If they had said 1914 is only their interpretation, then they would be able to get away with it, but they don't. When you see references to dates, they are statements; 1914, which was the end of the gentile times. Millions now living will never die. etc...
I did a search in the bible for '1914' and guess what, it's not there. We all know how the organization gets this number. So, Gods word doesn't use dates, but the WTBTS does. This is an interpretation, akin to early prophet interpretation of dreams. This in anyone?s book IS prophesying.
Of course, all their prophecies never come true. Nobody or group is a prophet. However, look at the twisting abilities they use to say 'we absolutely are not a prophet'. Beautiful semantics, let me explain:
Take this awake; can you see where it says that the 'faithful and desecrate slave' have made mistakes:
*** Awake! 1993 March 22 pp.3-4 Why So Many False Alarms? ***
[Footnotes]
Jehovah's Witnesses, in their eagerness for Jesus' second coming, have suggested dates that turned out to be incorrect. Because of this, some have called them false prophets. Never in these instances, however, did they presume to originate predictions 'in the name of Jehovah.' Never did they say, 'These are the words of Jehovah.' The Watchtower, the official journal of Jehovah's Witnesses, has said: "We have not the gift of prophecy." (January 1883, page 425) "Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible." (December 15, 1896, page 306) The Watchtower has also said that the fact that some have Jehovah's spirit "does not mean those now serving as Jehovah's witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes." (May 15, 1947, page 157) "The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic." (August 15, 1950, page 263) "The brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And so, at times, it has been necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18)"?February 15, 1981, page 19.
You can't see it because its the 'Jehovah's Witnesses' that have made the slip-up's not the 'faithful and desecrate slave'. This is subtle, however quite strong. It starts with the eagerness of JW's. This phrase will ring bell's to the 1976 people where the WTBTS blamed the rank and file for being too eager with regard to 1975. Also, who is the footnote written to? I don't believe it's intended for the people outside the organization, but for the rank and file. How often, when speaking about the writers of the WT are they referred to as 'The brothers preparing these publications ' compared with 'the faithful and desecrate slave'.
Never in these instances, however, did they presume to originate predictions 'in the name of Jehovah.' Never did they say, 'These are the words of Jehovah.'
It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes."
"The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic."
These are bold claims when you take into account the following:
Cross-examination of Frederick W. Franz in the case of Olin Moyle v. WTB&TS, 1943, Sections #2596-2597, p. 866.
Q. At any rate, Jehovah God is now the editor of the paper [The Watchtower], is that right?
A. He is today the editor of the paper.
00Q. How long has He been editor of the paper?
A. Since its inception he has been guiding it.
Cross-examination of Nathan Homer Knorr in the case of Olin Moyle v. WTB&TS, 1943, Section #4421, p. 1474.
Q. In fact, it [The Watchtower] is set forth directly as God's Word, isn't it?
A. Yes, as His word.
Q. Without any qualification whatsoever?
A. That is right.
(http://www.irr.org/English-JW/jwfacten.html#Return%2015 )
I've thought about different ways to express this, however, what Carl Sagan says in Broca's Brain, pages 332-333, does a pretty good job:
Doctrines that make no predictions are less compelling than those which make correct predictions; they are in turn more successful than doctrines that make false predictions. But not always.
One prominent American religion confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and -- while the events of that year were certainly of some importance -- the world does not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended.
There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy. They could have said, "Oh, did we say '1914'? So sorry, we meant '2014.' A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren't inconvenienced in any way." But they did not.
They could have said, "Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth." But they did not.
Instead, they did something much more ingenious. They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn't noticed, that was our lookout.
It is astonishing in the face of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all. But religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof. The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough-mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration were needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry
Steve.