Returning to the original post. As I scanned through the 10 pages of comments ... "Bravo!" "Good job!" etc., my heart kinda sank. His argument is terrible logic and it fundamentally misunderstands what is so attractive about JWs.
JWs are a Christian group who have applied rigid rationality to basic Bible premises.
His argument is like a knat to be swatted away. It is like Christian guy looked at the elder in his 40s and whipped out a picture of him when he was 20 and saying "You are not him! See! You look different!." Well no duh. Of course the "good news" is "different" because the entire Bible is one long argument for progressive understanding and changed rules. When I look at the criticism of JW "waffling" and it being a "different" goodnews, I ask how JW critics can forget entire Hebrew saga and how the Christians were like "ya, about that .... um, we gotta tell you bros something ..."
JWs see the Bible plan, the "sacred secret" as a continually developing idea coming to fruition. It goes like this:
The vast universe is actually at peace and there is no strife.
The earth was supposed to join in.
It did not.
The sacred secret is how God brings the earth back in line with the universe.
Contrast this logic with evolution and science which shows a chaotic universe wherein resources are fought over, this group destroys this group, and on and on in a continual tension that keeps a sort of organic homeostasis. Or contrast it with Mormonism which thinks of earth as a testing ground for angels on their way to godhood. Or, contrast it with the lack of rationalism in mainstream Xianity which suggests an illogical circle of creating humans on earth, so they can be taken to heaven (didn't he already have angels who skipped the earth and were just created as angels?). What drew us to JWs was the rational logic of the larger scheme and how they poked holes in the logic of established religions.
So of course the "good news" is the same as it was in the 1st century to a JW. It fundamentally IS. But within the paradigm that the Bible itself justifies, it is justifiably at a different point of development.
Adam