HollyW

I'm still stepping through some of what Arauna has said in defense of the 1914 doctrine. The appendix in the Bible Teach book is fairly short, so I think I'll comment on that first. To make it easy to distinguish comments from the original, I'll "bold" the Bible Teach book content:
APPENDIX 1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy This has now been moved to the Appendix at the back of the book, after several years in the main content section. 
DECADES in advance, Bible students proclaimed that there would be significant developments in 1914. What were these, and what evidence points to 1914 as such an important year? Technically, it's true they proclaimed significant developments, but all of them failed. Although the book never claims that any of the proclaimed developments came true, it implies it asking about them with the term "these" and then implying that "these" were evidences that 1914 was an important year. In past years, we blatantly claimed that the "parousia" (presence),  or "Christ's enthronement," or at least "the time of trouble" was predicted in advance. Although we have stopped doing that, the above is about the closest we can get to implying that we did, without being dishonest.
As recorded at Luke 21:24, Jesus said: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations [“the times of the Gentiles,” King James Version] are fulfilled.” Jerusalem had been the capital city of the Jewish nation—the seat of rulership of the line of kings from the house of King David. (Psalm 48:1, 2) However, these kings were unique among national leaders. They sat on “Jehovah’s throne” as representatives of God himself. (1 Chronicles 29:23) Jerusalem was thus a symbol of Jehovah’s rulership. 100% true.
How and when, though, did God’s rulership begin to be “trampled on by the nations”? This happened in 607 B.C.E. when Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians. “Jehovah’s throne” became vacant, and the line of kings who descended from David was interrupted. (2 Kings 25:1-26) False, in about 3 different ways.
#1. Jerusalem is not a symbol; it's the physical city being punished
Although Jerusalem had been a symbol of God's rulership, this doesn't mean that it always was a symbol in every context. In fact, what Jesus said was clearly NOT about Jerusalem as a symbol but was about the physical city of Jerusalem. That is clear from the context of the same verse in Luke. If we take the entire paragraph from which Luke 21:24 is taken we see it clearly:
(Luke 21:20-24) 20 “However, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains, let those in the midst of her leave, and let those in the countryside not enter into her, 22 because these are days for meting out justice in order that all the things written may be fulfilled. 23 Woe to the pregnant women and those nursing a baby in those days! For there will be great distress on the land and wrath against this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. If Jerusalem were a symbol of "God's rulership" in this context, then why would "God's rulership" be surrounded by encamped armies and people be asked to flee from God's rulership. It was the physical city of Jerusalem being punished here, not "God's rulership" being punished. Matthew introduces the "Olivet Sermon" in Matthew 24 in a similar manner. These are the final verses of Matthew 23 introducing the context for Matthew 24:
(Matthew 23:37-39) 37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you. 39 For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’” If Jerusalem were a symbol of God's rulership in this context it would mean that God's kingdom is being punished and abandoned for being a killer of the prophets.
#2  - The trampling of Jerusalem started in the future, not in the past
The trampling of Jerusalem spoken of in Luke 21:24 could not have begun in 607 BCE because it was to take place in the future. Jesus said that this time "draws near," that they "WILL fall by the edge of the sword," and that  Jerusalem "WILL be trampled." He didn't say that this has been ongoing, but that it is an event that will begin in the near future. The NWT even links it to a parallel verse in Luke 19:
(Luke 19:41-44) 41 And when he got nearby, he viewed the city and wept over it, 42 saying: “If you, even you, had discerned on this day the things having to do with peace—but now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43 Because the days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification of pointed stakes and will encircle you and besiege you from every side. 44 They will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, So they will be trampled in the near future. Nothing is said of this being something that started 600 years earlier.
This of course happened closer to 66 CE according to the video found on jw.org. That date is correct: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/#mediaitems/VODMoviesBibleTimes/pub-ivwf_E_x_VIDEO
#3 Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 BCE.
Nebuchadnezzar had not even begun his first year of ruling yet, and Jerusalem was destroyed in his 19th year counting from his first regnal year. The publications assume that 539 BCE is a correct year to begin counting from, but if that date is true (and all evidence says it is) then Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE, not 607 BCE by the same evidence. There is no 539 without 587 and vice versa. Today, 607 (aka 606) as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem is easily traced as an error that made it to Russell from Barbour.
Would this ‘trampling’ go on forever? No, for the prophecy of Ezekiel said regarding Jerusalem’s last king, Zedekiah: “Remove the turban, and take off the crown. . . . It will not belong to anyone until the one who has the legal right comes, and I will give it to him.” (Ezekiel 21:26, 27) “The one who has the legal right” to the Davidic crown is Christ Jesus. (Luke 1:32, 33) So the ‘trampling’ would end when Jesus became King. The verse in Ezekiel is used as the key to Luke 21:24 about trampling, but Ezekiel is speaking of the past event (587 BCE) which contradicts Jesus own words that this is about a future event. Ezekiel is definitely talking about the coming Messiah, Christ Jesus as the one who has the legal right. But the verse in Luke is not related to the trampling that started in 587 BCE.
Such trampling, since it started in 66 CE and Jesus became King in 33 CE, would not therefore end when Jesus became King. Jesus sat on the throne, reigning as king, as soon as he was raised to the right hand of God. (1 Cor 15:25) The Bible already calls Jesus "King of Kings", and says he had all authority in heaven and on earth at this time. Any claim that he waited another 1,881 years to get more authority contradicts at least 10 clear scriptures to the contrary.
When would that grand event occur? Jesus showed that the Gentiles would rule for a fixed period of time. The account in Daniel chapter 4 holds the key to knowing how long that period would last. It relates a prophetic dream experienced by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. He saw a tree of enormous height that was chopped down. Its stump could not grow because it was banded with iron and copper. An angel declared: “Let seven times pass over it.”—Daniel 4:10-16. Jesus did not show that the Gentiles would rule for a fixed period of time in Luke 21, or Matthew 24, etc. However, Jesus did give the apostle John a Revelation where Jesus referenced this very verse in Luke 21:24 and there he did give it a fixed period of time: 42 months, or 1,260 days. Since Jesus said in Luke that he was referring to the future trampling of Jerusalem which we know lasted from about 66 CE to 70 CE, which could be the very reason he referred to it as a 3.5 year, 1,260 day, or 42 month period.
The Watchtower claims that this period of Gentile Times mentioned in Revelation when gentiles nations trampled Jerusalem underfoot was a literal 1,260 days (although not exactly 1,260 days). They say it was not a day-for-a-year, but that it lasted from 1914 to 1919. Note:
*** w14 11/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***   . . . So in the fulfillment of Revelation chapter 11, the anointed brothers who took the lead at the time of the establishment of God’s Kingdom in heaven in 1914 preached “in sackcloth” for three and a half years. At the end of their preaching in sackcloth, these anointed ones were symbolically killed when they were thrown into prison for a comparatively shorter period of time, a symbolic three and a half days. . . . . Not only were these anointed ones released from prison but those who remained faithful received a special appointment from God through their Lord, Jesus Christ. In 1919 they were among those who were appointed to serve as a “faithful and discreet slave” . . .  Interestingly, Revelation 11:1, 2 links these events to a time when the spiritual temple would be measured, or evaluated. . . .  How long did this inspection and cleansing work take? It extended from 1914 to the early part of 1919. *** re chap. 25 p. 162 par. 7 Reviving the Two Witnesses *** "Christians. As we shall see, the reference here is to the literal 42 months extending from December 1914 to June 1918, when all professing Christians were put to a severe test." What is strange is that the Watchtower doesn't attempt to link Luke 21:24 to Revelation 11:2,3.
(Revelation 11:2,3) . . .the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months. . . 1,260 days . . . . (Luke 21:24) . . .the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. There must be a good reason why there is no cross-reference between Luke 21:24 and the only other verse in the Bible that references it this directly. They both mention the Gentile Times, and one of them actually puts a time period on it: 3.5 times, or 1,260 days, or 42 months.
After the Bible goes to the trouble to put a time period on the "Gentile Times" the Watchtower makes a different claim, saying it is the account in Daniel 4 that puts a time period on it. Yet Daniel 4 says nothing about 3.5 times, or 1,260 days, or 42 months. Daniel 4 doesn't even mention the Gentile Times. It does mention that Nebuchadnezzar would be punished for his haughtiness for 7 "times" which we assume means 7 "years", but there is nothing in this particular passage that says that this is what it means here. But in Daniel 4 it is Nebuchadnezzar himself who is removed from the throne and then put back on his throne after he has learned his lesson in humility. It creates difficulties and even contradictions to claim that Nebuchadnezzar's return to the throne means the return of the Messianic kingdom here.
That's about half way. I'll stop for now and do the second half later.
 

Holy scripture wasn't completed in the 3rd - 1st centuries BCE when Jubilees and Enoch were written. The NT hadn't yet been composed, had it? Regardless of whether the two books are now considered holy scripture or not (interestingly, Jude's epistle quoted Enoch so it must have been well known), they provide an insight into Jewish thinking and calendrical practices at the time, and therefore are pertinent to the discussion about a supposed 360-day year that JWs and some other Adventist groups have used in their prophetic time calculations. Just because a person questions or disagrees with your views of biblical passages, and puts forward helpful, relevant information suggesting another perspective, it doesn't follow that the person 'doesn't believe the Bible.' Neither does it follow that a person believes the Bible to be 'inconsistent' because s/he sees inconsistencies in your interpretations of it.
Yes, that's pretty much what I said and expanded on in my previous post. 
So a 360-day year is neither a lunar nor solar year. You would have to explain how a 360-day 'prophetic' year could be counted as a 365.25-day solar year, when every day matters in JWs' end-times calculation. There also remains the other question of whether the Aramaic word for 'times' in Dan. 4 necessarily refers to literal years. If there are flaws with either of these components in the formula (and this is without discussing the validity of the start date), the end-times calculation falls apart ... quite simply. 

Do you disagree with the GB's conclusion about the date of "that invisible coming," then?
  On 9/2/2016 at 2:57 AM, AllenSmith said: Man’s Salvation [chap. 16 pp. 286-287 pars. 11-12] ...
 
12 ... However, events on earth since the end of the “appointed times of the [Gentile] nations” have been fulfilling Bible prophecy and prove that the promised “presence” or parousia of Christ in Kingdom power began first about October 4/5, 1914 C.E. Only since then has it been correct to speak of the invisible, royal “presence” of Christ as being in effect. We older folks of seventy or eighty years of age have seen come to reality practically all the things predicted by Jesus Christ in answer to the question submitted to him by his apostles:
[Bold emphasis mine; underlining Allen's]

In the course of several discussions here, I've received a certain amount of resistance and even criticism for referencing the older publications of the WTS, and even for referencing current publications (2014) that reference older publications (1914).
What I need to know is how far back, then, is it appropriate to go when quoting from WTS publications?
For instance, is 1981 too far back?  Consider this quote from the WT of 2/15/1981 in the article on pg. 19 "Do We Need Help To Understand The Bible?" and please note the part I've bolded:
Our View of the "Slave"
If we have once established what instrument God is using as his “slave” to dispense spiritual food to his people, surely Jehovah is not pleased if we receive that food as though it might contain something harmful. We should have confidence in the channel God is using. At the Brooklyn headquarters from which the Bible publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses emanate there are more mature Christian elders, both of the “remnant” and of the “other sheep,” than anywhere else upon earth.
True, the brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And so, at times, it has been necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18) However, this has resulted in a continual refining of the body of Bible-based truth to which Jehovah’s Witnesses subscribe. Over the years, as adjustments have been made to that body of truth, it has become ever more wonderful and applicable to our lives in these “last days.” Bible commentators of Christendom are not inspired either. Despite their claims to great knowledge, they have failed to highlight even basic Bible truths—such as the coming Paradise earth, the importance of God’s name, and the condition of the dead.
Rather, the record that the “faithful and discreet slave” organization has made for the past more than 100 years forces us to the conclusion that Peter expressed when Jesus asked if his apostles also wanted to leave him, namely, “Whom shall we go away to?” (John 6:66-69) No question about it. We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the “faithful and discreet slave” organization.

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

I understand the problem you're facing. The only defense you can come up with against the evidence from the WTS publications themselves is that these false prophecies weren't actual prophecies since the ones prophesying claimed they weren't prophets inspired by God.  The evidence proves they were not inspired by God, but it also proves they thought what they were teaching was coming from God, just as Russell said about his dates being God's dates.
You mention "spurious sources".  Are you referring to the WTS publications this evidence is coming from?

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

actually that is not what it says. The thoughts make no difference here on Earth after they have left as they cannot interact with those still here, thus they are forgotten. Ecclesiastes 9:5 talks about what is being done "under the sun" It is repeated many times and in each instance it talks about what is being done "under the sun", meaning while we are still alive on Earth. Some examples of this are :
Ecc 1:3  " What do people gain from all their labors at which they toil under the sun? "
Ecc 1:14 "I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind." 
Ecc 2:8 "I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me."
Ecc 4:1 " Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed— and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors— and they have no comforter."
Ecc 6:12 "For who knows what is good for a person in life, during the few and meaningless days they pass through like a shadow? Who can tell them what will happen under the sun after they are gone?"
Ecc 9:6 "Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun." 
 
The verse you mentioned says nothing of the dead being unconscious, but rather their thoughts are meaningless to those who are still here. 

That scripture confirms my point, Eoin.  It was mankind, not angels, who had been wicked.  Angels are not even mentioned, only humans.  The Lord said he was sorry he had made man, not angels.
Genesis 6:1 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
 

The lunar year is 12 x 29.5 day months = 354 days. This means an intercalary (leap) month of either 29 or 30 days long had to be added every 2 or 3 years to re-calibrate with the solar year (thereby becoming a luni-solar system). An intercalary month would lengthen that year to 383 or 384 days long.
The 360-day year is neither a lunar nor solar year, but is a schematic one of 12 x 30 day months which then have to have the 4 epagomenal days (2 equinoxes and 2 solstices) added to make 364 days and better align with the solar year. The 364-day year divides neatly into 52 weeks of 7 days. (See Book of Jubilees, ch. 6 and information on the Book of Enoch's 'Astronomical Book').
But several leaps in assumption have to be made to arrive at the 'simple' conclusion. E.g. Why are 7 (360 day) years of 2,520 days stretched to 2,520 (365.25 day) years? Does the Aramaic word for 'times' in Dan. 4 necessarily mean literal years anyway?

You mean you believe Russell thought Christ only assumed dominion over his Church in 1878? I can't find any evidence for that. It would suggest that Christ's Church has been without a Head from 33 CE to 1878. You surely don't think Russell believed that, do you?
Russell had no concept of a temple inspection in 1918 or an appointment of a GB in 1919 - even before his death in 1916. This is where it would benefit you to learn something about Watchtower history.
Thanks for this quote. The part I've colored in red supports what I've been saying - that for a person to be present, that person has to first come/arrive. 
How do your other quotes negate my previous points?
One ideology derived from the other. 
As I said, JWs make an assertion nobody else does. It is up to them to provide evidence. Anyway, you may have missed this from the first page of the thread:
"The 1st century Christians believed Jesus was already ruling amidst his enemies in their day, from as soon as Jesus ascended to heaven and sat down at his Father's right hand. - Acts 2:34-37; Eph. 1:20, 21; Heb. 10:12, 13; Rev. 3:21."
JW Insider also provided scriptural reasoning on why it couldn't have been 1914.
You have yet to produce any amongst all that word salad.

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

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

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

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

As I say, learn your Watchtower history.
 

Ann -- cut paste, cut paste - quoting things out of context.  It seems you get your adrenalin rush by this kind of troll behavior... Russell did not understand everything we understand today....and even if he changed it? So what?  We have proof today of the date of 1914 and guess what - the times of the nations -  it checks out!  
What Russell said was more than 130 years ago - see his work in its time context - in its historical context...  What is your interest in the 'toddler period' of this religion? .....when you do not believe in the Bible or an existing god? Why waste people's time and troll them if it is not for some ungodly purpose?....
Do not throw your pearls to pigs.. why? because they will not appreciate them...   You have no intention of evaluating any of the  "pearls' scattered in your direction....  so I think we leave this subject now..... you do as you please.  At least you will one day "know" that you had more than enough opportunities.  As Joshua said:  "as for me and my household - we will serve Jehovah..".. and he also said (an I quote from memory) "Not one of Jehovah's promises did not come true......."  I leave you with this final thought.... 

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

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

Can the timing of Jesus' Second coming, or Presence, be calculated through Bible chronology?
It's been brought to my attention that C.T. Russell, the founder of the WTS, believed Christ's return could be calculated by determining the length and termination point of the Gentile Times and by calculating the close of 6,000 years of human history.
These scriptures speak to this directly and indicate that it is not so:
Matthew 24:36-39 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. for the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.  For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Mark 13:32-37 "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time will come.  It is like a man away on a journey, who upon leaving his house and putting his slaves in charge, assigning to each one his task, also commanded the doorkeeper to stay on the alert.  Therefore, be on the alert---for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether in the evening, at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning---in case he should come suddenly and find you asleep.  What I say to you I say to all, 'Be on the alert!'"
Acts 1:7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority.
 

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

It could have been removed when the purple cloak was removed since both had to do with his being a king and they were ridiculing him, but there is a reference by the WTS that he was still wearing the crown of thorns when he was put to death:
[w56 4/15 p.251] . He was stripped of his clothes, nailed to the stake, wearing on his head a crown of thorns. 
 

Hi Moggy!  I guess using "professed" means they weren't real Christians.  It's puzzling why they were being put forth as positive examples for modern day JWs, as the article from 9/1/1951 is doing.
The WTS really needs to rethink their whole 144,000 concept, not only because the numbers just don't add up, but because the Bible shows the 144,000 to be Jewish Evangelists on earth during the Great Tribulation, while the great crowd are Christian Martyrs in heaven, having been martyred during the Great Tribulation.
 

Thank you for that excellent piece of research, Holly W. The math does not really stack up, objectively at least, no matter how much the Watchtower writers gainsay their approach to this subject.
For instance, I presume their use of the expression "Professed Christians" is designed to militate against any imbalance in the numbers when aligned with modern day figures. But what exactly is a "professed" Christian? It is my understanding that the anonymous writers of Watchtower literature often refer to persons of authority within the Movement who professes to be of the anointed. So what then is a "professed anointed Christian" within the fellowship of the Watchtower?
Just thinking allowed.

Actually, I provided Scriptures to help you understand 1st century Christians believed Jesus was already ruling (invisibly) amidst his enemies in their day, from as soon as Jesus ascended to heaven and sat down at his Father's right hand. - Acts 2:34-37; Eph. 1:20, 21; Heb. 10:12, 13; Rev. 3:21. Did you contemplate these cited texts? 
I question a GLOBAL flood. You do see the nuanced distinction between questioning a GLOBAL flood and the flood per se, do you not? 
Which ice age? There have been a few in Earth's 4.5 billion year history. Did the 'different scientists' date a world-wide flood to the 3rd millennium BCE?

You're speaking of Acts 1:9-11 where the disciples watched him visibly go into heaven:
Acts 1:9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11 They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”
But in 1914 the Bible Students were not aware of his return at all because they were saying he had already returned in 1874.