JW Insider

Most Witnesses still think it is consistent with the Bible. Those who find that it isn't consistent, probably no longer see it as a central doctrine and therefore are able to dismiss it without causing a serious concern. I think it's because there is still so much more to the core teachings, and they might even seem enhanced in value when one critiques the overall set of remaining doctrines.

so if 607 BCE is such a clunker, how did it get to be a foundation in the first place? What is this about 'counting backwards?' The above quote seems to indicate otherwise. 
My vague impression has been that Russell or someone latched onto it strictly through Bible chronology and wasn't overly concerned that it wasn't prevailing opinion - surely something would eventually cause that opinion to come around, as often happens.  With 607 BCE as a starting point, it is just a Dan 4 calculation away from 1914. It is not that way?
As for the Gnosis mystery above, I assure that there are two scoundrels here as well that are chomping at the bit to chime in, but I am keeping a tight leash on them.

As far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with no hellfire, no Trinity, political neutrality, and not going to war for example. I consider the last one (no warfare) a major way in which we show we love our neighbor and even love our enemy. Those Christian concepts are rather difficult to justify by participating directly in warfare.

True. But what we were avoiding was the explicit statement that "Noah had never seen rain before" which was once considered an article of his faith.

As far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with no hellfire, no Trinity, political neutrality, and not going to war for example. I consider the last one (no warfare) a major way in which we show we love our neighbor and even love our enemy. Those Christian concepts are rather difficult to justify by participating directly in warfare.

I think that most people see a collection of eight photos/articles at the bottom of the screen. (I mean the "Powered by Google" grid of articles and/or ads to click on.) We probably don't all see the same selection of 8 items, but in my case it is always heavily slanted to the fake news about JWs, or JW celebrity news, or both (Trump warns Russia over JWs, Jackie Chan is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and this current one, etc.)
It is the one topic I am least interested in, rarely click on, and it always embarrasses me that these types of articles are readily believed by Witnesses, and sometimes even SOURCED by Witnesses.
I understand that there is a certain use to keep such rumors "up" to drive traffic, but is it only gullible traffic that is desired? I have found some of these fake topics to be easily proven untrue in a matter of seconds, but sometimes these things stay up, even after I have shown the poster the proof. (The last one was to @Bible Speaks and there was not even a response.) I've seen this happen with other people also, just as it happened in this thread.
I prefer to not have such articles demeaning the site, but I know that it's at least possible to change the title of this topic, even slightly, to indicate that we all know better. I'm surprised it wasn't changed months ago, or within a couple hours of the initial post.

Absolutely. And I appreciated the comments you added from 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Ezekiel, and Psalms. "Offering ourselves willingly" gets right to the heart, our motivation.
I believe you have been a Witness long enough to remember when we often made the point that it had never rained prior to the Flood. It used to be in one of the talk outlines, which was updated to remove it. It's not a point that any publications have repeated for 60 years. (Since the February 15, 1956 QFR.) I mention this because I do not know what the current view is on the physics of the water canopy as described. When I was doing some research on another topic, a member of the Governing Body told me that we had "dropped" the idea that each of the creative days were 7,000 years long, so that the 6 creative days had taken 42,000 years and we were already 6,000+ more years into the 7th rest day: in effect in year 48,004 Anno Mundi* at the time this came up. It was important in the 2/1/1973 Watchtower as a support for 1975 (p.83). But then, even though I was told for sure that this had been dropped and would never be mentioned again, it was mentioned again anyway. (In a January 1, 1987 QFR.)
So my comment wasn't trying to reference the canopy teaching nor to dismiss it. I notice now that it looks like I was paraphrasing verse 5 alone, but I was paraphrasing both 5 and 6 together.

Glad you appreciated it, but it was more like a 'stream of consciousness' dissertation, where I just kept adding comments as I went along, hoping they'd stay fairly close to a central theme. I can't really say I spent any time at all preparing it.
 
If you are referring to the previous set of cross-references, I had no problem with it, but it was easy to misunderstand, for me at least, without more context. I like some of the additional cross-references added in the rNWT. To me they often show a greater depth of thought.
If you are referring specifically to the 1914 doctrine, I can't quite figure out what you mean by "previous" since it is still very much "official" doctrine. Perhaps you meant from my perspective, in which case, I agree that even if the 1914 doctrine, is wrong, or unnecessary, it need not cause "much harm," assuming that we continue to highlight several of the counterbalancing ideas.
I wouldn't even bring it up, however, if I didn't think it had the potential for doing some harm. That's because I believe that Jesus was completely serious when he repeated all those ideas about not knowing the time of his parousia. I believe we feel we have found a loophole by claiming that Jesus really meant to say the time of judgement at the END of the parousia, so that it is somehow OK for us to know the time of the parousia. The problem is that knowing the time would have such an effect on our motivations that any specific types of conduct could be hypocritical. We might easily find ourselves motivated by the closeness of judgment, not purely out of willingness and love. Imagine, therefore, if we had translated the original word genealogies in the following passage with "chronology" which is, in fact, one of the primary uses of genealogies in the Bible.
(1 Timothy 1:3-5) . . .command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, 4 nor to pay attention to false stories and to chronology [literally, genealogies]. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy.
Verse 5 summarizes pure Christianity, and Jesus made clear that the "moral" of verse 5 was the same "moral" of not knowing the times or seasons of the parousia.

(Ezekiel 44:25, 26) “They should not approach any dead human, or they will become unclean. However, they may make themselves unclean for their father, mother, son, daughter, brother, or an unmarried sister. And after the purification of a priest, they should count off seven days for him”
 
The priest should not contact any dead human… except his nearest relatives. Jehovah is very reasonable and comprehensive when dictating rules.
Would not it be fine to apply the same principle when we deal with disfellowshipped people? Why Paul doesn’t mention these exceptions in 1Cor 5? Why Ezekiel doesn’t mention the priest’s wife? Perhaps, because the common sense would guide the application. It isn’t the same my cousin than my father, it is?
Other reference:
(Leviticus 21:1, 2) “Jehovah went on to say to Moses: “Talk to the priests, Aaron’s sons, and say to them, ‘No one should defile himself for a dead person among his people. But he may do so for a close blood relative, for his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, his brother,…”

I think that most people see a collection of eight photos/articles at the bottom of the screen. (I mean the "Powered by Google" grid of articles and/or ads to click on.) We probably don't all see the same selection of 8 items, but in my case it is always heavily slanted to the fake news about JWs, or JW celebrity news, or both (Trump warns Russia over JWs, Jackie Chan is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and this current one, etc.)
It is the one topic I am least interested in, rarely click on, and it always embarrasses me that these types of articles are readily believed by Witnesses, and sometimes even SOURCED by Witnesses.
I understand that there is a certain use to keep such rumors "up" to drive traffic, but is it only gullible traffic that is desired? I have found some of these fake topics to be easily proven untrue in a matter of seconds, but sometimes these things stay up, even after I have shown the poster the proof. (The last one was to @Bible Speaks and there was not even a response.) I've seen this happen with other people also, just as it happened in this thread.
I prefer to not have such articles demeaning the site, but I know that it's at least possible to change the title of this topic, even slightly, to indicate that we all know better. I'm surprised it wasn't changed months ago, or within a couple hours of the initial post.

This I agree with.
The idea that a chronology dependant on the corroboration of secular academia would be essential to our faith seems to me to violate the principle at 2Tim 3:16-17. So either side of a debate for or against the significance of the year 1914 on that basis seems (also to me) to be only of mild interest.
However, the application of Matt.24, Mk.13, Lu.21, Rev.6 (Horsemen), 2Tim.3:1-5 etc., to events and conditions since the early part of the 20th Century and the tying of these to the arrival Satan and his "angels" to eke out their desperate "short period of time" after their humiliating, heavenly defeat as described in Rev.12:12 is entirely plausible to me, and of far more interest than anything I have heard yet, au contraire.

And also Nathan the profet.
(2 Samuel 7:1-3) "When the king was settled in his own house and Jehovah had given him rest from all his surrounding enemies, the king said to Nathan the prophet: “Here I am living in a house of cedars while the Ark of the true God sits in the midst of tent cloths.” Nathan replied to the king: “Go and do whatever is in your heart, for Jehovah is with you"
Nathan the prophet made an error. He spoke without direct instructions from God! His counsel was unauthorized. 
Did David stop trusting him? 

We have several examples where prophets of God prophesied something that did not come true:
(1 Kings 22:5-8) 5 But Je·hoshʹa·phat said to the king of Israel: “First inquire, please, for the word of Jehovah.” 6 So the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about 400 men, and said to them: “Should I go to war against Raʹmoth-gilʹe·ad, or should I refrain?” They said: “Go up, and Jehovah will give it into the king’s hand.” 7 Je·hoshʹa·phat then said: “Is there not here a prophet of Jehovah? Let us also inquire through him.” 8 At that the king of Israel said to Je·hoshʹa·phat: “There is still one more man through whom we can inquire of Jehovah; but I hate him, for he never prophesies good things concerning me, only bad. He is Mi·caiʹah the son of Imʹlah.” However, Je·hoshʹa·phat said: “The king should not say such a thing.”
We also have Jonah, for example. But I was referring especially to prophets who spoke in the name of Jehovah but may not have been true prophets. Perhaps they thought they were, and they were disappointing to themselves, too.
 

Very valid points!

Saw something interesting on this scripture related to the Bible reading (Ezekiel 12) for next week:
(2 Peter 3:3,4) 3 First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.”
The first thing was the cross reference from the NWT. The pre-2013 NWT cross-referenced 2 Pet 3:4 to Ezekiel 12:27 and I think I might have misunderstood the value of the cross-reference:
(Ezekiel 12:27) “Son of man, look! those of the house of Israel are saying, ‘The vision that he is visioning is many days off, and respecting times far off he is prophesying.’
Without the context, this verse alone looks like a discussion about patience in waiting for the fulfillment of the promised prophecy. After all, Peter will go on to say that in Jehovah's timetable something could go on for a 1,000 years in our time, but could still be like a day in Jehovah's eyes. Of course, the verse in 2 Peter (and also the verse in Ezekiel 12) is not about fact that something might be fulfilled in a far off time, but about the ridicule.
In the rNWT this is made easier to see by adding another verse from the context of this one in Ezekiel 12. Now, the 2013 Revised NWT includes the following verse in the cross-references:
(Ezekiel 12:22) 22 “Son of man, what is this proverb that you have in Israel that says, ‘The days go by, and every vision comes to nothing’?
Now it makes sense, that Israel had seen so many prophets and visionaries declare things that didn't come true so often that it had become like the fable of "the boy who cried wolf." (Also, btw, I found this verse to be much more readily understandable in the new rNWT.) @ComfortMyPeople reminded me of this verse when he spoke about how we have plenty of precedent for handling error. We need not be discouraged overmuch, as if this is something that should never be expected to happen. Imagine being in a congregation where some of them were saying there was no resurrection!
Another verse that has been added to the cross-references to the passage in 2 Peter 3:3 is the first verse in the passage below:
(Jeremiah 17:15, 16) 15 Look! There are those saying to me: “Where is the word of Jehovah? Let it come, please!” 16 But as for me, I did not run away from following you as a shepherd, Nor did I long for the day of disaster. You well know everything my lips have spoken; It all took place before your face!
It's interesting that 2 Peter is about "ridiculers" but this verse is about a person who does not want to be a ridiculer, but is anxiously looking for the promised prophecy to come true. I added the next verse because it provides another interesting point that the person is not going to leave Jehovah just because of a perceived delay, but also he is not longing for the day of disaster. Perhaps it refers to the right attitude toward God's judgments.
One last point is that those who read both 2 Peter 3 and the parallels in the book of Jude might be surprised to see that both of these books together make a very consistent point that they were already in the "last days." It is both now and all the way back through to the first centuries that Christians would expect to hear persons ridicule them by saying "Where is this promised parousia?" and they would make the point that things are going on pretty much as they always were.
In Jude it's also easy to see that he was speaking about the "last days" or "last time" having already started in Jude's day:
(Jude 16-20) 16 These men are murmurers, complainers about their lot in life, following their own desires, and their mouths make grandiose boasts, while they are flattering others for their own benefit. 17 As for you, beloved ones, call to mind the sayings that have been previously spoken by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18 how they used to say to you: “In the last time there will be ridiculers, following their own desires for ungodly things.” 19 These are the ones who cause divisions, animalistic men, not having spirituality. 20 But you, beloved ones, build yourselves up on your most holy faith, and pray with holy spirit,
Of course, if it were about our own day, and if the parousia was going to be a long period of time, such as 103-plus years, for example, then the real response would be: "Don't you know that things are NOT going on as they always were? Didn't you notice the big wars and earthquakes that started the parousia? Are you blind to the sign?"
The "parousia" of course is a "visitation" and it came on Jerusalem 37 years after Jesus prophesied such a visitation. We can see that the visitation (parousia) wasn't the entire period of the generation with its great wars and great earthquakes in one place after another and pestilences and food shortages. It was the final visitation event when judgment was visited upon Jerusalem:
(Matthew 23:35-38) . . .there may come upon you all the righteous blood spilled on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zech·a·riʹah son of Bar·a·chiʹah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. 37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you.
It must have been especially important when speaking of the final visitation of judgment (parousia) to remind the ridiculers that there was a good reason that things were going on just as they had been since the days of their forefathers. It's because, if there was not going to be a sign in advance, that it (the visitation - parousia) would come quickly and suddenly and without warning as a thief. Just as in Noah's day, when the world was apart from the water, then suddenly in the midst of water:
(2 Peter 3:5, 6) 5 For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with waters.
Jesus was the one who had said that things WOULD go on just as they had been going on in the days of their forefathers.
(Matthew 24:37-41) 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 41 Two women will be grinding at the hand mill; one will be taken along and the other abandoned.
This is just like when Paul said that it would also be a time when they were calling out peace and security! (Wars would occur but they would not be a defining sign of his parousia.) The ridicule is not about claiming that the parousia wasn't really there, it was ridiculing the delay of the parousia, just as they were ridiculing the delay of the judgment visitation in Ezekiel 12. The only advance warning we have is the reminder that it will come as a thief and we should therefore watch what sort of persons we should be at all times:
(2 Peter 3:11-18) 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence [visitation] of the day of Jehovah,. . . 14 Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation,. . . 17 You, therefore, beloved ones, having this advance knowledge, be on your guard so that you may not be led astray with them by the error of the lawless people and fall from your own steadfastness. 18 No, but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. . . .
 
 
 

In other post, I’ve already mentioned this idea. And JWI continually makes reference to the same problem. 2 Tim 3:1-5 doesn’t concern with WORLD condition in the last days, but the CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION’s condition in that period of time. The other day, watching brother Malenfant in the video “Morality in the Last Days” (https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/LatestVideos/pub-jwb_201706_9_VIDEO) was hoping to observe any mention to the basic, real, authentic meaning of the verses. Another missed opportunity.
Of course, I’m not meaning that we’re living in a wonderful world. On the contrary. Only that Paul wasn’t talking about the world.
Note the related meaning of passages in chapters 2 and 3: (2 Timothy 2:16, 17) “But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them.” (2 Timothy 2:20, 21) “Now in a large house there are utensils not only of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for an honorable use but others for a use lacking honor. So if anyone keeps clear of the latter ones” (2 Timothy 3:1-7) “But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. From among these arise men who slyly work their way into households and captivate weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth. (2 Timothy 3:13) But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.
I would have appreciated if brother Malenfant, when quoting these verses, would said: “if in the congregation would have problems, according 2Tim 3, much worst would be the conditions in the world outside.” In this way, whilst extending the verses, not ignoring the basic and inspired meaning. By the way, as our extending applications aren’t inspired we must change once and again the explanations.
The BEST explanation I’ve met in our publications is in this quite old magazine: Zion Watch Tower August 1891, Vol XII, No 9. Pages 1319 in the reprint. Article: “View from the Tower. PERILOUS TIMES AT HAND. I will quote the article entirely in another post. Only mention some interesting lines here:
quote --------------
The Apostle forewarns the Church, not only of the certainty of such perils, and of their character, but also of their manner of approach. On one occasion he said, "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. [Such were the great and destructive papal powers.] Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:29,30.) Some of these Paul and the early Church encountered in that day. Paul was often in perils among false brethren
And he shows that from such false brethren, brethren who have erred from the truth and become teachers of false doctrine, will come the Church's greatest peril in these last times. (2 Tim. 2:16-18; 3:5.) And in order that we might recognize and beware of them, he very minutely described them, though the clear significance of the warning is somewhat beclouded by a faulty translation,
So also the word apeithes, rendered "disobedient," signifies not persuaded; and the expression "disobedient to parents" would consequently signify not of the same persuasion, or not of the same mind as were the parents.
-------------- end of quote
So, in this way, our best known “disobedient” to parents would mean that these persons don’t follow the former, the predecessors the ancestor teachers of the congregation, not children crying against their parents.

I find it difficult and often embarrassing to discuss with people if these times are worse than the previous ones. I dislike focusing in “bad news”, you know: these earthquakes are more bad, the wars are more bad… Above all when my interlocutor is a well-informed person. This person easily could bring to my attention data as follows (from our publications)

*** g04 5/22 pp. 4-5 The Age-Old Fight for Better Health ***
[The Black Death] Within four years, say some historians, the plague spread throughout Europe and about a third of the population lost their life—perhaps between 20 million and 30 million people. Even remote Iceland was decimated. It is said that in the Far East, the population of China slumped from 123 million at the beginning of the 13th century to 65 million during the 14th century, apparently as a result of the plague and the accompanying famine.

No previous epidemic, war, or famine had ever caused such widespread suffering. “It was a disaster without equal in human history,” notes the book Man and Microbes. “Somewhere between one-quarter and one-half of the people in Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia perished.”
The Americas escaped the ravages of the Black Death, thanks to their isolation from the rest of the world. But oceangoing ships soon brought that isolation to an end. In the 16th century, a wave of epidemics that proved even more lethal than the plague ravaged the New World.

In 1518 an outbreak of smallpox erupted on the island of Hispaniola. Native Americans had never been exposed to smallpox before, and the effect was catastrophic. A Spanish eyewitness estimated that only a thousand people on the island survived. The epidemic soon spread to Mexico and Peru, with similar consequences.

The following century, when the Pilgrim settlers arrived in the area of Massachusetts in North America, they discovered that smallpox had practically cleared the land of inhabitants. “The natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox,” wrote Pilgrim leader John Winthrop.

Other epidemics followed smallpox. According to one source, by a century after Columbus’ arrival, imported diseases had wiped out 90 percent of the population of the New World. The population of Mexico had shrunk from 30 million to 3 million, that of Peru from 8 million to one million.
****************************
Yes, now I should mention there are more epidemies, wars and so. I, instead, prefer to discuss about the value of Bible advice, the gems about God’s personality and similar, positive ideas.

As JWI has pointed out. Christ sign would have no doubt (Matthew 24:30) “Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief” No debate, no discussion, no doubt. This was the exact answer of Jesus about the sign his disciples asked him before. 

I once heard a brother from GB, when visiting Spain, explain that there are TWO signs. The first (wars, famine, etc.) would happen on earth. The second one would be the sing of Son of Man, and this would happen on heavens.

Well, the fact is that Jesus only mention ONE sign. As impossible to deny as the flash of lightning. There is no necessity to struggle with unbelievers to try to convince them. 

What about wars, earthquakes and pestilence? Jesus, specifically said: 
 
(Matthew 24:6-8) “You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for these things must take place, but the end is not yet. “For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress” In other words. The wars, famine and calamities are proof we would be in THE BEGINNING of distress. Not a sign at all.

THE HORSEMEN

The picture well describes the universal taught about this vision: the catastrophic world conditions in the final era. We, the JW, properly view that these happenings occur after Jesus ride. Well, put it simple, I think this approximation has no scriptural base… at all. These are not world condition when Christ rules, they are, rather direct judgments of Christ against the enemies, when he starts his judgment against Babylon.

The proof? Always, always, always (three times) the Bible mention colorful horses, these meant angels, not situations:
 
(Zechariah 1:8-10) . . .“I saw a vision in the night. There was a man riding on a red horse, and he stood still among the myrtle trees in the ravine; and behind him there were red, reddish-brown, and white horses.” So I said: “Who are these, my lord?” The angel who was speaking with me replied: “I will show you who these are.” Then the man who was standing still among the myrtle trees said: “These are the ones whom Jehovah has sent out to walk about in the earth.”.  
(Zechariah 6:1-5) . . .Then I looked up again and saw four chariots coming from between two mountains, and the mountains were of copper. The first chariot had red horses, and the second chariot, black horses. The third chariot had white horses, and the fourth chariot, speckled and dappled horses. I asked the angel who was speaking with me: “What are these, my lord?” The angel answered me: “These are the four spirits of the heavens that are going out after having taken their station before the Lord of the whole earth. . . And, what we find as the mechanism using by Jehovah when punishing His enemies? These days that we’re reading Ezequiel, we are reading quite a few verses with the same idea: God will punish his enemies with: the sword of war,  famine and pest. Why not the same in the future?

Only one collateral idea. Will resurrect this persons? We have no problem to think that many of the people from ancient times who perished in that judgements, under the Babylonian or Assyrian siege will resurrect. Why not the people -or some people- during the Great Tribulation? Because is said the Hades is following the horsemen.

Well, I’m not completely sure about all of this. But I find it solves more problems than the contraire. 

Yes, Shiwiii, perhaps is as false as this false teaching:
(Galatians 2:11-13) “However, when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense” Now, what if I openly declare the 1914 is a false teaching! I believe there is in the God’s word principles to guide my behavior:
(1 Corinthians 15:12) “Now if it is being preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how is it that some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” In this way, the Bible discourages spread different teachings between brothers. Of course, you’re saying: “it isn’t the same 1914 that the resurrection” … and you’re right.
But the Bible obliges me to refrain, to abstain to exercise some rights to benefit others: not eat meat or not make secular work on sabbath to protect the conscience of others.
(Romans 14:5-12) "One man judges one day as above another; …The one who observes the day observes it to Jehovah… the one who does not eat does not eat to Jehovah, … Not one of us, in fact, lives with regard to himself only… But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you also look down on your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. … So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God." Even Jesus Crist follow a “false teaching” to avoid stumble others:
(Matthew 17:27) “But that we do not cause them to stumble, go to the sea, cast a fishhook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth, you will find a silver coin. Take that and give it to them for me and you.”  
So, my attitude is not stumble others. And regarding the person on charge of teaching to the worldwide brotherhood, well, I’ve quoted before:
“each of us will render an account for himself to God”

While I might be willing to discuss some things with those who want to remodel, that does not mean I am willing to discuss them with those who want to demolish. 
Especially when they have neither replacement nor concern over that lack.

WAITING… AND FIGHTING
ARchiv@L, I appreciate your advice. Very laconic, but appropriate. Only to develop a little further my attitude, let me mention David example in, perhaps, the most difficult part of his life, when persecuted by Saul.

He had the temptation (as myself sometimes) to escape and wait if Jehovah fix the situation. But Jehovah had another plan for him:
(1 Samuel 22:5) In time Gad the prophet said to David: “Do not stay in the stronghold. Go from there into the land of Judah.” So David left and went into the forest of Heʹreth” And again in the middle of the fight…

And sure you remember when the future king was forced to run away between the Philistines, even in that painful situation, he continued to support the people of God… commanded by his worst enemy.
 
(1 Samuel 27:7, 8) “The length of time that David lived in the countryside of the Phi·lisʹtines was a year and four months. David would go up with his men to raid the Geshʹur·ites, the Girʹzites, and the A·malʹek·ites, for they were inhabiting the land that extended from Teʹlam as far as Shur and down to the land of Egypt”.  These wars, in spite of the opinion of his enemies, were considered, in reality “the wars of Jehovah” (1Sa 25:28)

To meditate in this example has helped to me to wait and fight. TO FIGHT against the outer enemy: the false religions and their false teachings: hell fire, trinity and so. I don’t meant fighting holding a banner in our conventions and shouting “the 1914 teaching is untruth”.

As I consider the Congregation has a Leader more wise and powerful than me, I WAIT he will fix any situation he considers worth of change when he considers the proper moment.

I think the content of the verse in Micah about having a "waiting attitude" is good, but the context might seem a bit harsh in that the verse applies to waiting on Jehovah when it's an enemy we are up against. I don't think of the Governing Body as an enemy here, and I don't think you do either.
In fact, the only issue I see is that a long-standing tradition made sense for many years, but has turned out to cause more problems than it solved at this point. Still, I don't think it is even that big of a problem when it comes to the day-to-day life of an average Witness.
After all, whether 1914 is a necessary doctrine or not:
We still know that we are living in the time of the end, or the "last days" even if that phrase had the same meaning to Christians in the first century. We still know that Satan has been cast down and walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone, because his time is short. This is also true even if it had the same meaning in the first century. We also wait for his final abyss and subsequent final demise. We still have a preaching work that is just as important as ever. Jesus is still "King of Kings" and ruler of those who rule the earth. The kingdom is still our focus, and continues to be the theme of our hopes and prayers. We still know that we must overcome critical times, hard to deal with, just as Paul warned Timothy that he would meet up with. We still know that Jesus is present, wherever even two or three are gathered in his name. We know that Jesus will be with us right up until the conclusion of the system of things. We don't live for a date, or serve for a date anyway, so whether or not the end comes in our lifetime or we find out about it after a moment of "sleep" in death, the important thing is still our love for God and neighbor, and "what sort of persons we ought to be." So probably the only thing that we might consider to be different is the idea that the Gentile kings had their day and the times of these nations and their kings ended 103 years ago. This, ironically, is the only prediction that we ever said we got right about 1914 in the first place. So it might end up requiring a bit of humility, but there's nothing wrong with a bit of humility, either.

I'm glad you edited out the reference to born again, Baptist clergymen which was far too specific. And I agree. Such prejudicial stereotyping is indefensible. 

The general view by the Governing Body is likely that this is exactly what they have been doing for as long as possible, but I'm sure that all or most of them believe they have been doing it for the right reasons. I have no reason to believe that any of the current Governing Body doubt the general idea about 1914, whether or not all of them specifically believe in the Daniel 4 foundation or not. (For many years, Daniel 4 on its own, had nothing to do with the "foundation" for 1914, although it was considered to be a weaker, but still valid, bit of corollary evidence by Russell.)
If it were only true. What this "scholarly type," R.Furuli, had done was take the 10 pieces of independent archaeological and historical evidence and not even address 8 of them except with flippant false claims that shows he doesn't even care to research them. He pins all the importance on only ONE of those pieces of evidence, which is odd because 607 as the year when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem is falsified just as easily by the other pieces of evidence without even needing to rely at all on this one piece of evidence. But then, even at that, he comes up with the most convoluted reasons for rejecting this one item: VAT 4956.
VAT 4956 is one of several astronomical diaries that would ultimately identify Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year as the year 568/567 BCE, based on the astronomy that fits no other possible year. Of course, if the tablet is correct, then it's the same as saying Nebuchadnezzar's 36th year would be 569/8 BCE, his 35th would be 570/569 BCE on back to his 19th (or 18th) year, which would be 587/6 BCE, which is a year that Jeremiah and 2 Chronicles associate with the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, it's just another of several items of evidence that consistently fits the "secular" chronology -- which also happens to fit the Biblical chronology, even though these particular bits of Biblical evidence are not accepted by the Watch Tower Society.
But even though Furuli grasps at all kinds of straws to invalidate the tablet, most JWs don't even realize that Furuli ADMITS that most of it actually does refer to the date 567 and no other possible date. That is an admission that MOST of this tablet still invalidates the Watch Tower Society's preferred date of 607 BCE for the Temple destruction. He even says that the museum curators might have taken a grinding tool and forged the "37" onto it to look exactly like all the other cuneiform letters that were made when the clay was still wet. Since it's a two-sided piece of clay, he even thinks that one of the two sides might have been faked and didn't originally go together. This is in spite of the fact that he admits that the number 37 on the tablet (in more than one place) is the correct year for most of the readings.
He thought he could find some trouble with the lunar readings, based especially on the fact that there is a known copyist's error on the tablet. He admits that he was an amateur when it came to trying to figure out the astronomical readings, but it does not take a genius to try to duplicate his readings and see that his mistakes were worse than amateurish. They have been discussed elsewhere on the site, and so far, everyone who has tried to duplicate them has seen the errors.
But as you said: "That's all you need." Unfortunately, this is true for many persons. I think that most of us believe that if someone makes a claim that fits a preconceived notion, it must be true. It's a lot like watching CNN and MSNBC fall over themselves to find new ways to use the phrase "Russia hacked our 2016 election." Very few point out that one of the candidates failed to even visit states where she had a preconceived notion of a sure win.

I haven't invoked the part of this story that involves the "political" powers that have played no small part in keeping the 1914 doctrine written into our own history. But as you already admit that it applies to everything, I will oblige. Not that this has anything to do with real evidence for anything, but for me, it at least counters the common idea that if something is believed by non-Witnesses or ex-Witnesses it must be wrong. In this case, the same evidence I have already presented was also believed by several members of our own Governing Body, and even more members of our own Writing Department, plus at least one Gilead Instructor and at least two respected members of the Service Department. One is a current Governing Body Helper, and another still works in Writing and both still give convention talks, etc.
As a New Yorker you are not living too far away from some of those who were close friends of many of the people I mention, and you might have an opportunity to validate any part of what I'll mention below:
Daniel Sydlik of the Governing Body once said to me "off the record" that he thought we should just scrap the entire chronology and "start from scratch." I had heard that he had said this to several brothers prior to 1974, and I wanted to know (in 1978) if he still felt that way now that he was on the Governing Body. At the time I was only willing to question the 1918 and 1919 doctrines, and I went to him because I had been told by several people that he dismissed them as fantasy. Ewart Chitty, Ray Franz and Lyman Swingle had also made similar comments even about 1914, not just 1919. I had only heard Lyman Swingle say it personally, but I knew people who said that Chitty and R.Franz had also no longer believed that 1914 was a doctrine we should promote in the way we were doing it. The people who told me this were two of my best friends in Writing and one more very good friend in the Service Department. When Brother Schroeder complained to me about people willing to dismiss 1914, he inadvertently gave me 3 more names in the Writing Department when he said that it included everyone currently in Writing who worked on the Aid Book. The brother who gave my wedding talk, Brother Rusk, was a hard-line loyalist to anything that Fred Franz believed, and he also warned me against my friendship with 3 brothers in Writing, two of whom worked on the Aid Book.
I would never have had the nerve to ask why no member of the Governing Body had not stood up to Fred Franz and questioned the chronology doctrines outright. But several members of the Writing Department explained what they thought was happening. And their ideas were consistent: When serious doctrinal issues were being questioned (like chronology) there was very little that could be done prior to 1977 because it didn't matter what the Governing Body thought anyway, because Nathan Knorr and Fred Franz would override it in favor of "conservative" policies and doctrines. Also, neither Grant Suiter nor Milton Henschel ever cared much for scriptural discussions, which was obvious by the way they handled morning worship only as if it were "business reporting." So any scriptural matters were decided by the Oracle (Fred Franz). The Governing Body from 1971 to 1977 was not really a Governing Body yet anyway in the sense that they could actually bring up major doctrinal issues for questioning. Swingle could grumble about 1914, and R.Franz had already done the research for the Aid Book chronology article, but when R.Franz was added to the Governing Body in 1971, it was with Gangas, Greenlees, and Jackson -- and those three just mentioned were 100% supporters of Fred Franz. In 1974, when Sydlik and Schroeder were added and were known wild-cards, it was still at a time when the Governing Body had no authority to decide anything of any consequence. Also, of course, they were added at the same time as Ted Jaracz, Charles Fekel, Karl Klein, and Ewart Chitty were added. Those four were considered to be 100% Fred Franz supporters, even sycophants was the word used of most of them. Chitty admitted to a very close and respected friend of mine that he had grave reservations about 1914, but I have my doubts he would have pushed against the strength of Fred Franz on a doctrinal issue. (Of the last four, Jaracz, Fekel, Klein, and Chitty, I will not break down all the different rumors about each one, but I will say that it might have seemed obvious, based on their histories, that they would always vote with Fred Franz.) Barber, Barr and Poetzinger were added in 1977 and it was assumed by at least one friend in Writing that they filled out an even wider safety net to keep all votes for change from ever reaching 66.67%. I have to say that I knew almost nothing about any of these last three, and they never said anything during morning worship that gave a hint that they might have had preferred views or teachings that they felt were priorities.
By the time any dangerous questions could have been asked, Schroeder spearheaded a crack-down on such questions, starting in early 1980, and I even watched him try to position himself as the new "Oracle" in the event that "King Saul" died. (The expression, "That won't change until King Saul dies" was heard as a kind of joke many times in the Writing and Service Department, and it actually referred to someone else before Fred Franz.) Some people were very serious about it, however. At any rate, "King Saul" kept his power by minimizing the work Schroeder was doing throughout the 1980's and sometimes pushing for explanations that were exactly the opposite of what Schroeder proposed. (To be fair Schroeder proposed some fairly odd changes, which I won't get into here and now.) But one of the specific items that Schroeder had proposed was the idea that the "generation" should be seen as the generation of the "anointed." He even went to give talks in Europe promoting this new view. In response, Franz pushed for making it the generation of the "wicked" which actually made more sense in light of some scriptures. Schroeder also pushed one last time on trying to prove that the heart was not just a figurative, but a literal seat of emotion, love, hate, envy, etc. Franz responded with a long Gilead Graduation talk in excruciating detail about the meaning of the liver and fat, and why the fat was forbidden just as blood was forbidden. It seemed very serious, but Schroeder told me what he thought of it.

(Luke 12:47, 48) . . .Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.
 
Anna, everyone of us know who has the responsability to fix the situation: "his master on coming" (Lu 12:43)
So, what can we do? Wait, be busy in the work and making fine things, and pray.
Pray for these brothers in th GB, that they have the wisdom and courage to act. Pray for the humble ones, that Jehovah grant them faith to wait without stumbling