gentile Times that was tied to all the expectations that 1914 and 1915 would bring. All 100% of those expectations failed, and therefore the definition given to term "Gentile Times" must also be considered unlikely.

I'll propose one more of the terms to evaluate that we have given a special definition to. It's the term "LIGHTNING."
LIGHTNING
In the development of the "Invisible parousia" doctrine, the Watchtower has offered several different explanations of the meaning of "lightning" in Jesus phrase:
(Matthew 24:27) 27 For just as the lightning comes out of the east and shines over to the west, so the presence [parousia] of the Son of man will be.
(Luke 17:24) 24 For just as lightning flashes from one part of heaven to another part of heaven, so the Son of man will be in his day.
Lightning is one of the most strikingly SUDDEN & VISIBLE phenomenon known to man, and the context of the verse is about how SUDDEN and UNEXPECTED the "parousia" could surprise people.
But early in the years of developing the doctrine of an INVISIBLE PAROUSIA, Bible Students like N H Barbour, B W Keith, and later, C T Russell, knew that none of them had recognized the parousia when it began. No one suddenly understood when it had started. No one spotted it like a flash of lightning when it began. That's because there was an expectation of a sudden, bright and shining event that would start in 1874, but they were confused when it didn't happen. And it may have been a year or more later before it finally dawned on them that maybe they weren't wrong after all, maybe the PAROUSIA really did start in 1874, but it was invisible.
The problem is that they would have to change the meaning of this verse. Here's how C.T.Russell promoted a change in meaning:
1897: Studies in the Scriptures, The Battle of Armageddon, was one of several places that changed it from "lightning" to "the Sun" which fit the theme of "millennial dawn" a little better. The bracketed words are in the original:
"The Sun of Righteousness Shall Arise"
"Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: or behold he is in the secret chamber; believe it not. For as the bright-shiner [the Sun] cometh out of the East and shineth even unto the West, so shall also the presence [Greek parousia] of the Son of Man be." Matt. 24:26,27. 
Here's how this was explained in the Watch Tower, in May 1914, p.5656 reprints, "Messiah's Kingdom To Be Invisible"
"As the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, and shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of Man be in His Day."
This astounding statement is better understood when we translate the Greek noun astrape as "shining" instead of "lightning"; for evidently it refers to the sun, which rises in the east and sets in the west, shining out of the one part of the heaven even unto the other. But how will this represent the Son of Man in His Day? How will He be like the sun? We answer that the Day of Christ is a thousand-year Day, the Millennium; and our Lord's statement was one of the "dark sayings" of which Jesus said, "I have many things to tell you, but ye cannot bear them now," and promised that in due time the Holy Spirit would grant them an enlightenment, that all of His words might be clearly understood. This portion, now due to be understood, is therefore becoming clear to those of spiritual discernment. Then, that they might gradually learn that these things belonged to a distant time . . .
So by changing the meaning of the word, they didn't really have to explain why it took them so long for their spiritual insight to allow them to see, only after the fact,  that the parousia really had begun in 1874.
In answer to a letter from 1949, the Watchtower explained that this was changed (actual change was in 1934, but this in 1950 added an additional idea) as follows:
*** w50 8/1 p. 239 Letters ***
The book “The Time Is at Hand”, published in 1889, explained the Greek word “astrapé” in Matthew 24:27 to mean the sun as the ‘bright shiner’, because there Jesus mentioned the “astrapé” as coming out of the east and shining even to the west. (See said book at pages 155-157.) However, never in sacred Scripture nor in classical Greek literature is “astrapé” used to refer to the sun of our solar system. At Luke 17:24 Jesus makes a parallel statement, but does not designate any particular direction from which the lightning flashes, saying: “As the lightning [astrapé], that lighteneth [verb astrápto] out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.” Notice that expression “under heaven”, which befits lightning which occurs under the sun in the heavens obscured by the clouds.
The Sun was an extremely unlikely translation of the word for lightning, and this article admitted further down that it was wrong and had no basis. The part quoted above also shows that Russell had forgotten to consider parallel verses in Luke and several other scriptures. The parallel in Luke will also be impportant for another reason. Note from above, near the beginning of this post, that the expression in Matthew "parousia of the Son of man" is paralleled with "the Son of man in his day." It's just another of many indicators that the parousia is less likely to refer to the entire "generation" of "last days" but that it more likely refers to the final judgment event.
Note that for a time, the idea of associating "lightning" with clouds so that it could be associated with "INVISIBILITY" was attempted.
In the Watchtower, August 15, 1940, p.241 the explanation was also a bit convoluted, because Jesus was still "present" since 1874, but had "come" in 1918, and both anointed and their companions still look to the future for the "manifestation" of his presence:
Jesus' words cannot mean that zigzag lightning comes
always out of the east and shines unto the west and that
this represents his coming. What his words really mean is
that the lightnings come or appear in one part of the heavens
and are seen by persons at different points and that therefore
the lightning is not confined to a local place. It is seen
by those who are watching. The"statement recorded by Luke
concerning the same thing supports this view: "For as the
lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven,
shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the
Son of man be in his day."-Luke l.tf: 24.
Lightning originates with Jehovah, says Jeremiah
10: 13. Just so all light upon the divine purpose originates
with Jehovah. When he reveals his light to his anointed
church he does so through the Head of his organization,
Christ Jesus. No human is able to make lightning. Likewise
no human is able to point to the fact that Christ Jesus is at
some local spot on earth. His presence is revealed to those
of God's anointed remnant and their earthly companions
of good will, all of whom look for the manifestation of his
presence. In Matthew 24: 27, "coming'' specifically refers
to his coming to the temple [in 1918] and his presence there for judgment
of the "house of God", which house is composed of
God's anointed and faithful ones and is not a material house
of brick, wood or stone.
Of the more current explanations given, the most common is based on this idea below:
*** w74 12/15 p. 750 Who Will See “the Sign of the Son of Man”? ***
When Christ would return in an invisible presence he would not come as a man on earth. Therefore Christians should not look for him “in the wilderness,” so that they could train with him in some out-of-the-way place for a revolution. Nor would he be in some secret “inner chambers,” where he could conspire against world governments with his followers. No, his presence was to be like lightning, not in its being instantaneous and unexpected, but in its being seen over a wide area, in the open, for everyone to behold. (Luke 17:24; compare Psalm 97:4.) His followers would not keep their knowledge of his invisible presence secret, but would give it widespread proclamation.—Matt. 10:26, 27.
*** ka chap. 16 pp. 321-322 pars. 61-62 Completion of the Foretold “Sign” Nears ***
61 His presence or parousia was to resemble the lightning as to its effects. His parousia was to be like the lightning, not in flashing suddenly, unexpectedly and in the fraction of a second. The emphasis here is not on the lightning’s striking instantaneously unannounced, but on its shining over a broad area, from eastern parts to western parts. (Luke 17:24) The lightning’s illuminative power is like that described in Psalm 97:4: “His lightnings lighted up the productive land; the earth saw and came to be in severe pains.” So, too, the inhabitants of the earth were not to be left in darkness respecting the parousia of the Son of man. From horizon to horizon all the people were to be enlightened concerning his regal parousia. It was to be made as public as is a flash of lightning by its illuminative power, its far-extended shining. To Christ’s disciples today, who are acquainted with his invisible parousia, his words to his apostles nineteen centuries ago apply:
62 “Therefore do not fear them; for there is nothing covered over that will not become uncovered, and secret that will not become known. What I tell you in the darkness, say in the light; and what you hear whispered, preach from the housetops.”—Matthew 10:26, 27.
So the current explanation continues to work with the idea that Jesus did NOT mention lightning because it is sudden and unexpected. Consider how likely this is when considering the further context. In a recent discussion on Matthew 24 note what someone (Gnosis Pithos) said about the very next paragraph in context:
 
It's not impossible that the meaning of "lightning" here refers to the fact that lightning isn't just in one place, but it shines over extended areas. But it's also impossible to avoid the idea of suddenness and surprise in several places throughout the chapter. And it's also impossible to avoid the fact that Jesus had just spoken about those who claimed that Jesus had returned, but that you just couldn't see him. They would say he had returned, but that he wasn't visible at the moment because he was far off somewhere else, or hidden in a room somewhere.
Our current Watchtower explanation is that the "illumination" is given to those with spiritual insight who can then spread the word of his invisible parousia over a wide area. But the previous verses were about claims by those without spiritual insight, and this was the answer to their claims. In other words, the answer to the claim that Jesus might have returned but that he was just not visible was that Jesus parousia would be as visible as lightning. Claims of an invisible presence were therefore going to be false. It would also be bright and sudden and unmistakable as lightning. It would be like the kind of lightning that is visible from one horizon all the way to the other. 
How likely would it be that Jesus was saying that an INVISIBLE PAROUSIA would be just like something as VISIBLE as lightning that covers the entire sky?

Sure, I'll be happy to start out.
By the end of this discussion we should be able to go through the whole chapter and give a kind of evaluation score to whether we think we have a more likely doctrine or a less likely doctrine. This isn't about whether the meaning we have given a certain idea is impossible, just a way of measuring if the idea is more or less likely.
I'd propose that we have currently been driven to accept a LESS LIKELY definition of the word GENERATION. (Example: "the 1914 generation refers to two groups, where the first group included those whose lifespans overlapped with a second group quite possibly around a point in 1992 or even later, such that we can now add the lifespan of the oldest persons in the second group to the 1914 generation until they might die off in the near future, or perhaps much later, such that the 1914 generation can now include a reference to people born, say in the 1970's or later, living nearly until the year 2050, or even closer to the year 2100.") This has already been discussed elsewhere.
I don't think the definition we give it in the latest Watchtower articles and JW Broadcasting videos is impossible, but it seems very  unlikely. In my experience very few WItnesses will attempt to defend it Biblically. The ones who do make the attempt, have offered scriptures that actually make a much better fit the more common definitions of "generation."  (Exodus 1:6, Genesis 50:23; etc)
Without belaboring the possibility that the current understanding is somehow POSSIBLE, I think almost everyone in the world would agree that it is a LESS LIKELY definition that we are using, than any of the common definitions. (Especially since it can be found in no Bibles, no Bible dictionaries, and no dictionaries.)