When one questions prophecy without indicting the Watchtower leaders, is there any attitude adjustment?
For example, if one asked who the two "witnesses" were in Revelation 11, and which temple John was measuring in the same chapter, would anyone attempt to answer them? Or is there a biblical commentary that's available that attempts to answer questions like that? The thing about prophecy is that a Christian can read Isaiah 53 and clearly see Jesus as the fulfillment; however, Jewish scholars read the same text and say, no, Isaiah was speaking of a nation, not the Messiah. Since the Bible was not broken into chapters until much later, many people don't read what comes before. In Isaiah 52, the prophet states, " Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider."
Putting the above at the beginning of the next chapter certainly would have put it more in context and show that Isaiah is referring to a person. Instead, when one begins reading Isaiah 53, it states: "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him." But who is "him" and "he"? If you hadn't read the chapter before or weren't aware of how the continuity worked, it would be a mystery.
The Governing Body seeks to interpret some prophecies, but then ignores many others entirely. This goes beyong what is right, or accurate, and what is inaccurate. The Society teaches that Armageddon will be the final conflagration, but it ignores other tiny details such as where it would be and who it would involve. Its teachings on Gog and Magog are equally as tenuous. Ezekiel spends pages speaking of it in detail (chapters 38-39), and yet the Society relegates it to little more than footnotes and it's not clear where, when and if it's happened. Is it the same battle that's described by Zechariah (12-14) and John (Rev. 11-12), when he speaks of Armageddon? All speak of a final assault on Jerusalem, all speak of a last minute salvation by God; and all speak of an unprecedented time of peace afterwards and a permanent reconciliation between Judah and Yahweh.
Many Christians have made the connections between all three accounts. It's one reason the Jews decided to hold out against the Romans, hoping it would be then that they would be rescued. To their surprise, the Romans soundly defeated them and scattered them to the ends of the earth. Before Christ's return, the Jews had to begin returning to the lands of its inheritance, and this has happened. But Bethel was completely wrong about the return of the Jews, the building of its temple and the rise of the Beast and the kingdom that will eventually try to destroy the remnant of Judah. It's that generation that will not pass away before the Lord returns. Not 1914. Already there's a major move to restore the Caliphate in Turkey, and if it's the kingdom that was, is not, and is, then it will be the place from which the Antichrist will emerge. In short, prophecy is multi-faceted and intertwined, and you can't just cherry pick the points you like and ignore the rest.
Here's Joel Richardson speaking about the Antichrist. I don't endorse it...it's evangelical, but it has some interesting views and am just throwing it out as an interesting point of view, and I think he may be on to something: