AllenSmith

Works for ME!
Think Tight Pants Tony would like this cartoon?

Here is a picture of some Brothers and Sisters participating in TPT Fashion Felonies, at an Assembly.
Note the contrasting lapel badges.

Of course customs vary .... In San Francisco, California they could be mistaken for  Insurance Salespersons.

( JTR pauses to throw a brick through the plate glass window...)
Remember the original question?
"DOES THE GOVERNING BODY LIVE ON CAMPUS OR OFF CAMPUS?
I would like to supplement that with:
"Who lives in the Watchtower owned residence valued at 1.4 MILLION DOLLARS in Colony Park gated community, 35 miles from the Campus?"
Hmmmm?
 

Could you please explain why you keep insisting all of Christendom churches are mega churches....I sure don't belong to a mega church and the church I attend isn't worth billions of dollars like the watchtower is or these other mega churches, why do you keep insisting all churches are mega churches and all pastors live like Hinn? 
And you guys have yet to explain why they had to build a highly secured luxury compound and still don't provide one dime in charity.
So about the life and times of the gods of the watchtower: this is just a small example.
http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/no-expense-spared-governing-body-members-do-fly-business-class
Of course they don't live lives like the likes of Hinn, or Olsteen or other fake preachers. But still everything is provided for the gods of the watchtower, they are the key holders to the millions of dollars they control.
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/204568/wealth-watch-tower-bible-tract-society-uk
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/43014/watchtower-34th-biggest-company-ny
So I would like you to back up your insistence that all churches of Christendom are mega churches and their leaders live like the pope  or Hinn/Olsteen, etc. 
 

I agree, ridiculous is, as ridiculous does, for no claims have been established which contradicts what Matthew9969 who stated the following that: Now that we've established that it's ridiculous to claim the governing body, aka gods of the watchtower live lavishly, could jw's please stop spreading lies that all of Christendom's pastors, teachers etc. live lavish lifestyles, the pastor's at my church drive minivans, live in small homes, etc and don't have anywhere near the wealth the governing body has. 
For he still lacks sufficient proof to even establish any conclusion to said claims be made previously, thinking no one has seen what he said. A fun fact is all Christians will speak of pastors of Christendom who do live lavish lives, but you know, people like to say things and make it seem true  and he brings up his church when asked for proof of the JWs claims.
Anyways
The Mega churches and the Vatican break bank on the daily.

Mega Churches average between 2,000 to 40,000 members per attendance, either weekly or monthly, these are just estimated numbers so it may be more. The thing is, I attended a Mega Church once in my life, the only reason was because I and a friend were taking care of someone and that someone just happen to not tell us where she was going until we got there (it's a trap), and that left me in a position to go to one. The experience was "meh" because I knew the scriptures and I didn't feel like being in that place, and I had woman next to me screaming JESUS while clapping every 15 seconds, had the feeling like I was at a football stadium indoors.
All jokes aside, from memory, they had a lot seats, possible more i some other area of the church, that day it was packed so probably 10,000+, and every hour or so there was a man or woman with collection boxes walking around and people just throw money at them.
This is a list of the ones in the United States alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_megachurches_in_the_United_States
Megachurches alone tend to have a lot of members day in and day out so money is generated via tithing rather quickly, now if combined, they pretty much surpass.
Now the Vatican is another monster on its own, it is worth like $10 billion to $15 billion or more: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833509,00.html
As for their members, the head count is hard to find, it varies, but from pictures alone and any recent event they hold, be it in where the Vatican is located, in some part of Europe, the US, etc, there will always be a flood of people that crowds around a single man, who is surrounded by lethal guards that tend to be underestimated by their "clown-like clothing".
What I do know is that in the US, the pope drew in a lot of people, and the event he host had thousands upon thousands of people in attendance, while you have other Christians who appear in opposition to counter the event, for they didn't attend for the pope, they attended to tell people to get away from what is going on.
The thing is when it comes to Christianity itself, what is outside of Non-Trinitarianism surpasses Non-Trinitarianism I say this because of the reaction of most Christians who do not know what Non-Trinitarian Christianity is as well as the fact that it is put a small coin compared to massive movement of mainstream Christianity, who often shoot down anything or anyone who teaches something different from them.

Thank you for showing a perfect example of how detached from reality you jw's are.  Also how you attempt to deflect the conversation to something else...what the heck does forcing people to divorce have to do with the subject? You born in jw's have no clue how religious charities work, you do realize there is more research outside of the watchtower publications don't you?
 

Just because the sheep take direction from the Shepherd when it comes to learn from scripture and in turn, use said Scripture to better themselves and or life does not mean that the sheep worship the Shepherd. For that is the role of a church leader/pastor/whatever you want to call em, and church leaders operate similarly to that of the early churches in ancient times, and how Jesus' Apostles operate to their students as well, Shepherd to Sheep, Sheep to Shepherd ; Flock to Shepherd Shepherd to Flock, thus becoming one in faith and in teaching(s).
Anyways as for those stats, they could be found just about anywhere, especially with stats containing statistics on revenue of the church, member count and the like.
The fact that you bring up John 2:16 makes me question if you understood of what it means, but I will explain it below.
There are some churches who use money to help out in their gospel, some who do it far better than others, for we have many examples of this, in some situations, the money used by the church is often use to help out members of the church and if the church is part of a religious organization, any church connected benefits from the money as well. Now if the JWs or Watchtower did use the money to build churches and maintain the church, to make their magazines, to send out aid, etc, keeping the money for themselves and only themselves, than that would be an issue, but that is only in the dreams of those who are their opponents. But the reality is JWs really do those things, even got relief efforts going on for them, aiding their brothers and sisters first, than going to help out others, Texas being an example.
And last I checked, I doubt any of those men who are the church leaders of the Watchtower even own mansions or houses, for if they remain in one spot and soon move to another spot, in this case, going back and forth, to place A, B, C, D to A again and repeating the cycle and what they all seem to care about is their teachings and that their church members having faith in said teachings, whereas ironically, some other churches today are supposedly copying the JWs when it comes to not celebrating only "some" holidays and adhering to the bible, elsewhere, people would not set foot in a JW church, however, they are open to accept magazines, bible and or any resources they could get for free from JWs and in turn, use it. You'd be surprise of how many people like, want and even learn from their magazines vs JW opponents who take them only to throw it away in the faces of JWs.
Apparently you do not really know Benny Hinn, for he generates money, yes, but majority of the money goes forwards his church, his security and bodyguards, and most of all, his house: http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/benny-hinns-house/view/google/
We have his other house, Purchases 15,000-Square-Foot Italian Villa

 Other pastors being examples such as: Joel Olsteen, Francis Chan, Creflo Dollar, to name a few.
Some other examples of how pastors use their money, even having reality shows and the like:
 
For Preachers like this preach do not the gospel that comes from the bible or that of the gospel that Jesus Christ preached. For they preach the prosperity gospel (Prosperity Theology) - the promise of becoming rich, monetarily and spirituality if you tithe to the church.For the money barely goes towards helping the church members, the church, or anything pertaining to relief, etc.
This includes Benny Hinn and his pals.
Regarding Creflo Dollar:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-siebold/the-biggest-scam-of-all-p_b_7521170.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Then we have silly Trinitarians (False Christians of Babylon) defending such persons and themselves:
As for John 2:16:
My Father's House Some groups (majority being Trinitarians) who misinterpret this completely fails to honestly regard the context of the passage: "Take these things away and stop making my Father’s house a marketplace." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Your house will consume me." John 2:16-17 (see Psalm 69:9). The Temple is the Father's house, the Father of Jesus. Likewise, we are to understand that the body of Christ is the temple of God, that is, the Father's house. The Father's Word had tabernacled in human flesh (John 1:14) and the Father abiding in Jesus did the works (John 14:10).
Let the reader also observe that Jesus did not describe the Temple as his house; Jesus did not describe the Temple as the Triune God's house; the Temple was his God's house, the Father's house. The Old Testament God of Israel was the Father of Jesus and the Temple built by Solomon was the Father's House. This simple fact alone tells us that the God of the Shema was the Father of Jesus. Under the Law, the Father's house was a stone temple. But something new was taking place. The Spirit of the Father had come to dwell in Jesus and this man himself was now God the Father's tabernacle, the Temple of God. And indeed, we also read in the Scriptures that the body of Christ, the church, is the Temple of God where His Spirit dwells.
The Scriptural facts show us that his body was the Temple of God; the Word tabernacled in human flesh and that flesh was the Father's Temple. He, this body of flesh, was the Father's Word and he spoke the words of the Father. This account is about the Father's house, the Temple. Jesus' words were not his own but the Father's who sent him. This body of flesh (body of this man), His Temple, was His Word to the world. Since he was the Father's Word, there were two witnesses as according to the Law. Jesus tells us many times in John's Gospel that he spoke the words of the Father. He kept his Father's word (John 8:55) for eternal life.
For I did not speak from myself, but the Father Himself who sent me has given me commandment as to what to say and what to speak. I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me. John 12:50
The word Jesus had spoken at John 2:19 were the words of the Father. The Father's word is "the word of life" (1 John 1:1). In the Gospel of John, Jesus is the Father's word tabernacled in human flesh. Therefore, being the Father's word, what then did you expect the Father to say when these men asked Jesus by what authority he had cleared the Temple? "Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up."
 
"I am the resurrection and the life." John 11:25
 
Anyways, do you have a source for them using expensive flights and only going to 5 star hotels, as you claim? Since you did state the following:
 
 

TrueTom returns to his abode after another hard day fleecing the flock.
 
 

Every time I have ever challenged you to identify a falsehood I have EVER stated in over 7,000 posts here on the Archive, you have come up with ZERO specificity.  You are living in a fantasy world where things you are ignorant of, you consider lies.
I do thank you for referring to me as ROOK,.... even better as ROOK!!
And as far as the NRA goes, I don't support them ... they support ME!

Pretty much majority of Christianity in a nutshell today:

It makes me feel odd to invite tons of worldly people who are obviously fornicators and idolaters and then not be able to even show a little love such as a "hello" to a disfellowshipped brother or sister.
Does not compute mentally. Just sayin'
We should make the Memorial for baptized, active, approved members of JW.org in secret locations only. Less stress for me.
 
Jesus did not die for thier sins since they unrepentant and subsequently disfellowshipped.
 
How do you handle the disfellowshipped at the Memorial?
 
 

I cannot understand why there is only partial information concerning the Jehovah's Witnesses and Watchtower Society Child Abuse accusations from around the Earth. I have just put a status on my FB page saying that : The one thing I have learnt in life is, that I don't know the truth about anything".  The reason for this is that there is always some doubt about things read 'online'. Are they true ? Does one want them to be true? Are my opinions correct?   So with that in mind I will continue with the information I 'have read online'. 
We all know that Child Abuse and Sexual Abuse accusations are, or appear to be 'in fashion' right now. In politics, in entertainment, and in religion. But Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be 'no part of the world', that is the 'world' that belongs to Satan the Devil. So it would come as a surprise then that from top to bottom the JW's are being accused of Child Abuse Earthwide. 
What I've noted so far : The Australian Royal Commission did a three year investigation into the JW org, most of which is available online to read. They found that since 1950 there were 1006 accusations of Child Abuse within the Australian branch of Jehovah's Witnesses, none of which were reported to the police or secular authorities........... In Canada there have been large court cases in Quebec and Ontario againse JW org..... A $66 million lawsuit against the religion's leadership is taking place.....  In the Netherlands 'Reclaimed Voices' foundation have set up emergency phone lines and have put out advertisements concerning victims of abuse within the JW org there. The 'hotline' had received 80 replies as of December 28th 2017..... In the UK (where I am) the Charity Commision set up an inquiry into the UK branch of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding child abuse / sexual abuse. I think this started with the Manchester New Molton congregation in 2014. The Charity Commision also set up an inquiry into the Watchtower Soc (WTBTS) here in the UK. In Feb 2016. The Org went to court to try to block the investigations but failed. A former elder from South Wales said there was instructions to elders to destroy all documents regarding child abuse. There seemed to be a cost to the Org of over £1 million which I presume is court fines and payouts. 
Then of course we have the USA. In 2014 a $10.5 million lawsuit against JW Org by Valicia Alston and others. In 2015 the Candace Conti case against Jonathan Kendrick. And in April 2016 the Watchtower Soc' remained defiant in refusing to hand over documents about the Child Abuse in the USA branch of the JW Org.  Now it seems (and remember I'm only going on what I've read) that the JW Org in USA sent out a letter in 1997, to all elders of congregations in the USA. The letter was a direct instruction to the elders to send in ALL documents and information concerning accusations of Child Abuse / Sexual abuse both current and passed. This was to be an ongoing instruction and all information was to be sent in special blue envelopes to Brooklyn. Now there are approx' 14,000 congregations in the USA, and the time period from 1997 to 2017 is of course 20 years. So it would seem that the Governing Body have 20 years worth of accusations concerning Child Abuse and Sexual abuse with in it's USA congregations. However, despite court action and direct instruction to the JW Org / Watchtower Soc', the W/T and JW Org still refuse to hand over the documents to the High court. In November 2017 a High court of California fined the JW Org / WT Soc'  $4,000 per day for not handing over the documents, and it seems the cost so far to the Org / WT is more than           $2 million. I cannot find out if any of this money has been paid or is still owing. 
One other point that I found interesting (providing it's true of course) is that the Governing Body has deliberately separated the JW Org, known as the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Each of these now has its own Legal Department. The purpose of this is to slow down all court proceedings because the Legal Dept from one has to write to the Legal Dept of the other for information, then the legal Dept of the other refuses such information etc. This is what caused the Supreme Court of California to impose the heavy fines on the Org. Basically the court got fed up with the 'clowning around of the JW Org.  
So to sum up: It seems that many countries, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, UK and USA, have found and proved many cases of child abuse / sexual abuse within the Jehovah's Witnesses and Watchtower Society. But what makes this worse is that the Governing Body of the Org' is deliberately withholding  the information about pedophiles within its ranks. Add to this that elders of congregations Earthwide are instructed not to inform their congregations about pedophiles within their congregation. And, congregation members are told not to report child abuse / sexual abuse within the congregations, to the Police or outside secular organisations. On top of this victims are not believed, because the Governing Body has made a rule that says there must be two witnesses to any accusation of abuse, which of course will not happen in the case of Child abuse or Sexual abuse.
About me : I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses until about a month ago.  After doing approx three months research online my conscience would no longer allow me to remain within the Organisation. How could I encourage other people to join an Organisation that allows Child Abuse /Sexual Abuse to continue unreported and unpunished within its ranks. There could be a pedophile within the congregation that I was part of, I would never know, because the Elders would keep it secret.... However, I do believe in God, whether His name is Jehovah, Yahweh or something else, and I am keeping my mind open as to how I will find the 'truth' of God's requirements. 
What i am hoping for is that some BIG media source will bring all the information together concerning all the Child Abuse / Sexual Abuse accusations against the Jehovah's Witnesses Org' and the Watchtower Soc' Earthwide, so that all info' is readily available to everyone. At the moment it all seems so 'bitty' and not organised. Yes there is info' online, but are the sources trustworthy. What is needed is a neutral unemotional factual report, please. 

Hmm!!!

Would this thought include, taking someone else’s work, completely out of context and displaying copyrighted material, for the purpose of distorting facts? Isn’t that a REWRITE?

JTR. You fall short on your facts.

The first time I met him in person was long after I had gotten permission to do "Eat It" back in 1984.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/michael-jackson-remembered-weird-al-yankovic-on-imitation-as-flattery-20090709

http://mentalfloss.com/article/75056/9-musicians-who-refused-let-weird-al-yankovic-parody-their-songs

But I can understand why you would want to defend enablers and abusers of copyright.

scholar JW pretendus horribilis mendacious wrote:
This post of yours, to which I'm responding, is a fine example of your atrociously bad attempts at scholarship, of how you misrepresent source references -- even of yourself -- and of how you deliberately misrepresent your opponents' words.
And I will hold you to yours.
Here you're admitting, for the first time, that your bashing of COJ's work as unscholarly has been a straw man -- a fallacious argument that is also a red herring -- a false or irrelevant argument designed to throw naive readers off the track of the real argument. In other words, you've admitted to lying, fallacious argumentation, and deliberately trying to deceive your readers.
     
You ignore almost everything that you can't dismiss by handwaving or lying. I can give dozens of examples. Of course, we know that if I do, you'll ignore those, too.
     
More unevidenced handwaving. You can disagree all you like, but with no evidence for your disagreement, it's meaningless.
Good. Then both you and I can quote him on why WTS chronology is bogus.
Another example of your ignoring an essential part of an argument. Let's examine how you've done it.
You had said:
<< ... it is essential to look at all sides of the argument and realize that it is not an exact science but open to much interpretation. >>
To which I replied:
<< True in principle, but the devil is in the details. And when you personally deny that a clear scripture that reads "these nations" actually means "the Jews", we know that you're lying through your teeth. >>
So we both agree on my statement "true in principle", but that's a trivially obvious statement. The meat of my argument was "the devil is in the details" followed by my example of your lying about a Bible passage. You ignored the meat, and focused on the trivial.
You also invoke your standard bogus "different methodology" fallacy. A methodology different from that accepted by the world's best scholars is fine, as long as one can justify that it is valid. But what you call "WTS methodology" is not valid, as shown by the fact that it results in contradictions with the Bible and ancient sources, and is logically flawed. This "methodology" amounts to a circular argument, and deliberately ignores all evidence that does not support its pre-defined conclusion.
Of course it does. Without misrepresentation, it immediately falls apart, as has been proved by countless JW critics.
More to the point: you have acknowledged no such examples.
Do you want me to list them again?
Yes, evaluated and then ignored all that does not fit. Such as Jeremiah 27 and Daniel 5. And various passages in 2 Chronicles 36 and Jeremiah 25. Examples that you are well aware of, and routinely ignore when they're put to you.
LOL! "Simply"! That story, as you admit, is the sum of the best world scholarship.
Translation: "It's wrong because it contradicts Mommy Watch Tower's fairytales!"
     
More handwaving, disproved by many examples just in this thread. And by dozens of examples on other forums and in various critical commentaries over the years. You can offer no examples, aside from "It's wrong cuz it contradicts my Mommy!"
Some are, but "celebrated WTS scholars" ignore or misrepresent all that don't fit their narrative. This has been repeatedly demonstrated.
Correct.
Your problem is that these texts, interpreted properly in the manner summarized by COJ, are fully concordant with the most accepted secular evidence, whereas WTS chronology is not. Thus we have "two witnesses" for good scholarship.
But you're again ignoring the point: both are "methodologies", one of which you accept because it aligns with your preconceived beliefs learned along ago, and the other which you reject because it contradicts your preconceptions.
So what? One does not need to set forth a complete Theory of Cosmology to debunk a claim that the moon is made of green cheese.
     
So you now admit that you lied when you claimed that I have presented "no evidence". This has been noted in your "record of repentance".
"Dealt with"? Yes, waving your hands around is certainly "dealing with" evidence.
I'm perfectly well aware of the niceties of interpretation. WTS interpretation consists of sifting through the evidence and tossing out what does not fit with its traditions. Good, scholarly interpretation consists of dealing with ALL of the evidence, and honestly talking about the pieces that are problematic. "Celebrated WTS scholars" simply ignore the evidence problematic for their preconceived notions. Examples abound.
     
Of course it does, when supported by good evidence.
But you're showing your hypocrisy again, because the best that WTS fake scholars can do is say that it's "likely" that Cyrus issued his decree in late 538 or early 537 BCE -- based not on evidence, but speculation. Speculation required only by their need to support WTS tradition, and nothing else.
False. I have clearly stated that there is very good evidence for it -- not that it is a fact -- and presented charts based on that evidence.
No one -- not you, not Thirdwitness, or any other JW defender has ever attempted to present an alternate chart that supports WTS claims, despite my having asked for such many times.
Correct. Just as Cyrus' decree had to have been issued some time later for the WTS's theory to work.
False. We also have Josephus' testimony, which combined with Ezra and 2 Chron. is nearly definitive that the Jews returned in 538.
Once again, I challenge you to show why such combination does not result in a 538 BCE date. Your attempts at throwing cold water on the arguments have not addressed the basics, and I've shown why they're wrong.
You really are a moron. We both agree on either 538 or 537 as the year of the Return. We both know that Ezra did not specify a year. The point here is to determine whether Ezra's description refers to 538 or to 537.
Lying yet again. As I've pointed out, you yourself agreed that the evidence is consistent with either 538 or 537. Do I need to quote you again?
Very good! You admit that 6 comes before 7! Wowee!
Here is a diagram of what I said. Perhaps you can understand pictures.
||. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 or 537 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .||
||. . . .  1st year of Return | 2nd year of Return . . . . .||
||. . . . Month 5 . Month 6 | Month 7 . Month 8  . . . . ||
||. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ab . Elul | Tishri . Heshvan . . . . . . .||
 
Correct, but irrelevant to this point.
     
The only thing I'm dogmatic about is that IF we combine Ezra and Josephus, and IF there are no disqualifying assumptons, THEN the only conclusion is that the Jews returned in 538 BCE.
Thus, the crucial question for my "thesis" is whether there are any disqualifying assumptions. I know of several possibilities, but I've looked into them quite carefully. You've listed three, which I've debunked.
Which I debunked, and you ignored.
Already done. This is more handwaving by you. You have never listed any specific disagreement you have with the details of my "thesis", such as any supposed misinterpretation of Ezra's words.
     
Exactly my point: assumptions are made, but not stated. Only a reader who is already cognizant of the details will notice the unstated assumptions -- and the typical JW reader is not cognizant of such details.
The standard example I give is that unstated assumptions are made by the WTS in assigning late 538 or early 537 for Cyrus' decree. Hardly any JW readers are aware of the historical details and scholarly discussions.
     
Excellent! You've proved my point: you are not able to detect misrepresentations in WTS literature.
Go back and carefully compare Richard Lewontin's statements with what the Creation book claimed. Answer these questions:
1. Did Lewontin say that he views the apparent design of organisms as the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer?
2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "appear"? Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning?
 
I've already done that several times in several forums. What "scholarship" do you claim is missing?
False, as I've shown above and several other times.
     
LOL! You invoke "scholarship or research" as a bludgeon, but you fail to give any details. You cannot define either term in a way that makes sense, without exposing your underlying false claims.
In your world, "scholarship" means "whatever Mommy Watch Tower says." "Research" means "whatever Mommy Watch Tower prints and calls the results of 'research'."
 
Irrelevant. My research is valid on its own merits. And of course, as I've mentioned, even if COJ and the rest of the world of scholarship came down solidly on the side of my "thesis", you would reject it simply because it contradicts Mommy Watch Tower's tradition. Your above "argument" is a straw man.
     
Pure speculation, since Thiele wrote nothing about this.
Well then, why don't you quote what Thiele said? Oh yeah, likely for the same reason you refused to quote John Aquila Brown: Thiele's words most likely don't support your claims.
     
I learned that Steinmann is as good at speculation as other scholars are. And that his speculations are not convincing.
The same is true of 537. Such gross hypocrisy!
Not necessarily decisive, but given that it's the only statement from historical documents that connects the laying of the Temple foundation with Cyrus' 2nd year, and it perfectly jibes with Ezra's statements, it's pretty solid evidence.
And so far, you've been unwilling and unable to argue why combining Ezra and Josephus is a flawed way of pinpointing the events.
     
Not really. When one examines the arguments of Thiele and others, it's decisive. And again, such arguments are not the sort of bald assertions so dear to your heart, nor the mere parroting of claims of other authors.
If you think that the arguments Thiele and other top scholars make for Ezra's dating methods are wrong, then argue your case.
     
Misleading, revisionist gobble-de-goop. Here is what was said, from pages 21-22 of this thread:
<<
scholar JW: Alan F would have us believe that the six month interval from Nisan, 538 BCE month 1 until Tishri, 538 BCE, month 7 according to his tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews were prior to Month 1 would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if Alan F demands such an indulgence proving 538 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that he refuses one to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have more easily returned the following year in 537 BE.
AlanF: The Watch Tower Society would have us believe that the six or seven month interval from Adar or Nisan, 537 BCE month 12 or 1, until Tishri, 537 BCE, month 7 according to its tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews prior to Adar or Nisan would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if the Society demands such an indulgence proving 537 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that it refuses to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have easily returned the previous year in 538 BCE?  
scholar JW: Alan F is correct in that the scenarios for both 538 and 537 BCE are similar so in theory what works for one should work for the other.
>>
Clearly, both of us agreed that the scenario in question -- from about Nisan through Tishri, in either 538 or 537 BCE -- works for either year.
In a later post I said:
<< Here's your problem: since 538 and 537 have pretty much the same logistics, there is no way to decide between them based on those logistics. The ONLY way to decide is by OTHER information -- information such as provided by combining the accounts in Ezra and Josephus, as I have repeatedly explained. That information breaks the tie in favor of 538. >>
So what?
     
 
Well, 538 BCE is not 537 BCE. What's your point?
You've now conceded that the connection between Ezra and Josephus is their mention of the Temple foundations first being laid.
     
Obviously.
     
Why? If my not being in academia is evidence that my arguments are wrong, then it is far stronger evidence that Watch Tower arguments are wrong. Hypocrite! How are you to avoid the judgment of Gehenna?
     
More hypocrisy. The Watch Tower has for some 140 years come up with "novel theses" that were provably wrong at the time they were set forth, and certainly had no support from recognized scholars, nor were accompanied by sound scholarship. For example, while most proper historians were well aware that there was no "zero year" between 1 BCE and 1 CE, Russell was not, and his Watch Tower Society successors were not (at least, in print), until 1943. Talk about lousy scholarship!
     
Yes, and then reject it based on nothing more than that it destroys WTS chronology.
Already done.
     
I hope so too.
     
Exactly. Which means your point about amateurs is meaningless. Will you now stop making it?
     
What I've done is already online in various forums.
     
Good! Finally a clear and unambiguous admission. Yet you and other JW defenders have in past debates vigorously opposed this fact.
More revisionism -- even of your own words. See above.
As I have carefully explained several times, if we take the Bible at its word, the Jews were aware of Isaiah's prophecy that someone named Cyrus would free them. They were also aware of Jeremiah's prophecies that Babylonian supremacy would last 70 years and be terminated when other nations punished Babylon (Jer. 25) and ended Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty (Jer. 27). They also knew that Jeremiah foretold their return to Judah after 70  years of Babylonian supremacy (Jer. 29). Obviously this supremacy ended when Cyrus' armies, in October 539 BCE, conquered Babylon, killed its king of Nebuchadnezzar's line, Belshazzar (Dan. 5), and began ruling Babylon with Cyrus as the global king of the Persian empire and, apparently, Darius the Mede as his viceroy over the Babylonian territory.So the Jews would have been expecting a release from the date of Babylon's fall, leaving an additional six months before Nisan of Cyrus' 1st regnal year to prepare for their release. So their preparation time was a minimum of six to eight months before the journey home. That's plenty of time.
     
As usual, you're unwilling and unable to support your claims with actual evidence.
     
Whatever that means. But again you refuse to consider the actual evidence.
     
But dismissed with almost nothing but handwaving.
     
Meaningless gobble-de-goop without quotations from SDA sources.
     
When one compares your claims with reality, one immediately notices your deliberate distortion or outright misrepresentation of reality, and one notes clearly your attempts to obfuscate rather than clarify matters. That is the definition of lying, and your claims fit it perfectly.
AlanF

In the Watch Tower, October 1909, Russell continues the same thinking about the "parallels" but never even mentions Daniel 4 or Nebuchadnezzar in the discussion. In fact, he defends the use of "seven" in Leviticus to mean "seven times" even though, by now, it is clear that Russell has heard the argument about the actual meaning of the Hebrew words. The Hebrew in Leviticus 26 was about as helpful in creating "time periods" as saying that Naaman bathed 7 times in the Jordan, or that the three Hebrews of Daniel 3:19 were thrown into a furnace heated "seven times" hotter. Instead, Russell, "digs in his heels" and mixes the two meanings together to create a "continuous" period of seven times to mean 2,520 years.
God foretold that if Israel would be faithful he would bless them in every sense of the word, but that if they would walk contrary to him, he would walk contrary to them and chastise them "seven times for their sins." (Lev. 26:28.) This expression in this connection is, with variations, repeated three times. In one instance the word "MORE" is used. "I will chastise you seven times more for your sins." The Hebrew word rendered more, according to Strong's translation, would properly be rendered "continuously." This threat of punishment we interpret to mean, not that the Lord would give Israel seven times as much punishment as they should have, but that he would punish them seven times (seven years) more (continuously) for their sins. These seven times or seven years were not literal years surely, for they received more punishment than that on numerous occasions. The seven times we interpret as symbolical years, in harmony with other Scriptures--a day for a year, on the basis of three hundred and sixty days to a year. Thus the seven times would mean 7 x 360, which equals 2520 literal years. And the word more or continuously would signify that this period of 2520 years would not be the sum of all their various years of chastisement at various "times," but this experience of 2520 years of national chastisement would be one continuous period. Next we should ask, Has there been such a continuous period of disfavor in Israel's national history? The answer is, Yes. In the days of Zedekiah, the last king to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord, the Word of the Lord concerning the matter was, "O, thou profane and wicked prince, whose time has come that iniquity should have an end: Take off the diadem! Remove the crown! I will overturn, overturn, overturn it [the crown, the kingdom] until he comes whose right it is, and I will give it unto him." (Ezek. 21:25-27.) This period of 2520 years, or seven symbolic times, will expire, according to our reckoning (DAWN-STUDIES, Vol. II., Chap. IV.) in October, 1914. In other words, the period of Gentile times, of Gentile supremacy in the world, is the exact parallel to the period of Israel's loss of the kingdom and waiting for it at the hands of Messiah. In the "Studies in the Scriptures" series, Russell, also focuses on Leviticus 26:28 first, and then Ezekiel 21:25-27, but there he does include brief references to the tree dream of Daniel 4. When he wrote Volume 2, he was still concerned about the differenes in the Hebrew between Leviticus and Daniel and made a statement about the Hebrew word prior to the statement quoted above which was false (understood better in 1909, but never fixed in future printings of Volume II itself):
 All these periods being far longer than "seven times" or years literal, yet the "seven times" being mentioned as the last, greatest and final punishment, proves that symbolic, not literal time is meant, though the Hebrew word translated "seven times" in Leviticus 26:18,21,24,28, is the same word so translated in Daniel 4:16,23,25,32, except that in Daniel the word iddan is added, whereas in Leviticus it is left to be understood. It's like saying, it's the same Hebrew word, except that it's different. But he is still consistent that there are two parallel time periods: the "chastisment [trampling] of Israel" and the "time of the [domination by the] Gentiles." This is from Vol 2, "The Time Is At Hand," page 192, 193:
In the same chapter in which he tells them of the punishment of seven times under Gentile rule, he tells them, also, that if they would neglect the year Sabbaths he would punish them for it by desolating their land. (And, as a matter of fact, the seventy years desolation was also the beginning of the seven Gentile Times, as already shown.) The Lord's threatening reads thus: "Your land shall be desolate and your cities waste. Then shall the land enjoy her Sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate and ye be in your enemies' land,...because it did not rest in your Sabbaths when ye dwelt upon it." Lev. 26:34,35,43 . . . The entire number being seventy, and nineteen of these having been observed in a half-hearted way by Israel before the desolation, it follows that the remaining fifty-one (70-19=51) mark the period from the last Jubilee which Israel imperfectly observed, down to the great antitype. Notice, as an aside, that Russell comes 'curiously' close to finding a solution for the supposed "20-year gap" when he mentions that it was intended to cover for Jubilees observed in a half-hearted way for 19 of the 70 years, and failing completely for 51 of the seventy years. Just above this in the same article Russell had highlighted the connection between the separate phrases about a usual reference to the "70 years of captivity" as perhaps different from the "Biblical" reference to the "70 years of desolation." It's a side point, but might indicate that the "wheels were turning" to discover a way to push the 606 reference back to the actual chronology proposed by Seiss, instead of the 19 to 20 year mistake Russell had accepted through N.H.Barbour. (Seiss had recognized 606 as the first year of captivity and exile, referring to Daniel and others, from the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, not the 18th/19th year when Jerusalem was destroyed. For that matter, so had E.B.Elliott.)
But back to the point at hand.
Russell showed again and again that his primary source for the 7 times, even the "seven Gentile Times" was Leviticus 26, not Daniel 4. Without further quoting long passages, we can see this in several more places, in no particular order. The following is a fairly comprehensive list of every time the period of "seven times" (as 2,520 years) was mentioned by Russell in the Watch Tower magazine:
The Watch Tower article in July 1915, supports the "seven times" only with Leviticus, not Daniel. The February 1892 Watch Tower, page 61 also only uses Leviticus, not Daniel, and states the prediction for "1915" instead of 1914:  Seeing Israel's kingdom cut off, and finding themselves for centuries uninterfered with in ruling the world, they conclude that it shall so continue always, and know not that their days of empire are limited to "seven times" or 2520 years, which will end in A.D. 1915 The June 1912 Watch Tower still speaking of the literal, physical nation of Israel only uses Leviticus 26, not Daniel. as a nation, they have for centuries been receiving the very "curses" specified under their Covenant. (See Deut. 28:15-67.) Verses 49-53 describe the Roman siege, etc.; verses 64-67 describe the condition of Israel since. As shown in previous writings the Lord (Lev. 26:18-45) declared the symbolical "seven times," 2,520 years, of Israel's subjection to the Gentiles, and their deliverance--A.D. 1914. The October 1909 Watch Tower is quoted earlier in this post, and only uses Leviticus, not Daniel. The December 1912 Watch Tower is actually about the potential problem with the potential existence of the "zero year" between BC and CE, and the article also makes a point that even back in 1904 the Watchtower had already hedged toward 1915 anyway, just in case. The parallel time periods are mentioned, without any mention of either Daniel or Leviticus, however: "We find, then, that the Seven Times of Israel's punishment and the Seven Times of Gentile dominion are the same; and that they began with the captivity of Zedekiah, and, as will be seen from the Chart, they terminate with the year 1915. In the November 1914 Watch Tower,  the Times of the Gentiles is still being discussed with only references to Leviticus, and not Daniel. Just as in the Seiss publication, the primary references are to Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel 21, and the only reference to Nebuchadnezzar is to Daniel 2 where he is called the "head of  gold:" Through our Lord Jesus Christ, God has mentioned the Gentile Times (Luke 21:24), and now in the Old Testament we find out how many Times there are-- how many years; for in Scriptural usage a Time means a year. As we studied the subject still further, we found that God had told the Israelites that they would come under His disfavor for Seven Times. (Leviticus 26:14-28.) . . . each symbolic "Time" would be 360 years. So then, this period of Seven Times must mean 7 x 360 years, or 2520 years. Thus we found that this was to be the period of time during which Israel was to be overturned (Ezekiel 21:25-27) --to have their kingdom and their government subject to the Gentiles.
So, it turns out that Daniel 4 might never have been used as a proof text for the 2,520 years in the Watch Tower itself during Russell's lifetime. It was in Volume II of Studies in the Scriptures, but even there it was not used much, but was discussed in a section more than two-thirds of the way into the article, after 20 pages, under a subheading of the chapter on the Gentile Times, called "Another Line of Testimony." So even here, it was considered to be an additional perspective, treated as secondary, after the Leviticus 26 explanation had been given as primary.
Another side point I found interesting is that there are several phrases that echo Seiss's publications, even though it may have been Barbour who had already provided the direct conduit to Seiss, and Russell's references are perhaps only through Barbour. But it's also true that when Seiss published this work in 1870, that it didn't actually quote Ezekiel 21:25-27, per se, but quoted the exact same verses from Ezekiel 21:30,32 using Leeser's Reading, which renumbers some verses. The Watch Tower began selling Leeser's translation as a recommended study aid back in 1884, but rarely quoted from it in the Watch Tower. The first quote from it that I have found was in February 1884, and the second quote from it was 8 years later in the same article mentioned above from February 1892, and the quotation is from Ezekiel 21:31,32, just as Seiss had published this passage (and only this passage) from Leeser's in 1870.

We can find out whether Russell really ever rejected this reasoning. We can trace his discussions of the topic from the very first to the very last. When Russell first wrote about the Gentile Times it was in the October 1876 Bible Examiner (published by George Storrs).
*** jv chap. 10 pp. 134-135 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
Shortly thereafter, in an article entitled “Gentile Times: When Do They End?”, Russell also reasoned on the matter from the Scriptures and stated that the evidence showed that “the seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” This article was printed in the October 1876 issue of the Bible Examiner. The entire article is at:  https://archive.org/stream/1876BibleExaminer/1876_Bible_Examiner_Russell#page/n0/mode/2up.  Here is some of what he said: 
We believe that God has given the key. We believe He doeth nothing but he revealeth it unto His servants. Do we not find part of the key in Lev. xxvi. 27, 33? “I, even I will chastise you seven times for your sins: . . ." In explaining the "Gentile Times" of Luke 21:24, this is the first scripture he quotes, Leviticus 26:27,33. [Actually, Russell only quotes from Levitius 26:28,32,33.] Then he quotes from Ezekiel 21:26-27 ("Remove the diadem, take off the crown, . . . I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, . . . until He comes whose right it.") Leviticus 26 is no longer part of our 1914 doctrine, but Ezekiel 21:25-27 is still a key part of it. Then he references Daniel 2:38 about Nebuchadnezzar:
"Further, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, the head of gold, is recognized by God as the representative of the beast, or Gentile Governments." So far, all of this perfectly echoes the publication by Seiss nearly six years earlier. ("Prophetic Times" Dec 1870). There, the 2,520 years was also mentioned in connection with Leviticus 26:18,21,24,28, after which the 1870 article goes on to make the same point from Ezekiel 21:25-27. The only mention of Nebuchadnezzar in the "Seiss" article is a similar reference to Daniel 2 as just quoted from :
. . . with the corresponding investiture of Nebuchadnezzar, with as absolute dominion as God has ever delegated to man, as the "head of gold," contemplates the commencement of the "times of the Gentiles," which points to A.D. 1914 as the "time of the end" . . . Of course, they both are saying the same thing about Nebuchadnezzar which would appear to preclude making Nebuchadnezzar represent the non-Gentile government, if he is such a perfect representation of the Gentile governments!
So, the publication by Seiss never attempts to bring in Daniel 4, but Russell follows Barbour's lead here and attempts it anyway. Russell seems to be only slightly aware that his thinking is getting terribly muddled here, about who Nebuchadnezzar represents. Using some long and convoluted sentences, in his 1876 article, Russell says:
. . . as in the case of Israel, their degradation was to be for seven times, so with the dominion of the Image; it lasts seven times; for, when in his pride the “Head of Gold” ignored“ The God of heaven,” the glory of that kingdom (which God gave him, as a representative of the Image,) departed, and it took on its beastly character, which lasts seven times. Dan iv:23 – and, (prefigured by the personal degradation for seven years, of Nebuchadnazzar, the representative) until the time comes when they shall acknowledge, and “give honor to the Most High, whose Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom.” Russell's point is NOT that Nebuchadnezzar represents the Messianic Kingdom, as the Watch Tower publications tell us today. Instead, Russell is arguing that there is a "parallel" in the length of punishment because the two "events" are parallel periods: "trodding of Jerusalem" and "times of the Gentiles." The first single sentence quoted above in its entirety actually said the following:
God had taken the crown off Zedekiah and declared the Image, of which Nebuchadnezzar is the head, ruler of the world until the kingdom of God takes its place (smiting it on its feet); and, as this is the same time at which Israel is to be delivered, (for “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled”), we here get our second clue, viz.: these two events, noted of the Scriptures of truth-“Times of Gentiles,” and “Treading of Jerusalem,” are parallel periods, commencing at the same time and ending at the same time; and, as in the case of Israel, their degradation was to be for seven times, so with the dominion of the Image; it lasts seven times; for, when in his pride the “Head of Gold” ignored“ The God of heaven,” the glory of that kingdom (which God gave him, as a representative of the Image,) departed, and it took on its beastly character, which lasts seven times. Yes that was only one sentence. But the point is that there are two periods of seven times: seven times of degradation for Israel (Treading of Jerusalem), and seven times for the dominion of the image (Times of the Gentiles). They will run in parallel. The first of those periods about the punishment of Israel/Jerusalem is from Leviticus 24 and the second of those periods is about the dominion of the Gentile nations and is from Daniel 4.
Of course, Russell's overall point was that by 1914 "the Jew" would be delivered because "the nations" would be "dashed to pieces" (smashed as with an iron rod) , and 1914 would be the time when the nations would therefore acknowledge God as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. There would be no more Gentile governments as they would collapse in chaos, and only Israel's government (assumed to be from the physical city of Jerusalem) would now have power.
". . . the seven times will end in A.D. 1914; when Jerusalem shall be delivered forever, and the Jew say of the Deliverer, “Lo, this is our God, we have waited for Him and He will save us.” When Gentile Governments shall have been dashed to pieces; when God shall have poured out of his fury upon the nation [sic], and they acknowledge, him King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  If the Gentile Times end in 1914, (and there are many other and clearer evidences pointing to the same time) and we are told that it shall be with fury poured out; at time of trouble such as never was before, nor ever shall be; a day of wrath, etc. So was Russell consistent about this reasoning or did he reject it as stated in "Proclaimers"?

Alan F
Interesting comment. All that you have done really is simply repeat or rehash the COJ hypothesis which is identical to much earlier criticism of WT Chronology by SDA's from 1958. Yes, the 'shrill' has you running for cover as always hiding behind insults and that is not scholarship.
Nonsense, I have spent much time since the early seventies defending WT Chronology so I do not want to be educated by you. I owe my education to WT publications and the research carried out by the Adventists so I have seen both sides of the fence. Have you?
Now this is a more refreshing attitude. Chronology requires an open mind and it is essential to look at all sides of the argument and realize that it is not an exact science but open to much interpretation. However, when you say that WT chronology has no evidence is rather absurd, you are not being honest because you very well know that our Chronology is based on recognized facts, scriptural texts etc and is an established scheme, saying otherwise is simply  showing.stupidity and ignorance. The very simple fact which I have repeated before is that COJ your mentor has devoted his life to this subject indicates the substance thereof.
An good example where you have not provided evidence is your 538 hypothesis. You claim that the Cyrus' Decree was issued in the first month of his first year and also claim that the Jews returned home in the sixth month of the first year. Now these are assumptions and you have ever right to make such assumptions but please do not present these as historical facts in order to prove a certain theory or thesis. Assumptions have a rightful place in constructing a Chronology because many details are missing both from the Bible and the secular records.
Now you are being silly because in order to respond to your challenge I would need to read the whole article that is referenced in the Bibliography at the end of the Creation book. You can either post here or email it to me then I will read the entire article and give you my opinion. OK. If I find a mistake then I will 'fess up' to it. No problems!
You have not given me a full set of evidence but only a theory which contains some facts and some assumptions. It lacks scholarship because it shows no evidence that you researched the matter. You quote no sources, other scholars or commentaries. You have not considered alternative views on the matter. Have you read Thiele on this subject? The latest scholarship on this subject that I have found thus far is that of Steinmann's paper, have you read his paper on this subject? Now I have not even begun to deconstruct your thesis but you have three major problems;
1. The matter of calendars, which calendar did Ezra use?
2. Timing, it is difficult nay impossible to believe that all of the events described in Ezra 1;1-3:1 could have occurred in six months. I refer you to Steinmann's article on this very point.
3. The association/connection between Josephus and Ezra 3;8 is tenuous at best.
Peer review is reserved only for those in academia and as WT publications are not written for academics but the general public there is no need for such a process. In your case, you propose a novel thesis which you are dogmatic but if you want your audience to take you seriously then why don't you have others-your peers check it over. COJ whom you greatly respect his scholarship would I thought be your first 'port of call' as he has written very little about the Return. As you have stated above if Peer Review is not for amateurs then I can only conclude that your thesis is 'amateurish' so if that is so then you cannot demand of others that it be taken seriously. Got it?
I have many times. See my above list of three.
Charts are helpful in that such make plain the printed text. However, if the text or argument contains even one assumption then this conveyed into the chart which can amount to a contrivance of sorts. SDA scholarship is replete with charts and diagrams that does not make the Chronology correct for if you require too many charst then the reader could well think that he is being' conned'. Do you not think that I could make a pretty chart illustrating our computation of 537? Your computer skills are superior to mine so would you please make a nice, pretty chart similar to yours? Please!
Do it again as I have awarded you a' Fail' mark.
I will tell you something that I have only recently learnt. This may sound rather odd and strange to you or to our readers and many Witnesses would not understand this comment. To put the matter very simply because it would require much elaboration is that in the defence of WT Chronology it is essential that one considers carefully SDA scholarship on Chronology as both schemes have co-existed together from the forties through to the fifties and beyond.
JW Insider is simply a 'Johnny come lately' in his field of Chronology for he has much to learn and the said scholar will educate him.
scholar JW emeritus

This post follows up on my last post looking more closely at the words in the Proclaimers book, repeated here:
At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected. From what I can tell, the basic idea of these periods of time, especially the ones associated with 2,520 years, were about judgments visited upon the nation of Israel/Judah. As Seiss published:
Upon this one feature all prophetic periods‘ are made to depend; “the seven  times” of Moses, the two thousand and three hundred days,” and the other shorter periods of Daniel, all have primary reference to the chastisements visited upon this people and nation. Taking first the "seven times," or the two thousand five hundred and twenty years of dispersion and denationalization, for the disobedience and rebellion of Israel under the Law, as predicted by Moses (Lev. 26:18,21,24,28) and indicative of the entire period of God's displeasure toward them, and accepting the historical dates of God's afflictive dispensations. . . . The point here is that the "seven times" or 2,520 years are not taken from Nebuchadnezzar's tree dream prophecy in Daniel 4, but are called the "seven times" of Moses. This means, of course, that they come from Leviticus 26:18-28 which says:
(Leviticus 26:18-28) 18 "If even this does not make you listen to me, I will have to chastise you seven times as much for your sins. . . .  21 But if you keep walking in opposition to me and refuse to listen to me, I will then have to strike you seven times as much, according to your sins.. . . 24 then I too will walk in opposition to you, and I myself will strike you seven times for your sins. . . . 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins." The word here is not the word "times" in the sense of "iddan" as in Daniel which can refer especially to time periods, like weeks, months, seasons, years, etc. In Daniel the word is therefore translatable as "seven periods of time" but in Leviticus the term is not really "seven times" literally, but just "seven" as in the meaning of "7 times as much," or 7 instances. The literal word "times" doesn't even appear, and can be understood as a numerical multiple, as in the way "double/twice" or "triple/thrice" or "quadruple" can be used with numbers like 2, 3 and 4.  Something similar (and probably related) happens when Daniel prays about the fact that the 70 years of Jeremiah must be completed, and Daniel is told that it's not just going to be 70 years, but "7 TIMES 70" years before a complete fulfillment is seen. 
But did Russell really ever reject this reasoning?

I just finished reading a few books by Seiss, after which I intended to comment further on another thread that was started only for the purpose of sharing the commonly agreed-upon history of the 607 and 1914 doctrine among Bible Students who followed Russell, Second Adventists and others who had influenced those movements.
But I just discovered something that might be just a bit controversial, so I'm presenting it over here where someone might be able to point out if I am wrong about it. (I wouldn't doubt that others have already noticed the issue I'm going to present.)
When I looked at the paragraph in the Proclaimers book again, I noticed that I had never really looked into a point made about Seiss, and just assumed it was part of Seiss's many theories, and gave the WTS the benefit of the doubt that Seiss had chanced upon a 1914 theory probably in a way similar to John Aquila Brown in Even-Tide, or E. B. Elliott in his work on the "Apocalypse" or in the chronology of Christopher Bowen. 
Here's the paragraph from Proclaimers, with the Seiss information highlighted:
*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected. I had never wondered what this "reasoning" was that C.T. Russell had later rejected. The actual 1870 source material is here. The PDF is 605 pages long, and you will need to look at the first article in the December 1870 issue of "Prophetic Times" pps. 177-184. (pdf pages 386-393). I have already excerpted the relevant sections in the 5th post here:
I think I just figured out what the "reasoning" was that Russell later "rejected." The problem is, I see evidence that Russell held onto this reasoning even more strongly as time went on, and I see no evidence that he "rejected" it. I'll explain in my next post below.

No one ever gave evidence against 538 or 605. They are both good dates to put forward for the events that should be associated with them, plus or minus a year or two, in my opinion.
You provide mixed up facts for me to choke on? LOL. 
Then why has most of WT Chronology already been dropped? About 15 of the original "non-erasable" prophetic dates that had included 1914 have already been erased from WT chronology. All that is left is a simple claim that, even though all the predictions for 1914 failed, we are going to keep it anyway because, if we merely change the meaning of "Gentile Times" we can at least say we got that part right. Of course, even this is a huge failure, because our current definition is not based on scripture.
WT chronology was intended to circumvent the words of Jesus about how the times and seasons were in the Father's jurisdiction, and how no one would know the time of the parousia. It had become analogous to the way in which early Christians were using genealogies:
(1 Timothy 1:3-7) . . .to command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, 4 nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on . . .  

I'm one of the readers on this forum and I can judge that you have done, as AlanF noted, almost nothing but dodge and weave and obfuscate and try several different logical fallacies to avoid evidence. When someone asks you a question you refuse to answer. When someone offers you a chance to show evidence you pretend it's a game to see how long you can go without providing it. Then you were caught lying about the evidence. I believe you have been thoroughly disgraced by haughtily and pretentiously claiming to be a scholar and then not even pretending very well.
Since you said above that we can judge for ourselves, I would have guessed you were a teenage Internet "troll." Since I can see you have been doing this for 20+ years, I guess you must not be a teenager.
I'm still entertained however.

The actual date is still not important to me. But treating all facts, evidence and interpretations of evidence with honesty will always be important to me. Even if something is trivial in the long run, we can show our faithfulness in small things which is just as important as showing faithfulness with big things.
(Luke 16:10) 10 The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much. As you know, I don't believe any of these secular dates like 539, 607 and 587 are important to any understanding of any prophecy. The Bible record is sufficient and any prophecy that depends on a knowledge of secular chronology or an interpretation of that secular evidence is clearly not in harmony with the scriptures. And you can't know about 539 without an interpretation of secular evidence.
(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. (2 Peter 1:20) 20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. No matter how sure we are about our interpretation of the secular evidence, if we have worked out a prophecy that involves a supposed "pivotal" or "absolute" secular date, like 539 BCE, or 607 BCE, or even 1914 CE, then we know for sure that this isn't the proper way to treat scriptural prophecy. If we don't learn from these hundreds of chronology mistakes in our own doctrinal past, and just continue to prove ourselves unfaithful, and unable to handle the word of God aright, then we have no right to call our doctrines "truth."
Sorry, as I said I'm no longer playing your word-twisting games. If you are hoping to say something or communicate something you will have to actually say what you mean. If you want to be taken for someone who doesn't care to explain or defend his beliefs, or answer questions, that's fine with me too. You should know, however, that you have so often used this technique for the obvious purpose of obfuscation and evasion in the past, that I'm afraid it will continue to look like this is what you are up to again.
Do you really believe the WT might be off by as many as 200 years? To me, all those tablets tell me the opposite, that we have a chronology that is made even more sure. We can't even try to maneuver an extra 20 years into it any more without getting caught as pseudo-historians and pseudo-archaeologists. We end up trivializing the rest of our message by being unfaithful in what is least.
You mean that Jeremiah was wrong, or the Watchtower, or both? As long as you merely state vague generalities without evidence you are merely throwing out twisted words and hoping some of them might stick. Not a good or respectable methodology.
Sounds like more haughty pretentiousness. Vague claims of superior knowledge with no evidence. I'm just guessing, but I suspect it will end the way "scholar JW" was found to be lying when he said that evidence about J.A.Brown would prove COJ had blundered, but wouldn't dare show his evidence. When the evidence showed up it proved that "scholar JW" had been lying. Decades of erred perception, and it took people just a few seconds to figure it out when the evidence was finally presented.
You must not have any idea what you are talking about. These tablets are 100% in agreement with the Bible and the secular timeline that has been known and knowable for longer than the WTS has been around.
This is another meaningless "word salad" with pretentious, but slippery dressing.
You are saying that the WT made a  19-year adjustment in 2011 to remain in sync? But you don't want to spell it out for some reason. I would just call your bluff but, yes, I can already see through the dishonesty. The WT never made a 19-year time adjustment in 2011. The WTS clearly wanted to take some advantage of Furuli's lack of honesty by using hints about his work in the 10/1 and 11/1 Watchtower issues, but the WTS couched most of their words in some careful language showing that they realized they would be thoroughly embarrassed if they named the book and scholar who had sullied himself with such dishonest scholarship. You noticed that these Watchtower issues named the reputable books, but would not dare name the source of the discredited theory.
Furuli would never try to defend his theory in public or try to get such a theory peer-reviewed.

The October 1904 Watchtower, page 296 [Reprints p.3437] included the following as a Question from a Reader. Note especially the first line of the answer:
THE TIME OF HARVEST.
AUTHOR of MILLENNIAL DAWN and Editor of
ZION'S WATCH TOWER:--
Dear Sir,--. . . Now if this, the common reckoning, be correct, it would make the Times of the Gentiles to begin nineteen years later than you estimate, namely, in B.C. 587, instead of B.C. 606;--and this in turn would make those times end nineteen years later than you have reckoned,--in October, A.D. 1933, instead of October, 1914. What do you say to this? . . .
* * *
We reply that there are too many ifs in the proposition, and that they are all abundantly contradicted by facts and Scripture, and are therefore not worthy the slightest consideration.
 

@Nana Fofana,
This was addressed to you, @Nana Fofana, but with reference to my own discussions with @AllenSmith on this forum and jw-archive before this one going back 3 years. @Anna has already counseled me on my habit of responding to posts meant for other people, but I think I should make another exception here.
I do happen to know all those discussions quite well, and I can tell you with assurance that AllenSmith is playing a deceitful game with you here, as he tries to do with everyone, Witnesses and non-Witnesses alike. By purposely not being clear, he attempts a kind of plausible deniability each time he is caught. @Arauna pegged him perfectly, if inadvertently, when she said the following in this thread, referring to someone else.
And again, referring to someone else she said the following, which perfectly describes someone who does not care for real scholarship even if one professes it. She also mentions one who won't show the reasonableness to look at all aspects of a subject, and who always goes back to her old arguments even if good arguments are given.
AllenSmith has, indeed, "posed a new theory." He has spoken about it, given several details of it here, and even mentioned here that he has had such a theory published by a ghostwriter for reasons he stated, just two weeks ago.
You can reconstruct some of this thesis by statements that AllenSmith has made about it himself in the last three years. But it is better to ask him of course because there are some seeming contradictions and I'm sure there is much more to the thesis than the portions he has revealed so far.
If he is willing to explain further, I'm sure you will see that it is an interesting theory, but it is also pretty clear that most JWs would see it as doing exactly what AllenSmith has called "deceptive:"
I don't consider his theory deceptive at all, but if he is willing to explain it, I do believe you will see that it contradicts too many Biblical facts. For example, potentially equating Nebuchadnezzar II with Nabopolassar, and making "Nebuchadnezzar the Great" the same as Nebuchadnezzar III might have some coincidental support here and there in later works. (AllenSmith has pointed to the book of Judith and its references to "Nebuchadnezzar" and also a 19th century "typo" in a scholarly work.) But it is not directly evidenced in any contemporary Babylonian artifacts. Also, what does AllenSmith do with the Bible's data that Evil-Merodach followed Nebuchadnezzar in the 37th year of Jehoicachin's exile? This is a fact that perfectly fits the "secular" and "Biblical" evidence, but not AllenSmith's thesis.
(Jeremiah 52:31) Then in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 25th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, released King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah and brought him out of prison. You would have to drastically shorten the reign of "Nebuchadnezzar the Great." This might clarify why AllenSmith tries to discredit the contract tablets, especially the Egibi tablets, too. That's because the Egibi tablets agree with the Biblical chronology, but not the Watchtower chronology or AllenSmith's proposal. As Insight says:
*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year. By the way, much better examples of this kind of "deceptive spin" in linking WT chronology with secular chronology were found in the first few posts by @scholar JW in this thread, and which matched the first arguments he put forward in a previous thread, too. Here's an example. See if you can see it:
 

In addition to @scholar JW's infamous attempts, I have to mention again that the "Insight" book and other Watch Tower publications have also done something just like it many times, even adding bracketed secular dates of their own choosing to contexts discussing secular chronology which are in complete disagreement with the dates the Watch Tower has added:
*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. *** it-1 p. 1025 Hamath ***
According to an extant cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946), after the battle of Carchemish in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2), Nebuchadnezzar’s forces overtook and destroyed the fleeing Egyptians in the district of Hamath. (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 99) In this same area, a few years earlier, Pharaoh Nechoh had taken King Jehoahaz captive. (2Ki 23:31-33) Then in 607 B.C.E., with the fall of Jerusalem, Zedekiah and other captives were taken to Riblah . . . *** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin ***
It appears that Jehoiakim died during this siege and Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah. His rule ended, however, a mere three months and ten days later, when he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 617 B.C.E. (in the month of Adar, according to a Babylonian chronicle). (2Ki 24:11, 12; 2Ch 36:9; Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 102) *** it-2 p. 359 Medes, Media ***
Following the Median capture of Asshur in Nabopolassar’s 12th year (634 B.C.E.), Cyaxares (called Ú-ma-kis-tar in the Babylonian records) met with Nabopolassar by the captured city, and they “made an entente cordiale.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 93) *** it-2 p. 410 Minni ***
. According to a Babylonian chronicle, in his tenth year of reign (636 B.C.E.) Nabopolassar “captured the Manneans who had come to their (i.e. the Assyrians’) aid.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 91) *** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
But a mere three months and ten days thereafter the reign of the new king ended when Jehoiachin surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar (in the month of Adar [February-March] during Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh regnal year [ending in Nisan 617 B.C.E.], according to the Babylonian Chronicles). A cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946) states: “The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 102; PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 326) *** it-2 p. 505 Nineveh ***
With reference to Nineveh, a Babylonian chronicle reports: “They carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple (and) [turned] the city into a ruin heap.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 94; PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 958) To this day Nineveh is a desolate waste, and in the spring, flocks graze near or atop the mound of Kuyunjik. Date of Nineveh’s Fall. Though effaced from the extant cuneiform tablet that relates the fall of Nineveh, the date for this event, the 14th year of Nabopolassar, can be supplied from the context. It is also possible to place the destruction of Nineveh in the framework of Bible chronology. According to a Babylonian chronicle, the Egyptians were defeated at Carchemish in the 21st year of Nabopolassar’s reign. The Bible shows this to have taken place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign or in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2) Therefore, the capture of Nineveh (about seven years earlier) in the 14th year of Nabopolassar’s reign would fall in the year 632 B.C.E. It was almost as if there was a Watch Tower policy stating that whenever a book is quoted that gives evidence of secular chronology, it is almost always necessary to make it look like it supports Watch Tower chronology even when anyone who reads the books in question can easily see that they do not.