1914 will always be a Biblically significant date as well as 1874, regardless of whether the WTS fully understand it.
1874 begins a generation of 120 years from 1874 to 1994. 1914 begins a generation of 80 years (Ps. 90:10) from 1914-1994.
1874 was not the date of the second coming, but it still can be considered the date that begins Christ's "presence" or PAROUSIA. That is, Christ goes to heaven and sits at God's right hand until it is time to start events that will lead up to his actual arrival. A "parousia" is a term that references the custom in Roman Period times when a dignitary would arrive in a city in a long procession. The dignitary himself would be at the very end of that procession. So what the disciples were asking was what would be the events LEADING UP TO Christ's actual arrival. Christ's final arrival, though, would need preparation. The correct understanding of things, a focus on chronology, etc. would have to come out. So Christ is considered to be inactive at God's right hand until the last 120 years before his actual arrival, which would be at the very end of that generation of 120 years and 180 years. The beginning of that preparation, including the identification of the "temple" sect through which Christ would arrive would begin when Michael (Jesus Christ) symbolically "stands up" (Daniel 12:1). So when Christ "stands up" is when the true "parousia" begins and that is still a good event to align with 1874, a date focussed on by the Bible Students/WTS, which is the chosen "temple" sect until it becomes corrupt and is abandoned by Christ after he removes the "little flock."
As far as 1914 is concerned, it is also a date that is not fully understood, but is still a good date for beginning the "last generation" of 80 years that would see the arrival of Christ before that generation ended in 1994. That's because that "last generation" would begin with an actual international event, that of a world war: "nation vs. nation and kingdom vs. kingdom." So WWI is the international event that begins that last generation, unconnected otherwise to any other chronology.
What 1914 is not, however, is the date for thre "end of the gentile times" or the end of the "7 times" and thus the date of the 2nd coming. The "end of the gentile times" is a reference to the end of rule by the gentiles over the Jews who were to be in exile after the fall of Jerusalem. Clearly the "appointed times of the nations" (i.e. gentile times) is connected with the literal Jews as we see them going into exile after Jerusalem's destruction by the Roman army. So when we see them returning and the gentiles no longer ruling over the Jews, that is, when they officially come out of exile and have their own country again, then that is the true date for the "end of the gentile times." That event occurred on November 30, 1947 when the UN initiated the Partition Agreement that gave the Jews a homeland again.
What 1914 is not, as well, is the date of the 2nd coming. The 2nd coming occurs 2520 years from the fall of Jerusalem and the removal of an earthly representative of God's kingdom, which is correctly understood by the WTS for the most part. The only problem is, is getting the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem based on secular records dating the Neo-Babylonian Period. This period was manipulated by the Persians and so all those dates are distorted. Using the Bible's chronology, our best means of dating the fall of Jerusalem is in connection with the "70 weeks" prophecy which begins the 70th week when Christ is baptized in 29 CE. Even the WTS got that right by dating the beginning of the 70 weeks in 455 BCE. The diffeence is, the Bible links the beginning of the 70 weeks with the rebuliding of Jerusalem and its temple in the 7th month of the 1st year of Cyrus. Thus 455 BCE actually should date the 1st of Cyrus rather than the 20th of Artaxerxes. When you do have enough faith to rely on Biblical chronology rather than revised secular records, then you get the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem and, in turn, the correct date for the 2nd coming. So based on 455 BCE being the 1st of Cyrus, the Bible dates the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar 70 years earlier and thus in 525 BCE. Jerusalem fell 4 years earlier and thus in 529 BCE. Whether you can accept that date as real or not does not matter. But based on that possible reality, when Jerusalem falls in 529 BCE, the 2nd coming occurs in 1992 rather than 1914. Our only concern at this point is whether or not this date for the 2nd coming occurs before the end of the 120 and 80-year generations in 1914? Of course, 1992 does occur prior to 1994 and near the very end of that generation as the comparison to a "parousia" indicates. Also, fortunately we have secular evidence from the original timeline in the astronomical text called the VAT4956, which hides the original date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II, which is 511 BCE. That confirms that Jerusalem fell in 529 BCE using a secular source.
So the most important point is that the Bible is true in regards to 1914 and the "last generation" even if the WTS doesn't understand it. That's because they expected "Armageddon" and the "great tribulation" to occur before the end of the generation.
" The present wicked system of things, which extends worldwide , entered it's last days in 1914, and some of the generation alive then will also be on hand to witness its complete end in the " great tribulation."_____Reasoning book page 234
The above is the fundamental reason why the "last generation" doesn't work for the witnesses now. They are expecting the "great tribulation" or Armageddon to occur before 1994. The "great tribulation" of Matthew is not a reference to Armageddon, but a reference to HOLOCAUST. How is it that women without children will fare better during Armageddon? How can anyone escape Armageddon by fleeding from the city into the mountains? And why is it that the days were cut short for the sake of the "holy ones" or else none of them would survive? Would Armageddon be such an out-of-control event that possibly all the "holy ones" would be exterminated as well along with the wicked. That reference alone, though, tells us that during the "great tribulation" the majority of the "holy ones" apparently would be killed. Does any of the elect die at Armageddon/ Of course not. The "great tribulation" of Matthew 24 which is linked witih Daniel's prophecy pertains to the natural Jews who are considered the "holy ones" who would undergo this final "great tribulation" before being restored to their homeland. Zech 13:8 prophesied that two-thirds of the Jews would be exterminated during this "great tribulation" and that is precisely what occurred: six million out of nine million (2/3rds) were exterminated during the Holocaust. Further, Matthew 24:29 clearly says, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days... the sign of the son of man would appear..." That means the "great tribulation" is completely over before Christ arrives. The Holocaust was over in 1945. The 2nd coming was not scheduled to occur until near the end of that generation ending in 1994. So all this was fulfilled as the BIBLE says, though the WTS does not understand this.
The current 1914 pickle they find themselves in is that the date 1914 is seen as the "end of the gentile times" - meaning the end of man made governments ruling without the intervention of God's heavenly kingdom. But, for 100 years now the governments/nations continue to manage the worlds affairs without divine judgement. That's rather odd...
Again, the "gentile times" are not a reference to God's rulership over the nations of the world, but the gentile nations ruling over the natural Jews in Palestine. Thus the end of the gentile times occurred on Noember 30, 1947 when the official end of Jewish exile ended. The "great tribulation" is not Armageddon, but the Holocaust. And the true date for the fall of Jerusalem in not 607 BCE but 529 BCE, meaning the 2nd coming should have occurred sometime between the Summer of 1992 and the Summer of 1993. We can use the VAT4956 to date year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II to 511 BCE, or follow Martin Anstey who considers the "70 weeks" prophecy beginning in 455 BCE must date the 1st of Cyrus. Either way, you get 529 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem which, in turn, dates the end of 2520 years ("7 times") in 1992. This is significant since the "parousia" requires Christ's arrival as the very last sign or event prior to that generation ending.
So it is wonderful we have all this "chatter" about 1914 and the WTS' misunderstanding, but at the same time, who is asking what the true understanding of the "last generation" is? Who is putting faith in the Bible regardless of what the WTS says?
SO THE BIBLE'S CHRONOLOGY IS TRUE! That's my main point here. We know the WTS has got some of this wrong, but in that case, where's the true understanding? I've just provided it. In the meantime, the WTS was to serve as the temple sect from 1886 to 1996 after which it would be deemed apostate and cast out. So even though the WTS is apostate now from God's point of view, its focus on the dates of 1874 and 1914 are still relevant as far as Bible prophecy is concerned.
So I'm just making sure that just because the 1914 doctrine isn't working out completely for the WTS, you shouldn't transfer that over to the Bible not being true. Finally, the "great tribulation" is not a reference to Armageddon but to the Holocaust. Once you have the correct understanding, then you can have the truth. The true fall of Jerusalem occurs in 529 BCE and not 607 BCE or 587 BCE, which anyone can research now, so there's no excuse if you get that wrong at this point. The Bible has always begun the "70 weeks" in the 1st of Cyrus and thus 455 BCE. If that boils down to a hard choice for you between the Bible and secular history, then you have to make that choice.