JW Insider

For me at least it matters not how far references go back either in Watchtower (WT) or any publications cited in these postings. I quoted from an 1823 publication in a recent post myself because I felt it relevant to a point I was making.
I suppose I have an advantage over some in that I am able to check the context of any of the old WT quotes because I have a pretty extensive archive of publications, although of course anyone can build or access a pretty comprehensive electronic library these days if they wish.
I suppose what is more important than the vintage of the quoted references is the point they are being used to substantiate and I suspect that this would be more the cause of irritation for some rather than the age of the quotes themselves.
I think the point  referenced in the WT of 2/15/1981 which is quoted above is relevant: "at times, it has been necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18) However, this has resulted in a continual refining of the body of Bible-based truth to which Jehovah’s Witnesses subscribe."
Corrected views? I see it as a continuation of the process described at Acts 18:26 regarding Apollos "Pris·cilʹla and Aqʹui·la heard him, they took him into their company and explained the way of God more accurately to him" and similar to what Paul said at 1Cor 9-13 "For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially,"
So for me, apart from satisfying my curiosity in the development of understanding amongst Jehovah's Witnesses and it's historical context, little more is gained from these "hoary, old chestnuts" of WT quotes apart from proof of the italicised statement above. They are often used to support veiled or overt inferences to some sort of conspiracy theory scenario enacted by "old men in Brooklyn" (not so old these days). These arguments abound on the internet and their appearance on a public forum such as this is unsurprising. But even this designation will need a refinement soon to "old men in Warwick" won't it? These innuendos I do find offensive, but then I can choose to ignore them quite easily.
Let freedom of expression prevail, but if you do claim to represent the Master Teacher, let his style of expression dominate also:
"And they all began to give favorable witness about him and to be amazed at the gracious words coming out of his mouth"    Luke 4:22

OK, here's the second half of comments about the subject of "Gentile Times" and "1914" from the Appendix of the book "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" Excerpts quoted from the book are put in bold:
In the Bible, trees are sometimes used to represent rulership. (Ezekiel 17:22-24; 31:2-5) So the chopping down of the symbolic tree represents how God’s rulership, as expressed through the kings at Jerusalem, would be interrupted. However, the vision served notice that this ‘trampling of Jerusalem’ would be temporary—a period of “seven times.” How long a period is that? True, trees sometimes represent rulership, although in this case, Daniel 4 says it represented the King himself, and therefore also his rulership. It does not say that there is some kind of a second fulfillment of any kind, but points several times to the fact that it was fulfilled in the person of Nebuchadnezzar himself.
So, while we can't completely discount the possibility of a second fulfillment, the chopping down of the tree does not directly represent God's rulership for the following reasons. The fulfillment includes a generic truth, which would apply to Jehovah's sovereignty over even the wicked rulers of the earth. Nothing in that general truth points specifically to "God's kingdom" or the "Messianic Kingdom" even if they can be included. Also, Nebuchadnezzar was a Gentile, so it's odd that his interrupted Gentile rulership would represent the interruption of the Messianic rulership. It's odd that his restoration to power would somehow represent the time when Jesus Christ was restored to the Messianic kingdom. Also, of course, he was a vicious, beastly ruler, and an enemy of God's kingdom, and he was punished with insanity -- brought low -- for his haughtiness. Jesus was neither vicious, beastly, or an enemy of God's kingdom, and Jesus was never punished with insanity for his haughtiness.
Creating a correspondence between Jesus and Nebuchadnezzar is therefore much the same as if we took a narrative about Judas Iscariot and said that it had application to Jesus Christ because both hanged from a tree, and both had the number "30" surrounding an important event of their lives:  30 pieces of silver, the price of a slave (Exodus 21:32), and Jesus was 30 years of age at baptism when he gave humbled himself as a "slave" of his Father. The numbers are coincidental, but even if the numbers could be construed into some schematic doctrine, we should still reject any prophetic correspondence between Jesus and Judas Iscariot.
Revelation 12:6, 14 indicates that three and a half times equal “1,260 days.” “Seven times” would therefore last twice as long, or 2,520 days. But the Gentile nations did not stop ‘trampling’ on God’s rulership a mere 2,520 days after Jerusalem’s fall. Evidently, then, this prophecy covers a much longer period of time. On the basis of Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6, which speak of “a day for a year,” the “seven times” would cover 2,520 years. Note that the same point made in Revelation 12:6,14 can be made from Revelation 11:2,3. We can be pretty sure, however, that the Watchtower will never allow the juxtaposition of Luke 21:24 and Revelation 11:2,3 in the same article. (For reasons pointed out in the first half of the comments on the "Bible Teach" Appendix.)
But it should still be noted that the Watchtower is not consistent when the article says that the time period of the 7 times would be twice as long as the time period for 3 and 1/2 times. Those 3.5 times are actually considered to be a literal 1,260 days, while the 7 times are considered to be about 920,430 days. (7 x 360 x 365.25) So Daniel's time period is not just twice as long as Revelation's; it's 730.5 times longer. 
Also note that there is no reason to use a day-for-a-year here. The Watchtower doesn't do it with the 1,260 days in any of the places that this period is mentioned in Revelation -- even though one of the those places is identified in Revelation itself as the length of the Gentile Times. The Watchtower does not even use the 1,260 days from Daniel 12 to mean years, nor the 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11, etc. The day-for-a-year formula is not really a Bible rule anyway. It's used in a couple places when the Bible says it is being used. There is no reason to use it if the Bible doesn't say to use it. If it were really some kind of a rule, then why wouldn't the Watchtower use it for the 1,260 days? In fact, there are other similar formulaic rules that are also used. Daniel was elsewhere asked to use a multiple of 7 years for every year when he turned Jeremiah's 70 years into 70 weeks of years. In other types of measurements (justice, forgiveness, forbearance) multiples of 7 and 11 and 2 are also used. (e.g. not 7 times, but 77 times; i.e., 7x11=77)
The 2,520 years began in October 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and the Davidic king was taken off his throne. The period ended in October 1914. At that time, “the appointed times of the nations” ended, and Jesus Christ was installed as God’s heavenly King.—Psalm 2:1-6; Daniel 7:13, 14. Not only did Jerusalem not fall in 607 BCE, it was not even in October. And this is admitted in the book Insight on the Scriptures:
*** it-1 p. 812 Fast ***    “The fast of the fourth month” apparently commemorated the breaching of Jerusalem’s walls by the Babylonians on Tammuz 9, 607 B.C.E. (2Ki 25:2-4; Jer 52:5-7) (2) It was in the fifth Jewish month Ab that the temple was destroyed, and evidently “the fast of the fifth month” was held as a reminder of this event. (2Ki 25:8, 9; Jer 52:12, 13) The fifth month is typically mid-July to mid-August. So it's not just off by 20 years, it's also off by an extra two months for good measure.
And more than that, Jesus said the Gentile Times would start after 33 CE. If they started with the events of 66 CE, as Jesus indicated when he spoke of Jerusalem being surrounded by encamped armies and the people being trampled then these events would run up to about 70 CE when Jesus said: "They will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you." This fits better with the statement in Revelation 11:2,3 that these Gentile Times would run for 1,260 days or 42 months. (3 and 1/2 times).
Just as Jesus predicted, his “presence” as heavenly King has been marked by dramatic world developments—war, famine, earthquakes, pestilences. (Matthew 24:3-8; Luke 21:11) Such developments bear powerful testimony to the fact that 1914 indeed marked the birth of God’s heavenly Kingdom and the beginning of “the last days” of this present wicked system of things.—2 Timothy 3:1-5. Jesus actually said almost the opposite. He predicted that if people used wars and rumors of wars and famines and earthquakes as "the sign" that they would be misled, because these were not signs of the end. They were just things that must continue to take place, but cannot be thought of as signs. It's the idea of the whole chapter that they could not figure out the parousia (presence) with a sign, because it would come as a surprise at any time. Wars and earthquakes would happen, but these events would mislead people if they didn't listen to Jesus' words. Note:
(Matthew 24:3-8) . . .what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?” 4 In answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads you, 5 for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6 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. 7 “For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. 8 All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress.
If these were NOT the sign, then what was? Simple The sign of his presence comes after the tribulation of those days. There is no warning sign before the tribulation. That's why they needed to stay alert, that's why the presence would be a surprise, just as when the flood surprised people in the days of Noah who were living their day-to-day lives as if there was "peace and security." This fits all the other scriptures in the Bible about that presence.
(Matthew 24:29,30) “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven,
2 Timothy 3:1-5 shows that Paul understood that the last days had already begun in the first century CE. The same idea is made in Acts, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, and Jude. This is another way in which the Bible contradicts the claims about 1914.
There is plenty more on the subject, but that's the end of the commentary critiquing the Appendix article in the Bible Teach book.
 

I'm still stepping through some of what Arauna has said in defense of the 1914 doctrine. The appendix in the Bible Teach book is fairly short, so I think I'll comment on that first. To make it easy to distinguish comments from the original, I'll "bold" the Bible Teach book content:
APPENDIX 1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy This has now been moved to the Appendix at the back of the book, after several years in the main content section. 
DECADES in advance, Bible students proclaimed that there would be significant developments in 1914. What were these, and what evidence points to 1914 as such an important year? Technically, it's true they proclaimed significant developments, but all of them failed. Although the book never claims that any of the proclaimed developments came true, it implies it asking about them with the term "these" and then implying that "these" were evidences that 1914 was an important year. In past years, we blatantly claimed that the "parousia" (presence),  or "Christ's enthronement," or at least "the time of trouble" was predicted in advance. Although we have stopped doing that, the above is about the closest we can get to implying that we did, without being dishonest.
As recorded at Luke 21:24, Jesus said: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations [“the times of the Gentiles,” King James Version] are fulfilled.” Jerusalem had been the capital city of the Jewish nation—the seat of rulership of the line of kings from the house of King David. (Psalm 48:1, 2) However, these kings were unique among national leaders. They sat on “Jehovah’s throne” as representatives of God himself. (1 Chronicles 29:23) Jerusalem was thus a symbol of Jehovah’s rulership. 100% true.
How and when, though, did God’s rulership begin to be “trampled on by the nations”? This happened in 607 B.C.E. when Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians. “Jehovah’s throne” became vacant, and the line of kings who descended from David was interrupted. (2 Kings 25:1-26) False, in about 3 different ways.
#1. Jerusalem is not a symbol; it's the physical city being punished
Although Jerusalem had been a symbol of God's rulership, this doesn't mean that it always was a symbol in every context. In fact, what Jesus said was clearly NOT about Jerusalem as a symbol but was about the physical city of Jerusalem. That is clear from the context of the same verse in Luke. If we take the entire paragraph from which Luke 21:24 is taken we see it clearly:
(Luke 21:20-24) 20 “However, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains, let those in the midst of her leave, and let those in the countryside not enter into her, 22 because these are days for meting out justice in order that all the things written may be fulfilled. 23 Woe to the pregnant women and those nursing a baby in those days! For there will be great distress on the land and wrath against this people. 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. If Jerusalem were a symbol of "God's rulership" in this context, then why would "God's rulership" be surrounded by encamped armies and people be asked to flee from God's rulership. It was the physical city of Jerusalem being punished here, not "God's rulership" being punished. Matthew introduces the "Olivet Sermon" in Matthew 24 in a similar manner. These are the final verses of Matthew 23 introducing the context for Matthew 24:
(Matthew 23:37-39) 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. 39 For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’” If Jerusalem were a symbol of God's rulership in this context it would mean that God's kingdom is being punished and abandoned for being a killer of the prophets.
#2  - The trampling of Jerusalem started in the future, not in the past
The trampling of Jerusalem spoken of in Luke 21:24 could not have begun in 607 BCE because it was to take place in the future. Jesus said that this time "draws near," that they "WILL fall by the edge of the sword," and that  Jerusalem "WILL be trampled." He didn't say that this has been ongoing, but that it is an event that will begin in the near future. The NWT even links it to a parallel verse in Luke 19:
(Luke 19:41-44) 41 And when he got nearby, he viewed the city and wept over it, 42 saying: “If you, even you, had discerned on this day the things having to do with peace—but now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43 Because the days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification of pointed stakes and will encircle you and besiege you from every side. 44 They will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, So they will be trampled in the near future. Nothing is said of this being something that started 600 years earlier.
This of course happened closer to 66 CE according to the video found on jw.org. That date is correct: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/#mediaitems/VODMoviesBibleTimes/pub-ivwf_E_x_VIDEO
#3 Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 BCE.
Nebuchadnezzar had not even begun his first year of ruling yet, and Jerusalem was destroyed in his 19th year counting from his first regnal year. The publications assume that 539 BCE is a correct year to begin counting from, but if that date is true (and all evidence says it is) then Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE, not 607 BCE by the same evidence. There is no 539 without 587 and vice versa. Today, 607 (aka 606) as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem is easily traced as an error that made it to Russell from Barbour.
Would this ‘trampling’ go on forever? No, for the prophecy of Ezekiel said regarding Jerusalem’s last king, Zedekiah: “Remove the turban, and take off the crown. . . . It will not belong to anyone until the one who has the legal right comes, and I will give it to him.” (Ezekiel 21:26, 27) “The one who has the legal right” to the Davidic crown is Christ Jesus. (Luke 1:32, 33) So the ‘trampling’ would end when Jesus became King. The verse in Ezekiel is used as the key to Luke 21:24 about trampling, but Ezekiel is speaking of the past event (587 BCE) which contradicts Jesus own words that this is about a future event. Ezekiel is definitely talking about the coming Messiah, Christ Jesus as the one who has the legal right. But the verse in Luke is not related to the trampling that started in 587 BCE.
Such trampling, since it started in 66 CE and Jesus became King in 33 CE, would not therefore end when Jesus became King. Jesus sat on the throne, reigning as king, as soon as he was raised to the right hand of God. (1 Cor 15:25) The Bible already calls Jesus "King of Kings", and says he had all authority in heaven and on earth at this time. Any claim that he waited another 1,881 years to get more authority contradicts at least 10 clear scriptures to the contrary.
When would that grand event occur? Jesus showed that the Gentiles would rule for a fixed period of time. The account in Daniel chapter 4 holds the key to knowing how long that period would last. It relates a prophetic dream experienced by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. He saw a tree of enormous height that was chopped down. Its stump could not grow because it was banded with iron and copper. An angel declared: “Let seven times pass over it.”—Daniel 4:10-16. Jesus did not show that the Gentiles would rule for a fixed period of time in Luke 21, or Matthew 24, etc. However, Jesus did give the apostle John a Revelation where Jesus referenced this very verse in Luke 21:24 and there he did give it a fixed period of time: 42 months, or 1,260 days. Since Jesus said in Luke that he was referring to the future trampling of Jerusalem which we know lasted from about 66 CE to 70 CE, which could be the very reason he referred to it as a 3.5 year, 1,260 day, or 42 month period.
The Watchtower claims that this period of Gentile Times mentioned in Revelation when gentiles nations trampled Jerusalem underfoot was a literal 1,260 days (although not exactly 1,260 days). They say it was not a day-for-a-year, but that it lasted from 1914 to 1919. Note:
*** w14 11/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***   . . . So in the fulfillment of Revelation chapter 11, the anointed brothers who took the lead at the time of the establishment of God’s Kingdom in heaven in 1914 preached “in sackcloth” for three and a half years. At the end of their preaching in sackcloth, these anointed ones were symbolically killed when they were thrown into prison for a comparatively shorter period of time, a symbolic three and a half days. . . . . Not only were these anointed ones released from prison but those who remained faithful received a special appointment from God through their Lord, Jesus Christ. In 1919 they were among those who were appointed to serve as a “faithful and discreet slave” . . .  Interestingly, Revelation 11:1, 2 links these events to a time when the spiritual temple would be measured, or evaluated. . . .  How long did this inspection and cleansing work take? It extended from 1914 to the early part of 1919. *** re chap. 25 p. 162 par. 7 Reviving the Two Witnesses *** "Christians. As we shall see, the reference here is to the literal 42 months extending from December 1914 to June 1918, when all professing Christians were put to a severe test." What is strange is that the Watchtower doesn't attempt to link Luke 21:24 to Revelation 11:2,3.
(Revelation 11:2,3) . . .the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months. . . 1,260 days . . . . (Luke 21:24) . . .the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. There must be a good reason why there is no cross-reference between Luke 21:24 and the only other verse in the Bible that references it this directly. They both mention the Gentile Times, and one of them actually puts a time period on it: 3.5 times, or 1,260 days, or 42 months.
After the Bible goes to the trouble to put a time period on the "Gentile Times" the Watchtower makes a different claim, saying it is the account in Daniel 4 that puts a time period on it. Yet Daniel 4 says nothing about 3.5 times, or 1,260 days, or 42 months. Daniel 4 doesn't even mention the Gentile Times. It does mention that Nebuchadnezzar would be punished for his haughtiness for 7 "times" which we assume means 7 "years", but there is nothing in this particular passage that says that this is what it means here. But in Daniel 4 it is Nebuchadnezzar himself who is removed from the throne and then put back on his throne after he has learned his lesson in humility. It creates difficulties and even contradictions to claim that Nebuchadnezzar's return to the throne means the return of the Messianic kingdom here.
That's about half way. I'll stop for now and do the second half later.
 

I'm still stepping through some of what Arauna has said in defense of the 1914 doctrine. The appendix in the Bible Teach book is fairly short, so I think I'll comment on that first. To make it easy to distinguish comments from the original, I'll "bold" the Bible Teach book content:
APPENDIX 1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy This has now been moved to the Appendix at the back of the book, after several years in the main content section. 
DECADES in advance, Bible students proclaimed that there would be significant developments in 1914. What were these, and what evidence points to 1914 as such an important year? Technically, it's true they proclaimed significant developments, but all of them failed. Although the book never claims that any of the proclaimed developments came true, it implies it asking about them with the term "these" and then implying that "these" were evidences that 1914 was an important year. In past years, we blatantly claimed that the "parousia" (presence),  or "Christ's enthronement," or at least "the time of trouble" was predicted in advance. Although we have stopped doing that, the above is about the closest we can get to implying that we did, without being dishonest.
As recorded at Luke 21:24, Jesus said: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations [“the times of the Gentiles,” King James Version] are fulfilled.” Jerusalem had been the capital city of the Jewish nation—the seat of rulership of the line of kings from the house of King David. (Psalm 48:1, 2) However, these kings were unique among national leaders. They sat on “Jehovah’s throne” as representatives of God himself. (1 Chronicles 29:23) Jerusalem was thus a symbol of Jehovah’s rulership. 100% true.
How and when, though, did God’s rulership begin to be “trampled on by the nations”? This happened in 607 B.C.E. when Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians. “Jehovah’s throne” became vacant, and the line of kings who descended from David was interrupted. (2 Kings 25:1-26) False, in about 3 different ways.
#1. Jerusalem is not a symbol; it's the physical city being punished
Although Jerusalem had been a symbol of God's rulership, this doesn't mean that it always was a symbol in every context. In fact, what Jesus said was clearly NOT about Jerusalem as a symbol but was about the physical city of Jerusalem. That is clear from the context of the same verse in Luke. If we take the entire paragraph from which Luke 21:24 is taken we see it clearly:
(Luke 21:20-24) 20 “However, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains, let those in the midst of her leave, and let those in the countryside not enter into her, 22 because these are days for meting out justice in order that all the things written may be fulfilled. 23 Woe to the pregnant women and those nursing a baby in those days! For there will be great distress on the land and wrath against this people. 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. If Jerusalem were a symbol of "God's rulership" in this context, then why would "God's rulership" be surrounded by encamped armies and people be asked to flee from God's rulership. It was the physical city of Jerusalem being punished here, not "God's rulership" being punished. Matthew introduces the "Olivet Sermon" in Matthew 24 in a similar manner. These are the final verses of Matthew 23 introducing the context for Matthew 24:
(Matthew 23:37-39) 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. 39 For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’” If Jerusalem were a symbol of God's rulership in this context it would mean that God's kingdom is being punished and abandoned for being a killer of the prophets.
#2  - The trampling of Jerusalem started in the future, not in the past
The trampling of Jerusalem spoken of in Luke 21:24 could not have begun in 607 BCE because it was to take place in the future. Jesus said that this time "draws near," that they "WILL fall by the edge of the sword," and that  Jerusalem "WILL be trampled." He didn't say that this has been ongoing, but that it is an event that will begin in the near future. The NWT even links it to a parallel verse in Luke 19:
(Luke 19:41-44) 41 And when he got nearby, he viewed the city and wept over it, 42 saying: “If you, even you, had discerned on this day the things having to do with peace—but now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43 Because the days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification of pointed stakes and will encircle you and besiege you from every side. 44 They will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, So they will be trampled in the near future. Nothing is said of this being something that started 600 years earlier.
This of course happened closer to 66 CE according to the video found on jw.org. That date is correct: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/#mediaitems/VODMoviesBibleTimes/pub-ivwf_E_x_VIDEO
#3 Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 BCE.
Nebuchadnezzar had not even begun his first year of ruling yet, and Jerusalem was destroyed in his 19th year counting from his first regnal year. The publications assume that 539 BCE is a correct year to begin counting from, but if that date is true (and all evidence says it is) then Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE, not 607 BCE by the same evidence. There is no 539 without 587 and vice versa. Today, 607 (aka 606) as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem is easily traced as an error that made it to Russell from Barbour.
Would this ‘trampling’ go on forever? No, for the prophecy of Ezekiel said regarding Jerusalem’s last king, Zedekiah: “Remove the turban, and take off the crown. . . . It will not belong to anyone until the one who has the legal right comes, and I will give it to him.” (Ezekiel 21:26, 27) “The one who has the legal right” to the Davidic crown is Christ Jesus. (Luke 1:32, 33) So the ‘trampling’ would end when Jesus became King. The verse in Ezekiel is used as the key to Luke 21:24 about trampling, but Ezekiel is speaking of the past event (587 BCE) which contradicts Jesus own words that this is about a future event. Ezekiel is definitely talking about the coming Messiah, Christ Jesus as the one who has the legal right. But the verse in Luke is not related to the trampling that started in 587 BCE.
Such trampling, since it started in 66 CE and Jesus became King in 33 CE, would not therefore end when Jesus became King. Jesus sat on the throne, reigning as king, as soon as he was raised to the right hand of God. (1 Cor 15:25) The Bible already calls Jesus "King of Kings", and says he had all authority in heaven and on earth at this time. Any claim that he waited another 1,881 years to get more authority contradicts at least 10 clear scriptures to the contrary.
When would that grand event occur? Jesus showed that the Gentiles would rule for a fixed period of time. The account in Daniel chapter 4 holds the key to knowing how long that period would last. It relates a prophetic dream experienced by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. He saw a tree of enormous height that was chopped down. Its stump could not grow because it was banded with iron and copper. An angel declared: “Let seven times pass over it.”—Daniel 4:10-16. Jesus did not show that the Gentiles would rule for a fixed period of time in Luke 21, or Matthew 24, etc. However, Jesus did give the apostle John a Revelation where Jesus referenced this very verse in Luke 21:24 and there he did give it a fixed period of time: 42 months, or 1,260 days. Since Jesus said in Luke that he was referring to the future trampling of Jerusalem which we know lasted from about 66 CE to 70 CE, which could be the very reason he referred to it as a 3.5 year, 1,260 day, or 42 month period.
The Watchtower claims that this period of Gentile Times mentioned in Revelation when gentiles nations trampled Jerusalem underfoot was a literal 1,260 days (although not exactly 1,260 days). They say it was not a day-for-a-year, but that it lasted from 1914 to 1919. Note:
*** w14 11/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***   . . . So in the fulfillment of Revelation chapter 11, the anointed brothers who took the lead at the time of the establishment of God’s Kingdom in heaven in 1914 preached “in sackcloth” for three and a half years. At the end of their preaching in sackcloth, these anointed ones were symbolically killed when they were thrown into prison for a comparatively shorter period of time, a symbolic three and a half days. . . . . Not only were these anointed ones released from prison but those who remained faithful received a special appointment from God through their Lord, Jesus Christ. In 1919 they were among those who were appointed to serve as a “faithful and discreet slave” . . .  Interestingly, Revelation 11:1, 2 links these events to a time when the spiritual temple would be measured, or evaluated. . . .  How long did this inspection and cleansing work take? It extended from 1914 to the early part of 1919. *** re chap. 25 p. 162 par. 7 Reviving the Two Witnesses *** "Christians. As we shall see, the reference here is to the literal 42 months extending from December 1914 to June 1918, when all professing Christians were put to a severe test." What is strange is that the Watchtower doesn't attempt to link Luke 21:24 to Revelation 11:2,3.
(Revelation 11:2,3) . . .the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months. . . 1,260 days . . . . (Luke 21:24) . . .the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. There must be a good reason why there is no cross-reference between Luke 21:24 and the only other verse in the Bible that references it this directly. They both mention the Gentile Times, and one of them actually puts a time period on it: 3.5 times, or 1,260 days, or 42 months.
After the Bible goes to the trouble to put a time period on the "Gentile Times" the Watchtower makes a different claim, saying it is the account in Daniel 4 that puts a time period on it. Yet Daniel 4 says nothing about 3.5 times, or 1,260 days, or 42 months. Daniel 4 doesn't even mention the Gentile Times. It does mention that Nebuchadnezzar would be punished for his haughtiness for 7 "times" which we assume means 7 "years", but there is nothing in this particular passage that says that this is what it means here. But in Daniel 4 it is Nebuchadnezzar himself who is removed from the throne and then put back on his throne after he has learned his lesson in humility. It creates difficulties and even contradictions to claim that Nebuchadnezzar's return to the throne means the return of the Messianic kingdom here.
That's about half way. I'll stop for now and do the second half later.
 

BTW, when threads get this long (over one page) I wish the default was not "Sort by Votes." I don't know if everyone else gets this as their default, but I wish it was "Sort by Date" so that I could find what was most recently said.
Naturally, I agree with these re-quoted comments about Matthew 24, etc. But there is another question that seems to loom quite large in the minds of almost all Witnesses, and it results in some prejudices about motives. I think this needs to be addressed. Your last two posts covered the issue well, and summarized the important points about the history of the doctrine, and made what is probably the most important point about how we have seen many interlocking points from related scriptures as the key to accepting the 1914 doctrine. 
Therefore, we have a situation where some Witnesses have seen the doctrine as a "complete mess" of needing to jump all over the place to take verses here and there out of context, and to redefine Biblical terms to their "least likely" meaning instead of their "most likely" meaning. Some of these issues include:
parousia: coming vs presence vs royal visitation synteleia/telos: conclusion vs end vs end of all things visibility: revelation/manifestation/appearance/lightning Jesus spoke of "the sign" vs "composite" sign Jesus said wars not "a sign" to watch for vs Watchtower saying this was the first and primary sign in 1914 kingdom vs "all authority" vs "king-designate" standing/sitting/waiting vs "ruling as king" at God's right hand 70 years "for" Babylon vs 70 years "at" Babylon [i.e. "first deportation" or "next-to-last deportation"] 607 vs. 587 BCE day-for-a-year vs years ("times") first fulfillment on Gentile vs second fulfillment on non-Gentiles End of Gentile Times vs End of Lease of Gentile Times "this generation" vs "these several generations fitting within the lifespans of two overlapping groups" 1914 predicted: "not the beginning, but the end of the system" vs "beginning of the end of the system." Luke 21:24: Jesus said the Gentile Times had not yet started "will start" vs Watchtower's claim that they had already started 600 years earlier Revelation 11:3 Gentile Times = 42 months or 1,260 days vs Watchtower definition of 2,520 years. "last days" coincide with 1914 parousia vs meaning of "last days" in scripture [not a complete list] But other Witnesses will look at these same issues and see that all these these related scriptures and interlocking definitions create a system that is effectively proved right because of the complexity. In the sense that if a three-fold cord cannot quickly be broken, then what about a ten-fold cord, a twenty-fold cord? And even more to the point, it is part of a larger hundred-fold cord that includes all of the teachings accepted from the Governing Body at the current time. [And, for some, anyone who expresses criticism of this one doctrine is somehow criticizing the authority of the Governing Body, and therefore Jehovah's arrangement, and therefore, is taking a stand against Jehovah himself.]
At the very least it is implied that Witnesses who are critical or express doubts about 1914 are trying to give direction to the appointed "faithful slave" perhaps out of a desire for prominence, ego, willful desire, independent thinking, apostasy, trolling, etc.
It is rare that Witnesses will look at such criticism and see it as a fervent desire to make sure of all things, or a reflection of someone who keeps testing whether they are in the faith. Rarely is it treated as if it reflects the noble-minded desire of the Beroeans to see whether these things were so.
Sometimes it is understood for what it is, but the interjection of the idea that this goes against the appointed faithful and discreet slave is a sure way to clamp down and make sure that others are prejudiced against seeing it in this light.
Can a criticism of a current teaching ever be an act of love and concern? Can it ever be compared to the idea of warning others who may have taken a false step? Can it ever be seen as something required of Christians who might want to make sure that a tradition does not make the word of God invalid?
I think it usually cannot because the first thought is often "Who are you to think you have the right and authority to give counsel to the appointed slave?" Even if right, we should always wait on the organization before saying anything, and not move ahead of the chariot. There is often the thought that any person who would dare to question in such a manner must be irritated that they aren't seen as having some "authority" too, or irritated that their words are not accepted as truth.
Naturally, I think there is a very different and healthier way to look at such situations. But I've gone on too long for a single post (again).
 

I agree almost 100% with everything you said in this post, except for about 2 lines. If the differences seem important, I'll point them out, but mainly I want to understand specifically why the current explanation of Daniel 4 makes sense to you in the way it does.
I agree that it's easy to go too far with this type of questioning. I may have done this, even though I was trying to stick with only questions that gave me the most difficulty. And, of course, I agree with the main point of Daniel 4 that Jehovah is in charge, and the rulership(s) of the kingdom(s) of mankind are by his permission which he could revoke or renew at any time he chooses. In order to prove this point to a very haughty pagan king, Jehovah created a situation that would prove the point undeniably, even to such a haughty person who never worshiped the true God. It worked.
Obviously, from this illustration, we would accept that the same holds true not just of Nebuchadnezzar, but of all kings and rulers, including Belshazzar, Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Tiberius Caesar, Adolph Hitler, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, King Hussein, Nelson Mandela, etc. And it very well also applies to Jesus Christ, the heavenly ruler who has taken his great power and begun ruling as king.
I agree that it applies to Jesus in a somewhat different sense. It's only by the way we extend any parable that it also applies also to Jesus. The methods of trying to somehow "equate" Jesus and Nebuchadnezzar in a special manner do not make sense. (I'll explain that "special manner" below.)
And, yes, I realize that we aren't equating them in all respects. I was only giving a couple of examples of why it can appear absurd to equate them at all.
So I do see a correlation to Jehovah's overall sovereignty over the nations but I don't see a single correlation between the experience of Nebuchadnezzar and how this relates to the experience of the Messianic line, specifically. The Messianic line is included in any extended meaning we get from the experience, and of course, it was also brought low and raised on high to an even greater place of importance than it had before under David, or Zedekiah. But there is nothing in the passage that allows us to say that it specifically means Jesus. Especially is there nothing that says it means Jesus in an even more important way than what it meant for Nebuchadnezzar. It taught a universal truth, about God's rulership, especially over the wicked rulers of the world. It does NOT seem to ESPECIALLY teach a parable about God's rulership over his own kingdom through Christ Jesus.
Of course, the supposed "key" is the fact that it says "so that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he gives it to whomever he wants, and he sets up over it even the lowliest of men.” But we can see from the context that this is not specifically about Jesus. Since this is a universal truth, it applies everywhere. So, it's no surprise that we can say it also applies to Jesus as part of the Judean Messianic kingly line. We also know it applied when he raised up his servant Cyrus. It also applied during another part of Nebuchadnezzar's own life when he raised the kings of Babylon up to punish the kingdoms surrounding Judea, (such as the king of Tyre) and to also punish Judea itself during the 70 years of domination that Jehovah gave to Babylon. Sennacherib got the same lesson earlier when he was brought low while warring against Israel.
This must be where you think I'm "short-sighted" because I don't see a direct correlation that applies to only ONE other kingdom. Naturally, I think that it might be even more short-sighted to limit the scope to only one other kingdom. Some of the problems and ironies make me wonder whether the ONE other kingdom we teach to be the ONLY solution is even appropriate for this particular illustration. Since it's not even in the same category of the types of pagan, wicked and haughty kingdom's like Nebuchadnezzar's perhaps it's especially not in the most appropriate category for us to draw such a SPECIFIC meaning out of Daniel 4. In our doctrine, the experience of this one wicked and vicious king is ONLY meant to point to only ONE other specific kingdom besides him, and that one is surely not in the category of wicked, vicious, pagan kings -- because it's Jesus Christ. 
As I said, I agree with almost everything in your post. But another thing you said that I believe I can respond to is this:
For me, the answer seems straightforward. It is very logical that Jehovah knew and wanted his people to be concerned about time in order to be alert to identifying the Messiah, and to strengthen faith in the fact that Jehovah has the world and its administration under control.
There is only one reason why there could come a time when he would NOT want them to continue relying on cues from chronology -- and that would be when he was looking for a kind of faith that made us ready at all times without respect to the times and seasons, without respect to looking for signs of the times. If Jesus was looking for that kind of faith, even if the world went on for another thousand years or more (2 Peter 3:8) then I would expect that Jesus would say something like:
(Acts 1:7) . . .“It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction. And I would expect that the apostles such as Paul would agree with Jesus here and say things such as:
(1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) 5 Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. And I would expect that Jesus would explain, just as he did for his disciples when they asked, that we shouldn't be looking for signs of the parousia because we could be misled by thinking that wars, earthquakes, pestilence and such things were signs of the end when the end was not yet.
(Matthew 24:3-6) . . .“Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?” 4 In answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads you, . . . 6 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. (Luke 17:20) 20 On being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God was coming, he answered them: “The Kingdom of God is not coming with striking observableness (NWT) (Luke 17:20 One day the Pharisees asked Jesus, “When will the Kingdom of God come?” Jesus replied, “The Kingdom of God can’t be detected by visible signs." (NLT)  
 
 

This is not the only way to read Revelation 12. Through the centuries, Bible commentators have been able to see another way that isn't obvious until we begin to tie in all the other scriptures that touch upon the same subjects as Revelation 12. Again, I'm not saying that the following idea is right, or that it is the only other option besides the one we currently teach, but I'll provide the possible alternative only because Revelation 12 is so often tied into our teachings about 1914.
First, a revelation does not necessarily refer only to the future. Revelation itself says:
(Revelation 1:19) 19 So write down the things you saw, and the things that are, and the things that will take place after these. . . Recall that the Revelation of Micaiah (1 Kings; 2 Chron) revealed a recent prior, past event. The revelation of what had gone on behind the scenes (in heaven) in the book of Job was a recent and current situation in heaven that explained the events on earth. Even "revelations" in Daniel often refer to the current time of the kings of Babylon. So there should be no reason that the book of Revelation could not also be revealing things that were, are, and are yet to come.
With that in mind, note that this is the most common way outside of our teachings to understand Revelation 12. The symbols are the same ones that refer Biblically to how Jesus was born of a God's woman, Israel, yet Satan gathered up forces to try to defeat him, at his physical birth and at the birth of the kingdom, just prior to his death, to keep him from sitting at God's right hand. (Also called, "the right hand of the throne of Majesty." Remember that Paul shows that this "sitting at God's right hand" can be paraphrased as "ruling as king" in 1 Cor 15:25:
(1 Corinthians 15:25)  For he must rule as king [sit at God's right hand] until God has put all enemies under his feet. Jesus has indeed therefore been ruling invisibly from the time he sat at God's right hand. One of the first things he said after his resurrection is "all authority has been given me in heaven and on earth." Paul and John both refer to him as "King of Kings." So there was not necessarily any waiting while Jesus SAT on a kingly throne at the right hand of the majesty. A king does not have to stand up to rule. A king is still a king while he sits on the throne.
As far as the other idea that Satan was angry because he was just thrown out of heaven, well, this is correct. But Jesus said it happened in his day.
(Luke 10:18) 18 At that he said to them: “I see Satan already fallen like lightning from heaven. (1 Peter 5:8) . . .Your adversary, the Devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone. (Luke 22:31) 31 “Simon, Simon, look! Satan has demanded to have all of you to sift you as wheat. (John 12:30-33) . . .. 31 Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all sorts of men to myself.” 33 This he was really saying to indicate what sort of death he was about to die. (John 16:10, 11) . . .because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 then concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. (Hebrews 2:14) . . .so that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil, It's true that there are more enemies that have not yet been brought to nothing, but Jesus rules during this entire period, he waits for the proper time to accomplish these phases of his kingship, but it doesn't mean that he wasn't already above all the kingships and rulerships and principalities back at the time the Bible said that this happened -- from the time he sat at God's right hand. We already have a king-priest after the order of Melchizedek, both king and priest since 33 C.E.
 

Another thought here. Russell understood the great crowd to be a large group of professed Christians who were anointed and who would go to heaven after suffering through the months or even years of chaos brought about by the Great Tribulation. One of the problems with the timeline was that Russell expected the great crowd to go through many more months of tribulation prior to 1914, because they needed to undergo more suffering and discipline as they had not quite reached the "high calling."
Those of the "high calling," (the 144,000; Russell included) had proved themselves through a combination of their character development and the fact that they had understood the timeline. This is how important the "timeline" was to Russell and his readers. You could not be of the high calling unless you adhered to the timeline because only the "wise" virgins understood the timeline to keep their lamps burning.  According to Russell, those who didn't realize that the "midnight call" to the Lamb's wedding feast had already gone out in 1859 (halfway between 1844 and 1874) could not be of the high calling. Those who didn't accept the timeline, the foolish virgins, were the Christians who had completely given up on chronology and therefore let their lamps die out. Russell became less concerned about the 1844 and 1859 dates but he believed these foolish virgins would include the "great company"/ "great crowd"/ "great multitude". This ultimately became all the rest of the anointed Christians who would go to heaven AFTER suffering through the great tribulation. (For quite a time it was thought that the tribulations should have started in 1910 to allow for such events to occur in time for 1914.)
Interesting that A H MacMillan (GB/FDS) gave talks starting in 1915 that blamed the great crowd for the fact that those of the "high calling" didn't go to heaven in 1914. The "great crowd" were still given a bad reputation as materialistic and unconsecrated which explains insults made about them (in the Watchtower) even after they were identified as an earthly group in the early-to-mid 1930's. It was only the rest of currently non-Christian mankind who would make up the earthly class prior to about 1932.

Jesus has a right to a Messianic, non-Gentile throne, and Nebuchadnezzar was given permission to take a pagan, Gentile throne. These are two different things. It is true, as you say, that Jehovah can use anything or anyone to do his bidding, and serve him. He used Nebuchadnezzar as the obvious punishment to the Jews. Jeremiah speaks of him as a servant in this manner. And similarly, as you said, Cyrus, became his servant in the similar words of Isaiah.
But these kingdoms are still - and always - two different things. You are confusing them. The Gentiles are not being presented as beastly in this verse, it's the Messianic Kingdom ultimately given to Christ Jesus which is supposed to be acting beastly. Nebuchadnezzar's Kingdom is given to others who rule "sanely" in his stead, while HE becomes beastly. Remember it's the seven times when the Messianic rule is out of commission that is pictured here. It is therefore the 7 times (ostensibly 2,520 years) when the Messianic rulership is debased and therefore "beastly" and humiliated in our teaching.
Nebuchadnezzar is not allowed to rule during this beastly time, which is why his kingdom was given to non-beastly persons. It was given back to him when he was no longer beastly. In our explanation, Jesus' kingdom was therefore given to him when that Messianic rulership was no longer debased and humiliated.
This is one of the problems with switching the Gentile Times with the non-Gentile Times.
 

I believe the same thing. But I also believe that when Jehovah says what the purpose was that we would be presumptuous if we turned around and said that this wasn't the only purpose, and that there was a more important purpose. It's as if we are saying that it wasn't good enough that Jehovah's word said 'It is you, Nebuchadnezzar' and that 'ALL of this was fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar.'
In fact, if you recall, Daniel (Belteshazzar) said he wished it could apply to someone besides Nebuchadnezzar:
(Daniel 4:19-37) 19 “At that time Daniel, whose name is Bel·te·shazʹzar, was alarmed for a moment, and his thoughts began to frighten him. “The king said, ‘O Bel·te·shazʹzar, do not let the dream and the interpretation frighten you.’ “Bel·te·shazʹzar answered, ‘O my lord, may the dream apply to those hating you, and its interpretation to your enemies. . . . [however] . . . 22 it is you, O king, because you have grown great and become strong, and your grandeur has grown and reached to the heavens, and your rulership to the ends of the earth. . . . 24 This is the interpretation, O king; it is the decree of the Most High that must befall my lord the king. 25 You will be driven away from among men, and your dwelling will be with the beasts of the field, and you will be given vegetation to eat just like bulls; and you will become wet with the dew of the heavens, and seven times will pass over you, until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he grants it to whomever he wants. 26 “‘But because they said to leave the stump of the tree with its roots, your kingdom will be yours again after you come to know that the heavens are ruling. . . . 28 All of this befell King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. . . .“To you it is being said, O King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, ‘The kingdom has gone away from you, 32 and from mankind you are being driven away. With the beasts of the field your dwelling will be, . . . . . . I was restored to my kingdom, and even more greatness was added to me. 37 “Now I, Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, am praising and exalting and glorifying the King of the heavens, because all his works are truth and his ways are just, and because he is able to humiliate those who are walking in pride.” At any rate, those things you said about other Bible passages are stated in the Bible itself to have the added meanings you mentioned. The March 15, 2015 Watchtower indicates that we would be presumptuous to take it upon ourselves to decide that every narrative or parable has these kinds of specific additional meanings that we can add to the Bible ourselves. For me, it is enough that Daniel 4 fits the entire theme of the Bible about the kingdoms of men: that they really only rule by Jehovah's permission and that the ultimate control of the fate of these kingdoms is still in Jehovah's hands.
The actual story was about how even a king who was so powerful that his rulership extended to the ends of the known world, was haughty and didn't realize that he only ruled due to the permission of a God that he barely recognized as even existing. He didn't even grant his great power to his own God's, but to his self alone. He needed to be humbled. He was too haughty and presumptuous.
This was related, as all Bible events are, but it was not the same lesson that Christ's Messianic kingdom learned in 587 BCE. Jesus didn't have to apologize for a lesson learned in order to take back the Messianic kingship. Jesus already knew that Jehovah was the Most High.
If we try to take some pieces of various narratives and parables and experiences of Bible characters and make them mean specific things that teach a good lesson then that's probably not a dangerous thing. But what if we make that decision just because we want to say that we are the only group of people who have insight into the times and seasons that we are not supposed to concern ourselves with. What would be the purpose in doing that? Why do the one thing we have recently counseled ourselves against doing, just so that we can also go against what Jesus said about the times and seasons being in the Father's jurisdiction. Remember, not in our own jurisdiction, not the Son's, and not even the angels. This is surely like treading where angels fear to tread.
And if you have watched closely the way some Witnesses discuss this, it's as if this great insight is the "proof" that we can also reach up into the heavens and claim to be the greatest and most privileged of God's people, because "Jehovah never does anything without first revealing it to his own prophets."
 

I'm sure others have picked up on the fact that Russell, never, in his entire life ever believed that Jesus would start ruling in heaven in 1914. He understood that Jesus had become King in 33 C.E., but also that he had turned his attention toward earth's affairs during his presence, and shortly after coming into his invisible presence and took his great power and authority to become King in 1878.
This gets to the problem I mentioned before about honesty. You are not dishonest in believing what you believed about Russell. But you probably never picked up on the very careful wording the Watchtower has employed to "imply" that Russell believed this about 1914 without actually saying it. This updated, careful wording shows that the Watchtower writers are very well aware that Russell did not understand even this one point that we currently teach about 1914.
Before the Internet became a place where such things were "caught" and discussed, the practice of the Watchtower was generally to just claim that what you said above was true. I have found about 10 examples prior to 1998 that make the same false claim, very similar to this one:
*** w98 9/15 p. 15 par. 1 Waiting in “Eager Expectation” *** Similarly, a prophecy providentially caused sincere 19th-century Bible students to be in expectation. By linking the “seven times” of Daniel 4:25 with “the times of the Gentiles,” they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914. O course, it's a false claim, and has been corrected more recently by re-wording it, as the Bible Teach book does:
*** bh p. 215 par. 3 1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy ***DECADES in advance, Bible students proclaimed that there would be significant developments in 1914. *** bh chap. 8 p. 84 par. 23 What Is God’s Kingdom? *** During the 19th and 20th centuries, sincere Bible students progressively discerned that the waiting period would end in 1914. And the Watchtower, too:
*** w14 1/15 p. 12 par. 3 100 Years of Kingdom Rule—How Does It Affect You? *** Toward the end of the 19th century, light began to shine on a 2,500-year-old prophecy recorded by Daniel: “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed.” (Dan. 2:44) The Bible Students spent decades pointing out that the year 1914 would be significant. The implication is still there, of course, and unfortunately, it fools many Witnesses into thinking that the earlier claims were true, when it was stated in a way that was demonstrably false:
*** w54 6/15 p. 370 par. 4 The Revelation of Jesus Christ *** 4 Why, then, do the nations not realize and accept the approach of this climax of judgment? It is because they have not heeded the world-wide advertising of Christ’s return and his second presence. Since long before World War I Jehovah’s witnesses pointed to 1914 as the time for this great event to occur. Technically, ideas about changing Christ's presence from 1874 to 1914 were being floated as early as the 1920's, and most of relevant changes happened between 1929 and 1931, but it wasn't until 1943 that we officially dropped 1874 as the time when this great event (Christ's presence) occurred. This is at odds with the idea that Jesus' presence was like "lightning that lit up the entire sky from one horizon to the other horizon" and therefore we assume that at least one person must have had their spiritual "eyes of understanding" open to see that his presence had begun in 1914. Part of this problem is also in that same claim that  Russell and Rutherford and the other Bible Students understood that the "Gentile Times" ended in 1914. But as I mentioned above, the entire concept of what the Gentile Times meant was quite different from what we mean by that phrase today. Today it is OK for the Gentile kings to continue ruling uninterrupted, only saying that 1914 was a year when their lease ran out, although they can continue on for at least a century (so far) and this shouldn't concern us.
A problem with it from a Biblical perspective, however, is that it appears very insulting to Jesus himself, making him look like a "lame duck" ruler whose rule in say, 1961, was no more effective in keeping the nations from trampling God's chosen ones, than if we had claimed that this same rule had started in 1878. The claim makes Jesus look very ineffective with respect to the times of the Gentiles. There are now more nations ruling without any respect for Christ Jesus than there ever were in the past!

If you are referring to Daniel 4, the "great tree dream" prophecy, that is a good subject in its own right. In effect, we must make the rule of this vicious and presumptuous, haughty Gentile represent the rule of the Messianic kingdom through Jesus Christ, a non-Gentile, by the way. Fortunately, the passage itself does not even imply this sacrilege, because it says only that the prophecy was fulfilled in the person of Nebuchadnezzar and says nothing of a second fulfillment or a greater fulfillment. Of course, there was a time when we would have looked for a greater fulfillment of the "three Hebrew children" thrown into the fiery furnace. In fact, we used to publish the idea explicitly that "Nebuchadnezzar pictured Jesus Christ."  (We changed this, but continue to say about the same thing when we say the seven "Gentile Times" of Nebuchadnezzar pictures the seven non-Gentile times of Christ's kingdom.)
The other problems with using the passage include the problem of assuming that these particular "times" are years, assuming that these years must be turned into 360-day years, assuming that we should multiply 7 x 360 to get 2,520 years, and assuming that these 2,520 years should be years containing 365.25 days each.
The biggest problem however is the fact that the Bible itself references the same Gentile Times of Luke 21:24 and does apply a number of Biblical times to them. This is in Revelation:
(Revelation 11:2-3) . . . the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months. . . . 1,260 days . . . Is there any doubt, then, that these are the same Gentile Times that Jesus spoke of when he said?
(Luke 21:24) . . . the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.  

After giving this subject a lot of prayerful thought, and with a lot of guidance from several of the persons I worked with at Bethel, I personally cannot put faith in this doctrine. I don't mean to say that you should not or that anyone else should change their mind about it. Of course, I would LOVE to believe it because that would make things so much easier with the majority of my friends, relatives, and spiritual brothers and sisters.
In my own name, I must always be careful about what I say on the subject so that I personally do not offend or needlessly stumble anyone. But on forums such as this, and the Internet in general, where the subject has already come up 100's of times, I do believe it's a place where I can (and therefore should) honestly defend my faith.
My posts are generally "tldr" which is probably a good thing for those who don't wish to deal with the subject. But for this post all I wanted to say was that the scriptures that Holly quoted are, for me, a big part of my faith and the hope that is in me. For me, it could not see myself as a true Christian Witness of Jehovah if I denied what Jesus said here and tried to make those verses mean something other than what seems obvious to me. I also think they get to the very core of our Christianity which is why I also feel under an obligation to find ways to defend my faith, including my faith in Jesus' words from Matthew, Mark and Acts, quoted above:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, . . . I am also concerned that, when it comes to anything related to chronology, we are at risk of making false statements to others. This does not reflect well on our organization and brings shame even to Jehovah. While I am not asking for anyone to agree with me, I do think that in defending 1914, we should avoid statements that are false. Making false statements is not the same as making dishonest statements, and that's why I would like to respond to some of your statements. I believe they come out of a completely honest heart and mind, and I like the way you think about things from a deeper and wider perspective.
Before I get into much detail, I would like to make a few statements about where I agree:
We are living in the last days, and the critical times and world conditions provide the evidence and context for what we are to expect during these last days. Jesus is present and has turned his attention toward the rulers of this world Satan is angry and active like a roaring lion knowing his time is short The final manifestation, or coming of Jesus can happen at any time now, and is much closer now than ever We should be using this time period to preach the good news and help everyone we can to know the truth Jesus is king, not just over his congregation, but he is enthroned as King of Kings over all the powers of heaven and earth -- he has taken his power and begun ruling as king during this same period when Satan steps up his attacks We have been blessed as an organization and as a worldwide brotherhood with the ability and willingness to spread the good news, and we should appreciate the value and responsibility and realize the good we can continue to do with such an organization as a foundation to efficiently accomplish this ministry For me, 1914 is not a necessary component to any of the points just made above. But, for me, it is also a very important point that neither 1914, nor any chronology of any kind, should be made a part of the expectations surrounding either the presence or the coming of Jesus Christ in kingly power. For me, that is clearly what Jesus meant when he said what he said about not trying to use chronology. (I'll stop saying "for me" but it should be understood that I am merely defending the thoughts based on my own prayerful and conscientious concerns about the doctrine, which is also based on the leadership of elders whose guidance I have respected, including some who continue to hold positions of responsibility in the organization. They, like me, are also concerned about their inability to speak out clearly on the subject without fear of repercussions.)
So now, just three specific points:
1. I am concerned about issues of falsehood, and honesty based on the manner in which so many Witnesses defend the 1914 doctrine through apparent evasion, misdirection and false statements instead of being concerned with actual truth
2. I am concerned with adding to and taking away from the truth of the Bible, which is also an issue of 'faithfulness and discretion.' One of the first things I was shown that disturbed me a bit was when a Bethel elder (in Writing) showed me an old Bible commentary that made the statement that it is the height of presumptuousness for Christians to continue to believe that it is only specifically their own generation that Jesus is referencing. Since then I have been concerned with the level of presumptuousness apparent in the writings of so many religions who have found "Biblical" ways to determine almost every every generation since 1260 C.E. to be the "final generation" or "the end of the Gentile Times."  In fact, I think that Jesus was giving us a warning to be humble and realize that we are trying to put ourselves in the place of God if we believe that we can work out a chronology to determine the times and seasons. I remember how haughty it sounded when one of our own "Governing Body" members (F.W.Franz) would defend his speculation and promotion of the year 1975 against those who would point out that Jesus said no one knew the day and hour. If you remember or know of people who honestly remember that time period, you will know that many Witnesses used to say: "Well Jesus said we wouldn't know the day or the hour, but he didn't say we wouldn't know the year!" Brother Franz himself would imply that 1975-naysayers were only amateurs who didn't know how to use Jesus'  words, and were just playing with them as with a toy.
*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** 35 One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. 3. You make a common claim above that Brother Russell had "some" things right about 1914. This is very misleading. In fact, Russell had NOTHING right about 1914, not a single thing. The closest we can come to making this claim is that he said it would mark the "end of the Gentile Times" but even here he meant something completely different about the meaning of the "end of the Gentile Times." He thought it meant that the Gentile Times, their kingships and rulerships and political organizations would disintegrate in a time of trouble that would END in 1914 and they would therefore witness the collapse of all world organizations into a chaos that would prove total within a year. He used the expression to mean that there would be no more Gentiles ruling within a few months of 1914. That Gentiles could no longer trample on the chosen ones. Saying that he was right all along about the "end of the Gentile Times" is disingenuous. We can't change the whole meaning of the expression "Gentile Times" just so we can say that Russell got ONE thing right about 1914. Yet, outside of that ONE thing, the use of a term "Gentile Times" he got NOTHING else right, and yet we still say that he got "SOME THINGS" right. That only shows that we have a "desire" to believe in things that were not true.
 
 

I'm sure others have picked up on the fact that Russell, never, in his entire life ever believed that Jesus would start ruling in heaven in 1914. He understood that Jesus had become King in 33 C.E., but also that he had turned his attention toward earth's affairs during his presence, and shortly after coming into his invisible presence and took his great power and authority to become King in 1878.
This gets to the problem I mentioned before about honesty. You are not dishonest in believing what you believed about Russell. But you probably never picked up on the very careful wording the Watchtower has employed to "imply" that Russell believed this about 1914 without actually saying it. This updated, careful wording shows that the Watchtower writers are very well aware that Russell did not understand even this one point that we currently teach about 1914.
Before the Internet became a place where such things were "caught" and discussed, the practice of the Watchtower was generally to just claim that what you said above was true. I have found about 10 examples prior to 1998 that make the same false claim, very similar to this one:
*** w98 9/15 p. 15 par. 1 Waiting in “Eager Expectation” *** Similarly, a prophecy providentially caused sincere 19th-century Bible students to be in expectation. By linking the “seven times” of Daniel 4:25 with “the times of the Gentiles,” they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914. O course, it's a false claim, and has been corrected more recently by re-wording it, as the Bible Teach book does:
*** bh p. 215 par. 3 1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy ***DECADES in advance, Bible students proclaimed that there would be significant developments in 1914. *** bh chap. 8 p. 84 par. 23 What Is God’s Kingdom? *** During the 19th and 20th centuries, sincere Bible students progressively discerned that the waiting period would end in 1914. And the Watchtower, too:
*** w14 1/15 p. 12 par. 3 100 Years of Kingdom Rule—How Does It Affect You? *** Toward the end of the 19th century, light began to shine on a 2,500-year-old prophecy recorded by Daniel: “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed.” (Dan. 2:44) The Bible Students spent decades pointing out that the year 1914 would be significant. The implication is still there, of course, and unfortunately, it fools many Witnesses into thinking that the earlier claims were true, when it was stated in a way that was demonstrably false:
*** w54 6/15 p. 370 par. 4 The Revelation of Jesus Christ *** 4 Why, then, do the nations not realize and accept the approach of this climax of judgment? It is because they have not heeded the world-wide advertising of Christ’s return and his second presence. Since long before World War I Jehovah’s witnesses pointed to 1914 as the time for this great event to occur. Technically, ideas about changing Christ's presence from 1874 to 1914 were being floated as early as the 1920's, and most of relevant changes happened between 1929 and 1931, but it wasn't until 1943 that we officially dropped 1874 as the time when this great event (Christ's presence) occurred. This is at odds with the idea that Jesus' presence was like "lightning that lit up the entire sky from one horizon to the other horizon" and therefore we assume that at least one person must have had their spiritual "eyes of understanding" open to see that his presence had begun in 1914. Part of this problem is also in that same claim that  Russell and Rutherford and the other Bible Students understood that the "Gentile Times" ended in 1914. But as I mentioned above, the entire concept of what the Gentile Times meant was quite different from what we mean by that phrase today. Today it is OK for the Gentile kings to continue ruling uninterrupted, only saying that 1914 was a year when their lease ran out, although they can continue on for at least a century (so far) and this shouldn't concern us.
A problem with it from a Biblical perspective, however, is that it appears very insulting to Jesus himself, making him look like a "lame duck" ruler whose rule in say, 1961, was no more effective in keeping the nations from trampling God's chosen ones, than if we had claimed that this same rule had started in 1878. The claim makes Jesus look very ineffective with respect to the times of the Gentiles. There are now more nations ruling without any respect for Christ Jesus than there ever were in the past!

After giving this subject a lot of prayerful thought, and with a lot of guidance from several of the persons I worked with at Bethel, I personally cannot put faith in this doctrine. I don't mean to say that you should not or that anyone else should change their mind about it. Of course, I would LOVE to believe it because that would make things so much easier with the majority of my friends, relatives, and spiritual brothers and sisters.
In my own name, I must always be careful about what I say on the subject so that I personally do not offend or needlessly stumble anyone. But on forums such as this, and the Internet in general, where the subject has already come up 100's of times, I do believe it's a place where I can (and therefore should) honestly defend my faith.
My posts are generally "tldr" which is probably a good thing for those who don't wish to deal with the subject. But for this post all I wanted to say was that the scriptures that Holly quoted are, for me, a big part of my faith and the hope that is in me. For me, it could not see myself as a true Christian Witness of Jehovah if I denied what Jesus said here and tried to make those verses mean something other than what seems obvious to me. I also think they get to the very core of our Christianity which is why I also feel under an obligation to find ways to defend my faith, including my faith in Jesus' words from Matthew, Mark and Acts, quoted above:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, . . . I am also concerned that, when it comes to anything related to chronology, we are at risk of making false statements to others. This does not reflect well on our organization and brings shame even to Jehovah. While I am not asking for anyone to agree with me, I do think that in defending 1914, we should avoid statements that are false. Making false statements is not the same as making dishonest statements, and that's why I would like to respond to some of your statements. I believe they come out of a completely honest heart and mind, and I like the way you think about things from a deeper and wider perspective.
Before I get into much detail, I would like to make a few statements about where I agree:
We are living in the last days, and the critical times and world conditions provide the evidence and context for what we are to expect during these last days. Jesus is present and has turned his attention toward the rulers of this world Satan is angry and active like a roaring lion knowing his time is short The final manifestation, or coming of Jesus can happen at any time now, and is much closer now than ever We should be using this time period to preach the good news and help everyone we can to know the truth Jesus is king, not just over his congregation, but he is enthroned as King of Kings over all the powers of heaven and earth -- he has taken his power and begun ruling as king during this same period when Satan steps up his attacks We have been blessed as an organization and as a worldwide brotherhood with the ability and willingness to spread the good news, and we should appreciate the value and responsibility and realize the good we can continue to do with such an organization as a foundation to efficiently accomplish this ministry For me, 1914 is not a necessary component to any of the points just made above. But, for me, it is also a very important point that neither 1914, nor any chronology of any kind, should be made a part of the expectations surrounding either the presence or the coming of Jesus Christ in kingly power. For me, that is clearly what Jesus meant when he said what he said about not trying to use chronology. (I'll stop saying "for me" but it should be understood that I am merely defending the thoughts based on my own prayerful and conscientious concerns about the doctrine, which is also based on the leadership of elders whose guidance I have respected, including some who continue to hold positions of responsibility in the organization. They, like me, are also concerned about their inability to speak out clearly on the subject without fear of repercussions.)
So now, just three specific points:
1. I am concerned about issues of falsehood, and honesty based on the manner in which so many Witnesses defend the 1914 doctrine through apparent evasion, misdirection and false statements instead of being concerned with actual truth
2. I am concerned with adding to and taking away from the truth of the Bible, which is also an issue of 'faithfulness and discretion.' One of the first things I was shown that disturbed me a bit was when a Bethel elder (in Writing) showed me an old Bible commentary that made the statement that it is the height of presumptuousness for Christians to continue to believe that it is only specifically their own generation that Jesus is referencing. Since then I have been concerned with the level of presumptuousness apparent in the writings of so many religions who have found "Biblical" ways to determine almost every every generation since 1260 C.E. to be the "final generation" or "the end of the Gentile Times."  In fact, I think that Jesus was giving us a warning to be humble and realize that we are trying to put ourselves in the place of God if we believe that we can work out a chronology to determine the times and seasons. I remember how haughty it sounded when one of our own "Governing Body" members (F.W.Franz) would defend his speculation and promotion of the year 1975 against those who would point out that Jesus said no one knew the day and hour. If you remember or know of people who honestly remember that time period, you will know that many Witnesses used to say: "Well Jesus said we wouldn't know the day or the hour, but he didn't say we wouldn't know the year!" Brother Franz himself would imply that 1975-naysayers were only amateurs who didn't know how to use Jesus'  words, and were just playing with them as with a toy.
*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** 35 One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. 3. You make a common claim above that Brother Russell had "some" things right about 1914. This is very misleading. In fact, Russell had NOTHING right about 1914, not a single thing. The closest we can come to making this claim is that he said it would mark the "end of the Gentile Times" but even here he meant something completely different about the meaning of the "end of the Gentile Times." He thought it meant that the Gentile Times, their kingships and rulerships and political organizations would disintegrate in a time of trouble that would END in 1914 and they would therefore witness the collapse of all world organizations into a chaos that would prove total within a year. He used the expression to mean that there would be no more Gentiles ruling within a few months of 1914. That Gentiles could no longer trample on the chosen ones. Saying that he was right all along about the "end of the Gentile Times" is disingenuous. We can't change the whole meaning of the expression "Gentile Times" just so we can say that Russell got ONE thing right about 1914. Yet, outside of that ONE thing, the use of a term "Gentile Times" he got NOTHING else right, and yet we still say that he got "SOME THINGS" right. That only shows that we have a "desire" to believe in things that were not true.
 
 

Aruana, I agree that we have no need to go back to Russell and we can and should evaluate our current beliefs about chronology based on their own merit. I'd love to do that here and perhaps a new thread on Matthew 24 or Daniel 4 would be a place to start as long as the relevant supporting prophecies from elsewhere are also shown, too. 
However, as it happens I am just reading through this thread more carefully and saw a few things I wanted to respond to. I'm not planning on focusing only on things you have said, and I'm not trying to get you or anyone to respond or argue for or against Russell in the process. It's just that his ideas were made part of the topic. (As I got to your second post, I realized just now that you had already said a lot of the things I also wanted to say about Russell and the pyramids. Sorry for the overlap.)
Your comment, requoted above, about the reliance on the secular date for when the Jews were allowed to go back to Jerusalem is correct within a year or so. But one of the problems with Barbour's and then Russell's use of that date was that he admits that it was a cut-off point before which he assumed that we need not pay attention carefully to the other secular dates within this same period. What he hadn't noticed, therefore, was that the only reason this secular date was "well-established" was because the entire Neo-Babylonian period was well-established, and this included the secular date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year which therefore established the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. Both dates, 587 for the destruction of Jerusalem and 539 for the conquest of Babylon, are not only well-established, both dates area established through the exact same methods. But what should be even more interesting to our own reliance on them, is that in addition to the same methods for establishing both dates, there are some additional evidences for the dates within the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, which makes 587-586 even BETTER attested than 539 for the Babylonian conquest by Cyrus and BETTER attested than 537 for the return of the Jews to Jerusalem.  This, in itself, doesn't mean that the other dates might be wrong, only that 587 is even better attested. Also, of course, whenever the Bible makes mention of the destruction of Jerusalem's temple, it marks it as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th-19th year (which is 587-6 if 539 is correct). The Bible also gives us another indication in Zechariah's time (agreed to be about 519 BCE in the Watchtower) that about 70 years have passed since the destruction of Jerusalem about 68+ years earlier. We also know that Daniel started considering the 70 years prophecy of Jeremiah at the time that he personally was in Babylon for 70 years. We also have the comments in Ezra that quite a large and vocal portion of the 60,000 or so in attendance for the second Temple had seen the first Temple. This was not so likely if those people were over 95 years old (current WT reckoning). But it seems a little more likely if those persons were 75 years old.
 

This is not true. It is true that all of the events that Russell expected (and predicted) for 1914 did not come true. But none of these were derived from the Great Pyramid. It was the other way around. All of the events were derived from beliefs he inherited from Nelson Barbour who inherited the methods from Millerite Second Adventists and the specific dates of 1874 that was already mentioned by Miller and promoted by other Second Adventists after Miller's dates failed. A lot of things were expected to happen between 1874 and the end (Armageddon) in 1914/1915.
Others were already promoting the mysterious and supposedly uncanny wisdom emanating from the Great Pyramid, before Russell published anything about it. Russell, realizing that God would need something besides the Bible to appeal to the new "scientific" orientation of the world wanted to believe that all this potential "craze" about the Pyramid was that opportunity for God to show that such knowledge was there all along but not ready to be seen until wisdom went "to and fro" in the last days. He agreed with the prophecies that proved that the last days started in 1798-1799. So "now was the time"! (Daniel 12:4 and Isaiah 19:19,20)
It was Russell's desire to see "truth" in these pyramids that pushed him to see Nelson Barbour's dates and events in the various air vents and drainage vents that zigzagged their way through the structure. It was more like reading tea leaves, coffee grounds, or the entrails of birds. (Since these various lengths added up to a timeline, it was probably a little more like palmistry.) You can pretty much see what you want to see in them.
For a while (from a published paper diagram) he saw an overall timeline that reached from OT times with the exact number of inches in one place to reach 1874. Then later in the exact same space, as 1914 became more important than looking backwards to 1874, he saw the exact number of inches to reach 1914 after that same space was measured again more closely. But he also used various broken rocks and directional changes and "puddles" along the way to also point out the timing of various other events expected mostly between 1874 and 1914. But these events were always believed first and then imposed upon what he thought he could see in the pyramid. He saw so many things in it that he called it "the Bible in stone" and called it "Jehovah's witness." Yet, as far as I could see, he didn't see any hints in the pyramids first and then look for Biblical events that might fit the timeline.
He promoted the Great Pyramid idea in most of the six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures. But he went into more detail in only two of them. (Volume 1 and 3) He also answered some Watchtower questions that came from readers about whether or not a certain event had a parallel in the Pyramid.
You and I would look at these disconnected drainage ditches and air vents and not see any connection to dates even if we measured them perfectly. But Russell was of a different mindset. From things he said, we know that he actually thought it gave evidence that the Watch Tower was the true "faithful slave" providing truths at the proper time if he, ironically, could declare that he found the "presence of Christ" in the inner chambers of this structure.

Useless debates:  Cut and paste, cut and paste - reminds me of some of the school and adult debates I've seen here in America.  People are "trained" in this form of debate in the school system and do not know any better... and I do not say this with distain - I have noticed this in all of American society - even in the work place - it is a form of social conformity. They "expect you to conform to this way of talking about a subject...  One does not think about the positive points in the opponents discussion - one just hones in on the points that you don't like - no matter how logical they may be - because if you can score a point only for a moment - then you are a winner!!!  America is full of these winners who cannot think for themselves... The justice system is a good example.... it is not about what is justice or injustice  - it is about winning a case - even if the person really perpetrated the crime.... many examples of this.  
People each get time to give their opinions and not really consider what the opponent is really saying..  and then people get to choose.  This is why American politics is in such a mess - same system - where the louder more aggressive person (and the one who appears to win the points for the present moment) walks away with the prize.  People do not really "think" about things....it is about scoring points ... It is not about what is really right or wrong.... it is about the supremacy....   

Isn't it more likely that just as lightning is visible from east to west, that Jesus' return WILL be visible and that's why we aren't to believe those who say, 'Look! Here is the Christ', or "There!' or 'He is in the wilderness.'  Because He will be visible to all, 'every eye will see Him.'

I don't know who you were addressing, but can you tell me what the tangible difference is between the words 'present' (as in somebody being in another's presence) and 'coming'? Can somebody 'come' and not be 'present'?
And I discussed that the NWT rendering 'took no note' was literally 'knew not' in the original Greek, which puts a whole new light on it, does it not?
Another thread.
Another thread.
Jerusalem's trampling could only begin in Jesus' future - "will be trampled" and not "continue to be trampled."
Another thread.
Are you one of them?
How about addressing Holly's Scriptures in the OP? What do you think? Based on the Bible texts, can the timing of Jesus' Second coming, or Presence, be calculated through Bible chronology? 
 

Are you saying that a person can be present without coming? It's nonsense. You have to first arrive/come and, as a result of that, you are then present.
Imagine a roll call in a classroom.
The teacher calls, "Allen Smith?" No answer.
The teacher calls again. Nothing. "I'll note him down as absent ..."
A fellow student says, "Excuse me sir, Allen is present. He's here." The teacher looks around then quizzically at the student. The student continues, "He is present, it's just that he's not arrived at school yet."
Teacher and class go 
Besides ...

So you can see the words 'coming,' 'second advent' and 'presence' are used synonymously by Russell to refer to the same event that had been calculated to have occurred in 1874.
No, the WTS thought Christ's enthronement was in 1878, which date was discarded back in the days of Rutherford and replaced with 1914.
Learn some Watchtower history, Allen, for Pete's sake. 

That's not quite what he said in the excerpt. He said that Christ's presence will become revealed to people's 'eyes of understanding' over the next few decades, just like Christ's presence has been already been revealed to Russell and his fellow Bible Students living in 1881.
Correct. If you read the context of the excerpt (that is why I gave a full reference so you can look it up), you will see that the Watch Tower was addressing the Second Advent Church's and others' expectations, based on Mother Shipton's prediction that Jesus would visibly come back in 1881.
YES! Holly has already reproduced Russell's predictions.
But regarding Christ's second coming or presence, my excerpt shows he rejected others' calculations about an impending second coming because he (really Barbour) had already calculated that the Lord's second coming or presence had happened invisibly 7 years earlier.
He felt that Christ had been enthroned in 1878.
"It will be remembered that after the spring of 1878, (when we understand Jesus was due as King) that the subject of holiness or the wedding garment, was very much agitated." - ZWT, January 1881, p. 4 [R180]

As I say, learn your Watchtower history.
 

I am addressing Allen's misconceptions about Russell's beliefs. That is why I am reproducing Watchtower quotations, properly referenced so that anyone can read the surrounding material and check for themselves what was being taught. You will find that Allen makes erroneous statements that are corrected by the historical literature.
Please do not confuse trolling with having an open discussion, which is what Holly and I are trying to do here. Challenging a view is not trolling. If you really want to see examples of troll-like behavior, you only need to read through Allen's posts. 
So what? Well, Holly's thread is titled, 'The timing of Jesus' 2nd coming' and her OP asks whether that 2nd coming can be calculated through Bible chronology. Seeing as the Organization has a Bible-derived chronological scheme to calculate Jesus' 2nd coming or presence which was partly inherited from Russell and his friend Barbour, a discussion of Russell's beliefs are relevant to this wider topic.
Allen asserted the same and I asked him to provide that 'proof.' He has yet to do so. Maybe you can give it a shot instead? 

Well..........it does present an interesting conundrum for the thinking person I'll agree. We know there are things God cannot do. He cannot lie, cannot die, cannot fail to accomplish his purpose for example.
It is abundantly clear that indestructible life exists and that it is not limited to Jehovah (Heb.7:16). But as for us deciding what Jehovah can or cannot do based on our relatively puny experience and intellectual capacity, that is a step too far for me.
And as for putting anyone or anything "on a par with the Supreme Deity" ? That seems to be decidedly dodgy ground (Is.40:25) and likely ground upon which even (most) angels would fear to tread.

And people really think that we humans can cooperate to manage the earth well?  This incident proves that humans cannot even do it on a local scale. We are mismanaging the earth by poisoning absolutely everything.  The funguses in the ground and microbes (on which our lives depend) are dying off, we are destroying forests, desertification, our fresh water is poisoned and full of chemicals, we are decimating the animal populations....climate change - too much to mention... soon we will be at the point of no return. 
And then I still get people who tell me the world was "always" like this....and that scientists will come up with an answer....  Yea?  They are ones manufacturing all this stuff that is destroying the earth ....and making money out of it ?  They will only stop when they are forced to.... Humans do not have the will to do this -  Jehovah will have to stop them at his appointed time.