MadJw,
I'm familiar with Rev. 1:10--as a JW I studied that amazing work of fiction called "Revelation: Its Grand Climax at Hand" at least twice. (as a side note, studying that book and the "Daniel's Prophecy" book played a significant role in helping me realize that the Society is as clueless as everybody else when it comes to large portions of the Bible).
My point (and I hate to belabor it) is that the first several verses of Revelation are an introduction, and the last several verses are a conclusion. For the sake of this conversation, I'll accept that the visions after Rev. 1:10 are set in the future. But in chapter 22, the vision is ending, and Jesus is giving John instructions for the present. In verse 10, as I quoted above, Jesus told John not to seal up the words of the book. Were those instructions only for some time post-1914? That would be absurd. It seems clear that he was telling John at that time (i.e., at the end of the first century) not to seal up those words. My point is that if verse 10 applied to the first century, then verse 12 does as well. Any other explanation is not being true to the plain meaning and context of the text.
We'll just have to agree to disagree regarding the flood myths. I understand that the Watchtower Society and other fundamentalist groups try to get a lot of mileage out of the flood myths of other cultures. That's not surprising because it's the best argument they've got. Personally, I prefer to use Ockham's razor--the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. As Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." That seems fair to me. Your position that a guy built a wooden boat, and kept every species on said boat for a year while God flooded the entire earth higher than Mount Everest is an objectively extraordinary claim. And much to the chagrin of the fundamentalists, some easily-explained myths are simply not extraordinary evidence.
And you mention the creation myth in Genesis as giving the only sensible account of how life started. So, it's sensible to create plants on "day" 3 and then the sun on "day"4? According to the Watchtower Society, these "days" lasted 7,000 years. How could plants survive 7,000 years with no sun? I think fundamentalists, such as the Watchtower Society, argue that the "light" discussed on "day" 1 would take care of that. Well, what in the world is that "light" if there's no sun until "day" 4? Seems to me that the simpler explanation is that the Genesis creation myth is an attempt by the ancients to explain how they got here. In other words, it's more evidence that the Bible is simply the product of men in the ancient near east, nothing more, nothing less.