ComfortMyPeople

No, that's not true, and that's the problem. The reader is NOT advised. That's a form of academic dishonesty.
Here is one of literally HUNDREDS of examples of this in our literature:
*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
One fragmentary Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.), does, in fact, mention a campaign against Egypt. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308) You might know better, of course, but don't you think that some of the brothers will read this line in the "Insight" book under "Nebuchadnezzar" and get the impression that a well-researched resource about Babylonian texts indicates that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was 588 B.C.E.?
It's amazing (and shameful) that our publications still do this repeatedly. The referenced book by Pritchard is 100% aware that all the evidence consistently points to 568 for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and therefore 587/6 for his 19th year (not 607). There is only one reason that the Watchtower publications sneaks 588 in there without any explanation about how the book they referenced actually rejects this date. It's because 588 is the date that would allow 607 to work which would allow 1914 to work. We should not have to depend on dishonesty and slick tricks like this. If the evidence stood on its own, we would be happy to point to the evidence, instead of trying to denigrate the evidence, and then "dishonestly" forget to tell the readers that it's this same denigrated evidence that we rely on for 607.

You were claiming that our (WTS) theory was impossible when you tried to add another 20 years to the Neo-Babylonian timeline at a point during Nebuchadnezzar's reign. You suggested Zedekiah's 11th year. You create a contradiction for yourself precisely because the Bible synchronizes the reigns of the last kings of Judah in a way that fits Ptolemy's Canon, and the Babylonian Chronicles and the combined evidence from thousands of clay tablets, along with the astronomical diaries.
Actually it is your problem if you are the one interpreting an idea in a way that contradicts all the evidence. Especially since you already admitted that many lines of evidence and thousands of tablets already represent the NB chronology. It's the same as if you wanted to make World War 1 last for parts of 8 years instead of parts of 5 years. If you say that there are three years of history about WW1 missing, then you would have to be the one to figure out where these new years should be inserted.
There is nothing for me to solve here. I see that all the years are already accounted for, and that they already fit the Bible evidence very well. I am happy that the Bible account is corroborated by the historical accounts and evidence from archaeology.
I never mentioned Jehoiakim. I only referred to Jehoiachin. (Also called Jeconiah) It's easy to confuse them.
I looked up several of your past discussions here and elsewhere. I have seen from these past discussions that you typically don't try to solve any of the chronological problems related to this matter. I have noticed a common pattern of trying to imply that it is the other person who has the problem to solve. You even do that in this very post I am responding to. Apparently, you also have made use of a tactic of abandoning a problem when it is clear that you have failed to address it, and then disappearing and coming back at some later point and claiming that you previously solved the problem or "won the argument" that you had abandoned. You seem to give the impression that everything must start all over "from scratch" even after the evidence against your position was already made clear in your last attempt.   
But evidently the most common tactic, and the one I am trying to understand in this current thread, too, is this tendency to offer completely illogical nonsense as if it is relevant to the questions and claims being made. There appears to be a lot of bluster and obfuscation and I can't always tell if it's on purpose. If it is, I don't know who you would be trying to bluster here.
But if you were truly looking for a simple and clear question, in a presentation of facts without references, then I could oblige that, too. But first I'd like to ask if you would address any of the very simple questions that have already been brought up.
One, for example, was:
What is the year you get for the beginning of the 70 years of Babylonian domination assuming you agree with the Watch Tower Society's assessment about these 70 years that ended in 539 B.C.E.? (See the previous post for the references to Jeremiah 25:8-27 in chapter 19 of Isaiah's Prophecy.) If you still insist that this date is "nonsense," as you called it, then please explain why you think the Society's idea here is nonsense, and why it's still on JW.ORG?

Have you written the Watchtower Society to tell them that this claim is "nonsense"?
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. If you don't have the Watchtower Library CD/DVD installed just click the link to jw.org here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102000039 and scroll down to paragraph 21 (page 256) to see the same point.
So, are you saying you do not agree with the assessment of the Watchtower Society that the 70 years of Babylonia's greatest domination ends in 539 B.C.E.?  If Babylon's 70 years of domination ended in 539, then when did it begin? I get 539+70=609.
 Unless you can offer a different answer, I'll have to assume that you get the same thing. So why do you call this claim "nonsense"? Usually, you appear to be defending what's on JW.ORG.
Yes. I see that JW.ORG also does something just like what you say Carl Jonsson did. Do you think that JW.ORG got this idea from Carl Jonsson? Jonsson wrote about 15 years before the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book was written in 2000?
You seem confused about the reason that there is any supposed "conflict" over whether Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587. The reason is explained on JW.ORG and it has absolutely nothing to do with different chronologies for the divided monarchy. The Bible lists both the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar for what appears to be the same Jerusalem event. It can simply be a matter of whether the Bible is including Nebuchadnezzar's accession year when referring to the Jerusalem event.
*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
on Tammuz (June-July) 9 in the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign (Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year), a breach was made in Jerusalem’s wall. The scriptures quoted are as follows:
(Jeremiah 52:29) In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. (2 Kings 25:8, 9) In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; . . .
I know you already knew this from a previous conversation.

You were using the term "honesty is a two-way street" as if it were an excuse to explain why you made a false claim. In a "debate" you don't get to make false claims and then make excuses for it. You should be honest no matter what you think of the other person's evidence.
There is no gap in the NB evidence. You don't create a gap in another set of evidence by simply making a claim that one exists:
Let's say that I have a coin collection of all the different types of United States coins made during World War 1: a 1914 penny, nickel, dime, quarter, half-dollar, silver dollar, gold quarter-eagle, gold half-eagle, etc., etc., from each of the applicable locations where coins are officially minted. Let's say that  I have an entire set not just from 1914, but also from 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918. Now you come along and tell me that there is a three-year gap in my WW1 coin collection. But that doesn't create a gap in my collection. It does not create a gap in the evidence for when WW1 started and ended. It just creates a gap in your credibility.
If I ask you where this supposed three-year gap might be placed, you could say that the extra three years should be placed between 1916 and 1917. Again, this claim is only a gap in your own credibility and it has no effect on the evidence for what coins were made during World War 1 and it has no effect on the evidence for the actual years of World War 1. It's just a claim. Even if it came from your beloved grandfather who has never told a lie before, it still doesn't mean that the start of World War 1 must now be reset to 1911 instead of 1914.
You could insist that there must be a three-year gap because your grandfather actually told you that World War 1 started in 1911. He is so sure of it that he has also pushed back the beginning of the U.S. Civil war to 1858 instead of 1861, and the U.S. Declaration of Independence from Britain to July 4, 1773 instead of 1776. But this would only mean that you (and your grandfather) have a gap. It does not produce any gap in United States chronology or coinage.
We are certainly not discussing any gap in the NB evidence itself, but a gap in someone else's claim about it. We are discussing the idea that you believe there is a gap somewhere in the NB, but you still don't even know exactly where that gap should be placed. We are in exactly the same type situation that would be created if you and your grandfather were claiming that World War 1 started in 1911 instead of 1914, assuming that you agreed that it ended in 1918, but that WW1 covered parts of 8 different years (1911-1918) instead of parts of 5 different years (1914-1918). But you still don't know where the current evidence for WW1 from 1914 to 1918 went wrong. Perhaps the three years of information you need to add should be inserted between the current evidence for 1916 and 1917. Or between the current evidence for 1917 and 1918. Or perhaps the three years should be added between February 3, 1915 and February 4, 1915.
The history of these Watchtower dates that you are relying on is fuzzy. The reasons the Watchtower has needed them to be fuzzy becomes sharp and clear when you study the history of the Watchtower's chronology claims more closely. And you don't even need the older publications because the CURRENT "Insight" book admits that the two year difference between 539 and 537 is based on something that "is very probable." Current publications put the third year of Cyrus at 536, but the first year of Cyrus is pushed as closely as possible toward the spring of 537. Obviously, the WTS does this, even though Cyrus had the authority to release captives in 539 and 538, but we just don't want any Jews coming back in 539 or 538,  as that would throw off 1914 by throwing off 607 by a year or two. In the past, we allowed them to come back in 536 because we thought that was the first year of Cyrus (and therefore put Jerusalem's destruction in 606). If we were arguing for the same two-year-plus delay that we argue for now in the WTS publications, then the Jews might not be back home until 534 or even 533. The fuzziness has worked in favor of the WTS to keep 1914 afloat.
The WTS was always willing to re-adjust the old dates, although to be fair, the solution for a while was to change 1914 to 1915. Both Russell and Rutherford began using 1915 as the new end of the Gentile Times even until a few years after 1914.
During the time of trouble, closing this age, they will be exalted to power, but their "reign" of righteousness over the world could not precede A.D. 1915—when the Times of the Gentiles have expired. (The Time Is At Hand, p.81.) the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1915, with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. (ibid, p.101)
Here's what we the WTS said when they were first learning about the "zero year" problem in the Watch Tower from December 1912. By 1914 the WTS "discerned" that there WAS a zero year, but still kept referring to October 1915 as the end of the Gentile Times when it looked like 1914 wasn't working out. Apparently, they misunderstood the quote in the Encylopedia Britannica, below, referring to a common misunderstanding that is still made today by amateur astronomers. Then in 1943, the WTS "discerned" that there was NO zero year.:
---------quote from Watch Tower, December 1912, p. 377 [new paragraphs shown as bullet points]---------------
Whether Dionysius began his A.D. period January 1st, A.D. 1, or whether he began it January 1st, A.D. 0, we may not be sure; neither may we feel too certain whether he began the B.C. dates December 31st, B.C. 0, or December 31st, B.C. 1. For all ordinary purposes this question would be rather immaterial. But it has a very important bearing on our calculation of Gentile Times. . . . Coming now to a very critical examination of the date 536 B.C., there is an open question: Shall we call it 536 full years to A.D., or 434 [sic] full years? The difference in time between October 1st and January 1st would be the fourth of a year; hence our query is respecting 536-1/4 or 535-1/4 years B.C. What is the proper method of calculation, is in dispute. If we count the first year B.C. as 0, then the date 536-1/4 B.C. is the proper one for the end of the seventy years of captivity. But if we begin to reckon it by counting the first year before the Christian era as B.C. 1, then evidently the desolation ended 535-1/4 years B.C. As to the methods of counting, Encyclopaedia Britannica says, "Astronomers denote the year which preceded the first of our era as 0 and the year previous to that as B.C. 1--the previous year B.C. 2, and so on." Whichever of these ways we undertake to calculate the matter the difference between the results is one year. The seventy years of Jewish captivity ended October, 536 B.C., and if there were 536-1/4 years B.C., then to complete the 2,520 years' cycle of the Times of the Gentiles would require 1913-3/4 years of A.D., or to October, 1914. But if the other way of reckoning were used, then there were but 535-1/4 years of the period B.C., and the remainder of the 2,520 years would reach to A.D., 1914-3/4 years, otherwise October, 1915.  

Well, I'll look into how dutifully the problem has been corrected. Let's hope it's duty-free, considering where you've been.
So, you are saying that the 20 years can be inserted altogether in one piece starting in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, which was also the same point as King Zedekiah's 11th year. This would, of course, mean that Nebuchadnezzar did not just rule for 43 years, but for 63 years. This is where those 10,000 tablets could really help out your theory. There are plenty of tablets representing every year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign from his first to his 43rd, but you have absolutely zero for every one of these extra 20 years.
The evidence from thousands of tablets is actually definitive enough. But you would also have an  bigger problem, the Bible itself:
Notice that if your dates were correct then Jehoiachin would have surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 597 which you would call 617, assuming this 20-year gap theory was correct. This is admitted in the "Insight" book:
*** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin ***
It appears that Jehoiakim died during this siege and Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah. His rule ended, however, a mere three months and ten days later, when he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 617 B.C.E.  . . .  In fulfillment of Jehovah’s word through Jeremiah, he was taken into Babylonian exile. (Jer 22:24-27; 24:1; 27:19, 20; 29:1, 2) Other members of the royal household, court officials, craftsmen, and warriors were also exiled.—2Ki 24:14-16;
(2 Kings 25:27) 27 And in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoi?a·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 27th day of the month, King E?vil-mer?o·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, released King Je·hoi?a·chin of Judah from prison. *** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin ***
In the fifth year of Jehoiachin’s exile, Ezekiel began his prophetic work. (Eze 1:2) About 32 years later, evidently in 580 B.C.E., Jehoiachin was released from prison by Nebuchadnezzar’s successor Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk) and given a position of favor above all the other captive kings. Thereafter he ate at Evil-merodach’s table and received a daily allowance.—2Ki 25:27-30; Jer 52:31-34. In other words, the Bible shows that your theory is impossible because the Bible confirms that the secular tablets are correct in giving Nebuchadnezzar only 43 years. You can't squeeze out more than 43 years in his reign, if Evil-Merodach became king in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile. The Bible also, therefore, agrees with "Ptolemy's Canon" and the evidence from all the astronomical tablets here, too.

No. Honesty is NOT a two-way street. I hope you are not thinking of "theocratic war strategy" when you consider it OK to be dishonest if you consider someone to be an enemy or not entitled to honesty.
*** w57 5/1 p. 286 Use Theocratic War Strategy ***
So in time of spiritual warfare it is proper to misdirect the enemy by hiding the truth. *** it-2 p. 244 Lie ***
". . . saying something false to a person who is entitled to know the truth . . ." This is misdirection through circular reasoning.
If Bob says 20+30=70, and Jim says 20+50=70, Bob can't say Jim is dishonest because Jim is ignoring Bob's 20-integer Gap.
No. Chronology is not "personal."
This is part of the false, circular reasoning. I find no Gap, and yet I choose NOT to ignore the historical reality of the 70 years. I find all 70 years perfectly accounted for.
I have already stated my acceptance of making the insertion point of the 70 years of Babylonian "empire" from 609 to 539. But I am not against someone accepting a "fuzzy" beginning or end to this period -- within reason. I know, for example, that the Watchtower teaches a "fuzzy end" of this period that admits that the Babylonian empire ended in 539 but also admits that we are only guessing when we say that the Jews returned to end this period in 537. I am not concerned about the 2 years of the Watchtower's "fuzziness" as you would call it. There was a time when the Watchtower accepted 536 as the first year of Cyrus - and not only the first year, but the year of the Edict itself. If there were good reasons to accept that this "70-year period" was shorter, or longer by a few years, or even symbolic, I'd have no problem with it, and I therefore have no problem with a date near 537 as the end of the period. (And I'd have no problem with a date like 607 as the beginning of the 70 years.) But you will see why I consider "honesty" to be an integral part of the discussion when we look more closely at how the Watch Tower publications have "toyed" with this time period.
*** it-1 p. 458 Chronology ***
During Cyrus’ first year his decree releasing the Jews from exile was given. And, as considered in the article on CYRUS, it is very probable that the decree was made by the winter of 538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E. This would permit the Jews time to make necessary preparations, effect the four-month journey to Jerusalem, and still arrive there by the seventh month (Tishri, or about October 1) of 537 B.C.E. *** w07 9/1 p. 19 par. 9 Highlights From the Book of Daniel ***
The year is now 539 B.C.E. Babylon has fallen, and Darius the Mede has become ruler over the kingdom of the Chaldeans *** w05 5/1 p. 12 par. 18 The Resurrection—A Teaching That Affects You ***
he received a vision in 536 B.C.E., the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia. (Daniel 1:1; 10:1) Some time during that third year of Cyrus, Daniel received a vision of the march of world powers So Babylon fell in 539, and Cyrus therefore had the power and authority to declare Babylon's captives to be free immediately: in 539. In fact, one Biblical meaning of "first year" as you know (and as you yourself have pointed out previously) can refer to the accession year, which in this case would be 539. But notice that the "Insight" book, in the first of the three quotes above, pushes his "first-year" decree all the way out into 537 or "toward" 537, but in the last quote his third year is 536.
Older Watchtower publications placed Cyrus first year in 536, or even his accession year when Babylon was destroyed, in 536. So in Watchtower terms, both his first year and his third year have, at times, been stated to be 536.
*** Watch Tower, 6/1/1905, p.183
In accordance with the Edict of Cyrus (536 B.C.) many of the Israelites returned from Babylon and laid the foundations of the Temple. Ezra 4:24, however, states that the work then "ceased unto the 2nd year of the reign of Darius, king of Persia." The length of time from the Edict of Cyrus in 536 B.C. . . . Throughout all of the earlier publications the statements were always consistent with these examples below:
All students of chronology may be said to be agreed, that the first year of Cyrus was the year 536 before the beginning of our Anno Domini era. (Watch Tower, 5/1896, p.113) With these facts before us, we readily find the date for the beginning of the Gentile Times of dominion; for the first year of the reign of Cyrus is a very clearly fixed date--both secular and religious histories with marked unanimity agreeing with Ptolemy's Canon, which places it B.C. 536. (The Time Is At Hand, p.79-80) So the THREE YEARS of "fuzziness" in the Watchtower's explanations of this date have all been necessary in order to keep 1914 afloat. At first, it could have been that the Jews began returning in the year of the Edict, 536, back when all students of chronology supposedly agreed that the first year of Cyrus was 536. Then, when all students of chronology must have supposedly realized that "Ptolemy's Canon" actually would have placed the destruction of Babylon by Cyrus in 539, that's when some scrambling began. The solution was to try to push the Edict as close to 537 as possible (see "Insight," above) nearly two years after Cyrus had destroyed Babylon.
Then we still needed an extra year for 1914 to work, so we thought there would have to be a few months of preparation time, and then about 4 more months of travel. Perfect!! We resolved the three years of fuzziness with some conjecture.
You already know that something very similar happened when it was discovered that "all students of chronology" realized that there was no ZERO year. The destruction of Jerusalem had to be moved from 606 to 607 in order for 1914 to work. So it was a "fuzzy" date anyway, and moving it just one year was not a problem.
Therefore in Watchtower chronology, BOTH ends of this period were considered very fuzzy and flexible.

It is quite weird really. Cognitive dissonance perhaps?
Just recently I listened to one of the old recordings. The "infamous" talk given by District overseer Charles Sinutko, where the phrase “stay alive till 75” apparently got coined. It was entitled “Serving with everlasting view in mind” I am sure you know which one I am talking about. Br. Sinutko begins his talk by asking “do we know what 1975 means to us? Well we don’t have to guess what the year 1975 means for us. The WT May /1 1967 is very explicit; the end of 6000 years of human existence…and…possibly …the time when God executes the wicked” Unfortunately that word possibly got completely destroyed by what he says at the end of his talk, at around mark 20:20, when referring to the Society he says; “they know what’s coming, and don’t wait till 75, the door is going to be shut before then!”.  I can only imagine what those in attendance were thinking. It must have been hard for them not to “be looking forward to a date!”.
He of course wasn't the only person with a leadership role  to have voiced things this way. There were many, many others, as you personally know. Also, there is no doubt in my mind that those of the FDS, at least Fred Franz, really believed the end would come in 1975, although never officially taught, but merely insinuated. Logically, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

Thanks. But I was referring to the irony of responding to a point about "honesty" by creating additional, false, contradictory accounts -- alter-egos or "personalities," as it were. However, that is almost a perfect lead-in to what many of us saw happening not long after the 1970's came and went without the expectations fulfilled. I haven't studied the psychology of these things, so I can't speak to egos and ids as others might be able to. But I can agree that ego in the more common meaning of the word would help explain why so many people didn't want to admit having been wrong -- and were more than happy to adjust to the belief that this whole thing didn't really happen the way it did, and even if it did, it was only because a few brothers and sisters "ran ahead" of Jehovah's organization.
Even people who lived through the time period, as I did my along with own large family, including an extended family of Witnesses, were very quick to dismiss the idea that anything was ever said in the way it was actually said. A Bible study could actually read directly from photocopies of 10 to 20 year old publications to my mother and father, and they would deny that these were actual photocopies. My grandmother, who collected almost every special talk from every traveling visitor and Society (branch) representative, had all the old talks from the period, and even a circuit assembly from 1970, I think, that was just full of amazingly unscriptural talks about what the 1970's were sure to bring. My father was usually the "Sound Servant" (speakers, mics, mixers, amps, wires) at any assembly we attended, whether circuit, district, international, special meeting, and we often attended at least 6 assemblies a year due to this fact.  He kept a master copy of most of the assemblies and visits to the Norco Assembly Hall (the first one) and I would sometimes hear a talk again when he made copies of some of these talks on request. I heard the talks from this period more times than I care to remember.
Still, I found this time period to be exciting and entertaining. And I still think that the expectations--even though they were not fulfilled at the time many of us expected--were sill faith-strengthening rather than devastating, as they were to some. I thought they made us imagine more clearly what our lives could be like in just a few years, and it made us imagine what they might be like if things didn't happen as many expected. I never had a problem with this "exercise" of our faith. It was like a kind of mental "fire drill." I think it helped many to clarify their relationship with Jehovah. I was baptized in 1967, when the 1966 book that started this post was required reading for baptism. and began to auxiliary pioneer with all the magazines and books related to this issue. I was scheduled to graduate in 1975 but quit high school to pioneer full-time in 1973, not even 16 years old. This was recommended and encouraged by elders, circuit overseers and district overseers. My father, an electrical engineer, put some strict conditions on me if I were to leave school, including the amount of money I had to earn and split with the family per month, how soon I had to be able to support myself and leave the house (when I was 18 years old). So my life was defined around 1975 in such a way that I was not as apt to forget what happened and why.
But many persons who lived through the same period are now quick to deny that any of what happened actually happened, including things that happened to them personally. This is a disconcerting observation.

Perhaps I haven't been very clear with my wording on this forum. I don't actually disagree with a Governing Body existing over the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. That would be like me questioning why each congregation has an elder body. It is clear that the GB fulfills the role of an elder body over the entire congregation on earth.
What I take issue with is the unquestioned obedience that the GB demands. I have yet to receive satisfactory, Scriptural evidence for this view. Is this how the first century apostles perceived themselves? Any questioning by JWs is compared to the fatal murmuring of Korah and his associates, but Moses was a prophet for Jehovah God. When he spoke to the people, it was like God himself spoke. He was granted the authority by Jehovah to lead the Israelites like God. Jehovah made his divine support of Moses clear when he parted the Red Sea and performed many miracles in his name. When Moses spoke to the people with a thought generated by his own imperfect mind rather than God's, Jehovah actually removed his blessing of the Promise Land. The GB don't speak as prophets, and it is clear they often speak and direct with thoughts generated by imperfect, human minds rather than God's mind. They acknowledge that they have erred in their direction throughout the organization's history. So, how can they expect the same level of obedience that Moses received? It doesn't add up in my mind. Besides, it is Jesus who is the greater Moses and not the GB.
Now, you may say that prophets don't exist anymore, so it's unfair to expect prophets in this day and age. That's true. We no longer need prophets, because we have God's complete word in the Bible. I believe that Jesus Christ's leadership is expressed through the Bible. It trumps all human authority. It is the "check" to us all. The Bible stands alone. In my research, I pondered why Jehovah separated the roles of apostles and prophets into two groups in the first century. I have my own theory that Jehovah did so to prevent one  group from gaining too much authority--sort of like the checks and balances in the US government. But the GB acts as those taking the lead and guardians of doctrine. Instead of the Bible "checking" their authority as an independent entity (like an auditor), it has become completely intertwined with the GB. They have stated that they alone have been granted the capacity from God to properly interpret the Bible's message. So, no one else can use the Bible to check them, because they can simply discredit that individual by saying that he/she was not chosen by God to interpret the Bible. Therefore, their interpretation is invalid.
It's like when the gov't does an internal investigation...we roll our eyes. We know that it won't be too critical against itself, but instead create an outcome that is the most favorable. The GB has interpreted the Bible and structured the org in such a way that gives them maximum control and minimum accountability. They essentially play both sides of the fields: God's channel that deserves unquestioned obedience and the imperfect human group that err. Having to be submissive to a GB who play these 2 conflicting roles is very frustrating for me. I don't know how to work with them.
And while I've said a lot, I just want to be clear that I don't want to usurp anyone's authority--especially in God's religion. My questioning is how I make my faith and my ideology firmer. I'm a work-in-progress. I'm not so dogmatic to claim I have all the right answers. My views are evolving, and I appreciate the discussions on here.

Exactly, and this is what I tried to explain in the post above, when I said  “We can take this whole survival thing further into the stream of time. Even after being judged as sheep, and after entering the new world, our survival will always depend on obeying Jehovah’s instructions, since we will always be dependent on him to stay alive”.
Yes indeed, and it has apparently already been spun a certain way, according to those two paragraphs.
However, thinking about it logically does that kind of a spin make sense?  I see several problems with it. If we are obedient to the Slave now, we will be judged as sheep obviously, and if we are obedient now, it follows we will be obedient during Armageddon, as per the reasoning in par. 20.  So this is a closed circle, since one naturally leads to the other. Therefore on that basis, what is actually the point of those two paragraphs? And what is to say we are at liberty to apply Jehovah's saving arrangements in the past to what he will do in the future?
Because how can it be categorically said that there will be instructions given to us through some centralized body or agent? Or even congregation overseers? Am I to imagine elder John is going to receive a vision which he will then relay to the rest of the little group?
To go into even more detail, it was different  with the Israelites for example, coming out of Egypt, following Moses. This kind of a scenario will obviously be impossible during Armageddon, although similar scenes are depicted in our literature. However, if you think about it, something like that is not even remotely possible because:
How could we be organized into one large group when we are so scattered? Although we are one nation symbolically we are not one nation physically. The next congregation from us is 10 miles away, and even if we were grouped according to circuits, we might have a couple of thousand, with the next couple of thousand in the next city, miles away. On top of that, how are we going to travel with no fuel, (and with the frail and infirm) since there will be no one to operate the stations, and no electricity to pump the fuel out as there will be no one operating the generators, and no one supplying the fuel as there will be no drivers and there will be no pilots to operate planes, no captains to operate ships, and no one to operate the oil rigs.  How are we going to get any messages forwarded across miles and miles of land and sea? This is a very complex modern infrastructure we live in at the present time, and it is wholly reliant on workers, who will be dead. And on top of these obvious logistical and communicational problems, there will be masses of rotting corpses, poisoning the water and air, to contend with. What are we going to be drinking and eating while we are figuring this out? I am sure we can all think of so much more. So what I am trying to say is that it goes without saying we will evidently have to rely directly on Jehovah and on miracles he will probably perform at that time. It stands to reason we will all be direct witnesses of these miracles, and will experience them personally, without them going through some human centralized group, or agents.
If we are already judged as sheep before Armageddon, would it stand to reason that we would suddenly become disobedient, if we have proved by our life (on the basis of which we were judged) that we were worthy of being judged as sheep by our previous obedience?  It doesn’t make logical sense we would suddenly see the need to not follow instructions, especially after we have obviously been following instructions to get to where we are that point (judged as sheep) and especially when we had just witnessed the supernatural manifestations of the last prophesy being  fulfilled.  If we are honest, are many of us not already psyched up and eagerly waiting for some “special pronouncement” by the slave, so much so that most of us would be willing to move to Timbuktu at the drop of a hat, if those were the instructions given to us by them? And are we not sitting on the edge of our seats in anticipation and hint of any significant turn of events on the world scene any moment?
Wouldn’t it have been much simpler to say something along the lines of: “How will Jehovah preserve alive those who have been judged as sheep during Armageddon? We will have to wait and see. One thing we can be sure of is that Jehovah knows how to deliver people of Godly devotion. At that time all of us will most likely experience supernatural manifestations on our behalf, and we will want to put our full trust in Jehovah’s protective and life giving powers. Of course it won’t end there, as we will continue to do so after the dust of Armageddon has settled, and in to the distant future"......etc.
So I am still trying to figure out the motive behind those two paragraphs....
This is the scripture I always go to, to explain why it's reasonable to expect that God has an organized and a united people on earth today.

The focus is misplaced! Our loyalty is to Jehovah and Jesus only.  If we accept that the slave is being used by Jehovah we will do all in our power to keep our lives free from wrong and cooperate with them and make sure we do not contribute to Jehovah (and the people associated with his name) to be dragged through the mud! ... 
Unfortunately -  We are all (no matter how faithful we think we are) full of deviation (miss the mark ) - this is the reality of life!  If we do not recognize this fact, then we say we have no sin!  Then we do not need the ransom sacrifice. 
MY brother was in prison for the truth as a young man - he did not mention the offenses to me - but he told me that he was disgusted with some bad habits he saw there which are human deviations and take time to get rid of.  When people live in close proximity under stressful conditions these things tend to come to the surface. Seriously wrong things also occurred and people were dis-fellowshipped and other brothers had to avoid them. This created an extremely difficult situation for all. 
To my mind a place like Bethel is not a natural way of living and hence it is only a place for the strong.  One can see the frailty of human deviation and personality defects up-front - and it may come as a shock to the inexperienced person on the road of life. However, some are prepared to make the sacrifice to go and serve there.  However, we make it a kind of prestige thing - which is wrong.  The wish to service is a wonderful motivation but the underlying culture of prestige is wrong.  This demonstrates the quick way in which humans like to put themselves on pedestals or want to think of themselves as the cream of the crop.  Then they are shocked to see and discover feet of clay!  It takes great effort to stay humble because our imperfection makes us always come up with ways to justify ourselves or make us think we are "good". This is why I always avoid giving honor to people who came from Bethel and hate it when I hear others do this.  Often they have a superior attitude which I find telling.  I used to call them the spiritual elite because they act in that sinful way - but have stopped doing that.
We are all - just "people" like everyone else who is NOT serving Jehovah. The only way we are different to others:- we have been privileged to learn the future plans of Jehovah and dedicated ourselves Him and left the most debased of sins.  However, we need to "progress" with the help of the holy spirit.  If we only have a little bit of that spirit or we do not make an effort to ask and receive it and work in harmony with it - then we can soon find ourselves deviating from what is right.  I believe we can only stay in the truth if we have Jehovah's spirit......and some seem to barely make it because they are focusing more on other things - be it personal goals or just the stress of raising a family.
All people are imperfect.  The problem is that we have pink glasses on regarding our brothers when they actually are people who are fighting their own bad inclinations all the time. Yes we expect a high level of change in their lives and would like to think them perfect when they are not.  Two of the anointed in the time of the apostles dropped down dead after they had lied about the properties they had sold.  One anointed person was dis-fellowshipped because he had slept with his mother! ....and others were not condemning it! Some of our brothers who get dis-fellowshipped have committed multiple sins -  not just one - and then to crown it become rebellious when they are corrected! Judas was sinning over a long period of time! before he betrayed him.
I do not want to sound preachy - but we all know this - but we tend to have a blind eye to this.
We have to be very forgiving sometimes - be a bit more like Jehovah - who has seen all the wickedness right throughout mankind's history and that of his people (from ancient times till now).  We do have good examples in the Bible - but many of them also had serious flaws.  So when we see this we know that Jehovah is truly merciful and we keep on because we know that he is aware that we are imperfect flesh. He knows when we are sincere and doing all that is necessary to progress.
So - the expectation that others must be without serious flaw is fundamentally wrong!  

I see patriotism to the United States couched in semi-religious language. For most people this is not a bad thing. For many Christians it is a misplaced patriotism, because Christians --in solidarity with other Christians scattered throughout the world--do not identify with a single earthly nation:
(James 1:1) 1 James, a slave of God and of [the] Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes that are scattered about:. . . (James 1:26, 27) . . .. 27 The form of worship that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world.
(Psalm 39:11, 12) . . .Surely every earthling man is an exhalation. Seʹlah. 12 Do hear my prayer, O Jehovah, . . .  For I am but an alien resident with you, A settler the same as all my forefathers.
(Hebrews 11:13-16) 13 In faith all these died, although they did not get the [fulfillment of the] promises, but they saw them afar off and welcomed them and publicly declared that they were strangers and temporary residents in the land. 14 For those who say such things give evidence that they are earnestly seeking a place of their own. 15 And yet, if they had indeed kept remembering that [place] from which they had gone forth, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But now they are reaching out for a better [place], that is, one belonging to heaven. Hence God is not ashamed of them, to be called upon as their God, for he has made a city ready for them.
(1 Peter 1:1) 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the temporary residents scattered about in Ponʹtus, Ga·laʹti·a, Cap·pa·doʹci·a, Asia, and Bi·thynʹi·a, to the ones chosen
(1 Peter 2:11, 12) 11 Beloved, I exhort YOU as aliens and temporary residents to keep abstaining from fleshly desires, which are the very ones that carry on a conflict against the soul. 12 Maintain YOUR conduct fine among the nations, that, in the thing in which they are speaking against YOU as evildoers, they may as a result of YOUR fine works of which they are eyewitnesses glorify God in the day for [his] inspection.
In spite of all that, Fred Franz, at Bethel, from around 1976 to 1979, would make sure we had the American standard Thanksgiving meal (turkey, stuffing, gravy, cranberries, pumpkin pie) on the exact day of Thanksgiving, and he would make a point of saying that while the United States of America is celebrating its Thanksgiving, we have even more reasons to celebrate. I think most of us thought about it as a kind of inside joke that only Fred Franz would try to get away with, and which might stumble those on the outside if they knew about it. Fred Franz was known for saying things specifically to be provocative or make others uncomfortable. But this could also have been a trial balloon for a change, who knows?
 
 

I saw a cloud the other day that looked like Jesus

We're back to that problem again of trying to use the idea of conscience in a court of law as an obfuscation. You are right that very few Witnesses leave anything up to conscience. It's "spiritual" peer pressure to conform, where not conforming can result in anything from being looked down upon by peers, or a loss of privileges all the way up to being disfellowshipped yourself. I don't have a good solution, but I have seen the type of shunning of young family members that just seems childish on the part of the supposedly mature Witnesses who have to conform to the rule. 
I note that we no longer claim in court that corporeal punishment of minors is acceptable, and yet it obviously has Biblical precedent. I wonder if there's a way we would begin to conform to more modern norms of conduct, in obedience to the superior authorities in shunning cases, too.

Very true. But we all know what would happen if it was found out you went on vacation with your dfd daughter or son. (Not yours literally of course!) It's one of these frustrating hard to pin down situations. There is a supreme court case going on in Canada right now where the dfd ex- brother is suing. But that's not what I wanted to say, but what is interesting is that the WT appealing the case mentions this in defense: "Disfellowshipping is not “a mandatory church edict” that removes family love. Family members decide according to their conscience the extent to which they will continue family discourse".  Page 9, par 31
How can that be reconciled with what really happens?
To illustrate:  If it was a conscience matter, then if someones conscience said it was ok for them to spend time with their disfellowshipped relative, perhaps even go on vacation with them, then it shouldn't be a problem, and no one should judge that decision, just like if someone decided their conscience allowed them to take minor blood fractions. For that reason, because minor blood fractions really ARE a conscience matter, we don’t have articles giving us advice on how to avoid them, and videos showing us how someone successfully refused them etc. like we do with disfellowshipping.
So really, all the articles and videos are “biasing” us to shun, rather than truly leaving it up to our conscience. I am not saying this is right or wrong, I am just pointing out  that stating that it is a conscience matter is not correct, (actually it is dishonest) and could be used against us if proved.
Here is the case, but I know you probably won't bother to read it, and I don't blame you, you will just have to trust me that the quote I posted is really there
http://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/37273/FM010_Appellant_Judicial-Committee-of-the-Highwood-Congregation-of-Jehovah's-Witnesses.pdf
 
 
 

Yes. A 70 year period that ended in 539 would have to have started around 609. And this is a pretty good match for when Babylonian power reared its head over Assyria. The capital of Nineveh fell in 612 and Babylon took advantage and became the next world power. 609 was the year that Josiah died. Josiah was considered by many Jews to be the next potential Messiah, a king like David.
In fact, notice that 609 is exactly the year that the Watch Tower publications point to (indirectly) when it speaks of the end of the Assyrian empire. (Remember that the WTS arbitrarily adds 20 years to every date prior to 587 B.C.E., so that 607 B.C.E.is actually 587 B.C.E., and therefore 629 B.C.E. is actually 609 B.C.E.)
*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
According to the same chronicle, in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): “In the month Duʼuzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) Actually, Ashur-uballit was trying to reconquer it after having been driven out. This record is in harmony with the account relative to the activity of Pharaoh Nechoh recorded at 2 Kings 23:29, which activity resulted in the death of King Josiah of Judah (c. 629 B.C.E.). This text states that “Pharaoh Nechoh the king of Egypt came up to the king of Assyria by the river Euphrates”—evidently to help him. “The king of Assyria” to whom Nechoh came may well have been Ashur-uballit II. Their campaign against Haran did not succeed. The Assyrian Empire had ended. So this is an excellent match for the 70 years of Babylonian domination from 609 to 539, spoken about by Jeremiah:
(Jeremiah 25:11, 12) 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ . . . Just as the Watch Tower publications have explained it in the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book:
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
“These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) . . . Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.
So that is ONE period of 70 years that started in 609 and ended in 539.
The Bible, in the book of Zechariah, also mentions another period of 70 years that starts around 587 (destruction of Jerusalem) or even 588 when the siege began, and ends around 518. Since it's been so many months I'll repeat some portions of the post you referred to, where this was explained:
------- the remainder of this post copied from a previous post (JWI: 4/14/2017) above -------
(Zechariah 1:12) . . .“O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”
(Zechariah 7:5) . . .‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years. . .
(Zechariah 8:19) . . .‘The fast of the fourth month, the fast of the fifth month, the fast of the seventh month, and the fast of the tenth month will be occasions for exultation and joy for the house of Judah. . .
*** w96 11/15 p. 5 Does God Require Fasting? ***
For example, at one time the people of Judah had four annual fasts to commemorate the calamitous events associated with Jerusalem’s siege and desolation in the seventh century B.C.E. (2 Kings 25:1-4, 8, 9, 22-26; Zechariah 8:19)
According to our current understanding of the chronology that includes the supposed destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE, then this produces a contradiction, because we date the book of Zechariah as follows:
*** nwt p. 1662 Table of the Books of the Bible ***
Zechariah
Jerusalem rebuilt
518
520-518 [BCE]
If Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE, then 518 BCE is 69 years later, and therefore matches Zechariah's theme of 70 years of withheld mercy and indignities, and wailing and fasting over Jerusalem, which is now being rebuilt.
If Jerusalem had been destroyed in 607 BCE, then by Zechariah's time, in 518 BCE, it would have been 89 years of wailing and fasting.
Neither date is "Biblical" and neither date should really matter that much, but it is curious that 607 BCE is totally impossible from the perspective of secular evidence, and it becomes very difficult from the perspective of Biblical evidence. Yet 587 BCE is totally supported from the perspective of secular evidence and provides an excellent match to the Biblical evidence. There should really be no reason why we are not rejoicing that secular, historical, archaeological evidence for 587 BCE once again shows the Bible to be accurate and sound from a historical perspective.

I have not yet tried to completely decipher the method and reasoning that @Israeli Bar Avaddhon used in order to reach his current conclusions about these time periods. I apologize for that, but I don't think it hurts us to try to imagine what we would have come up with on our own, if it were not for the foundation already provided by the Watch Tower publications. This is also a method that can provide us with a bit of sympathy and empathy for those we meet who have tried to understand these difficult problems for themselves.
This can provide a kind of thought experiment that might even let us second-guess what the Watch Tower Society might come up with as an alternative in the event that the current view is changed. I don't claim that there is any real value in this, but it is "fun" when you get it right. I think several people here have had that experience.
So, let's pretend that we either have never heard of the current Watch Tower's view or we are just wondering what a "second-best" alternative view might have been to compare how much better, for example, the current Watch Tower's view is.
For these time periods, of 1290 and 1335 days, I think we have to start with the 1260 days. All three of these periods are named in the same chapter of Daniel. And only the 1,260 is also named in several other places to be mentioned at the end of this post.
As a starting method, I prefer to use the following as a foundation:
(2 Timothy 3:16-17) 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. It is implied here that we should not need to rely at all on secular historians, but that the Bible itself equips us with enough information to be fully equipped to teach and set things straight on this and any other Bible-based subject. We should note that Paul was most likely speaking of only the "Old Testament" here, as very little of the "New Testament" had been collected or even written during Paul's association with Timothy. The book of Daniel, in fact, had not been considered to be an inspired part of the canon by all Jewish leaders, either. Some still don't accept it, even if they accept all the other books of the "Old Testament." Unless it is found to contradict the remaining parts of the Bible canon, however, we can accept it as canonical. (Some portions of Daniel are considered canonical by some religions and not by others. For example, most Protestant Christians do not accept the inclusion of the following portions of (additions to) Daniel:  Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon.
Revelation is another book that required decades of of discussion before a consensus was reached that it could be included in the canon. It was one of the last books to be generally accepted, although 2 Peter and Jude might have also been considered questionable in some circles for just as long.
So, to start, let's look at all the places that mention the 1,260 days and the equivalent references to periods of "three and one-half times" or "[one] time, [two] times, and half a time," or 3 years and six months." The 1,290 and 1,335 also refer to a very similar time period with an additional 30 days and 75 days. (3 yrs, 7 mos; 3 yrs 8.5 mos.)
(Luke 4:22-30) . . .And they all began to give favorable witness about him and to be amazed at the gracious words coming out of his mouth, and they were saying: “This is a son of Joseph, is it not?” 23 At this he said to them: “No doubt you will apply this saying to me, ‘Physician, cure yourself. Do also here in your home territory the things we have heard were done in Ca·perʹna·um.’” 24 So he said: “Truly I tell you that no prophet is accepted in his home territory. 25 For instance, I tell you in truth: There were many widows in Israel in the days of E·liʹjah when heaven was shut up for three years and six months, and a great famine came on all the land. 26 Yet E·liʹjah was sent to none of those women, but only to a widow in Zarʹe·phath in the land of Siʹdon. 27 Also, there were many lepers in Israel in the time of E·liʹsha the prophet; yet not one of them was cleansed, only Naʹa·man the Syrian.” 28 Now all those hearing these things in the synagogue became filled with anger, 29 and they rose up and rushed him outside the city, and they led him to the brow of the mountain on which their city had been built, in order to throw him down headlong. 30 But he went right through their midst and continued on his way. (1 Kings 18:1, 2) 18 After some time, in the third year, Jehovah’s word came to E·liʹjah, saying: “Go, present yourself to Aʹhab, and I will send rain on the surface of the ground.” 2 So E·liʹjah went to present himself to Aʹhab, while the famine was severe in Sa·marʹi·a. (James 5:15-20) 15 And the prayer of faith will make the sick one well, and Jehovah will raise him up. Also, if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore, openly confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. A righteous man’s supplication has a powerful effect. 17 E·liʹjah was a man with feelings like ours, and yet when he prayed earnestly for it not to rain, it did not rain on the land for three years and six months. 18 Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the land produced fruit. 19 My brothers, if anyone among you is led astray from the truth and another turns him back, 20 know that whoever turns a sinner back from the error of his way will save him from death. . . (Revelation 11:1-7) . . .“Get up and measure the temple sanctuary of God and the altar and those worshipping in it. 2 But as for the courtyard that is outside the temple sanctuary, leave it out and do not measure it, because it has been given to the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months. 3 I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy for 1,260 days dressed in sackcloth.” 4 These are symbolized by the two olive trees and the two lampstands and are standing before the Lord of the earth. 5 If anyone wants to harm them, fire comes out of their mouths and consumes their enemies. If anyone should want to harm them, this is how he must be killed. 6 These have the authority to shut up the sky so that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying, and they have authority over the waters to turn them into blood and to strike the earth with every sort of plague as often as they wish. 7 When they have finished their witnessing, the wild beast that ascends out of the abyss will wage war with them and conquer them and kill them. (Revelation 13:3-10) 3 I saw that one of its heads seemed to have been fatally wounded, but its mortal wound had been healed, and all the earth followed the wild beast with admiration. 4 And they worshipped the dragon because it gave the authority to the wild beast, and they worshipped the wild beast with the words: “Who is like the wild beast, and who can do battle with it?” 5 It was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and it was given authority to act for 42 months. 6 And it opened its mouth in blasphemies against God to blaspheme his name and his dwelling place, even those residing in heaven. 7 It was permitted to wage war with the holy ones and conquer them, and it was given authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation. 8 And all those who dwell on the earth will worship it. From the founding of the world, not one of their names has been written in the scroll of life of the Lamb who was slaughtered. 9 If anyone has an ear, let him hear. 10 If anyone is meant for captivity, he will go into captivity. If anyone will kill with the sword, he must be killed with the sword. This is where it calls for endurance and faith on the part of the holy ones. (Revelation 12:11-17) 11 And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death. 12 On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing that he has a short period of time.” 13 Now when the dragon saw that it had been hurled down to the earth, it persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. 14 But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is to be fed for a time and times and half a time away from the face of the serpent. 15 And the serpent spewed out water like a river from its mouth after the woman, to cause her to be drowned by the river. 16 But the earth came to the woman’s help, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the river that the dragon spewed out from its mouth. 17 So the dragon became enraged at the woman and went off to wage war with the remaining ones of her offspring, who observe the commandments of God and have the work of bearing witness concerning Jesus. (Daniel 7:22-27) . . .and the appointed time arrived for the holy ones to take possession of the kingdom. 23 “This is what he said: ‘As for the fourth beast, there is a fourth kingdom that will come to be on the earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms, and it will devour all the earth and will trample it down and crush it. 24 As for the ten horns, ten kings will rise up out of that kingdom; and still another one will rise up after them, and he will be different from the first ones, and he will humiliate three kings. 25 He will speak words against the Most High, and he will continually harass the holy ones of the Supreme One. He will intend to change times and law, and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time. 26 But the Court sat, and they took away his rulership, in order to annihilate him and to destroy him completely. 27 “‘And the kingdom and the rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens were given to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One. Their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom. . . (Daniel 9:25-27) 25 You should know and understand that from the issuing of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Mes·siʹah the Leader, there will be 7 weeks, also 62 weeks. She will be restored and rebuilt, with a public square and moat, but in times of distress. 26 “And after the 62 weeks, Mes·siʹah will be cut off, with nothing for himself. “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.” (Daniel 12:5-13) . . .Then I, Daniel, looked and saw two others standing there, one on this bank of the stream and one on the other bank of the stream. 6 Then one said to the man clothed in linen, who was up above the waters of the stream: “How long will it be to the end of these marvelous things?” 7 Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was up above the waters of the stream, as he raised his right hand and his left hand to the heavens and swore by the One who is alive forever: “It will be for an appointed time, appointed times, and half a time. As soon as the dashing to pieces of the power of the holy people comes to an end, all these things will come to their finish.” 8 Now as for me, I heard, but I could not understand; so I said: “O my lord, what will be the outcome of these things?” 9 Then he said: “Go, Daniel, because the words are to be kept secret and sealed up until the time of the end. 10 Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand; but those having insight will understand. 11 “And from the time that the constant feature has been removed and the disgusting thing that causes desolation has been put in place, there will be 1,290 days. 12 “Happy is the one who keeps in expectation and who arrives at the 1,335 days! 13 “But as for you, go on to the end. You will rest, but you will stand up for your lot at the end of the days.” These verses should be our starting point, along with the context of each of these references. It's not often noted that the reference to 1,260 days in Revelation 11:2 is a reference to the "times of the Gentiles" in Luke 21:24. It's also not often noted that the reference to the "days of their prophesying" (of the two witnesses) is 1,260 days in which they have the authority to shut up the rain in Revelation 11:6 which matches the number of days that the rain was shut up in the days of Elijah. (A time period that gets repeated in Luke and James, as if it is of some importance.)

We also paid for people to move out of the building and ended up with about a dozen elderly persons who could not be bought out at any price. We would not be able to use the entire building until they died. We moved them all onto a couple of floors that Bethelites couldn't move into until they died. The construction crew had a kind of pseudo-celebration when the last one died.
It's a curious thing, though, that the Watch Tower's history has seen this happen several times. Russell spent his and his father's money in 1877 because 1878 was going to be the "resurrection" and change from fleshly body to spiritual body. Russell bought into Barbour's Herald and helped him distribute Barbour's "Three Worlds" / "Tabernacle Shadows" and then Russell's own "Object and Manner of the Lord's Return" in huge quantities in 1877 and 1878. Then in 1913 and 1914 almost all the finances of the Society were gone. MacMillan says the Society was completely broke by mid-1914. They had spent a tremendous amount on "Photo-Drama of Creation." There was not much need to hold anything back, as everyone involved in the Society was "going home" to heaven in 1914. Then, in 1924, just one year prior to the resurrection of the ancient worthies, Rutherford took possession of a couple of houses and a couple of expensive cars for David and Abraham to drive. (This is not your fore-fathers Oldsmobile!) Also in 1924, they completed gathering the money to build their own first factory at 117 Adams Street - 8 stories, taking up an entire block.

Yesterday I responded to a months-old comment, here, about putting Charles Taze Russell on a pedestal, and it was under the wrong topic, so I am moving it here, and editing and splitting it into two or three comments because it is so long. The part about "canonizing" refers to the God's Kingdom Rules book,
*** kr chap. 2 pp. 13-14 pars. 3-6 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
For instance, consider the prophecy of Malachi 3:1: “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight.”  In the modern-day fulfillment, when did Jehovah, “the true Lord,” come to inspect those who were serving in the earthly courtyard of his spiritual temple? The prophecy explains that Jehovah would come with “the messenger of the covenant.” Who was that? None other than the Messianic King, Jesus Christ! (Luke 1:68-73) As the newly installed Ruler, he would inspect and refine God’s people on earth.—1 Pet. 4:17. 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? . . . 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.  
 
I can't help but see that he very carefully and deliberately put himself on a pedestal. It appears to have been his plan from the moment he began spending money to put himself on Barbour's masthead. His publishing career started with material he borrowed and presented as his own, but with added "humility" about how he is just God's servant which soon turned into a very humble way of saying that he was "God's mouthpiece."
It's just that he was so good at 19th century "mock humility" that people truly thought he was humble.
But a good portion of the Bible Students acted in the ways in which we think of certain groups as "cults" today, in a pejorative sense. Many members of the Bible Students worshiped Russell but would never have noticed this, thinking of it as only love for their leader. Russell didn't ask for a high level of control at first, but the format of his interactions with them were mesmerizing, including the way the Watch Tower publications presented ideas. 
The Proclaimers book very clearly admits the "cult" attitudes:
*** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him.
People were naming their first male child after Russell and additional children after his most trusted associates. People were willing to believe constantly changing, contradictory and failing information about when the rapture would occur, when the door of opportunity to heaven was being shut, the "divination" of lengths of the entrails (passages) criss-crossing within the pyramids. Russell could do no wrong. Russell made up stories about his divorce trial that can now be shown to be outright fabrications. But he continued to print letters of praise about himself and letters that called him the "faithful and wise servant." Without a kind of cult following, you can't get away with claiming that you are the one and only faithful and discreet slave, and the one and only mouthpiece of God, and the one and only channel of communication through which the "wise virgins" can prove themselves to be wise and not foolish.
Rutherford, who wanted the high level of control, but without the mesmerizing charisma, was very clear about the fact that Russell was being worshiped. Referring to the attitudes toward Russell, Rutherford said the following, according to the Watchtower (and "Faith on the March" by MacMillan):
*** w66 8/15 pp. 508-509 Doing God’s Will Has Been My Delight ***
Why, brother, if I ever get out of here, by God’s grace I’ll crush all this business of creature worship. The 1975 Yearbook says the same:
*** yb75 p. 88 Part 1—United States of America ***
With the passing of time, however, the idea adopted by many was that C. T. Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant.” This led some into the snare of creature worship. They felt that all the truth God saw fit to reveal to his people had been presented through Brother Russell, that nothing more could be brought forth. Annie Poggensee writes: “This caused a great sifting out of those who chose to stay back with Russell’s works.” In February 1927 this erroneous thought that Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant” was cleared up. Of course it was Russell himself who pushed that idea that he alone was the "faithful and wise servant." He was satisfied for years to say it was all true Christians in this role, even while claiming that "meat in due season" came through the channel of the Watch Tower Society. But after about 18 years of publishing such claims in the Watch Tower he finally claimed (in 1896/7) that this role could be only one individual person at a time. He published several letters addressing him as "that Servant, faithful and wise" ["the faithful and discreet slave"] who provides "meat in due season" ["food at the proper time"].
*** yb74 pp. 97-98 Part 1—Germany ***
For that reason Brother Balzereit asked Brother Rutherford for permission to buy a rotary press. Brother Rutherford saw the necessity and agreed, but on one condition. He had noticed that over the years Brother Balzereit had grown a beard very similar to the one that had been worn by Brother Russell. His example soon caught on, for there were others who also wanted to look like Brother Russell. This could give rise to a tendency toward creature worship, and Brother Rutherford wanted to prevent this. So during his next visit, within hearing of all the Bible House family, he told Brother Balzereit that he could buy the rotary press but only on the condition that he shave off his beard. This type of thinking was evidently still going on. Rutherford knew that up until the 1920's pictures of Russell and his close associates were still being sold. (I have a couple from about 1915 with Russell, Rutherford and my great-grandfather.) But this evidently was still going on in 1931:
*** yb74 p. 106 Part 1—Germany ***
Now at the Berlin assembly [1931] he called attention to the many pictures of himself and of Brother Russell that were being sold in the form of postcards or pictures, some of which were even framed. After discovering these pictures at the numerous tables in the corridors around the hall, he mentioned them in his next talk, urging those in attendance not to buy any of them and asking the servants in charge in plain words to remove the pictures from their frames and to destroy them, which was then done. He wanted to avoid anything that could lead to creature worship. Even in one of our most current and recent study books, we have a similar claim about Russell:
*** kr chap. 2 pp. 22-23 par. 32 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
From within, the organization suffered turmoil as well. In 1916, Brother Russell died at only 64 years of age, leaving many of God’s people in shock. His death revealed that some had been placing too much emphasis on one exemplary man. Though Brother Russell wanted no such reverence, a measure of creature worship had grown up around him. Rutherford himself said this about Russell at his funeral:
"Charles Taze Russell, thou hast by the Lord, been crowned a king, and through the everlasting ages thy name shall be known amongst the people, and thy enemies shall come and worship at thy feet." Then of course, Rutherford approved and praised the importance of a book in 1917, The Finished Mystery, and proudly distributed it until 1932. It said the following (with page numbers, unchecked, as copied from Gruss):
"The special messenger to the last Age of the Church was Charles T. Russell.... He has privately admitted his belief that he was chosen for his great work from before his birth" (53). "Pastor Russell was the voice used. Beautiful voice of the Lord: strong, humble, wise, loving, gentle, just, merciful, faithful, self-sacrificing; one of the noblest, grandest characters or all history...Without a blemish in his character, with the loftiest ideals of God, and the possibilities of man, he towers like a giant, unmatched"'( 125). 'The mind of Pastor Russell was filled with Truth.... The mind of God's steward was as adamant. Adamant is literally, in Hebrew, 'a diamond point"' (383). "In 1878 the stewardship of the things of God, the teaching of Bible truths, was taken from the clergy, unfaithful to their age-long stewardship, and given to Pastor Russell" (386-87). "Then, in 1881, he became God's watchman for all Christendom, and began his gigantic work of witness.... He listened to the word direct from the mouth of God, spoken by holy men of old as moved by the Holy Spirit.(2 Peter 1:21.)... Pastor Russell's warning to Christendom, coming direct from God.... He said that he could never have written his books himself. It came from God, through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit" (387). "Pastor Russell was the most prolific writer of Biblical truth that ever lived.—Ezek. 9:2,3" (65). "The man in linen" was the Laodicean servant, the Lord's faithful and wise steward, Pastor Russell" (418). "The preaching and writings of Pastor Russell were heard by all classes of believers and unbelievers. It was the voice of Jehovah, represented as almighty to save, that was heard throughout the world" (422). The June 1, 1917 Watch Tower published by Rutherford, says:
"Truly there lived among us in these last days a prophet of the Lord.... Any thoughtful man can interpret prophecy after is has been fulfilled. Pastor Russell interpreted these prophecies twenty years ago...." Throughout the 1920's, the Society began distributing the "Biography of Charles Taze Russell" included with Studies in the Scriptures claiming that Russell himself privately admitted to others that he was the "faithful and wise servant."
 

Of course, Jesus never said anything about these things happening either in greater, more terrifying, or more "concentrated measure." So even if earthquakes, for example, really had started to happen in "concentrated measure" in 1914 (they didn't!) this would still have nothing to do with the sign of Matthew 24. All Jesus said was that great earthquakes, for example, would happen and therefore not to be misled by them, because these are not signs that the end is imminent. ("Do not be misled . . . the end is not yet!").
Of course, what you are talking about would still be the common reasoning, even if we somehow found a way to restart the generation with the start of the Governing Body around 1972, or the apostasy in 1980, or AIDS, or cart witnessing, or the re-assignment of the Governing Body as "guardians of doctrine" around 2000, or even some brand new unexpected event in 2018.
So I brought up the point about the sign in Matthew 24 to propose that we would still be wrong to try to find new reasons to claim that earthquakes and wars were somehow more "concentrated" after a new starting date -- even if they WERE!

I think I've presented the following alternative suggestion before (a couple of times):
It makes sense that when Jesus refers to "all these things" he is referring to the same "all these things" that the disciples asked him about:
(Mark 13:4) 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are to come to a conclusion?” In context, of course, "all these things" referred to the judgment on Jerusalem and therefore the toppling of the Temple buildings.
(Mark 13:1-4) As he was going out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him: “Teacher, see! what wonderful stones and buildings!” 2 However, Jesus said to him: “Do you see these great buildings? By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives with the temple in view, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately: 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are to come to a conclusion?” Since the word "synteleia" can refer to a final destruction and the word "parousia" can refer to a final judgment event, the disciples no doubt thought that these events were part of the final parousia/synteleia on the whole world. After all, Jerusalem represented the whole world to them. Therefore, Jesus' words to them started out "Do not be misled." or "Look out that nobody misleads you." For you are going to see a lot of things in this generation that you might think will be a sign of that final end, but remember that all these things are going to take place. A lot of things might fool you into thinking you are seeing that final sign. You will go through a lot of trials and tribulations. But don't be misled. The final end cannot happen until AFTER the only sign, which is what you will see come upon Jerusalem.
Jesus' prophecy about Jerusalem, of course, also contains a lot of good counsel about how easy it would be to also be fooled into thinking that this or that is a sign for the final parousia too. It's also easy for us to be fooled into thinking that wars, and earthquakes, and famines are a "sign" of the final parousia, when really we know that, even though all these things will take place, people will also be talking about peace and security right up to the end. People will be eating and drinking and marrying and going on with their lives right up to the end. People will be ridiculing the fact that all things are still going on just like they have been from the beginning, right up until the final end.

Matthew 24:34 " All the generations, then, from Abraham until David were 14 generations; from David until the deportation to Babylon, 14 generations; from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ, 14 generations". This is counting each person's lifetime as a generation
Insight to the Scriptures under Generation, p917:
A generation commonly refers to all persons who were born about the same time. (Ex 1:6; Mt 11:16)
Associated with this is the meaning “contemporaries.” At Genesis 6:9 it is stated concerning Noah: “He proved himself faultless among his contemporaries [literally, generations...
Length. When the term “generation” is used with reference to the people living at a particular time, the exact length of that time cannot be stated, except that the time would fall within reasonable limits. These limits would be determined by the life span of the people of that time or of that population. The life span of the ten generations from Adam to Noah averaged more than 850 years each. (Ge 5:5-31; 9:29) But after Noah, man’s life span dropped off sharply. Abraham, for example, lived only 175 years. (Ge 25:7) Today, much as it was in the time of Moses, people living under favorable conditions may reach 70 or 80 years of age.....
“This Generation” of Christ’s Prophecies. When Bible prophecy speaks of “this generation,” it is necessary to consider the context to determine what generation is meant. Jesus Christ, when denouncing the Jewish religious leaders, concluded by saying: “Truly I say to you, All these things will come upon this generation.” History recounts that about 37 years later (in 70 C.E.) that contemporary generation personally experienced the destruction of Jerusalem, as foretold.—Mt 23:36.
Later that same day, Jesus again used practically the same words, saying: “Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Mt 24:34) In this instance, Jesus was answering a question regarding the desolation of Jerusalem and its temple as well as regarding the sign of his presence and of the conclusion of the system of things. Before his reference to “this generation,” however, he had focused his remarks specifically on his “coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” and the nearness of the Kingdom of God. Immediately afterward, he continued with references to his “presence.” (Mt 24:30, 37, 39; Lu 21:27, 31) Jesus was using the word “generation” with reference to humans whose lives would in some way be associated with the foretold events.—Mt 24.
The people of this 20th-century generation living since 1914 have experienced these many terrifying events concurrently and in concentrated measure—international wars, great earthquakes, terrible pestilences, widespread famine, persecution of Christians, and other conditions that Jesus outlined" (in Matthew mark and Luke).
Dictionary definition of Generation: 1. the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time: the postwar generation. 2. the term of years, roughly 30 among human beings, accepted as the average period between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring. 3. a group of individuals, most of whom are the same approximate age, having similar ideas, problems, attitudes, etc. Compare Beat Generation, Lost Generation.   Definition of contemporaries: adjective 1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time: Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz. 2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand. 3. of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel. noun, plural contemporaries. 4. a person belonging to the same time or period with another or others. 5. a person of the same age as another. However, I do understand the idea that the Slave is trying to present when it says "Contemporaries" rather than generation. But even then, in general, contemporaries also live and die roughly at the same time. As regards the contemporaries of a certain time period, for example the contemporaries of WW, that would surely not include someone who was born in 1960 would it? As for the contemporaries of a certain sign, in this case the "time of the end", well the contemporaries of that time could be as long as the "time of the end" lasted! In view of the different time concepts of humans as opposed to Jehovah, the time of the end could be a 1000 years long! And all those people that lived and died (approx.12 generations), could be counted as generations living in the "time of the end" if we are going to use that formula...
So....I hate to say it, but since I agree with the explanation of the Insight Book, and the dictionary definitions, I have no choice in this stream of time but to question the accuracy of 1914, rather than the logical understanding of Generation...and Contemporaries.  So that's my alternative suggestion @Gone FishingBut of course I could be wrong.
 
 
 
 
 
 

That's actually very simple. Jesus used similar expressions a few times. They even matched the context of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21.
(Matthew 23:36-38) 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. 37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you. So a judgment day was coming upon Jerusalem, and it would come during the same time period in the lives of people who were contemporaries of Jesus, during the lives of the very same audience he was speaking with, the people who were alive at the same time as Jesus. We know that Jesus said this in about 33 CE and that "all these things" came about just as predicted. Jerusalem's judgment day came in 70 C.E. (which was about 37 years later). A great tribulation for many Christians in Jerusalem started around 66 C.E., which was 33 years later. 
The same idea can be seen in the expressions:
(Matthew 16:28) 28 Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.” (Mark 9:1) Furthermore, he said to them: “Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Kingdom of God already having come in power.”
(Luke 9:27) 27 But I tell you truly, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Kingdom of God.”
(Matthew 10:23) 23 When they persecute you in one city, flee to another; for truly I say to you, you will by no means complete the circuit of the cities of Israel until the Son of man arrives.
 
So the idea was that when people who were contemporaries of Jesus heard him make a promise, they would know it would happen in their lifetime, and they could therefore be happy and lift their heads up, knowing that the promise was close enough that most of them would live to see it. In the case of the promise that "some" would live to see Jesus coming in FULL kingdom power, Jesus made this come true for them just a week later through a vision on the "Mount of Transfiguration." But it proves the same point -- that it had to happen within the lifetime of the contemporaries within Jesus audience.
And that's exactly what happened with the promise in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, etc, when the disciples asked about when all these things related to Jerusalem's judgment day would occur. (Every one of the temple buildings' stones being toppled!) They could be happy that it was close enough to be within the lifetime of at least some of those standing there. 
Of course, it would have been some kind of a cruel joke if the prophecy had meant that it would finally get down to just the last few survivors before anyone could see the fulfillment. How could Jesus have said that "when you see these things, lift your heads up because you know that your deliverance is getting near" if he really meant something like this:
I know I said you should lift up your heads, but what I really meant is that almost all of you listeners are going to die first, and perhaps only a couple of people might still be alive when this generation is just about to finally die out. In about 50 years, if Jerusalem has not seen her judgment day by that time, you might want to remember who were the youngest persons in the audience when I made the uplifting promise, and then figure out about how much longer those young persons might live. Let's say there were a couple of 15 year-olds and they might survive until about age 80, which is 65 years after I am making this encouraging and uplifting promise that your deliverance is getting near. This means that, not you, but people who are alive 65 years from now might want to start watching these youngsters very closely in 65 years, when they will be 80 year old, to see just how long they are going to live. When the last one is about to die, you will know that I am just about to bring Jerusalem's judgment day.  If the last one starts to die, you will even at that point know the day and the hour, too! Even though this is ludicrous, for those who might have thought that the words about Jerusalem's judgment day also applied to his full and complete judgment day on the whole world, this could have resulted in something very much like that scenario. In fact, there is a kind of warning not to fall for this kind of thinking. It's at the end of John's gospel:
(John 21:21-23) . . .“Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.” 23 So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but he said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?” Jesus had already implied that "this generation" could die out completely before the final judgment day on the world. Note:
(Matthew 12:41, 42) 41 Men of Ninʹe·veh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because they repented at what Joʹnah preached. But look! something more than Joʹnah is here. 42 The queen of the south will beraised up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solʹo·mon. But look! something more than Solʹo·mon is here. Notice the brilliant way in which Jesus would not tell them that the final judgment would NOT also come in their same generation, but had still been clear that the judgment day on Jerusalem would come within their generation.
 

I'm not speaking for any of the other persons who have questioned it, but the only scripture that was used is this:
(Exodus 1:6) 6 Joseph eventually died, and also all his brothers and all that generation. The problem is that this scripture does not support what Brother Splane is saying. In fact, it more likely says exactly the opposite. Just look at the context to see that "all that generation" refers to Joseph and his brothers and all those who were alive at the same time as all of Joseph's brothers. It did not include all of Joseph's parent's generation, or his children's generation, or his grandchildren's generation. In fact, if you back up just 10 verses in the Pentateuch, you read in Genesis 50:23:
(Genesis 50:23) Joseph saw the third generation of Eʹphra·im’s sons, also the sons of Maʹchir, Ma·nasʹseh’s son. They were born upon Joseph’s knees. The third generation was contemporary with Joseph "born upon Joseph's knees, in fact. But they were not in the same generation as Joseph. They were, just as it says, the "third generation."
But first there is an even clearer reason to see that this explanation is wrong. In fact, Brother Splane accidentally ruined his entire explanation using his own words in the talk. Listen closely to the video above from the point marked 2m:38s to 2m:53s. These fifteen seconds prove that his reasoning is false.
He says:
But now what did Joseph and his brothers all have in common? They were all contemporaries. They had all lived at the same time. They were part of the same generation. So a quick test: Was Joseph Rutherford part of that first group? Was A. H. MacMillan? Was W. E. Van Amburgh? The answer is YES, according to Brother Splane, at the point from 7m:38s to 7m:54s in the video above. Who else was part of that second group? At 11m:16s to 11m:28s, he adds: "...in addition, there are Karl Klein, John Barr, Albert Schroeder. All the current members of the Governing Body are also part of 'this generation.'"
Now it's easy to see what's wrong with this picture, and why Exodus 1:6 actually disproves the currently proposed theory:
Were the current members of the Governing Body contemporaries of Rutherford, MacMillan and Van Amburgh? NO!! Of course, not! Rutherford died in 1942 Brother Sanderson was born February 4, 1965. He was baptized just days after he turned 10, on February 9, 1975. So it's not likely that he became "anointed" (a requirement to be in the second group) until 1975 or after. That's 33 years after Rutherford died! So this alone proves that they were not all contemporaries. The same is true of all members of the current Governing Body. They were not all contemporaries with the persons in the first group. We could paraphrase what Brother Splane said about Exodus 1:6:
But now what did the members of this first and second group of brothers all have in common? They were NOT all contemporaries. They had NOT all lived at the same time. So they were NOT part of the same generation. In order get this flaw in the logic past us without too many people noticing, some "sleight of hand" was necessary. It was important to interrupt the identification of the first group with their obvious contemporaries while still under the definition based on Exodus 1:6  that they ALL had to be contemporaries. Then the word "all" was changed to "some" and was slipped in quickly without any emphasis on the word "some" at the 8m:20s mark. Then the word "some" was slipped in again with just slightly more emphasis at around the 9m:40s mark. Here's how:
He does OK up to 7m:54s while still speaking of real and actual contemporaries in the "first group." Then, at 8m:20s into the video Brother Splane gives away the first clue that shows where the reasoning went wrong. In speaking of the second group and mentioning Knorr, Swingle, Suiter, Henschel and Gangas, he says that "They were anointed contemporaries of some in the first group." He does it again at 9m:40s to 9m:54s, where he says: "In order to be part of this generation, someone would have had to have been anointed before 1992, because he would have to have been a contemporary of some of the first group."

This is the final part of the discussion of the December 3, 1924 advertisement for the "Angels and Women" book where the Golden Age responds to the two letters:
One letter showed concerns about the spiritistic origin of the book and one whole-heartedly endorsed it. The reply is shown in full:
As expected by the order and content of the letters, the Society was going to repeat its current stance and offer a small (dismissive) defense to take care of the slight objection.
We do apparently learn that it was revised under Russell's supervision, but Woodworth (the Golden Age) editor has also claimed that Russell was supervising every aspect of the work since 1916 from beyond the grave (beyond the vail/veil). So we don't really know if Brenisen (Brenneisen) started work on this before 1916 or not. (Later we'll see a reason to believe that Woodworth is referring to Russell supervising the revision after he died: 1916 through 1924.) 
The connection to "The Vow" would seem to be obvious. But note that the answer is that this book is no more wrong than to read books by the "faithful and discreet slave" on the subject of spiritism. Perhaps it was the added appendix with scriptural citations that made this rationalization possible. The book is claimed to have provided "new light" in that it gives a better understanding of the Devil's organization, and gives a clearer vision of "how" Satan overreached the angels and humans.
The street address is not given, just a post office number. This is thought to be Brenisen's publishing company.