Anna

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

My previous comment was neither opposed to putting faith in Jehovah and the FDS, nor respecting and being loyal to Jehovah and the ones taking the lead. It was also not opposed to being obedient to those taking the lead and being submissive.  And also not opposed to the idea that Jehovah has his organization in complete control.
So what was your point?
 Exactly. So why worry about 1914?

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

My previous comment was neither opposed to putting faith in Jehovah and the FDS, nor respecting and being loyal to Jehovah and the ones taking the lead. It was also not opposed to being obedient to those taking the lead and being submissive.  And also not opposed to the idea that Jehovah has his organization in complete control.
So what was your point?
 Exactly. So why worry about 1914?

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

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

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

Why are you bringing this into the discussion?

WHEW!
With this posting there have been 14 LOOOOOONG pages of discussion.
I am so, SO glad it has been resolved.
It has absolutely NO application to my life, that I can do anything about, BUT, it's like watching people pick, and pick and PICK at their dandruff ... it's SO hard to look away.
The ONLY "saving grace" is that when on our deathbeds, we will get all this time back, spent discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ... but ONLY to check our emails.

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

Why are you bringing this into the discussion?

On everything important, I agree.
 
I'm not claiming that we need to interpret it. After all the Bible already gave the interpretation. As you said before: "No need for another interpretation but thanks anyway." [Emphasis added.]
If the Bible says that it already gave us the interpretation, don't we risk adding to or taking away from the words of the scroll if we decide that we need another interpretation? And it can also lead to all kinds of scriptural problems and inconsistencies, which so far no one has responded to with scripture. (Changing the topic isn't the same thing, and, fwiw, I don't celebrate Christmas.) A mere claim that "the Governing Body" has all interpretational authority is probably fine for most of us. But when the scriptures demand that we search them and not accept "a letter as though from us" on the topic of the parousia, but suggests that we use "reason" my own conscience tells me that I have a responsibility to follow the Bible as best I can and follow the lead of the Governing Body as best I can, too. Wherever there might be a difference, however, I think we know who we should obey.
(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. (Luke 21:8) . . .He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, . . . ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. . . (Galatians 1:10) 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave.
(Acts 5:29) . . .: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.
 

Perhaps I should not say this, but this discussion does not bother me. Nor does it do damage to the cause, even if Ms. Violin appears to hope it will. Historically, many have peered intensely into these things. They still are. It is nothing new that they do it here.
The big fat books we used to study, when explaining some teaching, would preface their remarks with: "it does not mean this' and 'it does not mean that." 'Why do they say what it does not mean?' the Circuit Overseer asked. 'Why don't they just say what it does mean?' It was for the sake of the old-timers, who were being called upon to unravel understandings they once had. Understandings come and go. I'll take the GB's current version because they have some tangible apparatus to show that what they spin has been blessed by God. God's spirit has moved countless volunteers to do things that they do nowhere else. I'm actually a little heartened to see some discuss at length things like this because "it ain't me, babe." I don't feel threatened by it. Let them quibble chronology till the cows come home and hope they are not missing the facts on the ground @Araunaspeaks of, for that is where the real proof of is - faith expressed in practical ways that no one else has gotten around to doing. This stuff is icing on the cake with innumerable variables arguable many ways.
Listen, I'm smart (if you are not fussy) yet this all goes over my head. It will do the same to everyone. Not so if I took hours to review and digest it, but I don't - the real truth is supported by deeds, and if there are no supporting deeds, then it is mere academic air and no one ought to get too worked up over it. Let the ones who have made it a special interest carry on with discussion. For personal reasons, there are a few non-spiritual subjects I know in considerable detail. Why should I object that some have made this theirs? I'll just interrupt here and there to insult @The Librarian.(the meddlesome hen)

Until Satan was put out of heaven there were doubtful ideas spread all the time in heaven and angels (even if perfect) were vulnerable to this as they could use their free choice to turn against Jehovah and disobey him. They also had to prove their loyalty to Jehovah.  Book of revelation indicates that one third of the myriads of angels followed in Satans footsteps.... (it hurt the heavenly family) and angels on their way to earthly missions were intercepted by Satans rulers.... One angel told Daniel that the archangel came to help him!  The heavens was also subject to Satans influence!   So this clears up the flawed thinking above about the heavenly woman!  The book of Jude indicates that Jesus had to rebuke an angel who wanted to take Moses's body to (no doubt) create more false worship and destroy the plans of Jehovah to bring forth the Messiah from the nation of Jews!
Since Satan was a heavenly creature the issue of obedience and loyalty to Jehovah became an UNIVERSAL issue.  This is why the firstborn son came to earth because he was directly created by God - a heavenly creature who became less than the other angels and therefore settled the obedience of heavenly creatures (until death) in addition to the earthly issue to be settled.
The heavens rejoiced greatly when satan was thrown out! For sure.  This 'woman' gave birth to a new nation when a new spiritual land was created!  The 144,000 who were in death received the First resurrection and a new nation (of priests and kings) was born!  These would be part of this new Kingdom!       The logic of the writings I have seen thus far in these 12 pages defies logic and since Jehovah is absolute logic I expect things to fit in perfectly and make absolute sense. As I said before - people become so captured by the minute detail that they lose the larger picture and literally throw out the new born baby (the sacred secret of the kingdom) with the bath water!
I expect to see an unbelievable intensifying of the power of satan on the earth - to the extent that there is no more good people to hold his total influence back!  So far - wickedness has been held back by the decency of societies.... this is a figment of the past.
Whether we will see a third world war - we do not know - but it will just be more of the same on a much larger scale.  However, civil society is becoming so hard to live in with wickedness, love of violence and spiritism everywhere!  The longer the world situation is building the bigger the effect when it cracks open!
Everything is escalating because many issues are coming to a conclusion - such as the destruction of the earth - soon we will reach a point of no return with so many issues regarding the earth on the table.  I can go on and on about the issues we are facing with the earth (climate change is the smallest one!)....
So - this is the time to unitedly preach, preach, preach!

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

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

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

I recall that 1914 was the first major war fought with airplane bombing, flame throwers, chemical and gas weapons, many submarines (improved on the tiny ones used in the civil war in USA)... it was also after the development of the telegraph - used extensively;  tank warfare and individual soldiers were issued with machine guns.... battle of the Somme rates on most lists of worst battles ever fought.
Second world war is an improvement on this with aircraft carriers; radar; radio used extensively during war; and atomic bomb; 
What do we have now: improvement on previous weapons: satellites, drones, intercontinental ballistic missiles; nuclear submarines; supersonic jets; electro magnetic pulse; more varieties of nuclear weapons; information warfare, 
Most weapons are all improvements on the communications or weapons used in the 1914 WW1....
The proof is still on the ground.  

Yes, I fully agree with you, one should expect that
 
Actually JWs in Italy are one of the largest religions after the Catholics

While I was at Bethel, I never spoke with Ray Franz. He kept a very low profile, and stayed very active with his congregation after work. I did know some of his close friends, and I was good friends with several of the people who had worked closely with him on their assignments for the previous decade or more. Only two of those good friends (that I knew) were sent home from Bethel, and dismissed from the Writing Department, due to their friendship with Ray Franz. It was known that both of these brothers no longer held 1914 to be true, but this had been known for nearly 10 years, and it didn't stop them from receiving assignments to write Watchtower study articles, or books for the assembly releases. They were sent back to their congregations as elders with a special pioneer stipend. At least one of them continued to receive Writing and Research assignments from both Swingle and Barry over the next 10 years, or so, too. Several of the other brothers who could no longer conscientiously believe in 1914 remained in their positions in the Writing Department, Service Department, and even on the Governing Body. According to Ray Franz, he came to understand the problems of 1914 while researching the Chronology article for the book Aid to Bible Understanding. That was researched in the late 1960's, and was released in 1969. He was not disfellowshipped over this matter. Neither were the researchers who worked with him. I was working for Brother Schroeder from late 1977 to 1982, who also had his own ideas about 1914 that could not be published.
The point is that no one was "aligned" with Ray Franz as far as I knew. Many brothers were "exposed" in the late 1960's for their beliefs about 1914, and this was not considered a reason to dismiss them, nor stop them from contributing as Jehovah's Witnesses. Even more persons admitted their doubts about 1914 when asked to respond to Carl Jonsson's manuscript. Even John Albu, another friend of mine who shared his books with me, and who was considered the primary person to try to respond to the COJ manuscript, had his own personal views about 1914 and Matthew 24.
It actually sounds funny to me, when I see it happen so commonly here that someone tries to align an argument with Ray Franz as a means of dismissing it. It sounds a bit like saying that the Devil believes in God, therefore we should not believe in God.

THE SIGN (pt 1 of 2)
As already mentioned in a previous post, we (JWs) are not the only people who read Matthew 24 as if it must mean that things like war, earthquakes, famines and pestilence are part of a sign that proves the end is near. As these things get worse, we have faith that our deliverance is near. And there is nothing wrong with finding that kind of comfort in Matthew 24. But there is another way to understand why Jesus specifically mentioned those particular "signs". In fact, a close look at Jesus' words in all the gospel accounts might even indicate that this other way of reading it is more likely.
The basic idea behind this "other way to understand" the signs, actually starts out in the Watch Tower publications during the time of C T Russell. The following is from Russell's Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 4, p. 567:
The History of Eighteen Centuries Briefly Foretold
--Matt. 24:6-13; Mark 13:7-13; Luke 21:9-19--
"And ye shall hear of wars and rumors [threats, intrigues] of wars: see that ye be not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are primary sorrows." Matt. 24:6-8
Thus briefly did our Lord summarize secular history, and teach the disciples not to expect very soon his second coming and glorious Kingdom. And how aptly: surely the world's history is just this--an account of wars, intrigues, famines and pestilences--little else.
Notice that these are NOT considered to be signs of Jesus presence or Parousia. These were considered to be the common occurrences plaguing throughout all of the 18 centuries of history since around 33 CE. They were, in essence, the OPPOSITE of signs that his Parousia was close. Jesus' disciples would hear about many things that might mislead them into thinking they were signs of the end, but they were simply things that would be expected through any time of history.
Based on a lot of the information already presented, it's possible to read Matthew 24 with the following meanings. This is not a translation, of course, and it is not even a paraphrase. It's more of a paraphrase with a lot of extra commentary added, along with expanded definitions of words based on some historical context, in order to present a probable meaning that Jesus could have had in mind in answering the question.
It's not meant to be the only correct way to read Matthew 24, of course, but it's one of the possible ways to understand the account.
Disciples: Aren't these Temple buildings magnificent and beautiful?
Jesus: Yes, but take note: look at these buildings again, and remember that they are all going to be completely destroyed, right down to the very last stone.
Disciples: WHEN? Please tell us when this is going to happen. How soon? [Are you going to make this happen NOW?] Are you saying that THIS IS GOING TO BE THE SIGN OF YOUR VISITATION OF JUDGMENT [that you have spoken about]? ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS IS THE FINAL END OF ALL THINGS? THE END OF THIS AGE? WILL WE GET AN ADVANCE WARNING SIGN?
Jesus: Don't be misled. It's going to be very easy to be misled [because you have heard that it was said, there would be signs like war, earthquakes, famines, and the like before the great day]. Now that I've told you about this great world-changing judgment event, it's going to be very tempting, whenever you hear about a great earthquake, or a great war, or a great famine, for example, that you are going to say: "Oh, this must be a sign of the end." But do not be misled, do not be alarmed. These things will surely happen, [just as things like this always keep happening] but this is NOT the sign of the end. These things are NOT the sign of my visitation. And even if these things sometimes get to be so bad that you are SURE it must be a sign of the end, just remember that in the REAL end of all things, things could get so much worse for you, that you will realize that these so-called signs were just the BEGINNING.
Think of these things like a woman's first sign of labor pains. They might be painful, and you might even think: This must be the sign! The baby is surely on it's way this time! But those pains are nothing compared to the pain of actually giving birth.
But even before that, you need to realize that people are going to claim to speak in my name, or even say they are representing me, or perhaps even say they are me. Perhaps they will even be sure that they are telling the truth because they are the only ones who truly understand what I'm about to tell you. But they will mislead many people. These are also the same ones who are going to point to wars, even just rumors of wars, too, or great earthquakes, or famines, and the like. Do not be misled by this kind of thinking. These things are not related to your question about the true end, my true "PAROUSIA" JUDGMENT EVENT, and the true "SYNTELEIA" FINAL END AND DESTRUCTION OF THIS WORLD.
[To really prepare for such a judgment event, it's not going to be as easy as just watching for a warning sign so that you can get away.] In fact, you should prepare for persecution and tribulation. Some of you will even be killed. You will be hated because of your association with me. You might be betrayed, and some of this hatred might even come through stumbling and misunderstanding of persons you know. False prophets will mislead many people. And some who seem friendly and loving now and ready to face all these problems, will not remain that way when things really get worse. You will need to endure all the way to the end to be saved. And you must continue giving the announcement about this Kingdom right up until the end. 
What I can tell you about getting away from this initial judgment event (parousia/synteleia) on Jerusalem is this: When the judgment event begins, FLEE IMMEDIATELY! Don't even go back inside your house to get clothes and supplies. You will be able to recognize when this judgment event has begun when you see persons of the nations encroaching upon the holy place. You will remember what Daniel said:
(Daniel 9:26, 27) . . .“And the people of a leader who is coming will destroy the city and the holy place. And its end will be by the flood. And until the end there will be war; what is decided upon is desolations. 27 “And he will keep the covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week, he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease. “And on the wing of disgusting things there will be the one causing desolation; and until an extermination, what was decided on will be poured out also on the one lying desolate.”
This is the beginning of a true judgment event the likes of which you have never seen. Nothing like it has ever happened upon Jerusalem before. It's going to be worse than even the tribulation upon Jerusalem back in Daniel's day. It's only because there will be a break in the tribulation that any persons in Jerusalem will survive at all.
[etc. to be continued]

I know what you are trying to say, but YOU are actually the one who is misunderstanding. The argument is quite easy to settle. If what you said above really was the case, then why would the study edition of the February 2017 WT direct readers to:  " ..... Watch Tower Publications Index  “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding"?  There, under the caption 1975 you will find a reference to "Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" book, which subsequently directs you to the WT and the quotes from it we have been discussing (WT 76 & 80). Just check it out for yourself. Go to ONLINE LIBRARY -> Publications Index -> Subject Index -> Beliefs clarified -> dates ->1975
So it is not an argument conjured up by ex-witnesses, it is what the writers of the WT are saying. The writers are the ones who have had to adjust their understanding too, not just the readers.
 

We still haven't discussed the subject of the "SIGN" but so many other sub-topics have come up that I still wanted to discuss them while they are only a few pages back.
REASONABLENESS versus PRESUMPTUOUSNESS; or, TRUTH versus SPECULATION
It has even been suggested that perhaps the teaching about 1914 really is wrong, or perhaps it's not, but it's not really our responsibility to "test" what we believe and "make sure of all things." In effect, people are saying it's not our own personal responsibility to "handle the word of God aright" as long as we are loyally following along and not questioning (out loud) the teachings of the Governing Body. Yet, the Bible says:
(Romans 12:1, 2) 12 Therefore, I appeal to you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. 2 And stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
It has been suggested that if we exercise our personal Biblical responsibility to be "noble-minded" and are therefore "carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so," that this will result in 8 million different doctrines. But this does not happen if, in using our "powers of reason" we allow our "reasonableness to be known to all." It's the same reasonableness that will also remove all this fear of doing what the Bible tells us to do. 
(Philippians 4:5-8) . . .Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . .Do not be anxious over anything . . . 7 and the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and your mental powers by means of Christ Jesus.
8 Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things.
So according to this passage, what would actually happen if we followed the Bible's counsel to test, and prove, make sure, and question, use our powers of reason? If we are haughty and presumptuous, we might still get into the kind of trouble that people fear. If we are reasonable, and are letting our reasonableness become known to all, then the following happens: We would not be anxious, but would look for a way to present our concerns in a serious way to those who are given the responsibility to make decisions about these matters. We do not disrespect the Governing Body, but accept that this is a perfectly good and reasonable way to let all things progress in an orderly, organized manner. 
Imagine if Russell received 40,000 letters from concerned Bible Students about the mistake he was making with respect to the pyramidology, along with bits of astrology and numerology that were beginning to permeate the Watch Tower publications for several decades. Imagine if Rutherford received 20,000 letters from concerned Bible Students about his presumptuous predictions regarding 1925. Imagine if Fred Franz received 1,000,000 letters from concerned Jehovah's Witnesses about how determined he was to promote predictions for the mid-1970's. Imagine if David Splane received many millions of letters questioning the new meaning we are now giving to the word "generation." This doesn't mean that Bible Students and Witnesses needed to say that the doctrines were not true. Only that it was always the Christian responsibility to question. How long would these prior doctrines have lasted if this was done? How many fewer people would have been stumbled by presumptuous statements?
Also, there is no need for those who question to come up with the solution. Isn't that why we have a Governing Body? To aid in making difficult decisions? And we should also note how easy it is to distinguish truth from speculation. Remember that the verse in Philippians said to continue considering "whatever things are true." Note the following sets of sentences:
UNLABELED SPECULATION: Nebuchadnezzar must represent the Messianic Kingdom now being ruled by Christ. SPECULATION TRUTHFULLY LABELED: We believe it is reasonable that Nebuchadnezzar represents the Messianic Kingdom now being ruled by Christ TRUTH: We don't actually know for sure if Nebuchadnezzar represents the Messianic Kingdom now being ruled by Christ. Here's how we came up with this idea . . . . Please feel free to let us know if you think it is reasonable.  
UNLABELED SPECULATION: The facts in evidence prove beyond a doubt that 1925 will see the resurrection of Abraham and David. SPECULATION TRUTHFULLY LABELED: Based on our currently accepted chronology, along with a count of the Jubilees, we expect Abraham and David to be resurrected in 1925 TRUTH: We don't actually know for sure if 1925 will be the date when Abraham and David will be resurrected, but we would certainly like to see that. Here's how we arrived at this date. ..... Please feel free to let us know if you think this is reasonable. If it were any of us average elders, ministerial servants, pioneers, and publishers, then it would obvious that only haughtiness and presumptuousness would allow us to speculate but not label it as speculation. Perhaps we imagine the praise and accolades we would get if could show all kinds of esoteric knowledge and the ability to pull a piece from this scripture and that scripture, and it turned out to be right. Yet, considering "whatever things are true" requires humility. But reasonableness will move us to focus on truth instead speculation. Speculation, even if it is labeled correctly, is not as important as more serious things, along with righteous, chaste and lovable topics of consideration. Speculation would ultimately take a back seat to these things.
A couple times it was suggested that, perhaps, even if it was wrong, it has been a good thing. Perhaps, as some people thing, we would never have attracted millions of people into our religion, or they would not have remained as faithful, if it weren't for these speculative teachings, true or not. That possibility has been previously suggested by @bruceq under this very topic, when it was pointed out that the Watchtower has also taught that the wrong understanding of Paul was better than a correct understanding of Paul's words in Romans 13 from 1929 to 1962.
*** w96 5/1 pp. 13-14 God and Caesar ***
Progressive Understanding of “the Superior Authorities”
12 As early as 1886, Charles Taze Russell wrote . . . "to obey the laws, and to respect those in authority because of their office, . . . to pay their appointed taxes, and except where they conflict with God’s laws" . . . This book correctly identified “the higher powers,” or “the superior authorities,” mentioned by the apostle Paul. . . that true Christians “should be found amongst the most law-abiding of the present time—not agitators, not quarrelsome, not fault-finders.” This was understood by some to mean total submission. . . . Obviously, a clearer understanding of Christian submission to the superior authorities was needed.
13 In 1929, at a time when laws of various governments were beginning to forbid things that God commands or demand things that God’s laws forbid, it was felt that the higher powers must be Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. This was the understanding Jehovah’s servants had during the crucial period before and during World War II and on into the Cold War, with its balance of terror and its military preparedness. Looking back, it must be said that this view of things, exalting as it did the supremacy of Jehovah and his Christ, helped God’s people to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout this difficult period.
Notice that Russell had it correct, but an incorrect understanding of Paul's words "helped God's people" more. Even though the doctrine went from correct, to incorrect, to correct again, it is labeled a "Progressive Understanding." Most people would look at this as the most haughty and presumptuous kind of thinking, and I certainly hope that this same type of thinking doesn't cloud our understanding of Jesus' words in Matthew 24. It's the same as saying that false teachings are sometimes just fine and acceptable, assuming they were found in the Watchtower, even though we can still condemn false teachings everywhere else.
If you notice we never have had "false" doctrines; rarely do we even say they were "incorrect" or "untrue." We usually speak of them as  views that required "adjustment" or "refinement." If a prediction failed, then we were merely looking for "the right thing at the wrong time," or sometimes "the wrong thing at the right time." We were being "optimistic." Or there was a positive result in that it only stumbled all the new ones who joined Jehovah's Witnesses for the wrong reasons. For years, we called our teachings "present truth" which helped to explain how, even if they were proven to be false, they were still "present truth" while they were being taught. When we dropped at least 120 type-antitype doctrines, when they were no longer considered valid, this was not because we had been "indiscreet," but because the slave becomes "steadily more discreet":
*** w15 3/15 pp. 9-10 par. 10 “This Is the Way You Approved” ***
As we might expect, over the years Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become steadily more discreet. Discretion has led to greater caution when it comes to calling a Bible account a prophetic drama unless there is a clear Scriptural basis for doing so.
With respect to expectations related to Matthew 24 beginning with Christ's parousia in 1874, we had even used those same "type-antitype" doctrines to show that we had no choice but to have incorrect expectations, because Jehovah had prophesied in advance that such mistakes would be made through the so-called prophetic narrative about Elijah. (See section below called: ELIJAH PROVES OUR CHRONOLOGY MISTAKES WERE PREDETERMINED.)
Several pages back in this topic @Arauna reminded me of this when she said:
There is a lot of important information hidden behind this idea that "they applied it to Russell." If you look closely at the new book, we are NOW applying it to Russell and his close associates:
*** kr chap. 2 pp. 13-14 pars. 4-6 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
The prophecy explains that Jehovah would come with “the messenger of the covenant.” Who was that? None other than the Messianic King, Jesus Christ! . . .
5 Who, though, was the other “messenger,” the first one mentioned at Malachi 3:1? This prophetic figure would be on the scene well before the Messianic King’s presence. In the decades before 1914, did anyone “clear up a way” before the Messianic King?
6 Throughout this publication, we will find answers to such questions in the thrilling history of Jehovah’s modern-day people. This history shows that in the latter part of the 19th century, one small group of faithful people was emerging as the only body of genuine Christians in a vast field of imitations. That group came to be known as the Bible Students. Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger,” giving spiritual direction to God’s people and preparing them for the events ahead. Let us consider four ways in which the “messenger” did so.
This might seem like an odd diversion, but it really relates directly to the discussion of our understanding of Matthew 24. We should note, in passing, that Rutherford taught that when he changed the understanding of Romans 13 [to the incorrect view], that this was a specific fulfillment of Bible prophecy and it was specific evidence of Jehovah's blessing on us, and a specific reason for the removal of his blessing from those who still believed in Russell's [correct] view.
Also we should note that while Rutherford applied the messenger and prophet "Elijah" to Russell, he applied the prophet Elisha to the time of his own administration, and made note that Elisha asked for a double-portion of Jehovah's spirit compared to Elijah - (Elisha received Elijah's mantle and performed twice as many miracles, etc.). Thus, when Nathan Knorr was president, Elijah was changed to be a prophetic picture of Rutherford's time (not Russell) and Elisha became the prophetic picture of Knorr's administration: At the end of this post, I'll add the references to show this, under the heading: HOW ELIJAH/ELISHA MOVED FROM RUSSELL/RUTHERFORD TO RUTHERFORD/KNORR RESPECTIVELY
But that was not the primary reason to revisit the Elijah/Elisha teachings of the Watch Tower publications.
ELIJAH PROVES OUR CHRONOLOGY MISTAKES WERE PREDETERMINED
One of the uses of the "type-antitype" prophecies was to perpetuate prejudices between the two classes of Witnesses as was done with the "prophecy of the prodigal son." The Elijah prophecy was used to effectively shift the blame to Jehovah for the mistakes that were made in making wrong chronology predictions. Note the April 15, 1918 Watchtower, p. 6237:
Several times during the harvest, during the progress of what seemed like plagues to Christendom, the Lord has permitted his people to think that they were about to go. Brother Russell expected the church to go beyond the vail in 1878, 1881, 1910, and 1914 -- just as with Elijah, who went with Elisha to four different places before he was actually taken. These seeming disappointments were divinely foreknown, "his appointments."
I think most of us can tell that this was not only a wrong use of a prophetic pulpit, but a presumptuous use of it. These are not brought up to show that our history can seem embarrassing, but hopefully to show how obvious it is that all of us should have been "on the watch" and ready to let our "reasonableness known to all." Our love for one another should have prompted that kind of association between the so-called "rank and file" and the "Governing Body."
HOW ELIJAH/ELISHA MOVED FROM RUSSELL/RUTHERFORD TO RUTHERFORD/KNORR RESPECTIVELY
Note that, after dropping Russell from the equation, the new prophetic explanation focused more on the specific persons of Rutherford and Knorr than it did on the particular time of their administration. Note chapter 16 and 17 of "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" [bracketed information added]
[page 314, par. 47]
The miracles that the "two witnesses" perform in fulfillment of the prophetic vision are of a spiritual kind. In the spring of 1918 the "wild beast," the one pictured in Revelation 13:1, 2 as rising out of the "abyss" of the sea, that is, the visible earthly organization of Satan the Devil, killed the witness work in its free public presentation. So it lay as if beheaded, like John.
[page 315, par 51-52]
This date 1914 therefore runs parallel with the date of Jesus' anointing, A.D. 29, to preach the "kingdom of the heavens" as having drawn near and to say: "The kingdom of God is in your midst." (Luke 17:21) What then? Three and a half years from A.D. 29 to 33 (spring passover time) would find its modern parallel three and a half years from the fall of 1914 to the spring passover season of 1918. . . .  [In 1918] Jehovah with his "messenger of the covenant" should come invisibly to his spiritual temple to cleanse it and to judge. 
[Note that we no longer teach that 1918 was significant, nor that it was the time when Jesus came to his spiritual temple.]
[page 318, par. 4]
but in the quiet of the first postwar year, A.D. 1919, came the "calm, low voice" from the quiet pages of God's written Word, pages now further illuminated with the light of recent fulfillment of prophecies.
[Note that none of the prophecies that were further illuminated at this time are currently considered to be true: the great campaign of 1919 was the prediction that visible manifestations of Christ's kingdom must come in 1925 and that there was more evidence for this than there had been about 1914. Everything that happened from 1914 to 1919 illuminated the fact that all the expectations about 1914 were wrong.]
7 In 1942, in the throes of World War II, the Elijah work passed.  It passed away…. It was taken away in divine favor….but it finished with success and in integrity. It left the interests of God’s kingdom to a faithful successor who would cling to the commission from God through the anointed Elijah class, just the same as this successor had stuck to the Elijah class to the end. The carrying out of the Elijah commission kept on without a hitch.
8 The anointed Elisha class undertook the responsibility of carrying out fully the divine commission as symbolized by Elijah’s official garment. Five days after Rutherford’s death the boards of directors of the Watch Tower corporations for New York and for Pennsylvania held a joint meeting and unanimously elected N. H. Knorr, one of the anointed remnant, to be president of both corporations of the Society. There was grief over the passing of a faithful fellow worker, but there was no interruption of the work for the sentimental purpose of mourning over the dead. The change in personnel did not cripple the work, because this is not a man’s organization but God’s visible organization on earth. …
9 To get back to work with the “sons of the prophets,” Elisha had to make a test of God’s spirit upon him and get back across the Jordan River. He did so by repeating Elijah’s miracle of causing the waters of the Jordan to divide. Likewise with the Elisha class in 1942. …
10 In the very same [Feb. 1, 1942] issue of The Watchtower that announced the death of J. F. Rutherford as “a faithful witness,” appeared the special leading article entitled “Final Gathering.”…
The Elijah/Elisha themes and motifs have been one of the longest running "type-antitype" prophecies to run through the pages of the Watchtower, throughout early issues in the 1800's on up until about 2003, with the points in the quoted paragraphs above explicitly promoted even in 1997.
THE MORAL OF THE STORY
These points were added here partially because they were alluded to by Arauna, but they as part of the discussion above, they show that speculation is often used for presumptuous self-aggrandizement. These are doctrines that have been dropped (mostly) but would not likely have lasted as long as they did if so many Witnesses did not shrink back from their Christian responsibility. It shows no disrespect to question; it shows that we obey God as ruler rather than men. Anything beyond what was already taught in the Christian Greek Scriptures should have seemed like anathema to us. No Bible Student nor any Jehovah's Witnesses should have felt afraid to question it and discuss it openly.
(Galatians 1:10) 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave.
The Governing Body, who are highly regarded just as those in Jerusalem were, are still to be respected and their opinions clearly matter, as they are the ones appointed to help us with such questions. Paul respected their position:
(Galatians 2:2) . . .This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain.
But he also reminded us:
(Galatians 2:6-10) . . .But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. . . .  James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, . . .They asked only that we keep the poor in mind, and this I have also earnestly endeavored to do.
Notice that the "governing body" focused on the important things ("keep the poor in mind"), and yet other potential problems were taken care of by questioning this same governing body. In Paul's case he said to Cephas:
(Galatians 2:14) . . .I said to Ceʹphas before them all: “If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do and not as Jews do, how can you compel people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?”
The apostle Paul had spiritual qualifications to point this out publicly, and of course had an obligation at that level to handle it this way. But Paul also writes to entire Galatian congregation(s) to remind them:
(Galatians 6:1-5) 6 Brothers, even if a man takes a false step before he is aware of it, you who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness. But keep an eye on yourself, for fear you too may be tempted. 2 Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load.
Even though we should give respect to all older men, including the ones we call the "Governing Body" Jesus said that
(Matthew 23:8-12) 8 . . . one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. . . . 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
The term "Governing Body" is a legal term, not a Biblical one, and we know there is no separate "body" within the "body" of Christ, only "members" of his congregation. We should give them double honor and respect for their function as a committee of elders appointed to handle questions, their role in teaching, and as administrators of the functions of the congregation. One of the ways we show them respect is to see them, not as leaders, but as brothers. True respect includes questioning, not fear of questioning.

I agree with you wholeheartedly and that is why I find reasoning such as this one from the Nov. 2016 study WT a little disconcerting p.16, par. 9:
"Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives. By obeying the instructions found in the Bible, we promote cleanness, peace, and unity in the congregation. Each one of us does well to ask himself, ‘Am I loyal to the channel that Jesus is using today?’ "
I am misunderstanding what it's saying there? Anyone care to analyze this as they understand it?  And sorry, I know it's a little off topic.

There are some very valid arguments you raise here JWI.  I am not qualified to make any worthwhile and detailed comments on Bible chronology, especially that which pertains to 1914 because I have never studied any of it in depth, and as @Araunaremarked: " NONE of you have taken the time to really study the entire sections on Chronology as set out in the Insight book" . Well  I am one of those people, I have neither studied the Insight book's Chronology, nor COJ's Chronology nor other secular study of Bible chronology and to be honest, who of the 8 or so million regular Witnesses have?? (not counting Rolf Furuli and those in the writing department who were assigned to do this) I have only know one brother to date. He was not brought up as one of JWs but came into the truth later. He had already been used to studying as he had a university degree. He was the scholarly type. I remember he had a library full of secular books on Bible history and chronology. I remember once when we stayed at his house (my mum is good friends with his wife) he mentioned this one particular secular book on something or other to do with Bible history or chronology and how extremely interesting it was. I don't remember any details about what he said, I just remember my negative feelings at the time. It was funny, but it was almost an aversion to even the thought of someone reading something BESIDES our literature. Feelings of distrust and suspicion, that anything else is tantamount to the Devil's work. Funnily enough, these feelings could not have emanated from my mother, since she herself is an educated and well read woman, and has read many secular books and strongly believes in education. These feelings came from the "general" air of suspicion derived from our meetings and our own literature, including the general opinion of brothers and sisters sharing the suspicion among each other.  It is actually understandable, since our attitude (and quite rightly so) regarding the world is that it is lying in the power of the wicked one, and thus logically, he, Satan, will want to promote anything to weaken man’s trust in the Bible as being from God.  But statements by the WT such as “Secular experts have repeatedly questioned the Bible’s accuracy” is a broad brush which automatically taints anyone (besides us) who tries to interpret Bible chronology, as being probably, if not obviously,  WRONG. Unless of course they agree with us. Truly, on the whole, secular scholars are responsible for giving themselves this reputation in our eyes because of their adherence to the theory of evolution and other theories discrediting God.  It is understandable that many of the things these scholars write will be tainted with their supposition that God does not exist. HOWEVER, and this is a most important part, in my opinion, what does the date of Jerusalem’s destruction have anything to do with whether a scholar is a believer in God and the Bible’s veracity or not? What possible reason would a secular scholar have for not agreeing with Watchtower’s 607? Most scholars (as opposed to JW haters and opposers) have no hidden agenda and have nothing against Jehovah’s Witnesses.  I believe COJ had no hidden agenda either. He merely reported on the evidence that’s out there. On the other hand, we, Jehovah’s Witnesses, base a large part of our belief on 1914. We would have a lot more to “lose” were we to agree with the secular date.  I can’t even imagine the commotion if we retracted 1914.  BUT we have to remember; “we do not serve God because of a date” as was bought out in the video at the convention regarding 1975. How much does our personal relationship with Jehovah depend on a date? Do we serve God just because “the end is just around the corner” And to take it even further, how much of our personal relationship depends on the Governing Body?  IF the Governing Body were all to become apostate tomorrow, where would we stand?
Out of interest, when I was studying “what does the Bible really teach” with my student, a biologist (the ex atheist I already mentioned on here before) when we came to the appendix about 1914 I also gave her the two articles in the WT “When was Ancient Jerusalem destroyed” part 1 and 2. She found the articles interesting but unconvincing. We never went into any detail of those two articles, as both of us agreed that it was more important to go back to the Bible and see what it had to say on what God expects from us, and how to live our life to please him. 

Awh, shucks!  I think you made all that up!