I came in in time for the 1975 thingy as well. Turned down a scholarship to one of the best universities in the nation for my rather special talents because of the pressure from the Bros. not to get a higher education.
Yep, I accepted the 1914 generation thing. I was in a university when the Society changed the definition of "generation" to make it open-ended. My first thought was "shades of Orwell's 1984." LOL
As for the date for the fall of Jerusalem, the basis for 1914, that date is by no means certain at 587 b.c. as scholars alledge. The archealogical evidence is by no means certain. 537 b.c. for the fall of Babylon to the Persians and the liberation of the Jews is far more certain and accepted by scholars. Since Daniel confirmed that 70 years of exile as decreed in Jerimiah were in fact fulfilled (Dan. 9:2, Jer. 25:11, 29:10) then the date for the fall of Jerusalem is in the area of 607 b.c., that is if we can rely on the evidence for the date of the fall of Babylon. My problem is not with the date of 1914 so much as its significance. IMO that is what is misunderstood. The end of the times of Gentile domination over the Jews and Israel does not invariably equal the establishment of the messianic kingdom in heaven or anywhere else. It simply means that the Gentiles no longer have uncontested authority over the Jews and the Holy Land. And I think that the restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land that is now playing itself out right before our eyes bears that out.
Boy! That'd get me DF'd in a hurry if it got into the wrong hands!