ComfortMyPeople

Now who's going back to Russell?
The Bible might be consistent, but we aren't. We don't believe the 1,260 days means exactly 1,260 days in the fulfillment of any prophecy about the 1,260 days. (in either Daniel or Revelation). Also we don't teach that 1,260 days means 1,260 years in either of of those prophecies.
Also, a Biblical Jewish month was not thirty days. A Biblical Jewish month was always based on the "new moon." So that it was really 29.5 days long. This means that in practice there were six 30-day months, and six 29-day months every year. A 30-day month was only used as a way to give a close approximation to a range of months, a calculation from a starting point to an ending point. For example, the distance from the 17th of the 2nd month to the 17th of the 7th month was sometimes 146, sometimes 147, and sometimes 148 days. But because it is a multi-month span, the Bible rounds it off to 150 days. The distance from the 17th of the ninth month to the 17th of the 2nd month (of the following year) was sometimes 146, sometimes 147, sometimes 148, and sometimes 176, sometimes 177, and sometimes 178 days. The longer time periods over came up every 3 years or so, so if they are averaged in, then the average for a 4-year period using the ideal number of months in 4 years (48) would give often give you a 30.15 day month. So you can see why the 30 day month was useful for a quick approximate calculation of date ranges. 
That 30.15 day month average over 4 years, was still actually made up of months, where half of them were 29 days and half were 30 days. Here's a specific example that often happened. Each year was typically 354 days and every 2 to 3 years it could be 384 days, when an entire month was added for a leap year. So:
354+384+354+354 equals 1,446 days Assuming 12 months a year, that's 48 months Divide 1446 by 48 = 30.15 But it was really 49 months because there was one leap year in the mix: 1446 divided by 49 = 29.51, which is the distance from one new moon to the next new moon. So it should be clear why the Bible would use an average of 30 days to approximate a time span of 42 months as 42 x 30 = 1,260. In real life a real 42 month period was always  1,239 or 1,240 days. It was NEVER 1,260 days. But a 3.5 year period that was called 42 months, was actually a 43-month period (very rarely it was 44 months). Which means that the 3.5 year period was 1,269 days.
If you have worked in banking or finance, you probably know that we still use the 30 day month, and therefore the 360 day year in some financial calculations. It's one of the built in functions in Microsoft Excel. There is evidence, I'm told, that the Babylonians used it, too.
The DAYS360 function in Microsoft® Excel is used to calculate the number of days between two dates based on a 360-day year ...

This type of thinking is very appealing. I have used the same ideas in my own discussions at the door and with Bible studies for several  years. So I understand the temptation to apply everything to 1914 whether it was developed in 1844, 1914, or 1944. The strong temptation to see a great world war as a "sign" is probably the very reason that Jesus repeated the point so many times -- that those who look for a sign should not be misled by wars or rumors of wars. 
A great earthquake would also sound like a sign of the end, or perhaps a perceived increase in earthquakes. The same could go for an increase in great pestilences, or great famines and food shortages. These things cause a lot of fear and concern, and often devastating loss of life. So it was natural that the disciples would have looked to such things as "the SIGN."
The Watch Tower Society, for many years, stated that that such things (wars, earthquakes, etc) were NOT signs of the "presence" or "parousia." From the 1890's up until about 1931, the Watch Tower Society promoted books that made this point. These books evidently sold in the millions of copies. The WTS reported that 100,000 "Studies in the Scriptures" sold in 1931 alone. (This was no longer the teaching in 1931, of course, but it had been the teaching for decades, and the WTS still had a lot of these books left to sell, after most of the doctrines changed between 1927 and 1929.)
Russell thought Jesus was saying that we should not be misled about wars, earthquakes, pestilence, etc., because this was not the sign. These were just the things that would continue to happen throughout history.  A Bible paraphrase, called the Message, evidently understands it similarly by rendering Matthew 23:4-8 like this:
Jesus said, "Watch out for doomsday deceivers. Many leaders are going to show up with forged identities, claiming, 'I am Christ, the Messiah.' They will deceive a lot of people. When reports come in of wars and rumored wars, keep your head and don't panic. This is routine history; this is no sign of the end. Nation will fight nation and ruler fight ruler, over and over. Famines and earthquakes will occur in various places. This is nothing compared to what is coming.
Russell also said that these so-called signs, just referred to the routine history of mankind for the last 18 centuries. Not even the changes brought about by World War I made Russell think to change this idea.

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

I am not a preterist. That's because I believe the PAROUSIA and SYNTELEIA and APOKALYPSIS and EPIPHANEIA and THERISMOS (and millennium, of course) are still future. I also believe that Jesus has already been enthroned in kingdom power, sits at God's right hand, and that his invisible presence has begun, and that we are living in the last days, and that the times we are living in give proof that the only real solution to man's problems is the intervention by the Kingdom of God through Christ Jesus. This is the message that I preach, because I look for agreement in the congregation not disagreement.
(1 Corinthians 1:10) 10 Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.
What I think might be true, or it might not be. I hope and expect to be set straight if these scriptures and evidence are not understood correctly. There are several people at Bethel who know exactly what my questions are and they know why these questions should be dealt with. I know that people have been thought of as not true Jehovah's Witnesses for having these questions, but I have never caused trouble** with my beliefs, have never been sanctioned for them, and have never lost privileges over them except to the extent that I have turned down a few assignments and have always been able to swap assignments with others if I felt I could not conscientiously present the material as assigned. My public talk assignments typically cycle through 5 of the outlines talks, and I have given at least 20 different outline talks, and a few different non-outline talks over the years, and there is not one thing in any of those talks that I disagree with in the slightest.
**If you think that being on a discussion forum is "causing trouble," remember that anyone here can easily think of me, or at least pretend to think of me, as merely expressing the kinds of questions that can come up in field service due to the fact that all of these arguments have existed in some form or another for hundreds of years. Consider this a chance to practice overcoming objections, just as we sometimes hear in sample demonstrations at the midweek meetings.
If you have been to the convention this year you might actually hear some preterist-sounding discussion on Sunday regarding Daniel 12. In effect, believing all of it was fulfilled in the past produces nearly the same effect as preterism. But what must have sounded the most preterist in my previous post is actually found in the Watchtower, although these points have gone through some slight adjustment, but never explicitly abandoned. Here's an example regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and the "great tribulation."
*** w78 8/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
In view of the terrible destruction of Dresden, Stalingrad, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, how could Jesus describe what befell Jerusalem in 70 C.E. as a ‘great tribulation such as had never occurred before, nor would occur again’?
That prophecy had a future application beyond what occurred to Jerusalem and on the Jews in 70 C.E., but it also was true as to the history of that city and nation.
These words are in Jesus’ prophetic reply to the apostles’ question about his future presence and the conclusion of the system of things. (Matt. 24:3, 21; Mark 13:19) Jehovah’s Witnesses have often pointed out that much of what Jesus there foretold had two fulfillments: First, a limited fulfillment in the developments leading up to and including the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish system of things in 70 C.E. . . .
For Christians living in Jerusalem and Judea who would be directly affected by the end of the Jewish system of things, the warning to keep alert was vital. The Roman armies surrounded the city in 66 C.E., but then unexpectedly withdrew. That was the specific signal that Jesus had mentioned in Luke 21:20-22. And history tells us that obedient Christians responded by fleeing from the city of Jerusalem and from Judea. So it is reasonable to apply also to the literal city of Jerusalem and Judea what Jesus next said, about the “great tribulation.”
The destruction brought by the Romans in 70 C.E. was more extensive and terrible than when the Babylonians destroyed the city of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. Also, the tribulation in 70 C.E. brought the permanent destructive end to the Jewish-built city and temple and the system of worship centered around it. So Jesus was correct in prophetically describing the events in 70 C.E. as “great tribulation such as has not occurred [on that city, nation and system of things] since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again.”
. . .
And since then we have many times expressed that these words had an exact meaning for the first fulfillment, even if that fulfillment is considered miniature compared to the judgment event that brings a "destructive end" [SYNTELEIA] upon all the nations.
*** w81 11/15 p. 18 pars. 8-9 ‘Stay Awake and Keep Your Senses’ ***
8 However, Christians who had stayed awake and had kept their senses were already out of Jerusalem and all Judea, having fled to places of security when the opportunity came after the year 66 C.E. By believing the prophetic words of Jesus and acting upon them, they survived. But, when that “great tribulation” came upon the Jews in 70 C.E., there was no longer any time for them to flee. Several thousand who tried to get out of the city through the Roman encirclement were caught by soldiers, who even cut open some of those Jews to get the gold that many of them had swallowed. . . .
9 That was indeed a severe “tribulation” that came upon the Jews, exactly as Jesus had foretold. (Luke 19:43, 44)
*** w83 8/1 p. 24 par. 9 “The Israel of God” and the End of the Gentile Times ***
What the inquiring apostles witnessed down to the end of the first century C.E. was a miniature fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy, in the way of famines, earthquakes, pestilences, wars and persecutions, as well as the wiping out of “the Jerusalem today.”
There have even been Watchtower articles that indicated that all of the features, up until the actual "sign" were fulfilled in the first century. This included the wars, famines, earthquakes, pestilences and even the preaching of the good news in all the inhabited earth had a fulfillment in the first century:
(Romans 10:16-18) 16 Nevertheless, they did not all obey the good news. . . . the word about Christ. 18 But I ask, They did not fail to hear, did they? Why, in fact, “into all the earth their sound went out, and to the ends of the inhabited earth their message.”
(2 Timothy 4:17) 17 But the Lord stood near me and infused power into me, so that through me the preaching might be fully accomplished and all the nations might hear it; . . .
(Colossians 1:23) . . .of that good news that you heard and that was preached in all creation under heaven. . . .
The view that Jesus words had a fulfillment in the first century does not in any way discount a larger fulfillment.

The SIGN (pt 2 of 2)
In the first part (The SIGN, pt 1 of 2) it was indicated that Jesus had been asked about a sign because the disciples wanted to know when this complete destruction of the temple was going to occur. Jesus indicates that they can expect all kinds of troubles right up until the judgment on Jerusalem begins, but that there would be no advance warning signs. Of course, people would be claiming that this or that sign was the evidence, but these would be from people who misunderstand, some sincere, some just false prophets, who would claim they understood various events as part of the sign. This becomes more evident, I think, when we pick up in the middle of Jesus' answer that ended above with the paragraph that loosely matches Matthew 24:21-22. I'll repeat that last paragraph before going on:
Jesus: This is the beginning of a true judgment event the likes of which you have never seen. Nothing like it has ever happened upon Jerusalem before. It's going to be worse than even the tribulation upon Jerusalem back in Daniel's day. It's only because there will be a break in the tribulation that any persons in Jerusalem will survive at all.
When you now find yourselves in the midst of this judgment event upon Jerusalem [this Parousia], it is even more important that you are not misled by false signs. Expect people to say that the Christ is here or there. Or you might meet someone who claims to be Christ. And they could even be performing powerful works. This can even mislead the chosen ones. But I am warning you in advance.
And people are also going to say that Christ is around here or there, but you just can't see him right now because he is in some other place, like out in the desert, or he's here but he is just not visible to you now because he is in some inner room. Don't believe it. You'll know that can't be true because the true PAROUSIA is going to be like LIGHTNING that shines from one end of the horizon all the way over to the other horizon. You personally will have no reason to doubt it when you see it anyway, because circumstances will make it obvious, the same as if two people were working or sleeping together and one just suddenly disappeared, leaving the other behind. Anyone could spot these circumstances from a mile away. (L17:37)
Because the true SIGN that you are asking about can't appear until immediately AFTER those days when the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven. That's the significance of the change that will come about for you when Jerusalem falls completely. There will be no more Jewish system of things. Your entire world will change. Only THEN will the TRUE SIGN appear: the SIGN of the Son of Man [the equivalent of the Parousia judgment event now ready to come upon the entire world at any time].
When the full and complete SIGN of the Son of Man does appear in heaven AFTER those days, it will be when ALL the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, when they will ALL see the Son of Man appear in heaven with power and great glory. This is when he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound to gather together, to "HARVEST," the chosen ones from one end of the earth to the other.
(1 Corinthians 15:51, 52) . . .We will not all fall asleep in death, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we will be changed.
(Matthew 13:39-43) . . .The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels. . . . 43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.. . .
[So it should be clear that you aren't going to get any specific sign or signs until the TRUE SIGN, the SIGN of the Son of Man. And since that's the ONLY sign, then it's only when you see ALL these other things have happened [right up until the darkening of the sun and moon, and the falling of the stars, that you know that the SIGN, the Son of Man, is now finally NEAR at the doors. [So again, this is a reason why you won't be misled by anyone claiming that I had already arrived, here or there performing powerful works or giving signs to fool even the chosen ones, or that I had arrived over here or over there, but that you just couldn't see me because I was not visible, and off in the wilderness or hidden in a room.] Because NOW you know that I am NEAR, and just about to arrive. You won't need any advance sign, and you won't get any advance sign, because you already know what season you are in. You are in the final season before the harvest. Just like the fig tree that grows young branches and leaves you know that summer harvest is near. You, too, are in the final generation that will come to see this particular "harvest." It will happen as sure as you know that summer comes around.
[But you might still wonder why I give you no advance warning sign.] It's because "Concerning that day and hour, NO ONE CAN KNOW, not even the angels. Not even the Son knows. Only the Father knows. [Because the times and seasons are in HIS jurisdiction.] It's going to be just like it was for most of the people before the Flood in the days of Noah. The PAROUSIA, judgment event, back then came as if with no warning. [It's true that Noah did some preaching, and the people should have repented when they found out what God purposed to do.] But those people just went right on living there life without a care, RIGHT UP UNTIL THE VERY DAY that Noah went into the ark and the judgment event surprised them and swept them all away. That's the same as it will be with the PAROUSIA of the Son of Man. [The PAROUSIA will also come upon the world just as it came upon the people of Sodom, who had no idea what was going to happen to them RIGHT UP UNTIL THE VERY DAY that Lot went out of the city and it rained fire and sulphur, and the judgment event took them away by surprise. It's as if two men were in the field, and without any warning, one gets taken along -- disappears -- and the other, to his surprise, is abandoned. [That's how sudden and surprising and without warning it will be.] It's as if two women were grinding at the same hand mill, and one woman suddenly disappears, and the other is suddenly abandoned. Imagine the surprise. [But that's the way it's going to have to be, and of course, it couldn't be that way if I gave you any kind of advance warning sign.]
[You might think that because you are part of the chosen ones, that I would certainly grant you some kind of sign, but it won't be that way this time.] It's just like when a thief comes to your house one night. If there had been some kind of announcement then the householder would have known and would not have been surprised. But you need to be ready at all times, because you, even though you are chosen ones, you won't know when I am coming. It will be at a time you don't expect it.
So I'm going to give you a few more illustrations to help you remember what is required to be ready at all times. First is an illustration about a faithful slave and an unfaithful slave. What happens when the master leaves a large household full of servants, and must leave the servants in charge of running the household smoothly until he returns? What happens when that return might be delayed? How do the servants usually act? What kind of actions would show a servant to be faithful and wise? What kind of actions would show a servant to be a wicked slave?  etc...
Here's another illustration about foolish and wise virgins. [Same idea.] Here's the situation . . . what would show these virgins to have been wise? What would show these virgins to have been foolish? etc...
Remember the point: keep on the watch because you will not know the day or the hour.
Here's another illustration about foolish and wise slaves who are given investments by their master. Here's the situation . . . What would show whether these slaves were foolish or wise?
Here's another illustration about how when the Son of Man comes in glory, and all the angels with him, about how the "harvest" separates sheep-like persons from goat-like persons. . . What would show whether these persons were sheep-like, or goat-like? etc. . .
 

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

I'm in full agreement that the term  "governing body" is a legal term, and for us it is a body of men who are charged with responsibility for making sure that the Christian congregation is protected from sectarianism. I think that's a pretty good description of their primary purpose. And of course, they absolutely try to protect or guard the current doctrines from dissension through private interpretation. But many times this private interpretation has already been incorporated into the body of doctrines. Obviously, we had about 100 years of privately interpreted "type-antitype" doctrines that were beginning to be removed around the years 1999-2002. Over 120 of these doctrines were removed in one sweeping move between the end of 2014 to the beginning of 2015. (3/15/2015 Watchtower). So the charge of the Governing Body can sometimes be to guard private interpretations. And we are happy to have very few of these remaining.
FWIW, I appreciate very much what they are charged to do, and the heavy responsibilities that they are appointed to take on.
Paul was approved for his work, just as you say, but Paul also went to great pains in Galatians to show how for at least 14 years he was NOT approved by the "governing body" of Jerusalem (Gal 2:1; 2 Cor 12:2). The way in which the apostles wrote letters that included "decrees" to be observed, however, is not necessarily applicable to the "Governing Body" of today. That's because the activities and writings of the first century apostles became the foundation of the Christian congregation. And even then, these were directly appointed by Jesus, so that Jesus was still the only true cornerstone of the foundation of the congregation.
(1 Corinthians 3:11) 11 For no one can lay any other foundation than what is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
(Ephesians 2:19, 20) 19 So you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, 20 and you have been built up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone.
Unless the Governing Body wishes to begin teaching that they are also apostles, there is no direct parallel to the idea of the current Governing Body also issuing decrees. I know you didn't say that directly, anyway, but the implication is there. But I should add that don't see anything wrong with the current Governing Body issuing something akin to "decrees." And these are often directly related to unity of teaching, consistency of preaching, setting priorities for various ministry efforts, preventing dissension, correcting error, protecting from sectarianism, etc. -- all the same things you mention. The difference is that we should question them, and study these "decrees" carefully, and never consider them to be at the same level as Jehovah's Word the Bible.
Just something interesting here, I noticed that one of the decrees you mentioned was in 1 Cor 11:16 which says:
(1 Corinthians 11:16) 16 However, if anyone wants to argue in favor of some other custom, we have no other, nor do the congregations of God.
This is actually one of the places where we can get the idea that the current Governing Body should be welcoming questions that argue in favor of a different custom on some subjects for which the Bible has not provided a guide. (<-- @Anna -->) Notice that Paul appears to expect that on most subjects, anyone might wish to argue in favor of another viewpoint. He never says this is wrong or out of place. He wanted things to be orderly, of course, and in those days they used Jewish synagogues as meeting places, but the Christians allowed men and women to learn together, which was not a custom of the Jews in those places. Therefore, while a man could ask a question, he wanted the women to go through their husbands at home. This made perfect sense when we consider the prejudices of the societies under which they wished to spread the good news without hindrance. But there might be another custom that would work in a different place and time, one could argue. In this case, Paul implies that these questions have already come up, and "we have no other" alternatives to offer, nor do the other congregations.
Unfortunately, we have no scriptural reason to say that it was a "Governing Body" who had approved these "decrees." Just because the body of elders at Jerusalem had more persons than just the 12, doesn't mean that the influence of the apostles was not important here. We do not even know for sure if any of the original apostles of Jesus were themselves literate and were able to write the gospels and letters we have attached their names to. We believe that Mark wrote for Peter, we even believe that Paul may have had a secretary due to eyesight issues or some other reason. The book of Matthew does not say it was written by a disciple named Matthew. In fact, all the gospels are anonymous, with names only added in later traditions. We know that if John wrote the book of John that the book of Revelation might be by a different John if we were to go by the style of Greek. But if these apostles used amanuenses then this could explain the differences. The main point however, is that we get the view of the apostles through the Christian Greek Scriptures, and it is also in this way that the apostles and prophets of the first century made up the foundation of the congregations. Therefore, we can just as well get the view of the apostles through those who worked with them, Barnabas, James (Christ's brother), etc. And, for all we know, these men were also counted as apostles, or sent-forth ones. Besides the reason for the decree in Acts 15 and therefore in Acts 16:4 was necessary as a way of apologizing for the mistake that Jerusalem had been making as they were trying to put a burden on Gentiles that was far above the burden that was put upon Jewish proselytes. We don't even have proof that this particular decree was intended to continue after enough Gentiles in the congregation could question it's continued value. There could have come a time after it became obvious that the Jewish Christians with weak consciences had matured and were no longer stumbled by the fact that the Gentiles needed no form of Jewish custom to follow.  (We do have evidence in 1 Cor 8 that Paul did not always follow the decree himself, implying that some of the items on that decree might have been a right fit for the circumstances of the current congregations at that time.)
I don't believe they were in violation of Jesus' exhortation. Jesus had asked the apostles to stay behind in Jerusalem likely because questions like this would come up among the Jewish congregations that they could deal with better from that city, where Jews continued to travel in and out of until 70 CE. It made it more efficient to build up Jewish Christians all over the world from a single place, and the body of apostles would be better equipped to follow the idea of "to Jews I became a Jew" (1 Cor 9:20) while a Roman citizen like Paul could focus on Gentiles (to Greeks I became a Greek).

Obviously, Revelation doesn't identify the enthronement as the Parousia, so that this first sentence (on its own) comes close to a type of circular reasoning. It's like saying "I don't believe they are separate because when Revelation mentions one of the two events, I don't believe they are separate there, either. Of course, I know you are focusing on the "short while" from an enthronement to the time the Parousia is over. (Which is at the end of the thousand year reign, per your posts.) But you are still defining Parousia according to beliefs that are not stated in Scripture.
The Bible says that Jesus reigning as king is the equivalent of "sitting at God's right hand." We should have already known that from all the references to his Kingship in the first century. He is called "King of Kings" not the future King of Kings. He is said to have been given a position above all governments and lordships and above every name named when he sat down at the right hand of God.
Remember, please, that 1914 was supposed to be the true "end of the Gentile Times" which should be defined as the time when "he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power." That's actually how it was defined when it was predicted for 1914. (And then 1915, and then 1918, and then 1925.) So the "predicted" end of the Gentile Times never occurred in 1914 anyway.
But Jesus was already enthroned at his resurrection when he sat down at the right hand of God. The claim that this was just over his congregation is not scriptural:
(Matthew 28:18) . . .“All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.
(Ephesians 1:20, 21) . . .Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named, not only in this system of things but also in that to come.
(Hebrews 1:3) . . .he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
(Hebrews 7:2) . . .First, his name is translated “King of Righteousness,” and then also king of Saʹlem, that is, “King of Peace.”
(Hebrews 8:1) . . .he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,
(1 Timothy 6:15) . . .He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords,
(Revelation 1:4, 5) . . ., 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”. . .
(Revelation 2:26) 26 And to the one who conquers and observes my deeds down to the end, I will give authority over the nations,
(Revelation 3:21) 21 To the one who conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, just as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.
Of course, there are many more Scriptures than that, but there is one particular one, that might be especially relevant here:
(1 Corinthians 15:23-26) 23 But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence [or, AT HIS PAROUSIA]. 24 Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
Notice how Paul replaces the phrase "He will sit at God's right hand" with "he must rule as king." In fact, notice that when the Gentile Times are over Paul refers to it as "the end" as in, the final end, not merely a conclusion or a 100+ year presence. Christ is resurrected, then those who belong to Christ are resurrected at his parousia to join him in the destruction of those Gentile governments and authorities and powers.
Until that time those who belong to the Christ (spritual Israel: "Jerusalem") have been warred upon and trampled upon by the Gentile, but they join him in battling and putting an end to all Gentile rulership:
(Revelation 13:7) . . .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. [Gentiles]
(Revelation 17:14) 14 These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him who are called and chosen and faithful will do so.”
(Revelation 2:26, 27) . . .And to the one who conquers and observes my deeds down to the end, I will give authority over the nations,[Gentiles] 27 and he will shepherd the people with an iron rod so that they will be broken to pieces like clay vessels, just as I have received from my Father.
The specific argument made from the term "short while" is not definitive. That's because from Jehovah's perspective, the time has been short since the last days began.
(1 Peter 1:4-6) . . ., 5 who are being safeguarded by God’s power through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last period of time. 6 Because of this you are greatly rejoicing, though for a short time. . .
(1 Corinthians 7:29) 29 Moreover, this I say, brothers, the time left is reduced.. . .
(1 Peter 4:7) 7 But the end of all things has drawn close. Therefore, be sound in mind, and be vigilant with a view to prayers.
(Romans 13:11) 11 And do this because you know the season, that it is already the hour for you to awake from sleep, for now our salvation is nearer than at the time when we became believers.
(Revelation 1:3) 3 Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near.
In fact, the Devil knew that he was in the last days when Jesus already saw him fall like lightning, and this is why the Devil has worked against Christians for the short period of time ever since.
(1 Peter 5:7-10) . . .. 8 Keep your senses, be watchful! Your adversary, the Devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone. 9 But take your stand against him, firm in the faith, knowing that the same kind of sufferings are being experienced by the entire association of your brothers in the world. 10 But after you have suffered a little while, the God of all undeserved kindness, who called you to his everlasting glory in union with Christ, will himself finish your training.. . .
Does this not describe the Devil as angry, "seeking to devour" yet for Christians, they know that he has only a "short period of time" so that they suffer only a "little while"?
Remember that Revelation need not prophesy the future in every case, but can also "reveal" things from a heavenly perspective. Of course, these truths are not always limited to a specific period of time, either. It is just as likely that these same truths come to a more complete fulfillment at the very end, and even more finally definitive again at the end of the thousand years, when "nations" are mentioned again.
Revelation can still mean several different things, just as our own Watch Tower publications have given different meanings to the same verses many times over the last 140 years or so. We can't know the final meaning of it yet, but we should no better than to try to force it to contradict other scriptures.
And one of those contradictions is the idea that Jesus said not to look for signs like wars, earthquakes, pestilence and famine. He said these things would continue to take place, but these are NOT signs of the final end (synteleia). These are the very kinds of things that Jesus said would mislead us. And the reason, is pretty obvious from the rest of the chapter: because a thief gives no sign that he is about to break into your house. The parousia must come as a surprise. People will go along and do the kinds of things they have always been doing, just like they did in the days of Noah and Sodom. But the real and final end, the synteleia, will come as a surprise. Therefore, the SIGN is the sign of the Son of Man.
I believe this too, only I think that all these things have have glimpses of fulfillment from the very first century:
(1 Corinthians 10:11) 11 Now these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have come.
It absolutely was. Note that Daniel was sealed up until the time of the end when Jesus arrived upon the earth and what we needed to know about the future could then all be revealed at that time. In fact, this is why Revelation is written at the time when all the scrolls could be unsealed, because the time had arrived:
(Galatians 4:4) 4 But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent his Son. . .
(Ephesians 1:8-10) 8 This undeserved kindness he caused to abound toward us in all wisdom and understanding 9 by making known to us the sacred secret of his will. It is according to his good pleasure that he himself purposed 10 for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, to gather all things together in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth. . . .
All prophecy pointed to Christ. The full limit of the appointed times arrived, and there is nothing more to measure by means of chronology. If there were, it would contradict dozens of scriptures, many of which have been previously mentioned.
 
 

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

Yes. It's true that brothers were speculating about things surrounding the Lord's coming. In this case, Jesus said that some of those standing with him during his ministry would not die before they saw him coming in power:
(Matthew 16:28) "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.”
And also that they would not complete the circuit of the cities of Israel before the son of man would arrive.
(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.
Although the first verse was fulfilled in a vision given to a few of them, Jesus said these things to show the potential imminence of the Kingdom. It could come at any time. They couldn't even say: "Well the preaching work is not finished yet, so we know that Jesus' arrival in power can't happen yet." Even if the Parousia was a long way off, it was not for them to know, and it should always remain of immediate concern. Jesus took away these obstacles that might make them believe the end was so far off that it didn't matter to them immediately. 
Notice too in both of these verses above that there is no separation of a parousia from his coming in his Kingdom: his "arrival."
Notice too that the verse you quoted makes the same point just discussed in a previous post about why chronology should be no concern of ours.
(John 21:22, 23) 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?”
They were tying the chronology of this particular disciple's lifetime to the generation that would see Jesus come. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? But notice too that the disciples have no hint about a "parousia" that would be separate from the time when Jesus comes, or arrives. But more importantly, the times and seasons are still in the Father's jurisdiction so, as Jesus says, "of what concern is that to you?" If we are paying close attention to Jesus' words we should be concerned with why Jesus said not to be concerned with chronology. We should not try to use the mistake they made as an excuse for why we can make more of the same types of mistakes.

Good question. But first of all we should note that the Bible does not actually say this. The term translated "striking" observableness actually means just "observability." The word "striking" was added for some reason. If anything, it is probably closer to the opposite meaning, of any kind of observableness, or non-striking observableness. In other words, a likely meaning is that the Kingdom is not going to come with signs to observe, or any kind of inspection (speculation). (In the same way that the Pharisees were not given a sign to make them believe that the King of that Kingdom was already standing in front of them.)
The NLT translates like this:
(Luke 17:20, NLT) One day the Pharisees asked Jesus, “When will the Kingdom of God come?” Jesus replied, “The Kingdom of God can’t be detected by visible signs. [fn]   {The footnote says "by your speculations"}
Of course, this verse was about the coming of the Kingdom that was "overtaking them" in their day. The Kingdom began taking on loyal subjects as members of that "nation" even while Jesus was a kind of "king-designate" as we say. But we know that may more subjects of that Kingdom began entering the Kingdom after Jesus was spoken of as the "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" and when he was given a position "far above every government." That was of course, when he sat at the right hand of the throne of Majesty, God's right hand, when he was given ALL AUTHORITY in heaven and on earth. (Mt 28:18-20)
(Colossians 1:13) 13 He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son,
But you are right that, even though this was about the Kingdom about to overtake them in Jesus' day, it could have given evidence that the way the Kingdom comes at the time of the parousia might be invisible. Jesus was the one who cleared up that question by saying that it would appear like lightning: bright, sudden, surprising, and would shine from one horizon all the way to the other horizon. 
(Matthew 24:27) 27 For just as the lightning comes out of the east and shines over to the west, so the presence of the Son of man will be.
Now if we could only find a scripture that says that this kind of lightning is invisible . . . .

WHY EVEN BRING UP THE ISSUE OF 1914 AT ALL?
Most Bible readers believe that the sudden, surprising, shining, lightning-like PAROUSIA event has not happened yet. But many of the same people read about the "signs" in Matthew 24 and get pretty much the same idea of the prophecy as Jehovah's Witnesses do. They hear about wars and earthquakes and pestilence and famine and believe that these are signs that, as things get much worse, this is proof that the end is near, and Jesus could return at any moment. It's as if Jesus said:
"You want a sign? I'll give you LOTS of signs!"
The major difference between Jehovah's Witnesses and many other readers is that we (Jehovah's Witnesses) will often say that all these signs must have started specifically in 1914. This is not a difficult doctrine to convince others to believe. People in all generations have wanted to believe that their generation was the very one Jesus spoke about. 1914 was a definite historical turning point from several perspectives. The first war that was called a "World War" started that year. And since then it is easy to see that there's no turning back to the supposed times of peace and tranquility that existed almost everywhere. Also since then the world has grown from a sparse 1.8 bilion people to a crowded 7.5 billion. There are 4 times as many people, but on average they are using literally thousands of times more resources (electricity, fuel, waste). The dense populations, contention over resources, wars, terrorism, and increased effects of violence now effect more people than ever before. Earthquakes have a higher chance of killing large populations at once. Communication and news that focuses almost exclusively on everything negative anywhere in the world has also increased our fear and our belief that things will keep getting worse until God's Kingdom steps in to save us.
So the primary lesson that most of us, Witnesses or not, take away from Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21 is this:
(Matthew 24:33, also Mark 13:29) "Likewise also you, when you see all these things, know that he is near at the doors."
(Luke 21:25-31)  25 “Also, there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth anguish of nations not knowing the way out because of the roaring of the sea and its agitation. 26 People will become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth, . . .28 But as these things start to occur, stand up straight and lift up your heads, because your deliverance is getting near. . . .31. .  Likewise also you, when you see these things happening, know that the Kingdom of God is near."
This is the basic idea that comforts us, and it isn't wrong. Whether we should say that Jesus was specifically targeting a "generation" that started in 1914 or not, God's Kingdom will finally step in. It's always possible that we are in a final generation that will see the final end of this system. We need not be in fear like the nations and those without faith and hope. We can lift our heads up and expect deliverance no matter how bad things get.
So why even bring up the issue of 1914 at all, then? We are clearly in a "wicked" generation. Things appear to be going from bad to worse everywhere we look. If anyone tried to say things aren't so bad, a hundred sources could be found to contradict that claim. Amongst the millions (literally) of books in the world, it's easy to find a hundred or more that claim that 1914 was a major turning point, if not the major turning point, in modern history. The "SIGN" and how it is tied first to a "great world war" seems to be the most important evidence for this doctrine. It's what makes us so sure about what might otherwise look like a ridiculous prophetic type-antitype teaching where we see the wicked, haughty, Gentile king Nebuchadnezzar punished with insanity and say that Nebuchadnezzar represents the Messianic Kingdom. When that wicked man finally acknowledged that his haughtiness was misplaced, he was restored from his insanity, and this represents how Jesus was restored to the non-Gentile Messianic throne in 1914.
But was this idea in the Bible? And if it wasn't, is there any reason to stand up to such a long-standing traditional teaching in our own religion if it's not really doing any harm? Or is it doing harm? Obviously, this entire topic was initiated there is clear evidence (to some) that it doesn't work scripturally, based on the words and meanings of the context of Jesus' words? But why should we pay more than the usual attention to the exact meaning of Jesus words if it makes no difference in the long run. Is this just a matter of "obsession" over very minor matters? Is it a matter of stubborn pride? Is this just a matter of wanting to be right at all costs? Is it really in defense of the Bible?
That last question is so important that I'll try to give a short answer right here. I'll reword it
WHY DOES THE BIBLE SAY WE SHOULD NOT BE CONCERNED WITH CHRONOLOGY?
Jesus said that it was not for us to know the "times and the seasons." Paul, said that as far as the topic of "times and seasons" and the "parousia" we need nothing to be written to us, because we know it will come unannounced as a thief. So the best we can do is stay on the watch to be prepared at all times as if it can come at any moment. This way that day won't "catch us" off-guard as a thief would want to catch us. Of course, perhaps all that was supposed to change around 1914. Perhaps at that point we were supposed to know the times and seasons after all. And we could always rationalize that we only claim to know the beginning of the parousia but not the end of the system.
Also, we might ask, what harm could there be in trying to know, even if Jesus said we wouldn't be able to know?
Is it possible that Jesus had a reason for telling us that not even he knew the "day and the hour"? Is it OK to try to get to know the "times and seasons" as long as we can still say we don't know the "day and the hour"?
Jesus gave some illustrations showing that our attitudes and motivations might come to light if we noticed that there was a delay. He gave the illustration of the evil slave who would take advantage of the delay and begin to lord it over his fellow slaves. He gave an illustration of those who would not make wise use of the time and the resources they were given (the "talents"). He gave an illustration of those who didn't prepare well enough for a potential delay. (foolish virgins). Not once did Jesus commend anyone for discerning how soon the future "times and seasons" would be, but he did commend those who had prepared and readied themselves to endure to the end, and make wise use of their time, no matter how long that delay might be.
The obvious reason would be that if we knew the end was going to come on a certain date, we might fall into any one of the traps that would show us unprepared for that day:
We could fall into the trap of thinking that we must get into full-time service just because we know the day is nearly upon us, and we believe that we will get a reward for our good works. That might sound like it's not so bad. A little more full-time service is accomplished, so what does it matter what the motive was? But there is no reward for good works or full-time service. The "reward" is only for the proper motivation behind our activities. Remember that the Pharisees dedicating their resources to "full-time" service to the Temple, but weren't fully taking care of their own families, so that Jesus condemned them for this. If we were to act any differently because we KNOW the time, then this already shows something was potentially wrong with our motivation in the first place.
We could fall into the trap of thinking that there is still time to take it easy, to "put Kingdom interests second," just for a little while, because we KNOW that there is still time to repent and be shown mercy. Again, if we were to act any differently because we KNOW the time, then this already shows something was potentially wrong with our motivation.
We could fall into the trap of thinking that we are smarter than others, and can look down on others for not understanding prophecy and secular and Biblical chronology as well as we do. Yet we are relying on secular knowledge (to date 539, for instance) and this type of secular knowledge is foolishness to God, and just results in questions for debate rather than anything of true Christian value, such as love, justice, mercy and TRUE wisdom.  Related to all the ideas above, is the problem of building new doctrines on a weak foundation, and therefore presumptuously assuming that any additional explanations built on the puffed up knowledge is also correct.
We could fall into the trap of thinking we are something when we are nothing, and start to think of ourselves as so especially favored and gifted with God's spirit that we begin coming up with hundreds of other explanations, that must be so, just because we have a strong belief that our chronology must be so. Therefore predictions are made that end up stumbling others, or end up being ideas that we ultimately have to apologize for because it can be shown that they did not come from Jehovah's holy spirit, but were based on presumptuousness. Remember that the idea of 1914 originally came to as as part of scheme of dates that included 1798, 1799, 1844, 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910 and a few others. All those dates have been dropped because they were "false doctrines." Russell was so sure of these dates that he found them in his studies of the Great Pyramid, which was "THE major selling point" of the Studies in the Scriptures series. It was this series of dates that was so sure that these were called "God's dates, not ours."  These dates resulted in judging other religious groups as "the foolish virgins" specifically because they stopped looking in 1844 and missed the 1874 presence and the 1878 kingship. It was presumptuous to call others "fools" when we also finally dropped the 1874 date, ourselves. After 1914, this schema was part of the "undeniable proof" that 1918 would see undeniable visible signs of heavenly activity towards the earth. These dates brought us to conclude that 1925 would definitely see the earthly resurrection begin. We were told that we had more evidence on which to base faith in 1925 than we had about 1914 itself, and more evidence for 1925 than Noah had in believing in the coming Flood. Things that happened in 1918, 1919, 1920, 1922, 1931, 1935, even up until 1942 were all sees as necessary teachings just because of the 1914 teaching. Several of these dates have already been dropped as incorrect teachings that needed adjustment (i.e., "false" teachings). A few of them are "still on the books." But we have reason to believe that such incorrect teachings could end up being important to correct if they are wrong. Here are two examples that have been mentioned before: (2 Timothy 2:15-18) 15 Do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright. 16 But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them. 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some.
If 1914 is not true, then all those decades of teaching that the first resurrection has already occurred in 1918 could put us in exactly the same situation as the "empty speeches that violate what is holy" and which "spread like gangrene."
The second example, builds on the example above. In the first century, it was possible that claiming the resurrection had already occurred included something like the claim that it was all spiritual, and there would be no literal resurrection. Of course, it could also have subverted the faith of some in the idea that some had already received their reward before others which would make it seem like Paul didn't know what he was talking about when he said that the currently living and the resurrected dead would be caught up at the same time. Whether persons like the apostle Paul or C T Russell are already in heaven or not might seem like an innocuous teaching, but look at what can come out of it. In 1916 it was taught that Russell had died but was now a spirit who was directing every aspect of the Society's work from beyond the veil. What's the difference in that and spiritism?
That type of thinking was repeated well into the 1920's. And it resurfaced again in the 1980's with the "Revelation - Grand Climax" book and then again in 2000 in the Watchtower. Note, the same Watchtower just mentioned in a previous post:
*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 11 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
What, then, can we deduce from the fact that one of the 24 elders identifies the great crowd to John? It seems that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today. Why is that important? Because the correct identity of the great crowd was revealed to God’s anointed servants on earth in 1935. If one of the 24 elders was used to convey that important truth, he would have had to be resurrected to heaven by 1935 at the latest.
When we condemn Christendom for thinking they can communicate with the dead, their adherents say, but these are spirits. So what's the real difference if we say that people who have died who are now spirits are communicating divine truths today. At least the above contains terms like "it seems" and "may be involved." Prior to this it was taught that there was no doubt. But it also implies a kind of "inspiration" that comes from someone other than Jesus and Jehovah to reveal divine truths. But more importantly it was used as a way to bolster a convoluted piece of circular reasoning in the article above. We were building on a sandy foundation and presumptuously pretending it was a rock foundation. 
The above is not to say that the doctrine is definitely wrong, but it shows how the Bible expects us to "pay more than the usual attention" to such matters, because a false doctrine can become a serious thing.
Another point that should be addressed is the fact that there is little difference in saying we only know the time of the beginning of the parousia but not the end. All the issues of believing we know the time of parousia still arise. For example, Jesus said it would be only one generation. So what happened when we approached 30 and 40 years beyond 1914? Speculation was rampant. What happened when we approached 60 years beyond 1914 and it was also believed that the end of the 6,000 years would end in 1975. We became so presumptuous that we published why the 1970's would be the "appropriate time for God to act." We tell Jehovah when it's appropriate to act?!?!?!  We (JWs) published and promoted Watchtower articles that said that now is not the time to "toy" with the words of Jesus that no one knows the day and the hour.  We can say when it's no longer appropriate to bring up a certain scripture. In the 1970's, just prior to 1975, we also began publishing articles that stated explicitly that Jehovah's Witnesses were a prophet. After the 1970's expectations failed to materialize, the generation went on, and we were 70 years from 1914, and had to change the definition of the generation. Then at 74 years from 1914 we found an article where a Hebrew "scholar" said 75 years was a good length for a generation: *** g88 4/8 p. 14 The Last Days—What’s Next? ***
J. A. Bengel states in his New Testament Word Studies: “The Hebrews . . . reckon seventy-five years as one generation, and the words, shall not pass away, intimate that the greater part of that generation [of Jesus’ day] indeed, but not the whole of it, should have passed away before all should be fulfilled.” This became true by the year 70 C.E. when Jerusalem was destroyed.
Likewise today, most of the generation of 1914 has passed away.
At 80 years from 1914, the definition of generation is updated again, etc., until the latest, current definition.
This problem is not necessarily gone with the updated definition of generation. Because, even though it is now defined as TWO BACK-TO-BACK LIFETIMES  it, too, is attached to a finite number of years starting in 1914. As the end of the possible range of time comes into view, this becomes the equivalent of making people think they "know" the times and the seasons. That's clearly presumptuous, and therefore begets all the same issues mentioned above.
 
 
 

I didn't expect this topic to wind up with so much discussion of the 70 years, but I'd like to bring it back to specific topics brought up in Matthew 24. One major topic, not really discussed yet, is the "SIGN." But even before we discuss the sign, we should notice that it's the SIGN OF THE PAROUSIA and the SIGN of the SYNTELEIA, that they asked about. For that reason, it would probably be useful to review whether or not it is proper to understand this as a SIGN of a PRESENCE and a SIGN of a CONCLUSION. If it should mean that, then perhaps a generation full of signs is an accurate meaning. But if it refers to a "signal event" that gives them advance warning of the time of the "Judgment Day" then this cannot very likely refer to a generation full of signs.
THE LIKELY MEANING or DISTINCTION between PAROUSIA, SYNTELEIA, EPIPHANEIA, APOKALYPSIS
The point of this part of the topic is to see whether it is possible, or even more likely that the terms Parousia and Synteleia, in context, refer, respectively, to the ROYAL VISITATION & MANIFESTATION (i.e., JUDGMENT DAY) and the FINAL END & DESTRUCTION (i.e., JUDGMENT DAY) rather than merely a "presence" and "conclusion." When that evidence is included in the question about the sign, we have another way of looking at the question. This other way of looking at the question sheds a lot more light on why Jesus answered in the way he did. In fact, it removes what would otherwise appear to be some awkward wording or even a contradiction on the part of Jesus. We know Jesus did not contradict himself, so we should be interested in a meaning that makes more sense with the total context of Jesus' words.
We have already discussed evidence that many contemporary Jews would have understood the meaning of the terms as the signal events referring to the timing of the Judgment Day. If we were to insert those meanings into the verse in Matthew, we would have the following, in context:
(Matthew 24:1-4 -- [with the question in vs 3, paraphrased]) 1 Now as Jesus was departing from the temple, his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. 2 In response he said to them: “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, by no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 While he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Can you tell us WHEN this will happen? Can you tell us what will be THE WARNING SIGN OF YOUR JUDGMENT VISITATION and the FINAL END OF THE AGE?" [NWT: "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?”] 4 In answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads you, . . .
The NWT is translated in such a way that you would never get this idea from the question, and yet we have already shown that this is what the actual words Matthew used would have meant to many Jews in Matthew's audience. And we also know that this is the basic idea that the disciples themselves had about the Kingdom of God. They wanted to know when it would MANIFEST itself.
(Luke 19:11) 11 While they were listening to these things he spoke in addition an illustration, because he was near Jerusalem and they were imagining that the kingdom of God was going to display itself instantly.
(Acts 1:6, 7) 6 So when they had assembled, they asked him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.
Of course, if the disciples had known that Jesus would be ruling invisibly from heaven they would not have had this idea that a time would come for it to "display itself instantly" upon the physical nation of Israel. Therefore, they must have been looking for an advance warning sign so that they could know when to be away from the disaster.
This is consistent with the idea that the "parousia" of a powerful godlike person could be considered to be a "theophany," or an "appearance" like some kind of bright and shining manifestation. To make this clearer we will use the original word PAROUSIA or SYNTELEIA in the following verses, to make it easier to understand the original meaning.
(2 Thessalonians 2:8, NWT, KIT) . . .the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his [PAROUSIA].
But even this does not fully match the likely meaning of the word that the NWT uses here. Note the KJV and NIV, for example:
(2 Thess. 2:8, KJV) the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
(2 Thess 2:8, NIV) the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.
That's because the word in Greek is ἐπιφάνεια (epipháneia) which according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon:
epipháneia -- an appearing, appearance; often used by the Greeks of a glorious manifestation of the gods, and especially of their advent to help; in 2 Maccabees of signal deeds and events betokening the presence and power of God as helper."
It's the same word used in 2 Timothy and Titus:
(1 Timothy 6:14) 14 to observe the commandment in a spotless and irreprehensible way until the manifestation [EPIPHANEIA]  of our Lord Jesus Christ,
(2 Timothy 4:1) I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his manifestation and his Kingdom:
Note that the NWT in 2 Tim 4:1 uses the word "AND" here, although most translations follow a Greek text which has the word "AT" in this place, so that the verse reads more smoothly as:
(2 Tim 4:1, NLT) I solemnly urge you in the presence of God and Christ Jesus, who will someday judge the living and the dead when he appears to set up his Kingdom:
In fact, the sense of the "AND" in some Greek texts is very likely intended to offer the meaning that shows up in the NLT, because the point is that Jesus will judge the living and the dead AND he will do this through his glorious manifestation AND through his kingdom. This fits the illustration in Matthew:
(Matthew 13:39-43) The harvest is a [SYNTELEIA: Destruction/Final End] conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the [SYNTELEIA: Destruction/Final End] conclusion of the system of things. 41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be. 43 At that time [the harvest] the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.. . .
This is the same scenario that Paul mentions when he includes the resurrected ones into the same picture about the time when righteous ones will shine at the SYNTELEIA. The only difference is that Paul refers to it as the PAROUSIA.
(1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) 15 For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the [PAROUSIA: ROYAL VISITATION AND GLORIOUS MANIFESTATION] presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we will always be with the Lord.
According to our current Watchtower doctrine, Paul can never be completely correct. If, as the Watchtower claims, the resurrection has already occurred (back between the years surrounding 1918 and up through as late as 1935, per the current teaching), then those who survived until the presence (1914 and on)  may easily precede those who fall asleep in death during the "presence."  Russell, for example, survived until the "presence," in 1914 and he died in 1916 and therefore easily preceded, let's say, Rutherford, Knorr, and Fred Franz, and probably at last 44,000 others, according to our current teaching.
But also note that the expression translated "together" has a word in front of it that is not translated in the NWT's 1 Thess 4:17,  creating an expression that means not just "together," but, "at the same time together." This is why Thayer's, Vine's and Strong's all offer this definition, especially in the adverbial sense which is obvious here: 
Strong's ἅμα (háma) adv   a primary particle; properly, at the "same" time, but freely used as a preposition or adverb denoting close association:—also, and, together, with(-al).
Thayer's ἅμα (háma) 1. adverb, at the same time, at once, together. . . .  In 1 Thess 4:17 and v.10 where ἅμα (háma) is followed by syn, ἅμα is an adverb (at the same time) and must be joined to the verb.
Vine's ἅμα (háma) "at once" . . . in Romans 3:12; 1 Thess 4:17
This is obvious even in the way the NWT translates this in other places where ἅμα (háma) is used.
(Acts 24:26, NWT) 26 At the same time he was hoping that Paul would give him money.. . .
If the PAROUSIA is the time when those who survive until then are taken at the same time as the resurrected ones, then clearly the Parousia could not have really been ongoing in 1918 to 1935:
*** w07 1/1 pp. 27-28 pars. 10-12 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
10 Can we say more precisely when the first resurrection begins? An interesting clue is found at Revelation 7:9-15, where the apostle John describes his vision of “a great crowd, which no man was able to number.” The identity of that great crowd is revealed to John by one of the 24 elders, and these elders represent the 144,000 joint heirs with Christ in their heavenly glory. (Luke 22:28-30; Revelation 4:4) John himself had a heavenly hope; but since he was still a man on earth when the elder spoke to him, in the vision John must represent anointed ones on earth who have not yet received their heavenly reward.
11 What, then, can we deduce from the fact that one of the 24 elders identifies the great crowd to John? It seems that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today. Why is that important? Because the correct identity of the great crowd was revealed to God’s anointed servants on earth in 1935. If one of the 24 elders was used to convey that important truth, he would have had to be resurrected to heaven by 1935 at the latest. That would indicate that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935. Can we be more precise?
12 At this point, it may be helpful to consider what might be viewed as a Bible parallel. Jesus Christ was anointed as the future King of God’s Kingdom in the fall of 29 C.E. Three and a half years later, in the spring of 33 C.E., he was resurrected as a mighty spirit person. Could it, then, be reasoned that since Jesus was enthroned in the fall of 1914, the resurrection of his faithful anointed followers began three and a half years later, in the spring of 1918? That is an interesting possibility. Although this cannot be directly confirmed in the Bible, it is not out of harmony with other scriptures that indicate that the first resurrection got under way soon after Christ’s presence began.
That was an odd mix of speculation, along with both dogmatic and very undogmatic statements. Still, while it's true that the first resurrection gets underway as soon as or soon after Christ's PAROUSIA begins, none who survived until the PAROUSIA were taken to heaven along with (together at the same time with) those who were resurrected somewhere between about 1918 to 1935. Yet, it is recognized that the first resurrection got under way "soon" after Christ's PAROUSIA would begin. What was that "harmony with other scriptures"? The example is given in the next paragraph, but with an interesting bit of bracketed information that is in the original Watchtower article -- not something added here as an explanation:
For example, Paul wrote: “We the living who survive to the presence of the Lord [not, to the end of his presence] shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with the Lord.” (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) Therefore, anointed Christians who died before Christ’s presence were raised to heavenly life ahead of those who were still alive during Christ’s presence. This means that the first resurrection must have begun early in Christ’s presence, and it continues “during his presence.” (1 Corinthians 15:23) Rather than occurring all at once, the first resurrection takes place over a period of time.
But the writer who recognized the point that he put in brackets did not recognize that the Greek of 1 Cor 15:23 never says DURING his presence. It actually harmonizes with 1 Thess 4, by saying "AT HIS PAROIUSIA" as if PAROUSIA were an event rather than a duration:
(1 Corinthians 15:23) 23 But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence.
The Greek word here would usually mean "AT" in a case like this. It is only translated "DURING" because our traditional doctrine tells us to believe that it is a DURATION of time.
Strong's Definition:
ἐν (en) --a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 and G1537); "in," at, (up-)on, by, etc.:
The NWT agrees that this is true in the way the following verse is translated along with the NWT footnote:
(1 Corinthians 15:51, 52) . . .We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during* [fn. "at"] the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
(The updated NWT removed this footnote so that the word "at" is no longer shown and instead now footnotes the word "blink" with "twinkling.")
It's for the exact same reason that the NWT almost always chooses to say "in the conclusion" (IN the SYNTELEIA), even though it is just as proper to say "at the conclusion" (AT the SYNTELEIA).
There are times, however, when the NWT has chosen to translate the exact same word as "AT"
(1 Thessalonians 2:19) 19 For what is our hope or joy or crown of exultation before our Lord Jesus at his presence [PAROUSIA]?
(1 Thessalonians 3:13) 13 so that he may make your hearts firm, blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the presence [PAROUSIA] of our Lord Jesus with all his holy ones.
(1 Thessalonians 5:23) . . .And may the spirit and soul and body of you brothers, sound in every respect, be preserved blameless at the presence [PAROUSIA] of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The reason that the word is translated above as "at" instead of "during" is because it is too clear that the parousia refers to a judgment event in these places. We think of it as the "END" of the parousia when this judgment event happens. But we should remember that Paul always recognized that the relief given to all those of faith would include resurrected ones, and that this resurrection was to be at the same time as Jesus brings judgment on the disobedient. All this obviously happens at the PAROUSIA, not during the PAROUSIA, as shown in the quotes above.
(2 Thessalonians 1:7-10) 7 But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation [APOKALYPSIS] of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time when he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder. . .
It's the exact same word that could have been translated as "during" except that the NWT chose "at" when the reference seems to be to a specific time of judgment. But notice that this "specific time of judgment" is called PAROUSIA and APOKALYPSIS (which means revealing).
In fact, every reference to the parousia of Jesus appears to be more appropriately associated with his revelation (apokalypis) and manifestation (epiphaneia). Both the language structure AND content of these phrases about the PAROUSIA are also used with reference to the APOKALYPSIS, even though our current doctrine claims that only one of the two words refers to a judgment event.
(1 Peter 1:7) 7 in order that the tested quality of your faith, of much greater value than gold that perishes despite its being tested by fire, may be found a cause for praise and glory and honor at the revelation [APOKALYPSIS] of Jesus Christ.
(1 Peter 1:13) . . .keep your senses completely; set your hope on the undeserved kindness that will be brought to you at the revelation [APOKALYPSIS] of Jesus Christ.
(1 John 2:28) 28 So now, little children, remain in union with him, so that when he is made manifest we may have freeness of speech and not shrink away from him in shame at his presence [PAROUSIA].
Similar phrases show that the primary point was the judgment event even when other words and phrases were used. But these ones, also, give us a good sense of the meaning of the terms Parousia, Synteleia, Apokalypsis, Epiphaneia, etc:
(Jude 24) 24 Now to the one who is able to guard you from stumbling and to make you stand unblemished in the sight of his glory with great joy. . .
(1 Corinthians 1:7, 8) . . .while you are eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 8 He will also make you firm to the end so that you may be open to no accusation in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Cor 1:8, just quoted, could have translated the same word for "AT" above as "DURING" instead of "IN" as was done here (i.e., "during the day of our Lord Jesus Christ"). The point was emphasized here so that no one thinks that the word "during" is what implies a long period of time. It's the belief about whether the reference is to a long period of time that determines how the NWT has translated the word in every case.
The overall point is that it appears likely that the words Parousia and Synteleia refer to judgment events rather than long durations of time such as a generation during which to watch for signs. That would explain why Jesus could liken the parousia to the judgment event of Noah's day, or the judgment event of Sodom, or the judgment event of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., and lastly the judgment event at the revelation and manifestation of Jesus Christ in judgment of the entire world.

The JW's in the auditorium wouldn't have applauded if they knew the entire world was watching. This is video taken inside a JW only world.
Of course the rest of humanity cannot be expected to understand.
The perception is that we are a cold, cruel and heartless people. Perception is a tricky thing.

If I'm reading this right, you are saying that we shouldn't think the study of end-times prophecies is not crucially important. These prophecies are crucial to our relationship with God, especially through guidance and correction we will find in such prophecies.
Although few persons here will necessarily agree with the presentation of Biblical evidence in the way it was initiated in this discussion, I still agree 100% with that premise and the rest of your post. Agree or not, I am hoping some might recognize that this discussion is intended to defend the Bible itself, even against strongly entrenched traditions.

I hope no one felt slighted by Anna's remark about sparring partners. I certainly don't feel that anyone is at any kind of disadvantage, especially not you, or @AllenSmith, or  @Gone Fishing (Eoin), or @TiagoBelager, and others. (The last is a new name to me who impresses me with his maturity, organized thoughts, and style.) Resources are so easily available to everyone. All this information is available on the Internet, in the Bible, in Bible commentaries, Bible dictionaries. Even a close study of the changes and contradictions over the years, using ONLY the Watch Tower publications could lead one to the same conclusions being discussed here. If this were some completely esoteric issue that very few people could know about, then it might be wrong to even question it in a forum such as this, because it would simply be a matter of someone pontificating about a belief with no fair opportunity for anyone to respond, add to it, or discredit it. If we don't bring it up, our Bible students will rarely bring it up. And our overall message has been simplified somewhat so that the appeal is less and less to persons with the kind of educational background who would care to question it, anyway.
But on the other hand, it's dishonest to just make a claim that goes against the evidence without an explanation for WHY we are dismissing the evidence. It would be exactly as if there was a religion that started claiming that World War I started in 1894, not 1914. If we were in such a religion, we could claim it in 6,666 different places in various religious publications, and say that our Bible interpretation tells us this is true, so therefore we know it's true, and we could tell everyone who challenges it, that they are putting secular dates above the Bible dates. If someone were to challenge it with encyclopedias, coins, receipts, then they might be told they were being haughty. In religion, the leaders and members have the prerogative to do this.  But what would we think if the religion just started publishing the dates of everything prior to World War 1 by adding 20 years to it, and didn't offer an explanation? 
That's pretty much what happens even to things like the date for the "Fall of Nineveh" in 612. Because for 1914 to work, the Watch Tower publications also need to change this to 632, adding 20 years to it.
*** it-2 p. 505 Nineveh ***
Therefore, the capture of Nineveh (about seven years earlier) in the 14th year of Nabopolassar’s reign would fall in the year 632 B.C.E.
*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
The fall of the empire. The Babylonian Chronicle B.M. (British Museum) 21901 recounts the fall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, following a siege carried out by the combined forces of Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, and of Cyaxares the Mede during the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.): “The city [they turned] into ruin-hills and hea[ps (of debris)].” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) Thus the fierce Assyrian Empire came to an ignominious end.—Isa 10:12, 24-26; 23:13; 30:30-33; 31:8, 9; Na 3:1-19; Zep 2:13.
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 Du?uzu, 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.)
There is no evidence to move this from 612 to 632, but the Watch Tower publications have no choice, because all these dates are tied together, and must be manipulated so that 1914 still works.
Remember that it doesn't matter at all to me. It's our publications that say that the SECULAR date given for the end of the Babylonian empire in 539 is so accurate that they call it "assured" and even "absolute." That's the Watchtower that called this date "absolute." And therefore, our publications pretend that dates like 632 BCE for the fall of Nineveh are "set in stone." If you read the article on "Assyria" in the Insight book, you would even think that Babylonian Chronicle "21901" provides evidence for 632 BCE. You might also think that the same chronicle states that Haran was conquered in 629 even though all the archaeological evidence consistently points to 609 and no archaeological evidence points to 629. In fact, the publications continue to insist on these dates where they simply add 20 to the secular dates without any explanation in 99% of the cases. 
By the way, you might think that the Babylonian dates depend on the Assyrian (which depended on the Egyptian). But this isn't true. Those TEN THOUSAND pieces of evidence related to the Neo-Babylonian period include astronomical diaries and other interlocking tablet evidence that consistently supports, what the Watchtower calls the "accepted chronology." I'm not claiming that the Neo-Babylonian period is set in stone, but this would evidently have been the opinion of the Governing Body based on what the Watchtower, referenced in a previous post, has claimed here:
INCONTESTABLY ESTABLISHED
When a date is indicated by several lines of evidence it is strongly established. The scientific law of probabilities imparts a united strength to the strands of the cable of chronology far greater than the sum of the individual lines of evidence. This is a law which is implicitly relied upon in important affairs: viz., that when a thing is indicated in only one way it may be by chance; if it is indicated in two ways, it is almost certain to be true; and if in more than two ways, it is usually impossible that it is by chance or that it is not true; and the addition of more proofs removes it entirely from the world of chance into that of proven certainty.
This is the actual level of independent lines of evidence behind the fact that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year should be dated to 587 instead of 607. According to the Watchtower's line of reasoning, therefore, 587 would be the proper date, even if you threw out the Egyptian and Assyrian dates. It is NOT dependent on those synchronisms. Based on the evidence, the Watchtower is inadvertently here stating that 607 must be wrong, and 587 is a "proven certainty."
Of course, I don't believe it's a "proven certainty" any more than you do. But the problem is that anyone can look at this evidence for themselves. You do not have to be a specialist of any kind. Our methods of dismissing such evidence will come across exactly as dishonest as those who would argue that World War I started in 1894.
That's an excellent point.
Still plan on getting to that part of the discussion.
 

What does "light getting brighter' even mean? Would Jehovah God send inaccurate or incomplete information to his slave ? Or is it just an attempt to shift away accountability for mistakes? 
 
The Governing Body is not just some politician. It holds itself on a moral pedestal as God's channel. So when they make major mistakes they should apologize. It's the very least they could do.
 
But how can you have it both ways? How can you clearly state a message is fallible but demand unquestioned obedience to that same message?

Well, I believe the organization could move toward a more balanced and less dogmatic direction. I feel like there's a lot more gray area in the Bible than the organization wants to let on. I don't think it would hurt for the GB to apologize for some of its missteps. I can't give a clear answer on how to make the organization better. I can only point out the things that aren't working right now.

Years ago, when reflecting about this same fact, I came to the same conclusion: Jehovah propitiated, tolerated in some way that His people was taught with a false, or incorrect idea, in order to a higher benefit:  strengthen the resolution of witnesses during IIWW in order to face the cruel persecution.
But, some questions arise:
·        Did the Christians of the first century need to think incorrectly about Romans 13 in order to resist the persecution of Nero? ·        When our point of view was finally rectified (I believe in 1963 or close) did the brethren under the steel curtain begin to be less faithful then? The answer is obvious. Isn’t it?
I fully agree with you regarding Moses, Israelites, loyalty and faith. So, perhaps you’re  annoying, to some extent, with thoughts openly exposed here by @JW Insider or myself, in the sense that certain teachings or explanations of the "slave class" are incorrect.
·        In the first place, is it necessary to be faithful to accept all the explanations provided by the slave? ·        Can I be faithful if, although I am not convinced of certain explanations, I try not to disturb others and I go ahead? Let me explain what I’m trying to do with this kind of situations.
In the recent regional convention, in the last talk, was mentioned the end is imminent (well, the Spanish expression was “inminente”, I suppose in English was used another equivalent). Now, not that I do not believe that the end is imminent, is that I do not know. My base: our Master declaration: “…at an hour that you do not think likely, the Son of man is coming.”
I’ve watched the danger of these kind of imprudent (in my view) declaration many times, during many years (1914, 1925, 1975, 1994 end of generation, now overlapped generation). Brothers disappointed, at some degree bitter. The clear majority of Jehovah’s servants don’t need a false sense of immediacy. We give Him the most day by day. The end will come at his own due time. Concerning this, one question:
·        Is it more loyal if you strive because you believe that the end is imminent? ·        What happens to those who do not know when the end comes, and despite this we give Jehovah one hundred percent? ·        Are we therefore less loyal? Do you know, in my zone, the most repeated expression after the convention? “the end is imminent, the slave said this”. My answer: “oh yes, when I was a child also believed the end was imminent, in 1975. Sometimes our wishes are so strong that make this kind of statements”.
Oh, I wish go further, but for several weeks I’ll be busy
 

Thank you Tom. I like your thoughts on this, and you raise many valid points  (it's one of your few posts where you are actually being dead pan serious, not that I don't enjoy your tongue in cheek humour).
The reason I posted that question was because I am very aware that if one doesn't happen to be on the same wavelength, its easy to misunderstand what the other person is actually saying. I understood it to mean that "how dare we even try interpreting the Bible, if that is the exclusive privilege of the FDS". Judging by @Noble Berean's answer, it looks like he understood it similarly. Your interpretation sounds perfectly reasonable though. I like this point "I think it is an appeal that congregational unity is more important than individual opinion about doctrine" it kind of puts it in a nutshell. Also this observation is very valid "Whenever the Governing Body issues direction on any doctrinal point, it may be that you, as a diligent student, noticed that point some time ago. If this was the world of churches, you would have gone out and started your own religion over it. How do you think there came to be so many sects and divisions among Christianity"? I know I'm not the only one who has noticed points ahead of when the GB has adjusted their view. (I mentioned this on here a little while ago referring to Babylonian captivity, in the spiritual sense). Some things may not be important enough to warrant starting a new religion over, but your point is perfectly apt!
I don't think JWI is trying to gain disciples for himself either, and as you mention in your following post it kind of sucks that in the minds of many people a carpenter who has expertise is never judged the same way as a writer or scholar who has expertise. This brings to mind an instance a few years ago, which actually involved you (yes, really, lol) when I was reading your stories in "Sheep and goats" and someone criticized it asking why on earth would anyone want to write about stuff like that and I replied that you were sharing your "creation" just like a composer won't forever just play his music for himself, but will want to share it with others. Jehovah created us to be this way.
P.S. Apologies to @JW Insiderfor causing a break in the thread. Maybe this should be posted as a new subject....

Years ago, when reflecting about this same fact, I came to the same conclusion: Jehovah propitiated, tolerated in some way that His people was taught with a false, or incorrect idea, in order to a higher benefit:  strengthen the resolution of witnesses during IIWW in order to face the cruel persecution.
But, some questions arise:
·        Did the Christians of the first century need to think incorrectly about Romans 13 in order to resist the persecution of Nero? ·        When our point of view was finally rectified (I believe in 1963 or close) did the brethren under the steel curtain begin to be less faithful then? The answer is obvious. Isn’t it?
I fully agree with you regarding Moses, Israelites, loyalty and faith. So, perhaps you’re  annoying, to some extent, with thoughts openly exposed here by @JW Insider or myself, in the sense that certain teachings or explanations of the "slave class" are incorrect.
·        In the first place, is it necessary to be faithful to accept all the explanations provided by the slave? ·        Can I be faithful if, although I am not convinced of certain explanations, I try not to disturb others and I go ahead? Let me explain what I’m trying to do with this kind of situations.
In the recent regional convention, in the last talk, was mentioned the end is imminent (well, the Spanish expression was “inminente”, I suppose in English was used another equivalent). Now, not that I do not believe that the end is imminent, is that I do not know. My base: our Master declaration: “…at an hour that you do not think likely, the Son of man is coming.”
I’ve watched the danger of these kind of imprudent (in my view) declaration many times, during many years (1914, 1925, 1975, 1994 end of generation, now overlapped generation). Brothers disappointed, at some degree bitter. The clear majority of Jehovah’s servants don’t need a false sense of immediacy. We give Him the most day by day. The end will come at his own due time. Concerning this, one question:
·        Is it more loyal if you strive because you believe that the end is imminent? ·        What happens to those who do not know when the end comes, and despite this we give Jehovah one hundred percent? ·        Are we therefore less loyal? Do you know, in my zone, the most repeated expression after the convention? “the end is imminent, the slave said this”. My answer: “oh yes, when I was a child also believed the end was imminent, in 1975. Sometimes our wishes are so strong that make this kind of statements”.
Oh, I wish go further, but for several weeks I’ll be busy
 

Absolutely. I have been lately communicating with an oaf who regularly launches vicious attacks at the Governing Body. He tipped his hand recently (IMO) to reveal his core difficulty - he thinks it is all about us. In fact, it is about the vindication of God's purposes and the sanctification of his name. Occasionally we take it on the chin as we yield to these greater things as the focus.
Having said that, I sometimes get discouraged that intellectual work is often misconstrued as  'showing off.' If I were an electrician, I would receive nothing but praise for developing that skill to the full. If I relished a certain electrically challenging project, no one would say I am being full of myself. Nobody would question my motive. Nobody would accuse me of attempting to stand out and achieve recognition to be admired by my peers. I will even concede that @Ann O'Malyhas a point in her carrying on about stifling talent - it is just that she takes a grain of truth and tries to bake it into a seven layer cake that I object to.
In my case, I write because I am not good at anything else. If someone should say - like @The Librarian -  'good writing!' of course I am pleased. But it is no different than a hands-on worker being commended for craftsmanship.
Jehovah's Witnesses are top-heavy with persons who work with their hands. Far from being a negative, this is added proof that Jehovah's Witnesses follow the pattern of first century Christianity. A carpenter is less likely to become too big for his pants than an educated statesman. Working class people came into the truth in droves back then - less so, the upper classes. It is exactly what one should expect. Nonetheless, it is not as though intellectual talent is a pejorative. Leave @JW Insider alone. Or at least, if you criticize him, as can arguably be done, do not do so in a way so as to imply that he is trying to outshine his brothers.
 

You might be right but here's why it doesn't make any sense to me. AC refers to "Accepted Chronology" and WT refers to Watch Tower Chronology. In the "accepted chronology" the indignities against Jerusalem had gone on for 69 years, or even 71 years if you start from the major events from the 18-month siege lasting from 589 to the destruction in 587. In the Watch Tower's timeline, these indignities had started 90 years ago. Zechariah supports the "accepted chronology" (or vice versa) when he says that mercy had been withheld from Jerusalem for only 70 years, not 90 years as the Watchtower timeline says:
#AC                       [<-----------------about 70 years from 587 to 518------------------->] #WT   [<--------------------------about 90 years from 607 to 518------------------------------>] ...6..6......6.........5..5......5.........5.........5.........5.........55........5.........5.5.......5 ...1..0......0.........9..8......8.........7.........6.........5.........43........3.........2.1.......1 ...0..7......0.........0..7......0.........0.........0.........0.........09........0.........0.8.......0 The Insight book says that Zechariah 1:7 is dated to about 519 BCE, right? That's near the end of the 2nd year of Darius.
(Zechariah 1:7) . . .On the 24th day of the 11th month, that is, the month of Sheʹbat, in the second year of Da·riʹus, the word of Jehovah came to the prophet Zech·a·riʹah . . .
(Zechariah 1:12) . . .So the angel of Jehovah said: “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?”
*** it-2 p. 1226 Zechariah, Book of ***
About February 9, 519 B.C.E., the prophet Zechariah heard the words: “The whole earth is sitting still and having no disturbance.” (Zec 1:7, 11)
This would mean that the statements in Zechariah 7 were in 518 (almost 517) being now in the 4th year of Darius.
(Zechariah 7:1) . . .And in the fourth year of King Da·riʹus, the word of Jehovah came to Zech·a·riʹah on the fourth day of the ninth month, that is, the month of Chisʹlev. 2 The people of Bethʹel sent Shar·eʹzer and Reʹgem-melʹech and his men to beg for the favor of Jehovah, 3 saying to the priests of the house of Jehovah of armies and to the prophets: “Should I weep in the fifth month and abstain from food, as I have done for so many years?”  4 The word of Jehovah of armies again came to me, saying: 5 “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years, did you really fast for me?
(Zechariah 8:19) 19 “This is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘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—festivals of rejoicing. . . .
You started out saying:
"Zechariah 7:5 expressly relates that there were lamentations and fasts that the Jews had practiced in the 5th and 7th months of every year for 70 years."
This reflects what we've been taught, that these lamentations and fasts had been practiced for 70 years, and the Watchtower suggests that these reflect the period of the 70 years between 607 and 537. Therefore the fasts would likely start on that first anniversary of 607 which would be the 5th and 7th month of 606, the following year in Babylon. They could end when the new foundation was laid in the 7th month of 537. (Ezra 3:1)  This would mean that the fasting in the 7th month would likely have run from 606 to 538. A total of 68 or 69 years, i.e., about 70 years.   But clearly, the fasting was still going on at the time of Zechariah's writing, 90 years after 607; it had not stopped 20 years earlier as the Watchtower suggests.
There have been a couple of explanations for Jehovah's disapproval of these fasts. The explanation you gave is one of them. Also:
*** w96 11/15 p. 5 Does God Require Fasting? ***
Some fasts established by the Jews met with God’s disapproval right from the outset. 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) After the Jews were released from captivity in Babylon, Jehovah said through the prophet Zechariah: “When you fasted . . . , and this for seventy years, did you really fast to me, even me?” God did not approve of these fasts because the Jews were fasting and mourning over judgments that had come from Jehovah himself. They were fasting because of the calamity that befell them, not because of their own wrongdoing that led to it. After they were restored to their homeland, it was time for them to rejoice instead of bemoaning the past.—Zechariah 7:5.

Then why did the Watchtower ever change anything if everything was directly from scripture? Obviously you are saying that this might not have been true last year, because some things have already changed since then, but it must be true this year. But if it's true this year, then you are claiming that any changes made for next year are no longer directly from Scripture, unless of course you are arguing that the Scriptures contradict themselves. You are using cult-speak even though the Watchtower is not a cult.
Obviously we need to question ourselves first, but to answer your first question, it's our Christian obligation to question the anointed ones. You've seen a dozen scriptures to this effect, and you evidently do not believe in them. By whose power and authority do you decide it's OK to go against the Bible, and not to question the anointed ones?
(1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, . . .
(Philippians 1:8-10) . . .. 9 And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things,. . .
(1 Thessalonians 5:21) 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.
(2 Corinthians 13:5) 5 Keep testing whether you are in the faith; keep proving what you yourselves are.. . .
(1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.
(Romans 12:2) . . .be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
(2 Corinthians 10:4, 5) 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings . . .
(Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . .
(James 1:6) 6 But let him keep asking in faith, not doubting at all, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and blown about.
 

When evidence piles up against something very overwhelmingly, we really have no choice but to either accept the evidence or dismiss it. The easiest thing to do is to dismiss new evidence and go along as we always have. If we can dismiss evidence then we don't have to think about it. In this world, of course, especially modern news media and in social media, the most common method of dismissing evidence is to go after the person instead of the evidence. This is why you often see people making assumptions about motives.
If you think I'm saying this is what you are doing, I'm not. You have gone beyond the idea of merely dismissing evidence. You are rightly concerned about the motive behind it, and you are rightly concerned about what it would really mean to us if the evidence were accepted. This is not a simple dismissal of evidence in your case. I can see that you are not simply bringing this up  for a diversion to avoid thinking about it. 
So I'm glad you asked the questions:
"Why spend hours trying to get someone to agree with you? What is the purpose of it?"
Getting someone to agree is not the point. Many people already agree. But we learn not to worry when people don't agree with us in the field ministry. Yet our responsibility to present truth to the best of our ability does not change.
(John 4:23) 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him.
Spending hours on a subject is not the preference for everyone, but there are persons for whom the opportunity for this kind of research is a joy and a privilege. For one thing, it helps me see first-hand the accuracy of the Bible, and how even secular sources of archaeology and history support the Bible account. Questions that produced contradictions in the past, now show the Bible to be harmonious, even on this very topic of chronology during the Neo-Babylonian period. And you get a better sense of the historical Babylonian world in which the Jews were exiled. There are about 4 of these questions that produced contradictions in the past. I've brought up 2 of them on the forum before, such as:
(Haggai 2:3) 3 ‘Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory? . . .
(Ezra 3:12, 13) 12 Many of the priests, the Levites, and the heads of the paternal houses—the old men who had seen the former house—wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, while many others shouted joyfully at the top of their voice. 13 So the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shouts from the sound of the weeping, for the people were shouting so loudly that the sound was heard from a great distance.
The question on these scriptures was about how many of these 95 to 105 year old people could have outcried the sounds of joy according to the Watchtower chronology? But the "accepted chronology" that fits both the Bible and secular evidence shows that this was the 75 to 105 year olds, not just those over 95 years old.
Another question was the meaning of the phrase "these 70 years" at a time that was 90 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and 92 years, at least, after the deadly siege against it:
(Zechariah 1:12) 12 So the angel of Jehovah said: “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 7:4, 5) 4 The word of Jehovah of armies again came to me, saying: 5 “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years, did you really fast for me?
Why does the scripture say they were fasting for 70 years if the Watchtower says that this was 90 years later? The "accepted chronology" answers that exact question.  There are two more similar questions that I will get to later.
Of course, some will probably end up believing in the evidence and in the Bible's support for that evidence based on what I have presented. But it won't be just because I said it. On the Internet people say whatever they want and pretend to be whoever they want, so no one is going to accept it because I presented it. They will only do so after evaluating the evidence for themselves, and I'm guessing that 99% won't look at the evidence anyway. Still, we don't impugn each other for spending hours trying to get someone to agree with us, if we are convincing them to believe in 1914. If we are doing this because we are passionate for truth, then we have an obligation to support what we know to be true, if asked.
(Philippians 4:8) . . .Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things.
If hypothetically I agree with you - then what will the next step be for us?  We go and make our own happy little group separate from other Witnesses - and pat ourselves on the back that we are smarter than the slave? or what?
The next step is to continue to focus on all the things that Philippians 4:8 just mentioned. Nothing significant should change. One of the points of this is that we don't have to make our happy little group separate from other Witnesses. But, in time, as more persons are aware of the evidence, we won't have to be ashamed and cower at the idea of speaking out boldly and fearlessly about the things we have learned. Currently, most Witnesses, including myself, have to hold back from certain conversations even when they come up with other Witnesses we trust, for fear we will say something that will be interpreted as presumptuous, haughty, or stumbling. So in the meantime, there are 1,000 other true things we can focus on. 1,000 other serious concerns, righteous, chaste, lovable, virtuous, praiseworthy things that we can focus on. Against such things, there is no restriction. Also, this doesn't make us "smarter" than the slave. This is merely evidence, which is merely "knowledge." Knowledge pales into non-importance when compared, with love, justice, mercy, kindness, faith, hope, etc. In my own case, I learned about these things from members of the slave and members of the anointed who were just as concerned about truth, but had no way of presenting this information without getting into trouble from those who believed that nothing should be said that did not fully support the doctrines that Frederick Franz believed. (But it's also easy to understand why Brother Franz believed in the importance of this doctrine.) Several of these other brothers that I knew were concerned about losing their positions in Writing, and other positions of responsibility. Some have since died and some have evidently still not said much about it except to close friends. I don't think there is anything new here that the "slave" is not aware of. I don't know for sure, but I honestly guess that to many people in positions of responsibility in the organization, there just isn't a good way or opportunity to make adjustments yet. There is probably a fear that this will be very disruptive and may result in a great loss of publishers. I think the evidence shows that most of us would welcome the evidence if it were shown how it coincides with the message of Matthew 24, the stated meaning of Daniel 4, etc. And I would also guess that there are a few questions that remain that would be too difficult to answer immediately. This doesn't mean they can't be truthfully answered with "we don't know yet." The main thing is that I'm sure all of us would be more comfortable with humility and discretion in these matters as opposed to signs of presumptuousness and a tendency to claim full knowledge.
That is absolutely correct. I hope no one misunderstands.
WWI was definitely a major change in world affairs. And 537 is a reasonably good year for the building work to restart in Jerusalem. And 607 as the date of Jerusalem's fall (not Babylon's, of course) is not so far off either in the overall scheme of things, either (+- 20 years). Of course, there is no need to review why these ideas are never connected in the Bible. Even if Jerusalem fell in 607, the Bible does not connect a period to 607 as the start of the Gentile Times. Also, the Bible does not connect any period of 2,520 years to be counted from Jerusalem's fall.
Then we still have to discuss the meaning of the sign. The Jews were looking for the Parousia to be a time when war, earthquake, fire and famine would bring destruction. You can see this in the books that the Jews were using at the time to prepare for the end of the age. But Jesus appears to tell his disciples that even though they have heard that it was said that these signs would help them recognize the end-time, Jesus said to them not to be misled by wars, earthquakes, and famine. So the one thing we would NOT want to look for as a sign of the end would be a major war of any kind, or major earthquakes, or food shortages. I won't go too far into that subject here, but we should at least be able to see that this is a possible way to read Jesus' words in Matthew 24.
No argument was made that Jehovah will not use a wicked king and his 7 periods of madness as a symbol of the inhumane nations ruling the earth until Jesus kingdom starts to rule. In fact, I believe the dream can help to give us faith in exactly that prospect. After all, even though it was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar the point was that Jehovah is the universal sovereign and can repeat this any time, or as many times as he wants. No empire can overpower Jehovah's will. And we pray for that Kingdom to come and for God's will to be done as in heaven also upon the earth. I agree that it teaches exactly the lesson Daniel 4 says it teaches. But we do know that it creates a lot of contradictions to try to make a type/antitype illustration out of Nebuchadnezzar's experience.  And the biggest contradiction is the one we rarely even think of, that if interpreted the way we do, that it provides a framework for the time-table of the parousia, something that only the presumptuous would try to figure out after Jesus said that the times and seasons were in the Father's jurisdiction, and after Paul said that about the Parousia and about the times and seasons we need nothing to be written to us, BECAUSE it is coming as a thief.
Understood. I wasn't necessarily expecting a reply unless someone could think of a Biblical reason to dismiss any of the evidence anyway. If anyone thinks the subject is of serious concern and knows of a Biblical reason to dismiss any of the evidence, then I'll probably hear about it sooner or later. And besides, you did respond with some Biblical ideas about Daniel 4 that I am not dismissing at all.
I appreciate this and all of the obvious truths that I didn't requote from you because I believe them just as you do. Naturally I disagree somewhat on our responsibility to present truth when we are asked. I don't think it gets us in trouble if we handle our responsibilities seriously. There is no need for any of this to cause disunity. It's just not that important. As you say the important stuff is all there and is understood. I sometimes wonder though, what a Bible Student should have done starting in 1919 and all up well into 1925 when Rutherford was embarrassing himself and the organization. (His own words about embarrassing himself.) What appears to be extreme haughtiness and presumptousness was amazing if you go back and read the words written back then. If you knew that 1925 was based on flimsy evidence would you have said something? Would you have written Rutherford or kept it to yourself? If you were an elder minding the congregation's business and keeping your concerns to yourself, yet you knew there was something wrong, how would you counsel someone else who came up to you for advice? What if that person was a lowly person who also knew exactly what was wrong with the reasoning behind 1925? Would you be humble enough as an elder to learn from that person and realize that these were serious concerns? As a matter of fact there were many Bible Students who went through exactly that back in 1925. And of course, the same goes for any who happened to see the weaknesses and problems with all the other dates predicted from 1881 through 1918, including 100% of the predictions made for the year 1914. Is it our responsibility to make sure and question or is it our responsibility to follow without questioning?
I know your statement above is a way of answering that question, and up to a point I agree. I can even stay quiet in my congregation. But for me it's still a matter of understanding our true responsibility and our conscience. 
BTW, from what I know of you and your experience, (and yes I can read things about you in several places on the Internet), your book would be very interesting to many. I understand the hesitation, don't now if I would do it, even if I had your experiences. Would also be concerned about making money off the good news. But I know that you have some especially good ideas for the Muslim audience, for example, that you have some expertise at. And I do know that there are probably many ways to share good upbuilding thoughts and experiences in good conscience. Perhaps @TrueTomHarley has some ideas here.