They should have added on the cover: "The Faithful And Discreet Slave: Now 25% Discreeter"
AnnOMaly: Actually I don't think this would affect their interpretation of Daniel 4. I haven't read the articles, but based on what I've read here, they are only disparaging the approach to antitypes where an additional future meaning is inserted into a literal account, like the example of Jacob's red stew prefiguring Jesus' blood, or assigning meaning to aspects of a parable which Jesus did not probably intend to be significant. Read this again:
Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so.
So because Daniel 4's dream is interpreted by Daniel to be typical of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, the Society can also assign an antitype to that dream to represent the Gentile times. Does that make sense?